About Wayne A. Schneider

I'm a Liberal, Libertarian, Atheist Humanist. I believe that though the world is a dangerous place, it can be made better if we stop dividing ourselves by how we're different from each other, and reach out to each other through what we have in common. And that is that we are all human beings on this planet. Please remember that.

The Watering Hole, Monday, August 22, 2016: It Started Long Before Reagan

Ask Liberals when the decline of the middle class started, when the rapid rise in income inequality began, and most (including me) would point to the inauguration of President Ronald Reagan in January 1981, but we would be wrong. No, the true birth of the rise of the Corporation was 45 years ago this week when a memorandum was presented to the US Chamber of Congress at the request of the Chairman of the Chamber’s Education Committee, Eugene B. Sydnor, Jr., advising how to fight a problem that didn’t exist. The author of that memo was his Richmond friend and neighbor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., who just a few months after submitting this memo was nominated to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States by then-President Richard M. Nixon.

At this point I want to make an important distinction not unfamiliar to readers of my past writings: When talking about Washington politics, especially in the past century, it’s important to look at ideology rather than political party. The Republican Party was not always Conservative and the Democratic Party was not always Liberal. Today, and ever since the rise of the falsely-named TEA Party movement (they were severely undertaxed, not overtaxed, which is why our national debt is so high), the Republican Party on the national level has no Liberals in it. But prior to 1965 the party used to welcome Liberals and even ran on platforms that you would swear today were done by Liberal Democrats. In fact, two of the greatest Republican Presidents, Abraham Lincoln and Dwight D. Eisenhower, were more Liberal than Conservative. Given their well-documented tendency to exhibit bigotry and racism, does anyone really believe a TEA Party Republican would have issued the Emancipation Proclamation? And given their well-documented disdain for anything even remotely close to Socialism, do you think a TEA Party Republican today would have built the Interstate Highway System? Hell, even Eisenhower defended Social Security and said the people who wanted to cut it were stupid. Do you think either of those men could get elected to office as a Republican today? That’s why it’s important to distinguish between the party and the ideology, and the primary source of the problem I talk about below is Conservatism, not the Republican Party. The Democratic Party has Conservatives within it today and they are a problem, too, though maybe not as insane and irrational as Conservatives in the Republican Party. What’s wrong with the Powell Memo has nothing to do with the Republican Party and everything to do with Conservatism, and the people who espouse it. Lewis Powell was undeniably a Conservative, but Lewis Powell was also a Democrat. The Conservative mind has a way of looking at things that would make someone less susceptible to fear scratch his heads and wonder how they tie their shoes without worrying about cutting off circulation to their toes. (Here are a number of ways Liberal and Conservative minds differ.) The part of the brain that tells you you’re in danger is larger in Conservatives, making them see danger where a Liberal might not. So Conservatives are more prone to basing their choices on fear.

Below is the text of the Powell Memo (as taken from Greenpeace’s website), interspersed with my own commentary. You can see another reprint of the memo with different commentary, and a little more background here. A look back on the memo around its 40th anniversary can be found here.

Continue reading

Sunday Roast: With Friends Like These…

Obviously presidential candidates can’t appear on every TV show to defend their own idiotic comments, so they have surrogates to do that for them. International con-artist and flamboyant jack-o’-lantern Donald J. Trump (who also happens to be the GOP Presidential nominee) has several of these surrogates going around the various TV shows trying to explain what Trump really meant when he said some of the things he said, even when he denied saying them. And we know he said them because we saw video of him saying them. He would say them, the media would report that he said them, there would be proper outrage over the things he said (or supposedly said, or supposedly did), and the surrogates would be out in the next few days telling us the media has distorted the whole situation and it’s not what everybody says it is. I can only think of one time when they were actually right about that. The crying baby. The New York Daily News, Rolling Stone Magazine, The New York Times, Salon, Wired, Baltimore Sun, and even Fox News all reported that Trump had ordered a crying baby removed from one of his rallies. Trump and his spokesjacks (spokespeople for the jack-o’-lantern) said the media was distorting what actually happened and for once they were right. Trump did say all the words you heard in the quotes, but what most of the media didn’t point out was that the woman was already packing up and leaving when Trump insultingly told her “Actually I was only kidding, you can get the baby out of here.” That was just Trump being a dick. The mother herself, Devan Ebert, said through a Facebook post that she wasn’t kicked out of the rally at all, that she was leaving anyway so her baby wouldn’t disrupt the rally, and that she still supports Trump. Okay, so Trump was right about that one. But it was one of the only ones. Trump has said many, many other even more horrible things and when he has, his campaign sent people out to talk to the media. And considering the way they have chosen to defend him, maybe he should rethink using them in the future.

