this week soon one of these days I shall be making adjustments to this site. It may be unavailable for a time. But, be assured (or be afraid), it will be back. (I must confess, sadly, that I am getting lazy in my old age.)
The editorial board of the Las Vegas Sun considers reasons why the Republican Party strives to gut out the vote and argues that the root of them lies in its decision to become the party of only some of the people. Indeed, they argue that the party is no longer in any classical way “conservative”; it’s not interested in conserving anything.
They list several factors leading to their conclusion.
- Going back decades, the GOP’s overall campaign strategies have pitted Americans against each other by dividing the population into “us” versus “them” — us being white voters, them being voters of color.
- Today, the Republican Party must suppress votes because it’s a minority — and is one by choice.
- The GOP understands that “us” is a minority group led by an even smaller minority — certain big-money interests . . . .
- The GOP’s absolute refusal to try to create a bigger tent by listening to the needs of a larger population — and therefore court them — means one thing: It doesn’t want to represent anyone other than its narrow leadership.
- The corollary of this is that the modern GOP wants to silence everyone else.
Their reasoning echoes a point that I have made many times in these electrons: Richard Nixon’s odious “southern strategy” has come full circle. The Republican Party is now the party of the Secesh.
Follow the link for a detailed discussion of each of those factors and for the Sun’s larger conclusions.
At the Idaho State-Journal, Michael Corrigan draws on his own experiences to discuss the Trump administration’s practice of
family separation kidnapping. A snippet:
When I worked for a rescue organization known as Traveler’s Aid in San Francisco’s Tenderloin District, they used me to help with the children of the neighborhood residents — the so-called “street people.” The Tenderloin was and remains dangerous. A decoy cop posing as a passed out drunk and hoping to arrest muggers was shot and killed on my first day. When the local people, many ravaged by drugs and poverty, discovered I was working at the day care, I had a safer passage through the crime-filled neighborhood.
One thing that never changed, however, was the fear every child demonstrated when they were dropped off. “I want my mommy” was a repeated mantra. Even after a month of daily routines, the children expressed a fear of abandonment until they were reassured.
Please do read the rest.
Will Bunch has a suggestion.
Dr. Mario Molina takes a look at the “herd immunity” snake oil being embraced by the Trump administration and does the math. A snippet (emphasis added):
We also know that, contrary to what the president has stated, it is possible, though as of now, rare — to become re-infected with COVID-19, as it has happened in a handful of cases. As such, we do not know if anyone that has contracted COVID-19 is, in fact, immune.
Moreover, to achieve herd immunity, 70-90% of the community must be infected and develop resistance to the disease. In the United States that would mean over 200 million Americans would have to be infected with the virus. With a 1% mortality rate, which is optimistic (some researchers peg the mortality rate closer to 3%), that means that over 2 million people would die . . . .
We voted today at our nearest in-person early voting facility. As we are both above the cut-off age, we qualified for in-car curbside voting. It took approximately an hour to get to the actual curbside. According to the policeman who was directing traffic, today’s was the shortest wait of the week so far. As far as we could tell, both voters in their cars and those in line to enter the building were waiting quite patiently.
Now it’s your turn.
Yet another responsible gun owner discharges his responsibility.
At Psychology Today Blogs, William A. Haseltine muses about whether there is value in publicly debating something that is clearly false. He starts by discussing why he turned down the opportunity to debate a scientist affiliated with the Trump administration about “herd immunity” and COVID-19. Here’s a bit from the opening of his article:
While some may have jumped at the opportunity to publicly debate the merits of the approach, I declined the invitation—I do not believe in giving credence to false ideas.
He goes on to question whether holding a civil debate about something known to be false may serve perversely to dignify and perpetuate the falsehood. As we are inundated with batches of botnets, troops of trolls, and a proliferation of professional propagandists emitting endless streams of excrement into the disinformation superhighway, methinks his article is worth a read.