Category Archives: Uncategorized

Sliding

If you don’t think this country is sliding toward theocracy, you’re not paying attention.

Charles Blow

This week’s featured post is “Sweet Home, Gilead“.

This week everybody was talking about IVF in Alabama

The Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling that frozen embryos are children for the purposes of wrongful death lawsuits is covered in the featured post.

Just after I pushed the Post button, I saw that Jay Kuo had written about his personal IVF story. His IVF child is currently in a surrogate mother’s womb. (Since I subscribed to Kuo’s substack blog, I’ve been linking to it almost every week.) He includes a photo of a frozen embryo, so we know what we’re talking about.

The bottom line is that the GOP can’t support IVF and support the idea that an embryo is a “person” entitled to full protection under our laws. Supporting IVF means understanding how it actually works and being comfortable with the idea that intended parents must create more embryos than we ultimately need. And clinics cannot be on the hook for murder should anything happen to them. No clinic coul survive with that threat hanging over it.

Neither of those two principles can be truly supported by Republicans so long as their party adheres dogmatically to the “life begins at conception” notion. Politicians who claim to support IVF must repudiate these kinds of fetal personhood laws, or their public backing of IVF means exactly nothing.


In my post, I tried not to treat the Alabama court’s position with all the contempt it deserves, so I resisted the temptation to include the “Every Sperm is Sacred” scene from Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life.


In other religious-right news: The campaign to overturn the Obergefell same-sex marriage decision begins in Tennessee, with a law allowing state officials to refuse to solemnize same-sex marriages.

This law wouldn’t block same-sex marriages, because same-sex couples could still get a marriage license and find somebody other than a judge or other government official to play the celebrant role. But it does relegate them to a second-class status, which this Supreme Court will probably think is fine. This is exactly the kind of chipping-away that states did on Roe v Wade until it was reversed.

Personally, I judge these things by applying a racial analogy: What if a judge refused to marry an interracial couple to express his personal disapproval? Of course, Justice Alito is unmoved by this analogy. Recently he wrote that his dissent in Obergefell was prescient in foreseeing

that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be ‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government.

Of course, if you want to deny the full rights of citizenship to people your religion disapproves of, and you believe that government officials should be able to treat them with official disrespect, you are a bigot. Conservative political correctness may not let people say so, but it’s not even a close call.

and Russia, Russia, Russia

Last week we learned that the Biden impeachment case — which had always been flimsy — had fallen completely apart: The star witness for the bribery story Republicans wanted to tell, Alexander Smirnov, had been indicted for making the whole thing up and lying to the FBI. Another prospective witness, Gal Luft, had been indicted last summer for arms trafficking and being an unregistered Chinese agent.

This week we found out it’s worse than that: Smirnov now says he got his anti-Biden stories from Russian intelligence.

Jay Kuo (him again) lays out the pipeline by which Russian disinformation found its way to the Trump Justice Department and from there to Republicans in Congress (Jim Jordan, James Comer, Chuck Grassley) who pushed it out to the country.

These GOP leaders are at best hapless dupes. They should have known and understood the games Russia was playing with them. But we shouldn’t discount the possibility that they were well aware that the Smirnov claims were false and may have originated from Russian intelligence… and then went along with them anyway.

Indeed, we should now actively investigate this possibility.

In a members-only newsletter on TPM, Josh Marshall wonders if the mainstream press is up to covering this story.

Donald Trump and his MAGA legions have spent years shock-training reporters not to bring up anything else about Russian disinformation programs aimed at helping Donald Trump. But they’re real. They’re continuing. They’re actually working. And that remains the case no matter how many times Donald Trump says “RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA” on Truth Social. Reporters have been conditioned to ignore the clear implications of what we’re learning.

So what does he think the real story is?

[W]e now see that almost all of 2023 was dominated by a legal/political story that was not only bogus but — according to prosecutors’ filings and the discredited source’s own admission to federal authorities — was a plant by the Russian intelligence services. That’s real. That requires an explanation as to how that was ever allowed to happen.

… The story here isn’t that the “Biden Crime Family” nonsense didn’t pan out. That was always transparently bogus. The story here is how the U.S. again got bamboozled by transparent foreign manipulation and how the U.S. political press bought into it pretty much whole hog. That doesn’t mean they accepted all the claims. But they treated it as reasonable, worthy of a presumption of seriousness, a serious story to be covered as such. Even with the veritable forest of red flags.

and the Trump trials

Judge Engoron officially filed his judgment against Trump Friday, with the disgorgement-plus-interest standing at $454 million. This sets the clock running: Trump has 30 days to appeal. But appealing doesn’t mean he gets to delay coming up with a substantial amount of money.

Trump has two options to meet the state’s demand: to pay the amount in full, or secure a $35m bond against his assets, which might include the Fifth Avenue Trump Tower, 40 Wall Street, his Mar-a-Lago estate, or a number of golf courses in the US.

The WaPo examines the difficulties Trump faces raising cash.

“If the guy can give phony financial statements, he can give phony information to the bonding company,” [attorney Mark C.] Zauderer said, referring to Engoron’s finding in the case that the Trump Organization submitted false information to banks to obtain loans. “A bonding company who is going to put up several hundred million dollars here is not, in my opinion, going to do it easily.”

Those Carroll and NY state totals face very different prospects on appeal. The Carroll money is mostly punitive damages, which was a judgment call made by the jury; an appeals court might make its own judgment and find that excessive. But the NY State money is based on disgorgement of specific ill-gotten gains. To reduce them, an appeals court would need to rejudge Engoron’s conclusions: It would have to find either that Trump did not commit fraud, or that the fraud was not connected to these particular gains.


I’m not going to put a lot of effort into making fun of Trump’s branded sneakers, because it’s shooting fish in a barrel. But I will pass on one nickname they have picked up: Aryan Jordans. And one suggested slogan I heard: “Fast. Faster. Fascist.”

and media malpractice

I already mentioned Josh Marshall’s doubts that the mainstream media is up to covering the Smirnov story. But that’s just part of a much larger failing.

This week, a new Quinnipiac poll had Biden ahead of Trump 49%-45%. So of course Politico’s headline was “Poll: Nearly 70 percent of voters say Biden is too old to serve again“. There’s no such thing as good news for Biden.


Jeff Tiedrich recalls “the Clinton rules”

basically, Bill or Hillary would do something that every other politician in the entire history of the world does — something as simple as holding a fundraiser, or giving a speech — and the press would report it in hushed tones and describe it as if it were some new kind of dastardly scandal.

Well, the same thing is happening with Biden: Whatever he does — even if every other politician in the world does it — is evidence that he’s too old. Tiedrich links to The Daily Mail, which has discovered the latest evidence of Biden’s senility: He uses note cards!


Mark Jacobs raises a significant question about the NYT: “Is the New York Times neutral on the future of democracy?” He calls out all the doubts I have about whether the Times deserves my subscription: They regularly give a platform to known liars. They cover politics as “an amusing game”, analyzing everything as strategy without discussing the consequences. They write headlines that hide horrible things Republicans say (like when Trump’s “vermin” comment was simply “a very different direction” for a Veterans Day speech). And they find “balance” for every terrible thing Republicans do. (Trump is facing criminal charges? He encourages Putin to invade our allies? Yeah, but Biden is old. Biden’s age is filling the same “balancing” role that Hillary’s emails played in 2016.)

The Times’ best work is very, very good. But I continue to wonder whether it’s a net positive or negative for American journalism. One change you may have noticed on this blog: I used to subtly encourage my readers to subscribe, but I no longer do. So I’m only linking to NYT articles if there is something unique about them. If I can get the same information from The Guardian or CNN, I will.


The New York Times Pitchbot suggests an angle for the Times to take in the future:

Given the fact that Trump and Biden have 91 felony counts between them, it’s no wonder that so many Americans are considering voting third party.


Last week I linked to Ezra Klein’s call for Biden not to run, and for the Democrats to hold an open convention. This week many people pushed back on that idea. Lindsay Beyerstein called attention to Biden’s success at unifying the divergent wings of the Democratic Party, and predicted that party unity would dissolve in an open convention.

In 2024, a contested convention would become an arena to settle every score from Gaza to Medicare for All. A free-for-all would shatter the fragile Democratic coalition that Joe Biden so carefully knit together.

Several pundits made the same observation: No alternative candidate is doing better than Biden in the polls against Trump. (Current polls show the race more-or-less even.) You can claim that’s a name-recognition problem and they’ll do better after they’re nominated, but that’s a leap of faith.

Josh Marshall writes:

The right answer to anyone making these kinds of open-ended statements of concern is to say, tell me specifically what course of action you’re advocating and, if it’s switching to a new candidate, how you get there in the next few weeks? … Klein’s argument really amounts to a highly pessimistic but not unreasonable analysis of the present situation which he resolves with what amounts to a deus ex machina plot twist. That’s not a plan. It’s a recipe for paralysis.

and the wars

As Israel prepares its ground operation against Rafah (the southern-Gaza town where refugees have gathered), it still has no goal beyond the vague and unachievable “destroy Hamas”. For an analysis of how everything arrived at this state, I recommend Zack Beauchamp’s Vox article “How Israel’s War Went Wrong“.


In The New Yorker, a Palestinian who escaped to Egypt describes how the relatives he left behind are scrambling for food.


Biden continues to back away from Netanyahu very, very slowly. Friday, the administration restored a legal finding the Trump administration had reversed, saying that the West Bank settlements are against international law.

Tomorrow’s Michigan primary will be a test of how much Biden’s Israel policy is costing him, as Palestinian activists are campaigning for Democrats to vote “uncommitted” rather than for Biden.


We just passed the two-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. PBS Newshour gathered some experts to summarize.


My two-years-in observation is about the politics of the Ukraine War in the US: It resembles the politics of January 6. At the beginning, Americans responded the way human beings would. They sympathized with a country trying to get out of the orbit of Putin’s fascist Russia when Putin’s forces invaded to pull them back in. (I’ve since read all kinds of explanations about how either Ukraine or the West provoked Russia, and I just don’t see it. There was never a threat to invade Russia through Ukraine. Anything less is a problem for diplomacy, not justification for an invasion. The typical answer to that point is to bring up the US invasion of Iraq, which was also unprovoked. But I have no trouble admitting that the Iraq invasion was wrong too.)

That initial gut response wasn’t controversial in America. In the early days of the war, everybody, regardless of political party, was rooting for the underdog Ukrainians and wondering what we could do to help. That’s how the situation was similar to January 6: In the beginning, everybody who wasn’t actively involved in the coup reacted with horror to Trump’s brownshirts attacking the Capitol to try to keep him in power by force. Kevin McCarthy, Mitch McConnell, and just about the whole GOP establishment united with Democrats in their initial rejection of what Trump had done.

But then the MAGA media machine and the MAGA social-media conspiracy theorists got to work on reversing the natural human instincts of the people under their sway, and today both Ukraine and January 6 are partisan issues.

and the dysfunctional House of Representatives

Ukraine aid isn’t the only thing House Republicans are stalling. Speaker Johnson has recessed the House until Wednesday, with a partial government shutdown looming Friday and the rest of the government running out of money a week later. The WaPo reports that “talks have slowed” on a compromise to prevent a shutdown.

The four appropriations bills set to expire Friday — agriculture; military construction-VA; energy and water and transportation; housing and urban development — are the easier ones. On March 8, funding runs out for more controversial bills for which the far right is demanding even more explosive policy riders around abortion, LGBTQ rights and border security.

and you also might be interested in …

South Carolina’s Republican primary was Saturday, and Trump won over Haley, 59%-39%. How you read that result depends on the question you’re asking. If you’re focused on whether Trump will be nominated, this is a very solid positive result. If Haley is 20 points down in her home state, she really has no chance.

But if your question is whether Trump will be able to unite the Republican voters in the fall, this is a weak showing. Voters went in knowing Trump was the almost certain nominee, but 39% refused to get in line behind him.


Democracy is returning to Wisconsin. For many years, the Wisconsin legislature has been gerrymandered to guarantee Republican control, independent of the will of the voters. AP reports that Democrats have won 14 of the last 17 statewide elections, but somehow those same elections have yielded a Republican supermajority (22-10) in the state senate and a near supermajority (64-35) in the state assembly.

Nonetheless, the voters of Wisconsin still had access to a few levers of power. Last April, Janet Protasiewicz won a 55%-44% victory to gain a seat on the state supreme court, flipping the court to liberal control. In December, the court ruled 4-3 to throw out the Republican-drawn legislative maps. Forced to negotiate with Democratic Governor Tony Evers (another winner of a statewide election), the Republican legislature produced a relatively fair map, which Evers signed into law last Monday.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports:

Under the new state Assembly map, the districts are more evenly split. The new map has 46 districts that lean Republican and 45 districts that lean Democratic. The eight districts left are likely to be a toss-up between Democratic and Republican candidates. …

Under the new state Senate map, 14 out of 33 districts are Democratic-leaning, while 15 are Republican-leaning. Four districts are competitive, where either party has a fair chance of winning them.

