26 thoughts on “Hark! It’s The Christmas Eve Open Forum!

  1. I take no position on the recently resolved strike at Kellogg’s. And I doubt that the boycott of their products in fact had much effect in real terms, but it did get a fair amount of publicity, especially in the left-leaning media I frequent. So when Kellogg’s removed their brand name from boxes of Pop-Tarts, it was seen by many as evidence that the boycott was working, at least in terms of controlling the narrative.
    Certainly the timing of the company’s decision to “[simplify] the package design” because “data show that consumers routinely focus on the visual of the Pop-Tarts brand name” was intriguing, to say the least. So the question is: did the company fail to consider the image problem associated with the timing, or were they just lying?
    Either way, I fully intend to boycott Kellogg’s products. I expect this will cost them something in the neighborhood of a dollar and a quarter over the next year, surely a crippling blow to their parent company, whose market cap is barely over $380,000,000,000.

  2. THIS COMPANY apparently has hit it big with their “Let’s Go Brandon” gift wrapping paper.
    Is this fine if you’re not using it to annoy or insult the gift recipient or others present, and are sure they will appreciate it? Jack has expressed his displeasure with this phrase both in relation to respect for the presidency and his dislike of euphemisms. I admit I’m squishy on both cases, and particularly on dismissing, out of hand, the use of euphemisms.

    So OK, even amusing maybe, in private, or no-go at all on this type of thing?

  3. Been thinking about the series “Falcon and the Winter Soldier” which, among other things, deals with the ethical problems of the people snapped out of existence in “Infinity War” and brought back 5 years later. Are there any real world examples of a missing person being declared dead, but coming back after their assets have been disposed of?

  4. I simply want to wish everyone here a joyous holiday season and a healthy prosperous new year.

    I also hope that our politicians give Jack less fodder to write about. It would be a welcome change if the value of goodwill toward each other carried on beyond the new year.

    I feel fortunate that I found EA some years ago. There is no doubt that several commenters have provided me exceptional information and have helped me shape my understanding of issues. I know I would likely leave out some highly influential members of the commentariat so I am not going to try to. Suffice it to say that if you comment regularly you would be one of those influencers.

    Again, Merry Christmas to all.


