Why Senate Republicans Fear Native American Deb Haaland

Deb Haaland - democrat, New Mexico

An opinion piece in the Washington Post highlights the intractable, ferocious animosity the GOP has toward democrats, liberals and some things that most Americans support, e.g., protecting national parks. This is more evidence of the depth and breadth of the intolerant, unforgiving culture and political war America the hard core right is openly waging against American government and society. We are hopelessly entangled in this animosity for the foreseeable future. The author, Julian Brave NoiseCat, writes:

Alexander Stuart, the third interior secretary, once declared that the United States’ mission was to “civilize or exterminate” native people. The Interior Department has done much to carry out that terrible mission, with the seizure of tribal lands, forced assimilation of Native American children and much more. So it is impossible to understate the significance — particularly to Native Americans — of the fact that President Biden has nominated a Native American woman, New Mexico Rep. Deb Haaland, to head the department that manages much of the land and resources taken from native nations and maintains relationships between those nations and the U.S. government.

“The historic nature of my confirmation is not lost on me,” she said. Indeed, we have had many interior secretaries with close ties to powerful men in the C-suite and on Capitol Hill. But we have never had an interior secretary who tended to traditional gardens, cooked for pueblo feast days and stood with the Oceti Sakowin Nation at Standing Rock in defense of tribal treaty rights.

Perhaps as a consequence, Haaland’s nomination has proved particularly contentious, as Republican senators, many from Western states, used the hearing to attack, sometimes with remarkable animosity, what they misleadingly portrayed as her extreme views on fossil fuels and national parks.

Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, the senior Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, shouted over Haaland, accusing the congresswoman of wanting to legalize drugs to replace tax revenue from oil and gas. (Haaland backed legalizing and taxing cannabis as a congresswoman, but never advocated doing so instead of taxing fossil fuels.) Montana Sen. Steve Daines — who, like Barrasso, has received more than $1 million in campaign contributions from oil and gas companies — demanded Haaland retract a tweet stating that “Republicans don’t believe in science.” (In 2019, Daines said, “To suggest that [climate change] is human-caused is not a sound scientific conclusion.”)

Utah Sen. Mike Lee expressed his dissatisfaction with the designation of Bears Ears as a national monument, asking whether Haaland thought it was “appropriate for stakeholders, people who have some sort of economic interest in the land or some sort of connection to the land ... to be involved in the national monument designation process.” Lee was apparently unaware that the nominee’s Pueblo relatives are among the tribes that consider Bears Ears a sacred place, tracing their connections to the land to time immemorial.

Haaland appeared unperturbed. We Indians, after all, are well-practiced in the art of accommodating and poking fun at our antagonists; we’ve been doing it for hundreds of years. When Daines asked the secretary-designate why she co-sponsored a bill protecting grizzly bears in perpetuity, Haaland responded with forthright charm: “I imagine, at the time, I was caring about the bears.”

Conservatives have portrayed Haaland as a divisive partisan, but in 2019, she introduced the most bills with bipartisan support of all House freshmen. On Tuesday, Republican Rep. Don Young of Alaska — a conservative congressman from an oil state — introduced Haaland as a strong nominee and friend who works across the aisle and whose perspective as a native person is needed at Interior. “Anyone who thinks we’re going to call off fossil fuels immediately is smoking pot,” he added — a rebuke to environmentalists, yes, but also to his colleagues in the upper chamber.

What Haaland actually brings — and what the Republican Party seems to consider so dangerous — are experiences and perspectives that have never found representation in the leadership of the executive branch. In fact, Republicans’ depiction of the first Native American ever nominated to the Cabinet as a “radical” threat to a Western “way of life” revealed something about the conservative id: a deep-seated fear that when the dispossessed finally attain a small measure of power, we will turn around and do to them what their governments and ancestors did to us. (emphasis added)

That speaks for itself.

White privilege also gives the radical right 

license to lie and slander

Do Images and Words Matter?

T****'s vision of land management:

a huge pile of coal

Biden's vision of land management:

not a huge pile of coal

The New York Times writes:

Days after President Biden took office, the Bureau of Land Management put a scenic landscape of a winding river at the top of its website, which during the previous administration had featured a photograph of a huge wall of coal.

