Lesson from Japan.

 From Twitter:

Brian Krassenstein

@krassenstein

·

2h

I just returned from two weeks in Japan, and I have to be honest, it really opened my eyes to how far behind the U.S. is falling in so many basic ways. Some things that stood out: - In two weeks across some of Japan’s most densely populated cities, I saw only two visibly homeless people. - I saw one person who appeared to be struggling with addiction. - High-speed rail made affordable, clean, efficient transportation the norm, not a fantasy. - I never once felt unsafe letting my kids walk freely beside me in public. - Despite having far fewer public trash cans, Japan’s streets had a fraction of the litter. - The country’s reduced income inequality was visible everywhere, from housing to public services. I already know what some right-wing folks will say: “It’s because Japan has low immigration” or “It’s not run by Democrats.” But those are lazy excuses and distractions from the real issues. The truth? We’ve normalized dysfunction in the U.S., and we make excuses for it instead of demanding better.

There's a huge amount to this, but right now, Americans would rather rip each other apart than work together.  We've elected a global joke, look to an imaginary past as a reality, and are headed into third world status as a result.

Lex Anteinternet: State of American Men 2025

Lex Anteinternet: State of American Men 2025:   

State of American Men 2025

 State of American Men 2025

Well worth reading.

Lex Anteinternet: I hope you don’t have friends who recommend Ayn Rand to you.

Lex Anteinternet: I hope you don’t have friends who recommend Ayn Ra...: 

I hope you don’t have friends who recommend Ayn Rand to you.

I hope you don’t have friends who recommend Ayn Rand to you. The fiction of Ayn Rand is as low as you can get re fiction. I hope you picked it up off the floor of the subway and threw it in the nearest garbage pail. She makes Mickey Spillane look like Dostoevsky.

Flannery O'Connor

Lex Anteinternet: Extension denial leaves Wyoming ranch owner a week...

Lex Anteinternet: Extension denial leaves Wyoming ranch owner a week...: 

Extension denial leaves Wyoming ranch owner a week to convince SCOTUS to hear corner crossing case

Extension denial leaves Wyoming ranch owner a week to convince SCOTUS to hear corner crossing case: Eshelman has until July 16 to state why the court should consider the corner-crossing conflict between public access to public land and private property rights.

Rancher owner?

Well, yes, he owns a ranch.  But a working owner he is not.  He's a pharmaceutical industry titan. 

In a more just society, frankly, he wouldn't own the ranch at all.  It'd be owned by those who actually derived a living from it.

Also of interest, Iron Bar Holdings, the petitioner, is represented by Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP of Denver, with Robert Reeves Anderson as counsel of record.  The respondent is represented by a local Wyoming firm.  I note this as there's no reason that the common attorney bullshit claim "I'm only doing my job" really ought to hold, for civil litigation.  If you run into a Colorado attorney in Wyoming, ask them who they work for.  if they work for this outfit, tell them to go home, we don't want them here.

For that matter, if you are a Colorado user of public lands, as they want to take part of what you own, there's no reason to accommodate them with a seat at the table, literally.  "Want a cup of coffee sir?  Drive to Texas. . . ."

At the trial court level, Iron Bar had been represented by Gregory Weisz, who is a Wyoming attorney.  He's left private practice and is with the AG now.  A lawyer with his firm took his place, but the case was well developed by then, and in the appeal stage, so they really had no choice.

So, what am I saying.  Well, I'm saying that people who don't derive their income principally form a ranch, ought not to own it.  And I'm saying that by representing carpetbaggers, you are a carpetbagger.  The old lawyer bromides about serving the system are BS.  Regular people, including other lawyers, don't have to excuse your choice of clients when you are taking on a plaintiff.  It's not like being assigned a defendant.

IVF and a Half-Cath | June 11, 2025

Progressives Are Driving Themselves Into Extinction | Interesting Times ...

Lex Anteinternet: Donald Trump insults Catholicism.

Lex Anteinternet: Donald Trump insults Catholicism.: 

Donald Trump insults Catholicism.

There is nothing clever or funny about this image, Mr. President. We just buried our beloved Pope Francis and the cardinals are about to enter a solemn conclave to elect a new successor of St. Peter. Do not mock us.

