Category Archives: Uncategorized

By Anonymous.1

Suppose you really feel it’s important to warn the world that Adam Schiff is actually a lizard man from the planet Bumfinger who’s inhabiting the skin he tore off a homeless person from San Diego, but your three remaining rational neurons suggest that maybe you shouldn’t attach your real name to this idea. What to do? Well, if you’re reluctant to put your name on something, maybe that’s a little sign from your brain that you should RETHINK YOUR IDEAS (and rethink the wisdom of sharing them with everyone)! Do you REALLY need to say that your neighbor is an ignorant Nazi slut? Maybe she is. Maybe you don’t mind that everyone knows that’s how you feel. Certainly some people (like the former and soon-to-be current guy, Orange Jesus, der Punkinfuhrer) are quite happy to put their name on all manner of toxic emanations. And if that’s the case, then post under your real name. Get the credit—and put up with the blame. However, many of the rest of us (albeit an ever-declining number) don’t want to be known as the kind of person who says cruel and/or crazy things. That instinct is what has given civil society the modest degree of civility it has had for millennia. However, at the same time, we want the reward of seeing people agree with us, so we split the difference and post online under an avatar or pseudonym, like “maddog2020”.

There are 2 different things, the ideas themselves and the credit for having that idea. If the idea itself is important (Beware! Adam Schiff is a lizard man, and here’s how I know!), then it’s important no matter who says it—and an anonymous post is probably fine as long as the evidence is coherent and legit. And if the main thing you want is social credit for being prescient, wise, snarky, evil or whatever, then get it for your actual human (or lizard) self by posting under your own name. But if you just want to play (ie, “troll”) without personal consequences, that’s ok, but no credit for you (or the pseudonymous “you”). Each and every anonymous post should literally be entitled “anonymous,” NOT “maddog2020,” just “anonymous.” That’ll let people vent all they want but without getting the same feeling of satisfaction that motivates most online trolling. Seeing, “Wow, anonymous really told off that anonymous” just doesn’t have the same attraction. And if I see that anonymous thinks my ideas are crap, it doesn’t have the same sting as one from a real person or even from an avatar (unless I recognize my wife’s pseudonym). And, to forestall objection, if there’s a long conversation string that’s hard to keep track of, then each successive responder on that string could be assigned a version number (“anonymous.1, anonymous.2, etc) just for that specific conversation.

“But I have the right to say whatever I want.” Ok, say it. “But I don’t want people to know I said it.” Ok, be anonymous. “But I want people to know my avatar said it!” Well, avatars are not people and thus don’t have human rights—at least not until the SCOTUS gets involved. Just to end w a scary thought, what kind of rulings do you think SCOTUS would make if THEIR identities were secret? “Senate confirms inquisitionman1562 to Supreme Court.” Can’t wait.

An Atheist View of Abortion

Long one, but unavoidable. Thought I’d write this as a Socratic dialogue between 2 discussants, A and B, similar to what I did in my book on religion, The Answer is Never Magic (now also available in paperback). Given that previous book, you won’t be surprised that the supposed wishes of the invisible overlord of the universe don’t play a role in this discussion, but you may be surprised where I think the ethical logic leads.

