And here, for anybody interested, are the two conservatives I have been speaking about (Frum and Brooks) talking about the current political situation, and (oh so politely) arguing about what should be done when (if) it's over. Interestingly, I don't see either of them taking the bc line. There is a transcript:
" The number of examples of actual election fraud (voting dead peoples mail in ballots, etc.) is microscopic. BUT, the vast majority of those have been people on the right…."
Note the distinction between "voter fraud" (beloved of RWNJ screamers) is something that individual voters would do, while "election fraud" is something much more systematic, typically by election officials at some level.
But yes, I've noticed that "voter fraud" seems to be something done by people on the right, for which they typically get an extremely mild 'slap on the wrist'.
IMO, such election-related crimes are the ONE case where "loss of franchise" (temporary or permanent) is completely appropriate. It's not as harsh as jail time, nor even as fines.
If they repeat offend? Yeah, jail time. CLEARLY unteachable.
And most recently, the people who engaged in a deliberate scheme to overturn a lawful election, all on the right. And I am talking not just about the J6 rioters, although they most certainly are included.
I note this also. The number of examples of actual election fraud (voting dead peoples mail in ballots, etc.) is microscopic. BUT, the vast majority of those have been people on the right....
I guess I'd also like to comment on the whole accelerationist / looking for the revolution thing.
Here are my politics:
I affirm the commonwealth with a small-r republican form of government as my own idea of the best available form of government. In Lincoln's formulation, a government of, by, and for the people. And I think in general, at least for certain definitions of "the people", that's what the sainted founders tried to establish, and they did a pretty good job considering the conditions under which they were working. Which is to say, basically in a contentious social and political climate and while at war. And I think we've been trying to expand the definition of "the people" since then, with some success, and at some significant cost.
I also affirm the ideas presented by Locke in the 2nd Treatise on Government. We're born with certain inherent rights, but in the absence of society - which is to say government - we're on our own to defend those rights. And as a result, the strong take what they want and the less strong suffer what they must. So we have governments. And because there are lots of different kinds of people, almost anything a government does will piss off some of those people. So, assuming a government that is remotely representative of the people governed, we accept that there be some limitations on what we can and cannot do - some limitations on the exercise of our inherent rights - in the interest of not living in a world of warlords.
That's my political manifesto, FWIW.
You have to go back at least 50 years - Vietnam War days - to find people "on the left" who had any interest in anything resembling revolution.
Over the last 30 years at least, the people who have been unwilling to abide by the basic social contract I described above have all been on the right. The people who have consisted threated the lives of People Like Me if they don't get their way, all on the right. The people organizing themselves into unaccountable militias - private unaccountable armies - are all on the right. The people engaging in political violence and terror, not all on the right, but overwhelmingly on the right.
And most recently, the people who engaged in a deliberate scheme to overturn a lawful election, all on the right. And I am talking not just about the J6 rioters, although they most certainly are included. But also people in government, including people who are in Congress as I write this.
I won't even get into the current POTUS' fanciful understandings of, and disrespect for, the institutions that have allowed this country to persist as something resembling a republic for 250 years.
So I am not interested in, as Paul Simon had it, hints and allegations that people like me are trying to spur on some kind of revolution. We are holding on by our fingertips hoping this republic survives the next three years.
I hope I make myself clear.
I apologize for the belligerent tone of my last few comments. I wake up every day wondering what fresh hell awaits, and trying to get my head around the idea that somebody like our current POTUS not only holds that office, but does so with the support of a significant percent of the population. I have utterly lost respect for the Republican party and the soi-disant "conservative movement" as it currently exists, and also for a lot of people I know personally, because as far as I can tell they have no regard whatsoever for the institutions and traditions of this country. And saying that brings me no pleasure whatsoever. And all of that puts me in a truly foul mood, one which I do not enjoy and would be glad to be rid of.
But nonetheless, here we are.
