Month: January 2017

Theresa May is ahead of Trump in undermining the refugee system

But this is not enough for Trump. He is clearly going to substitute a US-only vetting system, further undermining trust in the UNHCR system.

Theresa May is already way past him. When David Cameron pledged Britain to take 20,000 [spread over 5 years] of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees May insisted that the country would not take part in a UNHCR-run scheme. Instead, Britain set up a separate programme in which refugees nominated by the agency are vetted by Home Office officials.

May wants to go much further. In her party conference speech in October 2015, amid the world’s worst refugee crisis since the second world war, she outlined a new asylum strategy under which only temporary protection would be given to all but the world’s most vulnerable refugees. She said she was keen to see the international legal definition of a refugee made much stricter.

The prime minister may well have been embarrassed by the clumsy “dual-national” interpretation of Trump’s temporary bans that led to the prospect of Farah and Zahawi being told they were no longer welcome in the US.

 « click for more info
Theresa May with Donald Trump at their joint press conference at the White House last week,
before the US president's travel ban took effect. ( Photo cresit: Xinhua / Barcroft Images)

Trump’s underlying policy on refugees is to undermine the accepted international system of refugee protection that has been in place since 1951. Theresa May is already ahead of him on that road.

The Guardian view on Theresa May’s speech: back to the nasty party …

Editorial: The home secretary’s speech to the Conservative conference was more likely to wreck social cohesion than strengthen it

Bust of Churchill Returns from 8 Years Exile

Queen Liz has invited Der Trump for a courtesy call at Buckingham Palace…. remembering the roaring 1930s

○ Britain has a tradition of controversial state visits – Trump will fit in well | The Guardian |

Illustrious predecessors in the atypical category: Mobutu Sese Seko – Robert Mugabe – Nicolae Ceaușescu (death by firing squad)

Interesting, someone else besides Winston Churchill writing about history and the narrow escape of fascism by the Allied victory over the German Axis … the planning of a new world order.

○ The Other War: FDR’s Battle Against Churchill and the British Empire

"The historical evidence shows that Roosevelt entered into the military alliance with Britain with only one purpose in mind: the defeat of an enemy. The historical evidence also shows that Franklin Roosevelt was committed to dismantling the British Empire--and all other empires--and to replacing them with sovereign nation-states, modelled on the American constitutional republic, in which each citizen would be given, through access to modern scientific education and Western culture, the opportunity to create a better life for himself and his posterity.

It is this view of man, in the tradition of Western Judeo-Christian civilization, that places a value in each sovereign human individual, that the oligarch Churchill bitterly opposed, and that President Franklin D. Roosevelt espoused.

In 1946, as the history of the period was already being rewritten, FDR's son, Elliot, published a short book, titled "As He Saw It". With pungency and force, using first-hand acccounts, Elliot told the truth about his father's bitter fights with Churchill, leading the historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. to state in a contemporary review that the book's central thesis was that Roosevelt saw Great Britain and its imperial system as a far greater adversary to the United States than Russia.

Some historians have charged the younger Roosevelt with inaccuracies in reporting. However, Elliot's reports have been subsequently supported by reams of declassified documents, as well as first-hand accounts from the day. What emerges is the story of a pitched battle between two powerful actors on the stage of history--often fought in the open--over two diametrically opposed visions for the postwar world."

Churchill stressed the symbiotic relationship between Britain and her colonies, particularly the so-called white dominions.

“They belong to the empire, and … the empire belongs to them.”

Of course the bust of Winston Churchill has been returned to the Oval Office in the White House after 8 years in exile.

I think I’d rather use a nail-gun on my face than watch Trump’s announcement.

Hi Everyone, it’s been a long time since I have written anything for this site but now the time has come when I just must because I cannot handle the current events without having somewhere to vent.  I have a hard time doing it on facebook as I have many on my list who are either on the other side or who are ambivalent including in my own family..
So here I am again to connect with you folks and share the sadness and sometimes outright horror with this new world we have entered.  I think many people have their eyes shut as to what the future ramifications are.  I fear for my children and grandchildren what kind of world we will be leaving to them.
I have another thing to discuss also.  Our friend and my very close friend for years Shirlstars has dementia and at this point she still knows me but nothing about me.  That is despite over 12 years of daily comunication with her.  
It is sad and hard for me to accept.  I really am unsure of what to do as far as continuing any sortof relationship.  She is living in Oklahoma with or rather sort of under the care of a very nice woman but she is at the point where she is being rebellious  and cannot handle money anymore while her caretaker has been trying to protect her as she has power of attorney and tries to limit the cash she gets as she loses it, etc.