A: My body, my choice! I get to say what happens to my body, not you!
B: Seems reasonable. You mean, for example if you have appendicitis, you get to decide whether or not to have an appendectomy?
A: Well, yeah, but that’s a ridiculous example. It’s not like there’s really two options with appendicitis.
B: Actually, there are. Research has shown that at least a third of cases of appendicitis resolve with antibiotics and surgery isn’t needed. Surgeons nowadays often give people the option to have their appendix out right away or try a course of antibiotics and see whether that works. If it doesn’t, then they take the appendix out.
A: Hummph. Didn’t know that. Just goes to prove my point.
B: Which was…?
A: That it’s up to me whether I have an abortion or not.
B: Oh, right, abortion. But how’s that the same thing? As an appendectomy, I mean.
A: Pretty obvious. My appendix is part of my body and I get to say whether it goes or stays. Same with a fetus. It’s part of my body, so it’s up to me what happens to it.
B: So the fetus is like an appendix?
A: Well, it’s got different parts and all, but it’s the same idea…
B: Ok, not anatomically the same, but the same from an ethical or moral standpoint, then.
A: Right. You can’t tell me what I HAVE to do with my appendix. I can take it out or leave it in, even if YOU think I might die if it doesn’t come out. Your denying me the right to make that decision infringes on my bodily autonomy! Just like telling me I can’t have an abortion!
B: We’re probably pretty much in general agreement on the principle of bodily autonomy, which you clearly and succinctly expressed as “my body, my choice.” We certainly don’t want other people making us all get a certain kind of tattoo or not get our ears pierced. But what about the old saw that says, “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”? That seems to limit what you can do with your body, at least your fists.
A: I don’t see what that’s got to do with it. That’s totally different. That saying is talking about whether I can do something with my body that hurts ANOTHER person. That violates THEIR rights. My having an abortion or not doesn’t affect anyone else’s rights. It’s just about MY body and my right not to be pregnant if I don’t want to be.
B: Hmmm…that’s an interesting way to put it, but I wonder if you’re not smushing together two different (albeit related) ideas. Is there a difference between a right not to GET pregnant and a right not to BE pregnant?
A: Ummm, no. Seems pretty much the same to me.
B: Well, let’s see. You agree that you have a right not to be killed, don’t you?
A: Of course, that’s about as basic as human rights get.
B: So do you have a right not to be dead? That would mean a massive heart attack (and every other of the millions of natural deaths annually) was a violation of your inalienable human rights, which hardly makes sense. And also that everyone is obliged to do whatever it takes to keep every other human alive.
A: That does seem a bit odd.
B: And I’d point out that saying there’s no right not to be dead is equivalent to saying there’s no right to life. Here’s another illustration. I think we both agree that your autonomy means you have a right not to have children if you don’t want any, right?
A: Of course. That’s what we’re arguing about here.
B: Sort of but not quite. Now if you don’t have any children and don’t want any, no one can force you to have some. And if you DO want a child, that’s your right too. At least to try to have children.
A: That’s my whole point, duh.
B: But what if you already have a child and THEN decide you don’t want it? Mine were pretty annoying when they were toddlers and, shall we say, second thoughts were occasionally had. Would I have been entitled to get rid of them? And by get rid of them, I mean pitch them in the lake, not send them to their grandparents for the weekend.
A: Of course you can’t pitch your kids in the lake. But I definitely recommend calling on the grandparents.
B: So, someone who already HAS a child is in a different ethical situation than someone who doesn’t yet have any children. You can decide for any reason whatsoever not to have kids in the first place, and take whatever steps you deem necessary to keep from getting pregnant. But once you’ve got a child, your aren’t similarly entitled to free yourself from that child—and certainly not by killing it. So isn’t there the same difference between not BECOMING pregnant and not BEING pregnant? That maybe once you’re pregnant you’re constrained more than you were when you weren’t pregnant?
A: But HAVING a child is way different than being pregnant
B: For sure in a practical sense. But in an ethical sense, it’s pretty much the same because the physical location of an entity (ie, uterus vs cradle) should not generate a moral distinction. I mean, you have to follow different laws in different countries and some countries may not honor your rights, but you have those rights nonetheless.
A: But the thing is, the reason you can’t kill your kids is because THEY have their own rights. It’s not because of where they live, it’s because they have a right not to be killed.
B: Yes, children have rights, that is they are human beings. For ethical purposes, the status of “human being” means they qualify as rights-possessing entities. Of course the rights they possess are those we deem appropriate to their age—we don’t allow toddlers to marry or run a business, and, at least for the present, they’re not allowed to carry guns. But everyone must admit that at the very minimum, children have the right not to be killed, no matter how trying or inconvenient they might be.
A: I already said that.
B: Just making sure. But you DO think that if you’re pregnant, you’re allowed to kill your fetus?
A: Sure, because unlike children, fetuses are not “another person.” Like we said, a fetus is like my appendix, which has no rights of its own. And by the way, we don’t refer to an appendectomy as “killing” my appendix.
B: No, we don’t talk about killing your traitorous appendix when it becomes inflamed and puts your life at risk—unlike, say, killing a jihadist who becomes inflamed and puts your life at risk. However, we ARE causing living tissue to die.
A: But the question is whether that tissue should be considered a human being—in which case, causing its tissues to die counts as “killing.”
B: Fair enough. So since we agree children are human beings, then I guess your position is that a fetus becomes “another person” and gets its rights when it’s born and goes from fetus to infant? Is that when it becomes a human being?
A: Well, yes, I guess so.
B: That would mean then that if you were in labor with a full term 9 month fetus, you could kill it (“cause its tissues to die”) as long as it hadn’t come completely out of your vagina? If it was sticking partway out, you could cut off its head? But as soon as it was all the way out, you couldn’t harm it?
A: I don’t think you should kill a full term fetus right before birth. It’s just a baby that hasn’t quite come out yet.
B: So as far as you’re concerned, a full term but not-quite-delivered fetus should be considered a human being with rights—at least the right not to be killed.
A: Yeah, I suppose. And I also suppose now you’re going to ask “What if it’s a week before full term?” or 2 weeks before, or 3 and so on.
B: I have to admit I was. But YOU have to admit those are good questions, right? If, as we agree, a fetus that’s still in the uterus can be a human being at SOME point, even if it’s only very far along in the pregnancy, we really need to say WHEN that point occurs. And we should base that decision on some rational reasoning rather than just an arbitrary decree. I grant you, this might be a challenging distinction to make, as gestation is a continuum of development rather than a set of discrete steps. There’s really only one clear dividing line in the whole process and that’s the moment right after birth when fetal circulation from the placenta stops and blood begins flowing through the lungs and the newborn can start breathing air. THAT marks a definitive status change. But we already said that we didn’t think that birth was a reasonable start to human beings, that it had to begin sometime BEFORE that. But everything else before that point is a gradual but continuous progression without any clear boundaries.
A: Well, fetal viability is what most of us think is the dividing line. Abortion is morally acceptable before a fetus is viable.
B: And viability is…?
A: Obviously, the ability of a fetus to live outside of the womb. Once a fetus CAN survive outside the womb, even if it hasn’t yet left, it needs to be considered a human being for ethical purposes.
B: That does seem to be a dividing line of sorts, although viability varies significantly depending on the medical care available. A university NICU can stabilize and support an infant 2 months or more before it could survive as a developing world home birth. And it’s not a firm line with everyone on one side being nonviable and everyone on the other viable. There’s a probability of survival that decreases continually the earlier you go in gestation until you reach a point where that probability is zero.
A: True, but that doesn’t change the underlying point.
B: No. But I think we agree we can’t deny that a viable fetus is a human being no matter whether we disagree on just when that viability occurs.
A: So there you have it. After viability, human being! Before viability, appendix! And if thy appendix offends thee, pluck it out! Abortion is ethically sound before fetal viability!
B: Let’s not be hasty. That sounds like an error in logic.
A: In logic? What are you talking about?
B: Well, just because viability confers rights of a human being, that doesn’t mean that inviability necessitates lack of rights. There might logically be OTHER reasons for having human rights besides viability, that is, that nonviable fetuses might still be human beings. The fact that all crows (all viable fetuses) are black (considered human beings) doesn’t mean that other animals (nonviable fetuses) might not also be black (human beings).
A: You’re getting a bit tricky here. But why should we consider an early-stage fetus, something that might be just a tiny blob of tissue that doesn’t look like anything, a human being?
B: Well, that’s the question we should chew over. We certainly shouldn’t just assert that a fetus is or isn’t a human being without some sort of rationale backing us up.
A: If it’s not clear, maybe that’s a reason to let individual women make the decision on their own?
B: Personal decisions are an unsatisfactory way to judge human rights.
A: How is letting people make their own ethical decisions unsatisfactory?
B: For some issues, personal decisions are fine. But rights by their nature are things that aren’t left up to each individual to decide for themselves. That’s why the Founding Fathers referred to “inalienable” rights. That is, we don’t let you “make your own decision” as to whether you can or can’t enslave or murder your neighbors. That isn’t simply a matter of “you say tomato, I say tomahto.” Certain things are wrong no matter what a given individual might think or a majority might vote—don’t you think Hitler couldnt’ve found 51% of Germans who would vote Yes on “Let’s get rid of all the Jews”? So we should try to be on the surest possible footing when deciding to whom rights apply—which in this case is when a collection of cells and organs should be considered a human being.
A: Well, viability still seems reasonable enough to me. As long as a fetus HAS to be part of the mother’s body, well then it has the status of any other body part. When it DOESN’T have to be part of the mother’s body, then it’s its own being—a human being.
B: That’s not a ludicrous suggestion, but it’s hardly a prima facie case. Are there any situations in which an INVIABLE organism is considered a human being.
A: How could that be?
B: I can think of a few examples. Take a 1 month old infant. How “viable” is it, really? You could give it everything needed to survive in modern society—put it alone on the floor in a furnished apartment, with a cradle nearby, along with a charge card, smart phone, a dresser full of warm clothes, and a refrigerator full of baby formula, and the poor thing would be dead within a day. It’s not in the least bit “viable” absent round-the-clock care by a parent—care that I might add is even more effortful and burdensome than what is needed for an 8 month fetus still in the uterus. Maybe an infant isn’t “viable” until it’s able to feed itself? Maybe it isn’t even viable until it can find its own food and shelter?
A: A 1 month old baby is plenty viable if you take proper care of it, feeding it and keeping it warm.
B: Exactly! But only in the same way a 6 week fetus is viable as long as it’s in the mother’s uterus being fed and kept warm.
A: Well…
