#also it’s a dangerous precedent for all future elections

[oranges-are-rad]

I don’t want to go through another election year. I don’t want to go through another election year. I don’t want to go through another election year. I don’t want to go through another election year. I DON’T WANT TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER ELECTION YEAR

[mariacallous]

The afternoon Joe Biden announced his decision to withdraw from the 2024 presidential race, eight days after the assassination attempt on Donald Trump and well into a year of axis-tilting events, @DifficultPatty posted a question on X, thirsty for an answer: “Which wine pairs best with unprecedented times?”

“All of them,” replied one user.

“Apocalypse IPA,” said another. “It’s a real thing.”

Also real are the times we continually find ourselves. All devastation and disquiet. That’s the vibe of late, anyway. New historical benchmarks sprout with wild surprise on what feels like a weekly basis, and a collective mood has developed across social media that we live in a constant state of “unprecedented times.”

The phrase, now a fixture of the zeitgeist, initially shot into pop discourse around 2015 during Trump’s first presidential campaign, a campaign, you’ll remember, that fed on a specific American lust for political agitprop. Not long after, as the spread of Covid-19 reengineered work and home life, the phrase further lodged itself into our shared vocabulary, recast as a convenient descriptor for an increasingly inconvenient future. It has since become shorthand for the continuous spiral of everyday reality.

A study conducted in 2020 by The New York Times and research firm Sentieo found that the phrase saw a 70,830 percent increase in usage in corporate presentations from the previous year (outpacing du jour expressions like “new normal” and “you’re on mute”). In an article published by MIT, titled “Surviving and thriving in unprecedented times,” Christa Babcock, a CEO and alum on the business school, advised entrepreneurs to embrace the difficulty in front of them: “Expect that things will not return to the way they were and be thrilled about it.”

Only, for the rest of us, the constant, uncomfortable change was the problem.

The phrase was gaining traction offline and on. “Only difference between millennials and gen z is how many ‘unprecedented times’ u live thru before climate change swallows ur house,” @bocxtop tweeted in February 2022 when X was still called Twitter. That same year, 19 students were gunned down at an elementary school in rural Texas and California was hit with record unemployment. In grocery stores across the country, food prices steadily climbed as a result of the war in Ukraine.

Today, the phrase has magnified beyond actual meaning, a cheap emblem of our erratic cultural mood. It is uniformly used to describe just about every fresh hell that emerges, from the US election and the conflict in Gaza to the escalating dangers of climate catastrophe. Living through “unprecedented times” is the new normal on social media.

Congestion pricing in New York City? “More unprecedented times is all,” Jared of @TransitTalks said on TikTok. Also unprecedented: giant spiders, a canceled Tenacious D tour, relationship break-ups, and the unraveling social unrest in the UK.

This era of apparent precedent-setting is not only defined by bad news, of course. The phrase has no particular allegiance to disaster or personal woe. It applies wholesale. Lil Jon’s performance at the Democratic National Convention? Simone Biles winning the most Olympic gymnastic gold medals? Green energy growth in Kansas? Astounding and uncommon occurrences but also, that’s right, unprecedented ones.

“I’m ready to go a month without something unprecedented,” @midwestsidegunn said recently on TikTok. “Bring back boring. I’m ready to be bored.”

That’s unlikely, given the domino effect caused by Biden’s departure from the race in July, portrayed just as you might expect. It only spawned more unprecedentedness: the genuine possibility of a Black and South Asian woman president, and a reenergized Democratic Party that just weeks ago was on life support. A callback to a politics of hope from the Obama era, Kamalamania has again ignited the promise of what for so long felt like an impossibility.

“You know, the story of my life and the history of our country is that progress is possible, but not guaranteed,” former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton said at the DNC this week. Along with Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Warren, women who were also well acquainted with overcoming the impossible, Clinton spoke to the urgency of now, and the weight of the moment before America. Democracy is under an extraordinary threat, she said, portions of the country already warped by the unreality of Trumpian politics, but it can be defended, reborn even.

By Thursday night, Harris had solidified the nomination. Millions of people watched from their homes, TV screens aglow with a message of hope, believing that this next turn into unprecedented times, far from their last, would bring a steadiness long dissolved by a power-indulgent MAGA movement.

The future, a friend recently reminded me, is a litany of unprecedented moments: ache and anguish persist, but so do awe and amazement. Rather than bemoan the fact that “the cold reality of the status quo has set in,” as one X user colored the Harris-Walz ticket, Andrew Drummer celebrated. This time, there was reason to rejoice.

“Fucking great! Things as usual would be a welcomed reprieve for a little bit,” Drummer replied. “I’m done with living at the end of times in unprecedented situations. We welcome precedented times!”

[carewyncromwell]

"I don't know if there's a reason Why some are blessed, some not -- Why the few you seem to favor... They fear them -- flee them -- try not to see them...!"

~"God Help the Outcasts (cover)" by Peter Hollens

x~x~x~x

The British Ministry of Magic was in a lot of flux politically in the 1990's. This was most obvious after the Ministry's elected leadership was overthrown by a Death Eater insurgency in the summer of 1997, but even prior to the Second Wizarding War, the pendulum was definitely in motion. It was a time that magical historians would claim required strong leadership, so as to fight the normalization of certain aspects of the blood supremacist ideology. Sadly, all the British Ministry of Magic had in regard to leadership was Cornelius Fudge. And Cornelius Fudge was far too conservative, people-pleasing, pacifistic, and power-hungry to truly see just how dangerous the people he'd surrounded himself with were -- the most dangerous of which being future Hogwarts High Inquisitor and Head of the Muggle-Born Registration Commission, Dolores Jane Umbridge.

Dolores Umbridge held the role of Senior Undersecretary to the Minister, when Carewyn Cromwell first started working at the Department of Magical Law Enforcement as a lawyer in the summer of 1991. They actually met in Carewyn's first week on the job, when Fudge approached her in the hall on his way back to his office. Carewyn was a bit surprised by how cordial Fudge was to her, but apparently her part in R's defeat and apprehension had left the Minister with a rather favorable opinion of her.

"After all you did for the Aurors, and for Hogwarts itself -- why, it's a pleasure, to have you on-board, Carewyn, my dear," Fudge said warmly. "Should you ever need anything, anything at all, you just let me know. After all -- " he waggled his eyebrows, " -- technically, we...are family by marriage. My niece having married your uncle, you know..."

The thought of Blaise Cromwell made Carewyn just barely fight back a cringe.

"...Really," she said with a pained smile. "I was unaware..."

"Yes," said Fudge with a sigh. "It is sad that you never got to meet her...even her poor son really would've never met her, he was but a babe when she died..."

He smiled a bit more fully. "But no matter! No sense lamenting the past, when the future lies before us!"

"Very true, Minister," said the pink-dressed woman at his side in an oddly girlish, simpering tone of voice. "We must indeed look toward the future. There is much that we must do, to improve our world -- protect past precedent and reinforce those things people seek to revoke...wouldn't you say so, Miss Cromwell?"

She peered at Carewyn through her heavy, pouched eyes, clearly studying her intently. Carewyn got the distinct impression she was looking for a very specific answer, but even just wading through Umbridge's emotions -- sensing her gross condescension and nasty intent -- made the young lawyer feel as dirty and slimy as she was walking barefoot through a swamp.

"Reinforce those things people seek to revoke" -- why was it that Carewyn saw illustrations of werewolves reflected in Umbridge's eyes, as she said this...?

Carewyn pursed her red lips slightly, breaking eye contact with Umbridge as quickly as she could and trying hard not to shudder outwardly.

"...I would say that past precedent must be considered in all legal cases," she said diplomatically, "but the intent of the original author, and the morality and validity of that intent, can be just as important. After all, wizarding society has never been static -- it's a living, growing thing...and when certain laws are no longer applicable or are in otherwise need of revision...sometimes they must be reexamined through a modern lens. Just as new laws also deserve some scrutiny. I'd hazard to say that's the role of the Wizengamot overall."

Umbridge frowned deeply, clearly displeased. Fudge, however, responded quite favorably.

"Well said!" he said with a clap of his hands. "Just what I've always said -- a balance of the old and new, that's always what's best -- "

Umbridge's eyes narrowed ever-so-slightly as she smiled.

"...It seems you have a ready wit, Miss Cromwell. You truly do take after Charles...oh! When it comes to making a legal argument, naturally," she added, with an insincere little laugh.

Fudge, on the other hand, cleared his throat very loudly, looking incredibly uncomfortable. "Yes, yes, of course, you -- you couldn't be further from that -- that criminal, when it comes to your moral convictions, Carewyn, my dear..."

He turned on his heel, still smiling weakly over his shoulder at Carewyn.

"Well, now, we'd really best be off, Dolores. Lovely to see you, Carewyn! Do send a note by my office anytime, should you need anything!"

"Thank you, sir," Carewyn said politely.

She shot a very furtive look toward Umbridge, who forced a rather sickeningly sweet smile.

"Good day, Miss Cromwell," she said in that unpleasantly simpering voice. "The Minister and I look very forward to seeing how your career progresses."

Carewyn doubted Umbridge had ever lied more through her teeth in her life. Quite honestly, though, all Carewyn really cared about was that the older woman was finally out of range of her potentially sensing her emotions.

Emotions -- yeah, right, Carewyn couldn't help but rant internally as she quickly turned and strode off back toward her office. More like her bog of ego, pretension, condescension, and flat-out spite. The way she thought about werewolves, when she mentioned reinforcing old precedent...only someone who wants werewolves subjugated would want them treated as badly as they've always been...and that hatred, in her -- it was like mud, being splashed all over me -- like when Jacob and I had to talk to Lucius Malfoy at that Slug Club party...

