News bits: Walmart’s ‘sensory-friendly hours’; Bannon court update; How the GOP sees the election

Sensory overload (sensory processing disorder) is a real thing. I just thought it was fairly rare and usually not debilitating. Anyway, for whatever reasons Walmart seems to be locked onto the concept according to a report by The Hill:

In a Tuesday news release, Walmart said from 8-10 a.m. local time, it will change its TV walls to a static image while also lowering or turning off lights where possible in an effort to make customers with sensory disabilities feel more comfortable.

“During these hours, we hope our customers and associates will find the stores to be a little easier on the eyes and ears,” the company said in its news release. “These changes are thanks to those who shared their feedback on how their stores could help them feel like they belong.”

Walmart said that it ran a pilot program of its new initiative Saturdays during the back-to-school season, adding the feedback it received was “overwhelmingly positive.”

Good for Walmart. It's turning down the garbage intensity for at least two hours/day. That's a lot better than no hours/day.

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

Along with DJT, Mark Meadows and all the 1/6 insurrectionists, another DJT-related felon I very much want to see behind bars is the scumbag extraordinaire Steve Bannon. Bannon coined the now-standard authoritarian radical right attack label, flood the zone with shit, meaning spew tones of lies, slanders and crackpottery to deflect and divert attention from the corruption and authoritarian horrors the ARR is engaged in.  The Hill updates the status his legal saga:

Steve Bannon’s bid to avoid prison 

heads to appeals court

Steve Bannon’s bid to avoid prison heads to a federal appeals court Thursday as the onetime Trump White House strategist attempts to overturn his conviction.

A jury last year found Bannon guilty of two counts of contempt of Congress after he defied a subpoena from the Jan. 6 House select committee.

With his four-month prison sentence on hold, Bannon’s attorney will go before a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday to argue his client’s constitutional rights were violated.

The onetime former President Trump aide and “Bannon’s War Room” podcast host is advancing several arguments rejected by a lower court, including that the Jan. 6 committee’s subpoena wasn’t valid in the first place.

Even if it was, Bannon contends he was entitled to present various defenses to the jury to explain his defiance. Bannon insists he is innocent because he relied on his attorney’s advice and legal opinions from within the Department of Justice.

I so much hope that Bannon has to serve his full 4 months in the slammer. I see the 4 month sentence as more evidence of how weak the rule of law is for elites, and the rich and powerful. In my opinion, he should spend at least 10 years in the slammer for the damage he caused to democracy and society.

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

One Repub senator describes Tuesday's election results like this:

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) called Tuesday’s election results “very disappointing.”

“Part of what we have to do is get the vote out. I don’t know if you all saw the disturbing number[s] [for] turnout. Clearly, these were races that Democrats didn’t win, Republicans lost. We didn’t show up,” he said.

“It’s about execution; it’s about messaging, and we’ve got to do a better job,” he said. “Yesterday, to me, was complete failure.”

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

Faux News is spinning it's black little heart out to reframe the abortion situation in terms of a gigantic lie. The HuffPo writes:

Sean Hannity's Gaslighting Post-Election Abortion 

Claim Doesn't Fool Onlookers

In the face of resounding victories for abortion rights in Tuesday’s elections, Sean Hannity quickly started rewriting facts for Fox News viewers. “Democrats are trying to scare women into thinking Republicans don’t want abortion legal under any circumstances,” the host said Tuesday night. As many commenters pointed out on social media, the main reason for that perception is probably because it’s true in many cases.

A few thoughts about elected people in positions of public trust and the rule of law

Dang, if I'm not self-deluding here, it seems that a few allegedly professional journalists are going from dim bulbs (maybe ~3 watts incandescent) to almost bright lights (~150 watt incandescent, ~20 watts LED). 

Wait, wait a gol' darned minnit! Is bright light even possible from the MSM? Nah, couldn't be. Or could it? A WaPo opinion by Jennifer Rubin evinces a glimmer of a bulb (mind) that was or has brightened considerably relative to current affairs and circumstances. YAY Jennifer, you go girl! Give 'em hell!

Resign if you cannot follow the Constitution? 

Great idea.

After a hearing in the Western District Court of Appeals, Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, a Republican candidate for governor, “was asked by reporters whether he, as governor, would be able to defend reproductive rights if Missouri voters enshrine them in the Missouri Constitution next fall,” the local CBS news affiliate reported. His answer: “Anytime a statewide official is sworn in, we swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and of the state of Missouri.” He added: “If I cannot do that, then I would have to leave my position. I cannot swear an oath and then refuse to do what I’d said I would do.”

“I would have to quit,” he said. [Ashcroft is staunchly anti-abortion]

New House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) .... said in a Fox News interview: “‘What does Mike Johnson think about any issue under the sun?’ I said, well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it — that’s my worldview. That’s what I believe, and so I make no apologies for it.”

Johnson swore an oath to a Constitution that includes a First Amendment that prohibits the establishment of religion. The Constitution bans slavery and cruel and unusual punishment; the Bible condones slavery and stoning, among other things. Which is his rule book: the Constitution or the Bible? He should tell us.

This is more than theoretical. The Supreme Court (for now) has ruled same-sex marriage is constitutionally protected. Johnson, however, makes no bones about his anti-gay bigotry. He has condemned homosexuality in print multiple times. Can he set aside his religious views and accept that gay marriage is the law of the land? His oath requires him to.

