Saturday, April 17, 2021

Bimbo Boebert To Cancer Patients: You Ain't Worth Running Up The National Debt

              Boebert near her 'Shooters Grille' Restaurant

"Rep. Lauren Boebert is the perfect performative politician, and it’s not doing her Colorado district any good.

As far as I can tell, there are few words that come out of Boebert’s mouth or her Twitter feed that aren’t borrowed pieces of rightwing propaganda designed to keep her supporters foaming at the mouth and clicking the “donate” button on her website. She insists on weighing in on every controversial issue du jour — taking a “What Would Trump Tweet?” approach to her communications — all to put herself in the spotlight.

Boebert has no legislative accomplishments to tout... All hat and no cattle? Boebert is all title and no text."

 Ian Silverii, Denver Post, p. A15 today


The bellicose bimbo and Colorado HS dropout Rep. Lauren Boebert again raised eyebrows Thursday night by voting against a bill to reauthorize the National Marrow Donor Program.   This is the  highly beneficial program for cancer patients (leukemia and lymphoma)   which matches donors of bone marrow and cord blood.  Without it, many thousands of cancer victims -- kids and adults - would not have had a chance

While the legislation passed the House by a vote of 415-2,  Bimbo Boebert and the deranged QAnon fruitcake Marjorie Taylor Greene, gave the bill a 'thumbs down'.   Greene simply didn't accept any likely users would have voted for Traitor Trump - Insurrection Inciter- so voted 'nay'.  

While Boebert’s office didn't respond to a request for comment,  the Reaptard from Silt, CO informed CNN that she opposed the bill because it "adds to the national debt", did not go through the committee process.  Nor was it "analyzed" by the Congressional Budget Office, the agency which determines how much money a bill will cost.   

All of this performative puppetry ignoring the fact the humanitarian program has basically been allowed a pro forma adoption, to more expeditiously assist cancer patients in need - and with limited time horizons.

On Friday, the loudmouth.  brash Bimbo tweeted in full her reason for not voting on the bill

I’m not voting  for bills that don’t go through committee and add hundreds of millions of dollars to the national debt,” 

The bill — H.R. 941, the TRANSPLANT Act — was passed under a suspension of the rules, a commonly used method for expediting uncontroversial legislation with humanitarian benefits. All other members of Congress from Colorado, Democrat and Republican, voted for it.   In the words of Colorado Democratic Party spokesman David Pourshoushtari :

“It is unconscionable that Congresswoman Boebert would stand in the way of cancer patients’ access to bone marrow transplants and the cancer-fighting properties they have,” 

Boebert-   a hardline Trump lubber and rabble rousing,  insurrection defender-  has voiced frustration in recent weeks at what she sees as political inaction on immigration and a flood of child migrants at America’s southern border.  She would prefer all of these kids be tossed back into Mexico to fend for themselves - drug cartel predators be damned.

She actually admitted Friday that the ongoing  frustration had influenced her vote on helping cancer patients, e.g.

I’m done spending away our children’s future, voting on sesame seeds and whatever else Pelosi wants while we have a humanitarian crisis at our border,” 

And yet the brash little bimbo was just fine spending tons of Coloradans' tax money to support her campaign circus and caravan.

(She also voted Wednesday against a bill requiring food companies to label when a product has sesame seeds, to which an estimated 1.5 million Americans are allergic. )

See Also:




Looking Again At The Beta - And Gamma - Functions

 We first consider the integral:

ò 1 o   x  u-1  (1 – x)  v-1  dx =  (u,v) 

For Re u  >  0,   Re v >  0

Which is known as the Beta function.

This function is symmetric so can also be written:

ò o   y  v-1  (1 – y)  u-1  dx =  b (v, u)

This  can be expressed in trigonometric form by writing:

x  =    sin 2 q 

Thence:

ò p/2 o    sin  2u-2  cos  2v-2 q  2 sin  cos q  dq   =  (u,v) 

Or:

(u,v)   = 2  ò p/2 o    sin  2u-1  cos  2v-1 q   dq

The earlier expressions for  (u,v)  and (v, u)  represent analytic functions in each of the complex variables u and v.  One can then introduce a new variable of integration:  w =  x / (1 -  x)  so the original integral becomes:

b (u,v)   =    ò ¥ o    u-1  dw / (1 + w) u+v  

For Re u  >  0,   Re v >  0   

Using suitable substitutions, we find that:

  (1 + w) u+v    

 1/ G(u + v)  ò ¥ o   exp (-1 + w) xu+v-1  dx

Where   G(u + v)  is the gamma function

Substituting the preceding expression (for  (1 + w) u+v )

into:   (u,v)   =    ò ¥ o    u-1  dw / (1 + w) u+v 

We get:

 (u,v)   =   G(u) G(u + v)  ò ¥ o   e - x   xv-1  dx =  G(u) G(v)  G(u + v)

A useful identity.

