nobody can understand?

Posted on by
5

Here are the pertinent facts: 1) In 2021, a youth baseball nonprofit in Wichita, Kansas erected a life-sized bronze statue of Jackie Robinson—the player who broke the color barrier in major league baseball—in McAdam’s Park. 2) This year, on January 25th, after midnight, a couple of assholes cut that statue off at the ankles, loaded it onto a pickup, and drove off. There is surveillance footage of the vandalism and theft. 3) Five days later, the day before Jackie Robinson’s birthday, the Wichita Fire Department responded to a fire in Garvey Park and found the remains of the statue.

I’m appalled by this, but not terribly surprised. Open racism and hatred has become more common in the Trump era. And just to be clear, I’m not saying Trump himself is responsible for the hatred. I’m saying Trump essentially gave permission for existing racists to be more openly racist. Trump’s hate and rage made other racists feel comfortable in expressing their hate and rage.

What DOES surprise me, though, is the reluctance of so many people and so many news outlets to say what’s so plainly fucking obvious. Which is that this was clearly a hate crime. Local law enforcement officials haven’t offered an opinion about the vandals’ motive, but that’s essentially to protect any future prosecution. But how to you explain Bob Lutz, the director of League 42 (the nonprofit that installed the sculpture) saying, “Nobody can understand why this would happen.” Really, Bob? I think everybody can easily understand why it happened. Just ask around, Bob.

And then there’s Mike Freeman in USA Today. He wrote:

What happened? Was it a prank that went too far? Was it an act of racism? We don’t know yet.

We KNOW what happened. And Jesus suffering fuck, it was obviously NOT a goddamn prank. Since the two assholes involved haven’t been identified or arrested yet, we don’t have any direct admission that it was an act of racism. But given the fact that it was a statue of Jackie Robinson and that it was stolen and destroyed around his birthday, I think we’re pretty safe in saying there’s a really really really high probability that racism was the motive.

The statue will be replaced, of course. The money to replace it has already been raised. Although the original sculptor, John Parsons, is dead, the mold still exists and is viable. So the statue of Jackie Robinson will return. He’ll be back in McAdam’s Park, hand on hip, confident, smiling.

But the racism that destroyed the statue in Wichita still exists.

Here’s another ‘but.’ A more important ‘but.’ BUT there are at least seven other statues of Jackie Robinson scattered around the US.

Here’s the thing about statues of real people: they’re not really a celebration of that person. They’re actually an endorsement of the values that person stood for. That’s why we’ve been tearing down statues of Civil War generals. That’s why we’ve put up statues of Jackie Robinson.

girl on a swing, with red boots

Posted on by
11

I don’t have anything like a schedule, but I have a daily routine. Get up, make coffee, read various news sites, do the Wordle (yes, I still do that every morning, sue me), post my result in a Facebook group (there’s maybe 30 of us; each morning somebody offers up a line from a poem, or a song lyric, or a personal observation, or some fucking thing, after which we post our results and chat), then I look at FB Memories to see what entertained me or pissed me off on that date in the past.

Today I saw this:

There’s a young girl I see every afternoon, swinging on her backyard swing set. She’s not a child–maybe 13 or 14? Older than most kids you see on a swing. But she’s out there every day, in every sort of weather, swinging. She goes really high–as high as possible, given the limitations of Earth physics.

I’ve never seen her face; she’s too far away. I don’t know who she is. But as I’m tapping away on my laptop at the kitchen table, I can look through the window and see her swinging. In the summer she’s out there two or three times every afternoon and evening, swinging until it gets dark. All by herself, swinging.

She’s out there right now. It’s bitter cold–23 degrees, according to the thermometer, with a 20 mph wind; the air is full of blowing snow. And she’s swinging with a passion. I want so badly to take her photograph, but it seems such a private thing, her swinging.

She’s wearing red boots.

I wrote that on 30 January, 2013. Eleven years ago. I never made any effort to find out who she was; it never really mattered. At some point she disappeared. I assume she and her family moved away, but I don’t know. All I know is that I eventually realized it had been a while since I’d seen her swinging.

The swing set stayed there for a few years. Then one day I noticed it too was gone.

