April 2023 Archives

Dear America,

The motto of the Republican Party seems to be "Honi soit qui mal y pense," or "Shamed be he who thinks evil of it."  It's an old expression with its origins in the court of Edward III of England in the 1340's around the time of the founding of the English Order of the Garter, which was created to legitimate Edward's claim to the French throne.  The story behind the saying may be interesting but it isn't my point per se.  Well, what is my point, you might be asking.  Here it is: Steve Scalise.

A couple of days ago, Kevin McCarthy, the Republican speaker of the house of representatives--remember that he won the position by agreeing to renounce any principle if he could just bang the gavel, so to speak--announced his proposed motion to increase the debt limit for our national budget's financing, including some dubious proposals about cutting spending; no tax increases for the rich, but a 1% reduction in all programs...that would of course include food stamps, now called SNAP.  Shortly thereafter, Steve Scalise, the House majority leader, launched into an anti-Democrat screed on Fox News because that is what Republicans do.  They pronounce all those who disagree with them to be shameful (that's the "honi" in the old saying) for their opposition to McCarthy's proposal.  McCarthy knew that even if he could get the plan through his own party gauntlet it would never fly in the Senate, but it was always no more than a partisan ploy anyway, so selling his soul to pass something that he could get the support of the right wing of his party for was all just his regular order of business, principle, like the professed desire to work with the opposition, be damned.  And Scalise's job as majority leader is to be the front man for McCarthy on this and any other point that is sufficiently conservative, regardless of how odious that point may be.  In other words, Scalise is the Republican intellectual pimp and McCarthy is his whore.  And you can imagine the content of Scalise's rant, and you can also be sure that the whole party got behind it just because it was the Republican mindless, failed Reaganite trickle-down creed once again, and here's my point.  Truth had nothing to do with it, and the Republicans, especially the conservatives and the Trumpers, signed on blindly, even to the extent of adopting a bald-faced lie.

Of course, Scalise launched into a diatribe against Joe Biden blaming him for everything since Three Mile Island, and that was no surprise.  But among the things he tried to lay in Biden's lap was inflation, which is another Trump canard for the MAGA crowd, but now it is conservative gospel.  The problem is that it can't possibly be true and any rational person would have to know it.  The reality is that only seven of the countries and fragments thereof that Europe comprises have inflation rates below the 5% that prevails in the United States whereas all of the rest, including the Eropean Union as a whole with a rate of inflation of 8.3%, are much worse off than we are.  Great Britain's inflation rate is around 10% and Germany's is over 7%.  But even if you put the facts aside, Scalise's allusion to Biden as the cause of American inflation is absurd.  Unless Biden controlled the world economy, which is afflicted by inflation ubiquitously, he doesn't have the power to cause everyone else's inflation even in his dreams.  Among the other countries with rates of inflation lower than ours are Russia and China, and obviously Biden can't control them.  And Argentina's rate in excess of 100% isn't within Biden's reach either.  If it were, he would just inflict exaggerated inflation on China and Russia too, Russia in particular.  The war in Ukraine would be over in a matter of months if it were feasible, and you can go on from there when evaluating Scalise's remarks.  Unfortunately, the news media went no further than to report what Scalise said, allowing the conservative true-believers to subscribe to his wishful thinking without thinking at all.  That's what they do.  If they like it, they buy it no matter how absurd it is, and that's what scares me.

In November 2024, they, like the rational people in America, will go to the polls and together we'll elect our next president.  I for one hope it will be our present president if not some reasonable facsimile, but I hoped that in 2016 too.  Apparently, I don't have control over American politics any more than I do over their outcome.  Who knew?

Your friend,

Mike

Dear America,

Years ago, someone I knew was trying to help his parents buy a minivan.  He went to a dealer and got the manager to make him an offer, but he declined to opt for it saying that he wanted to compare what might be offered by other dealers before committing.  The dealer asked of him that he give the dealer a chance to beat competitive offers, and my acquaintance agreed.  Then he went to another dealership and got them to put an offer in writing on a form that listed all of the options he was seeking, but again declined to commit.  He took the written offer home, altered it and photocopied it so as to mask the alterations before he took the new offer to the first dealer, who promptly beat it by a few hundred dollars, and that offer was accepted.   I was a fairly new lawyer at the time, but the chicanery didn't seem legal to me, so I checked.  There was no law I could find here in Connecticut that proscribed my acquaintance's conduct, but there was one in New York State.  In New York, alteration of a business record--such as in this case an offer to sell at a price certain--was not just a violation of the criminal code of the state, it was a felony.  I never mentioned it out of concern for the family relationships that would be jeopardized if I did...until now.

For me, it's not relevant to those personal events of decades ago that in New York the conduct I just described was a felony.  But it's relevant for the Trumpster, isn't it.  Unfortunately, the media reporting on Trump's indictment have chosen, in typical simplistic fashion, to dumb the news down so that what they esteem to be the public intellect could fathom what was happening to Trump legally.  It has all become some legal adjunct to the tawdry conduct of Trump and a porn star, Stormy Daniels.  That's the nature of sensationalism, and the conservative Republican polity, both they who are elected and they who elected them, have seized upon the adjunct "naked" truth as opposed to the legalities, even though many of the pols who are chiming in should know better as they too are lawyers.  But that would be too forthright for a Republican like Marco Rubio, for example.  He is a lawyer...technically...but he has never practiced anything but political hackery, and being a Republican, that carried him all the way from local hack to hack on the national stage in The Senate, where he now feels qualified to dimly criticize the work of a real lawyer, the New York prosecutor, Alvin Bragg, who oversaw the indictment process as it should have been overseen.  Then, there's Ted Cruz...another hack who went directly from ardent Trump critic to toady overnight, but Cruz wasn't just a lawyer, he was the solicitor general of the State of Texas.  He argued cases for his state before the Supreme Court, and unlike Rubio, he's no dummy...and he knows better besides.  For him to castigate the prosecutor in New York is disingenuous at best, if not downright and highly reprehensibly dishonest on a colossal scale.

But in all candor, I think Prosecutor Bragg has some work to do when it comes to convicting Trump.  The legalities of "intent to defraud," a sine qua non for a conviction, are a bit on the eristic side, though they have stature within New York's related common law.  And frankly, I think Bragg might have shot himself in the foot when he discarded the efforts of other prosecutors in his office when he first ascended to his elected position of New York County district attorney for Manhattan.  Those prosecutors were trying to build a case related to Trump's contrived evaluations of his net worth depending on whether he was paying his taxes or trying to borrow money.  That case seems from outside the investigation to be a lay-up.  We've all heard Trump brag about his wealth, yet he paid only $750 in federal income taxes in at least two of his years in office.  His tax records in New York no doubt provide the same fodder for a conviction on grounds of falsification of business records relative to payment of New York State taxes as well, but who knows.  Bragg might see the wisdom in resurrecting that area of investigation at some point.

All in all, it seems that the steadfast loyalty of the MAGA contingent is based on a kind of ignorance, probably bourn of the ignorance of Donald Trump himself.  When evaluating his candidacy, he--and they--decided he should run because they thought the office of President required that he be sagacious, and it does.  He just didn't understand the difference between sagaciousness and salaciousness; an understandable mistake for a miscreant sociopath who thinks he is a "very stable genius."  

Your friend,

Mike

Categories

Monthly Archives

Pages

Powered by Movable Type 4.38

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from April 2023 listed from newest to oldest.

March 2023 is the previous archive.

May 2023 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory

Categories

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from April 2023 listed from newest to oldest.

March 2023 is the previous archive.

May 2023 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.