Now, to fix ideas, consider the Beta function b(3, 4):

b(3, 4) = G (3) G (4)/ G (3 + 4) = (2) (6)/ G (7) = 12 / G (7)

Recall:   G (a) = (a - 1)!

So:  G (3) = (3 - 1)!  =  2!  =  2 x 1 = 2

G (4) = (4 - 1)!  =  3!  =  3 x 2 x 1 = 6

Then  b(3, 4) =  12/ (7 - 1)!12/ (6)!

=   12/  (6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1)  =   12/ 720 = 1/ 60


Problems for Math Wizards:

1) The error function erf x

 =  (2 /Ö  p )  ò ¥ o   exp  ( -x 2) dx

The gamma function:  

G (½ ) =  ò ¥ o   -1/2  e - x    dx

Write the relationship between erf x and G (½)

2)  Given:  ò o   x n  dx /Ö ( 1 -  x 2)   

Find an integral expression for the Beta function:     ½ b(n +  ½,   ½)

Hint:  Let x  =    sin  q 

3)  Astrophysicist Brian Greene in an episode of 'The Elegant Universe', wrote out a form of the Beta function used in string theory as:  

b(p, q) = G (p) G (q)/ G (p + q)

Where:   p  = [1- a(s)]    and q  =   [1 - a(t)]

Are string theory parameters

If:   a(s)  =   ln e/ 20   and   a(t)    p ln e/ 2

Find the applicable Beta function.




Friday, April 16, 2021

Solving Ross Douthat's "Puzzles" Regarding The Irreligion Of The Nation's Intelligentisia


The NY Times evangelizing RC columnist Ross Douthat has a problem:   He is finding it difficult to grasp why so many of the intellectual class want no part of organized religion - or of supernatural creeds in general.  In other words, he is miffed that his religion and others are getting so little respect from the higher IQ segment of the populace.  As Douthat whines in his latest effort:

"As a Christian inhabitant of this world, I often try to imagine what it would take for the meritocracy to get religion.  Who do I mean?  The American intelligentsia — meaning not just would-be intellectuals but the wider elite-university-educated population, the meritocrats or “knowledge workers,” the “professional-managerial class.”

Adding:

"One problem is that whatever its internal divisions, the American educated class is deeply committed to a moral vision that regards emancipated, self-directed choice as essential to human freedom and the good life. The tension between this worldview and the thou-shalt-not, death-of-self commandments of biblical religion can be bridged only with difficulty."

Well, no shit, Sherlock!  Tell us something we don't know.  Given all that's gone awry with the moralistic, authoritarian mouthpieces - including the RC clergy sex abuse scandals- of course self -directed moral choice is the only rational option. Thus, Michael Sherman's book, The Science of Good and Evil.   

It affords a way out of the moral absolutism of the authoritarians and dogmatists. As he notes (p. 168):

"Provisional ethics provides a reasonable middle ground between absolute and moral relative systems. Provisional moral principles are applicable to most people, for most circumstances, for most of the time - yet flexible enough to account for the wide diversity of human behavior"

 Cheryl Mendelson's approach('The Good Life - The Moral Individual In An Antimoral World) is even more fundamental, noting the combined roles of reason, knowledge and conscience in what she refers to as Moral capacity.   The developed use of moral capacity enables moral individualism: the individual's capacity to think and act according to conscience.  This is contrasted with the premoral capacity or "premoralism" of most religionists and supernaturalists.  As she explains (p. 71):

"In the premoral mind, in place of moral individualism - there is mere egoism: the demand or wish, to be allowed to do and have what one wants. The premoral individual who confronts a moral culture must cope with social demands that he regards as illegitimate.

Because of his sense of entitlement, his greed and his demand for superiority feel right to him and are not internally moderated as they are in moral minds. Moral restraints may provoke him to outright rage and hatred."