New York State Conference of Catholic Bishops. 

Trump, in something that's supposed to be a jest, posted a photograph of himself dressed as a Pope, no doubt generated by the onrushing curse of our age, AI.

I'm not going to post it.

This should serve as as warning to Trump supporting Catholics.  Trump, who received widespread Evangelical Christian support and who has housed an faith advisor office in the White House which is staffed by a rather peculiar Evangelical pastor, shows no signs at all as taking religion seriously, and never has, but he is comfortable with coopting it.  In spite of that, and this was inevitable, he doesn't mind mocking the oldest and original Christian religion.

That tells you what you need to know.

I've long held that a real Christian can't be comfortable with either of the two major US political parties or with their recent leaders.  Only the American Solidarity Party comes close to being a party Christians can really be comfortable with.  The presence of Catholic politicians at the forefront of either party does not change this.  Biden advanced the sea of blood objectives of the infanticide supporting Democratic Party.  J.D Vance has supported the IF policies of the bizarre Trump protatalist agenda and that's just a start.  The Church has rarely attempted to hold Catholic politicians directly to account for reasons known to itself.

Before the Trump regime concludes, this is going to get worse.  Trump will conclude that he doesn't need Catholics for anything, because he does not.  A religion which is catholic, ie., universal, by nature will not ultimately be comfortable with a political philosophy which aggressively nationalist and nativist.  This, indeed, has been the history of Catholicism in the US, with it only being after the election of John F. Kennedy that things changed.

Some will claim, of course, that this means nothing and its just Trump trying to be funny. That's politically disturbing enough, as Trump is already an embarrassment to the country.  But those who think this should ask if Trump would have dared to depict himself as, for example, an imam. . . not hardly.

Trump's insult is offered as its safe to offer it.  As has sometimes been noted, anti Catholicism is the "last acceptable prejudice".  Trump offered this insult as it fits in nicely with his contempt for Christianity in general, but more particular, for his contempt for the Church, something that fits in nicely with the most extreme of his Evangelical supporters.

Catholics need to review the meaning of The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus.  We're part of something larger, and once we surrender to something smaller, we need to be cautious.  We can expect to be mocked and held in contempt, and if we aren't, there may well be something wrong with our witness.

But we don't have to accept the situation, nor tolerate it, where we do not need to.

Lex Anteinternet: NO KINGS

Lex Anteinternet: NO KINGS: 

NO KINGS

This is the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord.

A big cause of the American Revolution, as everyone knows, was Parliament's (not the King's) imposition of taxes on the colonies, which was done to help pay for the French and Indian (Seven Years) War.  They were, in modern parlance, value added taxes, which the colonist had no say in, and they were specifically directed, on tea.

"No taxation without representation" was the cry.

When, the following year, the Continental Congress got around to declaring independence the following year, they listed twenty five grievances they accused King George III of, those being:

• Grievance 1 "He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

I think this charge can be levied against King Donald, but it is complicated by the fact that Congress is pretty much completely dysfunctional and has been for some time.

• Grievance 2 "He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them." 
• Grievance 3 "He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only." 
• Grievance 4 "He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, and also uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures." 
• Grievance 5 "He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people." 
• Grievance 6 "He has refused for a long time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining, in the meantime, exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and convulsions within."
• Grievance 7 "He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands." 

The Trump administration's outright hostility to the foreign born is at a level not seen since the 19th Century, and which exceeds any level in any prior administration in the country's history.  Included in this is an assault on birth right citizenship, which is featured in the Constitution.

• Grievance 8 "He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers."
• Grievance 9 "He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."

Trump's attacks on the judiciary are certainly evidence of this.  Right now, the Administration is ignoring an order to return a wrongfully deported prisoner.

• Grievance 10 "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."

DOGE.

• Grievance 11 "He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures." 

Just last week came the news that the Trump administration has basically martialized the public lands along the Mexican border.

• Grievance 12 "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power." 

See above and the use of the military for what the Border Patrol should properly be doing.

• Grievance 13 "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:"
• Grievance 14 "For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.

Again, see above.

• Grievance 15 "For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:"
• Grievance 16 "For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world".

