New Speaker, Quick Show Of Bi-Partisanship, But Don't Hold Your Breath

 I try not to write about things getting saturation coverage if I don't think I have some insight no one else has shared.  Furthermore, I've been advised by people who care about me, not to put a target on my back by writing about Israel.  

But the House finally getting a speaker followed by an immediate, overwhelming bi-partisan vote to support Israel is too much to pass up.  [I began this Thursday evening.  Reviewing this draft on Friday, it's clear discussing Johnson AND Israel in one post, while an admirable goal since they are related, is beyond what I can expect any readers to endure.  So let's just focus in this post on Johnson's speech.] [Quotes are from the transcript at REV.com]

Johnson's speech

1.  The amount of time he spoke about religion and how he spoke about it is troubling, but given his background, not surprising.

"I want to thank my dedicated wife of almost 25 years, Kelly. She’s not here, we [is 'we' her preferred pronoun?] couldn’t get a flight in time. This happened sort of suddenly, but we’re going to celebrate soon. She spent the last couple of weeks on her knees in prayer to the Lord and she’s a little worn out, we all are."

Truly, I have no idea if he was being serious about her being literally on her knees in prayer for two weeks or he was just being metaphorical to make his point.  At the time of the speech, I took it literally.  Now I'm not so sure.  I suspect his fellow Baptists didn't even notice anything unusual in this phrasing.

Later in his speech he said, 

"I don’t believe there are any coincidences in a matter like this. I believe that scripture, the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raises up those in authority. He raised up each of you, all of us, and I believe that God has ordained and allowed each one of us to be brought here for this specific moment in this time."

Where to even start?  

A.  Given all the evil leaders the world has seen, this isn't much of a recommendation for God's choices.  But it would help explain why his wife might have been praying so fervently for two weeks - she was trying to get God to promote her husband.  

B.  And, of course, there's the oft pointed out contradiction between the professed beliefs of Christians and their support of the past president's thoroughly un-Christian behavior and life.  I know they would tell us "God works in mysterious ways" but that doesn't cut it for me.  Especially since those folks who display the most Christlike behavior - helping the poor, the outcasts, the strangers etc. -. are so roundly condemned by Evangelical Christians.  

A good portion of the rest of the speech also focused on God - how "In God We Trust" got engraved above the rostrum in the House chambers in 1964.  But that should be a reminder that before 1956, "E Pluribus Unum" was the unofficial motto of the US until "In God We Trust" was made the official motto, in the height of the McCarthy hearings and the demonization of the Communist Soviet Union.  These changes don't just happen on their own, but I couldn't quickly find much detail about who lobbied or who funded that lobbying, to make it happen.  But my point is that God wasn't that intimately part of our official national identity until about 150 years after the US' founding.  It wasn't with us from the beginning.  

2.  His apparent isolation from most United States citizens - isolated from other ideas about religion from his own and isolated from citizens who are not members of Congress. 

Sure, he's a member of Congress.  He talks to people who have different views from his, but despite that exposure, he seems either unaware that others might find his words jarring, or he simply believes he has an inside track on Truth and so he speaks what he thinks.  

Let's reintroduce his comment about his wife being on her knees for two weeks paying here.  

A.  While I understand there are probably millions of US citizens who might relate to this physical demonstration of one's belief in God's intervention in our daily lives, there are just as many of us, probably more,  for whom being on our knees praying for several weeks is not part of our life experience.   

I looked for specific data on this.  The Pew Trust has very detailed data on who prays daily, but it's too detailed for my purposes. I wanted something to compare religious believers who pray daily to others who never pray.  But going through the Pew charts,  I was a bit surprised to see that  Democrats pray daily almost as frequently (40%) as Republicans (42%).  That people who believe homosexuality should be accepted pray daily more (49%) than people who think it shouldn't (42%).  But I couldn't find methodology for that specific survey to find out how  'pray daily' was defined.  Was it left up to the respondents? Did it include a quick "Dear God, help me pass this test"?  Did it mean a daily prayer at dinner? A communal  ritual prayer in a synagogue, or at a Buddhist shrine, or five times a day facing Mecca, or in a church?  Or all of those things?  I couldn't find an answer.

B.  Another brief comment he made, that on the face of it, might seem benign or even a positive sign, was this: 

"I want to thank our children, Michael and Hannah and Abby and Jack and Will. All of our children sacrifice, all of them do and we know that and there’s not a lot of perks to being a member of Congress’ kid, right?"

I think thanking our children for the burdens we put on them is a very important thing to do regularly.  But when you have just become the head of one of the most powerful bodies of the US government (and thus the world)  and you're speaking to the nation, this is really an example of privilege and deafness to the rest of the population.  

"Not a lot of perks to being a member of Congress' kid."  I get it.  Their congressional parent is away a lot and always busy.  And if he were talking privately to other members of Congress, this would make sense.  But this was a speech to the world.

Lots of kids have parents who work long hours.  Have single parents.  Have no parents.  I imagine that Congress members' kids get a hell of a lot more perks than most kids get.  Especially in the current economy in the US where the divide between the very rich and everyone else has become so great.  Especially when conservatives are passing laws to require kids to bear the babies of their (often related) rapists. And when conservatives like Mike Johnson have tried to make being LGBTQ+ a crime.

That Johnson said this in a speech like this, tells me he doesn't understand how the vast majority of people in this country live. 

3.  On a more positive note, he also said this:  

"We stand at a very dangerous time, I’m stating the obvious. We all know that the world is in turmoil, but a strong America is good for the entire world. We are the beacon of freedom and we must preserve this grand experiment in self-governance. It still is. We’re only 247 years into this grand experiment. We don’t know how long it will last, but we do know that the founders told us to take good care of it."

At a time when many of us see the reelection of the former president as the end of US democracy, it's good to hear this.  But hearing it from the lips of an extreme conservative who voted against confirming Biden's election, and who has that ex-president's support, makes me question what he meant by this.  

A.  Does he define democracy the way I do?  He's a conservative Christian, former state legislature, from a state whose legislature was told to fix their gerrymandered voting districts and they refused.  It took the US Supreme Court to compel the changes. [And double checking this now, I see that all the Congressional chaos, plus the Israeli-Hamas war, has pushed to the background new developments in the Lousiana gerrymandering case -  that just last week the 5th Circuit has delayed this action further.

Does he have a different definition of democracy than I have?  Reports on his past statements tell us that belief in God is more important than the US Constitution. A Politico interview today reports: 

"Johnson has said that [David] Barton’s ideas and teachings have been extremely influential on him, and that is essentially rooting him in this longer tradition of Christian nationalism. Christian nationalism essentially posits the idea that America is founded on God’s laws, and that the Constitution is a reflection of God’s laws. Therefore, any interpretation of the Constitution must align with Christian nationalists’ understanding of God’s laws. Freedom for them means freedom to obey God’s law, not freedom to do what you want. So really, Christian supremacy and a particular type of conservative Christianity is at the heart of Johnson’s understanding of the Constitution and an understanding of our government."

