In Case You Missed It (v84)

Last week was another busy one. Among other things, we confirmed a Black woman to the Supreme Court; implemented more attacks on women and their bodies, and on LGBTQ people and their bodies; the war rages on in Ukraine...  

I covered some of that, and more; here's a recap of the week in posts, in case you missed anything. 

There was lots of talk about crime in the Sunday School classrooms; that's not surprising, given the Republicans and their relentless beating of the drum about crime, often without nuance or full context, and the failure of the Democrats and their inability to accept that people have real concerns which must be addressed, by acknowledging the issue, talking honestly about it, and making appropriate changes to policing practices or legislation. 

They also have to be prepared to answer this stupid question: why is crime up when (insert city or state name) has such tough gun laws? I gave them the answer; we'll see if anyone uses it. 

Show me a single law that is 100% effective. Laws against voter fraud, DWI, white collar crimes, child abuse, drug possession, motor vehicle laws, rape and murder, insurrection, other violent crimes... no law is 100% effective - but they still work, either as a deterrent to prevent crimes, or to get criminals off the streets. Critics should imagine a world without any of these "ineffective" laws, and tell us how much they'd like living in it.

I'll let more thoughts out of my head on crime in a post this week

My Wondering on Wednesday referenced a new law in Oklahoma that would make it a felony to perform an abortion, absent a medical emergency threatening the pregnant woman. The penalty? A fine of up to $100,000, 10 years in prison, or both. 

I tried to give this approach some context, going back in the archives to when then-candidate Donald Trump said there would "have to be some sort of punishment" for the woman seeking the abortion. 

If the Right wants to be tough on crime, and tough on legal abortion, then they should be standing up in support of Trump's comment, instead of running from it. They should be shouting it from the rooftops, rather than shouting at Trump for saying what he did. They should be castigating him for walking it back, as he did, instead of castigating him for saying it in the first place.

If not, their convictions are without courage, and conversely.

I was right then, and I'm right now, no matter how hard the anti-abortion folks would push back on that unpopular opinion. And while I didn't have an 'official' name for that back then, I do now, and I offered a new chapter in it - The Journal of Unpopular Opinions last week. 

The gist of that post? That it seems we're allowed neither angst nor joy unless it's attached to Ukraine. After sharing examples of other crises, around the world and here at home, here's how that chapter wrapped up.

Should we care about Ukraine? Of course. Should we care only about Ukraine? Of course not. 

We should learn (or remember) how to walk and chew gum at the same time; we can hear about, and care about, more than one thing at a time. Even if the people don't look like us, or don't have great social media skills. 

We should never let our guard down here at home, no matter how compelling the news from elsewhere in the world might be.

And we should allow ourselves a little joy, without feeling guilty and without feeling obligated to anyone else. 

Based on messages I've received, that opinion - or saying it out loud - might not be as unpopular as I thought, which is a good thing.

Given the focus on crime and punishment throughout the week, it seemed reasonable that there'd be a good week/bad week mention on that topic in my TGIF entry. And it was a good one.

The jury in the trial of four men accused of plotting to kidnap and murder Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer had an interesting week, which caused a bad week for the government and a good week for the four defendants. Two were acquitted; the jury failed to reach a verdict on charges against the others. It sounds like the jury believed the defense theory that the FBI went off the rails on this one; or, maybe the defendants truly had a jury of their peers?

What do you think: was it a case of a bad prosecution, bad acts by the FBI, or was there never a snowball's chance in hell that there would have been a conviction in this one? Drop a comment if you like.

Also noteworthy last week? The former president is being given a traditional media platform to spew whatever the hell he wants, even as his own social media platform suffers under the weight of a bad rollout, continued tech problems, and a lack of attention from its founder, who prefers holding rallies and insurrections, I guess. 

The Washington Post published an interview with him; from that, I created another OrangeVerse entry. You remember those, right? I turn word salad into poetry using just his words. Here's what he thinks about the stolen election.

I'm the Diamond; Put Me Back

But I believe when you

 see massive election fraud, 

I can’t imagine that somebody 

who won the election based on fraud,

 that something doesn’t happen? 

How has it not happened? 

If you are a bank robber, 

or you’re a jewelry store robber,

 and you go into Tiffany’s and

 you steal their diamonds

 and get caught, 

you have to

give the 

diamonds 

back.

I'd like to give him back, for sure: back to New York City, before that fateful escalator ride. 

See you later for Sunday School.