Cancel Criticism?

"If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." -- Harry Truman

   Rep. Gavin Nunes (R-Calif) has sued the social media platform Twitter for libel, alleging that because they allow criticism that he claims causes him "pain, insult, embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress and mental suffering, and injury to his person and professional reputations" brought on by those who post such criticism, he is entitled to $250 million in damages.
   Aw, poor baby.
   Aside from the possibility that the avid supporter of the president is using the tactic to build his profile and raise money, there is the greater danger that this is an attempt to weaken or overturn the First Amendment.
   I have been trying to find other things to write about, but the continuing attempts  by Trumpistas to stifle criticism through legal action and even thinly veiled threats of violence cannot go unchallenged.
   It would be easy enough to say this guy is full of hooey and he'll never get away with such nonsense. But stranger things have happened.
   Meanwhile, the news of his lawsuit was greeted with a barrage of more satire from late night TV shows.
   Several days ago, I wrote that if "government succeeds in curtailing disagreement, punishing satire and penalizing mockery, we will no longer have the right of free speech and a free press."
   Now Nunes is demanding that any such  criticism be stopped. Satire is a powerful weapon, however, and cannot be silenced. It may go underground briefly, or masquerade as fable, but it never dies.
   Many may remember reading "Gulliver's Travels," and initially thinking of it as a children's fable. But it was not written for children. Rather, it was and is a satire on government behavior.
   Likewise, "A Modest Proposal," also by Jonathan Swift, is another satire on government failure to deal with the hunger problem in Ireland. And this was more than 100 years before the Great Famine years of the mid-19th Century.
   Geoffrey Chaucer was also good at satire, and it appears numerous times in "The Canterbury Tales."
   In more modern times, "Animal Farm," by George Orwell, uses satire to challenge the doctrine that while all are equal, "some are more equal than others."
   And there is, of course, the heavy doses of satire doled out on network television, most notably on "Saturday Night Live."
  Perhaps this is the problem facing certain politicians in Washington today. They give lip service to the American principle that all are equal, but they, like some of the animals on Orwell's satirical farm, are more equal than others and therefore deserve more respect and allegiance.
   So it's up to everyone to continue to challenge any attempt to build superiority in the guise of equality, and a satirical pencil is perhaps the most powerful weapon available, whether through the printed page, an Internet connection or the entertainment media.
   Let's all remember that any attempt to stifle dissent and satire endangers the Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees.
   And let those who can't take the heat follow the words of former President Harry Truman: Get out of the kitchen.

Mockery

   Some politicians just can't take a joke. Or even a mild teasing, much less full-out mocking.

   On the other hand, the current president revels in mocking others, insulting them, alleging collusion with Democrats and with Russia and even calling for a federal investigation of TV shows that specialize in satire.

   Never mind that the show "Saturday Night Live" is not a news program, and that the federal regulation calling for equal time was dropped decades ago, as broadcast and cable news operations proliferated, or that the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech and a free press to everyone, not just those who agree with any particular politician.

   Note that the equal time rule applied only to news operations, not to entertainment shows.

   In addition, the president attacked the Fox network for suspending Judge Jeanine Pirro's program after she claimed on her program that a newly elected congresswoman who happens to be Muslim would  probably follow sharia law rather than the U.S. Constitution.

   News flash: Freedom of speech works both ways. But this president seems to want to muzzle those who criticize and mock him, but give bigger platforms to his supporters.

   So how long will this two-way mocking continue? 

   As long as the Constitution remains in effect. Once government succeeds in curtailing disagreement, punishing satire and penalizing mockery, we will no longer have the right of free speech and a free press.

   But that may just be what the current president and his cohorts want. Which means there may only be one news and entertainment source available to Americans.

   A better solution: If you don't like a particular TV program, change the channel.

Symbolism

  For the first time since he took office, the president today, St. Patrick's Day, went to church.

   He chose an Episcopal church, which historically has close ties with the official High Episcopal Church of England, and he wore a red tie, not green.

   Is there some symbolism there, indicating favoritism towards Britain, or is it simply ignorance?

  

   Or both?

Paddy's Day Problem

   For many years, it has been traditional for the president of the United States to host a visit by the prime minister of Ireland to the White House on March 17.
   This year, however, may well be exceptional.
   Typically, the Irish PM visits the White House while his/her partner is hosted by the vice president. But the current prime minister of Ireland happens to be gay, and Vice President Mike Pence has been outspoken in his belief that homosexuality is a problem that can be cured with electric shock therapy and spiritual counseling.
   So far, there has been no report that the Irish leader's partner will accompany him on the visit to America. Prime Minister Leo Varadkar did visit America last year, but this year there is speculation in Ireland that the prime minister's partner will not attend.

