Why Isn’t Populism Popular?

In my youth and political naïveté I often wondered why populism wasn’t what all Americans wanted. Didn’t we want “government of the people, by the people, and for the people?” Fast forward to today and we are being warned daily about the dangers of populism, and the words populism and populist seem to be used as slurs.

So, off to my go-to dictionary, Merriam-Webster I go:

populist 2 : a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people and
1 : a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people

Definition 1 is spot on with my original thinking, and definition 2 is also, but that’s not all there is.

Another definition is:

Populism is a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of “the people” and often juxtapose this group with “the elite.” It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment. (Wikipedia)

this too is spot-on, and

populism : political ideas and activities that are intended to get the support of ordinary people by giving them what they want: e.g. “Their ideas are simple populism – tax cuts and higher wages.” (Cambridge Dictionary)

Finally, here is why the powers that be, on the left and right (actually “above” as left and right don’t really exist anymore, having been co-opted by the oligarchs) are opposed to populism. Although one could claim that the oligarchs are in favor of tax cuts and higher wages, for the rich, but the assumption here is “for ordinary people” so since such things reduce profits and thus the salaries and stock earnings of rich people, they’re agin’ it. We are supposed to be creating government structures “of the people, by the people, and for the people” but the rich are opposed to this quaint idea. They consider “the non-rich” to be “the filthy poor” who just can’t wait to get their hands on the money the rich people have piled up by hook or crook, so it is unthinkable that “those people” would be in charge. (This is why Franklin Roosevelt was declared to be a traitor to his class. He did way too much for ordinary people (even supported labor unions, eww!), at least according to the oligarchs.) Their idea is government of the non-rich by the elites (the rich and those chosen to represent them, e.g. paid for politicians).

One of their tried and true tactics is to demean the things that they want their followers to hate. They turned the term “liberal” into a slur. Social Security and even the Post Office became socialism. Church-state separation became a war on Christianity and now populism is a dirty word. The message underlying all of this is “you don’t want this, move along.” Apparently they think it is a Jedi mind trick.

What started me off on this post was a single sentence (I don’t have triggers so much as short fuses): “Populists always say popular things, so judge the man for what he’s done not for what he says.” WTF? Only populists tell us what we want to hear? Apparently they were thinking of politicians, not just populists.

Find the Meaning (It’s Right Next to Waldo)

Consider the following claim: “Society has always looked for meaning in the stories we are told. Why wouldn’t we do the same with holy texts such as the Bible?” Why indeed?

When we, as a species, started telling stories, every story had a “moral” or “lesson” embedded in it. As Daniel Quinn suggests, stories were taught to us when we began to track prey when hunting. The tracks left behind by a prey animal told a story. If the animal had a limp, the track would tell. If the track had blood droplets, the animal was probably wounded. If other predator tracks joined the trail, following the animal, then that part of the story was there to be read, also.

These stories grew over time as we became more adept at winkling out what we were seeing. If we could identify that trailing predator, it might be worthwhile to continue because even if that predator killed our prey, they might be able to be intimidated out of their kill. (Lions do it to hyenas all the time.)

And, I am sure, fathers wanted to pass on their skills and knowledge to their children. Maybe this took the form of grunts and pointing, and hand waving, but soon language entered the scene and the stories it could convey had already been told.

Stories that were entertaining were told around campfires at the end of days. Hunters might share stories, humorous in nature, that pointed out how much of a crapshoot hunting was, so the hunters could not be just blamed as being incompetent if they didn’t bring home a kill. Some stories were limited to the men, protecting their “proprietary” knowledge, as I am also sure some stories were only told by women to the women. Women, often mostly gatherers (but also hunters we now know) wanted to pass on knowledge of what was good to eat and what was lethal to their children, so they formed stories, too.

But none of the stories were just tickle and giggle stories, they all had a point, some teaching they were meant to convey. And of course this went on for millennia. And, today we are still primed to learn better from stories than from anything else.

An Aside I grieved when college textbook publishers weeded out the stories of chemists and chemical discoveries to make room for “relevant” information. It was those stories that got me interested in chemistry in the first place. Eliminating them made textbooks even more dull, and even less effective in many ways.

