Trump Indictment Helps Trump-- Not Democracy (Judge Luttig's Warning)

Former Judge,  Michael Luttig, is the legal thinker Pence quoted when he refused to interfere with the 2020 election. He also gave stirring testimony warning of the immanent demise of democracy in his 1/6 Committee testimony. The short video below is, imo, on target and a much needed antidote to the nonsensical hype in the media about the Trump indictment which has nothing to do with his political crimes-- the ones for which he should have been put on trial. The lesser, salacious crimes surrounding the Stormy Daniels hush money  will allow him to play the victim of a "witch hunt,"  and raise more money while evading any constraints on his ability to run. It also keeps his name in the news day in and day out-- just the way he likes it. Luttig states that,   "The perils for American democracy and the rule of law actually crested with Thursday's indictment in Manhattan, and the Republican party's continued denial of January 6th and its refusal to acknowledge that the former President lost the 2020 election. There's now no end in sight to these perils. In the months ahead, America's democracy and the rule of law-- hopefully not beyond the breaking point." Maybe Luttig is wrong, but I don't think so, and his perspective is an important and intelligent one coming from one of the few Republican lawyers with a moral compass. It is tragic that Biden's AG failed to prosecute Trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 election illegally. The evidence is there, but the courage is absent. As Luttig warns, there is "no end in sight" on the threat to democracy in the US.

News bits: How a GOP judge sees democracy; Stormy Daniels' insight

Above the Law reports on how a retired Republican federal judge sees our current political situation:

Former Republican Federal Judge Warns Of 'Civil War' 

If Donald Trump Loses 2024 Election

This is .... not great news

Before the Republican party went off the Trump deep end, Judge J. Michael Luttig was considered quite the conservative firebrand. His jurisprudence was rated “consistently conservative” by an early 2000s study conducted by political scientists, and Luttig was even bandied about as a short list contender when George W. Bush ultimately appointed John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

Luttig says Trump allies “are poised to attempt to overturn the 2024 election if he were to lose.”

Should that happen, again, Luttig is not optimistic about the impact on the country, “If he were to do that, then I believe that we would be on the verge of a civil war.”

“Factually, what we have in America today and where we are in America today, namely that our institutions of democracy and law have been under vicious attack for years now, that is from within, not from without the United States,” he said. “And these vicious attacks are unsustainable and unendurable.”  

“They’ve already taken their toll on American democracy and American law in their impact and consequence of their impact on the institutions of democracy and law,” he said. “We are at a perilous crossroads.”

This is just another warning about the radical right's anti-democratic, authoritarian intent.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Tales from Trumplandia: Common Dreams writes about how Stormy Daniels sees the Trump indictment kerfuffle:

'This Pussy Grabbed Back': 

Stormy Daniels Speaks Out After Trump Indictment

The porn star said she is unafraid of facing the former president in court: "I've seen him naked. There's no way he could be scarier with his clothes on."

Politics can't get much better than this. 

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Tales from QAnonlandia and Social Medialandia: Sadistic anti-vaxx crackpots remain enthusiastic about spreading misery, slanders, hate and new COVID infections wherever they can. They can on social media! They are even more feisty than those feisty Satanists. Business Insider Mexico writes:

A father whose 6-year-old son died was flooded with anti-vaxxer harassment. 

When a commenter baselessly claimed he killed his son, 

Facebook said he could ‘hide’ the comment ‘if he didn’t like it.’

When Billy Ball lost his 6-year-old son in January after an accident brought on by a rare medical condition, Ball posted his son's obituary on Twitter and started a fundraiser in the child's name to raise money for an art program at his son's neighborhood school.

The responses, at first, were mostly kind. Many people donated, Ball wrote in The Atlantic. But the father's social media feeds soon devolved into a cesspool of conspiracy theorists baselessly claiming that Ball killed his son by getting him vaccinated for COVID-19. And Twitter and Facebook often offered little to no recourse, he said.

In one case, Facebook determined that a comment in which a user mocked and accused Ball of killing his son did not violate community guidelines and declined to remove the comment.

"While we've decided not to take this comment down, we understand that you don't like it," a message from Facebook support read. "We recommend that you hide the comment or unfollow, unfriend or block the person who posted it."

"It felt like you were talking to a wall," Ball told Insider, regarding his experience reporting comments that flooded his social media accounts.

It's all just good clean fun with protected free speech and "community guidelines."