At the Department of Homeland Security, the phrase “illegal alien” is being replaced with “noncitizen.” The Interior Department now makes sure that mentions of its stakeholders include “Tribal” people (with a capital “T” as preferred by Native Americans, it said). The most unpopular two words in the Trump lexicon — “climate change” — are once again appearing on government websites and in documents; officials at the Environmental Protection Agency have even begun using the hashtag #climatecrisis on Twitter.

And across the government, L.G.B.T.Q. references are popping up everywhere. Visitors to the White House website are now asked whether they want to provide their pronouns when they fill out a contact form: she/her, he/him or they/them.

It is all part of a concerted effort by the Biden administration to rebrand the government after four years of President Donald J. Trump, in part by stripping away the language and imagery that represented his anti-immigration, anti-science and anti-gay rights policies and replacing them with words and pictures that are more inclusive and better match the current president’s sensibilities. 

“Biden is trying to reclaim the vision of America that was there during the Obama administration, a vision that was much more diverse, much more religiously tolerant, much more tolerant of different kinds of gender dispositions and gender presentations,” said Norma Mendoza-Denton, a professor of anthropology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an author of “Language in the Trump Era: Scandals and Emergencies.”  

Now, officials in Mr. Biden’s administration are using Mr. Trump’s own tactics to adjust reality again, this time by erasing the words his predecessor used and by explicitly returning to ones that had been banished.  

“The president has been clear to all of us — words matter, tone matters and civility matters,” said Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary. “And bringing the country together, getting back our seat at the global table means turning the page from the actions but also the divisive and far too often xenophobic language of the last administration.”

One can reasonably think that if a republican is elected as president in 2024, 2028 or later, the pictures of coal and incivility will displace what Biden is doing. This political and social war is not over. It's not close to over. The pile of coal vision could very well win and bring the American experiment to an end as fascists gain the upper hand in their desperate, fear-driven escape from freedom into the comforting arms of a dictator.  

Biden's gesture is good and necessary, but it probably won't change many minds.

As attorney general, Jeff Sessions ordered his department to use the term “illegal alien” 

in all communications when describing someone who did not come to the 

United States through legal means.

Credit...

Where Does Reality End and Overreaction, Hyperbole and Lies Begin?

Coup: a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government

Coup attempt: an attempted sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government

Since the 1/6 coup attempt, the MSM has been referring to the event as a riot, an attack, an invasion, an insurrection and the like, but not as a coup attempt. In politics, reality is often or usually a complex and variably fuzzy thing. But by the end of the day, it was clear to me that an actual coup attempt had been intentionally fomented by the ex-president and carried out according to his direct orders. That personal reality seemed to be clearer than most things in politics. The evidence included videos of violence broadcast in real time, and the people involved saying they were there to kill come people in congress, stop validation of an allegedly fraudulent and illegitimate election with an intent to keep the ex-president in power. If that isn't a coup attempt, what is it? That the effort failed, or even was doomed to fail, makes no difference.

One can see that calling it an insurrection would consonant with the House impeachment article. But more fundamentally, at its core, the 1/6 event was an attempt to overthrow the government. Information that has come to light since the 1/6 event generally points to it being a coup attempt. 

Was it an overreaction or hyperbole to see 1/6 as a coup attempt? Was it a lie? Is that true now in light of information that has come to light so far?

The Boogaloo Bois, Boogs or Goons

ProPublica reports on one of the groups that participated in the coup attempt.

Hours after the attack on the Capitol ended, a group calling itself the Last Sons of Liberty posted a brief video to Parler, the social media platform, that appeared to show members of the organization directly participating in the uprising. Footage showed someone with a shaky smartphone charging past the metal barricades surrounding the building. Other clips show rioters physically battling with baton-wielding police on the white marble steps just outside the Capitol.

Before Parler went offline — its operations halted at least temporarily when Amazon refused to continue to host the network — the Last Sons posted numerous statements indicating that group members had joined the mob that swarmed the Capitol and had no regrets about the chaos and violence that unfolded on Jan. 6. The Last Sons also did some quick math: The government had suffered only one fatality, U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, 42, who was reportedly bludgeoned in the head with a fire extinguisher. But the rioters had lost four people, including Ashli Babbitt, the 35-year-old Air Force veteran who was shot by an officer as she tried to storm the building.

In a series of posts, the Last Sons said her death should be “avenged” and appeared to call for the murder of three more cops.

