Going Long

So, how did we get here? Not because one party discovered a winning campaign slogan, a charismatic leader, or because of one presidential election. We arrived here because one political movement developed a deep understanding of how power operates within the American constitutional system.

– John F. Terzano, “The Long Game“

This week’s featured post is “Power is more than just votes.“

Ongoing stories

This week’s developments

This week everybody was talking about the Iran War

Early on, critics of the war in Iran pointed to the Trump regime’s lack of any definition of victory or plan to get there. The prevailing strategy (if you can call it that) seemed to be that if we just killed enough people and blew up enough stuff, good things would happen. Most media talking heads found this unconvincing. But even those who couldn’t see how we were going to win rarely raised the possibility that we might lose, or perhaps even were in the process of losing. Inside the MAGA echo chamber, that judgment is still viewed as heretical and perhaps even absurd. (How could we be losing? We’re still the stronger power. We can hurt them much more than they can hurt us.)

Little by little, though, the idea that the US was losing began to break through. Center-left pundits breathed a sigh of relief when the memorandum of understanding was signed: Perhaps it would provide a face-saving way for Trump to end hostilities while quietly accepting an outcome placing the US and its allies in a somewhat worse position than before the war started — which is what defeat really means.

But the vagueness in the MOU could not be resolved to both parties satisfaction, so once again missiles started flying and oil stopped flowing.

This time around, though, observers are being bolder in their assessments. Lately I’ve begun seeing not just admissions that Trump’s war is lost, but analyses of why and how it was lost. Military thinkers like Phillips O’Brien have been saying this for a while. But that boldness has now begun to filter out to closer-to-the-mainstream pundits like Paul Krugman.

Krugman starts with a simple point: The US has lost wars before: Vietnam, Afghanistan, and arguably Iraq. But this loss seems different: The main problem isn’t that the public is losing the will to keep fighting (though it is). This time there’s a real military reason to sue for peace: We’re running out of munitions — so much so that our ability to fulfill our other military commitments is in doubt.

He points to this chart from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which estimates that (even if we stop the war immediately) we won’t fully replenish our supply of Patriot missiles until 2029.

Imagine how you would look at that graph if you were Taiwan counting on the US to protect it from China, or our NATO ally Estonia evaluating a threat from Russia. Protect us with what? you might wonder.

The regime’s response to this observation is to divert attention from it.

The administration’s response to such reports, exemplified by recent remarks by Mike Waltz, the US ambassador to the United Nations, is that

· Munitions aren’t depleted

· Anyone leaking the fact that they are depleted should go to jail

· It’s Joe Biden’s fault

Given the nature of Trump-speak, Waltz’s statement is in effect an admission that the U.S. military is now in deep trouble.

Krugman goes on to wonder how that happened, and locates the problem in Trump’s fundamental unwillingness to face unpleasant facts, and his kill-the-messenger attitude when someone tries to make him do so: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth doesn’t want to tell Trump the bad news, the survivors of Hegseth’s purge of the top generals and admirals are unwilling to tell Hegseth the bad news, and so on down the line.

In nutshell, this is the same problem that Vladimir Putin has faced in Ukraine. He keeps making mistakes because he doesn’t get accurate information. And he keeps getting inaccurate information because he punishes people who try to make him recognize his past mistakes.

And there’s another resemblance between the Trump Pentagon and Putin’s military:

Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump began with an astonishingly stupid theory of war: the belief that performative masculinity is how you win. Hegseth literally believes that the secret of military might in an age of AI-enabled drones that can travel hundreds of miles is more testosterone. … [T]he fixed belief that “lethality” is how you win surely led to basic inability to anticipate the blindingly obvious: that we have a limited supply of sophisticated weapons and that the Iranians would close the Straits of Hormuz.

and Todd Blanche

Apparently Blanche has made a deal with Republican Senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis to save his nomination.

Acting US attorney general Todd Blanche issued a formal order late on Sunday terminating Donald Trump’s $1.8bn “anti-weaponization fund” to compensate his political allies, a move that follows weeks of negotiations with two Republican senators who were blocking his nomination to become attorney general.

Blanche has been claiming under oath that the fund was dead, but had refused until now to issue a formal order terminating it. President Trump still strongly supports the idea, so no one believed the fund wouldn’t revive again as soon as Blanche was approved.

The document released by Blanche on Sunday night also limits the scope of another provision of the settlement that provided broad immunity for Trump and members of his family from tax audits. It clarifies that the tax audit immunity agreement “applies only retroactively” to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect the president from examination of future tax filings.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, where Cornyn and Tillis both are members, will vote on Blanche’s nomination tomorrow.

The slush fund, which would reward Trump loyalists for beating up police officers on his behalf, was wildly unpopular and hasn’t been implemented. But Trump continues to insist that the slush fund is a great idea. He describes the violent January 6 thugs as

the great American Patriots who were hunted down like dogs and whose lives were unfairly and illegally destroyed by the Crooked Joe Biden Administration. … Perhaps there has never been a group of people treated so badly in our Nation’s history. They are suffering still, many ruined, and I felt that they should be given compensation for what has been done to them. … I will always feel that these victims of government abuse should be paid back for what they were forced to endure

So look for them to get taxpayer money somehow, and don’t be surprised when Blanche cooperates.

But I will be surprised if Blanche cooperates with anybody trying to bring Epstein conspirators to justice. New Mexico is investigating what happened at Epstein’s Zorro Ranch near Santa Fe. But DoJ has not responded to state investigators’ request for documents. Probably they’ll have to sue.

and the climate

Alexander Hurst sees the French and Spanish wildfires as the result to environmental warfare by the United States, which is doing its worst to undermine the fight against climate change. The EU, he says, should retaliate economically.

there is something additional of consequence that we can do: use the power of the single market to make the world’s worst ecological actor change course, or at least make it pay to fund the global effort to adapt to the climate crisis. … Let’s extend the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) carbon market to all sectors, beef up the “carbon border tax” to protect against retaliation, slap tariffs on finished goods and services from the US that have easy substitutes and place export taxes on materials and intermediate components used in US-located production. All that cash could then be pooled, shared and earmarked for decarbonisation and adaptation.

and the Michigan Senate race

Abdul El-Sayed appears to have a commanding lead going into tomorrow’s primary. He’s supposed to be one of the “socialist” candidates (though he denies the label), while competitor Haley Stevens is the candidate of the Democratic establishment. So the usual “centrist” or “moderate” voices in the party are freaking out.

I’m not seeing it. Like any candidate, El-Sayed’s statements can be cherry-picked for something that sounds radical, but when I listen to longer clips I don’t get that vibe from him. El-Sayed is a Muslim, a child of immigrants from Egypt, and a critic of the Israeli war crimes in Gaza, while Stevens is backed by AIPAC, so some combination of Islamophobia and antisemitism is in the air, though the candidates haven’t explicitly invoked it.

If El-Sayed does win, especially if he wins by a large margin, look for pundits to go wild about the socialist takeover of the Democratic Party. But I think Vox’ Astead Herndon has the better frame: It’s not the left rising. It’s the center falling.

If you ask people what people like Bernie Sanders stand for, they’ll tell you about Medicare for All and free college and all sorts of things. But mainstream Democrats seem (as Herndon says) “rudderless”. They’re not Trump, but what are they?

I don’t think the Democratic base agrees with every position articulated by successful left-wing candidates — like “all deportations are wrong” (as NYC’s Darializa Avila Chevalier told me) — or have suddenly become committed democratic socialists. But I do think the left is on the right side of the gateway issues the base is currently prioritizing: a working-class-led affordability agenda, a skepticism of artificial intelligence, and a moral opposition to President Donald Trump’s war against Iran and to Israel’s campaigns of violence in Lebanon and Gaza. Those issues, more than any others, have defined the Democratic Party’s internal battles since 2024. …

Stevens, [Rep. James] Clyburn, and the party’s leadership would prefer to make this a referendum on the left — on the acceptability of its candidates and its media figures. But the base is communicating something else: a lack of confidence in the center, and in a version of establishment politics that prizes seniority and loyalty over voters’ values. Establishment collapse also explains the Democratic results that don’t fit neatly on the moderate vs. progressive binary: like Attorney General Phil Weiser’s victory in Colorado or whatever is happening in the Wisconsin governor’s race.

As I explained a few weeks ago, we’re not talking about adopting a whole new economic system. We’re just arguing about where to draw the line between the public and private sectors.

Here’s the funny thing: After all the scare-talk about “Communists”, it’s the Trump administration that wants to own the means of production.

Critics of the Democratic Party keep telling us that nobody cares about democracy issues, and that instead the party’s focus needs to be on affordability and other kitchen-table issues. Here, Pete Buttigieg shows how you make the connection:

Gerrymandering lets politicians choose their voters instead of the other way around. Until we end that, it will remain difficult to achieve the things most Americans already agree on: higher wages, lower household expenses, and better services that become possible when billionaires start paying their fair share in taxes.

Back in 2000, John McCain came from nowhere (polling below the margin of error) to be George W. Bush’s main challenger in the Republican primaries. He did it by framing his central issue — campaign finance reform — exactly like that: No matter what you want out of our government, you won’t be able to get it if we lose democracy.

and you also might be interested in …

Felony charges against former Olympian David Hearn have been dropped.

Review: Trump’s made a sweetheart deal with a contractor to renovate the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. The contractor screwed up, resulting in the pool lining peeling. Because Trump can’t take responsibility for even the smallest mistake, he needed to blame someone else. So he announced that the pool had been vandalized. Under intense pressure to find a vandal, US Attorney Janet Pirro indicted Hearn.

Friday, Pirro dropped the case, citing new information that she got from the Interior Department about — wait for it — “flawed installation by the contractor”. Pirro, a former Fox News host, is one of the most subservient US attorneys out there, but even she realized she could not go to court with the case she had.

Trump, of course, still is having none of it.

To me, it was a pure case of VANDALISM, that included the grass, which had a big 86 47 emblazoned in giant letters on it, and other elements of the surrounding area. There may have been some contractor difficulty, but the major damage was caused by VANDALS!

The Guardian tells the whole sad and sordid story from the beginning.

Luis Andrade was brought to the US when he was three, and became valedictorian of his 2024 high school class before entering TCU. He has now been deported to El Salvador.

Another way that ICE detention centers resemble concentration camps: ICE doctors have force-fed at least 10 detainees on hunger strikes.

