Archaic, Cumbrous, and Ineffective

Simps has his pinafore all in a twist because in that short post I knocked off the other day expecting my internet to go out again at any second,  I spelled the word "poll" instead of "pole."   He loves to put on his tireless meter maid of orthography uniform and get out his ticket book as much as he likes to put on his Poldark breeches when PBS is running that bodice ripper again.   He's got an uninteresting fantasy life.  

I'll use the occasion to repost, again, one of the best passages from Thorstein Veblen, from the last pages of his Theory of The Leisure Class:

As felicitous an instance of futile classicism as can well be found, outside of the Far East, is the conventional spelling of the English language. A breach of the proprieties in spelling is extremely annoying and will discredit any writer in the eyes of all persons who are possessed of a developed sense of the true and beautiful. English orthography satisfies all the requirements of the canons of reputability under the law of conspicuous waste. It is archaic, cumbrous, and ineffective; its acquisition consumes much time and effort; failure to acquire it is easy of detection. Therefore it is the first and readiest test of reputability in learning, and conformity to its ritual is indispensable to a blameless scholastic life.

Thorstein Veblen 

I just love the language Veblen used when he was being as sarcastic a writer as there has ever been in the history of the English language, even more subtle and sarcastic than Ben Jonson.   I'm tempted to go into Jonson's spelling, not only of his last name which he changed TO NOT CONFORM TO THE COMMON SPELLING OF IT mid-career but spelling by one of the most learned and erudite writers in the history of the language.  But this is a knock-off piece, too.  

I'm a thought criminal.  I have no desire for reputability.  What's reputable in 21st century America and English language kulcha is most likely stupid and sloppy.  I decided to embrace disrepute after years of being told that I can't say the things I say.   You think that's going to make me feel shame?   As opposed to what?   Supporting the most publicly conducted genocide in history?    You've been trying to make me feel ashamed for years and it hasn't worked yet,  it's never going to.   It only risks making me feel smug.   Though I don't even care that much about it. 

It's A Mistake To Let Them Keep Calling It "AI"

something more like "cheap imitation of intelligence" would be more honest.   It's not even the margarine of intelligence it's more like replacing butter with used motor oil.  Intelligence has nothing to do with it.   I think if we survive and recover from "AI" it will serve mostly as a cautionary tale as to how gullible human beings can willfully be out of bad habit.   Turing may have been an incredible genius with numbers but he knew shit all about how complex real intelligence in real, living beings is.   I mean, the genius went to the cops to complain about his boyfriend robbing him in 1950s Britland.   How stupid can someone get?  

So You Figure All We Have To Do Is Go BACK To The Constitutional Order. How Stupid Can You Get? - Hate mail

IT IS ONE OF THE UNDENIABLY CORRUPT aspects of the United States Constitution as drafted by the idiotically idolized framers that the slave-power, the Southern states and their Northern Allies - who were not an inconsiderable part of the slave-power - that the slave-power insisted on counting slaves in apportioning representatives to the House of Representatives even as those slaves would never be represented by the House members elected from those states.   The white-supremacists, the slave-power insisted that, in truth THEY, THE ENSLAVERS, THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS, be given additional representation through that mechanism.  Which is exactly the same thing that the Republican-fascists in Texas and other states trying to gerrymander their Congressional districts before next years mid-terms are trying to do.   Though as I and others have pointed out,  it was one of the consequences of de jure emancipation of slaves that the 3/5ths of stolen representation apportioned on their behalf would be enhanced to a full 5/5ths representation under de facto slavery,  the Jim Crow that reigned for the majority of time after the Civil war.  That corruption was baked into the Senate - apportioning far more representation to low population states to start with and giving all of the Senate representation in the many more states where Black People, Women, etc. were not allowed to vote to the minority of white men.   Even if there was universal suffrage the Senate would carry the taint of inequality through its very definition under the corrupt Constitutional system.   I believe Franklin was the only one of the framers who favored a unicameral legislature,  I wouldn't be surprised if that anti-democratic structuring of the Senate had a lot to do with that.  