Former Reagan Administration official Jeffrey Lord is a perfect example of the kind of friend Trump doesn’t need if he really wants to win this election, and there’s ample reason to believe he doesn’t. (For example, he picked Jeffrey Lord to be one of his spokesjacks early on. Lord was on CNN recently after Trump claimed, multiple times, that President Obama “founded ISIS.” Trump tried to say later that he was just being sarcastic, “but not really.” It took retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling to straighten Lord out on the facts and history of ISIS. But if you think this was one of Trump’s harmless diversions from reality, think again. Hassan Nazrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, has been using Trump’s comments to say that “there are admissions by US officials that they created ISIS.” He doesn’t understand that Trump is not a “U.S. official” and never will be.

Katrina Campins is a successful real estate agent and a participant on Season 1 of The Apprentice. She was sent to CNN to debate Trump’s economic policies with that network’s own economics analyst, Ali Velshi. Suffice to say Trump needs to pick better economic spokesjacks. Campins was unable to come up with a premise that made any sense, which made Velshi’s head spin. Trump’s economic policy includes, as you might have guessed, more tax cuts, as if that’s going to solve anything. It won’t. Tax cuts do nothing but hurt poorer people and help rich people get even richer. Trickle Down Economics (Supply Side Economics) has been proven to be a disastrous way to govern.

BTW, all these stupid things that Trump has been saying are not his fault at all, according to Kimberly Guilfoyle. She says that they’re President Obama’s and Sec Hillary Clinton’s fault. “It’s like the most unholy partnership of all time between the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton, constantly making comments trying to bait Trump into saying something that will sidetrack him.” Of course they are. These people need to get it through their clearly addled minds that Trump doesn’t need any baiting to say stupid things. “Proceed, Mr. Trump.”

Kellyanne Conway, not one to shy away from making a false equivalence, tried to counter Trump’s famous “Second Amendment” remarks with the attendance of a certain person at one of Clinton’s rallies.

Where would you feel more safe? Would you feel more safe in at a rally where the speaker who is running for president says you have a right to protect yourself under your Second Amendment constitutional rights? Or would you feel more safe at a rally where the man who perpetrated the worst mass murder since 9/11 in America’s history was standing right behind the candidate?

First of all, nobody but you can make you “feel safe.” It’s not the president’s job to do that, either. Because this is a free country and you are allowed to go where you want and do what you want as long as you don’t break any laws. But if you decide you do want to break some laws, like shooting people, you’ll probably be able to do it. Instead of a police state where people need the government’s permission to do things, we have a system of justice based on deterrence. It’s assumed you don’t want to go to jail, so the threat of losing your freedom is usually enough to keep 99% of people from breaking the law. But some people don’t care about that because they expect to die doing the crime they’re doing, and that’s how you get people like Omar Mateen shooting up the Pulse nightclub. Which brings me to the second point: “the man who perpetrated the worst mass murder since 9/11 in America’s history” is dead. He wasn’t sitting behind Clinton at that rally. It was his father, Seddique Mateen, and he has every legal reason to be there (despite what you’ll hear some RWers say.)