It’s probably been six or seven years since the girl in red boots disappeared. But I still remember her and the way she’d swing so hard. She’d lean way back on the upswing, pumping, and it was clear she liked the power behind it. On the backswing, she’d look back over her left shoulder, then stretch out and pump. The rhythm was hypnotic.

I never watched her for very long, and I never felt like I was invading her privacy. At least not in terms of the physical act of swinging; that was done right out in the open in her backyard. But there was also a sense that her swinging was, for her, a sort of portal into a very personal realm of motion and rhythm and wild speed. An emotional space she could, for a short time, occupy entirely by herself. I think the reason I never felt like I was invading her privacy was because when she was swinging, she was in a place that nobody else could ever actually see or share.

It’s like watching somebody on an ice skating rink, or shooting baskets on a public court, or dancing at a club, or digging a ditch. There’s something completely lovely about the physicality of some actions, about the way a person becomes so deeply immersed in the act that nothing and nobody outside the act matters.

One friend, after reading my post, wondered if perhaps the girl was in her backyard swinging because she felt unsafe inside her home. Which was possible, of course. But it never felt (to me) like it was escape swinging. It felt like joyful, celebratory, liberation swinging. Like she was enjoying the purity of it.

Another friend encouraged me to shoot the photo I’d said I was reluctant to shoot. And I actually considered doing that. Several times over the years, in fact. But I just couldn’t do it.

I could justify (to myself, at least) watching her swing for a short time because the act of swinging was so beautiful in itself. But to watch her for more than a minute or two—or to take her photograph—would, I think, have been too intrusive. She was in her own world; I could take a brief glance at it in passing, but in the end it belonged to her and I had no business being there.

I’m aware some people might read this and assume the worst about me; they could choose to interpret this as a pervy justification for voyeurism. The sad thing is, there are enough pervy people out there to validate that sort of suspicion. However, it’s also sad that such suspicion discourages people from appreciating simple, innocent beauty when they see it out in the world. There’s a part of me that believes the girl (and probably her parents) might have enjoyed seeing a photograph of her in her red boots, swinging while snow fell all around her. There’s also a part of me that knows for certain the girl and her parents would not appreciate that photograph being taken without their permission and knowledge.

This is the world we live in. There is no photograph memorializing that day. But the image of her on her swing in the falling snow, wearing her red boots has stayed with me and it’s more vivid than any eleven-year-old photograph could be. I wish you could see it too.

Whoever she is, wherever she’s gone, she has my gratitude.

the women’s march — seven years ago

Posted on by
2

Seven years…seems like a lifetime. Donald Trump, with the aid of Vlad Putin, had been installed in the White House. Women decided to protest.

It was really that simple—which is to say it wasn’t simple at all. It was a spontaneous desire to protest, but it took incredible coordination by a group of volunteers. The original plan to march in Washington DC expanded to other major cities, then to more modest cities, then to small towns. In fact, there were satellite protest marches across the globe. There are no truly accurate numbers, but it’s estimated that in the US more than five million people marched that cold January day. That was a little over 1% of the US population. It was, in the end, the largest single-day protest in US history.

The crowd began to gather. We hoped to get 6000. We got 26,000.

A couple of women in Los Angeles had an idea to create a hat that would not only help marchers stay warm, but would also be a visual statement of protest against a man who bragged women would allow him to “grab them by the pussy.” The pink pussy hat idea was flawed (it didn’t represent women of color or trans women) and was later abandoned as a form of protest, but on that day it provided a singularly powerful visual and emotional impact. It was, in a way, a sort of counter MAGA red baseball cap. The hats were also an example of the fundamental opposition to Trump; the vast majority of the pink pussy hats were made by hand by volunteers—often by personal friends of the marchers themselves.

Listening to music; waiting for the speeches to start.

I marched in Des Moines, Iowa. Originally, the organizers thought we’d have a couple of thousand marchers. Later, they hoped to have maybe 6,000. Then they thought it was possible for 10,000 to show up. According to the local newspaper the final estimate was approximately 26,000. (I wrote about the march and the pussy hats a couple days later.)

