Critical Thinking & A Free Press

Somewhere in my top ten list of idiotic rejoinders is when someone discounts facts simply because said fact appeared in the mainstream press. I have seen information dismissed out of hand only because it appeared in The New York Times or Washington Post. While it would be foolish to uncritically accept everything printed or broadcast in any news source it would be equally, if not more, foolish to do the opposite and decide that everything a given source puts out is false. 

No news source is infallible. Newspapers and broadcast networks make mistakes, they have their own agendas. But since Donald Trump came on the scene it has become unremarkable to brand news that one disagrees with as "fake", and elevate the reporting from outlets that support one's confirmation bias. With the internet facilitating anyone and everyone with wi-fi thinking that they're reporters, it's easy to get lost in the sandstorm of information - but how does anyone decide what sources are trustworthy? 

A key to understanding the trustworthiness of the media is that there is no "The Media", or even "The Mainstream Media". Meaning that media isn't a monolithic entity that marches in lockstep. The various broadcast outlets and newspapers with national reach are competitors, not subsidiaries of the same uber-media. Another important aspect of what we call the mainstream media is that the various outlets are staffed by professionals. Reporters are people who have been trained to look for and disseminate facts. Editors will insist that a reporter has their facts straight and can substantiate them before going to press. This sometimes means that, while rumors are swirling around, and accusations are being bandied about, a national news outlet may be silent about "what everybody knows", while the keyboard warriors and partisan blogs and podcasts are shouting from the rooftops what later turns out to be false. All the while screaming that "the media won't report on this". If I had a choice between a newspaper with a decades-long reputation and track record for accuracy and a neophyte with an axe to grind, I'll take the track record. 

Another thing that confuses many people is the difference between the news and opinion sides of any news organization. "News" is what happened. "Opinion" (or editorial) is why it happened (according to the columnist) with some crystal ball gazing thrown in for good measure. Yes, sometimes they get the facts wrong or jump the gun before all the facts are in, but you would be hard-pressed to find an actual lies, or even major errors in the reporting of the big dogs of mainstream media. Editorial or opinion pieces are another story since they are presenting...opinion.  "Senator 'A' is a disgrace" is opinion. It's subjective and you could argue that Senator 'A'  isn't a disgrace. "Senator 'A' voted for XYZ legislation" would be an example of a fact. Various conclusions can be drawn from that fact, and those conclusions are...opinion. An argument can be made that a news outlet shows bias by spending time identifying problems with one politician while ignoring issues with another. It very well might be bias. Or it might just be that one of them has a lot more problems than the other. Showing bias doesn't mean that the information being presented is wrong, just that the choice of what to publish is a function of what the outlet believes is important. 

The confusion between news and opinion could be attributed to the popularity of the opinion side of Fox News. As much as I dislike Fox News, my dislike stems from the way their opinion shows have served to mild the thinking of much of the right wing in the last decade. Their news reporting is, in my opinion, as accurate and unbiased as anyone else's, but it's hosts like Hannity and Tucker Carlson who get the most attention, while the actual news team is virtually ignored. 

Speaking of bias - no one is free from bias. While a reporter or editor should recognize their own biases and work to minimize them, we as consumers of news should be aware of any bias present in a news organization's reporting and allow for that. I think you'll find that in a reputable news outlet bias manifests itself mainly in (1) The opinion columns and (2) The choice of what stories to cover. We already discussed the opinion pages. One might question why some things are covered and other things ignored, but that doesn't mean that what is covered is false. 

The proliferation of blogs and podcasts has become real competition for where people get their information. But is it information? Or is it just opinion? Are we to believe that Steve Bannon, who worked for Losin' Don and is a full-throated supporter of him, is an unbiased news source? Or any of the other podcasters whose mission seems to be to elevate Trump and get us to believe that President Biden wants to intentionally destroy the country? Should you listen to alternative sources of information? I think you should - and apply the same level of critical thinking you would apply to mainstream media sources. 

The advantage of having a vibrant and independent free press is that they have resources that most ordinary citizens do not. They often have access to political figures and have the time and ability to really "do the research" to determine if our government is telling us the truth. They have access to experts that they can interview in order to compare what the politicians are saying to what the data are saying. A disturbing trend over the last few years has not only been the denigration of the press and its characterization as "enemies of the people", but the habit of barring the press from events and meetings so that there is no independent set of eyes verifying what the government is telling us. 

We have organizations that are staffed with men and women whose mission in life is to shine a light on the shadows in the corners, it's foolishness to reflexively and without thought reject the wealth of information they bring us.  