This perverted condition then, leads to the perversion of morality, e.g. p. 157:

"The premoral mind confuses the disgusting with the wrong and retains an infantile fear of things sexual. Its rationality is overcome by emotion, fantasy, wish and projection. The belief that extracting a 10-week fetus from a woman's womb is murder rests to a large extent on the sense of disgust aroused by the thought of destruction of living tissue.

When fundamentalists insist on risking the life of the mother to deliver an anencephalic fetus they take this tendency to an extreme. People who think this way are unable to override disgust with rational appreciation of the objective characteristics of the fetus. The ability to do so is an indispensable trait of the moral mind."

In other words, the basis for a truly moral mind presumes the capacity for rationality to assess issues (like abortion) objectively - as opposed to emotively.  This is something I've written about a number of times before.   A point made in my Aug. 1, 2015 post was that no sane person in his or her right mind could possibly regard a "zygote" as a person, or a fetus as an "unborn child". There is simply no standard by which that passes even elemental laws or tests of logic, or science.  A child cannot be "unborn" because by definition it is already born!  Hence, an "unborn" (fetus) cannot be a "child".  

All Douthat's caterwauling aside, the college-educated intelligentsia are in a better position to recognize legitimate moral decisions and actions than he is - bound to dogmas, priestly dictates (and papal encyclicals)  and ancient credos.

Douthat continues:

"A second obstacle is the meritocracy’s anti-supernaturalism: The average Ivy League professor, management consultant or Google engineer is not necessarily a strict materialist, but they have all been trained in a kind of scientism, which regards strong religious belief as fundamentally anti-rational, miracles as superstition, the idea of a personal God as so much wishful thinking."

But this - again- should not puzzle his brain that much. Indeed, I already exposed the utter rubbish innate to supernaturalism in my letter published in Physics Today, e.g.

Readers' thoughts on science and religion: Physics Today: Vol 71, No 6


 
Noting:

From a scientific and objective standpoint, there is simply no way that any purportedly supernatural entity or order can be demonstrated or proven. No scientific methodologies for such exist, nor any credible instruments or measuring techniques. The rejoinder that those things can't be measured merely reinforces the argument that they are no more fit for scientific inquiry than the astrologer’s claim of “malefic” influences of Mars at an infant’s birth.
Because a supernatural domain cannot be approached in any scientific or objective way, then by my reckoning it doesn't exist. One need not even deny its existence because to all intents the supernatural entity becomes logically unnecessary or redundant. It doesn't help us make scientific predictions or explain natural phenomena—say, coronal mass ejections or auroral substorms

Let me again underscore here for the record that the preceding applies to any religion that enlists supernatural agents to support its basis. It was not intended to be a blanket statement that modern science could find no commonality with any religion. For example, according to the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism there exist a multitude of universes and none of these harbors supernatural agents such as demons, or "Satan".  Many of them, however, may well harbor other intelligent life forms.  This view in its most rudimentary form comports with the multiverse speculations of modern physics. 

Douthat,  back to being troubled:

"I am more puzzled by secular-minded people who think the rationality of religion has, under modern conditions, somehow been disproved.

Yes, science has undercut some religious ideas once held with certainty. But our supposedly “disenchanted” world remains the kind of world that inspired religious belief in the first place: a miraculously ordered and lawbound system that generates conscious beings who can mysteriously unlock its secrets, who display godlike powers in miniature and also a strong demonic streak, and whose lives are constantly buffeted by hard-to-explain encounters and intimations of transcendence. To be dropped into such a world and not be persistently open to religious possibilities seems much more like prejudice than rationality."

Well, first things first.  We in the secular world do not so much think the rationality of religion is "disproved" as to contend it is inconsistent.    If religion's rationality is inconsistent then how can it be trusted to provide coherent, rational solutions or answers?   

   Consider Christian author C.S. Lewis.  Recall Lewis’ "rational" justification for Inquisitional tortures in his book Mere Christianity.  The claim is mind-boggling in itself  and effectively renders whatever morality he espouses as useless, and indeed dangerous!  In this case, , he pardons the witch burners of the middle ages for making  “mistakes of fact”, i.e. in believing women described as witches were evil incarnate.  To quote one Lewis critic[1]:


If Lewis is willing to accept that witches do not exist, and that, while believing in them, it was right to put them to death, what other "ungodly" transgressions can we forgive as mere "mistakes of fact”?