Oh Jeez

It was mostly women and girls, but a lot of men showed up as well. All ages. It was as racially diverse as Iowa gets (which, let’s admit it, isn’t terribly diverse). Abled and disabled. We gathered at the Iowa state capitol building. There was music, there was food and hot coffee, there were speeches, there were spontaneous chants, there was singing, and then we…well, marched. I use the term ‘march’ rather loosely. We basically hiked around the capitol grounds. Because this is Iowa, the march itself was far more polite than the signage and the chants; we didn’t block the streets, we didn’t get into any punch-ups with the very few counter-demonstrators, and we didn’t leave a mess for other folks to clean up.

Patriarchy is for dicks.

I suppose the march officially ended when we’d returned to our original location, but few people left at that point. It may have been anger and concern that sparked the march and brought us all together, but once we’d gathered there was a pervasive sense of togetherness that everybody seemed reluctant to dismiss. There was a sense of hope, a feeling that if we all acted together—if we all worked for each other—we could mitigate the harm we fully expected to come from a Trump administration.

Not in the White House

We were so innocent. Trump was—and still is—worse than we could imagine. He’s done more damage than we thought possible. He had—and still has—more support for his authoritarian, anti-democratic, racist, misogynistic, vindictive agenda than we could conceive. I don’t think any of us had any idea of just how ugly, how hateful, how mean-spirited Trump’s supporters would be. We certainly didn’t anticipate how persistently and aggressively they’d attack long-held civil rights and liberties. We were so terribly innocent.

We’ve put away those hats, but we’ve kept the righteous anger.

It’s been seven years since the March. And we’re tired. Physically tired, emotionally tired, spiritually tired. We’ve put away our pussy hats (I still have mine—made for me by a friend, Kim Denise—stashed in a drawer), and rightly so because they weren’t inclusive. Our confidence in the benefits of protest has eroded; our confidence in our system of governance has been abraded by constant aggressive assaults by right-wing hate.

Bash the Fash

It’s fucking hard to be optimistic. The March itself, which was a buoyant expression of righteous anger and determination, has become a prolonged grind. It feels like the coming election will determine whether it’s possible for the US to recover from Trumpism.

Believe it.

So it doesn’t matter that we’re tired. We know what we need to do. We don’t need to gather together in person and march again, we don’t need pussy hats, we don’t need clever signs or chants. What we need is pretty simple. We need to gather together in spirit and tell Trump and all his enablers and supporters to go fuck themselves.

Just like the March itself, it’s that simple. Which is to say it’s not simple at all. But it’s necessary.

the iowa caucus as smoke detector

Posted on by
8

Let me say this first: I actually live in Iowa. I’ve been here steadily since 2008. I’ve participated in the Iowa caucus system. And people, I’m telling you it’s worthless.

Wait, that’s not entirely true. The Iowa caucus has value…to the news/entertainment media. Why? Partly because it’s quirky and quaint; it’s basically a 19th century system. Partly because it gives the media good visuals; you get to see candidates visiting farms and small town diners and county/state fairs. You get to see photos of them eating a corn dog or standing by a cow or smiling at somebody wearing bib overalls. And it has media value partly because it’s the first contest of the ridiculous process the US has for nominating presidential candidate. The news media has made the Iowa caucus ‘important’ because it thinks…and perhaps they’re right…that viewers love this stuff.

But except as a form of news entertainment, the Iowa caucus system is a pretty shitty way to select a nominee to represent a political party in a campaign for POTUS. It’s shitty in several ways.