The first stories we have discovered archeologically, such as Gilgamesh, etc., all had points to be made, but over the past 5-6000 years we have learned how to make stories that are just entertaining, they had no points at their core, so of course, we insisted they did, resulting in Tolkien being accused of hiding Christian lessons in his books, and Star Wars being about family values and other nonsense.

Today, when we find meaning or morals in stories they are more reflective of us than the author’s messaging. And finding the messages in Bible stories is very, very problematic for Bible believers. Modern day Christian apologists are on record saying that the extermination of the Canaanites by the Israelites, as described in the Bible, is perfectly acceptable and not an abomination that we all recognize it as such. If God ordered it, they say, it had to be warranted.

Talk about being on the wrong side of reality. The Conquering of Canaan has been shown to not have happened, certainly not as described in the Bible. The invading people were not millions freed from slavery in Egypt. The slaughters described didn’t happen. Now, the people who came up with this story had their reasons, I am sure, but clearly they felt that their god ordering the slaughter of men, women, children, unborn children, farm animals, aka anything that breatheth, made their god look good. Those modern day apologists are manufacturing approvals of the fiction’s authors account of their god, they are not finding the “meaning’ embedded in the story, if there ever was one. The only meaning I can find to support the writing of such a fiction is to bolster the spirits of a downtrodden people, who have been conquered over and over by more powerful peoples to look back at how glorious their (fictional) past was. They do not always lose, they won a whole bunch of times, see.

As actual meanings go, it sucks as much as the manufactured meanings of modern apologists, which means appallingly.

What The Fuck is Going on with the News Media?

Recently I have seen multiple “journalists” getting their exercise by jumping to bizarre conclusions. For example, anyone who is critical of the actions of the Israeli government is an anti-Semite. WTF? What does criticism of the government have to do with “hostility to or prejudice against Jewish people”? If you are a MAGA Republican does criticism of the current Democrat governing bodies equate to criticism of the American people? Would anyone think that?

I saw Columbia University students protesting the Genocide in Gaza (their words, not mine) equated to “Friends of Hamas.” Really? Not wanting to see innocent civilians suffer and die makes them Hamas supporters? On what planet?

Why have we gone all tribal in this issue? It seems that the guiding principle is “you are either for me or against me” and there is no middle ground, no nuance, nothing other than that. (Thanks Republicans for promoting tribalism so hard for the past two decades.)

News organs are flinging incorrect labels around willy-nilly indicating they have agendas they are not supposed to have. Even declaring the legitimate government of Gaza to be a “Terrorist Organization” is suspect. Hamas was labeled a terrorist organization, in the past, but so were Zionist groups. A government might employ guerilla tactics, but that doesn’t make them terrorists. I guess journalists do. But by any such definition a government performing terrorist bombings of civilian populations, either though suicide vests or dropped by fighter-bombers would make the Israeli government a terrorist organization.

In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code defines terrorism as an act committed “in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause” with the intention of intimidating the public “…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act.” Activities recognized as criminal within this context include death and bodily harm with the use of violence; endangering a person’s life; risks posed to the health and safety of the public; significant property damage; and interference or disruption of essential services, facilities or systems.

Sound familiar?

If Hamas is a terrorist organization, the current Israeli government (which I do not equate to the Israeli people) is one too.

MAGA Logic

Republicans are now calling for a ban on faux meat, aka plant-based, lab -grown meat, the production of which is an entrepreneurial opportunity which has been grasped by small and large corporations. (I thought regulations were bad, especially those restricting businesses.) And the Republicans offering this new regulation are described as being “pro-business.”

Democrats propose a ban on companies adding poison to our natural ecosystems, especially our drinking water, and they are called “anti-business.”

What am I missing?

It seems that Republicans are “pro-profits” of corporations that donate to their coffers and Democrats are pro-people in a few cases, not all. On occasion the Dems get the Republican disease and support corporations that donate to their coffers but I am unaware of cases in which the GOP actually are pro-people in their actions.

Recently they have been referring to themselves as “pro-democracy” but they do not want people like you people of color, women, etc. to be able to vote. As I said, MAGA logic.