   (Update: Varadker visited the president at the White House on Thursday, before traveling to Chicago for the parade this weekend. Varadker's partner, Matt, did come along and visited the vice president. No report yet on how that went.)

   Perhaps neither will feel welcome. And how this snubbery will affect voter attitude is yet another issue.
   Also, a visit to Ireland by the U.S. president planned for last September was cancelled after the Irish people scheduled massive protests in greeting.

Bias

   Fox network commentator Jeanine Pirro said on the air that the newly elected Muslim Congresswoman who wears a hijab is more likely to follow sharia law rather than the Constitution.
   That kind of talk is similar to the allegation that John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, was likely to take orders from the Pope rather than follow the Constitution. The fuss was so loud and strong for so long that the candidate had to go on national television to say it ain't so.
   As for those who insist that the U.S. is a Christian nation and therefore its government officials should also be Christian, perhaps they should read the Constitution, where it says, in Article VI in the main body of the document, that "no religious affiliation shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States." In addition, there is the First Amendment ban on establishing an official religion.
   And for those who still insist that the U.S. is a Christian nation, surveys indicate that Christians are a minority in America, outnumbered by agnostics and atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Taoists, Shintoists, Zoroastrians, those of the Baha'i faith and, of course, Muslims and Jews, not to mention Wiccans and the odd Druid here and there. In addition, there are shamanic practitioners who regularly contact their spirit helpers but do not say shamanism is a religion.
   The U.S. Census, by the way, is prohibited by law from asking about religious affiliation, so any numbers  come from the groups themselves or from surveys.

Speculation

Voters: You're fired. Get out.
Office Holder: No, I won't, and you can't make me.

   Speculation has already begun that the president may refuse to leave office if he loses a re-election bid next year.
   He spent so much time complaining that the presidential election was "rigged" against him last time around that it must have been a surprise when he won. Actually, some say the election was indeed rigged, but he did the rigging.
   Nevertheless, he insisted that he really did win the popular vote, had it not been for massive and sweeping fraudulent and illegal voting by undocumented aliens nationwide. He became president because he won the electoral vote, but that didn't stop him from whining that he also won the popular vote despite all evidence to the contrary.
   Will he reprise the same chant next year and use that as a reason not to leave office in January 2021?
   TV commentators are already talking about that possibility, and that raises the question of what the Secret Service and the White House police force will do.
   The White House police force was formed in 1922, initially supervised directly by the president or his representative. It became part of the Secret Service in 1930 and is now known as the Uniformed Division of the Secret Service.
   Suppose the president refuses to recognize the election results and refuses to step down, following the example of the current president of Venezuela? Will the Secret Service escort the American president from the White House, forcibly if need be? And how will his supporters react?
   The Secret Service is responsible for the safety of current and former presidents, but the agency's loyalty may well be tested if the president refuses to leave office.
   That raises the question of whether the agency's loyalty lies primarily to Individual 1 or to the nation.
   Let's hope that question never comes up. But considering current and past behavior by this president, it might.

Ceiling Crash

   Don't look now, but the U.S. government is about to hit its self-imposed debt ceiling and risk being unable to borrow more money to pay debts, salaries and other obligations.
   Result: Another fiscal crisis and even potentially a shutdown of government operations, but this time it's not related to manipulation from the Oval Office. Rather, it's brought on by big spending by those who campaigned for budget cutbacks. Instead, they kept spending at an even faster rate, with money they didn't have.
   Can you say "hypocrisy"?
   The Congressional Budget Office noted that currently there is no statutory limit on the new federal debt, but that temporary suspension expired today, March 1, 2019. Tomorrow, Saturday, March 2, 2019, the debt limit will be automatically reset, but that too will expire in a few months and the Treasury will run out of cash in September.
   If that happens, the government won't be able to pay its bills, it will default on its debts and won't be able to support its activities. So does that mean another shutdown? Unless Congress raises the ceiling again, yes.
   Want some numbers? The previous debt ceiling was $20.5 trillion. As of January 31, another $1.5 trillion had been borrowed, raising the new limit to almost $22 trillion, which will be hit this weekend.
   As that happens, the Treasury won't be able to borrow any more money, except to pay off debts that are maturing.
   So whatever money the government has available will go to repay its creditors, and little or nothing will be available to support other programs.
   And that is tantamount to another shutdown of government programs, including those intended to help those in need.
   So much for campaign promises to trim the federal budget and reduce debt.
   Wait a minute, maybe that's the plan, and so what if some people get hurt. Investors have a higher priority.
   Unless Congress raises the ceiling, thus enabling deeper debt.