Join us at our brand new blog - Blue Country Gazette - created for those who think "BLUE." Go to www.bluecountrygazette.blogspot.com

YOUR SOURCE FOR TRUTH

Saturday, October 24, 2020

The Trump Campaign Blew $1 Billion on Private Jet Rides, Trump Properties, and Don Jr.'s Shitty Book

 Donald J. Trump speaking in front of one of his planes in Columbus, Ohio, in March. (photo: Mark Makela/The New York Times)
Donald J. Trump speaking in front of one of his planes in Columbus, Ohio, in March.  One of his planes?  How many planes do you have?  Maybe if you didn't pay your taxes you could afford many beautiful planes too.  (photo: Mark Makela/The New York Times)

By Bess Levin, Vanity Fair

22 October 20

readersupportednews.org

Now it can’t even afford to air ads in key swing states.

ne of the great myths that propelled Donald Trump into the White House in 2016 was that he was a genius businessman who would use his singular negotiating skills to restore America’s so-called greatness. In reality, he was a total failure who put six companies into bankruptcy and only did well for himself playing the part of a successful businessman on TV (and using multimillion dollar losses to basically never pay taxes). Of course, Trump never told supporters that their savior nearly went broke due to a series of very bad business decisions, just like his campaign hasn’t tweeted about the fact that it’s strapped for cash after blowing most of its money on legal fees, Trump properties, private jet rides, and his eldest son’s book.

The Associated Press reports that despite having raised over $1 billion since 2017, the president’s reelection campaign has “set a lot of it on fire.” One of the biggest tells is that Joe Biden and his Democratic allies are expected to outspend Trump and the GOP by more than 2-to-1 on ads in the final days of the campaign, reportedly because Trump just doesn’t have the cash:

On Monday, the firm Medium Buying reported Trump was canceling ads in Wisconsin; Minnesota, which Trump had hoped to flip; and Ohio, which went for Trump in 2016 but now appears to be a tight contest. It’s a reversal from May, when Biden’s campaign was strapped for cash and [former campaign manager Brad] Parscale ominously compared the Trump campaign to a “Death Star” that was about to “start pressing FIRE for the first time.”

Trump is now in a position that’s virtually unthinkable for an incumbent president, said Travis Ridout, codirector of the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks advertising spending. “Advertising obviously isn’t everything. But we do think ads matter for a couple percentage points in a presidential race. And it’s just not a good sign for the Trump campaign,” Ridout said.

Where the campaign has dropped major money on advertising, it might as well have put the cash through an industrial shredder for all the impact it made. In January, Trump spent $10 million on a Super Bowl ad when he didn’t even have a Democratic challenger, in a pointless pissing contest with Mike Bloomberg. Last fall, he dropped $250,000 on an ad that ran during Game 7 of the World Series, after the booing against him reached “almost 100 decibels” during Game 5. The campaign also sunk $1.6 million on TV ads in the Washington, D.C., media market—where he received a humiliating 4% of the vote in 2016 and has no chance of winning in 2020—so Trump could gaze adoringly at himself during Fox News commercial breaks. Additionally, Parscale reportedly purchased “a fleet of luxury vehicles“; surrogates were flown on private jets; and it wouldn’t be a Trump operation if the candidate wasn’t charging his own campaign to stay at his properties to the tune of more than $7.4 million since 2017. “They spent their money on unnecessary overhead, lifestyles-of-the-rich-and-famous activity by the campaign staff and vanity ads,” Mike Murphy, a Republican consultant, told the AP. “You could literally have 10 monkeys with flamethrowers go after the money, and they wouldn’t have burned through it as stupidly.”

Naturally, money also went toward legal fees ($38.7 million), merchandise ($35.2 million), and relocating the Republican National Convention after a fight with North Carolina’s governor over coronavirus safety measures. And obviously donors must have known six-figures worth of their contributions would be put toward the first son’s crack at literature:

Nearly $100,000 [was] spent on copies of Donald Trump Jr.’s book Triggered, which helped propel it to the top of the New York Times bestsellers list.