Forcing medical procedures on detained hunger strikers is seen as torture by many human rights groups and medical organizations. According to medical ethicist Dr Matthew Wynia, the director of the center for bioethics and humanities at the University of Colorado, medical staff follow a code of ethics that respects patients’ bodily autonomy. … “The idea of health professionals serving as agents of the state, rather than protectors of our patients, has a notorious history. And for the medical profession, we really don’t want to go down that path again,” Wynia added.

Back in March, ICE released a Haitian immigrant with mental-health issues. She was wearing summer clothes in Pittsburgh with temperatures in the 20s. She froze to death at a bus stop. Her family is now suing.

Not sure what to do with this factoid: Organic eggs from free-range hens have roughly twice the carbon footprint of factory-farm eggs. That sounds bad, but then you get to the reason why:

This is because organic free-range models need more chickens for the same number of eggs produced, as birds living in cages tend to be more efficient.

The frame here is that we’re looking at living beings purely as factors of production. So this living being is less efficient than that living being. That attitude seems to me to be a big part of the problem. I can imagine a similar study pointing out the virtues of using slaves for farm labor.

The article goes on to note that the organic eggs might be better for the environment in other ways, like pesticide toxicity and biodiversity. Also, the study was based on data from 2009-2010, so it would not account for more recent changes in organic chicken-raising.

Steve Benen on Maddowblog examines a White House claim that Trump “does not bluff” and finds the exact opposite to be true.

The bottom line is unsettling but simple: The incumbent president often just … says stuff. Maybe he intends to do what he says, maybe he just enjoys making declarations that sound good in his mind, or maybe he tries to follow through but can’t find lawyers willing to go along with his weird schemes.

Given this context, I’m amazed how often Trump gets quoted in the media, and even moves markets with his meaningless words. I am reminded of a Shakespearian insult I recent heard repeated:

I wonder that you will still be talking, Signior Benedick, nobody marks you.

and let’s close with something astronomical

So we’ve all seen sunrise and moonrise, and you’ve probably seen video astronauts have made of the Earth rising over the Moon. Well, this is like that, but rarer: Here’s a video of Saturn rising over the Moon, taken through a ground-based telescope.

August 3, 2026 – 12:24 pm Categories: Weekly summaries | Comments (6)

Power is more than just votes

Good short- and medium-term political news has emboldened some writers to remind us of the longer-term bad news.

The good news is that polls for the fall elections keep looking better. The unpopular and unpromising Iran War, Trump’s tariffs, the continuing inflation that the war and the tariffs make worse, ICE’s repeated acts of unjustified and illegal violence, the regime’s increasingly blatant corruption, the undying plan to reward Trump’s January 6 cop-beaters, and the Mad King’s obsession with his past defeats and continuing vanity projects (ballroom, arch, reflecting pool, coin, and putting his name on train stations, airports, bridges, investment accounts, drug plans, a peace institute, and a performance space) that do nothing to improve voters’ lives — it’s starting to add up.

Trump’s approval rating is at its lowest point ever — lower than after January 6, even. Quinnipiac has him at 32% approval versus 58% disapproval, which includes 52% strong disapproval. (Strong disapproval over 50% seems to be exceedingly rare. Nixon appears to have topped out at 48% strong disapproval, while George W. Bush hit 51%. Trump may be setting records here, with strong disapproval like nobody has ever seen before.) And that’s transferring to Republican candidates: The Democratic lead in the generic congressional poll is now at 11% in the Emerson College poll, which is a bit of an outlier. But every major recent poll has Democrats up at least 2%, with an average of 6.4%.

Polls about individual issues have Trump underwater across the board. And what seems likely to turn around between now and November? Will he win the Iran War? Wow us with some completed vanity project that makes us forget our problems? More likely, low-information voters who generally have liked Trump in the past will start to tune in before the election and say, “What? Is that still a problem? He’s in favor of what? He made how much money since getting elected again?”

Of course polling isn’t perfect and things can always change, but I’m finding this convincing: The fall elections are looking good.

So what’s looking bad? Money, to start with. Elon Musk by himself spent over $300 million to elect Republicans (mostly Trump) in 2024, and that turned out to be a profitable investment. He bought himself new government contracts, massive quantities of government data about people like you, and protection against government investigations. He’s talking about spending $100 million this fall, and that’s probably a lowball estimate.

Now, maybe he’ll waste all that money, the way he wasted $21 million on a Wisconsin Supreme Court race that his candidate lost by double digits. In that race, Musk himself campaigned, and his money became an issue that worked against his candidate.

But what if he’s smarter this time around? He says he’s funding get-out-the-vote efforts. What if those efforts include making deep-fake videos of Democratic candidates and distributing them via targeted social-media advertising? This fall, you may not even know the lies that motivate your neighbor to get out and vote Republican.

But the long-term bad news runs deeper than that, as articles by John F. Terzano and Jason Sattler point out. Basically, they are two points of view on the same unsettling story: Over decades, conservatives have built a political, legal, intellectual, and media infrastructure that is well suited to the way power actually works in the United States. That integrated power-seeking and power-wielding system can survive one or two bad elections and quickly re-assert itself. Terzano sums up what began happening after Barry Goldwater’s landslide loss to Lyndon Johnson in 1964:

Conservatives learned to focus on something much larger than just presidential elections: the institutions that develop and preserve ideas, cultivate future leaders, and sustain political movements across generations. That requires the long-term work of building power from the ground up. It requires discipline, persistence, and a willingness to invest in institutions whose greatest influence may not be realized for decades.

An example of how this now works is the way the Right bounced back from the disasters of the second Bush administration. By the time he left office, George W. Bush had over-50% strong disapproval, just like Trump does. The combination of unwinnable wars and the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression led his party to massive defeats in 2006 and 2008. By the time Obama took office in 2009, he had not just a landslide victory himself, but a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority in the Senate (though Republican legal shenanigans prevented the 60th senator from taking office until the next summer; Obama’s filibuster protection only lasted until Democrats lost Ted Kennedy’s seat the next January).

After that, you might have expected the GOP to spend a couple of election cycles soul-searching and remaking itself, perhaps looking for its own Obama. Instead, it rebranded almost instantly in the Tea Party. Republicans flipped 63 seats in the House in 2010, taking a majority that Obama had to deal with for the rest of his presidency. Almost instantly, the party of tax-cuts-for-the-rich (that didn’t change) had new faces, new slogans, and zero responsibility for anything W had done.

During his brief season of living beyond the reach of the filibuster, Obama did not transform the country or create a new political paradigm. By 2016, Trump represented the rebellion against Bushism (though he still wanted to cut rich people’s taxes). He likewise proved horribly unpopular and lost resoundingly in 2020, ending his term with a failed coup that should have sent him to jail.

But again, the GOP turned on a dime. Trump was back in 2024 and had a clear plan — Project 2025 — for the march towards autocracy that we are seeing now.

More than just elections, conservatives have managed to rewrite the Constitution without anyone voting for the changes. A combination of luck and political hardball has given them a radically partisan 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, despite holding the presidency for about the same amount of time as Democrats since 1992 — and only because their candidates won in 2000 and 2016 with fewer votes than their Democratic opponents.

Repealing Roe v Wade happened with much political attention. But consider these other constitutional rewrites:

  • The unitary executive theory, which was a fringe idea prior to the 1980s, is now in the Constitution. So all the independent agencies Congress created over the decades have lost their independence, and civil service protections are now suspect.
  • Presidential immunity is in the Constitution now.
  • Political contributions are now a form of speech, so virtually any limit on money in politics is now unconstitutional. And corporations have the same freedom of political speech that you do.
  • The “well regulated militia” clause of the Second Amendment is now meaningless, and the Amendment defines an individual right that did not exist prior to 2008.
  • Virtually every provision of the Voting Rights Act is now unenforceable.
  • The insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment is now meaningless.

Amending the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote in Congress and ratification from 3/4 of the states. Do you remember any of that happening with these changes?

Sattler focuses on the media empire the Right has built, with its ability to create new narratives and new issues in virtually no time at all. Everyone understands the role Fox News plays, but most of us don’t appreciate the breadth of the right-wing media machine: Elon Musk’s X is now rigged to promote and distribute right-wing hate while disclaiming any responsibility for it; Meta is becoming a slightly-less-toxic version of X; CBS is remaking itself as a slightly-less-explicit version of Fox; Sinclair puts national messages into the mouths of local broadcasters, as if they thought of this themselves; AM talk radio has not changed since the Rush Limbaugh era; and social media is seeded with small-scale right-wing influencers, some of whom grow into national brands themselves. This combination of diversity and integration allows for experimentation with different messages and framing, together with quick coalescing around whichever new thing works.

The media machine explains how Ken Paxton can ride out his scandals while Graham Platner could not; how “issues” from Obama’s birth certificate to illegal-immigrants-voting can be created from nothing; why the small-scale corruption of Hunter Biden was a much bigger story than the large-scale corruption of Eric and Don Jr.; and so on.

Terzano focuses more on the institutional structure of organizations like the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. Democrats can manage to fund candidates once they begin to catch on, the way James Talerico is raising money now or Bernie Sanders did for his presidential runs. But Republicans have the political equivalent of venture capital: Money is waiting around for start-ups it can fund, like Moms for Liberty, Turning Point USA, or the early Tea Party groups. If you are a conservative with a promising idea, you will not go begging.

The number and wealth of conservative organizations provides career paths that young liberals can only dream about. Young conservative journalists, lawyers, influencers, activists, or candidates are groomed and tracked in ways that liberals are not. (Believe me, I’ve watched young liberal political science graduates try to navigate their sparse options.)

Ideas change minds; institutions change history. This became a defining tenet of the modern conservative movement. Leadership pipelines ensure that today’s school board member becomes tomorrow’s legislator, who becomes governor or attorney general. Today’s young lawyer becomes tomorrow’s appellate judge, and someday a Supreme Court justice.

The upshot of all this is that pro-democracy forces can’t relax, even if they retake Congress this fall and the presidency in 2028. The movement that made Donald Trump and John Roberts and Paul Ryan and Charlie Kirk will not be defeated so easily. There will be new faces, new slogans, and new issues almost immediately. And the right-wing media empire will scoff at the idea that any of these new voices should have to answer for the mistakes and crimes of Donald Trump. They will suddenly discover that Trump, like W before him, was never really a conservative. The new voices will be the true conservatives, the authentic representatives of the great American people.