So I’ve done it, I’ve written again and I would love to hear from any old friends or make new ones.
Hugs

There’s not a whole lot Senate Democrats can do to prevent the confirmation of President Trump’s cabinet nominees unless they (or public pressure) can convince a Republican or two to join them in opposition either on the committees with jurisdiction or on the floor of the full Senate. They can delay things a bit, though, and that at least gives them and the public and the media more time to expose and oppose. Sen. Diane Feinstein, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, already delayed the committee’s vote on Jeff Sessions for a week. And now Minority Leader Chuck Schumer used an obnoxious gambit to delay it one day further.

Senate Democrats used a procedural move Tuesday to stall a committee vote on Sen. Jeff Sessions’s nomination to be attorney general, one day after the growing controversy surrounding President Trump’s travel ban on seven Muslim nations led to the firing of an acting attorney general for insubordination.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will reconvene at 10:30 a.m. Wednesday to vote on Sessions’s nomination, Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said.

The announcement came after the committee took a break to allow members to vote on the floor confirmation of Elaine Chao as Transportation Secretary.

When the meeting reconvened, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) told Grassley that Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) intended to invoke the two-hour rule against holding committee meetings beyond the first two hours of the Senate’s day.

A one-day delay won’t likely change anything, but considering the Monday Night Massacre only took place about 17 hours ago, it won’t hurt to let the outraged response grow and percolate a little bit.

Rather than take a defeatist attitude, I’d rather focus on something I saw on Facebook this morning:

I’m not saying that Pat Toomey is going to listen to the people who are flooding his regional offices, but I am sure he’s getting some feedback that will at least make him think about the potential consequences of voting for Sessions when he gets to the full floor of the Senate.

You now have one more day to make your senator know where you stand. There isn’t anything more the Democrats can do but give you that opportunity.

If you go to the U.S. Holocaust Museum, you can see a sign hanging there that tells you what to look for if you’re worried that your country may be slipping into fascism. Let’s take a look at their twelve early warning signs of fascism.

EARLY WARNING SIGNS OF FASCISM

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
2. Disdain for human rights
3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
4. Rampant sexism
5. Controlled mass media
6. Obsession with national security
7. Religion and government intertwined
8. Corporate power protected
9. Labor power suppressed
10. Disdain for intellectual and the arts
11. Obsession with crime and punishment
12. Rampant cronyism and corruption

You can follow the links above, but it shouldn’t be necessary if you’ve been paying any attention. Trump’s message is based on putting America first, making America great again, and is clearly a powerful form of nationalism that we’re also seeing arise in other countries including China and throughout Europe.

Trump’s disdain for human rights is legend, but examples include his desire to kill the relatives of terrorists (something he accomplished this week), his insistence that he’ll do “worse than waterboarding” and his statement in the White House that “torture absolutely works.”

Trump has used Mexican “rapists” and Islamic terrorists as unifying enemies. This tactic is actually perhaps the core of his political strategy.

Trump’s sexism is one of the most transparent and well-established things we know about him.

Just this week, Trump advocated that someone friendly to him buy the New York Times. His chief adviser Steve Bannon comes from the Breitbart media dynamo and has told the media to shut their mouth. So far, Trumpists do not own much of the media, so they seek to marginalize and intimidate them. In any case, Fox News does a pretty good job on their own, and the right owns talk radio.

Trump has already used national security as an excuse to ban Muslims and purge opponents in the Justice Department. The State Department comes next.

As for entwining religion and government, that can be seen in Mike Pence’s entire political career, but it’s also evident in the way that Trump has nakedly tried to make his immigration ban apply more fully to Muslims than to Christians. The Republican Party has had fascist tendencies in this regard that long predate Trump, but Trump has really run with (white) Christian nationalism as a fundamental part of his appeal. He cast himself as the defender of this group.

Trump has appointed the richest cabinet in history and proposes corporate friendly policies to match.