Meanwhile, $310 million can’t be accounted for because it went through limited liability firms, which is precisely the amount of sketchy one should expect from Team Trump. And while campaign manager Bill Stepien insisted that money is not an issue, donors seem to be growing suspicious about whether their money is in good hands:

Republican megadonor Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, recently donated $75 million to Preserve America, a new pro-Trump super political action committee that is not controlled by Trump World political operatives. One of the reasons the group was founded in August is because there is deep distrust among some GOP donors that the existing pro-Trump organizations would spend the money wisely, according to a Republican strategist with direct knowledge of the matter.

Did Trump throw a massive hissy fit during his interview with Lesley Stahl?

It definitely sounds like it!

President Donald Trump abruptly ended a solo interview with CBS News’ 60 Minutes Tuesday and did not return for an appearance he was supposed to tape with Vice President Mike Pence, according to multiple sources familiar with what happened. After camera crews set up at the White House on Monday, Trump sat down with host Lesley Stahl for about 45 minutes on Tuesday before he abruptly ended the interview and told the network he believed they had enough material to use, according to two sources.

Later, the president—late of ignoring the pandemic, refusing to wear a mask, and contracting the virus through total fault of his own—tweeted what appears to be a surreptitiously recorded video of Stahl not wearing a mask, which is definitely something someone who’s confident in how their interview went does:

Incidentally, Stahl had COVID-19 in May and recovered from it, which, according to the president, should make her immune.

Mitch McConnell warns White House to avoid stimulus deal before election

Why would the GOP rush to get much needed aid out to Americans affected by the pandemic when it could fuck with Democrats for sport for a few more weeks?

Prospects for an economic relief package in the next two weeks dimmed markedly on Tuesday after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) revealed that he has warned the White House not to strike an agreement with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi before the the November 3 election. In remarks at a closed-door Senate GOP lunch, McConnell told his colleagues that Pelosi (D-Calif.) is not negotiating in good faith with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and any deal they reach could disrupt the Senate’s plans to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court next week. Republicans have voiced concerns that a stimulus deal could splinter the party and exacerbate divisions at a time when they are trying to rally behind the Supreme Court nominee. The comments were confirmed by three people who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss them.

McConnell’s attempted intervention came as Pelosi and Mnuchin continued negotiating over the roughly $2 trillion economic relief package. Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said the “conversation provided more clarity and common ground as they move closer to an agreement.” But no deal can become law without McConnell’s blessing, and his direct warning to the White House imperils the chances of any bill becoming law in the next two weeks.

As the Washington Post notes, a poll released Tuesday showed overwhelming support for a stimulus package, so it makes sense that McConnell would want to avoid doing something Americans actually want. “The recovery has slowed and without more help it is at risk of backsliding. Neither the virus nor the economic damages it has wrought are gone, and policymakers would be making a serious mistake to act as if they were,” Adam Ozimek, chief economist at Upwork, told the Post.

And whatever you do, don't let them buy airplanes.  (A piece of memorabilia that is just as valid today as it was in 2014.)
 

Friday, October 23, 2020

Trump blamed children for family separation: ‘A lot of these kids come out without the parents’

US President Donald Trump (L) and Democratic Presidential candidate and former US Vice President Joe Biden arrive onstage for the final presidential debate at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee, on October 22, 2020. (Photo by Jim WATSON / AFP) (Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images)

As the debate comes to an end, the important topics of immigration and race are left to discuss. Since Donald Trump’s campaign for the presidency, he has promised to come down on immigration and shared his consistent xenophobic ideology. In the most recent news of cruel actions the Trump administration has taken, a report found that more than 500 children kidnapped from their parents under the guise of Trump’s family separation policies have not been reunited with their parents, some after at least three years of separation. This is due to the sole fact that Trump deported these parents quickly without a trace.

When asked about this issue during the debate, Trump failed to acknowledge the separated families and what actions if any he would take to reunite them. Instead, he continued his racist rants on how these children are allegedly brought to the U.S. “Children are brought here by coyotes and lots of bad people, cartels, and they are brought here and they use them to get into our country,” Trump said. He then dove into gloating about his campaign promise of building a border wall. “We now have as strong of the border as we've ever had. We are over 400 miles of brand-new wall.”

