Random Blogging – Page 13

About That “Hoax”

I think climate change deniers will eventually be defeated by challenges to our common lives that most of us don’t currently recognize.

As Paul Krugman has recently noted, one of those is sewage.

How many people do you know whose homes aren’t connected to a sewer line? Sewers and garbage pickup are among those (largely urban) amenities that folks fulminating about “socialism” rarely consider, but they are part and parcel of important collective public health measures.

They are also services that are rarer in some parts of the country than in others.

As Krugman reminds us, many American homes, especially in the Southeast, aren’t connected to sewer lines. They have septic tanks, and these days, more and more septic tanks are overflowing. As he notes, that’s both disgusting and a threat to public health.

The cause? Climate change. Along the Gulf and South Atlantic coasts, The Washington Post reported last week, “sea levels have risen at least six inches since 2010.” This may not sound like much, but it leads to rising groundwater and elevated risks of overflowing tanks.

The emerging sewage crisis is only one of many disasters we can expect as the planet continues to warm, and nowhere near the top of the list. But it seems to me to offer an especially graphic illustration of two points. First, the damage from climate change is likely to be more severe than even pessimists have tended to believe. Second, mitigation and adjustment — which are going to be necessary, because we’d still be headed for major effects of climate change even if we took immediate action to greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions — will probably be far more difficult, as a political matter, than it should be.

At this point in my initial reading of the linked column, I rolled my eyes–because these days, anything and everything is more difficult as a political matter than it should be. When a significant percentage of the population insists on denying science, scholarship, logic, fact–opting to discount what their own “lying eyes” are trying to tell them–political gridlock is inevitable.

As Krugman points out,

Estimating the costs of climate change and, relatedly, the costs polluters impose every time they emit another ton of carbon dioxide requires fusing results from two disciplines. On one side, we need physical scientists to figure out how much greenhouse gas emissions will warm the planet, how this will change weather patterns and so on. On the other, we need economists to estimate how these physical changes will affect productivity, health care costs and more.

Actually, there’s a third dimension: social and geopolitical risk. How, for example, will we deal with millions or tens of millions of climate refugees? But I don’t think anyone knows how to quantify those risks.

Krugman, of course, is an economist, and he worries that the efforts so far to estimate economic costs of climate change have failed to take things like septic tank failures into account.

So what are we going to do about it? Even if we were to take drastic steps to reduce emissions right now, many of the consequences of past emissions, including much bigger increases in sea level than we’ve seen so far, are already, as it were, baked in. So we’re going to have to take a wide range of steps to mitigate the damage — including expanding sewer systems to limit the rising tide of, um, sludge.

But will we take those steps? Climate denial was originally all about fossil fuel interests, and to some extent it still is. But it has also become a front in the culture war, with politicians like Ron DeSantis of Florida — who happens to be the governor of one of the states at greatest immediate risk — apparently deciding that even mentioning climate change is woke.

Evidently, DeSantis’ definition of “woke” is “rational and informed.” Logic tell us that refusing to mention climate change–or the existence of gay people–won’t make either one disappear.

What will the politicians pandering to the frightened and angry folks frantic to reject any evidence of things they dislike or can’t understand–politicians like Indiana’s Jim Banks, who insists that climate change is a “hoax”– say when their constituents’ septic tanks fail? What will DeSantis say when significant portions of Florida are underwater. (I wonder who he’s blaming now for the rapidly growing inability of Florida residents to get property insurance–gay people??)

The disappearance of homeowners’ insurance and the failure of septic tanks are just two of the largely unanticipated–and logically inevitable– consequences of climate change. There will be others, no matter how many culture warriors like Jim Banks stand athwart reality yelling “hoax.”

Comments

Speaking Of Indoctrination

A few days ago, I highlighted the growth of “below-the-radar” volunteer organizations working to inform citizens and get out the progressive (okay, the anti-lunacy) vote. I was encouraged to discover how many efforts of which I’d previously been unaware– were underway in Indiana and elsewhere.

But of course, what’s sauce for the goose…A post at Juanita Jean reported on a similar phenomenon--but from the Right.

Those of us who get our information from the (mostly) reliable traditional news sources have been made aware of the many semi-secret organizations working to replace secular democracy with Christian Nationalism–from groups of wealthy and ostensibly respectable businessmen to the considerably less “socially acceptable” militia members. The linked post offers yet another illustration of the well-known Republican predilection for projection– blaming others for one’s own behaviors. This is yet another example of the hypocrisy of those insisting that “libruls” and public schools are engaged in “indoctrination.”

As Half-Empty writes at Juanita Jean,

What do Sean Spicer, General Michael Flynn (ret.), Jack Posobiec, Dan Crenshaw, Mike Waltz, Dana Loesch, Dinesh D’Souza, and John Solomon all have in common?