And they’ll still be cutting billionaires’ taxes.

August 3, 2026 – 10:36 am Categories: Articles | Comments (7)

Tagged , |

The Monday Morning Teaser

Polls for the fall election are looking good. Trump is unpopular and Democrats have a sizeable lead in the generic congressional ballot. At the moment, they’re even winning Senate races in states where they shouldn’t, like Texas. It’s now easy to imagine a Democratic House majority next year, and maybe even a Senate majority too. Replacing Trump with a Democrat in 2028 seems more and more likely. The bullet of authoritarianism may only graze us this time.

But this week I paid attention to articles wondering about next time. We thought we had dodged the bullet when we beat Trump in 2020, but somehow that victory didn’t stick. Will this one (if we achieve it) stick? Or will we be right back with a new fascist threat in 2032 or even sooner? Why do Republicans bounce back from defeat faster than Democrats? And why does each rebranding move further out, rather than returning to the center?

The answer is that the conservative movement has an institutional infrastructure powered by patient money. Those institutions will still be in place after Trump is gone, and the money that powers them will be even more motivated. Advocates of democracy need to understand this and prepare to deal with it. That’s the subject of the featured post “Power is more than just votes”, which I hope to get out around 10:30 EDT.

The weekly summary will talk about the war, Todd Blanche’s nomination, this summer’s climate-related wildfires, tomorrow’s Senate primary in Michigan, the demise of the reflecting-pool-vandalism case, and a few other things. I’ll try to get that out between noon and 1.

August 3, 2026 – 8:46 am Categories: Morning tease | Comments (1)

Left of what?

People [are] calling us the “far left” and we are literally just out here talking about funding public schools and keeping hospitals open and paving roads.

– Jess Piper

There is no featured post this week.

Ongoing stories

  • Trump’s assault on American democracy. This week’s primary target was the free press. Fortunately, federal judges still believe in the First Amendment.
  • Climate change. This summer continues to set heat records. Next summer should be worse.
  • Iran. Are we entering a new round of escalation or a new round of peace talks? Signals are mixed. But nothing we’re seeing indicates that the conflict will be resolved soon.
  • Ukraine. Ukraine has begun attacking Wildberries warehouses in Russia. Wildberries is said to be “Russia’s Amazon”, a big online shopping site. There may be military equipment passing through its warehouses, but mainly this looks like a way to bring the war home to Russian consumers.

This week’s developments

This week everybody was talking about the war with no end in sight

We’ve been getting signals in both directions recently. On the one hand, there are anonymous-source reports that Trump is getting increasingly frustrated with Iranian leadership and going into “revenge mode”.

he has told people that he thinks he can break the Iranians’ will through an aggressive bombing campaign, according to a person familiar with his views.

On the other hand, we’ve had a few days of both sides pausing their attacks while they see if new talks can be started.

I find Josh Marshall’s take insightful. Trump’s frustration, according to the WSJ link above, is that he “keeps making deals with them that they simply break”.

But this whole set of claims is a fantasy. Trump has never had any agreements or deals with the Iranians. What he’s had is a series of notional ceasefires in which nothing of substance or consequence is actually agreed to … But since these ceasefires are only “deals” to begin negotiations the actual war aims and demands of each side eventually seep through. Then they go back to fighting.

The underlying problem is that

Trump lost this conflict in its first days. Everything since then has been his struggle to deny that reality, either with bogus “deals,” more bombing or various threats. … Effective war diplomacy can get you the best and most creative agreement that the circumstances warrant. But that last part is key. Kickass diplomacy is never going to get the side that won the conflict to agree to a deal in which they lost.

Of course it is hard for Trump or his cult followers to fathom how anyone can say he “lost this conflict”, because the US can destroy things and kill people at much higher rates than the Iranians can. (That’s been true since the first days of the war, and it’s still true.) But the victory conditions here are asymmetric. The US wants concessions from Iran: that they stop supporting regional terrorism, developing nuclear weapons, and threatening shipping in the Persian Gulf. But all the destruction we’ve been able to rain down on them has not forced them to give in, and there is little prospect that it ever will. If the war ends without those concessions, the US has lost — even if we’ve knocked down every structure in Iran and killed 10,000 Iranians for every American death.

An analogy might help: Imagine you’re a parent who is trying to force a child to eat the vegetables you’ve put on his plate. You have it in your power to yell at him, send him to bed hungry, take away his favorite toy, or even beat him in ways that would put you in jail if anybody found out. The child can do none of this to you. But as long as he’s not eating the vegetables, you’re losing.

The worse the Iranian conflict is going, the less the Trump regime wants the American people to know. CNN lays out Pete Hegseth’s efforts to “control information, limit access and avoid difficult questions about the war”.

The Pentagon hasn’t held a press briefing in two and a half months. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth hasn’t explained the military strategy behind the renewed air strikes. His department hasn’t revealed the circumstances that led to the recent deaths of US service members. … In response to CNN’s request for comment about the press briefing drought, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman Sean Parnell said the U.S. government “has consistently provided comprehensive, real-time updates” on the strikes in Iran.

But “updates” are simply releases stating what the Pentagon wants the public to know. They avoid any interaction where the official accounts might be questioned. Without any official comments on key issues, reporters have been seeking out anonymous sources, which Hegseth is also trying to shut down.

So far, though, Hegseth has not figured out a way to avoid facing questions in Congress, as he did Tuesday before the Senate Appropriations Committee. (At least for now, Congress still controls the money he needs to fight his war. The regime is asking for $87 billion in supplemental spending over and above this year’s budget. $67 billion is related to the war.) But while he can’t avoid facing questions, he doesn’t have to answer them. In this interaction with Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia, he just shouts over Ossoff and keeps repeating the same unresponsive talking points.

Somehow, the “historic military victory” Hegseth described four months ago, which will leave the Iranian military “combat-ineffective for years to come”, hasn’t stopped the Iranians from continuing to kill American soldiers, intimidate ships from using the Strait of Hormuz, and terrorize our allies in the region. Hegseth refused to acknowledge the cognitive dissonance there.

I’m not sure who said it first, but numerous people have responded to Hegseth pushing a “Spartan mindset” in the Pentagon with: Maybe that’s why we’re losing to the Persians.

When the war started, many economists predicted oil prices would soar much higher than they did. Paul Krugman explains one reason they didn’t: Ukraine’s missile campaign against Russia’s refineries has noticeably lowered the world’s oil-refining capacity. Why buy oil, Krugman asks, when you can’t refine it?

But the shortage appears on the other side of the refineries: the market for gasoline, diesel and so on. The “crack spread” is the difference between the price of a barrel of oil and the price of the various products refined from that barrel. That spread has risen from $25 to $65.

From the point of view of end users, this is the same as if crude prices had risen an extra $40 per barrel. In effect, the world is coping with the equivalent of $140 oil even though the headline price is “only” around $100.

Meanwhile, who knows what’s going on with Saudi Arabia? Wednesday, the Trump regime announced a deal that would give the Saudis the kind of pre-nuclear-weapon capabilities we’re trying to destroy in Iran. It’s the kind of historically dumb idea that only a man deeply in the pocket of the kingdom could love.

Then after the deal was signed, Trump added a condition: The Saudis have to join the Abraham Accords that normalize relationships between Israel and other Arabian countries. That’s probably a deal-breaker for the Saudis. Stay tuned.

and the environment

The science journal Nature reports:

The El Niño climate pattern that is strengthening in the Pacific Ocean is on track to be the largest one in at least 150 years, researchers said today during a press briefing. If the monster forecasts they presented pan out, the surge of heat that the El Niño will unleash from the ocean, combined with warming from human-caused climate change, will probably make next year the hottest on record — and cue up extreme weather in many parts of the world.

Another distinguished journal, Science, has stopped pulling its punches.

When I talk to people about [science funding] (and that includes some journalists as well) and say what I’m about to at the end of this paragraph I am sometimes met with disbelief. But I mean what I say and I am trying my best to say what I mean: The Trump administration hates academic science funding, full stop. They hate where that money goes, and they hate who it goes to. They want to keep all that money for themselves, to hand out to favored cronies who can help them get elected and to steer yet more money and more power back into their hands.

That’s it. That’s the story. They are naturally not putting it in those words, but instead talking about “gold standard science” and the “reproducibility crisis” and funding “bold inquiry” for “transformational breakthroughs”. This is all bullshit, and it’s important to realize that. Shameless hand-waving bullshit, delivered in a how-dare-you-think-otherwise manner is the defining style of the entire Trump administration. You can see it in every appointee, in every part of the executive branch, and in the pronouncements of all of Trump’s supporters. I realize that this is a simple heuristic to apply, and a very unambiguous and unflattering one, but I find it to be all too useful and all too accurate. Give it a try.

Wildfires in France and Spain have forced 300K people to evacuate. AFP:

According to the Gironde fire service, the blaze generated a rare “pyrocumulonimbus” cloud, creating its own winds and whirlwinds and making it “erratic and unmanageable”, firefighter Captain Nicolas Braz told AFP.

Trump is back to his absurd fantasy that forests can or should be “managed” by clearing away leaves and other debris. Canada’s wildfires are in inaccessible boreal forests that cover nearly half the country’s land. They’re burning because of the global warming that Trump denies, and not because Canadians should be out there with rakes and leaf blowers.

Laws against tampering with your vehicles emission-monitoring sensors? Ignore them, the government is.

and ICE

More than 300K Haitian refugees are losing their legal status today. ICE is gearing up for major round-ups, particularly in cities like Springfield, Ohio — site of the infamous dog-and-cat-eating hoax that J. D. Vance pushed during 2024 campaign.

After an ICE agent killed Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine earlier this month, it came out that the agent had a history of violent behavior, including domestic violence. It turns out that’s not unusual. If you’re looking for a gun-carrying job in immigration enforcement, violent thuggery doesn’t seem to be a deal-breaker. Mother Jones reports:

On July 22, the advocacy group Ohio Immigrant Alliance released a list of 59 active and former ICE and CBP agents charged with sexual and violent crimes between 2007 and 2026.

Around the time Trump sent the National Guard to DC, he also sent it to Memphis. That hasn’t attracted as much attention because (unlike California Governor Newsom or Illinois Governor Pritzker) Tennessee’s Republican Governor Bill Lee welcomed the troops — despite the fact that crime in Memphis was already at 25-year low.

