A real California political earthquake would occur if enough democrats in the 23rd District would send McCarthy packing. He's actually a danger to California as well as to the nation. He has no visible back-bone and appears to have become a Trump true-believer. If you live in the 23rd, please VOTE! It's for your country as well as your state as well as your district.
I keep reading that crime is a priority concern of voters, and I keep reading that Republicans are making that a leading issue in their campaigns. Hmmm…Aren’t mass shootings a crime? Aren’t the shootings that occur EVERY day in this country crimes? Perhaps it is time for Democrats to make concern about crime one of their major campaign issues and compare what crimes concern Democrats with what crimes concern Republicans.
Today's NY Times headlines for the Op-ed and other columns confirms Robert's impression about sloppy writing. Is it carelessness or bias or click-bait? And it's hysterical to read more-pompous-than-ever Bret Stephens and David Brooks pontificating about Democrats' perceived failures. The GOP is ready to go full-authoritarian, and somehow that's the fault of Democrats???
I don't know why I even bother to subscribe to the NYT online. I never read their op-eds and their headlines are almost always way off base. The only reason I keep tossing $ down the hole is to allow me to get past the fire wall on rare occasions when there's something worth reading. I should stop. It's a waste of my money!
I write because the point about the Second Amendment missing from today’s Newsletter is its deliberate weak syntax and ambiguity. Let me explain. While the initial clause, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is sufficiently clear, the second clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be abridged.”, at first sight, might read like an innocuous obfuscation of the full text’s intent. However, based upon my understanding, this confusion is by design. Needing something in 1789 to hold the people of the country together under a strong national government, James Madison, as previously stated, drafted a deliberately weak and ambiguous Second Amendment that delivered a vague gesture of the idea of the importance of state militia. Focused solely on his desire to unite the states under a strong national government, Madison, I suppose, never imagined how his virtually meaningless text would play directly into the current crisis of gun violence in this country nor how future generations would be held hostage to white rural and ex-urban voters, whose votes a major party would fear it would lose were it to support any meaningful firearm restrictions.
Hi, Barbara. One key word in the second half of the second amendment is "the people," which was used by the Founders and Framers to refer to the people as a whole--not a reference to individuals. "The people" have the right to bear arms, not "individuals." Compare the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.
In the Fourth Amendment, it is clear that rights inhere in "persons", "houses" and "effects," not merely in the "the people" as a whole.
Robert, I deeply appreciate the clarification though it confirms that the Heller majority opinion that reads, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right…” was, at best, wrongly decided and, at worst, fraudulent.
The "Founders" fully expected the Constitution to be a living document to be revisited regularly in order to reflect the realities of the current times. As you say, they could have had no idea that WMDs would be available to kids. The full reading of the 2nd Amendment makes complete sense if you reflect on the times during which it was written.
The 2nd Amendment is so vague that it really just comes down to what judges want to make of it. Which begs the question: "What kind of jurist, what kind of legislator wants a society where it is EASY for mentally ill teenagers to slaughter children, the elderly, folks who are worshiping or shopping? What kind of PERSON wouldn't want to protect us from such horrors?"
This isn't so much about how to turn a phrase or twist a meaning. It is about being safe in a civil society or not. It is about basic morality.
Bill, Presuming Robert, who’s part of this thread, is correct, the wording of the Second Amendment is not as ambiguous as I had understood. If you have a moment, check out his reply.
Yes. He clarifies his interpretation of the use of the word "People". I agree with him. And that should be enough. Not ambiguous to us, perhaps. But our radical maniacal Supreme Court twists the words to serve their corporate masters goals. Money over the lives of little children.
My point is that in the 18th century having guns around was second nature. And kids learned at a very young age to use them for hunting and protection of the family. If anyone could have imagined enormous changes in technology, it might have been Jefferson.
"The idea of amending constitutions at regular intervals dates back to Thomas Jefferson. In a famous letter, he wrote that we should “provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods.” “[E]ach generation” should have the “solemn opportunity” to update the constitution “every nineteen or twenty years,” thus allowing it to “be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time.”
From another angle, had the Founders wished to solely protect the right of individuals own and freely carry guns, the Amendment would have omitted the the predicates of a "well regulated Militia and the "security of a free State" and simply read: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Today's Republicans, who claim to cherish the Constitution, desecrate it just as they desecrate our Democracy.
Robert is absolutely correct. The bottom line is that the radical right SC justices intentionally disregard the text and historical meaning behind the text to extrapolate a right that either does not exist or they want to exist.
