Labels have ruined our politics. I could parcel out which side does it better or more often, but what would be the point exactly? The general problem is that I can throw a label at you and immediately brand you as something positive or negative just based on the connotation that the label has. In many instances the definition in people’s minds aren’t even accurate. So, following are a group of statements that fit as definitions for terms thrown around in public.

1. Different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
2. Men should hold the power and women should largely be excluded from it.
3. Most of the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
4. A political system headed by a dictator in which the government controls business and labor where opposition is not permitted.
5. The enforced separation of different racial groups in a country or community.
6. People should be able to marry whoever they want regardless of race, gender identity, religion, or age.

If I spent enough time focusing on it, I could likely craft a series of statements that those on the left would subscribe to and those on the right would subscribe to. It would be interesting to see how many statements we could get people to agree to. Would people that consider themselves as progressive or conservative actually continue to support progressive or conservative ideals?

I’m sure many of you recognized fascism and socialism above. Obviously, the first issue is that many in the political sphere know that the common person has no earthly clue what those things actually are. So, they can throw that label at anyone and have it stick because the label can fit anything. Since the label is harmful then using the label becomes a weapon.

This is also unfortunately where we descend into questions of good and evil and what those terms really mean. Does the mere belief in something make someone good or evil? Or, do we have to wait and see how those beliefs manifest themselves to determine if the individual is good or evil? Certainly, I think we can acknowledge that numerous people believe numbers one, two, and five.

We could throw number six in there too, but I added a little something extra to six to make it a much more difficult statement to support without qualification. I suspect a lot of these statements have “yeah,,,but” thoughts attached to them. That’s what makes politics so difficult. The world is rife with “yeah…buts”. No matter what personal moral code one follows, they all would agree that what we do is far more important than what we say. I have a sinking suspicion that if we allowed people to openly accept or reject such simple statements we’d see much more agreement overall and many of our politicians would be left in the cold looking for a place to land. Then again, I could be wrong.

Okay, who is the surprise witness tomorrow and what recently uncovered information does he or she have?

Thelma thinks it’s Ginny Thomas.  I don’t.  I’m wondering if it has something to do with John Eastman.  It’s gotta be somebody they are afraid will change their mind if they wait two weeks for the next hearing.

My source – Gossip & Hearsay, LLP  – is Herschel Walker and he’s going to reveal the 2 additional states no one knows about.

What’s your guess?

We went on a family vacation to San Francisco. It used to be that you could go away and leave your troubles behind. With connectivity, all of our troubles seem to follow us everywhere. In the span of a week we saw two landmark Supreme Court cases hit the news.

Everything old is new again. It would be wrong for me to suggest the court is reaching new ground here. In a way it is, but for the most part we have been here before. Brown vs. Board of Education created new law back in 1954. It also likely went against what the majority of the population felt at the time. We had no public opinion polling back then, so that is merely a guess, but I feel like it is a good guess.

The court is there to interpret the constitution and not to bend to the whims of a fickle majority. I think we can agree with that much. However, it is fair to question whether following legal precedent matters and conservatives have long maintained a disdain for activist judges. The court (by vote of 6-3 both times) just actively created new law on both counts. They created two radically different interpretations of the constitution on both counts.

There is also no denying what they are after. Clarence Thomas mentioned gay marriage in his majority opinion and we know our very own John Cornyn mentioned Brown vs. Board of Education. It doesn’t take much of a stretch to include interracial marriages as well. We are literally going back a century on human rights.

In an odd way, the backdrop of San Francisco is kind of telling here. You have never seen a town more into Pride Month than San Francisco. You couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting a pride flag. Stores had pride messages painted on their windows. Different companies offered pride products. It was the most inclusive, welcoming environment I had ever seen. How does all of this happen in the same country?

It happens because a minority of citizens have managed to control government and the courts. The GOP has effectively won a majority in a presidential election once since 1988. Many of their politicians have suggested that we live in a center-right country right now. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that based on national voting records or public opinion polling. None.

What there is evidence of is plenty of gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics that have kept progressivism at bay. This is where things get dicey. It is fair for people to look at Democrats in general and liberals and progressives specifically and claim they have failed. They didn’t codify abortion into law. They have been ineffective at stopping gerrymandering and have allowed the courts to be dominated by conservatives. There is no denying that.

The question is what happens now. We can go down two roads. One road would be for enough voters to punish Democrats either by staying home or voting for third party candidates. That way, you’d insure a Republican victory. The second road is to recognize the threat and where it is coming from. There you would overwhelm the GOP with a blue wave and then slowly rebuild what they have broken.

There are some that think the first road is tempting. After all, maybe if things get really bad then systemic change will be easier to obtain. That thinking has two problems. First, you are hurting millions along the way and secondly you are assuming there will be a democracy left to get back. Clearly, the GOP doesn’t care what the majority wants. They never have. Your only real bet is to block them from tearing this thing down any further.

Texas Republicans wear Dan Crenshaw around their necks like an Olympic Medal.  They are so proud of him. His memoir and social critique, “Fortitude: American Resilience in the Era of Outrage,” soared to the top of the bestseller lists when it was published last year. The book, which he didn’t write but probably did read, was sexy and brutal enough that they all promptly spit shined their dancin’ shoes and did The Dan. They were celebrating that Dan could add Best Selling Author to his Former Navy Seal bragathon.

Come to find out, Crenshaw and his publisher, Hachette Book Group, got a little help from the Texas Republican’s friends.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, which works to elect GOP candidates to Congress, spent nearly $400,000 on bulk purchases of the book. The organization acquired 25,500 copies through two online booksellers, enough to fuel “Fortitude’s” ascent up the bestseller lists. The NRCC said it gave away copies as incentives to donors, raising $1.5 million in the process.

Crenshaw just disclosed that he received between $100,000 and $1,000,000 in royalties from sales of Fortitude in 2021.

And then last month the NRCC spent another $49,000 on books for “donor mementos” last month.

He gets by with a little help from his friends.

And here’s something cool. If Crenshaw’s book is tl/dr there’s a Reader’s Digest version. Crenshaw Cliff Notes for Republicans.  It’s 31 pages long, with lots of white space.

Okay, coupled with the John Cornyn letter below, we know who they are going after next.  Get a load of Illinois Republican Congresswitch Mary Miller serving up a big ole mug of Trump plans.

Wait…What? https://t.co/sROxI2zFy9

— Frank Figliuzzi (@FrankFigliuzzi1) June 26, 2022

Now she’s trying to say that what she meant to say was “right to life.”  Nope.  That just slid off her tongue way too easily.  If she didn’t mean to say it in public, you know she’s said it in private many times before.  She got the memo, y’all.

Dear Senator Cornyn,

I regret to inform you that some racist degenerate hacked your Twitter account and made you look like a damn fool.  You need to change your password and your thinking mechanism.

Love and fried okra,
Juanita Jean