The Antifa Flag

There are flags for Trump people and there’s the “don’t tread on me” flag and the Blue Lives Matter flag and the nazi flag and the Confederate flag…

We liberal antifa types have our own flag, too.

The right has grabbed the flag and has acted as if you have to agree with them to be “patriotic.” Many liberals are afraid to fly it because they don’t want people to think they’re in the “My Country, Love it or Leave It” crowd.

We need to reclaim it.

This is the flag that fought against the racist confederates who committed treason against our country. This is the flag that fought against fascists in Europe. Not a flag with a blue stripe. Not a flag with “Don’t Tread on Me” written across it.

This is our flag.

Life in Bizarro America

118280429_10158282367463500_5661980830514850298_n

Jesse Duquette

One nation except for you

“One nation, except Jews, with liberty and justice for all.”

What? That is insulting? It’s unconstitutional?

There are more Americans who consider themselves atheists or agnostics than there are American Jews. (And there’s probably a lot more in the closet, afraid to admit their beliefs because of the discrimination they’d face if they did.) But apparently non-believers don’t count and don’t matter to many Americans.

Because right now, what many of us hear when the pledge is read is “One nation, except you.”

The pledge of Allegiance didn’t used to have those words “Under God.” Those were added in the 50s, during the McCarthy era, to show that we weren’t like those godless commies. But what it did was immediately exclude Americans. The irony of excluding Americans and then immediately saying “indivisible” is lost on them.

So be kind. Refuse to say “Under God,” explain why to other Americans, and be inclusive instead of exclusive.

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

America 2020

108014255_10220554492946797_6308150007456019664_n

Tom Tomorrow

Biden & Trump’s Masks

biden trump mask
John Cole