The King's Codpiece

Let’s talk about Florida for a moment. This week, Governor DeSantis (read: DeathSentence) has decided that FL is ready to move to Phase III of re-opening. This means that bars and restaurants can re-open at full capacity, requiring only limited social distancing. It also means that gyms are allowed to open to full capacity, but that has already happened in practice during Phase II.

On top of that, he has issued an edict that restricts local municipal governments from enacting mask requirements. DeSantis (still read: DeathSentence) infamously declared that the State of Florida will enact no mask requirements during the entire pandemic. He has also parroted Donald Trump’s words about how this pandemic is not bad and will disappear soon.

Now, it should be noted that Florida has never even reached CDC (Centers for Disease Control) guidelines for Phase I re-opening. There has never been a documented 14-day downward trajectory of cases in the state. ICU beds are over 80% in most of the state. Being lower than this is in the guidelines for Phase I. As well, positive tests need to be below 10% of tested population for 14 days to enter Phase III. This has not happened.

Currently, the State of Florida is averaging more than 2,000 positive Covid-19 cases EVERY SINGLE DAY. To help with the math, this is more than 14,000 positive cases a week. As of this writing, Florida stats for Covid-19 stand at nearly 700,000 cases over the course of the pandemic, and nearly 14,000 deaths as a result of these infections.

What is most worrying about Phase III is that it allows visitors back into senior living facilities. Seniors are a high-risk group for Covid-19 infection and death. The virus has never been controlled in the state, but DeSantis has no problem placing the most vulnerable of his constituents at risk. Admittedly, this part surprises me considering seniors tend to vote conservatively.

Why is this happening? Because Trump wants it and DeSantis is the back end of that human centipede. As well, Covid wave 1.5 will have a suppressive effect on voting. Democrats will be less likely to go vote.

Yes, they can vote by mail, but remember, Trump has spent the past month working to delegitimize these votes. Senator Rick Scott (read: Voldemort) is now pushing legislation that would limit the time allowed to vote the mail-in and absentee ballots. In his bill, states would have 48 hours, and any votes not counted in that period would just not count. This is voter suppression in the worst way. Luckily, this bill has no chance of becoming law.

This is a war for the soul of the United States. Let us be clear: Governor Ron DeSantis is a war criminal.

Can we talk for a moment about how Donald Trump is flat-out trying to bribe his way back to re-election? He is making no attempt whatsoever to hide his criminality.

It really all started months ago when he decided to have his name placed on the physical stimulus checks that were sent out to Americans. But, don’t worry. If you were able to get direct deposit of your stimulus money, Donny was kind enough to spend good money to send you a letter, that he signed, to let you know that the Dept. of the Treasury sent you stimulus money.

Now, why would he want his name on the check? Why would be spend government money to send you a letter with his signature? Trump wants you to believe you received that money only because he was President. It was not because Congress passed a (let’s make rich people richer) stimulus package. No. It was because Trump was President. NOT!

He then decided to send $13 billlion to Puerto Rico for hurricane relief. Mind you, this is finally for 2017 hurricane relief. Up until now, he has held almost $100 billion in funds because he has been very vocal about how corrupt he thinks the PR government is.

Up until this year, PR has only received $3.3 billion dollars for hurricane relief. Oh, and they did get paper towels. Trump threw them himself at a press conference. Trump even discussed selling PR, or maybe trading it for Greenland.

In May, the Trump administration decided that a second round of stimulus money was needed for farmers. Of course, the reason they need the money is because of Trump’s easy-to-win (not so easy, as it turns out) trade war with China… or is that Jhina? He destroyed agricultural exports in this country and then took credit for getting 10% of the original exports back.

His latest bribe? Trump is now sending $200 gift cards to 33 million seniors to help with prescription costs. He has promised these cards will be delivered prior to the election. But, he swears it is not a bribe.

He swears none of it is a bribe. He is desperate. He knows he has no chance of winning a non-rigged election. This is just another avenue he is using to try and steal American democracy.