  • It’s shitty because it’s held in fucking January, when it’s almost always bitterly cold. That discourages participation.
  • It’s shitty because it’s held in the evening and requires people to attend physically. If you work the second shift, you can’t attend. If you have child care issues, you may be unable to attend (although some parents do bring their kids…who then have to sit through what is often a long process that’s excruciatingly boring to kids). If you don’t have reliable transportation, if you’re elderly, if you’re disabled, you may be unable to attend.
  • It’s shitty because it can take a long time. People gather at the caucus site (which might be a church or a school or even somebody’s house) then listen as somebody representing each candidate (and sometimes there are several candidates) tries to convince the attendees to support their candidate. After those speeches, people physically separate themselves in groups. I’m NOT making this up. Candidate A supporters go to that corner, Candidate B’s people to another, and so on. If a candidate doesn’t have enough supporters to be considered viable, there’s a period of persuasion in which the more popular candidate’s supporters try to get them to join. There’s a whole supporter-poaching system in place. After all that physical shuffling around is done, they physically count the number of supporters in each group, and apportion delegates based on that.
  • It’s shitty because this unwieldy process happens in EVERY precinct of each of Iowa’s 99 counties. And they’re almost all run by volunteers. In other words, this is largely an amateur hour process.
  • It’s shitty because the population of Iowa is…well, not representative of the US as a whole. There are about three million people living in Iowa. About 85% of them are white; 7% Latino; 5% Black. Do the math.

So what we’re talking about here is an antiquated, inherently unfair system that doesn’t represent the nation as a whole and is conducted largely by amateurs, but is massively promoted as important by the news/entertainment media. It’s also worth mentioning that the Iowa caucus system isn’t very predictive. Since 1972, it’s basically been a coin toss whether the caucus winner became the actual nominee. Only 55% of the Democratic Iowa caucuses winners became the party nominee; 43% of GOP winners became the Republican candidate. (I should also point out that the Iowa Democratic Party has mostly abandoned this system; they’ll still hold a physical ‘caucus’ but will also allow mail-in and early voting.)

The success rate since 2008, when I moved back to Iowa, has been pretty accurate for Democrats, but absolutely dismal for Republicans. Democratic caucus winners were Obama (2008 and 2012), Clinton (2016), and a tie between Buttigieg and Sanders (2020). GOP caucus winners were Mike Huckabee (2008), Rick Santorum (2012), Ted fucking Cruz (2016), and Trump (2020).

You’ll notice that the Iowa GOP has consistently chosen evangelical Christians as candidates. Or at least candidates who claim to represent evangelical Christians, because Trump? C’mon. What that suggests (or screams out loud) is that evangelical Christians aren’t really that interested in Christianity. They’re less concerned with spirituality and morality, and more concerned with racist and sexist ideology. It’s not about religion; it’s about willfully blind obedience to a cult leader.

Ain’t nobody painting their tractor for Biden.

My point, if you can call it that, is that Trump’s massive victory in yesterday’s Iowa caucus isn’t terribly meaningful in terms of who’ll win the 2024 election. Notice that every GOP Iowa caucus winner since 2008 LOST in that year’s election.

I’m not saying we should shrug off Trump’s win. It’s evidence that the GOP has solidified itself as an authoritarian, anti-democratic, Christianist political party rooted in racism and sexism rather than conservative principles or policies. The fact that they represent such a large chunk of the US population is fucking terrifying.

But I think it’s important to remember that Trump’s power is a product of hate, resentment, and fear fueled in large measure by a news and entertainment media more interested in marketing than in reportage. Half of his power is a media-fostered illusion. The way the GOP Iowa caucus is reported feeds that illusion.

So don’t disregard the caucus result any more than you’d disregard the alarm on the smoke detector in your home. It could be a legit warning. But it’s more likely to mean the battery needs to be changed. Pay attention to what happens in Iowa, but don’t let it panic you. It’s mostly just noise leading to anxiety.

Wait. That’s my point. I knew I had one. I’m glad it snuck in at the end.

EDITORIAL NOTE: Just another reminder that we must burn the patriarchy. Burn it to the fucking ground, gather the ashes, piss on them, douse them in oil and set them on fire again. Burn the patriarchy, then drive a stake directly through the ashes where its heart used to be, then set fire to the stake and burn the fucker one more time. And keep burning it, over and over. Burn it for generations. Then nuke it from orbit. Then drink whiskey and have wild monkey sex.

yes, i have a thing for bollards

Posted on by
10

I don’t know when it started, this thing for bollards. Out of curiosity, I did a quick search through my digital photographs and found a photograph of a bollard from 2007. I know I’ve shot photos of bollards with film cameras, including instant film cameras. I’ve photographed them in color and in black-and-white, in several formats (square, 3:2, 4:3), in all sorts of environments, in all manner of weather, using whatever camera I happened to have at hand. So yeah, my bollard fascination has been active for at least a couple of decades.