Some of the worst of that might have been different in American history if Reconstruction had continued to completion.  Reconstruction was supposed to do for the United States what the more, at least temporarily successful, de-Nazification did in West Germany though far less effective in the Stalinist East Germany and not much in Austria which was idiotically deemed to not need it since they'd been overrun by Germany in the Anschluss    Reconstruction's failure was also a product of the slave-power and their Northern allies in the original Constitutional Convention through the adoption of the totally corrupt Electoral College which led to one of the several corrupt deals under it which had Rutherford Hayes sell out emancipated slaves to get the support of white-supremacist Southerners in Congress by promising to end Reconstruction.   

Among other things relevant to my criticism of the First Amendment and its idiotic, perhaps unintended creation of the notion that there is such a thing as a "right to lie" is the fact that such provisions prevented the United States government from outlawing lynching.   The first federal anti-lynching law was prevented - especially in the slave-empowered Senate - from being adopted until March 7th,  2022 when Joe Biden signed the Emmett Till Antilynching Act into law.    

let me repeat that 

THE FIRST FEDERAL ANTI-LYNCHING LAW WAS PREVENTED FROM BEING ADOPTED UNTIL MARCH 7TH OF 2022! 

I have absolutely no confidence that the Roberts Court or an even more Republican-fascist (you can read "white supremacist" with complete accuracy) packed Supreme Court will knock it down,  either by direct action or through its increasing and cowardly shadow docket practice as one of the Trump-McConnell-Grassley atrocities on the federal bench knocks it down which you know many of them would like to do.  

So, you can see my criticism of the Constitution as the "pro-slavery compact" that the Abolitionist Wendell Phillps truthfully described it has had the most serious of consequences for Black People, other People of Color and the prevention of legitimate government,  egalitarian democracy in the United States.   If he had lived about twelve more years he could have seen the Supreme Court, using the Constitution as an excuse,  enhance the de facto slave-power even more through the Plessey decision.  And that Court was modest in its outrageous white supremacist (you can read that "Republican-fascist" with total accuracy)  partisan,  corruption.  The Roberts Court is now polling as the least trusted Court in the history of polling on that question.   Not that it bothers them,  in their billionaire-millionaire padded and, self-exempted corruption.    It's yet another idiotic aspect of the Constitution that they failed to find any provisions to keep that Court honest - which it hasn't been since 1803 and the Marbury power grab.  

I used to share the fear of a new Constitutional Convention being corrupted by the billionaires and millionaires and their kept media and politicians and lawyers and judges and "justices" making things worse but that fear disappeared with the rise of the Rehnquist (Bush v Gore among others) and the Roberts Court which is imposing those corruptions without any consultation of the Voters being involved.   Charles Pierce isn't wrong in his fear but he's naive if he thinks that's not exactly what we are seeing happening right now,  every week, every day of the week,  hourly, right now.  

On Again Off Again Life

WELL,  I THOUGHT that yesterday they'd replace the telephone poll down the road,  the one which has to be replaced before, MAYBE,  my internet will be reliable to any extent.   A car with a little yellow light was parked there with a big guy with a big beard sitting in it for a quarter of an hour and I thought,  Oh, the poll must be coming.   Well, other than getting all the dogs within earshot of the one that was barking at him going nothing happened.   I needed to get down the road to do a chore so I was going down and the guy was getting out with something in his hand.   

I said, "Are they finally replacing the poll?'

He said,  "I don't know.   Could be today, could be in thirty days.  I'm just here to put these on door knobs."

They were notices saying that the poll had to be replaced and that they'd be doing some excavation to put it in.   I guess they figure we were as unclued into that as the power company apparently has been.   Thing is still held in place by a 4x4 bolted into the two ends, still looking like a stiff wind could blow the whole thing and all the wires down.   The cable guy who came out to look at it told me that it was really dangerous to have it propped up like that.   Like that wasn't obvious, too.   He said he couldn't fix the wires till they replaced the poll.   

