Keeping Down with the Jones's

By Don Varyu

Oct. 12, 2022

Several weeks ago, a jury ordered internet conspiracy jock Alex Jones to pay $50 million to the parents of a sweet little kid ripped to shreds by an automatic weapon while at school in 2012. On Wednesday, a separate jury representing another dozen families of those mutilated kids ordered Jones to pay $965 million more (nine hundred and sixty-five million). Thus, total judgments have soared past $1 billion. That’s a number that will open eyes.

It is hard to imagine the permanent pain and anguish of those families. Surely, every one would gladly pay back any monetary reward--and everything they owned--if they could just have their precious little folks back. But their initial suffering wasn’t enough for Jones. He added insult to injury by carrying out a decade-long campaign alleging the massacre never happened...claiming it was all a government hoax...and asserting those grieving parents were just hired actors. It couldn’t get any worse—and it did.

Even those sins weren't enough for Jones—he added injury-to-insult-to-injury by urging an imbecile mob to not only embrace his grand lie, but to conduct an online and in-person campaign of threats and harassment to further torture those parents. Their homes were surrounded. When they came out, they were bombarded with abuse and horrible allegations. Death and rape threats came via social media. One of the dads found a protestor urinating on the grave of his son, intending to then dig up the coffin to prove there was no little corpse inside.
___

But as horrific as all this is, I wonder if there isn’t a new form of terror now spreading--among the social media companies.

I would imagine that the outrage of this latest Jones jury was motived by two things: first, Jones’ creation of the sick myth; and then his relentless spreading of this blasphemy. Jones claims he didn’t make it up—that he heard it from someone else. But does it really matter? I’m guessing that for Facebook and YouTube and 4chan and 8chan and Tic Tok and all the rest, it might. They are spreaders on a much vaster scale.

If Jones were punished with a ten-figure penalty for broadcasting something false and hateful and bizarre…could that also put the massively larger online cesspools in a more deadly crosshairs? What might they be ordered to pay? So, what could they do to protect themselves?

For years, the owners of these sites have made false and misleading statements about their intentions and their programs to control or remove such dangerous content. The public listened and hoped that they really were intent on finding and scrubbing such rubbish.

In fact, the exact opposite remains true. The billions of posts added daily are not reviewed by humans; they’re run through algorithms. And those algorithms are designed for one purpose—to boost engagement. Whatever keeps people connected is king. How does the code do that? By prioritizing posts that are the most extreme, the most outrageous. These produce the strongest and longest engagement.

After years of relative silence, Zuckerberg was finally forced to write that:
…one of the biggest issues social networks face is that when left unchecked, people will engage disproportionately with more sensationalist and provocative content…at scale, this can undermine the quality of public discourse and lead to polarization.

Thanks, Jeff! Geez, who could have possibly known? After this admission, the actions Zuckerberg authorized (almost all through third-party moderators) have only made things worse. Those independent companies are judged on increased engagement—which means ignoring and passing through the most outrageous stuff. And by the way, what plagues Facebook generally pales in comparison to what flows freely on other, more radical sites.

So, what happens when a corporate lawyer says to a young social media master, “look, if this happened to Jones, it could happen to us. And a billion-dollar judgment could be just a starting point.”

The first line of defense will certainly be the one the lunatic libertarians in Silicon Valley always use: free speech. “All points of view deserve to be heard” might as well fly on the Valley flag. Forget how vile that point of view might be.
___

In 1917, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that free speech, “…would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” He said such acts could cause “substantive evils” to the community at large—and that needed to take precedence.

With that logic, what would Holmes say about an Internet “theatre” of nearly five billion people, all scrambling over each other amid false shouts of rape, murder, child abuse, assassination and terrorism?

Lines need to be drawn. And with their verdict, the jury in this most recent Jones trial drew one. People who lie and terrorize for personal gain can be found responsible for community panic—and thus lose everything.

The big boys better pay attention.

# # #

Jan. 6 Hearings: You go, girls!

By Don Varyu

June 29, 2022

Liz Cheney, Cassidy Hutchinson, Shaye Moss, Caroline Edwards

Every one of the brilliant Jan. 6 Committee hearings makes me feel worse. Just when you think Donald Trump could not be more dastardly…he hits a new low.

But they also make me feel better...gratified...as he’s further exposed and made more vulnerable.

And my satisfaction is boosted with the reality that the most damning evidence against him comes from the group of humans he respects least: women.

Congresswoman Liz Cheney is leading the charge, sticking a finger in the eye of Trump and her entire party. Former White House staffer Cassidy Hutchinson testified directly on what she saw from inside the White House in the days leading up to January 6…and during the attack. (Trump acted like a spoiled toddler when he couldn’t get his way, bodily bullying his own Secret Service detail.) Poll worker Shaye Moss described how her life was threatened and turned upside down after Trump identified her by name, and falsely accused her of election fraud. Caroline Edwards of the Capital Hill police described her terror when she became the first officer overrun by a mob that claimed it was on a mission from Trump.

Each of these women worked on behalf of our government, and each had enough spine to step forward before millions of Americans to tell them what happened. I could not be more impressed.

In 1995, Trump recorded an interview in which he bragged that his persona was so commanding that he could “grab women by the pussy.” He also described barging unannounced into dressing rooms where beauty pageant contestants were changing clothes.

Those stories were revealed when Trump first campaigned for President. Every woman heard them. Some forgave him; many more never forgot.

During these hearings, witnesses with far more character and bravery than Trump has ever demonstrated took the opportunity to answer back. Not to call out his sexism, but to speak truth and help preserve democracy. They spoke class to crass.

You go, girls.
 
 

# # #

De Facto Secession

By Don Varyu

June 24, 2022

In school, the Civil War is commonly referred to as “the war between the states.” That descriptor is more memorable for a grade-schooler: two groups of states facing off in lethal combat over the idea of slavery. Beyond battlefield errors and acts of heroism, less appreciated are two factors which were decisive in victory for the North: a vastly superior rail system to move troops and supplies, and a “modern” telegraph system for Washington to communicate with its generals. In the end, the side with more money and technology won.

Although they would never say so publicly, the Supreme Court majority that threw out Roe v. Wade may have (even intentionally) touched off a 21st century version of a civil war. They told states, “hey, this law about legal abortion? Let’s forget about that—let your legislatures go and figure it out.” And many states have spring-loaded that process, anxious to outlaw abortion for all women in all cases.

Of course, it’s not as simple as all that, because pro-choice states will fervently uphold existing legal access. So, whatever—let the states decide, right? But here’s the rub: what about a case where a woman living in Idaho crosses state lines for an abortion into Washington or Oregon? What law applies? The one where she lives…or the one where the procedure is performed?

Already there are states which plan to “criminalize” a resident who strays across state lines. How would her home state know about that? It’s unlikely any woman would volunteer the information. So, it would require either the doctor to break doctor-patient confidentiality laws…or for her home state government to somehow seize her records from the neighboring state.

You can see the conflict. This “pregnancy war between the states” poses privacy threats on several levels. And the only place they could be legally settled is in the federal courts…inevitably wending their way up to the same Supreme Court that banned Roe in the first place.
___

I’m not making a prediction. All I’m saying is if you think political polarization is bad now, the Supreme Court just put it on steroids by cravenly recoiling from its defense of "settled" law

The start of a modern, de facto secession could be the outcome. Before the Roe ruling, the national approval rating for the Supreme Court was 36%, its lowest level on record. Plus, private disputes between conservative and liberal members had spilled into the open. The high court looks like nothing more than a sad reflection of a polarized population. Millions are asking, “why should we trust them?” But trust here is different—it’s critical. It’s easy to ignore the rantings of a neighbor. You can always vow to vote against a governor you abhor. But what do you do about an unelected Supreme Court, one where appointments are for life? You can’t fight them. So, the only recourse is to ignore them—and defy the idea of a “common law.”

It's an old adage that “money is power, and power is money.” If states begin to fragment from the union, power would be distributed unequally, favoring states with the most wealth. The capital of the “anti-abortion” states would be Texas, with a gross domestic product of $2 trillion. Despite substantial growth in tech, the Texas economy is still largely reliant on fossil fuels—not a great long-term bet. The economies of similar anti-abortion states are vastly lower.