B.  Is this all a well rehearsed performance to appear to be the polite new leader who will welcome all to work through our issues?  Or is it just a cover for a far right religious radical who is now the leader of the US House of Representatives?  

I'm inclined to think it is just a cover.  But while Johnson has managed to keep out of the spotlight up until now, all the world's spotlights are shining brightly on him.  And the internet means everything he's ever publicly said in the past will be blown up and examined in detail.  It's already begun.  

And if the Republicans had a rare show of unity Wednesday when they elected Johnson to be Speaker, is it going to last?  The rules that allowed one member to call for ousting the Speaker are still in place.   One objector with four other GOP supporters could overthrow Johnson the way Gaetz overthrew McCarthy.  But for the moment the GOP house thugs appear happy with Johnson.  

The Democrats will clearly make Johnson a poster boy when they campaign to put Democrats back in the majority of the House of Representatives.   

Overall his speech, was just under 20 minutes and you can watch and listen to it here. 

 

Choking The Secret Service, Smashing China, Taking Down Security Magnetometer - Thoughts From Today's Jan6 Committee Hearing

The headlines are expressing surprise at how much the the January 6 Hearings are revealing and Republicans are claiming not to have understood how serious things were.  

From @PalmerReport:

CNN says many Republican officials are “stunned” by today’s bombshells about Trump. No. They knew he was every bit this evil. They’re only stunned that the January 6th Committee was this successful at digging it all up.

No one who has paid any attention whatsoever, didn't know how bad it was.  Only those who had a  vested interest in believing Trump should have known.  

Here are some thoughts which I started jotting down after the first break today:

1.  Most pressing question for me was: what motivates a person like Cassidy Hutchinson, who has served a number of far right politicians before moving to the White House, to now testify about what she saw?  How did she make the decision?  I understand that we tolerate flaws in people we love or people we hope will achieve important outcomes.  Democrats defended Clinton during his impeachment trial because they thought his presidency was more important.  I'm just curious how people decide their hero has cross one line too many?  

Later, Hutchinson actually told us it was watching the her big boss actually encouraging the insurrection.  

 "As an American, I was disgusted. It was unpatriotic, it was un-American. We were watching the Capitol building get defaced over a lie,".  

2.  Dripping Ketchup, Smashing China:  In regards to that first question,  I'm sure there are some very proper GOP women who will finally be convinced after hearing that he smashed the china against the wall.  

Hutchinson testified that T was so mad at Barr for an interview with the media (AP I think) that he threw his lunch against the wall, getting it full of ketchup, and breaking the (White House presumably) china.  

They might think that groping 'those kind of women' was just boys being boys.  But visualizing the ketchup dripping down the wall and seeing the broken china pieces on the floor will be enough for some to draw the line.  

3.  The Magnetometer,  steering wheel, and the neck.  Hutchinson testified that Trump learned the audience for his speech wasn't as big as he wanted because his supporters didn't want to go through the Magnetometer machines and have their weapons confiscated.  He said they weren't going to hurt him and should keep their weapons and take them to the Capitol

“I don’t fucking care they have weapons,” he allegedly said. “Take the fucking mags away.” Then in his speech, he urged those same supporters to march down to the Capitol. 

And then when the secret service refused his order to drive to the Capitol, Hutchinson testified that he grabbed the steering wheel and the neck of the secret service guarding him trying to get them to turn around and drive to the Capitol with the mob.  

"“I’m the f—-ing president, take me to the Capitol now,” he told his staff, according to Hutchinson. The president lunged for the steering wheel, Ornato told Hutchinson, and when Engel tried to restrain him, Trump lunged for Engel and tried to grab him around his throat area."  (MSNBC)

I'd note T has denied these events ever happened.  Of course.  Maybe he should call up Rep. Thompson and volunteer to testify under oath.  

4.  Hanged versus Hung.  She talked about T encouraging the people who wanted Pence 'hung.'  Just for the record, pictures and clothes and even juries can be hung.  But when talking about people executed with ropes around their necks, the right word is 'hanged'.  I don't think it matters too much, but it is a curiosity of the English language.  

5.  Cassidy Hutchinson is merely 25 years old and has had positions working for various powerful Republican politicians since graduating from college.  She was remarkably composed at the hearing today.  

People might tell you we need to get past this and just move on. We don't do that for most crimes where there's an accused unless the prosecution doesn't think there is enough evidence, or the accused is a white police officer or very wealthy and/or well connected.  

Not enforcing the law vigorously against those who tried to overthrow the election and end American democracy as we know it, by people who continue to call the visible leader of that movement their hero and want him to run again in 2024, only encourages such behavior to continue. Putting every insurrectionist  in  prison isn't going to change their minds, just as imprisoning a murderer isn't going to change his mind.  We put them away to stop them from committing more crimes. Though a civilized country would find far more humane and effective ways to deter and rehabilitate then the US prison system. 

And for those Republicans, particularly in Congress, who want to just let it go, I'd remind them that there were ten Congressional Benghazi investigations from April 2013 to December 2016.

"Despite numerous allegations against Obama administration officials of scandal, cover-up and lying regarding the Benghazi attack and its aftermath, none of the ten investigations found any evidence to support those allegations."

And then there was the Clinton email investigations.  The Republicans are less effective in investigations that end up in prosecutions.  They're more effective in creating 'scandals' to hurt their opponents' election chances.   

Finally,  John Durham is still investigating the FBI investigation of the Russian connections to Trump.  He was appointed in May 2019.  The recent trial jury in that investigation found attorney John Sussman not guilty.  That's over three years for people whose math is rusty.  At about $1 million per year.  

Freedom To Kill With Speech - Top 12 Anti-Vaxxers

[Overview:  basically there's

1.  And introduction about how perilous the times are

2.  A list of the Dirty Dozen

3.  Comments here and there about the need to adapt our legal thinking about Free Speech and the internet to be able to stop clear, dangerous, disinformation

4.  Some links to sites that offer suggestions for how to do this - though I can't say that I found anything that has anything close to a magic bullet.  At least you can get the sense that people are working on this.]

The Center for Countering Digital Hate posted a study March 24, 2021 called The Disinformation Dozen.   The first point in the executive summary is:

"1. The Disinformation Dozen are twelve anti-vaxxers who play leading roles in spreading digital misinformation about Covid vaccines. They were selected because they have large numbers of followers, produce high volumes of anti-vaccine content or have seen rapid growth of their social media accounts in the last two months."

I'm a firm believer in the First Amendment protections for free speech.  But there comes a point when people say things that do significant damage.  We have libel and slander laws.  We have hate speech laws. All put limits on speech.  

Perilous Times

Right now we are in a battle.  On one side is democracy and the rule of law and knowledge and action based on science. On the other side we have  the rule of power - based on personal opinion, misinformation, religion, playing on people's emotional weak points. 

 The Senate did not impeach Trump after the insurrection. Half the Senators still won't publicly acknowledge that Trump lost the election.  The GOP refuses to take action against treason.  Their  personal power and wealth is more important than the survival of democracy.  Plus the Monied Right have given us a Supreme Court now that may well support moving to an autocratic theocracy.  