Luckily, the moderator asked her question again and did not care for Trump’s attempt to distract. But, alas, it is Trump, so he still avoided the question and attempted to target the Obama Administration for the cages he has been putting children in. It wasn’t until the moderator made a third attempt at asking the question that Trump even mentioned the word the “kids.”

But did he take responsibility? Of course not. He instead tried to blame the children for not being reunited with their parents. “A lot of these kids come out without the parents. They come over through cartels and through coyotes and through gangs,” Trump said. Not to mention he claimed that the horrible ICE facilities and cages children are put in are “so clean.”

Joe Biden, on the other hand, addressed the issue face-front and said that these children “were ripped from parents arms and separated” and are now alone “with nowhere to go.” He also addressed Trump’s allegation of who built the cages and took responsibility for his role as former vice president.

“I made a mistake. It took too long to get it right, it took too long to get it right. I'll be president of the United States, not vice president. The fact is, I’ve made it very clear. within 100 days, I am going to send the United States Congress a pathway to citizenship for over 11 million undocumented people. All of those so-called dreamers, those docket kids, they will be immediately certified to be able to stay in this country and put on a path to citizenship.” 

The debate continued with Trump’s inability to answer and consistent attempts to distract the conversation toward the Obama administration and its immigration policies. But in the end the one comment that has been the talk of the night is whether or not Trump said “good” after Biden reminded him that the takeaway of this question was that more than 500 children are still separated from their parents. 

Although we all know Trump is not kind, while the comment initially sounds like he said “good” to this horrific statement the truth is he said “go ahead.” That doesn’t change the fact that Trump still holds a racist and xenophobic agenda and continues to blame immigrants for the struggles he puts them through. Saying “go ahead” in itself also depicts his lack of concern for the issue. 

Some pictures need no caption.  Except VOTE!

 

Thursday, October 22, 2020

Trump administration considering slashing COVID-19 aid to areas of the country he hates

WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 30: U.S. President Donald Trump gives pauses to answer a reporters' question about a whistleblower as he leaves the Oval Office after hosting the ceremonial swearing in of Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia at the White House September 30, 2019 in Washington, DC. Scalia was nominated by Trump to lead the Labor Department after Alex Acosta resigned under criticism over a plea deal he reached with Jeffrey Epstein. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Think lawless and impeached president Donald Trump has run out of demented ways to use the full force of the federal government to hurt his perceived political enemies, a.k.a. entire blue regions of the country? Well, think again. Mr. “Most Pro-Life President in American History” is reportedly considering cutting funding for newborn screenings and COVID-19 relief (during the middle of a fucking pandemic) from a number of major cities led by Democrats, Politico reports.

“New York, Portland, Ore., Washington, D.C., and Seattle could lose funding for a wide swath of programs that serve their poorest, sickest residents after the president moved last month to restrict funding,” the report said, “escalating his political battle against liberal cities he’s sought to use as a campaign foil.” But even if this Health and Human Services (HHS) proposal stays a proposal, this corrupt president has already been unabashedly using federal agencies against communities for the sole purpose of his reelection.

Pennsylvania is the tipping-point state, and Republicans know it. Joe Biden should win, but only if we can get out the Democratic vote. Click here to get involved in phonebanking, textbanking & other crucial volunteer activities we need for the FINAL DAYS to deliver the Keystone State for Democrats.

In the swing state of Pennsylvania, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has used taxpayer funds to plaster anti-immigrant propaganda on billboards in a Nazi-like campaign that even administration officials have privately admitted is nothing but Trumpian politics: “[t]wo officials with knowledge of plans for the sanctuary op described it as more of a political messaging campaign than a major ICE operation,” The Washington Post reported last month. “The campaign is rare, if not unprecedented,” the Associated Press said.

ICE is also currently terrorizing communities led by Democrats, conducting raids in San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, and the New York City area, with the administration deploying unlawfully appointed acting Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Chad Wolf to basically act as a campaign surrogate. That includes trotting him out to announce the “fairly routine operation” that’s actually “resulted in a fairly low number of arrests,” the AP continued (likely thanks to local policies that limit cooperation with the mass deportation agency).

Under the HHS proposal, even more vulnerable populations in some of these regions would be targeted in absolutely obscene ways.

