News bits: Secularism and civil liberties under direct attack, etc.

Legalized discrimination is on the horizon thanks 

to the radical Republican Christian nationalist Supreme Court

The Jacobin writes:

Secular Schooling Is Critical to a Functioning Democracy

The US education system is being desecularized as public money floods into private religious schools. This mix of religious conservatism and free-market fundamentalism threatens to unravel public education.

.... our radicalized Supreme Court has handed down a series of decisions that annihilate the proverbial wall of separation between church and state, emboldening those who would use our privatized public education system to push a conservative Christian social vision.

In this context, we should treat #YeshivaGate not as an isolated scandal but rather as a preview: religious straitjackets are coming for more American students if we don’t aggressively defend the role of secular schooling in a pluralist democracy.

In recent years, the de-secularization of our nation’s public school system has proceeded rapidly on numerous fronts — some more eye-catching than others. The bizarre Bremerton case made headlines, for example, when the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled in favor of a football coach who repeatedly engaged in ostentatious public prayer during school events. This ruling counters decades of precedent, paving the way for sanctioned proselytizing by authority figures in public schools.

One development that may be less familiar concerns taxpayer funding for schools that, like the Hasidic yeshivas, force children to study religious doctrine. Since 2002, it has been constitutionally permissible for states with voucher programs to direct taxpayer funding to religious schools. And .... the Supreme Court ruled that in fact states must subsidize religious education wherever they subsidize secular private education. So although the Times’ yeshiva reporting asserts that “tax dollars are not supposed to go toward religious education,” legally speaking, that isn’t true.  

In Carson v. Makin, two families sued Maine’s education commissioner, claiming that she had violated their freedom of religious expression by refusing to fund their children’s tuition at two different Christian schools.

One of the schools in question lists as its first educational objective: “To lead each unsaved student to trust Christ as his/her personal savior and then to follow Christ as Lord of his/her life.” Their Statement of Faith declares that any sexual activity or identity expression that falls outside of a Christian marriage between “one man and one woman” is a “sinful perversion,” and that a wife must “submit herself to the Scriptural leadership of her husband.” The other school’s mission includes fostering “within each student an attitude of love and reverence for the Bible as the infallible, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God,” and “imparting a biblical understanding of the nature of government and an appreciation for our Judeo-Christian heritage as Americans.” Both schools have policies that discriminate against students and staff on the basis of LGBTQ status and religious affiliation.

A core Christian nationalist dogma is to 100% eliminate secular public education and replace it with mandatory religious education, preferably fundamentalist Christianity. The Republican US Supreme Court is doing what is needed to make that vision of America become a reality as soon as it possibly can. Like it or not, radical Republican fundamentalists are going to ram God down our throats.

A recent NPR segment indicated that the teachers at some fundamentalist Jewish religious schools are grossly ignorant and many students that graduate cannot read or write. In one case a young student told to tell his science teacher that the Earth was not the center of the solar system or the universe. The teacher was flabbergasted, but at least looked it up and changed his mind. Other fundamentalist teachers will not be so open to reality.

Something is wrong with the mainstream media --

It's ossified and fossilized, or corrupted by profit motive, or both

A WaPo opinion piece by Jennifer Rubin makes the point that something is wrong:

SNL has better coverage of Herschel Walker than the mainstream media

The mainstream media persist in portraying unfit Republican candidates as normal and the midterms as an ordinary clash of policy differences. As New York University’s media guru Jay Rosen put it on Twitter, “Election coverage begins by positing the existence of two parties operating in roughly the same way, but with different ideologies. That picture is the foundation, on top of which consensus practices rest.” He adds, “With the foundation now in ruins, the practices are snapping and breaking.”

Put differently, voters can get a more exact picture of the election from “Saturday Night Live.”

Coverage of Herschel Walker’s shambolic debate performance on Friday provides a clear example. Mainstream media “takeaways” mostly portrayed the event as clashes on abortion, inflation, President Biden and Medicaid. Walker beat expectations, some reported. He helped himself!

What debate were they watching? Surely, the event’s significance boiled down to Walker’s decision to defend his claim to have worked for law enforcement by holding up an honorary police badge, which has no official significance, and declaring, “I am work with many police officers.”

The devastating moment should have been the story coming out of the debate, as SNL’s “Weekend Update” recognized. The parody newscast captured just how bizarre the moment was, and unlike many in the media, highlighted Walker’s inability to put a simple sentence together. The same could be said of social media, where the stunt quickly became a meme.

The New York Times, by contrast, mentioned the badge stunt as one of its five key moments from the debate and included Walker’s remark that the badge is “not a prop. This is real.” But the article didn’t explain that the badge was only an honorary recognition, nor did it include quotes showing Walker’s incoherent syntax.