  5. Something to discuss.


    In his nine months in office, Attorney General Merrick Garland has done a great deal to restore integrity and evenhanded enforcement of the law to an agency that was badly misused for political reasons under his predecessor. But his place in history will be assessed against the challenges that confronted him. And the overriding test that he and the rest of the government face is the threat to our democracy from people bent on destroying it.
    Mr. Garland’s success depends on ensuring that the rule of law endures. That means dissuading future coup plotters by holding the leaders of the insurrection fully accountable for their attempt to overthrow the government. But he cannot do so without a robust criminal investigation of those at the top, from the people who planned, assisted or funded the attempt to overturn the Electoral College vote to those who organized or encouraged the mob attack on the Capitol. To begin with, he might focus on Mark Meadows, Steve Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman and even Donald Trump — all of whom were involved, in one way or another, in the events leading up to the attack.
    Almost a year after the insurrection, we have yet to see any clear indicators that such an investigation is underway, raising the alarming possibility that this administration may never bring charges against those ultimately responsible for the attack.
    While the Justice Department has filed charges against more than 700 people who participated in the violence, limiting the investigation to these foot soldiers would be a grave mistake: As Joanne Freeman, a Yale historian, wrote this month about the insurrection, “Accountability — the belief that political power holders are responsible for their actions and that blatant violations will be addressed — is the lifeblood of democracy. Without it, there can be no trust in government, and without trust, democratic governments have little power.”
    The legal path to investigate the leaders of the coup attempt is clear. The criminal code prohibits inciting an insurrection or “giving aid or comfort” to those who do, as well as conspiracy to forcibly “prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” The code also makes it a crime to corruptly impede any official proceeding or deprive citizens of their constitutional right to vote.
    Based purely on what we know today from news reports and the steady stream of revelations coming from the House select committee investigating the attack, the attorney general has a powerful justification for a robust and forceful investigation into the former president and his inner circle. As White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows was intimately involved in the effort to overturn the election. He traveled to Georgia last December, where he apparently laid the groundwork for the phone call in which the president pressured Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find 11,780 votes.” Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio reportedly promoted a scheme to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject duly certified Joe Biden electors. And from their war room at the Willard Hotel, several members of the president’s inner circle hatched the legal strategy to overturn the results of the election.
    The president himself sat back for three hours while his chief of staff was barraged with messages from members of Congress and Fox News hosts pleading with him to have Mr. Trump call off the armed mob whose violent passion he had inflamed. That evidence, on its own, may not be enough to convict the former president, but it is certainly enough to require a criminal investigation.
    And yet there are no signs, at least in media reports, that the attorney general is building a case against these individuals — no interviews with top administration officials, no reports of attempts to persuade the foot soldiers to turn on the people who incited them to violence. By this point in the Russia investigation, the special counsel Robert Mueller had indicted Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and secured the cooperation of George Papadopoulos after charging him with lying to the F.B.I. The media was reporting that the special counsel’s team had conducted or scheduled interviews with Mr. Trump’s aides Stephen Miller and Mr. Bannon, as well as Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
    Of course, there is no way to know for sure whether Mr. Garland’s Department of Justice is investigating the leaders of the attack behind closed doors. Justice Department policy does not permit announcing investigations, absent exceptional circumstances. Mr. Garland, unlike his predecessor, plays by the book, keeping quiet about investigations until charges are filed. But the first of the rioters to plead guilty began cooperating with the Justice Department back in April. If prosecutors have been using their cooperation to investigate the top officials and operatives responsible for the siege of the Capitol and our democracy, there would likely be significant confirmation in the media by now.
    It is possible that the department is deferring the decision about starting a full-blown investigative effort pending further work by the House select committee. It is even conceivable that the department is waiting for the committee’s final report so that federal prosecutors can review the documents, interviews and recommendations amassed by House investigators and can consider any potential referrals for criminal prosecution.
    But such an approach would come at a very high cost. In the prosecution business, interviews need to happen as soon as possible after the events in question, to prevent both forgetfulness and witness coordination to conceal the truth. A comprehensive Department of Justice probe of the leadership is now more urgently needed than ever.
    It is also imperative that Mr. Trump be included on the list of those being investigated. The media has widely reported his role in many of the relevant events, and there is no persuasive reason to exclude him.
    First, he has no claim to constitutional immunity from prosecution. The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has recognized such immunity only for sitting presidents because a criminal trial would prevent them from discharging the duties of their office. Mr. Trump no longer has those duties to discharge.
    Nor is exclusion of the former president remotely justified by the precedent President Gerald Ford set in pardoning Richard Nixon to help the country “heal” from Watergate. Even our proud tradition of not mimicking banana republics by allowing political winners to retaliate against losers must give way in the wake of violence perpetrated to thwart the peaceful transition of power. Refusing to at least investigate those who plot to end democracy — and who would remain engaged in efforts to do so — would be beyond foolhardy.
    Furthermore, the pending state and local investigations in New York and Atlanta will never be able to provide the kind of accountability the nation clearly needs. The New York case, which revolves around tax fraud, has nothing to do with the attack on our government. The Atlanta district attorney appears to be probing Mr. Trump’s now infamous call to Mr. Raffensperger. But that is just one chapter of the wrongdoing that led up to the attack on the Capitol.
    Significantly, even if the Atlanta district attorney is able to convict Mr. Meadows and Mr. Trump for interfering in Georgia’s election, they could still run for office again. Only convicting them for participating in an insurrection would permanently disqualify them from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
    Some have expressed pessimism that the Department of Justice would be able to convict Mr. Trump. His guilt would ultimately be for a jury to decide, and some jurors might believe he deluded himself into believing his own big lie and thus genuinely thought he was saving, rather than sabotaging, the election. But concerns about a conviction are no reason to refrain from an investigation. If anything, a federal criminal investigation could unearth even more evidence and provide a firmer basis for deciding whether to indict.
    To decline from the outset to investigate would be appeasement, pure and simple, and appeasing bullies and wrongdoers only encourages more of the same. Without forceful action to hold the wrongdoers to account, we will likely not resist what some retired generals see as a march to another insurrection in 2024 if Mr. Trump or another demagogue loses.
    Throughout his public life, Mr. Garland has been a highly principled public servant focused on doing the right thing. But only by holding the leaders of the Jan. 6 insurrection — all of them — to account can he secure the future and teach the next generation that no one is above the law. If he has not done so already, we implore the attorney general to step up to that task.