And Maine is supposed to have one of the better public utility commissions, or so they tell us.  They're probably going to give the power company that big increase they're asking for to deal with the damage to the system two winters ago.  Ain't capitalism wunnerful!  

You'd think they'd at least send some skinny kid working for them over the summer out to put those knob hangers out instead of some guy who looks like a lineworker.    

Hate Mail 2

I dealt with that a long time ago, too. 

No two groups are discriminated against in exactly the same way, each struggle for equality will have its own aspects peculiar to that group as well as features which are common to all.

Yrs, truely

Note the long exchange I had with Simps back then.  Maybe I should do summer re-runs of some of the more entertaining of those.  

That's A Question So Transparently Dishonest That I Dealt With It Two Decades Ago

THE AFFLUENT WHITE no doubt mostly straight-male answer to the arguments I made on Monday,  "If you don't like what they're saying you don't have to listen to them, "  shows nothing except how safe and secure the affluent-white-straight-males who invented that feel.   They may feel so secure and are rendered so stupid in their leisure that they can't imagine this as anything more than a matter of preference and offense of sensibilities.   They know they have little to nothing to fear from the kind of hate talk I say should be suppressed,  that would be because the ones who have the most to fear would probably be attacked or killed by other straight-white-males who are too cowardly to attack those with more money than they have.   And they know they have little to fear from those who are the focus of those lies.  

I am far more surprised when it is members of groups who are the main focus of lies and hate speech and receive the full measure of violence that comes with those who are as willfully deaf to the insanity of what they're saying.  

Look at that quote from Cornel West, "They have a right to spread their lies."  

TO SPREAD THEIR LIES.   

Even someone as degenerated as the once better West understands that the hate speech is spoken, it doesn't just dissipate in the air to no effect at all but the ideas it transmits take hold and spread,  no doubt being repeated by those it has spread to and spread to even more People.   Next thing you know you've got a lynch mob or a fascist party or a fascist government - which we have had in large numbers in the United States.   I doubt Mississippi, Alabama or any number of states in the USA have ever not had one governing it and many states have seldom had anything but a fascist government - white supremacy having been our indigenous form of fascism before fascism had a name.  The United States was under overt white supremacy up until 1865 and under de facto white supremacy for much of the rest of its history.  The white supremacist faction has always had more than its share of representation in the Congress and has been able to control the presidency through the Electoral College for much of our history.  That is historical fact made legal fact through the majority of the laws passed and enforced.  That the Supreme Court has been even more securely in the hands of white supremacy, AND NEVER MORE SO THAN IN THE ROBERTS COURT is even more evident in the history of its rulings.  They are about to reimpose Jim Crow.   All of that is supported by an ocean of lies and hate talk, all of it spread by the freest of free presses in human history.   The internet which some of us naively believed would be a force for breaking through the lies of corporate media has become a tsunami of lies and hate speech, now automated by "AI."   Still the civil liberties asses bleat their slogans of "free speech" absolutism as it is the vehicle driving us to fascist empowerment. 

It was easy for the affluent, white, straight or passing as it men of the Constitutional Convention and the First Congress to pretend that their second-rate late 18th century poetry of the First Amendment  was sufficient without excluding lying and hate speech under its absurd general protection.   I've said that many times,  that it is as plain as the distinction between good and evil that there can be no such a thing as a right to do what is evil and lying is except in the most exceptional circumstances,  evil to some degree or other.*   These days, as off on the legal professions as I am,  I wouldn't be surprised if those lawyers who drafted both documents understood how professionally and financially profitable their lying had been and they didn't want to include any possibility that their lies might someday be even mildly taken to account.   Though in my experience lawyers are such habitual liars - far more so than cops in my experience - that might not even cross their minds.   I'd always attributed it to Madison's distaste for having to keep that one promise, to push through a Bill of Rights and, so, just coming up with something that sounded good on its surface in the past.   