The “pro-choice” center would span the west coast, from the borders with Mexico and Canada. The combined GDP of California, Oregon and Washington is over $4 trillion. Add in natural allies like New York and Illinois and that grows to more than $7 trillion. In effect, the “battle” would be waged between the oil companies on one hand, against Silicon Valley and Amazon on the other.

No one envisions deploying cannon and bayonets at state borders. There’s no need. The modern choice of weapons is economic power; think about the current sanctions against Russia. The pro-abortion states might propose a boycott of Amazon. Silicon Valley could cut back the shipment of chips and other technologies to those same states. As was the case in the Civil War, money and technology would win.

This is the scenario the Supreme Court may have wrought with a modern interpretation of the notorious notion of “state’s rights.” What splintered once could splinter again. That remains to be seen. But what’s inarguable is the rot of hypocrisy and the spread of right-wing radicalism inside the highest court in the land.

Alongside democracy, justice is now in peril.
 

# # #

Jan 6: A Pivotal Moment?

By Don Varyu

June 16, 2022

Take a close look at the picture above. It was taken in the midst of the Jan. 6 terrorist attack on the Capitol. Vice President Mike Pence has been rushed from his office down a back staircase to this loading dock under the building. Witnesses testified that the mob came within 40 feet of Pence before he escaped. Outside, the frothing crowd was screaming, “Hang Mike Pence!” On the Mall, gallows had already been erected.  
 

In the photo, Pence stands holding a phone in one hand checking the screen, and another at his ear. Although it’s impossible to specifically verify, some said this was the moment that Pence discovered that Donald Trump had not yet called off the mob…not said anything in defense of his embattled Vice President.

The only person shown with Pence here is a young woman, apparently a staffer. But she has no phone; no pad of paper; no apparent reason to be that close. The reason is simple. She’s no staffer; she’s his 28-year-old daughter, Charlotte. She, too, was nearly trapped by the mob. The look on her face seems to communicate something between, “Dad…I’m concerned,” ….and, “Daddy—I’m scared!” Either response is entirely valid.

But in this moment, I’m guessing some sort of epiphany was running through her dad’s mind. For more than four years, through all of the acts of aggression and ridicule and illegality that Trump committed, Pence publicly stood by him. Pence knew the drill. Before politics, he worked as a right with radio talk show host. You stick to the talking points. Thus, for years he may have bitten his lip and swallowed bile…but that’s a VP’s job.

However, in this instant, maybe something became all too clear: Trump loyalty goes only one way. Trump was willing to risk Pence’s death—and even that of his daughter—if it meant he stayed in power.

This photo is frightening and poignant in its own right. But there is a wider political aspect, as well. Whispers have begun among leading GOP mavens that maybe the party would be better off in 2024 if Trump did not run. Maybe the best thing would be for the Committee and the Justice Department to sideline Trump. Republicans could run without having to defend him. Some might step up to make this happen. Yes, that would take courage. And yes, it would pose risk. But maybe the biggest threat would be an even more humiliating defeat for Trump—and the entire party. What would there be left then?

This can be quietly debated behind closed GOP doors…and maybe leaked a little to the media. But the honest part—the one they may never want to speak out loud—is this: if the monster returns to power, after shown willingness to literally sacrifice his own VP, who could ever hope to be safe?

In the moment when that photo was snapped…maybe things started to change.
 

# # #

Jan 6 Day 1: The Law Strikes Back

By Don Varyu

June 9, 2022

What makes a society? What holds people together? What is it that defines a nation?

Historically, there are two answers. The first is unilateral power—someone called a “king” or an “emperor” or a “sacred leader.” He decides. He alone holds things together.

The second is the law; a set of rules that the society voluntarily agrees to uphold together. If the laws are not to the people’s liking, new representatives are elected to write new ones.

The opening night of the January 6 committee hearings showed these forces—literally--in combat. The sides clashed (on new video tape) in bloody fighting outside the Capitol. They had different ideas on what our society would be. On the steps of the “people’s house” police were bruised and bloodied in order that inside, a successful transfer of power could occur—by law.

Halfway down the National Mall stood a silent and seemingly disinterested White House. Inside, an isolated man clung to a desperate plot that would maintain his authority—the law be damned.
 

The battle is not yet decided. Law struggled against raw power today, and it will again tomorrow.
____

In a different sense, what is it that protects the law? In the simplest term: law enforcement. This is a phrase that half a century ago produced unanimous support. Soldier and cop and protectors of many stripes were there to keep us from the law-breakers. Simple as that.

Now, we’re not so sure. The murder of George Floyd exploded this mythology, once and for all. Who could you really trust? A U.S. military that serves defense lobbyists before the interests of the people? Police who can’t promptly respond to school massacres? An FBI that wouldn’t even listen to itself before than 9/11 attack?

Who or what could possibly come to erase at least some of our cynicism?
___
­­­
The answer arrived in the human form of a woman named Caroline Edwards. She was among the Capitol Hill Police seriously injured that day in the attack on the “people’s house.” She was sprayed, shoved to the ground, hit the back of her head on a concrete step and was knocked unconscious. It was Carolyn Edwards who was nominated to represent all law enforcement as the opening witness in the hearings. The casting was pitch perfect.

I assume people on the far left could not fault her; this was not a white cop who killed a black teen. I assume that people in the middle, wary of a sob story foisted by a “liberal” committee, could not resist  her valor and authenticity. People on the far right don’t matter because they didn’t watch anyway.

What those hearing boycotters missed was Edwards’ professionalism and her command and her pedigree (the granddaughter of a Marine who fought in Korea).
 
And with her testimony, she symbolized both the sacred importance of the law…and the irreplaceable necessity of law enforcement.

And she also implied one other important message: those who believe in laws over dictators are not done yet.
 

# # #

Abortion Ban: An Opportunity?

By Don Varyu

May 3, 2022

A leaked draft from the Supreme Court shows that the radical right is about to realize a dream a half century in the making: abortion will be banned. Initially, this ruling will apply only to states which vote for it. But there is widespread expectation that this will soon be followed by a federal mandate affecting all states.

Unsurprisingly, this reveals the outright lies and hypocrisy which continue fueling the lunatic right. At least three Supreme Court nominees lied about their views on the sanctity of Roe v. Wade during their confirmation process—and this characterization comes not just from the left, but also from Republican senators, as well.

Then, the hypocrisy. After gay marriage was legalized by the court, GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell said this was wrong, and that the decision should be left to the will of people. Somehow, there was no immediate demand from McConnell that in this case the court should also step aside and simply follow the will of the people on abortion; no doubt because Roe has the support of three in five Americans. To McConnell, apparently the will of the people is sort of a sometimes thing.

All of the current outrage is justified. But no one’s betting it will have any impact on the final vote by the court later this spring.
___

However, there is the potential for a silver lining in this thundercloud. It has to do with how the Democrats choose to use this moment and formulate their wider proposition. The Dems have been wrestling on how to get voters’ minds off of inflation. It has seemed impossible. But have they now been presented with a chance?

Maybe yes.
___

The assessment of modern American politics is painfully simple. Democrats want to empower people and give them things (even, at times, at exorbitant cost.) Republicans only want to give things to the rich, and take away everything else.

The power of that last phrase— “take away everything else”--is enormous. Simply look at what the GOP wants to take away:

• Voting rights and equal representation for eligible voters

• Medical coverage

• Abortion and reproduction rights

• The move to clean energy

• Parental rights to have a voice on what’s taught in public schools

• Freedom from religious indoctrination in schools

Add to that the takeaways from a plan hatched by Republican National Senatorial Committee chairman Rick Scott that would, among other things:

• Sunset all federal laws every five years; that would suggest both Social Security and Medicare would be up from grabs

• Cut the federal government workforce by 25%

• Increase taxes on the lower half of American workers

• Transfer as many federal programs as possible to the infinite wisdom of individual states

• “Protect...God’s will”: the nuclear family

• No law or program will, “…reward people for being unmarried.”

