News bits: About the mifepristone ban; Etc.

Last Friday, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas, a radical right Christofascist, issued a decision withdrawing the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone. That case was immediately attacked by another federal judge who said states had to keep the drug on the market. That issue will wind up in the Supreme Court. 

There was one other thing in the Kacsmaryk decision I was overlooked. Slate comments, the Kacsmaryk decision "goes even further than expected, raising the possibility that he will impose “fetal personhood,” which holds that every state must ban abortion because it murders a human."

Unbelievable as it is, Slate was right. Page 29-30 of the Kacsmaryk decision includes this paragraph:

Parenthetically, said “individual justice and irreparable injury analysis also arguably applies to the unborn humans extinguished by mifepristone especially in the post-Dobbs era. See Dobbs, 142 S. Ct. at 2261 (Nothing in the Constitution or in our Nation's legal traditions authorizes the Court to adopt [the] theory of life "that States are required to regard a fetus as lacking even the most basic human right -- to live -- at least until an arbitrary point in a pregnancy has passed.) (internal marks omitted) Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars of Jurisprudence John M. Finnis and Robert P. George in Support of Petitioners, Dobbs, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022)(arguing unborn humans are constitutional persons entitled to equal protection).

Getting the US Supreme Court to declare that an embryo or a fetus is a person endowed with full constitutional rights is a core Christian nationalist goal. That is what the radical theocrats want to impose as nationwide law. This is Christian Sharia law.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

The Guardian reports that one of the two Tennessee legislators has been reappointed my Nashville's metro council. The other is expected be reappointed on Wednesday. One wonders if the Republicans will expel them again.

And for what it's worth, Biden has informally announced he is running for re-election in 2024.

A criticism of my rhetoric and a response

Moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre

This popped up recently. Maybe me explaining myself helps put the situation in better context. This is about me calling America's authoritarian radical right fascist or Christofascist, partly in response to recent political events. 

Comment: I understand the frustration you feel about the state of politics in America, but you are doing the same thing as the people you are criticizing, narrowly defining millions of Americans because you disagree with their politics.

My response: You've hit a nerve here and I want to air this out.

I've though long and hard about this. Thought about it over the last 6 years at least. I understand your argument. Until the last few days, that reasoning kept me in check most of that time, despite my misgivings about holding back. But the radical tyrant side has gone too far. I am not doing the same thing as the people I criticize. One has to compare tactics, rhetoric and intent. My side, if that's what it is, is not the same as the other.

In my opinion, and under current circumstances and facts, that reasoning poses a false equivalence. I am warning about an undeniable rise in (i) a virulent, bigoted Christian theocracy (Christian nationalism), and (ii) a virulent, cruel brass knuckles capitalist plutocracy, both of which are solidly against, or reject, democracy, civil liberties, compromise and inconvenient fact, true truth and sound reasoning.

In my opinion, me calling out the radical right on the basis of facts, true truths and sound reasoning is not the factual or moral equivalent of America's authoritarian radical right slandering the hell out of everyone and everything that stands in opposition to the monstrous corrupt tyranny the radicals are openly trying to establish at the expense of our democracy and civil liberties.

On the other side, we have a torrent of lies, crackpottery and slanders-based vitriol aimed at the forces of pro-democracy and pro-truth. I've compiled a list of some of the lies and filth the pro-tryanny/theocracy forces routinely accuse the pro-democracy forces of being or doing:

1. teaching CRT and indoctrination of public school and university students with false, rewritten history such as land being stolen or taken by force from American Indians, and (ii) alleged but false effects of systemic racism on minorities
2. gender fluidity indoctrination of public school students, especially young children in grade and middle school, but also in high school
3. ruthless reliance on divisive, identity politics that divides, polarizes and disinforms society and damages democracy
4. blaming the right for ruthless divisive, identity politics that divides, polarizes and disinforms society and damages democracy
5. being too subjective and easy about public school grades, especially for non-White students
6. unfair and/or unconstitutional affirmative action in college admissions, with admissions based on self-described representations instead of actual, demonstrated merit
7. etc.
.
.
12. ridiculous, unfounded alarmism about climate change and its causes based mostly on flawed or fabricated data, unreliable science and corrupt, lying scientists
.
.
22. support for Antifa and violent protest in support of socialism or communism


That is how the pro-tyranny-theocracy forces see the pro-democracy forces. How much truth do you think is in it? I don't see much truth in most of it myself despite having looked real hard for the fact and logic basis for those alleged bad traits and actions. But most of the radical right sees it as rock solid, undeniable, unspun fact and truth.

.... narrowly defining millions of Americans because you disagree with their politics.

I very much want to respond to that. I define or describe groups of people as I see them based on facts, true truths and sound reasoning, including differences between rhetoric, actions and factual circumstance-based intent. I define sound reasoning as reasonably defensible thinking in accord with facts, true truths, logic and personal biases, morals, interests, social situation and etc. For me, empirical facts are facts, not lies. Flawed partisan motivated reasoning is not sound reasoning, it is mostly (~90%) dark free speech (deceptive, divisive and/or emotionally manipulative propaganda).