Endorsements & Primaries

Not too long ago I wrote a post called "Absence of Thought", about how U.S. voters didn't think before choosing their representatives. Another example of lack of thinking in American elections is the importance that we attach to endorsements. 

Many years ago someone with whom I was acquainted told me who he was going to vote for. His choice happened to be leading well ahead of his opponents in the polls. When I asked him why his reply was "I might as well vote for the winner". This person was not the brightest, and was definitely not politically aware, but aren't we doing the same thing when we pay attention to endorsements? The purpose of an endorsement is to induce voters to base their decision, not on who will be best for the job, but on who the endorser thinks is best for the job. Voila! Thinking-free decision making!

Related to this is way our primary/caucus system of choosing the presidential nominees of the major parties works. There are a number of things wrong with it, but first, let's look at the system it replaced:

A major point to remember is that political parties, despite the great influence the two major parties have in providing candidates, are not part of the government, but are private entities. Theoretically a political party can nominate whoever they choose for a government office without first finding out what "the people" want. They can throw their weight behind one candidate over another, like the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is alleged to have done in 2016, they can cancel primaries in some states, like the Republicans did in 2020 and there's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it. In fact, the current system, where the results of primaries and caucuses were binding upon the parties only goes back to 1972. Until then varying methods of choosing nominees have been used. Initially the members of Congress in each party nominated their standard bearer. National conventions soon became the main venue where candidates were chosen by delegates sent by state and local parties. Party "bosses" held outsize power to decide who the candidates would be. After 1901 states began holding primaries, some primaries determined delegates, some locked those delegates into supporting a specific candidate, others were simply preferences that were not binding on the delegates. Starting in 1972 state primaries and caucuses determined who that state's delegates would vote for at the national convention. Of course each state party still set the rules on how delegates would be allocated. Some states were winner-take-all - all delegates went to whoever received a plurality of votes; other allocated delegates on a percentage. Then there are "superdelegates", i.e. elected officials and party leaders, who were not pledged to any candidate. Primaries and caucuses are spread out from January to June, with Iowa traditionally the first caucuses, currently in mid-January, and New Hampshire the first primary in February. 

Most people thought that this system was an improvement over the older methods of nominations, since it was more democratic. And, to a certain extent, it is. Except for the fact that by the time we get to the later primaries most of the hopefuls have dropped out and candidates who might be a voter's first choice are no longer running. It's a vicious circle. Whoever wins (and winning, in a crowded field, might mean a plurality significantly less than fifty percent) in the earliest contests (in states that are hardly representative of the nation as a whole) has perceived momentum. This results in donors reconsidering who they will be financially supporting, and those candidates who face shrinking war chests have to drop out. We have a situation similar to what I described about the influence of endorsements - donors are making decisions, not based on who is the best candidate, but on who other people think is the best candidate. 

The practice that has sprung up in the last few elections to conduct candidate "debates" in the months leading up to the first primary has made matters even worse. To start with, only the candidates whose poll numbers exceed a certain minimum percentage are allowed to be part of the debates. So we start off with candidates without immediate name recognition being kept out of consideration. Mainstream media contributes to this problem as the gatekeeper, deciding who is a serious candidate and who isn't. As the debates go on low-polling candidates are excluded, so we are only presented with "serious" candidates who other people have decided are the best to choose from. I'm sure we've all noticed how polls have become increasingly unreliable as people elect not to participate, or even lie to pollsters. Yet we still act as if polls mean something. These debates have been functioning as unofficial pre-primaries, weeding out an "excess" of choices, so that as the actual primaries and caucuses begin, we are left with the predetermined assumption that former president Trump will be the nominee and that Governor DeSantis and Ambassador Haley are his only viable challengers. All before one vote has been cast. Former Governor Christie, the only candidate who seemed brave enough to admit his error in supporting Trump, and who is possibly one of the few who could reasonably be expected to govern, dropped out. 

What's the solution? (However unlikely to be enacted)