US citizens tend to believe their democracy is immortal.  It's not.  It's being severely tested now. What happens in the next few years will change the world for better or worse.  There's no guarantee those on the side of freedom and equality will be the victors in this new civil war.

We must adapt our laws to deal with threats that the internet enables.  I don't have the answers, but I do have the questions.  

 From what I can tell, money is a factor in all of these cases.  Tat a minimum they have lots of followers on social media, so ad revenue is an issue.  And for a number (if not all) of these folks, there are side hustles - video tapes, alternative medicines, etc. - that bring in a lot of money.  Probably speaking engagements add up too.  

I'm guessing that for some, the money is the main draw.  I don't know how many of these people believe what they are saying.  We know that outrageousness generates clicks.  But I'm sure a few of these despicable people have convinced themselves they are speaking the truth.

The spreading of disinformation is a key weapon in the arsenal of autocracy.  

The List

These are the 12 (really 13) people they Center for Digital Hate identified.   The report also has examples of the kinds of post they distribute.  

[All these profiles are from  Center for Countering Digital Hate  a study The Disinformation Dozen. [The pics of the perps didn't transfer over to here and it's more work than I want to do to redo them all, so for the pics I recommend visiting the original source linked two lines up. It also includes examples of their dirty work.]] 

1 Joseph Mercola

Facebook: Active

Twitter: Active

Instagram:Active

Joseph Mercola is a successful anti-vaccine entrepreneur, peddling dietary supplementsand false cures as alternatives to vaccines. Mercola’s combined personal social mediaaccounts have around 3.6 million followers.

2 Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Facebook: Active

Twitter: Active

Instagram: Part Removed

Kennedy is a long-standing anti-vaxxer, and his Children’s Health Defense (CHD) hosts a range of anti-vaccine articles.

Kennedy’s account was banned from Instagram on 8 February, yet his Facebook Page remains active, as does the CHD’s Instagram page.

Kennedy and Children’s Health Defense released a film in mid-March targeting members of the Black and Latino communities with tailored anti-vaccine messages. Facebook and Twitter continue to allow him a platform to promote these false claims.

3 Ty & Charlene Bollinger

Facebook: Active

Twitter: Active

Instagram: Active

Ty and Charlene Bollinger are anti-vax entrepreneurs who run a network of accounts that market books and DVDs about vaccines, cancer and COVID-19. In 2020 they launched the United Medical Freedom Super PAC ahead of last year’s United States elections.

The Bollingers have promoted the conspiracy theory that Bill Gates plans to inject everyone with microchips as part of a vaccination program.

From AP:

“You’re going to love owning the platinum package,” Charlene Bollinger tells viewers, as a picture of a DVD set, booklets and other products flashes on screen. Her husband, Ty, promises a “director’s cut edition,” and over 100 hours of additional footage.

Click the orange button, his wife says, “to join in the fight for health freedom” — or more specifically, to pay $199 to $499 for the Bollingers’ video series, “The Truth About Vaccines 2020.”

The Bollingers are part of an ecosystem of for-profit companies, nonprofit groups, YouTube channels and other social media accounts that stoke fear and distrust of COVID-19 vaccines, resorting to what medical experts say is often misleading and false information.

Wikipedia says he's a former body builder with no medical training.  

4 Sherri Tenpenny

Facebook:Part Active

Twitter: Active

Instagram: Active

Sherri Tenpenny is an osteopath physician who spreads anti-vaccine sentiment and false claims about the safety and efficacy of masks via her social media channels. While her Facebook account has been removed, her Twitter and Instagram are still intact.

 From Wikipedia:

"Since 2017, Tenpenny and her business partner, Matthew Hunt, have taught a six-week, $623 course titled "Mastering Vaccine Info Boot Camp" designed to "sow seeds of doubt" regarding public health information. During the course, Tenpenny explains her views on the immune system and vaccines, and Hunt instructs participants on how best to use persuasion tactics in conversation to communicate the information.[9]

Tenpenny promotes anti-vaccination videos sold by Ty and Charlene Bollinger and receives a commission whenever her referrals result in a sale,[10] a practice known as affiliate marketing.[11]"

5 Rizza Islam

Facebook: Removed

Twitter: Active

Instagram: Active

Rizza Islam’s anti-vaccine posts aim to spread vaccine hesitancy amongst African Americans. While Facebook removed Rizza Islam’s Facebook Page in February, he continues to post anti-vaccine messages from his Instagram and Twitter accounts. 

From Wikipedia entry on the World Literacy Program of which Rizza Islam was Executive Director.

World Literacy Crusade (WLC) is a non-profit organisation formed in 1992 by the Rev. Alfreddie Johnson to fight illiteracy, and supported by the Church of Scientology.[1][2] The group uses "study technologies" and "drug rehabilitation technologies" developed by L. Ron Hubbard, the Church's founder.[3][4] It has been characterized as a "Scientology front group",[5][6] and has been promoted by celebrity Scientologists such as Isaac Hayes and Anne Archer.[1]

Legal issues

The LA Times reported in 2008 that about 100 protestors gathered outside of the World Literacy Crusade offices after being sold fake low cost housing vouchers for as much as $1500. Officials at WLC admitted to selling the free vouchers, but stated they did not know they were fake.[7] The Compton, Californian offices of the WLC housed a drug detox program using “dry heat sweat therapy”.[8] In 2015 the executive director of WLC, Hanan Islam, Ronnie Steven Islam (AKA Rizza Islam) and her adult children were arrested for Medi-Cal fraud and insurance fraud for billing for this detox program.[9][10]

The Anti-Defamation League cites his anti-Semitic and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. 

6 Rashid Buttar

Facebook: Active

Twitter: Active

Instagram: Active

Rashid Buttar is an osteopath physician and conspiracy theorist known for videos posted to his YouTube channel.

From Wikipedia:  

Rashid Buttar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rashid Buttar

Nationality American

Education Des Moines University

Occupation Physician

Known for Conspiracy theories, 

Anti-vaccine views

Rashid Ali Buttar (born January 20, 1966) is an American osteopathic physician from Charlotte, North Carolina, also known as a conspiracy theory and vaccine hesitancy proponent.[1] He is known for his controversial use of chelation therapy for numerous conditions, including autism and cancer.[2] He has twice been reprimanded by the North Carolina Board of Medical Examiners for unprofessional conduct[3][4] and cited by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for illegal marketing of unapproved and adulterated drugs.[5][6][7]

7 Erin Elizabeth

Facebook: Active

Twitter: Active

Instagram: Active

Erin Elizabeth, partner to Joseph Mercola, runs Health Nut News, a prominent ‘alternative health’ website with affiliated newsletter and social media accounts.

8 Sayer Ji

Facebook: Active

Twitter: Removed

Instagram: Part Removed

Sayer Ji runs a popular alternative health website, GreenMedInfo.com, and affiliated social media accounts that promote pseudoscience and anti-vaccine misinformation. Despite his GreenMedInfo accounts being removed by Twitter and Instagram, it is still available on Facebook.