The group is part of the Boogaloo movement — a decentralized, very online successor to the ­­militia movement of the ’80s and ’90s —­ whose adherents are fixated on attacking law enforcement and violently toppling the U.S. government. Researchers say the movement began coalescing online in 2019 as people — mostly young men — angry with what they perceived to be increasing government repression, found each other on Facebook groups and in private chats. In movement vernacular, Boogaloo refers to an inevitable and imminent armed revolt, and members often call themselves Boogaloo Bois, boogs or goons.  

In the weeks since Jan. 6, an array of extremist groups have been named as participants in the Capitol invasion. The Proud Boys. QAnon believers. White nationalists. The Oath Keepers. But the Boogaloo Bois are notable for the depth of their commitment to the overthrow of the U.S. government and the jaw-dropping criminal histories of many members.  

Mike Dunn, a 20-year-old from a small town on Virginia’s rural southern edge, is the commander of the Last Sons. “I really feel we’re looking at the possibility — stronger than any time since, say, the 1860s — of armed insurrection,” Dunn said in an interview with ProPublica and FRONTLINE a few days after the assault on the Capitol. 

“It was a chance to mess with the federal government again,” he said. “They weren’t there for MAGA. They weren’t there for Trump.” Dunn added that he’s “willing to die in the streets” while battling law enforcement or security forces.

Mike Dunn

So, was 1/6 a coup attempt or something else, e.g., a coup attempt and an insurrection? Is it hyperbole to call it that, or a lie? Does it matter what 1/6 is called?

Ted Cruz Loses All Of His Marriott Award Points

Bethesda, Maryland – Marriott International Inc. announced last night that it has revoked the thousands of Marriott Award Points Texas Senator Ted Cruz accrued over the years. The drastic move by the company that has over 30 brands, 7,484 properties, and over 1.4 million rooms is due to Senator Cruz jetting off to Mexico while millions of Texans are suffering from the effects of the recent winter storm.

Marriott Award Points Morality Clause

Marriott CEO Andrew Canard pointed out everyone who participates in the awards program agrees to its terms and conditions. And like many other programs offered by major hotel chains that reward members with free rooms and extra amenities, there is a morality clause.

“If a participant in the program engages in a heinous crime, we can’t be seen offering such an individual perks,”  said Mr. Canard. “It would damage our brand. Unfortunately, Senator Cruz decided to abandon his constituents in their hour of need. We had no choice but to nullify whatever awards he earned.”

Mr. Canard also stated Cruz earned himself as well as his wife a lifetime ban from Marriott. The two join a small list of people who are never welcome at any of the Marriott properties. Even though the entire list isn’t publicly known, it is rumored that former President Donald Trump and Melania will never be allowed to enter a Marriott property again.

Cancel Culture Gone Amok?

Senator Cruz immediately went on social media to decry what he called “The latest attack by the SJW cancel culture on God-fearing Americans.” Even though he publicly apologized for running out on millions of Texans who had no heat, no electricity, and no water during a natural disaster, Cruz believes his inalienable right to be a jerk is being attacked by the hospitality conglomerate.

Under normal circumstances, other conservative lawmakers and pundits would be quick to support a fellow fascist. But Ted Cruz is so unlikeable that no one is backing him up. One anonymous aide to the Texas senator pointed out a hard truth: “When Ted Cruz loses the support of the KKK, you know it’s serious.”

Other organizations are still deciding what to do. There are rumors Chuck E. Cheese will soon revoke all pizza and gaming privileges to Ted and his wife, as well as their children.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/laughingindisbelief/2021/02/ted-cruz-loses-all-of-his-marriott-award-points/

 

Perseverance Descent Video

 This is from a New York Times article:

The car-sized Perseverance rover is about 10 feet long (not including the robotic arm arm), 9 feet wide and 7 feet tall (about 3 meters long, 2.7 meters wide and 2.2 meters tall). It weighs 2,260 pounds (1,025 kilograms) on Earth. Mars gravity is about 38% of that on Earth. Does that mean it weighs only about 859 pounds on Mars?

This interactive graphic gets into the details of what is on and in the rover.

