The Schmuck appears to believe that internment of Japanese citizens during the Second World War was not "a great intrusion on civil liberties." How so? Just complacent superlative-laden bullshitting around for the hell of it - Japanese citizenship being second class or something - or an inexcusable gross negligence (by omission) committed by a simpleton Trump servant who unfortunately is entrusted with running the Department of Justice and royally fucking up the job, mouth ahead of brain while letting Trump criminals off the hook?

 Aside from insulting citizens of Japanese extraction (some of whom spent part of an American childhood in an internment camp), the schmuck also overlooks that pandemic management was equally important, and similarly practiced, during the 1918-1919 flu pandemic. An unreliable exposition of history, for drama over substance while bloviating is a character defect for this character. Watch:

 

 Hat tip for the embedded video, DWT, with the video there, in context:

 

 In America... it's all denialism from the nation's leaders-- pretending. Trump and the Trumpist governors first and foremost. Oh... and the goons I hope to see at Nuremberg-like trials one day, like his consiglieri William Barr. He likened the effort to protect the country from a pandemic he doesn't understand to slavery. Watch the idiot:

-- video here --

New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio thought again about opening up his city's schools. He was smart to do so, while most "leaders" are trying to shove decisions like that off on anyone they can. The NY Times' Eliza Shapiro reported that he acknowledged that "the system had still not fully surmounted the many obstacles that it faced in bringing children back during the pandemic." Shapiro is too dull-witted to understand that DeBlasio was doing the right thing and the courageous thing and she slanted her entire piece to disparage him. What a piece of crap this one is! Most of her writing made me want to vomit. It could have been written by anyone from inside the Trump Regime.

She did note, however that "The mayor said that he decided to delay the start of the school year and opt instead for a phased-in reopening after a three-hour conversation at City Hall on Wednesday with the leaders of the unions representing the city’s principals and teachers, along with senior mayoral aides. Those union leaders have been explicitly warning for weeks that schools were not ready to reopen for myriad reasons, from poor ventilation in some aging buildings to a severe staffing crunch that the principals’ union estimated could leave the city needing as many as 10,000 educators.

 Compare that degree of due caution with an AG who puts politics first and foremost; especially by non sequitur; Barr quoted:

“Just think about the way we vote now,” Barr said. "You have a precinct, your name is on a list, you go in and say who you are, you go behind a curtain, no one is allowed to go in there to influence you, and no one can tell how you voted. All of that is gone with mail-in voting. There’s no secret vote. You have to associate the envelope in the mailing and the name of who’s sending it in, with the ballot.

“There’s no more secret vote with mail-in vote. A secret vote prevents selling and buying votes. So now we’re back in the business of selling and buying votes. Capricious distribution of ballots means (ballot) harvesting, undue influence, outright coercion, paying off a postman, here’s a few hundred dollars, give me some of your ballots,” the attorney general said.

[...] “You know liberals project,” Barr said. "All this bulls--- about how the president is going to stay in office and seize power? I’ve never heard of any of that crap. I mean, I’m the attorney general. I would think I would have heard about it. They are projecting. They are creating an incendiary situation where there will be loss of confidence in the vote.

“Someone will say the president just won Nevada. ‘Oh, wait a minute! We just discovered 100,000 ballots! Every vote will be counted!’ Yeah, but we don’t know where these freaking votes came from,” Barr said, promising to watch “Key Largo.

Ah, the art of non sequitur practiced most crudely. If you honestly see a true difference to going to a precinct to fill out a ballot where you can converse before that with anyone about anything and everything, even exchange of money, vs filling out a ballot at home during a pandemic and using a mailback or drop box which equally but no more allows talking in advance with anyone about anything and everything, even exchange of money; then you value a distinction without a difference. Where does the actual total equivalence of risk leave this unconscionable Republican bloviator, once you examine his glib remarks?

Either way, the honesty of a voter is of concern, and election dishonesty if existing at all has historically been tiny fractions of a percent of votes being thought suspect. When voting by precinct.  And without cause to see any meaningful true difference, in voting safely by mail during a mortal pandemic Trump claims to present a threat of panic among the public. The Barr stuff is pure sophistry spun by a lightweight (intellectually).

When voting by mail, yes the post office must be effective and beyond reproach; but Barr neglects to acknowledge his and Trump's henchpersons are now busy deliberately poisoning post office effectiveness even while he was pontificating as quoted. 

If not a statutory crime what DeJoy and the board chair are up to, there nonetheless is no moral compass to fucking over the postal service and its hard working people who provide the most regular (indeed daily) show of need among the people for a federal government to exist and be of service. 