Even Dr. Ben Carson took time away from his busy schedule of public napping to defend Trump after the Republican nominee started disparaging the whole election process. Despite the fact that Democrats have won Pennsylvania the last few election cycles, and despite the fact that Clinton is leading Trump there by a significant margin, Trump told his audience that if he loses PA (and he will), it could only be because of cheating by the Democrats. These is a dangerous thing to say, and an especially irresponsible one because there’s no proof that the Democrats plan to cheat. There is, however, proof that the Republicans tried to cheat by passing their own version of a Voter ID bill (all of which are designed to prevent groups of likely Democratic voters from voting.) Carson started his rebuttal by referencing “voting irregularities” in the 2012 election in Philadelphia. The irregularities to which he refers are the fact that Romney got 0 votes in 59 voting districts in Philadelphia. To anyone who has paid attention to voting patterns in Philadelphia since the FDR administration, this came as no surprise, as Snopes points out. The districts are in areas with a heavy black population, and there are only about 300-500 people in each district. And while there are a handful of registered republicans in those districts according to voter registration records, attempts to locate them were mostly fruitless. Besides, the same thing happened to McCain in 2008 when he got 0 votes in 57 districts. Carson tried to justify Voter ID laws by claiming it’s the only way to prevent voter fraud. This is another favorite tactic of the right, to distort the meanings of words. They like to claim that every election irregularity is “voter fraud.” Voter fraud happens when someone tries to cast a vote posing as someone they aren’t, and it’s not in the least bit a serious problem no matter how many times the right says it is. So the Voter ID laws they like to pass, which by design disproportionately harm black people, college students from another state, and senior citizens, are passed to fix a problem that simply does not exist. Out of a billion votes cast, do you know how many cases of in-person voter fraud there have been? Thirty-one. That is hardly justification to make people travel many miles to get a specific form of ID just to cast a vote, when they had no problem voting before. Many times these laws don’t allow for college IDs to be used (even though they have pictures on them and can be used for every other state requirement of identification), but do allow for hunting licenses to be used (which often DON’T have a photo of the person on them, and are more likely to be obtained by conservatives rather than liberals. I base that on the fact that liberals tend to be more sympathetic to animals than conservatives, who aren’t sympathetic to anyone but conservatives.) But in the end, Carson wouldn’t come out and say that Trump was right, which means he wasn’t helping Trump, either.

Which brings us to perhaps the worst spokesjack a candidate could have, Katrina Pierson. In case you don’t recognize her by name, she’s the one who likes to show up on TV wearing a necklace made of bullets. Pierson was among those trying to defend Trump’s remarks about Obama being the founder of ISIS. When asked if Trump was being sarcastic, she tried to answer, “Yes and no.” She then tried to say that while it was true that Obama “didn’t fill out the paperwork to create ISIS” (note to readers, neither did ISIS because there is no form you fill out to create an organization of assholes hell-bent on murder), that he and Clinton did create the policies that led to the formation of ISIS (which is also not true as that would have been the Bush Administration’s policies; their policies led to the creation of al Qaeda in Iraq, which was the precursor of ISIL, also known as ISIS in some areas.) On another CNN program Pierson tried to re-write history by saying, “Remember, we weren’t even in Afghanistan by this time. Barack Obama went into Afghanistan, creating another problem.” Does it even need to be pointed out that Bush took us into Afghanistan before he illegally took us into Iraq? In addition to wanting to know how someone like this could possibly be helpful to Trump, I would also like to know why CNN keep having her on at all? Virtually nothing she says can be connected to Reality in any way.

Finally, lest you think I’m just picking and choosing a few incidents going all the way back to a year ago when Trump famously launched his campaign by saying Mexico was sending us rapists, I’m not. All of these stories are from within just the past few days. Trump used to brag that he only hired the best people to work for him. Either he hasn’t actually met them, or he was just lying again.

This is our daily open thread. Eat up.

The Watering Hole, Monday, August 1, 2016: Cute Baby Animal Overload

The conventions are over, and rather than dwell on the hate and negativity of the Republican Convention, or the hate and negativity of the Republican response to the Democratic Convention, let’s just enjoy some cute baby animal pics, courtesy of the Twitter account @CuteBabyAnimals. Enjoy, and discuss anything you want afterwards. This is our daily open thread.

Okay, and one I couldn’t resist…

Hope that put a good start to your week.

The Watering Hole, Saturday, July 30, 2016: Intelligence Briefings Won’t Make Trump Intelligent

Vice President Harry Truman didn’t know anything about the Manhattan Project. He only learned about it after President Franklin Roosevelt’s death and his assumption of the presidency. He decided that his successors should never be put in that same situation and ordered that intelligence briefings be given to both major party candidates in a presidential election. This process has evolved over the years and now includes a watered-down version of what the president is told on a daily basis. It contains no Top Secret information (which is information whose release could cause “exceptionally grave damage” to the nation’s security) but just a general overview of the security threats around the world. They might tell the candidates where ISIS is operating in the world, but they won’t tell them where the leader of ISIS stays each night.

