Louisiana's new measure represents the first steps toward fascist theocracy in the U.S. Such a measure blatantly flouts both the language and intent of the Constitution. One must wonder whether states still believing in the Constitution and the rule of law have any future attempting to co-exist in the same political jurisdiction as states passing or supporting theocratic measures like Louisiana's. If the U.S. were a marriage, it would have been in divorce court many years ago. States like New York, Oregon, Washington, and Vermont have more in common with, say, Denmark or Norway than they do with Louisiana or Arkansas. The fact that most Republican Representatives and Senators are no longer interested in legislating or solving problems, but seek only to block government from operating or to seriously weaken its powers, is further evidence of the breakdown suggested by Louisiana's legislation. Between fascist theocracy and the Constitution and the rule of law, there is no middle ground. One can believe in one or the other, but not both.
I don't think the geographical lines are that clean, actually, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's more accurate to say that *urban areas* in NY, OR, WA, and VT have more in common with Denmark and Norway. The radical right's buyout of our country's rural areas is pretty thorough unfortunately, no matter which state you look at.
This simply behooves the rest of us not to give up, to keep taking up oxygen, and to keep pushing for the kind of institutional changes that will bring us all some relief and enlightenment.
I would like to believe that change is possible within the existing political boundaries, but unfortunately, things appear to have deteriorated to a point where it is not. If you believe that political life should be governed by the Ten Commandments, what do you have in common with someone who believes it should be governed by the Constitution? With the MAGA Republicans in Congress and the Senate simply refusing to do their jobs, we are fast approaching a point of total breakdown. The divide is not like that between New Dealers and "Mossback" Republicans in the 1930s, or Goldwaterites and McGovernites in the 1960s and 1970s. It is much more like that between modernizers and religious traditionalists in the Middle East--between whom there is, again, little or nothing in common.
What is the point in continuing a political relationship between, say, Vermont and Louisiana anyway? (Vermont has no urban areas, to speak of). Some sentimental attachment a New Englander might have for the writing of Lafcadio Hearn? I just don't get it.
Well I certainly share frustration with the situation, and this development is beyond the pale, but I am no where near ready to give up on one state or another just because a band of democracidal lunatics has seized power over the people. This is not just cultural appreciation, though there is plenty of that. We are all STILL, for the moment, Americans. Our political system, our mutual freedoms, and our privilege of coming together as fellow citizens to work through differences and decide our destinies has been bought with the blood, sweat, and tears of the patriots who came before us. We owe it to them and to ourselves to keep striving toward a more perfect union.
Not everyone in Louisiana is on board with this despotism. There are vulnerable people of every gender, race, and religious persuasion there, and in every other state in our union, and I am no ready to write them off.
Better, I think, to do the hard work of democracy. This law will get challenged, and then it will go to our odious joke of a Supreme Court, and if it flies we'll add that to Citizens United, and WV v. EPA, and Dobbs, and all the other insupportable decisions that need to be reversed. Well fight for codifying SCOTUS reform and voting rights protection and campaign finance transparency, and then we'll set about steering ourselves back into open waters.
And if we don't make it? If we wreck somehow? I don't want to give anyone a reason to truthfully say we didn't try. I'm mad as hell about this ruling, but I'm far from ready to write off Louisiana.
Helga, you are a true happy warrior. I actually think the Louisiana law will be struck down (narrowly), with Roberts and either Barrett or Kavanaugh joining with the three liberals. But the MAGA Republicans in Congress pose an even more serious challenge. These fascist scum seem determined to bring down the government, or at least stop it from working. How is it possible to make common cause with those scum? The truth of the matter is--it isn't. The only way to have a functional Congress, now, is to start a brand new one--minus the Maggot-ridden MAGAS! And the same for the Supreme Court.
Yes those extremists in congress are as bad as the corruption in SCOTUS. But our current best course is still to vote enough of them out that we can repair the existing system. The kind of rupture you're proposing virtually never goes well for the little guys.
I'm not sure there is any precedent for the kind of break-up I'm proposing--a preventive splitting of the country.Such ruptures normally occur only after conquest or some kind of civil war. My idea is to have the break-up instead of civil war, which seems to me virtually inevitable if we continue on our present course, and particularly if Trump is re-elected.
Ah, the ten commandments in all of our schools, including those of higher learning. That's just
what we need -- a Christian America. And if the Republican wins the presidential election in November 2024, America will then a fascist president. All of our rights would then be removed by that autocrat, and there would be no free press, just to name a couple of our rights.
This would not be the America of the Constitution. Those states still believing in the America of the Constitution must part ways from those choosing the theocratic path. That is the only solution.
I've added a link to this compelling essay. Sadly, the 2024 reaction to Juneteenth in several U.S. cities was violent -- mass shootings in Oakland, CA and Austin Texas, murders in Norfolk, VA and Milwaukee, WS. HCR does not mention that "slavery by another name" existed until about 1970 in parts of the rural South. But I do agree that the positive should be accented. https://jimbuie.substack.com/p/americans-mark-national-celebration
Who or what entities, if any, are actively planning or discussing an alliance of states in a second Trump presidency? The intent of such alliance being to separate from the present United States. Who is planning for this now - or at least discussing it?
I don't know, Joseph. I do know that the idea of breaking up the country has been discussed since the early 1970s, and that a political philosophy prof from UMass Boston has written a book entitled "Splittsville" in which the idea of a national divorce is actively discussed.