Andrew, While I believe your assertion is applicable in some instances, as for Scalia, who wrote the 5-4 majority opinion for Heller v. DC, I would submit the ruling was wrongly decided and merits review.
Honestly Robert, you need to be available to more people and be on some version of the nightly news with your clarifications and observations of current events. Perhaps PBS Newshour?
Then could we get you into the mainline print media. It wouldn't take long for all those NYTimes readers to join you. It's the reason I'm here--fled my decades-long Times subscription and here I am with nary a regret.
I love this idea, so I just want to be sure...is this a judgement made by verifiable experts, or simply your own, perhaps overly humble, opinion.? Just asking.....
the republicans claim that the time of a mass shooting is not right to enact legislation about gun matters - that it is too political. Well, when would be a better time? For them it would be when people are not thinking or remembering those events. I say what better time to address these concerns - when the memories of the horrors are fresh in the minds of people. Part of the problem is that even the Media is running scared of the far right attacks and so don't really respond to what is going on. The Supreme Court which claims to want the constitution dealt with literally conveniently disregards the first part of the Second Amendment which addresses a well-regulated militia. Well, just like people do with the Bible- they pick and choose the parts that they agree with. I am 80 yrs old and so am in the twilight of my life and i shudder to think of the future that my children and grandchildren, The fact that so few voted in California just reinforces my concern about the future. Those who vote tend to be the more radical and think more of themselves than the good of us all. I know I seem to lean negative, but no one will be happier and gladly say I was wrong if people get out and vote this November.
The very fact that anybody could make that statement with a straight face Indicates how far gone the jerks are. I had to read your sentence a couple of times to believe it myself and I'd already read it somewhere else. Who says stuff like that? Who even thinks stuff like that. Thank the lord for this newsletter and this comments community.
Why, in God's name, is the media continuing to promote a fictional "both-sidesism" and lend ANY credence to the BS Republican narrative? Don't they realize that if Republicans gain control of the government again, it will be the demise of the free press? Look at all the authoritarian countries who suppress journalism and jail the journalists. Yesterday I read an article that the new head of CNN wants to crack down on their reporters/anchors who are now reporting things that he considers "biased". All of these news outlets will turn into propaganda outlets if we lose control of our country. They should, instead, be sounding the alarm and waking people up to the threat.
It’s not often I disagree with you enough to say so, but your comments about the California earthquake are, I believe, fundamentally wrong. You say the only significant fact is low turnout. I see it in a completely different light and suggest it should be viewed alongside Eric Adams in NYC. The Atlantic has a very good article about the situation in SF. It is spot on. The so-called progressives have destroyed the city with their arrogant attitudes that they know what’s best for hard-working families trying to raise families in the Sunset district (for example). Those people want safe streets and parks and public transit, and excellent schools for their children. Most don’t care about gender identity politics or whatever the current woks agenda sponsors. It’s time for local government to do the hard work of making the city work for everyone. Spend more money on police - not yet another program to hire social justice warriors with their degrees in lecturing others.
Hi, Doug. I don't often disagree with you, but I do here. What happened in San Francisco was a San Francisco phenomenon. As Josh Marshall demonstrates in his editors blog this morning (behind a paywall, unfortunately), progressive prosecutors across California did just fine, while incumbent conservative sheriffs (e.g., Villanueva in LA) were forced into runoffs. So, while there may have been an "earthquake" in San Francisco, it is simply wrong to extrapolate that onto all of California. It is just demonstrably wrong to do so, given the results of Tuesday's primaries.
No one disagrees that voters want "safe streets and parks and public transit, and excellent schools for their children," and no Democrat is running on a platform contrary to those goals. Indeed, it is Democrats who are seeking to make the streets safer by controlling guns, while Republicans want everyone to carry a gun without a permit, training, or background check. Which party is striving to meet the goals that you say voters want?
Not sure there is reason to continue, but: The issue isn’t who supports strict gun control. It is who cares about shoplifting, car break-ins, robbery of senior citizens, anti-Asian activities, including the bigotry of the recalled school board and the Lowell High School controversy, smash and grab robberies, true academic excellence, drug needles on the streets, and on and on. Quality of life, some call it. And for the struggling middle class those things matter. READ THE NEW ATLANTIC ARTICLE. I believe I sent it to you. You set up a false dichotomy when you ask who is better on gun control.