However, the Wisconsin congressional maps are still gerrymandered, and Republicans hold six of the eight seats. Democratic voters are packed into the other two districts (containing Madison and Milwaukee), which they won by 19 and 25 points.


The NYT reports on “The Crisis in Teaching Constitutional Law“. What’s the crisis? The clearly partisan nature of the current conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court. The older generation of professors once shared a faith that interpreting the Constitution is a meaningful activity transcending politics. Justices might have philosophical differences that lead to diverse conclusions, but fundamentally they are all making a good-faith attempt to understand what the law means. Recent Supreme Court decisions — like the Bruen gun control decision — have shaken that faith, to the point that law professors don’t know what to teach their students.

Whatever rationale or methodology the justices apply in a given case, the result virtually always aligns with the policy priorities of the modern Republican Party. …

Stanford’s Professor McConnell recalled a recent exchange in one of his classes. “I said something to the effect of, ‘It’s important to assume that the people you disagree with are speaking in good faith.’ And a student raises his hand and he asks, ‘Why? Why should we assume that people on the other side are acting in good faith?’ This was not a crazy person; this was a perfectly sober-minded, rational student. And I think the question was sincere. And I think that’s kind of shocking. I do think that some of the underlying assumptions of how a civil society operates can no longer be assumed.”


I don’t know how many times I’ve heard that “the stock market always goes up in the long run”. Well, sometimes the long run is a very long time indeed. If you bought Japanese stocks at their peak in 1989, you finally turned a profit this week.

and let’s close with some musical training

I’ve heard lots of versions of Pachebel’s Canon, but never before one based on train whistles.

Oppositional Thinking

What do my worst enemies want me to do — and how can I do just the opposite?

– Thomas Friedman,
Israel has never needed to be smarter than in this moment

This week’s featured post is “My 9-11 Flashbacks“.

This week everybody was talking about war

The featured post is only tangentially about Israel, Hamas, and Gaza. It’s more about how memories of all the mistakes we made after 9-11 keep getting in the way as I try to process what’s happening in Israel and Gaza.

As usual, I’m not trying to cover breaking news. Israeli troops are massing outside of Gaza, but if you want to know what exactly they’re doing, you’ll have to look somewhere else.


One thing that I don’t think the mainstream news sources are explaining very well is why Egypt isn’t letting in Gazan refugees. There are probably a bunch of reasons, but one is the fear that anyone who leaves Gaza won’t be allowed back in after the conflict subsides. By letting refugees in, Egypt fears it will be assisting in an ethnic cleansing.

Palestinians and Arab nations are marked by the experience of the 1948 war surrounding Israel’s creation when Palestinians were expelled or fled to neighboring countries and have not been allowed to return since, a major sticking point in the long defunct peace process.


This is the first major war since Elon Musk destroyed Twitter as a reliable source of raw news reports. As a result, misinformation and disinformation are rampant.


The extremists on both sides are hard to understand. For example: the various people and groups who are standing with Hamas. I suspect there aren’t many such people, but they’ve made themselves hard to ignore.

Liberal economist Noah Smith explains like this:

It’s one thing to believe that Israel is an apartheid regime and that war against it is justified; it’s another to believe that massacring random festival goers is an acceptable way to prosecute that war. … People always have a choice whether to cheer for atrocities or to refuse to cheer for them. When your rallies end up with swastikas and “Gas the Jews” and people making fun of dead innocents, well, you made the wrong choice.

He notes a split between Democratic Socialist leaders and the left-wing grass roots:

Bernie Sanders strongly condemned Hamas’ attack, as did AOC. The “Squad” called for Israel not to take military action in response, which is highly unrealistic, but which doesn’t constitute an endorsement of Hamas in the slightest. Elizabeth Warren, who has been consistently pro-Palestinian over the years, broke down in tears at the reports of Hamas’ violence and said “I’m here today to say unequivocally there is no justification for terrorism ever.” And so on. A number of New York leaders from the Democratic party have scolded the DSA rally; AOC denounced the rally’s “bigotry and callousness”.

As an explanation of support for Hamas among the grass-roots leftists, Smith points to the failure of 20th-century leftist projects: Communism fell, decolonization happened largely without revolution, and democratic (i.e., non-revolutionary) socialism has been pretty successful in Europe.

Swedish workers are not going to start a revolution, because Swedish social democracy is pretty damn nice.

Palestine was one of the few places where the old models seemed to fit, so Western leftists have invested much of their identity in it.

So when their chosen heroes — the freedom fighters in whom they invested so much moral cachet — showed up at a concert and started beheading raver kids and Asian workers and abducting grandmas and God knows what else, what were Western leftists supposed to do? In situations like that there are really only two things you can do, without switching your whole ideology — you either tell yourself that your team’s inhumanity is justified in the name of higher goals, and march shoulder to shoulder in the streets with the most belligerent elements, or you pull back and call on both sides to avoid killing civilians. Left-leaning leaders chose the latter, but many on the grassroots chose the former.


And then there’s the other extreme, the one rooting for ethnic cleansing in Gaza.

Often in the last few months I’ve linked to Kat Abu’s tweets. Her home page claims “I watch Fox News so you don’t have to.” Her summaries of what goes on on Fox in a typical week are often both accurate and hilarious.

I had never paid attention to her ethnicity, which turns out to be Palestinian. It wasn’t something she focused on much, at least not enough to draw the notice of a casual observer like me. Since the recent conflict started, though, she hasn’t been shying away from it.

I’ve been seeing straight-up calls for Palestinian genocide on my [timeline] for the past 48 hours. If you’re someone who carries this view, join me on a livestream so you can describe exactly how my family and I should be annihilated to my face.

She was serious:

I’ve got two takers for the “Tell Kat How You Would Exterminate Her And Her Loved Ones” livestream, which I’m aiming to do Friday afternoon. Anyone rooting for Palestinian extermination can be a guest, so long as (1) you stay on topic (pro-genocide) and (2) your camera stays on.

But the event didn’t come off:

Both volunteers for this livestream have backed down — one called me a cunt and the other pretended a day later that he was *actually* just talking about Hamas.

and the House

Steve Scalise’s candidacy for speaker has come and gone, but little else has changed this week. Republicans are still unable to unite behind a leader and unwilling to make a deal with Democrats. And so there is no speaker and the House is not functioning.

This has real-world consequences. The most obvious ones are that Israel and Ukraine are going to run out of key munitions if Congress doesn’t authorize sending them more, and that the government is on track to shut down on November 17.

The NYT summarizes the state of the House. Last week I noted how unlikely a bipartisan deal seemed, but that it might become the only way out. A week later, that possibility is still unlikely, but its odds are rising as other possible escapes fizzle.

and democracy

Results won’t be official for another day or two, but it looks like the Law and Justice Party is going to lose control of Poland. If so, this is huge. Law and Justice is a right-wing populist party that has been undermining democracy since it took power in 2015. Wikipedia says:

The party has caused what constitutional law scholar Wojciech Sadurski termed a “constitutional breakdown” by packing the Constitutional Court with its supporters, undermining parliamentary procedure, and reducing the president’s and prime minister’s offices in favour of power being wielded extra-constitutionally by party leader Jarosław Kaczyński. After eliminating constitutional checks, the government then moved to curtail the activities of NGOs and independent media, restrict freedom of speech and assembly, and reduce the qualifications required for civil service jobs in order to fill these positions with party loyalists. The media law was changed to give the governing party control of the state media, which was turned into a partisan outlet, with dissenting journalists fired from their jobs. Due to these political changes, Poland has been termed an “illiberal democracy“, “plebiscitarian authoritarianism”, or “velvet dictatorship with a façade of democracy”.

That the voters retain enough power to toss L&J out is amazing, and it bodes well for other illiberal countries like Hungary.


Meanwhile New Zealand is moving rightward. At the moment, though, this looks like the normal back-and-forth of democratic politics, rather than the more fundamental kind of change Poland might be having.


Speaking of places trying to restore democracy, it looks like Wisconsin Republicans won’t go through with their plan to impeach newly elected Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz. Protasiewicz’ election tipped the court’s majority to the liberals, and in particular threatened the heavily gerrymandered district maps that have given Republicans supermajorities in the legistlature, in a state where their party has been narrowly losing statewide races lately.

What better use for a supermajority than to remove a judge who might find that those maps violate the state constitution? But when the Assembly’s speaker, Robin Vos, consulted two retired WSC justices on the plan, both poured cold water on it.

Maybe the voters of Wisconsin will once again get a chance to choose the legislature.

and health care

Once in a while, one person’s story really captures the insanity of the American health care system. Tuesday, that person was Mary Lou Retton, the gymnast who won five gold medals in the 1984 Olympics, and whose exuberant smile graced Wheaties boxes and other commercial products for years afterward.

Retton is 55 now, and according to her daughter’s Instagram post, is in a Texas ICU fighting for her life against a rare form of pneumonia. She has no health insurance, so her daughter is asking for donations to cover her mother’s bills.

What do you have to do in this country to be worthy of medical care?

Another example of our national dysfunction turned up two weeks ago in John Oliver’s piece on prison health care, which he kicked off with clips of local news anchors trying to get their viewers upset about paying for inmates’ medical conditions.

It is just wild to point out that the only place Americans are guaranteed health care is jail, and make it sound like somehow the problem is prisoners, and not our deeply broken system.

This is a standard feature of right-wing framing, which you can also see in this quote from CPAC:

Why, while we have veterans in the street, we have homeless people all over the place, we have inflation going crazy, are we going to send billions and billions and billions of dollars [to Ukraine]?

The constant refrain is that if you find (or imagine) an example of unfairness, the solution is to level down rather than level up: Rather than do something to help veterans in the street or other homeless people, cut off Ukraine aid. Don’t provide more people with health care, take it away from prisoners. In the name of fairness, everybody should suffer.


Three Alabama hospitals will soon stop delivering babies, leaving two entire counties without a birthing hospital. This is in a state that already has high rates of maternal and infant mortality. The hospitals attribute the closings to staffing shortages and funding problems. None of the articles I read made a connection between the difficulty getting ob-gyn doctors to come to Alabama and the state’s draconian abortion laws. But I have to think it plays a role.

and you also might be interested in …

George Santos and Bob Menendez both got superceding indictments. The charges are that Santos conned his contributors by abusing their credit card information, and that Menendez was an agent of Egypt.


Moms for Liberty is a dark-money-funded astroturf movement to move public schools in a conservative direction by banning books and introducing right-wing curricula. Salon highlights a group of parents in Bucks County, Pennsylvania that is trying to fight back.


When RFK Jr. was running as a Democrat against Biden, Sean Hannity promoted him hard, giving him an hour-long interview with softball questions. But then Kennedy announced he was running as an independent, and polls showed him potentially pulling votes away from Trump. So Hannity turned on a dime and became a hostile interviewer.

Fox News hosts don’t work for their viewers, they work on them.

and let’s close with something rare

I didn’t see the ring-of-fire eclipse Saturday, which was better in the western states. The photo above is from Panama.

Knowing and Willful

Defendant Donald John Trump lost the United States presidential election held on November 3, 2020. One of the states he lost was Georgia. Trump and the other Defendants charged in this Indictment refused to accept that Trump lost, and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.

The State of Georgia vs. Donald John Trump et al

This week’s featured post is “Why I’m Optimistic about 2024“.

This week everybody was talking about the weather

It’s hard to keep up with Climate Change Summer. Last week we were still digesting the burning of LaHaina. Friday, Canada was evacuating Yellowknife, the capital of the Northwest Territories, as wildfires approached. Yesterday, a tropical storm hit Los Angeles, something that literally never happens. Las Vegas is expecting heavy rain and strong winds. Most of the towns and buildings in the path of Hilary were built under the assumption that this can’t happen.

As usual, I won’t try to keep up with breaking news. But I do want to make two observations:

  • It’s time to stop arguing about climate change. Anyone who won’t admit what we can see with our own eyes is not worth talking to.
  • For years we’ve been hearing that computer models of the climate were unreliable and could be inaccurate. Such doubts have been spread by people who want to deny the problem. But it’s just as likely that the errors in the models make them too conservative. We need to think about the possibility that climate change could be worse than scientists’ predictions.

The usual suspects are trying to connect aid to Ukraine with the federal emergency response to Maui, as if Hawaii were being ignored and cutting Ukraine aide would help Hawaians. Beau of the Fifth Column covers the Maui aid process pretty well.

As for Ukraine, it’s as if Democrats said, “Why are we spending money on Trump’s secret service detail rather than helping people in Maui?” These decisions should all be made on their own merits.

and the Trump trials

The Fulton County indictment, Trump’s fourth, dropped Monday night. It covers some of the same actions as Jack Smith’s January 6 conspiracy indictment — Trump’s “perfect phone call” to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger figures in both, for example — but Fani Willis has written a much more sweeping narrative. While Smith’s is laser-focused on Trump, leveling four charges and leaving his co-conspirators unnamed, Willis’ indictment charges 19 people with 41 crimes. Trump and Rudy Giuliani are charged with the most crimes, 13 counts each.