Now it turns out that crime was a pretext and the National Guard served as a Trojan horse. They were accompanied by an influx of agents from federal agencies, who are mainly engaging in an immigration crackdown. The immigrant community in Memphis is just as terrorized as the ones in Minneapolis or Los Angeles were, but they are getting little attention.

and tariffs

Trump loves tariffs, so he keeps imposing them. The rationale for why he has the power to do so keeps changing. As one source of authority is denied by the courts, he moves on to another.

Here’s the latest power grab:

Levied under a statute called Section 301, the administration has said these new tariffs are designed to target countries that have not effectively banned forced labor from their supply chains.

OK, what countries would that be? 80 of them, it turns out, including such famous slave nations as Canada and the UK. They all get tariffs between 10% and 12%.

It’s a sham.

And then there are special tariffs against Canada — up to 50% “covering products ranging from wine to hockey sticks to cement”. Neither liberal Paul Krugman nor conservative National Review can find a point.

For decades, people have criticized tariffs by comparing them to the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930, which is widely blamed for helping turn the 1929 stock market crash into a global Great Depression. Well, the legal authorization Trump is pointing to for his authority is precisely Smoot-Hawley, which was never formally repealed.

Krugman says the new tariffs will have little immediate economic impact

But the auto industry, like business in general, has been put on notice that the huge flows of goods and services that cross those borders every day may be cut off whenever Trump has a temper tantrum. And this really is a temper tantrum, in the sense that there’s no strategy here. The new tariffs will hurt American consumers, and nobody expects them to extract any concessions from Canadians who are only getting more outraged at the United States.

National Review asks Congress to take its power back.

More broadly, this episode only reinforces our conviction that, despite the best efforts of the Supreme Court, the current state of the law still gives the president too much latitude to turn tariffs into his playthings. That has to stop. A tariff is a tax. Taxation is, under the Constitution, a matter for Congress. When it comes to tariffs, Congress must do its constitutional duty, reverse the excessive delegation of its powers to the executive, and take back control.

This is precisely what Trump loves about tariffs: He gets to impose them like a dictator, without consulting Congress. Whenever he’s feeling impotent in the world — as he must be now, given his low poll numbers and how ineffectual his bombardment of Iran has been — decreeing some new tariff makes him feel powerful again.

But there’s a bigger issue here: For more than a century, Canada has been America’s best friend in the world. Countries have got to wonder why they should want to be America’s friend these days. And why should they negotiate agreements with Trump, when he’ll break them the next time he’s jonesing for a power rush?

and Elon’s crashing companies

It’s possible that recent weeks have marked the beginning of the Musk crash I’ve been anticipating for a very long time. SpaceX stock has lost about half its value in the last few weeks, going from $225 on June 15 and $129 on Tuesday to $111 this morning. Meanwhile Tesla is down to $308 a share from a peak of nearly $500 in December and $380 on Tuesday.

But the mystery isn’t why those stocks have gone down, but why they’re still this high. Elon Musk has a history of announcing grand plans that don’t come to fruition, or at least don’t come to fruition in anything like the time scale he predicted — robotaxis by 2020, humans landing on Mars by 2024, fully autonomous Teslas by “next year” every year since 2018. And yet somehow, the stock market keeps pricing his companies as if the things he predicts might actually happen reasonably soon.

Brad DeLong looks at Tesla, which he describes as “a $50 billion company wearing a $1.2 Trillion magical rainbow unicorn costume”. He provides this chart showing Tesla’s flat revenue stream and declining earnings.

And yet Tesla’s stock is priced like like a company growing by leaps and bounds, at 280 times earnings. (Another car company, Toyota, is at 10 times earnings. A company that actually is growing rapidly, Nvidia, is at 30 times earnings.) Why? Well, the Morningstar rating service explains in a behind-a-paywall report:

  • Tesla has the potential to disrupt multiple industries with its technology for [electric vehicles], [autonomous vehicles], batteries, and humanoid robots.
  • Tesla’s full self-driving software should generate growing profits in the coming years as the technology continues to improve, leading to a robotaxi service and increased adoption by Tesla drivers.
  • Tesla’s humanoid robot will create shareholder value as its ability to perform multiple functions will transform manufacturing and be useful to consumers.

The word “potential” does a lot of work in that analysis. It embodies the assumption that all the promises Musk has made are worth hard cash.

Even more than Tesla, SpaceX is a “magical rainbow unicorn” company. Even Morningstar sounds skeptical:

Loyal holders of companies run by Elon Musk have a very long time horizon and are often willing to look past interim milestones toward the prospects of big bets on moonshot projects and the grander vision on the horizon.

But somebody has to keep putting up money to cover those “big bets”.

SpaceX faces an average annual cash burn of $84 billion through 2034, according to Morgan Stanley, which does not expect positive free cash flow until 2035.

That means SpaceX requires a constant stream of new investors (or old investors willing to double down on their bets) for nearly the next decade. If those investors fail to appear, the magical unicorn will never arrive.

Tempting as it may be in this case, I’ve never sold a stock short, and I’m not recommending you do either, because there’s no predicting how long it will take investors to wise up. As John Maynard Keynes said:

You need to keep in mind that the stock market can remain irrational a lot longer than you can remain solvent.

Bloomberg’s Bethany Benjamin observes that when you measure sales expectations against actual sales, Tesla’s Cybertruck was a bigger marketing disaster than Ford’s Edsel.

and you also might be interested in …

NPR reviews the current state of the midterm race to control the Senate.

In Maine, Troy Jackson has replaced Graham Platner as Susan Collins’ opponent. There seems to have been little rancor in the convention that chose him, which is impressive given the circumstances. After it became clear Jackson would be nominated, all his rivals stepped aside. The final vote was 566-5.

Here’s a chunk of his acceptance speech:

For nearly 30 years, Collins has told Maine that she is “concerned”. She was concerned while she rubber-stamped Trump’s Medicaid cuts and gutted our healthcare. She was concerned when she cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy, concerned when she confirmed justices who overturned Roe v. Wade. And really tragically, she was concerned when she gave ICE billions to terrorize our neighbors and murder people in the streets with no accountability.

But concern does not lower the costs of groceries or gas. Concern does not keep our maternity wards of rural hospitals like down in Lincoln County open. Concern does not restore all the rights that she’s taken away. Maine does not need another six years of concern. We need someone with courage. We need a fighter, and we need a senator who remembers exactly who sent them to Washington, which is you.

South Carolina will be the first Democratic primary in the 2028 cycle, followed by Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan and Virginia

Trump’s war against the “woke” Smithsonian continues. On July 4, the White House released a report on the Smithsonian’s “ideological capture” by social-justice activists. The Organization of American Historians wasn’t impressed.

“Saving America’s Story” is part of a broad attempt to return the nation to a vision of America that never actually existed and that serves the ends of superficial patriotism. The White House seeks to impose a narrow, singular, and celebratory narrative of American greatness populated by a mythologized set of heroes. Crucially, the proposed narrative would erase the conflict, struggle, and diversity—the complexity—that have always defined the American experience. The report insists that history itself is essentially, for Americans, a special and providential story of triumph.

Friday, Trump followed up with an executive order.

The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service (NPS) and in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, shall install temporary signage along the NPS-maintained sidewalks and walkways used by the public to access the Museum, informing visitors of the findings of the Report and of the policy set forth in section 1 of this order. Such signage shall notify visitors that the Museum exhibits should be renovated consistent with the findings in the Report and direct visitors to locations and resources for accurate information regarding America’s history.

This is supposed to “restore trust” in the Smithsonian.

That’s typical Trumpian NewSpeak. He “restores trust” in an institution — the Smithsonian, our elections — by making up lies about how hopelessly corrupted they are. Surely no one has done more to erode trust in America than Trump himself.

I hope visitors to the National Mall find appropriate ways to deface these propaganda signs and/or ridicule them on social media.

Megan McArdle (my WaPo subscription hasn’t quite run out yet) isn’t someone I usually agree with. But in this column, she segues from the new Odyssey movie to the widespread tendency to become pointlessly enraged by cultural incidents that don’t really affect the lives of anyone you may care about. She arrives at this wise point:

However soothing it feels in the moment, all this manufactured fury is stealing our real lives, bit by bit. The high wears off, the internet mob dissipates and there we are, exactly as lonely or frustrated or sad as we were before. Meanwhile, we have not fixed any of the underlying problems, so we feel even worse.

That’s addiction in a nutshell: Something seems like it will make you feel better, but you end up feeling worse — and more in need of something to make you feel better. People who have been lost at sea talk about the temptation to drink ocean water. Their compatriots who gave in to that urge didn’t make it back, because the salt just made them thirstier and thirstier.

Another WaPo columnist, Jason Willick, reviews what happened to the Constitution’s stipulation that only Congress can declare war.

The Iran conflict makes plain that Congress has lost the war power the Founders assigned it. On matters of war and peace, the Constitution has, in effect, been amended without a vote. … America’s foreign policy is post-constitutional, with Senate-ratified treaties largely replaced by “executive agreements” and the legislature’s war power now vested primarily in the executive.

His retelling of how this happened is mostly correct, but leaves out something I think is important: The Founders (particularly the Virginians like Jefferson and Madison) didn’t picture the new Republic fielding a large standing army, which they saw as a threat to liberty. (That’s why a well-regulated militia of citizen volunteers is “necessary to the security of a free state“.) Immediate attacks would be met by state and local militias, who could be federalized under the President’s command if the conflict grew. But (as Madison found out when he tried to conquer Canada during the War of 1812) militias hate to invade foreign countries. A foreign war, or a war against a European power like Britain or Spain, would require creating a large federal army, (or, more accurately, building a large army around the skeleton of a small peacetime army) which Congress would have to fund. So of course a foreign war could only be fought with congressional support.

The modern situation, where the President always has the wherewithal to wage a major conflict for months before needing Congress, was unforeseen (and is part of the reason the Second Amendment is obsolete).

The US military has blown up 67 boats that it claims were smuggling drugs, killing 221 people — basically executing people without trials. The result? No effect on fentanyl, which the regime claimed was the target. But that was predictable, because fentanyl mostly comes into the country via land routes. But there was a temporary effect on cocaine, which is the drug the boats were actually trying to smuggle. However, the cartels adjusted, and things are back to normal now.