What is going on now is utter bullshit. If you are offended by my referring to the likes of Miller, Noem, Patel, et al as "freaks", pick another word. Sociopaths. Corrupt lickspittles. Whores to power. Opportunistic sycophants to a sick, sad, increasingly demented old man.
They are deeply and profoundly corrupt, starting with Trump, and they are destroying this nation. We're rich and have a formidable military, so we'll survive in some form, but our standing in the world will be diminished for at least a generation, and our cohesion as a polity is in tatters.
So yes, I am pissed off. Thank you all for your patience.
And, further to my Atlantic link up thread which I called Moral Sanity, Josh Marshall has just pinged into my inbox with this, also from the Atlantic, on the same subject:
ICE has set quotas, and it is easier to fulfill those with non-criminals who're naive enough to trust in the system (and e.g. show up when called upon for hearings etc.) Parents are also easier to get through their children (either the parents get arrested when they come to take home their kids from school or kindergarten or the kids get arrested and used has hostages to lure out the parents).
Which reminds me of Ephraim Kishon. He (being a Jew) was hiding in Budapest at the end of WW2. When the Red Army arrived, he like many others came out to greet them as liberators and found himself arrested and marched in the direction of Siberia. The Soviet general had a quota of prisoners to report to Stalin and took anyone he could get. All the Nazis had gone into hiding, so they were mostly safe. Kishon managed to escape during the march and later heard that in his place a farmer got taken right from his field to get the already reported numbers correct again.
Every word of what wj said 2 hours ago, and what nous says too. The extraordinary numbers of people showing valid US citizenship ID or proof that they're already legally in the system, which is completely ignored, makes a mockery of any suggestion that this is about criminal or illegal immigration. Not to mention the concentration on blue states. This is a vindictive campaign to retaliate against states who didn't go for Trump, and throw the red meat of "illegal" "criminal" "immigrants" to his bloodthirsty base, who are lapping it up. It's just a miracle that brave protesters with phones are providing evidence at the risk of their lives, and that Trump's people are so obviously incompetent and unfit (Noem, Bovino etc) that this is cutting through to the non-brainwashed and even the NRA, and that Renee Good and Pretti were "relatable" white people.
When I hear you saying that to any of Noem, Homan, Bovino, Miller, Leavitt, or even some random MAGA congressman, I will accept that you're engaged in something other than Trumpologetics.
While we wait, I ask again: what do you think should be done about ICE? Or do you think nothing needs to be done?
bc - My point is that by defunding ICE, you do give Trump what I think (I’m doing a bit of mind reading here) you fear: that he will militarize the response.
He's already done that when he mobilized the National Guard and deployed them in LA. We've seen that line crossed before. The people protesting aren't acting on pollyanna instincts. We've seen what the response could look like.
We've also seen what they will do if funds are withheld. But the fact that withholding funding won't stop this administration doesn't mean that there is no point in doing it. The Democrats in congress have to choose if they would rather be seen as having stood up to this wave of federal violence against their communities, or if they want to be seen as resignedly accepting that this administration and their enablers in congress and the courts will not be deterred.
Sanctuary cities/counties/states are actively resisting the enforcement of federal law. Those that think the obstruction isn’t part of and the cause of much of the violence (and intentionally so) are naive IMO.
The idea that if they are defied it will provoke a more violent response, and that the response is then the defiers' fault is what you see in the family members growing up with an abuser in authority. The abuser only wants to help the family. If everyone just did what he asked then no one would get hurt. Why do you keep provoking him?
The only ways to break that cycle are to leave the abuser or to stand up, knowing that the violence will happen, but also knowing that when it does it's no one's fault but the abuser's.
The narrative has to be broken before the cycle can be broken.
Take the resistance far enough and what you end up with may not what you bargained for. Or maybe some are bargaining for that response in search of the revolution.
What revolutionaries and battered family members bargain for is a chance for some change in an unlivable situation - hostage to the threat of violence. They choose to resist knowing what is likely coming.