What structures the indictment is a RICO charge, a claim that Trump led a corrupt enterprise that committed a number of individual crimes in service of a single illegal goal:

Defendant Donald John Trump lost the United States presidential election held on November 3, 2020. One of the states he lost was Georgia. Trump and the other Defendants charged in this Indictment refused to accept that Trump lost, and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.


Smith’s indictment, unlike Willis’, is streamlined to get to trial quickly. Smith has requested a January 2 trial date, while Trump’s lawyers produced the laughable suggestion of April, 2026. Judge Chutkan is expected to announce the real trial date by August 28.

A number of other issues will come before Chutkan soon: What to do about Trump’s direct defiance of her order not to make “inflammatory statements” about the case that could be construed as threatening witnesses or trying to taint the jury pool.

And a different federal judge will have to decide Mark Meadows’ motion to move his trial from Georgia state court to federal court and then dismiss the charges. Even if Meadows gets his way about removing the case from Georgia courts, the trial will still take place under Georgia law, and presidential pardons would still be off the table. Dismissing the charges seems unlikely.

Trump will likely file similar motions. Lawrence Tribe et al explain why they should fail.


Several detailed summaries of the Georgia indictment are out there. Here’s Lawfare’s.

The 98-page indictment itself is a bit dull to read, largely because it endlessly repeats a number of phrases that I assume have significance in Georgia law. For example, the RICO charge is split into 161 individual acts, not all of which are illegal in and of themselves. Each one concludes with some version of “this was an overt act in futherance of the conspiracy”. Each of the 41 charges gets its own section, which ends with “contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace, and dignity thereof.”

By the end, I was amusing myself by picturing a liturgical performance of the indictment, with the acts and charges as a call-and-response: A cantor chants the content, and the congregation responds “this was an act in furtherance of the conspiracy” or “contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace, and dignity thereof,” as appropriate. At every mention of an unidentified person (Individual 24, say), a background choir intones “whose identity is known to the grand jury”.

If you want to stage such a performance, feel free to take the idea and run with it. Just mention my name in the program and send me a YouTube link.


The Georgia indictment goes into detail on several incidents that are barely mentioned in the federal indictment. For example: trying to bully election worker Ruby Freeman into confessing to fictitious election fraud, and illegally gaining access to voting machines and voting-machine software in Coffee County.

I had heard about both of these incidents before, but did not appreciate how they fit into the larger conspiracy. The woman who offered Freeman “protection” if she confessed was not just a rogue actor inspired by Trump’s lies; she conspired with Harrison William Prescott Floyd, who was director of Black Voices for Trump; Robert Cheeley, who participated in Rudy Giuliani’s presentation to Georgia legislators, the one in which Freeman was originally slandered; and Scott Graham Hall, who was also involved in the Coffee County voting-machine break-in.

The Coffee County incident also involved Trump lawyer Sidney Powell, fake elector Cathy Latham, and a number of other conspirators.

Acts like these may not have the scope of the fake-elector plot or pressuring Mike Pence to violate the Constitution, but they are the kind of building blocks RICO cases are built on, because they are clearly criminal. There’s no other way to spin the video of Trevian Kutti telling Ruby Freeman she needs to be “moved” within 48 hours to avoid some unspecified consequence. “I cannot say what will specifically will take place. I just know that it will disrupt your freedom and the freedom of one or more of your family members. … You are a loose end for a party that needs to tidy up.” Terrorizing a public official is classic racketeering.


There’s a legal debate going on about whether the 14th Amendment bars Trump from ever serving as president again. I won’t comment because I haven’t done enough research to have an opinion worth sharing.


Sadly, Trump has cancelled the press conference today that was going to introduce “A Large, Complex, Detailed but Irrefutable REPORT on the Presidential Election Fraud which took place in Georgia”. This REPORT was going to completely exonerate him from the charges in the Fulton County indictment.

I say “sadly” without irony, because I welcome any development that commits Trump to a fixed position. Rhetorically, Trump is at his strongest when he can float above the discussion, making loose references to a hazy collection of theories that he never quite commits to. While any single claim is probably absurd and easily refuted — Fox News, for example, paid $787 million to Dominion Voting Systems rather than try to defend his rigged-voting-machine lies in court — the entire cloud is hard to get a handle on. Supporters can acknowledge the obvious problems with this claim or that one, while still believing that some other unspecified Biden-stole-the-election theory is true.

Trump fears going to court and is desperately trying to delay his trials because court processes are designed to cut through such fog. His lawyers will have to tell the jury a single coherent story, and he doesn’t have one.

I wish he’d produce a similar “Detailed but Irrefutable REPORT” about the Mar-a-Lago documents. At various times he has implied that he declassified the documents, suggested the documents were planted by the FBI, and claimed “I had every right to have these documents” even if they were classified. These claims contradict each other and are all absurd, but when one is refuted his supporters can simply shift to another. By the time they come back around to their original excuse, they’ve forgotten why it’s false.

So I’d love to see him commit to a single narrative, whatever it is. By all means, Mr. Trump, tell us your side of the story. Write a legal affadavit and sign your name to it — preferably under penalty of perjury. Your cultlike followers may refuse to read the indictments against you, refuse to watch the January 6 hearings, and in general cover their ears against any unwelcome information, but I promise you this: I will read any REPORT you put out there. If you have exculpatory evidence, I want to see it.


Trump may not be announcing his first-and-best stolen-election claims, but Mike Lindell is, and it’s the same old crap that has been debunked many times.

and Hunter

For almost a year, Republicans have complained that the US attorney investigating Hunter Biden wasn’t given special-counsel status. Now he has been, and they’re complaining about that too.

I seldom discuss Hunter Biden on this blog, for a simple reason: Until whatever Hunter is supposed to have done can be credibly connected to something his father did, I don’t care. I don’t need to see absolute proof before I get concerned, but give me something beyond MAGA wishful thinking. Hunter has never held a government office (unlike, say, Jared Kushner), and he appears to have had no direct influence on US policy.

He appears to have done some illegal things — hence the plea deal that fell through — though exactly what those are is never quite clear. He has also traded on his name, which is unsavory but annoyingly common and not illegal. Whatever he has or hasn’t done, he should be treated like anyone else would be — no better and no worse. If he ends up going to jail, I’m sure that will make his father sad. But that means nothing to me, because I care about the US government, not the Biden family.


Democrats would do well to write a broad anti-corruption law, one that would apply to future actions like the ones Hunter, Jared, Clarence Thomas, and Ginny Thomas are alleged to have committed. Holding high office should put restrictions and reporting obligations not just on the officeholder, but on close relatives as well. Republicans would of course oppose the law, and it wouldn’t pass, but it would be a good issue to run on in 2024.

and you also might be interested in …

The ten states with the lowest age-adjusted suicide rates are all blue states. The ten with the highest are nine red states and New Mexico. This probably has something to do with the availability of guns. [As a commenter points out below, I missed Colorado on the highest-suicide list. So it’s eight red states and two bluish-purple states.]


Kat Abu examines Fox News’ persistent attacks on the very idea of being educated.

and let’s close with something inevitable

Epic Rap Battles had to do a Barbie vs. Oppenheimer.

Why I’m optimistic about 2024

If Biden and Trump face off again in 2024, Biden will win again.


Democrats, at least in recent years, tend to be pessimists.

Some of us were probably born with a pessimistic nature, while others were scarred by 2016. That year, even hours after all the votes had been cast, it still seemed impossible that Donald Trump could become president. The polls had said said so, though not as convincingly as many of us remember. (The Real Clear Politics final polling average had Clinton ahead by 3.2%, and she won the popular vote by 2.1%. The too-late-to-poll news had broken badly that final weekend — the second James Comey email scare — and the votes still had to fall almost perfectly for Trump to pull off an Electoral College victory.)

But independent of any data-driven expectations, how could it have happened? How could Mr. Grab-em-by-the-Pussy have beaten one of the best-qualified candidates ever?

In every election since, I’ve had to talk my friends and readers off the ledge. 2018 was a blue-wave election, but we watched the returns come in with tension. In 2020, no poll could be comforting enough. Hillary had led in the polls, and look what happened to her.

Even in early August of 2020, the what-if-Trump-refuses-to-leave worries were so widespread that I had to address them, in a post that I think holds up very well to hindsight.

Here’s something I have great faith in: If the joint session of Congress on January 6 recognizes that Joe Biden has received the majority of electoral votes, he will become president at noon on January 20 and the government will obey his orders. Where Donald Trump is at the time, and whatever he is claiming or tweeting, will be of no consequence.

If Trump’s tweets bring a bunch of right-wing militiamen into the streets with their AR-15s, they can cause a lot of bloodshed, but they can’t keep Trump in office. They are no match for the Army, whose Commander-in-Chief will be Joe Biden.

So if Trump wants to stay on as president, he has to screw the process up sooner; by January 6, it’s all in the bag, and probably it’s all in the bag by December 14. Even stretching out the process with legal proceedings won’t help him: The Constitution specifies that his term ends on January 20. If at that time there is no new president or vice president to take over, the job devolves to the Speaker of the House, who I believe will be Nancy Pelosi.

Even so, Democrats watched Trump’s post-election machinations with worry. No matter how ridiculous his lawsuits were, what about the Supreme Court? Why wouldn’t his court appointees just declare him president?

In 2022, we all trembled before the Great Red Wave that never materialized. Nearly all the MAGA extremists went down to defeat.

And still, the ghost of 2016 haunts us.

It shouldn’t. There are a bunch of reasons to be optimistic about 2024, beginning with 2020.

Biden beat Trump in 2020. It really wasn’t that close. The fact that it took so long to count the votes created the impression that the 2020 election was much closer than it actually was.

In the popular vote, it wasn’t close at all: Biden won by more than 7 million votes, or 4.5%. Compare that to 2012, when Obama beat Romney by just under 5 million votes, or 3.9%.

In the Electoral College, Biden won 306-232, which is sort of close, but not historically close. In 1976, Carter beat Ford 297-240, and that has never been considered a photo-finish. It’s nothing like 2000, when Bush beat Gore 271-266 and carried Florida by a mere 537 votes (according to the official count).

The only way that 2020 seems close is if you imagine Trump able to target votes in precisely the states where he needs them. Unlike 2000, one state wouldn’t do. The path to a 2020 Trump victory would mean “finding” him not just the 11,780 votes he needed in Georgia, but also 10,458 in Arizona and 20,683 in Wisconsin.

My point isn’t that those are unassailable margins, but that they are clear margins. It’s not a rounding error that depended on some small pile of ballots with hanging chads. To be elected, Trump didn’t just need to get the breaks. He got the breaks; a 7-million-vote margin should imply an Electoral College landslide. In order to win in 2024, Trump has to get more votes.

And that’s what the rest of my argument focuses on: Not the continued allegiance of the MAGA faithful, but the opinions of the people who picked Biden over Trump in 2024. What has happened in the last four years that would change their minds? It looks to me like all the tides are running in the other direction. [1]

Demographics continue to work in Biden’s favor. The 2020 results were strongly skewed by age: 50-and-older voters favored Trump 52%-47%, while 18-24-year-olds voted for Biden 65%-31%.

Not to be morbid (I’m 66 myself), but a non-negligible number of over-50 voters die in the course of four years, and are replaced in the electorate by people who were 14-17 in 2020. That matters. And Republicans have their usual plan to solve the problem of voting blocs that oppose them: take away their right to vote. That’s why Vivak Ramaswamy wants to raise the voting age to 25. [A quick aside: If you couple this proposal with a GOP no-exceptions abortion ban, in a few cycles there will be kids in junior high whose moms aren’t old enough to vote.]

A lot has been written about young voters and their distrust of politics-as-usual. Yes, they tend to be skeptical of both major parties and less willing than past generations to incorporate a political label into their identities. Even if they voted or rooted for Biden (or against Trump) in 2020, they’re not going to be swayed by Democratic Party loyalty in 2024. So their votes can’t be taken for granted.

All the same, they will get to election day and see two candidates. Both will seem unimaginably old. (The difference between a 78-year-old and an 81-year-old is meaningless when you’re in your 20s, and Biden is noticeably more spry than Trump. Trump also has much more of an old-man speaking style, focusing on past grievances and demanding credit for what he deems are his past successes rather than talking about the future.) But when it comes to the issues they care about, they will see a strong contrast between those men.

  • Biden has not done enough to stem climate change. But he has at least done something, while Trump still denies the problem exists and wants to roll back the progress Biden has made.
  • Biden wants to protect reproductive rights, while Trump’s Supreme Court has taken them away, and Trump’s party wants to finish the job.
  • Biden hasn’t had enough support in Congress to do much to stop gun violence and prevent school shootings, but Trump denies the problem.
  • Biden is anti-racist, while Trump is racist. (Trump and his supporters claim otherwise, but they’re not fooling anyone.) Gen Z is a minority-majority generation.
  • Biden wants to protect LGBTQ people, while Trump targets them. Even if they are not LGBTQ themselves, literally everyone in Gen Z has LGBTQ friends. Few see those friends as immoral or believe in a God who rejects them.