B: And how about later in life? A sick adult in the ICU on a ventilator for respiratory failure would be dead in minutes if you turned off the machine. That person isn’t viable using the same criteria we do for fetuses. And of course we do consider ventilator patients “human beings” and do not permit their indiscriminate killing.
A: Well sometimes we turn off ventilators and allow ICU patients to die.
B: True, but not unless there is strong evidence that this was in keeping with the person’s pre-illness wishes and certainly not simply because keeping them alive was inconvenient. Another point; the sickest ICU patients—say, those with multi-organ failure who’ve been on a ventilator for more than a week—are more likely than not to be dead within a year, as compared to the average 6 week fetus, most of which ARE likely to be alive after 1 year—and those fetuses are statistically likely to live for 7 or 8 decades, unlike ANY adult patient on life support in the ICU.
A: But the 1 month old and the ICU patient are ALREADY considered human beings. Maybe the point is just they can’t LOSE their rights-bearing status because they’re at some point inviable.
B: I agree they shouldn’t lose their rights by virtue of their inviability. But all we’re trying to establish is whether it’s reasonable to think that inviability is compatible with status as a human being. And I think it’s pretty clear that it is. You can be both inviable and a human being.
A: I suppose so. But that doesn’t prove a nonviable fetus IS a human being.
B: True. But it does mean that simple nonviability doesn’t rule it OUT.
A: But the 1 month old and the ICU patient are not living inside their mother. Being unviable AND inside the mother is different, maybe some sort of ethical synergistic effect. As long as a fetus HAS to be part of the mother’s body and it actually is inside her body, well then it has the status of any other body part. As we said, like an appendix. When it DOESN’T have to be part of the mother’s body, then it’s its own being—a human being.
B: Why would where you live determine whether you had rights or not? Ok, so if you live in North Korea, you don’t have any rights. But otherwise, why would the location of a body have anything to do with its rights status? Maybe the appendix analogy we started with wasn’t the best. Now that I think about it, a fetus is not that much like one of the mother’s organs.
A: Don’t blame me. You’re the one who suggested it.
B: Ok, fine. But consider this. The fetus doesn’t participate in the functioning of the mother’s body, which is the role of all her other organs and tissues. A fetus also has its own set of organs, the same ones the mother has. And, critically, fetal tissue is so different from the mother’s that it has to be firewalled away from the mother’s circulation by the placenta to keep her immune system from attacking and destroying it. If the mother’s blood got into the fetus, it would likely die, which is never the case with her own organs. Maybe a fetus is better seen as a separate, distinct organism that is temporarily connected to ANOTHER separate, distinct organism. More analogous to a parasitic worm than an organ. Except the fetus always comes out on its own after a few months.
A: Wait till people hear you’re comparing fetuses to worms!
B: Just in terms of their physiologic relationship with their host/mother. Besides, you want to kill them, not just call them names.
A: In any case, how does the worm analogy help your argument?
B: Well, we’ve already allowed that the mother shouldn’t get to choose the death of a VIABLE fetus despite the fact that it’s living in her body.
A: Ok, yes, because it’s a separate entity.
B: Right. The worm analogy weakens the argument that the mother’s right to control her own body entitles her to life or death decisions about an inviable fetus—weaker because it’s not really her OWN body part, rather it’s a separate entity that’s temporarily connected to her (ie, by the umbilical cord) and could thus more reasonably be thought to have its own rights.
A: Doesn’t mean for sure it does. The worm is a separate entity too, and it doesn’t have any rights.
B: No, a worm doesn’t have rights, but it also never becomes a human being which, as we agreed, the fetus rapidly does. These factors both start to demand a stronger argument from you as to why this distinct entity (that is, not one of the mother’s organs) should not be considered a human being all along, rather than this status appearing at some point later in development.
A: Hmmm…This “temporarily connected” idea sounds like the hypothetical scenario presented by the philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson years ago in which she envisions a dying famous violinist who was surreptitiously connected by an IV to another person’s bloodstream (sort of like dialysis, I suppose) against their will in order to save the violinist’s life. The question is then whether the person is entitled to disconnect the violinist (because he is using the person’s body without their permission) despite that disconnection resulting in the violinist’s immediate death. Thomson has a long and convincing discussion concluding that the violinist (fetus) has no right to be connected to the person and thus that person may disconnect him (have an abortion) despite this resulting in his death.
B: Brief but accurate summary of 10,000 words of very detailed philosophical treatise. Well done! But most of those 10k words are beside the point. Thomson mistakenly frames the issue as being about whether the violinist has a right to be connected to you (and thus you have a duty to allow him to be). She frames this as the question of whether the violinist has a “right to life.” We already pointed out and agreed that the idea of a “right not to be dead” was nonsense, and since that is conceptually identical to “right to life,” that also is nonsense. So of course the violinist does not have the right to life and you do not have a duty to keep him alive. But that’s not the issue. That’s because in Thomson’s scenario, the violinist has ALREADY been connected to you and thus already violating your rights (and this IS the appropriate analogy for abortion because the fetus is similarly already growing in the mother). Note that BEFORE the violinist is connected to you, he cannot compel you to connect yourself to him, just as before you are pregnant no one can compel you to become pregnant. Thus, since the violinist is already connected, the real question is not what you’re required to do FOR the violinist, but rather to what remedies are you entitled after he has violated your rights.
A: Well, you’re entitled to have your rights restored! Or your situation or whatever.
B: In general, yes. If someone steals your car, you’re entitled at minimum to the return of your car (and probably damages too). But can your property rights be restored at any cost whatsoever? If a hobo has moved into your garden shed and refuses to leave, you’re certainly entitled to have him dragged out and prosecuted, but are you entitled to kill him? Of course not. Do your property rights outweigh his right not to be killed? You could hardly hold these two rights have the same import.
A: Well, no. But what if killing him was the only way to get him out?
B: Thomson would say it’s fine then; he has no right to be there but you DO have a right to your shed. Enter the SWAT team. Bang! End of story. Most everyone else in the world would hold that trespassing does not warrant the death penalty—despite however much you prefer a hobo-free shed.
A: But what if he had a gun and was shooting at your house?
B: Well then, go ahead and kill him. That’s a different situation, quite analogous to a pregnancy that endangers the mother’s life. A person’s general right not to be killed is not completely unqualified. For example, that right can be forfeited if someone poses an immediate threat to life (eg, a school shooter). In that case, as well as the case of a life-endangering pregnancy, the rights, duties, and risks for all parties are considered in attempt to come up with a fair solution.
A: That would be hard!
B: True, and probably more than we could get into here. But the real question is regarding simple, elective abortion, done not because lives are in danger but for the varied, mundane reasons for which people (rightfully) feel they do not wish to have children.
A: It’s not so mundane for a woman, or even worse a 12 year old girl, who was raped—maybe even by her father—and became pregnant! Surely SHE shouldn’t have to bear such a child.
B: Of course those horrible misfortunes aren’t mundane. But would you say you’re entitled to kill a 3 year old child born of rape or incest? Even if the mother is reminded of the rape every time she looks at the child, can she kill it?
A: Well, no. She could put it up for adoption.
B: Probably a better solution for the child than killing it. Similarly, if you already had children, you couldn’t kill them for any of the other many and good reasons you might have had for not wanting to have children in the first place—for example wanting to finish school, get a job, or just not wanting children at that point in your life. If you can’t do something to a 3 year old child, why can you do it to a 3 month fetus?
A: Look, that’s all well and good, but I just can’t get past the fact that I have the right not to be pregnant! That’s got to be up to me if ANYTHING is. If I don’t want to be pregnant, I shouldn’t have to be!
B: As we said before, you certainly have a right to choose whether or not to BECOME pregnant (recognizing of course that sometimes circumstances such as infertility or birth control failure may keep you from getting your choice). That’s clearly a matter of your bodily autonomy. But just as your right not to be killed doesn’t mean you have a right not to be dead, you right not to become pregnant doesn’t mean you have a right not to BE pregnant—anymore than your right not to have kids allows you to simply discard a child you already have.
A: Hmmm…well, I guess so. But just because SOME nonviable entities are human beings and SOME fetuses living in the mother’s body are human beings I’m still not convinced that an unviable fetus is.
B: Let’s think about the physical and temporal continuity of our life
A: The what?
B: Just some shorthand terminology referring to the fact that every adult human has come about through a continuous process of development from a fertilized egg, to an embryo, to a fetus, through birth, to being an infant, a child, and then an adult.
A: Of course. So…?
B: So weren’t you YOU even when you were a newborn infant? Despite not knowing or even being able to know who and what you were? Were the baby pictures your dad took actually of someone else?
A: No, that was me. I was always me, even as a baby.
B: And as a fetus at term, or after viability? Wasn’t that still you?
A: Sure.
B: And going back to the embryonic stage, wasn’t THAT embryo still you?
A: Maybe…What are you up to?
B: Well, it doesn’t make sense to say the embryo WAS your mom, does it?
A: Not really. But maybe it’s not her and it’s not me either. Maybe some kind of, I don’t know, intermediate, indeterminate thing or something.
B: Getting a bit convoluted here when maybe we don’t need to be, although it’s probably just that you’re worried I’m setting some sort of debating trap. Look, although we’re profoundly different at these various stages of existence—you and I are as different from a newborn infant as it is from a 3 month fetus—we’re considered to be ourselves and be human beings all throughout the often 80 year process of our life, even when we’re demented and in a coma on a ventilator just prior to death. AND we pretty much seem to agree that “human being” includes the last few months of gestation. So doesn’t the temporal and physical continuity from conception to death we just agreed on, the fact that embryonic you is still you, make it sensible to hold that status as a human being goes along with that continuity? Why do we exclude a few months right at the beginning during which we’re allegedly NOT human beings? Why should that status appear only in the later part of gestation?
A: Well, I suppose I have to agree about temporal and physical continuity.
B: So your point seems to be that you’re YOU before viability but you’re not a human being for just that brief period of time. Isn’t it more rational simply to say you’re always a human being?
A: It might be simpler, but that doesn’t mean it’s right. Yes, there’s continuity between an embryo and a viable fetus (and an infant, etc). But just because there’s continuity between a baby and an 18 year old it doesn’t mean a baby should also have the right to vote.
