To read the first part of this series, click here.
I'm distracted this afternoon by an infuriating conversation I had, on Instagram, with one of my favorite podcasters.
It was in response to their Instagram rant about how media and politicians push an agenda, and we should use critical thinking instead of getting fooled by their agenda.
I got the sense he was talking about the hearings. Though I hoped I was wrong.
I asked him.
He said he hasn't been paying attention (to the hearings). He called it "political circus".
Uh...how can you have critical thinking about something you're not even paying attention to?
I'm kind of hoping we got our wires crossed. Like he was ranting about something else going on in politics. I don't expect everyone to be fully engaged in every current event out there.
Well...still...the fact that he called the hearings "political circus" kind of makes me think...even if he was talking about something else, he's still making a harsh judgement about something he's not paying attention to.
I would have been much happier if he said something like, To be honest, I haven't been paying much attention to them. So...don't have an opinion about it at this point.
The other thing that was hard for me to tolerate is he said that even though what happened was bad, it's distracting from more important things.
Yeah. Domestic terrorist attacks, attempted coups...secret service workers fearing for their lives....
Not that important.
He's not the first person I've seen push the idea that Congress is letting the world fall apart, because they're too busy bullying Donald Trump.
It's as if Congress would shake Donald Trump's hand and say, Awww...let's let bygones be bygones; then suddenly abortion rights would be restored, gas prices would be lowered, Israel and Palestine would be BFF's, Russia would leave Ukraine, Covid would disappear, mass shootings would stop, the glaciers would stop melting, the plastic in the ocean would vanish....
Congress is made up of many people.
The day is made up of many hours.
There is plenty of time for the investigation and the hearings.
* * *
In my experience, when someone says there is no time for something...what is really means is they don't want to hear criticism. They don't want to know why you're mad at them. Or they don't want to hear negative things about something they love or support. They don't want accountability.
* * *
On a more positive/hopeful note....
This person did say that they planned to read an analysis from a variety of sources when it was all over.
I wonder if they were planning to do that all along...or if in the midst of our conversation, they realized they were maybe being a bit contradictory and/or hypocritical.
* * *
In my fantasies, he reads from a variety of sources and comes out feeling a bit ashamed that he called the hearings a circus. He then jumps off the trump train (whether it's my first kind of Trump train or the second).
In reality, he'll probably read a variety of editorials on Fox News and The Wall Street Journal plus a couple of right-winged editorials in the Washington Post and then conclude he was totally right about it being a circus.
* * *
I've not done any research today.
It's close to 6 pm.
I'm trying to decide if I should start....
or just wait until tomorrow.
Though tomorrow we're going to see Nope.
So there may not be much time.
I also didn't do research yesterday.
I should do at least a little today.
I don't want to lose the momentum.
* * *
I'm going to start learning about Gleichschaltung via The Holocaust Explained.
* * *
Maybe when he said the hearings were distracting from more important things...he wasn't talking about congress work.
Maybe he was saying that if people are watching the hearings, they'll have less time to listen to his podcast or watch his YouTube videos.
Hey...maybe if the hearings weren't on, I'd have thousands of hits on these posts...instead of like only 13.
* * *
Gleichschaltung is the process of the Nazis taken over "all aspects of Germany".
Interesting word there.
Did it exist before Nazism?
Or is it Nazi specific?
I put it into Google Translate.
It means synchronization.
The sentence example they give is die Gleichschaltung der Verwaltung war den Nazis wichtig which means the synchronization of the administration was important to the Nazis.
I'm guessing it's a word that's associated mostly with Nazism.
* * *
I just tried to get more information on which websites I should italicize.
This grammar website says there are different approaches.
Speaking of...in my past research posts, I usually didn't even name the sources. I would just put links to them. (as above).
But these days, I'm feeling the names of sources are more important.
I mean not that names of sources are more important these days than they were in those days.
It's more like my feelings about it have changed.
* * *
I'm thinking maybe I will italicize the name of publications...such as The New York Times or The Holocaust Explained but not italicize the names of places such as The Weiner Holocaust Library or companies such as Amazon or organizations like The Heritage Foundation.