Granted, there are young fascists who are inspired by Trump’s authoritarian vision. But go back to my main theme: Has Trump done anything to change the minds of the majority who opposed him in 2020? When you put yourself in the place of a typical 20-something, the answer is clearly no.

Swing states have trended blue and anti-MAGA since 2020. In Arizona, the Republican Party went all-in for MAGA candidates, and got swept in all the statewide races. In Georgia, a MAGA candidate lost a Senate race, while the Trump-resisting Republicans (Brian Kemp, Brad Raffensperger) won the state offices. In Wisconsin this April, a liberal judge won the race for a seat on the state supreme court with a 10% margin. Those are the Biden states Trump needs to flip.

Looking at other flip-from-Biden-to-Trump possibilities, the situation is even less promising: Democrats won unified control of the government in Michigan. In Pennsylvania, a Democrat whose stroke prevented him from campaigning much won a 5% victory over a MAGA Republican in the Senate race, while a Democrat beat a MAGA Republican for governor by 15%.

The issues favor Biden. Abortion has been a huge issue for Democrats since the Dobbs decision last year, and figures to be huge again in 2024. The reason the Dobbs decision happened at all is that Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices, so there’s no way for him to wriggle out of that responsibility.

I could be wrong about this, but I believe this summer’s disaster-filled weather will mark an inflection point in the climate-change debate. I don’t think climate change will be an issue Trump can ignore in 2024, and I don’t think denial is a viable position any more. LaHaina burned to the ground. Smoke blotted out the New York City skyline. A tropical storm hit Los Angeles. Climate change isn’t theoretical any more; voters can see it happening with their own eyes.

In foreign policy, Trump vs Biden is a proxy for Putin vs Zelenskyy. I’ll take Zelenskyy.

What’s been holding Biden back in the polls is that his excellent economic record hasn’t registered yet with the public. But give it another year.

Biden has a better story to tell. One of the few criticisms the other Republican presidential candidates have been willing to launch against Trump is that he didn’t get much done. He didn’t build his wall, and Mexico didn’t pay for what little progress he made. He didn’t pass a plan to rebuild American infrastructure. He didn’t get US troops out of Afghanistan. He didn’t shrink the trade deficit.

What he did manage to do was cut rich people’s taxes while refusing to show us his own tax returns. He increased the deficit every year, from the $0.59 trillion deficit of FY 2016 to the record $3.13 trillion of FY 2020.

Biden has made good on many of his priorities, and along the way has done some of the things Trump promised to do, but couldn’t get done. Biden passed an infrastructure package. Withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan was an ugly process, but he got it done. He reinvested in American manufacturing. The Inflation Reduction Act is helping shift our economy away from the dying industries of the past and towards the growing industries of the future.

And it’s working. Reversing a decades-long trend, wage growth has been strongest for low-income workers. Inequality is shrinking.

Trump still represents the old Republican trickle-down economics. Biden’s vision to build the economy “from the middle out and the bottom up” is both better economics and better politics.

On election day in 2020, Trump hadn’t tried to overthrow democracy yet. While the majority of Republicans seems to have accepted Trump’s version of January 6 as either a patriotic exercise or an enthusiastic crowd that spontaneously got out of hand, a significant number of them were rightfully horrified that Trump would launch such an attack on his own country.

From his 2016 candidacy all the way through 2020, people who had happily supported Romney and McCain told themselves that Trump really wasn’t that bad. Even after he started pushing the Big Lie, they thought he just needed time to accept the reality of his defeat. On November 9, 2020, the WaPo reported this:

“What is the downside for humoring him for this little bit of time? No one seriously thinks the results will change,” said one senior Republican official. “He went golfing this weekend. It’s not like he’s plotting how to prevent Joe Biden from taking power on Jan. 20. He’s tweeting about filing some lawsuits, those lawsuits will fail, then he’ll tweet some more about how the election was stolen, and then he’ll leave.”

Such “senior Republican officials” found out they were wrong. He was plotting to prevent Biden from taking power. He really was that bad. I have to wonder what that guy thinks about Trump now.

It’s hard to say just how many Republicans and Republican-leaning independents will reject Trump’s 2024 candidacy on those grounds. Even if they don’t cross over and vote for Biden, maybe they’ll just stay home. Maybe it won’t be that many, but remember: He needs to gain votes, not lose them.

Trump’s trials will take a toll. It is undeniably amazing that Trump’s support in the Republican Party has remained so solid, even after evidence of his criminality has been widely available. (As I explained two weeks ago, Trump has not seriously challenged the evidence in any of his four indictments. If it weren’t for threats, insults, and ad hominem attacks, he’d have nothing to say.)

But even among Republicans, the number who say he has “done nothing wrong” is dropping, and the number who believe he has committed a crime is growing.

Until recently, it was possible for Republicans to stick their heads in the sand and insist Trump’s legal problems were all politics. After all, they knew that their Benghazi hearings had been political BS, and their Hunter Biden hearings were going to be BS as well, so why shouldn’t they assume Democrats were doing the same thing?

So they didn’t watch the January 6 hearings, and didn’t notice that the witnesses against Trump were nearly all Republicans and officials from his own administration. They haven’t read the indictments, so they don’t appreciate the depth of the evidence against him.

The trials — at least some of which are bound to start before the election — will be harder to ignore. And guilty verdicts reached by juries of ordinary people will be harder yet. When people like Mike Pence and Brad Raffensperger are called to testify against Trump, or his fellow defendants start to flip against him, the cognitive dissonance will be intense.

As the trials get underway, even the MAGA faithful will be shaken by Trump’s sheer impotence. Even judges he appointed won’t buy his legal arguments. He won’t dare take the stand in his own defense. All his claims that “the American people won’t stand for this” will be proven wrong. And he will suffer a long series of small indignities that he will be helpless to prevent. (When he surrenders in Georgia later this week, for example, we may find out his actual height and weight — which I suspect are nothing like the figures he’s been claiming.) He won’t even slightly resemble the godlike figure his cult imagines.

Some Republicans will never admit they were wrong about Trump, but many will reach a point where they just don’t want to think about him any more. By election day, Republican turnout may lag. And again, we’re talking about him losing votes. Where is he going to gain votes? Among the people who didn’t vote for Trump in 2020, how many are seeing the evidence against him and thinking “That’s who I want as my president”?

But what about the polls? The current RCP polling average has Biden up by a miniscule 0.4%, and two recent polls that are part of that average say the race is tied. Biden’s approval rating is 13 points underwater.

How can I not be worried about that?

Well, let’s start with the fact that Trump’s approval is 17 points underwater. Also recall that this point in 2011 marked a low in President Obama’s popularity. His approval rating was 12 points negative that September, but he went on to a 332-206 Electoral College victory the next year.

Political pundits tend to underestimate how many low-information and low-attention voters we have in the US. The political class may be obsessed with Trump and Biden, but tens of millions of Americans have not even thought about their 2024 vote yet. Millions of women have not processed yet that a vote for Trump will surrender their reproductive rights for good. Millions of young people have not understood yet that reelecting Trump will doom their future to climate change.

A few of them never will think things through like that. But the ones who do will provide a sizeable margin for Biden.


[1] A worthy question is: What happens if the Republicans somehow don’t nominate Trump? Well, if you imagine them nominating an actual moderate, the kind of Republican who can win a blue-state governorship like Maryland’s Larry Hogan or New Hampshire’s Chris Sununu, then Biden is probably in trouble. But I think I can pretty much guarantee that’s not going to happen.

A Ron DeSantis or Tim Scott will have the same issue problems as Trump: What about abortion? What about climate change? What about gay rights? Isn’t your economic plan just to keep cutting rich people’s taxes and giving corporations more freedom to poison us?

But any non-Trump Republican has an even bigger problem: What happened to Trump? Did he magically disappear? Did he accept his primary defeat gracefully and endorse the victor?

Again, that’s not going to happen. If Trump isn’t the nominee, most likely he has stomped away mad and is accusing the candidate who defeated him of fraud. I don’t think the GOP can win in that scenario.

Normal Order

He is a criminal defendant. He is going to have constraints the same as any defendant. This case is going to proceed in a normal order.

Judge Tanya Chutkan

This week’s featured post is “How did Frederick Douglass become a conservative spokesman?

This week everybody was talking about the fires in Maui

They’re still finding bodies in burned-out buildings in Lahaina, the main city in Maui. As of this morning the toll was up to 96 deaths. As you can see in the picture above, people stuck in traffic had to abandon their vehicles and try to escape on foot.

The wildfire had two main causes: dry grass and high winds. One recent theory is that the winds blew over some power lines, which sparked the grass. Extreme dryness and wind are two symptoms of climate change, and the Maui disaster is just the latest event in our Climate Change Summer, which has also included smoke from Canadian fires blanketing the Northeast, extreme rain and flooding in Vermont and Pennsylvania, and record heat in the Southwest and Florida.

Politicians who deny what we can see with our own eyes, or who want to ignore the whole issue, are not worth arguing with any more. They just need to be voted out.

and Trump’s trials

Fulton County DA Fani Willis will seek a Trump indictment this week. The Atlanta Journal Constitution’s Tamar Hallerman lays out what to expect from this indictment, which might appear as soon as tomorrow. As I keep saying, I could speculate about the content, but in a few days I can just read it.


Most of the Trump-trial news this week concerned Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the DC trial for the January 6 conspiracy. In a hearing Friday, she issued a protective order barring Trump from using material the government is sharing in the discovery process to badger or intimidate witnesses against him. She also warned that she would be watching Trump’s public statements closely.

The fact that he is running a political campaign currently has to yield to the administration of justice. And if that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say in a political speech, that is just how it’s going to have to be.

It’s worth noting that Americans cannot be deprived of their rights “without due process of law”. Trump temporarily faces a judge’s restrictions because a grand jury of American citizens has found sufficient evidence to indict him for several serious crimes. That’s due process of law.

If Trump does appear to be trying to intimidate witnesses or taint the jury pool, Judge Chutkan has a number of possible responses, which include revoking his bail and putting him in jail until the trial is complete. But there has been speculation that Trump would welcome such a move, because he could make political hay out of the “persecution” he had brought on himself. (I doubt this; I think Trump is terrified of jail.) So Friday Chutkan made a novel threat: If Trump won’t behave himself, she might have to move the trial along faster to protect witnesses, prosecutors, and everyone else involved (including herself).

Given that Trump’s whole strategy has been to delay the trial until he becomes president again — as I explained last week, he doesn’t seem to have any other viable defense — that threat might have some teeth.


What the people Trump targets might need protection from was underlined last week when the FBI tried to arrest a Utah man who had made detailed threats against President Biden (and other Trump enemies like Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg). A judge deemed these threats credible, so an arrest warrant was issued. The man was armed when agents arrived, and was killed when (according to the FBI) he pointed a weapon at the arresting agents.

Naturally, the man is now considered a martyr by the violent Right. These same people would respond to reports of police killing a person of color with “Why didn’t he just comply?” But the laws are supposed to work differently for them.


This is far from the first time an avowed Trump supporter has repeated Trump’s rhetoric before threatening or carrying out violent acts.

It’s worth remembering how normal American politicians respond to such situations. In 2017, a Bernie Sanders supporter brought a gun to a baseball practice for congressional Republicans and began shooting, badly wounding Rep. Steve Scalise and several others. Afterwards, Sanders made this statement:

I have just been informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign. I am sickened by this despicable act. Let me be as clear as I can be: Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms. Real change can only come about through nonviolent action, and anything else runs against our most deeply held American values.

Trump has never made any similar statement, and it is difficult to imagine him doing so. More typically, he makes excuses for his violent supporters, lauding how “passionate” they are. On January 6, Trump explained to Kevin McCarthy that the rioters who had invaded the Capitol and were chanting “hang Mike Pence” were just “more upset about the election” than McCarthy was. When he did eventually ask the rioters to go home, he told them “We love you. You’re very special.

So if you belong to Trump’s personality cult and you want him to love you, you know what to do.


Trump’s apparent approval of violence continues. Saturday at the Iowa State Fair, Rep. Matt Gaetz told a crowd that “we know that only through force do we make any change in a corrupt town like Washington, D.C.” Trump was standing right there, and made no attempt to distance himself from Gaetz’ rhetoric.


Merrick Garland has taken a lot of criticism lately. Andrew Weissmann, formerly a top assistant to Robert Mueller, put it like this:

We [should] not forget that the predicament Jack Smith is in, racing to get and keep trial dates pre-election, is [be]cause Garland was so slow to pursue a top down investigation.

The conventional wisdom says that Garland didn’t want DoJ to prosecute Trump because he was already wary of the weaponization-of-justice cudgel the Right was going to beat him with. But the House January 6 Committee so clearly demonstrated Trump’s criminality that Garland’s see-no-evil position became untenable. So that’s how we got here, but arrived more than a year late.