I will read the article. All of the problems you mention exist in Fresno, Bakersfield, Visalia, Kern County, Tulare County--cities and counties controlled by Kevin McCarthy, Devin Nunes, and their cronies. The Central Valley is plagued by a heroin epidemic, which has spawned an explosion of thefts, assaults, car jackings, etc. It doesn't feel safe to stop at a gas station in Bakersfield--in the heart of deepest red California.
Do the Republican politicians who control those cities not care about crime? Or is it a problem that is bigger than "progressive" or "conservative" politics? I think it is the latter, but the media is interpreting the results in the primary in California as "Democrats don't care about crime, Republicans do." That is a simplistic explanation that shows the media has no idea what is happening across California as a whole.
This isn’t an argument between the two of us. My point is that the Ds will get killed in the elections if they don’t stop sounding like social justice warriors. They need to convince people that they are every bit as “pro-police” etc as the Rs. You can talk all you want about Bakersfield. What voters in Des Moines, Minneapolis, Richmond, Milwaukee, etc hear is hand-holding and understanding. More money for social justice.
This is why the DNC needs to focus like a laser on messages that appeal to voters in SF’s Sunset district (for example).
Filter GOP comments on gun safety using this algorithm: All that matters to the GOP, is the ability of gun manufacturers to sell guns with no restraints. The GOP is the puppet of gun manufacturers, who funnel money to the GOP through the NRA which uses a camouflage of "Second Amendment" rights. So the proposal of more money for mental health is promoted by GOP because it doesn't affect gun sales, AND they know that the money for mental health will never be appropriated or spent by the states. Remember that the GOP repealed a law that prevented gun purchases by veterans with diagnosed with mental problems. Background checks slow gun sales and might dissuade some gun purchasers, so universal background checks are opposed by GOP (i.e., gun manufacturers). AR-15 rifles have the highest profit margin, so anything that touches AR-15 rifles will be opposed by gun manufacturers. Requiring gun locks and storage of guns in locked cabinets doesn't affect gun sales, BUT it runs afoul of the white supremacists who cling to the myth that they need to be able to quickly grab so they can protect their wives if minority men try to assault them.
I've had it with the "news" media. Yesterday I canceled my long running subscription to the New York Times. The Washington Post may be next. I will continue to read some of my favorite Substack writers, The Atlantic and the Guardian. I'm done.
Talking Points Memo, Vox (Millhiser, Stern), and Slate (Lithwick) are worth keeping on your radar. The Guardian and Atlantic are on my list. Jennifer Rubin is on fire. Josh Marshall's editors blog today (behind a paywall) made the same point I made last night, but he included examples of progressive prosecutors who won and conservative sheriffs forced into runoffs. The major media blew it.
I’m with you Nancy. I canceled WaPo in January and NYT is next. Was holding out for… well, I don’t know what. I kept thinking they’d report on the real news. The headlines are only getting more sensational and narrow in focus. IMO they are directly contributing to the destruction of our democracy.
I have a very difficult time reading the testimony. I have not described the worst of it. But I think if members of Congress were forced to visit the scene of a mass shooting, we would ban assault weapons the next day.
I don't think they would ever, under any circumstances, ban assault weapons, Scalise was shot with one while guarded by armed guards and almost died. When he recovered, he doubled down on his insanity over guns everywhere.
Robert, I wish I could agree but I don't think there would be a chance of that happening. They don't care. They obstruct. They are unmoved by the things that move human beings. I don't understand a bit of it but I don't see any evidence to suggest anything else. However, from your lips to god's ears.
Thanks! I read the article by Dan Froomkin. Excellent analysis, all around. We need to hammer the media whenever it fails to do its job. I will promote Froomkin's article.
A real California political earthquake would occur if enough democrats in the 23rd District would send McCarthy packing. He's actually a danger to California as well as to the nation. He has no visible back-bone and appears to have become a Trump true-believer. If you live in the 23rd, please VOTE! It's for your country as well as your state as well as your district.
I keep reading that crime is a priority concern of voters, and I keep reading that Republicans are making that a leading issue in their campaigns. Hmmm…Aren’t mass shootings a crime? Aren’t the shootings that occur EVERY day in this country crimes? Perhaps it is time for Democrats to make concern about crime one of their major campaign issues and compare what crimes concern Democrats with what crimes concern Republicans.
Today's NY Times headlines for the Op-ed and other columns confirms Robert's impression about sloppy writing. Is it carelessness or bias or click-bait? And it's hysterical to read more-pompous-than-ever Bret Stephens and David Brooks pontificating about Democrats' perceived failures. The GOP is ready to go full-authoritarian, and somehow that's the fault of Democrats???
