LGBTQ+ People Will Not Go Back

There was a call for people to post something today, December 3, with the above title as mass expression of support the day before SCOTUS holds oral arguments on United States v. Skrmetti, the challenge to the Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors and punishing doctors who provide it. It is the most significant case involving trans rights to reach the Supreme Court and the outcome could - make that would, no matter how it turns out - affect the future of thousands of transgender folks nationwide.

Well, I am not a member of the LGBTQ+ community - I’m, as I’ve said before, a 76-year-old cis straight white guy - but I do think myself an ally.* Because I am not a community member, I’m somewhat hesitant to think of my words here as important in any way beyond their existence as a statement of that support. And I have nothing new or profound to add to the conversation.

So I thought I would make my contribution to that conversation, to the mass declaration, a few snippets of I think related things I’ve said in the past year or so.

From September 2023:

It has become clear to the point that only deliberate dishonesty can deny it. The paranoid (and I mean that in the clinical sense) reactionaries want to disappear trans people. To wipe them from existence. Perhaps - repeat perhaps - not physically, but certainly politically, legally, socially.

But “LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back.”

From March 2024, when a transphobe declared “the majority of us are getting tired of” hearing about LGBTQ+, particularly transgender, issues:

Fine. Good. Just dump the bigoted laws, stop interfering with people's ability to live as who they are, stop interfering with medical care, stop trying to force trans people to live lives of secrecy as if they didn't exist, stop demeaning their humanity and denying their human rights, stop calling them "filth" and "abominations," in short just drop the whole damn thing and allow trans folks the same dignity, rights, and respect you would expect for yourself, and you'll hardly ever have to hear about it again. Otherwise, well, otherwise.

Because “LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back.”

From April, 2024:

The accusation of "recruitment" is an old anti-homosexual smear with laws dating back to the 1800s. When I was growing up in the '50s, I heard the claim that gay men were always seeking to "recruit" innocent boys into their "perverted lifestyle" because they couldn't reproduce on their own so it was the only way to keep the "lifestyle" going. Consider how transparently idiotic that sounds now as proof of some degree of progress.

I raise this because I want people to bear in mind that what is going on now is not a new phenomenon but a reprise of a standard playbook with a specific goal, one openly declared in a quote I swear I am going to cite over and over until referencing it becomes second nature to as many of us as possible:

"'Back to 1900' is a serviceable summation of the conservative goal." - George Will, in his syndicated column, January 2, 1995

Every time a right-winger says or proposes anything, you should envision the US in 1900, envision the state of rights, social status, and economic well-being of every marginalized person, of every black, every woman, every worker, every LGBTQ+ person, every immigrant, every everyone not among the favored elites, and remind yourself "That is what they want."

They told us. We should listen.

Because “LGBTQ+ People (And Others) Are Not Going Back.”

Again from April 2024, in response to a parent of a trans teen saying that they will aid and abet resistance and not follow unjust laws:

Ditto on the aid and abet. In the struggle for LGBTQ+ rights, as in other struggles for justice, those affected should rightly be in the lead. But there's no reason the rest of us can't stand should-to-shoulder with them.

Because “LGBTQ+ People (And Their Allies) Are Not Going Back.”

From June 2024, responding to a terf comment that trans folks can "live by whatever metric makes them happy so long as it doesn't hurt others."

What if it results in them getting hurt? Fired from their jobs? Denied health care? Getting arrested if they're caught using the "wrong" restroom? Physically attacked? Repeatedly denounced as "groomers," as a threat to children, as someone here called them, "birth defects"? Forced into conversion therapy? Or is it only okay if they stay so far in the closet that the rest of us can pretend they don't exist, just like we did for so very long about gays and lesbians? And yes, that is relevant when you consider what was said about gays and lesbians within my living memory and see the exact same things, and I mean even the exact same words, directed at trans folks today.

Because “LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back.”

From October 2024 in a discussion about impacts of recent changes in laws in Texas, when someone said “It’s not going to end well.”

It's not supposed to end well. That, as I'm sure you realize, is the point. It's part of making being trans so difficult, so risky, presenting such constant threat, that the pain of living a self-imposed life of hiding, of denial, of concealment, becomes preferable.

I have compared what the reactionaries want to do to trans folks to an oubliette, a medieval prison cell where prisoners were thrown and then "forgotten." (The name comes from the French "oublier," meaning "to forget.") They want it to be as if trans folks simply do not exist. Not legally, not politically, not socially, "forgotten" like a bad dream.

But “LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back.”

Also from October 2024, reacting to a call for building coalitions in face of attacks on LGBTQ+ rights:

I know I'm revealing my age, but I recall the Movement (as we were called) of the '60s and one of our strengths was that we thought of it that way, as "a movement," not as a string of separate issues. We thought of ourselves as one mass of people moving not in lockstep yet in the same general direction and even as we each spent most of our energy on our own particular issues, we regarded those concentrating on other issues as compatriots to be supported and with who we would actively cooperate whenever the occasion arose.

I fear we have lost that sense of community, to our detriment. So consider this a roundabout way of seconding the call to "bridge the gaps." And it may be most important for straight cis folks (like me) to do it if only because there are so many more of us and one of the gaps that exist is one between LGBTQ+ and cis folks and yeah, when it comes to social and political power, numbers do still matter.

And “LGBTQ+ People (And Allies) Are Not Going Back.”

Finally, from November 2024, in reaction to someone’s blaming issues of LGBTQ+, particularly trans, rights for the election outcome:

Your ostensibly helpful advice boils down to "shut up, be as inoffensive as possible, and hope it gets better someday." I shudder to think where we'd be if women, black folks, and gay and lesbian people had followed your (I'm sure you would claim is) sage advice.

Because “LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back!”

To be clear, I still have hope, in fact the conviction, that things will get better, that we are living in a reactionary time, a fear-driven reaction to the changes we have seen and are seeing; a time that once survived will have shown, as previous such times have shown, advancement; a conviction that, to quote what has almost become a cliché but nonetheless is spot on, the moral arc of the universe is long but bends toward justice.

But the time between now and then is not going to be easy. And the more we are aware of - and the more we resist - the now, the sooner it will be the then. In the meantime, hold to the words of William Lloyd Garrison (speaking of slavery) and say to the trimmers, to the “wise voices” who think that struggles for human rights can always be delayed to a more convenient time, to them and their enablers and followers, say:

"I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; - but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present."

Because “LGBTQ+ People Are Not. Going. Back!”

*If you react by thinking something like “allies are community members,” thank you. I appreciate it.

A petition re HR 9495

We all, I expect, get emails urging us to sign petitions that too often turn out to be simply fund appeals in disguise. Even so, it can be an easy and quick way to register an opinion, so I admit to responding to a good number of them.

I recently got one from the American Friends Service Committee regarding HR 9495, the “Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act.” It’s a dangerous bill in that it, as the petition says, empowers the Treasury Secretary to strip non-profit status from any group they label as “terrorist supporting.” On November 12 the GOPpers tried to suspend House rules to pass it, but the move, which required a 2/3 vote, failed - despite getting the votes of 52, count ‘em, 52, Democrats. So they have the lather-rise-repeat route, re-writing the bill a bit so it can be brought up again under regular order. That vote is expected soon.

So I signed the petition, fully expecting it will do no good as my House rep is a long-term (like 40+ years in the House long) right-winger who would be delighted to see his opponents who oppose Israel government policy crushed to financial dust (and who voted to fast track this bill). But better to say “no” and lose than to say nothing.

