Freducator

Only an hour in and just as awesome as usual. Absolutely one of my favorite podcasts. Not just because of the topic but the care, research and fun that goes into it. Thank you.

Thanks for the rec. Didn't know about this. Just downloaded it. Sounds great.

Meanwhile, it's being reported this morning that Trump and Pete Hegseth are ramping up their bloodthirsty and incoherent threats to wage land war on Venezuela. Note how the fact that they're threatening to do this unilaterally has been relegated to an afterthought in much of the coverage.

MUNGIA, J. (concurring)—I concur with the majority’s opinion.1 And yet I dissent. Not from the majority’s opinion, but I dissent from the racism embedded in the federal case law that applies to this dispute. FEDERAL INDIAN LAW IS A PRODUCT OF THE RACIST BELIEFS ENDEMIC IN OUR SOCIETY AND OUR LEGAL SYSTEM While it is certainly necessary to follow federal case law on issues involving Native American tribes and their members, at the same time it is important to call out that the very foundations of those opinions were based on racism and white supremacy. By doing this, readers of our opinions will have no doubt that the current court disavows, and condemns, those racist sentiments, beliefs, and statements.

Since the founding of our country, the federal government has characterized Native Americans as “savages”: They were “uncivilized.” They had little claim to the land upon which they lived. At times, the federal government attempted to eradicate Native Americans through genocidal policies. At other times, the federal government employed ethnic cleansing by forcibly removing children from their parents’ homes to strip them from their culture, their language, and their beings.2 Federal Indian case law arises from those racist underpinnings. The majority correctly cites to Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 8 L. Ed. 25 (1831), which is one of the foundational cases involving tribal sovereignty. That opinion is rife with racist attitudes toward Native Americans. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the majority, describes a tribe’s relationship to the federal government as one of “ward to his guardian.” Id. at 17. In effect, the opinion presents tribal members as children, and the federal government as the adult. That theme would follow in later opinions by the United States Supreme Court—as would the theme of white supremacy. Cherokee Nation began with the premise that Native American tribes, once strong and powerful, were no match for the white race and so found themselves “gradually sinking beneath our superior policy, our arts and our arms.” Id. at 15. The white man was considered the teacher, the Native Americans the pupils:

Meanwhile they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian. Id. at 17. This characterization of superior to inferior, teacher to student, guardian to ward, was repeated in later United States Supreme Court opinions. In Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 23 S. Ct. 216, 47 L. Ed. 299 (1903), often characterized as the “American Indian Dred Scott,” 3 the Court used that rationale to justify ruling that the United States could break its treaties with Native American tribes. These Indian tribes are the wards of the nation. They are communities dependent on the United States. Dependent largely for their daily food. Dependent for their political rights. . . . From their very weakness and helplessness . . . there arises the duty of protection, and with it the power. Id. at 567 (quoting United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 383-84, 6 S. Ct. 1109, 30 L. Ed. 228 (1886)). Our court also carries the shame of denigrating Native Americans by using that same characterization: “The Indian was a child, and a dangerous child, of nature, to be both protected and restrained.” State v. Towessnute, 89 Wash. 478, 482, 154 P. 805 (1916), judgment vacated and opinion repudiated by 197 Wn.2d 574, 486 P.3d 111 (2020). 3 See A

Returning to Cherokee Nation, Justice William Johnson’s separate opinion was less tempered in how he considered the various Native American tribes: I cannot but think that there are strong reasons for doubting the applicability of the epithet state, to a people so low in the grade of organized society as our Indian tribes most generally are. Cherokee Nation, 30 U.S. at 21. Native Americans were not to be treated as “equals to equals” but, instead, the United States was the conqueror and Native Americans the conquered. Id. at 23. In discussing Native Americans, Justice Johnson employed another racist trope used by judges both before and after him: Native Americans were uncivilized savages. [W]e have extended to them the means and inducement to become agricultural and civilized. . . . Independently of the general influence of humanity, these people were restless, warlike, and signally cruel. . . . . But I think it very clear that the constitution neither speaks of them as states or foreign states, but as just what they were, Indian tribes . . . which the law of nations would regard as nothing more than wandering hordes, held together only by ties of blood and habit, and having neither laws or government, beyond what is required in a savage state. Id. at 23, 27-28. This same characterization was used by Justice Stanley Matthews in Ex parte KanGi-Shun-Ca (otherwise known as Crow Dog), 109 U.S. 556, 3 S. Ct. 396, 27 L. Ed. 1030 (1883). Justice Matthews described Native Americans as leading a savage life.

Washington Supreme Court Justice Mungia has an extraordinary opinion condemning "the underlying racism and prejudices that are woven into the very fabric" of SCOTUS opinions about Native people.

