What price too high?

Many thoughts swirling around in my head this morning.  I got up early today to try and jot them down:

• Purity tests…  is the price ever too high to pay?
• Spock’s “the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few… or the one.”
• Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayer’s “Will this institution survive the stench that…" 

*    *    *

Let’s get into the weeds now.  Let’s talk about principles, something that also may be thought of as “purity tests.” I have plenty myself, so I viscerally understand the concept.  I admire principles.  I respect them.  I know that no one arrives at them without serious contemplation, often many hard years in the making.  Principles are no small thing.  Totally get that. [SMH Yes]

The revered character, Spock, realized in the final moments of his life, that “the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few… or the one.”  Now that’s a lofty principle; maybe the ultimate purity test.  The height of selflessness, I’d say.  Going outside the self and looking at the bigger picture.  I can get that too.

Sonia Sotomayer wondered if “tossing out the landmark rulings would tarnish the court's reputation and open the floodgates to other challenges to well-settled law.”

All interesting ideas to ponder.  I’d call them “bottom line” kinds of thoughts.  Now let’s look at the other end of the “idealism versus realism” spectrum.

*    *    *

When all is said and done, when the chips are finally down, does “idealism” really trump “realism?”  Should it?  We may not like it, the reality, but can we be that (I’ll call it) “unreasonable / stubborn / rigid / indeed “ideologically pure?”  Yes, there are things, personal things, that we will absolutely not compromise on. They are that important to us.  And there are things we know we must compromise on, like it or not.  And we never do (like it), even though we know it is for the greater good.  Is that the ultimate test?  What is done for the greater good?  Excellent question.

*    *    *

Well, that prologue took a while, and now that I’ve gotten you in the desired mindset, it finally brings us to my specific questions… almost. 😉

Yesterday I again had an exchange with a poster who believes that personal principles trump the greater stark reality.  Or so it seemed, to me.  Specifically, we were talking about being confronted with what the poster saw as “two bad choices” (Biden versus Trump).  The poster insists s/he will not vote for either; not be forced to pick between "the lesser of two evils," taking a stand on personal principles. Maybe in that poster’s mind s/he thinks, "does one more vote for or against really matter in the greater scheme of things?"  The answer seems like a “No, it won’t really matter.”  And still, another thing I can get.  Yes, I do get all these things.

Question: 

Which of the following do you agree/disagree with?  Give examples to support your belief:

1. Sometimes the price is “too high to pay” for our personal principles.
2. Principles always trump reality, including existential threats, no exceptions. 
3. Sticking to principles only is valid when those principles only affect oneself.
4. Never compromise your principles. It’s a matter of personal integrity, damn the consequences. 
5. Principles should/must be compromised when the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few… or the one.
6. Never allow “the perfect” to be the enemy of “the good.”

(by PrimalSoup)

Now, time for some coffee ☕.  Thanks in advance for thinking about these things, and commenting! 😊

The Compulsory Voting Debate

 MY vote is no. BUT there are many out there that think it's about time.

Compulsory voting might seem strange to Americans, where voting is a right but not a legal duty or obligation. But there are arguments in favor of making voting compulsory, as well as arguments against it.

https://www.findlaw.com/voting/how-u-s--elections-work/the-compulsory-voting-debate.html

Compulsory voting, as the name suggests, is a state or nation requiring all eligible voters to cast a ballot on election day. In countries that use compulsory voting, voters who don't cast a ballot may face legal sanctions.

Belgium was the first country to institute compulsory voting in 1892. Soon after, Argentina and Australia instituted mandatory voting laws. Brazil currently practices compulsory voting, although they exempt the following non-voters from legal consequences:

• Illiterate people
• Anyone over 16 and under 18 years old
• Anyone over 70 years old

Some countries that use compulsory voting also include exceptions. Some countries exempt people with disabilities, citizens living abroad, and various voting ages. Visit the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance for a list of countries with mandatory voting laws.

The Brookings Institution, the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, and Harvard Kennedy School (Brookings-Harvard working group) published a report on universal civic duty voting in 2020. The report advocates for instituting mandatory participation in elections in the United States. It imagines "an American democracy remade by its citizens in the very image of its promise...". Its underlying principle is that "high levels of participation are good for democracy."