I've been teaching classes about war and civil unrest long enough to not have any illusions about what could happen.
Trump wants state and local cooperation in rounding up the illegal aliens, especially those convicted or charged with serious crimes. Sanctuary cities/counties/states are actively resisting the enforcement of federal law.
Seriously? I doubt you will find a single official, in any sanctuary city or county or state, who would have any problem at all at all with those convicted of serious crimes being picked up and deported. What they object to, and actively resist, are armed (and untrained) thugs rampaging around their population.
They might not be enthused about rounding up people who had committed no crime beyond coming here illegally. But that's not what's happening. People who are here legally, who have followed the law to the letter, are being grabbed, roughed up, and deported -- deported to, be it noted, countries other than the one they are from, even half way around the world.
For that matter US citizens are getting picked up, shackled,, and hauled across the country for interrogation (without any chance for the legal representation they are entitled to). And then left to get home at their own expense.**
In short, any claim that Trump (or Miller or Noem) has the least interest in legal status is simply not supported by the facts.
As for defunding ICE, at this point I'm not seeing anything less which will work. ICE is basically going to have to be cleared out completely and rebuilt from scratch. There are sure to be some few longstanding employees who should then be rehired. Some. But anyone hired in the last year should never work there again. (And, IMHO, never work in anything resembling law enforcement at any level ever again. All the way down to private security.)
** Far more than the number (citizens and non-citizens alike) who have simply been murdered.
"And this is where we part company on this issue."
I can live with that.
What I would submit for your consideration is that some people dehumanize themselves. I don't have to lift a finger.
Comport yourself like a sociopath and eventually people are gonna consider you to be a sociopath.
"My point is that by defunding ICE, you do give Trump what I think (I’m doing a bit of mind reading here) you fear"
The reality is that DHS has all the money they will ever realistically need, and more, in the bank already. The BBB gave them $178 billion, $30B for ops and $45B for detention. The DHS piece of the current package is $64 billion, with about $10 billion for ICE.
So they'll be okay unless they keep spending like a bunch of drunken sallors on shore leave. They just delivered a couple dozen brand spanking new SUVs to the ICE facility near me, so I think they're all set for a while.
None of which likely has any bearing on whether Trump sends the military into US cities. If he wants to and thinks he can get away with it, he'll find a reason. Or no reason.
The man does whatever the f*** pops into his head on any given day, unless and until somebody tells him no. So let's tell him no, whenever that opportunity presents itself.
it's not making anyone safer. it's killing US citizens, injuring them, throwing them in jail. "conservatives" have been cheerleading this for a year.
and they'll be fine if he pretends the 'emergency' isn't something he created, for ratings, and sends in the military.
Trump just said: "With that being said, you can't have guns. You can't walk in with guns. You just can't. You can't walk in with guns. You can't do that. But it's just a very unfortunate incident."
and Republicans are going to be fine with that. oh sure, some will grumble while they figure out a way to explain it away, but none of them are going to actually do anything meaningful.
What do you see being accomplished by giving Trump what he asks for?
My point is that by defunding ICE, you do give Trump what I think (I'm doing a bit of mind reading here) you fear: that he will militarize the response. Insurrection Act, Alien Enemies Act, etc. Without ICE, you'd have to take agents from the border and there is a limit to that. Defund DHS completely, you lose the Border Patrol (and TSA and the Secret Service too). Trump, OTOH, is still Commander in Chief. He can call up the guard or maybe even the Arctic Angels.
Trump wants state and local cooperation in rounding up the illegal aliens, especially those convicted or charged with serious crimes. Sanctuary cities/counties/states are actively resisting the enforcement of federal law. Those that think the obstruction isn't part of and the cause of much of the violence (and intentionally so) are naive IMO.
Take the resistance far enough and what you end up with may not what you bargained for. Or maybe some are bargaining for that response in search of the revolution.