Preliminary findings two months after the strikes began last September showed that they had disrupted smuggling routes, the DEA analysts reported, causing increases in cocaine prices and drug-related violence. But prices have since reverted to previous levels.“Smugglers have adapted to the intensified pressure,” they wrote. “Price and availability have not been noticeably affected.” … Pentagon officials told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee last month that DEA analysis of confiscated cocaine showed high levels of purity, according to a congressional aide familiar with the briefing. High purity suggests supply remains consistent, the DEA official said; dealers do not need to dilute the drug to stretch inventory.

As in our attacks on Iran, blowing things up and killing people seems to be an end in itself. It doesn’t need to be justified by results.

and let’s close with big Finnish

I got my solar panels working this week, so renewable power is on my mind. The well-publicized problem with wind and solar power is intermittency: Sometimes the sun shines and the wind blows, and sometimes it doesn’t. The obvious answer is as old as Genesis (i.e., Joseph’s interpretation of Pharaoah’s dreams): Store the power when it’s plentiful and draw that supply back down when it’s not. But how?

Batteries tend to be techy things that use a lot of materials that may be in short supply or require some environmentally-destructive mining. But Pornainen, a town of about 5000 people in southern Finland, has a much lower-tech strategy: a sand battery, which is basically a giant thermos bottle filled with crushed soapstone. The idea is to heat up the rock at times when electricity is plentiful and cheap, and then use the hot rocks to produce steam at times when electricity is scarcer and more expensive.

I think I’m unlikely to ever put a sand battery in my back yard. But here’s a thought that I think needs wider circulation: The climate crisis isn’t going to resolve through one magic-bullet solution. It’s going to take a lot of smaller ideas that creatively adapt to the circumstances of particular places and purposes. (If you want to flesh that idea out, read the sci-fi novel The Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson.)

July 27, 2026 – 12:43 pm Categories: Weekly summaries | Comments (4)

The Monday Morning Teaser

There’s no featured post this week. But the weekly summary will have a lot to cover: the on-again-off-again war, the wildfires in Europe, the latest pretext for Trump’s tariffs, anticipating the Musk crash, the state of the Senate midterms, and several other things, concluding with a big battery in Finland that is just rocks inside a big thermos.

I expect to get that out around noon EDT.

July 27, 2026 – 8:42 am Categories: Morning tease | Comments (1)

Coming for Us

You may think the camps are for someone else. DHS has already floated “100 million deportations” as a real number. Only 47 million people living in America were born somewhere else. Hitting 100 million means coming for citizens too, native-born and naturalized alike.

“These concentration camps are being built for us. We can stop them.”
LOLGOP Studios

This week’s featured post is “Why everything seems to be getting worse“.

Ongoing stories

  • Trump’s assault on American democracy. Trump’s primetime speech about “election security” had nothing new and was widely dismissed, even by Fox News. But some see it as the beginning of his attempt to steal the 2026 midterms.
  • Climate change. Wildfires in Canada and Mexico led to bad air quality along the East Coast. One day last week, the sky above my house in Massachusetts was a disturbing yellow color.
  • Iran. The deaths of two more Americans puts us firmly back in an escalation phase. I agree with Amanda Marcotte: “as long as Trump is president, we will be at war with Iran. He’s impetuous, stupid, and sociopathic. Iran will always be able to provoke him. His ego can’t handle losing, so he will always get sucked back in.”
  • Ukraine. Nothing really new this week. More Russian missile attacks on civilian targets in Kiev. More Ukrainian missile attacks against Russia’s oil infrastructure.

This week’s developments

This week everybody was talking about ICE killings

As I was writing this blog last week, ICE was killing another person: Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, a 25-year-old Colombian man who had a work permit and no outstanding warrants.

Weirdly, the DHS statement didn’t even make the usual claim that the ICE shooter feared for his life. It said merely that he “feared for public safety“, whatever that means. Since then, details about the shooter have come out:

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer who allegedly fatally shot a Colombian man in Maine on Monday was prone to violence and held racist beliefs, according to some of the people who were close to him.

Meanwhile, an employee of the company that runs an ICE detention center in Colorado shot a woman who had been photographing employees’ cars. Another man was killed in Florida when he was hit by a truck while running away from ICE.

The New Yorker has an article about the horrific conditions at an ICE detention center near El Paso. The article follows Rey, a Cuban man with diabetes, high blood pressure, and a US-citizen wife.

The ICE officials who regularly appeared at Camp East Montana are called deportation officers. Officially, their job is to make sure that detainees with final orders of removal are deported; unofficially, they often pressured those without orders to agree to be deported anyway. The officers were aided, in the second task, by the conditions at the camp. Many detainees with valid or pending legal claims simply couldn’t stand to be held there any longer. But the deportation officers also had other means of persuading the holdouts. According to testimony given to the A.C.L.U. by multiple detainees from Cuba, the officers would periodically handcuff those who refused to be deported and drive them to remote stretches along the Mexican border. Buses with masked men, presumably agents from Mexico, waited on the other side. “I started yelling and screaming at the immigration guard in Mexico that this is a kidnapping,” a fifty-one-year-old Cuban man from Florida said. “Out of the thirteen people who came with me on the bus, only four people returned with me.”

Every few days, an officer showed up in Rey’s tent to ask if he was ready to sign a document acceding to his deportation. “Are you staying or are you leaving?” he’d ask Rey flatly. For weeks, Rey waved the officer away, but he was spending hours each day in bed with debilitating headaches. He could barely urinate, and he had lost about thirty pounds. “I couldn’t even tell you if there was a medical tent at the facility,” he said. “I just didn’t understand how, in an immigration detention center, they can’t give you medicine. Not only that, how is it that I can’t see a doctor?”

After six weeks in detention he did agree to self-deport, out of fear that he would die without access to his medications.

That seems to be the point. People in the camp have unresolved immigration cases. But if ICE can make them miserable enough, they may drop whatever claims they have and leave the country.

The ACLU put out a report on more than 1200 incidents related to immigration law enforcement.

The incidents we reviewed indicate agents used force and the threat of force as default tactics and tools to coerce immediate compliance rather than to respond to a threat. Agents also turned to intimidation tactics — bullying, harassing, humiliating, and deceiving people — as they conducted enforcement, creating greater fear in communities and further undermining trust in law enforcement.

Physicians for Human Rights has a different report out.

Doctors and human rights experts with PHR and HRC documented 412 verified incidents of the “misuse” of these crowd-control weapons, also known as “less-lethal weapons”, from June 2025 through May 2026. … The report documented 203 injuries stemming from the alleged misuse of the crowd-control weapons. Some of the injuries included blindings, traumatic brain injuries, lacerations, fractures and contusions.

A. R. Moxon sums up the opposing worldviews underlying the debate over letting ICE do whatever it wants to its targets.

The oppositional worldviews? Let’s call them progressive humanism and regressive supremacy.

Progressive humanism is the belief that all people matter and deserve life, that generative human value springs from an inextricable and diverse mutually cooperative interconnectivity, and that we have a natural responsibility and moral duty to take the natural human system we have inherited and use our energies and skills to progress and improve it.

Regressive supremacy is the belief that only specific types of people matter and deserve life, and then only to the degree that they conform to specific and rigid hierarchical roles and doctrines; that all other human beings, who must earn life, get what they deserve and deserve what they get, because they are the natural property of the people who matter most.

and Senate confirmation hearings

Two laughably unqualified nominees for important posts had their Senate confirmation hearings this week: Todd Blanche is the acting Attorney General and wants to be confirmed in that role permanently. Jay Clayton is Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence.

Both were asked hard questions, sometimes by Republicans, and repeatedly dodged them. The lowlight was the exchange between Clayton and Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff. Ossoff asked him who won the 2020 election, to which Clayton replied: “I’m not gonna do this with you.” Ossoff reminded Clayton of his obligation to give “honest and forthright” answers. And Clayton insisted that “I’m not gonna do this with you” was an honest and forthright answer. Finally Ossoff said:

Isn’t it humiliating to be unable to answer this question? To have to indulge the president’s delusions? We know, you know, everybody in this room knows the truthful answer to that question. Why can you not give it?

Thom Tillis pressed Blanche to meet with Epstein survivors, which he finally did after all this time. Afterward, a survivor described his attitude as “dismissive”.

and The Odyssey

I saw it Friday morning when it opened, in IMAX as Christopher Nolan intended (or as close as you can get in Massachusetts). For nearly three hours I was completely enthralled. The movie’s artful mixture of action with character development and story-telling never drags.

The script leaves out several pieces of Homer’s original: conversations on Olympus, Aeolus and the bag of winds, the Phaeacians, Hermes, and some other things that have slipped my mind. That’s why it’s not a five-hour movie. But the omissions are only noticeable if you’re a bit of a Homer buff (as I am). The potential plot holes have been cleanly sewn shut.

A few things have been added. Most notably: the Trojan War making Greece vulnerable to the Sea Peoples (who are rumored to be coming but don’t appear), and the contribution Odysseus’ inner doubts and guilt make to his inability to get home. But the additions do not feel grafted on. Most of them are either hinted at in the text or are already part of the post-Homeric tradition. (For example, the Sea Peoples are historical, and play a role in the sequel to The Odyssey that Nikos Kazantzakis wrote in the 1930s. The underlying immorality of Odysseus’s tricks and stratagems is in Euripides. That Odysseus himself may have felt conflicted about them is not a big stretch. In many ways Odysseus is the first modern man. A character lacking self-awareness and self-criticism would be an unconvincing Odysseus.)

The scenery is stunningly beautiful. The image of “chasing the escaping Sun” as it sinks into the western Mediterranean is a haunting invocation of freedom.

As for the various trumped-up controversies about casting and such: ignore them. Helen is Black? She’s the daughter of Zeus; she should stand out from every other woman in Sparta. You shouldn’t expect her to look like the girl next door. A trans actor (Elliot Page) as a Greek soldier? Odysseus got his character killed by fooling him into playing a part in selling the horse trick to the Trojans. He should look both young and vulnerable, which Page does.

Adaptations (especially of classic works) fail in two ways: Either they are unfaithful to the original and take off in their own directions, or they are too faithful and don’t account for the differences in media and audience. I think Nolan has hit the sweet spot. Clearly he thought long and hard about The Odyssey, and he has made me think hard about it again.

but here’s a point of view I’d like to see take off

One of the arguments anti-immigration people make is that certain (conveniently non-White) groups of people can’t assimilate into America. The Sudanese, the Somalis, the Haitians …

Now, we all know this is ahistorical. Somebody could have gone to New York’s Little Italy in the late 1800s, heard a bunch of people speaking Italian, and argued that Italians are inherently incapable of assimilating. A lot of people probably did make that argument.

