Commentary on Noah Smith's "You and Whose Army?"

This blog post by Noah Smith is a super interesting analysis of our current political situation and the possible parallels with Spain in the 1930s, after the Spanish American War.

I disagree with some of the premise though:

• I grew up in Arizona, a purple state. Then I lived in Pennsylvania for many years, also a purple state. America is not as clearly divided as your essay suggests.

• I also disagree that all the guns are owned by conservatives (see Arizona and Pennsylvania experience, noted above).

• And having spent 12 years in the military and knowing LOTS of liberals in the military, I disagree that the military would side completely with the right.

• I also disagree that the left would have no super power on its side - the EU is not a single nation, but it has a military and it would most certainly side with the US left.

• I also question whether all the conservative gun owners could be counted on to rise up and fight. A lot of gun owners talk tough but they would never really stand up, either because they are gutless, or even because they are just too decent.

I do not buy the argument that the only way the left can prevail is to "woo" people on the right. The majority of Americans support Democratic positions on issues such as gun control and the social safety net. We have to protect voting rights and make sure that all Americans are truly represented. Then we will have nothing to fear.

I really enjoyed this essay and I will read the suggested book. But I will not despair about the US (yet).

Brett Kavanaugh - SCOTUS nominee

What a perfect example of a entitled white douchebag. The more I learn about this guy, the more convinced I am that he shouldn't even be considered for the SCOTUS. 

• The complaints brought by Dr Ford and others is just the icing on a pretty vile cake. Even if Ford and other accusers have mistaken Kavanaugh for someone else, the fact that so many people have come forward with stories about him demonstrates that he is not who he says he is. Why does he insist on presenting himself as a "saint" when it is very clear that he was not. Why not just admit that he was a dog?

• He was a Republican political operative who was extrememly involved in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. This seems like it should be automatically disqualifying. I don't think anyone who has served a political party should be considered for the High Court.

• There is quite a bit of evidence that he has committed perjury during all his confirmation hearings - for all judicial appointments that he has received as well as the current one.

I don't understand why the Repugs don't cut their losses on this tool and just get another hardliner for the Court. It's not like they don't have a BUNCH of them lined up.

I heard a Republican talking head on the news a couple days ago complaining that the Dems are always trying to torpedo Republicans with this same sexual misconduct charge. And I thought, "well, so many of your guys are predators!" Dems have their own, of course, but the Republicans seem to have a pretty noticable blind spot when it comes to sexual predators and gender violence (e.g., domestic violence). They preach a good game about moral standards, but they are awfully comfortable with a particular kind of misogynist. Just sayin.