B: True. But there are rational reasons why persons are denied the right to vote before a certain age. Are there similar rational reasons why personhood itself should come only at a certain age? We’re taking a continuous, 9-month process that begins with the union of a sperm and egg and ends with a crying baby, and marking out a boundary on one side of which is a human being and the other side of which is not. Since human rights are the question, shouldn’t we be as sure as possible that we’ve marked that boundary fairly and based on reasons other than our desire to freely dispose of fetuses?
A: Look, I still just have trouble thinking of an embryo as a human being.
B: Remember, it’s “human being” for the purposes of rights, not for the purposes of being someone to have a conversation with or watch a video together. I mean, we could instead say “rights-bearing entity” instead of “human being” but that seems pedantic. But if it would make you feel better…
A: Ok, but…
B: Let’s look at it from a little different angle, how people actually DO think of embryos. Do they THINK of them differently than they do other things in the mother’s body. Do they SEEM different to people?
A: How do you mean?
B: Aren’t many people sad when they have a miscarriage? Even when it’s early in gestation and the fetus isn’t viable?
A: Well, I’d be sad if I lost my leg too. But that doesn’t mean my leg’s a person. It’s the mother’s choice whether to be sad or relieved after a miscarriage.
B: That’s true, but your leg has importance to you for quite practical reasons. Ok, let’s go back to your appendix, which I presume is of much less importance to you than your leg (yes, I know it probably has some sort of minor role in the immune system).
A: No, I’m not particularly attached to my appendix (other than physically 😊)
B: So, suppose there are 2 pregnant women, both in early pregnancy, say about 6 weeks, and both are intending to keep their pregnancy. Someone kidnaps them and does surgery on both of them. In one, they remove her healthy appendix. In the other, they remove her healthy fetus. Do both women feel the same way about this assault? What would people say on social media?
A: Well, the one whose pregnancy was terminated would be much more upset, of course. But like I said before, that’s the person’s choice about how to feel about their pregnancy—and you had postulated that she wanted it.
B: So would YOU feel the same about both cases? That there’s no difference between how the women were wronged? Do you feel this is just the same as if one had her left kidney removed involuntarily and the other her right kidney?
A: Hmm. Well…
B: Your hesitancy suggests to me that you DO have at least a little discomfort with the scenario. Maybe you DO have some sense that a fetus is different from an appendix.
A: Or it could just be that I know the WOMAN herself would feel more wronged at losing a pregnancy she wanted than losing her appendix. And I have respect for her feelings.
B: Yes, it wouldn’t speak well of you if you felt the woman’s feelings didn’t matter. So…let’s try to think of a hypothetical in which the woman’s feelings were on YOUR side of the issue, where she didn’t think fetuses were human beings. Ok. Suppose a woman is similarly 6 weeks pregnant and an evil scientist asks her to help test a drug designed to cause birth defects for the purposes of chemical warfare. The drug is given as a single dose and is harmless to anything aside from 6 week fetuses, in which it is intended to cause permanent brain damage but not death. The mother, however, will be fine if she takes this drug. She agrees (she’ll be paid a lot of money).
A: Well that’s really creepy. I hope nobody’s thinking of trying anything like this.
B: Not that I’ve heard of. But the way some people are these days…
A: So she CERTAINLY should have an abortion then.
B: Oh no, you see the deal with the scientist is that she has to go on and have the baby and raise it so the exact amount and nature of its brain damage can be studied during infancy and childhood. The scientist thinks the drug will cause enough damage that the child will never learn to walk or talk but they’re not sure so they need to test it.
A: That’s even creepier! But this imaginary nonsense is unethical because they’re causing damage to a baby and child!
B: That’s the thing, they’re not. They’re damaging only a 6 week old fetus. She’s not taking the drug later in pregnancy when the fetus is viable (and has its own rights as we agreed). The woman and scientist, just like you, think a 6 week fetus has no more rights than an appendix, as it’s simply another of the woman’s body parts, which she is entitled to treat as she wishes. Certainly you agree a person is free to take a drug that might damage their appendix even if you yourself think that’s unwise. It’s hardly unethical, is it?
A: Baloney! I call BS on that!
B: How so?
A: Obviously, it’s because that fetus BECOMES an infant who suffers the harm! And you CAUSED that harm.
B: Me?
A: Well, the woman and the scientist. You know what I mean! What they did ended up ultimately causing harm to an actual human being!
B: Absolutely. So then you clearly agree that a mother is not entitled to harm even a very early-stage fetus even though she COULD harm one of her own organs should she wish. AND, if intentionally deforming a nonviable fetus is wrong because it causes harm to a future human being, why isn’t destroying it harmful to that same future human being —and similarly wrong?
A: Because if it’s destroyed, that future human being doesn’t exist to be harmed! Oh…rats. I don’t know. You’re twisting things up in knots.
B: Well it is a knotty issue. I’m just trying to show that at least in the back of your mind you have some feelings that suggest pre-viability is not the definitive boundary you said at first. I mean, if you really, truly thought a fetus was no different than an appendix, these thought experiments wouldn’t trouble you in the least, but it seems like they do.
A: All right. But my not liking it doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
B: True. But shouldn’t your discomfort with these various scenarios suggest the need to reexamine your gut feeling that a fetus is simply a maternal body part? As that of course is the justification for abortion; “My body, my choice.”
A: I still think that should be my right.
B: Well, we have made a lot of different points, most of which you ended up agreeing with (reluctantly). Maybe the proper conclusion got lost in the weeds. Let’s try to sum things up: There seem to be 3 possible ways in which abortion might be within a person’s rights. The first is that the fetus is simply a PART of the mother’s body (“my body, my choice”) and thus not a human being and thus has no rights, so she gets to do whatever she wants to it. The 2nd is that although the fetus is a separate entity from the mother, it’s not a rights-bearing one (ie, not a human being) so the mother gets to do whatever she wants to it. And the 3rd is that even if the fetus IS a rights-bearing entity (a human being), the mother is still allowed to kill it because it is a case of justifiable killing of a human being (the chief rationale for which is the Thomson argument, that she has not given it permission to use her body—an invasion of her autonomy to which it is not otherwise entitled). ONE of these must be true for abortion to be an ethically legitimate act. Is there anything else conceptually?
A: What about when the mother’s life is endangered by the pregnancy? You punted on that one.
B: I did, but that’s because if I’m refuted regarding elective (ie, non-endangered) abortion, then abortion would obviously also be permissible in a life-endangering situation, so the issue becomes moot. And even if non-endangered abortion is impermissible, a case of life-endangerment would have to be considered under the 3rd proposition that abortion to save the mother’s life might be a justifiable killing, and that, like other potentially justifiable killings, would have to be judged on the specifics of each case—hence my punt.
A: All right, so what about these 3 ways?
B: Regarding the 1st proposition, the physiologic distinctiveness of the fetus, including the facts that it has its own complete set of organs, its tissue is immunologically distinct from that of the mother, and then it rather quickly separates from the mother and becomes autonomous, makes it unreasonable to consider a fetus simply one of the mother’s organs, despite its (temporary) location within the mother’s body. This point is strengthened by the fact that, at least when abortion is not being considered, people don’t really think about a fetus the same way they do, say, an appendix. It’s clear the fetus is a separate entity that is temporarily located within the mother.
A: Well I suppose that’s reasonable.
B: That then leads to the 2nd proposition, which holds that although the fetus is distinct from the mother, it does not possess rights (is not a human being), specifically the core right not to be killed. We agreed that viable fetuses had that right but that the question remained regarding inviable fetuses. We identified several situations in which personhood exists despite inviability, thus concluding that inviability per se was not a barrier to having rights, PARTICULARLY when the inviability was possibly temporary as in an infant or a brain-injured person. Since inviable fetuses almost always BECOME viable (and thus human beings) during the continuous process of development from fetus to infant to adult, it seemed more reasonable to consider them human beings all along the process rather than starting at some midway point. This conclusion was bolstered by our revulsion at the hypothetical scenario in which an inviable fetus was injured in a way that led to permanent brain damage of an infant, raising the question of why damaging a fetus might be impermissible when killing it was allowed.
A: That doesn’t PROVE it.
B: Well, there’s really no indisputable logical proof since there’s no indisputable, concrete definition of human being. But if we keep looking at the question from different angles and scenarios and consistently find a rational case for considering each of them as human beings, it becomes harder and harder to think that it is not the case.
A: So if we’re looking at hints and squishy things, what about the very strong hint that a great many people think abortion of an inviable fetus is NOT a rights violation. How does that not weigh on the other side?
B: Simply because it’s circular. To answer the question of whether abortion is ok we ask whether an inviable fetus has personhood, and then answer that by saying that because many people think abortion is ok, the fetus must not have personhood. Circular.
A: Hmmm…
B: So we’re left with the 3rd proposition, that it is sometimes permissible to kill a rights-bearing entity (ie, a human being), in this case a fetus. The strongest case for this is Thomson’s, which holds that by occupying her body against her will, a fetus violates the mother’s right not to have her body coopted for another entity’s purposes and thus she is entitled to remove it. Removal of an inviable fetus is by definition killing it. However, we had agreed that mothers were not entitled to kill their existing children despite their obviously similar violation of her autonomy (eg, thwarting her desire to finish school, take a job, simply not have children at that point in her life). Thus, a violation of autonomy by a fetus should similarly not entitle the mother to put it to death.
A: All right, I don’t have a good refutation of any of those specific points, but I’m still left feeling that this is all sophistry and trickery. Word games to show that embryos are human beings.
B: I understand. I think maybe it’s because of the difference between everyday thinking about commonplace situations and rigorous thinking that has to take every situation and possibility into account. I agree with you in a sense. The “human beings” we see normally everyday—you, me, our friends and neighbors and children—are sentient beings. They’re awake, they walk around and talk and go to school or work, they eat breakfast and go to bed at night, and generally look and act pretty much like us, or younger or older versions of us. Most of the time, this way of looking at things is just fine. But to talk seriously, we also have to consider the edge cases, the unclear, nonobvious situations, for example humans who do not seem conscious of their environment (eg those in a coma, or with brain damage or severe dementia), and similarly those who don’t communicate or look much like us, such as infants—and what we are considering here, fetuses. But we need to take a rigorous approach to these edge cases when trying to make the very serious decision on whom to confer or remove rights.
A: Well, yes I suppose there’s some sense to that.
B: Because of the literal life and death implications, I think it’s reasonable to err on the side of granting rather than withholding rights (and thus status as human being).
A: So fetuses, even at the earliest stages have a right not to be killed?
B: That would seem to be the case