Why bollards? No idea. I mean, sure, I can come up with lots of justifications for why I photograph them. They’re an interesting compositional form. They’re often present in uniform groups, so there can be a nice repetitive element to them. They’re frequently painted in bright colors—and when they’re not, when they’re old and battered with weathered paint, they can add a sort of wabi-sabi aura to an image.

But like I said, those are justifications for including them in a photo. The fact is, I’ve no idea when or why bollards as a concept attached themselves to my brain like some sort of remora. What’s weird—well, one of the many weird things—is that so many other folks are aware of my interest in and affection for bollards. I’ve had friends from all over the globe shoot and photographs of the local bollards they encounter just for my interest. Do I talk about bollards that much? I guess I must.

Maybe my interest in bollards attracted the attention of other folks partly because so many people had no idea that all those banged up ‘posts’ they see everywhere every day actually have a name. Bollard, it comes from the Old Norse term bolr, meaning “the trunk of a tree”, and the suffix -ard, which generally acts as an attributive pejorative intensifier (as in ‘coward’ being one who cowers, or ‘drunkard’ being one who is often drunk, or even ‘bastard’ which originally referred to “someone conceived on a pack-saddle” (French bast), since they were used as makeshift beds).

Originally, bollards were tree trunks used by Vikings to moor their ships and boats. Over time, the term was used to describe the posts on docks used for that same purpose. By the early 1700s, urban bollards began to be used to constrain horse and wagon traffic. Now the term bollard is applied mostly to posts used to protect objects (or people) from being struck by carelessly driven vehicles.

Bollards are everywhere. The fact that they’re ubiquitous makes them almost invisible. Unless, of course, you look for them. Some bollards are decorative—brightly colored or metallic and shiny. Some are sort of disguised; there’s a small, family-owned ice cream joint not too far from where I live that has bollards shaped like ice cream cones. But most bollards are plain, unadorned, simple, practical, utilitarian. They’re not there to please the eye, but to serve a purpose.

In my mind, bollards are sort of heroic. Yes, that’s right…I’ve romanticized bollards. I find a weird, sad, lonely, powerful beauty in them. They may be weather-beaten, banged up, isolated and ignored, damaged, with chipped paint, but they’re still standing there, doing their job. Protecting stuff.

No matter how abused or battered they are, bollards provide the illusion of permanence. They’re fucking solid. But at the same time, the very fact that they’re so often damaged exposes the lie of permanence. Bollards will stand a very long time, but eventually they’ll be removed and replaced. And very likely, nobody will notice when that happens.

I’m also attracted to bollards because they’re excellent examples of the humanness of things. They’re thoughtful, deliberate infrastructure. Somebody deliberately put them where they are. Somebody decided there was something that needed to be protected, and chose a specific type of bollard to be placed in specific patterns to keep that ‘something’ safe. The humanness of things is always there, if you look for it.

So, yeah, bollards. They’re not pretty. They’re common, unrefined, even crude. They don’t need your respect. But they deserve it.

just another nightmare

Posted on by
11

I used to have recurring nightmares. Well, I still have recurring nightmares, but they’re not recurring as often. For a few years, I’d have 2-3 nightmares a week. Like most folks, I occasionally have your basic bog standard bad dream (somebody chasing me, shit like that), but they’re qualitatively different from the recurring nightmares. I can shrug those off. I’m talking about the sort of nightmares that wake you up and sometimes leave you too jittery to go back to sleep. Or too afraid to try to go back to sleep for fear the nightmare will return, and you’re just too fucking fragile to deal with that again.

Now I have a nightmare maybe every month. Maybe every six weeks. Okay, wait…a tangent. Sort of. When I say I have recurring nightmares, I mean I have four basic nightmare scenarios that repeat themselves; the scenarios are based on actual incidents. I’m not going to discuss the scenarios or the incidents that sparked them because that would take too long. And besides, the incidents don’t really matter; what matters is the nightmares.

This is NOT my nightmare, but you get the point.