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Tales from Artificial Intelligencelandia: This one is sort of creepy:

Despite OpenAI’s Promises, the Company’s New AI Tool Produces Misinformation More Frequently, and More Persuasively, than its Predecessor

Two months ago, ChatGPT-3.5 generated misinformation and hoaxes 80% of the time when prompted to do so in a NewsGuard exercise using 100 false narratives from its catalog of significant falsehoods in the news. NewsGuard found that its successor, ChatGPT-4, spread even more misinformation, advancing all 100 false narratives

 The latest version of AI is even better at generating misinformation than the previous version. This is wonderful news! I'm moving to Canada now. Bye!  (just kidding)

News bits: Faux defamation lawsuit update; A new source of evil woke?; Green burials

One of the traits that the radical right and its propaganda sources generally show is bad faith or ill-will. There is little to no good faith in any of it because it is a matter of all out war. A NBC News article about the defamation lawsuit against Faux. This illustrates the bad faith that dominates the thinking and rhetoric of America's anti-democracy, authoritarian radical right:

In a loss for Fox News, judge allows Dominion's 

defamation case to go to trial

Fox News had argued that the challenged comments were opinion and protected as such, but Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis disagreed.

“The Court finds, as a matter of law, that the Statements are either fact or mixed opinion,” he wrote. “The Statements were capable of being proven true, and in fact the evidence that would prove the Statements was discussed many times (but never presented).”

He also knocked Fox's "neutral reporting" claim, finding “the evidence does not support that FNN conducted good-faith, disinterested reporting.”

“FNN’s failure to reveal extensive contradicting evidence from the public sphere and Dominion itself indicates its reporting was not disinterested,” the judge wrote.  

“Courts have frequently recognized that rhetorical hyperbole and exaggeration is common on opinion shows,” especially those “normally associated with politics and public discourse in the United States,” the company said in a filing last month.

Dominion countered that “Fox is trying to conflate telling the truth with knowingly spreading a lie.”

It isn't just Faux that engages in bad faith discourse. The entire radical right wealth and power movement is dominated by bad faith and ill will. Both CN and BKC elites (Christian nationalist and brass knuckles capitalist) routinely engage the public in bad faith. They rely heavily on this mindset and associated tactics because nearly all dark free speech is legal** and it is surprisingly effective.  

** The Dominion defamation lawsuit against Faux is a rare example of allegedly illegal DFS. But even now Faux can still win, which would make its colossal slanders legal.

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

It was pointed out to me by Larry Motuz that the Discovery Doctrine (DD) of the Catholic Church was used in American law. That surprised me. It turns out that the DD was used to at least partly legally justify the attempted genocide, abuse and theft of native American Indians way back in the 1800s. Wikipedia describes the origin of the DD in American law like this:

The discovery doctrine, or doctrine of discovery, is a disputed interpretation of international law during the Age of Discovery, introduced into United States municipal law by the US Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823). In Marshall's formulation of the doctrine, discovery of territory previously unknown to Europeans gave the discovering nation title to that territory against all other European nations, and this title could be perfected by possession.

A search on this turned up a document about this the United Nations commissioned in 2009. This evil, socialist wokeness is something the radical right needs to rise up, condemn, vilify and Whitewash real quick. The UN document comments: 

This preliminary study establishes that the Doctrine of Discovery has been institutionalized in law and policy, on national and international levels, and lies at the root of the violations of indigenous peoples’ human rights, both individual and collective. This has resulted in State claims to and the mass appropriation of the lands, territories and resources of indigenous peoples. Both the Doctrine of Discovery and a holistic structure that we term the Framework of Dominance have resulted in centuries of virtually unlimited resource extraction from the traditional territories of indigenous peoples. This, in turn, has resulted in the dispossession and impoverishment of indigenous peoples, and the host of problems that they face today on a daily basis.  

Given that United States of America federal Indian law is most accessible to the Special Rapporteur, and because it serves as an ideal example of the application of the Doctrine of Discovery to indigenous peoples, this preliminary study provides a detailed examination of the premise of that system as found in the United States Supreme Court ruling Johnson’s Lessee v. McIntosh. Evidence is then provided demonstrating that the Doctrine of Discovery continues to be treated as valid by the United States Government.  