His nominee for Labor Secretary is a strong opponent of organized labor and Trump has had a poor relationship with labor in his business career. Most recently, this has been in the news in relation to the labor force at his Las Vegas hotel. Overall, Trump will go after unions across the board, especially public service unions and government employees.

On humanities and arts, The Hill reports that under the current budget blueprint, “The Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized, while the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities would be eliminated entirely.” Of course, the Trumpistas’ disdain for “bicoastal elites” is almost unlimited, and their contempt for intellectuals and academics is total.

Trump’s obsession with crime and punishment is clear from his revival of Richard Nixon’s ‘Law and Order’ rhetoric and his constant comparisons of black communities to violent hellholes.

Finally, it’s a little too early to talk about rampant corruption and cronyism, but it’s not too early to point out that Trump is violating the Emoluments Clause to the Constitution by using his position as president to attract foreign patronage to his hotels. His refusal to disclose his taxes or to truly distance himself from his corporations will assure both the perception and the reality of corruption and cronyism. In any case, one of the best established things about Trump is that he is a crooked man who doesn’t honor contracts, engages in fraudulent enterprises, and likes to use his financial clout to bully people in the legal system. This will continue now that he’s president.

So, there you have it. Twelve early signs of fascism, and Trump and his movement have already checked 11 of the boxes and are assured of checking the twelfth.

I guess the next question we need to ask is, will fascism make American great again?

 

There was no filibuster of Robert Bork. He was given a vote on the floor of the Senate and defeated 42-58. There was no filibuster of Clarence Thomas even though one could have been theoretically sustained considering that he only received 52 votes to be confirmed as a Justice to the Supreme Court. In both cases, the Democrats granted their unanimous consent to a motion to proceed to a full confirmation vote. However, there is no possibility that there will be unanimous consent to proceed to a similar vote on the nominee President Trump announced tomorrow night at 8pm. Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley, for one, will exercise his right to object.

The best precedent for this happened when John Kerry objected to proceeding to a vote on Samuel Alito, but his effort went down to defeat and Alito was confirmed with 58 votes, which was less than the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. If those Democrats who refused to confirm Alito had refused to allow a vote at all, he would likely not be on the Supreme Court today.

I say “likely,” because it’s possible that the Republicans would have responded by invoking the so-called Nuclear Option and taking away the minority party’s right to stop a vote on Supreme Court nominees. It’s hard to say if that would have happened back in 2005, but it seems more certain that it will happen this time around.

Before I get to that, though, it should be kept in mind that this nomination will be unusual in at least two important respects. First, it is only happening because the Republicans blocked any consideration of Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to replace Antonin Scalia. That move was unprecedented and has invited payback in kind. The second reason is that this nomination will be made hastily without the normal consultation and (tacit) approval of the Senate minority’s leadership. It’s not unusual for the minority to make a big fuss about opposing a Supreme Court nominee, but they usually have the ability to veto really radical appointments by threatening to filibuster them. In the end, for example, John Roberts was seen as acceptable by Democratic leaders even though they didn’t want him on the Court. Alito was a much closer call, which is also why he’s the best precedent for what we’re about to see. In the case of Bork, the Democrats’ warnings were ignored, but they were able to defeat him outright without resorting to procedural tactics.

As for the Republicans, they also signaled (quietly) that Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan would be acceptable to them. The result has been that both parties have been able to put (respectively) liberal and conservative Justices on the Court, but they’ve had to restrain themselves somewhat in their choices. Again, Alito pushed the envelope in this respect further than it had been pushed before.

In this case, no real effort has been made to prevent a filibuster, which is the same as inviting one. That can only mean that the administration’s expectation is that the Senate will invoke the nuclear option and do away with the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

This will, of course, cause a massive uproar and it will drown out all the things people are talking about today, from the Muslim immigration ban to putting Steve Bannon on the National Security Council to the Russian question to the wall on the Mexican border to the threat of war over Taiwan with China to Trump’s inability to discern the difference between reality and fantasy.

Maybe that’s half the point, especially because conservatives are so motivated over this Supreme Court appointment that they’ll set aside everything else to fight for it.

I don’t have any great advice for how to prevent people from getting distracted other than to point out that people are at risk of getting distracted.