Jay Kuo, however, makes an interesting counter-argument: No matter how obvious it might be to the casual observer that January 6 was a great crime against America, the laws were not written with January 6 in mind. So no matter how DoJ proceeded, it was going to have to apply laws in new ways, using interpretations that had never been tested in court.

Making Donald Trump the test case was bound to be fraught. So Garland started at the bottom, with the foot-soldiers who invaded the Capitol. Sure, they were trespassing, but wasn’t there more to it that that? What else could they be charged with? Some had attacked police, but what about the ones who hadn’t (or at least weren’t on video doing so)?

There’s a law against obstructing an official proceeding, but the main thrust of that law is about forging official documents, and whether the clause about obstructing a proceeding “otherwise” applied here hadn’t been tested. And was the joint session of Congress on January 6 an “official proceeding” under this law? What did disrupting it “corruptly” mean?

So Garland’s DoJ went about establishing these points in cases that didn’t have to carry the emotional and political baggage of a case against Trump. Appeals of some of those cases did challenge those interpretations, and those appeals weren’t resolved until April of this year. One (the meaning of “corruptly”) is still pending.

So maybe DoJ was always fated to race against the 2024 election. And maybe Attorney General Garland knew what he was doing.

and the pro-reproductive-rights vote in Ohio

Sometimes politics gets so ridiculous that only a comedian can describe it. Here’s Trae Crowder, a.k.a. the Liberal Redneck.

Ohio Republicans found out that the people of their state were likely to pass an amendment that would protect abortion rights in Ohio. And when they heard that, Ohio Republicans said, “The people of Ohio must be stopped.” So they tried to pass another law before that which would require 60% of the vote instead of the usual simple majority. So basically they went to the people of Ohio and said “Hey y’all. We want y’all to vote on whether or not your vote should count for shit.” And the people of Ohio went, “Uh, I think I’m gonna vote for my vote should count for shit.”

And Ohio Republicans just started stomping their feet and making a shocked Pikachu face. Like, I don’t know what they expected. Like what do they think? People are gonna line up around the block to disenfranchise themselves? What did they think was gonna happen, you know?

But this is their playbook now, y’all. This is what they do, because they’ve finally come to understand that they are not actually popular. Right? It took ’em a long time. For years and years they were alienating and demonizing women, Black people, gay people, Mexicans, minorities, immigrants, smart people, poor people, and everybody in between. They’ve been years doing that, and now they’re like “Why don’t anybody like us?”

Oh, I don’t know, truly a mystery for the ages, that one. But either way, they understand it now. They realize that, generally speaking, the American people do not agree with them on things like abortion, gay rights, civil rights, the economy, healthcare — none of it.

They’ve come to realize that and they’ve arrived at this conclusion: If hearts of the people cannot be won, then the will of the people must be quashed. That’s right. They understand that in a functioning democracy, their policies would be relegated to the impotent fringe, and have decided that therefore, from this point forward, this democracy should no longer properly function.

That’s what all this is about, y’all, the gerrymandering laws, voter restriction laws, and January 6 and the Big Lie — all of it.

And it’s not just in Ohio. In Wisconsin, Republicans have managed to gerrymander their way into a supermajority in the Senate, in a state where Democrats have been winning statewide races, including a race in April that gave liberals control of the state supreme court.

Now the map that gerrymanders Republicans into power is coming before the supreme court, and Republicans are threatening to use their illegitimate supermajority to impeach the new liberal justice if she doesn’t recuse herself.

The people of Wisconsin must be stopped!

and education in Florida

When Governor DeSantis got his Don’t-Say-Gay and Stop WOKE Acts through the Florida legislature, the doom-saying of many liberal pundits was written off as “alarmist”. Surely when it got down to cases, reasonable interpretations would prevail and it wouldn’t be that bad. But developments in recent weeks have shown that in fact it’s worse.

One DeSantis priority is that schools stop cooperating with kids who want to try out a different gender identity without their parents’ explicit permission. So if Timmy wants to be known at school as Tammy, Timmy/Tammy’s teachers are supposed to notify the parents, even if doing so violates the child’s trust.

But who’s to decide the gender implications of a nickname? Maybe Samantha wants to be Sam not because she’s experiencing a crisis of femininity, but because she thinks it sounds cooler. So, do her parents need to be notified? Schools don’t want to take responsibility for making such judgments. Hence this email to parents in Seminole County:

If you would like for your child to be able to use a name aside from their legal given name on any of our campuses, we will ask for you to complete the consent form titled “Parental Authorization for Deviation from Student’s Legal Name Form.”

Orange County announced a similar rule. And yes, it does mean exactly what it says.

The rule would impact everyone from students who prefer using a shorthand nickname (“Tom” versus “Thomas,” for instance), to those who prefer a different name altogether, including transgender students

All my life, I’ve gone by Doug rather than Douglas, the name on my birth certificate. And my parents never had to fill out a form to make that OK.


Last week, I reported on the controversy over whether the College Board’s AP Psychology course could be taught in Florida schools. As of last week, the state Department of Education was saying it could be taught “in a manner that is age and developmentally appropriate.” Nobody knew what that really meant, so several school districts announced they still wouldn’t teach the course.

And in a phone call Tuesday, a spokesperson for Brevard Public Schools, a district about 50 miles east of Orlando, said it was also abiding by the Education Department’s initial guidance, referring NBC News to a statement from the district last week.

“In essence, if we don’t teach all of the content, our students will not receive AP credit. If we do teach all of the content, our instructors will violate the law,” the statement said. “Therefore, we will not offer AP Psychology at any of our high schools this year.”

Wednesday, Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. tried to make the state’s position clearer:

It is the Department of Education’s stance that the learning target, 6.P ‘Describe how sex and gender influence socialization and other aspects of development,’ within Topic 6.7, can be taught consistent with Florida law

But even with that explicit permission, some school districts are not willing to take the chance that the way they do teach AP Psych will match Diaz’s official view of how it can be taught. So the class won’t be reinserted into their course catalogs.


This week something similar happened with Shakespeare. Romeo and Juliet may be a classic, but fundamentally it’s about two teens who have sex despite their parents’ disapproval. And sure, it’s a tragedy and (spoilers!) they both wind up dead. But still, the whole love-and-death saga is kind of glorious somehow, especially from an emo-adolescent perspective. (According to “Don’t Fear the Reaper” they’re “together in eternity” and “we can be like they are”.) Is this “age appropriate” for high school students? In Ron DeSantis’ Christo-fascist Florida?

So, citing the bard’s overall “raunchiness”, Hillsborough County announced that it would only teach excerpts of Shakespeare, not whole plays, and several other counties were considering following that example. The bad press from those decisions caused FDoE to issue another explicit permission:

The Florida Department of Education in no way believes Shakespeare should be removed from Florida classrooms.

So R&J is back in sophomore English, and all’s well that ends well, so OK then. But still, these episodes underline something I find disturbing: In practice, Florida schools have become a place where everything not explicitly permitted is forbidden. So what happens to literature less canonized than Romeo and Juliet or topics that don’t have the College Board lobbying for them? As the vagueness of Florida’s new laws causes schools to steer clear of anything that might fall into the enormous gray zone those laws have created, how many valuable works — full of ideas that might engage teens, make them think, or spark meaningful discussions — are being swept out the door without making headlines?

Plutarch once wrote (more or less): “The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.” But teachers are never fired for failing to kindle young minds. Being dull and demonstrating to your students that education is pointless can be the safest course — especially in Florida.


But the development that best displays the Orwellian nature of DeSantis’ “Freedom from Indoctrination” slogan is Florida’s approval of Prager University videos for use in the public schools. That’s discussed in the featured post.

and you also might be interested in …

The ongoing war between red states and their blue cities has claimed a new victim: Houston school libraries. Houston schools have been taken over by the state, leaving locally elected school boards with little say.

In Houston, Texas, dozens of public schools won’t have librarians and traditional libraries when classes start later this month. It’s part of a controversial reform effort in the state’s largest school district. The new superintendent says schools in working-class areas need good teachers more than they need librarians.


While we continue to worry about inflation, China is experiencing deflation. This can be an even more serious problem, because it can lead to cascading bankruptcies: As money gains value, debts become harder to repay. So people and businesses sell assets to raise cash, depressing prices further.

What an inflating West and a deflating China means for the world economy is hard to predict.


Using government power to make “woke” corporations toe the conservative line isn’t just a DeSantis thing, it’s catching on in Republican circles generally. Here, Fox News’ Laura Ingraham warns Apple and Disney that when Republicans regain power “everything will be on the table — your copyright and trademark protection, your special status within certain states, and even your corporate structure itself”.

Recall that Mussolini’s definition of fascism was the merger of state and corporate power.


I can’t explain why the Montgomery dock brawl went viral the way it did, but it inspired some great creativity, including this version using the theme to “Good Times” and ending with some white folding chairs painted into a Harlem Renaissance artwork.


If you’re not following Kat Abu on social media, you should be. She watches Fox News so you don’t have to, and summarizes it in a way that will usually make you laugh rather than fume.

I sometimes picture a gaggle of blond Fox News hosts watching Kat and saying, “Girl, if you just used more make-up and changed your hair, you could get a job here.”

and let’s close with something artificial

If there’s one thing AI is perfect for, it’s producing stereotypes. Most of the time that’s a problem. If you’re trusting AI to write your term paper on Transylvania, for example, you’ll need to make sure you aren’t repackaging a bunch of vampire mythology as fact. But somebody used AI to create images of the most stereotypical person from each of the 50 states.

They aren’t intended to be funny, just stereotypical. Here’s the Californian.

How I evaluate sources

I want to keep challenging my biases by reading posts I disagree with.
But I also don’t want to waste my time on nonsense or propaganda.


This week, one of my social-media friends posted a link from a blog I’d never heard of. This particular article claimed Russia is winning its war against Ukraine, and criticized a Western leader for claiming that Russia would lose a war against all of NATO. These observations seemed unlikely to me, but I try not to write blogs off just because I disagree with them. (That’s a good way to trap yourself in an ideological silo.) So I asked myself: What is this blog? Is it a reliable source?

These questions come up all the time, and by now I have a fairly standard technique for answering them. After I finished my assessment — I eventually decided it wasn’t a reliable source — I realized I’d never described the technique to Sift readers. Arguably, the technique is more valuable than the conclusions I draw with it.

The first step is obvious: Read the article in question. If, in addition to the parts I initially disagreed with, it references long-debunked claims and conspiracy theories without acknowledging the arguments that have been made against them, I feel comfortable trashing the article without wasting any more of my time. For example, if you say that voting machines stole the 2020 election from Trump, you need to explain all the states where hand recounts came to the same totals, within the usual error bands of recounts. If you have a believable explanation of that — I can’t imagine what it could be right now, but never mind — I might pay attention.

But suppose the article isn’t that obviously bad. This particular one wasn’t: Its assessment of the Ukraine War was attributed to Polish generals I didn’t recognize. So maybe the author is plugged in to sources I don’t know about, and maybe those sources know something.

So the next step is to look at the front page of the blog or news source. A Japanese proverb says: “When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends.” The other articles the source is promoting are the “friends” of the article I’m evaluating. If a bunch of them are obviously nonsense, it’s not a big leap to assume the article I’m assessing is nonsense too.

The day I was looking at it, this blog was still just barely making the cut. (Today it might not. It’s full of glowing assessments of the Durham report, buying into the idea that the whole Trump/Russia thing was a hoax. More about that topic in today’s other featured post.) It had a bunch of other articles about Ukraine being in trouble, which could be legit if the article I was assessing was legit.

The final step is to look back in time. In general, well-constructed propaganda can look pretty good in the moment, but it usually doesn’t age well. The same is true of delusional points of view. In the moment, people can convince themselves of all kinds of things and be pretty persuasive about it.

The Iraq invasion is a good example. Back in 2002-2003, it was far from obvious what a stupid idea this was. Maybe Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction. Maybe the Bush administration really did know things we didn’t. Maybe Iraq was eager for democracy, and even if not, Saddam was such an awful ruler that getting rid of him would create a lot of room for improvement. When Saddam’s army collapsed so quickly, a lot of people wondered why we hadn’t invaded a long time ago. Sure, some contemporary observers saw the folly from the beginning, but a lot didn’t, and not all of them were stupid or crazy.

With twenty years of hindsight, though, hardly anybody defends the invasion any more. Time tends to clear the fog that blinds us to contemporary events.

A simpler and more recent example: A lot of pundits predicted last year (after the Dobbs decision) that voters would forget about abortion by the time the fall elections rolled around. At the time, that claim was hard to assess, but now we can clearly see that it was wrong.

So anyway, if today’s front page is hard to assess, look back six months or a year. That might be easier.

But when you do that, be careful. Because simply finding something the source got wrong isn’t discrediting in itself. We all get stuff wrong, so you will find an excuse to write the source off, if that’s what you’re looking for. If you’re trying to make an honest assessment, though, the process is a little more complicated. Finding a mistake is just the first step.