Israel Threatens to Take Their Ball and Go Home

There is a playground tradition in the U.S. that when playing pickup sports games, someone has to “bring the ball.” This person is not infrequently someone trying to ingratiate himself with the better players, who do not treat him fairly, so at some point he decides to “take his ball and go home,” meaning “game over, assholes.”

The Israelis were outraged that the U.S. would introduced a ceasefire resolution in the U.N for the Gaza Genocide. They had backup in the form of two other permanent members of the Security Council, Russia and China, who vetoed the motion but they were so offended that the U.S. would betray them that way that they pulled back a delegation coming to Washington. D.C. to discuss their actions. The only problem is that we paid for their ball. If we choose to we could make their ball disappear.

That a religious and conservative coalition currently has control of the Israeli government is one thing, but they are stupid besides. A partner operating in good faith would know that no such resolution would get passed and would know that introducing that resolution would give some political cover to a U.S. president being strongly criticized for not doing enough to reign in a genocide during an election year for that president, especially in that we are providing most of the munitions allowing them to pursue their ends.

While I have supported previous Israeli governments, this one I cannot, just as I usually support the U.S. governments but didn’t when the Trump Gang was trying to burn down the house, for example.

This Israeli government is off the rails, exhibiting all of the qualities that they claim make Hamas a terrorist group. They say Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Okay. Is Israel dedicated to the destruction of Hamas? Okay we have a tie here. They say Hamas attacks innocent civilians (disregarding the fact that during the October 7^th attack by Hamas, half of those killed had active military ranks). So, has Israel killed innocent civilians, including a majority of women and children in Gaza and the West Bank? Okay, another tie.

It seems a mix of ultraconservative politicians and the ultraconservative religious is a very, very bad mix. And, by the way, this is exactly what the Republican Party states as its goal if they win control of the U.S. federal government this fall. At least we are getting a good look-see at what the GOP wants to implement before the election.

Life is Sacred and Other Bushwa of Anti-Abortionists

Once again, the Supreme Court is debating an abortion topic brought by a party who has no legal standing (which should have gotten the thing dismissed out of hand) and which case uses obsolete laws and strange logic. Since the SCOTUS is corrupt as Hell, I an not surprised they took the case, nor am I hopeful they will be at all in line with what Americans think about the topic.

Anti-abortionists arguments are generally religion-based, but nonetheless incoherent. The main claim is that life is sacred. Getting life to be defined as beginning at conception is part of their strategy, so the sacredness covers all of the bases they want covered. This ignores the fact that the Holy Bible does not state this and the people who wrote both the Old Testament and the New Testament, the Jews, have a definition of when life begins of the first breath of a born baby (reflecting their god’s use of the Breath of Life). No extrauterine fetus children at all exist in their worldview.

Someone went through the laborious process of counting up all of the people executed by the Bible’s god, either directly or by order to his hit squads in the Hebrews/Israelites. (A job the Israelis aren’t done with as they are racking up new totals of the dead as I write this.) But making reasonable assumptions regarding the populations of “cities” obliterated by Yahweh’s orders, a total of just over 2,000,000 deaths was arrived at. Considering estimates of the population of the earth at around 8000 BCE at 5 million, and that most of that number involved people far away in China and whatnot, Yahweh issued enough “hits” to wipe out the entire population of the Middle East.

And that total of 2 million plus does not include the Great Flood, in which Yahweh killed all but eight human beings, plus all of the plants and animals, so killing all in the Middle East is a drop in the bucket compared to that event.

Granted all of these killings are fictional, which raises another issue. How does one make an argument that “life is sacred” when the proponents of this god wrote fictional accounts of said god ordering the execution of close to 100% of the world’s human beings? Apparently they thought doing so reflected well on their god? WTF? “My god  is a vengeful, murderous god; how about yours?”

The Supreme Court Justices make up stuff out of whole cloth when it suits their personal beliefs. Then they posture they are using historical and “original intent” reasons for their judgments. This is not new, people, they have been doing this since the inception of the court. Consider the Court’s decision in “Heller” which gave the right to bear arms to individuals. Allow me to quote from Thom Hartman’s “The Hidden History of Guns and the Second Amendment” (pp. 101-103):

“Scalia also argued, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever from the time of the amendment’s ratification, that the Second Amendment was passed to allow individuals to own guns for self-defense (which was the essence of the Heller case, as Washington, DC, had forbidden people from owning guns even for that reason), rather than a purely military/militia context.

