Sep 112022
 

Glenn Kirschner – Bannon indicted again; DOJ appeals “special master” ruling; former US Attorney exposes Trump & Barr (the sound is so poor on this that everyone will need the CC. Not only is the volume about half or less of usual, bu there’s a slight echo. I realize they are tweaking the studio … and have invited comments on that … so if anyone is a YouTube member, you might just comment on the sound.)

Meidas Touch – Steve Bannon SURRENDERS in NY as he is INDICTED on new STATE CRIMINAL CHARGES

The Lincoln Project – Rick Reacts – Trump**’s Meltdown

Thom Hartmann – This Constitutional Law Says Trump & His Traitors CAN’T Hold Office

Rocky Mountain Mike – Happiness Is A Jailed Trump

Beau – Let’s talk about New Mexico, Jan 6, and the 14th Amendment…

Share

Everyday Erinyes #283

 Posted by at 10:24 am  Politics
Sep 122021
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

One of my professors in college was fond of quoting Mary Wollstonecraft (not the author of Frankenstein, but her mother), who wrote, “A man convinced against his will/Is of the same opinion still.” It’s something to keep in mind whan it comes to forced conversion situations. But there are all kinds of forced conversion situations. For one thing, not all forced conversions are religious in nature. But, when considering church-state separation, that’s generally what comes to mind.

Atheists, agnostics, and others who often refer to themselves as “freethinkers” are not all in agreement as to whether their position is a religious one or not. I’m not sure it matters. I believe separation of church and state refers to all religions and also to the absence of religion.

Sometimes the force in a forced conversion is not applied by a governmental body, but by societal pressure. All of us are under tremendous pressure just about all the time to be “like everybody else.” This may be most obvious in schools and applied to young people, but it’s far from limited to them.
================================================================

70 years ago Walter Plywaski fought for atheists’ right to become citizens – here’s why his story is worth remembering

Walter Plywaski fought for atheists to be given citizenship rights.
Helen H. Richardson/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Kristina M. Lee, Colorado State University

Walter Plywaski’s death earlier this year from complications related to COVID-19 went largely unnoticed by national media.

Only an invitation by his family to donate to the civil liberties group ACLU in Plywaski’s memory gave hint to his legacy in the fight for religious freedom. Almost 70 years ago, Plywaski fought for the right of atheists to become U.S. citizens – and won.

As a scholar of religious and political rhetoric, I believe that Plywaski’s fight is worth remembering. Stories like Plywaski’s give an insight into the discrimination atheists in the U.S. face even today and the role that those professing no faith have had in holding society accountable to the goals of religious tolerance and freedom.

‘Seeking admission on your own terms’

Polish native Walter Plywaski, born Wladyslaw Plywacki, spent five years in Nazi concentration camps during the Second World War. After being liberated from Dachau, the Bavarian camp in which 41,500 prisoners died, he worked as an interpreter before immigrating to the U.S and serving four years in the U.S. Air Force.

In August 1952, Plywaski petitioned for U.S. citizenship while in Hawaii. All he had left to do was say his oath of allegiance.

Plywaski, however, was an atheist. He informed the judge that he could not sincerely end the oath with the words “so help me God” and requested an alternative.

Judge J. Frank McLaughlin reportedly asked Plywaski to consider what it says on the back of U.S. coins: “In God We Trust.” McLaughlin then denied Plywaski citizenship, justifying his decision by proclaiming, “Our government is founded on a belief in God,” and accused Plywaski of “seeking admission on your own terms.”

With the help of the ACLU, Plywaski appealed McLaughlin’s decision, arguing it was a violation of religious freedom while noting that natural-born citizens had the option to say affirmations rather than oaths, which allowed them to affirm their allegiance based on their own honor rather than a belief in a higher power.

McLaughlin, however, stood his ground. He argued that the case was not about religious freedom but about whether Plywaski “believes in all the principles which support free government,” which according to McLaughlin included a belief in God.

Plywaski moved to Oregon and successfully petitioned to have his case moved there to be looked at by a different judge. In January 1955, Plywaski won his case and became a citizen.

Plywaski’s case confirmed that those applying for citizenship must have the option to not recite “so help me God” when taking their oath, a policy that is now explicit in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policy manual.