There’s more. but there’s no need to dig deeper into the lunacy. What this represents is an opportunity. What the draft abortion ruling signals more than anything else is that we’ve reached the end game for the far right. There is no more evasion or shame. They are all-in. They’ve pushed all their chips into the middle of the table, and if they win, they take everything—for at least a generation.

And if they lose, for them nothing is really lost.

Inflation is the yoke around Biden's neck. He needs a "hail Mary." And maybe he's got one. All this outrage can set a fire that activates ALL Democrats--and wakes up the majority of independents, as well.

Tell voters, "any vote for any Republican running for any office will make things much worse. You don't think they won't take stuff away from you, too?"

# # #

# # #

We Can't Protect Our Own Children

By Don Varyu

May 28, 2022

Many Americans are proud to proclaim that their country is “the greatest nation on Earth.” For a long time, I agreed. But now I’m having my doubts. What does it say about a country that can’t even protect its own children?

(1)   Uvalde. I don’t need to go into the details. You’ve heard them. I did watch a news conference by Texas governor Greg Abbott who claimed more spending on mental health may be required. But he’s the same guy who cut such funding in his state a couple months earlier. Nationally, Republicans claim school shootings could be prevented by locking school doors from the inside. In some cases that might save a 10-year-old girl from being ripped to shreds by bullets from an assault rifle. But it’s hard to see how that same little girl would be spared if the shooting occurred in a church or shopping mall—where such crimes have repeatedly happened.

(2)    Baby formula. For days, the media have dived into every aspect of why this shortage occurred. This includes investigations of formula manufacturers, the FDA and federal preparedness and response. But somehow, the babies of America don’t seem to care; they just want something to eat.

(3)   Life-saving drugs. 60 Minutes recently did a typically excellent piece on the shocking lack of even fundamental drugs and supplies in U.S. hospitals. Many of these shortages include simple products like glucose and sterile water. Others are vital medications for chemotherapy. The victims include premature babies fighting for life, and young kids dependent on chemo to battle childhood leukemia. Fingers are pointed in all directions between drug manufacturers, the middleman distribution companies and (again) the FDA. Meanwhile, there is no progress—no solution is in sight.

Predictably, there is political infighting involved in all of this. Who can we make look bad? But this “greatest nation on Earth” thing may have to take a timeout. In Ukraine, fighters are battling every day to save their government, save their cities, and most of all—to save their kids.

We are failing that test. Shame on us.

 

# # #

Requiem For a Journalist You Never Met

By Don Varyu

June 2, 2022

He was a titan of journalism, even though you never knew him. But I did. And now that he’s gone, I grieve. He meant so much to me. To my career—and my life.

Paul Zimbrakos was the editor of the City News Bureau of Chicago for decades from the 50’s to the aughts. He was almost always a solemn presence (at least to me), peering out from under arching black brows and over an equally impressive black mustache. And oh…those eyes. They could penetrate. Most often, they would pierce. He wanted to illuminate your naivete and your mistakes and your vulnerability. It hurt. He would later say his young minions, would need, “honesty…(and to) not worry about your ego, especially because it’s going to take a battering when you’re learning.” So wise. You wanted to be better--you just wanted to do better for him. His organization was a cauldron for aspiring journalists, and those who graduated knew they had been tested. Legendary alumni included Mike Royko, the most celebrated newspaper columnist in Chicago history; New York Times investigative reporter Seymour Hersh (Vietnam’s My Lai massacre; Watergate; Abu Ghraib); and novelist Kurt Vonnegut.

I was no legend. Paul treated me like everyone else. He assigned me to the late-night shift in police area headquarters, where I heard young black kids being pummeled by overweight white cops behind closed doors. I covered the trial of those convicted of the sniper killings of two Chicago cops in the infamous Cabrini-Green housing projects. When they locked the doors behind me, I realized that B.B. King and I were the only non-convicts at a concert room of 500 inmates at the Cook County Jail. Paul did that to me—and for me.

And without ever explaining why, he eventually assigned me to the prize beat of the Bureau—covering the daily exploits of Chicago’s infamous Mayor Richard J. Daley—the same guy who unleashed his cops to batter Vietnam protestors in Chicago for the 1968 Democratic convention. Paul made me know that man. And that mayor tried to romance me--just because I was a journalist. 

I really don’t want this to be about me, but I have such memories. I want it to be about Paul. The situations where he dropped me were the same ones he did to hundreds—maybe thousands--of others. He wasn’t just a teacher or a mentor. He saw us in a way we were not able to yet see ourselves. And most of all, he knew what journalism should be about.

So, even though you never saw Paul's glare, treasure it. He made journalism better—and he made the world a better place.

Paul…thank you, and rest in peace…
 

# # #

Ukraine: After the War…

By Don Varyu

April 11, 2022

It’s impossible to predict how the Ukraine savagery will end. Maybe the Ukrainians will manage to repel the Russians. Maybe a truce will wind up ceding part of eastern Ukraine to Putin. Or, maybe the invaders will prevail and occupy the nation—which will not wind up qualifying as any kind a victory at all.

In any case, one thing should be certain: for any outcome, economic and diplomatic sanction against the Russians should remain in full force until that nation collapses. It must crumble. If that takes increased pressure, fine. If it takes more weaponry to the Ukrainians, fine. If it takes a decade, fine. Russia must be thrown back a century. Because they deserve it.

There are a couple forces that could prevent this.

(1) First, Western Europe will find it increasingly difficult to continue starving itself of Soviet energy imports. Foremost among the nations, Germany made a huge mistake in building the Nord Stream pipelines (one working, another still under construction). Years ago, Germany chose to believe that Putin would become a peaceful and reliable member of the European community. Oops. But they are hardly alone. Overall, the European Union relies on Russia for about three-quarters of its natural gas imports, and more than two-thirds of its crude oil.

While European imports have fallen consistently over the last decade, dependence is still high. Shutting down those imports would go a long way to shutting down Russia itself. The current partial depletions of Soviet energy imports has accelerated European actions to further spur development of natural energy sources—a sad silver lining.

(2) Secondly, there may be a natural sympathy for Soviet citizens: “it’s not right that all of those people should suffer because of the actions of one madman.” And to be sure, there are many Russians who oppose him. When Putin last ran for President in 2018, there were widespread reports of fraud at the polls—all in Putin’s favor. But still, he received only 77% of the votes. Somehow, a quarter of voters were willing to go on record as opposing him. Then, in the national legislative elections last year—despite Putin barring key rival candidates to his Russia United party—Putin’s puppets tallied only half of the ballots. The other half split among several opposing parties. So, there is resistance.

But Russia also contains a sizeable number of supporters for both Putin and his criminal Ukrainian attack. Some of these supporters even think it would be fine to just drop a nuclear bomb on Ukraine to settle the whole thing. This insane idea extends the incomprehensible theory of Putin’s entire invasion: “the more we punish them, the more likely they are to surrender.” Good luck with that. Senseless.

If the Russians do prevail, they will inherit two things they don’t want: a wasteland of their own making; and a resistance effort that has little precedent in recent times. Russian administrators and military on the ground will constitute target practice. You may recall the prolonged U.S. casualties after “taking” Baghdad. That will pale in comparison to Ukraine, because the West will not stop providing the Ukrainians with weapons and strategic resources. It will become Russia’s new quagmire.

Which is why all current sanctions—and any new ones we can invent—need to remain in full force no matter what. Putin should be treated as what he is—an international outlaw. Economically, Russia must be slowly strangled. The pressure on Russian citizens in cities and across the countryside must become so acute that rebellion against the Putin regime is inevitable. Realistically, only Russian citizens can bring the change that the world needs.

And whatever privations they those Russian people endure. they will be minimal compared to what the Ukrainians are suffering.

Whichever way the war ends, the Western alliance must remain ironclad to banish Putin. He must wither and disappear.

# # #

The Burden of Safety

By Don Varyu

Jan. 13, 2022

In 1970, a President not known for pro-big government policies signed into law the creation of OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). Richard Nixon responded because 14,000 American workers were dying on the job every year. The organization began protecting workers from workplace dangers posed by coal mining, asbestos, benzene and hazardous waste (among many others). It also instituted the first workers’ compensation programs.

