Cold dead hands

Zygls

Adam Zyglis

Hydroxychloroquine madness

If hydroxychloroquine worked, we liberals would be thrilled. We’d be the most pro-hydroxychloroquine pushers out there, because we actually like healing people (hence our drive to pass national health care for the past 100 years).

We like facts. And if we are proven wrong by a fact, we generally change our views to fit the facts instead of just ignoring or denying the facts.hydroxIf the most Trump-supporting scientist* discovers a cure, we will cheer. And if suddenly it is discovered that whoops, hydroxychloroquine really does work, we’ll be lined up to take it and will encourage everyone else to do so as well.

Whenever I say this, I get people sending me links to articles about how this trial or that trial looked promising, and then they say “therefore, we should all be using it.”  No. No, that’s not how it works.

To reiterate: When and if the medical community as a whole recommends it, then I will be thrilled. Why shouldn’t I be? Don’t we all want a cure?

But that hasn’t happened yet and for anyone to recommend taking something that the FDA has not approved for the virus is irresponsible and reckless.

And it certainly doesn’t help when the people most recommending this are Donald Trump and crazy people who claim that viruses are spread by demon sperm and there is some vast conspiracy to keep this from the public.

If there is some vast conspiracy to keep it from everyone, then why? What reason? I don’t get it. Why wouldn’t (a) we want everyone to get better and thus save lives and the economy and (b) the companies want it approved so they can make money?

If there is a conspiracy, who does it benefit? The argument that Big Pharma is keeping this from being used makes absolutely no sense, especially since much research is done in the rest of the world and in universities where medicine isn’t about profit. In the rest of the civilized world, finding a cure will save governments lots of money, so there is absolutely no reason to hide a cure if one existed.

If it is approved and accepted, obviously we will all cheer and say good. It’s not like we’re going to ignore science like Trump supporters.

*if there is one

Owned

owned

Matt Wuerker

You can be against police brutality while still supporting police

I’m shocked I have to say this, but obviously: Not all police.

If I say I am against police brutality, it doesn’t mean I am against police any more than saying I am against sexual assault means I am against sex.

I would think that most police would also be against police brutality, right? Just like most of the lawyers I know are against dishonest lawyers.

But whenever I say something like “Gee, those police sure are attacking peaceful protesters” I get “Why are you against police?”  I’m not. Why is that so hard to understand?

Maybe people don’t want to understand. Maybe they just can’t figure out a way to defend these secret cops who confront peaceful protesters with rubber bullets and tear gas while dressed as if they’re going into a combat zone.

police brutalityI deal with police every day. I’m a criminal defense attorney. And the vast majority of police are decent, good people that I have no problem working with.

But not all of them.

I see police as falling into two categories, really. There are the “Boy Scouts” who are doing their very best to be good guys and help people. And then there are the “bullies” who became officers because they like the power and like pushing people around. Anyone who denies that the second group exists is not paying attention.

Speaking out against the bullies is something we should all be doing. It’s something the “Boy Scouts” should be doing too, but too often, they remain silent and support their fellow officers when they should be speaking up.

And this is nothing new. History is full of stories of police, guards, and others with authority who abuse their authority — especially in totalitarian regimes of the kind Trump apparently wishes he ran.

So when I post something like the cartoon above, I am not attacking all police — I am pointing out the hypocrisy of a protest movement against police brutality being met with police brutality, thus proving the point. Nowhere in there is the statement that all police do this.

The sad thing is that this police action has led to more violence. The mostly peaceful protests have been met with officers in riot gear tear-gassing mayors and teachers and mothers who are armed with nothing more than leaf blowers, and now some people are saying, “Fine, you want violence? We’ll give you violence.”  This doesn’t help. Meeting violence with violence is exactly what they want, because then Trump can go on TV and say “See? Re-elect me to protect you against these protesters who are protesting me and my policies and who will most likely go away if I do.” (There’s not a lot of logic on the Trump side.)

But back to the main point: Shouldn’t we all be against police brutality? Isn’t that something everyone should say is not the kind of thing we want in a democratic society?