Barr only sees the ghosts and hob-gobs he wants to demonize; not the ones needing public shaming and firing from Republican positions of influence. Like a flounder with eyes only on one side of his head because he, as a bottom dweller, is more effective that way, for his purposes, keeping well fed being one he and the flounder share.

Tina Smith honked off environmentalists by sucking up to Iron Rangers wanting dangerous sulfide mining to happen. What's it gotten her, and is her judgment that way biting her in the ass in terms of reelection endorsement?

 Losing the trust of environmentalists was Tina Smith's gamble. 

Hat tip to Gary Gross at his blog for citing this WashExam [biased] item.

In that item the writer states:

Two weeks ago, Lewis announced after a business roundtable that he had earned the support of the Iron Range region's Democratic Party mayors: Mayors Larry Cuffe of Virginia, Robert Vlaisavljevich of Eveleth, and Andrea Zupancich of Babbitt. The group also announced it was endorsing Trump at a “Workers for Trump” rally held by Vice President Mike Pence in Duluth, Minnesota.

A backfiring ploy: Good show, Tina. Great act of judgment advancing sulfide mining extreme environmental risks upon US in trying to suck up Iron Range reelection votes. 

In 20/20 hindsight, was it worth it?

There is truth when Trump talks of outside agitators flying into hot spots by plane. Just, not as he meant it. As it is.

Link. To instigate no good. To sow disruption and division. To diminish fairness to a part of our people, or to show solidarity with those having that intent. 

Power may exist to do that. Justification does not. 

There must be justice. Justice is a prerequisite to having lasting, real peace. Among US. 

Aiming the other way is not helping the people. Not helping US. It is feeding the problem. It is not fixing one damned thing that's wrong. It is the current federal executive being what it is. - A menace. 

Should you doubt, just look at Bill Barr. An unappealing disaster. Ugliest part of the man, his mind.

A websearch. A neat tune. Of course - no continuity intended. Two things. Separate.

 Here. Marley. 

New top sidebar item. DWT inspired.

Go to: The Orange Menace Must Be Defeated-- Biden Needs To Rev Up The Democratic Base

And do note the last item in that post. It tells us what we already know, and must accept. Lesser evil sucks. But it's all THEY for now allow US. Show sense. Moreover, show perseverance. Schumer and Pelosi and their donor-owners will not cave in. They must be overrun by numbers. TAKE OVER THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. To make it, of all things, democratic. If they be sharks, we be piranha. Keep nibbling at them. 

_________UPDATE_________

The linked DWT post in turn quotes and excerpts Sirota, and - excerpting the excerpt from Sirota's item titled, "You’re Not Being Loyal By Staying Silent As Biden Depresses Voters (As Biden has ignored the Democratic base, polls now show he faces an enthusiasm gap. Progressive pressure is needed to force him to energize Democratic voters and defeat Trump):

 The Democratic electorate has voted over and over and over again for change, and their party’s leaders have returned the favor with bank bailouts, record oil exports during a climate emergency, an abandonment of the labor movement, corporate-written trade policies that crush workers and health care reform that props up insurance profits.

[...]  Indeed, throwing shade at voters for feeling burnt out and unenthused is the modern-day “let them eat cake”-- and the impulse to engage in as self-destructive a tactic as vote-shaming evinces the dangerous ideology at work here.

You’ll notice that Democratic vote-shamers rarely complain the other way. Typically, they lament progressive pressure, but don’t lament big donors constantly demanding ideological fealty to an incrementalist corporate agenda that makes sure nothing fundamentally changes-- which inevitably leads to voter disillusionment.

They celebrate efforts to policy pander to affluent conservatives, but scoff at the notion of having to do any work to secure support from disaffected lower income Americans who might consider sitting the election out or voting third party because they are so completely disgusted with both parties.

In this world view, Democrats promising tax breaks to wealthy suburbanites is seen as laudable pragmatism and shrewd politics to attract affluent Republicans. By contrast, the idea of having to promise a Green New Deal to young people who see a lifetime of climate dystopia and think about voting third party-- that’s seen as uncouth behavior and detestable pandering to petulant serfs who supposedly don’t deserve even minimal respect or attention. The political class tells us to pay them no mind-- they are the electoral arena’s “no real person involved.”