1. So, here is what I wrote in the 1st paragraph of this blog post:

Most Republican Party elites (~95% ?) are full blown American-style fascist tyrants (Christian nationalist zealots and/or brutal brass knuckles capitalists). Most of the Republican rank and file (~85% ?) are either (i) full blown American-style fascist tyrant supporters, or (ii) horribly duped and manipulated into a false belief that they are innocent, terribly persecuted pro-democracy patriots valiantly defending democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties, mom, the flag, apple pie, inconvenient truth, etc.

What I did there was define by qualifying two different groups of radical right American authoritarians and how they differed or are the same. I specified how many people were excluded from being in those groups. I never once used the word all to describe GOP elites or rank and file because there will be some exceptions among members of all significant political groups.

Exactly what is wrong with those definitions? What makes them too narrow? What, if any, facts contradict my descriptions of those groups? My intent was to describe groups accurately, not too broadly or too narrowly. I am open to reasonable criticism, especially fact-based criticism. What did I get wrong here?

2. What are the politics I disagree with? That's in my comments above. For clarity, I strongly oppose:
1. theocratic and secular tyranny, e.g., corrupt capitalist plutocracy, Christian nationalist theocracy
2. intolerance, bigotry and racism, which is plentiful and openly supported by Christian nationalist dogma and the laws that Christian nationalist legislators and judges are trying to impose on America right now
3. politics unreasonably and indefensibly based on too many lies and slanders, too much deceit, irrational emotional manipulation and flawed partisan motivated reasoning, e.g., crackpottery
4. politics grounded in too much bad faith and ill will

I support:
1. religious freedom outside of government
2. separation of church and state
3. solidly evidence and reason-based politics (no, that does not mean I oppose personal morals, biases, etc.)
4. pluralist and tolerant democracy with reasonable compromise
5. civil liberties
6. politics mostly grounded in good will and good faith

Q: Is it unreasonable, unwarranted and/or counterproductive for me to call those who support radical right elites and policies fascist, American fascist, Christofascist or the like, or all of is this just too much navel gazing?

About the polarization of America

The WaPo reports about an in-depth analysis of factors that have driven American polarization to the unhappy, dysfunctional place we are at today. The core finding is quite interesting:

New report outlines the deep political polarization’s slow and steady march

Urban-rural division has grown dramatically over the past 25 years, according to data from the Cook Political Report

David Wasserman, senior editor of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, highlights the Kentucky district in a new deep dive into all 435 House districts to explain the geographical roots of political polarization and how hollowed-out the political middle has become.

Although legislative gerrymandering plays a key role in letting representatives choose their constituents, the nation’s “urban/rural polarization” has been a much bigger factor over the past 25 years, Wasserman wrote.

“The electorate has simply become much more homogenous than it used to be,” he wrote in the newly released analysis.

It’s part of a nationwide realignment highlighted by the new rankings of the “Cook Partisan Voting Index,” which operatives in both parties have examined for years to help determine which districts are truly up for grabs every two years.

Districts like Rogers’s in Appalachia now have more in common with a rural district nearly 900 miles away in eastern Oklahoma — in terms of income and education levels, home property values and the number of people living in poverty — than Kentucky’s 6th District directly to the north and west.  

In 1999, 164 seats fell into that Cook PVI margin to qualify as swing seats. Now, just 82 fit that statistical data point.

There’s a real-world impact, on policy issues, that happens through all of this political sorting. As fewer members of the House need to worry about the general election, more and more grow concerned about losing primaries to ideological challengers from their left or right flanks.

Data like that leads one to wonder if anything at all could reverse America's continuing slide into extremism. The forces fostering polarization are powerful and not going to go away. Nearly all House seats are safe, so incumbents move farther toward the safety of their activist base to avoid being outflanked by someone more extreme. 

One experiment that at least some red and some blue states could try is imposing a mandatory requirement to vote. There voting means at least returning a ballot. It does not mean voting for anything or anyone you don't want to vote for. Would that affect deep polarization in gerrymandered districts where one side or the other is safe? Since red states are hell-bent on neutering elections, there's no chance of the experiment being tried in any of those states. And, Dems who control blue states may not be interested in such an experiment either.

News bit: Clarence Thomas reported his gifts until the press wrote about it

Yahoo! News writes:

It was 2004 when the Los Angeles Times disclosed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had accepted expensive gifts and private plane trips paid for by Harlan Crow, a wealthy Texas real estate investor and a prominent Republican donor.

The gifts included a Bible that once belonged to abolitionist Frederick Douglass — a gift Thomas valued at $19,000 — and a bust of Abraham Lincoln valued at $15,000.

"I just knew he was a fan of Frederick Douglass, and I saw that item come available at an auction and I bought it for him," Crow explained at the time.

He also flew Thomas on his personal plane to Northern California to be his guest at the Bohemian Grove, which held all-male retreats for government and business leaders.

Thomas refused to comment on the article, but it had an impact: Thomas appears to have continued accepting free trips from his wealthy friend. But he stopped disclosing them.

Yesterday, Thomas released a statement saying that he had been advised that he did not have to disclose gifts. But one time he did disclose. So either Thomas is a liar and just stopped disclosing gifts he wanted to keep secret illegally, ~98% chance, or someone did tell him that he didn't have to disclose gifts and he stopped disclosing, ~2% chance.

Big, fat, corrupt liar