I have noticed one thing, the last time I slammed an individual for saying that there was a "right to lie" it was the noted civil rights lawyer Maya Wiley.   I attributed her myopic view of the real life consequences of such a dishonest framing of the right to free speech - which should have noted the right to tell the truth but stated there is no right to lie - to her law school training (she's a Dartmouth and Columbia product,  the goddamned Ivys).   Cornel West is an Ivy product too (Harvard Princeton) but not the law schools.  Come to think of it, most of the most influential framers with a university education probably were too.   Members of the groups most impacted by the violence and oppression and murder that comes from the spreading of lies must have to eat a special brand of lotus to blind them to what that should have taught them.   It comes naturally to the affluent, straight, white males who have created the culture of such institutions and professions.   Most such lying is done by them on their own behalf.  

It is less surprising to hear it from an affluent white woman like Nadine Strossen whose identity includes the greatest number of victims of such violence, WOMEN, even white Women, primarily because she's a lawyer and one who has gained her professional and public status through that most morally compromised of idols of liberalism, the ACLU.   And - surprise, surprise,  she's an Ivy product too,  Harvard and among the worst of it,  Harvard Law.  

*  I've dealt with the evasion that claims that then it's evil to lie to the Nazis about where the Jewish children are.   The greater evil of the Nazis - who believed in all kinds of lies of the kind I hold should be totally suppressed, those lies being the basis of their evil - is what makes lying to them a moral imperative, preventing a greater evil.   I would hold that as an emergency exception to the evil of lying in general.  Such as you and the ACLU would use it as an excuse to permit the Nazis to lie themselves back into power wherever they can dupe themselves back into power through their lies.    

The Amorality Of Modernism Eats Everything And Discredits Everything It Touches

I HAVE NOT listened to the three hours plus that this twelve minutes plus have been taken from.  I will say of the three in the discussion,  the former ACLU executive director,  Nadine Strossen,  the former scholar,  Cornel West and Norman Finkelstein I have the most respect for Finkelstein.    I have long disdained Strossen and almost as long had disdain for the parody radicalism of West.   Take these examples:

They have a right to spread their lies.  Cornel West

She [Nadine Strossen] said you have the right to advocate anti-semitism and you have the right to advocate genocide.   Norman Finkelstein summarizing what Strossen said, a summary she doesn't object to.   

ANY ALLEGED SCHOLAR such as Cornel West has been, in academia and in the public sphere, saying that there is such a thing as a "right to lie" THE VERY THING WHICH VIOLATES EVERYTHING THAT THE PROFESSION OF SCHOLARSHIP IS ALLEGED TO EXIST TO UPHOLD, THE DISCERNMENT AND THE PROLIFERATION OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH should have their credentials as a scholar pulled.    No one who has made their living as a scholar who can hold that there is any such a thing as "a right to lie" deserves to continue being paid as a scholar, should be employed to be a scholar, should be published as a scholar.*   Cornel West's claim discredits him as any kind of scholar, or it would if the world of scholarship - that would be academia and the academic publishing industry - had any intellectual or moral integrity.   I could go on to ask what it says about his other professional gig as an ordained minister but will leave that to you to fill in.   That a Christian minister could hold that there is such a thing as a "right to lie" is even more outrageous. 

It is one of the more grotesque pretenses of this whole thing,  "the law" but, also,  the modern scholars racket, that we can't discern the difference between lies and the truth,  the advocacy of equality and inequality, the difference between equality based democracy and the most extreme kinds of the opposite of that.  And that, given that pretense of intellectual and moral incapability, that we can't make those distinctions performative in even the most careful of decisions and actions.   That scholars who supposedly spend their professional lives in discerning the most minute of differences and making categorical assignments on that basis get away with pretending the most glaring of real life differences can't only be discerned but held to be definitive in choosing the good over the most evil are some of the biggest fattest liars there are and I would put someone like West in that category, now. 