Immigrants

Immigrants! Man, the Republicans are nonstop with the immigrants this week. “Vermin!” “Diluting our blood!” “Murderers and rapists!” “Puppy killers!” Oh wait, that last one’s a Republican governor. Anyway, listening to the Repubs, it’s clear immigrants are responsible for all the badness of modern life, including crime, drugs, unemployment, inflation, college protests, and the startling avalanche of commercials for psoriasis. The base is as inflamed as their hemorrhoids after hours sitting on hard chairs listening to their Dear Leader rant. Something must be done to keep these dastardly immigrants from snatching the mops and brooms out of the hands of our children!
Let me tell you about MY encounters with immigrants. The other day, I bought some young trees from a local nursery, needing to replace trees brought down by violent storms (can we pin that on the immigrants too?). Since the trees were a bit too big for me to handle by myself, I had the nursery deliver the trees along with a team to plant them for me. So 4 trees arrived in the company of 3 workers, who, based on the fact that they spoke only Spanish, I immediately deduced were immigrants. And no, I did not inquire about the status of their paperwork, as I didn’t feel my blood being diluted. Well these guys dug holes by hand for the 3-foot rootballs and manhandled the trees into place while I was still getting my hose attached and up to the planting site. Talk about hard work! And it was summer-hot. They got all the trees in, mulched and everything cleaned up in no time at all. And they didn’t pilfer anything from my garage (though that might’ve saved me from paying more immigrants to carry stuff away, sigh), even though listening to the Repubs you’d think I was lucky my wife remained unraped and my pets unbarbecued. A one-off? Well, the landscapers were by the other day in the 90+ degree heat laying a bed of rocks to prevent erosion from the current, definitely-not-related-to-climate-change heavy rains. All immigrants again. All hard-working again. None a problem, again. Immigrant servers at restaurants? Pleasant and competent. I think we all see, every day, hard and undesirable jobs being done by immigrants—and often being done quite well. This threatens you how, exactly?
Oh, Porter, that’s just YOUR experience! There are crimes, sometimes horrific crimes, committed by immigrants! Yeah, except they are LESS likely to be violent criminals than our native-born Real Americans. But American-on-American crime isn’t sexy (well, maybe Black American on White American). And who cares about actual facts when there’s a good stereotype to promote? And a distraction to provide.
That’s right, the immigrant “crisis” is just the latest in a long line of boogeymen promoted SOLELY BY REPUBLICANS to give regular folks something to fear so they’d be distracted from how they’re being ripped off by the GOP. Just like pickpocket teams in the Paris metro spill soda on you so you don’t notice your wallet being lifted. This has been going on my whole life. Think about it. 1945-mid ‘80s it was Communism, the Red Scare! Commies were everywhere, going to destroy the American Way of Life! It was up to the Republicans to stop them—Democrats are soft on communism! Anticommunism was the lifeblood of the Republican party. But as soon as the USSR was on the ropes, they pivoted immediately to Drugs, and from the mid-80s to 2001 it was all war-on-drugs all the time for the GOP. But drugs wasn’t nearly as tantalizing as Muslim Terror, which became the (source of) rage from 2001 until the mid-teens, when 15 years of no terror attacks made the GOP cast about for a new boogeyman. Hey, what about immigrants? Yeah, that’s the ticket! They’re poor, their skin’s a different color and they talk funny! What’s to like? So now half the country’s falling in line to bash immigrants—because people who want to mow your lawn, paint your house and clean the floors in your mom’s nursing home are an existential threat to you, your children, democracy and all things holy! Just like the commies, and the drug addicts, and the terrorists used to be. And the Jews in 1930s Germany.
You think there just might be a pattern here? Authoritarian parties always need an “other” to demonize. A scapegoat that can bear all the sins and failings of society and then be driven out to purify the nation. A scapegoat that allows a people to avoid having to confront and fix their own failings. And, importantly, an “other” that can’t realistically be eliminated (well, the Germans tried) so it can remain a rallying cry as long as needed. And if people tire of it, it can and will be replaced by yet another irrational fear. What’ll be next? Who’ll be next? Another round for the Jews? (no fair, they had their turn). Maybe it’ll be you. Fight the fear-mongering.