An HIV treatment initiative—slashed. Research into lung disease—sounds like something that might be good to know during a pandemic that affects the lungs?—slashed. “The list also includes funding for other programs,” the report continues, “like $423,000 for universal hearing screenings for newborns in the District of Columbia, housing for people in addiction recovery in Seattle, and services providing nutrition and mental health counseling to elderly New Yorkers.”

All, of course, impacting areas that the impeached president views not as his constituents and integral parts of this vast and diverse nation, but instead as enemies. After all, recall that Trump initially turned down California’s request for an emergency declaration following a number of horrific wildfires. Should Trump lose reelection in just days (and please God let him lose), God help us all if this spiteful asshole gets into “payback” mode with the help of his buddies including noted white supremacist aide Stephen Miller. (That, in particular, is among my latest worries at night, FYI.)

“DHS is supposed to be a law enforcement agency. But under lackeys such as Chad Wolf and Ken Cuccinelli, DHS has become a political arm of the Trump campaign,” immigrant rights leader and America’s Voice found Frank Sharry said. “When armed agents of the state defer to an autocratic leader who threatens to undermine the legitimacy of a free and fair election, democracy is imperiled.”

“Chad Wolf’s paycheck is paid for by American taxpayers, not Trump’s reelection campaign,” he continued. “Hyped immigration raids in blue cities, election-year billboards in swing states, and photo ops at the border wall are not aimed at serving the public, they are aimed at pleasing a desperate and losing candidate.”

How red can Trump get?  Just watch him screw the blue states out of COVID 19 help.

 

Wednesday, October 21, 2020

Pope Francis Calls For Same-Sex Civil Union Law In New Documentary

Pope Francis attends a inter-religious ceremony for peace in the Basilica of Santa Maria in Aracoeli, in Rome, on Tuesday.

Gregorio Borgia/AP

Updated at 2:42 p.m. ET

Pope Francis has called for legislation to protect same-sex couples, according to comments he made in a new documentary that mark a break from Catholic doctrine.

"Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They are children of God and have a right to a family," the pope said in an interview in the documentary Francesco, which premiered Wednesday at the Rome Film Festival. "What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered."

Francis noted he has stood up for civil unions before, but his remarks in the documentary go beyond what he has said previously and sharply diverge from the view of his predecessors. LGBTQ rights groups hailed the comments as a major step but, along with conservative religious groups, they raised questions about the context of the quotes delivered in a movie and how much weight the comments held.

Before he became the pontiff, then-Archbishop of Buenos Aires Jorge Bergoglio opposed same-sex marriage legislation but supported some level of legal protection for same-sex couples.

So Judge Amy is a Catholic and the Pope now says gay marriage is cool.  How will she reconcile her anti-gay decisions past and future?  God is watching.

 

 


Tuesday, October 20, 2020

Trump and Barrett's Threat to Abortion and LGBTQ Rights Is Simply Un-American

"Get us outta here!"  Back when Trump claimed to be a Democrat, he was pro-choice.  Bet he wishes these two hadn't slipped through the cracks.  But they are certainly wise beyond their years.

Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)

By Robert Reich, Guardian UK

20 October 20

readersupportednews.org

Republicans won’t tell Americans to wear masks to beat Covid, but will say what women and gay people can and cannot do

rump and many Republicans insist that whether to wear a mask or to go to work during a pandemic should be personal choices. Yet what a woman does with her own body, or whether same-sex couples can marry, should be decided by government.

It’s a tortured, upside-down view of freedom. Yet it’s remarkably prevalent even as the pandemic resurges – America is back up to more than 60,000 new cases a day, the highest rate since July, and numbers continue to rise – and as the Senate considers Trump’s pick for the supreme court.

By contrast, Joe Biden has wisely declared he would do “whatever it takes” to stop the pandemic, including mandating masks and locking down the entire economy if scientists recommend it.

“I would shut it down; I would listen to the scientists,” he said.

Biden also wants to protect both abortion and same-sex marriage from government intrusion – in 2012 he memorably declared his support of the latter before even Barack Obama did so.

Trump’s opposite approaches, discouraging masks and other Covid restrictions while seeking government intrusion into the most intimate decisions anyone makes, have become the de facto centerpieces of his campaign.