Thanks Hartmut, more things to think about. I had a section about how the Trojans might be thought of as equivalent to the 'brown people' that Donald referred to in his comment and the way Neoptolemos kills Priam with his own grandchild is probably something that ICE aspires to. We zoom in on the Greeks and we see them as humans and individuals, but we pull back and we see a seething mass of resentment ready to loose all manner of torture and suffering.
That notion of the Trojans as minorities is also explored in KAOS, a TV series that unfortunately was not renewed. The allusions the story makes to Greek myth are outstanding.
Looked it up again. The Orestes-Neoptolemos affair is ambiguous in the sources. Either Hermione was the (unwilling) bride of Neoptolemos and Orestes tried to get her for himself (and slew Neoptolemos) or she was Orestes' fiancee, Neoptolemos tried to rape her and Orestes slew him for that. Again, no one asked the girl about her opinion.
Btw, here's the vase painting of Neoptolemos beating Priamos to death with the body of Priamos' grandson Astyanax: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Amphora_death_Priam_Louvre_F222.jpg
There are other stories with Odysseus either killing Astyanax or agitating for it in order to prevent him from growing up and taking revenge (Neoptolemos often involved though).
Actually reading both epics does not leave much sympathy for any of the male 'heroes'*. I wonder in what way Odysseus would explain his 1 year with Kirke and 7 years with Kalypso to his wife (Homer being very explicit about those relationships being sexual and the latter ending with the 7-years-itch). And other sources have Odysseus killed by his son with Kirke who then marries Penelope while his legitimate son Telemachos marries Kirke in turn.
In the Iliad Odysseus is the most active in suppressing protests from the common soldiers. Interestingly, in non-Platonic sources about the trial of Socrates, the philosopher is accused of citing these verses in his agitation against Athenian democracy.
He is, in some sources, also the main culprit in maltreating the women of Troy (and together with Neoptolemos organizes the sacrifice of Polyxena to the spirit of Achilles).
Orestes tries to justify the murder of his mother with the theory that sons are not blood related to their mothers (them being only seed vessels) and later murders Neoptolemos to steal his wife. Neoptolemos beats Priamos to death at the sanctuary altar with the body of Astyanax, his grandchild and son of Hektor (there are vase paintings of the scene).
Authors of post-antiquity had their work cut out to sanitize all of that.
What I find telling is that the Romans (with very few exceptions**) vilify Odysseus. Not for the deeds we find objectionable to-day but for using his brains instead of raw violence as a proper hero would do.
*Medea (for the female side) being an interesting case of developing from a Greek victim in the oldest to a foreign villain in the younger sources. Jason is an a-hole in all ancient sources I know.
**Apuleius being one in his 'the god of Socrates'
That is asking Trump to deploy the military for immigration enforcement without actually asking him, IMO. Or is that the point? Push escalation until the revolution?
Forgive me for being unable to understand. What do you see being accomplished by giving Trump what he asks for? How often is appeasement a successful strategy for dealing with a bully?
lj: my bad. I meant to put a divider there. Still, I thought (and think) the context is obvious and I wasn't being disrespectful. I will use my best MLA/Bluebook from here on out.
On “Moral insanity”
Bruce Springstein's The Streets of Minneapolis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWKSoxG1K7w
And here, for anybody interested, are the two conservatives I have been speaking about (Frum and Brooks) talking about the current political situation, and (oh so politely) arguing about what should be done when (if) it's over. Interestingly, I don't see either of them taking the bc line. There is a transcript:
https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/2026/01/david-frum-show-david-brooks-neocons-democratic-society/685787/?gift=cx0iluuWx4Cg7JjlT8ugCWT_-SXzv123sF8bQgX3NY8&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
"
" The number of examples of actual election fraud (voting dead peoples mail in ballots, etc.) is microscopic. BUT, the vast majority of those have been people on the right…."