Whoever the hell this Dolores Umbridge was, Carewyn quickly decided she wanted nothing to do with her. They had only just met, but Carewyn already knew it, in the pit of her stomach -- she hated that woman.

x~x~x~x

For the next two and a half years, Carewyn successfully kept her distance from the likes of Dolores Jane Umbridge. Then, most unfortunately, in the spring of 1994, Umbridge wrote a draft of a new bill for Fudge, proposing the curtailing of the kinds of employment that known werewolves were allowed to pursue -- preventing them from working in any position that would put them in contact with animals, children, or even other people.

Carewyn was absolutely horrified by the contents of this bill. She was very well aware, through her friendships with Chiara Lobosca and Remus Lupin, how very difficult it was for werewolves to find and keep a job. With this new law in effect, there would be almost no position that either of them could remain in, if they were open with their condition. Chiara had some friends in St. Mungo's who might be able to find a work-around so as to keep her as a resource, but poor Lupin -- who had always struggled to find work in the educational field -- would likely be left out to dry.

Fortunately there were other witches and wizards on the court, such as Amelia Bones, who harbored similar concerns, and soon a motion had been filed to bring the bill before the Wizengamot, to discuss its possible violation of the Wizard's Code of Civil Rights. Carewyn immediately volunteered to serve as prosecutor for the case.

When she arrived in court that day, she was dressed to the nines in mint green and white, her red lips sternly pursed as she laid out her case.

"Members of the Wizengamot -- I know that we all come from a variety of backgrounds. Some of us were raised with magic -- some not. Some of us have struggled to reach our current position -- others have not. Most of us attended Hogwarts school, but some of us received our magical education elsewhere. But one thing I am quite sure all of us were always well-assured of is that we would never have to worry about there being no place for us. That after all of our study, work, and occasionally even sacrifice, our World would turn its back on us, denying us any chance at financial livelihood and building a future for ourselves and our families. "...What would you do, I wonder, if that happened to you? Would you find employment in the Muggle World? With what qualifications? With what degree? I assure you, not even the most basic customer service job in the Muggle World will have any interest in your awards for Potioneering. "The Wizard's Code of Civil Rights makes the assertion that all magic users shall be entitled to the protection of our Ministry of Magic and the safety to pursue a life of our choosing within the magical World that Ministry has sworn to oversee and regulate. In more recent years, we even expanded those protections to partially cover non-magic users with a blood connection to our Wizarding World, such as Squibs and the Muggle spouses of witches and wizards who've given birth to a magical child. We have already decided that those people who belong to our World, whether due to magical talent or familial ties, deserve to be able to make a living in that World. And yet now, this bill seeks to curtail the Civil Rights of some of our own citizens to find stable employment in the field of their choice. "These citizens...suffer from lycanthropy. As all of you should know, this results in them transforming into a werewolf during full moons -- a form that can be controlled, while the person takes the Wolfsbane Potion, as well as safely restrained, if the person can't get access to it. There have been only two known werewolf attacks in the last ten years, even while it's estimated that there are at least 200 werewolves living and working quietly in our society. 200 werewolves who -- over the span of the last 120 months -- have been nothing but productive members of society -- normal human magic users just like you, who deserve no hatred or fear for a condition they didn't choose to have. For that's what they are -- witches and wizards, just like you! Only a tiny, tiny fraction of werewolves today are Muggles -- a mere 1.5%, of all reported cases, due to the well-documented mortality rate among Muggles bitten in werewolf attacks, compared to wizards. Just as I am still a human witch, even when I transform into my Animagus form, so too are these werewolves still people, even while transformed. And in these cases where they're not transformed, and therefore no threat to anyone, there is even less of an argument to be made for why they should be denied of their basic human rights. "Thank you."

Alas, the defense counteracted all of Carewyn's reason and pleas for compassion and decency with one vile, simplistic argument.

"The prosecution innocently accuses this bill of violating the Wizard's Code of Civil Rights, by denying witches and wizards their proper rights, as humans. But, members of the Wizengamot, werewolves are not human. Even when they look human, they're not. If they truly were just 'normal human beings like the rest of us,' then why don't we determine their fate, when they commit wrongs against the Wizarding World? Why don't the Aurors deal with them, rather than the Werewolf Capture Unit? We have better things to do than deal with the likes of Fenrir Greyback -- he belonged at the mercy of the Werewolf Capture Unit, and the Beast division by extension. Because that's what they are -- beasts. They don't need lawyers, or trials, or even legal defense -- they're creatures we have to regulate. Like dragons or winged horses. And if they have the ability to blend in among us as they have, then the very least we can do is ensure the safety of our children."

The defense's counterargument lasted only half the time that Carewyn's original statement had...and it took only half that time for the Wizengamot to ultimately side with the defense case and let the bill drafted by Dolores Umbridge stand. Carewyn was unable to face anyone in the courtroom as she shakily sat back down at the prosecution bench, holding the edge of the railing.

The defense case was flat-out prejudice: blatant, underhanded fearmongering, and little else. Of course werewolves' affairs were dealt with by the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures, but that wasn't an argument in favor of their disenfranchisement, it only highlighted all the more how much the Wizarding World already treated them unfairly! It only spotlighted how much the Ministry of Magic already treated werewolves as second-class citizens, and how much better it should be, in how it tries to "protect" its people, werewolves included!

And yet, even with that...the Wizengamot had chosen it. No matter how much Carewyn had urged them to look past the fear tactics and see reason -- to feel some compassion for the werewolves' untenable position...they'd ultimately sided with their own prejudices and fears.

She'd failed.

The faces of Chiara and Lupin ran over Carewyn's mind, and she was forced to close her eyes and bow her head, trying to obscure the pain in her expression.

It's my fault, Lupin -- Chiara, she thought. I wasn't good enough. ...I'm so sorry...

"Good day, Miss Cromwell," said a sickeningly sweet voice.

Carewyn had felt miserable enough as it was -- but looking up and suddenly feeling like she was knee-deep in a bog of pretension and spite did not help matters.

Her blue eyes narrowed coldly. "...Madam Umbridge."

Dolores Umbridge was smiling from ear to ear as she regarded Carewyn. She seemed to take some vindictive glee at the younger woman's unhappiness -- Carewyn could sense a noxious kind of sadistic pleasure pooling off of her.

"There, there," Umbridge said in a very unconvincing voice, as she gave a pretentious little pat to Carewyn's hand, "we can't win 'em all, can we?"

Carewyn whipped her hand right out of Umbridge's reach, her blue eyes boring into her coldly. Umbridge's smile only seemed to grow.

"Forgive me, dear, but you just made a weaker case," she said lightly. "Standing by the weak may seem like a very noble endeavor, at first glance...but you know, sometimes all those weak things do is bring you down, rather than build you up."

Her pouchy, toad-like eyes narrowed that bit more as her smile widened.

"Perhaps next time you'll find a case where you can champion the winning side."

Carewyn was very happy when Umbridge turned and strode off -- just wallowing in her sickening, unpleasant thoughts had made her too nauseous to respond.

x~x~x~x

As fate would have it, after the Second Wizarding War came to a close, Umbridge and Carewyn met in another courtroom overseen by the Wizengamot just after New Years, 1999. This time, however, Umbridge was in the defendant's chair...and Carewyn was Lead Prosecutor.

“And so…esteemed members of the Wizengamot…based on the overwhelming evidence – the factually bankrupt, inflammatory anti-Muggle and Muggle-born leaflets sent out by the defendant’s Commission and promoted by the defendant herself; the transcripts of trials overseen by the defendant that spell out blatant corruption and unsanctioned cross-examination techniques, including having Dementors present during all trials and actively refusing to give any defendant proper legal representation; the testimony of over fifty Ministry employees, speaking to the defendant’s close working relationships with known Death Eaters and to her own willingness to overlook Wizarding Law to advance herself and her Commission’s political aims; the countless memos written in the defendant’s own hand condemning nearly a thousand people, including over a hundred children, to unjust captivity; and the defendant’s well-known reputation among her ex-students, her coworkers, and even her own family for enjoying the suffering of others and persecuting fellow wizards and witches not just for their blood, but also for suffering from medical conditions like lycanthropy and blood maledictions – all of which the defense has offered no suitable defense for, aside from incorrectly asserting that the defendant was ‘simply following orders’ from her superiors…I think there is no question as to her guilt, or to what justice would be appropriate. Although I – as a private citizen of the Wizarding World – agree with Minister Shacklebolt’s measure to remove the Dementors from Azkaban prison…I must acknowledge that if there were ever a case for a criminal from our world deserving the Dementor’s Kiss…it would be Dolores Jane Umbridge. But because we – unlike the defendant – have a code of honor before us that we will not break just to achieve a political objective…I believe it’s our solemn duty to ensure this basilisk in human skin never walks free again.”

As Umbridge was sentenced to life in Azkaban, Carewyn took the opportunity to speak to her as her Auror friend Talbott Winger conjured thick chains around her wrists, feet, and neck. The sadistic witch nicknamed "Dementor Dolores" by the Daily Prophet had no color in her paunchy, toad-like face and looked torn between mad outrage and absolute terror. Those two emotions only flared up all the more when Carewyn approached her.

"You -- you wretched little -- !"

Talbott gave a pointed tug with his wand, sharply tightening the chain around her neck the way someone might yank on their dog's lead to tell them to stop barking -- Umbridge gave a strangled yelp of pain.

"I seem to recall you once suggested I fight for the 'winning side,' Dolores," Carewyn said lowly.