Anti-atheist discrimination

But despite the precedent he set, Plywaski was not the last atheist who would be denied U.S. citizenship – more than 60 years later, nonreligious people still had to fight for immigration rights. In 2013 and 2014, two women were initially denied citizenship after being told they had to be religious in order to be conscientious objectors when refraining from stating in their oaths that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law.”

This was despite 1965 and 1970 court cases that affirmed that atheists could be conscientious objectors.

And even atheists with citizenship have been denied certain rights because of requirements that a religious oath be uttered.

Roy Torcaso won a 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case after he was denied a position as a public notary when he refused to recite an oath acknowledging the existence of God. Torcaso’s case made clauses in state constitutions banning atheists from holding public office unconstitutional and unenforceable. Yet such bans have still occasionally been used to challenge open atheists who have won public office, though such challenges have failed.

And in 2014, an atheist in the Air Force was denied reenlistment after refusing to say “so help me God” in his oath. The Air Force later reversed the decision and updated its policy after atheist groups threatened to sue.

Such instances fit a pattern of discrimination against atheists. A 2012 study found that that nearly 50% of atheists have felt forced to swear a religious oath. While they legally should have options to say alternatives, the pressure to take the religious oaths remains.

Because “so help me God” is the a default in many oaths, atheists often have to decide between passing as theistic or outing themselves as atheists – which, in a country where good citizenship is often unfairly tied to a belief in God, could potentially bring stigma onto themselves or mean risking being denied certain rights.

Atheists tend to win cases in which they challenge the denial of their citizenship and other rights based on their refusal to acknowledge God. Yet the fact that atheists risk facing additional obstacles and legal fights to have their citizenship recognized speaks, I believe, to their continued marginalization.

The atheist fight for religious tolerance

The atheist fight for equal rights is rarely acknowledged outside of active atheist communities. My research shows how the discrimination against atheists fits with what I describe as a deeply ingrained and coercive theistnormative mindset that frames democratic societies and good citizenship as being tied to belief in a higher power.

[Over 100,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world. Sign up today.]

Historians such as Leigh Eric Schmidt, David Sehat and Isaac Kramnick and Robert Laurence Moore have all written about religious oppression in the United States and its impact on atheists. These histories highlight how stigma surrounding both atheism and openly critiquing religion and religious oppression often pressured atheists to hide their identity.

Yet, there were – and still are – atheists, like Walter Plywaski, willing to openly challenge discrimination. Their stories are part of the larger fight for religious tolerance within the United States.The Conversation

Kristina M. Lee, Ph.D. Candidate in Rhetoric, Colorado State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, it’s my personal belief that many people get into a religious group (of any religion) with no real conviction but through pressure from parents, peers, miscellaneous aithority figures, whatever. Once “in,” some acquire conviction and some do not. I suspect this is responsible for a large number of religius phonies. Some of these do no harm. Others do much harm. I don’t know whether better and more nearly universal education in civics as it regards church-state separation would help … but surely it couldn’t hurt.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share
Jul 132021
 

Glenn Kirschner – Trump’s CPAC Speech and the Reaction of his Adoring Fans. Hate Sells as our Nation Suffers

Meidas touch – Arrest Trump Now

MSNBC – Texas Charges Man Who Waited Six Hours To Vote With Illegal Voting

Now This News – Dr. Fauci Slams CPAC Attendees Applauding Low Vaccination Rates

Rebel HQ – Trump ADMITS To Peddling Election Lies

Rocky Mountain Mike – Big Lie. This may be his best ever.

Beau – Let’s talk about that statue coming down and defending history….

Beau – Let’s talk about politicians writing unconstitutional laws….

Share
Dec 132020
 

It’s another busy day here in the CatBox, and my back is in a lot of pain.  Tomorrow is a WWWendy day, but she won’t come until late afternoon, so I’ll be in the saddle.  Last I heard my Broncos were winning 13-7.

Jig Zone Puzzle:

Today’s took me 3:12 (average 5:26).  To do it, click here.  How did toy do?

Cartoon:

Short Takes:

From Alternet: Progressives are pushing for Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to avoid seating any Republican House members who have publicly supported President Donald Trump’s attempt to steal the election from Democratic President-Elect Joe Biden.

That’s because Section 3 of the 14th Amendment literally says that anyone who has tried to rebel against the Constitution after having pledged to protect it can’t hold political office. This would include any GOP House members who signed onto an amicus brief supporting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s bogus Supreme Court case seeking to toss hundreds of thousands of votes in four swing states, so that Trump can steal a democratically decided election.