Today, the radical conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme cast aside half a century of OSHA protections when they ruled that the President had no right to require vaccines and thus protect workers from COVID*. Many are claiming the court overstepped its role in negating the President’s directive (among the topics spelled out here in America is Over.)

But even if you accept its authority, it is impossible to ignore the inherent hypocrisy in the ruling. The court DID agree that such vaccine mandates would stand for health care workers. How does this make sense? Is it just because those doctors and nurses shouldn’t be able to transmit the virus to patients? What about the patients who pose the same threat to them? Extend that thinking, and you’d be just as consistent saying that patients should not be admitted to hospitals without proof of vaccination.

But there’s a much larger issue here: control of the virus itself. There’s no evidence that the overwhelming threat posed by COVID played a meaningful part in the votes of those six justices. So, to be helpful, I will include the following statistics:

U.S. DEATHS FROM…
…Pearl Harbor attack: 2,335
…9/11: 2,977
…World War II: 407,300
…Civil War: 620,000
…COVID: 833,016 (and counting)

Whose interests are those six Supreme Court justices protecting?
*private entities with more than 100 workers

A Common New Year's Resolution

By Don Varyu

Dec. 21, 2021

Many people have trouble making ends meet—it’s a paycheck-to-paycheck existence. Others with more money operate with a secondary plan, saving what they can for long range goals, like paying off a mortgage…putting kids through college…or managing to retire.

When we think about the society operating around us, we tend to focus first on the day-to-day. Who gets elected? What laws should be changed? Who deserves to succeed—or fail? Opinions will always vary on all this.

But there’s also a secondary, background issue, gnawing at our fears, poking our guilt. It’s this: what do we do about climate collapse? Moreover, how can I, a single individual, possibly make a difference? Even if the whole world and its governments were aligned and motivated, is there still enough time left? Does anyone have an actual plan?

John Doerr does. He’s probably the most legendary venture capitalist in America. He was there for the birth of Silicon Valley and was “in early” on ambitious start-ups like Amazon and Google. But 15 years ago, he narrowed his focus just to climate. He’s been digging in ever since, reading everything he could find, looking first-hand at experimental projects, and hearing pitches for new ones. He’s a data guy and believes in concrete goals. From all this, he’s written an actionable plan, which he’s laid out in his new book, Speed and Scale. (If you’re not prone to buy the book, you can hear him explain his plan for free, interviewed on the podcast, Hell and High Water.)

Doerr focuses on six clear areas—which should not be confused with assuming these goals will be close to easy to achieve. In descending order of importance, they are: (numbers in parentheses indicate the percentage of pollution each of these sectors currently produces)

1. Decarbonize the energy grid (41%)

2. Clean up industry (20%)

3. Fix food (15%)

4. Electrify transportation (14%)

5. Protect nature (10%)

6. Remove carbon

This may not sound earth-shaking—we’ve already heard about all this stuff. We already see the coming wave of electric vehicles. Many understand that natural energy sources (wind, solar, etc.) are far less expensive than they used to be. Others are altering their diets or changing farming methods to help “fix” food. Still, this whole thing can seem daunting. (Because it is.)

But the main question remains: what can we do? Doerr’s bottom line for individuals is to demand attention on all this, first from elected officials. Insist that climate collapse become the first or second issue they’re forced to talk about. Raise its profile. Ask what they’re proposing. And what they’re already doing. Let them know you’ll decide your vote based on their answers to these questions.

Write a letter. Make a phone call. Attend a candidate’s town hall meeting. Use social media to state and propel your case! This outreach doesn’t even have to include specific demands, or even a general focus on any one area. Simply forcing climate to be discussed will get the point across and generate a sense of urgency. After all, your children, your grandchildren, your nieces and nephews and every cute little kid in your neighborhood is depending on you.

This is not a huge ask. Speak up. It takes no money, and only a little bit of time and effort.

As such, I think this is the perfect common New Year’s resolution. It’s for you, for me—and for humanity.

# # #

Netflix and the Chappelle Mess

By Don Varyu

Oct. 28 2021

You may be aware that Dave Chappelle is a comedian, and that he is, right now, the most famous and successful one in the world. For his latest special, The Closer, Netflix reportedly paid him $20 million. But the controversy is not because of the paycheck; it’s the reaction to content of that performance that’s making headlines.

His new jokes about the transgender community (a common theme for him) have been declared “transphobic.” That word, by literal definition, describes either fear of or aversion to the trans community. It’s hard to imagine Chappelle fearful of most anything. So, it’s the implied “aversion” that creates such a divide between the comedian and his critics. And which is at the heart of this affair.

Chappelle trades in the currencies of outrage and offense. There’s nothing new in that. Over the years, Lenny Bruce and George Carlin and Howard Stern and even Larry David have all prospered with the recipe, balancing the outrage and offense in their own ways, with their own distinct deliveries. But those comedians all began their work in a different world, one where the sensitivities of those they skewered were seldom considered—or voiced.

Rage over The Closer bubbled inside Netflix itself, with a small group of employees first organizing a protest…and then threatening to quit unless The Closer was pulled from the steaming catalog.

This is a simple statement of facts. However, it doesn’t come close to describing the import of what’s going on.
___
Those outraged at Chappelle are not holding back. The Twitter backlash (predictably) has been savage. He’s been fully dragged. This has tied Netflix management in knots (more on that below). Chappelle says the blowback is responsible for a separate Chappelle production (about the death of George Floyd) being pulled by the organizers of several film festivals--who had previously been eager to invite him. Chappelle claims he’s being cancelled.

Leaping to his defense, on the grounds of free speech, is an unlikely band of right-wing trolls including Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Joe Rogan. (Rogan, who has toured with Chappelle, called him “the nicest man I’ve ever met.”) This drips of irony, as these three are among the most sensitive to criticism in the entire media universe.

Chappelle sees the danger here, and has agreed to meet with trans employees of Netflix—but only under his conditions. Among them: it must be at a place and time of his choosing; and any attendee must guarantee to have watched The Closer “from beginning to end.”

That last one seems like a strange requirement. But it’s maybe the most meaningful thing said on this whole situation so far.
___
I’ll explain it this way. Have you (like me) ever stopped watching something on TV midstream…or walked out on a movie…just because you couldn’t stand it? Chappelle knows this happens with people watching him. So with this demand, he's not-so-subtly calling out his critics on the grounds of insufficient evidence. He’s implying that if they accuse him of all ridicule and no empathy, they could not have watched the whole show. He's saying if the world needs less ridicule toward the trans community and more understanding—watch the whole damn thing! In the process, he asserts that this same guy who makes jokes about the transgendered also turns out to be an honest supporter.

In order for this to make sense, you’d have to watch for yourself. I don’t want to try to explain this dichotomy, first because I couldn’t do it justice. And second, it would be a spoiler for anyone who decides to watch it later (as I urge you to do.)

Watching him onstage, it’s hard to imagine Chappelle as a good guy. But in interview situations, he’s calmer and introspective. He’s said things like this:

“I’m tellin’ ya, I’m on my kindness conspiracy. If we live by an ethic of kindness, if we foster trust amongst each other, it will matter less what corporations and politicians say, because we’ll be able to trust our society’s cohesiveness.”

Hmmm. Is that real? To me, it seems to be.
___

But the questions linger. Who’s right here? What’s more important—Chappelle’s individual freedom of speech, or a group’s freedom from scorn and ridicule? Opinions will vary. But not every trans person is part of the social media mob. A trans woman named Blaire White said:

“…the message of Dave Chappelle’s special that no one seems to be grasping is how the LGBT community goes after people so viscously…and how often it’s not even deserved. In the midst of fighting against transphobia, attacking Dave…is a sadly typical example of the community’s inability to look inward and see that oftentimes we become what we claim to hate, and we behave in ways that are the same--if not worse--than what we are fighting against.”

Even tribes can disagree.
___

­­­­­­OK, finally, what’s the bottom line? Seems like people will see what they want to see, believe what they believe, and get disgusted with what disgusts them. But Netflix doesn’t have the option of walking away. They’re caught in the middle.