I am far less shocked that a lawyer like Strossen would claim that there was a "right to advocate genocide" or "anti-semitism" or any other kind of bigotry because of all the allegedly scholarly pursuits,  the study of, theorizing about and profession of practicing "the law" is a profession of practicing and excusing and holding up lying as a professional responsibility like no other.   I have, over the last quarter of a century, ever more been impressed at how much of the legal, the lawyering racket is based in such pretense and willful nonfeasance, not only on the part of lawyers but even more so in the senior branches of the lawyering racket,  the judges and most of all the "justices."   I think the "civil liberties" lawyers are especially dishonest and disgusting, given their claims to moral stature.   I could go into the Premiership of Keir Starmer at this point but I'll try to keep it on this side of the Atlantic. 

I will say that only someone who believes, whether rationally or stupidly that they, their friends their families, their loved ones, those they might have the least comma of any care about has NO CHANCE OF BEING THE FOCUS OF MURDEROUS VIOLENCE AGAINST THEM AS INDIVIDUALS OR AS A GROUP could possibly advocate that there is such a thing as a "right to advocate genocide" or any other kind of racist violence which is guaranteed, once it is believed, once it falls on the ears of someone who is both disposed to take it as encouragement and act on it,  that someone is going to be attacked and likely someone will be killed.   Clearly, Strossen as well as the long line of lawyer-liars of the "civil liberties" industry don't really believe that they and theirs are going to be the recipients of the logical outcome of their pious (in a purely secular sense) professional pose or they would not claim that any such a thing as advocating genocide or forms of bigotry that have and still do lead to violence FOR OTHERS attains the status as "a right."   Though I am fully prepared to believe that the professional (and you can certainly include monetary) interests of such lawyers will blind them to the possibility that they are calling down everything from individual violence to genocide against those they may care about and they'll still do it.    I  don't believe for a second that they really care about the lives and rights of the victims of those whose "rights" to advocate their oppression, violence against them and,  in Strossen's chosen examples, their mass murder at the hands of the state all of which - as in Finkelstein's very real life historical example of an infamous spectacle lynching - proves to be a very, entirely probable possibility of the kind of lying that West and Strossen are advocating.   

I clearly take Finkelstein's reasoning that it is a desecration of the memory of the victims of those who commit war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc.  very seriously.  But it is ever more important than that because such talk has the not only possibility but guarantee that eventually someone, some group, some conspiracy, some region or state or country is going to act out of such lies to repeat that violence, that discrimination, that genocide again and again.   The desecration of the dead takes its most severe form in permitting, encouraging what was done to them to be done to others who are still living,  now and into the future.   Strossen's babble about them being honored by the protection of their killers and those who are inspired by their killers is among the most disgusting things that are current in the blathering, blithering "civic piety" that we are all spoon fed by the perverted notion of civics and, especially by the "civil liberties" industry and the mass media, news but most effectively entertainment which makes billions off of lies and next to nothing off of the rigorous telling of the truth.   

About the only encouraging thing I have read about the "civil liberties" groups is that younger, Women and People of Color, for the most part, are fed up with the old lines that "we must protect Nazis, white supremacists, male supremacists, pornographers, etc. "   

Despite all of the "never again" talk when it comes to the Nazi holocaust the official, required POV in these matters is that "never again" really means ALWAYS AGAIN.   If I'd been on that stage with them,  I'd have said that about both Strossen and West   West's claim that he had an uncle who was lynched in this context - which I am prepared to believe him on - makes his stand especially putrid and discrediting.   If I had had an uncle I had never known who was lynched I certainly would have had the moral integrity to question the received conventional POV on the falsely claimed "right" of those who incited and led the lynch mob to say what they did  to encourage his terror-murder,  every syllable of their lies and accusations and mere racist incitements,  everywhere up to and including, perhaps, them actually putting hands on my uncle to kill him.   It might do to claim that while sitting on your ass at your writing table or computer station as you coolly are in absolutely no danger yourself,  anticipating how you will gain esteem by your postmortem burning of your uncle on the secular altar of the First Amendment,  to me it just makes me think you are detestable.    Though no less detestable than a "civil liberties" lawyer who doesn't even have that much ancestral skin in the game. 