At his “town hall” on Thursday night, Trump falsely claimed that most people who wear masks contract the virus.

He also criticized governors for ordering lockdowns, adding that the Michigan governor, Gretchen Whitmer, “wants to be a dictator”. He was speaking just one week after state and federal authorities announced they had thwarted an alleged plot to kidnap and possibly kill Whitmer.

The attorney general, William Barr – once again contesting Trump for the most wacky analogy – has called state lockdown orders the “greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history” since slavery.

Yet at the very same time Trump and his fellow-travelers defend people’s freedom to infect others or become infected with Covid-19, they’re inviting government to intrude into the most intimate aspects of personal life.

Trump has promised that the supreme court’s 1973 Roe v Wade decision, establishing a federal right to abortion, will be reversed “because I am putting pro-life justices on the court”.

Much of the controversy over Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett hinges on her putative willingness to repeal Roe.

While an appeals court judge, Barrett ruled in favor of a law requiring doctors to inform the parents of any minor seeking an abortion, without exceptions, and also joined a dissent suggesting an Indiana law requiring burial or cremation of fetal remains was constitutional.

A Justice Barrett might also provide the deciding vote for reversing Obergefell v Hodges, the 2015 supreme court decision protecting same-sex marriage. Only three members of the majority in that case remain on the court.

Barrett says her views are rooted in the “text” of the constitution. That’s a worrisome omen given that earlier this month justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito opined that the right to same-sex marriage “is found nowhere in the text” of the constitution.

What’s public, what’s private and where should government intervene? The question suffuses the impending election and much else in modern American life.

It is nonsensical to argue, as do Trump and his allies, that government cannot mandate masks or close businesses during a pandemic but can prevent women from having abortions and same-sex couples from marrying.

The underlying issue is the common good, what we owe each other as members of the same society.

During wartime, we expect government to intrude on our daily lives for the common good: drafting us into armies, converting our workplaces and businesses, demanding we sacrifice normal pleasures and conveniences. During a pandemic as grave as this one we should expect no less intrusion, in order that we not expose others to the risk of contracting the virus.

But we have no right to impose on others our moral or religious views about when life begins or the nature and meaning of marriage. The common good requires instead that we honor such profoundly personal decisions.

Public or private? We owe it to each other to understand the distinction.

Let's think this through: The Donald doesn't want women to have the right to terminate a pregnancy, but it's OK for him to murder over 200,000 Americans by not dealing with COVID-19 in a responsible manner.  Not to mention how he has managed to behead Lady Liberty by trampling on the very tenets upon which our country was founded.
 

Monday, October 19, 2020

There's a reason Republicans are pretending they don’t know how to say Kamala Harris’ name

WASHINGTON, DC - AUGUST 2: (AFP OUT) U.S. President Donald Trump and Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) listen as Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) makes an announcement on the introduction of the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on August 2, 2017 in Washington, DC. The act aims to overhaul U.S. immigration by moving towards a "merit-based" system. (Photo by Zach Gibson - Pool/Getty Images)
First we mispronounce their names and then we grab them by their pussies.

“Comma-la.” That is how you say Sen. Kamala Harris’ name. She says it correctly every time she introduces herself. The media gets it right, mostly. Yet because she’s Black, because she’s Indian, because she’s a woman, and because she’s a Democrat about to be vice president, Republicans are making a point to mispronounce her name, all in the hopes of knocking her down a few pegs through the petty act of othering. 

Donald Trump’s rally of desperation in Macon, Georgia, on Friday was an absolute shitshow. Chants of “Lock them up” as the impeached president grinned. Wrongful declarations that the pandemic was over. A gotdang “Democrat” state senator crowd-surfing in a suit and without a mask. And as the opening act to the gold-plated president’s ego-strokefest, we saw the willful othering of a U.S. senator and vice presidential candidate by a Republican surrogate who is as desperate to keep his seat as the super spreader’s orange-tinged headliner.

Georgia Republican Sen. David Perdue’s communications director sent out something resembling an apology after he got called out far and wide for his nasty mocking of his colleague’s name. “(H)e didn't mean anything by it,” John Burke tweeted Friday evening, before launching into a diatribe about “the radical socialist agenda” and Perdue’s opponent, Daily Kos-endorsed Democrat Jon Ossoff. 