The Section reads: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. ”

It would be fully justified, and Pelosi ought to do it, but she won’t. No tiene los cojones!  RESIST!!

From NPR: Immigration activists are gearing up for a fight to push President-elect Joe Biden to do more to counter the measures taken by President Trump that made life more uncomfortable for the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the county.

But they may find they get less than they hope for from the Biden administration, which finds itself having to balance the demands of activists with the inherent limits on executive powers.

Biden pledged during his campaign to use those powers to reverse many of President Trump’s most controversial actions. His plan includes a 100-day moratorium on deportations, restoring protections for young immigrants brought to the country illegally as children, and eliminating Trump’s restrictions on asylum seekers.

But some immigrant-rights groups like the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, Movimiento Cosecha and United We Dream want more.

Personally, I think we should happily accept whatever help the Biden administration gives immigrants and refugees. Then we should fight for more.  RESIST!!

From YouTube (a blast of Christmas): Nat King Cole – O Little Town of Bethlehem

 

Ah… the memories! HUGS!!

37 Days Until the Big FLUSH!!

Share

Everyday Erinyes #238

 Posted by at 10:00 am  Politics
Oct 312020
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

Quot homines, tot sententiae.” (Or in other words, “Opinions are like [fill in NSFW blank]; everybody has one.”) I have another election article I was ready to use, but it can wait. I suspect everyone’s nerves are as shredded as mine about, not the election itself, but the Trump* response to it, and this article addresses contested elections directly, and may (or, of course, not) be a calming influence, or at the very least give us ideas on how to be ready for anything.
================================================================

A contested election: 5 essential reads

What happens when an election is contested?
Gorilla Studio/Getty

Naomi Schalit, The Conversation

Democracy in America could hit a rough patch soon, as election officials tally votes in the presidential race. More than 350 lawsuits have already been filed this year across the country over how, where and when voters could cast ballots. One presidential candidate – Donald Trump – has refused to commit to accepting the election’s results.

All that sets up the country for a disputed presidential election, with recounts and court battles in key states and a nation left wondering both who will lead it and whether they should have faith in the election’s integrity. We asked five scholars to provide a history of contested elections in the United States and to explain what happens when an election is disputed. Here are those stories, from our archives.

1. Things should be OK

“If Trump refuses to accept defeat in November, the republic will survive intact, as it has 5 out of 6 times in the past.” That’s the headline on political scientist Alexander Cohen’s story.

Cohen lays out what elections normally do: They “generate legitimacy because citizens contribute to the selection of leadership.” And even in contested elections of the past, he continues, that legitimacy has been sustained because those disputes have been handled according to the rules. Politicians and citizens may have “howled” about the unfairness of the outcome, but, Cohen reports, they accepted it.

Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters' Shannon Bushey shows an official county ballot collection box
Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters’ Shannon Bushey shows an official county ballot collection box on Oct. 13, 2020 in San Jose, California.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

2. How to get to the Supreme Court

State law controls almost every aspect of voting, so if there’s an election dispute, then it will go to a state court, writes constitutional scholar John Finn. “A candidate who wants to challenge the result in any particular state must first identify what provision of state law the election did not satisfy.” Most of the time, a state court decision will determine which presidential candidate gets the state’s electoral votes, with a final decision made by the state’s supreme court.

But then there is Bush v. Gore, the case that settled the 2000 election, which demonstrated that an election dispute can end up being heard by the Supreme Court if someone charges that a federal constitutional right has been violated. It’s possible, Finn writes, that several challenges similar to Bush v. Gore could arise in the 2020 election. “And where the lawsuits involved in Bush v. Gore all originated in Florida,” he writes, “this time the chaos may reach across several states.”

3. Throw the vote to Congress

There is another way that an election can end up being decided by others than the voters and the Electoral College. Not when it’s a disputed election, but when the Electoral College members are tied or don’t give any candidate a straight majority. That throws the election to the House of Representatives.

Political scientist Donald Brand writes that this method of determining a winner was not exactly the first choice of the framers, who “sought to avoid congressional involvement in presidential elections.” But if the Electoral College couldn’t provide a majority vote for one candidate, the election would wind up in the House, “presumably because as the institution closest to the people, it could bestow some democratic legitimacy on a contingent election.”

