Have the TV networks been showing Ron DeSantis?

A reader comment on What would it cost to retreat from Tampa to Orlando as Hurricane Ian appraoches?:

It’s amusing to watch the media’s approach to the hurricane and Ron DeSantis. They pretty much have to put him on TV, discussing plans to evacuate, etc. But the contrast with this young, vibrant, competent governor speaking extemporaneously versus the decrepit old fossil in Washington squinting his eyes to read what somebody else put on the teleprompter must be driving them nuts.

Assuming that DeSantis is continuing to demonstrate competence and organization, the best way for the media to support Democrats would be to ignore him. This would be the flip side of featuring Andrew Cuomo during coronapanic so much that he won an Emmy and the hearts of Americans identifying as female (see “Hot for governor! Women confess they are developing ‘MAJOR crushes’ on Andrew Cuomo” and remember that, due to his masterful management of the virus, New York State had only 367 COVID-tagged deaths per 100,000, while Sweden’s radical “give the finger to the virus” policy resulted in a horrific 1,849 deaths (per million)).

At this point it is unclear that Ron DeSantis will be doing a lot of briefings. Maybe he is going to be busy managing the statewide response instead of getting in front of cameras. But if the DeSantis twitter feed fills up with briefings that aren’t shown on CNN, can we infer that CNN has its thumb on the scale?

Here’s this morning’s briefing:

Let’s compare to a recent press conference from Joe Biden:

Who wants to compare the two for cognitive function and apparent competence to manage? No fair if you’re a passionate Democrat or Republican! Maybe we should let the European readers judge.

How about the Democrat running to liberate Floridians from the hated tyrant? Here’s his Twitter profile this morning:

Without scrolling, it is all about fascism and abortion care, neither of which is going to de-flood Fort Myers and Naples.

Full post, including comments

Democrats love elderly white guys, Florida edition

Florida held a primary election yesterday. Democrats overwhelming chose Charlie Crist, an elderly white man, as their candidate to challenge Ron DeSantis. The 66-year-old won by 60:35 (CNN) over the 44-year-old Nikki Fried. (Voting was suppressed by Florida’s ID check requirement, yet CNN reports that millions of Floridians managed to vote anyway.)

DeSantis desperately needs to win in November, simply to keep his family housed. He had a net worth of $319,000 at the end of 2021 (law.com), not enough to buy a 1BR condo in a decent neighborhood thanks to Florida Realtor of the Year 2020 Andrew Cuomo and Florida Realtor of the Year 2021 Charlie Baker (of Maskachusetts).

As with other Democrats, Nikki Fried says that Republicans are “a danger to democracy”. Now that the Democrats control both the White House and Congress and talk about “treason,” “insurrection,” and “democracy in peril,” why don’t they imprison and/or execute Republicans in order to save our fragile democracy? A couple of examples:

“Donald Trump is the greatest threat to our national security, but Ron DeSantis is the greatest threat to democracy.” A person who lacks even the power to collect income tax is the greatest threat to American democracy, in other words (most taxing power in Florida belongs to the counties).

If Democrats believe what they’re saying, why don’t they take real action to eliminate Republicans from the United States? If they don’t believe what they’re saying, why are they saying these things?

We know that she was against Ron DeSantis and his plan to end American democracy. What was Nikki Fried actually for? Abortion care and marriage for members of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community:

CNN agrees that the most important question facing Florida voters is whether abortion care should be limited to 15 weeks into a pregnant person’s pregnancy (3 weeks more than in most European countries) or if abortion care should be available as part of reproductive health care at 34 weeks, as is legal in Maskachusetts (the law) or Colorado (Wikipedia).

(It’s the “abortion fight” and not the “abortion care fight”? Where are the copy editors at CNN?)

How about the old white guy who won? He promises “reproductive freedom” and is endorsed by Planned Parenthood, the world’s largest provider of pregnancy-ending reproductive health care (abortion care to more than 300,000 pregnant people every year):

Charlie Crist also promises to consider a state-wide governor-ordered mask mandate (source). This is against the spirit of Florida law, passed by the legislature and signed by Governor DeSantis, but maybe not against the letter of the law since it could be a state-level order instead of one imposed by counties or school districts.