People from both major parties have given reasons why they think the other party’s candidate shouldn’t get any briefing. Republicans say the FBI’s report on the Clinton e-mail server investigation, and Director James Comey’s characterization of Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified data as “reckless” should disqualify her from getting any briefing. This is ridiculous because as Secretary of State she was already aware of the kind of information the briefing would present. Senator Harry Reid believes that Donald Trump’s lack of self-control makes him unsuited for handling classified information and that they should give him a fake briefing, with no real intelligence divulged. This has led to a fun hashtag game on the Twitter called #FakeTrumpIntelligenceBriefing. Here is an example:

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said both candidates will get the same nonpartisan briefing. After the election, the winner will begin receiving the same intelligence briefing the president gets each morning in order to prepare her (alright, maybe him) for taking office. Ironically, something like the Manhattan Project is not the kind of thing that would be told to presidential candidates. If they wouldn’t even tell the Vice President it existed, why would they reveal it to someone who was going to lose the election and probably never hold any public office?

This is our daily open thread. It contains no classified information.

The Watering Hole, Monday, July 25, 2016: Of Interest To Christians

The Christian Post (CP), which calls itself “the nation’s most comprehensive Christian news website” (see their Statement of Faith at the bottom of their About page, showing the inherent contradictions in their viewpoints), published two posts detailing thirteen items from the Republican and Democratic convention platforms they deemed to be of interest to Christians. Specifically, Conservative Christians, as explicitly stated in the article on the Republican platform. [NOTE: In order to discuss what CP says about the platform, I will be quoting from their articles. Also note that I am taking the inclusion or not of amendments from the CP articles. I did not compare anything from the actual GOP platform as passed. And, obviously, the DNC is about to begin their convention later today.]

Starting with the Republicans, CP points out that the GOP will no longer be calling for a constitutional amendment to define “marriage” as being between one man and one woman. Instead they’ll say they object to the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges and go back to their usual “this is an issue for the states to decide” argument. Except that the Full Faith and Credit clause throws a wrinkle into that plan, as you would still have to recognize a marriage performed in another state. Another plank pointed out was one to support the First Amendment Defense Act, another inappropriately named Republican bill, this one to protect someone’s right to discriminate because they hate Teh Gays. Tony Perkins, the miscreant in charge of the Family Research Council, helped get this plank adopted, then backed away from supporting it because it has been “weakened” in Congress by a change in the language that would further a “two views” approach to marriage. IOW, they wanted the right to say, “Your marriage disgusts me so I don’t have to recognize it as such, or even serve you in a matter unrelated to your marriage,” to be the law of the land. It can’t work. The Anti-Gay Forces had another victory with a measure that “would keep publicly funded adoption agencies from being able to grant custody of children to same-sex parents.”

While up for consideration, the measure was opposed by Annie Dickerson, an adviser to billionaire GOP donor Paul Singer, who called the measure “blatant discrimination.”

“We need children to be adopted, so hooray to the gay community for trying to raise children in a happy and stable home,” Dickerson, who has adopted children, said. “I object to allowing patent discrimination against gays over the right to adopt.”

Interesting that out of the seven things CP felt would be of interest to Christians, the first three are about gay marriage, and how yucky they think it is and they shouldn’t be forced to think about it. Except nobody is making them. The issue is decided. They lost. The only ones making them think about it so much, and they do think about it a lot, are them! CP shifted it up a bit and listed a measure to repeal the Johnson Amendment of 1954. This was an amendment to the US Tax Code that said certain tax-exempt organizations, like churches, could not conduct political activities meant to influence the outcome of an election, including the endorsement of a particular candidate.

IRS explanation of the statute
The Internal Revenue Service website elaborates upon this prohibition as follows:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