However, I make a point of taking advantage of the option, when it is there, of re-writing these sorts of petitions to say it in a way I would prefer. So just for the record, this is my version, is what I said:

I urge you to vote NO on H.R. 9495, “Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act.”

It's enough well-known that is should be unnecessary to say, but loss of tax-exempt status could be financially-crippling for many affected organizations. Which is why provisions of this bill are so dangerous, as they would give the executive branch the power to investigate and effectively shut down any tax-exempt organization based on a unilateral accusation of support of terrorism with no requirement for proof.

Such power could easily be abused to quash free speech and punish any organizations that oppose the views of any administration - as indeed such laws have been used in other countries, including ones which I expect we would agree the US should not emulate.

The options for appeal could best be described as symbolic, consisting of little more than appealing to the same agency that made the charge while essentially requiring the accused to prove a negative. That is, it offers no practical protection against an executive branch that wants to exploit this authority to effectively close almost any organization in the political or social opposition.

What’s more, existing laws prohibit nonprofit organizations from taking part in the sort of illegal activities that this bill purports to address. Which reveals the point of this bill: Those sorts of charges would have to proved in court, not simply asserted.

I urge you: Do not cooperate with this un-American attack on dissent. Vote NO on H.R. 9495.

One final note: The bill also contains provisions helping overseas hostages avoid IRS penalties, which has already passed the Senate unanimously. By all means, pass them - as separate legislation.

It appears that in the end this bill will pass; the GOPers seem determined to give Tweetie-pie the power to financially damage if not cripple opposition which he can't crush legally. If they fail this time, they will simply re-introduce it in the new session of Congress with their majority in both houses - and will do it with a bunch of dunce cap Democrats trailing behind.

So why sign it? Because that's what we have to do now: raise every "no" we can because, again, it's better for the present and the future to say "no" and lose than to say nothing.Yes, it's a small thing, every a very small one - but it's a thing.

An oldie, not a goodie

As a follow-on to the previous post, I felt this one worth repeating.

It's the last of a series of pieces I posted in another forum in the wake of the 2016 elections. The first of the three, noting the line "Every nation gets the government it deserves," bitterly declared

We do not deserve to be a free people.

We don't care about being a free people. Too many of us care too little about the effect we and our decisions have on others.

Too many of us are too easily taken in by a line of patter and bilge that appeals to the worst in us, the basest of our fears and the deepest our prejudices, too easily taken in no matter how transparently vacuous that patter and bilge is. That is, too many of us, not to put too fine a point on it, are racist, sexist, xenophobic, ignorant, know-nothing mouth-breathers.

The second noted some victories achieved, some gems within the ashes, and declared the necessity of carrying on the fight as best we can. It ended with this:

Silence is not an option; acquiescence is not an answer.

We have to vote, petition, and lobby, yes, but we have to do more, we have to be insistent, noisy, disrespectful, rude, we have to fill the streets and perhaps the jails and who knows - I don't expect it, I don't predict it, but I accept the possibility of it - perhaps even fill the camps.

Which lead to this, a slightly re-written version of the original (to correct what otherwise would be anachronisms), offered here at a time which genuinely feels worse, more threatening, than before.

-—

And yet and yet and yet - despite the victories, despite the progress over the course of decades, we now face the continuing advances of the reactionaries, marked by GOPper control of the White House, the Congress, and through that the Supreme Court, along with a majority of state legislatures.

In the face of such continuing advances, in the face of the sexism, racism, xeno- and transphobia, and more that have been revealed by and justified in this and previous campaigns, revelations that have not lead to their being rejected but to their being embraced and even celebrated, in the face of the sheer enormity of the task before us, we must face the fact that for the foreseeable future, for as far out as at least I can imagine, that all our efforts may - and I am stealing something from William Rivers Pitt here - all our efforts may come to nothing.

We are down to the ethic of total opposition [he wrote], and as lonely as that estate may be, it is what we have, and we owe it to those who have suffered beyond our comprehension to continue as we began.

I refuse to concede defeat in any way, shape or form. Yet I must consider the possibility that all efforts will come to naught.

Pitt reminded us of a scene in "The Lion in Winter." As Geoffrey, John, and Richard await their executioners, Richard demands that they face the end with strength. Geoffrey scoffs at him, saying "You fool. As if it matters how a man falls."

Richard's reply is telling: "When the fall is all that's left, it matters."

Even at our lowest moments, even when we just want to give up, pack it in, and move to a commune or to Canada - or to a commune in Canada - we have to remember that even in failing, the manner in which we fail matters. Even in falling, the manner in which we fall matters. It matters, that is, it matters for the future; for the longer term than we perceive, it matters whether our failure is marked by despair or by defiance.

Henry David Thoreau, in his classic essay "On Civil Disobedience," wrote:

I know this well, that if one thousand, if one hundred, if ten men whom I could name - if ten honest men only - ay, if one HONEST man, in this State of Massachusetts, ceasing to hold slaves, were actually to withdraw from this copartnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefor, it would be the abolition of slavery in America. For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever.

Of course he did not mean, as some seeking to dismiss him have, that such an act would mean the instant end of slavery. Rather, he meant that a seed would have been planted that would eventually, ineluctably, lead to slavery's demise. "What is once well done is done forever" because even if it failed to stop slavery at once, the manner of failing mattered.

None of what we do is for nothing. Because immediate victory is not the only end worth achieving; what can be won now is not the only cause worth fighting for; even being able to see victory in the future is not the only reason for keeping up the struggle. It is also, even if only, for ourselves, for our own integrity. A member of the anti-Stalinist Russian group Memorial, founded by Yevgeny Yevtushenko and Andrei Sakharov, said

I do what I do because I owe it to my family, to the victims of my country's injustices, and for my own honor.

Or as Wendell Berry put it,

[p]rotest that endures is moved by a hope far more modest than that of public success: namely, the hope of preserving qualities in one's own heart and spirit that would be destroyed by acquiescence.

Or perhaps you would find the most telling version comes from a poem by Ella Wheeler Wilcox:

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.

We owe it to others; we owe it to the victims, who have suffered more than we can know; we owe it to the victims who in the days to come will suffer more than we can know; we owe it to ourselves; we are honor-bound, even when we feel discouraged, especially when we feel discouraged, we are honor-bound by justice to carry on as best as we can.

So for now and for the future, the issue, I say to you (and to myself, for that matter), is not "What can I do?" It's "Am I doing what I can?" Perhaps that only amounts to a little, to what can seem so trifling as to not matter, but matter it does.

We are each of us as individuals called, required by what is right, required by the call of justice, to do what we can. No one can expect more of us - but we should expect nothing less of ourselves.

And if despite all, we fail? Then we fail. When Dylan Thomas's father was old, the poet felt the old man, so energetic in his younger days, had given up on life and was just passively waiting to die. Saddened and distressed, Thomas cried out to his father

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

We do live in a darkening time, a time being marked not by failure to advance but rather by the cold prospect of failure to hold on to the little that has been gained, a time not of standing still but of sliding backwards. So yes, we may fail - or at least seem to because true victory (and getting Kamala Harris elected would not have been such a victory) is far enough off that we will not be able to see its approach.

While I think that unlikely (the title of my blog, after all, includes the phrase "surviving a dark time"), I have to admit that such failure is possible. But that possibility makes it even more important that we do not go gentle into that good night but that we rage, rage, against the dying of the light.

I hope to see you in the legislatures, in the courtrooms, in the school board meetings, in the community groups - and yes, in the streets and even the prisons.