In the mid-twentieth century, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed and embraced the Doctrine of Discovery. .... the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. The United States. The case had to do with the Tee-Hit-Ton people whose language is Tlingit, and whose “customs, laws, and traditions [are] similar to other Tlingit peoples” in what is now called Alaska.49 .... On 20 August 1951, the United States Forest Service sold Ketchikan Pulp and Paper Company “the right to all harvestable in the Tongass National Forest, estimated at 1,500,000 cubic feet”. Shortly thereafter, the Tee-Hit-Ton sued, arguing that they “were the sole owners of the land and water in dispute; that they had never sold or conveyed the land to any other party; and they asked for a judgment for the losses and damages from the Tongass taking, plus interest”.  

Eventually, United States government attorneys filed a brief with the Supreme Court that was based in part on the Doctrine of Discovery and the era of the Vatican papal bulls; in it they argued that it was a well-recognized principle in international law that “the lands of heathens and infidels” were open to acquisition (taking) by “Christian nations”. 

The US Supreme Court decided the case in 1955 against the Tee-Hit-Ton, but it avoided relying on the DD. Instead, the court held that "Congress did not intend to grant the Tribe any permanent rights to the occupied lands and therefore Government did not owe Tribe compensation for timber taken from tribal-occupied lands in Alaska under the Fifth Amendment." That argument nicely omits mention of what gave congress the right and power to grant or withhold rights in the first place. Those rights grew out of the DD.[1] 

Now that's definitely some inconvenient woke history that needs to be Whitewashed real quick. Call out the Christian nationalists! Get Huckabee and DeSantis on the klaxon! Toss a nasty through the Faux News front window and hit Tucker with it! Somebody do something!! This evil socialist woke need to be killed right now!! 

Footnote: 

1. But wait, it's even more exciting than that. Consider this reasoning from Ruth Bader-Ginsberg in 2005:

That the Doctrine of Discovery is still being used as an active legal principle by the United States Supreme Court in the twentieth-first century is revealed in the case City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York decided in March 2005, 50 years after the Tee-Hit-Ton ruling. .... To contextualize the Court’s decision and to decide the sovereign status of the Oneida Indian Nation, the Supreme Court relied upon the Doctrine of Discovery. This is revealed in footnote number one of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s decision for the Court majority: “Under the ‘Doctrine of Discovery’”, wrote Justice Ginsberg, “... fee title to the lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign — first the discovering European nation and later the original states and the United States”.

Jeez, this is so inconvenient that RBG tried to bury it in a footnote. Just imagine what Tucker, DeSantis and Huckabee will do with this nasty piece of woke. 

 

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

Green burials are a thing: The WaPo writes:

Mia Zinn was a member of her middle school ecology club, had planted a reflection garden and had implored public officials to preserve a local woods, and when she became terminally ill, she wanted to become a tree. So, the day after she died, her father, Chris Zinn, visited Serenity Ridge Natural Burial Cemetery and Arboretum in Baltimore County, a 45-minute drive from the family’s home in Abingdon, Md. He was drawn to a wooded area that opened up to a wedge of western sky.

“That was the perfect spot,” he said. “It reminded me a lot of an area that we hiked many, many times near here.”

Mia died last month at 17 of Ewing’s sarcoma, a rare bone cancer, and became the third person interred at Serenity Ridge. The site is one of a growing number of cemeteries in the United States offering natural, or green, burials in response to demand from the environmentally conscious.

Such burials eschew the embalming, expensive caskets and concrete vaults or metal grave liners standard in U.S. cemeteries, replacing them with simple materials that decompose along with the body. Mia was laid to rest in a bamboo casket with a cotton sheath, a burial her parents said was simple and elegant and surprised some of the attendees.

“A lot of people said, ‘Oh my gosh, I didn’t know this was even a thing,’” said her mother, Aubrey Zinn.  

Although Bixby said no state laws prohibit green burials, not all cemeteries offer them. Some local jurisdictions require cemeteries to have paved roads to gravesites or to use leakproof containers. With green burials, the earth settles during decomposition, causing the land to undulate; some cemeteries mandate vault liners to maintain a flat landscape.  

“The whole idea is not to think of it as a cemetery,” Berg said. “It’s a nature preserve where people happen to be buried.”

Mia wanted to become a tree

Attn: Skeptics*…

Okay, here goes.  Just for fun/torture, let’s contemplate our notion of “Consciousness.”

First, a definition:

Consciousness: in a biological entity, the quality or state of being aware (i.e., having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact), including self-awareness.

Next, some valid (?) considerations/arguments on the subject:

1. Generally speaking, we know the “mechanics” of what our consciousness is seemingly built on/made of (i.e., what materials/matter and electrical impulses/forces are needed to spark(?) consciousness in an organic entity.