The corporate world is familiar with disciplines called “reputation management” and “crisis communications.” Sometimes—like this—they’re the same thing. On one hand, Netflix has a prime (maybe its absolute prime) asset in Chappelle. On the other, it has a small internal group of disgruntled employees, and a whole lot of people on the outside supporting them. To repeat, it’s a question of freedom of expression against freedom from oppression. Corporations may wish that these are two distinct circles that never overlap. Of if they do, somehow there’s some shelter within the Ven diagram.

That’s not easy, and Netflix is struggling to find a way to have it both ways. The company began with a full-throated defense of Chappelle’s show, stating in a staff memo, “we don’t allow titles on Netflix that are designed to incite hate or violence, and we don’t believe The Closer crossed that line. Some people find the art of stand-up to be mean-spirited, but our members enjoy it, and it’s an important part of our content offering.” So there.

A few days later, the Netflix CEO who penned that memo changed his tune. He said, “I screwed up. I should have led with humanity. I had a group of employees who were definitely feeling hurt and pain from a decision we made.” To say that didn’t satisfy the offended is an understatement.

In the end, Netflix may have inadvertently delivered on the proper strategy in closing that same follow-up memo. It stated, “we’re trying to entertain the world, and the world is made up of folks with a lot of different sensibilities and beliefs and senses of humor—sometimes there will be things on Netflix that you dislike.”

That’s what he should have led with. Those words could have been meant for the entire streaming world, although they seemed more targeted at those embittered employees who had threatened to quit.

And on this point, Chappelle has insight. His father was an established professional doing statistical work for an east coast firm when he discovered that his company had just picked up a client in South Africa. It was the time of apartheid. That offended him. So he walked out the door.

Social media means there will never be an end to haters. Some people don't want to see anyone offended. Some people thrive on outrage. You can trust that people will say and do things that offend you. You can choose to respond to them. You can ignore them. Or you can just walk away.

Pick your door.

# # #

Editor’s Note:

• The full YouTube statement of the trans woman above defending Chappelle is here. (Spoiler alert: it refers to the empathetic story Chappelle tells at the end of the special.)

• Many people are left asking why Chappelle says these things. Is he really mean and hateful? Is he just doing this for the money? I don’t know the answer, but maybe the most revealing interview he’s done is one with David Letterman seven years ago. He seems unvarnished. It’s here.)
  # # #

Cross-examining the High Court

By Don Varyu

Oct. 19 2021

In 2001, the year after the contentious election of George W. Bush, Gallup began polling Americans on their approval of the Supreme Court. That was a charged time, following the court’s premature decision to stop the Florida recount and crown Bush. (Justice Anton Scalia explained, “we had to do something because countries were laughing at us—France was laughing at us!”) Still, the courts’ approval rating was 62%.

Today, that number has plunged all the way down to 40%--including a full nine point drop from just this last July. Clearly, something happened. That something was the court’s decision to let stand a Texas abortion law that effectively overturned Roe v. Wade. And for good measure, it deputized anyone to hunt down and sue offenders.

And this is just one case in a court docket that’s going to set the country to boiling. The justices will hear arguments not only on abortion, but also voting rights, gun rights, and the separation between church and state. Get ready.
_____

But I want to step back from the specifics of those cases to ask the high court three questions of an overriding nature:

(1) What about rights? So many of these firestorms revolve around the central issue of individual rights. What does it mean to be American? Do I have the right to my own reproductive system? Do I have the right to freely vote in elections, without interference? Are my rights granted to me by my state, or by my country? Two radical aspects of the Texas law lay out these questions in bold face. First, consider that any citizen of Texas—or any other state or country--becomes a duly authorized abortion bounty hunter, free to investigate, chase down and sue any person having an abortion after six weeks. Or the doctor who conducted it. Or anyone else “abetting” it. That could include an attorney representing the defendant in court. Or even the Uber of Lyft guy who drove the patient to the clinic. (Both companies have already stated they will pay the legal defenses of any driver so charged.)

The penalty is a minimum of $10,000 per defendant. And there’s no limit to the number of plaintiffs who can pile on. It would not be hard to find a thousand anti-abortion activists willing to cash in. So, to quickly do the math, that would mean a judgment of at least $10 million apiece from the woman having the abortion…her doctor…the receptionist at the front desk… and even the sweet old grandmother who wrote a check for $50 to help out.

The Supreme Court decided to let this law stand for the time being on “procedural” grounds, until it fully reconsiders abortion itself later this term.

But now, Texas has doubled down on outrageous. During a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing, Texas argued that even if Roe v. Wade is upheld, Texas doesn’t have to follow that ruling. The state claimed that since abortion was not dealt with by the founding fathers in the Constitution, the state is free to make its own decision. In other words, anything non-Constitutional that the Supreme Court has ever decided is just a legal jump ball, and a state will always win the tip.

Consider that line of reasoning. If true, Kansas could decide that if a defendant can’t afford an attorney, too bad—you’re on your own. South Carolina could again ban interracial marriage…or resegregate schools. And a President could simply refuse to comply with legal demands compelling relevant evidence or testimony. (Oh, wait, I think that one already happened…)

(2) What about term limits? A year ago, a bill was introduced in the U.S. House that would set an 18-year limit for all Supreme Court Justices. One seat would turn over every two years. In addition, the power of the Senate to confirm or deny nominees would be significantly restricted. Surprisingly, there is some support for this from both sides of the political spectrum. But what do the current justices think? While they profess to stay out of politics, it’s hard to imagine them silent on this one. And think about such a law being passed, and then challenged all the way up the ladder. The court would then have to rule on its own future. Or would all nine have to recuse themselves?

(3) Who’s a “hack?” Four justices have now purposely and publicly stepped up to assure America that the court is not filled with political “pawns” or “hacks.” (Apparently Supreme Court justices can read polls, too.) With the docket they face this session, it seems the justices are going to be hearing more of the same. The most recent addition to the high court, Amy Coney Barrett (along with Brett Kavanaugh, the Ken and Barbie of American jurisprudence), defiantly stated that the court, “…is not composed of a bunch of political hacks.” So there.

But methinks the lady doth protesteth too much. She made that declaration while standing alongside Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, at an event held in September at the eponymous McConnell Center at the University of Louisville. This is the same McConnell who destroyed the supposed political independence of the Supreme Court in 2016, when he refused to allow the Senate to even consider a nomination forwarded by Barack Obama. Effectively, McConnell told the President, “Drop dead—it’s my court now.”

Justice Barrett may want to consider the lesson here: if you don’t want to be called a “political hack”, perhaps it’s best not to appear in public next to the undisputed dark prince of political hackery.



# # #

Will You Cancel Facebook?

By Don Varyu

Oct. 4, 2021

You've probably asked yourself this question already. Your answer may be, "yeah, I know there's some bad stuff on Facebook." Or, "It's really a big party of my life, so I only use it selectively to connect with my friends." Or--less likely--"I just cancelled my account."

The right answer is #3.

But I wouldn't think of asking you to take my word for it. Instead, I'd ask you to listen to Frances Haugen, a former insider at Facebook who copied ten thousand pages of damning internal documents from the company. And not just ones that deal with your privacy being invaded. Instead much more important ones: knowingly and actively promoting content which is flat out wrong. And downright dangerous. It divides America. It puts people, especially young people, in peril. And they don't care. The real conspiracy theory isn't something you read about on Facebook--the conspiracy IS Facebook.

Haugen privately shared her evidence with the Wall Street Journal...then publicly with 60 minutes...and will later this week before a Congressional committee. To hear it for yourself, just listen to Haugen (it's worth sitting through the commercial at the top of the video link.) It's hard not to come to this reality: if you're part of Facebook, you're part of the problem.

And even then, a tougher question remains for most: are you also willing to cancel Facebok-owned Instagram?