 

The hypocritic oath

110179110_10213548404784474_7395935668961758247_n

Tommy Siegel

Criticism of the President is patriotic

Conservatives when a Democrat is President: “Impeach him! Attack him! Don’t let him get a single thing passed!”

Conservatives when a Republican is President: “He’s the President so he can do what he wants! Anyone who protests against a president is unamerican!”Trump-afraid-of-debates

I’m just tired of conservatives screaming “You hate America!” when we criticize them or their leaders. And when I say it to them ironically when they criticize our leaders, they always respond “No, I love America and that’s why I am criticizing them!”

Which is exactly why I criticize Trump and his followers. We call out Trump because we do love America and hate to see what he’s done to it.

We have a country founded on the idea that we can criticize our government. The founding fathers even worked that into the First Amendment, which includes not only freedom of speech but freedom of assembly (to stage protests) and freedom to petition the government and therefore criticize it.

And anyone who knows the slightest bit of American history is aware of how presidents have been criticized from the time of George Washington by people who were completely patriotic.

The inability of his supporters to understand this should amaze me …. but it doesn’t.

Part of the problem is that their definition of “America” is pretty much “white, Christian, straight, and conservative” and anyone who isn’t is therefore “anti-American.”

It’s why they are so afraid of immigrants, because in their mind, an America where white people aren’t prominent can’t really be “America.”

Those of us who actually love America and all it stands for believe that it is our diversity, tolerance, and willingness to accept everyone that makes us great.

 

America 2020

108014255_10220554492946797_6308150007456019664_n

Tom Tomorrow

Selfish stupidity is killing us

Our parents and grandparents understood the need for personal sacrifice for the good of the country during World War II. They rationed food and supplies and limited their own personal desires so that everyone would benefit in the end. They understood that selfishness was not an admirable trait, especially when people’s lives were on the line.

Of course, during that time, we had one of the greatest US Presidents, who inspired Americans to do the right thing.

Imagine if we had a President like that now — a leader who could actually help us through a difficult time instead of pretending the problem doesn’t exist, calling it a hoax, and encouraging people to do the exact opposite of what is needed. protest

Other countries with inspiring leaders have seen their covid rates drop tremendously, and in some cases, they have even been able to open the country up for sporting events and other public activities. Then there are those leaders like Trump, and, as anyone with a brain could predict, are in the same situation we are here in America.

This dumbing-down of society is not new, and there have always been selfish people — even during WWII there were those who refused to abide by the rules. The difference was that these people were shamed by everyone else, including and especially the leaders of the country. Now we have not just a President who embraces stupidity and the denial of science, but an entire party full of know-nothings who treat ignorance like it’s a virtue.

Until Trump is removed from office and the Democrats can control the Senate, we might as well get used to this virus staying with us long past the time when the rest of the world is out enjoying themselves in public, free from the worry that they could die because some selfish idiot is out there who listens to Republican politicians instead of the scientists and doctors and experts.

 

Biden & Trump’s Masks

biden trump mask
John Cole

No, Oklahoma is not giving half the state back

The Supreme Court yesterday, in the decision of McGirt v Oklahoma, held that, when trying “[a]ny Indian” in “the Indian country” (as the old treaty stated), Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction and the person would have to be tried in federal court.

justiceThat’s it.

Despite sensationalist headlines, this decision did not return land to the natives; it only upheld a treaty that provided that federal law would apply to certain serious crimes.

Jimcy McGirt, who is an enrolled member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, cannot be tried under Oklahoma law for his offenses (which involve serious sexual offenses).  He has to be tried in a federal court.

The good news is that it affirmed a treaty that had long been ignored, so it is still a very good decision. The treaty “solemnly guarantied” the land to the tribe, “forever set apart as a home for said Creek Nation,” “no portion [of which] shall ever be embraced or included within … any Territory or State.”

The dissenters, Republican appointees all, basically said, “Yeah, well, we’ve been ignoring that for so long it doesn’t really matter any more” and things along those lines.

Anyway, the point is that the decision did not just hand all that land back, but it did acknowledge that at least in one respect, the treaty should be followed. Hopefully, it will lead to more power given back to the natives in the future.

For a more detailed analysis, click here.