Trump for King!

Watching the British royal funerary activities this morning gave me a good idea. I know many of my British friends are anti-monarchy but it’s always struck me that it actually made sense to separate the duties of ceremonial head of state and those of the chief executive. I never understood why the US President had to waste so much scarce management time hosting lavish dinners, attending funerals and inaugurations, and drawing weather charts. And don’t get me started on golf! The chief executive of the USA has lots of stuff to do and none of it is THAT!

So, I think the US could use a ceremonial, titular figurehead—a king, if you will—who does all that glad-handing, publicity stuff but stays out of the actual business of running the country. This person could be the subject of the nation’s obsessive leader-worship and free up the actual president to work doing boring things like fixing energy policy, staving off climate change and improving the criminal justice system. Of course, as per the British example, the new American king would have to be good with being the center of constant scrutiny and attention and not mind having the occasional (or frequent) scandal called out. And a large number of neer-do-well offspring and relatives would be a plus and ensure endless media attention and public entertainment. We just have to make sure (as with the British royalty) that the new American king isn’t allowed to get his fingers anywhere near the nuclear trigger, elections, judges, bridges, walls, or anything else whatsoever involving the actual running of the country. But he could have a fancy uniform with more stars and gold braid than anyone, ever.

And who do we know who fits these criteria and loves the trappings of royalty but has no interest in bothersome briefing papers and “policies” and “procedures” and “laws,” and always being reminded about not telling national secrets to our enemies or random passers-by? Who else but Donald Trump?

Think about it. Trump loves being worshipped, catered to and coddled, and being the center of attention—just like a king. Furthermore, his followers desperately want to keep worshiping him and as king, they wouldn’t have to worry about him not getting reelected since he’d be there till he died so they could just shut the fuck up about their election nonsense. And then when he did die, we could have a more entertaining Game of Thrones with Ivanka and Don jr maneuvering to take over—my money’s on Queen Ivanka I. And since Trump wouldn’t have to “run” for office, he wouldn’t have to constantly rile up the masses with his stupid, annoying lies and could just go back to ignoring them like he did his whole life. Do you think he’s really against abortion and cheap immigrant labor? He’s just making shit up to get votes, but as king he wouldn’t NEED any more votes. As king he could just bask in the worship of his followers and utilize his single, solitary actual skill—hospitality, shoveling tons of bullshit, and providing an endless source of squalid entertainment. But this time it would be of actual use to the country AND keep him occupied so he doesn’t screw up anything important. Win for him, win for his followers, and win for the country! Trump for king!

Although…he is a little weak on the “country before self” thing that Elizabeth II made the norm for royal attitude. So maybe not.

Hiring Season

So, I’ve been getting probably a dozen phone calls a day and half again that many texts from my many “friends” who are looking for money. Not that we don’t all keep an eye out for any stray cash that might be lying on the sidewalk or a check we forgot to deposit, but these particular “friends” are looking for me to give them cash money from my ever-dwindling post-retirement bank account.

You know what that means, folks. That’s right, it’s hiring season again! Yes, it’s time for the annual job recruitment effort for public employees that we call “elections.” And the resumes are pouring in! Get to reading them, everybody, we’ve got a lot of positions to fill and the deadline is coming right up! So who’s on the hiring team with me for this round? Oh, right, it’s you, me and everybody else over 17—at least anybody who wants to and has all their papers proving that they’re really them. Don’t miss your chance to help select our newest employees from entry level up to CEO, and say “you’re fired” to current employees who are lazy, liars, con-men or closet Nazis. Or, you can fire those who AREN’T lazy, lying Nazi cheaters—up to you! You can pick by gender, you can pick by religion or by who has the biggest boobs. Heck, you can refuse to even consider an applicant of the wrong race or who has a disability. That is, you can do all the things that pesky HR person at work keeps telling you aren’t allowed when you’re hiring at your day job. Gosh darn it, when it comes to elections, WE’RE the managers, HR, and the Board of Directors all rolled into one.  

You  know what’s even better? The job search doesn’t cost us anything! The job candidates themselves have to pay for everything! They even spend exorbitant sums of money just to try to get us to READ their job application and make sure we remember their name. And they spend even MORE money to make sure we hear plenty of bad things about all the other job applicants—some of which may even be true! Then they’ll also promise each of us lots of favors if we’ll hire them (take that HR! bribery my butt!). Of course they usually promise each of us different stuff but nobody really expects them to keep their promises—it’s the thought that counts!

So what’s wrong with this? I mean besides the hourly phone calls from my new friend “Spam Risk,” who seems to have confused me with someone he went to elementary school with.  

Well, would this be how you’d find the best candidate to be, say, assistant purchasing manager at your company? Is the best job candidate the one who can spend the most money promoting themself for the job? “Well, we’ll interview you but we’re holding the interview during a week-long stay at the Four Seasons (hotel, not landscaping business), which you’ll have to pay for on your own. Oh, and we also expect you to host a party for our hiring team. And don’t stint! You should know the last successful hire brought a magic show and trained elephants. Can’t afford all that? Well then, you’re clearly not the right person for the job!”

Does your business hire as corporate attorney the lawyer with the most tv ads? Do you pick the finance director based on how many lawn signs they have? Do you hire a techie to update your computer hardware who’s funded his campaign to get the job using money donated by companies trying to sell you equipment? No, in the private world, you choose people based on their actual capability to do the job AND you consciously design the hiring process to ELIMINATE the applicants’ money and connections as a factor—and you certainly screen out applicants who have a conflict of interest because they took money from your business competitors.

So if we want to hire (that is, elect) the best people for the job, we shouldn’t let their candidacy be weighted in favor of those who are best able to convince vested interests to give them money. Those vested interests always want something and it’s usually something that’s NOT in everyone else’s interest. Put job candidates on an equal financial footing by prohibiting private funding of political campaigns and politicians and fund them publicly. And if you’re one of those who’ll miss the robocalls, there’s still the extended car warranty people.

List of Laws that Do Not Apply to Trump

I understand the law-and-order-loving red hats are frothing at the mouth and planning to take to the streets, riot and burn, secede from the union, and hold their breath until they turn blue unless the FBI is disbanded—all because the DOJ thinks Trump needs to follow the same laws that apply to everyone else in the country and thus took government property out of his basement and put it back where it belongs.