This moment was as devastating as former Texas governor Rick Perry’s “oops” moment or Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio’s stumble in the 2016 GOP presidential debate. Yet too many in the mainstream media chose to downplay Walker’s unfitness and habitual lying.

Likewise, Walker’s rejection of a price cap on insulin because “you got to eat right” didn’t even make some of media outlets’ takeaway lists [reminds me of Reagan saying that ketchup is a vegetable]. It was as if the difference between the candidates amounted to sober disputes over health-care policy. 

Democracy watch

Demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument (Google);  a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power (Merriam-Webster); a person, especially a political leader, who wins support by exciting the emotions of ordinary people rather than by having good or morally right ideas (Cambridge dictionary); NOTE: I have been informed that demagogues originate in democracies and they go from demagogue to tyrant on their route to power, so all those definitions fail to mention that aspect of the demagogue

A WaPo article comments:

Leaders of democracies increasingly echo Putin in authoritarian tilt

From Italy to Brazil to the United States, political leaders increasingly are echoing Russian President Vladimir Putin and one another by embracing far-right authoritarianism

In a flurry of elections, some of the world’s major democracies have been leaning toward or outright embracing far-right authoritarian leaders, who have echoed one another by promising to crack down on loose morals, open borders and power-hungry elites.

Voters in Italy last month elected a nationalist leader whose party proposes a U-turn from the effects of globalization. In Brazil, right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro injected doubt into the results of his reelection bid by speculating that the vote would be rigged against him in a conspiracy driven by the country’s elites. In the Philippines this year, voters chose the son of their former dictator Ferdinand Marcos as president, electing to stick with strongman politics.

Though hardly a champion of democracy, Russian President Vladimir Putin late last month delivered an address that would sound familiar — and, to many people, attractive — in democracies from the United States to much of Europe. Putin railed against expansive definitions of gender, calling the idea a “perversion,” part of a “complete denial of man [and an] overthrow of faith and traditional values” by “Western elites.”  

In the United States, former president Donald Trump has presumptively rejected future election results, and a majority of Republican candidates on the ballot this fall for major state and federal elective offices have joined him in repudiating the outcome of the 2020 presidential election — an epidemic of election denialism in the United States that historians and political scientists define as a core element in any country’s drift toward authoritarian rule.

Anti-democratic rot and shameless demagoguery is not confined to other countries. It is here in the US right now. The global authoritarian movement is aggressive, morally rotted and demagogic (lies, slanders, crackpot, irrational emotional manipulative, etc.). It seems that all these powerful conservatives the world over, and they are radical right conservatives, appear to be scared to death of LGBQT people, and the loss of traditional values. But that's just a ruse to rouse the rabble and undermine faith in democracy. 

But exactly what are are those traditional values? Based on current radical right rhetoric and politics, here’s some of them for the American authoritarians, mostly radical Christian nationalist and/or brass knuckles capitalist Republican elites:

• Freedom to discriminate against, including firing them from their jobs, LGBQT people, atheists, women, non-White people, those with unacceptable political opinions and any other deemed deserving of oppression, disrespect, ridicule and/or physical attack  
• Freedom to deny or downplay any and all inconvenient science, especially including climate change and the role man plays in it and the damage it is causing
• Freedom for wealthy and powerful elites to steal from the nation and its people in the name of infallible God who has anointed them as leaders by virtue of their God-given wealth and/or power
• Freedom to lie, slander and deceive the masses, for example by lying about and deny the secular origin and nature of American society and its constitution and laws, falsely claiming America was ordained by infallible God as a White Christian nation to be ruled with a self-righteous iron fist by angry White Christian heterosexual men
• As per Jennifer Rubin’s WaPo opinion piece (above), freedom to attack, undermine, subvert, neuter and fossilize the MSM into a useful tool for liars, autocrats, theocrats and kleptocrats 

This kind of demagoguery, e.g., those points or local variants thereof, shoots through the authoritarian propaganda all over the planet. Attack democracy and distributed power by scaring people witless so that they fall for the propaganda and embrace of the comforting lies that demagogues hawking autocracy, fascism, kleptocracy and theocracy routinely offer.

Qs: Has the MSM become more the enemy than friend of the democracy, the rule of law and the people? Do sources like SNL provide better coverage of bad but important things like The Herschel than the MSM? Is American political and religious conservatism more anti-democratic and pro-authoritarian-theocratic than liberal politics and religion? 