I don't know why I even bother to subscribe to the NYT online. I never read their op-eds and their headlines are almost always way off base. The only reason I keep tossing $ down the hole is to allow me to get past the fire wall on rare occasions when there's something worth reading. I should stop. It's a waste of my money!
I write because the point about the Second Amendment missing from today’s Newsletter is its deliberate weak syntax and ambiguity. Let me explain. While the initial clause, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is sufficiently clear, the second clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be abridged.”, at first sight, might read like an innocuous obfuscation of the full text’s intent. However, based upon my understanding, this confusion is by design. Needing something in 1789 to hold the people of the country together under a strong national government, James Madison, as previously stated, drafted a deliberately weak and ambiguous Second Amendment that delivered a vague gesture of the idea of the importance of state militia. Focused solely on his desire to unite the states under a strong national government, Madison, I suppose, never imagined how his virtually meaningless text would play directly into the current crisis of gun violence in this country nor how future generations would be held hostage to white rural and ex-urban voters, whose votes a major party would fear it would lose were it to support any meaningful firearm restrictions.
Hi, Barbara. One key word in the second half of the second amendment is "the people," which was used by the Founders and Framers to refer to the people as a whole--not a reference to individuals. "The people" have the right to bear arms, not "individuals." Compare the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.
In the Fourth Amendment, it is clear that rights inhere in "persons", "houses" and "effects," not merely in the "the people" as a whole.
Robert, I deeply appreciate the clarification though it confirms that the Heller majority opinion that reads, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right…” was, at best, wrongly decided and, at worst, fraudulent.
Well said, Barbara.
The "Founders" fully expected the Constitution to be a living document to be revisited regularly in order to reflect the realities of the current times. As you say, they could have had no idea that WMDs would be available to kids. The full reading of the 2nd Amendment makes complete sense if you reflect on the times during which it was written.
The 2nd Amendment is so vague that it really just comes down to what judges want to make of it. Which begs the question: "What kind of jurist, what kind of legislator wants a society where it is EASY for mentally ill teenagers to slaughter children, the elderly, folks who are worshiping or shopping? What kind of PERSON wouldn't want to protect us from such horrors?"
This isn't so much about how to turn a phrase or twist a meaning. It is about being safe in a civil society or not. It is about basic morality.
Bill, Presuming Robert, who’s part of this thread, is correct, the wording of the Second Amendment is not as ambiguous as I had understood. If you have a moment, check out his reply.
Yes. He clarifies his interpretation of the use of the word "People". I agree with him. And that should be enough. Not ambiguous to us, perhaps. But our radical maniacal Supreme Court twists the words to serve their corporate masters goals. Money over the lives of little children.
My point is that in the 18th century having guns around was second nature. And kids learned at a very young age to use them for hunting and protection of the family. If anyone could have imagined enormous changes in technology, it might have been Jefferson.
From this article: https://newrepublic.com/article/63773/what-jefferson-said
"The idea of amending constitutions at regular intervals dates back to Thomas Jefferson. In a famous letter, he wrote that we should “provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods.” “[E]ach generation” should have the “solemn opportunity” to update the constitution “every nineteen or twenty years,” thus allowing it to “be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time.”
Thank you, Bill, both for your thoughts and for the link.
I agree with the comments below.
From another angle, had the Founders wished to solely protect the right of individuals own and freely carry guns, the Amendment would have omitted the the predicates of a "well regulated Militia and the "security of a free State" and simply read: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Today's Republicans, who claim to cherish the Constitution, desecrate it just as they desecrate our Democracy.
Andrew, I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph. As for the rest, if you have a moment, check out Robert’s reply to my original comment.
Robert is absolutely correct. The bottom line is that the radical right SC justices intentionally disregard the text and historical meaning behind the text to extrapolate a right that either does not exist or they want to exist.
Andrew, While I believe your assertion is applicable in some instances, as for Scalia, who wrote the 5-4 majority opinion for Heller v. DC, I would submit the ruling was wrongly decided and merits review.
I wholeheartedly agree!
Honestly Robert, you need to be available to more people and be on some version of the nightly news with your clarifications and observations of current events. Perhaps PBS Newshour?
Ha! Thanks, but I would be a terrible t.v. personality. Trust me.
Then could we get you into the mainline print media. It wouldn't take long for all those NYTimes readers to join you. It's the reason I'm here--fled my decades-long Times subscription and here I am with nary a regret.
