HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » crickets » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 112 Next »

crickets

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: Georgia
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 20,723

Journal Archives

Thank you for posting this, doublethink.

I missed this a few days ago (yikes, sorry about that) and ran across it while cleaning out browser tabs. Boy am I glad I did. Jane Elliott is brilliant, knowledgeable, and right on point. I hope folks do take five minutes for this, because it is a very important element of the RW racism credo. The "birth dearth" idea is not new, nor is it just an incidental item on the Republican party doomsday checklist.

It took a second while watching the clip, but then I remembered. Jane Elliot is the school teacher who originated the Blue-Eyes-Brown-Eyes exercise in her classroom after the assassination of Martin Luther King.



48 sec. clip:
I want every white person in this room who would be happy to be treated as this society, in general, treats our black citizens -- if you, as a white person, would be happy to recieve the same treatment as our black citizens do in this society, please stand.

[auditorium is silent, stays seated]

You didn't understand the directions. If you white folks want to be treated the way blacks are in this society, stand.

Nobody's standing here. That says very plainly that you know what's happening, you know you don't want it for you. I want to know why you're so willing to accept it or to allow it to happen for others.

Interesting how people are allowed to protest women's health clinics,

turning a trip to the gynecologist (which is no one else's business) into a nightmare -- but when that protest hits the home of someone who's just dug into every woman's business on a national level, well how dare anyone protest that.

Boston Globe article, no paywall: https://archive.ph/0FRUH

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin of Illinois, a Democrat, this week criticized protests at the homes of justices and other public officials as ďdemeaning and adolescent.Ē


Oh, sweetie, do hush.

Agreed. "There is a lack of moral authority on the supreme court right now..."

I find the 'right now' part of this quote from Pengelly's tweet most telling. Lack of moral authority existed the moment Clarence Thomas was confirmed in spite of Anita Hill's credible testimony. Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation was a blatant doubling down. There has been no SCOTUS moral authority for decades.

Do You Believe Her Now?
Itís time to reexamine the evidence that Clarence Thomas lied to get onto the Supreme Court ó and to talk seriously about impeachment.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/02/the-case-for-impeaching-clarence-thomas.html
February 19, 2018

But itís well worth inspecting, in part as a case study, in how womenís voices were silenced at the time by both Republicans and Democrats and as an illustration of whatís changed ó and hasnít ó in the past 27 years (or even the last year). After all, itís difficult to imagine Democrats, not to mention the media, being so tentative about such claims against a nominated justice today. Itís also worth looking closely at, because, as Smithís account and my reporting since indicates, Thomasís inappropriate behavior ó talking about porn in the office, commenting on the bodies of the women he worked with ó was more wide-ranging than was apparent during the sensational Senate hearings, with their strange Coke-can details.

But, most of all, because Thomas, as a crucial vote on the Supreme Court, holds incredible power over womenís rights, workplace, reproductive, and otherwise. His worldview, with its consistent objectification of women, is the one thatís shaping the contours of whatís possible for women in America today, more than that of just about any man alive, save for his fellow justices.

And given the evidence thatís come out in the years since, itís also time to raise the possibility of impeachment. Not because he watched porn on his own time, of course. Not because he talked about it with a female colleague ó although our understanding of the real workplace harm that kind of sexual harassment does to women has evolved dramatically in the years since, thanks in no small part to those very hearings. Nor is it even because he routinely violated the norms of good workplace behavior, in a way that seemed especially at odds with the elevated office he was seeking. Itís because of the lies he told, repeatedly and under oath, saying he had never talked to Hill about porn or to other women who worked with him about risquť subject matter.


*eyeroll* at the tentative Dems and media comment. In the face of Moscow Mitch's Senate, neither Democratic nor media reaction mattered when Kavanaugh came along to lie just as unconvincingly.

The number of women who still refuse to speak up or are actively working to undercut women fighting against sexual harassment - then and now - is depressing. It's true that Biden could have done more during the Clarence Thomas hearings, but in the "gentleman's agreement" milieu of the day, he did not. He has since apologized to Hill, though it's too little, too late at this point.

Above and beyond the issues of sexual discrimination is this: During the hearings, Thomas "huddled with GOP congressmen to brainstorm what damaging information he could unearth" on Anita Hill, and then he LIED to the Senate Judiciary Committee. A nominee to the highest court of the land LIED UNDER OATH, openly and without remorse.

Clarence Thomas is untrustworthy and unfit for his position. His motivation for any and every vote he has ever cast as a Justice is now suspect. No comment he has made about keeping his SC duties separate from his wife's activities can be taken seriously.

gratuitous, my reply to you was going to be a short "well said! doubt we'll get an impeachment, though" but then I ran across this article and just couldn't do it. I have come around.

Clarence Thomas never should have been seated on the SCOTUS, and he should be impeached. Regardless of whether anyone thinks it's possible to unseat him or not, the attempt must be made, for the very same reasons two impeachments were brought against tfg. The stakes are too high. The response is necessary.