To quote the fearless Emma Gonzalez, I call BS.

Othering is a nasty thing, and it goes beyond mispronouncing names. In this case, Perdue even managed to slide in an “Obama” in the last beat of his absolutely intentional butchering of Sen. Harris’ name.

My opponent, GOP Sen. David Perdue of anti-Semitic attack ad infamy, just mocked Sen. Harris' name as "Kamala-mala-mala-whatever" at a Trump rally. We are so much better than this.

 The willful othering of Sen. Harris demonstrated by both Trump and Perdue, among other Republicans, is more than a minor error: It’s a dogwhistle. It’s an attempt to minimize and distract from someone’s credibility. It’s a reminder that those who are different are a threat. 

Writing for the San Francisco Chronicle just days after Harris was announced as Joe Biden’s running mate, Lauren Hernández and Rachel Swan dug deep into the impact of othering … and offered this parallel for those who would make excuses for those who do it, courtesy of Nicole Holliday, an assistant professor of sociolinguistics at the University of Pennsylvania.

“There are some people that get the default assumption of basic respect, and sort of basic benefit of the doubt. I like the example of Pete Buttigieg,” Holliday said, referring to a former Democratic presidential hopeful whose name was also mispronounced for a period of time. “People learned to say Buttigieg. It was a thing for like five minutes. He made a T-shirt, and that was it. I think she’s gonna have a much more uphill battle on people getting her name right, and that is tied to the fact that people don’t necessarily want to give her the benefit of the doubt. Even people who agree with her policies, even people who plan to vote for Biden, might still harbor some of that internalized negative ideologies about women, about immigrants, about Black people—that she has to overcome.”

Exactly.

Nina Davuluri, who was the first South Asian to win the Miss America crown in 2014, wrote a remarkable, must-read story for Refinery 29, demonstrating how othering has shaped a generation of Americans like herself.

For many second-generation South Asians, the assimilation conversation is often connected to “equal opportunity.” One South Asian-American couple I know encapsulated this by naming their children Josh and Marie to “end name bias.” One of the parents told me, “The teasing of my South Asian name was very painful at a young age, and I felt my parents made an insufficient effort at assimilation into the society they chose to live in. It was very important to me not to repeat those mistakes for my children.” It was recently reported that our community’s achievements have led us to being dubbed “the other 1%”: From New York City private school applications, to college admissions, to job interviews, many parents have believed that giving their children non-South Asian-sounding names would increase their chances for success in this country.

She also names names—of Republicans, that is, who altered their names and found success in the very party that refuses to say the future Democratic veep’s name right. 

The type of treatment Harris and I have received is unfortunately nothing new to South Asian people in positions of power: Rep. Pramila Jayapal recently had to correct the pronunciation of her name in a Congressional hearing after a Republican congresswoman repeatedly mispronounced it. There seems to be a party divide among South Asian politicians when it comes to who changes their name. Former South Carolina Governor and UN Ambassador Nimrata Haley uses her middle name “Nikki.” Piyush Jindal, the former governor of Louisiana, was a child when he started going by “Bobby,” after a character in The Brady Bunch, and has further distanced himself from his Indian roots as an adult. Haley and Jindal are both Republicans. Democratic politicians of South Asian descent like Harris, Jayapal, and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, have preferred not to change their names. Others, like California Congressman Rohit “Ro” Khanna and Hoboken, NJ, Mayor Ravinder “Ravi” Bhalla, use common nicknames. Dalip Singh Saund, the first Indian-American to be elected to Congress in 1957, a Democrat from California, went by his original name. This leads me to wonder whether Republicans are more eager to change their names in order to appeal to their core constituents. But is that worth sacrificing our identity?

No, it’s not. And it shouldn’t be. But as noted by the San Francisco Chronicle, messing up people’s names and refusing to even try to do better is a chronic flaw among Americans.

Sanjay Puri, the founder of the United States-India Political Action Committee, told The Chronicle that pronouncing someone’s name correctly is basic respect. He said American society is the “worst” at taking the time to acknowledge the pronunciation of someone’s name, but said he hopes people will at least make an honest attempt at getting it right.