But here’s a response I’d like to hear from the defenders of immigration: No nation in the history of the world has ever been as good at assimilating people as the United States. It’s our superpower, and it’s what made us great.

You may believe, when you say certain people can’t assimilate, that you’re insulting them. But really, you’re insulting America. If you think the US can’t assimilate Somalis or anybody else, think again. Believe in America.

and you also might be interested in …

So Trump gave a prime-time speech Thursday, in an attempt to convince the public that election fraud is a problem, and that foreign countries (but not Russia) have tried to interfere in our elections.

Here’s a paragraph that needs to be repeated any time a news outlet quotes Trump’s 2020-election-rigging nonsense:

Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election by 7 million popular votes and 74 electoral votes. It was not close. Joe Biden kicked his butt. Trump’s fragile ego does not allow him to face those facts, so he has made up a lot of complete bullshit to divert attention from his humiliation. He has had numerous opportunities to present evidence of his alleged fraud in court, and has never done so. In fact, he has never even assembled a coherent theory of how the election might have been stolen, and instead jumps around from one unsupported notion to another — from voting-machine hacking to vote-counting fraud to manufacturing fake ballots to non-citizens voting and so on. The one time one of these theories was about to be tested in court, Fox News paid Dominion Voting Systems $787 million rather than go to trial.

It sounds like a joke, but it isn’t. Pete Hegseth really said this:

I’m authorizing a new screening program for testosterone deficiency for our service members, ensuring you have the right testosterone levels to operate at your absolute best,

Critics pointed out that hormone therapies to raise testosterone is “gender-affirming care”.

Nearly half the Democrats in the House voted to block $3.3 billion in aid to Israel, most of which is military aid. Only one Republican joined them, so the attempt failed.

I’m with the rebel Democrats here. I understand that many Israelis believe they are in a life-or-death struggle with Palestinian organizations like Hamas or Hezbollah, so they’re going to do whatever they think they need to do, including genocide and ethnic cleansing. But they can do it with their own resources. I don’t want to be implicated in Israel’s crimes against humanity.

NBC News tells the story of a trans high school student in Idaho, who committed suicide after being hounded by state laws.

The weak spot in any bigotry is the personal stories of its victims. Change comes by telling those stories.

It’s official: The Mint is casting a Trump $1 coin, with his portrait next to “In God We Trust”. (Is he the God we’re trusting?) Apparently it’s meant as a collectible coin rather than a circulating coin, which creates a possible loophole in the law against memorializing living people on money. We need a circulating dollar coin, but not this one. If anyone tries to circulate it, I will refuse to accept one as change.

and let’s close with something obvious

I will never understand why the use of solar panels to create shade isn’t ubiquitous. Here, South Korea turns a highway median into a shaded bike path that produces electricity.

July 20, 2026 – 12:51 pm Categories: Weekly summaries | Comments (7)

Why everything seems to be getting worse

Cory Doctorow’s recent book not only outlines how “enshittification” works, but lays out solutions.

The problem with Google. Recently I was trying to plan an upcoming trip to Paris. Having heard warnings that the Louvre can book up, I set out to buy advance tickets online. Googling “Louvre tickets” took me to louvre-museum-tickets.org, where I was unable to find the 22-euro tickets the guidebook assured me existed. Instead, I was offered significantly more expensive options that combined a Louvre ticket with something else, like an audio guide or a Seine cruise.

Eventually I realized that (in spite of the .org suffix) I wasn’t really on a Louvre web site, but had found an independent ticketing agency. So I googled “Louvre official site”, which took me to another overpriced ticketing agency (paristickets.com) that wasn’t the Louvre. Only after I clicked “Hide sponsored results” did I find the Louvre’s actual site louvre.fr and its English-language page at louvre.fr/en. That’s where the 22-euro tickets were.

In other words, Google knew what I wanted, but just chose to show me something else because it could make more money that way.

I was experiencing Step 2 of a process Cory Doctorow calls “enshittification”.

  1. First, platforms are good to their users. They become popular for good reasons. Either through network effects or because monopolistic business practices eliminate competition, they become hard to leave.
  2. Because users don’t want to leave, the platform can degrade their experience to make things better for its business customers. It becomes an essential business tool.
  3. But now businesses can’t leave either, so the platform can degrade their experience as well, capturing all the value for itself.

The result, Doctorow claims, is “a giant pile of shit” that makes lots of money while serving no one.

Not so many years ago, the Google algorithm was a revelation. Previous search engines like Altavista might have produced a many-thousand-entry list of every site that mentioned “Louvre”, leaving me to come up with more search terms to narrow it down. Finding what you actually wanted on such lists was a bit of an arcane art. But Google went right to it. At the time, it seemed miraculous.

That was Step 1 Google. But little did we all realize that providing a valuable service was just a means to an end. Eventually, Google became rich enough to buy the default-browser slot in nearly every app you might use. (Google pays Apple about $20 billion a year to be the default in Siri and Safari.) Since then, Google has no need to give users anything like the value it used to. It has enshittified itself.

Uber, Amazon, Facebook. Doctorow gives plenty of other examples. Uber, for one, used to simply match people who were willing to pay for rides with drivers who were willing to drive them. There was enough slack in the middle for Uber to take a cut while making a good deal for both riders and drivers.

Since then, though, Uber has been gathering data about both riders and drivers, so it has an informational advantage over both. So its algorithm can drive hard bargains in both directions: It simultaneously makes good guesses about both the highest rate you might be willing to pay and the lowest rate a driver might be willing to take. So enshittified Uber captures nearly all of the surplus value its app creates.

Similarly, Amazon’s search engine isn’t trying to find you the best product at the best price. Instead, it’s using everything it knows about you to pitch you the highest-margin product you might buy. Simultaneously, it’s charging manufacturers the most they might be willing to pay to get their products moved up the list Amazon shows you.

But the enshittified platform I feel the most nostalgia for is Facebook. In the early 2010s, Facebook showed you what your friends posted, including the links they thought you should look at. That wasn’t just good for you and your friends, it also created an engine for launching viral blog posts. If you posted a link to something, all your friends saw it. Enough of them might repost it to reach a new layer of readers, and a chain reaction might ensue.

That made Facebook an ally of any aspiring blogger. Every now and then, a Weekly Sift post would hit escape velocity and take off. Two posts in particular went viral, The Distress of the Privileged in 2012 and Not a Tea Party, a Confederate Party in 2014, accounting for more than a million page views between them. When I delved into the details of those page views, a large majority of them came via Facebook.

A few years later, I was noticing that it had been a long time since I’d had a 100K post. And then I connected that fact with the option Facebook had been giving me to “boost” my posts for a fee. In other words, if I paid them money, they would do what they used to do automatically — show my posts to all my friends. I refused to pay, and the numbers kept dropping. Today, a Sift post that gets a thousand views at weeklysift.com is a big deal. (This doesn’t count the six thousand or so people who subscribe and get posts by email. I have no idea how many of them read those emails.)

The viral path is still there — I still have friends and friends-of-friends and so on. But (without a monetary “boost”) the Facebook algorithm snuffs out would-be viral posts the way a control rod stops chain reactions in nuclear reactors: Some percentage of my friends never see my posts, some percentage of friends-of-friends don’t see my friends’ attempts to share my work, and so on. So the chain reaction dies out.

Bloggers of all types noticed this phenomenon in the mid-to-late 2010s. And simultaneously, Facebook users noticed that their feeds were filling up with crap: advertisements, links from major-media outlets, posts from famous people kinda/sorta in their echo chamber, and some stuff that defied explanation.

I just did a quick count: Of the first 20 items on my Facebook feed, only 3 are from my friends.

It isn’t just capitalism. You might think that this is just capitalism. Of course middlemen try to charge their customers more and pay their providers less. “Buy low, sell high” and all that; it goes back to the beginning of markets. But that doesn’t explain why enshittification has taken over everything at precisely this moment. Doctorow argues that we’re in a new economic age: the Enshittocene, or the Great Enshittening.

And yes, this is a sort of capitalism. But technology has created new avenues to enshittify products at precisely the same time that the forces containing enshittification have eroded. Corporations are enshittening their products because they can. But why can they? And why particularly now?

When a whole population starts to change in the same way at the same time, it’s a sign that something external and systemic is underway. Rather than looking for the origins of enshittification inside the companies, we should look at the world the companies operate in.

Doctorow identifies four forces that could punish or control an enshittifying company, and finds that they have all weakened in recent years.

  • competition. If a company is taking too much advantage of its users or clients, they’ll go somewhere else, if they can. But anti-trust enforcement has weakened considerably, allowing monopolies, near-monopolies, and collusive agreements like the one through which Facebook and Google set rages for online advertising.
  • regulation. Governments can establish enforceable rules on a company’s behavior. But de-regulation has been in vogue since the Reagan administration.
  • self-help. Users or other companies can create work-arounds to avoid the most onerous features of an enshittified platform, like the third-party ink cartridges for HP printers. But many work-arounds are now treated as illegal hacking or copyright infringement by laws that the software industry lobbied to pass. For example: What if a new e-book reader gave you the option to leave Kindle or iBooks and take your books with you. That would be illegal; it violates Amazon’s or Apple’s intellectual property.
  • worker power. Many tech workers have a dedication to visions of an idealistic mission. Enshittification is not part of that vision, so workers have often resisted it. But the job market in tech has worsened considerably in recent years. If you don’t want to go along, they can easily find somebody to replace you. “Axing twelve thousand Googlers in 2023 and thousands more in 2024 was a small price for Google to pay to allow managers total discretion about when they’d cheat and how. It was a price Google paid gladly, and we’re all living in its aftermath.”

Solutions. All the policies that created the opening for enshittification are reversible. Antitrust enforcement can be strengthened to break monopolies. Regulation can police anti-competitive behavior. The laws that prevent interoperability and competitive hacking can be weakened or repealed. Privacy laws can prevent companies from accumulating data about their users and transparency laws can force them to reveal information that current apps make invisible (like what other Uber drivers are getting for driving similar routes).

Doctorow has a lot to say about each of those paths, and how they can be done in ways that work in the real world. That’s all a little too detailed for me to cover here, and why you might want to read the book.