An article on GreenMedInfo.com falsely claimed that "The FDA knows that rushed-to- market COVID-19 vaccines may cause a wide range of life-threatening side effects, including death."

From Wikipedia:

"Ji obtained a BA in philosophy from Rutgers University in 1995.[2] He has previously owned an organic food market in Bonita Springs.[3][4]

He is the former editor of the defunct International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine [5] and a member of the advisory board and a former vice-president of the National Health Federation, a lobby group opposing government regulation of alternative health practitioners and supplements retailers.[5][6][7][8]

Ji became popular promoting common alternative medicine beliefs, such as enthusiasm for ancient healing practices and the claim that the appearance of some foods is meant to indicate which organ of the human body they are meant to cure.[5] While he always invited his readers to be suspicious of governments, health authorities and pharmaceutical companies, during the COVID-19 pandemic Ji joined other proponents of alternative medicine in embracing conspiracy theories about allegedly oppressive global organizations.[1][9]

Ji denies being an anti-vaccination activist, but consistently shares false or misleading messages about vaccine safety and efficacy.[10][5][11][12] He is married to Kelly Brogan, another well-known promoter of medical misinformation.[11] He lives in Florida.[8][13]"

9 Kelly Brogan

Facebook: Removed

Twitter: Active

Instagram: Active

Kelly Brogan is the partner of fellow alternative health entrepreneur Sayer Ji. She claimsto practice “holistic psychiatry” and sells a range of books and courses from her website.

10 Christiane Northrup

Facebook: Active

Twitter: Active

Instagram: Active

Christiane Northrup is an obstetrics and gynecology physician who has embraced alternative medicine and anti-vaccine conspiracies. She has used her social media accounts to spread disinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine.

11 Ben Tapper

Facebook: Active

Twitter: Active

Instagram: Active

Ben Tapper is a chiropractor with a growing following on social media. He has routinely posted COVID disinformation and spoken out against masking.

Example Violations

12 Kevin Jenkins

Facebook: Active

Twitter: Active

Instagram: Active

Kevin Jenkins is an anti-vaccine activist with a growing social media presence who has appeared at public events with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Jenkins has called vaccines a“conspiracy” to “wipe out” black people and is a co-founder of the Freedom Airway & Freedom Travel Alliance, a company founded in late 2020 to help its members travel around the world without observing any masking, quarantining, vaccination, or other pandemic control measures.

The report is pushing for Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to shut down their accounts - and some of these folks have many different accounts.  

They succeed because of people like the man below.

[Note:  I've googled the text of this cartoon hoping to identify the cartoonist.  There are many places that have put this up.  But the creator's name I couldn't find.  I thank the creator and I'll add your name if you notify me who you are.  Or take it down if you prefer.]

The idea that constitutional rights can't be abridged comes up against the fact that the exercise of one person's constitutional rights can curtail the constitutional rights of others. Then we have to evaluate which right is more critical.  Letting FB cut people off is not an issue because it's the government, not private companies, that must not abridge people's rights.  Companies may set conditions which apply to all users equally - based on behavior, not inherent traits such as race and gender.  

What can you do?

I don't want to just offer bad news without giving people some ideas of what can be done about it.  People should share such information with policy makers - you can easily email your members of Congress even if you don't have the power to implement these things yourself.  Or you can join or donate to organizations that fight these problems.  Here are a few ideas just to remind you that every problem has ways to mitigate it and people who have taken on this project.  

How to fight lies, tricks,and chaos online -   There are a number of sites that offer individuals steps to prevent receiving misinformation.  This is one of the best I saw.  It also includes when to report to law enforcement.  And it recognizes that this is all complicated and no checklist is fool proof.  This is definitely worth a look.

A guide to anti-misinformation actions around the world - This offers a list, country by country, of measures to stop the spread of misinformation.  Unfortunately, many of the countries are authoritarian regimes that don't offer us much help.  But worth a look to see what other democracies are doing.

MITIGATING MEDICAL MISINFORMATION: A WHOLE-OF-SOCIETY APPROACH TO COUNTERING SPAM, SCAMS, AND HOAXES

"This brief addresses how the public health sector, along with a coalition of civil servants, media workers, technology companies, and civil society organizations, can understand and respond to the problem of medical media manipulation, specifically how it spreads online. Here we present a supplementary research-and-response method in correspondence with the World Health Organization (WHO)’s already suggested framework for dealing with the infodemic, with a focus on media manipulation.2"

How to Slow the Spread of Disinformation: A Guide for Newsrooms - 

Congressional Panel On Internet And Disinformation... Includes Many Who Spread Disinformation Online - This one has a promising title, but it doesn't live up to the promise.  It demonstrates the problem of people writing about complex without really being experts themselves. (Like I'm doing here.)  This person writes very little about what was debated.  He basically pulls out stuff he disagrees with and throws up his hands.  The comments, though, offer a sense of the complexity and conflicts of goals involved in all this.  

How Data Privacy Laws Can Fight Fake News  - This post argues that by protecting personal privacy online, it would be harder for people to be targeted for mis- and disinformation.

That's enough.  People are working on this.  Find them and support them.  

Between Voter Suppression And Supreme Court Activism GOP Is Ripping Apart US Democracy

 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is working hard to shine light on Republican actions to thwart democracy through covert operations.  In this previous post "When You Find Hypocrisy In The Daylight, Look For Power In the Shadows" - Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse At Barrett Hearings  I offered a video of Whitehouse outlining the goals of the new GOP Supreme Court.  (New referring both to GOP and to Supreme Court.)  He identified 80 cases where there was a 5-4 majority (conservative v. liberal) split in the rulings and identified these four key outcomes:

• Unlimited Dark Money - that allows the wealthy and corporations (yes those do overlap) control legislatures that make the rules and even to get people appointed as head of federal agencies that regulate them.  Citizen United is the key decision here, but there are many others
• Knock the Civil Jury Down - The powerful can't control civil juries like they can control Congress.
• Weaken Regulatory Agencies - particularly pollutors to weaken their independence and strength
• Voter Suppression and Gerrymandering - making it harder to vote for citizens who might vote against their interests - Shelby County decision on no factual record against overwhelming support on the other side, that knocked out voter suppression protections and a bunch of states started suppressing the vote.  Same on gerrymandering.  

The goal of all of these is to create a Supreme Court that would strengthen power of corporations and the very wealthy.  He also outlined the Federalist Society's 40 year campaign to create this kind of court, including the creation of a legal ideology - Originalism - that would allow justices to reinterpret the Constitution to meet the conservative objectives.  All supported by dark money.