“It’s important because sometimes names do have a lot of meaning,” Puri said, pointing to Harris’ first name. “I do understand that people can make mistakes, but make a genuine effort.” 

I’m guilty of othering names that felt odd on my tongue, and I was chatting with my colleagues and the founder of this site today about the day I stopped doing it. While I never mocked names that sound different, or meant any harm, in my early 20s, I had a nasty habit of trying just a few times to say a challenging name before giving up, just like the entitled Americans described by Puri. “Can I just call you___?” I’d ask. “I’ll call you ___,” I’d declare, as if I had the right to rename somebody.

Then someone flatly told me “no,” I would do no such thing. And you know what? I learned his damn name, and we’re still friends today. I have never tried to assign a new name to anyone since. In 2018, I was fortunate enough to meet our future vice president, as part of the Daily Kos team interviewing people at Netroots Nation in New Orleans. She shook my hand warmly, and after I introduced myself, she said, “Hello, Jessica, I’m Kamala.” 

My internal jaw dropped: I’d been saying her name wrong for years. And for a few weeks after that day, I kept saying it wrong, at first. I’d self-correct and move on. I started correcting others without apology, particularly after she announced she was running for president. “Like ‘comma-la,’” I’d say, and the conversation would continue, because my friends are not assholes.

And so we must look past the assholes. The Tucker Carlsons, the Donald Trumps, and the David Perdues of the world—arrogant white men who have likely never faced a mispronunciation of their name—can go kick rocks, honestly. Their devoted followers may cheer and jeer when these losers reach for the lowest hanging of fruits. 

With this outlook in mind, Davuluri, who faced disgusting racist attacks after her Miss America win, bookends the hard facts of othering with the sheer joy she’ll feel voting for a woman named Kamala Devi Harris on Nov. 3, noting that “seeing a name like ‘Kamala Devi Harris’ on the ticket for Vice President means that it is possible to keep the core of our identities and be in positions of power.”

Hell yes it does. Let’s make sure she (and Joe) don’t just make it to the ticket. Let’s get them to the top, and send Trump and Perdue back to the dank holes from which they came.

The willful othering of Sen. Harris demonstrated by both Trump and Perdue, among other Republicans, is more than a minor error: It’s a dogwhistle. It’s an attempt to minimize and distract from someone’s credibility. It’s a reminder that those who are different are a threat.

 

Sunday, October 18, 2020

Instead of adding more seats to the Supreme Court, what if Biden just ... lopped off the last three?

No matter how many times Donald Trump flaps his gums about healthcare, the fact is that he has no plan. In fact, in the 10 years since the Affordable Care Act was signed, Republicans didn’t bother to actually design an alternative. Why should they? After all, going into the 2020 election, the Republican Party literally did not bother to write a platform. What does the Republican Party stand for? Nothing. Or … anything. But the complete lack of any plan on the part of Trump and the GOP has paled in comparison to the focus that’s been placed on a single question being delivered to Joe Biden: Will he consider expanding the Supreme Court if he is elected?

At his town hall event, his highly rated town hall event, on Thursday night, Joe Biden promised to give Americans a more definitive answer on the question of adding more seats to the Supreme Court before the election on Nov. 3. It’s unclear how much the impact to that question will affect the outcome of the election. It’s absolutely clear that the media will not stop pounding this one issue from the candidate who has released every tax return of his adult life and provided hundreds of pages of detailed policy proposals.

So, just what will Biden say when he answers this question, and what should he say?

The term “court packing” was coined by opponents of a judicial reform bill proposed in 1937 by Franklin Roosevelt. While it’s often presented as if that bill would have filled the Supreme Court chambers with a football team worth of justices, in fact it would have allowed the president to appoint justices for for each seated justice over the age of 70, up to a maximum of six justices. The idea was that, since Supreme Court seats are for life, it’s very easy to end up with a room full of people whose ideas are generations out of synch with either the ideas or needs of the nation. See ,,, just about every Supreme Court ever. Roosevelt’s opponents successfully vilified the idea, and the bill was ultimately stalled in the Senate. However, just raising the idea seemed to get the conservatives-laden court to suddenly shift its ideas on significant rulings, such as deciding that a minimum-wage law was not unconstitutional after all, despite what it had ruled just one year earlier.