Carry it on.

Now what?

Welcome to Jon Swift Roundup 2024 readers! Please feel free to offer any comments or feedback and check out any of my other posts.

Two notes: The George Will quote was from his syndicated column for January 2, 1995, and was "'Back to 1900' is a serviceable summation of the conservatives' goal." (For those who don't know, Will is what passes for an intellectual on the right.)

And the "another post" mentioned at the end is here.

In the wake of losing an election, some consideration of why your side lost, that is, doing a postmortem, is an entirely reasonable idea.¹

Assuming, that is, the desire is actual analysis and it's done right.

Neither of which we got. No actual analysis and what was done wasn't even done right. So let me start this by laying out my own bias, my own analysis of the "why," admittedly a limited one.

I think the Harris campaign made three significant mistakes. First, she didn't separate herself from Biden on Gaza.² Doing so would surely have cost her some votes but just as surely gained her a good number more.

Second, she began with a message of what could be summarized as "hope and the future" only to turn her back on her base, preferring to vainly seek votes among those all but mythical "moderate" GOPpers and the all too real 1% by campaigning with Liz Cheney and Mark Cuban instead of with UAW President Shawn Fain or other labor and progressive leaders.

Third, the last weeks of the campaign revolved almost entirely around "I'm not Trump." (Which was, interestingly, the same mistake made in 2016.) A legitimate stand, particularly in the face of the genuine threat to democracy, but nowhere near adequate standing alone, because people are almost always going to vote on immediate concerns as opposed to future hypotheticals, even likely ones.

None of that, of course, was raised in postmortems from the corporate media, political big heads, or consultant coterie. Except, that is, to brush by them in their haste to get to the REAL problem.

Oh, no, they cried almost in unison, the result was all because Kamala Harris was way, way too much into "identity politics," in particular in support of transgender folks who, to hear them say it (but not openly) really are kinda weird and who everybody hates and who we should not only throw under the bus, we should back over the corpse a couple of times to be sure.

Dan Moynihan at Can We Still Govern brings us a New York Times tetrarchy:

- There is Bari Weiss, denouncing "running on extraordinarily niche issues that you find on college campuses and in gender studies departments." Forgetting that, as a married lesbian, just a generation ago she and her rights would have been such a "niche issue."

- There is Bret Stephens, insisting that "today’s left increasingly stands for the forcible imposition of bizarre cultural norms." Because regarding basic human rights as worthy of respect is "bizarre."

- And there's Nicholas Kristof, assuring us that Democrats can only compete if they “focus more on minimum wages and child care than pronouns and purity." As if dwelling on "pronouns and purity" described her practice rather than his paranoia.

- And of course, there is Maureen Dowd, smirking the right-wig mantra "woke is broke" and charging

progressives failed to realize that women can be worried both about reproductive rights and their "daughters compet[ing] fairly on the playing field."³

As if loss of reproductive health care was an equal worry to the hypothetical possibility of facing a trans girl on the other school's team.

In the course of this, she approvingly quoted James Carville and Rahm Emanuel and actually called Michael Dukakis an "avatar of elitism," a title that fits her far better.

On top of that, Dowd got extra exposure from Mika Brzezinski of Joe Scarborough's MSNBC morning program, who read the entire thing on-air the day after it was published. Scarborough, for his part,

went on a wildly transphobic rant on [the day after the election] against “men who transition after puberty competing against young girls,” saying that opposing trans-inclusive athletic policies is “not a hard call.”

In other words, it was a buncha damn, comfortable, secure, rich, white people saying that the rights of vulnerable people which are of no benefit to them are therefore unworthy of consideration.

But of course it wasn't just the media elite, the sneering also came from inside the Democratic Party itself.

As I think folks have heard, there was New York Rep. Tom Suozzi declaring the party must “stop pandering to the far left” on trans rights. “I don’t want to discriminate, but I don’t think biological boys should be playing in girls’ sports," he said, adding "Democrats should be saying that.” Which means, of course, that he does want to discriminate.

More surprising to some, there was Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, offering "I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that,” rather unsubtly patting himself on the back for his supposedly courageous expression of transphobia.

Fortunately, there has been pushback from other Congressional Democrats against these and other trimmers⁴ who are dipping their toe in the waters to see how far they can distance themselves from trans rights without political cost (or better yet, with political praise).

Related to which we now have Jonathan Larsen of The Fucking News reporting that the DNC's search for a new party chair is being defined by people screeching that the party has become too "woke"⁵ and demanding it must "return" to the "center" because they "don’t want to be the freak show party" and do want a party chair "who’s going to be for the guy who drives a truck back home at the end of the day” and I guess women and people of color need not apply for inclusion - unless, I suppose, if they drive trucks (The image of the "guy" "truck driver" came up more than once.⁶)

It appears that's truer than not, since one DNC member described the field of potential chairs as “White Guy Winter,” with the list essentially empty of women or non-white people but including, deity help us, Rahm Emanuel.

All of which goes to raise the point I really wanted to get to. This sort of "we've gone too far" tut-tutting and hand-wringing is neither new nor actually about tans folks except as they serve as the target du jour.

It is, rather, part of an overall effort by the hierarchy of the Democratic Party, the I suppose you could call it legacy party, to find someone, something, some force, to blame for election losses that does not involve, that actively avoids, looking at the campaign itself, looking at the idea that maybe it was the party apparatus that screwed up.

Indeed, it's hard to find any analysis from any such quarter that does not praise the Harris-Walz campaign with terms like "great job" and "no mistakes" while dismissing critiques out it of hand as unproductive or even destructive finger-pointing - while busily pointing destructive fingers at anyone convenient, particularly the vulnerable population of trans folks still struggling for basic recognition of their rights, indeed of their existence. (I say that knowing much the same could be said of a good number of other vulnerable populations; it's just that this time it's trans folks.)

Same as it ever was: After 2016, the same "blame anybody else" game got played. There, the blamed included third party voters, sexism, Russian interference, James Comey re-opening the email-investigation, millennials, and even Bernie Sanders - but not, oh no of course not, the party or the Clinton campaign.

This time it's "wokeness" and trans people, but the real point is the same in each case: to protect the power and position of a party hierarchy more dedicated to their prestige and perks than public benefit and committed to "winning" as a concept rather than as a program of progress.

It other words, it was intended then and is again now to smack down the influence of the actually progressive wing of the party by reasserting the control of the institutional party apparatus.

Which means - coming to the blunt bottom line - that it's time to realize, we have to realize, that the Democrats are not on our side, not on the side of doing what is right and just, not on the side of progress rather than stasis.

Some individual Democrats, yes. The party itself, no, and all the talk about "moving to the center" is about just that: stasis. It's about not advocating anything that does not already have wide support, about following, never leading, about, bluntly, being damn cowards. And doing it even as both public polling and election results on ballot questions says that on a number of those untouchable "too left" issues (including trans rights) the public is already there.

Okay. After all that, you'd think I'm chock full of idea about what to do now.

I'm not.

I'm just sure the one thing we need to do is not give up. To keep going. To seek comfort and find strength in community and, as others have noted, that community is out there and may even be next door.

So we have to, each of us in whatever way we can, just keep going. Just persist. Just be stubborn. If that's too much, then just survive. But like the man in the movie said, "Never give up! Never surrender!" Or, if you prefer a musical reference, "Rejoice, rejoice/We have no choice/But to carry on."