As an election strategy, this attitude presumes that Chuck Schumer was right in 2016 when he insisted that “for every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

Of course, that theory has been electorally shellacked for a decade. And yet, these Democratic elites adhere to it-- and vote-shame anyone who questions it-- not because it has been successful and is the best strategy to win back Congress, expand health care or save the planet from climate change. They cling to the hypothesis because it at least provides a rationale-- however absurd-- to continue running campaigns whose number one directive is comforting the donor class.

More than even defeating Trump, satisfying the big contributors is the top priority because at least that is guaranteed to keep their checks going to Washington super PACs, consulting firms, think tanks and advocacy groups that are the permanent full-time employment machine for the entire Democratic political class, regardless of whether that political class ever actually wins elections or materially improves the lives of voters.

As long as donor maintenance is the prime directive and the money keeps flowing, that political class will be safely insulated in their second homes in the Hamptons, still getting the big TV invites and the fat corporate lobbying contracts even if Trump wins.

[...] When progressives criticized Biden for loading up his transition team with corporate cronies, that wasn’t some evil plot to tank the Democratic ticket-- it was an effort to root out the soft corruption that has defined Democratic politics for three decades and that has contributed to voters being unenthused about the party.

When progressives wondered aloud why Biden was giving a platform to unpopular Republican politicians like John Kasich at the Democratic convention, it wasn’t some pointless temper tantrum-- it was an attempt to steer Biden away from touting the GOP politicians who turn off Democratic voters and toward generating the massive Democratic turnout that will be necessary to defeat the current president.

 [...] Loyalty is not falling in line and shutting up while leaders coddle donors and create a dangerous voter enthusiasm gap.

That’s political suicide-- and all of us who do not want to see another election-night disaster have an obligation to speak up and try to avert it before it happens.

DWT's post ends with a show of a plain fuck-Rahm-Emanual truth:

Republicans have sacrificed every last belief and principle they held dear on the bonfire of Trump’s vanity.

The headline is an early sentence from a Vanity Fair item where a known truth is retold. 

The major problem with Lincoln Project Republicans bemoaning sacrifice of all manner of principle the party had, is it never had any. Aside from that, readers might find the link worth the time it takes to read.

Russ Feingold's prediction has come true that Democrats would "lose our soul" if they allowed Big Money into the party. Just look at Chuck Schumer.

 Schumer is emblamatic of all wrong with the "party of the people." Simply explained, Democrats are the party of big money, Republicans too, so really, only one party exists with differing cabals after spoils.

DWT, again, this link. Source of this post's headline. As to contesting for spoils, DWT's opening image stands correct.

As to much else, try this excerpt:

Is One Party's Politicians More Or Less Corrupt Than The Other's?

Hard Ball by Nancy Ohanian

In terms of political parties, it was once clearer who the good guys were and who the bad guys were in the Dark Money world or legalistic, systemic bribery. [...] Poke a Democrat about taking legalistic bribes and he or she will start screeching about "unilateral disarmament." But as new report by Alex Seitz-Wald for NBC News makes it clear that if the Dems were once the party opposed to Dark Money, they are now the party getting the most out of it. [...] "Democratic super PACs are spending more than Republican ones" and that Democratic Super PACs outspent conservative Super PACs in 2018. Russ Feingold's prediction has come true that Democrats would "lose our soul" if they allowed Big Money into the party. Just look at Chuck Schumer. There isn't a person on earth who would say he has anything even resembling a soul-- and he's one of (many) go-betweens connecting the Wall Street banksters with the Democratic Party.

 Advocates are concerned with super PACs, which can accept donations of unlimited size but have to reveal the names of their donors and regularly disclose their activity. But they're more worried about dark money groups: nonprofit organizations that can't be as explicitly political as super PACs, but can keep their donors secret forever and don't have to reveal much about activities before elections.

 While concerns about campaign finance reform that once animated Democratic voters have been eclipsed by the desire to oust President Donald Trump, advocates are left to wonder if the party can really be trusted to follow through on its promises to dismantle a system that may help them get elected.

[...] The Democratic National Committee adopted a platform last month calling for a ban on dark money, and Joe Biden says one of his first priorities as president would be signing the sweeping reform bill House Democrats passed last year that would, among other things, match small donations 6-to-1 to encourage grassroots giving.

But his campaign also says they'll take all the help they can get for now and that bill, known as H.R.1, would have to compete for limited legislative bandwidth with efforts to address the coronavirus pandemic, the economy and much more.

Republicans, who generally oppose major campaign finance reform efforts, cry hypocrisy.

"It's just like everything else Biden stands for. He believes it until it's of political benefit to reverse himself," said Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh.