Roosevelt’s bill may have failed, but the official size of the court has changed at least seven times, sometimes with no more lofty goal than specifically allowing a new president to appoint more justices. In fact, it’s been done the other way, as well. In 1801, Congress cut the size of the court from 6 justices to just 5, expressly to prevent Thomas Jefferson from making any appointments.

In fact, the Court has gone down as many times as it has gone up. From 1863 to 1866, there were actually 10 Supreme Court justices. Then Congress trimmed that all the way back to 7 with the goal of eliminating justices from Southern states. Then just three years after that, Congress stepped in again to raise it to the current level of 9 justices, following a restructuring of federal courts.

So what could Biden do? Honestly, just about anything. The Constitution calls for a court, but has nothing to say about how many people sit on that Court. But here are a couple of options that should appeal to Republicans that demand “original intent.”

Why George Washington would want 26 justices

The original understanding of how to structure the court was that there should be two justices for each federal circuit court. There were three such circuits in 1789, which is how the United States ended up with six justices. Since there are thirteen such circuits today, we should have … 26 justices. Isn’t that right, Amy Coney Barrett?

The case for 16 justices

That idea of two justices per circuit didn’t stick around long because legislators in the original 13 states were reluctant to share the judicial branch with those upstarts in new states. When a new circuit court was added in 1807 to cover Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, just one new seat was added to cover them. If that’s the precedent, then there should be 16 justices—six for the original three circuits, and one each for all those added later.

Or why not just … lop off Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett

Forget packing the court. A real originalist might argue that the proper number of Supreme Court justices is right where it started, with just six seats. When the Court was cut from six to five in 1801, Jefferson-haters didn’t actually try to boot a justice. They were more concerned that they block Jefferson from getting a chance to name anyone new. 

Also, there was something of a constitutional issue. While the Constitution doesn’t set a number of justices, it does prohibit reducing the salary of a serving justice. So kicking someone to the curb would likely have been out. When the big chop from 10 to 7 was made in 1866, that issue was still problematic. So instead of actually removing justices, they just waited for retirements and did not fill them. In fact, the Court never really got down to just seven members. There were still eight justices serving when the law was changed again to put the number back to nine.

But that law in 1869 did something else besides. It also provided that justices can have a pension when they leave the court, something that had previously been lacking. That change pointed out a simple remedy for removing justices without violating the constitutional limits on pay—keep paying them. Cutting Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett a check each year would be a small price to pay for having their voices removed from the bench. And just think of all the beer.

But what should Biden really say?

If Amy Coney Barrett can insist she can’t even speak to existing laws, or confirm items that are in the Constitution, then there’s no reason Joe Biden has to say anything. But assuming that he does, the answer is: As little as possible. 

Biden can point out that the court has already been packed by Republicans who have seated 15 justices in the last 50 years, a period in which Democrats have only named four. If that had all occurred as a coincidence of when Justices happened to die, it would be one thing. It hasn’t. Not only has there been deliberate manipulation of openings by a Republican Senate that refused to give a hearing to a nominee from a Democratic president, there also has been more than one occasion of direct coordination between the Republicans on the court and sitting justices, as happened when Justice Kennedy negotiated his own retirement to give Trump an additional slot.

The idea that the court is, or ever was, apolitical, is … pure malarkey. And Biden should not have it.

Biden says he’s not a fan of adding more seats to the court, but he should admit that it could be the only possible solution to a court that has been manipulated by Republicans over decades to make it hugely unrepresentative of either the nation, or of legal scholarship. He might also mention that with Trump and McConnell colluding to pack other federal courts with hundreds of unqualified appointees, having a fair and unskewed court is a necessary buffer against genuinely horrible legal rulings.

Biden might also mention other options, such as limiting the term of justices, or even having justices selected form a rotating pool of justices at the circuit court level. But above all he should make it clear that he’s not “breaking” some sacred trust concerning the court. That trust has never existed, and the efforts of Republicans over the past half century have made the Supreme Court even less representative than the lopsided Senate and Electoral College. 

Let the pearl clutchers clutch. This needs to be fixed.

When Lady Liberty has to cover her steel face with her steel hands, you gotta know our system of justice has been "stolen."