Secrecy and the Supreme Court

Everything degenerates, even the administration of justice, nothing is safe that does not show it can bear discussion and publicity. .... Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. -- Lord Acton, 1834-1902

Power cloaked in unwarranted opacity, tends to accelerate, harden and deepen corruption. The Supreme Court has an awful lot of power and it is awfully opaque. That opacity can hide an awful lot of corruption, including partisan politics. Hidden corruption in government deceives and betrays the public. -- Germaine, 2021

Context

A couple of recent Supreme Court (SC) decisions led me to want all nine justices impeached and removed. The first was the SC dismissal of lawsuits against the ex-president for violating the emoluments clause. The court "reasoned" that the case was moot because he was out of office. The reason he was out of office was that the SC refused to rule in the case while he was in office. As I saw it, the court intentionally dragged its feet to protect a deeply corrupt president for partisan political purposes. To protect the ex-president, the court went against its own precedent of allowing cases against politicians out of office for their crimes. None of the three democrats on the court dissented, so I concluded they too voted to defend the indefensible. I wanted all nine impeached and removed from office for that grotesque failure of duty to defend the rule of law.

More recently, the SC unanimously voted to allow prosecutors access to the ex-president's tax and financial documents. Once again, the court intentionally delayed issuing this for months to protect the beast while it was still in office. And again, there was not one word of explanation, including nothing from any of the three democrats. The SC just tossed its nasty thing into the punch bowl and was above explaining the delay to us unwashed masses of fools and mushrooms. Given the secrecy and lack of explanation for the protective delay, that too looked like indefensible politics and another attack on the rule of law. I wanted all nine impeached and removed for that dereliction of duty.

A long standing personal complaint is excessive opacity in the functioning of federal courts, especially the powerful SC.

Secrecy & the Supreme Court

A 1973 paper, Secrecy and the Supreme Court: On the Need for Piercing the Red Velour Curtain, discussed the rationale for secrecy of SC operations and decisions. The paper noted that Judge Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965) argued that, although there is a legitimate need for the public to know how the court operates, the SC could not open itself up to public scrutiny without ceasing to function effectively. Huh??

In reaction to that, common sense flares up and reflexively retorts to Frankfurter: That is sheer nonsense. SC justices are appointed for life precisely to insulate them from public opinion and partisan politics. What the hell are you blithering about?  

Despite that common sense reflex, the paper's authors point out that the Frankfurter rationale, if that's what it is, "has met with virtually unanimous approval." So much for common sense.

The paper's authors write:

Our thesis may be simply stated: basic democratic theory requires that there be knowledge not only of who governs but of how policy decisions are made. .... We maintain that the secrecy which pervades Congress, the executive branch and courts is itself the enemy. .... For all we know, the justices engage in some sort of latter-day intellectual haruspication[1], followed by the assignment of someone to write an opinion to explain, justify or rationalize the decision so reached. .... That the opinion(s) cannot be fully persuasive, or at times even partially so, is a matter of common knowledge among those who make their living following Court proclamations.

The authors go on to level a slew of ferocious criticisms of SC secrecy and sloppy thinking and writing. They point to political expediency as the core but hidden source of court decisions. They cite one commentator as describing the practice of opinion formation as "scholarly astrology." They argue that "the very fact that students of the Court exhibit a desire to gain a better understanding of the Court is ample proof that the opinions are inadequate to explain the decision making."

Some factors that can make the process opaque and the product shoddy include a need for compromise to get at least five votes. That can lead to murky thinking and writing. A major source of opacity and confusion arises when judges work backward from conclusions to reach principles instead of using principles to draw conclusions. In other words, judges often decide based on their opinions, biases and values, not on relevant legal principles. They smash the round pegs in their own minds into the square holes of legal principles, often at the partial or complete expense of facts, true truths and sound reasoning. The rationale that secrecy is needed for the decision-making process is not explained, just asserted: "Justice W. J. Brennan states that the conferences are carried out in "absolute secrecy" for "obvious reasons" and avoids any further elucidation of the matter. .... It is the validity of that notion that is challenged in this article."

What are the obvious reasons? Just blurt them out so that we can decide what to believe for ourselves.

Maybe the sources of muddled language and incoherent thinking cannot be avoided. Humans are human, not Vulcans, the Borg, Klingons or goldfish. The situation would be much more understandable and forgivable if some of the secrecy was lifted and the public allowed to see more of how and why decisions are made. That would go a long way toward easing the kinds of suspicions some people have, like me, that SC justices are more corrupt politician-ideologues in black robes than honest, unbiased interpreters of the law.

Footnote: 

1. Haruspication: the act or practice of divination from the entrails (guts) of animals slain in sacrifice, mainly sheep and poultry livers; haruspicy had its heyday as a religion in ancient Rome