Because it can get better. And comparing ourselves to the 1900 that George Will said the conservatives' goal is to recreate, we have come so far as to astonish the most stoic among us. Even within our own lifetimes we have seen changes to be celebrated and worth building on. And, romantic that I am, I still believe in the line about the moral arc of the universe.

However - and I know it's hard to hear but yes, it's true - it will undoubtedly get worse before it gets better. Which brings me to something else. But that's for another post.

¹Chess grandmaster and one-time world champion Jose Raul Capablanca once said "I have learned more from each of my defeats than I have from all of my victories.”

²Early in her campaign, I thought Harris, who expressions on the need for humanitarian aid was more intense than Biden's, was trying to distance herself from him without openly breaking from the administration of which she was still part. The same issue faced Hubert Humphrey in 1968 over the Indochina War. He finally, "tight-lipped and grim," made the break. She never did, which raises the very real possibility that she didn't separate from him because she never wanted to. However, that doesn't change the judgment that not doing so cost her a good number of votes.

³Recent studies challenge that "concern." One, from 2021 from the Center for American Progress, shows no impact on girls' participation in sports from allowing trans girls to join those teams. Another, published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism in 2024, found that "physical performance of nonathletic trans people who have undergone GAHT for at least 2 years approaches that of cisgender controls." Finally, in October the British Journal of Sports Medicine published a study saying that at least by some measures, transwomen athletes may be at a disadvantage as compared to ciswomen.

⁴"Trimmer" (referring to trimming the sails of a ship) was a term used in labor struggles to refer to those whose support for worker rights shrank as soon as things got tough.

⁵The next time anyone complains about anything being "woke," tell them the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as "aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)" and ask them why they think that's a bad thing.

⁶You know the saying about generals always planning to fight the previous war? It appears the Dems will go after the "bros," planning to fight the previous election.

Ukraine - Past is Preamble?

At the ever valuable Substack The Fucking News last week, host Jonathan Larsen noted some Trump advisors "spilled the beans" about some of the Great Orange One's concepts of proposals for plans to end the war against Ukraine.¹

I was struck by the fact that those spilled beans ideas from the Tweetie-pie crowd bear some resemblance to ideas that had been presented to avoid the war in the first place. I wrote a fair amount² about these ideas in the weeks before the Russian invasion, and I even made my own suggestion for a settlement based on based on two points:

1. In 2015, Ukraine agreed to hold a vote on self-rule in the Russian-speaking breakaway provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk. It was never held, likely because Kyiv knew what the result of the vote would be: self-rule leading to secession leading to becoming part of Russia.

2. The chances of Ukraine joining NATO in the foreseeable future were all but nil, as Germany and France were (and, I believe, are) both against it (unanimity is required for admission) and even Zelensky had accepted it was a "dream" to be achieved someday.

So my proposal was simple: an agreement to hold the vote as promised and finesse the issue of NATO by declaring an indefinite moratorium on new admissions.

In addition, quietly give up on Crimea (under Russian control since March 2014) by just not raising it in negotiations and offer Ukraine some compensation via membership in the European Union (which should not be a problem, as Russian raised no objection to the idea).

No, I don't know if that or something on similar lines would have worked; I am sure it wasn't tried.

Some would argue it doesn't matter because it would be a form of surrender because of Ukraine's loss of territory, but my answer is that an agreement of some similar form - which again yes, was a possibility - would have spared Ukraine the ravages of war without giving up anything over which it actually had control.

But the real reason I posted this is that I wanted to point up the bitter, sad, truth of how often wars end with agreements on terms that were available before they started, marking all the blood and suffering as a horrific waste, sacrifices on the altar of national egos that with depressing regularity prefer the horrors of war to the disgrace of humiliation.

At the same time, I raise it knowing full well that some here would (will?) accuse me of "pro-Trump" or "pro-Putin" bias. Go ahead; I don't care. I am saying what I said before the war started; I was trying to think of ways that both sides could back off without appearing to back down, stand down without appearing to kneel down, because the failure to do that is what turns confrontations into conflagrations.

And we have seen more than enough of that.

 ¹ All of which are undermined by DJT Jr. saying to Zelensky via social media (according to the ever-truthful Washington "Examiner") “You’re 38 days from losing your allowance.” Which is much more inline with what I’d actually expect. But stay with me, I do have a point to make.

² If you want to see the "fair amount" I wrote, check these; I won't claim every thought has stood up to time, but I think enough of it has to make it worthwhile and I never deny the things I've said, even if they turn out to be dumb.
March 1, 2022
March 19, 2022
March 20, 2022
October 20, 2022

No reconciliation. No forgiveness.

"'Back to 1900' is a serviceable summation of the conservatives' goal." - George Will, January 2 1995, syndicated column

I swear to myself that I will throw that quote in the face of every Trumper I come across any time they express any even minor disagreement with anything he does. And I will not let them forget and I will not forgive.

Every time a woman dies from lack of access to abortion care.
"You wanted this to happen. You voted for it."

Every time a trans child commits suicide.
"You wanted this to happen. You voted for it."

Every time someone you are acquainted with gets deported.
"You wanted this to happen."

Every time you are shown the horrible and inhumane conditions at the required detention camps.
"You wanted this to happen."

As the government adopts Steven Miller's openly fascist slogan "America is for Americans and Americans only" as official policy.
"You wanted this to happen."

.As the slaughter, the literal genocide, of Palestinians intensifies.
"You wanted this to happen."

As Ukrainians (and perhaps Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians) are abandoned.
"You wanted this to happen."

As tariffs drive inflation, costing families thousands of dollars a year.
"You wanted this to happen."

As measles, mumps, and other diseases re-emerge and new pandemics arise because Secretary of HHS RFK Jr. disparages vaccines and blocks funding on research.
"You wanted this."

As the cost of insulin multiplies because the limits are removed, the cost of health care soars, “pre-existing conditions” again become a bar to health insurance, and tens of millions more than now lack even basic coverage as ACA is “repealed” but not “replaced.”
“You wanted this.”

As social services shrivel, protections for consumers and workers are repealed, and pollution controls are dismantled after Director of OMB Elon Musk slashes $2 trillion in social spending.
"You wanted this."

As climate change worsens amid "drill, baby, drill" and renewable energy programs being shut down even as there is no disaster relief because FEMA was on the chopping block.
"You wanted this."

As strikes are declared illegal.
"You wanted this."

As infrastructure funding for roads, bridges, railroads, and all the rest vanishes as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is repealed.
"You wanted this."

As Secretary of Education Ryan Walters mandates Bibles and bible instruction in all public schools.
"You wanted this."

As media outlets are threatened with or even experience loss of licenses for airing/ publishing "false" information, i.e., unfavorable to the reactionaries in the administration.
"You wanted this."

As government surveillance becomes more intrusive and widespread, privacy ever rarer, and people get investigated and charged as part of "the enemy within."
"You wanted this."

As people you know, even members of your family, get labeled as part of "the enemy within."
"You wanted this."

As you see the US military attacking, even shooting, protestors.
"YOU WANTED THIS."

As.... The list could and as events develop will go on. But the point remains. No excuses, no "I didn't mean that," no "but"s.

You knew. You had to know or you damn well should have. You are responsible. Because -

"You.
"Wanted.
"This."

Another comment worth repeating

On July 23, the estimable Erin Reed posted a piece about a recent column by NYT columnist David Leonhardt in which he proposed that Kamala Harris should be a trimmer on gender rights in order to appear more "moderate."

I replied in a comment which I thought was worth repeating; this is (a very slightly edited and expanded version of) it:

Two points need to be noted about Leonhardt's political, uh, "advice."