As I see yet another unarmed, innocent human being shot and killed by the police, I question why they reach for what should be a last resort tool. How did we get here? If I look at statistics from around the globe, it’s not even close. In 2018 US police officers killed 1011 people. In the same year, Canadian police killed 36, Austrian politzei… 18, Great Britain... 6.  Beyond that, Australia... 2 and Japan had zero. When you examine gun laws in each of those countries, you find some of the most comprehensive gun laws in the world, except the US, where it’s the most lax.

So why are US cops killing people at such an egregious rate? Did this behavior begin because of the abundance of guns on the streets? Or is there another reason for 36 times the number of police-related murders?

I tend to believe that with the surplus of guns in our streets, cops have been trained to expect a gun, which leaves them to always anticipate a gun, thus, a violent encounter.

I know this won't matter at all, but here it goes. Guns do kill people, that's what they are made to do. They kill people purposefully and accidentally. In the last 100 years or so, guns that can kill a lot of people at one time have been made available to the general public. In all of the most recent mass shootings, the guns were legally purchased, so, the "black market will never go away" argument doesn't hold water. As well, the idea that more people need guns doesn't stand up. In America, there are 101 guns for every 100 citizens. Clearly, there are enough guns around, if that were the solution.

In the UK, there are 50-60 gun deaths per year or about 1 gun death per 1 million in population. In contrast, the US has 160 times that rate, or 8,100 gun deaths per year (2014), even though the US population is only 6 times that of the UK.

No one in favor of gun laws is suggesting that enacting tougher laws will completely eliminate gun deaths. Only those opposed to gun laws seem to see that at the end goal, which, since it is unattainable, shouldn't even be attempted. Seat belt/car seat laws did not eliminate accident deaths, but they significantly curtailed them. Likewise, drunk driving laws did not eliminate drunk driving deaths, but they have decreased them by 51% since 1982. Since it didn't get rid of drunk driving deaths, should we go back to having no laws against drunk driving?

As someone without a background in law, I try to understand historical context, the development and adaptation of laws, and the analysis of historical facts. The Second Amendment was not written for an AR-15. Period. People living in the late 18th century could not fathom such a weapon any more than they could imagine rocketing to the moon and back. There is no practical reason for a person to own a weapon of mass destruction. None. An individual arsenal (or even a combined arsenal of like-minded people) would have zero chance of defeating the government/military, if it decided to become totalitarian.

So, I ask you, why continue to sell these killers of children and other innocents? I don't mean guns/rifles generally, but semi-auto, high capacity rifles, bump stocks, etc. No one is suggesting that you're automatically bad person for owning them. At some point, though, an individual's desire to do/have something (AR-15s, drunk drive, not seatbelt their children) is outweighed by the damage to society.

Please just think about this. Rather than immediately responding and calling me a liberal snowflake who doesn't know anything, just think about the stats. Think about all those kids, and the adults who died trying to save them. There has to be a solution.

The Trump Administration has never pretended that they would abide by election results. Trump has always stated that he would see what happens and make his decision then. While he is telling this to the press, he is telling his supporters that any result that does not have him winning will be fraudulent.

The GOP is doing everything they can to make sure that Trump remains President no matter the results of the election. The push to place another justice on the Supreme Court is part of this plan. GOP leadership knows that they cannot trust Chief Justice Roberts, who is a conservative, to vote in their favor no matter what. John Roberts is still a man of integrity, who will vote his conscience and will not place party over country.

Given this, the GOP needs a 6-3 super majority on the supreme court. It is highly likely that John Roberts will vote against the wishes of the GOP in the election issues that will come to their attention. Without the Supreme Court, the GOP will not be able to contest the results of the 2020 election with any chance of winning.

As of this writing, Donald Trump still refuses to commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose. His administration is also actively discussing ways they can circumvent the results of the popular vote. This would include convincing states run by the GOP to bypass any popular vote that does not go their way and appoint electors loyal to the GOP.

The Constitution only provides that each state appoint electors that will vote for the President. States have a long tradition of letting those electors get appointed based on the popular vote in each state, however, this is not a requirement. Some states have passed laws requiring this, but most certainly, not all have.