Note the distinction between "voter fraud" (beloved of RWNJ screamers) is something that individual voters would do, while "election fraud" is something much more systematic, typically by election officials at some level.
But yes, I've noticed that "voter fraud" seems to be something done by people on the right, for which they typically get an extremely mild 'slap on the wrist'.
IMO, such election-related crimes are the ONE case where "loss of franchise" (temporary or permanent) is completely appropriate. It's not as harsh as jail time, nor even as fines.
If they repeat offend? Yeah, jail time. CLEARLY unteachable.
"
And most recently, the people who engaged in a deliberate scheme to overturn a lawful election, all on the right. And I am talking not just about the J6 rioters, although they most certainly are included.
I note this also. The number of examples of actual election fraud (voting dead peoples mail in ballots, etc.) is microscopic. BUT, the vast majority of those have been people on the right....
"
I guess I'd also like to comment on the whole accelerationist / looking for the revolution thing.
Here are my politics:
I affirm the commonwealth with a small-r republican form of government as my own idea of the best available form of government. In Lincoln's formulation, a government of, by, and for the people. And I think in general, at least for certain definitions of "the people", that's what the sainted founders tried to establish, and they did a pretty good job considering the conditions under which they were working. Which is to say, basically in a contentious social and political climate and while at war. And I think we've been trying to expand the definition of "the people" since then, with some success, and at some significant cost.
I also affirm the ideas presented by Locke in the 2nd Treatise on Government. We're born with certain inherent rights, but in the absence of society - which is to say government - we're on our own to defend those rights. And as a result, the strong take what they want and the less strong suffer what they must. So we have governments. And because there are lots of different kinds of people, almost anything a government does will piss off some of those people. So, assuming a government that is remotely representative of the people governed, we accept that there be some limitations on what we can and cannot do - some limitations on the exercise of our inherent rights - in the interest of not living in a world of warlords.
That's my political manifesto, FWIW.
You have to go back at least 50 years - Vietnam War days - to find people "on the left" who had any interest in anything resembling revolution.
Over the last 30 years at least, the people who have been unwilling to abide by the basic social contract I described above have all been on the right. The people who have consisted threated the lives of People Like Me if they don't get their way, all on the right. The people organizing themselves into unaccountable militias - private unaccountable armies - are all on the right. The people engaging in political violence and terror, not all on the right, but overwhelmingly on the right.
And most recently, the people who engaged in a deliberate scheme to overturn a lawful election, all on the right. And I am talking not just about the J6 rioters, although they most certainly are included. But also people in government, including people who are in Congress as I write this.
I won't even get into the current POTUS' fanciful understandings of, and disrespect for, the institutions that have allowed this country to persist as something resembling a republic for 250 years.
So I am not interested in, as Paul Simon had it, hints and allegations that people like me are trying to spur on some kind of revolution. We are holding on by our fingertips hoping this republic survives the next three years.
I hope I make myself clear.
I apologize for the belligerent tone of my last few comments. I wake up every day wondering what fresh hell awaits, and trying to get my head around the idea that somebody like our current POTUS not only holds that office, but does so with the support of a significant percent of the population. I have utterly lost respect for the Republican party and the soi-disant "conservative movement" as it currently exists, and also for a lot of people I know personally, because as far as I can tell they have no regard whatsoever for the institutions and traditions of this country. And saying that brings me no pleasure whatsoever. And all of that puts me in a truly foul mood, one which I do not enjoy and would be glad to be rid of.
But nonetheless, here we are.
What is going on now is utter bullshit. If you are offended by my referring to the likes of Miller, Noem, Patel, et al as "freaks", pick another word. Sociopaths. Corrupt lickspittles. Whores to power. Opportunistic sycophants to a sick, sad, increasingly demented old man.
They are deeply and profoundly corrupt, starting with Trump, and they are destroying this nation. We're rich and have a formidable military, so we'll survive in some form, but our standing in the world will be diminished for at least a generation, and our cohesion as a polity is in tatters.