If you guessed they were all January 6th supporters or TFG idolizers, you would be correct, but they also have one basic thing in common: they are all Kid Lit authors.

At least they are now.

All of the above and more belong to the new constellation of stars being offered by Houston-based Brave Books. Brave Books proudly offers “Pro-God, Pro-America children’s books.” They tout their books to be “faith-based children’s books teaching American values for a brighter future.”

Brave Books features such titles as “The Island of Free Ice Cream,” which instructs children “that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is,” and “Fame, Blame and the Raft of Shame,” which teaches children “the dangers of cancel culture.”

I kid you not.

As Half Empty notes, most parents of toddlers consider colorfully illustrated children’s books a must-have. And such children are still in their formative years; they are not yet capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, and far too immature to consider complications or shades of gray. Toddlers and very young children are ripe for socialization/indoctrination.

Early indoctrination of children is not a new concept. Early in the Soviet Era, children of the USSR were encouraged to join Little Octobrists (октября́та) in order to become lively, active, healthy, disciplined youngsters who subordinate themselves to the collective.

At about the same time, a similar program was offered in Germany called Deutsches Jungvolk and Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) for older male children.

The difference between then and now, obviously, is that in the present case, the children’s books are offered by a private business, and the earlier indoctrination programs were government run.

Apparently, however, even that distinction blurs.

While not government entities themselves, there are three examples of government-related organizations that do participate in indoctrination. In May 2023, the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) purchased $5,193.00 of these books in order to provide gift mementos to its donors. In November 2022, the Michael Waltz Campaign (FL – 06) bought $580.00 worth of books for supporters. In May 2022, the principal campaign committee of Matt Gaetz (FL – 01) purchased $2,555.80 worth for “supporter gifts.”

As Half-Empty notes, these GOP tactics amount to a “win-win” scenario:

authors get paid for their works, donors get rewarded for donating, and young children are told about the evils of boycotts and getting free stuff (eg., ice cream, EBT, Healthcare, and Social Security).

In this scenario, when you are in a majority, you maintain the majority by early indoctrination of future voters. If you find yourself in a shrinking minority, it is even more important to indoctrinate them.

I will admit to being dubious about the long-term success of these efforts at early childhood indoctrination. On the other hand, the parents who use these books (assuming that recipients of these GOP “gifts” are parents who actually do read to their children–or read at all) are likely to pursue other childrearing practices that reinforce the book’s “lessons.” Although the likely impact of this particular effort is low, its existence reflects the pervasiveness of GOP efforts to compensate for the party’s minority status–its determination to turn back the clock to a time when White Christian males dominated a patriarchal American society.

What worries me is that these sorts of underground efforts have to be considered in context: an extensive media (Faux, etc.) reinforcing Rightwing disinformation, a voting population that is largely civically-illiterate, and the persistent racism of a considerable portion of the American public.

It’s that context that keeps me up at night…

Comments

The Vision Thing

I still remember when George H.W. Bush introduced the phrase “the vision thing” into political discourse. (Bush, of course, was routinely criticized for deficits in the vision department.) This year, we have Presidential candidates who offer us dramatically different “vision things.”

President Biden has been explicit about his goals–his “visions” of a fair America. Perhaps the best summary of his vision comes from his often-employed phrase “from the middle out.” Biden wants to strengthen and increase the middle class by ensuring the availability of jobs paying living wages, and by supporting the full inclusion of women and minorities in the workforce and civic life (those “DEI” efforts hysterically denounced by MAGA folks).

Although Trump’s “vision” is difficult to discern from his incoherent speeches and verbal tics, it’s easy enough to see the autocratic and racist goals communicated through his rambling word-salads. Those who want more comprehensible specifics about his plans for a second term need only consult the Heritage Foundation plan endorsed by his campaign: Project 2025. Project 2025 is a compendium of chilling and profoundly anti-American policies that the radical Right has long pursued–including use of the military to round up dissidents and immigrants, federal laws banning abortion and favoring a White male patriarchy, and numerous other policies inconsistent with civic equality and civil liberties.

Trump’s “vision” can be illustrated by Project 2025’s approach to urban life. The Guardian recently reported on a section describing the proposed “handling” of so-called “sanctuary cities.”

Trump has for years railed against cities, particularly those run by Democratic officials, as hotbeds for crime and moral decay. He called Atlanta a “record setting Murder and Violent Crime War Zone” last year, a similar claim he makes frequently about various cities.

His allies have an idea of how to capitalize on that agenda and make cities in Trump’s image, detailed in the conservative Project 2025: unleash new police forces on cities like Washington DC, withhold federal disaster and emergency grants unless they follow immigration policies like detaining undocumented immigrants and share sensitive data with the federal government for immigration enforcement purposes.

Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, an extensive document breaking down each part of the federal government and recommending changes to be made to advance rightwing policy, was created by the Heritage Foundation, with dozens of conservative organizations and prominent names contributing chapters based on their backgrounds.

This part of the project is another Republican attempt at a crackdown on so-called “sanctuary” cities, places around the country that don’t cooperate with the federal government on enforcing harsh immigration policies.

A prime target is Washington DC. Trump’s stump speech includes accusing the city of crime, graffiti and general mismanagement–and promising that the federal government will take over the city and run it. Since Trump’s own incompetence at running anything is fairly obvious, Project 2025 maps out the “how.” It includes using the Secret Service to police the city–despite the fact that, under current law, the Secret Service lacks any authority to enforce laws outside the White House and its immediate surrounding area. (“Laws can be changed…”)

It isn’t just D.C.

The article noted that Trump has called America’s cities “uninspiring” and has talked about building “freedom cities” on federal lands– new cities (with flying cars!) that would be erected on unspecified vacant, federally owned land. He’s invited local leaders to work with him to get rid of “ugly buildings” and build new monuments to “our true American heroes”.

(When I read these remarks, I had a sudden, nauseating vision of cities composed of multiple, garish Trump towers erected on “vacant” national park land, populated by “freedom-loving” White men and their “tradwives.” I’m not sure who’d work in the restaurants of this city, since there wouldn’t be any of those brown-skinned immigrants…but then, Right-wing fantasies have never been noted for their logic…)

I am one of many Americans who do find the nation’s cities inspiring. As I have previously noted, my husband and I live in the urban center of our city–where an increasingly diverse population routinely introduces us to new foods, new musical and artistic trends, and new political and religious perspectives. Our city–like most American cities–is currently experiencing a blossoming of cultural and sporting offerings, and women and minority folks are prominent in government and business, as well as in sports and the arts.

In short, my everyday urban experience is the antithesis of the Rightwing’s wet dream of returning to the 1950s.

The terrifying goals described in Project 2025 illustrate the vast gulf between the visions of MAGA folks and the rest of us. In November, voters won’t simply choose between partisan candidates. We will choose between incompatible visions of America’s future.

Comments

Alito

Donald Trump– now a convicted felon–will undoubtedly still get millions of votes. (Hopefully, not enough to win back the Presidency.) And then, there’s the Supreme Court, where Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito– both manifestly unfit to serve on any court, let alone the highest court– thumb their noses at their critics.

Let’s talk about Alito.

The New Republic recently reminded us of the multiple bases for original opposition to Alito’s nomination. There was the legal memo he’d authored in 1985 articulating his opposition to legal abortion–contrasted with his assurances to Senator Ted Kennedy that he would never vote to overturn Roe; his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton, an organization that opposed increasing admission of women and racial minorities; and later, his refusal to recuse himself in two cases involving companies in which he had financial interest, even after he pledged to do so.

Kennedy gave a thunderous address on behalf of the people that the “liberal coalition” aimed to represent, warning on the Senate floor of the dangers of Alito’s extreme ideology: “If you are concerned and you want a justice that’s going to stand for the working men and women in this country—it’s not going to be Judge Alito. If you are concerned about women’s privacy rights, about the opportunity for women to gain fair employment in America—it’s not Judge Alito. If you care about the disabled … the Disability Act that we have passed to bring all of the disabled into our society, if you are looking for someone that is going to be a friend of the disabled—it’s not going to be Judge Alito.

Despite ample evidence of his dishonesty and rigid ideology, Alito was confirmed, and he has proved to be every bit as unethical and reactionary as Kennedy warned.

In the wake of the recent flag controversy–all of which this self-appointed arbiter of righteousness gallantly blames on his wife and most of which he has lied about–Alito is refusing demands that he recuse himself from cases involving January 6th and Trump.

As Robert Hubbell recently pointed out, the argument for recusal is painfully obvious. If Alito’s wife had flown a flag with a Swastika over their house, could Alito credibly claim that he had asked his wife to remove the flag but that she had refused because she “liked flags?” Could he credibly claim he didn’t understand the antisemitic meaning of a Nazi flag, and that there was thus no reason to recuse himself from a pending case about antisemitic speech?

Of course not.

Despite Alito’s breathtaking arrogance and dishonesty, the decision to recuse or not is not his to make. As Congressman Jamie Raskin has written in a New York Times op-ed, a constitutional provision and judicial precedents require both Alito and Thomas to recuse in these matters.

The Constitution, and the federal laws under it, is the “supreme law of the land,” and the recusal statute explicitly treats Supreme Court justices like other judges: “Any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The only justices in the federal judiciary are the ones on the Supreme Court.