Should this happen, and should the Dems contest these actions in court, the GOP wants to make sure that a conservative Supreme Court is seated to ensure that the theft of the American Presidency can move forward with some pretense of legality.

We are now past the point where a civil war is a possibility. In my opinion, a civil war is now an inevitability. How that war looks is still a matter of contention. I highly recommend reading this article, published on medium.com:

https://medium.com/@mikeselinker/a-wargame-designer-describes-our-four-possible-civil-wars-cf5b2e980099

In the meantime, if you own guns, I would highly recommend you clean them and make sure you are well acquainted with their use.

By now we all know that Senate Republicans are trying to pack the Supreme Court with a 6-3 conservative majority. Of course, not just any conservatives, but with the worst conservative religious zealots he can find. I would say the GOP is filled with hypocrites right now, but this is not the case. They have been telling us who they are for years.

The Democrats in Congress are finally showing signs of life and anger. They are letting GOP leadership know that, if they follow through with their intentions to nominate another justice this close to an election, nothing will be off the table should Dems come to power. One of the options that Dems have placed on the table is to add justices to the Supreme Court.

This is not without precedent. There have been six occasions where the number of justices has been changed, either increasing or decreasing, since the formation of the court in 1790. There have been nine justices for over 150 years.

In an effort to stop the Dems from increasing the number of justices, House Republicans have decided to try and run some cover for the Senate. Representative Jim Jordan (R-Douchebag-who-has-no-problem-letting-athletes-get-raped) is now pushing legislation that will limit the number of Supreme Court justices. Of course, in the House of Representatives, this legislation has no chance whatsoever of passing.

I hope the Dems have actually grown a pair for this fight. For some reason, they have stuck with a strategy of appeasement for almost two decades now. They seem to think that if they are nice to the GOP, that the GOP will be nice back.

You cannot be nice to a bully and expect to earn respect. All that will happen, and has happened to the Dems, is that the bully will be emboldened to push further. Mitch McConnell has shown, time and time again, that he has no problem taking advantage of any situation presented to him.

This is a street fight. The Dems better be ready to get dirty.

William Barr, the Attorney General of the United States, has declared three American cities as “anarchist jurisdictions.” No one is quite sure what that means just yet, but it should be of no surprise that the three cities are in blue states. They are New York City, NY; Portland, OR; and Seattle, WA.

In doing this, he seeks to withdraw Federal funding from those cities. Likely, the courts will stop this from ever happening, but money could be withdrawn before the fight is over. These monies are used to provide needed social support for the populations of those cities.

This is just a part of the ongoing attack that the Trump administration has been waging on blue states, and basically anyone Trump considers a political enemy. However, this is a fight that may backfire spectacularly on Trump, and his lickspittle Barr. In fact, this is an avenue that the Dems can use to fight back against Trump and his Supreme Court nomination scheme. It would be a risky move, but it certainly would create a nightmare scenario for Trump.

Every state pays into the Federal budget. Then this budget is used to provide states with federal dollars for services provided for their populations. This method is designed to prevent poorer states from not being able to provide for their constituents.

One of the reasons that the government runs a deficit is because most of the states take more from the fed than they pay into it. Most Americans don’t know how this system works. Politicians use that ignorance to manipulate populations.

Right now, the GOP is claiming that blue state bailouts will bankrupt the government. This is not an avenue they should be following. It is no secret to those in the know that traditionally red states take far more from the government than traditionally blue states.

There are eight states that are referred to as “giver” states. This means they pay more into the federal budget than they take out of the budget. The other forty-two states are referred to as “taker” states.

Of the eight “givers,” six of them are traditionally blue states. Of the biggest “takers,” the majority are traditionally red states. In fact, the largest “taker” state is Kentucky, the state represented by Mitch McConnell, the majority leader of the Senate.

It might be time for blue states to, at least, threaten to withhold their contributions to the Federal budget. Trump has never made the slightest pretense that he wants to be President to the entire nation. It that is the case, maybe the part of the nation that he wants to subjugate should begin to look after their own interests.

It is safe to say that blue America is more able to take care of themselves than red America.