The Feds had to force companies to hire those over 40 but even this law allowed putting anyone over 65 out to pasture if important decisions were being made in that position. Given how much prejudice there is against hiring old people for regular jobs, I am mystified by American voter behavior in favor of the elderly for seemingly much more important jobs (state governor, President of the US, etc.).

Who wants to forecast the Crist v. DeSantis result in November? It was 49.6:49.2 for Ron D. back in 2018, but Democrats were a majority of Florida’s registered voters then. If we go by simple party registration (source) DeSantis wins by 51:49. However, my bet is that DeSantis gets a boost of 2 points from young people who don’t want to be locked down and/or ordered to wear masks the next time a respiratory virus appears. And then he gets another 3-point boost from parents of K-12-age students who don’t want to see public schools (a.k.a. “free daycare”) shut down. So that would be a 56:44 victory for DeSantis. It is rare for Floridians to say much about politics beyond Palm Beach County, but the most common expression that I have heard is gratitude to Ron DeSantis for keeping schools open and preventing local Covidcrats from imposing their Science-guided will regarding masks, vaccine papers checks, lockdowns, etc. The second most common expression is from older Democrats who are transplants from the Lands of Science, cursing DeSantis for failing to follow Science. So the 2018-2022 result spread will be an interesting referendum on the voter-perceived appropriate level of coronapanic!


  • “Most DeSantis-endorsed school board candidates win their Florida primaries” (Politico): “The majority of local school board candidates backed by Gov. Ron DeSantis — at least 21 out of 30 — won their elections Tuesday, results that underscore how the Republican governor’s stance on education has gained support throughout Florida. … DeSantis-backed candidates also scored big wins in Miami-Dade County, another school board that went against Republicans on masking students. In one race, Monica Colucci, an educator with GOP support, defeated Marta Perez, a 24-year school board member despite raising about $70,000 less than her opponent.”
Full post, including comments

Liz Cheney gives the finger to her constituents

The elite-born Liz Cheney purportedly represents the interests of voters in Wyoming. Back in July, she stated that investigating the January 6 insurrection might be “the most important thing I ever do” and, therefore, was presumably devoting maximum effort to this project.

Her non-elite constituents, however, by voting her out of office (66% to 29%! the elites are surely sorry that they neglected to take away the Deplorables’ right to vote!), have now told her that this is not something that they want her to do. What’s the former VP daughter’s response? “‘Now the real work begins’: Liz Cheney lost her election but vows to dig deeper into the Jan. 6 mission.” (NYT, August 17).

Ms. Cheney vowed to use her post on the House committee investigating Jan. 6 to continue prosecuting the public case against former President Donald J. Trump.

“This primary election is over,” she told her supporters Tuesday night. “But now the real work begins.”

Ms. Cheney, a Republican who is vice chair of the committee, quickly converted her campaign committee into a leadership political action committee called the Great Task, a sign that she plans to take her fight against Mr. Trump to new levels. But she also plans to dig deeper into her mission with the Jan. 6 committee, which could continue its work until the end of the year.

Also from Pravda, “After Loss, Cheney Begins Difficult Mission of Thwarting Trump”:

Liz Cheney is clear about her goal, but the path is murky: A presidential run is possible, she acknowledged, and she has a new political outfit aimed at the former president and his 2020 election lies.

Hours after her landslide loss, Representative Liz Cheney wasted no time Wednesday taking her first steps toward what she says is now her singular goal: blocking Donald J. Trump from returning to power.

The person who represents the voters of Wyoming has a “singular goal” that is actually at odds with what those voters want?

Ms. Cheney announced that her newly rebranded political organization, the Great Task, would be dedicated to mobilizing opposition to Mr. Trump.

(What if Trump gets killed by COVID-19 next week? Liz Cheney will have to disband the Great Task because it will be #MissionAccomplished?)

Is this a breakdown of representative government? It is almost as though a politician from Massachusetts were to say “lockdowns, school closures, vaccine papers checks, and forced masking are bad ideas when faced with an aerosol respiratory virus that has the ability to evolve” or “smoking marijuana daily might not be good for your health.”