*  Reading this through again, it occurs to me that if Cornel West thinks there's a right to lie in regard to inciting genocide and anti-semitism and, indeed, in the example he claims, inciting a lynching,  I wonder if he holds there is a right to lie in the impotent, dusty, generally useless and irrelevant to anyone outside their often very obscure specialties, ream of scholarship.   How can a right that he holds so dear when it gets People killed disappear when it's something as trivial as most "scholarship" is?   Though I'll bet he'd never admit that such a "right to lie" in that one context, exists. 

The Best And Brightest Of The Ivy Law Schools Gave Us The Stupidest, Most Criminal, Most Vulgar, Most Clearly Demented Despot And Are Enabling Him Right Now

IN READING THE SEVERAL posts RMJ posted about just this weekends' manifestations of Trump's floridly senile and demented statements about him achieving percentages in the thousands of reductions in the price of drugs - an achievement which not only never happened but would mean that the drug companies would have to be paying patients back handsomely for buying their drugs - it makes me ask a question I have not heard asked at all.

ARE JOHN ROBERTS AND THE OTHER SUPREME COURT 'justices' WHO HAVE MADE THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE, FASCIST INTERPRETATION OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY "LAW" PROUD OF WHAT THEY HAVE, BY A VOTE OF SIX SINGLE PEOPLE TO THREE BROUGHT THE UNITED STATES TO?

This,  this very real, very actual, entirely non-Ivy League Law faculty theoretical TRUMP is the embodiment of what they think is desirable for the United States of America to be governed by.  THIS follows on to the Bush II,  not even smart, though criminal, daddy Bush,  "H.W." BUT  the idiot son "W" Bush who was a cautionary example of what the unitary executive theory could bring in the very lifetimes of those six "justices" ALL OF THEM PRODUCTS OF ELITE LAW SCHOOL EDUCATIONS, ALL OF THEM MEMBERS OF THE LAWERLY (liarly) ELITES,  his diasterous presidency - I WILL REMIND YOU BROUGHT TO US BY REHNQUIST COURT FIAT -  to have cautioned them as to the very real life consequences of their elite-entirely anti-democratic, entirely financially self-interested legal, constitutional theory for those in real life who don't get to live "safe in their alabaster chambers, untouched by morning and untouched by noon."   

Though I doubt ol' Emily Dickinson realized she was describing late 20th century, early 21st century Ivy League law faculty and their spawn who would be put into that ultimate alabaster chamber,  the goddamned supreme Court.   Though, considering her lawyer politician-father's relationship with those who took a dim view of how Harvard (see the intentions of those who founded Amherst College)  was developing, even then, maybe she did have some such idea.   

Only Roberts' clique has no intention of their Doge surrendering, they really believe he is going to do everything from making their familiy's extraction industry fortune safe from environmental action (Coney-Barrett, among others)* to keeping "People Unlike Us" (People of Color, etc.) out of their alma maters and professions and clubs and out of the voting booth and out of Congress (all of them clearly have that goal.  John Roberts can stand as the Taney of this racist court, and I include that poison well of pathology,  Thomas in that).   They are well on their way to reinstituting de facto Jim Crow with all of its necessary violence of enforcement. 

They really have been prepared to not only intentionally pave the way for the stupidest, most criminal, most vulgar, most corrupt man to have ever held the presidency (even more so than the one who appointed Alito and Roberts) to rule as an absolute dictator,  they are doing their best to try to enable his idiocracy, his gangster governance even as they try, in the most modest of ways, to cover their own judicial asses as they do it. 