I’m writing about this because last night (well, early this morning) it happened again. I had a nightmare that woke me up. Here’s the weird thing: when I had them more often, I learned to cope with them. I was so familiar with them, I was often able to defuse them WHILE DREAMING. “Oh, right…light shining under a closed door, I know that one. Just open the door, see the horrible thing, and get on with it.”

I knew what to do when I had those nightmares. If I was too spooked to go back to bed, I knew how to distract myself so I could relax. Read for a while, maybe listen to some music, drink some cold water, eat a spoonful of peanut butter. Something mundane and ordinary to mute the effect of the nightmare.

But now that the recurring nightmares are less frequent, I find I’m sometimes more discombobulated by them. The nightmare that woke me up this morning had one of the usual recurring tropes (the sound of an empty Coke can being twisted back and forth in order to break it into two jagged-edge pieces suitable for hacking at arms and necks). Just at the point where the blood starts, I woke up; the last thing I remember was hearing a voice saying, “That’s not going to be covered by the manufacturer’s guarantee.” Which totally took the edge of the horror, so when I woke up I wasn’t so much terrified as weirdly but uncomfortably amused.

And yet, I was still too anxious to go back to sleep. None of my distraction techniques worked, mainly (I think) because my mind kept repeating that ridiculous phrase, which kept the nightmare alive in my head. Sort of alive.

So here’s me, three hours later, having had my morning coffee and read the news and banged out the Wordle (got it in four, as usual), and still nattering on about the nightmare. But now I think I can go back to bed and get another hour of sleep.

Thanks for listening.

unlikely, but possible

Posted on by
Reply

So far two states, Maine and Colorado, have decided Comrade Donald Trump is ineligible to be on their state ballots. Colorado’s decision was judicial; it came from the state’s Supreme Court. Maine’s decision was administrative; it came from their Secretary of State. Two states, two different processes. In each state, the decision to remove Trump from the ballot was made by a body authorized to make those decisions.

Republicans, of course, are pissed off (SPOILER: Republicans are always pissed off.) And yet, these results are entirely consistent with the way Republicans WANT elections to operate.

Here’s a crazy thing: the US doesn’t have a unified federal election system. What we have instead is a patchwork of 50 different federal election systems. Voters in Alabama, for example, have a different set of laws and rules than voters in Utah, even though they’re voting in the very same election.

Does that make any sense at all? Nope. But that’s how the US Constitution set things up when it was written back in 1787. Of course, in 1787 there were only three states: Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Another eight states were added in 1788, and other states gradually dribbled in over the next hundred years or so. Instead of bodging together a single set of election laws to cover EVERY state, Congress just kept saying, “Welcome to the monkey house, you do what you think is right when it comes to electing folks.”

And hey, modern Republicans have loved that idea. It allowed them to control election results by deciding who can vote, where they can vote, and when they can vote. Which is a nice way of saying it allowed them to decide who they didn’t want to vote. (SPOILER: they don’t want Black folks to vote. Or Democrats.) Combine that with massive partisan gerrymandering, and you have a recipe for minority rule.

But now, that States Rights approach has kicked them in the balls. Republicans are relying on SCOTUS to save them—which is a fairly safe bet, considering that Trump appointed three of the Justices and a fourth is married to a woman directly involved in the insurrection.

Am I implying SCOTUS is corrupt? No, not the entire Court. I AM stating my opinion that there are a number of SCOTUS Justices who are openly corrupt and base many of their decisions on political ideology rather than the law. To me, the question isn’t whether or not they’re corrupt, but who they’re corrupt for.

Right now, there are a lot of big GOP donors who are, for a number of reasons (none of which involve ethics or morality), reluctant to donate to Trump. Trump is a problem for the GOP. He’s warped the Republican Party to the degree that somewhat less hateful politicians are afraid to acknowledge, for example, that the Civil War was about slavery. It’s possible—maybe not likely, but certainly within the realm of possibility—that the corrupt members of SCOTUS will take those GOP donors into consideration and will refuse to accept Trump’s appeal of the decisions in Maine and Colorado.