Enshittification destroys the capitalist myth. If you read the Wall Street Journal or listen to speakers from Heritage Foundation and other pro-capitalist institutions, you’ll often hear arguments based in the Cold War struggle against the Soviet Union: Communist governments claimed to be all about the worker and the common person, but long-term they strangled economic growth and made their whole society poorer. By contrast, the capitalist West out-produced Soviet-bloc countries and created a widely shared prosperity. You may not like the economic inequality that goes along with capitalism, but in the end even the people near the bottom are better off than they would be in a society that didn’t let anyone get rich.

If you delve into why that should be, you’ll get an answer something like this: When inventors and entrepreneurs create better ways of doing things, they can’t capture all the benefits for themselves. Invariably, the gains spill over into the rest of society.

So: Thomas Edison got rich from his light bulb, but consumers got reliable cheap lighting, cities became safer, and Edison used his wealth to fund research into more inventions that produced more social benefits.

But here’s the problem: Those days are over.

Inventors and entrepreneurs don’t produce widespread benefits out of generosity. They do it only when they have no other choice. From their point of view, every benefit of their innovations that they don’t capture for themselves is an inefficiency.

As we get deeper into the Enshittocene Era, the big tech companies and their billionaire/trillionaire owners get more and more efficient at capturing the benefits of technological progress. As the era goes on, the benefits of capitalist innovation get less and less widespread. Wealth inequality stops being a side-effect of the system and becomes the central feature.

Technology used to promise us products that would get better and better every year: Faster and cheaper computers with more memory running programs that seemed like magic.

But that’s not our primary experience of tech any more. Now we deal with Google and Facebook and Uber and Amazon and a host of other enshittifying corporations. Every day their products get worse, require us to look at more and more things we’d rather not see, and cost more.

The AI-driven future. Now we’re supposed to be dazzled by the promise of AI. AI tools like ChatGPT and Claude are free to play with and sometimes produce amazing results. Yes, it must cost something (maybe a lot) to provide that free service, but companies are burning through investor capital to make it happen.

We all know that can’t last. Eventually, AI tools will lead to more complex systems that can only be navigated by AI agent. Then the free service will end, and you’ll need to pay a subscription fee in order to participate in the economy. And then the AI agents themselves will begin to turn on you. They won’t find the best deals or the best arrangements for you, but they’ll channel you into paths that the AI producers want you to walk.

Don’t start depending on AI until you’ve fully imagined enshittified AI.

An answer for the economists. One of the mysteries economists are confronting right now is why people think the economy is bad. GDP keeps rising. Wages are more-or-less keeping pace with inflation. Unemployment is low. So what’s the problem?

According to a report from Yahoo Finance, consumer sentiment is near historic lows even as objective measures of well-being have reached all-time highs.

Maybe enshittification is the answer. All around you, the world is less and less responsive to your wants and needs. More and more, you have to jump through somebody else’s hoops just to do things you used to take for granted. Maybe it doesn’t show up in your paycheck and isn’t fully reflected in the prices you pay. But every day you are confronted with a world that is not as good as it used to be.

July 20, 2026 – 10:54 am Categories: Articles | Comments (20)

Tagged , |

The Monday Morning Teaser

This week’s featured post is a review of Cory Doctorow’s 2025 book Enshittification. Doctorow coined that term a few years ago, and the American Dialect Society crowned it the Word of the Year in 2023. Last fall he wrote a book-length treatment of the topic that included an analysis of causes and solutions.

My review should be out around 10 or 10:30 EDT.

The weekly summary will cover the latest ICE killings, plus links to long features detailing the horrifying conditions at the immigrant detention camps. Also the Senate confirmation hearings for Todd Blanche’s nomination to be attorney general and Jay Clayton’s nomination to be Director of National Intelligence. (Spoiler: They dodged all the good questions.) I’ll give a rave review of The Odyssey. Trump’s prime-time speech supposedly about election security was a yawner that produced barely a ripple of attention. And I’ll close with a creative use of solar panels.

I’ll try to get that out between noon and 1.

July 20, 2026 – 8:40 am Categories: Morning tease | Comments (1)

Arms and Wisdom

Arms are of little value in the field unless there is wise counsel at home.

– Cicero

This week’s featured post is “Graham Platner’s exit, and the debate it leads to“.

Ongoing stories

  • Trump’s assault on American democracy. He has used the new powers the Supreme Court gave him to get rid of everyone on the Election Assistance Commission, which used to be bipartisan. The EAC mostly advises states on election practices, but has no power to force them to comply.
  • Climate change. Ocean surface temperatures are now higher than they’ve ever been. And Pacific gray whales are dying out, probably because lost sea ice in Alaska is wrecking their food supply.
  • Iran. The war seems to be back on. Traffic in the Strait of Hormuz is down. Oil prices are up. It’s still not clear what objectives our air attacks are supposed to accomplish. Trump’s various stated goals — opening the Strait, ending Iran’s nuclear program, regime change, etc. — require either a negotiation that offers Iran things or a ground invasion. He doesn’t want to do either. So we’ll pointlessly destroy things again for a while.
  • Ukraine. Phillips O’Brien’s weekend update makes three points: Ukrainian missile attacks are shutting down Russian shipping in the Sea of Azov, isolating Crimea. Attacks on Russian oil refineries are still rising, creating gas shortages in Russia. Trump has begun making Ukraine-friendly noises, but his actions still support Putin.

This week’s developments

This week everybody was talking about Graham Platner

Platner leaving the race and the process for replacing him are covered in the featured post. A few points that didn’t fit in that article:

In choosing a new candidate, Maine Democrats shouldn’t forget what made Platner attractive to begin with. Sebastian Junger explains.

I had breakfast with Platner two months ago – shortly before a blizzard of lesser accusations by other women – and was impressed by his taste for economic and political reform. His view that the political and economic systems of this country are designed to benefit elites resonated with me. It’s been a long time since Democrats had a candidate who worked with his hands, has been to war and wanted to overthrow the economic elite, and that was clearly something Mainers voters were waiting for: He won the Maine Democratic primary by a landslide. … Meanwhile, it’s vitally important to continue upholding the kind of anti-war, anti-corruption, anti-corporatist platform that Platner so brilliantly articulated. His is a strain of American populism that goes back more than a century and could just as easily fit a Democratic candidate as a Republican one. A lot of things can be extracted from Platner’s painful implosion, but perhaps the most important is the realization that most Americans crave economic justice. Our society has created a small number of grotesquely wealthy people, but we are somehow all discouraged from discussing that with our political adversaries. Platner’s brilliance was that he did not see that boundary; he saw no boundary except the one between the vast majority of decent, hardworking people and the political elites.

Whoever runs against Susan Collins can’t afford to lose sight of this: Collins is the candidate of the billionaires. The Maine Monitor has identified 97 billionaires and billionaire-spouses who collectively have donated $9.8 million to re-elect Collins. So far. If polls look close as we get into the fall campaign, expect the money spigots to open wide.

An attitude that seems completely wrong-headed to me is epitomized by what Neera Tanden posted to X:

People who got us into this mess – who vouched for this candidate after 3 different scandals and kept telling us there were going to be no more – may want to take a break from Maine strategizing.

This seems like a good way to get Platner’s voters to stay home in November, sending Collins back to the Senate for another six years. Whatever you think of Platner’s behavior in his personal life, he won the primary. Maine voters endorsed his message. The ideal replacement, I think, would be somebody who can authentically carry that message into the fall campaign without also carrying Platner’s personal baggage.

One thing Platner’s withdrawal points out is that Democrats are expected to live by higher moral standards than Republicans. Kevin McCarthy tried to make the opposite claim on Fox News (in the last 15 seconds of his interview), producing a clip that I think Democrats shared far more than Republicans. Referencing when Matt Gates was nominated to be attorney general after being accused of sex with an underage girl, McCarthy said:

The one thing I know about Republicans: When we had a very bad candidate and found out, we walked away from that person.

Of course, their party is led by a guy who has been accused of sexual offenses by more than two dozen women. Two different juries in New York found it more likely than not that he was lying when he denied raping E. Jean Carroll.

Walk away from Trump, Kevin. Then we can talk.

Adam Kinzinger remembers other cases, like Roy Moore in Alabama, who Trump and the Party stuck with all the way into the November election after we found out that he repeatedly tried to pick up underage girls at the mall.

The billionaire-agenda Washington Post lends its spotlight to a “brave” Democrat who criticizes his party.

“The Party’s gaze has drifted beyond the basic needs … and has settled on a culture war that includes gender identity, racial quotas, DEI, and bathrooms,” [former South Carolina Rep. Joe Cunningham] wrote. “It has cost them swaths of voters who may never come back.”

He points out that a tiny percentage of people are transgender and asks what percentage of those want to play sports. Victory for a minuscule slice of the population may fill the virtue cup, but it’s not a win for the country.

Which party has been focusing on gender identity and bathrooms? Late in the 2024 campaign, that was virtually all Republicans talked about. You remember: “Harris is for they/them. Trump is for you.”

If Democrats want to abandon trans rights, they can’t just stop talking about it. Harris did that. To get credit on this, Democrats will have to actively target people with gender issues. It’s kind of like junior high, when you try to join the popular crowd by helping them bully somebody even less popular than you.

Do Democrats really want to go there?

and another ICE murder

As I’m writing this morning, I’m seeing reports of ICE being involved in another killing in Biddeford, Maine. I don’t do breaking news, so it’s too soon for me to say more.

Tuesday, an ICE agent shot and killed Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a Mexican national who had been living in the US for 35 years. He had no criminal record, ran a small construction business, and sent his three sons to college. He was driving a van at the time, so ICE claims he was trying to run over the agent — which is what they always claim when they shoot someone in a vehicle. They were lying when they said it about Renee Good and Marimar Martinez and Ruben Ray Martinez, so there’s no reason to believe them now.

Three of his workers were in the vehicle at the time. They are all in ICE custody and reportedly are being pressured to self-deport. Through their attorney, all deny the ICE account. The agents, they say, were shooting from the sides of the vehicle, and no agent was in front. None of the agents were wearing body cameras.

The Mexican government is beginning to get pissed off.

Foreign Minister Roberto Velasco said Mexico has recorded 17 deaths of Mexican nationals linked to ICE since the start of the current U.S. immigration crackdown: 14 in detention centers and three during enforcement operations, including Salgado Araujo.