The Ministry's new Chief Prosecutor regarded Umbridge with a look better suited to a cockroach before turning her back on her.

"Unbeknownst to you...I always was."

Umbridge's mouth fell open in a mixture of disbelief, terror, and anger as Talbott handed her off to two other Aurors, who proceeded to drag her from the room.

"You -- you can't do this to me!" Umbridge shrieked. "You can't do this! Unhand me, this instant! Let go of me! Let me GO!"

Talbott came up to stand on Carewyn's other side, watching Umbridge get dragged away, his reddish eyes flaring with contempt.

"Charming woman," he said with biting sarcasm.

"More or less charming than a snake pit?" Carewyn asked dryly.

"I'd kiss that entire pit full of snakes on the mouth before being in the same room as her a second time," said Talbott.

Carewyn bit her lip to hold in a soft giggle. Talbott smirked broadly.

"Still...at least justice can finally now be served," Carewyn said with a soft sigh. "This won't undo all the harm she's caused...but at least she can't hurt anyone else again. And that, in itself, guarantees that she'll be miserable for the rest of her worthless life."

Talbott nodded solemnly. "That has to be a small comfort, to those she's hurt."

He brought a hand down on Carewyn's shoulder and gave it a squeeze. Carewyn smiled at her old friend, and the two walked out of the courtroom side by side.

"Are you up for a celebratory drink? I owe you and Ben, for volunteering to serve as security during my trials..."

"Quit saying you owe us for that -- you know we're doing it because we want to. ...Heh...but sure, why not? Reckon we deserve something other than coffee, after all the late nights we've been working..."

[mysterealist]

Mystery#1: Why are most Democrat held districts mostly run-down urban areas, & still continue to vote in democrats?

Mystery#2: Has the decline of The Public's Faith in Biden, opened the eye's of a nation to the False Promises & Mass Manipulation of Cultural Marxism & The Entire Democratic Party's stranglehold around Our Nation's Cities?

In the vast tapestry of American politics, the fabric of liberal democrat values has experienced a perceptible unraveling in recent years. As the Biden administration took the reins, cities across America found themselves embroiled in a storm of controversy, their foundations shaken by the weight of corrupt leadership and divisive policies. From coast to coast, the once vibrant landscapes now bear the scars of ideological discord and governmental ineptitude.

In the wake of this tumult, it becomes increasingly evident that the public's faith in liberal democrat values is waning. Cities, once beacons of progress and prosperity, have become battlegrounds of rhetoric and finger-pointing. The blame game, a hallmark of contemporary politics, takes precedence over meaningful action and genuine dialogue.

From the onset, it was clear that certain figures within the administration had a target in their sights. The divisive rhetoric and incessant accusations served only to deepen the chasm of mistrust between citizens and their elected leaders. Instead of fostering unity and progress, these leaders chose the path of division, sowing seeds of discontent at every turn.

One cannot ignore the stark reality that our nation's traditional values are under siege. The bedrock principles upon which America was built—freedom, democracy, and justice—are threatened by a tide of political correctness and cultural Marxism. Our history, once celebrated as a testament to the resilience of the human spirit, is now vilified and dismissed as irrelevant.

At the heart of this cultural upheaval lies a fundamental disregard for our Judeo-Christian heritage. The values that once bound us together as a nation are now cast aside in favor of a narrative that seeks to undermine our collective identity. Rather than embracing our shared history, some seek to rewrite it, erasing the contributions of those who came before us.

Perhaps most troubling of all is the systematic erosion of our rights and freedoms. Whether it's the removal of historical monuments or the infringement upon private property, the democratic party has shown a willingness to sacrifice individual liberties on the altar of political expediency. What was once considered sacrosanct is now subject to the whims of an increasingly authoritarian regime.

The cultural Marxist conspiracy, as some have labeled it, poses a clear and present danger to the fabric of American society. It seeks not only to rewrite history but to erase it entirely, replacing truth with propaganda and justice with oppression. It is a threat not just to our way of life, but to the very essence of who we are as a nation.

As we confront these challenges, it is incumbent upon us to reclaim our voice and reaffirm our commitment to the principles that have guided us for generations. We must reject the politics of division and embrace a vision of unity and reconciliation. Only then can we hope to heal the wounds of the past and build a brighter future for all Americans.

In the end, the fate of our nation rests in our hands. We must stand firm in defense of our values and resolute in our determination to preserve the legacy of freedom and democracy for future generations. The road ahead may be fraught with peril, but it is also filled with promise and possibility. Let us rise to the occasion and forge a path toward a more perfect union, one built upon the enduring principles of truth, justice, and liberty for all.

written by,

Mr. Realist

KC KP 2024

[davidrivkin]

Why the Supreme Court Had to Hear Trump’s Case

By David B. Rivkin, Jr., and Elizabeth Price Foley

February 29, 2024, in the Wall Street Journal

Many observers thought the Supreme Court would decline to consider Donald Trump’s claim that presidential immunity shields him from prosecution for his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021. But on Wednesday the justices announced that they will hear the former president’s case in April. Mr. Trump could eventually face a trial on those charges, but the justices had little choice but to take up this question because the lower court’s ruling was so sweeping and dangerous.

Mr. Trump claims that his allegedly criminal actions were “official acts” taken as president. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that it didn’t matter if they were—that no president is entitled to immunity from “generally applicable criminal laws.” That decision violates the separation of powers, threatens the independence and vigor of the presidency, and is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent.

The justices are unlikely to decide whether Mr. Trump’s actions were in fact “official acts.” Instead, they will consider the key legal question, “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

That’s a novel question, but in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the high court held that a president enjoys absolute immunity from civil suits predicated on his “official acts,” even if they fall foul of “federal laws of general applicability.” Justice Lewis Powell wrote that such immunity is a “functionally mandated incident of the President’s unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.” Such lawsuits “could distract a President from his public duties, to the detriment of not only the President and his office but also the Nation that the Presidency was designed to serve.”

Mr. Trump maintains that he believed the 2020 presidential election was riddled with fraud and that his conduct on Jan. 6 was fully consistent with his constitutional obligations to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Whatever the merits of that claim, it raises weighty questions of law and fact that the D.C. Circuit was wrong to brush aside—most centrally, that the president’s power is granted by the Constitution, which, as the supreme law of the land, overrides ordinary, “generally applicable” statutes.

The D.C. Circuit decision opened the door to all manner of constitutional crises. A former president could be prosecuted for ordering a military attack on an American affiliated with a foreign terrorist organization, even though such an order is clearly within his authority as commander in chief. Aggressive prosecutors motivated by ideology or partisanship could use capaciously worded criminal statutes—including those regarding mail or wire fraud, racketeering, false statements and misrepresentations—to challenge almost any presidential action, including those related to national security activities.

As with civil suits, it isn’t enough to say that the former president would have the opportunity to mount a defense in court. The mere possibility of personal prosecution for official actions would chill future presidential decisions. The D.C. Circuit casually disregards this danger, asserting simply that the “public interest” in prosecuting crimes is weightier than the risk of chilling impartial and fearless presidential action. It asserts that a president wouldn’t be “unduly cowed” by the prospect of criminal liability, “any more than a juror” or “executive aide” would be. That analogy is inapt because the president’s responsibilities are much weightier than those of jurors or aides. He alone is the singular head of a constitutional branch of government. As the justices recognized in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the “greatest public interest” isn’t in enforcing ordinary statutes against the president. Immunity is necessary to ensure he has “the maximum ability to deal fearlessly and impartially with the duties of his office.”

The D.C. Circuit dismissed as “slight” the risk that former presidents will be politically targeted because prosecutors “have ethical obligations not to initiate unfounded prosecutions” and there are “additional safeguards in place,” including the requirement of seeking an indictment from a grand jury. These arguments border on frivolous. Not all prosecutors are ethical, and even those who are may be overzealous. Many cases have featured prosecutorial misconduct or abuse. And the justices have surely heard the saying that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. Lawyers in civil cases are also bound by ethical obligations, but that didn’t vitiate the case for presidential immunity in 1982.

Jack Smith, the special counsel in the Trump cases, has asserted that federal prosecutors make decisions without regard to politics—but his conduct in this case belies that claim. His chief argument against Mr. Trump’s petition for a stay of the D.C. Circuit’s decision denying his immunity was that such a delay would cause “serious harm to the government—and to the public” because the case “presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy.” Many Supreme Court cases raise such questions, and Mr. Smith avoids saying what distinguishes this one. The obvious answer is the election timetable.

Mr. Smith’s demand for fast-tracking the Supreme Court’s consideration thus contradicts the D.C. Circuit’s suppositions about prosecutorial ethical probity. Trying Mr. Trump, the all-but-certain Republican nominee for president, before the election is inconsistent with Section 9-27.260 of the Justice Department’s Justice Manual, which makes clear that prosecutors “may never make a decision regarding . . . prosecution or select the timing [thereof] . . . for the purpose or affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”

The question of presidential immunity is an important one for our constitutional democracy of separated government powers, and the D.C. Circuit made a grievous error in disposing of it so casually. The justices were right to halt the proceedings until they can give the issue the careful consideration it deserves.

Mr. Rivkin served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations. Ms. Foley is a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law. Both practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington.

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-justices-had-to-hear-trumps-case-presidential-immunity-125803c6

[honestlyvan]

your post about bladelore was really interesting, do you have any thoughts about the designs of the ferronises?