This recusal statute, if triggered, is not a friendly suggestion. It is Congress’s command, binding on the justices, just as the due process clause is. The Supreme Court cannot disregard this law just because it directly affects one or two of its justices. Ignoring it would trespass on the constitutional separation of powers because the justices would essentially be saying that they have the power to override a congressional command…

Courts generally have found that any reasonable doubts about a judge’s partiality must be resolved in favor of recusal. A judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” While recognizing that the “challenged judge enjoys a margin of discretion,” the courts have repeatedly held that “doubts ordinarily ought to be resolved in favor of recusal.” After all, the reputation of the whole tribunal and public confidence in the judiciary are both on the line….

Chief Justice Roberts assured America that “Judges are like umpires.”

But professional baseball would never allow an umpire to continue to officiate the World Series after learning that the pennant of one of the two teams competing was flying in the front yard of the umpire’s home. Nor would an umpire be allowed to call balls and strikes in a World Series game after the umpire’s wife tried to get the official score of a prior game in the series overthrown and canceled out to benefit the losing team. If judges are like umpires, then they should be treated like umpires, not team owners, team fans or players.

Alito and Thomas are a disgrace to the bench. They should be impeached. That undoubtedly won’t happen unless the Democrats win a trifecta in November.

Comments

Speaking Of Lunatics…

Third-party candidates in two-party America share several characteristics, one of which might be called a martyr complex. After all, application of elementary logic leads to the inevitable conclusion that–while such a candidate might manage to be a spoiler depriving one of the major party nominees of success–he or she has zero chance of actually winning.

That logic explains why so many of these “spoiler” candidates are–to put it mildly–less than rational. While some social activists probably run simply to make a point or to bring attention to a pet issue–Ralph Nader comes to mind– others come to us straight from their private fantasy-lands.

This year, for example, Robert F. Kennedy’s quixotic candidacy comes directly from an alternate universe. If this sad, deluded man was not a member of a storied political family, he’d have been escorted off the public stage a long time ago. As an article in Mother Jones recently pointed out, his distance from reality isn’t limited to his anti-vaccine beliefs, and far too much of the media coverage of his campaign has served to normalize this very abnormal man.

He’s a conspiracy theorist who has made a lot of money pushing baseless or disproven notions about vaccines, Covid, and other hot-button subjects. At the start of his 2024 presidential bid, the media reported his history as a disinformationalist on multiple fronts. Yet now he’s largely covered as another character in the ongoing presidential horse race.

Most of the recent stories about him focus on his standing in the polls, what voters he’s attracting, and speculation regarding his potential impact on the outcome. In such pieces, his extreme conspiracism is often not conveyed fully and sometimes not even mentioned. A recent Washington Post story on Kennedy family members endorsing President Joe Biden noted in mild fashion that RFK Jr. “has embraced controversial, unfounded claims on issues including vaccines and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.” A Wall Street Journal article on chaos within his campaign merely said Kennedy “has promoted conspiracy theories—in particular on vaccines—and espouses political views from across the spectrum.” A New York Times piece referred to him as a “vaccine skeptic” who has promoted “vaccine misinformation and conspiracy theories about the government.”

The article proceeded to focus on one of Kennedy’s many conspiracy theories–one that has received minimal coverage– noting that “He is much further around the bend than [the media] indicates. With his advancement of unhinged and outlandish conspiracy theories, RFK Jr. is in the league of Alex Jones.”

The author noted RFK, Jr.’s evidently fervent belief that a “global elite led by the CIA had been planning for years to use a pandemic to end democracy and impose totalitarian control on the entire world,” a claim he has repeated at public events and on podcasts, and for which he has claimed to have proof. That “proof” revolves around something called “Event 201.” During one interview, Kennedy told listeners who might be skeptical of his description of that event to “do the research. The meeting is still on YouTube.”

As the Mother Jones article notes, the video of Event 201 does indeed remain on YouTube—”as does an entire website devoted to the exercise—and it in no way matches Kennedy’s description. Not even close.”

The remainder of the lengthy article takes each description of that event offered by JFK, Jr. and patiently and thoroughly debunks it.

Other claims made by Kennedy have been shown to be equally unfounded/unscientific/looney. He has asserted that chemicals present in water sources cause transgender identity, has repeatedly endorsed the idea that the increase in mass shootings is due to heightened use of antidepressants, and has accused the CIA of assassinating his uncle. Just last June, in an interview with the Washington Post, he reaffirmed his belief that Republicans had stolen the 2004 election, and that John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, had really won.

In his defense, it is likely that Kennedy (unlike con artists like Alex Jones) actually believes these things. That is sad. It is sadder still that many Americans tell pollsters they plan to vote for him, in most cases not because they agree with any of his bizarre assertions, but because they are unaware of how demented he really is. The only thing they know about him is his name, and that he is the nephew of the former President.

If MAGA’s devotion to Trump hadn’t already proved the extent of American political ignorance and hostility to reality, the fact that a meaningful percentage of voters claim to be supporting this very troubled man should conclusively prove the point.

Comments