Interestingly, Lewis’  "rational" pseudo-morality could easily have been incorporated into the Third Reich’s justifications for genocide. I mean, the Nazis really believed the Jews were “vermin” – as so much of their propaganda portrayed- so by Lewis’ standards they’d be excused for making a “mistake of fact”
.  

Lewis might well reply here that the Nazis really knew better than that so their actions were inexcusable abominations. But how do we know there were also not more percipient Inquisitors who also knew better than to believe more than a quarter million women burned as witches did not really embody evil or have pacts with “Satan”? It amounts to mere question begging.

In Douthat's second paragraph, he is correct to write that the cosmos is a lawbound system.  Also that it's given rise (via evolution) to conscious beings who can "unlock its secrets".  But let's be real, the powers of these beings - namely humans- are neither "godlike" (even in miniature) or "demonic".  Here again, is where Douthat's own brand of inconsistent rationality creeps in.   Yes, there can be "intimations pf transcendence"  and I explained how these can arise in my book, Beyond Atheism, Beyond God.   As I spelled it out:

"The key to transcending limited human nature then amounts to expanding one’s sense of identity to the level this emergent or nonlocal SELF. In other words, to escape the psychological confines of the ego-bound self. This means necessarily extending one’s consciousness beyond the limits of human standards, expectations."

That in turn implies adopting the outlook compatible with the "implicate order"  expressed so eloquently by David Bohm in his book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order,  e.g. here is a pdf version of this monumental  work:

Wholeness and the Implicate Order

The salient point here is that transcendence is placed in a purely physical context, as opposed to supernatural. Thus, all Bohm's elaborations, from the holomovement to his theory of hidden variables are predicated on physics concepts.  Unlike Douthat's amazement that one "can be dropped into such a world and not be persistently open to religious possibilities" we (secularists) see it differently.  That is, we see the vast potential for transcendence but predicated on natural laws peculiar to the natural world.  Hence, there is no need to interject religion or religious beliefs, dogmas etc.   Given this we have made a choice to be consistent in our use of reason, unlike Douthat and his Christian comrades who engage in inconsistent rationality.   

Finally, Douthat gives one more puzzling parting shot:

"And my anthropological understanding of my secular neighbors particularly fails when it comes to the indifference with which some of them respond to religious possibilities, or for that matter to mystical experiences they themselves have had."

Again,  all (or most) of Douthat's puzzlement could be resolved - or at least relieved- if he were to expand his consciousness enough to reckon in the notions of physics-based transcendence and even a degree of physics -oriented "mystical"  experience.  To appreciate that last aspect he might want to read Fritjof Capra's The Tao Of Physics - oh, and so so with an open mind!

------------------------

[1] Inniss: The Secular Humanist Newsletter, (Spring, 1998), 1


Thursday, April 15, 2021

Afghanistan Pullout Is A Long Overdue No Brainer

 "Why of course the people don’t want war...But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship ... 

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they’re being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.” - Hermann Goering, Nuremberg, 1946

The news on Tuesday  that President  Biden will withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by Sept. 11-   the 20th anniversary of the Saudi-led terrorist attacks on America - was more than welcome.  But it is long overdue and a veritable no brainer.  It is indeed a lesson that ought to have been learned (about 'no win' wars) after Vietnam.  But we let the Bushies lead us into another quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan even as Bush Jr. himself blew it in the run up to Sept. 11, 2001, e.g.

So thank that chimp-faced loon for the 20 years of wasted blood (over 2,500 Americans dead, 40,000 Afghan civilians)  and treasure ($825 billion).  Given all that,  it's past time we got our asses out as it is now a losing wicket.  The blunt assessment of one national security official on Maddow last night was it's a no win situation so long as Pakistan is providing aid and comfort to the Taliban. And in the words of Rep. Jason Crow (D, CO) on ALL In:  "If we haven't won militarily in 20 years, we're not going to win."

