I just learned that my sweet, kind cousin Kathy has died as the result of several recently discovered brain tumors. I hadn’t seen her for decades, so in my mind she’s still 35, vibrant and beautiful. I have to come to terms with the fact that we had no relationship at this point, but her loss still stings. She lived alone after her marriage with a real creep fell apart; never had children. Like all of the Coulourises (my mother’s side), family was so important to her. I could have picked up the phone.
1. I suppose today’s anniversary of Lincoln signing the Emancipation Proclamationin 1862 has to be noted, but it was a strategic act, not an especially ethical one. After all, it exempted slaves in the border states, which allowed slavery but had not joined the Confederacy. After the Union’s sort-of victory at the Battle of Antietam earlier in the month, Lincoln announced that enslaved people in areas still in rebellion within 100 days would be free. Then, on January 1, 1863, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation, which declared “that all persons held as slaves” within the rebel states “are, and henceforward shall be free.” Note that it freed no slaves that he had the power to free, but the maneuver successfully made the Civil War about human rights. Anti-slavery nations like Great Britain and France, which the Confederacy desperately wanted as allies, couldn’t back the Confederacy after Lincoln made the war explicitly a statement against slavery.
2. Does Mitt Romney have any core principles at all? If he does, I don’t know what they are. It has always been clear—I hope— that he is a pure pragmatist, doing whatever he thinks will work at any given time. Non-ideologues often make effective leaders: FDR was one. Lincoln too. Romney would hate this, but Donald Trump is like Romney in that regard. (So are Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.). Over in the Facebook hive, the Deranged are gnashing their teeth over Romney’s announcement that he’ll vote for a qualified nominee for SCOTUS. I guess they thought that he would be like John McCain, and be governed by spite. Sure, Romney voted for impeachment because it was meaningless except to give the President a poke in the eye. He is still a Senator from Utah, however. he’s not going to torpedo an effort to solidify a conservative majority on SCOTUS.
If he were a Senator representing Massachusetts, it would be a different tale.
3. Black Lives Matter quietly deleted the “what we believe” page on its website. You know, that was where the group said its mission is to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure,” to “dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work ‘double shifts’ so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work,” as well as “foster a queer-affirming network” by “freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual.” Maybe they were afraid all of those corporations, sports teams and politicians proclaiming their support might finally decide to read about what they were endorsing.
4. Forget the “everybody does it” defense of Mitch McConnell. I’m seeing this invlaid argument a lot in the conservative blogosphere: Marc Short, Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff told CNN anchor Jake Tapper that there was no hypocrisy in McConnells apparently flip-flop. “It’s a pretty easy historical precedent,” Short’s carefully prepared talking point went. Of 29 SCOTUS vacancies in the final year of a Presidential term, “19 of those vacancies … happened when the majority party was the same party of the president. Of those 19, nine out of 10 were confirmed before election day, and another eight out of nine after election day in the lame duck period.”
Of ten vacancies that occurred when the party in control in the Senate was a different party than the President,however, Short pointed out that only one out of 10 was filled before election day.
So what McConnell did in 2016 has been done before. So what? It’s unethical no matter how often its been done.
[Aside: you know what’s fun? Asking someone who is distraught over the Notorious RBG’s passing to name a single opinion she authored that impresses them.]
5. Gee, I wonder who’s at fault for this? “TRUMP 2020” was just painted on a busy thoroughfare in multiple Massachusetts towns. In Brooklyn, New Yorkers painted an expanse of Brooklyn blacktop with the yellow message “Fuck Cuomo and de Blasio” over the weekend.
Good. When city governments abuse their power by using city property as political billboards, ” tit for tat” is the proper response.
6. “Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!” All the news media has to do is play it straight, and they just can’t do it. The Washington Free Beacon checked the social media posts of voters ABC News said were undecided and on that basis selected to question President Donald Trump during a network town hall last week The network claimed its town hall “provided uncommitted voters the opportunity to ask the president questions about issues affecting Americans.”