Shit. Now I feel obligated to go back and fix all the old posts in this series.
I might not.
At least not today.
Or tomorrow.
* * *
Etymology Geek says that Gleichschaltung is: The forced standardization of political and social institutions under an authoritarian regime, originally with reference to Nazi Germany.The forced standardization of political and social institutions under an authoritarian regime, originally with reference to Nazi Germany.
So I guess it started with Nazism.
I'm wondering about the breakdown of the word.
Looking back at Google Translate.
Gleich means same.
Schaltung means circuit.
Same circuit.
That's pretty cool.
Too bad it's about Nazis.
I wonder if it's used in other circumstances these days.
* * *
It's two days later.
We saw Nope.
When we finished with the movie and going to the theater bathroom, Jack asked me if I liked the movie.
I said, Nope.
But I was sort of joking.
I did like it less then Get Out and a lot less than Us.
But Nope is one of those movies where the more you read about it and talk about it...the more you like it.
I did question whether liking it more after seeing/hearing other responses meant that peer pressure pushed me to like it.
And actually, I think peer pressure played a part. BUT I think the reason why I felt that pressure is Us is one of my favorite movies. When I went on Twitter and saw the positive reactions to Nope, I felt jealous and left out. If the movie was from a director I wasn't into, I don't think I'd care.
My growing like, though, wasn't all due to peer pressure. I didn't understand the full point of Steven Yeun's storyline and felt he was either unnecessary or underused. (more the latter since I like him). But once I understood more about how his storyline connected to the main themes, I was able to like the movie much more.
* * *
This morning I read an editorial in The Washington Post that talked about the United States flirting with ideas of a dictatorship back in the 1930's.
I didn't really understand the editorial. A lot of it went over my head. But maybe one day I'll look into it more.
* * *
Back to Gleichschaltung.
The Holocaust Explained says the process took place between 1933-1934.
I think it's just a bunch of shit shows happening at once.
There was the Act for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service in April 1933. This was about kicking non-Aryans out of civil service roles.
In the judicial system, they removed judges that didn't side with the Nazis.
The Supreme Court was replaced by something called The People's Court. Judges were chosen specifically for their Nazi beliefs. This reminds me a little bit of American Supreme Court judges being chosen for their anti-abortion/pro-Christian beliefs. But at least, the Republican Party replaced only dead justices and didn't kick out all the justices.
* * *
I've decided to go down a Supreme Court rabbit hole.
I'm wondering how unusual was it for Mitch McConnell to block Obama's nomination?
I have two questions.
A) Has a Senate Leader blocked votes on other nominations.
B) How much did it matter that McConnell blocked voting on the nomination. If the vote was allowed, would it have passed? Is it usual that nominated judges are accepted...even when the President's party is not the majority in the Senate?
One thing that makes me think that McConnell's obstructionism did matter is why would he obstruct if he was certain or close to certain that there wouldn't be enough votes for Merrick Garland?
Anyway....Lord Wiki has a list of unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court. I'm going to skim through it.
The first I saw was a case of the nominee themselves doing the rejection—declining the job.
* * *
Alexander Walcott lost the nomination-9/24. I guess that was back when there were less states.
He was part of the Jeffersonian Republican Party, and that party had the majority in the Senate at the time. So it was more about questioning qualifications than one party trying to come up on top.
* * *
Here's something that seems a bit like what McConnell did to Obama.
John Quincy Adams nominated John J. Crittenden. The Senate voted to postpone the confirmation. Then Andrew Jackson ended up filling the seat. Though Lord Wiki says they didn't intend to indefinitely postpone the nomination.
* * *
I had to do some outside-in-the-heatwave work for Tim...which was pretty much standing around, because he forgot to tell me I can leave.
I did some informal research on my phone.
American political parties are confusing.
That's all I'll say about that.
Both John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson were in multiple political parties. I THINK Andrew Jackson may be the father of the Democrat party? Back when the party was the party of Racist Shitheads.