The point isn’t just to find things the source got wrong, but to see how they responded as events went some other way. What I hope to find is a reaction like Paul Krugman’s: In 2021, Krugman was wrong about the risks of inflation, and then he was slow to recognize how big a problem inflation was becoming. (If you’re looking for an excuse to write Paul off, there it is.) But that mistake bothered him as much as it bothered anyone else. He has written several columns since trying to figure out what led him astray.

In early 2021 there was an intense debate among economists about the likely consequences of the American Rescue Plan, the $1.9 trillion package enacted by a new Democratic president and a (barely) Democratic Congress. Some warned that the package would be dangerously inflationary; others were fairly relaxed. I was Team Relaxed. As it turned out, of course, that was a very bad call.

But what, exactly, did I get wrong?

The Ukraine War itself is a good topic to examine, because at the beginning, just about everybody expected Ukraine’s defenses to collapse in a few weeks. A credible military blog might have made that mistake, but then they should have spent the summer reevaluating. It’s possible that by now they might have come back around to the idea that Ukraine will lose (or not). But if they’ve been holding steady on the Ukraine-is-about-to-collapse narrative all year, they’re not credible.

So Krugman is the gold standard, but I’ll give a silver medal to anybody whose mistake made them realize they don’t understand the subject they got wrong, and who subsequently shifted their attention elsewhere. Or maybe they reevaluated and downgraded the sources they got their wrong opinion from.

So, for example, picture a Republican who took Trump’s claims of election fraud seriously at first, but then stopped repeating them when no supporting evidence emerged. They may not ever have acknowledged their mistake in so many words, but they’ve taken steps not to keep doing it, i.e., not just blindly repeating whatever Trump says any more. I’m not going to write that source off forever. On the other hand, if they’re still pushing that stolen-election nonsense today, they’re not worth my time.

So anyway, when I looked back on the past record of the blog in question, I found claims that Trump was framed in both his impeachments, the FBI framed Michael Flynn, the Russians didn’t interfere in the 2016 election, Covid was exaggerated by the Deep State, Dominion voting machines stole the 2020 election from Trump, it was Seth Rich (and not the Russians) who leaked the Clinton campaign emails, Russia has been winning the Ukraine War from the very beginning, and many others.

In short, it was down-the-line pro-Russia pro-Trump stuff, with no acknowledgment that any of those claims hadn’t panned out. So I’m not taking the new claims seriously either.

So that’s the technique: Read the article, then look at the front page, then look back until you find a mistake and see how they handled it.

No Sift Next Monday

The next new articles will appear on August 22.

Lingering Dishonor

Tonight I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible: There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.

Rep. Liz Cheney

This week’s featured posts are “Will the Great Salt Lake stay great?” and “The hearings, week two“.

This week everybody was talking about the continuing 1-6 hearings

https://theweek.com/political-satire/1014486/killing-principles

This was covered in the second featured post.


This week we saw that the Big Lie is alive and well, and screwing up current elections. New Mexico held a primary on June 7, but Otero County refused to certify results for the state to total up.

The all-Republican [county] commission had refused on Monday to certify the results — citing concerns about Dominion voting machines and questions about a handful of individual votes in this month’s primary.

Friday, the commission voted 2-1 to submit to a court order that they certify results. The one dissenting vote was from a commissioner who has been sentenced to 14 days jail time for trespassing on the Capitol grounds during the 1-6 riot.

Controversies over Dominion voting machines are perhaps the most thoroughly debunked of all Trump’s election-fraud lies. Not even Fox News and Newsmax make the claim any more. Hand recounts in numerous states have failed to find higher-than-normal discrepancies in final vote totals, ending the controversy for all people who live in the real world.


Republican Rep. James Comer promised an OAN interviewer that when Republicans get control of the House in 2023, they will take revenge by holding “Hunter Biden hearings“. The idea here seems to be that this will make Democrats sorry they investigated 1-6 and demonstrated Trump’s criminality.

Here’s what he doesn’t get: Democrats aren’t a personality cult the way Republicans are.

In particular, we aren’t dedicated to protecting each other from learning the truth about Joe Biden or his family. If it turns out that Hunter Biden really did commit crimes (which I don’t think has been established yet), by all means he should be investigated, prosecuted, convicted, and go to jail. I believe that would make his father sad, but keeping Joe Biden happy is not a high priority for me or for most Democrats, certainly not the way that keeping Donald Trump happy is a priority for Republicans.

and “both sides do it” distractions

Right-wing media and politicians like Marco Rubio have started calling for the Justice Department to take action against a pro-choice “terrorist” group, Jane’s Revenge. You can expect JR to become the new antifa. Night after night, Fox News will cast it as a violent left-wing conspiracy that the authorities supposedly ignore while targeting “patriotic” right-wing groups like the Proud Boys.

The problem with this framing is simple: So far there’s little indication that Jane’s Revenge is much more than a viral meme. (Similarly, antifa is much less than right-wing media makes it out to be. It appears to be a handful of local groups with no national coordination.) So if you graffiti some anti-choice institution (“You Do Not Have the Right to Determine How Others Live” painted on a Catholic Church, for example), your action will become part of a 50-incident list of “Attacks on Churches, Pro-Life Organizations, Property, and People Since the Dobbs Leak” that Rubio will tie to Jane’s Revenge. And as the meme catches on, you may even decide to sign your graffiti as “Jane’s Revenge”, or attach that name to a threatening letter you post online. But that doesn’t mean you belong to any group — or even that there is a group to belong to.

A small percentage of the “attacks” on Rubio’s list do involve real or attempted property damage, and those are crimes that should be investigated and punished like comparable property crimes, most of which never get federal attention. But I doubt that his list would impress anybody who has worked at an abortion clinic, where hostile graffiti is just another Tuesday, and people occasionally get killed. (My church suffered an “attack” a few years ago: Our “Black Lives Matter” sign was defaced, as were the signs of at least 50 other churches. We never heard from Rubio.)

None of this “left-wing terrorism” bears any resemblance to right-wing terrorism, which regularly kills people, or to the Proud Boys’ or Oath Keepers’ participation in Trump’s coup attempt.

Just last weekend, 31 members of Patriot Front were arrested on their way to violently disrupt a Pride event in Idaho. Reportedly, the 31 came from 11 states and only one was from Idaho. That’s what an interstate terrorist group looks like.

So far, Senator Rubio hasn’t written to Merrick Garland to complain about them.

and the Senate gun compromise

https://theweek.com/political-satire/1014481/a-start-and-a-finish

Last week a bipartisan group of senators announced they had compromised on a framework for legislation. But it started to come undone this week when they got down to writing a bill.

The major sticking points? Funding for red flag laws and what to do about the “boyfriend loophole.” Both issues present a number of thorny challenges for negotiators, but the “boyfriend loophole” specifically has been cited as a considerable roadblock.

Currently, you can’t buy guns if you’ve been convicted of domestic violence against a spouse, a live-in partner, or the mother of your child. Democrats want to extend that prohibition to less well defined dating relationships. Republicans agreed in principle, but defining the exact bounds of “boyfriend” is giving them heartburn. After all, violent men who like guns are pretty much the core of the Republican Party.

It’s had to argue, though, that extending the loophole wouldn’t have a big effect on mass shootings. Men who commit such crimes usually start out smaller, by abusing either animals or women who are in their power.


Mass killings of children get the most media attention, but apparently no one of any age is safe from the epidemic of gun violence. Thursday evening, a 70-year-old man went to a potluck dinner at an Episcopal church in Alabama and killed three even older diners before being hit with a chair by another man in his 70s.

If I had to choose the American denomination least likely to be either the victims or perpetrators of violence, I might well have picked the Episcopalians. Historically upscale and stereotypically “nice people” (sometimes to a fault), Episcopalians tend to be theologically and politically liberal but ritually conservative. They are closely related to the Church of England, whose niceness comedian Eddie Izzard lampooned in her “Cake or Death” routine, which seems a bit less funny today.

and Juneteenth

By the calendar it was yesterday (June 19); the federal day-off-work is today.

Juneteenth marks the day in 1865 when a Union general announced that the slaves of Texas were free. That makes it a bittersweet holiday, because the Emancipation Proclamation had taken effect on January 1, 1863, more than two years earlier. General Lee had surrendered at Appomattox more than two months before. And even after Juneteenth, the proclaimed “absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves” was a long time in coming. Some would say it still hasn’t arrived.

In short, Juneteenth reminds us that there’s a big difference between having rights on paper and having rights that the ruling institutions can or will enforce in practice.

but we’re not paying enough attention to environmental disasters in progress

That’s the topic of the first featured post, about the shrinking of the Great Salt Lake.

The other big recent environmental news story is about too much water rather than too little: the flooding of Yellowstone.

and you also might be interested in …

https://manmartin.blogspot.com/

The Texas Republican Party went off the deep end this week, approving a platform

declaring that President Joe Biden “was not legitimately elected” and rebuking Sen. John Cornyn for taking part in bipartisan gun talks. They also voted on a platform that declares homosexuality “an abnormal lifestyle choice” and calls for Texas schoolchildren “to learn about the humanity of the preborn child.”

It also calls for repealing the 16th Amendment (which allows a national income tax), abolishing the Federal Reserve, and holding a referendum on whether Texas should secede from the Union.

Here’s hoping Governor Abbott doesn’t duck a debate with Beto O’Rourke, so Beto can ask him about his party’s platform point by point.


If you’re in my generation and want to feel old, meditate on this: Paul McCartney turned 80 this week. “When I’m 64” is but a distant memory for him now. Two days before the big day, he performed at Met Life Stadium in New Jersey, and was joined on stage by New Jersey icons Bruce Springsteen (a mere 72), and young whippersnapper Jon Bon Jovi (60).


French President Macron’s party lost its majority in the lower house of Parliament. It’s still the largest party, but will have to find allies to accomplish anything. France’s government may become as logjammed as the US.

and let’s close with something over the top

Apparently in Denmark, the only thing cooler than riding the bus is driving one.

Liberators and Destroyers

The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. … The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty.

– President Abraham Lincoln (April 18, 1864)

This week’s featured post is “The Emotional Roots of Political Polarization“.

This week everybody was talking about Build Back Better

https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/editorial/in-the-cartoons-covid-meadows-manchin/collection_72938683-0b96-54e3-9726-e8dc16b82424.html#4

Joe Manchin announced on Fox News Sunday that he could not vote for President Biden’s Build Back Better bill, effectively dooming it. The White House released an angry statement in response, ratifying the breakdown in the Biden/Manchin relationship.

For half a year, Manchin has delayed progress on the bill, raising the question of whether he would eventually come through after he had whittled the proposal down to his liking, or if he was simply stringing Biden along. Now it looks like the latter.

Manchin’s decision sinks a number of popular proposals, including lowering prescription drug prices, continuing the child tax credit, and mitigating climate change.

and January 6

https://claytoonz.com/2021/12/15/fox-news-knew/

During the House debate on whether to find Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress for his defiance of a subpoena, (the contempt resolution passed) members of the January 6 Committee revealed a number of text messages Meadows had received on January 6 from various conservative luminaries, including Fox News hosts, at least one member of Congress, and Donald Trump Jr.

The point of publicizing these texts was that they emphasize the need for Meadows’ testimony. But they make another important point about the subsequent cover-up of January 6: As much as Trump propagandists try to claim that (1) the Capitol insurrection wasn’t a big deal, and/or that (2) Trump bore no responsibility for it, they knew at the time that those things weren’t true.

The texts plead with Meadows to get Trump to stop the violence, which demonstrate their authors’ belief at the time that Trump was controlling the violence. The texts would make no sense if the demonstrators were basically peaceful, or if the violence were a false-flag operation sparked by antifa, as Trumpists like to claim.


As Trump’s attempt to block the January 6 Committee’s access to documents from his administration goes to the Supreme Court, Vox points out what a flimsy claim he has under existing precedents. If the Court’s partisan majority wants to protect him, they’ll have to invent new law.

They might, but I’ll bet not. Roberts won’t go for it, and he only needs to convince one more conservative. Either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh might be that deciding vote. If the Court doesn’t find against Trump, they’ll manufacture an excuse to keep the legal wrangling going in hopes that a new Republican House majority will make the case moot by sacking the whole committee in 2023.


The Atlantic follows freshman Republican Rep. Peter Meijer through the events of January 6.

On the House floor, moments before the vote, Meijer approached a member who appeared on the verge of a breakdown. He asked his new colleague if he was okay. The member responded that he was not; that no matter his belief in the legitimacy of the election, he could no longer vote to certify the results, because he feared for his family’s safety. “Remember, this wasn’t a hypothetical. You were casting that vote after seeing with your own two eyes what some of these people are capable of,” Meijer says. “If they’re willing to come after you inside the U.S. Capitol, what will they do when you’re at home with your kids?”