One alternative would be a national primary day. That way, those of us at the end of the schedule get a voice. Anyone who meets the qualifications and fills out the requisite paperwork is on the ballot. Since this is a primary and not a nationwide general election, the Electoral College need not factor in. The total popular vote would determine the winner. What about the very real possibility that no one receives a majority of the vote, which is likely if there are 15-20 candidates in one or both major parties? Ranked choice would be my preference. In ranked choice voting each voter would pick a set number of choices from the candidate list and would rank them in order of preference. For example, let's say you could pick your top five. Once the votes are counted, if no one received a majority of "first choice" votes, then the candidate or candidates with the lowest vote totals are eliminated. The second choice votes for the remaining candidates are then added to the original totals. If there is still no candidate with over 50%, then we repeat the process with the third choice, fourth choice etc. until we have a clear winner. When the dust settles you'll have a nominee who may not be the first choice of the majority, but has some support from a majority of voters. The problem with this is that sometimes the candidate with the most votes, but not a majority, in the first round is not the ultimate winner. This happened in 2020 in Iowa. The caucuses had a setup similar to ranked choice voting and Senator Sanders had the most first round votes, but not a majority, however when the subsequent rounds were tallied up, he was no longer the winner. A second alternative is a national runoff, like Georgia does with its statewide elections. The top two vote getters face off one-on-one in a second election. It's like a playoff, but it's possible that neither of the top two received more than 20% of the votes. 

With the ridiculous debates now over and the first caucus in two days it will be interesting to see how this broken system serves the needs of the Republic.

Politicians

This week I listened to a local politician address the group that I was a part of. He started off by telling us that he wasn't a politician. "Ah", I thought, "starting off with a lie". Anyone who enters the electoral fray is, by definition, a politician. To get elected an office-seeker has to build a base, hustle for contributions, and tell people what they want to hear so that they will vote for him. So, if you're in any elected office higher up the ladder than town council in a small town, you'll have to be a politician. 

A mistake that many people make in evaluating office holders is that they believe that they are required to reflect the will of the people in their policies and positions and vote the way the majority of their constituents would like. Of course going too much against the will of the majority will result in not getting reelected, but there is no real guardrails to ensure that an elected representative will respect the majority's views, or even follow through on any promises made during the election campaign. It may have always been this way, but politicians lately seem to act as if the fact of their election, even if it's by a razor-thin margin, is a mandate to carry out whatever actions they want to. One Nebraska politician characterized his election, which admittedly was by a large margin, as "Nebraskans spoke with one voice". Unless he got 100% of the votes or close to it, Nebraskans spoke with at least two voices, since somebody voted for his opponent.  

The local politician that I listened to this week went on to boast about how much loved Nebraska, but followed that statement up with "I'm the [his title] and I'm going to do what I want". Maybe some folks in the room were shocked or surprised at that, but this politician's penchant for making decisions based on preconceived notions, religious beliefs, and homespun wisdom, rather than evidence and facts, was no surprise He went on to justify a decision that negatively affected many in the group present, not with any real world specifics, but with analogies and perhaps a weird reference to Mother Theresa. 

A true leader would make decisions based on what was best for the people, not force his own ideology on people, not cater to the faction that put him in office. I'm well aware that a leader like that is pretty rare, and that elected officials are going to make decisions that I don't agree with or like for a myriad of reasons. But I expect policies based on thinking, not dreams and hallucinations.

Third Anniversary

On the third anniversary of the attempt to violently overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, here's a post from last month, with a  few additions here and there: 

The January 6th Insurrection - when did it start? Without a doubt it started months before election day as Trump repeatedly alleged that the election would be rigged against him. He insisted that the only way he could lose would be if the election was stolen. He made false claims about the security of mail-in ballots among other things, and spent months priming his followers to be outraged if he lost. 

There's some doubt in my mind about whether Trump really believed what he was saying. Was he dazzled by the usually huge crowds that his rallies attracted, comparing them to Biden's campaigning from his home or appearing at sparsely attended events? Did he believe his own press releases? Was he truly surprised on election night as his early lead slipped away? Of course the phenomenon of early results skewing Republican while the later counted mail-in votes favored Democrats was predictable and was in fact predicted. Many states did not allow for mail-in and absentee ballots to be counted until election day votes had been tallied. Whether or not Trump believed what he was saying is irrelevant. Aside from the fact that what Trump believed about anything didn't always bear any resemblance to reality, there is a process to how we conduct our elections - refusing wholesale to accept the results of a national election is not part of that process.

(It is true that there have been challenges to electoral votes in the past, including by Democrats. The alternate slate of Hawaiian electors in 1960 for example. All of those challenges were pro forma and did not include the sustained attacks on the electoral system that we saw in 2020 and 2021. It is also true that Secretary Clinton, after her 2016 loss, complained about election interference, but did not engage in a sustained effort to reverse the results)

In order to understand how Trump's whining about his "landslide win" being stolen translated into an attack on the U.S. Capitol, you have to understand how Trumpism is indistinguishable from a religious cult. Like the typical follower of a religious cult leader, a Trumpist believes without question anything their leader says, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They excuse every and all wrongdoing by their leader. They ascribe to him qualities that he clearly does not have. He is viewed as a messianic figure. After Trump Myung Moon railed against "The Steal" for two months following the election, culminating in a speech railing against "The Steal" on the day that Congress would be certifying the electoral votes, the literal last chance to overturn the results of the election, with thousands of loyal Trumpists foaming at the mouth, what did he think would happen?