The decision defies a May 1 deadline for full withdrawal under a peace agreement the Trump administration reached with the Taliban last year, but leaves no room for additional extensions. A senior administration official called the September date an "absolute deadline"  that won’t be affected by security conditions in the country.  Besides which,  most higher IQ Pentagon personnel know a lot can still be done from afar- to make life miserable for the Taliban if they get out of control, e.g.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/15/us/politics/united-states-al-qaeda-afghanistan.html



Basically, Bin Laden in his 9/11 attack, showed he knew us better than we knew ourselves. (No doubt because he was our hireling after the Russians invaded Afghanistan in 1979, and we armed him to help drive the Russkies out). He knew that he could parlay about $500,000 of investment (in box cutters, flight trainings, plans, hijacker air fares etc.) into getting a mighty superpower to react like a scalded mother bear and lash out aimlessly in every direction. And in the process spare no expense, even if that meant bankrupting itself, having its future credit rating down graded and sending over 40 million citizens into destitution. He knew we would pay that foolish price, and in so doing, he could be the ultimate victor - because he believed we'd set up an endless perma-war meme based on the day's destruction and spend ourselves into oblivion!

All of this was highlighted in detail in an earlier post, to do with Rachel Maddow's mind-bending report on Osama bin Laden's true intent:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/05/rachel-maddows-analysis-terrifying.html


As noted therein, Bin Laden's strategy didn't center on the number killed in Washington or New York or the physical damage inflicted but the financial costs to the country.   It follows that by getting out now we have finally removed that Bin Laden albatross, all of Lindsey Graham's whining to the contrary.  To the fruitcakes who tremble over future Islamic terror attacks-- like Lindsey - I'd advise a heavy dose of The Financial Times' Gideon Rachmann who noted 10 years after 9/11:

"The number of Americans killed by terrorists since 1960 is about the same as the number killed over the same period in deer accidents".

See e,g.

Indeed, we face a far bigger threat from Trump's band of domestic terrorists (see previous blog post) .  And let's bear in mind Biden's process for leaving (unlike Trump's) isn't simply cut and run.  While Biden’s decision keeps U.S. troops in Afghanistan four months longer than initially planned, it allows an orderly and planned  withdrawal. 

The conflict has largely crippled al-Qaeda and led to the death of Osama bin Laden, the architect of the Sept. 11 attacks. True,  an American withdrawal also risks many of the gains made in democracy, women’s rights and governance, but those are not adequate reasons to sustain a "forever" war and playing into the dead Bin Laden's hands - bankrupting our country.  After 20 years of futility - and minimal help from Pakistan- it's time to cut bait.

Yes the Taliban, who provided al-Qaeda a safe haven, remain strong and in control of roughly two-thirds of the country, but that won't change by keeping U.S. troops there.  You'd need at least a half million troops or on the order of what LBJ sent forth to 'Nam by late 1966.  That ain't gonna fly with war weary American voters.  And even that mass of troops is no guarantee of eventual victory, as the Brits and Russkies learned with their own Afghan occupations.

Like it or not - and the Repukes won't - it is time to leave this quagmire behind.  We cannot be the cop of the world.

See Also:


AND:


AND:

We Need A "1/6 Commission" So The Reepo Right Can't Whitewash The January 6th Insurrection Or Misrepresent It

 

                     Trump's Terrorists Carry Out The January 6th Insurrection


"It wasn't a big deal? A screaming mob invading the Capitol, six dead and over one hundred forty injured? What if they had hung Mike Pence or Nancy Pelosi? Would it then have been a big deal?"  - Capitol officer Harry Dunn,  in MSNBC 'Our House", commenting on the insurrection of January 6th

Having viewed the MSNBC special "Our House" - On Assignment with Richard Engel yesterday, see e.g. 

New insights into how Capitol riot carried out (nbcnews.com)

I was glad I had taken my blood pressure med beforehand. The scenes of the rancid mob of human cockroaches swarming the Capitol as they carried "Trump" flags and beat officers with them - while chanting "USA! USA! USA!" -  was almost too much. As I told Janice, I wanted to hang every damned one of the vermin.  And also for having the audacity to display the symbols of liberty as they carried out their acts of treason and insurrection.  To put it bluntly, that 44 minute special - completed with the help of the investigatory group 'Bellingcat' - shows again why none of these swine merits any mercy.  As my Revolutionary War ancestors would have declared: "Hang 'em all!"

The special also shows clearly why this cannot be allowed to be whitewashed or relegated to the forgotten mists of history.  It needs to be as remembered as much as the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, we need a 1/6 Commission that covers every base the 9/11 commission did.   As Chris Hayes asked last night (ALL In): What accounted for the asymmetry of force response - say in the National Guard and D.C. police arrayed against Black Lives Matter protesters, and the pitiful force against the white Trump mob?   