# # #

The Secret Appeal of Ted Lasso

By Don Varyu

September 29, 2021

In the extremely unlikely circumstance that you haven’t heard about the TV series Ted Lasso, let me begin with just a couple facts. In its first year, the show set a record for a newcomer comedy with 20 Emmy nominations. The show won four, including best comedy series, best lead actor (co-creator Jason Sudeikis) and best supporting awards for both males and females. In addition, the show is reputed to be streaming “about 25 times more” than the “average” streamed program.

Among those who haven’t watched it, there are three commonly cited reasons:

1. Bad reason: It’s about soccer. Well, that's true as far as it goes. The show is set against the backdrop of a fictional English soccer club. This makes for some very funny comments and situations about the idiosyncrasies of the game (from an American viewpoint.) But in reality, soccer is not really relevant. This comedy could be set in the clubhouse of any other sport, or, for that matter, in millions of workplaces or factories. After all, Steve Carrell’s The Office was an English import.

2. Good reason: Profanity. This is most definitely not a show you would want your 8-year-old exposed to. But even as an adult you may cringe at the f-bombs thrown around on set in front of child actors. Buyer beware.

3. The best reason: Apple. You cannot watch this show without buying an Apple TV+ device. This will cost you (depending on your data appetite) from $70 to $200, plus $5 a month. What this means is even more revenue for Apple to avoid paying taxes on.

OK, beyond that, you’ll likely find Ted Lasso more than worthwhile. Most of the critical acclaim centers on its tone: “optimistic”, “refreshing”, “positive” and “life affirming”--these claims are almost ubiquitous. Many comment that in our era of political, racial, social and class polarization, this may be exactly what we’ve been yearning for.

It’s almost impossible not to come to that conclusion. Writing in The Ringer, Miles Surrey said,
“…no series I’ve watched…has been more rewarding, on an emotional level, than Ted Lasso. I mean this sincerely: the show has struck an optimistic chord in my increasingly cynical heart and made me want to be a better person.”

Going one step deeper, critics have pointed to the almost universal quality of human redemption among the characters. With one very minor exception, there are no “bad guys” in this scenario. Where some shows these days offer no heroes, this one gives you no villains. In Ted Lasso, you love everyone.

But let me add one more underlying explanation.
___

Bill Lawrence is the showrunner for Ted Lasso. He says what you’d expect him to: “we’re really talking about…writing with heart and empathy.” Check—that jibe with everything the critics and fans are saying.

But talking to Vanity Fair, he opens another door:
“…the biggest influence on this, and it’s something I haven’t talked about a lot, is that Jason and I really connected over the idea of mentors. He made every writer that we met with answer who their mentor was, whether it was someone who got them into further education, or who convinced them they could be a writer. And I think that that was really the true spirit of this.
“The greatest versions of mentors were inherently optimistic. They told you that you could do anything, and it could work out. They didn’t grab you by the neck and white knight you and make you do something. They just pointed you down a different path, a different choice. I think the stuff that you’re responding to (in the show) is really an amalgamation of all of our mentor stories.”

It might be that Lawrence is just tripping on his own success. But it doesn’t seem like it. Maybe what he’s saying is something we could all take to heart.

How would we do that?

• If you’re old (insert your own age definition here), is there someone younger who you think is “drifting”? Someone who would benefit from hearing about your own experiences? Someone who might take interest, or even inspiration, from what you see in them?

• If you’re young (insert your own age definition here), is there someone older who you respect…who you’d really like to hear from? Are you brave enough to ask?

Characteristically, Ted Lasso incorporates this idea of self-realization and improvement throughout the show. In one scene, he’s asked if he believes in ghosts. He responds, "I do. But more importantly, I believe they need to believe in themselves."

I know to some this sounds only mildly interesting. After all, it’s just feel-good fiction--It’s pie in the sky. This is not how the real world works. So, I’ll finish with one Ted Lasso story from the real world.
___

There’s an entertainment writer from the online site Uproxx named Mike Ryan. In the past, he had interviewed Jason Sudeikis enough to form a mild acquaintance—close enough to share stories about their Kansas City backgrounds. Back in 2018, Ryan interviewed Sudeikis about his film, Kodachrome. The story is about a son suddenly losing his father. During the interview, Ryan mentioned in passing that the story really hit home with him. No explanation why.

He went home that night and checked his email. There was one from Sudeikis. Somehow, the actor had found our Ryan was grieving over his own father’s death.

Here, in part, is what Sudeikis wrote:
“Just wanted to shoot ya a quick note and let ya know that I’m so sorry for your loss. And I thank you for feeling comfortable enough with me to share.
It’s important and f**ing necessary for us human beings to do that. To connect. To share. And to not concern ourselves too much with the outcome of such bravery.
Especially the men of the world. Our generation is the first to “understand” that notion, but darn it, I’d love to try and be the first generation of fellas to “live” the notion as well. So, let’s both continue to attempt to be on that “side of history,” shall we?
You see deeply into things for a living. Allow yourself the experience of doing that to yourself--for yourself.
Okay man. Be well. Always good to see and speak with you.
yours,
Jason

Yep, that is exactly what we’re yearning for…

# # #

Seattle: "Defund" meets "Decriminalize"

By Don Varyu

September 21, 2021

Well, it was bound to happen. My fair city of Seattle has finally decided to conclusively determine what happens when the proverbial unstoppable force meets the immovable object. Spoiler alert: it ain’t pretty.

In June of 2020, after Minneapolis police murdered George Floyd, protests erupted around the world. Seattle not only wanted to take part—it wanted notoriety. So, protestors took over several blocks of the popular Capitol Hill neighborhood. They created CHAZ—the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (later CHOP), which was really more like the declaration of a new state. Seattle's mayor blithely wrote it off as "a summer of love." The occupiers erected fences…barred police, fire and emergency vehicles…and forced one of the city’s police precincts to evacuate. It was really cute—in that naïve, grad student radical kind of way. But four shootings, two killers and a rape later, the love seemed to have gone out of the air. The police moved back in and reclaimed the turf.

But it wasn't really over. Something lasting came of it—a civic pledge of allegiance to the national call to “defund the police!” (I wrote about this at the time.) Later, some apologists said, well, maybe they were wrong--maybe--but it was the responsibility of the public to understand what they meant exactly by the term “defund.” Whatever. The damage was done. Republicans nationally (including then-King Trump) were able to run on a platform putting this question to local voters: “do you really want these kinds of crazy radicals to stop paying our police officers—and take them off of our streets?” Many voters were thus swayed. And perhaps ironically, the strong majority of African Americans who live in neighborhoods like the one where George Floyd was killed did NOT want the cops to disappear.

As this defund campaign lost steam, the pandemic began to spike. In downtown Seattle, it’s no exaggeration to say that the number of homeless on its streets frequently outnumbered office workers. As more of those workers stayed home, downtown turned into a ghost town. Shop doors were boarded up, and graffiti began to spread. Meanwhile, in the neighborhoods, street people began to set up home in RVs outside individual houses…and then filled in with tents on those same sidewalks.

Those homeowners were not happy. They didn’t like walking around needles and garbage to get in and out of their houses, and let’s just say that “toileting” among the newcomers was inventive. What’s more, property values might be negatively impacted—which no one thought possible in Seattle. So those homeowners began to call police. But frequently, the police said, “Nah…no thanks.”

Now the city center, if anything, is worse. The gifted Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat recently detailed this in a story about three business owners in Seattle’s historic Pioneer Square neighborhood, and how they’re considering closing up shop for good. It’s not that they couldn’t find workers—it’s the fact that the ones they had simply stopped coming to work. For them, it got too stressful and too dangerous just to get there. Vagrants harass them on their way through the neighborhood—and then often just walk in and lounge around the businesses and rummage the premises for food. No one acts to stop them.
Well, this is something, isn't it? Street people invading your restaurant....or living on the curb right outside your front door? And police sitting back in their stations drinking coffee and talking? The unstoppable force and the immovable object are at standoff.

Why aren’t the police doing anything!? Your initial thought might be that they're still pouting over the calls for their jobs to be “defunded.” It’s true that some 250 have left the force. At the same time, those who remain can feast on available overtime. Last year one officer made over $400,000.

________

In fact, something much larger is at work here--the blind obstinance of Seattle’s utterly distinctive city council.