Cruz, Hawley, Graham, And Cotton Don't Show Up For ABA Debunking Their Smears Of Judge Jackson

https://www.politicususa.com/2022/03/24/cruz-hawley-graham-and-cotton-dont-show-up-for-aba-debunking-their-smears-on-judge-jackson.html

Sens. Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Lindsey Graham, and Tom Cotton smeared Judge Jackson and didnít even bother to show up to the ABA testimony debunking their lies. [snip]

The ABA Executive Board testified that they were surprised to find that there were no complaints from liberals, conservatives, prosecutors, or defense lawyers from Judge Jackson:

ABA Committee member says they were surprised to find zero criticisms of #KBJ "It is surprising that unanimously the bar appreciates judge Jackson and sees that she has high competency, integrity, and temperament." pic.twitter.com/QtZ222UtQG

ó Sarah Reese Jones (@PoliticusSarah) March 24, 2022
[snip]

The behavior of some of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee was disgraceful, and it is even more contemptible that they lacked the decency to show up and hear the experts deliver the facts to counter the three days of lies that they previously put on display.


_____

Interesting how quickly the Klan disappeared once the American Bar Association showed up with lawyers and facts.

There is vital importance in the secret ballot

which curbs corruption and voter coercion and intimidation. In the US by the early/mid 1900s, it had broken the political stranglehold of the Robber Barons. Gee, wonder why someone would want to do away with it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot#United_States

https://congressionalresearch.org/SecretBallot.html

Beginning in the 1830s, the iconic symbol of democracy (as seen in many images below) was the transparent, glass globe, ballot box. But, in the late 1800s with partisanship, campaign finance and inequality soaring to all-time highs, the United States began to roll out the secret ballot. The intentions were clear. Proponents like John Stuart Mill claimed the secrecy of the ballot would curb the power of intimidating landlords and the rampant vote-buying funded by the wealthy.

Now embraced as a Ďcornerstone of modern democracy,í the secret ballot brought an immediate reduction to election violence, intimidation and bribery. It also curtailed the Robber Baronsí vice-grip control over elections and diminished their hold on the democratic process. By curbing the government capture of the Gilded Age, the secret ballot opened the door for the Progressive Era.

👆👆 Agreed.

Norms and the honor system are not always enough. Some of the children on the bench really do need rules to keep them coloring inside the lines, but the Supreme Court (Roberts in particular) doesn't want them.

https://thehill.com/regulation/administration/587848-roberts-calls-for-judicial-independence-in-year-end-report

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts called for judicial independence in his annual year-end report on the federal judiciary, saying it is crucial to maintaining public trust in the courts.

"The Judiciaryís power to manage its internal affairs insulates courts from inappropriate political influence and is crucial to preserving public trust in its work as a separate and coequal branch of government," Roberts wrote in his 2021 year-end report on the federal judiciary, which was released on Friday.


What public trust? It's pretty well trashed these days, and Roberts' argument is a load of hogwash. "Independence" does not mean there is no need for codified norms, which (as you point out) the Court could impose upon itself. Voluntarily imposing ethics rules upon themselves might do some good in reestablishing trust with the public. This would have nothing to do with politics and everything to do with ethics, but Roberts chooses to ignore that.

YES! This holds a mirror up to all of the militia nonsense.

As much as I like Beau, I tend to keep him at arm's length for various reasons. Yeah, whatever - he really has stepped up in keeping people informed and in providing useful, thought provoking commentary on what's occurring in Ukraine.

He's pretty good at relating those events to what's going on around us here as well.

This installment is quite a moment. If you haven't heard any of his commentaries before now, this one is not to be missed. Most of his stuff runs under 7 minutes and this one is 11 and a half, so that's a big clue as to how important he thought it was. Every idiot running the gamut from "Yeehaw!" to "Wolverines!" gets a serious reality check here.

I've seen Beau angry before. I've seen him angry recently. Not like this, though. It's impressive, and important.


eta - if you can't stand the thought of watching an 11 minute video, I get it. Tune in at about 6:30 and give it 30 seconds or so. Please.

"Servant of the People" - All Seasons on YouTube w/ some English Subtitles

Playlists:

Слуга Народа: Season 1
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSoP62RB3ymnt6ct60SF-2ZsSpC_Mbrjv

Слуга Народа: Season 2 From Love to Impeachment
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSoP62RB3ymkxF5L17oKZp_xBzNRstdRU

Слуга Народа: Season 3 Choice
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSoP62RB3ymlTJFKQrPXJ30laWyeGfKZl

Wikipedia is helpful when trying to figure out what's going on and how many episodes per season to look for. The show starts out with English subtitles, but later on the subtitles are Russian and you have to turn on auto translate for English subtitles. From a few spot checks, auto translations in the second season seem pretty good, but in third season it looks a bit rough, unfortunately. HTH.

I was thinking, "Russian or not, I don't find death funn- oh."

Well, alrighty then. Target acquired. Proceed.

🇺🇦Max Hanlon
@MaxHanlon
The Russians are losing so many generals theyíre gonna have to call up Mike Flynn from the bullpen.
5:48 PM ∑ Mar 19, 2022

Perhaps the NYT Editorial Board has a free speech problem.

They need to go back and review what the Constitutional concept of free speech means.

https://xkcd.com/1357/ (worth clicking through to check the alt text)

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 112 Next »