How is it so many thousands of the rabid Trump traitor mob could swarm and overcome the barriers of the Capitol police with only one insurrectionist (Ashli Babbit) being shot and killed?   When if it had been a mob of black Americans nearly all would have been shot dead?  And the preparations, mobilizations, deployments had damned well been made well beforehand,  "like they were going to war"-  in Hayes' parlance.  Pointing out the psychological dimension is to "let people protesting know who is in charge, who is the authority, who will bend the knee to whom?" 

 Yet no comparable display of force was visible at the Capitol on January 6th to let those rabble -rousing whities know they were supposed to bend the knee!  Exaggeration? Hell no! As Hayes asked:  "Who is ordering whom around?  It is the overwhelmingly white mob telling the cops what to do"."    The most pathetic scene is then played where we see a Capitol cop looking at the roaches who've  taken Pence's seat in the chamber, asking: "Is there any chance I can get you guys to leave the Capitol?"   

Huh?  How about firing a volley of rubber bullets at their heads?  Like you'd do if they were black.  As Hayes asked: "How many black men pulled over by cops get that kind of question as the opening line?" 

 Noting then in the midst of all the Capitol mayhem, with officers being bashed with flag poles, squeezed in doors, sprayed with bear spay there was "only one weapon discharged".  Hayes even played two clips showing the unsettling "inversion" of force response.  

In one  - the vigil held for Elijah McClain in Aurora, CO, a police battalion stormed the scene with people playing violins - thrashing them with truncheons and firing pepper balls and tear gas. In the other, at the Jan. 6th insurrection, the cops were woefully "subservient" to the barking of orders by the white mob. WHY?   We may find out more answers soon when the Inspector General for the D.C. police testifies.  Including why those Capitol cops were so pathetically armed, with no stun grenades or rubber bullets or enough long guns - to keep the frothy fake patriots at bay.  They only backed off after Babbit was shot in the head.  As Hayes put it: 

"Imagine if that level of force had been brought to bear on that mob surrounding the Capitol. It would have been a massacre.  Of course if you brought that to bear it never would have happened. Because the police would have been all armed and ready for a riot... like they were at the vigil for Elijah McClain."

And the most abominable aspect is the Capitol cops were specifically warned of what was to come but did not prepare.  Why not?  Well, in Hayes' opinion: "Because of the racialized perceptions embedded in society and law enforcement.  Of who has to be managed, who has to be controlled, is so deeply embedded in American society and law enforcement."

All of which reinforces what I wrote in my January 8th post and why we need to get to the bottom of the January 6th security failure . Especially the asymmetry of force used vs BLM protests.  This is why I wrote at the time:

"The insane events of Wednesday, January 6th, must be engraved in the brains of every real American forever - and never forgotten - as much as the attacks of 9/11 for those who were alive then.   Because what transpired can never be allowed to happen again, given it shattered our central symbol of democracy and affected the other democracies of the world as well. "   

This is germane now as the Right's propagandists  - especially the noisome imp Tucker Carlson on FOX-   seek to revise history about the event.  Casting it either as a simple protest by "concerned patriots", or as some kind of false flag operation carried out by Antifa.   Or just an over zealous crowd which got out of control.  Well, then let them do hard time for getting out of control.

In the wake of the bloody treason barely more than three months ago we still behold polls supporting the Big lie insanity. According to a poll released last week by Reuters and Ipsos, belief in conspiracy theories about the insurrection is widespread among Republican voters, with 55% claiming to "agree" or "somewhat agree" that the rioters were really "Antifa" in disguise.   

As Janice commented during some of the most violent scenes in the Engel -MSNBC special - with MAGA cap wearing apes spraying bear spray into officers' eyes:  "How stupid do people have to be to believe that shit?"  As I reminded her: "Pretty stupid! Recall Harvard government professor Harvey Mansfield's take that most Trumpies are on "the lower half of the IQ curve."

Another 51% of Republican respondents agree or "somewhat agree"  that the rioters — who look to have killed one police officer, violently assaulted hundreds of others, and were chanting "hang Mike Pence" as they ransacked the Capitol — "were mostly peaceful, law-abiding Americans." And a full 60% agree or somewhat agree with Trump's utterly false claim that Joe Biden stole the 2020 election.   