    • Lawrence Tribe has demonstrated that he cares little for reasoned thought when it comes to anything Trump. To suggest Merrick Garland is the epitome of a public servant devoted to Constitutional governance is like saying Jeff Dahmer was a practicing vegetarian.

      • Tribe broke himself swallowing the Russian Hoax hook, line, and sinker. As you say, and as we can see from the text Michael posted, he hasn’t put himself back together and returned to reality. Here’s what he tweeted an hour or so ago as a Christmas message:
        ,i>“On Christmas Eve 1776, George Washington led his men across the Delaware River and changed the tide of history. On this eve in 2021, their Legacy is under attack. We must unite & rise to meet this moment just as they did 245 years ago. Merry Christmas.” — The Lincoln Project

  6. I wrote this poem Christmas Eve 2016. They say respect is a two-way street, and it should be. However, bigotry is also a two-way street. Those who mock your faith and call you a “Papist” or say that you worship a “sky fairy” are just as big of bigots as those who use derogatory terms we don’t need to repeat here for any other believers. Those who tell you that you can’t celebrate Columbus or Italian heritage, you have to celebrate something else, are just as big of bigots as those who deface Jewish gravestones or scrawl anti-Arab slurs on a mosque wall. Those who scour donation lists to see if you donated to a conservative cause so they can cancel you are just as big of bigots as those who demanded an answer to “are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” Don’t tolerate any of this if you want to keep the light burning.

    The Light of Freedom
    By Steve-O-in-NJ

    It’s twenty-two centuries now gone by,
    Since the Greeks tried to conquer the earth.
    In Judah the Hebrews resisted their rule
    For their ancient traditions’ worth.

    The Greeks cared not for Jehovah’s laws
    They forbade the worship of Him.
    A few fled abroad, but many gave up
    And the light of freedom grew dim.

    The Maccabees rose to lead the fight
    Their land and their faith to regain
    At Emmaus Gorgias was put to flight
    The light of freedom blazed up once again

    They cleansed the temple and altar
    And offered their prayers at the door
    The holy lamps were restored to their place
    The light of freedom shone once more.

    Some say they burned for eight days
    Though they only had oil for one,
    But the point isn’t so much the miracle
    As the fact that freedom was won.

    It was twenty centuries later
    And an ocean and continent far
    When the redcoats stood poised to carry the day
    And the light of freedom grew dark.

    On the Delaware’s shore stood Washington
    Across was the camp of von Rall.
    A victory would light the embers again
    A loss would make freedom’s cause fall.

    Though the river was full of ice floes
    And the night was as black as jet
    They rowed across in the Christmas gloom
    Freedom’s light wasn’t out quite yet.

    At Trenton they caught von Rall’s men out
    Too surprised to be ready to fight
    The muskets cracked, the cannons roared
    And they relit freedom’s light.

    Though the years have rolled on, the light still burns
    And we live by its glow each day.
    Free to believe, to write, to speak out
    But don’t take it for granted, I say.

    A light untended can quickly go out
    And freedoms be easily lost
    Unless we are watchful and ready to fight
    To defend them, whatever the cost.

    So remember this time, as you light your lights
    On menorah or Christmas tree
    Your right to light was paid for in blood
    By the men who fought to be free!

  7. To Jack and all of you who help make his blog so engrossing, educational, entertaining, and informative, and have no one but yourselves to blame for me hanging around here,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.