I love this idea, so I just want to be sure...is this a judgement made by verifiable experts, or simply your own, perhaps overly humble, opinion.? Just asking.....
the republicans claim that the time of a mass shooting is not right to enact legislation about gun matters - that it is too political. Well, when would be a better time? For them it would be when people are not thinking or remembering those events. I say what better time to address these concerns - when the memories of the horrors are fresh in the minds of people. Part of the problem is that even the Media is running scared of the far right attacks and so don't really respond to what is going on. The Supreme Court which claims to want the constitution dealt with literally conveniently disregards the first part of the Second Amendment which addresses a well-regulated militia. Well, just like people do with the Bible- they pick and choose the parts that they agree with. I am 80 yrs old and so am in the twilight of my life and i shudder to think of the future that my children and grandchildren, The fact that so few voted in California just reinforces my concern about the future. Those who vote tend to be the more radical and think more of themselves than the good of us all. I know I seem to lean negative, but no one will be happier and gladly say I was wrong if people get out and vote this November.
The very fact that anybody could make that statement with a straight face Indicates how far gone the jerks are. I had to read your sentence a couple of times to believe it myself and I'd already read it somewhere else. Who says stuff like that? Who even thinks stuff like that. Thank the lord for this newsletter and this comments community.
Happy Birthday Jill. We deeply appreciate you and hope you have a special fabulous day of celebration!
Why, in God's name, is the media continuing to promote a fictional "both-sidesism" and lend ANY credence to the BS Republican narrative? Don't they realize that if Republicans gain control of the government again, it will be the demise of the free press? Look at all the authoritarian countries who suppress journalism and jail the journalists. Yesterday I read an article that the new head of CNN wants to crack down on their reporters/anchors who are now reporting things that he considers "biased". All of these news outlets will turn into propaganda outlets if we lose control of our country. They should, instead, be sounding the alarm and waking people up to the threat.
The new owner of CNN went on Fox News to say that he wants to return CNN to its original model, where "it had real journalists." The fact that he made that comment on Fox News tells you all you need to know about his intentions. See https://thenewamerican.com/cnns-new-owner-could-make-the-outlet-more-conservative/
Oh, dear. Oh, dear.
It’s not often I disagree with you enough to say so, but your comments about the California earthquake are, I believe, fundamentally wrong. You say the only significant fact is low turnout. I see it in a completely different light and suggest it should be viewed alongside Eric Adams in NYC. The Atlantic has a very good article about the situation in SF. It is spot on. The so-called progressives have destroyed the city with their arrogant attitudes that they know what’s best for hard-working families trying to raise families in the Sunset district (for example). Those people want safe streets and parks and public transit, and excellent schools for their children. Most don’t care about gender identity politics or whatever the current woks agenda sponsors. It’s time for local government to do the hard work of making the city work for everyone. Spend more money on police - not yet another program to hire social justice warriors with their degrees in lecturing others.
Hi, Doug. I don't often disagree with you, but I do here. What happened in San Francisco was a San Francisco phenomenon. As Josh Marshall demonstrates in his editors blog this morning (behind a paywall, unfortunately), progressive prosecutors across California did just fine, while incumbent conservative sheriffs (e.g., Villanueva in LA) were forced into runoffs. So, while there may have been an "earthquake" in San Francisco, it is simply wrong to extrapolate that onto all of California. It is just demonstrably wrong to do so, given the results of Tuesday's primaries.
No one disagrees that voters want "safe streets and parks and public transit, and excellent schools for their children," and no Democrat is running on a platform contrary to those goals. Indeed, it is Democrats who are seeking to make the streets safer by controlling guns, while Republicans want everyone to carry a gun without a permit, training, or background check. Which party is striving to meet the goals that you say voters want?
Not sure there is reason to continue, but: The issue isn’t who supports strict gun control. It is who cares about shoplifting, car break-ins, robbery of senior citizens, anti-Asian activities, including the bigotry of the recalled school board and the Lowell High School controversy, smash and grab robberies, true academic excellence, drug needles on the streets, and on and on. Quality of life, some call it. And for the struggling middle class those things matter. READ THE NEW ATLANTIC ARTICLE. I believe I sent it to you. You set up a false dichotomy when you ask who is better on gun control.
I will read the article. All of the problems you mention exist in Fresno, Bakersfield, Visalia, Kern County, Tulare County--cities and counties controlled by Kevin McCarthy, Devin Nunes, and their cronies. The Central Valley is plagued by a heroin epidemic, which has spawned an explosion of thefts, assaults, car jackings, etc. It doesn't feel safe to stop at a gas station in Bakersfield--in the heart of deepest red California.