Stevens et al., in their dissent (which, but for one Republican-appointed justice, would have been the majority decision), argued back,

The stand-alone phrase “bear arms” most naturally conveys a military meaning unless the addition of a qualifying phrase signals that a different meaning is intended. When, as in this case, there is no such qualifier, the most natural meaning is the military one; and, in the absence of any qualifier, it is all the more appropriate to look to the preamble to confirm the natural meaning of the text.

The Court’s [Scalia’s] objection is particularly puzzling in light of its own contention that the addition of the modifier “against” changes the meaning of “bear arms.”

They added, quoting a previous Supreme Court decision on the topic,

The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight or to wage war. But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against.”. . .

When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. . . .

Indeed, not a word in the constitutional text even arguably supports the Court’s overwrought and novel description of the Second Amendment as “elevat[ing] above all other interests” “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”

Even a previous Supreme Court chief justice, Nixon appointee Warren Berger, called the idea that the Second Amendment conferred an “individual right” to gun ownership a lie. Explicitly, he said the idea being promoted back when he was on the Court was “a fraud on the American public.”

In other words, Supreme Court Justices make up arguments out of whole cloth, so the merits of the cases are irrelevant, only the votes count for anything, especially in the case of the current court which has given up on following even their own precedents.

Look for the extension of their dirty business in this latest case brought by anti-abortionists (of no standing, with no real arguments, etc.).

Postscript Ironically if one accepts the Young Earth Creationist’s date for the creation of the Earth, then Yahweh ordered the killing or killed many, many, many times the population of the entire planet. According to estimates the population of the Earth near 4000 BCE was about 30 million people. According to the Bible, it was zero. Therefore, according to the Bible, their weren’t enough people alive for Yahweh to kill. Life is sacred, my ass.

The State Voted “Most Likely to Drown” Takes Action

According to an article in the Grist newsletter:

“In Florida, the effects of climate change are hard to ignore, no matter your politics. It’s the hottest state — Miami spent a record 46 days above a heat index of 100 degrees last summer — and many homes and businesses are clustered along beachfront areas threatened by rising seas and hurricanes. The Republican-led legislature has responded with more than $640 million for resilience projects to adapt to coastal threats.”

“But the same politicians don’t seem ready to acknowledge the root cause of these problems. A bill awaiting signature from Governor Ron DeSantis, who dropped out of the Republican presidential race in January, would ban offshore wind energy, relax regulations on natural gas pipelines, and delete the majority of mentions of climate change from existing state laws.”

It is like watching a slow roll suicide. Nice work Florida and, oh, when you are drowning remember to not say gay.

Why SCOTUS Keeping Trump on All Ballots is Wrong

What would have happened has the ruled the other way, that Colorado and by extension all of the other states had the right to impose Constitutional restrictions upon candidates?

If enough states took the opportunity it might mean Trump would lose.

The Congress could rush through steps necessary for states to execute that aspect of the Constitution as it applied to insurrectionists and rebels. This might impose some order.

Possibly only states that Trump would have lost in the election might ban him and the effect would be nil.

The consequences of allowing him to stay on all ballots has consequences. First of all it establishes a precedent of the Constitutional rules being waived for certain individuals. Not only does the law not apply to Donald J. Trump, but neither does the Constitution. This would embolden future tyrants greatly.

Arguments against allowing the bans were particularly specious. They required ignoring history, ignoring precedents, and ignoring logic. One person claimed that if Colorado were allowed to ban Trump, chaos would ensue. Since Mr. Trump is the embodiment of chaos, I am not surprised, but so what? Is the law the law or do we weasel around it when it is inconvenient or messy? It is almost as if Mr. Trump calling all of those people to Washington, D.C. riling them up, telling then to “Fight like Hell!” and sending them to the Capitol has no repercussions.

The same people who were screaming “We can’t let the states decide!” were the same ones who were screaming “We must let the states decide!” on other issues, like Medicaid coverage and the legality of abortion.