It seems unlikely, but refusing to accept Trump’s appeal would effectively remove Trump from contention and make way for a more ‘palatable’ hate-mongering Republican candidate. It would also allow SCOTUS to claim they’re NOT ruled by conservative partisan hacks. (SPOILER: they’d still be ruled by conservative partisan hacks.) Refusing to accept Trump’s appeal might, in fact, be the only way this SCOTUS can redeem a meager shred of dignity and integrity. In fact, it might act as a sort of historical counter-balance for overturning Roe.

Let’s face it, this SCOTUS is the most fucked up Court in modern history. Legal scholars and historians might say, “Yeah, they fucked up by overturning Roe, but at least they drove a stake of holly through Trump’s black heart.”

unqualified

Posted on by
8

I haven’t written anything about Comrade Donald Trump for…well, quite a while. Months. That’s not because he’s become irrelevant; it’s because I’m just sick to fucking death of writing about him. But…

Trump disqualified from Colorado’s 2024 primary ballot by state Supreme Court

That was the headline run by The Washington Post last night. Try to imagine the size of the smile that crossed my face when I heard that.

Just a couple of weeks earlier, in another Colorado court, Judge Sarah B. Wallace found that Trump had, in fact, engaged in insurrection. However, she ruled he shouldn’t be removed from the ballot. Why? Because she determined Section 3 of the 14th Amendment didn’t “intend to include the President as ‘an officer of the United States.”

Seriously. It was a cowardly ruling, in my opinion; a clear attempt to dodge her responsibility as an officer of the court. Let’s look at the text of Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Judge Wallace’s decision was appealed (by Republicans, by the way) to Colorado’s Supreme Court. Yesterday, they basically said, “Sorry, Judge Wallace, but POTUS sure as shit IS an officer of the US. Dude ain’t eligible to be president on account of that insurrection business.”

So, what happens next? Trump will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of the United States. In case you’ve hit your head and forgotten, let me remind you that three SCOTUS Justices were appointed by Trump, and Clarence Thomas’s wife was directly involved in the insurrection. Thomas should recuse himself, but he’s not required to. And let’s face it, that motherfucker is massively corrupt, so he probably won’t. He can make bank off this case. The three Trump appointees? Well, we’re supposed to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they’ll judge the matter based entirely on the law. Don’t hold your fucking breath.

As I understand it (and yeah, I’m not a lawyer), the fundamental issues SCOTUS will have to determine are 1) whether the State of Colorado has the authority to determine if Trump committed insurrection against the United States, and 2) if he’s had sufficient due process to defend himself against that charge.

SCOTUS might refuse to accept the case, but that’s really unlikely. If they did, the Colorado ruling would stand. Trump won’t be on the ballot in Colorado. The reality is SCOTUS will almost certainly agree to hear the appeal. But they could slow walk it; they could hold off on issuing a ruling until early next year…February or March…by which time Trump will very likely have locked in the GOP nomination. Then they could claim removing Trump from the ballot in Colorado would create chaos and deprive the voters of their voting rights.

Is this asshole qualfiied to be POTUS?

That’s just a guess, of course. I have absolutely no idea what they’ll do. But I want to address one bullshit argument that we’re going to hear frequently over the next few weeks. People will argue that it should be up to the voters to determine if Trump should be POTUS; it shouldn’t be determined by any court.

That’s a bullshit argument. It sounds reasonable, but it’s not. The Constitution of the US tells us who is eligible to be president. Article II places only three limits on qualification: the person must be 1) at least 35 years of age, 2) be a natural born citizen, and 3) must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years. The 14th Amendment adds a 4th qualification: a person who has taken an oath to support the Constitution but engaged in insurrection or rebellion is NOT qualified. And the 22nd Amendment added a 5th qualification: no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.

So there you have it. It’s not up to the voters. If the voters want Barack Obama to be president, they’re out of luck: he’s done his two terms. If the voters want Arnold Schwarzeneggar to be president, they’re out of luck: he’s not a natural born citizen. If they want Taylor Swift to be president, they’re out of luck: she’s not old enough…yet.

And if the voters want Trump to be president, they’re…well, they’re confused and stupid. But they’ll also have to wait until the most partisan and corrupt SCOTUS in the history of the US decides what to do.

The future of democracy in the US depends on them. I’d like to say I’m optimistic. But damn, optimism is pretty fucking hard to muster right now.