Right. One questioner was Kutztown University professor Ellesia Blaque. ABC repeatedly identified him as “uncommitted.” Yet he praised vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris (this also marks her as an idiot) during the Democratic primary, saying she would “be there, volunteering” for the California senator in Pennsylvania. In 2019 tweets, the professor called Trump a “fucking moron,” “pathetic,” “pig,” “swine,” and “punk ass.”
You know: uncommitted.
Her Facebook describes herself as “liberal Democrat.” Another “uncommitted” voter who participated in grilling the President was Philadelphia pastor Carl Day, Last month he tweeted that he’s “never once supported trump and won’t now.” He also tweeted “Make America Great Again” slogan refers to a time in which “the niggers did what they were told in all industries, wouldn’t have the audacity to try to enter a white establishment and didn’t talk back to the cops.” Day called Trump a “villain,” and “ridiculously arrogant & obnoxious.”
Ethics Alarms 
Does the last paragraph belong someplace else?
Seemed to go with the beginning of the post?
Huh? The last paragraph describes the last questioner mentioned.
Great, now people are so used to me making mistakes that they see mistakes I haven’t even made!
Both my phone and computer are showing this paragraph as the very last paragraph:
” It became impossible for anti-slavery nations such as Great Britain and France, who had been friendly to the Confederacy, to get involved on behalf of the South. The proclamation also unified and strengthened Lincoln’s party, the Republicans, helping them stay in power for the next two decades.”
That’s exactly what I’m seeing, too, using both Edge and Firefox.
The last Paragraph both on my draft and in my browser is
Her Facebook describes herself as “liberal Democrat.” Another “uncommitted” voter who participated in grilling the President was Philadelphia pastor Carl Day, Last month he tweeted that he’s “never once supported trump and won’t now.” He also tweeted “Make America Great Again” slogan refers to a time in which “the niggers did what they were told in all industries, wouldn’t have the audacity to try to enter a white establishment and didn’t talk back to the cops.” Day called Trump a “villain,” and “ridiculously arrogant & obnoxious.”
I have no idea what the hell’s going on. Let me clear the last page, and let me know if it’s right.
It looks like this…
Jack,
I found the new Classic Mode in the new WordPress editor to be a little glitchy. I’ve noticed a couple of weird things.
Steve
I know—you’re all gaslighting me.
Gaslighting Team Effort, LOL!!!!
I doubt that we could.
The above screen shot is the standard webpage view, the screen shot below is using the WordPress reader…
There is definitely something there.
Weird. In my browser what I am getting is some lines from Wordsworth’s Ode on Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood:
“There was a time when meadow, grove, and stream,
The earth, and every common sight,
To me did seem
Apparelled in celestial light,
The glory and the freshness of a dream.
It is not now as it hath been of yore;—
Turn wheresoe’er I may,
By night or day.
The things which I have seen I now can see no more…”
It IS odd; that’s what I got, too. Except in mine, every line begins with “Crivens!”, and the whole thing ends with “If you could see your way to lending me sixpence. I could at least buy a newspaper.”. Very weird, indeed.
I still see this as the last paragraph:
“It became impossible for anti-slavery nations such as Great Britain and France, who had been friendly to the Confederacy, to get involved on behalf of the South. The proclamation also unified and strengthened Lincoln’s party, the Republicans, helping them stay in power for the next two decades.”
Which comes after the paragraph you are seeing as the “last”.
You aren’t missing any content I don’t think, it’s just a weird repeat.
Especially since I can’t see it.
I just viewed the html source code for the page, its in a markup called “aside class”, which in html view, is different from the rest of the content which is formatted as a “p” for paragraph.
Great. Now what? It’s hard to fix what I can’t see.
Hey! Found it. Invisible under the “visual” setting, but I found it when I shifted to “text.” Deleted that, and presumably its gone.
Thanks, Michael.
It’s gone.
Great, you got it!
For future reference, you can Edit the HTML. If you’re using the Classic Mode like I am, you can find the edit HTML in the menu with the three vertical dots up next to the Convert To Blocks (see photo below)
OMG!!! I felt like i was going crazy!!! But alas… it’s been solved 🙂
I’d never steer ya wrong! LOL!!!!