However, we have not yet managed to create life from lifelessness (i.e., biological “life force” from inert matter), nor have we created apparent consciousness in a non-biological entity form, though we are diligently working on it, with AI projects.

2. There is no categorical scientific proof or even any reasonable indication of continued consciousness after the death of a previously conscious entity.  Such is only spoken/thought of hypothetically/philosophically (as in hearsay, belief systems, wishful thinking, circumstantial evidence, etc.).

3. All judgments/evaluations of consciousness are based upon the only reference point to which we (conscious entities) have access; our currently experienced, albeit limited realm.  We use said consciousness to evaluate consciousness (i.e., use the thing to evaluate the thing).  So, any conclusions we make, regarding consciousness, are seemingly only valid within that limited context.

However, we can and do try to extrapolate other conclusions about consciousness, or anything else for that matter, based on our limited access.  As humans, it is our modus operandi.  Whether such extrapolations are ultimately true or false is not yet known, or may never be known, or may not be knowable, while limited to our current realm.  Indeed, the fact that there is existence itself seems incredible (emotional statement).  Why should/must existence exist (i.e., why is there something rather than nothing)?

4. A simple logical argument connecting consciousness to humans:

P1: Consciousness exists

P2: Humans have consciousness 

C: Therefore, existence with consciousness is not just possible but actually does happen (or, as one famous scientist put it, “If something happens, it must be possible”)

However, an…the… important question that begs to be asked is, “Does consciousness happen only because we exist?”  Is consciousness a symbiotic relationship where we are its necessary host?  If not, can consciousness exist on its own, outside our familiar realm, without a host?  Is that really IMpossible??

5: We are fundamentally just a collection of unified particles and forces, working in tandem, and that give us/enable our consciousness.  Everything else about us might be something we’d call “embellishments.” 😉

__________

__________

Okay, enough mumbo-jumbo.  It’s time to bring YOU, a conscious entity, into the act.  Granted, the conversation is much more complicated than what I’ve portrayed.  That is also a given. 😉  There really seems to be no end (or beginning) to what consciousness is.  But, keeping in mind the above five considerations I’ve listed, here comes the punchline (finally!):

Q: Why do you, a skeptic, reject that there could be continued consciousness after consciousness seemingly ends for us in this current realm of existence?

Now, I’m not talking about religion here, or advocating for holy book type beliefs in this OP, so please, let’s not go there!  That is a different conversation than what I’m looking to have.  And I’m not trying to talk you into anything with my suggestions.  I’m just asking you to consider/rethink your position regarding the OP question, without fear of favor (as they say in the law).  Please re-read it again now and take time to seriously think about it.  Then give us your thoughts.

Simply put, I’m asking why reject continued consciousness out of hand just because you, you lowly creature you, see no evidence?  Is that a “good enough/valid” reason for rejection?  Just because you (a skeptic) see no evidence of something doesn’t negate it.  True?  So why do you limit/prejudge consciousness as to something only in the here and now?  Is that not an illogical stance to take?

(by Primal “your lovable semi-skeptic” Soup)

_______________________________

*skep·tic

noun

1. 1.

a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.

"this argument failed to convince the skeptics"

Looking for reasons for hope

To people with minds that allow them to see, it's clear by now that our democracy, civil liberties, secularism and secular law, tolerant pluralism and respect for inconvenient truth are now all under a sustained deadly attack. The top two motivating destructive forces are rigid CN and BKC dogmas. Both are bitterly inimical to democracy and the rest of it. 

CN = theocratic Christian nationalism

BKC = brass knuckles (unregulated) capitalism

In the face of this decades-long onslaught, it can be hard to see reasons for hope. An opinion piece by Amanda Ripley that the WaPo published discusses this problem. Ripley asks the question, if raising reasons for hope is not a journalist's job, whose job is it? A broader question is whether hope is important or not. It turns out that having hope is important.

Last summer, I wrote a piece in this newspaper admitting that I have been selectively avoiding contact with the news, even though I’m a journalist myself. Traditional news coverage, I had slowly come to realize, was missing half the story, distorting my view of reality. It frequently overlooked and underplayed storylines and dimensions that humans need to thrive in the modern world — with the three most notable elements being hope, agency and dignity.