The Seattle City Council absolutely oozes empathy—for the most-needy. And to be fair, many of the 11,000+ in Seattle without permanent shelter are truly in dire straits, through no fault of their own. Rents soared, and jobs evaporated. They deserve help. And much is available. In combination, city, county, state and federal entities…along with private donations...are applying some $200 million this year to “fix” the homeless problem. But the problem keeps getting worse. Many among those11.000 refuse the help. They are the drug addicted, the mentally ill and the "free spirits" who prefer life on the streets. And the word is out. Seattle won't hassle you. So Seattle now claims the country’s third largest population of homeless, after New York and Los Angeles.

Perhaps a different approach is needed? Well, the city council has an unorthodox, "outside the box" solution. Late last year they quietly inserted a provision into the city budget that would “decriminalize” certain crimes under certain circumstances. You read that right. They want to decriminalize crime. To be specific, all misdemeanors other than domestic violence and DUI’s would be forgiven…as long as the perpetrator could claim one of three conditions: 1) addiction; 2) poverty; or 3) mental disorder. So, if you smash through the window of a parked car…or walk out of a restaurant without paying? It’s fine—as long as you say you were stressed out, hungry or high.

Scott Lindsay is a former public safety officer for the city of Seattle, so he has some insight into these matters. He stated, “it’s basically a blank check for anybody committing theft, assault, harassment (and) trespass to continue without disruption from the criminal justice system. This would absolutely open the floodgates for crime.” Nearly a year after introduction, the council still hasn’t decided exactly what to do. And the number of petty crimes grows. Why would the cops arrest someone who might never be prosecutable? And anyway, they get paid hansomely whether they act or not.
___

But wait. There’s a footnote.

The councilmember who proposed the “decriminalizing” language is named Lisa Herbold. (She had also voted to “defund” the police.) Not long after making her proposal, Herbold called 9-1-1 to report someone throwing a rock at a window in her home. The only evidence was the statement of a neighbor who said he saw a white guy dressed in jeans and a black hoodie running from the scene. However, that wasn’t nearly enough to make any arrest.

Which is probably all for the best. By Herbold’s reckoning, that guy could have thrown as many rocks as he wanted at her house, so long as he claimed mental disorder—which, under state law, includes “emotional distress”.

Maybe he was just pissed off at his boss.

All good…

# # #

Texas: The Handmaid's Jail

By Don Varyu

September 2, 2021

Last night the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a woman’s right to abortion. They didn’t say they did that. But they did.

In Texas, the only abortions now allowed are those performed during the first six weeks of a pregnancy—a time when most women don’t even realize they’re pregnant.

But I want to put aside the strict abortion stuff. Instead, let’s move to on to the one aspect of the ruling that amounts to perhaps the most shocking ruling ever made by a U.S. Supreme Court. In refusing to block the Texas law, the justices authorized vigilante justice in America. In effect, the Supreme Court ruled that they themselves don’t really matter anymore. Let the mob decide what’s right. And pay them for their trouble.

The high court affirmed the right of anyone in the country to sue anyone they suspect of having an abortion in Texas—or anyone who aided in that abortion. That means not only a doctor performing the abortion…and presumably the person who drove the woman to the airport get an abortion out of state. It’s a sweet deal for the Texas Gestapo who turn you in. If a brown shirt wins his lawsuit, he gets at least $10,000 and his court costs. If he loses, there’s no penalty. It’s the legal lottery that you can’t lose
_______

Well, this is enough to make the blood boil for anyone who has a remote clue as to how America is supposed to work. But to make it clear even to the nutjobs, let me take this one step further.

To begin, let’s lay out two premises that apply here:

• Texas, a single state, effectively overturned established law for the whole country.

• And in the process, Texas ignored its own voters--well more than half support Roe v. Wade.

So, the legislature there can’t claim they were reflecting the will of their people. And they can’t claim women who previously received abortions in their state were breaking any law. State government thus wasn't righting a wrong; they were wronging a right.

So, I’ve got a counterproposal that mirrors Texas. But mine represents the sentiments of voters where I live…and addresses a longstanding crime.
___

In my state, the largest religions group is “nones”—in other words, atheists, agnostics, and those claiming no affiliation with any church. That’s 32% of us. In comparison, only 17%--about half as many—are Catholics.

Furthermore, there is no question that the Catholic church for decades (maybe centuries) ran a pedophilia sex right, helping priests play out their fantasies with young boys.

And importantly, my initiative derives directly from those smug souls in the Texas legislature.

Here’s how it works:

• All Catholics—priests, nuns, and all congregants—have six weeks to turn in their rosary beads and renounce their faith.

• After that, anyone in America has the right to sue anyone suspected of still being a Catholic.

You just poked your head inside the doors of the church to see if anyone iwas there?

You pay me $10,000.

I find a Christ on a cross hanging on your bedroom wall?

You pay me $10,000.

Your elderly mother thinks this is terrible--and says you should still say your prayers anyway?

She pays me $10,000 too.

And remember—that’s just me. There are millions of Americans who would love to cash in on your crime.
___

Now, you may think I’m picking on Catholics. I admit, I could have chosen evangelicals or Baptists or Mormons or Jews—they’re all smaller than “nones” where I live, too.

But the Catholics get special recognition here because four of the six Supreme Court justices who voted to blaspheme the Constitution by upholding the Texas travesty are devout Catholics. (As, in fairness, are John Roberts and Sonya Sotomayor, who voted against it.) This raises the question of how much influence the teachings of the church can have on the lowest minds on our highest court. Could they rationalize setting aside both established law and the very idea of personal liberties…in favor of the papal pap coming from Rome? You tell me.
___

At this moment, opponents seem set on finding ways to appeal this ruling…or how to reinforce efforts to fight upcoming abortion rights battles.

I say that’s wrong. Instead, fight fire with fire. Find a state whose legislature and governor are willing to pass legislation turning the tables on these crazed theocrats. Make the Supreme Court uphold their ruling that whatever states want is OK with them—rights be damned.

We either take the steps to fix this country…or the handmaids in Texas keep getting pushed further down the road to Gilead.

# # #

Afghan Withdrawal: A Media Debacle

By Don Varyu

August 24, 2021

The evacuation from Afghanistan continues tenuously. At this writing, no American has been killed—and let’s hope that number remains unchanged. Meanwhile, an unknown number of non-American support staff (largely Afghan interpreters) reportedly remains hiding in outlying areas, searching for ways to get to the Kabul airport. This messy process should have produced pointed questions for foreign policy experts, military leaders, and Congress. But instead, the media collectively decided that only one man is responsible—Joe Biden.

To be sure, the Afghan pullout has been chaotic. But those same words apply equally to the media voices who are paid to assess what’s going on. To be clear, I am not taking about the brave journalists on the ground in Afghanistan. In total, they are doing their jobs well, reporting directly on what they see and what they’ve found out.

Conversely, my criticism is aimed squarely at the smug and perpetually perturbed observers who sit comfortably in newsrooms, broadcast studios and online in the Twitterverse. They have failed miserably.

­­­How, exactly?

Let’s begin with a set of irrefutable facts:

• The British invaded Afghanistan in 1839…and left in defeat and disgrace.

• The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979…and left in defeat and disgrace.

• The United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001…and are now leaving in defeat and disgrace.

• President George W. Bush decided to invade. He certainly was never going to leave because that would have conceded his mistake.

• President Barack Obama campaigned on leaving Afghanistan. He never did. He did kill Osama bin Laden, which seemed to fulfill Bush’s mission. But he then spent five years being persuaded to actually increase troop levels.

• President Donald Trump campaigned on leaving Afghanistan. He never did. His contribution was freeing numerous Taliban leaders as part of a withdrawal agreement that actually made things worse.

• President Joe Biden campaigned on leaving Afghanistan. He did.

• Previous Presidents collectively had 231 months to correct the error and figure out how to pull our troops out. But the media decided that the problem was confined to what Joe Biden did in the weeks leading up to the withdrawal.

Fortunately, some of America’s more seasoned and clear-eyed journalists see exactly what’s going on
.