In their twisted minds, they are being “silenced.” No, they are not. No one is going to throw them in jail and deny them their freedom for endorsing a candidate from the pulpit. They’ll just have to start paying taxes on the property on which they made the endorsement. And no matter what anybody from the right tells you, being forced to pay taxes is not equivalent to Slavery. The Republicans then added an amendment to support the right of parents to subject their children to the abuse of “conversion therapy” (or as it’s sometimes known, “Pray away the gay.”) It doesn’t work and does more harm than good. The Conservative Christians decided to lump all forms of pornography together and claim it is all a “public health crisis.” But then they specifically call for more “energetic prosecution of child pornography.” Okay, child pornography is a horrific thing and ought to be stopped entirely. But not all pornography involves children. And, yes, some of it involves human trafficking and sex slaves participating against their will. And that should also be stopped. But much of it involves two consenting adults (usually two) doing what consenting adults are allowed to do and letting me watch – I mean, letting other people, not me, watch. It is very much not the same thing, but their broad generalization of pornography, and its availability on the internet, is that it is “harmful to children.” Again, I call bullshit. Better they watch two consenting adults doing it right, then watch them try to kill each other. It isn’t about the children at all. And lastly, they’re looking for a back door way to get Bibles back in the schools, based in part on the common right wing lie that the first Congress specifically authorized putting Bibles in schools. That’s the top things the Christian Post thought would be of interest to Conservative Christians. Nothing about helping people. Probably because there wasn’t any.

In a subsequent post, the CP highlighted items they thought would interest Christians (Conservative ones) from the Democratic platform. They began with an alarm that the Dems want to repeal the odious Hyde Amendment. But, naturally, the CP quotes someone lying about the right to abortion and referring to it as “abortion on demand,” which no serious person on the left is calling for. We’re just sick and tired of Republicans throwing up obstacles over bullshit reasons to make it all but impossible to get an abortion. The Dems also want to support the Iran Nuclear Deal. This is alarming to the right who never seemed to demonstrate any understanding of what was involved in reaching that historic deal. I refuse to believe anything they say now. The CP also points out that a measure to name Israel as an occupying force (which they are) failed along with a measure to join the BDS movement. But then they quote what made it into the draft, and one wonders why they mentioned the opposing failed language.

“A strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance, and pluralism,” the draft reads. “That is why we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself, including by retaining its qualitative military edge, and oppose any effort to delegitimize Israel, including at the United Nations or through the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement.”

Let’s be honest here, Christian Post. The Conservative Christians in this country support Israel for one and only one reason – The End Times and The Rapture. Israel has to be around for Jesus to return. That is their only concern. It’s a pretty ill-founded and baseless one. (The Bible is not a historical document.) The Democrats also expressed opposition to standardized testing, and want to fight for the right of parents to opt-out. They want free tuition to in-state colleges for families earning less than $125,000 per year. I would support this but ask that the cap be adjusted for cost-of-living differences around the country. And lastly, for the first time ever, the Democratic platform will call for the end to capital punishment. I wholeheartedly agree with this position.

This is our daily open thread. Grab a cup, scoop some water from the watering hole, and chat about whatever you wish.

The Watering Hole, Monday, July 18, 2016: An Unfunny Trainwreck

Presumptive Republican Presidential Nominee and Narcissistic Mendacious Carnival Barker Donald J. Trump and his choice to be his running mate, Indiana Governor and anti-Woman, anti-LGBT, pro-Christian-and-no-other-religion department store female underwear mannequin, Mike Pence, sat down with CBS 60 Minutes’ Lesley Stahl for their first joint interview since the announcement was made. You’d think they just met in the hallway. It did not go as well as the Republican Party might hope, unless their hope was that Trump would forget to rein in his ego even a little bit and Pence would forget that his political career is coming to an end this November.

See the interview and a great summary of why this was a complete and total trainwreck here. While you’re there, count the lies Stahl allows Trump to Gish Gallop into his comments. Lies such as that he was against the Iraq War from the beginning, that Hillary Clinton “invented ISIS with her stupid policies,” and many others. And his refusal to directly answer questions like “How are you going to declare war on ISIS?” are very scary. This man is a buffoon, and there is absolutely no rational reason to believe he is competent in the least way to handle the responsibilities of being president. You cannot convince me otherwise. Go ahead. Try.

This is our daily open thread. You are free to discuss any topic you wish.

The Watering Hole, Saturday, July 9, 2016: The Lies About Dallas

I was once a terrorist in the BLA, but it’s not what you’re thinking. I’ll explain later.

When large scale tragedy strikes we depend on our media for information about what happened, what’s still happening, and what’s going to happen. But the media isn’t usually the source of the information we get. That’s usually some government officials at either the local, state or federal level, depending on the geographic scope of the tragedy in question. When it’s confined to a single city, especially a large metropolitan one, it’s usually the local police who give out the information that the media gives us. So when lives may be at stake, it’s important that this information be reliable. When such a tragedy struck Dallas, TX, this past Thursday, the government officials giving out the information upon which we relied was the Dallas Police Department. And they failed utterly to give us accurate information, and thus failed to keep the public safe.