I have already pointed out the brief filed by a group of Civil War historians who basically showed that the Article in question was self-executing, even admitted to be so by people it was being executed against. But the SCOTUS that appeals to history so often ignored it this time. Similarly it ignored its own precedents, somethings near and dear to previous courts.

This court is not a “conservative” court as they leave precedents and history shredded behind them. They are clearly a radical court, a rogue court and we should just stop paying attention to them. Let’s see how good they are at enforcing their own rulings.

Splitting Hairs

Atheists like me are often accused of “painting Christians with a broad brush,” accusing all Christians of beliefs and behaviors only done by a tiny minority.

Well, let’s start fixing that right now.

You may have heard/seen a Union County, North Carolina pastor, Bobby Leonard, saying from his pulpit that he would not convict a rapist if his victim were wearing shorts. And he allowed his “comments” to be videoed and posted on line. “If you dress like that and you get raped, and I’m on the jury, he’s gonna go free…I can’t help if you don’t like it, I’m right. Cause, y’know, a man’s a man. A man’s a man.” Apparently he believes that the power of women’s shorts are greater than the power of a god-fearing man.

According to his church’s statement of faith, they believe the Bible (KJV) to be inerrant, so I think it safe to call them “fundamentalist evangelicals.” But should not this “pastor” hold a Biblical worldview? Should not he, rather than letting the rape perpetrator go free, condemn him as a violator of the Tenth Commandment. Surely the victim, the shorts-wearer, have a husband, or if still living at home a father, and be that man’s property? And does not the Tenth Commandment say: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s. Should not the miscreant be taken out to the gates of the city and then stoned to death?

If that is not an option, should not the miscreant be forced to marry the victim and to care for her for the rest of her days, as it says elsewhere in the Bible? No where does it say “he’s gonna go free.” (“Let my people go,” doesn’t qualify.)

Clearly this “pastor” is a Christian, one elected to high office in a Christian church. Also clearly, he is an asshole, putting his own mores above God’s, shorts not even being mentioned in the Bible, even the KJV. So, I will not paint all Christians as such, but instead declare a subcategory of Christians I will call Christian Assholes™.

I am sure there are myriad other bristles in our broad brush used to paint Christians, like the prosperity gospel goons, maybe Christian Bloodsuckers™ is a good label for them. If you want to join in this effort, please feel free to define more categories of Christians so we will no longer be accused of “painting all Christians with a broad brush.”

“There are many bristles in the Atheist’s broad brush.” (Steve 3:7)

Oh, by the way, the church’s Tabernacle Christian School has received voucher dollars every school year since 2014-15 for a grand total of $3,649,766 in public taxpayer funds. The taxpayers of North Carolina are supporting the efforts of this Christian Asshole™. I wonder if they approve?

PS In what Hell are elderly men going by the child’s name of Bobby? Are Robert or Bob too mature for their liking? Egad.

Mitch McConnell: Use Once, Throw Away

If you don’t remember, it was Mitch McConnell who gave Donald Trump his most impactful political victory. Moscow Mitch it was who made up a bullshit policy that Supreme Court Justices should not be given consent by the Senate when the president is in the last year of his term of his office. We should wait for the election and “let the people decide,” he said, through our choice of the next president. So, McConnell blocked the nomination of Merrick Garland by President Obama for over a year and Trump got that appointment. But, when another seat on the Supreme Court became available in the last few months of Trump’s term in office, McConnell vacated his new rule and rushed Trump’s nominee through the process. This is how we got the “conservative” super majority on the current court, you know the court which just did The Donald a big favor in taking up his ridiculous immunity claim, thus giving him the trial delay he so dearly wanted. (Note I put conservative in quotes as a descriptor of the SCOTUS majority because it is hard to refer to them as “people who conserve” when they ride roughshod over settled precedents at their whim. Clearly they are not conservatives but radicals.)

Those two justices will give the GOP favorable rulings for decades.

So, to show how much Trump appreciated McConnell’s support, he viciously attacked him over legislation he was considering supporting (or did support in the form of the bill supporting aid to Ukraine).

To Mafia Don Trump, politicians are like toilet paper—use once, then throw away. Loyalty is “to” Trump, it doesn’t flow the other way.