You know, if you’re going to threaten to bomb and shoot a bunch of people whenever law enforcement tries to make Trump obey a law, you should at least do the rest of us the favor of telling us exactly WHICH laws Trump shouldn’t have to follow. That way we’ll know in advance what’s going to piss you off. And of course we wouldn’t want to do that, cuz we’re the people who’re concerned about other people’s feelings, right?

So to start things off, I’ll give you MY list of laws that apply to you and me but don’t apply to Trump.

My List: None.

That was quick. Now it’s your turn, MAGA hats. Since you probably have a pretty long list, let me start you off with a time-saver.

MAGA List: Whatever laws Trump doesn’t want to follow

Feel free to fill in specific laws that are REALLY important for Trump to be able to ignore. Like paying your taxes (US Constitution Article 1, Section 8, clause 1) and not putting your children to work for you in high government positions (5 U.S.C. § 3110). I’m sure you’ll come up with many more. If not, Don jr can help—unless his dad flushed the list down the toilet.

Whenever Trump is called out for not following the law, or rules, or common sense, he cries “not fair!” He’s said, “I’m being treated more unfairly than any other person!” In this case, “not fair” is really toddlerese for “I don’t like it and you’re a doo-doo head!”

But for the non-toddlers among us, “not fair” means that certain very special people get things, or get away with things, that YOU can’t. So, like who are all the people who’ve GOTTEN AWAY WITH, say, taking boxes of government documents home, sticking them in their basement and refusing to give them back when asked? Who are the people where law enforcement said, “Well, this person is too popular and important to be held accountable by the law!”  Oh, right, there’s only 1 such person—Donald J Trump. So it’s unfair, alright, it’s unfair that HE gets special favors and the American people get the shaft.

You know, we could make all these worries go away if we just dealt with all the pesky issues with elections, like which voting machines are controlled by which foreign countries using space lasers, whose truck of fake ballots will get to the county seat first, and why black people are even allowed to vote for crying out loud. Let’s solve this problem once and for all. We’ll have just one last election: “Who gets to be king?” Then the king will take over and appoint his friends (and his bodyguard, golf caddy, caterer, and masseuse) to run things and we won’t ever have to vote again (or be allowed to). Just think! No more puzzling over which reality tv star or celebrity blogger would make a handsomer senator, or whose lies about how low THEY’LL make taxes and gas prices are more believable (or more entertaining). Just let the king and the people who kiss his royal butt most worshipfully take care of everything. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Then we don’t have to bother our poor little heads over whether the king is obeying the law. The king MAKES the laws. Heck, the king IS the law! L’état, c’est moi! The Supreme Court will love it for sure. They’re always saying how important it is to do things like back in the day of the Founding Fathers, right? And back THEN we had a king and he did whatever he wanted. Oh, and don’t worry about the whole “taxation without representation” thing that give that old king so much trouble. We’ll still have the best representatives money can buy—provided they’ve proven their loyalty to the king. And of course our new king will be sure we still have the freedom of speech to praise the king as loudly as we want and the freedom to worship at the Christian church of our choice.

Make no mistake, if the “president” can’t be held accountable by law, then you don’t have a president, you have a king. And if you want a king, well, there are some other places you can go.

Mitch’s Idea?

Mitch McWeasel, never one to let a dirty deed go undone, may accidentally be doing something useful. His latest move, to delay Senate trial of the impeachment charge till after the Biden inauguration, of course is his knee jerk response to ANY Democratic plan—stall, delay, block. At first, I thought this was dreadful, but I think it actually may inadvertently be a good thing. How’s that you say? Why not try Trumpolini immediately so we can boot his butt out while still in office? Well, that WOULD be very rewarding, but, if as I suspect, there aren’t currently 17 Republican votes in favor, Trumpolini will have then survived another attempt at removal and he’ll go further off the rails during his last day or 2 in ways that will make his current corrupt trashing of democracy look statesmanlike. Among other things, There would be an unprecedented wave of pardons, the possibility of which his “friends” and their fellow bottom-feeders are already using to grift money from convicted felons who want them to “lobby” for (buy) pardons. And what’s stopping this? The delay in the Senate. SOMEONE has suggested to Trumpolini that if he does any more stupid or corrupt shit (like pardoning all the insurrectionists, thereby demonstrating his support for them and confirming the allegations of the articles of impeachment), then Mitch won’t be able to keep enough republican senators in line and he’ll be convicted. But if he does nothing and is a good little boy for another few days, then impeachment will die a lonely death in the seditionist jaws of Hawley and friends.  

Is this Mitch’s idea? An actual patriotic deed on the part of one of the most powerful anti-American forces in Congress? Nah. More likely the rat-like survival instincts of Trump’s few remaining “friends” kicked in and, since we know about rats and sinking ships, connected the dots and told him if he wants to avoid a lifetime ban from politics, he’d better cool his jets for a couple more days? Can Trump even DO this? One marshmallow now vs 2 marshmallows later? I guess will see.

So is it worth it? Putting up w pardons for waves of idiot minions and risking further idiot misbehavior vs the chance of seeing Trumpolini shown the door while still president? Hmm….On the whole, I think I’d like to give him enough rope to hang himself with—another couple days during which he can say and do enough stupid shit to induce a couple more republican senators to suddenly discover the locked storage facility where they’ve been parking their spines (hint, it’s probably the same one where you parked your brains, password Treason4$). Might be worth it.

“Let’s not bicker and argue about ‘oo killed ‘oo…”

“Let’s not bicker and argue about ‘oo killed ‘oo…” said the Scots Lord in Monty Python when his people were incensed with the brave but dangerous Sir Lancelot for STORMING HIS CASTLE AND KILLING HIS SECURITY GUARDS. Gee, what does that remind you of?

But unfortunately, there are rumblings that Joe Biden would rather move on and let bygones be bygones rather than pursue to the ends of the earth the traitors who attacked a sitting joint session of Congress in a (fortunately unsuccessful) attempt to disrupt the counting and recognition of the Electoral College vote—and to “Hang Mike Pence” (their words, not mine), shoot Nancy Pelosi and lynch as many supporters of democracy as they could get their zip ties around. I mean one of the insurrectionists was actually filmed carrying zip ties up the steps to the Senate chambers and you can’t have missed the scaffold and noose erected outside. This was not a “protest march,” whatever the most gullible dupes following along might’ve thought. This was an attempt to reverse the results of an election that the Dear Leader lost by 7 million votes. Will of the People? The will of the People was pretty clear and it involved Trumpolini leaving office without letting the door hit him in the ass on his way out.

So, should the incoming administration just smooth this over, forgive and forget and let bygones be bygones? Well, we don’t let bygones be bygones when somebody breaks into a house and steals a tv (“That won’t change the fact that the tv’s gone!”). Petty thieves get systematically arrested and punished. So why in the name of blind Lady Justice should Democrats be willing to just LET THIS GO?

Of course, a great many of us are not willing to whitewash this. But how about those with the power to actually follow up? Not so sure about them. Evidence for my concerns? After all, I can’t read Joe Biden’s mind (his microchip hasn’t been activated yet) but before the Capitol incident, Joe mentioned a number of times that he was not in favor of prosecution of Trump and his family (although if the Justice Department “wanted to” he wouldn’t try to stop them). Thanks. Also, “letting go” was his and president Obama’s reaction to the financial meltdown of ’08. Their administration made no attempt to hold ANYONE accountable for the financial chicanery behind a financial collapse that cost all of us a lot of money and nearly destroyed the economy. Yes, I know what went on was of dubious illegality (a problem in itself) but they should’ve tried. They should’ve done EVERYTHING within bounds of the law to hold the feet of the responsible parties to the fire. And, I think failure to do so may’ve been the camel-back-breaking straw that cost us the presidency in ’16. Not going after the financial evildoers convinced a LOT of people that Democrats are just as complicit in big business’ looting of America as anyone.  Don’t agree? Ever talk to a Bernie supporter?