I'd like to call your attention to a New Republic article - The Supreme Court's Total War on Congress - by Simon Lazarus, Robert Litan/July 8, 2021 that argues the Supreme Court has shown in recent cases that it is now at war with Congress and has moved past its powers to interpret whether a law is Constitutional, to simply invalidating laws they don't like.  Here's one brief quote from the article which they say embody their thinking underlying a couple of cases decided in the last week of the Court's session:

 "If we cannot come up with a credible Constitution-based excuse for striking those provisions down, we will simply turn to the power justified two centuries ago by Chief Justice John Marshall as this court’s responsibility to “say what the law is.” We will use that raw power to ignore or rewrite unwanted statutory provisions, to render them ineffectual, or to produce results directly opposite to what they mean."

They are specifically looking at the case which essentially invalidated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and a decision which blocks a California law allowing unions to meet with workers on private property in labor campaigns.  Clearly the Voting Rights case fits the last of Whitehouse's four categories - Voter Suppression and Gerrymandering.  The anti-union case probably fits into the Weaken Regulatory Agencies category, though this was a California State law.  

You'll notice that State's Rights are used when convenient - as in the Voting Rights case - and also ignored when convenient - as in the California case.   

Finally, here's Sheldon Whitehouse again responding to these two recent Supreme Court cases in a Tweet today:

This week’s Scheme speech discusses two decisions just delivered by the Court – Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. FEC and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee – that reflect the patterns and purposes of the Court-capture effort. https://t.co/LgkaE3zYkW

— Sheldon Whitehouse (@SenWhitehouse) July 13, 2021

 

Watching this video, I had to acknowledge that Whitehouse is a very slow and deliberate speaker.  But the content is is rich in fact and meaning.  For those who find Whitehouse too slow, I offer this comment by cartoonist Jen Sorenson on the recent Voting Rights Act.

I'd note that the two items in the title - Voter Suppression and the Supreme Court - are only two of the GOP efforts to destroy our democracy.  Trying to overturn elections is another.  Violent attacks on opponents is another.  Keeping democracy is going to require extra effort on the part of those who believe in democracy.  Extraordinary effort to get voters to the polls despite the obstacles the GOP is setting up and the Supreme Court is allowing is one option.  

"Let's call an ace an ace." Why Rep. Matt Rosendale Voted No On The Juneteenth National Holiday

From USA Today:

Republican Montana Rep. Matt Rosendale released a statement on his vote against S.B. 475.

“Let’s call an ace an ace," Rosendale said. "This is an effort by the Left to create a day out of whole cloth to celebrate identity politics as part of its larger efforts to make Critical Race Theory the reigning ideology of our country.  Since I believe in treating everyone equally, regardless of race, and that we should be focused on what unites us rather than our differences, I will vote no."

“Let’s call an ace an ace,"  -  There's a meme going around on Twitter where people are asked to say something to the world without actually saying it.  "Tell me your religion without actually saying it."  Well we all know what he's not saying here.  Maybe it's progress that he knows he shouldn't say it explicitly.  But this isn't much better.

"This is an effort by the Left to create a day out of whole cloth"  - From The Free Dictionary Idioms 

"cut from whole cloth

Entirely fictional or utterly false; completely fabricated and not based on reality at all. A reference to tailors who would falsely advertise garments being made "out of whole cloth," when, in reality, they were pieced together from different cuts." 

What's the lie here Representative Rosendale?  That slaves were emancipated in the US?  He's right if he's implying that there is still rampant racism, but I don't think that's what he means.  It's just a broad statement about some unnamed big lie, which doesn't exist.

I'd also note that Rosendale is only one of 14 Republicans in the House to oppose this bill and no Republicans in the Senate opposed the bill.  So it seems like there is more than the Left supporting this by a huge majority.  Oh, and Texas - that bastion of the Left - already has a Juneteenth holiday.

"to celebrate identity politics" - identity politics has a 50 year history and has been used in many ways, including as an epithet used by Conservatives to delegitimize marginalized people's causes.  Of course White Power groups, in Rosendale's mind are resorting to identity politics, I'm sure.

 "as part of its larger efforts to make Critical Race Theory the reigning ideology of our country." - Attacking CRT is the latest attempt to delegitimize anyone who calls for  equality for marginalized people.  To make it harder to discuss how Blacks have been screwed over by racist laws throughout American history.  It's in the same vein  as the claims that Blacks were an inferior sub-group of human beings who needed to be civilized by working for white owners for no wages.  

And CRT is not an ideology - it's a fact base field of study that identifies the many laws that treat people of color - particularly Blacks - worse than whites.  

"Since I believe in treating everyone equally, regardless of race" - He probably also says things like "I don't see race" and "some of my best friends are . . ."  Since everyone isn't being treated equally, and race plays a huge role in that, this part of the quote is just platitude that tries to cover up a lie.

"we should be focused on what unites us rather than our differences"  Yes, the Republicans have managed to use this line to get Democrats to pause before using their majority in Congress.  But McConnell has made it clear the Republicans don't believe this.  They believe in using their power to get what they want regardless of what the Democrats want.  Again, all but 14 members of Congress supported this bill.  I'd say that is about as united as Congress gets these days.  

"I will vote no."  - the only straightforward, honest four words in his statement.

"Reporting back from the future: GOP's battered wife syndrome is in full force even after Trump has left office. So SAD!"

 On May 14, 2018 I began a blog post like this:

Congressional Republicans Show Signs of Battered Wife Syndrome

Medical News Today says battered women suffer from PTSD but then adds they suffer their own special symptoms as well.

In addition to PTSD, people with battered woman syndrome show symptoms that may be confusing to outsiders.
Those include:

• learned helplessness
• refusing to leave the relationship
• believing that the abuser is powerful or knows everything
• idealizing the abuser following a cycle of abuse
• believing they deserve the abuse

I then went on to look at each of these symptoms and relate them to Congressional GOP.  (You can see the whole post at the link above.)

Today, Anonymous left this comment:

"Reporting back from the future: GOP's battered wife syndrome is in full force even after Trump has left office. So SAD!"

So sad, indeed.  But the Democrats have laid out such a powerful, logical, and easy to understand case for Trump's treachery.  And it's all there in video - the presentations of the House team and the embedded video they used as evidence.  

Even if the Republicans can't see it, or are too paralyzed to break rank, everyone else can see it.  Historians have never had it so easy.  And their students have never had it so compelling.   

Dear Senator Dan Sullivan:

First, let me thank you working with Senators from both parties to get the Oceans Act passed.  This is a big achievement.  But it would mean nothing if President Trump were to succeed in overturning our democratic election.  As you know the courts have resoundingly rejected about 60 challenges made by Trump because there was no evidence presented to back up his claims.  And yesterday we learned that Trump called the Republican Secretary of State of Georgia and told him to find some 11,000 votes to overturn Biden's win in Georgia, with a threat of legal action if he didn't.  

Today I urge you to strongly endorse the certification of Biden's election and to denounce those senators who are threatening to challenge the election.  There is no doubt that Biden has legitimately been elected president of the United States.  Not denouncing those challenging this election merely feeds the white nationalists and others who want to reestablish 'the good old days' when White men were never challenged by women or people of color.  We need to resoundingly denounce these actions.  