We can all agree that when Donald Trump refers to something as “fake news,” he is referring to a story, or a news agency, that is not complimentary to him. I am bemused by the number of his base that have grabbed onto the term. However, I can understand how Trump was able to grab hold of that particular bit of cultural zeitgeist and manipulate it for his own purposes.

When the Reagan administration, and the FCC, eliminated the Fairness Doctrine, it released broadcast news agencies from rules that required them to present differing viewpoints. All four sitting FCC commissioners were Republican, three appointed by Reagan and one by Nixon. Many people consider this deregulation to be the start of true party polarization in the United States.

This is combined with news organizations shifting their business models, starting in the late 1970’s, from accepting that news bureaus will run at a loss for a network. The new model of ‘infotainment’ was created where news could be presented in such a manner as to be entertaining to non-news audiences. Basically, this is the time of shifting to the concept of, “if it bleeds, it leads.”

Fox News grew from the changes made during this era of change. By the early 90’s, the environment was ripe for ‘infotainment’ to become propaganda. Opinion shows, masquerading as the news, became far more popular than the news itself.

As well as opinion shows, the news started becoming opinionated. To draw an audience, news began to be presented from a liberal, or a conservative, viewpoint. News was no longer dry reporting. Network anchors became celebrities themselves. And with these changes, came profits.

How can news remain objective when it becomes profit-driven? Part of those profits come from the advertisement dollars that come with Nielsen ratings? When a corporation is a news sponsor, what happens to investigatory journalism into the workings of said corporation?

Finally, the news abrogated its responsibility to its audiences to gain access. The days of hard-hitting journalism that takes a deep-dive into politics is gone. Politicians began trading access for good reporting.

Corruption was allowed to grow, and run rampant, because bad actors in the political arena no longer feared investigative journalism. Now, we started living in the world of corporate journalism. The same corporations that owned the news needed friendly politicians to help further corporate interests.

The corruption we have today comes from that marriage of corporations and the news. Corrupt politicians gave news corporations the sweetheart deals they needed, and in return, the news gave politicians the positive press they needed to remain in power.

Americans see this happening. Faith in the news was at an all-time low long before Trump began manipulating opinion. In fact, Trump’s ability to manipulate these feelings in society is what allows him to maintain a base that will never deviate from their love of him. When half of Americans admit they trust the news they get from comedy shows, like The Daily Show, that is a problem.

I have said it time and time again. Removing Trump is only the first thing we need to do to fix our country. No, the news is not fake, but we need to end the marriage between corporate interests and information.

This will be short and sweet.

A few GOP Senators have come out and stated that they would not consider a Supreme Court nominee until after the general election. Many liberal friends of mine are celebrating these statements. Many liberal friends of mine are politically uneducated.

The proclamations are coming from Senators that know they are in danger of losing their seats in the general election. By making these statements, they are pandering to their electorates in hopes of garnering enough votes to stay in office.

We must remember that these people are professional politicians. They manipulate language for a living. When you listen to what a politician is saying, you must do so as if you are about to sign a contract with the devil. You never get what you are being promised, and it is never a good deal for anyone but the devil.

Even the news is being either willfully ignorant, or complicit, in the double speak. There have been several articles I have read that have stated that certain Senators won’t consider a nomination until after the inauguration. However, when you read the article, the statement is until after the election.

There is a difference. The election is Nov. 3, 2020. The inauguration is Jan. 20, 2021. That leaves a two-and-a-half month gap where a GOP-led Senate can still confirm a conservative judge, even if they lose the Senate in the general election.

When a GOP Senator says they will not consider a nomination until after the election, call them on the double-speak. They need to agree to not consider a nomination until after the inauguration. We know McConnell has no honor, so he needs to be forced to wait. Hopefully, it will also mean he is waiting to leave the Senate.

Today, September 18, 2020, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away. I hope she rests in peace.

I have no doubt that her life will be judged well, according to the Jewish tradition. That she has passed on erev Rosh Hashanah does not make me feel better for a happy and lucky new year. But, this is not about me. Really, her life, and death, have now become about us, and the future of the United States.