Anyway, the radical right is irretrievably convinced the system is rigged against them (until told otherwise by the Fox Ministry of State Propaganda). But I think most of the rest of us are willing to be convinced that the System of our Constitution and Country are still capable of standing for justice. So convince us, Joe and Kamala.

Of course, this may all be academic as I strongly suspect that before he loses power, Trumpolini will issue blanket pardons for everyone involved. Can’t do that? They have to be caught and charged with crimes? Nope, George Washington issued blanket pardons for everyone involved in the Whisky Rebellion (read his speech and details of the proclamation issued in Washington’s name by Governor Henry Lee of Virginia). Although actually, no one knows this fact about pardons, so here’s a good idea. The FBI sets up a “trumppardons.gov” site where everybody who was in the Capitol just signs up (with name, address and email) to be put on the pardon list. Hah! Forget wasting time w facial recognition software.

Good luck to us all.

Let’s All Work Together!

We’re all excited now that there’s an actual human being going to be in the White House instead of a sociopathic, narcissistic greed monkey (quite the trifecta of character flaws). Now it’s the turn of Joe Biden, pretty much the anti-Trump, who campaigned on the idea, “We need to work together once more…”

Right. All this kumbaya, join hands across the aisle stuff sounds great, but you know what? That’s great only if your idea of working together is something like “Let’s agree on this. I’ll punch you in the face until you agree to give me your lunch money! Deal?” Of course, that’s a silly example. Republicans would never be satisfied with just lunch money—what they really want is our health insurance and social security; taking food aid away from the poor is small potatoes (or, even better, NO potatoes).

Working together isn’t logically possible unless both sides have a common goal and the dispute is only in regards to how to achieve it. But there’s no “working together” when two groups want completely different and mutually exclusive things. Genghis Khan wants to burn your village, kill the men, rape the women and sell the children into slavery. Your village just wants to be left alone. “Hey, Genghis, let’s see if we can work together on this?” How’s that go? Do you both compromise on killing and raping only HALF the people and the rest promise to scream louder so Genghis still feels satisfied?

Like I always say, you can’t plot your course until you know where you want to go. And right now, one side wants to go to that bad place where the rich get richer and everyone else…well, that’s really THEIR problem here in the land of the free-to-be-as poor-as-you-want as long as I’ve got mine. Don’t think that’s the Republican platform? Well, technically, you’d be correct because last August they decided they didn’t really need an actual platform and that “Whatever Donald Trump wants to do” was perfectly adequate for planning purposes.

BUT, if they were to write it down, minus the usual obfuscating language, the “rich-get-richer” Republican platform would be to:

  • Limit their contribution to the public good (lower taxes, more pollution, and fewer regulations on anything that makes gobs of money)
  • Limit the flow of resources down the economic ladder (cut public health care, keep minimum wages low, cut unemployment, divert public education funds to private, for-profit schools)
  • Plunder what’s left of our natural resources (drill, baby, drill)
  • Play casino games with the financial markets (credit default swaps, anyone?)
  • Sell off public and private assets (what was it that Mitt Romney used to do for a living?)
  • Distract the natural opponents of the above by name-calling (“socialism!”) and culture wars (gender issues, cancel culture) and when that fails, keep ‘em in line by police action (funny how plundering a business of a hundred dollar pair of shoes calls down the full wrath of the law, but plundering a business by buying it out, selling its assets and firing its employees is celebrated as the miracle of the market)

To do this, the Republicans need to ensure that political power and wealth are consolidated in the hands of a few people (our new word today, boys and girls, is “oligarchy”). Having a political process in which achieving high office is completely dependent on massive amounts of money guarantees that the bargain is “I’ll make you powerful, if you’ll make me rich.” Having power that is disconnected from wealth is an existential threat to oligarchs so it’s important to make money as important as possible in politics (Citizens United?) and to limit the ability of opponents of the oligarchy (w should be pretty much everyone else except for the culture war distractions) to access power—by gerrymandering, voter roll purges, disenfranchisement, and limiting access of certain groups to voting.

Right. So how, exactly, do you “work together” with this? With people whose goal is to put their knee on the neck of the country and keep it there until what we think of as “America” gasps its last breath? Hyperbole? I think not. In the last 2 months, I’ve heard calls for canceling voting results by legislative fiat, for martial law, and secession. And THAT’S from high public figures—forget about drunk uncle and that weirdo at the end of the bar. So, what’s the common ground here? The shared core goals? SOMETHING that we both want to achieve but just need to come to an agreement on how to accomplish it? I don’t see anything at all. Sometimes, Genghis Khan just needs to be driven off.

Casualties from Iranian Invasion Continue to Mount, Approach 150,000

What if the headline looked like this?
“The Iranian 3 and 4th Armies, aided by what experts believe to be the bulk of the troops in the Revolutionary Guard, have continue their attack on the Gulf Coast. Although no one could have predicted their surprise spring offensive, invading multiple Eastern seacoast ports on inflatable rafts believed to have been supplied by the Chinese, the Pentagon had issued many warnings that despite having their offensive halted in key Northern states such as New York, that they were likely to shift their attack to less protected states, such as in the Southeast.
Currently, Iranian troops have made Florida and Texas into strongholds, where they’ve been easily able to resist the typically feeble and uncoordinated counterassaults launched by a hodgepodge of Army, Marine and National Guard forces. The Iranians have killed a number of our front line troops, but they seem to be concentrating their particular ire on the civilian population, indiscriminately machine-gunning crowds and setting fire to every nursing home they encounter. To date, Iranian forces have killed over 140,000 Americans and wounded over a million. Hopes that they would find the oppressive humidity of the Gulf Coast uncongenial, causing them to lose heart and return home to their dry, desert climes have, to date, proved unfounded.
Troops attempting to stem the tide of highly-motivated and well-supported Iranian combat units have been asking for additional scout troops and drones to better determine the exact location of the enemy, but Washington has sent only a few, advising our generals that “If you don’t see any Iranians, they must not be there.” Local commanders state they are also running out of ammunition and flak vests and have been calling their West Point colleagues in other states to see if they’ve got any extras. Some enterprising local residents have taken to hiding in their basement and coming out only furtively while wearing their own flak vests and helmets and avoiding the large crowds that Iranian helicopters find tempting targets. Other residents scoff at such measures and have been gathering unprotected in public locations, where they are frequently on the receiving end of Iranian mortar attacks.
The White House, under an umbrella of air defenses, cybersecurity and the 82nd Airborne advises Gulf Coast commanders and citizens, “Sucks to be you.”
Most people are pinning their hopes on secret anti-Iranian weapons currently being developed.”

You betcha we’d all be running around with our hair on fire if Muslims with machine guns had invaded and killed 140,000 people with no signs of stopping. Our leaders would unite us in an all-out effort to eradicate the invaders. This would be Pearl Harbor on steroids AND crack. We really WOULD have some shock-and-awe. Even the anti-maskers would be dressed in full combat gear and not saying “whatsa matter, pansy, can’t take a bullet?”
However, instead of large (and brown skinned) people with automatic weapons, we have an invisible enemy of no particular religion. And, so, even though the casualties and consequences are equal, we instead have dithering, buck-passing, and general attempt to wish the problem away and demonization of those who try to deal with it.
So if we’d rally together to beat a visible threat, why not do the same for an invisible one?”