Do the Republican politicians who control those cities not care about crime? Or is it a problem that is bigger than "progressive" or "conservative" politics? I think it is the latter, but the media is interpreting the results in the primary in California as "Democrats don't care about crime, Republicans do." That is a simplistic explanation that shows the media has no idea what is happening across California as a whole.
This isn’t an argument between the two of us. My point is that the Ds will get killed in the elections if they don’t stop sounding like social justice warriors. They need to convince people that they are every bit as “pro-police” etc as the Rs. You can talk all you want about Bakersfield. What voters in Des Moines, Minneapolis, Richmond, Milwaukee, etc hear is hand-holding and understanding. More money for social justice.
This is why the DNC needs to focus like a laser on messages that appeal to voters in SF’s Sunset district (for example).
Filter GOP comments on gun safety using this algorithm: All that matters to the GOP, is the ability of gun manufacturers to sell guns with no restraints. The GOP is the puppet of gun manufacturers, who funnel money to the GOP through the NRA which uses a camouflage of "Second Amendment" rights. So the proposal of more money for mental health is promoted by GOP because it doesn't affect gun sales, AND they know that the money for mental health will never be appropriated or spent by the states. Remember that the GOP repealed a law that prevented gun purchases by veterans with diagnosed with mental problems. Background checks slow gun sales and might dissuade some gun purchasers, so universal background checks are opposed by GOP (i.e., gun manufacturers). AR-15 rifles have the highest profit margin, so anything that touches AR-15 rifles will be opposed by gun manufacturers. Requiring gun locks and storage of guns in locked cabinets doesn't affect gun sales, BUT it runs afoul of the white supremacists who cling to the myth that they need to be able to quickly grab so they can protect their wives if minority men try to assault them.
Excellent filter!
I've had it with the "news" media. Yesterday I canceled my long running subscription to the New York Times. The Washington Post may be next. I will continue to read some of my favorite Substack writers, The Atlantic and the Guardian. I'm done.
Talking Points Memo, Vox (Millhiser, Stern), and Slate (Lithwick) are worth keeping on your radar. The Guardian and Atlantic are on my list. Jennifer Rubin is on fire. Josh Marshall's editors blog today (behind a paywall) made the same point I made last night, but he included examples of progressive prosecutors who won and conservative sheriffs forced into runoffs. The major media blew it.
I’m with you Nancy. I canceled WaPo in January and NYT is next. Was holding out for… well, I don’t know what. I kept thinking they’d report on the real news. The headlines are only getting more sensational and narrow in focus. IMO they are directly contributing to the destruction of our democracy.
So grateful to Jill’s great work, I continue to understand the world around us through your words, her support, and all the comments.
I could not bear to listen to the hearings yesterday, it’s more than this soul can handle at the moment.
I have a very difficult time reading the testimony. I have not described the worst of it. But I think if members of Congress were forced to visit the scene of a mass shooting, we would ban assault weapons the next day.
I don't think they would ever, under any circumstances, ban assault weapons, Scalise was shot with one while guarded by armed guards and almost died. When he recovered, he doubled down on his insanity over guns everywhere.
Robert, I wish I could agree but I don't think there would be a chance of that happening. They don't care. They obstruct. They are unmoved by the things that move human beings. I don't understand a bit of it but I don't see any evidence to suggest anything else. However, from your lips to god's ears.
Thank you for everything you do, Robert! I appreciate your perspective and your deconstruction of the MSM headlines.
Happy Birthday Jill! We appreciate you, more than you know. Christy
Robert, you may already know about Dan Froomkin and his website Press Watch. If not, check him out as he is concerned as you are about the lack of depth and independence of reporters in the political reporting world today. Heather Cox Richardson mentions him in her column today because Dan's piece today is on how the Jan 6 hearings may be interpreted and conveyed to the public. https://presswatchers.org/2022/06/the-january-6-committee-is-doing-what-the-political-media-failed-to-do-dont-expect-them-to-be-appreciative/
Thanks! I read the article by Dan Froomkin. Excellent analysis, all around. We need to hammer the media whenever it fails to do its job. I will promote Froomkin's article.
On the right to "prevent tyranny of the state," see what our House Rep 21 said, https://statesman-tx-app.newsmemory.com/?publink=14c3734a5_13484e4. Hard to believe we have someone representing us with these beliefs--speaking in the mainstream.