Tariffs are accomplishing this.

• Grievance 17 "For imposing taxes on us without our consent:"

Tariffs again.

• Grievance 18 "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Jury trial:
• Grievance 19 "For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses:"

El Salvador prisons and Laotian deportation?

• Grievance 20 "For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries to render it at once an example and fit instrument 

This was directed at Quebec, but it could now pretty ably describe what Trump is doing in general.

• Grievance 21 "For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:"

Again, see it above.

King Donald is repeating many of those same offenses, albeit in new forms, those being the ones emboldened.  Explanations, for the doubters, are provided above, but like British conservatives in the 1770s, they will not be able to see their own violations.

Perhaps nearly as distressing is a new development that I'm seeing in some Conservative quarters.

New York Times conservative columnists David Brooks called just recently for a "National Civil Uprising".

That's essentially a call for a massive act of civil disobedience, and frankly I think it has a good chance of happening.

And some are hinting at even more than that.

For decades, the Wayne LaPierre National Rifle Association fueled  the belief in the firearms community that the Second Amendment exists in order to allow civilians to fight Federal tyranny, if it came to that. That's really completely incorrect, as the text of the amendment clearly demonstrates:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Posted on Twitter with the words "It won’t be long until the proletariat remembers why we have the second amendment".  This is suddenly a place where some on the left and some on the right are frighteningly meeting.

The founders of the Republic didn't want to keep a large standing Army, which they regarded, rightly, as a threat to democracy.  The early land defense of the country, therefore, relied on state militias, which had the added ability to take on local problems without the necessity of a Federal army having to intervene.  After all, keep in mind that one of the cited reasons for the Revolution is that the English had kept large bodies of armed troops in the colonies.  

Posted on Blue Sky with "The 2nd Amendment exists for a reason. It was put in place to protect us against tyranny, even from our own elected officials. We have the right to stand up."

Standing armies are always a problem and the current era might very well be starting to demonstrate that.  Throughout the nation's history it usually didn't have large armies save in times of war, or leading up to war.  But since the onset of the Cold War it has.  Even now, in the post Cold War era, the Army is enormous compared to what it had been before World War Two.

Anyhow, the Second Amendment doesn't exist so that average people can take on a tyrannical government.  It exists so that states can take on the British, basically.  That hasn't stopped at least three decades of firearms owners being schooled in the thought that they might have take up arms against the government, with those claims uniformly coming from the right, although in the 1960s, there were those on the left who argued with some justification that oppressed minorities should arm to protect themselves.

Malcom X, who was a big proponent of the Second Amendment, looking out a window while holding a M1 Carbine.

Now, all of a sudden, I'm seeing anti Trump Conservatives suggest that the Second Amendment's  clauses have what I've already noted as a mistaken view.  That shows, I think, how far down the road of chaos we've gotten. We haven't seen anything like that since the Civil War.

Moreover, there's some discussion going on in the military right now over what the duties are of military officers if they are ordered to take an illegal action.  To some extent I think you can argue they already have been, with the Trump administration declaring the public lands along the Mexican border to be military reservations, but that actually has a long history.  At any rate, Angry Staff Officer, whose blog we link in here, has put up two items recently on the military duties to disobey illegal orders.  The Space Force has had one commanding officer relieved for criticizing J. D. Vance's territorially aggressive statements, something I'm sure she knew would occur when she made them.  While we'd have to see what would actually happen, I suspect there's a lot of back barracks discussions going on amongst officers about the point at which they refuse to obey an illegal order from Trump.

Anticipating the worst, from Twitter.

Trump is a disaster, bringing the worse instincts in people to the top, and excusing them. This will get worse, and worse, if the 25th Amendment doesn't come into play. The man is an stupid, ancient, narcissist who may very well be bordering on insane. If Congress acted now, and truth be known a near majority likely grasp it and are too chicken to do anything, the situation could be salvaged.

Lex Anteinternet: Is Trump ‘Detoxing’ the Economy or Poisoning It? |...

Lex Anteinternet: Is Trump ‘Detoxing’ the Economy or Poisoning It? |...

Is Trump ‘Detoxing’ the Economy or Poisoning It? | The Ezra Klein Show