Norm Ornstein swings and misses

 I have seldom seen Norm Ornstein be wrong. But I found myself shaking my head at a recent piece he wrote in the Atlantic. The headline reads: “How Far Would a Republican Majority Go? Not just democracy is at stake this fall.” One must be wary of headlines, especially in a clickbait world. But this one seems reasonably on point. Ornstein is arguing that not only would the Republicans likely destroy democracy, but they could also tank the economy. 

He writes:

When it comes to the House, FiveThirtyEight has found that so far, at minimum 117 House Republicans with at least a 95 percent chance of winning are full-blown election deniers or questioners, a good leading indicator of radicalism and a willingness to ignore facts and embrace fantasy. In turn, they are willing, if not eager, to blow up institutions and government itself to accomplish their goals.

. . .The concessions demanded by the new MAGA extremist radicals will be non-negotiable. And this time, if Republicans win, a lot more members will be ready to push us over the cliff—and the speaker, McCarthy, with no ability or willingness to stop their juggernaut. Of course, other major disruptions could occur, including government shutdowns and costly investigations. But it is the tangible threat of default that looms largest.

Hey! Lock your doors at night! Otherwise, someone could break in and murder you in your sleep! And steal your TV!!! Ornstein argues we can’t allow them to break in and steal our TV.

I say let them have the TV. And here’s why:

Republicans are going to take power again. I’m doing my bit to try to prevent it, and so are you. But we’ve got to look soberly at our chances. Republicans’ obvious readiness to destroy our democracy has not been enough to deprive them of the support of half the electorate. The slam dunk case made by the January 6 committee has not noticeably moved the needle on support for the man who attempted a coup d’etat. Overthrowing Roe moved the needle maybe a couple of percentage points but the Republicans are still poised to take over the House; still poised to dominate state legislatures and governorships; still within a heartbeat or two of taking the Senate. Herschel Walker is neck-to-neck with Senator Warnock in purple Georgia. 

It seems clear that no matter how clearly the Republicans while out of power broadcast their intentions to destroy our institutions, the electorate will not consider that disqualifying. And whether in this election, or the next, or the one after, the electorate will give them the opportunity to deliver on that promise.

The glass is already broken. 

It seems to me that’s the reality we need to reckon with. And so. We should be thinking about what happens in the aftermath. And here’s why I think Ornstein is wrong. If a Republican House forces a default, the consequences could be truly catastrophic. It’s possible–though maybe not likely–that such a catastrophe could satisfy the electorate’s bloodlust and wake it from its facist-tolerating fever-dream. Maybe, just maybe, if the Republicans actually destroy our economy, that will be enough to convince voters to turn away. If we escape from our current predicament with only an economic catastrophe, we should consider ourselves most fortunate.

The alternatives are worse.

(opinion by Dan T)

News bits

Federal judge forced to make a crackpot ruling

by a crackpot Supreme Court ruling

As radicalism and crackpot reasoning engulf the federal courts, one can watch the rot set in and deepen over time. Watching democracy and the rule of law rot away is sort of like a spectator sport if one adopts the right mindset. Salon writes:

For decades, federal law has forbidden gun owners from scratching out the serial numbers that manufacturers are legally required to place on firearms. The reason is obvious: These serial numbers help state and federal law enforcement trace guns that are used in crimes and identify suspected shooters. Indeed, the only apparent reason anyone would remove a serial number is to avoid becoming a suspect after their gun is used illegally. On Wednesday, however, a federal judge ruled that the law prohibiting alteration of serial numbers violates the Second Amendment. Why? Because serial numbers were virtually nonexistent when the amendment was ratified in 1791, so the government has no power to mandate them today.

This decision in United States v. Price by U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, a Bill Clinton appointee, may sound shocking. But it is a perfectly plausible application of the Supreme Court’s June ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In that case, Justice Clarence Thomas declared all gun restrictions presumptively unconstitutional if they infringe on “the individual right to armed self-defense.” (The Constitution says nothing about “self-defense,” but Thomas gleaned this right from its penumbra.) A gun restriction may only survive legal scrutiny, the justice declared, if it had an “analogue” in 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified, or 1868, when it was imposed on the states. The burden falls on the government to prove the existence of a historical analogue.  

Thomas’ test has already wreaked havoc in the lower courts. One judge has struck down a Texas law that prohibits 18 to 20-year-olds from carrying a handgun outside the home. People under 21 are significantly more likely to commit gun homicides—but in Bruen, Thomas announced that courts may never consider the real-world, life-saving impact of gun safety laws when gauging their constitutionality. A different Texas judge invalidated a federal law barring individuals from purchasing a handgun while they’re under indictment, even for a violent felony offense. Just last week, another judge struck down New York’s ban on concealed carry in airports, train stations, domestic violence shelters, summer camps, the subway, and other “sensitive locations.” Now Goodwin, who sits in West Virginia, has joined the chorus of lower court judges who feel that Bruen obliges them to strike down longstanding, widely accepted firearm laws.  