Trump is famous for implying things, suggesting them, rather than coming out and giving orders. It is well known that he avoids putting things in writing. Nowhere in his January 6th speech does he explicitly command (or even ask) his cultists to storm the Capitol or engage in violence in order to get Congress to not certify electoral votes that went to Biden. But Henry II didn't command any of his minions to kill the Archbishop of Canterbury when he said "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", yet his knights understood what he wanted and killed Beckett anyway. The Trumpists in Washington on January 6, 2021 sure believed that he wanted them to "Stop The Steal" by any means possible and believed that they were doing his will when they forced their way into the Capitol. His isolated phrase encouraging them to go to the Capitol "patriotically and peacefully" was clearly at odds with the mood of his followers. It's clear that he wanted to intimidate Congress into decertifying enough Biden votes to ensure his re-election. His tweet and video urging his followers to go home came hours into the attack and even though he told them to "go home in love and peace", he prefaced those words with references to an election "unceremoniously and viciously stripped away". 

Twice recently raw footage from security cameras and police bodycams on January 6th has been released. A limited amount of footage to Tucker Carlson and recently more complete footage released by Speaker of The House Johnson. Trump apologists are focusing on scenes showing Trumpists milling around the Capitol, peacefully interacting with police, and even shots of police holding the door for them as they entered. Trumpist media insists that this "proves" that January 6th was nothing more than a peaceful protest and that those who were inside the Capitol that day were guilty of nothing worse than trespassing. They claim that all those who were convicted and imprisoned are political prisoners. Those scenes of nonviolence are real. They aren't AI creations. They are accurate representations of some of what happened that day. Of course, not all. 

Before looking at actions, let's look at intent.

Everyone who was at Trump's speech that day, even those who did not march to the Capitol or go inside, was there because they believed that the democratically decided election should be overturned. It's clear that at least some in the crowd planed to use violence to achieve their aim, and some intended to track down Vice President Pence or Speaker Pelosi - fortunately Capitol Police were able to evacuate members of Congress to safety. Despite Trump's one line about being "peaceful and patriotic", most of his followers clearly didn't believe he was serious about that part, but that he was serious about "taking back our country" - and fighting to do it. They intended whether by violence or simple persuasion, to convince Congress to overturn an election. Several of those who were arrested testified that they believed that they were carrying out Trump's will in attacking and invading the capitol. 

Once they arrived at the Capitol grounds the violence began. The overran the barricades, attacking the  police officers manning them. They broke windows and doors to get into the Capitol itself, attacking more police officers who tried to keep them out. While there has been no evidence that any of them had firearms, many used flagpoles, truncheons and weapons taken from the police to batter their way in. There is video footage of all of this. Enough that hundreds of participants have been arrested, charged and convicted of various crimes. How to explain the apparent difference between the battle outside and the quiet inside? The apologists' stories have changed multiple times. It wasn't really Trump supporters, it was Antifa. Or it was the FBI. Or the ones inside were a different group than the ones outside. Or there were FBI or Antifa agents provocateurs riling people up. Or the whole thing was an FBI false flag "to take Trump down". 

Is it really that complicated? 

No, it's not.

Without a doubt the Trumpist mob was ready to do something, but they had no direction. Their cult leader, Trump, went back to The White House despite promising to march with them. Trump's legal strategy was disjointed and directionless, and his goals for January 6th were no less so. Some of his allies in Congress would challenge electoral votes in "blue" states, but that was about it. Trump got them excited about "taking back their country", but was vague about what that would entail, so they used their imaginations and envisioned themselves as uber-patriots. They knew that they had to get to the Capitol, so they crashed their way through the outer barricades. Some of them fought their way into the Capitol itself. The National Guard, which had been on hand during Black Lives Matter protests, was nowhere to be seen, so the police were outnumbered and overwhelmed. Once the mob got in, what did they do? Some of them engaged in petty theft and vandalism. Some of them went searching for members of Congress, but they and Vice President Pence had been successful evacuated. So what did they do? They meandered aimlessly through the halls of Congress, taking selfies. Why? Because they had no Plan B and their leader was nowhere to be found. 