I try to imagine what calculations you are making that prevent you from taking bold action on this issue.  I watched you take the oath yesterday to defend the Constitution.  This certification of the vote is one of the most important opportunities you have to do that.  To end the alarming talk of a number of people in your party, including sitting US Senators.  

I'm not willing yet to believe that you support this seditious action and would welcome an armed resurrection and coup to keep Trump in power.  

The only concern of yours that makes any sense at all to me is that you fear Trump supporters finding a candidate more amenable to their anti-democratic, racist views to run against you in 2026.  But you have nearly six years until you are up for reelection.  The world will be significantly different by then.  And probably most important on this point, Alaska will be using Ranked Choice voting.  There will be no Republican primary where you can be defeated by far right extremists in your party.  

As part of your campaign you told Alaskans that you are a Marine.  We expect you to show the courage of a Marine.  We expect you not to hide in the back of the crowd, but to stand up front to resoundingly defeat this challenge to our democracy.  

Readers can send their own email to Senator Sullivan here.  

"And remember in the United States there are no secrets, only delayed disclosures."

 In his book The Black Banners: How Torture Derailed the War on Terror after 9/11, former FBI interrogator, Ali Soufan,  writes in great detail about the interrogation techniques he’d been using since he’d joined the FBI in 1997.  As a native Arabic speaker from Lebanon who’d gone to school in the US, he started tracking al Qaeda already in graduate school and was put on the anti-terrorist unit after the initial rotation period in the FBI.  He gained a lot more knowledge of al Qaeda - their members, their funding, their training techniques, their communication networks, etc. - while interrogating suspects in the USS Cole bombing in Yemen.  When he interrogated detainees he got their cooperation quickly by letting them see how much he already knew about them and that lying was useless.  He also treated them with respect.  These techniques got the US volumes of intelligence.  

But after 9/11, the CIA was given control over interviewing detainees.  The CIA had very little interrogation expertise.  That wasn’t how they got information before this, so they hired a psychology professor as a contractor who introduced what came to be known as Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT).  Coercive techniques and torture.  A few times Soufan got to interrogate detainees after 9/11 and was able to get useful information, but the high-value detainees were reserved for the CIA interrogators.  They basically got compliance, not cooperation.  Detainees told the CIA what they wanted to hear.  Often lies that fit the CIA narrative.  Not  useful information.  There were attempts by the FBI and inside the CIA and the military to block the EIT program, but it was supported in the White House.

Soufan writes:

“Mark Fallon, a New Jersey native from a family of law enforcement officials, found himself in a position he had warned his staff members about during their orientation. ‘Even if I give you an illegal order,’ he told them, ‘you can’t follow it.  You are bound by the Constitution.  Remember that at Nuremberg we prosecuted Nazis who claimed just to be following orders.  And remember in the United States there are no secrets, only delayed disclosures.  One day, whether one year away or ten years away, people will be looking at what we did, so make sure you act with the utmost integrity.’”

In the book, Soufan argues persuasively, backed up by Senate reports,  that the insistence on EIT to interrogate al Qaeda meant that the kind of intelligence the FBI interrogators had been collecting was lost and attacks that could have been foiled were not foiled, and finding Bin Laden was delayed by years.  

I think this same lesson applies to Senate Republicans. Their refusal to keep Trump accountable allows him to continue to damage our government, our position in the world, and is endangering our democracy by eroding trust in government.  

I cannot comprehend their reasons for  staying silent in the face of Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the election and to defy the advice of scientists on COVID.  

But I do know that like the decision to supplant traditional interrogation techniques with EIT, the Senate’s refusal to do its Constitutional duty to be a check on the presidency is tearing this country apart.  Allowing President Trump to do further damage to our government and our country in the final 60 days will cause unnecessary additional harm.  

Early on I proposed a statue to honor the first six Republican Senators willing to join the Democrats to force Trump to follow the law and the Constitution.  But despite separating immigrant  children, infants even, from their parents; despite encouraging white supremacists, despite the lies and lack of any kind of plan on COVID, and now despite Trump's attempt to overthrow the election, there still aren't six Republican Senators with courage and integrity.  

Even Trump underestimated what he could get away with.  He just said he could could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and not lose his supporters.  At least 150,000 to 200,000 Americans are dead because of Trump's lies and inaction on COVID 19.  Those deaths belong to the Republican Senators too, who did not perform their constitutional duty to be a check on the presidency.  

I repeat Mark Fallon’s words:

And remember in the United States there are no secrets, only delayed disclosures.  One day, whether one year away or ten years away, people will be looking at what we did, so make sure you act with the utmost integrity.’”

The children and grandchildren of the Republican Senators will one day  know that their once powerful parents and grandparents  did not show integrity or courage in one of America’s darkest periods.  

My Email To Senator Sullivan And His Response And Links For You To Contact Your Senators

Out of great frustration with Republicans in the Senate I sent an email to my junior Senator Dan Sullivan:

 

" Here's a Tweet from a Republican former head of the House Intelligence Committee: 

Mike Rogers 

@RepMikeRogers 

· 8h 

Our adversaries aren't waiting for the transition to take place. @JoeBiden should receive the President's Daily Brief (PDB) starting today. He needs to know what the latest threats are & begin to plan accordingly. This isn't about politics; this is about national security. 

Senator Sullivan - do your damn job and protect our Democracy from the internal threats caused by Trump's refusal to acknowledge reality and his spreading of conspiracy theories and fomenting his supporters to believe the election was stolen. And protect our nation from foreign threats by making sure the presidential transition proceeds immediately. 

I don't know what threats and enticements have kept the Republicans in the Senate so meek when it comes to confronting the very worst and most dangerous president of the United States ever, but you're a Marine. Do your duty, sir!"

Here's the response I got today:

"Thank you for contacting my office. Your opinions and concerns are important to me. My staff and I are hard at work to ensure Alaskan voices are represented in Washington and you will soon be hearing back from us with a more detailed response to your inquiry. In the meantime, please make sure to visit my website for additional information on recent legislation. 

I appreciate and am honored to have the opportunity to represent you in the U.S. Senate. 

Sincerely, 

Dan Sullivan 

U.S. Senator "

OK, I'm willing to accept that this is simply a courtesy response so that people know the email was received.  And he's promising a more detailed response.  

But we know that at least 109,000 people voted for Al Gross (Sullivan's Senate opponent).  If 5% of those people called up Sullivan's office each day for the next week on this topic, that would be 35,000 calls.  (Well not really because it would jam up his system, so you could send emails if you can't get through on the phone)  That kind of response might get his attention.  Though just coming off an election win, maybe not.  

Here's the website with all the contact information for Dan Sullivan. 

Here's the page for Lisa Murkowski.  (The Office Location link gives you phone numbers.)

And for non-Alaskans, here's the page to find your Senators.

 

"When You Find Hypocrisy In The Daylight, Look For Power In the Shadows" - Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse At Barrett Hearings

I didn't see all of the Amy Coney Barrett hearings.  But of what I saw, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse had the most insightful things to say.  He stepped back and put this particular nomination into both the context of recent events and also much longer term events.  As he says, he's looking beyond the stage of the puppet theater of the hearing to see who's pulling the strings and pushing the sticks that move the puppets.  