Goodwin acknowledged the “argument” that “firearms with an obliterated serial number are likely to be used in violent crime and therefore a prohibition on their possession is desirable.” But he explained that this argument “is the exact type of means-end reasoning the Supreme Court has forbidden me from considering.” Even if the serial number law demonstrably saved tens of thousands of lives each year, that fact would be totally irrelevant to the constitutional analysis.

A single crackpot radical right Supreme Court ruling based on rigid ideological “reasoning” made-up in the fly has forced the entire federal judiciary into crackpottery and rot. Make no mistake fellow spectators, this is just the beginning of the rot, not the end.

A spectator watching the rot set in

Bill Mahr gets in a snit about The Herschel

The Hill writes:

Political commentator Bill Maher slammed Georgia GOP Senate candidate Herschel Walker as “unfit for office” and called him a “f—ing idiot.”

On his HBO show “Real Time” on Friday, Maher pointed to numerous statements Walker has made and reports about him that have come out that he said show why Walker should not be elected to the Senate.

“He’s just a f—ing idiot on a scale on a scale almost impossible to parody,” Maher said.

He said Walker has admitted to threatening violence against multiple people around him, including his ex-wife. He said Walker has lied about his past on numerous occasions, including by falsely claiming to have been a police officer and an FBI agent.

What set Bill of seems to lie in the difficulty of parody a creature as bizarre as The Herschel. Poor Bill. He’ll get over it. Send him thoughts and prayers.

Bill’s frustration

In other The Herschel news 

In a different article, the Hill writes:

The Memo: Walker gives GOP hope with Georgia debate performance

Republican Herschel Walker won a moral victory by avoiding disaster at his sole televised debate with Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) Friday.

In the process, the former football star will have given his party hope that he can overcome a checkered campaign to prevail in the race, which could plausibly determine control of the Senate.

There you have it. The Herschel wins by not being a disaster in a debate he clearly lost. 

Poor Bill

Send thoughts and prayers

About those exorbitant drug prices

ars Technica writes:

A new study finds no correlation between R&D spending and outlandish drug prices.

Americans, though, probably weren’t shocked. Prescription drugs in the US cost about 2.5 times what they do in other countries, and a quarter of Americans find it difficult to afford them. Almost every new cancer drug starts at over $100,000 a year. And a 2022 study found that every year, the average price of newly released drugs is 20 percent higher.

How drug prices are set in the US is a mysterious black box. When rationalizing their lofty price tags, one of the most common reasons pharmaceutical companies will cite is that a high price is needed to make good on the money invested in research and development.

But is that true? “You hear it so much,” says Olivier Wouters, an assistant professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science. “That’s why I was like, well, let’s get some data, because I don’t believe it. I don’t think anyone believes it.”

To anybody in the field, the response to the paper’s finding is: Well, duh. We know what drives drug pricing, says Ezekiel Emanuel, chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. “It’s, ‘How far can I go? What will the market bear?’” Still, Emanuel says, it’s important to have empirical data like this study to refute the industry’s claim.

Every so often, there are small glimpses behind the curtains into how pharmaceutical companies actually decide on a drug price. An example of this is the hepatitis C drug Sovaldi, which was put on the market in 2013 for a steep $84,000 per 12-week course. In 2015, an 18-month-long US government investigation that reviewed some 20,000 pages of internal company documents revealed that Gilead, the company that owned the drug, had set the high price as a way “to ensure its drugs had the greatest share of the market, for the highest price, for the longest period of time”—in essence, that it was prioritizing profit. In response Gilead said it “stand[s] behind the pricing of our therapies because of the benefit they bring to patients and the significant value they represent to payers, providers, and our entire healthcare system by reducing the long-term costs associated with managing chronic [hepatitis C virus].”

The 1/6 Committee today: The evidence is clear that Trump is a traitor

Once again, the evidence the 1/6 Committee is presenting or repeating so far makes it clear and undeniable that the ex-president never had any intention of accepting a loss in the 2020 election. He was planning to subvert his loss before the election. After the election, he knew he had lost but kept lying about it to the public. An open question is whether anything will come of this in court.

Any Republican politician who continues to support Trump is complicit in treason, a liar and unfit for any elected office. 

The Republican Party is a deadly enemy of democracy, truth, the people and the state.

Q: Are rank and file Republicans who still support Trump complicit in treason and lies?