Mitch McConnell, very infamously, denied President Obama his right to choose a Supreme Court Justice to replace the deceased Antonin Scalia. McConnell stated that, in an election year, the President and Congress have an obligation to wait to see the will of the people in the election. The Senate would not take up any debate on Obama’s pick, Merrick Garland, until after the election.

Once the election was over, they still would not take up debate because they declared, that since Trump had won the Presidency, Obama’s choice was rendered moot. Neil Gorsuch was appointed by Trump and confirmed by a GOP-led Senate. Merrick Garland was swept to the ash heap of history, even though he was actually a compromise choice to ensure Republicans would not fight the nomination tooth and nail as they did with everything else Obama did.

McConnell, also infamously, stated, when asked, that he would push through any Trump nomination in an election year. He even chuckled as he said it. So, for those who think that a nomination will wait, at least without a fight, this is pure delusion.

The Dems in the Senate can very probably delay the confirmation of any nominee until after the election, but I do not believe that a Biden win would prevent McConnell, and his cronies, from a post election confirmation. This is especially true if the GOP loses control of the Senate in this election.

It is my hope that there is some legal avenue that Senate Democrats can take that would use McConnell’s precedent against him in this case. I am not a legal scholar, so I do not know if this is even within the realm of possibility. I cannot imagine a filibuster is possible given the length of time between the election and the new administration taking office.

What worries me most of all is the effect this will have on the vote. Biden does not really inspire fervent support among likely voters, especially progressives. I know many people whose vote for Biden was predicated on his ability to choose RBG’s replacement on the SCOTUS. With that in jeopardy, to say the least, will they still vote?

Will her “premature” passing serve to suppress Democratic voting? I hope not. For those now, or still, on the fence, I would tell you that, yes, we are hurt by this. We are not, however, dead. It is now more important than ever to get out and vote for Biden. Vote for the Democratic down tickets in your elections.

We must maintain the House of Representatives. We must take back the Senate. Control of both legislative houses would give Dems control of the legislative agenda. It would then make it all the harder for the GOP to make their attempts to strip American citizens of their rights. These include abortion rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and, I am sure, the right to assemble and protest those things we know to be bad for the United States.

VOTE. The future of our country, now more than ever, depends on it.

Edit: McConnell, less than an hour after her passing, stated that any Trump nominee would get a vote in the Senate, thus clarifying his hypocrisy.

A few months ago, former National Security Advisor John Bolton wrote a memoir, which—like literally every other memoir to come out of the White House—portrays Trump in an unflattering light.  Poor Donald Trump had to tweet a frowny-face emoji. But, every once in a while, someone special comes along in your life… someone so thoughtful, so supportive, so sycophantic, that she sees you for who you really are: a stepping stone to her own run at political office.  Pick up your copy of Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ new book: Speaking for Myself: Faith, Freedom, and the Fight of our Lives Inside the Trump White House It’s the heartwarming true story of how to flatter your boss so that he endorses your Arkansas gubernatorial bid. The first of its kind, this memoir tries hard to make Trump seem stable, focused, and anything other than a foreign asset.  But, trying not to come on too strong, too soon, Sarah admits that Trump failed to send a “clear message to Russia… not to interfere in our election.”  That’s okay, though, because Trump never admitted that Russia did actually interfere. Portraying her former boss as supportive and empathetic, she writes, “he defended me and reaffirmed me when the feminists and liberals were tearing me down with cruel and dehumanizing personal attacks.”  Elsewhere, she accidentally undercuts that entire claim by describing Trump’s degrading behavior and his offense to her Christian sensibilities.  For instance, when he goaded Sanders, a married mother of three, to have sex with Kim Jong Un.  “Sir, please stop,” she implored as Trump used an expletive in describing the North Korean dictator’s affections for her.  Trump continued and, in Sarah’s own words, “howled with laughter.” What a beautiful affirmation!  That’s how real men defend the women they love.  I bet those feminists are eating their words now. ‘Speaking for Myself’ by Sarah Huckabee Sanders—available at Hudson Booksellers, at any Airport terminal in the US, next to the Imodium, the tampons, and the inflatable neck pillows.