The newly released video changes nothing. A mob invaded the Capitol while Congress was doing duty to certify the electoral votes, itself a largely symbolic, procedural, action. The election was over and their guy lost, but they couldn't accept it, because their cult leader wouldn't accept it. They had a vague goal that was not tied to an actual plan, and they were thwarted because what plan they did have was unrealistic; based on a fantasy of how things really were done. They foolishly listed to their false messiah and got crucified. 

The gaslighting and falsehoods continue three years after that fateful day. I was under the impression that there was no specific law prohibiting "insurrection". There is, however, 18 US Code § 2383, which sets the penalties for rebellion or insurrection. Most of the long sentences from January 6 were not for insurrection, but for "seditious conspiracy". Insurrection apologists love to point out that no one has been charged specifically with insurrection. The term "insurrection", however, was latched upon by the media, social media and various commentators quickly following the attack and stuck. I don't know why they think seditious conspiracy is better somehow than insurrection. 18 US Code § 2384 & 2385 defines seditious conspiracy as advocating the overthrow of the government, which when you include Trump, is exactly what these bastards did. 

The "Stop the Steal" movement was based on lies, built on lies and continues to thrive on lies. 

Retribution, Revenge and Retaliation

Since Hunter Biden isn't running for office I have refrained from commenting about his legal troubles and how the Trumpublicans have attempted to use his problems to smear the President. 

Before I get into Hunter's legal issues, past drug use and accusations of corruption, let's take a minute to look at his qualifications. It's been suggested that he was unqualified for any of the board positions that he held and only offered employment because he was the son of Joe Biden. Actual qualifications of lack of them aside, does anyone really believe that Hunter Biden is the first child of a prominent politician to be offered a lucrative job? Of course there was an expectation that he would take advantage of his proximity to power to express his opinions to his father. There's nothing illegal or unethical about that. People in all manner of businesses make use of their relationships to lobby those who have the means to make their life easier. Is there an expectation that politicians live in a bubble and not talk to any of their friends and relatives? But was Hunter Biden's only qualification that he was Joe Biden's son? He was a graduate of Harvard, so he received a top-notch education. Those of us who make a living producing something tangible tend to suspect that those who's business is more opaque aren't really working, and that there's something shady involved. Hunter's first job after graduating from Harvard was as a consultant to MBNA Bank and eventually rose to the rank of Executive Vice President. What was a typical day like for someone in those positions? I have no idea, but there's thousands of people with similar titles and they can't all be sitting back with their feet up on their desks sipping martinis. After leaving MBNA he served in the Commerce Department focusing on ecommerce policy in the Clinton administration. President George W. Bush appointed him to the Amtrack board. He founded a lobbying firm and served on the board of World Food USA, a charity that supported United Nations food sustainability efforts. He created investment and advisory firms, including a company devoted to advising companies on how to escaped their business into foreign markets. Around 15 years ago he began serving on various boards of foreign based companies. He joined the board of the Ukrainian firm Burisma in 2014 (more on that later). Hunter Biden started or was part of many successful companies; the suggestion that the millions of dollars that he earned was necessarily due to corruption is based on wishful thinking on the part of those who wish to undermine his father. 

Hunter Biden made a very convenient target. He is a recovering from a drug addiction which was fueled by the generous salary he received for his many successful ventures. This made it easier for those who opposed President Biden to believe that there couldn't possibly be anything legitimate about his businesses and therefore there must be corruption involved. When the contents of his laptop were leaked they showed a video record of much of his debauchery. Republican House members delighted in showing images in committee hearings. But all any of this proves is that Hunter Biden was a successful businessman who made terrible choices in his personal life. 

Hunter Biden first became widely known due to Donald Trump's attempt to undermine Joe Biden's presumed presidential run by alleging that then Vice President Biden pushed to have Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin fired to protect his son, who was on the board of Burisma, a company that Shokin was supposedly investigating. The problem with Trump's narrative was that Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma and that Biden's pressure to have Shokin removed was President Obama's decision and was supported by the European Union leadership. Burisma's executives, far from relieved to have Shokin gone, were worried that whoever the new prosecutor was would dig into their affairs. Trump and his supporters claimed that Hunter was on the board of Burisma for no other reason than to influence Joe Biden to get Shokin fired, while he was actually hired to assist Burisma with creating corporate governance best practices. All of this came to a head in 2019 as Trump attempted to strong arm Ukrainian President Zelenskyy into opening an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma in exchange for military aid. Trump was impeached for this. 