So yes, I am pissed off. Thank you all for your patience.
"
And, further to my Atlantic link up thread which I called Moral Sanity, Josh Marshall has just pinged into my inbox with this, also from the Atlantic, on the same subject:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/the-neighbors-defending-minnesota-from-ice/685769/?gift=cx0iluuWx4Cg7JjlT8ugCVq2vs66WsP3aEH6Mssk-Ig&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
"
ICE has set quotas, and it is easier to fulfill those with non-criminals who're naive enough to trust in the system (and e.g. show up when called upon for hearings etc.) Parents are also easier to get through their children (either the parents get arrested when they come to take home their kids from school or kindergarten or the kids get arrested and used has hostages to lure out the parents).
Which reminds me of Ephraim Kishon. He (being a Jew) was hiding in Budapest at the end of WW2. When the Red Army arrived, he like many others came out to greet them as liberators and found himself arrested and marched in the direction of Siberia. The Soviet general had a quota of prisoners to report to Stalin and took anyone he could get. All the Nazis had gone into hiding, so they were mostly safe. Kishon managed to escape during the march and later heard that in his place a farmer got taken right from his field to get the already reported numbers correct again.
"
Cross posted with Tony P and hsh. What they said as well.
"
Every word of what wj said 2 hours ago, and what nous says too. The extraordinary numbers of people showing valid US citizenship ID or proof that they're already legally in the system, which is completely ignored, makes a mockery of any suggestion that this is about criminal or illegal immigration. Not to mention the concentration on blue states. This is a vindictive campaign to retaliate against states who didn't go for Trump, and throw the red meat of "illegal" "criminal" "immigrants" to his bloodthirsty base, who are lapping it up. It's just a miracle that brave protesters with phones are providing evidence at the risk of their lives, and that Trump's people are so obviously incompetent and unfit (Noem, Bovino etc) that this is cutting through to the non-brainwashed and even the NRA, and that Renee Good and Pretti were "relatable" white people.
"
Maybe if russell used "domestic terrorists" instead of "freaks," we wouldn't be discussing dehumanization. The former is clearly acceptable.
"
bc: Dehumanizing either side gets us nowhere.
When I hear you saying that to any of Noem, Homan, Bovino, Miller, Leavitt, or even some random MAGA congressman, I will accept that you're engaged in something other than Trumpologetics.
While we wait, I ask again: what do you think should be done about ICE? Or do you think nothing needs to be done?
--TP
"
bc - My point is that by defunding ICE, you do give Trump what I think (I’m doing a bit of mind reading here) you fear: that he will militarize the response.
He's already done that when he mobilized the National Guard and deployed them in LA. We've seen that line crossed before. The people protesting aren't acting on pollyanna instincts. We've seen what the response could look like.
We've also seen what they will do if funds are withheld. But the fact that withholding funding won't stop this administration doesn't mean that there is no point in doing it. The Democrats in congress have to choose if they would rather be seen as having stood up to this wave of federal violence against their communities, or if they want to be seen as resignedly accepting that this administration and their enablers in congress and the courts will not be deterred.
Sanctuary cities/counties/states are actively resisting the enforcement of federal law. Those that think the obstruction isn’t part of and the cause of much of the violence (and intentionally so) are naive IMO.
The idea that if they are defied it will provoke a more violent response, and that the response is then the defiers' fault is what you see in the family members growing up with an abuser in authority. The abuser only wants to help the family. If everyone just did what he asked then no one would get hurt. Why do you keep provoking him?
The only ways to break that cycle are to leave the abuser or to stand up, knowing that the violence will happen, but also knowing that when it does it's no one's fault but the abuser's.
The narrative has to be broken before the cycle can be broken.
Take the resistance far enough and what you end up with may not what you bargained for. Or maybe some are bargaining for that response in search of the revolution.