YOU felt like you were going crazy! That was like those horror movies when someone says “it’s right beside you! don’t you see it???”
Reads weirdly to me, too.
Take a look at your post on a different interface. We’re all seeing a couple of sentences that go with the discussion of the Emancipation Proclamation.
I was thinking the same. On the other hand, the way the Left is behaving, is there a correlation? Could the Left be handing Republicans solid control for the next 20 years? This paragraph could be inviting us to draw that conclusion…
OK, one of you is going to have to explain what you’re talking about. I’ve read this four times now, and it makes sense to me, and is, in fact, what I intended to write.
I just emailed you an image of what we are seeing.
Still doesn’t show up on my browser or WP masterboard
Try going to the editor and using the HTML Edit mode, I’m sure you’ll find it in that but be careful what you delete.
” … the maneuver successfully made the Civil War about human rights. Anti-slavery nations like Great Britain and France, which the Confederacy desperately wanted as allies, couldn’t back the Confederacy after Lincoln made the war explicitly a statement against slavery.“
It seems more true that it made hypocrisy of the war and made those who waged it hypocrites.
An important difference!
Isn’t there a special ring in hell for hypocrites?
No hypocrisy involved at all. Lincoln made explicit and national policy what the war was already doing. He solidified support from the abolitionists who made up an important part of what we now would call his ‘base’. Remember the 1856 Republican slogan — ‘Free Soil, Free Men, Fremont!’ With the Proclamation, he ensured that the abolitionist wing would back the war come what may.
And, in fact, as I said, one of the byproducts of the war was already crystal clear by the autumn of 1862. Everyone federal armies set foot in the South, they destroyed slavery by their very presence. The slaves in the South were not ignorant and they knew that the United States flag meant freedom — they voted with their feet, flocking to the federal armies wherever they went. From the very first days of the war, Lincoln had to exercise very strict control of what his generals — both pro and anti slavery — did with the slaves who came to the United States Army for protection.
Once Lincoln made emancipation our national policy, the Confederacy lost its last realistic hope for foreign intervention.
Fuck Tumors.
2: A vote that someone has committed high crimes and should be removed from office doesn’t mean that that person is unfit to nominate judges is…
…Not a stance I’d want to try and justify but it is a take, I guess.
That’s about right…
2. I’m surprised about Romney. I thought (feared?) he was going to grandstand (or just be unexpectedly weird?) and vote with the opposition. He’s much like the aptly named Jeff Flake: slick Mormon with a political death wish. And don’t forget, there are Mormons adequately distributed on both sides of the aisle. Think Harry Reid. Good for business, I guess.
(I’m presuming here that “a vote” means a vote by the Senate on articles of impeachment.)
I can see that a vote to convict would make the person unfit to appoint, and that is in fact what would happen. I cannot see that on a vote to acquit. But, following the logic that, after a vote, the President is unfit to nominate judges, which other prerogatives would be prohibited?
Directing military actions?
Granting pardons or commutations?
Making treaties?
Appointing ambassadors or other officials?
Making recommendations to the Congress?
Speaking with Ambassadors or other public Ministers?
Enforcing laws?
Commissioning officers of the United States?
I won’t try to prioritize those actions; they all are an essential part of the job, and that (in light of the Constitution) makes it easy to justify their continuance after a vote.
It does seem that some have ranked appointing a Supreme Court Justice well above all of these other actions, based on their demands; I have not seen any calls for these other things to be given up just because it is getting late in the 4th year of the presidential term.
“…Not a stance I’d want to try and justify but it is a take, I guess.”
Romney wouldn’t have to justify it if he had the sense not to comment until the nominee is named. Then, he could say that his vote is based entirely on the candidate’s merits and not at all on Trump’s fitness to govern.
And I’m sorry about your cousin, Jack.
I’m so sorry to learn of the loss of your cousin.