Also, considering the 66%/29% defeat, has an incumbent ever lost by this kind of margin (37 points) before? For reference, AOC, the Democrats’ thought leader, beat an incumbent by 57%/43% (14 points) in 2018.


  • Recently celebrated by Progressives, Liz Cheney’s high position was condemned as an example of nepotism by Nobel laurate Paul Krugman in the New York Times: “The Sons Also Rise” (2002). “America, we all know, is the land of opportunity. Your success in life depends on your ability and drive, not on who your father was. … Talk to Elizabeth Cheney, who holds a specially created State Department job, or her husband, chief counsel of the Office of Management and Budget.”
  • “Liz Cheney’s biggest donors come from Texas and California” (Washington Examiner): “Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) far outraised her primary opponent … Cheney raised over $15 million in her reelection bid, with nearly $1 million coming from Texas and another $1.4 million from California, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission. That makes the two states her highest contributors, raising only $386,000 from donors in Wyoming. … Comparatively, Hageman raised $940,000 from Wyoming residents.”
Full post, including comments

If the working class has to pay for our Teslas, shouldn’t they also have to pay for our fuel-efficient private aircraft?

“Tesla, GM buyers would get EV tax credits again under Democrats’ climate bill” (CNN, yesterday):

Under a new green energy bill agreed to by Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer and Joe Manchin, automakers like Tesla and General Motors would regain the ability to offer federal tax credits to customers who buy their electric vehicles.

Under current regulations, buyers of electric vehicles get a $7,500 tax credit when purchasing an electric vehicle, but that full credit is limited to the first 200,000 electric vehicles sold by any given manufacturer.

In other words, the working class will once again be paying for the laptop class’s Teslas. The person who commutes 2 hours per day in a 10-year-old Camry will pay $7,500 towards the brand new luxury vehicle whose owner can pretend to work from home indefinitely.

The law fits perfectly into the American system of transferism, in which government’s main role is moving money from one group of voters to another. But I wonder if it could be enhanced. Here at Oshkosh, for example, there are a lot of new private jets displayed. Like electric cars, these can be characterized as more energy efficient than older airplanes. Here’s a single-engine Cirrus Vision Jet, for example:

Every time the start button is pressed, Mother Earth breathes a sigh of relief that an older two-engine jet wasn’t spun up. Shouldn’t the working class have to pay for part of each Vision Jet?

Separately, a trip to the nearby branch of the University of Wisconsin showed the value of the college educations that, via student loan “forgiveness” (transfer to taxpayers), are now being paid for by the working class. I think the idea is that people who do real jobs will benefit indirectly from the presence of the hypertrophied brains that American universities are producing. Here’s a sign from the cafeteria that serves the young geniuses who are being funded by those who clean pools, cut lawns, crawl into attics to service air handlers, etc. It reminds those who have soaked up hundreds of $thousands in education that pecan pie contains nuts:


  • “Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers” (Politico 2016), in which a Harvard professor explains, “The total wealth redistribution from the native losers [working class] to the native winners [laptop class] is enormous, roughly a half-trillion dollars a year.” (adjusted for inflation, the indirect wealth transfer accomplished via low-skill immigration is probably at least $700 billion per year)
Full post, including comments

How did Florida become so Republican?

At a family wedding recently, a cousin-by-marriage, on hearing that we had moved from a State of Virtue (Massachusetts) to a State of Deplorability angrily responded that he hoped we enjoyed living in a “fascist state”. (He is a retired vice president of NPR who used a massive inheritance to settle in an all-white suburb of D.C.)

A younger guy from New Jersey, without expressing any strong personal political beliefs, simply wondered aloud “How did Florida become so Republican?”

Another relative’s experience may provide the answer. He’s a 60-year-old ob-gyn physician who has carefully followed every aspect of Democrat dogma since childhood. The idea of agreeing on any political point with a Republican fills him with horror and he has always chosen to live in Blue states. Yet now he finds himself excommunicated from the Church of Righteousness because he holds the heretical belief that teenagers should not be provided with gender reassignment surgery.