As blogger Amanda Marcotte put it:

"These numbers are, needless to say, terrifying, precisely because they capture a level of delusion that is truly hard to imagine."   

Again, that level of delusion makes it impossible to make common cause with these lunatics, trolls and halfwits.  Unless they fess up to the fact that THEIR side made an attack on our democracy - to the point of seeking to  overturn an election result in the favor of a bombastic loser, all bets are off. There can be no comity, no unity, no American populace evolving in one direction.

Those who know their American history - not including the Trump MAGA terror tribe - recognized it had been more than 220 years since the U.S. Capitol  was ransacked.  That was in 1814, just 14 years after the building opened.  Then British forces in the War of 1812 tried to burn it down. The invaders looted the building first, and then set the southern and northern wings ablaze — incinerating the Library of Congress. A sudden rainstorm prevented its total destruction. 

 But that event stands in stark contrast to the terrorism carried out by our own people on Wednesday, January 6th.  Hundreds violating the citadel of our democracy, invading offices, terrorizing lawmakers, rifling through drawers, smashing furniture, pawing historic artifacts,  defecating in the hallways,  stealing documents - and oh yeah, leaving chewing tobacco spittle behind -- along with 11 Molotov cocktails, two pipe bombs and other paraphernalia, e.g. assault rifles fully loaded.  All the time screaming "Our house!" when they don't belong in a dog house.

Who were these people?  Steve Schmidt - former GOP strategist provided his insights on MSNBC 'Last Word' two days after the terror attack:

"These people are like the blackshirts of Italy, and brownshirts of Germany in the 1930s.  They are society's losers. They're on society's fringe.  This is an army of the aggrieved and the incited."  

In other words, mainly society's losers, bottom feeders  and wannabe tough guys - like Dominic  Pezzola (a Catholic HS grad if you can believe it) and Jessica Watkins.  Watkins - as shown in the 'Our House' special, was an OathKeeper who helped coordinate the Capitol attack.  Pezzola  appeared in videos smoking a cigar and bellowing: 

"Victory smoke in the Capitol, boys. ... I knew we could take this (expletive) over if we tried hard enough."   

Well, we'll see how you fare with 20 years in the slammer, fool.  Maybe then you'll wish you hadn't tried so hard...to be a traitor.  Both this deranged mutt and the transgender Watkins showed up at the Capitol seeking to raise hell, hunt down lawmakers and hang them - if they could have found them.

And now one finds the insurrection is being rubber-stamped (based on Trump's Big Lie) to pass over 200 voter suppression laws - by Repuke legislatures across the country. In 40 states and counting thus far, with Georgia already having passed the first set and Texas on the way.

This new GA law is just a knee-jerk effort to placate the false cries of Trump supporters of “rigged elections.” In fact,  as legal specialist Sherrilyn Ifill pointed out last night on MSNBC (Maddow) these new suppression laws are really an extension of the January 6th insurrection.  While the latter featured actual in your face violence and a rabid assault, the voter suppression laws hide their violence in their actual intent  - using verbal window dressing ("expanding voting rights" etc.)

What we can be sure of is that before many more of these loathsome laws go into effect there will be an all out war to pressure companies to exact payback for the states seeking to  follow Georgia's path.  That is, using voting law changes to endorse and ratify the insurrection.

In the meantime, every effort must be made to combat the cynical impetus on the Right  to downplay the insurrection or cast it in vanilla or prosaic terms. All the better to encourage the weak of mind to dismiss or diminish it.  As for the Repukes, as blogger Thomas Hartmann has noted (see his post below) they can no longer be regarded as a legitimate political party - having gone all in for the insurrection as well as voter suppression.  Now the GOP  needs to be purged from the American political landscape - as a fascist pestilence alien to our nation's history and roots.  

  Until then, we need Dems to reject any efforts to work with the Reep rats.  And we need a 1/6 Commission to investigate and officially brand the insurrection as what it was: a brazen effort to overthrow American democracy- at the behest of a sore loser traitor.

 See Also:

by Thom Hartmann | April 14, 2021 - 7:20am | permalink

AND:

by John Stoehr | April 15, 2021 - 7:19am | permalink

AND:

Domestic terror incidents surge, led by white supremacists, far right


AND:

by Jeremy Sherman | April 8, 2021 - 7:17am | permalink