The Brookings-Harvard working group sees voting as a civic duty. They compare its importance to jury duty and defending the country during wars. They suggest a fine of $20 for non-voters. Their goal is not to impose sanctions to penalize. Instead, they suggest a minor penalty to send a "strong message that voting is a legitimate expectation of citizenship."

The pros and cons can be found within the above link, but I am sure everyone here has their own opinions and why they would be for it or against it. State YOUR reasons.

American tyranny rising

Way back in December of 2022, Trump said he wanted to terminate the US Constitution. After there was some criticism for that moment of honest candor, he backtracked and lied, saying he did not say what he said. Last August, The Hill reported:

In a back-and-forth during the first 2024 GOP presidential debate between candidates Vivek Ramaswamy and Chris Christie, the latter brought up previous comments from former President Trump stating he wanted to terminate portions of the Constitution to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post in December 2022.

Trump later responded to backlash against the comments, which were related to X’s, the platform formerly known as Twitter, role in suppressing a story about Hunter Biden. The former president alleged his words were twisted by others.

“The Fake News is actually trying to convince the American People that I said I wanted to ‘terminate’ the Constitution. This is simply more DISINFORMATION & LIES, just like RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA, and all of their other HOAXES & SCAMS,” Trump wrote in another Truth Social post, saying he meant that “steps must be immediately taken to RIGHT THE WRONG.”

In December of 2022, Politico commented:

Several of Trump’s fellow Republicans were critical of the post, but few condemned Trump himself or said it would be disqualifying for him to earn their vote — a lack of repudiation that has drawn criticism from Democrats.

News bits: Religious churning; Traitor John Eastman forced out of law; Money talks, democracy walks

NPR reports poll data about reasons people leaving their religions for another religion or for no religion:

People say they’re leaving religion due to 

anti-LGBTQ teachings and sexual abuse

People in the U.S. are leaving and switching faith traditions in large numbers. The idea of “religious churning” is very common in America, according to a new survey from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI).

The Catholic Church is losing more members than it’s gaining, though the numbers are slightly better for retention among Hispanic Catholics.

There is much lower religious churn among Black Protestants and among Jews who seem overall happy in their faith traditions and tend to stay there.

As for why people leave their religions, PRRI found that about two-thirds (67%) of people who leave a faith tradition say they did so because they simply stopped believing in that religion's teachings.

And nearly half (47%) of respondents who left cited negative teaching about the treatment of LGBTQ people. “Religion's negative teaching about LGBTQ people are driving younger Americans to leave church,” Deckman says. “We found that about 60% of Americans who are under the age of 30 who have left religion say they left because of their religious traditions teaching, which is a much higher rate than for older Americans.”

About one-third of religiously unaffiliated Americans say they no longer identify with their childhood religion because the religion was bad for their mental health. That response was strongest among LGBTQ respondents.

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

A California state bar judge has found that DJT's traitor lawyer John Eastman committed 10 offenses during his work to overturn the 2020 election in favor of DJT. The judge ordered Eastman into a status called involuntary retirement and ordered him to pay all California State Bar costs plus $10,000 in sanctions for being extra naughty. The California State Supreme Court will have to disbar him because the state bar court does not have that power. The 128 page decision includes these statements:

Introduction

In this contested disciplinary proceeding, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California (OCTC) charged John Charles Eastman (Eastman) with 11 counts of misconduct arising from certain activities surrounding his representation of former president Donald J. Trump and the 2020 presidential election. Eastman is charged with one count of failing to support the Constitution and laws of the United States (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068, subd. (a));1 two counts of seeking to mislead a court (§ 6068, subd. (d)); six counts of moral turpitude (🤪) by making various misrepresentations (§ 6106); and two additional counts of moral turpitude (§ 6106). After full consideration of the record, the court finds that OCTC has satisfied its burden of proving all charges except for count eleven, which the court dismisses with prejudice.

In view of the circumstances surrounding Eastman’s misconduct and balancing the aggravation and mitigation, the court recommends that Eastman be disbarred.

INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE ENROLLMENT 

John Charles Eastman is ordered transferred to involuntary inactive status pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (c)(4). His inactive enrollment will be effective three calendar days after this order is served and will terminate upon the effective date of the Supreme Court’s order imposing discipline herein, or as provided for by rule 5.111(D)(2) of the State Bar Rules of Procedure or as otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court pursuant to its plenary jurisdiction.

Good ’ole judge Roland whacks the traitor Eastman

A satisfying result

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

The WaPo reports (whole artilce not paywalled off) about the fickleness of greedy wealthy elites and their shallow to non-existent commitment to democracy and the public interest:

Many GOP billionaires balked at Jan. 6. 

They’re coming back to Trump.

Elite donors are rediscovering their affinity for the former president over taxes

The day after a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, billionaire and GOP megadonor Nelson Peltz called the attempted insurrection a “disgrace” and expressed remorse for voting for Donald Trump. “I’m sorry I did that,” Peltz said of supporting Trump in 2020.

But earlier this month, Peltz had breakfast with Trump and other billionaires — including hotelier Steve Wynn, Tesla and X CEO Elon Musk and former Marvel chairman Isaac Perlmutter — at Trump’s luxurious Palm Beach oceanfront mansion, according to people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private gathering.

The shift reflects many conservative billionaires’ fears of President Biden’s tax agenda, which if approved would drastically reduce their fortunes. In some cases, it also points to their discomfort with the Biden administration’s foreign and domestic policy decisions. Some of these billionaires have been assiduously courted by Trump and his advisers in recent months.

“If it starts to look like Trump may win, despite his legal troubles, it is inevitable that Republican business people who have not been fans will open their wallets in self-defense,” said Kathryn Wylde, CEO of the Partnership for New York City, the top lobbying group for major corporations in New York.

Things that seem to make most people mostly authoritarian include lots of power, lots of money and rigid ideology. Combined with an authoritarian personality, the allure of authoritarianism is quite strong. All the authoritarians need to do is promise to serve and protect the elites, and they get support. 

Now, combine all of that with the legalization of political corruption by the 2010 Citizens United USSC decision and the power brass knuckles capitalist power of lightly regulated corporations acting as mere innocent human beings with constitutional human rights. What does one get? One gets seductive a form of kleptocratic authoritarianism that is far too sexy and fun for the most (~85% ?) of the wealthy to resist. Same goes for authoritarian Christian nationalist elites.

That b@stard Biden is at it again… 😠

Now he’s strengthening protections in the endangered species act!  Who the hell does he think he is, trying to get things done? He’s such a disrupter to our beloved gridlock. And how are the Trump boys 'sposed to bag their big game now?  That Biden is such an @sshole! 😡

Biden administration strengthens Endangered Species Act weakened under Trump.

WTH!  Why doesn’t somebody stop this guy??

More shenanigans by Biden.

*     *     *

Elect TRUMP!  Let's Double MAGA!! 😍/s

(by PrimalSoup)

ILLEGAL INVADERS!!

OH THE HORROR! ILLEGAL INVADERS!!

Busload of ‘Illegal Invaders’ Was Actually the Gonzaga Basketball Team

On March 27, Matthew Maddock, a Republican member of the Michigan House of Representatives, tweeted two images purporting to show buses of illegal immigrants being loaded at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport.

“We know this is happening. 100,000’s of illegals are pouring into our country. We know it’s happening in Michigan,” Maddock continued in a follow-up post. “Our own governor is offering money to take them in! Since we can’t trust the #FakeNews to investigate, citizens will. The process of investigating these issues takes time.” 

The investigatory process for this incident actually took little time, however: X users quickly pointed out that the images actually depict the aircraft and buses carrying the Gonzaga University men’s basketball team. The Bulldogs touched down in Motor City on Wednesday evening in preparation for their Friday matchup against Purdue in the Sweet 16 of the 2024 NCAA men’s basketball tournament.

Maddock, however, refused to back down from his assertion, responding “sure they are kommie [communist],” and “Sure kommie. Good talking point,” to two users who suggested that the aircraft had transported the Gonzaga team.

https://thedispatch.com/article/busload-of-illegal-invaders-was-actually-the-gonzaga-basketball-team/