Octopus Overlords

Defiant wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 1:43 pm Apparently, both Jims have been vetoed, although not the remaining Republicans selected (one of whom also challenged Biden's win). Maybe she just doesn't like the name Jim?

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 1:45 pm Just saw that McCarthy pulled all the nominations due to this.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:08 am There's no good reason not to post it. I've watched his videos off of your links.

We should be thankful that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) just pulled Republicans out of any involvement in the select committee to examine the Jan. 6 insurrection. In so doing, he ensured that the committee’s investigation will both have more integrity and be more likely to undertake a valuable accounting.

Which goes to a larger truth about this moment: Efforts at a real examination of arguably the worst outbreak of political violence in modern times — and efforts to protect our democracy more broadly — will not be bipartisan. These things will be done by Democrats alone.

McCarthy’s handling of the Jan. 6 committee illustrates the point. It comes after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced that she is nixing two of McCarthy’s picks to serve on it: Reps. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

McCarthy mustered great outrage about this, railing that it was an “abuse of power” that had cost the committee “all legitimacy and credibility.”

In fact, precisely the opposite is true: By pulling out, McCarthy has boosted the committee’s legitimacy and credibility immeasurably. The less involved McCarthy is with this committee, the more likely it will be to undertake a genuine and comprehensive accounting.

McCarthy’s picks were expressly designed to prevent that accounting. This is not speculation or a mere guess at McCarthy’s motives. It is unavoidably clear from the public statements and conduct of Banks and Jordan themselves.

Banks’s first act on getting named by McCarthy was to release a statement declaring that the committee must investigate the “hundreds of violent political riots” in which “many more innocent Americans and law-enforcement officers were attacked.”

That’s an explicit declaration that the insurrection and President Donald Trump’s incitement of it should not be the focus of the committee and is a less serious matter than those riots.

Similarly, after Jordan was picked, he immediately declared he wants to serve on the committee because “this is impeachment Round 3,” unwittingly revealing — or perhaps unabashedly declaring — that he saw his role as solely a means for working to exonerate Trump.

<snip>

Here’s the bottom line: By nixing Banks and Jordan, Pelosi actually protected the integrity of the committee’s investigation, from their openly advertised intention to misdirect, disrupt and sabotage it. By appointing publicly committed saboteurs, McCarthy openly advertised the same intention.

The conventions of political reporting are such that this basic and obvious truth will not be faithfully rendered in press accounts. But it follows from a straightforward interpretation of the statements and conduct of those Republicans themselves.

By appointing publicly committed saboteurs, McCarthy openly advertised the same intention.

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 8:43 am It feels like a somewhat worthless exercise at this point, tbh.

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 8:43 am Let's be honest, none of this is going to matter one bit.

The Dems will create one report based on actual facts, the GOP will create a separate report claiming it was a peaceful rally of tourists and only the antifa agitators in MAGA hats caused all the trouble. Both sides will tout their own report while claiming the other is biased nonsense.

And absolutely nothing at all will happen to anyone as a result of it all. There will be no accountability and we won't see even the slightest shift in public perception of 1/6, regardless of what these reports say.

It feels like a somewhat worthless exercise at this point, tbh.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 8:57 am

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 8:43 am It feels like a somewhat worthless exercise at this point, tbh.

This is why I'm largely shrugging my shoulders at the shock and anger that's being expressed by so many. This was never going to matter. Yeah, it's important to have an investigation, but it's just for posterity.

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:56 am Are Cheney and Kinzinger barred from being on the committee without approval from their party leader? They seem like the types who would join if they could.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:05 pm

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:56 am Are Cheney and Kinzinger barred from being on the committee without approval from their party leader? They seem like the types who would join if they could.

They are both on the committee IIRC - they were picked by Pelosi.

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:07 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:05 pm

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:56 am Are Cheney and Kinzinger barred from being on the committee without approval from their party leader? They seem like the types who would join if they could.

They are both on the committee IIRC - they were picked by Pelosi.

Cheney is. Kinzinger is not (yet). Pelosi used one of her spots to nominate Cheney. There is some chatter she might add him anyway though.

Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:47 am Do I post Beau more often than I should? Tell me, if you don't find his perspective as valuable as I do...or if you're already watching his channel anyway.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:24 am He's got a great way of making very sharp points, but not coming across as aggressive or confrontational.

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 3:24 am calling a spade a spade

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 3:24 am

Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:47 am Do I post Beau more often than I should? Tell me, if you don't find his perspective as valuable as I do...or if you're already watching his channel anyway.

Nope. He just explained exactly how I’ve been feeling when he said, paraphrasing, “From a military standpoint, it was the right move to veto the GOP reps nominated to the 1/6 committee who were complicit in the insurrection. And let’s be clear: we are at the point in American politics where it’s appropriate and necessary to view things from a military standpoint when considering congressional committee appointments.”

That’s calling a spade a spade. We are basically at war. And I’m afraid it’s going to only get worse as we approach the mid terms and the 2024 election. Shit’s off the rails.

In 2007, federal authorities charged him and three Russian co-conspirators in a scheme that brought mostly young Eastern European women to the Florida panhandle illegally to work as maids in local resorts. King was sentenced to 41 months in prison, and he and his accomplices were ordered to collectively forfeit $1 million in assets. It is, he said, a period in his life that has shaped his views on the criminal justice system and immigration.

Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:46 pm off topic...

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 3:24 am calling a spade a spade

That's 3 (times in the last 3 weeks... ) you're out!
I was enlightened myself.

For almost half a millennium, the phrase has served as a demand to "tell it like it is."

So what does all of this mean for people who want to, well, "call a spade a spade"? I urge caution. Mieder concludes his case study with the argument that "to call a spade a spade" should be retired from modern usage: "Rather than taking the chance of unintentionally offending someone or of being misunderstood, it is best to relinquish the old innocuous proverbial expression all together."

Kurth wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 1:08 am

Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:46 pm off topic...

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 3:24 am calling a spade a spade

That's 3 (times in the last 3 weeks... ) you're out!
I was enlightened myself.

WTF??? I’ve been using the expression forever and without any inkling that there’s a racial element to it. And no one’s ever suggested there was. Is this something that’s widely known and I’ve just been incredibly ignorant my whole life?

I just googled the phrase, and there’s no mention of any racial element on Wikipedia, not that that’s the be all and end all, but still . . .

Edited to add: After doing a little more googling, the only source I see that suggests the idiom “to call a spade a spade” is racist is the NPR Codeswitch article which acknowledges that the origins of the phrase have no racial component and that:

For almost half a millennium, the phrase has served as a demand to "tell it like it is."

That notwithstanding, NPR concludes that:

So what does all of this mean for people who want to, well, "call a spade a spade"? I urge caution. Mieder concludes his case study with the argument that "to call a spade a spade" should be retired from modern usage: "Rather than taking the chance of unintentionally offending someone or of being misunderstood, it is best to relinquish the old innocuous proverbial expression all together."

malchior wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 7:05 am The list of stuff someone could possibly feel offended by is exhausting.

Kurth wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 1:08 am Edited to add: After doing a little more googling, the only source I see that suggests the idiom “to call a spade a spade” is racist is the NPR Codeswitch article

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:38 pm "Let's call an ace and ace."

Who the hell says that? Pure dog whistle.