You are currently browsing the monthly archive for July 2019.

It took a lawsuit and a lot of read tape to bring this to the public.

And both won their elections by landslides.   Shouldn’t this be a source of national embarrassment?

I really doubt we’ll ever get to hear the most private conversations of “the least racist person in the world.”

Gov. and future President Gavin Newsom just signed it into law.

Everybody is saying it will be ruled unconstitutional, but at least two of the conservatives on SCOTUS claim to be strict constructionists (which, by the way, is different from “original intent” although the approaches tend to overlap).  What is the reasonable strict construction of the lone passage about the selection of electors?

Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows 
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Unless it violates another amendment (such as the 14th or 19th) it would seem that state legislators are free, under strict construction, to come up with their own selection processes, whether it be caucuses, primaries, the flipping of coin, or Ouija boards.   At the bottom there you have specific powers of Congress to determine the time, but no grounds for any federal intervention in the manner of selection.

If you’re a strict constructionist, the law the Governor just signed in constitutional.

First of all, it’s not a racist mural.  The imagery may be strong for some, but it’s anti-racist and anti-colonial.  I wish the mural’s bane crowd would at least be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge this, given that it was painted by a socialist Russian immigrant.  I get that images of a dead Native American can be less than inspiring for Native Americans in a school setting, which is why I might have supported a curtain solution preserving the painting for history and art lessons.  But the call for its destruction is reducing the “woke” crowd to nihilism.

This letter pretty much captures my thoughts exactly.

A Federal Art Project mural cycle of thirteen panels devised and painted by Victor Arnautoff in 1936 in a San Francisco high school portrays George Washington as a slave owner and as the author of Native-American genocide. It is an important work of art, produced for all Americans under the auspices of a federal government seeking to ensure the survival of art during the Great Depression. Its meaning and commitments are not in dispute. It exposes and denounces in pictorial form the U.S. history of racism and colonialism. The only viewers who should feel unsafe before this mural are racists.

Now, however, activists including a number of students are seeking the destruction—not the concealment or contextualization—of the mural. The reasons they give—in public comment, in interviews, in the board’s statements—are various, but they all depend on rejecting the objective analysis of historical exploitation and colonial violence the mural offers and replacing it with activists’ valorization of their experiences of discomfort with the imagery and the authorship of the murals. On this account, a Russian immigrant cannot denounce historical wrongs by depicting them critically. On this account, only members of the affected communities can speak to such issues and only representations of history that affirm values they approve are suitable for their communities. On this account, representing historical misdeeds is degrading to some members of today’s student body. In a recent vote, the board of the San Francisco Unified School District voted unanimously to destroy the murals. To repeat: they voted to destroy a significant monument of anti-racism. This is a gross violation of logic and sense.

Let’s set aside the question of the voices calling for the murals’ destruction and their authority to speak for the communities they claim as their own. What remains is a mistake in the way we react to historical works of art—ignoring their meaning in favor of our feelings about them—and a mistake in the way we treat historical works of art—using them as tools for managing feelings, rather than as objects of interpretation. Let’s stand up for the integrity of art as well as for historical interpretation, and for a shared analysis of the political reality of the United States in the past and the present.

The undersigned oppose the school board’s decision and the wrong-headed approach to art and to history that lie behind that decision. We urge the school board to reverse its decision and take all reasonable steps to preserve the mural and to teach it as a work of art and as a representation of our history. We oppose this display of contempt for history.

To hear public comment preceding the board’s vote, follow this link.  (Discussion of the mural begins about ten minutes into the recording.)

At the end of the week, we will send this letter and list of signatories to the board members of the SFUSD. To add your signature, e-mail your name and institutional affiliation (if desired) to


The letter is followed by a slew of signatures.

Here’s what Dkos has on the Gilroy killings.

  • Three people were killed: a 6-year-old boy, a 13-year-old girl, and a man in his 20s. Police have declined to name the victims, but Alberto Romero of San Jose says his son, Stephen Romero, was the youngest victim.
  • Romero’s wife was also shot, and her injuries are being treated. She was one of 12 injured in the shooting.
  • The 19-year-old alleged shooter legally purchased a variant of an AK-47 in Nevada in early July.
  • Police said they engaged the shooter within one minute of the first shot. That means he shot 16 people within the first minute.
  • The shootings appeared to be completely at random. Witnesses said he seemed to be firing in the areas where the largest crowds were gathered.
  • Police had initial reports there was a second person involved, but that had not yet been confirmed, and the possibility of a second suspect was still being aggressively investigated.
  • Jack Van Breen, who was onstage with his band Tin Man, said he heard someone yell out to the shooter, asking why he was doing this. The shooter replied, “Because I’m really angry.”


Also, the shooter was a white supremacist.

In response to a question of such complexity I usually respond “not necessarily.”

I think there are elements within the movement which are.  I do not believe that everyone involved is.

The New York Times has what I consider to be a fair discussion as last week the House voted overwhelmingly to pass a symbolic condemnation of BDS.

One of the arguments that BDS is inherently anti-semitic is that a boycott interferes with the national autonomy of Israel.  Even if I agreed with that, I’m not sure that’s evidence of ant-semitism.  I’m sure that the South African government of the 1980s viewed the international divestment movement as a violation of its national sovereignty.

Will the resolution lead to additional bills with teeth?  That may be a little more difficult to pass, if John Lewis’s take is any indication.

And it wasn’t pretty.  It’s a problem when you repeat a talking point so often that you start to believe it.  And notice, just as Trump supporters here can’t dispute the five bullet points, she can’t either.  There’s nothing to say except “no collusion.”

Unfortunately, with many people, it works.

Please!  This was a protest.  They just fired a fall guy.

Probably beginning in September it will be closed for about six months for the new building to be constructed.  There will be a bookmobile as a substitute.

Redheaded Blackbelt has the details.

She’s running against Rep. Omar in Minnesota. But why is she thinking so small? She should request that Trump appoint her Secretary of the Treasury. She’s obviously qualified.

Probably more important than the news coverage.


July 2019