"We must clearly, loudly, and unequivocally state that was wrong.”
www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf...

This is a core element of conservative philosophy: If a single "undeserving" person is getting a government benefit, the answer is to take it away from millions.*

*Offer does not apply to tax loopholes or any other benefit enjoyed by the wealthy

So sorry to hear this. He brought so much joy to all of us.

The Trump administration is a fascist administration, but the United States is not yet a fascist state.

Total state capture takes time. Every obstacle we can present as individuals, groups, communities, and institutions helps slow that process.

Everything we do to resist matters. It ALL matters.

Refusing to feed people while building a massive ballroom is a fast track to eat the rich. No pun intended.

This thread makes a point I find myself coming to often these days.

It's hard to make this point in a way that doesn't sound like a threat, but it's just a fact that for centuries the wealthy in America worried that the mob would come get them and did all they could to avoid that fate.

Marc Lobliner post on X: "Why the hell are we giving food stamps to 40 million people? Does anyone work anymore?"

SNAP isn't about "people who don't work." It's about people who don't get paid enough to live.

Of the 40 or so million people who rely on food stamps:

* Two-thirds are children, seniors, or disabled

* Most working-age adults who receive SNAP are employed—but in jobs that pay poverty wages

Really appreciated your Radio Atlantic podcast appearance.. Enlightening but chilling.

Hey, he’s only the president, how is he supposed to know who he is pardoning

This wins the award for thing I most agree with today. I have not only stopped watching most sports (not baseball) but stopped paying attention to results, standings, players because of the way that gambling is pushed on us. Sport is merely a delivery system for betting now.

Donald Trump Has Posted An AI Video Of Himself Dumping S**t On Protesters The US president is seen flying a fighter jet and wearing a crown as he targets those taking part in "No Kings" marches

It is notable that the Times article did not mention this, which, in itself, should be a huge, ongoing scandal, particularly in light of all of the concern about condescension to ordinary Americans that the Democrats supposedly display.
uk.news.yahoo.com/donald-trump...

In social movement studies, we talk about how marches and protests expand the threshold of acceptable risk so that people take more and bigger social risks IN PUBLIC, EN MASSE. This is extremely important for the bourgeois white folks holding signs and building social rapport.

So now suddenly it's "Who cares?" and you know that means Trump cares, he cares very much indeed

Not being even vaguely sarcastic:

At some point, a journalist needs to ask Johnson “you regularly claim you have no idea what your own government is doing. If we take you at your word, how are you so poorly informed, and do you this level of ignorance should disqualify you as speaker?”

Newsom: This president appears unhinged… seems listless… he seems, dare I say, in decline—cognitively, and… physically. These are just the rantings of someone who needs an intervention, needs some help, needs to be stabilized.

Not yet...

Mike Davis racist smear

Hakeem Jeffries posted pictures of two Rep. Members posing with “Young Republicans” who were part of a racist text thread (as reported by Politico).

In response, Mike Davis (well-connected in Trump World & on the Hill) called Jeffries a “house slave” for George Soros - proving Jeffries’ point.

Someone should let her know that she is currently the chair of the (normally) powerful Senate Appropriations Committee and do a lot more than weakly protest this shit.

bsky.app/profile/sluc... This seems dispositive to me, & also just as a matter of fundamental separation of powers concerns, a federal regulation that *did* allow POTUS to fund the military for *years* against Congress’ wishes can’t be legit. Must be unconstitutional for the Constitution to survive

Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders

Of all the news in this NYT survey of sitting federal judges - incl 47 of them think the SCt is mishandling its emergency docket - maybe the biggest is that 65 sitting fed judges (37D, 28R), folks circumspect for a living, responded to a NYT survey. Stunning. And a sign that something is very wrong.

If they claim they haven't heard the quote, play it for them and ask for a response.

If they claim it's being taken out of context, play a longer version and ask for a response.

If they try to sidestep the issue, play it over again and ask for a response.

The Secretary of Defense who only got the job because the president saw him on the teevee is complaining about military leaders who were promoted "for the wrong reasons"

When Trump tries to indict his political enemies on pretextual grounds, grand jurors have the option of refusing to indict. When prosecutors ask for a conviction, jurors can refuse to convict. The Trump administration can treat this government of the people as his own mob enforcers, but the people need not acquiesce. When Trump abuses his power to settle political scores, the people can choose to nullify.

Trump’s political prosecutions require members of the public—specifically jurors—to go along with him. Every time Trump wants to prosecute one of his political enemies, the people should say: no. www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...

A pattern is developing where everyone who fights back against a Trump attack inevitably wins with their reputation much better than before, and everyone who caves to him looks like shit and has Trump coming back for more a month later.

I need you to read this thread to understand why so many historians are revolted by this regime's crimes against the past