That account led WaPo’s Aaron Blake to write “The role of violent threats in Trump’s GOP reign”.


This is one panel of a Tom Tomorrow comic in which the news anchors outline the run of recent bad news.


AP reviewed “every potential case of voter fraud in the six battleground states disputed by former President Donald Trump” — all 475 of them.

The cases could not throw the outcome into question even if all the potentially fraudulent votes were for Biden, which they were not, and even if those ballots were actually counted, which in most cases they were not.

The review also showed no collusion intended to rig the voting. Virtually every case was based on an individual acting alone to cast additional ballots.


Not all Republicans are comfortable centering their Party on a lie that undermines democracy. Wisconsin State Senator Kathy Bernier called out her fellow Republicans.


A Delaware judge has ruled that Dominion Voting System’s lawsuit against Fox News can go forward. At issue is whether Fox knew at the time that the election-fraud claims it was making against Dominion were baseless.

and Omicron

The pandemic numbers continue to increase: New cases per day in the US are up to 133K, a 21% rise over two weeks. Deaths are inching up: 1296 per day (7-day average), up 9%. Hospitalizations are at 69K, up 16%.

The records were set last January: 248K cases per day on January 11, deaths at 3336 per day on January 15, 140K hospitalized on January 5.


Omicron spread in the United Kingdom is running ahead of the US, so it may provide a glimpse of our future. The UK has been setting new-case records, and London bars and restaurants have begun shutting down on their own, creating a “lockdown by stealth”.

The economic consequences could be more dire this time around, because the government isn’t providing support to businesses that close temporarily. That could happen here too.

There’s no federal money left to keep restaurants open. The aid for concert halls and other customer-starved performance spaces has nearly gone dry. Federal officials ended their primary effort that pumped money into small businesses with sagging balance sheets, and they stopped paying out extra sums to workers who are out of a job.

Like the original strain of Covid-19, Omicron is hitting the US first in New York City. [See the correction in the comments. Covid his NYC early and hard, but not first.] I’m writing these words in Florida, which has become a low-Covid oasis since the summer surge passed. But a new outbreak seems to be starting in Miami.


Ed Yong’s article in The Atlantic does a great job of explaining the biology of Omicron in terms ordinary people can understand.

The coronavirus is a microscopic ball studded with specially shaped spikes that it uses to recognize and infect our cells. Antibodies can thwart such infections by glomming onto the spikes, like gum messing up a key. But Omicron has a crucial advantage: 30-plus mutations that change the shape of its spike and disable many antibodies that would have stuck to other variants.

… In terms of catching the virus, everyone should assume that they are less protected than they were two months ago. As a crude shorthand, assume that Omicron negates one previous immunizing event—either an infection or a vaccine dose. Someone who considered themselves fully vaccinated in September would be just partially vaccinated now (and the official definition may change imminently). But someone who’s been boosted has the same ballpark level of protection against Omicron infection as a vaccinated-but-unboosted person did against Delta.

… Even if Omicron has an easier time infecting vaccinated individuals, it should still have more trouble causing severe disease. The vaccines were always intended to disconnect infection from dangerous illness, turning a life-threatening event into something closer to a cold. Whether they’ll fulfill that promise for Omicron is a major uncertainty, but we can reasonably expect that they will. The variant might sneak past the initial antibody blockade, but slower-acting branches of the immune system (such as T cells) should eventually mobilize to clear it before it wreaks too much havoc.


Data continues to come in.

Moderna’s results show that the currently authorized booster dose of 50 micrograms — half the dose given for primary immunization — increased the level of antibodies by roughly 37-fold, the company said. A full dose of 100 micrograms was even more powerful, raising antibody levels about 83-fold compared with pre-boost levels, Moderna said.

But not all the results are encouraging:

All vaccines approved in the United States and European Union still seem to provide a significant degree of protection against serious illness from Omicron, which is the most crucial goal. But only the Pfizer and Moderna shots, when reinforced by a booster, appear to have success at stopping infections, and these vaccines are unavailable in most of the world.

The other shots — including those from AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and vaccines manufactured in China and Russia — do little to nothing to stop the spread of Omicron, early research shows.


Six anti-vax protesters were arrested for a sit-in at the Cheesecake Factory in New York City. They barged in after refusing to show their vaccine cards, as the city requires.

The protesters compared the employees who refused to serve them to Nazis, and claimed a constitutional right not to reveal their private medical information. (And that is true, of course. But there is no constitutional right to eat at Cheesecake Factory.)


Because the sports leagues do such regular testing, they are spotting mild and asymptomatic Covid cases that the larger society misses. In the last two weeks, Covid’s effect on games has greatly increased. We’re starting to hear calls for the leagues to shut down again.


Fox News has been actively denying the well-established link between vaccine status and hospitalization for Covid.


When it comes to pronunciation, I am on Team OH-micron rather than Team AH-micron. To me, it’s obvious: omicron is a companion to omega (little-o/big-o) and nobody says AH-mega.

and inflation

The Bank of England became the first central bank to start raising interest rates in response to rising inflation.

The Federal Reserve is also responding, but more slowly. The Fed controls short-term interest rates on dollar deposits more-or-less directly, through the rates that it charges to banks; it affects long-term rates indirectly, by purchasing bonds in the market.

The Federal Reserve said on Wednesday it would end its pandemic-era bond purchases in March and pave the way for three quarter-percentage-point interest rate hikes by the end of 2022 as the economy nears full employment and the U.S. central bank copes with a surge of inflation.

Paul Krugman writes a readable account of the history and causes of inflation, and summarizes the debate between economists who think the current inflation is transitory and those who expect it to persist. Krugman himself is on Team Transitory, but he acknowledges that the current bout has already gone further than he expected, and I think he presents the debate fairly.

The problem, as Krugman presents it, isn’t so much that demand has soared as that during the pandemic it shifted from services into goods.

The caricature version is that people unable or unwilling to go to the gym bought Pelotons instead, and something like that has in fact happened across the board.

Services tend to be local, but goods depend on a global supply chain, which hasn’t broken, but hasn’t responded flexibly enough to accommodate increased demand. This, Krugman believes, will work itself out: As the pandemic recedes, service consumption will go back up, and supply-chain adjustments are already being made.

A second factor has been workers’ reluctance to return to the labor market, the so-called Great Resignation, which is forcing wages up. Krugman confesses he doesn’t understand exactly what is causing this or how quickly workers will come back.

A third factor in inflationary periods of the past has been psychological: Businesses raise prices and workers demand higher wages because they’re convinced that other prices will go up. In other words, inflation becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. He doesn’t see evidence of this happening yet, but acknowledges that it could.

but you might want to think about this

Take a look at James Muldoon’s article “Regulating Big Tech is not enough. We need platform socialism.” I’m not sure how these specific ideas would work in practice, but I think we need to expand the universe of possible solutions to our social-media problem.

In practice, all participatory democracy processes — the daily hours-long open meetings of the Occupy movement being a prime example — run into the widespread desire for what I like to call Disneyland authoritarianism: Somebody should set things up so that I don’t have to worry about how anything works, and I don’t care if they exploit me a little as long as they also provide an enjoyable experience.

Disneyland authoritarianism works fine in a place like Disneyland, where management knows that you can easily walk out and never come back if you don’t like how you’re treated.

A lot of democratic-on-paper organizations end up running in a Disneyland authoritarian manner, because only a small group of people can be bothered to show up to decision-making meetings and man the bureaucracy. As long as the insider cabal keeps providing the services that the larger community expects and maintaining an acceptable level of quality, most people are content to fall into the role of customers rather than citizens. And that can be OK, as long as the processes are transparent and the cabal’s boundaries are permeable.

Small-town school boards are a good example. As long as local schools function at an acceptable level, most people can’t be bothered to participate, or even to vote in school-board elections. Democratic control exists mainly as a fail-safe, but that’s enough to keep authoritarian abuses at bay.

Disneyland authoritarianism becomes problematic when essential systems of everyday life depend on decisions made inside a Disneyland by a cabal that isn’t transparent or permeable. That’s the problem with social-media platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

In the beginning, free privately owned social media apps seemed like a good deal. We got to stay in touch with our friends, participate in communities of interest, and so on. Sure, they harvested our data and used it to target ads at us, but that seemed like a small price. If we didn’t like their online Disneylands, we could leave them and never come back.

But now we’ve gotten into a situation where democracy itself is strongly influenced by what happens inside social media platforms that are organized to maximize their owners’ profit. Disinformation and polarization are good for profits, but not for us as individuals, and not for our country or the world. But we can’t join the decision-making group, or even find out what they’re doing. And while we can walk away from the platforms themselves (at some cost to our ability to fully participate in society), we can’t isolate ourselves from their effect on our democratic systems.

and you also might be interested in …

A heart-breaking article about how conspiracy theorists hurt the very people they claim to help, like the children they are misguidedly trying to save from sex trafficking, as well as the actual sex-trafficking investigations they monkey-wrench.


For years we’ve been hearing about American airstrikes that go wrong and kill innocent people. This week the NYT published a series based on internal Pentagon assessments, claiming that

the American air war has been plagued by deeply flawed intelligence, rushed and imprecise targeting and the deaths of thousands of civilians, many of them children.

… Taken together, the 5,400 pages of records point to an institutional acceptance of civilian casualties. In the logic of the military, a strike was justifiable as long as the expected risk to civilians had been properly weighed against the military gain, and it had been approved up the chain of command.

The Pentagon records point to an official count of about 1,600 civilian deaths from airstrikes in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan since the official American ground war ended in Iraq in 2014. The Times’ estimate is much higher.


Christine Emba brings some common sense to the critical race theory disinformation campaign. Is math racist? Of course not. But the subject can be taught and its classes organized in racially biased ways.


Now we know what Putin’s sabre-rattling in Ukraine is about: He wants NATO to renounce expansion or other interference in what he imagines to be the Russian sphere of influence.


https://www.startribune.com/sack-cartoon-presidential-approval-ratings/600125549/

Bruce Springsteen’s half-billion-dollar deal with Sony induced the NYT to explain the new economics of the music business.


The intrepid war correspondents of Fox News are on the front lines as the War on Christmas enters its 17th year. CNN’s John Avalon looks back at the origins of this annual conflict. He interviews Alisyn Camerota, who is now with CNN, but was at Fox back in those early days of the War, when “marching orders” to give national 24/7 coverage to any local nativity-scene controversy “so that you begin to think it’s a national crisis” came down from Fox president Roger Ailes.

The turning of something that unifying, something that really should transcend partisan politics in every way, into something divisive that people can fixate on and feel fear about — that’s a real trick. And it’s also a sign of sickness, a sign of partisanship seeping into every element of our lives at the hands of people who are trying to gin up this anxiety.


The Sackler family had negotiated a sweet deal for itself: The family’s company, Purdue Pharma, would take full responsibility for its role in creating the opioid crisis, and then declare bankruptcy. That plan would generate $4 billion to pay out to victims, but shield the family from any further lawsuits, letting them walk away with their own billions intact.

But a federal judge threw that agreement out Thursday, saying that the New York bankruptcy court didn’t have the authority to offer the family that protection.

The Sackler family is the subject of the best-selling book Empire of Pain, and the HBO documentary The Crime of the Century.

and let’s close with something seasonal

Trust Stephen Colbert to remind us of what the Christmas season is really about: blockbuster movies. This year in particular marks the 20th anniversary of The Fellowship of the Ring, the first film in Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy. Colbert commemorates this milestone as they undoubtedly would in Rivendell, with rap.

Solemn Mockery

The legislature of a State cannot annul the judgments, nor determine the jurisdiction, of the courts of the United States. … If the legislatures of the several states may at will annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery, and the Nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals.

– Chief Justice John Marshall
United States v Peters (1809)
quoted by Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday
in Whole Women’s Health v Jackson

There is no featured post this week.

This week everybody was talking about threats to democracy

https://www.politico.com/cartoons/2021/12/03/2021-12-3-december-2021-000270?slide=1

The Biden administration hosted a virtual Summit for Democracy Friday and Saturday. The talks are available on the web site.

The event comes at a time when the US has been designated a “backsliding democracy” in the Global State of Democracy 2021 report by International IDEA.

The Global State of Democracy 2021 shows that more countries than ever are suffering from ‘democratic erosion’ (decline in democratic quality), including in established democracies. The number of countries undergoing ‘democratic backsliding’ (a more severe and deliberate kind of democratic erosion) has never been as high as in the last decade, and includes regional geopolitical and economic powers such as Brazil, India and the United States.

… Disputes about electoral outcomes are on the rise, including in established democracies. A historic turning point came in 2020–2021 when former President Donald Trump questioned the legitimacy of the 2020 election results in the United States. Baseless allegations of electoral fraud and related disinformation undermined fundamental trust in the electoral process, which culminated in the storming of the US Capitol building in January 2021.

That backsliding was highlighted in the week’s most important article “Trump’s Next Coup Has Already Begun” by Barton Gellman in Atlantic.