Anyone who writes daily for a living is going to occasionally have periods when writing doesn’t come easily. Every once in a while, you won’t feel like writing. Maybe you just want to veg out or do something normal. Maybe you can’t find anything truly inspiring to discuss. Maybe your creative juices get depleted and need to be recharged.

I have a different problem. I want to write and have plenty to write about. I just don’t want to say what I feel I have to say.

Call it a heavy heart or something too close to despondency. Call it an uneasiness with stating plainly what is growing painfully obvious. I’m naturally inclined toward calm and suspicious of hyperbole. If I find my political heat boiling too quickly, I tend not to trust myself and to doubt the value or utility of what I have to say.

I have to toss those reservations aside to make commentary on the state of our nation. This is a five-alarm fire, and anything I might say about it can hardly match what even some Republicans are already saying. For example, Eliot Cohen has taken a tone that is so dire and vituperative that it would be very difficult for a liberal like myself to surpass.

Precisely because the problem is one of temperament and character, it will not get better. It will get worse, as power intoxicates Trump and those around him. It will probably end in calamity—substantial domestic protest and violence, a breakdown of international economic relationships, the collapse of major alliances, or perhaps one or more new wars (even with China) on top of the ones we already have. It will not be surprising in the slightest if his term ends not in four or in eight years, but sooner, with impeachment or removal under the 25th Amendment. The sooner Americans get used to these likelihoods, the better.

Cohen served as Condoleezza Rice’s counselor at the State Department from 2007 to 2009. He’s a neoconservative hawk whose career has been tightly linked with Paul Wolfowitz. In 1997, he cofounded the notorious Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an organization that pushed relentlessly for war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. He served as a puppet of Dick Cheney’s propaganda war, arguing on television for Cheney’s pet theories that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague and that Hussein had other ties to the 9/11 attacks. He opposed the nomination of Chuck Hagel to serve as Secretary of Defense under President Obama because he thought he wouldn’t be tough enough on Iran.

Over the years, I have thought of Cohen as a kind of poster boy for the banality of evil, as he played with others’ lives in a cavalier way, always advocating more and more violence without ever considering the possibility of his own hubris or weighing sufficiently the downside risks of the policies he advocated. Were he to make a foreign policy recommendation, I would greet it with immense skepticism. But he’s making an assessment of our new president’s character, and he’s doing it from a position where he has access to insights that I don’t enjoy.

Cohen was a vocal part of the conservative #NeverTrump team during the primaries and even the general election. Despite that, he was quickly tapped after Trump’s victory to give staffing advice for the incoming administration’s national security team. In a November 15th column, he explained why he had to back out of that arrangement.

The short version is that Cohen, who had initially “urged career officials to serve in Trump’s administration,” was contacted by “a longtime friend and senior transition team official (who) asked him to submit names of possible national security appointees.” In one case, he mentioned a name of someone who was wary of serving under Trump and therefore “would not submit a résumé but would listen if contacted.” In response, Cohen’s friend sent a “very weird, very disturbing” email:

“It was accusations that ‘you guys are trying to insinuate yourselves into the administration…all of YOU LOST.’…it became clear to me that they view jobs as lollipops, things you give out to good boys and girls,” said Cohen, who would not identify his friend…His friend’s email conveyed the feeling that ‘we’re so glad to see the bicoastal elites get theirs,’” added Cohen, who described the response as “unhinged.”

At that point Cohen switched gears and advised no one who valued their reputation and integrity to serve Trump at least until they saw “who gets the top jobs.”

Until then, let the Trump team fill the deputy assistant secretary and assistant secretary jobs with civil servants, retired military officers and diplomats, or the large supply of loyal or obsequious second-raters who will be eager to serve. The administration may shake itself out in a year or two and reach out to others who have been worried about Trump. Or maybe not.

Since Trump’s inauguration, Cohen has taken a harder line, culminating with the piece he wrote yesterday. Here’s his assessment of where we’re headed in a hand basket (including the part already cited above).

Trump, in one spectacular week, has already shown himself one of the worst of our presidents, who has no regard for the truth (indeed a contempt for it), whose patriotism is a belligerent nationalism, whose prior public service lay in avoiding both the draft and taxes, who does not know the Constitution, does not read and therefore does not understand our history, and who, at his moment of greatest success, obsesses about approval ratings, how many people listened to him on the Mall, and enemies…

…Precisely because the problem is one of temperament and character, it will not get better. It will get worse, as power intoxicates Trump and those around him. It will probably end in calamity—substantial domestic protest and violence, a breakdown of international economic relationships, the collapse of major alliances, or perhaps one or more new wars (even with China) on top of the ones we already have. It will not be surprising in the slightest if his term ends not in four or in eight years, but sooner, with impeachment or removal under the 25th Amendment. The sooner Americans get used to these likelihoods, the better.