1. Wasn’t it Seward that convinced Lincoln to hold off announcing the proclamation until the Union had some kind of victory lest the Confederacy assume the President was unleashing emancipation in desperation?
Now William H. Seward was definitely pragmatic.
2. No question about it. He’d be against Trump on this if he wouldn’t be certain of losing his Senate seat.
3. Nah, they just want the news media to fact-check all those Facebook posts and tweets pointing to the BLM organization’s stated views as false. After all, this is the era of deleted electronic data, right? It’s the 21st century equivalent of airbrushing photos.
4. The media and entertainment industry created a celebrity out of RBG. It would be extraordinary for regular Americans to know so much about a Supreme Court justice were it not for the fact that they really don’t know anything. They only know that Hollywood told them she was a rock star and that they should be her groupies.
If you were to ask which of her opinions impressed them, they wouldn’t have an answer or just fall back on Trump-Deranged Talking Points.
5. I read an article recently that towns are starting to reject the BLM “murals”. Good.
6. There’s no question that these town halls are packed with ringers, many of them with prepared statements.
I read a book earlier this year called, “A World on Fire: Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War” about the debate overseas regarding which side to support and how GB – despite the opposition of most of its citizens to slavery – leaned toward the Confederacy because the Union had not emphasized the need to free the slaves. Lincoln was stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Cassius Clay was working as the Minister to Russia. He used his influence with the Czar to get Russia to threaten war if Britain and France recognized Confederacy. He got Russia to send warships to US ports to back up that threat. Lincoln commissioned Clay as a major general, but he refused to accept unless Lincoln would emancipate the slaves in the Confederacy. Lincoln sent him to assess the likely public acceptance of that order in the border states and issued the Emancipation Proclamation when he returned.
A famous boxer felt that the name Cassius Clay was unfit for him and decided to choose the names of 2 white men who bought, sold, and traded African slaves instead.
1)You know, I don’t know that I’ve ever heard who advised or convinced Lincoln to wait for a victory to issue the Proclamation. It certainly could have been Seward — that makes sense. It also could simply have been Lincoln’s instincts as a master politician.
3. NOTHING BLM does is done “quietly.” So, are we now to TRUST BLM that the organization’s core principles and priorities, and the means that the organization has “self-limited” to using, have changed? Yeah, right.
4. Didn’t Ginsburg write the minority opinion in the Citizens United case? Just asking…
5. I was wondering when (and if) that kind of tit-for-tat would ever happen. I will admit that the thought of doing pavement-painting occurred to me after de Blasio celebrated the BLM graffit…er, “mural” in front of Trump Tower.
4. (corrected) Wikipedia brought me up to date.
#3 In case anyone wants to read what used to be on BLM’s what we believe page, here it is in its entirety…
Is there any major demographic group in America that suffers the negative effects of absentee fathers more than black people? I’ve had arguments with people about this, trying to downplay BLM’s original “disrupt … the nuclear family structure requirement” as just about making it easier for single mothers to get by, or merely acknowledging the importance of extended family and close friends in building a cohesive community. But why completely leave out the word “father” if that’s all it were about? We know, with decades of sociological research to support it, that children raised by their married biological parents on average do better on a whole host of measures than children raised by single parents. BLM deliberately omitted fathers because they are all in on feminist and queer theory which denies and denigrates the importance of fathers to the health of the family.
If this quote is correctly attributed, socialist though he was, Martin Luther King, Jr., regarded the nuclear family as essential: “The group consisting of mother, father and child is the main educational agency of mankind.”
“BLM deliberately omitted fathers because they are all in on feminist and queer theory which denies and denigrates the importance of fathers to the health of the family.”
I have three problems with that comment. First, As Jack has prefaced some of his posts: Please Don’t Make Me Defend . . . . (BLM). I don’t think there was any omission. They were referring to single mothers having to take two jobs. Single fathers are an extremely small minority in all ethnic groups, so the situation didn’t arise. Second, I seriously doubt BLM is “all in on” any theory at all. Last, you may be correct regarding feminist theory (I assume you have read up on it), but you are totally wrong on interpreting queer theory of parenthood. Neither fathers nor mothers are considered unimportant to gay or lesbian couples, merely that two adults be present to administer to the children’s wants and needs. The mother or father concerned with the biological birth of the child is frequently considered an active part of the family as well. Please try and curb your instinct to theorize concerning personal lives of people you know nothing about.