John Roberts et al are the most corrupt of the already very corrupt Courts since the one chiefed by John Marshall - a man who never found a slave to side for in the many cases that massive slave holder ruled in and who grabbed the unconstitutional Marbury power for the court.   John Roberts has gone farther than Taney or those who started destroying and distorting the 14th and other Civil War Amendments to work for the newly empowered successor of the slave-power allegedly defeated in the Civil War and against which those Amendments were adopted.  He is the most corrupt, most criminally intending Chief Justice in the history of the country and his fellow five are as worthy of removal and prosecution for their crimes against equality and democracy and even the inadequate and fatally flawed liberal democracy that was set up by the Constitution and the early revolutions of Jefferson and Jackson.   I have a theory of the history of my country that literally everything good about us has been in opposition to the Constitutional order as originally set up and as it has been distorted by the Supreme Court and the corrupt powers in the other branches.  The abolition movement, the Women's rights movement, the struggle for equality, the struggle against wage-slavery and oligarchy, etc. have all been struggles against the Constitution and the law as it was set up and as it developed in each and every case.    The Supreme Court, presented in amber-tinted, soft-focused sentimentality in the American media and academia is and always has been the primary engine of anti-equality, anti-democracy, pro-oligarcy in our country and our history.   It has been the forces of "Constitutionalism" which constitute the worst of our history.   Though they won't tell you that in your education as a "Constitutional scholar."  

Either the United States will adopt a different Constitution, one which will, among other things, strip the usurped Marbury power and the even more appalling add-ons made by academic law school fascists** or the United States will possibly devolve into one of three things.  The oligarchic fascism they clearly favor (no doubt with "the vote" of white racists propagandized by our "free speech absolutist" lying media), an even worse fascism which those soft-handed, soft-brained "justices" believe couldn't happen here, or the United States will split into two or more entities,  I think there are regions and states which will eventually conclude that they can't tolerate the Constitutional order as it has become in reality.  If there will be a civil war, this time waged by the slave-power states (which now include many even in the upper-mid-west and Rocky Mountain states) against those who favor equality and democracy, God only knows.   

I used to fantasize about the possibility of Canada taking Maine, my state,  in though I would caution Canada against doing that without the strongest of grantees that U.S. habits of thinking wouldn't prevail in any part of the old US that wanted in on a more modern Constitution in a country which still aspires to egalitarian democracy.   The greatest disincentive of that on the part of Mainers,  that it would probably forfeit the Social Security of those in the state who paid into it, the Republican-fascists seem to be about to remove as they destroy Social Security - another thing the Roberts six are perfectly OK with.   If Mainers didn't have that keeping them from it,  I think only the really hard cases would oppose that.  But, of course, all that is only a fantasy.   I can tell the difference, Roberts,  Coney-Barrett et al seem to have been educated out of being able to discern that kind of thing.   The Ivys and their equivalent can do that to you.  

*  Though I have absolutely no doubt that the racism, sexism, dislike of freedom of choice in abortion and contraception,  class hatred of the six fascist "justices" are a strong motivation YOU CAN BE CERTAIN THAT THEIR PRIMARY MOTIVATION IS THE PROTECTION OF THEIR PERSONAL AND FAMILY MONEY AND THAT OF THEIR UPPER CLASS.   That, alone, explains pretty much about 19 twentieths of the history of the Supreme Court in action.  

Though, thinking this out and writing it makes me realize that we need a word to describe Clarence Thomas's clear and serially demonstrated hatred of Black People, "racist" doesn't cover it.   I don't think there has been a "justice" since the 19th century who has more clearly demonstrated his hatred of Black People than that ocean of pathology.  

**  Those currently at Harvard, alone, are a ship of lunatics who are often fools of the worst kind, and that's ONLY HARVARD!  Many of them are the most lunatic are "trad-catholic" theocrats of the most insane variety.   I was working on a post about that, too, but the iffy internet here is delaying that post. 

Answer To A Lying Piece Of Hate Mail