Louisiana's new measure represents the first steps toward fascist theocracy in the U.S. Such a measure blatantly flouts both the language and intent of the Constitution. One must wonder whether states still believing in the Constitution and the rule of law have any future attempting to co-exist in the same political jurisdiction as states passing or supporting theocratic measures like Louisiana's. If the U.S. were a marriage, it would have been in divorce court many years ago. States like New York, Oregon, Washington, and Vermont have more in common with, say, Denmark or Norway than they do with Louisiana or Arkansas. The fact that most Republican Representatives and Senators are no longer interested in legislating or solving problems, but seek only to block government from operating or to seriously weaken its powers, is further evidence of the breakdown suggested by Louisiana's legislation. Between fascist theocracy and the Constitution and the rule of law, there is no middle ground. One can believe in one or the other, but not both.
I don't think the geographical lines are that clean, actually, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's more accurate to say that *urban areas* in NY, OR, WA, and VT have more in common with Denmark and Norway. The radical right's buyout of our country's rural areas is pretty thorough unfortunately, no matter which state you look at.
This simply behooves the rest of us not to give up, to keep taking up oxygen, and to keep pushing for the kind of institutional changes that will bring us all some relief and enlightenment.
I would like to believe that change is possible within the existing political boundaries, but unfortunately, things appear to have deteriorated to a point where it is not. If you believe that political life should be governed by the Ten Commandments, what do you have in common with someone who believes it should be governed by the Constitution? With the MAGA Republicans in Congress and the Senate simply refusing to do their jobs, we are fast approaching a point of total breakdown. The divide is not like that between New Dealers and "Mossback" Republicans in the 1930s, or Goldwaterites and McGovernites in the 1960s and 1970s. It is much more like that between modernizers and religious traditionalists in the Middle East--between whom there is, again, little or nothing in common.
What is the point in continuing a political relationship between, say, Vermont and Louisiana anyway? (Vermont has no urban areas, to speak of). Some sentimental attachment a New Englander might have for the writing of Lafcadio Hearn? I just don't get it.
Well I certainly share frustration with the situation, and this development is beyond the pale, but I am no where near ready to give up on one state or another just because a band of democracidal lunatics has seized power over the people. This is not just cultural appreciation, though there is plenty of that. We are all STILL, for the moment, Americans. Our political system, our mutual freedoms, and our privilege of coming together as fellow citizens to work through differences and decide our destinies has been bought with the blood, sweat, and tears of the patriots who came before us. We owe it to them and to ourselves to keep striving toward a more perfect union.
Not everyone in Louisiana is on board with this despotism. There are vulnerable people of every gender, race, and religious persuasion there, and in every other state in our union, and I am no ready to write them off.
Better, I think, to do the hard work of democracy. This law will get challenged, and then it will go to our odious joke of a Supreme Court, and if it flies we'll add that to Citizens United, and WV v. EPA, and Dobbs, and all the other insupportable decisions that need to be reversed. Well fight for codifying SCOTUS reform and voting rights protection and campaign finance transparency, and then we'll set about steering ourselves back into open waters.
And if we don't make it? If we wreck somehow? I don't want to give anyone a reason to truthfully say we didn't try. I'm mad as hell about this ruling, but I'm far from ready to write off Louisiana.
Helga, you are a true happy warrior. I actually think the Louisiana law will be struck down (narrowly), with Roberts and either Barrett or Kavanaugh joining with the three liberals. But the MAGA Republicans in Congress pose an even more serious challenge. These fascist scum seem determined to bring down the government, or at least stop it from working. How is it possible to make common cause with those scum? The truth of the matter is--it isn't. The only way to have a functional Congress, now, is to start a brand new one--minus the Maggot-ridden MAGAS! And the same for the Supreme Court.
Yes those extremists in congress are as bad as the corruption in SCOTUS. But our current best course is still to vote enough of them out that we can repair the existing system. The kind of rupture you're proposing virtually never goes well for the little guys.
I'm not sure there is any precedent for the kind of break-up I'm proposing--a preventive splitting of the country.Such ruptures normally occur only after conquest or some kind of civil war. My idea is to have the break-up instead of civil war, which seems to me virtually inevitable if we continue on our present course, and particularly if Trump is re-elected.
Ah, the ten commandments in all of our schools, including those of higher learning. That's just
what we need -- a Christian America. And if the Republican wins the presidential election in November 2024, America will then a fascist president. All of our rights would then be removed by that autocrat, and there would be no free press, just to name a couple of our rights.
This would not be the America of the Constitution. Those states still believing in the America of the Constitution must part ways from those choosing the theocratic path. That is the only solution.
I've added a link to this compelling essay. Sadly, the 2024 reaction to Juneteenth in several U.S. cities was violent -- mass shootings in Oakland, CA and Austin Texas, murders in Norfolk, VA and Milwaukee, WS. HCR does not mention that "slavery by another name" existed until about 1970 in parts of the rural South. But I do agree that the positive should be accented. https://jimbuie.substack.com/p/americans-mark-national-celebration
Who or what entities, if any, are actively planning or discussing an alliance of states in a second Trump presidency? The intent of such alliance being to separate from the present United States. Who is planning for this now - or at least discussing it?
I don't know, Joseph. I do know that the idea of breaking up the country has been discussed since the early 1970s, and that a political philosophy prof from UMass Boston has written a book entitled "Splittsville" in which the idea of a national divorce is actively discussed.