Although Micah Xavier Johnson’s motivations can generally be traced back further, what happened Thursday in Dallas essentially began early Tuesday morning in Baton Rouge, LA. Police responding to a call about a black man pointing a gun at passersby and threatening them encountered Anton Sterling, a 37-year-old man who sold CDs outside a convenience store. Though Sterling did have a gun on him, at no time did he reach for it or threaten anyone with it. Still, only after pinning him down on the ground and discovering the gun on him did one police officer step forward and fire 4-6 shots into Sterling’s chest. [Warning: Contains video with graphic and disturbing footage.] Though Sterling did have a criminal record, none of that played any part in Sterling’s murder. And I do call it a murder, which is why the DOJ has been asked to investigate it. Late Wednesday night in Falcon Heights, MN, 32-year-old Philando Castile was shot to death (murdered, actually) by a police officer during a routine traffic stop. [Warning: Contains video with graphic and disturbing footage.] Castile, too, was armed but he announced this fact to the officer along with the fact that he had a permit to carry it. As he reached for his license (as requested) the officer apparently freaked out and told Castile to freeze. Castile made the fatal mistake of trying to raise his weaponless hands back up when the officer fired four shots in to him. As Castile’s girlfriend sat in the front seat next to him. And his daughter in the back seat behind him. President Obama released a statement about the two shootings which was part of the problem with what happened in Dallas according to some people with no apparent connection to reality. And various chapters of the Black Lives Matter movement organized protests in several US cities Thursday night, including Dallas, TX.

Johnson had reached his tipping point about the time he posted a long rant on a Black Panthers Mississippi Facebook page denouncing certain (not all) white people for their crimes against black people. Johnson’s own FB page “included images of a Black Power symbol and a red, black and green flag associated with the Black Liberation Army.” In September 1981 some of us Bouton Hall college dormitory friends decided to form our own terrorist organization called the Bouton Liberation Army. We would ambush people and shoot them – with water pistols. We had white t-shirts with “BLA” painted on them, and we would go around yellowing “Blahhhh…” as we shot and wetted people. It was a lot of fun. Then the other BLA went and shot two cops during a Brink’s robbery, and we decided to disband the group. But the Black Liberation Army was an influence on Johnson, and he decided he wanted to kill as many white people, white police officers in particular, as he could. (He was not as careful about that as he might have wanted to be.) He chose the Dallas BLM protest to act upon his grievances. Almost from the time he started shooting, the misinformation came out.

As the story broke I was seeing tweets saying a team of snipers, in a coordinated attack, had started shooting police officers in Dallas following the protest. The falsehood that it was more than one shooter was spread around by media even after it was finally announced that it was only one shooter. The reports also said the shooter was blaming the Black Lives Matter movement, but the truth was he was upset about the number of black men being unnecessarily shot by police officers, most of whom were white. This meme was being attributed to anonymous police sources, and it led to further speculation in the right-wing not-quite-real-media that armies of black men would be opening fire on white people everywhere, and that, of course, President Barack Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the entire Black Lives Matter movement, and Private Citizen Billionaire George Soros were behind it. The inaccurate reports of casualties is understandable, but the almost immediate release of such wrong information is not. And as a result of the falsehoods fed to the media, the right wing had cover to spew much of their ridiculous nonsense about Black Lives Matter. which has had a great relationship with the Dallas Police, who were providing security for the protest while wearing their normal police uniforms, as opposed to the riot gear we often see police use which further exacerbates the problem. Not to mention taking the conversation away from the ease with which people can get deadly weapons and kill multiple people at once. Nor will it help us discuss the highly unusual way the Dallas Police ended the situation, by using a robot to deliver a bomb and exploding it to kill him. Was that really necessary? Did he have enough food and water to hold out for a long time? I doubt it, so all the police had to do was wait him out. They had him surrounded. He would have had to come out to get something to eat or drink. So they were “impatient.” Did that give them the right to decide he didn’t deserve a trial, or a verdict, or a sentence from a judge, and they could proceed straight to execution? Because that’s what it was – an execution, and a cruel and unusual one at that.

Open thread. Have fun.