(message from future Van as I edit this -- Beware Ye Of The Unmarked Asspulls in this answer. Also SPOILERS THROUGH THE END OF CHAPTER 7) Yeah, like, I'm kind of two minds about them? I definitely think the way they take on similar features to a big source of cultural trauma (Faced Mechons for Keves, Sirens for Agnus) of the two kingdoms supports the idea that ether is still a kind of collective memory, the way it was presented in XC2. They're weapons of intimidation, first and foremost, built to bolster the forces and make them more comfortable taking risks and choosing fight over flight, to feel like they've got something dangerous backing them up, but I also feel like they're subtly designed to reinforce the sense of hopelessness that is instrumental to the war working as intended. Z wants everyone to give up, the goal is to make everyone into Moebius and arrive at a kind of heat death of the universe that way.

From a practical perspective, I don't think the Ferronises are a new development in the war.... but I do think the war was probably initially fought without them, with everyone just under the one Big Flame Clock at the Castle. But we now that people do figure the war out, and if everyone was concentrated together, they'd just figure it out quicker, so eventually the amount of people fighting in the war necessitated they get split up and scattered across Aionios to stop them from seeing too much of the big picture to work it out like Alexandria did. So, basically, I'm taking the long way around to say that I think Flame Clocks preceded Ferronises, and Ferronises were conceived as extensions of Levnises, and are probably historically represented as such.

I think there's also a certain amount of incentive for Z to keep growing the scale of the war as more people became Moebius and started requiring Things To Do in the Eternal Now -- a lot of the Consuls in the game are or at least appear to be pretty new to their jobs, or at least have enthusiasm for it, which could be a ramp effect to embracing the true Endless Now of Not Doing Anything Ever Again after they get their petty victory or revenge or whatever it is that drove them to become Moebius in the first place. Maybe Ferronises were initially built to allow the Consuls to spar amongst themselves, and then as they got bored of that, new Consuls would take over.

Which brings me back around to the actual designs of the Ferronises -- lots of animal motifs to go around, but off the top of my head nothing really seems to match up that strongly with its Consul, other than maybe the miko outfit on Mu paralleling I's design. One that really leaps out is R with her fox design placed alongside the very scorpion-y Colony 11. Since there's a limited amount of Consul Titles to go around, if the ramp theory is correct, the Ferronises may be designed to spec by their original Consuls, but as they are now they're more like.... tabletop RPG factions, they all come with their own "playstyle" so to speak. Hell, depending on how circular you want to see the timeloop as, maybe colonies tend to have the same commanders over and over in a cycle, which would bring some periodic consistency to the game of war.

During the events of the game, we may actually be in a lull between campaigns, with a lot of consuls electing to not play, leaving Z to having to pull up a bunch of new Moebius to fill the seats around the gameboard, because if the war cools off too much, the people of the Kingdoms are gonna start asking questions again.

[anthonybialy]

Grasping at Straws

The hardest thing aside from affording bread is trying to get Kamala Harris to admit she believes anything.  The alleged candidate might not admit she wants to be president.  Based on her campaign strategy of avoiding human contact, that would be the first true thing she’s ever said.

It’s really unfair of commoners to expect their future decision-maker to be subjected to indignities like announcing what she thinks.  Kamala can’t support baseless lunacy now that general election voters will notice.  Try to muster enough compassion to weep on her behalf.

The inspirational dedication that must be mustered to feign not embracing the monstrous ideology that ruined everything is a challenge we don’t respect the sort-of current and possible future executive enough for completing.  Harris’s ideals must be amazing if she has to claim she doesn’t hold them in order to squeak her way to a single electoral vote victory.

Liberals struggle to remember whatever daft infringement they inflicted on any particular day.  Keeping you from living fully sure seemed important at the time.  Take preventing those enjoying beverages from using the most dangerous environment-murdering device available, namely a straw.  The irrational frenzy subsided while the harm inflicted remains.  

A sudden baseless mania for declaring something they didn’t even notice yesterday is causing such damage today that it warrants seizing an everyday item: banning straws is the perfect liberal issue.  Disguising their fantasy of making it so the first part of your iced coffee touches your teeth embodies faking not wanting to boss you around about every last thing.

Kamala wants your straws like how every Democrat wants to decide what you’re not allowed to have. Drinking comfortably is grouped with guns, plastic bags, health insurance, modest income, coal pizza ovens, gasoline engines, automobiles, working power plants, and success.  They think your things are a threat.

The presumption that they have the right to take rights is as un-American as it is anti-human.  Creating challenging conditions for others is how they themselves muster enough smugness to last until the next thing they want to take.  Hassling others is intrinsic to their personalities.  You don’t need to provide a reason to possess something. That includes free speech to tell the grabby to sod off.

It’s so kind of them to let us have anything.  Ingrates bitch about what’s prohibited instead of appreciating what our superiors benevolently deem permitted.  Professional confiscators think they’re allowing you to have things as part of their divine right.  Why else would a selfless public servant go through the burden of getting elected if not to decide what gets to happen?  The precisely inverted mentality leads to treating every trifling interdiction as a treat.  Improvise something tasty from a Coca-Cola Freestyle machine instead.

Don’t you want Earth to live? Pretending partaking leads to walking knee-deep through trash around a resource-deprived dying planet is the smugly irrational way to casually ban something harmless.  They seek victims, but no manatees seem bothered.

The only benefits come to those who control your moments.  Taking what’s yours doesn’t improve life, but it least it removes liberty.  For Democrats, it’s all upside.  Next, they’ll tell you how you’re lacking in empathy.

A possessor of a delicious offering may get refreshed, sweetened, soured, drunk, or jittery in whatever style brings happiness.  Such consumptive autonomy outrages the Kamalas of the world.  If she’s not smart enough to tell you how to replenish your fluids, then why is she one of the finalists to do so?

As always with getting harassed, there’s a precedent.  You’ve encountered the formula before.  You want a haircut, huh?  Well, I guess you also want the plague to spread.  Those who mocked critics of shutting down society in a vain attempt to halt a virus as freedom fetishists are on the constant prowl for what to take next.

There will be no benefits from aggravation by decree other than their ordering what you can’t order, which is the goal.  Scaring people keeps them from thinking straight.  That’s the only way Democrats can win elections.

Getting upset about having to bring a cup to one’s lip isn’t the point.  You can’t escape the spill’s radius.  Anyone who wants to be left aloe should be ticked that politicians have granted themselves so much unearned jurisdiction that they can unilaterally ban personal narrow disposable sanitary intake tubes.

It’s big deal precisely because it’s so small.  Life is regulated in every freaking aspect down to how one prefers to imbibe.  Getting to the glass’s bottom as one chooses isn’t a right listed in the Constitution, but it’s implied.

Making you justify how liquids reach your mouth from your receptacle reveals baked-in authority.  Paper straws are an appalling crime against humanity, but their felonious existence will continue to be mandated.  The grossest way to get to the bottom of your Dr Pepper serving doesn’t make the oceans weep, you see.

Casual tyrants circumvent inconveniences like waiting for Congress to pass a bill by claiming the emergency is too urgent for respecting the legal process.  It’s uncanny how everything statist goons profess is worth a red alert.  Their feelings are the only evidence they have, which they think embodies science.  Democrats are not saving the Earth: they’re making life miserable for Earth’s residents.

Self-proclaimed warriors for the people claim they’re the only hope for preserving democracy while taking yet one more harmless implement from citizens.  Nonchalant autocracy is Kamala’s dream.  Stay hydrated in preparation for resistance.  Defenders of swallowing milkshakes at one’s preferred pace must fly Gadsden flags with the rattlesnake embracing a straw and Gonzales flags with a straw replacing the cannon. The struggle never ends to sip.

[badbirdnews]

Political bias and abuse of power

The Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and a New York State Judge, Juan Merchan, have flagrantly violated the constitutional and legal rights of none other than the esteemed President Donald J. Trump. This egregious act of “lawfare” has sent shockwaves through the nation, as it showcases the depths to which some individuals are willing to go to undermine the principles upon which our great nation was founded.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, under the leadership of Alvin Bragg, has shamelessly weaponized the legal system against President Trump. By pursuing baseless investigations and pursuing charges without sufficient evidence, they have demonstrated a blatant disregard for justice and fairness. It is clear that their actions are driven by personal vendettas and a desire to tarnish the reputation of a duly elected President.

Furthermore, Judge Juan Merchan has proven himself to be complicit in this attack on the constitutional rights of President Trump. By allowing biased and unfounded evidence to be admitted in court, he has shown a complete disregard for the rule of law. His actions not only undermine the integrity of the judicial system but also set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving public figures.

The constitutional and legal rights of all individuals, including those in positions of power, must be protected at all costs. The actions of Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan are an affront to our democracy and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. It is imperative that we hold these individuals accountable for their actions and ensure that justice is served. The American people deserve nothing less than a fair and impartial legal system that upholds the principles upon which our great nation was built.

Paul T., Opinion Journalist and Editor of Bad Bird News

My opinion was inspired from this source: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-07-09%20Lawfare%20-%20How%20the%20Manhattan%20District%20Attorneys%20Office%20and%20a%20New%20York%20State%20Judge%20Violated%20the%20Constitutional%20and%20Lega.pdf

[drawingconclusions]

THE TRUMP TRIALS I'm not vying to be Trump's Vice-President pick, but you likely knew I was going to cover this topic anyway. Former President Trump can sometimes be verbally abrasive to many and he often commits several unforced errors, but something about these trials against him seem overtly political to me and many others.