One is that it is not driven by either real conviction or the merits of the case but by an underlying attitude of "Well, this doesn't matter to ME, therefore it shouldn't matter to anyone else other than a few flakes who don't count."

Perhaps more to the point, though, is that it presents a line of argument that's been used at some point or another against every liberal, every Democrat, every progressive, every radical, every individual anywhere on the entire left half of the US political spectrum, one that says your arguments must not be couched in the words of conviction or conscience, the words of justice or moral necessity, but rather must be framed by fear, fear of what "they" might say about it, what nasty name "they" might call you.

In fact, unless what you propose is overwhelmingly popular (and even if it is), if "they" can say something nasty, it's likely best not only to not mention it at all, but to openly attack it.

It's a far too common practice that at times has been called "duck and cover" (and if you know what that means without checking, you are older than you look), of politically curling into a defensive position. But I prefer my own name for it: "preemptive capitulation," surrendering before the battle has even been joined.

That is exactly what Leonhardt has proposed Harris do on gender rights: don't mention it and when asked, hold it as far away from you as you can get away with. And I guarantee you there will be a good number of "old hands" among the political jibber-jabberers and the consultant coterie who will regard that as wise counsel.

At moments like this I can't help but draw a comparison to the right-wingers, who, when they are called on their latest lizard-brain inanity will double- and triple-down and after a round or three the media gets bored with asking and the issue fades from the headlines and then from memory. It's sitzfleisch as political strategy¹ while we, when pressed, usually act like we're playing rapid transit², rushing from one mumbled evasion and backtrack to another. I still have memories from a few decades ago of pollsters telling people that their problem with Democrats was less what they stood for than that they didn't seem to stand for anything.

Personally, I'm tired of it. This doesn't mean we don't pay attention to how we say things; in fact, one of my all-time favorite compliments was when after a debate I learned that someone in the audience said I had the ability "to make the most radical positions sound like a voice of sweet moderation." So yeah, I paid attention to how I said things, but there was never any doubt about what it was I was saying. What it does mean is that we should speak the truth as we understand it and when challenged on what we have said, Don't. Back. Down.

That's the message for Kamala Harris and for all of us: If you've changed your mind about something, say so, say "I was wrong about that." Own it. But if you haven't, own that, too. Don't. Back. Down.

¹"Sitzfleisch" is German for "sitting flesh." See my "Rules for Right-wingers," specifically #20.
²Rapid transit is a form of chess where each player has five seconds per move.

A comment I thought deserved repeating

Chris Geidner at Law Dork, whose writings at Substack and his own site I heartily recommend, just wrote about two recent Circuit Court decisions.

One was out of the 6th Circuit that dismissed a challenge to a Tennessee anti-drag law; in the other the 5th Circuit upheld Mississippi’s lifetime ban on voting imposed on people with felony convictions for any of a variety of crimes.

I was moved to make a comment that I thought worthy of repeating here. To fully get the first couple of paragraphs you should read the relevant piece since they refer to the decisions he was analyzing, but I don’t think that’s truly necessary to grasp the point I was really trying to get to.

Any way, this is what I wrote:

"Mathis’s dissenting opinion ... made a strong argument on the merits."

Unfortunately, that's just not good enough these days, not when we have fanatic judges ruling in effect that you can't challenge a law unless you prove you are breaking it and if you do, that just proves you're guilty because the law is valid - a ruling better expressed as "heads I win, tails you lose."

Not when we have judges with hang-ups about sex and sexuality deep enough to rule that, among other things, even drag shows and go-go dancers ("Go-go dancers?" Really??) are inherently "harmful to minors."

Not when we have judges finding the phrase "could be" seen by a minor - not "would be" or "would likely be" or "could reasonably be expected to be," but merely "could be"- is NOT unconstitutionally vague and does NOT positively invite discriminatory enforcement.

Not when we have judges who employ the sneering, condescending dismissal of (paraphrasing slightly) "go and do the hard work of convincing state legislatures" literally at the same time as you tell them that the main method of bringing political pressure - the vote - is denied them.

What we are seeing, especially in that last example, is the emergence of what Viktor Orban dubbed "illiberal democracy," otherwise known as "the tyranny of the majority" - meaning "We are the majority so we'll do whatever we flipping well want. You don't like it? TS. You may think you have rights, but remember that we interpret what they mean."

They are not, in fact, the majority, but enough of us are sufficiently disengaged or discouraged or disinformed that they have positions of power that enable them to act as if they are and use those positions to further entrench themselves and their warped ideology.

We face hard times and I confess I have a combination of short-term despair and long-term hope. But I also think we have to be prepared to be aggressive with more than words and frankly with more than voting. I don't mean violence, I don't mean rioting, acting like we were a bunch of right-wingers - but I do mean being in the streets, being visible, including mass civil disobedience.

But I'll end this screed on a moment of hope. The reason the right wing is trying so hard, pulling every trick, grabbing and pulling on every lever of power they can find, is because they know that in the long run of history they are going to lose and like King Canute in the popular version of the story, they are trying to hold back the tide. Like him, they will fail. It's up to us to determine how long that will take.

Reactions, as always, are welcome.

Consider it just a question

Consider this to be just a question, one directed toward every red-cap-wearing MAGA muppet out there. No, seriously.

In the wake of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, Republicans and right-wingers of various sorts immediately blamed the shooting on Joe Biden, Democrats in general, DEI programs, and - of course - the "liberal" media.

Oh, and they're immediately starting to fundraise off it.

So here's the question:

What the hell happened to "not politicizing a tragedy?"

What happened to "thoughts and prayers" for the family of Corey Compreatore or the others still in the hospital? What happened to the "lone wacko" talk or any of the rest of the vapid homilies you always spew to evade your own moral responsibility for a climate of threat and violence?

You generation of vipers! You liars! You hypocrites! You are like whited sepulchers, prettified outwardly but inside you are corruption and death.

And no, I will not moderate my tone in pursuit of "unity." Paraphrasing William Lloyd Garrison, I will be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising as justice. On this topic, the topic of your denial of democracy, your rejection of reason, your jettisoning of justice, your dismissal of decency and all in service of protecting your power by projecting your packaged paranoia - on this topic I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation, nor will I.

One truth I will speak now is that I confess that I'm not sure that in the short run we can stop you. But ultimately we will and at some point your descendants will be ashamed to admit to being related to someone who thought as you do. We will because, one last paraphrased quote, the arc of the moral universe is long and my eye reaches only a little ways. But I do know that moral arc bends towards justice - and so away from you.

Remember this - always!

I wrote about this more than a year ago. In fact, I first wrote about it more than 29 years ago. But events of late have pushed this back to the forefront of my political thoughts, pushing hard enough to get through a wall of struggles with burnout and depression to get me to write this, even if it's the only thing I manage to get out this summer.

Because I want the following quote burned into the consciousness of every single leftist, every single progressive, every single liberal, every single person on the entire left half of the American political spectrum and even those to the right of that line who are not yet beyond the reach of reality. And it is this: and yes it is deliberately in a great big bold font to emphasize its importance:

“‘Back to 1900’ is a serviceable summation of the conservatives’ goal."
- George Will, syndicated column, January 2, 1995

Yes. That's what he wrote. "Back to 1900." And every single thing conservatives say and do, every single thing they promote, every single proposal they make, every single emotional button they go to push, should be seen through that lens. They want to reproduce the social and economic relations that existed 125 years ago. They want to, in their own words, go "Back to 1900." And that is exactly what they have been trying, are trying, and will continue to try to do. Go back.