I think that “Dr. Blue”‘s experience might explain what is happening on a broader scale in Florida. The Democrats nationwide have evolved faster than the Floridians who used to vote for Democrats, thus leaving behind Floridians who continue to agree with the Dogma According to Bill Clinton as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. Consider that Bill Clinton’s economic policy reads a lot like today’s Republican stated policy, including cutting taxes on small business (though Republicans in practice, of course, are happy to cooperate with Democrats on massive deficit spending). Bill Clinton never proposed that student loan debt for college graduates be transferred onto the backs of working class Americans who never went to college. Bill Clinton never used the phrase “Latinx”. Bill Clinton never tried to force Americans to accept injection with an experimental drug.

At a local restaurant recently…

Full post, including comments

Is it now time for the Bloomberg Abortion Bus fleet?

From 2020: Why can’t Michael Bloomberg run a fleet of abortion buses?

The Supreme Court has said that abortion is a matter for state legislatures to decide, just as states decide on most issues, including medical licensing and practice, and just as states did for the first two post-rebellion centuries of the U.S:

After making it to the 198th trimester, Roe V. Wade has been aborted. Conceived all the way back on January 22, 1973, Roe V. Wade has been struck down after a decision was passed down today by the Supreme Court.

6 out of the 9 Justices decided to terminate the longstanding federal law. According to Doctors who performed the procedure, “Roe V Wade did not feel a thing as it was ripped apart word by word, syllable from syllable as it was fed through the paper shredder.” … At publishing time, Planned Parenthood had acquired the shredded remains of the precious document and was reportedly selling the scraps for money.

From my Facebook feed:

from Los Angeles, a woman well past her childbearing years: channelling rage and wondering what rights will get trampled next?

from Maskachusetts, a woman who could possibly have had a baby in the 1980s (but did not): I truly never thought I’d see this day. 😢 It’s probably the beginning of the end!

from Virginia, a guy whose Facebook profile picture shows him with some kids around age 10: I don’t often get angry. But I’m angry today. I don’t post about politically-charged issues, but I am today. And I don’t want to hear from anyone about how taking away reproductive rights from women is a pro-life move. It should not be a partisan issue, but thanks to the Nixon administration, it became that way and remains so to this day. Men, if you want to keep your guns, you better get your head straight about protecting women’s reproductive rights or you’re going to lose your guns through the same methods that Texas is using to take rights away from women.

a retirement-age Jewish man in Maskachusetts: The tragedy of the Trump Supreme Court will infect this country for generations. There is an unholy alliance between the extremely wealthy and powerful with the far right religious freaks and white nationalists. The rich get to pay no taxes and control all branches of government. The others get all the guns they want, abortion outlawed, and to feel good about hating whatever group they love to hate. The country will keep sinking into anti-education, anti-science, anti-truth muck.

a big law firm partner in Los Angeles (identifies as a male?): The new Civil War has begun.

from a self-described TERF in Seattle (the only one in the group who is biologically capable of incubating a baby): Wild to me that we’re entering a period that’s going to be not unlike the collapse of slavery, where slave-holding states set against free states in insane ways. Obviously thousands of women now in red states are going to be travelling out of state to get abortions, and there’s going to be states pitted against each other to either assist these women or prevent them from leaving/accessing abortion.

I wonder if we’re getting into a situation like Californians and the unhoused. Californians are rich and they say that they’ll do absolutely anything to provide housing for the unhoused (not “homes for the homeless”!) except there is one little thing that they won’t do… build and provide housing. Californians who call themselves social justice advocates will buy new Teslas, indulge in $250,000 kitchen renovations, and splurge on European vacations instead of funding apartment construction. Similarly, advocates of unlimited abortions are generally elite and wealthy. They say that they will do anything to help “women” (somehow pregnant people in 73 other gender IDs are neglected) obtain abortions…. except fund transportation from the benighted states to abortion care facilities in scientifically governed states (abortion is legal in Maskachusetts right up to 37 weeks and beyond).

“‘Proterra Powered’ electric bus travels 1,700 miles using only public chargers, exceeding 300 miles during certain legs” (electrek) describes a comfortable electric coach from Belgium (where abortion is legal until 12 weeks after conception). Billionaire Democrats could save Planet Earth in two ways simultaneously via these buses: (1) transportation without burning any fossil fuel (except whatever was burned to generate electricity), and (2) reducing the growth rate of the human population.