Much has been made of the several dozen "shell companies" that members of the Biden family (mainly Hunter and Joe's brother James) utilized in their various businesses. The term "shell company" sounds devious somehow, and it's meant to. Another, more accurate, term is "Limited Liability Company", or "LLC". An LLC can be owned by a single owner, multiple owners, a partnership, or another LLC. They are sometimes referred to as "flow-through entities", i.e. the profit or loss "flows through" to the owners. There is nothing nefarious about someone's income moving through multiple LLCs. Sometimes different aspects of a business need to be kept separate for legal or accounting reasons; there may be tax benefits; one LLC may have a different set of owners than another. It's a common business practice - in my job at The State Department of Revenue I see it all the time. The Republicans are painting a perfectly ordinary business practice as prima facie evidence of corruption. 

Presidential candidate Trump has made no secret of his intention to turn a second Trump term as a vehicle for retribution, revenge and retaliation. The recent announcement that the House of Representatives has opened an impeachment inquiry is nothing more than that. Trump was impeached, therefore Biden must be impeached. The difference between the two is that despite suspicions of corruption all through Trump's term, no action was taken to impeach Trump until something solid and undeniable came to light. The extorting phone call to Zelenskyy wasn't alleged, it wasn't suspected, it was real: Trump himself released the transcript. The question was not whether the threats had occurred, but whether the threat was sufficient grounds to impeach. The committee investigations and now the impeachment inquiry are nothing but fishing expeditions. They are starting from the conclusion that President Biden was and is corrupt and are interpreting every dollar in the bank as evidence of that imaginary corruption. 

The Tinfoil Hat Caucus in The House is using what it perceived as a weak link, President Biden's son Hunter, in order to take the president down. But the "weak link" isn't playing along. Hunter, remembering how the Republicans misrepresented (okay, lied about) the testimony of his former partner Devon Archer when he testified behind closed doors, is refusing to testify unless it's public. He is fighting back and not allowing them to control the narrative. He is being charged with felonies that for anyone else would be slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanors - to get to the president. His not-so-squeaky-clean past his being put on display - to get to the president. 

Retribution, revenge and retaliation. The Republican legislative agenda.

Breaking the Idols - Iowa Style

Surely the story about the religious extremist vandalizing a Satanic Temple display in Iowa State Capitol has not escaped your notice. Iowa, like Nebraska, allows groups to apply for space to put up displays in the public area of the State House. I don't know all of the requirements, but, in accordance with First Amendment principles, Iowa does not exclude displays by religious groups that the majority may disapprove of. There's a school of thought that a government building should have no religious displays in it, but some jurisdictions have compromised and allowed any and all religions to apply for display space. That's where the Satanists come in.

There's an old joke that asks "What do you call a person who believes in (a literal) Satan?" - the answer? "A Christian". Satan is a figure from the sacred books of the Abrahamic religions. He appears by name in the Book of Job, is equated with "The Devil" of the gospels and epistles, and is known as Shaitan in the Quran. The various groups known as Satanists, despite what Christians may think, don't worship, believe in, honor, or otherwise acknowledge the existence of a literal Satan. The Satanic Temple, the group that put up the display in Iowa can be described as a humanist religion. They have "Seven Principles" - the first is "One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason." The other six can be found here on their website. Looked at dispassionately, they sound pretty good! "Satanic" (as well as atheist) groups have often petitioned state and local governments to have their statues or other displays erected alongside Christian displays in order to counter placement of religious imagery. The most well-known of the proposed retorts to government sponsored religion was the Oklahoma Baphomet Statue. Oklahoma had placed a sculpture of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the State Capitol. There were legal challenges based on the First Amendment's establishment clause. Among the challenges was an application by The Satanic Temple to place a 9-foot tall statue of Baphomet next to the Ten Commandments. Eventually the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that no religious statues could be placed on government property and the Ten Commandments monument was moved and the Baphomet statue found another home. 

What The Satanist Temple and similar groups around the country aim to accomplish is not to promote Satanism in public spaces, but to stop the exclusive promotion of Christianity in those same spaces. The thinking is that if government is going to ignore the First Amendment, let's force them to ignore it in favor of all religions - the unpopular ones being most effective at making the point. While some jurisdictions have gone the inclusive route, others have eliminated all religious displays, as well as religious prayers. That's the point. 

The background to the Iowa vandalism isn't any different than similar situations. Iowa allows groups, including religious ones, to apply for display space for a limited time. Around this time of year there is usually a nativity scene. The Satanic Temple applied for, and received approval to place their display in the Capitol. Before the actual destruction of the display, social media was abuzz with complaints about it. Most of these complaints appeared to be ignorant of the fact that the Satanic Temple display was a response to the presence of Christian displays, which had been there every holiday season for several years; the complainers angrily demanding that nativity displays be erected to counter this Devil worship (as they put it) even though they had been. It was characterized as offensive and blasphemous - which was the point. 