Of course, I ended last week with a similar set of conclusions, including an invocation of the 25th Amendment as the only way out of this disaster. And that was before Trump unveiled his Muslim Ban and spurred nationwide domestic protest and international condemnation.

I don’t want to adopt this shrill and alarmist tone, but I hope at least it can be recognized as something different from partisan dissatisfaction with the results of an election I thought and hoped would go in the other direction. Cohen and I couldn’t be more different in our personal politics or our foreign policy priorities, and yet we’re singing from the exact same hymnal on Trump. Keep in mind, the likely remedy for this situation would make Mike Pence our president which means that most of the consequences of losing the election that I don’t like wouldn’t be mitigated and, in many cases, might even be exacerbated. I’m not looking to escape the natural consequences of an election, as much as I might wish things had turned out differently in November. I honestly do not think this country can endure a four-year term of Trump as our president, and the prospects for worldwide calamity are so great that I can’t avoid saying very radical sounding things about where we stand and what must be done.

Trump’s consigliere, Guiliani, disclosed the intent of the EO that Trump is proudly trumpeting.  The Hill – Giuliani: Trump asked me how to do a Muslim ban ‘legally’.

As a ban on Muslim’s it seems to fall very, very short.  By country, it doesn’t even include the largest Muslim populations.  Which are Indonesia (205 million), Pakistan (175 million),  India (174 million), and  Bangladesh (146 milion).  The number in Egypt, Iran, and Turkey are all about 75 million.

The “watch list” was more targeted.  i.e. British Muslim convert Yusef/Cat Stevens was denied entry to the US in 2004.

What Rudy/Trump pulled out was something old with a slight twist, but it’s the old part that continues to get ignored.

2001
Global Warfare: “We’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran..”

2015-16 – Legislation and later DHS implementation change that US visas are required for those traveling to or from or holding passports from: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

Almost the exact same list from 2001 and 2015.  Only Lebanon dropped and Yemen added.  Wonder why?   Gee, what do these countries have in common?

2017 Trump’s list (not named but referenced from the 2015/16 legislation/implementation): Iraq, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia.

To Catch a Terrorist – is what the public is told as the reason for the list.  So, exactly what would this list have possibly prevented?  History is not on the side of the most recent three US Presidents  Based on country of origin of known and/or suspected Muslim related attacks on US soil and/or citizens:

1993 WTC
Pakistani via Kuwait – 1
West Bank – 1
Egypt – 1
Egypt – 1 (convicted inspiration)
Pakistan – 1 – KSM alleged/claimed mastermind
=
1998 Embassy bombings – Kenya and Tanzania
Primarily Egyptian nationals. Others included a Libyan,  Sudanese and Lebanese.  Planning and direction from  Sudan?
=
1999-2000 Millennium plots
(Indian Airlines Flight 814 – not directed at the US
5 persons alleged to be linked to Pakistani AQ affiliate)

LAX bombing – thwarted
Algeria – 1 (living in Canada)

USS – The Sullivans failed (attack boat sank) AQ operating out of Yemen

USS Cole – bombing
Suspected AQ terrorist – unidentified
Yemen – 1 – alleged “mastermind”
US citizen – 1 – alleged and  of Yemeni ancestry
=
9/11 attacks:
Egypt – 1
KSA – 14
UAE – 2
Lebanon – 1
(France/Algeria – 1 detained before 9/11)
=
2001 Shoe Bomber-thwarted
UK – 1
=
2002 – LAX shooting
Egypt – 1
=
2003 – Lackawanna Six – no attack
Listed as Yemeni-American (spring 2001 traveled to Afghan training camp); as US born, most, if not all, were born and the US and may have held US passports.
=
2009 Fort Hood Shooting
US – 1 – parents from the West Bank
=
2009 Underwear bomber – thwarted
Nigeria – 1
=
2010 Times Square NYC bomb – failed
US – 1 (naturalized citizen 2009, born in Pakistan, previously US Visa student)
=
2013 Boston bombing
Chechen/Avar – 2 – born  Kyrgyzstan and Kalmyk.  Lived in Dagestan before US.  One naturalized US citizen in 2012.
=
2015 San Bernardino shooting
US – 1 — Pakistani parents (traveled to KSA)
Pakistan – 1 – (raised in KSA)
=
2016 – Orlando nightclub shooting
US – 1 – Afghan parents (traveled twice to KSA and once UAE)
=