Readers: Abortion has been subject to restrictions in a lot of states for at least 20 years. If abortion care access is as important to Democrats as they say it is, why aren’t there already convenient and simple Democrat-funded transportation+abortion services?

Full post, including comments

In the wake of Uvalde, can we abandon the fiction that today’s 18-year-olds are adults?

When the United States was young, a person had to be 21 years old to be considered an adult. In order to vote, the person generally would have worked for 8 years (a young man would start work at age 13 and become eligible to vote at 21). This changed in the 1970s, according to Wikipedia: “After the voting age was lowered in 1971 from 21 to 18, the age of majority was lowered to 18 in many states.”

At the same time, the no-fault divorce revolution turned the U.S. from a monogamous society into a polygamous one. From H.L. Mencken’s 1922 book:

… the objections to polygamy do not come from women, for the average woman is sensible enough to prefer half or a quarter or even a tenth of a first-rate man to the whole devotion of a third-rate man.

Salvador Ramos may not have been able to calculate child support formula profits in all 50 states, but he was probably smart enough to know that a woman would be better off financially as a “single mom” who had sex with an already-married dental hygienist and harvested the child support than choosing to enter into a long-term partnership with a high-school dropout such as himself. Wikipedia says that Ramos’s mom was using drugs and having sex with at least one guy other than Ramos’s father. ABC reported that Ramos’s grandfather was a convicted criminal. Mr. Ramos was thus, at best, the “third-rate man” of Mencken’s example. See “‘Incel’ Texas school shooter Salvador Ramos’ chilling live streams reveal ‘disturbing threats to girls’” (The Sun) for how his interactions with females had gone.

Compared to the early days of the Republic, therefore, we have “adults” with 0-10% of the years in the workforce and a much higher percentage of the males recognize that they’re never going to be selected for mating.

Is it time to recognize that Americans should neither vote nor buy guns until they’ve shown some sort of evidence of adulthood, e.g., working for 8 years? It is tough to know for sure, but maybe after 8 years of W-2 labor Salvador Ramos would have become accustomed to his low status in society and incel-hood.

I’m reluctant to “fight the last war” by proposing a policy change that would have prevented a particular recent tragedy, but I don’t think Salvador Ramos is the last problem 18-year-old this nation will produce (criminality is heritable, for one thing, and the U.S. is packed with criminals).

(I don’t think it would be sufficient to use a simple age threshold, e.g., 21 or 25, because there are plenty of Americans who never take on what used to be considered adult responsibilities, e.g., by working.)

I’m particularly interested in hearing what the gun owners who read this blog have to say!


Full post, including comments

What have we learned about Salvador Ramos, the Uvalde, Texas murderer?

The shooting in Uvalde, Texas is dominating my Facebook and Twitter feeds. Here’s an example:

(Joe Biden has been in the Senate or the White House since 1973. He didn’t do anything about gun laws, common sense or otherwise, during those 49 years, but “we have to do more” today.)

From an older guy in Maskachusetts on Facebook:

Does anyone really need these kinds of guns. I think if you want to shoot these kind of weapons you can only shoot them and keep them at gun ranges. Other than that, no one, other than law enforcement should have these weapons. I am sorry. There is ZERO need for them out in society.

What has been learned about Salvador Ramos and his motivation for killing elementary school kids?

From skimming the news, it sounds as though Mr. Ramos confirms the findings in The Son Also Rises. His grandfather was unsuccessful (“[grandfather] Rolando Reyes also said he has a criminal background and cannot have a weapon in the home.” (ABC)) and Mr. Ramos was on track to be unsuccessful (“The Robb Elementary School shooter went on the deadly rampage after apparently fighting with his grandmother about his failure to graduate from his Texas high school, according to a report.” (New York Post)).

“Salvador Ramos Was Bullied for Stutter, Wearing Black Eyeliner: Friend” (Newsweek):

“He would get bullied hard, like bullied by a lot of people,” Garcia told the Washington Post. “Over social media, over gaming, over everything.”

Could this be the motivation? Plenty of teenagers in the 1970s had access to guns. Bullying in the 1970s was far worse than today and physical violence was common, as it was outside of school as well during the high-crime 1970s. In the junior high school that I attended, kids could get bullied for wearing Sears Toughskins rather than Levi’s blue jeans. I don’t think coming out as transgender or gay would have gone over well. On the other hand, 1970s bullies couldn’t follow the weak members of the herd into their own homes via social media.