It's too deep of a rabbit hole to figure out why the vote on John J. Crittenden was postponed. Despite Lord Wiki saying it wasn't intended to be indefinite. I don't really understand what that means, anyway. But I'm not going to conclude that the postponement wasn't politically motivated. I'm not going to assume it wasn't an asshole-move.
* * *
If anyone is wondering, I'm not mad at Tim.
I'd feel cheap doing so, since he's been outside in the heatwave, most of the day, doing work.
Also, I was fortunate to be there when the squirrel visited the little restaurant I have set out for him (water and seeds).
* * *
Looking at more cases of Supreme Court nomination sabotage.
Andrew Jackson himself was a victim. The Senate voted to postpone his nomination of Roger B. Taney. But once the Senate composition changed, the new Senate confirmed him.
John Tyler had multiple rejections of his Supreme Court nominations. But they did do the voting part.
I have to admit, if someone asked me who is John Tyler, I probably would not be able to say, a President of the United States. Or if I was trying to list the Presidents of the United States, he'd be one that I'd likely forget.
* * *
I think I'm going to speed this up by looking only for ones where the voting itself was not allowed to take place.
So....
Millard Filmore (Another I'd likely forget) was fucked over by the Democrats. They were in the Senate. He was from the Whig Party.
I think this is still the time of Democrats being the Asshole-Party. I mean not that any party is free of assholes. But some parties have MORE assholes.
* * *
James Buchanan's nominee was blocked. His successor Abraham Lincoln filled the vacancy.
Rutherford Hayes had his nominee blocked with what seems to be the same rational of Mitch McConnell's blocking of Obama's nominee—It was too close to the end of the term.
The Senate refused to consider Warren Harding's nomination.
Lord Wiki says that one of Eisenhower's nominees was "not reported out of the judiciary committee". I'm not sure what that means.
Well, I guess sometimes there's a procedural vote saying we're not going to vote on the confirmation. And in this one, they didn't even get that far.
* * *
Now I'm getting into the more modern-day Republican vs. Democrat drama.
Republicans fucked with LBJ's nominee. Democrats retaliated with Nixon's.
Well...I change my mind. I mean there may have been retaliation. But the voting was, at least, allowed. Nixon's first two nominations were rejected. His third was confirmed.
* * *
Lord Wiki is now explaining to me that the McConnell vs. Obama drama is unique in some ways.
He says that Garland's nomination remained before the Senate longer than any other Supreme Court nomination. He also says it was the longest time for a seat to go unfilled since the end of the Civil War.
I think the nastiest thing about the Merrick Garland situation is the reasoning presented was that a seat shouldn't be filled in an election year. The voters should choose the president who then will make the nomination.
Obama made the nomination 8 months before the election.
Amy Coney Barrett was nominated 38 days before the Biden vs. Trump election. The vote itself took place on October 26 which was a week and one day before the election.
* * *
That was a pretty huge rabbit hole.
I feel like I've totally neglected Germany.
But I'm not going to feel too bad. Because the main purpose of me writing these posts is to learn about my own government and what is currently happening in the United States.
* * *
I was going to end this post here.
But I think I should at least finish with Gleichschaltung.
I'll try not to slide down any more rabbit holes for this post.
If anything catches my eye/brain...I'll try to wait until another post.
* * *
Fortunately, I've already covered the next part of the Gleichschaltung—Goebbels and propaganda. Though I think I should definitely go more into that on a later date.
In the second to last paragraph of the Gleichschaltung section, The Holocaust Explained says that the Nazis were not successful at getting everyone onto this same-circut-thing. Or at least not immediately.
It was a challenge to get local governments onboard. 40% of mayors were not members of the Nazi party.
* * *
I just remembered my plan of looking at a different Holocaust website for each post.
Now I'm torn between following my rule and avoiding making this post way-way too long.
What should I do?
* * *
I think I need to end this here.
But I'll make up for it in the next post by looking at TWO other Holocaust websites.
What would our world be like if we
knew for sure there
was life after death, and
we could easily talk to our
dearly-departed on the Internet?
The Dead are Online a novel by Dina Roberts
.
No comments:
Post a Comment