Friday, January 7, 2022

‘A battle for the soul of America’


     It took them long enough.
     Those of us desperate to preserve America as a country where facts, votes and character — the Big Three — still matter, have been tapping our watch faces, wondering when the president and vice president would get in the game. The canyon floor is racing up; in one year, it is expected, the Republicans will sweep back into power and try to cement the damage they have done to this country.
     Kamala Harris and Joe Biden chose the first anniversary of Jan. 6, when the mob that Donald Trump called to Washington was set upon the seat of American democracy in his rolling clown coup.
     “Certain dates echo throughout history,” Harris began, speaking from Statuary Hall in the Capitol, where rioters paraded one year ago. “Including dates that instantly remind all who have lived through them where they were, and what they were doing, when our democracy came under assault. Dates that occupy not only a place on our calendars, but a place in our collective memory. Dec. 7, 1941, Sept. 11, 2001, and Jan. 6, 2021.”
     As frightening as that was, even more so was the past year, when Republicans sought to minimize and lie away what they had done, and continue to do.
     “What they were assaulting were the institutions, the values, the ideals that generations of Americans have marched, picketed and shed blood to establish and defend,” Harris said. “On Jan. 6 we all saw what our nation would look like if the forces that seek to dismantle our democracy are successful. The lawlessness. The violence. The chaos.”

To continue reading, click here.

13 comments:

  1. The lawlessness. The violence. The chaos. Chicago?

    I think you've lost perspective.

    Go back 5 years after Trump was inaugurated, when violent mobs were rampaging the streets of Washington DC, burning, smashing windows, looting, overturning card, attacking police, surrounding the white house threatening to kill the inhabitants.

    Violent Antifa and BLM rioters in Portland amd Seattle attacking federal buildings, looting stores, burning businesses and homes. Kamala Harris raised funds to bail out and defend true enemies of a free society and democracy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See, that's the corner you back yourself into. Do Republicans think that violence and lawlessness are a BAD thing? Or only when Black people do it. If violence and lawlessness are a BAD thing, then how can you defend 1/6? Talk about losing perspective.

      Delete
    2. Uh, we got the idea yesterday, PB. There have been many, many instances of rioting, property damage and violence in protests of one kind or another in this country since before it was a country. So stipulated. Not coincidentally, there have been many, many people and groups of people who have well-founded grievances about the unfair way they have been treated in this country, making their protests understandable even when not laudatory.

      There has been ONE instance where a defeated president has refused to concede that he lost a fair election and that his successor is eminently legitimate. There has been ONE occasion when people stormed the U. S. Capitol, breached its security and KILLED people in an attempt to further the egomaniacal and illegal aspirations of one man, who had encouraged them to "fight" for him and was reportedly quite happy to see them doing so. 5 years ago, the comparison of your defeated conman to Hitler was speculative and fiery rhetoric, at best. After the attempted White House putsch of January 6 and a year in which the Republican elected toadies have continued to back him, despite their brief condemnations immediately after the fact, the comparisons seem prescient, rather than overheated.

      To put it simply, if you cannot see the difference between the valid concerns of BLM and the incredible danger presented to the American experiment by a deeply entrenched, fully-funded political party devoted to a Big Lie that would disenfranchise 81 million voters, you are no patriot. Nor do you actually care about freedom or democracy, whatever you may claim.

      Delete
    3. Standing 👏 👏 👏 Jackash!

      Delete
    4. This clown lost me yesterday when he typed out "Oh, and all those times Democrat mobs invaded and occupied government buildings...blah blah blah..."

      I don't even have hearing aids yet, but I still turn off, tune out, and stop listening when these right-wing glassbowls forget to include the "-ic"...it's their way of saying "I'm a die-hard Republican right-winger, and I'm doing my damnedest to try to piss you off."

      Linguists, politicos, and pundits have many explanations for this long-time "oversight." But the bottom line is--it works. Too well. Really triggers me. It's the semantic equivalent of flashing gang signs on the street. In the early days of its widespread usage, some folks probably deluded themselves into thinking it was merely sheer laziness, or a typing mistake, or even just bad grammar.

      Bullshit. They know what they're doing, and they know damn well why they're doing it. And any direct reply to the fascistic bastards who employ that shorthand is usually a waste of time and keystrokes. So...forget you, pal.

      Delete
  2. Donald J. Trump has to do serious prison time. BUT, while principle is all important, how is this going to look to our friends and enemies world wide? The usual story, right? The winners take all and the losers go to jail. Or to some foreign country willing to take the losers and not give them back. I'm not sure what country would take Trump, but I'm sure there's at least one out there. And of course his family need follow, making the 3rd world-look complete. So, one way or another, the United States of America, once the model for democracy and justice for the rest of the world and the envy of all, is going down the tubes to join the other failed regimes.

    john

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is off-topic and may only be of interest to me, which is not unusual! But it's something I've been curious about for a while. In today's column, Neil refers to PB's remarks from yesterday, using this terminology: "... one commentator wrote on my blog Thursday, pooh-poohing the attack."

    It seems to me that PB is a commenter, not a commentator. However, I've noticed that I seldom see the word commenter in print. And when I type it in the little box here at EGD, it gets red-lined. (Well, not today, for some reason - d'oh!) But Merriam-Webster.com offers it as a word, with the stipulation "especially : one who leaves a comment on an Internet site, story, page, etc." While I appreciate that, it's kinda curious that it later suggests a "first known use" of "14th century." Those scribes must have been way ahead of their time!

    I like the usage of commenter rather than commentator because it saves letters and sounds less impressive, or stuffy, or something. And I certainly don't like PB being made to sound at all impressive, needless to say...

    FWIW, this is not meant as a criticism of our host -- as I noted, the use of commentator where I would use commenter seems to be commonplace in the things that I read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can’t say I’ve noticed widespread use of “commentator” in the context you specify, but I may not have been paying close enough attention. I personally would use “commenter,” because in my mind a commentator is more of a professional observer, such as our host, than a random opiner, such as myself.

      Delete
    2. Heretofore, I haven't found it necessary to use either word, commenter or commentator, but I have to agree that commentator sounds more official -- the retired jocks in the TV/Radio booth are commentators; those in bars or kibitzing a dice game in the alley are commenters. If given a choice, I would prefer being called a commenter, even a libtard, snow flake, disingenuous, moronic, motherfuckin' commenter than a know-it-all, wiseguy, elitist, highfalutin commentator.

      john

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the shout-outs and/or replies, Coey, FME and John.

      As long as I'm nit-picking about word usage, I meant "laudable" not "laudatory" in the first comment, alas.

      You both seem to have the right idea about "commenter / commentator," which this seems to sum up pretty well:

      https://grammarist.com/usage/commentator-commenter/

      Also, I note that the second commenter (!) to that post from 2013 expresses the frustration I was referring to. Evidently, between then and now, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary has added "commenter" as an accepted usage.

      Delete
    4. Sorry for the misspelling of your “name” above, btw.

      Delete
    5. I'd guess that my pseudonym has been misspelled by others more often than it's been spelled correctly. But by you, Coey, you! After being delighted by the emojis, it broke my heart. ;)

      Delete

Comments are moderated, and posted at the discretion of the proprietor.