Back, that is, to a time before legal labor unions or effective anti-monopoly laws, a time of widespread child labor and twelve- or fifteen-hour work days and six- or even seven-day work weeks. Before regulations requiring safe working conditions, a time when being killed at work was a major cause of death.

Back to a time before environmental protection laws or consumer protection laws, a time when patent "medicines" were common and government "regulation" was more about promoting corporate interests than regulating them because caveat emptor was the rule of the day.

Back to before Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment or disability insurance, before any kid of public insurance, including for health, was even under discussion and decades before it was taken seriously..

“Back to 1900.” Back to when poor people were considered genetic defectives who deserved their condition and the way to deal with poverty was to shove it out of sight.

Back to a time when education was largely a perk of privilege, only half of children went to school, only 6.4 percent graduated high school, and the majority of adults had no more than eight years of schooling.

Back before civil or voting rights laws, back when women couldn’t vote, wives were chattel, blacks were either “good n*****s” who got called “boy” or “uppity n*****s” who got lynched, racism (against Irish, Italians, Chinese, and others as well as blacks) was institutionalized, sexism the norm, and gays and lesbians were sick or perverted while as far as “polite society” was concerned, bi, trans, or other flavors of the queer community simply didn’t exist.

Back to a time when valuing Protestant Christians over other religions and other people's rights was unremarkably ordinary and some, including atheists, were subject not only to social discrimination but also legal barriers to participation in society.

Back, in short, to a time when the elite and powerful were in their mansions and the rest of us were expected to know our places, live lives of servitude without complaint, and then die without making a fuss.

“Back to 1900” is indeed “a serviceable summation” of the right wing’s goal, which is to undo a century of progress toward economic and social justice in order to benefit their selfish, warped, morally warped lives.

Maya Angelou wisely said "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."

We should have been paying attention when the fanatics were openly declaring what they wanted, who they were and are, and we either ignored it or dismissed it as hyperbole.

We shouldn’t have. Because they showed us, they told us directly - and we didn’t listen.

We can at least listen now. And then do more.

And we, each of us, can start by burning that quote into our minds.

Footnotes: For those who may not know, George Will is what passes for an intellectual among the right. And if anyone doubts the quote, I still have the column that I clipped out of my local paper. And it is a quote, not a paraphrase.
 

Sometimes not losing is enough to celebrate

During his struggles for the rights of migrant farm workers, Cesar Chavez was quoted as explaining the celebratory nature of the union's gatherings by saying "We have so few victories we have to celebrate our losses." He was joking, but the truth of it remains: the importance of hope and even finding joy in the struggle.

Because sometimes, it's enough to not lose. The estimable Erin Reed, tireless tracker of LGBTQ+-related legislation, brings an example.

She reports that legislative sessions in Florida and West Virginia have adjourned sine die - that is, without setting a date to meet again. What that means is that any bills that have not passed are dead and must start from scratch when the legislatures get back together.

Which is good news for the human rights of LGBTQ+ people and their supporters and allies because the effect is that over 20 anti-LGBTQ+ bills in each state are now dead. At the same time, again in each state, only one such bill passed. This dramatic contrast to the results of the past few years not only represents a victory for the increasing pushback against such bills but also provides a respite from the assault and space to plan for the battles to come.

While the passage of any such legislation is yet another attack on basic rights of transgender folks, the failures here are nonetheless heartening. It had already seemed to me that the spread of the legislative bigotry was stalling, with most - not all, but most - of the action this year coming in states that had, as Erin put it, "historically targeted transgender individuals" rather than spreading to new ones.

Some have suggested that this has been a case of the bigots and fear-mongers engaging in some CYA in the run-up to the November elections: Anti-LGBTQ+ stands have not been a big winner for them this year, so they want to downplay the issue now, intending to get back to it once the threat of democracy is behind them.

Personally, I suspect that this is less related to the elections than to the right wing's practice of "slash, burn, move on," that is, of glomming onto some issue where they think they can get an inflamed, unthinking response, loudly and viciously defaming/decrying/denouncing their target, doing as much damage as they think they can before real resistance sets in, then moving on to the next boogeyman.

(After all, how much screeching have you heard about Critical Race Theory of late? Even the general all-purpose smear "woke" has become more of a vapid cliche used ritualistically than a verbal weapon.)

That of course doesn't mean those concerned about LGBTQ+ rights can relax; as Clarence Darrow said, "Ignorance and fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding. Always it is feeding and gloating for more." But it does mean that as part of strategizing we can include going on the offensive to secure rights in some areas rather then solely resisting their denial.

So hold to hope, embrace justice, and celebrate victories (even the small ones), because like the song says, "Every victory brings another" so long as we "carry it on."

Footnote: Another relevant quote from Cesar Chavez:  "Once social change begins, it cannot be reversed. You cannot uneducate the person who has learned to read. You cannot humiliate the person who feels pride. You cannot oppress the people who are not afraid anymore."

Letters, I send letters....

The American Friends Service Committee recently had an on-line letter to Congress. As I usually do in such cases, I re-wrote the text to"personalize" it. This is how it came out.

-

I call on you to demand a cease-fire and humanitarian access in Gaza by endorsing H.Res. 786 “calling for an immediate de-escalation and cease-fire in Israel and occupied Palestine” or a Senate equivalent. 

As part of that, I want you to oppose new military assistance for Israel, including the supplemental funding request under consideration, until there is clear progress toward an ultimate resolution that respects the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians.

According to data provided by the AFSC, since October 7, over 27,000 Palestinians have been killed, 40% of them children. Another 10,000 are estimated to be buried under the rubble. Over 2 million people have been displaced from their homes, and over 70% of homes and other structures in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed. 

The on-going Israeli blockade of Gaza, described more than once as "the world's largest outdoor prison," worsened by the intensified lockdown and now compounded by the US ending aid for UNRWA, has lead to shortages of food, water, fuel, and medical supplies. It is estimated that 85% of the population in Gaza is on the verge of famine.

A cease-fire is needed NOW.

The vicious, bloody attack by Hamas on October 7 deserves no defense and will get none from me. But neither will I defend Israel’s actions in Gaza that so far have killed more than 20 times as many Palestinians and which have been found by the International Court of Justice to plausibly amount to genocide

The lesson of October 7 that should be learned is that further military attacks will bring neither peace nor security for Israel or Israelis. Historically, efforts to militarily "stamp out" a group such as Hamas almost invariably fail, leading instead to decades of suffering for both sides - as this one long since has - that only end when the causes of the conflict are meaningfully addressed.

With that in mind, I ask you this:

    - Given that our Declaration of Independence claims the right, even the duty, of an oppressed people to resistance, and
    - given the existence of Israel is based on the world's recognition of the right of a people to a homeland, and
    - given that you are not going to deny Palestinians both the right of resistance and the right to a homeland,

what is it that you propose Palestinians could and should now do to advance the cause of an independent Palestinian state, particularly now that the Israeli government has openly declared it will "never" agree to that?

Note carefully: You cannot say "No terrorism" because I did not ask what they should not do, but what they should. The lack of a practical answer to that question condemns Palestinians to on-going suffering and oppression and Israelis to continued incidents of terrorism

But for the moment, for this instant, here is what is most important: Please, please do what’s right. Call for a cease-fire and humanitarian access - NOW.

-

Some of that, I know, repeats things I have said before. They bear repeating.