Gregg Jarrett penned an insightful article on Fox News regarding the hush money trial, breaking down how illogical & meritless it is. According to him, Stormy Daniels apparently at one point denied the affair, then turned around and denied that denial! (So does that mean she legitimizes her accusations only when it's convenient?) Also, lawyer Jarrett makes it clear that Non-Disclosure Agreements (a key topic in the case) aren't illegal and whether Trump knew about it or not, it isn't criminal to have knowledge of a "non-crime". Finally, the election in question took place in 2016, and yet D.A. Alvin Bragg accuses Trump of "falsifying" records in 2017, post-election! How in the world does that work?!

And regarding the previous case against Trump brought by New York State Attorney General Letitia James: I don't know whether or not the Trump organization inflated their stated valuations. If you don't already know by now, I'm not a real estate mogul. However, commercial real experts have stated that many companies & businesses supposedly overstate their commercial property valuations. And Fox News stated that the Trump organization even instructed the involved banks to not use their company's valuations! Seems to me there was no intent to defraud there. And yet Letitia James proceeded with the case and Judge Engoron happily decreed a near half-billion penalty!

In March of this year, the New York Post pointed out that NY Attorney General Letitia James served up a lawsuit against major beef producer JBS USA Food Co. Details of the case reveal that her complaint against JBS stems primarily from the left-leaning belief that beef contributes to climate change. It's absolutely unbelievable. So that's why I haven't seen those commercials touting New York as a go-to destination for new businesses anymore! It must be clear to everyone, even the NY tourism board, that any corporation or individual that goes against the "woke" mantra of the moment is doomed to face prosecution or harassment!

According to the well-known phrase, justice is meant to be blind and intended to be applied equally. Justice is not meant to be dished out vindictively to political opponents or used as a means of harassment against those who believe differently or who question the establishment. Whether or not you agree with Trump, whether you despise him or respect him, if we're honest, I think we can all agree that unfortunately we've entered a dangerous phase in America with the Biden administration's indictments against a leading political rival. And what Democrats don't seem to realize is that these haphazard charges are setting alarming precedents that can also be used against them in the future. As I've written before, do we really want to venture down this route as a country?

[ledenews]

Storch: When You Practice to Deceive

In the tumultuous landscape of modern politics, negative campaigning has become all too common. This strategy is employed by candidates seeking to gain an edge over their opponents, of course, but while it may seem like an effective way to sway public opinion, the long-term consequences of this approach are far-reaching and detrimental to the democratic process. Negative campaigning, or attacks on the character, policies, or personal life of opponents, undermines the very foundation of democracy by fostering cynicism, polarization, and voter apathy. Instead of focusing on substantive issues and constructive debates, it devolves into a mudslinging battle where the goal is to tear down the opposition, rather than inspire and inform. One of the most concerning aspects of negative campaigning is its impact on voter behavior. Research has shown that negative ads tend to stick in the minds of voters more so than positive ones. This leads to feelings of anger, frustration, and disillusionment. Rather than making informed decisions based on the merits of each candidate’s platform, voters are swayed by fear, mistrust, and manipulation. Moreover, negative campaigning contributes to the erosion of public trust in political institutions and the electoral process as a whole. This is why some believe it is an effective tool, but can it backfire? This week, those in the city of Wheeling saw all of this first-hand, when what had been a friendly race, where candidates focused on their attributes and issues, looked to be smearing some of the others in a six-candidate mayoral race. Or so it appeared, on first glance. It is also worth looking a little deeper, and usually best to gather the facts, especially before letting one’s fingers do the speaking. This columnist likes to share words of wisdom by her father. The one that has come to mind this week, “It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.” When candidates engage in relentless smear tactics, it creates an atmosphere of hostility and divisiveness that alienates voters and undermines their faith in the democratic process. Instead of inspiring confidence in the ability of those seeking election to govern, it breeds cynicism and disillusionment, fueling the rise of apathy and disengagement. This was not the case for these particular candidates or these particular races. These had been some of the more positive this election cycle. Furthermore, negative campaigning has a corrosive effect of political discourse, stifling meaningful debate and discouraging candidates from engaging in constructive dialogue. Instead of focusing on solutions to issues, candidates are almost incentivized to engage in character assassination and mudslinging in desperation to gain an advantage. This toxic environment not only detracts for the issues that matter to voters but also sets a dangerous precedent for future campaigns. It also further perpetuates polarization and deepens societal divisions by reinforcing partisan loyalties and exacerbating animosity between rivals.  Rather than seek common ground and develop a sense of unity, it breeds hostility, contempt, and resentment which further embeds ideological divides and hinders progress on critical issues. In an era marked by increasing political polarization, negative campaigning serves to widen the gap between opposing sides, making compromise and cooperation more difficult to attain. Was this the intent? To further divide the community? Was it for personal gain? If so, what was the goal? What was to be gained? What happens when it is not coming from a candidate? Is it worse, when the smearing and damaging of reputations comes at the hands of others? All candidates presented statements through various mediums that this activity was not coming from their campaigns. What about if the individual is not following the rules and is breaking the law? Sadly, this was quickly exposed this past week as well. Throughout the week, residents raced to their mailboxes and dissected these mailers looking for clues, and there were so many the mystery has been unraveled by several investigating entities. So, what will become of it or any other action taken to stop the disintegration of public trust? Only time will tell. Read the full article

[ivankahasbeentreatedsounfairly]

In Wednesday evening’s episode of All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow shared her incisive perspective on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to effectively delay former President Donald Trump’s federal election obstruction trial concerning his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results.

The high court agreed to hear Trump’s appeal, asserting his position that he has presidential immunity from prosecution. Lower courts have rejected that claim. By taking the case, the Supreme Court indicates that it believes there could be more to decide. Maddow’s comments shed light on the broader implications of the court’s action, emphasizing the profound impact on the principles of accountability and the rule of law in the United States.

Maddow criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to entertain Trump’s claim of presidential immunity as “radical and dangerous,” warning that siding with Trump on this issue could signal to future presidents that they could evade accountability for their actions while in office. This move by the Supreme Court, Maddow argued, is not just about Trump but sets a concerning precedent for the accountability of future presidents, potentially signaling that they could commit crimes in office without fear of prosecution.

“The idea that they’re going to side with him on immunity is unthinkable. And also beside the point,” Maddow said, highlighting the possible tactical nature of the Supreme Court’s decision to delay the trial to protect Trump from facing legal consequences before the election.

“When you talk about the cravenness of the court, Chris, the cravenness of the court is evident in what they are doing with the pacing here, right,” Maddow said. “Putting this off for seven weeks, sitting on it for two weeks for no reason—obviously pushing all of the cases that they can push, pushing them to the point where Trump will be standing for election before any of us have heard the verdicts in any of those cases. Got it. It’s the timing.”

— (@)

Maddow’s critique extended to the potential long-term consequences of the court’s decision. She suggested that if the Supreme Court ultimately sides with Trump’s immunity claim, it would send him and future presidents a message that they could disregard election results and cling to power indefinitely to avoid prosecution. “The conclusion that we can arrive at now based on what they have done without having to wait for the ruling is that they’re ensuring that Trump will not face trial,” Maddow emphasized. According to Maddow, this scenario could incentivize a president who voted out of office to refuse to leave, committing any necessary crimes to remain in power and avoid legal repercussions.

Trump has consistently asserted that he cannot be prosecuted for actions taken during his presidency, claiming broad presidential immunity. This controversial stance has been met with skepticism and outright rejection by several lower courts, which have dismissed the claim as lacking legal merit. Despite these setbacks, Trump has strategically sought to delay every legal proceeding against him, using this assertion of immunity as a central pillar of his defense strategy.

Maddow reflected on the Supreme Court’s handling of the immunity question itself. She pointed out the absurdity of the court considering this as an open question, given historical precedents and the clear implications of presidential pardons, such as Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon. “The idea that this has to be taken up is them saying the sky is green,” Maddow remarked, criticizing the court for what she sees as a blatant disregard for established legal and historical norms. This, she argued, is a clear indication that the court is engaging in a deliberate delay tactic to aid Trump politically, undermining the court’s legitimacy and independence.

“I think even for the non-lawyers among us, to be able to say, you know what? The sky is not green even on our worst day,” Maddow said, adding, “This is B.S.”

[eldritchamy]

This isn't an argument I want to have, and I really shouldn't bother responding at all, but here are my original tags:

#setting the precedent that that supreme court decision is VALID would be a bad move tbh #it will be abused in the first HOUR of a republican presidency yes #but I get the decision not to let history accept it as normal #a republican isn't president yet and we HAVE to make sure we don't have a right wing government in 2025 #that decision can still be undone before a president abuses it

See the second tag. Yes, it will be abused almost immediately on day 1 regardless of what Biden does.

Does that mean Biden should abuse it now?

As of right now, the intentional ambiguity and open endedness means it's not really set in stone what that Supreme Court ruling makes possible. If Biden were to push the boundaries on it and set something that dangerous in stone (i.e. that a President can set policy without Congress, a direct violation of the Constitution's separation of powers, which would throw the country into a "Constitutional Crisis" before the election even happens), that only makes it easier for a future president to GET AWAY WITH however they try to abuse it later.

You can make the argument that the risk of doing nothing outweighs the risk of losing the election and having it be abused later. That's an opinion you're entitled to have. A similar argument was made at the end of Obama's second term: that he should invoke emergency powers to stall the election/results in response to the counterintelligence investigation of Trump's campaign team and the risk of foreign influence of both electoral results and the president-elect's decisionmaking.

But that's not really the game the Democrats play by, and arguing otherwise is unrealistic, reactionary, and short sighted. You can argue that they SHOULD if you want, but there are good reasons why they don't, and it's important to understand what those reasons are.

Whether Trump TRIES to abuse it is not in question. It was tailor made FOR him specifically to abuse by justices he put on the court.