Fast forward to Michael Cassidy, a failed state legislative candidate from Mississippi, who traveled to Des Moines in some kind of Old Testament idol-smashing fantasy in order to destroy what he considered a blasphemous image. What's disturbing about this isn't that someone vandalized a temporary display. People break stuff all the time. It's how mainstream the vandal is and how much cheerleading he is receiving from the ranks of Christians. 

Cassidy's initial statement was that his destruction of property was a "peaceful protest". This isn't simply a lack of awareness of his actions, but a deliberate statement. During the BLM protests of 2020, it has been documented that the vast majority of protests did not include violence or property damage. The small percentage that did received recurring coverage in the media and the reproach of right wingers. MAGA oriented commenters would juxtapose an image of rioters looting and burning with the caption "peaceful protest", mocking the protesters' perceived hypocrisy. Apologists for the January 6th insurrection began calling it a peaceful protest. (Sometimes to suggest that no violence actually occurred, other times to point out that they were no worse than BLM protesters 6 months earlier). Trump would call campaign rallies that flouted Covid restrictions as "peaceful protests", playing to his supporters' belief that BLM protests were sanctioned despite the pandemic. Calling destruction of property a "peaceful protest" is clearly a "F You" to anyone who might view his actions in a negative light. 

Cassidy's action itself is not an attack on the First Amendment. It's simply an act of vandalism that is apparently being dealt within the Iowa legal system. He was charged with fourth degree criminal mischief, which could result in a sentence of one year and a fine of $2,560. If he's a first offender I doubt he'll see jail time. He should be treated just like anyone else who has done similar things. The people who defaced Confederate statues faced similar charges, as did the man who used his car to destroy the Ten Commandments monument in Oklahoma a few years ago. Cassidy got his 15 minutes of fame. He's this year's Kyle Rittenhouse without going through the trouble of shooting people. No, what is disturbing is the response. 

Social media isn't the real world, but in many ways it's a reflection of it. In the run up to the 2016 election I saw many posts by rabid Trump supporters, as well as cheerleaders for people like Cliven Bundy. I dismissed a lot of these posts as not representative of the nation as a whole. But after seeing how Trump received more than enough votes to be elected in 2016 and how his brand of the politics of hate reflected in local politics as well as national, I realized that social media is a reliable barometer of how people are thinking in this country. Social media has been full of comments by people who believe that Cassidy was justified in his actions. Their rationale is what's scary, and that there are enough right wing politicians and judges who agree that's scarier. 

Christians have every right to the opinion that Satan is the evil antagonist against God. They even have the right to ignorantly believe that organized Satanism isn't about worshipping a literal Satan. Or that their religion, or their version of their religion is the only true one. What they don't have the right to do is insist that our laws and practices conform to their opinions and beliefs. The initial outcry against the Satanist display in Iowa was ignorant on several counts. It was ignorant of the fact that it was a response to previous and current religious displays, and it was ignorant of what The Temple of Satan really was. After Cassidy's vandalism the justification for his action was mainly based on a misapprehension that The Bible was the governing document of the United States, not the Constitution. A recurring theme was that Satanism either wasn't a "real" religion and should be "allowed" to call itself a religion. This was often based on the mistaken belief by people who understood that Satanism was actually a Humanist organization that a religion must have a god or other supernatural component. Those who thought The Satanic Temple were literal Satan worshippers were of the opinion that Satanism shouldn't be recognized as a "real" religion because "Satan is evil". Others pointed at "liberalism" for promoting evil. All those in support (to be fair, there were a lot of rebuttals and denouncements of Cassidy's actions too) had one thing in common: they believed strongly that they could determine whether a religion was legitimate and even when it was "evil". If that part wasn't bad enough, they further believed that the government should be an arbiter of what is a legitimate religion. Confronted by the clear constitutional stance that the government could do no such thing, they were unmoved, doubling down that the First Amendment didn't apply to what they considered evil. 

If this were just a bunch of amateur constitutional "scholars" I'd be less concerned. But Republican politicians have been more willing lately to push a strictly Christian agenda, and the Supreme Court has been more willing to allow things like public prayer at government sponsored events. Members of Congress have been open about wanting to return the country to overt de jure Christian dominance. A Congresswoman recently declared herself a Christian Nationalist (no, a Christian Nationalist isn't simply a patriot who happens to be a Christian). Like the argument that I made the other day about there being no compromise with abortion opponents because they have no intention of stopping short of a full, no exceptions ban, Christian Nationalists have no intention of compromising on their goal of turning us into a theocracy. A few politicians have weighed in with support for Cassidy, notably Governor DeSantis of Florida, but I'm sure that others will come out of the woodwork. Seeing enough ground level support, "destroying the idols" will be the next campaign slogan. (Look for it to take up some time in the Nebraska legislature's next session - I hope I'm joking)

When they tell you what they're going to do - believe them.