What about pills? Kids weren’t medicated back in the 1970s. Psychiatrists today poke at random into a complex system that they don’t understand (the brain). Some of the most commonly prescribed medications may push pill-takers toward violence. See “Precursors to suicidality and violence on antidepressants: systematic review of trials in adult healthy volunteers” (2016): “Antidepressants double the occurrence of events in adult healthy volunteers that can lead to suicide and violence.” But there is no evidence that Salvador Ramos was taking any pills.

What has been learned that could explain this terrible crime? (other than, in a country of 330+ million, there are going to be terrible crimes periodically)

Separately… gun nut readers: How are you going to sweep this episode of gun violence under the rug? If Americans were willing to shut down schools for more than a year and be locked down at home in hopes of slightly reducing the COVID-19-tagged death rate, why aren’t these same folks willing to repeal the 2nd Amendment? (China is the dream society, I think, for about half of Americans. China has zero COVID and no private gun ownership.)


  • the worst trauma is suffered by those who cower on the edge of a battle: “Amid criticism of the police response to the gunman’s hourlong rampage, including outrage among frantic parents who said that heavily armed officers stood outside the school restraining them rather than storming the building themselves, Texas officials on Thursday sought to express the difficulty facing community members and law enforcement responders alike. “It is so hard,” said Victor Escalon, regional director for the Texas Department of Public Safety. “We’re hurting inside. We’re hurting inside for the community members. We’re hurting inside for our local partners.” (NYT)
Full post, including comments

Why are residents of Democrat-run states so upset by the leaked Supreme Court draft regarding Roe v. Wade?

Friends in Maskachusetts, New York, and California have been raging against the potential for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, thus enabling states to make their own laws regarding abortion. They say that they would personally suffer from any change in the status quo and that, in particular, they would lose their “freedom.”

Why I find this confusing is that the same people say that they will never visit a Republican-influenced state. So I don’t see how the abortion laws that prevail in the 28 states that are officially boycotted by San Francisco could cause them any personal suffering.

Here’s a Facebook exchange example:

  • me: How would someone in California experience any of the feared changes as a result of forthcoming Supreme Court decisions? How many California Democrats will ever visit, for example, Arkansas? Or talk to anyone in Arkansas?
  • Bay Area Righteous: Ha! It’s not just because of abortion. I’d be hard pressed to visit you in Florida, Philip, but not because of you. 🙂 Between humidity, anti-abortion, guns and…DeSantis (!), why would I? Okay, I’m being a bit snarky, but in general I do have more interest in visiting the more liberal parts of the country and the world. Well, that’s not entirely true. In the past 11 years I’ve visited Egypt, Turkey and Jordan (among other places).
  • me: Were you upset that abortion was strictly illegal in Egypt? Or how about Costa Rica, a much more popular vacation destination for Californians than most of the states where the Supreme Court’s return of this issue to the states would result in the law being changed? Do Californians protest the illegality of abortion in Costa Rica?
  • Bay Area Righteous: I was “upset” about all sorts of things in Egypt. We were in Cairo on January 25, 2011, the day the revolution began there. Learned a lot about their oppressive regime at the time. And since. But the difference (same for Costa Rica) is that it’s not our country. We have no standing there. The same is true about Arkansas, but unlike Costa Rica, we do have political interactions with Arkansans. We both vote for people in the House, Senate, White House, etc. Arkansans have influence over federal aspects of Californians. That’s not so for Costa Ricans.
  • Bay Area Righteous: I don’t avoid Arkansas only because of their stance on abortions.
  • me: So you would celebrate every additional abortion in Arkansas because it would mean one fewer person who could potentially vote for policies that you don’t like at the national level?
  • Portland (Oregon) Righteous friend of the Bay Area Righteous guy: master of the straw man! I’m against the upcoming ruling. It limits freedom and will likely pave the way to erosion of more freedoms. And until the crowd that applauds the decision also works for the rights and needs of the born, then I’ll gladly continue being sanctimonious.
  • me: How would [our mutual friend in San Francisco’s] freedom be limited by the Supreme Court saying that abortion was not a federal matter? Wouldn’t it be increased? The California legislature and Gavin Newsom would be free to establish any laws (or no laws) related to abortion that they desired. Or are you saying that Californians will somehow vote themselves into slavery (“un-freedom”) at the state level? ([our friend] has already explained that, even prior to this leaked draft, he was boycotting any state that he does not consider to be “liberal” so he is not going to travel to any place where a Republican might have any influence on abortion laws.)
  • Portland Righteous: I don’t really care about how this law affects [our friend]. It’s likely that any actual effects will be limited to his relations living in affected states. Though he might change his actions by giving more to pro-choice causes and maybe even host an abortion refugee from one of the affected states. It might affect other California residents who might consider relocation — depending on their level of tolerance for increased state scrutiny of reproductive rights. Being an Oregon resident, my state is actively supporting Idaho residents in need of abortion services though money and hosting. Anyway, bummer about how the state is getting all up in people’s business.
  • me: why do [our friend’s] relations choose to live in states that [our friend] had found (well prior to 2022) sufficiently deplorable to boycott and never visit?
  • me: the effects that you cite on OR and CA residents all sound positive to me. You now have a charitable cause that you believe in. When you take in a refugee or give money you will feel better about yourself and your life. See “Being Generous Really Does Make You Happier” (TIME) for some references.