Margaret Sullivan of the Washington Post is one of our leading journalism critics. She wrote an assessment entitled, “The Afghan Debacle Lasted Two Decades. The Media Spent Two Hours Deciding Who to Blame.” An excerpt:

If ever a big, breaking story demanded that the news media provide historical context and carefully avoid partisan blame, it’s the story of the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban. Instead…coverage (tended) to elevate and amplify punditry over news, and to assign long-lasting political ramifications to a still-developing situation.

Thus, lesson number one: it’s far too early to decide what happened while it’s still happening.

Jon Favreau and Jon Lovett are former advisors and speechwriters for Barack Obama. They now see the process from the other side, as widely followed podcasters. Their assessment:

Since the days of Watergate, the media treats accountability as the raison d’etre for being a journalist. What (they) do…is blame rather than explain. That creates the false impression that the job of journalists is to bring down Presidents...because they saw a movie once with Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman that said that was the job. It’s not. Their job is to report stories. If that reporting leads to people in power being held accountable, great. But that should be a biproduct.

Lesson two: don’t blame, explain.

They also identify where journalistic guns should be trained:

It’s long been the view that military intervention can somehow help uphold human rights around the world wherever they’re threatened. Elements of the press corps who cover the Pentagon...talk to generals and military leaders who have a bias towards military intervention. "Overruling their generals"…is always seen as bad. (But) that’s why we have civilians in command of the military.

That sentiment is underscored by veteran investigative reporter Eric Levitz who wrote the following in New York magazine:

Those who fought to extend America’s war in Afghanistan…would like the public to miss the forest for the trees—by mistaking Biden’s tactical errors for strategic ones. The primary lesson…could be that the U.S. war was a catastrophe, and that those who misled the public about the Afghan army’s strength—thereby delaying an inevitable Taliban victory at immense human cost—deserve little input on future policy, no matter how many stars they have on their uniforms or diplomas on their walls. Afghan news coverage focuses exhaustively on the shortcomings of Biden’s withdrawal…ignoring what our client-state’s abrupt collapse says about our two-decades long occupancy.

Lesson three: if you’re going to assess blame, have the insight and courage to place it where it belongs.

Let me suggest just four logical areas of reporting which are vastly more important than what we’ve witnessed from the pundit class so far:

1. Estimates of America’s expenditures related to Afghanistan range from $1 trillion to $2 trillion. Where did that money go? How much went to defense contractors? How was it that over the final several months, the Afghan soldiers we spent 20 years training reportedly were not paid at all? Follow the money.

2. Understandably, there is media focus on people desperately trying to get out of the country. Some could be killed. However, during the U.S. occupation, nearly 50,000 Afghan civilians...and more than 65,000 Afghan military...were killed. Without our invasion, perhaps every one of them would have lived. Who is telling their stories?

3. The Taliban are now faced with running a country. To date, abuses of their own people are limited and anecdotal. What are the chances they increase once the Americans depart? How do they say they’ll treat women and girls? Are they telling the truth? How will we know? In a wider sense, the Taliban have to consider their footing in relation to the wider world. What signs are they giving as to how they might proceed?

4. Their country will become even more impoverished. Do they intend to seek financial help from the outside world? Under what circumstances could or should Western nations consider sending aid…or allowing non-government organizations to operate?

Joe Biden didn’t wake up one morning and determine the timing and method of the withdrawal. He relied on his diplomatic and military advisors. Certainly, he can’t throw them under the bus. The buck, after all, does stop with him.

But the nation’s leading journalists and editors should realize this. Instead of engaging in a White House feeding frenzy, they should have the intelligence and fortitude to begin exploring the real reasons for the disaster. They should see that their “experts” pushing the media’s outrage buttons about Biden are exactly the ones who deserve the outrage. Point your reporting in the right direction—and then fire.

And most importantly, maybe in the end they can identify what went wrong in Vietnam and Iraq and Syria and Afghanistan so that we don’t make that same mistakes again.

Arkansas Flips

By Don Varyu

August 4, 2021

A few weeks ago, Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson (R-Walmart) signed a law that prohibited any state entity from mandating mask wearing. Including hospitals, schools, NASCAR events...wherever.

Suddenly, he's changed his tune. With the Delta variant ripping through the vast numbers of unvaccinated in his state...and kids on the way back to school...he's shocked he didn't think to veto that thing.

“In hindsight, I wish that had not become law, but it is the law and the only chance we have is either to amend it or for the courts to say that it has an unconstitutional foundation.”

In typical GOP form, he's saying, "hey, I messed up--why don't you guys go out and find someone to clean up for me?"

In a previous article, we said this GOP flip-flop on fighting COVID had a specific motivation. You can read the explanation here,

Finally, before you give old Asa too much credit for political courage, consider that term limits prevent him from staying in office after next year's election. This is all about legacy polishing.

# # #

The Mysterious GOP Vaccine Flip

By Don Varyu

July 26, 2021

Right from the start, every standing member of Trump nation knew the right answer when it came to vaccinations: “NO!”

And that stayed constant until about 10 days ago. Then, mysteriously, a quickly assembled parade of ardent Trump serfs…from House minority whip Steve Scalise (R-Bayou) to Fox News huckster Sean Hannity…suddenly spun on their pitchforks. They inexplicably began urging their followers to take the shots. Whaa? A hundred pundits claimed they really couldn’t figure out what was going on.

There were possible explanations, to be sure. Did those Trump mooks somehow start to believe in science? No.

Did they set aside their ridiculous conspiracy theories—like the one that claimed government agents were going door-to-door to take everyone’s guns and bibles? No—that one still lives.

OK, maybe--just maybe--they finally stopped, shook their heads, and realized they had a responsibility to their fellow Americans to do what was in the common good? Of course they didn’t do that!

All this confusion opens the door for my personal theory—which I actually believe falls somewhere between a possibility and a guarantee. I say that here, as with almost everything related to the GOP, Occam’s razor provides the obvious answer. It all comes down to racism.
___
Think back through the long months of the pandemic. Virtually every dreary news story mentioned the fact that the virus was disproportionately striking and killing people of color.

Well, all the Trumpies heard that, too--and it caused them no concern. In fact, silently I think they cheered. This was Mother Nature’s contribution to voter suppression. Long before covens were called in conservative state legislatures, Trump cultists saw this felling of minorities as a sign; a higher power was at work, using the pandemic on behalf of patriotic whites.
___

OK,I realize this sounds severe. And of course, no Trumpie would ever admit it. But there’s no question in my mind that this was going on. The Trumpies thought they really didn’t need to worry—as good, sturdy, God-fearing Americans, they believed they were immune. And that belief doubled down when it came to vaccinations. Those who suffered would be the ones who deserved to suffer.
___

So, what undid this? All it took was a little bit of data and some personal observations. The data showed that new cases of the deadlier Delta variant were striking unvaccinated souls in states that went overwhelmingly for Trump. And then the first-hand evidence began to come in: “I know four good evangelicals from good families who just got it—and man, they’re really bad off!”

Fears rose as those folks started talking to each other. So they picked up phones and called the people they elected to represent them in D.C. Those elected officials got together, mustered all the empathy they could, and decided, “if those idiots start dying off, they can’t vote for us anymore.”

And making things worse was the vision of their opponents in the next election running ads that accurately state: “he’s the guy who told your cousin not to get the shots—you know, the cousin who caught COVID and died.”
___

Voila. This thunderbolt among Republican leaders caused many (but not all) to instantly change their tunes. But those conversions haven't always been easy. The spineless Hannity, who had constantly assured his viewers the whole vaccination thing was nonsense…abruptly said he now believed, “…in the science of vaccination…please take COVID seriously.”

Whoa! Thousands of his fans were having none of that! They roasted him on social media. Consequently, he retreated to full hem-and-haw mode, saying, “it absolutely makes sense for many Americans to get vaccinated”—but then added that “many” was not the same thing as “most”—and certainly not, “nearly all.” Like i said, spineless.

Why not just hope for the impossible here. The Trump voters realize they've been duped, and many turn away from both right wing media, and Trump himself.

I can dream, can't I?

# # #

# # #