The Score:
Iran: 0
Iraq: 0
Libya: 1 (known)
Syria: 0
Somalia: 0  (including pirate terrorists there would be many)
Sudan: 1
Yemen: several alleged
=

Any Trumpsters, along with Trump himself, now going, “F**k yeah, Trump is the man that’s banning Muslims,” are falling for BS propaganda.  Not to discount the real difficulties for individuals caught in the trap of this EO, it’s not about banning Muslims.  It’s a piece of the continuing US wars on these seven countries.  Wars that aren’t exactly and officially recognized as such.  (Hell, not even liberals/Democrats acknowledge US participation in training and supplying the headchoppers in Syria.)

The Guardian, Januarry 29, 2017 – US commando dies in Yemen raid as Trump counter-terror plans take shape

One elite US commando is dead and three wounded after a Yemen raid that Donald Trump’s Pentagon is signalling will be a template for aggressive counter-terrorism action.
…
The US has been without a governmental partner in Yemen since a 2015 coup by the Houthi movement overthrew a US-backed administration. The US under both Barack Obama and Trump has supported a bloody Saudi-led air war to oust the Houthis.
…

Where are the US humanitarian protests in response to Yemen’s Children Starve as War Drags On?  (Note: the report date is January 2, 2017 and this was after multiple reports of starvation in Yemen from last October.)      

While preparing Sunday morning biscuits and gravy, I stepped away from the pallid protestations of Sunday Morning talk shows and ventured into the thicket with Glen Beck.  Yes he is a deep right wing yahoo, but I wanted to hear some words about the new President without the usual cast of worthless, empty suits.

And for the 1/2 to an hour I listened, he delivered.  Point by point, he and his panel used commonly available facts and called all the assertions of Trump and his spokespeople lies.  Out right lies. Callers would dial up and try to justify the statements and they wouldn’t have it.  And they saw no real reason to lie about crowd size or any thing else at this time. It didn’t matter but Trump and team couldn’t help themselves.

Next segment was making fun of left wing celebrities, Paltrow was the convenient target (and jeeeez, what a target).  Then the women’s marches.

And there they had a point.  Some of them were worthy of ridicule.  Silly signs and vagina hats.  They have been the talk of the country.  I have heard of that from co-workers.  One commented that Madonna made a career out of acting like a whore she shouldn’t be surprised if men (Trump) treated women like one.  I may not agree with that sentiment but it does resonate outside Hollywood and NYC.

Anyway, I think the women’s march did not achieve much because it was portrayed as not serious.  Costumes, silly signs, a parade like atmosphere.  The civil rights marches of the 60s and the anti war marches were taken seriously as the people in them were serious.  They dressed in serious Sunday or business clothing. The spokespeople used calm measured tones in their arguments.  Citing moral and civil law.  For the anti war protests, the dress was different but limited fooling around. Once again, the spokespeople were often (not always) not shrill or over the top, presented their case well, etc….  When not, it just gave ammunition to the forces of war and oppression;  the country recoiled and we got Nixon.

In both instances, control was attempted on the deportment and content of the marchers; showing the nation they are serious people.

Many may not like it but image matters.  Acting like you are in a gay pride parade, dreaming up funny/disrespectful signs or dressing like a Sunday hike in the woods may make sense to you, but not to the people you want to influence and bring to your side.  All you do is provide ammo for the right wing’s derision and scorn from  the rest of the country.

If you think Trump and his team attaining positions of power is a serious problem, then act  like its serious when opposing it. The rest of the country will then be inclined to listen and you couldn’t be dismissed as “typical liberal out of touchers”

Ridge

I could probably write all day and be miserable. Fortunately, I have to take my boy to a First Grade birthday party, so I am precluded from being miserable for at least the next few hours.