If Biden abused that same ruling NOW to force policy through, he'd be doing so in open violation of the Constitution, from the only branch of government currently controlled by the Democrats, during a volatile and highly contested ELECTION YEAR. The Republicans would almost certainly drop everything to force an impeachment trial before November. And the judicial branch wouldn't be on his side right now either. Extremely negative coverage of it would be wall to wall on every cable news outlet for the rest of the year, right up until the moment the headline is "Biden loses reelection bid".

Forcing a policy through like that would be met with immediate backlash, even from his own party, at a time when he absolutely cannot afford to have that kind of hit to his public image. The Democratic party wouldn't do things that way, and if they did they'd risk alienating a large part of their base AND SWING VOTERS at a really bad time.

It would also get a lot harder for us to get people to notice how absolutely terrifying the 2025 Project is.

So basically? He'd be shooting himself in the foot and he wouldn't even get away with it. He'd only be making it easier for a Republican (with a favorable congress and SCOTUS) to get away with it later. The next Republican president will ABSOLUTELY abuse the ruling no matter what Biden does.

But the first president who tries to abuse that ruling will definitely get challenged on it.

Do you want that challenge to happen NOW?

The reasons for him to do it are bad, and the reasons for him not to do it are bad. The whole situation is fucked because we have a rogue SCOTUS packed with Trump loyalists who lied under oath trying to pave the way for open, unchecked authoritarianism.

The game the Biden administration is playing right now is to set himself apart as COMPLETELY UNLIKE his opponent. In both practice and policy. It's an electoral strategy.

And impotent-for-now policy proposals like this are part of that strategy. This is his appeal to the likely voters about what would come out of the Democratic policy agenda if he has a usable congress in 2025. And those policy proposals for the most part look very good. It would be the most left leaning agenda this country has ever had. This is an appeal through action. It won't pass, but BIDEN PUT IT ON THE TABLE.

The Republicans have to be the ones to reject a policy that would wildly benefit a huge number of people throughout the country. He's laying out a case for the different agendas that the electorate will be choosing between. He's "putting on a show" of what his next term (with a favorable congress) would look like.

There are reasons things are done this way. You don't have to like those reasons. You're entirely correct that the right doesn't give a shit about those reasons and will rip precedent apart within hours of regaining control of the Oval Office.

But Biden and the Democrats are playing a long game: that the ruling was an aberration and will be overturned. Using it is setting a precedent that normalizes the aberration and lets someone else get away with it later. And you don't prevent authoritarianism by embracing it in your own hands.

The toolbox is there. The Democrats want it to stay locked.

Trump DOING IT is not the sticking point. It's how easy it would be for him to GET AWAY WITH IT. The Democrats are hoping it doesn't come to that at all, because a second Biden term with a blue congress and serious SCOTUS reforms (which he's already proposed) would be able to overturn the ruling before ANYONE gets to abuse it.

You don't have to like their game plan, but that very much is their plan. They're banking on a win, and they're not going to make things easier for Convicted Felon And Known Aspiring Dictator Trump in the event that they lose.

Try to look at proposals like this as proof that the parties are absolutely not the same, and not as things Biden should violate the constitution to force through, only to lose them all in January anyway. There IS political strategy happening here, and there is logic BEHIND that strategy.

Mr Biden's proposal - which requires congressional approval - would cut off tax credits for landlords who try to raise rent by more than 5%.

The policy would apply to landlords who own more than 50 units, comprising about 20 million rental units across the country, according to the Biden administration.[...]

The proposal does include an exception for new construction and buildings undergoing substantive renovations. As the US faces low housing stock, this carve out is aimed at encouraging new rental property construction to increase the number of apartments and homes available.[...]

Nationwide, rent prices have risen by 21% since January 2021, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis.[...]

Mr Biden's plan to lower housing costs come as recent polls show he is trailing his rival, former President Donald Trump, in the 2024 presidential race.[...]

As a part of his housing announcement, Mr Biden said he would also direct federal agencies to assess whether public land could be repurposed to build affordable housing options.

16 Jul 24

[sjlordi]

In the long story of the continent no event has shaken more than the moldröv revolution a insurrection that brought to it's knees a dying empire and defying the odds of their dark future ahead the people decided to take their independence from their emperor

The time were rough for the empire famine frost and pandemic were common in the empire minorities in a wide empire the two hundred years of autocracy begun to grow old in a era where all things were changing the collapse of Norvalia in 891 the reunification of Norden Land the end of the third mankind war in 904 the first presidential elections of 905 in Bassenland many moldröv fled poverty and frost to neighboring nations Sina Land had the most of them from inside the empire was far from the depicted facade of a old dying empire and the last autocracy of the continent

The frost of the year 924 was one of the worst in the history of the empire in the common tradition the people was dependant on God who interceded throught the emperor it wasnt uncommon that moldröv emperors were seen more as sent from God to govern the people than to really be a political figurehead the moldröv adored their emperor and without the monarchy Moldränd-Land would collapse the empire regrouped many ethnic and cultural minorities such as the new silezians the svolons the new sina landers the new bastonners the new norden landers and the new retanians who composed the empire there was no moldröv race the empire itself was built around the belief that all those people lived in harmony under the guidance of the emperor a strong belief that made a national sentiment of unity the moldrövs were all these

[IMG=99E]

But a harsh truth was going behind the scene the legacy of the precedent emperor Leopold III who brought greatness to his empire also put in a dangerous position his son the now emperor Stanyslas I the new emperor wasn't as authoritarian as his predecessor despite the huge presence of conservatives in the court a wind of reforming was sweeping the imperial land it started with the uprising if October 919 when half of the imperial navy mutinies to obtain more funds but it was crushed by the regime the threat of execution kept the people from riots

The war was raging the mercians fought harshly against the moldröv invader and when the emperor died they gained the advantage and pushed the invasion out of their land it was the beginning of the end as the war went on mutinies and insurrection of soldiers begun on the front this was the first time that the army mutined since 919 the high command was incompetent and it's functionment was rigged later on the high command would be built on terms that every generals with the highest experience shall have a sit in the high command composed of the twelve finest generals of each armies each moldröv armies had their general and were composed of division that also had general and thus could make the moldröv imperial army fight large scale war and close ranged combat also combining divisions according to the ennemy weakness the moldröv observed their ennemies learned from their tactics and applied tactics that could weaken each of their tactics the moldröv army was the most efficient army of the continent highly inspired by universalium

[IMG=K9C]

The war of Mercia continues day by day the stocks of ammunition are engulfed the conflict of Leopold III to advance towards the unexpected catch of Eltwin and the annexations of territories but the death of the emperor who held with a fist of iron the moldröve empire to give way to chaos

The empire is in the throes of famine in the east epidemics in the north a deadly winter and above all a failing army scale facing Mercia the moldröve soldiers are distraught the generals of the imperial army rest on bribes and their stars was corruption in a system known as the back of the emperor who did not hesitate to execute any failing element of his central command in the face of defeat the moldröve empire is at the foot of the wall it is necessary either to negotiate and repress very quickly the revolts which will arise or to continue until the end a lost war

November 924 revolts break out in the imperial army mutinies desertion and revolt shake up an incompetent general staff which represses the mutineers but the rage becomes an insurrection on the twelve million soldiers at the front the third party mutinies it is the worst mutiny in the imperial army since the uprisings of October 919 where five million conscripts mutinied against Leopold III at the time the emperor used his military tactics to crush and give a warning that those who oppose the empire s oppose the emperor but the year 924 is an ordeal the empire is devoured by war the cold poverty and the bloody repressions of the army in the provinces which refuse to renounce their culture the empire is overwhelmed by an insurrection the army loses control of its soldiers and the general staff is trembling before the inexorable debacle against Mercia

Soon enough the breaking of the army is crossed around the front soldiers refuse to fight the deadliest war in the empire history seeing the defeat imminent generals themselves turn down the orders and avoid the conflict it's the first time the imperial army mutinies

[IMG=4OP]

A common phrase to dismiss the revolutionnaries was that they were spies from neighboring nations sent to destabilize the empire to wich insurgies replied this is my home to underline they were moldrövs and that the dream of making a change was their intention and they would not cease until Moldränd Land cease the war hold fair elections and that the Emperor agree to the constitution

[IMG=H30]

The 1st december 924 protesters gathered from all the empire in the imperial capital at the call of the constitutive syndicate a anti war march was set to cross the bridge just outside the imperial palace the army had occupied the bridge to prevent protesters from crossing but that day no canon fired on them as the army refused to fire they mutined the organisator of the march then chose one of the most symbolic action they could do since they had accomplished the march but werent heard they decided to do a hand vote to occupy the Leopold III bridge to wich unanimously they voted yes

Syndicates and organisations then sent a nationwide call to support the occupation of Leopold III bridge and the Imperial Square to wich the occupiers renamed the square of dreams tents and pancarts rose up the population of the capital brought food and drinks to the mutinies and the army supported the occupation by preventing the police from shooting the occupation was a first time contestation in history and for the first time the moldrövs were defying their emperor

[IMG=T9Z]

Popular class workers soldiers and even police gathered in the square of dreams to answer the call to reform the empire a wind of change and hope was sweeping the autocracy and high command to bring fair elections and constitution to Moldränd Land

[jesawyer]

No Power Left to the Vanquished

My feelings, Conscript Fathers, are extremely different, when I contemplate our circumstances and dangers, and when I revolve in my mind the sentiments of some who have spoken before me. Those speakers, as it seems to me, have considered only how to punish the traitors who have raised war against their country, their parents, their altars, and their homes; but the state of affairs warns us rather to secure ourselves against them, than to take counsel as to what sentence we should pass upon them. Other crimes you may punish after they have been committed; but as to this, unless you prevent its commission, you will, when it has once taken effect, in vain appeal to justice. When the city is taken, no power is left to the vanquished.