Most important is his following the money that:

• Has spent 40 years educating law students in a very conservative way of interpreting the law.
• Funded shadow organizations that make multiple  Friend of the Court filings on the court cases they have themselves created
• Also funded Federalist Society that gives Trump his Supreme Court nominee names

He looks at where the money comes from and traces most of it back to the same few people.

He then says, while the media have focused on abortion and LGBTQ rights (which are important), the real story deals with 80 cases that were decided by 5-4 rulings along partisan lines.  These cases had four themes important to large corporations:

• Unlimited Dark Money - that allows the wealthy and corporations (yes those do overlap) control legislatures that make the rules and even to get people appointed as head of federal agencies that regulate them.  Citizen United is the key decision here, but there are many others
• Knock the Civil Jury Down - The powerful can't control civil juries like they can control Congress.
• Weaken Regulatory Agencies - particularly pollutors to weaken their independence and strength
• Voter Suppression and Gerrymandering - making it harder to vote for citizens who might vote against their interests - Shelby County decision on no factual record against overwhelming support on the other side, that knocked out voter suppression protections and a bunch of states started suppressing the vote.  Same on gerrymandering.  

Whitehouse makes a great presentation providing the evidence clearly.  This is critical to getting a good sense what's happening and why Democrats are upset with this nomination.  The Republicans have been packing the courts for years and years - through 

• creating a legal theory, Originalism, that I consider the Intelligent Design of Constitutional Law, and 
• through blocking Democratic nominees and holding off Merrick Garland, so they could fill those seats

I don't put up that many third party videos here.  Only ones I think are really worth your time.  So please figure out a good time when you can listen and then do so.

While we're on this topic, let me also point out that the words "extreme liberal" is not the opposite of "extreme conservative."  

"Extreme liberals" on the court have worked hard for individual rights - desegregating schools, supporting voting rights, giving women equal rights to men, recognizing the rights of LGBTQ folks.

"Extreme conservatives" have fought all those individual rights in favor of the rights of corporations, going so far to apply the individual rights in the Bill of Rights to corporations.  

The liberals are much more in synch with the beliefs of most US citizens.  The conservatives push legal theories that go against what most citizens hold, but they do a good job of marketing their contrary positions, by framing abortion as murder, and just outright lying.  

The two articles below offer more on this:

Mother Jones article on Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse comments at Barret hearing: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/10/watch-sen-sheldon-whitehouse-school-amy-coney-barrett-on-dark-money/

Here's a piece written by Sheldon Whitehouse spelling out the dark money interests in shaping he Supreme Court and how they do it.  

Revisiting Originalism

 As I listen to the Supreme Court nomination hearings, it seems like this is a good time to revisit a previous post on originalism that I wrote after Justice Scalia's death.  From February 16, 2016.  This was the Supreme Court opening the Republicans, led by Senator McConnell, argued should not be filled during a Presidential election year.  An argument that we now clearly see was simply rhetoric to justify not filling the seat, not an argument made based on principle.  We know that since they are ignoring that now, adding more rhetoric to justify their 180˚ switch, adding the footnote about a president and senate of the same party.  Even though millions of people have already voted in the current presidential election.  Below is the previous post.

I Think Scalia's Originalism Is Like Intelligent Design Of Constitutional Theories

When Scalia died, I realized that I hadn’t seriously examined his ‘originalist’ theory for interpreting the constitution. I knew that he was outspoken, that I disagreed with the most publicized decisions, but also that he was a good off-the-court friend of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, so there had to be more depth than I was seeing.

I was inspired in part by the way Scalia and Ginsburg, so very different in their understanding of the cases which impacted their interpretation of the constitution, liked each other and spent time together outside of the Court.  From an NPR piece:

"They liked to fight things out in good spirit — in fair spirit — not the way we see debates these days on television," NPR's Nina Totenberg recalled on the NPR Politics Podcast. And Ginsburg admitted once that Scalia made her better. One night last year when the two justices appeared onstage for an interview together in Washington, D.C., Ginsburg talked about a time when Scalia showed her his dissenting opinion in a case before she had finished the majority opinion. "I took this dissent, this very spicy dissent and it absolutely ruined my weekend," Ginsburg said. She made some tweaks to her own argument.   [emphasis added]

So I started a blog post looking up ‘originalist’ theory. I thought that while I was inclined to be skeptical, I ought to at least look at it more seriously. I did. I’d like to present here what I’ve found.

Overview of Conclusion

For those who scan posts in 60 seconds or less - my conclusion is that ‘originalism’ has, as one writer put it, good PR, but basically it’s just old wine in a new bottle.  Like creationism, the old strict constructionist theories of law had been abandoned to allow judges to deal with the many kinds of ambiguities in the law, such as conflicting laws, unclear language, situations unanticipated by the law, etc.  A number of canons developed over the years to help judges deal with statutory interpretation. 

In my, albeit brief, review of originalism, I think, at this point, that originalism is something like Intelligent Design which came into being as a religious alternative to evolution, one that smells suspiciously like creationism, but packaged in what its authors hoped would be a more palatable package.   Furthermore originalism has the public relations value of sounding like its fidelity to the constitution is greater than living constitutional theories. 

Ginsburg’s approach, living constitutionalism, follows the traditions of case law to find ways to deal with inconsistencies in law, generalities in the constitution, and modern situations unanticipated by the constitution.  It isn't simply the bias of the judge substituted for the constitution.  Rather, when  the text of the constitution isn't adequate to resolve a case, a judge then uses other long standing practices to resolve the conflicts and determine a decision that is consistent with the constitution.   Living constitutionalists at least acknowledges that it breathes new life into the constitution in order to deal with situations that weren’t and couldn’t have been anticipated 200 years ago when the constitution was written.

 Scalia’s faction, on the other hand, makes a pretense that it is adhering to the real original meaning of the constitution.   I’m left with the conclusion that this originalist claim to some sort of constitutional authenticity is hollow. 

The rest of this post explains why I believe that. I’m not claiming to be a constitutional scholar or to have read all the articles on this, but I’ve read enough that I’m seeing the same arguments repeated, or I’m seeing very esoteric stuff, that may have some relevance to finer points, but doesn't seem to shed light on the basic conflicts. 

Looking At Originalism

There's no way I can go into all the intricacies in a relatively short blog post.  You can read a bit more here  for a fairly light overview (with an unfortunate don't-worry-about-it, all's-well-that-ends-well conclusion).  Originalism is a variation of what used to be called 'strict interpretation' theory which argued that one must read the law strictly and follow what it says.  My administrative law book in the 1970s dismissed this view of the law as hopelessly unusable because

there were often conflicting laws and you had to have a rationale for picking one over the other; 

the law may be unclear or insufficiently detailed for a particular situation

situations arise which the law didn't not anticipate.  Not only would this include absurd outcomes, but also situations resulting from new technologies not anticipated when the law was written.