Given that, from these Democrats’ point of view, the U.S. is already functionally split up into at least two countries (one good and one bad), why is the availability of on-demand abortion in the bad sub-country of more interest to someone who lives in the good sub-country than the availability of on-demand abortion in, say, Costa Rica? (the latter being a matter of no interest at all to the people who are outraged regarding the potential unavailability of abortion in Idaho)

Another example, this time from a woman in her early 50s who lives in Maskachusetts (she divorced her husband some years ago and therefore is not subject to male supervision):

  • Boston Righteous: A heartfelt “fuck you” to everyone who told me I was overreacting in November 2016″
  • “Joseph”: Wait you’re in Mass they will always allow abortions your reaction has no context
  • Boston Righteous: the fact that I happen to live in a state currently governed by sane people doesn’t negate the fact that as a fundamental rule, it’s not a problem to restrict my rights as a human being. The fact that some people don’t see that as a huge issue is repugnant.
  • Righteous Maryland female: The fact that you actually think [Boston Righteous]’s reaction “has no context” just illustrates the incredible privilege from which you are able to view this issue. You have absolutely no idea of the effects of this decision. Your rights have never been threatened. your gender has shielded you from many horrible things that women deal with every single day. to say that because [Boston Righteous] lives in Massachusetts and has no context for reacting to this issue is unbelievably insensitive and ignorant. If you don’t remember, [Boston Righteous] has a daughter. Perhaps her daughter may choose to live in another state at some point. … please, try to see that not everyone has the incredible entitlement that you apparently have. [But why would the daughter of a sane person who votes for sane politicians choose to live in a Red State?]
  • me: Where are the geographical limits of your concern? You’ve said that your concern extends beyond Massachusetts. Does it extend to Costa Rica where abortion is strictly illegal? If you accept that Costa Ricans can make different choices for their laws in this area than voters in Massachusetts have made, why can’t you accept that voters in Arkansas or North Dakota make different choices from yours?
  • Boston Righteous: I am quite aware of the atrocious laws against women’s rights in other countries. I had always believed that my country was better in this regard. Silly me, apparently. [Other than prejudice, what is our basis for thinking that that our country is better?]
  • me: Now that we’re deep into globalization I can’t figure out why an issue “in my country” is more critical than the same issue across a border that has become arbitrary. (It might be the case that people who live in Massachusetts are more likely to visit Costa Rica than to visit North Dakota or Arkansas. That wasn’t true before the Jet Age.) About 30% of residents of Massachusetts are immigrants or children of immigrants. They’re probably more connected to various foreign countries than they are to Arkansas or North Dakota.
  • Boston Righteous: I didn’t say that I didn’t care. But it’s substantially more personal now that it impacts me. Which of course you realize but for some reason are being obtuse.
  • me: I actually don’t understand how the laws of states other than Massachusetts impact you, any more than do the laws of other countries. Separately, Happy Mother’s Day!
  • Boston Righteous: because I’d rather not be trapped in MA? Because I’d rather my children not be trapped in MA? Because I’d prefer that the country of which I am a citizen doesn’t allow individual states to treat its residents as second class citizens? Weirdest conversation ever….. and finally, I’m not a jackass who only thinks of herself. I fully realize that as a wealthy, white woman, none of this REALLY matters to me personally. I can buy my way out of whatever I’d need. But I realize that makes me very, very privileged, and I don’t want others to suffer because they are not in the same boat. And frankly, just because. This is obscene and any rational person knows it.
  • me: people who love the Massachusetts laws are already unable to move to a lot of other states. Consider that Massachusetts shut down schools for more than a year and kept marijuana stores (“essential”) open, then ordered kids to wear masks in schools. Shutting down a school is illegal in Florida. A school system ordering children to wear masks is illegal in Florida (not against a governor’s order, but against a statute passed by the legislature). Running a recreational marijuana store is illegal. Is there a Red State that you would have previously considered moving to and now must be crossed off the list? … that circles back to my earlier point. If it is about concern for others, why not be upset about the unavailability of abortion after 12 weeks in Germany? (I never have heard you mention this.) That’s a population of more than 80 million under a law that you consider intolerable. And you would be willing even to support Germany by traveling there and spending money?