That column sparked an unexpected response. I heard from thousands of readers caught in the same struggle — wanting to be informed about the world but not bludgeoned into fatalism. Many of you reported that you had taken matters into your own hands. One man, after listening to devastating stories on the radio, does his own Google searches to find examples of people trying to solve the very same problems. Then he shares the links he has found with his friends and family on Facebook, basically doing a job reporters don’t want to do.

Others urged me to check out alternative sources they had found, including the Progress Network newsletter, which curates stories of human cooperation and ingenuity, and the 1440 daily briefing, which attempts to strip bias from the news. Still others said they have sought refuge in sports, hyperlocal news, Wordle and, for one reader, medieval history.

For more than 30 years, scientists have been researching hope and deconstructing its building blocks. And it’s surprisingly tangible. “It’s important to say what hope is not,” Rebecca Solnit wrote in her book “Hope in the Dark.” “It is not the belief that everything was, is, or will be fine.”

So what is it? Hope is more like a muscle than an emotion. It’s a cognitive skill, one that helps people reject the status quo and visualize a better way. If it were an equation, it would look something like: hope = goals + road map + willpower. “Hope is the belief that your future can be brighter and better than your past and that you actually have a role to play in making it better,” according to Casey Gwinn and Chan Hellman in their book, “Hope Rising.”

Decades of research have now proved that hope, defined this way, can be reliably measured and taught. Using 12 questions, called the Hope Scale — a version of which you can take yourself here — more than 2,000 studies have demonstrated that people with stronger hope skills perform better in school, sports and work. They manage illness, pain and injury better and score higher on assessments of happiness, purpose and self-esteem. Among victims of domestic violence, child abuse and other forms of trauma, hope appears to be one of the most effective antidotes yet studied.

News bits: The indictment; Large scale book canceling; Etc.

Long list of bits today. I wonder if something is going on that I don't know about.

Bit 1: Trump was indicted for something or another. It's reasonable to think that (i) the radical right propaganda & dark free speech Leviathan, e.g., Faux News, will propel him to sacred, innocent, persecuted Christian martyr status, and (ii) he will be the GOP's nominee for president in 2024. 

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Bit 2: Missouri's radical legislature cut the budget for libraries to $0 in retaliation for suing the state over the radicals' recent book ban law. That will fix those nasty libraries for trying to protect those nasty books. This is yet more evidence of the Republican Party's hyper-radical authoritarianism (fascism IMHO). Too bad we can't defund the pro-tyranny, pro-corruption GOP.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Bit 3: The radicalized, weaponized House plays more than hardball with its investigations, it plays a scorched Earth game. The WaPo writes:

Democratic lawmakers didn’t hold back their anger Thursday at a House hearing about social media and censorship when a pair of Republican witnesses delivered testimony and left without being questioned.

The shouting began after Sen. Eric Schmitt (R), the former attorney general of Missouri, and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry (R) testified before the House Judiciary select subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government about what they claimed was the Biden administration’s effort to censor conservative voices online. After the two spoke, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the subcommittee chairman, dismissed them.

Believe it or not, that is what single party dictatorship looks like. It is just one small step from that to simply fabricating the evidence that Republican dictators and theocrats need to finally kill off democracy, secularism, pluralism and civil liberties.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Bit 4: The Discovery Doctrine bites the dust: Pope falsely claims it never was a big deal anyway. The AP writes:

The Vatican on Thursday responded to Indigenous demands and formally repudiated the “Doctrine of Discovery,” the theories backed by 15th-century “papal bulls” that legitimized the colonial-era seizure of Native lands and form the basis of some property laws today.

A Vatican statement said the papal bulls, or decrees, “did not adequately reflect the equal dignity and rights of Indigenous peoples” and have never been considered expressions of the Catholic faith. .... The statement said the papal documents had been “manipulated” for political purposes by competing colonial powers “to justify immoral acts against Indigenous peoples that were carried out, at times, without opposition from ecclesial authorities.”

The papal bull did not adequately reflect the equal dignity and rights of Indigenous peoples?  “Manipulated” for political purposes?  The bull justified immoral acts against Indigenous peoples without opposition from ecclesial authorities? There's a pack of insulting lies and brazen understatements of gigantic proportions. It would make even Trump blush. (nah, not really -- things like this don't faze him)

That bull(shit) sanctified and legitimized the mass slaughter, rape, oppression and ruin of Indigenous people and their cultures. It also sanctified and legitimized the theft of their traditional lands and their brutal, forcible expulsion from them. Church arrogance, mendacity, hypocrisy and sin on this is off the charts.