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.