There is No Compromise

 As the situation in Texas should make clear to anyone with at least enough brain matter to tip a postal scale, abortion opponents are not interested in any sort of compromise. The draconian restrictions passed in a number of states all have medical exceptions - broadly to protect the life of the mother. Texas at least has made clear that in reality there are no exceptions. Texas is so serious about banning abortion that a number of jurisdictions are criminalizing the use of state roads to leave Texas for the purpose of getting an abortion. Private citizens, even those who have no connection to the woman seeking an abortion, can sue anyone who assists a woman in securing an abortion. Even when a court granted a woman the permission to get an abortion, and specifically immunized her doctor from prosecution, the Texas Attorney General announced that he would go after any hospital where the abortion took place. The Texas Supreme Court subsequently overruled the judge and the woman had to flee the state. Nowhere in the sanctimonious posturing was there any acknowledgement that the fetus has close to a zero chance of surviving, and that the life and even the future ability of the woman to have children was at stake. No, the focus, over and above all else, was that the fetus must be born. 

And that's the heart and soul of the matter. The die-hard anti-abortionists believe (or at least say that they believe), that abortion is murder. That the fetus, from the moment of conception, is a human being, with all the rights attendant with that status. If they believe that abortion is actually murder, why would be even consider that they would in the long run consider anything short of a total ban, with no exceptions? Look at something that seems reasonable, an exception if the life of the mother is in peril. To them, they are being asked to actively kill one human being (the fetus) in order to save the life of another human being (the mother). They see allowing the pregnancy to proceed doesn't necessarily kill the mother (at least not actively), and they leave it up to God. 

And there it is. Religion.

Whether you think abortion is the ending of a fully functional human life or not is an opinion, and the anti-abortion opinions are mostly informed by religion. 

Let me digress for a moment and talk about "the science". Religious people often attempt to bolster their religious views by appeals to science. Not content to be guided by their faith, they have to "prove" that it's "right". I have been told by anti-abortionists that "science" has concluded that a fetus is alive. I don't think anyone is claiming that a fetus isn't alive. But the question is: "in what sense is it alive?". But the question that cannot be answered by anyone, including scientists, is at what point does an embryo become a human being? At conception? That bundle of cells should be considered to have all the rights of a human being? That point is necessarily a matter of opinion. Science can't help us. 

The consensus, even among the pro-choice, is that if a fetus can live outside the womb, then it is a person, and even under Roe vs. Wade, few abortions took place after 20 weeks, and even fewer after 24. 

The funny thing about religious opinion is that it's not the opinion of every religious person or every religion. It's the position of a strict segment of Christianity, including Catholics, Fundamentalists, and Evangelicals. Even within Christianity, there is no mention of abortion in the Christian part of the Bible (aka The New Testament). However, Christians also base their religion on the Torah and the Prophets (which the Christians call The Old Testament)  and it is very clear that, although abortion is not specifically mentioned, the penalty for killing a person is death, while the penalty for killing a fetus is a fine. Obviously the God of the Old Testament did not consider a fetus a person. People today who oppose abortion because they think God is opposed to it, haven't read their own holy book. 

I'm not opposed to people who think abortion is killing a person. They have every right to hold that opinion. They should seek to persuade people to see things their way (maybe by knocking on doors.). They should make alternatives to abortion available. But no matter how deeply held their religious opinions are, no one who doesn't share those beliefs should be compelled to adhere to those beliefs. And that's what's happening. They're attempting to convince us that it's what "the people" want. But even in a conservative state like Nebraska, at best those want to ban abortion are a little less than 50% of the population. When Roe vs. Wade was struck down the anti-abortion talking point was that it should be up to a vote of the people, but states with gerrymandered Republican legislative majorities ignored the opinion of a majority of their people, and even when referendums affirmed the retention of abortion rights, the minority-in-power attempted to circumvent the clearly stated will of the majority. National politicians abandoned their earlier commitment to "let the states decide" and started talking about a national ban. 

And if you think the religious zealots will not impose more of their religious beliefs if they get the chance, or that they are aiming for nothing less than a total, no exceptions abortion ban, you have not paid attention to the words from their own mouths.