What revolutionaries and battered family members bargain for is a chance for some change in an unlivable situation - hostage to the threat of violence. They choose to resist knowing what is likely coming.
I've been teaching classes about war and civil unrest long enough to not have any illusions about what could happen.
"
Trump wants state and local cooperation in rounding up the illegal aliens, especially those convicted or charged with serious crimes. Sanctuary cities/counties/states are actively resisting the enforcement of federal law.
Seriously? I doubt you will find a single official, in any sanctuary city or county or state, who would have any problem at all at all with those convicted of serious crimes being picked up and deported. What they object to, and actively resist, are armed (and untrained) thugs rampaging around their population.
They might not be enthused about rounding up people who had committed no crime beyond coming here illegally. But that's not what's happening. People who are here legally, who have followed the law to the letter, are being grabbed, roughed up, and deported -- deported to, be it noted, countries other than the one they are from, even half way around the world.
For that matter US citizens are getting picked up, shackled,, and hauled across the country for interrogation (without any chance for the legal representation they are entitled to). And then left to get home at their own expense.**
In short, any claim that Trump (or Miller or Noem) has the least interest in legal status is simply not supported by the facts.
As for defunding ICE, at this point I'm not seeing anything less which will work. ICE is basically going to have to be cleared out completely and rebuilt from scratch. There are sure to be some few longstanding employees who should then be rehired. Some. But anyone hired in the last year should never work there again. (And, IMHO, never work in anything resembling law enforcement at any level ever again. All the way down to private security.)
** Far more than the number (citizens and non-citizens alike) who have simply been murdered.
"
Also, too:
"Sanctuary cities/counties/states are actively resisting the enforcement of federal law."
You're gonna have to show some receipts on that one.
"
"And this is where we part company on this issue."
I can live with that.
What I would submit for your consideration is that some people dehumanize themselves. I don't have to lift a finger.
Comport yourself like a sociopath and eventually people are gonna consider you to be a sociopath.
"My point is that by defunding ICE, you do give Trump what I think (I’m doing a bit of mind reading here) you fear"
The reality is that DHS has all the money they will ever realistically need, and more, in the bank already. The BBB gave them $178 billion, $30B for ops and $45B for detention. The DHS piece of the current package is $64 billion, with about $10 billion for ICE.
So they'll be okay unless they keep spending like a bunch of drunken sallors on shore leave. They just delivered a couple dozen brand spanking new SUVs to the ICE facility near me, so I think they're all set for a while.
None of which likely has any bearing on whether Trump sends the military into US cities. If he wants to and thinks he can get away with it, he'll find a reason. Or no reason.
The man does whatever the f*** pops into his head on any given day, unless and until somebody tells him no. So let's tell him no, whenever that opportunity presents itself.
"
ICE is broken.
it's not making anyone safer. it's killing US citizens, injuring them, throwing them in jail. "conservatives" have been cheerleading this for a year.
and they'll be fine if he pretends the 'emergency' isn't something he created, for ratings, and sends in the military.
Trump just said: "With that being said, you can't have guns. You can't walk in with guns. You just can't. You can't walk in with guns. You can't do that. But it's just a very unfortunate incident."
and Republicans are going to be fine with that. oh sure, some will grumble while they figure out a way to explain it away, but none of them are going to actually do anything meaningful.
Republicans are killing this country.
"
wjca:
What do you see being accomplished by giving Trump what he asks for?
My point is that by defunding ICE, you do give Trump what I think (I'm doing a bit of mind reading here) you fear: that he will militarize the response. Insurrection Act, Alien Enemies Act, etc. Without ICE, you'd have to take agents from the border and there is a limit to that. Defund DHS completely, you lose the Border Patrol (and TSA and the Secret Service too). Trump, OTOH, is still Commander in Chief. He can call up the guard or maybe even the Arctic Angels.