PennAgain wrote, “I don’t think there was any omission [of fathers]. They were referring to single mothers having to take two jobs.”
Sorry PennAgain but that doesn’t ring true. Here is their nuclear family clause again.
First; there was an intentional omission of fathers in this section “to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable” and if you read the entire “What We Believe” listing that I posted above there is an overtone of we are black women, hear us roar and an subtle undertone of black women don’t need men in the beliefs list, second; there is nothing in the nuclear family clause that states or implies that they are referring to single mothers having to take two jobs.
PennAgain wrote, “I seriously doubt BLM is “all in on” any theory at all.”
I don’t think you are paying attention.
Black Lives Matter is very clear that they are all in on things like they believe that there is state-sanctioned anti-Black violence and anti-Black racism, there is rampant and deliberate violence inflicted on blacks by the state, they are anti-Police, they are anti-jail/prison, they are anti-justice system, they are unapologetically Black in their positioning, the nuclear family doesn’t work well within the black community and it’s racist for society to push the nuclear family on them, they are trying to free themselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, anyone that’s white and doesn’t publicly support them is a racist, anyone that’s Black and doesn’t publicly support them is a traitor to the Black race, they are thriving in the midst of chaos and they want more chaos to grow their ranks, they are pro anarchy “If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it”. Black Lives Matter is all on on lots of things, pay attention.
Thanks, Steve. You correctly point out that the omission of “father” is intentional. Indeed, the older version of BLM’s “What We Believe” used “mother/s” 3 times, “parents” 2 times, and “father/s” not at all. It was not an oversight.
I’ll add that they use “women” twice (“Black trans women” and “Black women”), but “men” once in a negative manner (“Black women … free from … environments in which men are centered”).
Hi PennAgain,
Here’s the section of BLM’s older “What We Believe” you draw on for your contention about single mothers:
This isn’t talking about single mothers in the first place, much less about single mothers having to work two jobs outside the home in order to make ends meet. The “double shift” or “double burden” (cf. Wikipedia), proposed by feminist theory, is the idea that, due to patriarchal gender roles, women who work outside the home suffer a heavier burden of unpaid domestic labor than men.
You say that you “seriously doubt BLM is ‘all in on’ any theory at all,” but I’m not sure why you are so dubious. Postmodern critical feminist, queer, and race theory are foundational to the way BLM speaks about the problems it wants to address, e.g.:
We can certainly debate whether everything BLM says and does is consistent with these theoretical bases (although the theories themselves are subject to many diverse and inconsistent expressions), but it seems clear to me that the organization’s use of the theoretical terminology (capital-B Black, liberation, positioning, patriarchy, cisgender, privilege, queer, heternormative, etc.) is self-aware.
Regarding queer theory, I’m not theorizing about anyone’s personal lives, and you are making some reckless assumptions what kind of people I know. But you succinctly demonstrate my basic supposition: queer theory isn’t concerned with fatherhood as the relationship of a biologically male parent to his biological offspring (which is the natural relationship from which all forms of “fatherhood”—adoptive fatherhood, stepfatherhood, “Founding Fathers,” etc.—are analogously constructed). This kind of fatherhood is problematic because it reifies oppressive patriarchal gender roles. Instead, queer theory seeks to deconstruct fatherhood (and motherhood). As one (admittedly non-authoritative source) puts it:
This approach is not necessary for same-sex couples with children, but it has certainly informed the cultural and political approaches which achieved the same-sex marriage equality, and it continues to be a major influence in radical politics today à la Black Lives Matter.
Jack, my many links sent my comment to moderation purgatory. If you wouldn’t mind indulging me. Thank you!
Done! No indulgence necessary.
Thanks again. Now of course I see editing errors. Oh well!