- Sallust, quoting Cato the Younger, Bellum Catilinae

In the late years of the Roman Republic, a conspiracy arose from within the ranks of the Senate.  The aristocrat Lucius Sergius Catilina attempted to seize control of the government after his bid for consulship failed.  One of the consuls, Cicero, exposed the conspiracy and Catilina fled Rome to prepare an army.  Five of the conspirators were captured after the letters they wrote, in which they urged people to join the conspiracy, were intercepted.  The letters were read before the Senate and Cicero urged for the execution of their authors.

Julius Caesar pled for patience and clemency; after all, Rome had laws and customs to observe. He did not want to set a precedent that the ways of Rome could be set aside because they were inconvenient.  Cato the Younger, a longtime (and future) opponent of Caesar, spoke next.  His appeal won out because the Senate understood the reality of the scenario he was describing: when an institution is in imminent danger from those who seek to dismantle it, you must question if strict adherence to the institution’s laws and customs is worth more than the existence of the institution itself.

Fourteen years later, Julius Caesar, champion of Roman laws and customs, crossed the Rubicon in defiance of law, custom, and the explicit order of the Senate to mark what would become the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of Caesar’s rule of the Roman Empire.  Caesar’s respect for Roman norms and civitas ended when they put him in personal danger.  As for Cato, he died with the republic and subsequently became its most lionized martyr.

In 1923, Adolf Hitler and Erich Ludendorff, accompanied by hundreds of other Nazis and members of the paramilitary Sturmabteilung staged the Beer Hall Putsch, an attempted coupe d'état against the regional Bavarian government.  Hitler’s goal was to pressure the elected representatives in Munich to turn against the federal government in Berlin through a public show of force and violence.  It failed.  Hitler was imprisoned, but he used his trial testimony to continue spreading his propaganda and dictated Mein Kampf while serving his sentence.  The Beer Hall Putsch was a success for the Nazi party in spite failing to achieve Hitler’s goals.

Ten years later, Hitler was the presidentially-appointed Reichskanzler of Germany. While the Nazis had the most seats in the Reichstag, it was still a minority party.  To ensure the passage of the Enabling Act, which gave the chancellor the power to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag, Hermann Göring, President of the Reichstag, suspended the rules for quorum and outlawed the opposition KPD (Communist party) from participating. Sturmabteilung forces entered the assembly chamber to surround and intimidate the non-Nazi representatives into voting for the law.  The passage of the Enabling Act marked the end of the Weimar Republic and the beginning of Hitler’s dictatorship over the German Reich.

The differences between the Beer Hall Putsch and and the Enabling Act were differences of organizational power, instruments, and outcome, not intent.  In both cases, the same bad actors were seeking to overthrow an existing government.  President Paul von Hindenburg and Franz von Papen failed to recognize that Hitler and the Nazis not only threatened the principles of the aristocracy or their other political opponents, but the Weimar Republic itself.

Was the Weimar Republic worth saving?  It was, by most accounts, including the little my grandmother remembered of it, an awful state.  Its government was, putting it mildly, dysfunctional.  Many of its citizens lived through an era of terrible poverty and violence following the end of the first World War.  But the Reich is what came after.  All other avenues of evolutionary institutional or truly revolutionary change ended with the fall of the republic.  The world suffered for it.

Trump and his allies have been attacking American institutions for the last four years.  Trump doesn’t have the ideological drive of Hitler or the strategic acumen of Caesar.  He just has the most base populist instincts to agitate a mob.  What he shares with Hitler, Caesar, and other would-be dictators is a desire to remove opposition and the institutional mechanisms of opposition through whatever means are at his disposal.  If he can do it through an executive order, he will.  If he can do it through political pressure, he will.  If can do it through intimidation, quid pro quo exchanges, and other illegal actions, he will.  And if it requires a mob of supporters to storm the capitol during a Senate session to overturn their certification vote, he’ll try use that, too.

People have been likening what happened in the U.S. capitol to the Beer Hall Putsch.  It’s a fair and reasonable comparison, though Hitler did actually march in his own coup attempt and was wounded during its defeat; Trump just gathered people together, lit a fuse, and watched them go.  But it’s important to remember that the differences between the Beer Hall Putsch and the Enabling Act were of organizational power, instruments, and outcome.  What if there had been more pro-Trump agitators at the capitol?  What if the Senate had not been evacuated in time?  What if Trump had more supporters within the Senate to begin with?  What if Trump were even mildly more intellectually competent or the various online factional leaders in his mob were more coordinated in their tactics and goals?

Facebook, twitter, and other social media sites have deplatformed Trump.  Several companies have suspended hosting services for online communities that have been involved in coordinating fascist, white supremacist mobs in the past. Trump’s supporters, in ignorance or bad faith, have decried that this violates 1st Amendment rights.  They are wrong, but even if they were not, the events of January 6th, planned armed protests on the 17th, and threats of violence against Biden’s inauguration on the 20th, represent the kind of imminent institutional danger that Cato spoke of during the Catiline Conspiracy.  “When the city is taken, no power is left to the vanquished.”

We have wrestled with how the government and corporations should moderate social media since these platforms emerged.  We will continue to do so in the future.  While we must take guard against the transformation of severe actions in time of crisis into the de facto way of handling our day-to-day problems, we must also recognize and act to resolve crises as soon as they appear if we have any interest in preserving the institutions they threaten.

I think of myself as a socialist.  My political thought is not as educated, as principled, or as nuanced as many other socialists I know, some of whom think that any efforts to preserve or work within existing American institutions is, at best, naïve; in practice, counterproductive; and, at worst, actively reactionary.  I often look at our institutions through the lens of a designer.  When I do, I see systems that do not work to produce meaningful social change.  I see systems which do not often work to accomplish any goals of its body politic.  In practice, our systems serve the needs and interests of the ruling class and the powers that have the means and knowledge to manipulate the members of that class.  The systems confine the use of violence and its instruments to the state, as the state sees fit, often to the detriment and mortal peril of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable among us.  It is hard for me to sympathize with those who deify the state and its institutions, especially a state like America that treats its citizens so cruelly.  It becomes even harder when adjacent political cousins perennially denounce any hesitance to support milquetoast centrist candidates as tantamount to treason.  Even so, when fascists, white supremacists, advocates of genocide are positioning themselves to imminently dismantle these institutions through intimidation and violence, it is not difficult for me to see the value in their immediate preservation.

But if the state and its institutions do survive the next few weeks, we will still live in a world where social media and the principles of freedom of speech are vulnerable to the predations of those who would use their contentious legal status to spread lies, foment popular dissent, and, if necessary, coordinate another violent coup d'état when the time is ripe.  The next time, perhaps the popular figurehead will not be as ignorant, as incompetent, as craven, as plainly stupid as Donald Trump.  You can already see his would-be successors positioning themselves for 2024 in the waning hours of his presidency.  The next time, the populist agitators may be more focused in their goals, more coherent in their strategy, more careful in their communication.  Those among them who have witnessed the spectacular failure of imbeciles like Jake Angeli, Adam Johnson, and Richard Barnett may be shrewd enough to learn from the disaster as they prepare for the future.

The Weimar Republic became vulnerable to the schemes of the Nazi party because its representatives failed to address the needs of its citizens and because its leaders failed to recognize the magnitude of threat posed by leaders like Adolf Hitler, propagandists like Goebbels, and paramilitary groups like the Sturmabteilung.  Our elected representatives may have finally, at this recent brink of disaster, comprehended the threat that Trump and his supporters pose to the existence of the state.  After they make their way through January 20th, the federal government will have to address the needs of a disaffected, impoverished, violently-policed, often disenfranchised populace.  They will also have to disentangle the mess that the government has created through their laissez-faire attitude toward social and news media regulation.  Their actions in the immediate future will tell if they intend to effect meaningful change or if they are content to use the next four years to pave a road to the ruin of the republic.

[mariacallous]

Editor's Note: An earlier version of this essay appeared in Slate and this revision appears with their permission. 

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected.” With those chilling words an illegitimately obtained Supreme Court majority tore up the lives of Americans & the Constitution in the Dobbs opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito. The votes for this opinion were only available because Merrick Garland was wrongly blockaded at the end of the Obama administration and Amy Coney Barrett hypocritically jammed through at the end of the Trump one.

The Alito opinion comes in the midst of congressional hearings exposing the sickness of Trump’s style of governance—Trumpery, as we term it in a new book. The Dobbs opinion also exemplifies Trumpery, and its features provide a useful framework for understanding just how bad the opinion is. The Court should be known from here on out as the Trump Court.

Perhaps the single most defining characteristic of Trumpery is its disdain for the rule of law. The Alito opinion in the Dobbs case has that in spades. A central tenet of Supreme Court jurisprudence is stare decisis, the idea that once the Supreme Court has ruled on something, it is settled law and is entitled to permanence, even if later courts may disagree with it. That is particularly true where you have a decades long established precedent like Roe.

By upending one of the core legal principles governing the Supreme Court’s functioning, the Alito opinion undermines the rule of law—and the court’s legitimacy. It is akin to Trump’s incessant assault on the laws and norms of the presidency that we have heard so much and so powerfully about in the Jan. 6 hearings. As we are being painfully reminded in the Jan. 6 hearings, that assault over time undermined and weakened the executive branch and Americans’ faith in it. Alito and the five justices who joined with him are sending the Supreme Court down that same slippery slope.