For more than a year now, with tacit and explicit support from their party’s national leaders, state Republican operatives have been building an apparatus of election theft. Elected officials in Arizona, Texas, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and other states have studied Donald Trump’s crusade to overturn the 2020 election. They have noted the points of failure and have taken concrete steps to avoid failure next time. Some of them have rewritten statutes to seize partisan control of decisions about which ballots to count and which to discard, which results to certify and which to reject. They are driving out or stripping power from election officials who refused to go along with the plot last November, aiming to replace them with exponents of the Big Lie. They are fine-tuning a legal argument that purports to allow state legislators to override the choice of the voters.

By way of foundation for all the rest, Trump and his party have convinced a dauntingly large number of Americans that the essential workings of democracy are corrupt, that made-up claims of fraud are true, that only cheating can thwart their victory at the polls, that tyranny has usurped their government, and that violence is a legitimate response.

Atlantic is hosting a virtual conversation about Gellman’s article today. A good companion to Gellman’s article is The Washington Post’s “18 Steps to a Democratic Breakdown“.


Meanwhile, we’re still learning more about Trump’s first coup attempt. Friday, Chris Hayes pulled together a narrative of Trump’s attempt to hold power after losing the 2020 election.

Both Hayes’ segment and Gellman’s article express a deep frustration at the story’s inability to grab public attention. Trump tried to overthrow American democracy and is setting up to try again. And yet, this doesn’t break through as a Watergate-level story that dominates the headlines day after day.

The response of each party is disappointing in its own way. By their complicity and silence, and sometimes by their active participation in Trump’s attempt to overthrow democracy, Republicans have let their party become the de facto party of autocracy. There are a few exceptions, but not many.

Because of their small majorities in Congress, Democrats have to be completely united to accomplish anything. So a few holdouts like Joe Manchin have prevented filibuster reform, which in turn has doomed any attempt to protect voting rights, limit gerrymandering, or put up any other resistance to the prospect of installing Trump (or some other MAGA Republican) against the will of the voters. The result is that, as a party, Democrats are not showing the urgency the situation requires.

CNN’s Zachary Wolf points out how this inability to act in the face of “existential threat” runs through multiple issues, including climate change.

https://www.ajc.com/opinion/mike-luckovich-blog/mike-luckovich-1210/THT5WBMSQNF43AQCDQYURQGWWE/

Among the documents Mark Meadows turned over to the House January 6 Committee (before he started stonewalling again) was a 36-slide Powerpoint presentation outlining how to overturn the 2020 election: “Election Fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 Jan”, which was presented to some Trump-allied senators and representatives on January 4.

Senators and members of Congress should first be briefed about foreign interference, the PowerPoint said, at which point Trump could declare a national emergency, declare all electronic voting invalid, and ask Congress to agree on a constitutionally acceptable remedy.

The PowerPoint also outlined three options for then vice-president Mike Pence to abuse his largely ceremonial role at the joint session of Congress on 6 January, when Biden was to be certified president, and unilaterally return Trump to the White House.

Apparently the “foreign interference” in the presentation’s title was a bizarre and unsupported-by-evidence claim that “the Chinese systematically gained control over our election system.”


The DC Circuit Court of Appeals rejected former President Trump’s attempt to block a subpoena by the January 6 Committee for documents from his administration now held in the US Archives. The 68-page decision concluded that

former President Trump has failed to satisfy any of [the] criteria for preliminary injunctive relief.

Namely: a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim, irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted, and advancing the public interest.

In short, confronting former President Trump’s claim of privilege is the hydraulic constitutional force of not only a reasoned decision by the President that a limited release is in the interests of the United States, and the uniquely compelling need of Congress for this information, but also this court’s “duty of care to ensure that we not needlessly disturb ‘the compromises and working arrangements that those [Political] branches themselves have reached.’” …

President Trump bears the burden of at least showing some weighty interest in continued confidentiality that could be capable of tipping the scales back in his favor … He offers instead only a grab-bag of objections that simply assert without elaboration his superior assessment of Executive Branch interests, insists that Congress and the Committee have no legitimate legislative interest in an attack on the Capitol, and impugns the motives of President Biden and the House. That falls far short of meeting his burden and makes it impossible for this court to find any likelihood of success.

The main problem with the suit is that Trump claims to be suing to preserve the interests of the Presidency, and that’s just not his job any more. This isn’t the legislative vs. executive branch conflict he frames it as. It’s a private citizen asking the judicial branch to undo an agreement between the legislative and executive branches.

The case looks headed for the Supreme Court, but I think the best the conservative majority can do for Trump is stall. He hasn’t given them a credible way to rule in his favor.

and the pandemic

The post-Thanksgiving surge continues. New cases are averaging 119K per day, up 43% in two weeks. Deaths are averaging 1298 per day, up 32%. The Midwest and Northeast continue to be hardest hit, though Kentucky and West Virginia are still among the leaders in deaths and hospitalizations per capita.

Meanwhile, the first information about vaccines and the Omicron variant started coming out. British and Israeli studies tell similar stories: Two doses of vaccine don’t provide much protection against Omicron, but three do.

Meanwhile, the UK reported its first Omicron death.


Meanwhile, misinformation and conspiracy theories don’t have to wait for data.


Michael Osterholm from the University of Minnesota predicted in April, 2020 that the US could see 800K deaths in the next year and a half, which is startlingly close to what has happened. It’s always hard to tell how much luck is involved in a prediction like that, but you do have to wonder what he’s saying now.

Here’s what I found interesting:

While it’s early, I believe that Omicron is less virulent than Delta. The variant is being studied in South Africa, which is important because the virus has been in that country longer than others. And we do know that hospitalizations, serious illness and deaths are lagging indicators. Rates often rise two to three weeks after rises in case numbers start to occur. But as of today, the epidemiologic and clinical data on Omicron cases around the world support this virus is less lethal than Delta.

… When we first investigated the Covid-19 vaccines, we had to prioritize the assessment of the safety of the vaccines, which was done well. But we never really understood how to best use the vaccine in terms of number of doses, dose spacing, even the dose amount to maximize our immune response both for the short and long-term. … [W]e do need that third dose — and not as a luxury dose, but the third dose of a three-dose prime series. It should have been three doses all along.

… [W]e keep hearing about technology transfer and giving [low-income] countries the ability to make their own vaccines, and yet the expertise needed to make these vaccines is really at a premium. It’s very difficult to find people who know how to do this. So, it’s not enough to transfer technology to a low-income country if you don’t provide the expertise to make these vaccines. It’s not as simple as making chicken soup.


Ridiculous claims of executive privilege are not just for coup plotters. Trump administration trade representative and Covid-adviser Peter Navarro is refusing to comply with a subpoena from the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis.

Navarro claims he is obeying a “direct order” from Private Citizen Donald Trump.

While he was in the government, Navarro was a font of misinformation about hydroxychloroquine and other snake-oil Covid cures, as well as calling Anthony Fauci the “father of the virus” based on a thinly supported conspiracy theory about a Wuhan lab.

and SB8

Supreme Court had another chance to rule on Texas’ vigilante-enforced anti-abortion law SB8.

The Supreme Court on Friday refused for a second time to block Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which bans abortions as early as six weeks into pregnancy, in what may seem like a misleading 8-1 vote in favor of abortion providers’ attempts to challenge the law.

The reason the 8-1 vote is misleading stems from the fact that the Court left open “a single tenuous route to challenging” SB8 while not only keeping intact the most restrictive anti-abortion law in the US, but also foreclosing relief against Texas state court officials and its attorney general. As one academic commentator from Florida State University remarked, “If you read the win for abortion providers here as some kind of positive sign in the Dobbs case, I think you’re deluding yourself.”

I confess that I haven’t read the Court’s ruling, but I make the link available in case you want to.

The Court was not ruling on the case itself, but on various motions: to dismiss the case, or to grant in injunction against enforcing the SB8 until a final decision on its constitutionality. It denied the injunction, and narrowed the scope of who the pro-choice plaintiffs can sue.

If you consider Roe v Wade a binding precedent (which it is until the Court reverses it), SB8 is clearly unconstitutional. But SB8 is designed to evade the federal courts, and by a 5-4 vote, the Court is doing nothing about that.

This evisceration of the Supreme Court’s authority does not sit well with Chief Justice Roberts (hence the quote at the top), but the five radical conservative justices on the Court now leave him on the outside looking in.


California Governor Gavin Newsom plans to strike back. If conservative states can nullify federal court rulings, so can liberal states:

If states can shield their laws from review by federal courts, then CA will use that authority to help protect lives. We will work to create the ability for private citizens to sue anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in CA.


A Texas judge is doing what the federal Supreme Court has refused to do: block the enforcement mechanism of SB8 because it violates the state constitution. The judge

ruled that the law unconstitutionally gave legal standing to people not injured, and was an “unlawful delegation of enforcement power to a private person.”

and commented:

In response to a direct question from this court, the attorneys responded that they are not aware of any comparable set of procedures in American law, ever, whether enacted for civil cases generally or for one special kind of lawsuit alone.


If you’re wondering what a religious takeover of government looks like, consider parts of India dominated by Hindu nationalists.

Citing complaints from Hindus as well as health concerns, local officials in Ahmedabad, Gujarat’s largest city, and at least four other cities in mid-November banned the sale and display of meat, fish and eggs on the street. As the mayor of one city, Rajkot, told the local news media: “Carts with nonvegetarian food can be seen everywhere in the city. The religious sentiments of the people are hurt by this.”

See? The religious nationalists are victims of those horrible egg-eaters and the vendors who serve them. They’re just fighting back.

and tornadoes

Tornadoes ripped through the center of the country late Friday and early Saturday, probably killing over 100 people, most of them in Kentucky.

Does global warming increase the number and force of tornadoes? Probably, but scientists are careful about stuff like that.

and you also might be interested in …

https://nickanderson.substack.com/p/the-sanctity-of-lifw

Weirdly, another Republican in Congress decided to celebrate the birthday of the Prince of Peace by posting a photo of her children with their military-style guns. Didn’t some guy once tell his followers to put their weapons away because “all who draw the sword will die by the sword”?

I am reminded of the John Pavlovitz column where he asks conservative Christians what Jesus they believe in, and concludes “It’s not any Jesus I know.”


As Fox News becomes the Tucker Carlson Channel, there is less and less place for anyone hoping to do real journalism. The network’s latest loss is Chris Wallace. He will join CNN’s new streaming service, CNN+.


Paul Krugman remarks on the strange disjunction between the economy and public opinion about the economy. Jobs are up, GDP is up, businesses are investing, retail sales are up, and the stock market is high. If you ask people how they are doing personally, they are upbeat. But if you ask them how the economy in general is doing, they say “not so good”. There’s some inflation (which is a global phenomenon), but does that really negate everything else?


Speaking of Mark Meadows (as I did above), I have never before heard an author refer to his own book as “fake news”. Trump objected to Meadows’ account of him testing positive for Covid and not telling the people around him, so Meadows backed down. Because the Truth is whatever Trump says it is.

Chris Christie, meanwhile, is pretty sure Trump gave him the Covid that sent him to the ICU.


There is now a unionized Starbucks. It’s in Buffalo.


Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, a popular Republican in a Democratic state, isn’t running for re-election or anything else next year.

Rather than try to rehabilitate the party he’s belonged to for decades, Baker chose to step aside. His move dovetails with the recent decisions of Chris Sununu of New Hampshire and Phil Scott of Vermont—two other Republicans who routinely poll among the most popular governors in the country—to spurn what could be competitive Senate races next year.

Baker-style Republicans are starting to recognize that they have no place in the Trump personality cult that the GOP has become. Why would they want to rise in a party where Trump can make you denounce your own book as “fake news”?


Derek Thompson in The Atlantic reflects on the decline in religious affiliation among Americans (especially young Americans), what caused it, and what it means going forward.

The main causes the article cites are (1) liberal disgust with the increasing identification between Christianity and conservative politics; and (2) America’s main enemy switching from the atheistic USSR to the hyper-religious Al Qaeda.

He also inverts the usual link between families and churches. It’s not that loss of religion undermines families, but that the loss of close family relationships undermines religion.

just as stable families make stable congregations, family instability can destabilize the Church. Divorced individuals, single parents, and children of divorce or single-parent households are all more likely to detach over time from their congregations.


A new product entered the market this week: eyedrops that temporarily fix age-related near-sightedness.

The new medicine takes effect in about 15 minutes, with one drop on each eye providing sharper vision for six to 10 hours, according to the company.

Hating eyedrops myself, I don’t see the win. But I guess other people do.


Gawker demonstrates the right way to publish an interview with someone who makes a lot of off-the-wall and unsupported claims. This interview is with RFK Jr., who was anti-vax before anti-vax was cool among the people who think it’s cool now. Kennedy’s words are published as he spoke them, but fact-checking and other needed contextual information is displayed just as prominently.

and let’s close with a different kind of merriment

If you’re about to OD on Christmas movies, maybe this collection of SNL Christmas-movie parodies will get you feeling like yourself again.