Even Scalia removed himself from this extreme position (from Wikipedia):

"Antonin Scalia, the justice most identified with the term, once wrote: "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be", calling the philosophy "a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute". Scalia summarized his textualist approach as follows: 'A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means.'"

And who judges reasonable here?

To get more details on originalism and reasonableness, you can see the Wikipedia overview.  It's not the final word (nothing really is) but it gives us a sense of the concept.  And as you read it, you'll see that originalists aren't all of one mind.  For instance

The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. This is currently a minority view among originalists. The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be. It is this view with which most originalists, such as Justice Scalia, are associated.

Understanding the mindset of a reasonable person of the late 1780s in the newly independent, but not yet united, colonies is a tricky feat.  Imagining what people thought and understood over 200 years ago is no easier than understanding the people who live in a foreign country today.  That doesn't stop people with little or no knowledge of, say, Afghanistan expounding on what the US should do there anymore than it stops jurists with perhaps a better reading of the 1780's, but no real deep understanding of the mindset of the time.

Furthermore, then, like now, reasonable persons had different beliefs.  (Imagine someone two hundred years hence choosing the reasonable person who would represent today's United States.)  Those who mattered back then were basically white, male, Protestant, landowners. (One delegate from Maryland was Catholic.)  From their view, women rightly needed their husbands'  approval to make most important decisions.  Indians were savages.  Blacks were a lesser form of human, whom their new constitution allowed to be owned by white slaveowners.   Is that really the view that Supreme Court justices today should use to interpret the constitution?

When I wrote that, I was aware that I was extrapolating from some brief overviews and knew that I hadn't read any of the scholarly articles on the subject.  Others might well have addressed my concerns.  So I googled  "definition of reasonable person for originalists."

I found this 2014 BYU Journal of Public Law article by Stephen M. Feldman which shows my thoughts are pretty close to the mark (at least his mark), though the author finds lots more that suggests that those reasonable persons back then would have used far more than the constitution and a 'the reasonable man' to make a decision.

Early judicial opinions and legal treatises reveal an eclectic or pluralist approach to constitutional interpretation; no single interpretive method dominated. Early judges and scholars invoked not only reason, but also the text, constitutional structure, framers’ intentions, original public meaning, and so on. Yet, no judge or scholar maintained that constitutional meaning should be ascertained pursuant to a reasonable-man standard."

And Feldman's comments about the difficulty of understanding the context of the time are similar to what I wrote above:

"The contexts and the contingencies engender, for a historian, the sub-texts, the layers of underlying meaning. But originalists disregard context, contingency, and subtext. Originalists, that is, use history without a “historicist sensibility” or historical understanding. (p. 299)

They want to find a fixed objective meaning when a historical text, such as the Constitution—especially, the Constitution, which forged a nation in a political crucible—is roiling with subtexts." 

And his comments about which reasonable person one would choose are also similar to what I wrote above:

"How did people relate to and interact with others? With family members? With strangers? How did people work? Were they subsistence farmers or involved in commercial transactions? How were they educated? Were they literate? How important were religious beliefs? How about gender and race? Should the researcher limit the investigation to white Protestant propertied males because they were the primary voters? With so many variables—and there are many others—the assiduous researcher would probably conclude that founding-era people were too diverse to be reduced into a hypothetical reasonable person."   (p. 302)]

But if we are going to choose a reasonable man of the period, who better to use than Thomas Jefferson?  Reading critiques of 'originalism' I came across comments he made that are directly relevant here and are called "the Jefferson problem" with originalism.  This is from Society for US Intellectual History (S-USIH):

"In September 1789 Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison from Paris that “the question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water.” In making his own answer, Jefferson famously declared that “the earth belongs in usufruct to the living,” that “by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independant nation to another,” and furthermore that “no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law… Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.'”

Feldman's whole article tends to show much of the originalist 'theory' to be superficial and non-factual.  And he quotes others who see the whole idea of originalist theory as a fictional account of constitutional authenticity that allowed for a wide leeway of interpretation.

Feldman's whole article tends to show much of the originalist 'theory' to be superficial and non-factual.  And he quotes others who see the whole idea of originalist theory as a fiction that allowed for a wide leeway of interpretation.

"In the words of the legal historian Saul Cornell, reasonable-person originalism turns “constitutional interpretation into an act of historical ventriloquism.”   The reasonable person is a dummy who speaks words uttered by the originalist scholar or judge."

[Feb. 25, 1:30pm AKTime:  I did some edits here to remove some accidental repetition.]

Conclusions 

The variations of living constitutionalists don't nail any specific one best way to interpret the constitution.  But they do assume that the framers intended the constitution to be a living document to be interpreted in the context of the times. Surely the fact that the framers created a process to amend the constitution suggests they saw the need for changes as times changed.  Any concept, of course, can be misused by the person applying it.

But it seems that originalism has more built in contradictions than living constitutionalism, which acknowledges that it must fill in where the constitution leaves off.  It's very difficult, for example,  to figure out how, theoretically, an originalist deals with, say, both the document ratified in 1788 which considered slaves as 2/3 of a man for purposes of determining population and gave them no rights, and with the 14th Amendment adopted in 1868.   When they consider the reasonable man of 1788, do they simply cut out that part of his mind that allowed for slaves in 1788 and leave the rest intact?

Is my title metaphor too strong?  Perhaps.  Intelligent design is a religious take on life on earth as opposed to the science of evolution.  Originalism isn't that removed from living constitutionalism.  But the metaphor works, when we think about originalism as a warmed over version of strict constructionism with better public relations as a way to push a philosophy that conservatives believe will work better for them.  The fiction parts include that it  a) is more true to the constitution and b) doesn't allow for bias to color decisions. 

I've been writing, reading, cutting, and pasting, more reading, talking to folks, and I realize this post could go on forever.   As much as I'd like this to be a complete overview with a neatly proven conclusion, this is not a law review, and most of my readers will never get as far as this sentence.   And there is much I haven't read where some of what I say is already said, or corrected.  Think of this more as working notes.  I hope readers who see problems point them out and their sources.

There's lots more to cover in this topic.  I'm going to cut and paste the left overs and if time allows and the spirit is willing, I'll go further in future posts.  I'd like to look at living constitutionalism in more detail and criticisms of it.  I'd also like to look at some cases where Scalia reveals that despite originalism, he himself seems to be susceptible to substituting his bias for the constitution, such as Bush v. Gore.  And I'd also like to pursue a bigger question:  how does an individual decide which constitutional philosophy is best?  Is there some objective 'best?'  Or are there simply different approaches and there is no foolproof way to pick one. That all contain their own strengths and weaknesses?  And, is originalism a sincere effort to better interpret the constitution or was it designed as a cover to move American legal decisions to the right?  And I realize that it needn't be an either/or question.  It could be both. 

Here's a follow up post on this:  https://whatdoino-steve.blogspot.com/2017/03/as-neil-gorsuch-takes-center-stage-what.html