So the question remains for him and others who cite the Bible as their “rule book”: Will they follow the Constitution when it’s in conflict with their religious views? If not, they should follow Ashcroft’s statement and resign. Officeholders might take an oath on the Bible (or other text), but they take an oath to the Constitution, which, unsurprisingly, contradicts the Bible in many significant respects. You cannot have two rule books if you are to abide by your oath.

Ashcroft and Johnson have been more candid than most, but, to a frightening degree, the Republican Party has become a vessel for White Christian nationalism, which seeks to impose “a worldview that claims the U.S. is a Christian nation and that the country’s laws should therefore be rooted in Christian values,” as NPR put it. (According to the American Values Survey, 75 percent of Republicans believe the Founding Fathers “intended it to be a Christian nation with western European values.”) That belief is the foundation for effectively obliterating the anti-establishment clause and for a host of views on immigration (the “great replacement theory”), abortion, gay rights, education and more.  

There are two ways to resolve the issue. Ashcroft presents one: Resign if you cannot put your religious views aside. The other is to admit that you must put those views aside to hold public office. When the issue is not evangelical Christianity, but rather John F. Kennedy’s Catholicism or Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, politicians have taken pains to assure voters that their religion would not dictate their actions in office. We should expect no less of today’s elected officials, including Johnson.

This is soooo refreshing. An elite among the journalist cognoscenti is asking an important, pointed question for a change. Do it again Jennifer.

The elephant in the room is Christian nationalist dogma. It explicitly puts God's law (Christian Sharia law) above human secular law (the US Constitution).  

Jennifer Rubin

Q: What are the odds that Johnson will either (i) publicly say he will follow the rule of law when it is at odds with how he personally reads his personal copy of the bible, or (ii) employ the popular corrupt authoritarian-liar KYMS tactic? 

My guess is ~90% chance of KYMS to avoid FIMS, etc.

KYMS - Keep Your Mouth Shut (to avoid embarrassment and FIMS (Foot In Mouth Syndrome))

Who Won the GOP Primary Debate, According to Body Language

 NOT on policy. On body language. Because none won on policy. But POLITICO has taken on the task of "reading" the body language of the GOP candidates in last night's debate.

Joe Navarro is author of the international bestseller What Every BODY is Saying: An Ex-FBI Agent's Guide to Speed-Reading People and The Dictionary of Body Language: A Field Guide to Human Behavior.

Ron DeSantis’ awkward smile, Nikki Haley’s killer eyeroll, Vivek Ramaswamy’s angled eyebrows — I saw a veritable stage play tonight, only the best dialogue was unspoken.

During the first GOP debate, I wrote that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis failed to smile. He seems to have taken that advice to heart. Unfortunately, he fumbled the execution.

(My assessment - a totally phony smile)

At the first debate, Vivek Ramaswamy looked like he was having a ball, with a supernova smile and big, emphatic hand gestures that grabbed him attention as a feisty newcomer. Tonight, as Ramaswamy took his last shot at drawing daylight between himself and his opponents on a debate stage, it was clear the fun is over.

(My assessment - he is bleeding support and he is pissed)

The tension on Haley’s face from the start spoke to her commitment and resolve. She was cogent and focused, and her delivery was precise. Her use of humor to defang Vivek’s sexist remark about her heels  was flawless.  She clenched her jaw and rolled her eyes in a devastating, dismissive way, showing that she’s in control even when she’s seething and that she considers Ramaswamy insignificant.

(My assessment - too bad she is neo-con. Too bad she isn't on the Dems side. She can deliver "the look" and is articulate. Kinda cute too)

Christie was as polished as always. As a former prosecutor practiced at charming a jury, he used his smooth vocal cadence to deliver talking points in a way that was easy to understand.

(My assessment - he might even be sane. He has that buddy buddy approach)

Scott looked presidential. He was eloquent and poised. Once again he quoted scripture on the stage, speaking with the measured and comforting cadence of a pastor. Of all the candidates, he appears the most approachable, thanks to his easy smile, his deep baritone voice and the way he turns to all sides of the audience as he speaks, making everyone feel addressed.

(My assessment - Joe Navarro got this one all wrong. Scott comes across as sanctimonious. Scott might be ok as a pastor, he talks like one, but as a politician, he is as stale as week-old bread) 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/11/09/gop-debate-2024-body-language-00126300

News bits: Ohio Abortion rights win; Kentucky and Virginia

The Hill reports:

Ohio passes Issue 1 ballot measure enshrining abortion protections

That's a good thing. Very good. This brings the clash between God and secular law into sharper focus. The Christian nationalists are not going to give up in Ohio or anywhere else.

Also, voters made marijuana legal in Ohio.

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

The Hill writes:

In Kentucky, [Democrat] Beshear won his reelection bid after campaigning on expanding abortion access. Beshear’s campaign released an ad showing a prosecutor criticizing the lack of exceptions for rape and incest under Kentucky’s ban on the procedure. His GOP opponent, Attorney General Daniel Cameron, said during the campaign that he would approve legislation that would include rape and incest as exceptions to the ban, but later appeared to tack to the right on the issue.

And in Virginia, Democrats maintained their majority in the state Senate and flipped the House of Delegates by largely campaigning in competitive districts on the threat of an abortion ban.