The front of the US Supreme Court building.
Could the presidential election be decided by the Supreme Court?
Astrid Riecken For The Washington Post via Getty Images

4. Stolen elections leave bitterness

The republic may survive, but some disputed elections have “divided the nation, in ways that were hard to heal, or perhaps never healed.”

Political scientist Sarah Burns says that the election of 1824, which was resolved with what was then called a “corrupt bargain,” and the disputed 2000 election, which was effectively ended by the Supreme Court, both caused such anger that they poisoned national politics for some time. Critics of the court’s decisive role in 2000 pointed out that “Bush had failed to win the popular vote, and that the Supreme Court vote was split 5-4, with the conservative justices in the majority delivering an outcome favorable to their political leanings.”

5. Judicial credibility

Judges like to stay in their branch of government – the judiciary – and leave the politics to politicians. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter warned his fellow jurists to avoid “embroilment” in “the political thicket” of “party contests and party interests.” But a disputed election will be fought in the courts, and that’s dangerous for the standing of any court, especially the U.S. Supreme Court. Voters will see judges’ actions and ascribe political intent to them, even if that’s not the case.

Austin Sarat, a legal scholar and political scientist, rakes into a pile the hundreds of lawsuits that have already been mounted over how the election is conducted this year, describing what they aim to do. He believes that the election’s outcome is likely to end up in court – and he says there’s danger ahead, for the lower courts as well as the Supreme Court.

“Whatever decisions judges make this year, the rush to the courthouse to shape the 2020 election will pose real challenges for their legitimacy, which ultimately depends on the public’s belief that they are not simply political actors.”

Editor’s note: This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.The Conversation

Naomi Schalit, Senior Editor, Politics + Society, The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

================================================================
AMT, anything you can do to help ensure that we don’t have to worry about this will be deeply appreciated by all.

The Furies and I will be back

Share
Jan 302020
 

It’s a busy day here in the CatBox.  First, I awakened just after midnight, itchy and sticky.  I finally fell asleep again after 3:30 AM and overslept by a full two hours.  Then, I overloaded my computer  doing research this morning, crashed it. I had several web pages and several applications open at once, and had not rebooted in a couple days.  I lost forty five minutes work.  Finally, it’s a grocery delivery day, and I do not know when Store to Door is coming.  Some days…  You have a good one!

Jig Zone Puzzle:

Today’s took me 5:32 (average 8:18).  To do it, click here.  How did you do?

Cartoons:

Short Takes:

From Willamette Week: Portland-area voters could open their ballots in three months to find a surprise: a request for $250 million to $300 million a year in taxpayer funding for services to get homeless people off the streets.

WW reported Jan. 27 that the regional government Metro may place such a measure on the May 19 ballot. That marks a stark change since last month, when the Metro Council insisted to advocates it would take as long as two years to grind a measure through the bureaucracy.

Instead, local officials now want to construct a measure and present it to voters in 13 weeks.

This is still overdue, even though Oregon leads the way!  RESIST!!

From USA Today: Attorney Alan Dershowitz, a member of President Donald Trump’s defense team, alarmed Democrats and many legal scholars with his argument in the first day of questions and answers in the Senate impeachment trial that presidents cannot be removed from office for an action they believe could help get them re-elected. 

In response to a question from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, about whether it mattered if Trump engaged in a “quid pro quo,” Dershowitz said that motive was what mattered and that if an act was in the public interest it was not impeachable. And he said it was reasonable for a public official to equate what is in their own political interest with the public good.

“Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest,” he said. “And if a president does something, which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

Dershowitz said a quid pro quo that involved an illegal act, or was done for personal financial gain, would be impeachable, however. [emphasis added]

Dershowitz is so full of shit his eyes are brown. Hitler honestly believed that murdering six million Jews was in the national interest. According to the Republican Reich, that’s fine. Who would Fuhrer Trump want to murder…Jews? …Blacks? …Latinos? …Muslims? …Gays? …Seniors? …Poor People? …Libruls? In any case, Dershowitz missed a key point. Since the re-theft (Trump* was NEVER elected) of the White House would result in more personal profit for Trump* from having his entourage stay at Trump* resorts at considerable taxpayer expense, his campaign is for personal gain,  so his campaign related acts are impeachable, even by the twisted, devious  standards of the Republican Reich!  RESIST!!

From YouTube (a blast from Lona’s past):  Shocking Blue – Venus

Ah… Lona’s memories!  RESIST!!

Vote Blue!!

Share