Okay, I feel old

So I read that it appears that Kyrsten Sinema is not running for re-election. The observation is based on her doing what is for a Senate race a minimal amount of fundraising as opposed to previous years.

That’s no loss, in my opinion, but the point is that after the article saying she is spending "outsized amounts" on security, there was this paragraph:

Security has been an obviously special concern for the senator ever since she hid in a bathroom to avoid a confrontation with activists. “She’s Howard Hughes-level paranoid,” one former staffer told the New York Post, referring to the mentally ill entrepreneur portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in “The Aviator.”

In other words, while I would have deleted everything after the last comma, the author felt it necessary to cite a 2004 movie starring a well-known now-49-year-old actor to make sure the article's audience understood the reference.

:sigh: Best get me my lap robe and cup of Postum. My joints are achin' in this chill.

The Rules

Recently, I saw a video about the "Reverse Gish Gallop." The Gish Gallop is a verbal tactic based on the premise that it almost always takes longer to rebut a claim than it does to make it, and, as you likely know, consists of firing out so many claims and charges so fast that there is no way the target can adequately refute of even contest all of them.

People came to expect this so tried to prepare rapid-fire responses to expected claims. The "Reverse Gish Gallop" consists of picking out something you said, some error no how minor, and attack that as if it discredited every other rebuttal you made or at least distracting attention from the fact you had presented them.

That reminded me of some things in what I call my "Rules for Right-wingers," which I post from time to time as reminders. Since the last time was about four years ago, I figured this presented an opportunity to do it again.

The fact is, flakes, nutcases, paranoids, and other assorted bozos are almost the totality of the present right-wing and almost the totality of the national Republican party apart from the bigots and bosses whose only interests are of the self kind. For some time I had observed with varying degrees of annoyance and bemusement the predictable tactics of the wingers in debates - or rather, their tactics in avoiding actual debates. But I finally came to a point where I had had it with the evasions, the dodges, the schemes and slime that make up winger discussions and began assembling a list of those tactics.

So here it is, the latest always-subject-to-expansion-or-refinement list of wingnut arguing tactics and operating procedures. They are listed simply in the order in which they got added. Thoughts (and suggestions for new rules) are welcome.

=

Rule #1: Attack, attack, attack!
In fact, try to level so many attacks so fast that your opponent never gets to make a criticism of their own because they are so busy trying to catch up to your attacks. However, don't forget to be deeply shocked and offended if anyone on the left responds in kind.

Rule #2: Deny, deny, deny!
Doesn't matter if it's something undeniable, deny it anyway.

Rule #3: When facts are beyond even your ability to deny, change the subject.
This can be done in various ways, for example:
- Introduce irrelevant details on a tangential point.
- Pluck out from what your opponent said an individual phrase you think you can attack, even if it's one that was just tossed out offhandedly, and treat that as if it's the focus of the entire discussion.
- Tie up the discussion in piles of minutia to the point where everyone, including your opponent, loses track of the actual issue.

Rule #4: Issue a lengthy, ranting denunciation of "the left."
This often can be initiated with "whataboutism," responding to criticisms by ignoring them and going "Yeah? Well what about" whatever seems most useful at the moment. Try to include the words "hypocrites" and/or "hypocrisy," arguing that the left can't legitimately criticize the right (because any such criticism is by your definition hypocritical) while insisting that the right can continue to criticize the left. (Note: Where possible, include the phrase "you liberals" or better yet, "you libtards.")

Rule #5: Make the particular stand for the whole.
Find something offensive or silly some liberal or leftist, somewhere, sometime, said or did and label it as identifying the entire left half of the American political spectrum. Demand that your opponent spend their time denouncing that example rather than discussing the original topic.

Rule #6: Never answer a question.
When faced with one, ignore it and respond with a question, preferably on a different point. If possible, the question should be accusatory. If you do not get an answer, repeat the question and loudly demand it be answered while continuing to ignore the original question you were asked. If you do get an answer, ignore it. If necessary, drop the matter without acknowledging having gotten a reply; if possible, repeat the question, insisting it has not been answered, even if it has.

Rule #7: No amount of proof is enough.
Demand every remotely questionable assertion by your opponent be proved in every conceivable detail, right down to dates, times, and places, complete with signed affidavits. Refer to all factual assertions by your opponents as "just your opinion" even if the level of proof you demanded is supplied.

Rule #8: Assert unsourced statistics and facts with great assurance.
Or, more appropriately these days, assert "alternative facts." Reply to requests for proof by saying some version of "You can look it up." You thereby demand that your opponents do the work of trying to prove your argument for you.

Rule #9: Frame the debate in false choices.
For example, "Do you support socialism or freedom?"

Rule #10: Accuse the accuser.
You could call this "I'm rubber and you're glue" method: Insist, even in the absence of any foundation, that any criticism of you actually applies to your opponent. For example, if someone notes you're avoiding a debate, insist "You're the one who won't debate!" Faced with examples of right-wingers lying, reply "That fits you lefties to a T!" If something you said is challenged as bigoted, say "You're being intolerant!" or better yet, "You're the real racist!"

Rule #11: When a claim has been debunked, continue to use it nonetheless.
When it has been debunked so thoroughly and completely that continuing to use it is counterproductive, stop claiming it for a time, after which assert it again as if the debunking had never happened. For numerous examples where this can be found, see climate change denialists.

Rule #12: Never accept responsibility.
Never, never, never admit any responsibility for the meaning or impact of your own words. If you want guidance, see almost any GOPper statement on January 6.

Rule #13: When all else has failed - and even when it hasn't - lie.
Just make crap up. Important: Keep repeating it. See Rule #11.

Rule #14: When you fear a contrary point may be raised, shout.
If that contrary point is a good one, shout very loudly. Your point may not get heard, but neither will your opponent's. (This is primarily for use on television.)

Rule #15: Seize control of the Clock of History.
Choose the period of time most advantageous to your argument and insist that any event outside that time frame, either before it or after it, is irrelevant and must not be considered.

Rule #16: "Both Sides Now."
If the behavior of some rught-wingers is so undeniably bad that it can't be explained away, airily dismiss it with "Both sides do it." Freely employ false equivalencies.

Rule #17: All debate stops when you win - and only when you win.
Remember that there are only two responses to anything in contention: It's "up for debate" and "We won, the debate is over, shut up." Gun control provides a good example: In the 2008, the Supreme Court, for the first time, held that owning a gun is an individual right. Even since then, the pro-gun claim has been "The Supreme Court has ruled. The debate is over." But for the 69 years preceding that, the controlling precedent was that the 2nd Amendment was about a collective right of collective self-defense, not an individual one. In all those years, no one on the right ever said "The Supreme Court has ruled. The debate is over. We lost."

Rule #18: If you can't win by the rules, change them.
A great example of this is the recent attempt by the GOPper-controlled Ohio legislature to toughen the requirements for an amendment to the state constitution in an attempt to head of protection of reproductive rights.

Rule #19: Intellectual consistency and honesty are for wusses and losers.
Should need no example, as there are new ones every day, but I happen to favor this classic: Late in evening of election day, 2012, it looked for a time that Obama might lose the popular vote to Mitt Romney despite having won the electoral vote handily. Tweetie-pie tweeted that such a result would be "a total sham and a travesty" and the electoral college is "a disaster for a democracy."