I remember her talking enthusiastically a few years ago about a vacation trip to Germany, which is why I picked that land of oppression for people who might become pregnant (to avoid inflaming the above folks, I did not point out their cisgender-normative prejudice in assuming that abortion is somehow an issue particular to “women” and did use the pregnant man emoji, though I was dying to do so.

I do find it genuinely confusing that folks in Maskachusetts, California, New York, and other states with sane government want a uniform national law. First, wouldn’t the Supreme Court just strike down any such law if the draft opinion turns into a final opinion? If this is a matter for states to decide, what difference does it make what Congress and Joe Biden do? Second, if this were a matter of federal policy, why do they think that the federal policy would allow as many abortions as MA, CA, and NY law allow? If the federal policy is set to some sort of consensus opinion, wouldn’t it more likely end up being kind of an average of current state policies rather than all the way at one extreme (abortion allowed at 37 weeks in Maskachusetts, for example)?

Finally, look at all of the times that the concept of “privilege” comes up in the Maskachusetts-centered conversation. This is why people need to attend liberal arts colleges. How else would they decode and participate?


Full post, including comments

Apply for a permit to set up an abortion clinic in Chevy Chase?

“White House warns against ‘violence, threats, or vandalism’ after protests outside Supreme Court justices homes” (CNN, today):

The White House on Monday condemned “violence, threats, or vandalism” after protesters held demonstrations outside the homes of conservative Supreme Court Justices over the weekend.

And over the weekend, pro-abortion rights protesters gathered outside the private homes of Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts in Chevy Chase, Maryland, outside Washington, DC.

“Keep abortion safe and legal,” a few dozen protesters chanted on the street of the tony, tree-lined streets outside the justices’ homes. Many held handmade signs.

“Keep your rosaries off our ovaries,” they said.

The protests were organized, in part, by Kavanaugh neighbor Lacie Wooten-Holway, who told The Washington Post, “I organize peaceful candlelit vigils in front of his house. … We’re about to get doomsday, so I’m not going to be civil to that man at all.”

I wonder what Mx. Wooten-Holway would say if someone applied to open an abortion clinic in his/her/zir/their neighborhood.

CNN continues:

Following the court’s confirmation that the leaked draft opinion was authentic, President Joe Biden condemned it. Psaki also reiterated the White House’s calls for Congress to act to codify the women’s reproductive health protections established in Roe v. Wade.

I wish someone would explain how a federal law would be Constitutional if the Supreme Court holds that Roe v. Wade was a mistake because abortion regulation is a matter of state law.

A quick Google search did not turn up the precise street addresses for the hated justices or Mx. Wooten-Holway, but one of the protests started in Chevy Chase Park, so that’s presumably nearby. Zillow shows that 5BR houses are available for $3.5 million. One of them could become the new clinic.


Full post, including comments