I wrote about this exact topic back in June, If You’re A Snowflake That Triggers Easily When Discussing Racism, Don’t Read This “White Lives Matter” Parody Blog Post.
In that blog post I linked above, I wrote in-part…
Big surprise about Romney and his statement that he’d vote for Trump’s Supreme Court Justice pick. Probably it was just expedient as Utah is a pretty red state and he doesn’t want to run against a real Republican in the future.
Wayne wrote, “Big surprise about Romney and his statement that he’d vote for Trump’s Supreme Court Justice pick.”
But that’s not exactly what Romney said.
I understood Romney’s statement to be that he supported President Trump nominating a Justice for SOTUS, I don’t think he stated how he would vote. Maybe I didn’t see the whole statement.
I’m with you Steve. He may still vote with the Dems. Lord knows why. An odd cat.
Agreed. His comment only said that there is precedent for the Senate to vote for its party’s President’s nominee for SCOTUS when it is close to the election day or in an election year.
Man. I just reread that disaster of a sentence and decided to leave it in this comment so as to suffer the slings and arrows of outraged grammaticians. You would think that someone who supposedly has a law degree, an iIQ somewhat above room temperature, and a fairly large vocabulary would be able to write a coherent, cogent statement. Evidence would suggest otherwise.
Let’s try that again, shall we?
Romney said there is historical precedent to support the President nominating a successor to SCOTUS and a Senate controlled by the President’s party voting to approve of that nominee in an election year. He distinguished the Garland nominee because Republicans controlled the Senate in 2016 but Obama was a Socia – erm – Democrat, so it was defensible to withhold a vote for that nominee.
As an aside, Justice Ginsburg recognized that the Constitution is silent about the current maelstrom. She stated, “The president is elected for four years not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four.” She added, “Maybe members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.” She was rebuking Sen. McConnell for not putting Merrick Garland, Obama’s nominee, to a vote.
jvb
Unfortunately I think you’re right although he will pay a big price in Utah if he votes against Trump’s nominee.
I’m with Johnny:
“which other prerogatives would be prohibited?”
If someone believes Trump/GOP should not appoint a Justice now, ask them if they believe the government should shut down completely six months or twelve months before the next election!
Frankly, I’m not so sure we wouldn’t be better off if the government was prohibited from taking action for the 46 months preceding a presidential election…
Regarding #1 and # 3 — when the subject veers in these direction, I have more than once looked at quotes from Frederick Douglass who, from what I’ve read, was eventually converted to an ardent supporter of President Lincoln, after initial skepticism. Here are a couple I found today, that seem quite fitting in this year of turmoil:
“I hold that the Federal Government was never, in its essence, anything but an anti-slavery government. Abolish slavery tomorrow, and not a sentence or syllable of the Constitution need be altered. It was purposely so framed as to give no claim, no sanction to the claim, of property in a man. If in its origin slavery had any relation to the government, it was only as the scaffolding to the magnificent structure, to be removed as soon as the building was completed.” and in a similar vein:
“There is in the Constitution no East, no West, no North, no South, no black, no white, no slave, no slaveholder, but all are citizens who are of American birth.”
And finally, the one Douglass quote that forever stays with me:
“Once let the black man get upon his person the brass letters “U.S.”, let him get an eagle on his button, and a musket on his shoulder, and bullets in his pocket, and there is no power on earth or under the earth which can deny that he has earned the right of citizenship in the United States.”
Preamble; A Rush Connection. Yes, the band, the Canadian Triumvirate. And, no, I am not ashamed.
I am sorry for your loss. Loss of a family member, no matter how distance or near, is always difficult. Neil Peart wrote about in Rush, “Nobody’s Hero,” and he touches on the theme of loss and regret:
“As the years went by, we drifted apart
When I heard that she was gone
I felt a shadow cross my heart
But she’s nobody’s
“Hero – Is the voice of reason
Against the howling mob
Hero – Is the pride of purpose
In the unrewarding job”
We can not expect better, because not enough of the right people demand better.