Democrats, however, argue that the only way they can rein in big money in politics is to first use big money in politics to win.

"We aren't going to unilaterally disarm against Donald Trump and right-wing conservatives, but look forward to the day when unlimited money and super PACs are a thing of the past, even if it means putting our own PAC out of business," said Guy Cecil, the chairman of Priorities USA, the super PAC first founded to support Obama's re-election.

On principle, Democrats opposed Citizens United, the Supreme Court's landmark 2010 decision that opened the floodgates to virtually unlimited money in politics. But they also were against it because they were sure Republicans and their big-business allies would outspend them.

At first, Obama set the example for his party by trying to keep his hands clean of the super PAC game. [...]

Quickly, though, party leaders concluded their position against unlimited donations and dark money wasn't tenable, and it turned out there was plenty of it flowing on the Democratic side, too. Obama eventually blessed Priorities USA, which helped kick off a proliferation of liberal big-money groups.

"If Democrats don't compete, it would be like preparing for a nuclear war by grabbing your fly swatter," said Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic operative who has worked for both campaigns and outside groups.

 [italics added - words are cheap]

Further in the DWT post - continuing the quote within the item:

 ...Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which runs the campaign finance data warehouse OpenSecrets.org, said her group has tracked liberal groups "taking dark money in politics to a new level of opacity" and caught them trying new tricks, such as creating faux news sites to make their attack ads seem more credible.

While overall dark money spending is roughly even between the parties right now, Democrats have a clear edge in congressional races, Krumholz said. Around 65 percent of dark money TV ads in 2020 Senate races and 85 percent of dark money TV ads in House races are sponsored by liberal groups, according to Krumholz.

"Unfortunately, there has been comfort with this that has grown over time on both sides of the aisle," Krumholz said. "Nobody wants to be the sucker that is playing by the rules when someone is getting away with murder."

Bloomberg. Can you identify any greater source of slush money? Of course not. Continuing, still more of the item the DWT post is quoting:

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) remains one of the fiercest opponents of campaign finance reform, not only blocking bills like H.R.1 and disclosure measures, but even intervening in legal battles to overturn state campaign finance rules.

He sees it as a free speech issue, hailing the Citizens United decision as "an important step in the direction of restoring First Amendment rights."

All this leaves campaign finance reform advocates dependent on Democrats winning in November-- even if it takes some dark money to get them there.

"We are on the cusp of having the best opportunity to repair the campaign finance system since the Watergate scandal of the 1970s," said Fred Wertheimer, a veteran good-government advocate and president of Democracy 21. "But that depends on how the elections come out." 

After posing the argument, DWT begins its own analysis:

What a crock of crap. "Depends on how the elections come out?" Why? Are the corrupt conservatives the DCCC and DSCC recruited going to suddenly become reformers? It takes real effort and real talent-- of a kind most politicians don't possess or even strive to develop-- to raise campaign cash without resorting to criminality.

Then DWT segues to commentary about promising progressive candidacies its Blue America effort is backing, and those specific observations are again at this link. 

The problem is Schumer. The problem is Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn - takers of donor money and following donor wishes. That is how/why we face a stinking, awful Biden-Trump election where you puke before you vote.

That bad. The Bloombergs of our nation must be laughing long and loud.

They own this nation, as theirs to laugh at. To cynically scorn. US. Getting screwed.

So, what is your definition of fascism?

So, is there any answer when the people entrusted with the levers of power to reform the stinking cesspool got there by being corrupted with original sin in the process?  Is anything real beyond hypocrites bleating?

The Dems did pass that number one bill, knowing it would be dead on arrival once reaching the serial bill killer, McConnell. All show. However, a text exists, and while words are cheap, having a textual roadmap toward betterment is a step better than not having it. The problem, Pelosi, Schumer, the DNC, among such there is no will nor motive to change their ways. They prosper. They age, comfortably. They cherish their gatekeeper roles. And then -

Consider how Bernie got flummoxed by the mini-candidates nipping at his heals up to South Carolina  all metamorphosing into Biden love creatures while Clyburn played his tune.

Sick.

No other word for it. Remember - Beto, the little South Bend mayor, law and order Amy, and never again believe a single word any of them say.

That is a first step. Reject known, shown corruption which got in the way of better times and better chances. 

SAY THEIR NAMES.

NEVER BELIEVE ANY ONE OF THEM AGAIN ABOUT ANYTHING.

CERTAINLY NEVER CAST A VOTE FOR ANY ONE OF THEM AGAIN.