And they are transmitting a dangerous message: If Roe can be tossed out, then any Supreme Court precedent is in jeopardy. There goes stare decisis. In his concurrence Justice Clarence Thomas says the quiet part out loud: “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” Americans’ right to contraception, to make consensual choices in the bedroom and to same-sex marriage are all up for grabs. How long before states are also free to re-criminalize premarital sex and interracial relationships?

This madness is driven by the second core tenet of Trumpery: elevation of personal interests over public policy ones. Alito is himself reportedly opposed to abortion in his personal life, as are some of the other members of the majority. With this decision, they have allowed their personal agendas to seep into their abandonment of stare decisis and their official policymaking.

Sound familiar? Not just Trump but many in his administration used and abused government as a tool for their personal ends. Judges are supposed to adjudicate legal issues on the merits, independent of their personal ideologies. Alito and those joining the opinion have done the exact opposite here.

The third trait of Trumpery is also glaringly evident in the opinion: shamelessness. Alito feels no embarrassment at his naked attack on stare decisis, his pursuit of his personal agenda, or his dishonesty. Nor do he and his Dobbs colleagues see the need for baby steps, save for Roberts, who said he would have proceeded more slowly but who still joined the judgment. The majority opinions bold in declaring Roe and Casey dead. Like Trump’s openly professed desire to “overturn” the election, Alito and his cronies overthrow of a half-century of precedent is unashamed and even brazen.

Fourth, Trumpery divides our society. Like the former president’s policies on immigration and building his wall, or his declaration that the white supremacist rioters in Charlottesville, Virginia, included “fine people,” Dobbs is a burning torch thrown into the tinderbox of our politics and society. Once the court proceeded with great caution to avoid popular turmoil. Not here. The result will foment widespread unrest.

Bringing to mind Melania Trump’s infamous slogan, Alito and crew’s attitude is “I really don’t care, do you?” The opinion states, “We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to our work.” That is just wrong. Avoiding the kind of political turmoil and escalation we are now facing is part of why we have stare decisis—judges should care about upsetting long-settled expectations and the societal ruptures that causes. Disregard for (and even intentionally exacerbating) social divisions was a specialty of the former president, who did everything possible to gratify his base. Tragically, this opinion smacks of a similar approach, consequences be damned.

That will do great harm not just to the social fabric, but to our system of government itself. The assault on democracy is the fifth foundational aspect of Trumpery. This decision will decimate the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. It was already on shaky ground, with its current composition owed to two presidents, George W. Bush and Trump, who did not win the popular vote during their initial victorious campaigns to the White House. To make matters worse, the shape of the court was, as we noted above, manipulated by the GOP Senate blockade during President Barack Obama’s last year in office of his pick for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, purportedly because it was an election year. Then when a Supreme Court seat became vacant even later in the last months of Trump’s administration, a Republican majority in the Senate abandoned any pretense of consistency to rush through Justice Amy Coney Barrett. This decision will devastate whatever remaining bipartisan legitimacy the court had.

The sixth core characteristic of Trumpery is dishonesty, perhaps the single most overriding theme of the Jan. 6 hearings. The Dobbs opinion is rife with disinformation. For example, Alito justifies his reasoning on Roe with the fact that abortion is an “unenumerated right”—among the civil and human rights that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. These rights, Alito contends, should only receive federal protections if they are “deeply rooted” in U.S. history and culture. Abortion is not, according to Alito.

But the truth is the court has many times—including recently—instituted or upheld protections for unenumerated rights that don’t have the long history Alito is describing. That includes protecting interracial and same-sex marriage. To apply this reasoning to other unenumerated rights but not to abortion is contradictory and disingenuous, to say the least. They may be next on the chopping block.

On the factual side, Alito cites fellow Justice Clarence Thomas in saying that abortion amounts to eugenics targeted at Black people. The truth is much more complicated, and ignores that outlawing abortion will disproportionately hurt women of color. To take only one other example of many, Alito also references Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s contention that “safe haven” laws—which protect from penalization parents who give up their child—obviate the need for abortions. But whether those laws lead to better outcomes for mothers is inconclusive, and experts disagree on their efficacy in general.

That brings us to the seventh and final of the seven deadly sins of this opinion and Trumpery alike: disdain for ethics. The Dobbs opinion—and what Justice Thomas chillingly signals it may augur—is cruel to women, to all Americans and to the rule of law itself.

Fortunately, all is not lost. The Supreme Court may have taken away Americans’ right to choice over their bodies, but they have not yet stolen our power to vote. With this deeply unethical screed, Alito and the rest of the Trump Court majority have given many millions of angry Americans a reason to turn out in November. Voters should give us state elected officials who will pass laws to protect choice. And the electorate should send to Washington a Congress that will pass a federal right-to-choice bill—and one that addresses the wrongly manipulated composition of the court by increasing its membership.

Congress has that unquestioned power under the Constitution. It has changed the numbers of justices before. And it should do so again.

[anthonybialy]

No Punk, No Disco, Yes Suffering

It doesn’t seem like anyone is having a superfly time during our 1970s throwback.  The return of everything regrettable with none of the style prevents a groovy vibe.  Broke people worried about the last of their stuff getting pinched can’t even appreciate active nostalgia ironically.  This decade’s victims are too worried about muggers commandeering the bags full of cash it takes to buy a bag of apples.

Browsing through a nostalgic Instagram account sharing iconic moments from half a century ago offers momentary distraction from an economy whose stagnation approaches permanence.  The thorough lack of an identifiable cultural character makes regression feel banal.

The lack of creativity spurred by present decline is the most glaring part.  We won’t even get the gritty reality of punk or decadent fantasy of disco out of sinking.  The good and bad news is present future-dwellers can hide inside with a bit more than four channels and all our stuff brought to the doorstep.  The persistent urge to shied ourselves from harm undoubtedly means prosperity permeates.

Bringing to mind classic sitcom moments only offers so much comfort.  Shoppers feel like Mary Tyler Moore exasperatingly putting beef that’s way too costly into her cart.  We’re not getting the charmingly hilarious look at a modern career woman forging her path.  You have some nerve presuming someone’s gender, sexist.  The latest understanding of biology doesn’t exactly seem advanced.

How far will harkening go?  I fear they’ll bring 8-tracks back.  The prototypical clunky format is almost as inconvenient as inflation.  Geezers who like browsing a mighty shelf of music think would be nice to have tangible items again, although they’ll probably just get ripped off.  Humans who turned out to be unreasonably optimistic thought we cured brutes taking what belongs to others.  Rampant thievery’s return is like polio making as comeback.  The experiment’s conclusions getting replicated shocks those who claim to align with science.

There are better ways to get thrills than using sidewalks.  Cities are back to making forests seem safe in a reminder of just how close civilization teeters to chaos.  Ceding territory to the criminally insane has failed to inspire fond reminiscing.  You’ll notice that those who adoringly call garbage-strewn street photos gritty aren’t presently inhabiting the ominous scenes.  Fools seduced by decay daftly try their best to recreate them.  There are better ways to get thrills than making the Upper West Side dangerous again.

Taking away the barriers to chaos turns out to cause more of it.  I am also shocked.  You’d think that might be a lesson worth retaining.  But the worst part of widely challenging times half a century ago was not remembering why life was a downer.  There sure doesn’t seem to be as much progress as anticipated.

Advanced times feature countless surprises that shouldn’t be such.  Tolerating quality of life crimes lowers quality of life.  Foes of the crime against humanity known as cash bail are the only ones shocked.  An alarming percentage of vertical surfaces are covered in graffiti that’s not quite as festive as fans of antisocial behavior claimed.  Alleged artists can’t paint with consent.

Very sweet kids who think progress is inevitable have prevented it.  Modern folks suffer just like our polyester-clad ancestors.  Today is much worse because of the precedent.  Our ancestors already endured avoidable agonies so we didn’t have to, which makes neglecting difficult lessons even more insulting to previous generations.

The job is too big for one person, as long as it’s the kind of person who somehow gets elected.  A series of presidents who shrugged as events they spurred spun out of control have claimed there’s nothing to be done.  The limply powerful either hope voters don’t remember or don’t care as they already got hired.  An all-powerful government can’t do anything right and inflicts plenty of wrong.

Presuming intervention is simply part of life as it makes same life a hassle is the sort of exhausting surrender that itself exposed all to danger.  Government meddles with ordinary business as it lets felons practice their unsavory trade, which at least isn’t as awful as diabolical Earth menacing.  Evil on a smaller scale is the closest the beleaguered get to relief.

The Cold War is back in an annoying variation.  Acting as if the Berlin Wall is still in place is the only thing worse than accepting it as permanent when it stood.  The existence of evil regimes is accepted as inevitable by those possessing the unused power to confront them.  It’s tough to use imperialist mean American might for those who think the commies had a point about communal good over greed.  We’re all sharing empty shelves like the gray section of Germany’s most prominent city.

Getting ripped off in multiple senses is even worse when everything’s boring.  Our present advanced and regressive age lacks the distinct style of the dangerous decade we’re copying.  Our world is in worse shape even if we avoid Bread.  Carbohydrates are a luxury.

A person who lived through it doesn’t seem to remember what he’s presently eating for lunch, much less how much hurting his lame thoughts inflict in practice.  Retro doofus Joe Biden was already haunting the Senate not learning how deleterious liberal infiltration is.  Maintaining principles is unwise if they’re daft.  Endorsing every rotten notion was unfortunate when they were obviously bad ideas.

Innumerable examples in the meantime just make his drive to spread inflation and global woe that much sadder.  Half a century spent not learning is even more regrettable than avocado appliances.