Trump wants state and local cooperation in rounding up the illegal aliens, especially those convicted or charged with serious crimes. Sanctuary cities/counties/states are actively resisting the enforcement of federal law. Those that think the obstruction isn't part of and the cause of much of the violence (and intentionally so) are naive IMO.
Take the resistance far enough and what you end up with may not what you bargained for. Or maybe some are bargaining for that response in search of the revolution.
"
russell:
You’re a conservative, get your freaking Congress people to stop giving these freaks the space to destroy this country.
And this is where we part company on this issue. Dehumanizing either side gets us nowhere. I don't see the situation as black and white as you do.
"
bc,
Let's hear your own suggestions. What do you think should be done about ICE, CBP, and the rest of those federal "agents"? And by who?
Or do you think nothing needs to be done?
--TP
On “Feeling Philoctetes”
Thanks Hartmut, more things to think about. I had a section about how the Trojans might be thought of as equivalent to the 'brown people' that Donald referred to in his comment and the way Neoptolemos kills Priam with his own grandchild is probably something that ICE aspires to. We zoom in on the Greeks and we see them as humans and individuals, but we pull back and we see a seething mass of resentment ready to loose all manner of torture and suffering.
That notion of the Trojans as minorities is also explored in KAOS, a TV series that unfortunately was not renewed. The allusions the story makes to Greek myth are outstanding.
"
Looked it up again. The Orestes-Neoptolemos affair is ambiguous in the sources. Either Hermione was the (unwilling) bride of Neoptolemos and Orestes tried to get her for himself (and slew Neoptolemos) or she was Orestes' fiancee, Neoptolemos tried to rape her and Orestes slew him for that. Again, no one asked the girl about her opinion.
Btw, here's the vase painting of Neoptolemos beating Priamos to death with the body of Priamos' grandson Astyanax: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Amphora_death_Priam_Louvre_F222.jpg
There are other stories with Odysseus either killing Astyanax or agitating for it in order to prevent him from growing up and taking revenge (Neoptolemos often involved though).
On “Moral insanity”
bc, thanks, appreciate it.
On “Feeling Philoctetes”
Actually reading both epics does not leave much sympathy for any of the male 'heroes'*. I wonder in what way Odysseus would explain his 1 year with Kirke and 7 years with Kalypso to his wife (Homer being very explicit about those relationships being sexual and the latter ending with the 7-years-itch). And other sources have Odysseus killed by his son with Kirke who then marries Penelope while his legitimate son Telemachos marries Kirke in turn.
In the Iliad Odysseus is the most active in suppressing protests from the common soldiers. Interestingly, in non-Platonic sources about the trial of Socrates, the philosopher is accused of citing these verses in his agitation against Athenian democracy.
He is, in some sources, also the main culprit in maltreating the women of Troy (and together with Neoptolemos organizes the sacrifice of Polyxena to the spirit of Achilles).
Orestes tries to justify the murder of his mother with the theory that sons are not blood related to their mothers (them being only seed vessels) and later murders Neoptolemos to steal his wife. Neoptolemos beats Priamos to death at the sanctuary altar with the body of Astyanax, his grandchild and son of Hektor (there are vase paintings of the scene).
Authors of post-antiquity had their work cut out to sanitize all of that.
What I find telling is that the Romans (with very few exceptions**) vilify Odysseus. Not for the deeds we find objectionable to-day but for using his brains instead of raw violence as a proper hero would do.
*Medea (for the female side) being an interesting case of developing from a Greek victim in the oldest to a foreign villain in the younger sources. Jason is an a-hole in all ancient sources I know.
**Apuleius being one in his 'the god of Socrates'
On “Moral insanity”
Forgive me for being unable to understand. What do you see being accomplished by giving Trump what he asks for? How often is appeasement a successful strategy for dealing with a bully?
"
lj: my bad. I meant to put a divider there. Still, I thought (and think) the context is obvious and I wasn't being disrespectful. I will use my best MLA/Bluebook from here on out.
"
Accept the beating gracefully or it's your fault.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.