Rule #20: Sitzfleisch.
It's German for "sitting flesh" and it goes back to the days before chess clocks put time constraints on games and players would sometimes win by simply taking so long to move that their opponent would either give up or become so tired from the wait that they would make foolish moves and lose. More generally it now means winning by virtue of sheer, unmitigated, stubbornness. Right-wingers are past masters at that.

Rule #21: Play the victim.
Whatever it is, the right-wing claims they are the real victims. They are the ones facing discrimination, being oppressed, whose free speech is imperiled, who are being called names, the ones who can't get a decent break.

=

Okay, that's all the rules I have now, ones which collectively show up right-wingers for what they are: a bunch of selfish, whining, crybabies only interested in their own power and privilege. Which is why playing the victim comes so easily to them.

I'll wrap this up with an observation, one I've made before in discussing this: I frankly expect many of us have at some time or another been guilty of one or more of these sins in the course of a debate, especially if it got heated. But occasional sins in the heat of the moment is not what this is about. This is about a consistent pattern by the right of evasion and deceit. It is being an intellectual coward. It is about being a bully. It is about being a liar.

It is about being a right-winger.

Why would I do it?

Robert Reich had a poll up about the just-passed bill about the Child Tax Credit. He noted that half of the funding would go toward expanding the tax credit and half would got to tax cuts for the rich and Big Business, resulting in an average increase of 0.3% in after-tax income for beneficiaries and 0.5% for the rich. The question was if you would vote for the bill.

The choices were Yes, it helps the poor; No, it increases income inequality; and Other (in comments). I voted Other and this was my comment:

I would vote for it, but with great and vocal reluctance, using it as an occasion to point out as loudly as I could (not just on the floor but through social media and press statements) the disgusting, stomach-wrenching greed and moral bankruptcy of the rich, those "squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinners" whose only concern is "Gimmie more! Gimmie more!" and often have quite literally more money than they can use and so buy things from apartment-building-sized yachts to private islands to joyrides into the upper atmosphere just to have things to spend it on.

That, and just as loudly pointing out that the very fact that an average income increase of $60 a year potentially could make a difference in the lives of number of people is undeniable proof of just how screwed up, sick, and wretched our economy has become.

We regard the "gilded age" as a time of ostentatious wealth and extreme poverty. We are facing such a time again, one where being a multimillionaire is to be small fry, billionaires seem ordinary, and centibillionaires (with the arrival of the first trillionaire in sight) are presented by the media as affable folk heroes. Meanwhile, nearly 40 million among us remain in poverty with the "official" rate varying between 11 and 15 percent for the last nearly 60 years, some among us so poor that, again, $60 a freaking year makes an actual difference, and some legislators propose to deal with this by revoking child labor laws.

All in line with George Wills' statement "'Back to 1900' is a serviceable summation of the conservatives' goal."

We need to take that sense we have of the "gilded age" as being tacky, distasteful, and apply it to the present and add the moral outrage that radicals and reformers expressed at the time. We need to make possession of that level of wealth something shameful. We need, that is, to stop simply referring to economic inequality and instead make it both a moral campaign and the central economic issue of our age.

So why I would vote for this bill? Because for all the moral and ethical faults it represents, it does provide some benefits to the poorer among us. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, it would benefit some 16 million children in the first year and could raise over 500,000 children above the poverty line when fully in effect. (Bear in mind the $60 after-tax figure is an average for everyone eligible to apply for the benefit, including those above the poverty line, with shrinking benefits as income rises.)

So I would vote yes for the sake of the small benefit it does give those in need while expressing my thorough disgust at the shameless, immoral, inhumane, avarice of those who put me in the soul-killing position of having to do it.

OH-no!

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine recently vetoed an anti-trans care bill, declaring that it's up to parents to make medical decisions for their children. He was applauded by supporters of trans rights.

But a few days later he utterly betrayed those transgender people and their supporters by issuing Executive Orders containing proposed rules that cover much the same ground as the bill he vetoed and are in some ways worse. What follows is a blending of my response to a video on the matter and my more formal comment submitted to Ohio on the proposed rules.

PS: The veto was overridden. There was speculation that DeWine issued the Executive Orders hoping to head off an override; no word yet on if the override will lead to the rules being withdrawn or if he'll seek to combine the worst of both.

For more on what the rules say, check out the invaluable Erin Reed.

Anyway, this is what I said:

The proposed rules stand in stark contrast to the positions and standards of care expressed by, among others, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Endocrine Society, and WPATH (World Professional Association of Transgender Health) - that is, they ignore, indeed reject, the expert scientific and clinical judgments of those who are the leading experts in the field of gender-affirming care in favor of politically-driven posturing and fearmongering.

Rather then protecting anyone's health or safety, these regulations - which are in several ways worse than the bill the Governor vetoed - are a transgender version of TRAP (Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers) laws, a method used in anti-choice states to effectively ban abortions without admitting to it by putting more and more restrictions on clinics, often involving medically-unnecessary requirements, to the point where few or even no clinics in a state were capable of meeting them all. That is, don't ban abortions, just make them impossible to get.

The goal is the same here: presenting a facade of preserving access to gender-affirming care while in actuality creating a maze of roadblocks, bottlenecks, and pointless requirements with the effect of making obtaining that care all but impossible - that is, to accomplish by regulation what cannot accomplished by law or, more to the point, accomplish by trickery what can't be accomplished legitimately. I label Gov. Mike DeWine a conscious hypocrite, hoping to get away with talking out of both sides of his mouth, saying on one side "I vetoed the bill" and on the other "I made it effectively impossible to get the care," and using a smokescreen of "protecting youth" as a means to cover an attack all transgender people of all ages.

These proposed rules are, in sum, uninformed and misguided at best, unethical to the point of outright cruelty at worst.

Amend that: It gets worse. Multiple studies have found that obtaining gender-affirming care leads to improved mental health and significant reductions in suicide attempts and actual suicides. Which means that the result of regulations like these is that people will die. We can't say just who, just when, or precisely how many, but based on the data, on the facts, we can say with high assurance that People. Will. Die. Endorsing these rules is endorsing suicide.

I urge these proposed regulations be withdrawn in their entirety and any new such rules be drafted only in consultation with WPATH and other professional organizations dealing with the medical and mental health care issues involved.

Or at the very least have the sufficient honesty to drop the hypocrisy and admit your goal is the total erasure from society of transgender people.

This was not the first attempt this year to deny health care and human rights to members of the LGBTQ+ community. According to the LGBTQ+ Legislative Tracking 2024 site, as of January 14 there have been 219 bills introduced across 25 states and Congress related to community issues. Not every one of these is anti-LGBTQ+ in general or anti-transgender in particular, indeed some may be positive, and of those that are negative, many will not pass or will be combined into a package because they are essentially duplicates. And it’s worthy of note that most of the total are being introduced in states that already have laws denying LGBTQ+ rights; for example, Florida, already so hostile to trans folks that it’s listed as “Do Not Travel,” accounts for 21 of the bills. And some of them have been introduced in states such as Maryland and New Jersey where it can safely be said that their chances of passing are effectively nil.

So the numbers alone do not tell the story, but they do indicate that this onslaught against human rights is not abating. This remains no time to relax - because, remember even if only a small percentage of these bills pass, they still have real consequences for the people affected. But even so, while the infection is not abating, it at least may no longer be spreading.

But that begs the question of what is driving the continued attacks, particularly considering many of these bills amount to little more than piling on. So what combination of ignorance, paranoia, (usually religious) fanaticism, and cold, exploitive, cynical, political ambition is driving it?

That’s a valid question, but it’s one for another time. Hopefully a soon-type time.