Sheinbaum said her government would no longer rely solely on diplomatic protest notes. “We are going to do everything in our power,” she said, adding that Mexico could not fail to act in response to the deaths of Mexicans during ICE enforcement operations or in detention centers run by private companies contracted by ICE. She said Mexico would continue providing consular support to families and detainees, especially Mexicans “whose only crime is working honestly in the United States.”

BBC reports:

Salgado Araujo is at least the eighth person to die during the Trump administration’s immigration operations, according to the Associated Press. No immigration officers have been charged in the deaths.

Of course not. Under Trump, ICE thugs have license to kill. In the cases of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, the murder was on video. The murderers have suffered no consequences and are still at large.

ICE not only employs murderous thugs, it is also extremely thin-skinned — another characteristic of a totalitarian force like the Gestapo or the KGB.

David Streever is a US citizen from Rochester, NY. After ICE murdered Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Streever sent a critical email to Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons. The subject line was “What’s Next?” and its full content is this:

You are a monstrous human being and will go down in history as America’s Reinhard Heydrich, the butcher.

The way you are protecting the obvious execution in Minnesota, even as we see the videos, will lead to your downfall. Even Trump will turn on you before the end, and you will be a sad, despised man who eats himself alive with shame at your own pathetic weakness.

You will never know peace. You will seek to lose yourself, to escape the burden of knowing the truth about yourself. But wherever you go, you will find yourself. You will torment yourself until your last day on Earth.

DHS decided this email was a “threat”. (To do what?) It sent two agents to Streever’s home to deliver an official warning notice that his email may be in violation of federal law, and that he should “discontinue the aforementioned behavior”. He wasn’t there, and his wife (an Episcopal priest) arrived home to find the agents on her porch. DHS then tracked Streever and his seven-year-old daughter to a hotel in New York City, where they were staying after flying in from Finland. The hotel wouldn’t let the agents go to his room, so an agent left a card.

He is now suing DHS. The suit alleges:

Streever fears, as any objectively reasonable person would, that if he continues to engage in expression sharing his views about and to government officials, he will be subject to further coercive activity and retaliatory acts, including through issuance of further “WARNING NOTICE” demands, surveillance, unwelcome visits from federal police, and continued threat of arrest and/or prosecution.

He is asking for reimbursement of his legal fees and an injunction blocking any further harassment as he exercises his constitutional right to criticize the government.

and Mitch McConnell

Yesterday, Mitch McConnell’s office released a statement and a photo of the senator in a hospital bed.

McConnell, 84, said in a statement that he was “briefly unconscious” around the time he was first taken to the hospital and has undergone a battery of tests to try and determine what led to his fall. He said he was also treated for mild pneumonia and has been moved to a rehabilitation facility.

“My doctors have confirmed that I didn’t break any bones or suffer a concussion. I didn’t have a heart attack or a stroke. I don’t have any tumors or hemorrhages,” McConnell said, adding that he is now “regaining my strength.”

This came in response to conflicting claims that he was alive or dead or existing in some machine-driven state in between. Many commentators seem to be assuming we have heard the last from him, and so are summing up in the way we do when someone important dies.

Here’s my contribution: When this fascist era is over in America, whether that happens soon or decades hence, historians will focus on three main villains:

  • Trump, obviously, as the personality at the center of the fascist personality cult;
  • John Roberts, who ran roughshod over the Constitution to enable Trump’s power grabs and protect him from accountability under the law;
  • Mitch McConnell, who played hardball to get Roberts a conservative majority on the Court, and who protected Trump during his two impeachments, when it was still possible to head off the decisive turn towards fascism in Trump’s second term.

While we’re on this subject of senators dying, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina died unexpectedly Saturday night. He was 71.

Josh Marshall sums him up:

Graham was a natural follower. He needed a top dog, a daddy figure he could arrange himself around.

The recent Trump-following Graham had little in common with the John McCain-following Graham that preceded him. If Lindsey had any core beliefs, I never figured out what they were.

Democrats are bending over backwards to say good things about Lindsey, in accordance with the old rules that Republicans abandoned long ago. Adam Schiff, for example:

He had … a wonderful sense of humor that he used to cut through the tension.

By contrast, what I remember about Senator Graham is his snarling defense of Brett Kavanaugh. It was such a blatant expression of male privilege. If Diane Feinstein had responded with the same level of anger, she’d have been roasted as an unhinged women.

and you also might be interested in …

Remember the airliner that Qatar’s royal family bribed Trump with? Well, it’s Air Force One now, sort of.

Wednesday, though, as Trump was leaving the Ankara NATO summit, he flew in the old Air Force One because of “security concerns”. Apparently the hundreds of millions taxpayers have spent to retrofit the bribe jet wasn’t sufficient.

Like the no-bid contractors who screwed up the reflecting pool, this story pulls together the two main aspects of the Trump administration: corruption and incompetence.

West Virginia voters are getting what they voted for: 70% of them voted for Trump in 2024, and he carried every county. Now, thanks to the Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, 14,000 West Virginians have lost food assistance, and the state will have to come up with an additional $27 million to fund SNAP benefits next year.

I mean, somebody had to pay for those billionaires’ tax cuts. Sadly, though, West Virginia appears to have no billionaires. Forbes identified the richest West Virginian in 2025 as Intuit’s Brad Smith, clocking in around $900 million.

and let’s close with something derivative

What if they based a sitcom on Marco Rubio?

July 13, 2026 – 12:44 pm Categories: Weekly summaries | Comments (4)

Graham Platner’s exit, and the debate it leads to

A quick convention to replace Platner will raise some long-brewing issues.

So Graham Platner is out. Having overcome a number of past controversies, he finally faced more than he could explain away: This week new and more serious allegations surfaced, just about all his endorsers backed away from him, and he was forced to leave the race for Susan Collins’ Senate seat in Maine.

The usual caveats apply: Platner denies the new charges, and if you really, really want to believe him you can. But an election is not a court of law. Voters would be deciding whether to send him to the Senate, not to prison. So they have a right to demand positive confidence in a man they elevate to positions of power, not just reasonable doubt about his guilt. (If only Susan Collins had applied that standard to Brett Kavanaugh. A social-media meme I haven’t traced to its source says: “Graham Platner doesn’t belong in the Senate. He belongs on the Supreme Court.”)

Before talking about what can or should happen next, let me own up to this: Until this week, I was in favor of giving Platner the benefit of the doubt. He tells a good redemption story: He is basically a good man whose military service left him with PTSD. He then went through a dark period where he drank too much and behaved badly, but he came out the other side.

Like a lot of Maine Democrats (whose accounts I was quoting), I found that story plausible. I lost that gamble.

Next? But that’s not the end of the story. With Platner gone, Maine is left with the question of what happens next. Platner pulled out before the deadline that would have kept his name on the November ballot, so the Maine Democratic Party has until July 27 to name a replacement. They have a convention scheduled for July 25.

One-hundred and one of [the convention delegates] will be Democratic State Committee members and the remaining 500 … [will be] chosen by Democratic county committees at special nominating meetings convened by the county chairs.

So if party insiders want to pick one of their own, they can. But it’s hard to see how a more inclusive process would work, given the time constraints. One hopes the delegates will stay aware of the 154,058 Mainers who voted for Platner in the primary. The party is at least nodding in that direction:

The first candidate deadline is July 15. Candidates will have to declare their intent to run by 5 p.m. to compete at the convention. Among the requirement is a 300-word statement explaining how the candidate will tap the “grassroots energy” in the Democratic base.

In addition to declaring their intent by next Wednesday, candidates will also have to gather at least 500 signatures from registered Democrats by July 21. Included in that requirement is that candidates must obtain 50 signatures from no fewer than eight different counties.

Mainers vs. national pundits. In the national punditry, there’s a lot of hand-wringing that Platner’s debacle has made Susan Collins a shoe-in for reelection and probably doomed Democrats’ chances of taking the Senate.

Maine voices like Neal Gabler are far more sanguine.

So the first thing I would say I have learned these last two days is that the so-called experts in the punditrocracy have no idea what they are talking about. They don’t know Maine, and they don’t know Maine politics. When they say that the selection process is a “mess,” that is just plain wrong. Given the exigencies of the need for a selection and the cramped time frame, the logistics are difficult, but I get no sense of chaos. The process, as it is being formulated and described, seems orderly to me, or as orderly as any can be under these circumstances.

… Second, the so-called experts tell us that there are deep divisions in the party here, that same old cleavage between progressives and moderates, and that schism will likely affect the selection and the prospects for a November victory. The problem with this assessment is that I sense almost no divisions here, especially now that Gov. Mills, who did rile her fellow Dems, is basically off the scene.

Unlike the national Democratic establishment, Gabler sees the state Democratic establishment as basically progressive. The major candidates to replace Platner lack his “charisma”, but are not unknown to Maine voters and are largely on the same page. He has little fear that Democrats will be bitter and divided when they face Collins in November.

The moderate/progressive debate. Even so, the Maine convention is likely to be a microcosm of the debate Democrats are having around the country: In order to control the Senate, Democrats need to pick up four seats. In theory, Maine should be the easiest Republican seat to flip, given that Kamala Harris won Maine 52%-45%. Conversely, if Susan Collins hangs on, the path to a Democratic Senate majority involves flipping some much redder state like Iowa, Texas, or Nebraska.

So delegates have two questions to balance:

  • Who do I like?
  • Who can win?

Moderate Democrats will tell you that the answer to the second question is obvious: Swing voters are in the center, so a Democrat has to shift to the right to appeal to them.

Progressives argue that this is the old politics. In these polarized times, the number of issue-oriented voters in the center has shrunk considerably. The bigger pool is the disaffected voters, the ones who have lost faith in both parties and believe that no one really cares about them. Trump won in 2016 and 2024 by convincing those voters (falsely) that he did care about them. Rather than real solutions, he offered them scapegoats — immigrants, transfolk, undeserving beneficiaries of DEI or foreign aid, lazy people on welfare, non-Christians, globalists. He would defend you by going after them.

It’s hard to deny that he has gone after them. But it’s also hard to see how that has benefited you. Struggling American families have seen inflation get worse while money gets wasted on another pointless war. Many have lost food stamps and/or health insurance. Jobs are no easier to find.

The right response, progressives argue, is to put forward a bold vision that would make a visible difference in disaffected voters’ lives: child care, guaranteed healthcare, free college. If voters need scapegoats, let’s give them the people who are truly profiting from their distress: the billionaires and their monopolistic corporations. Tinkering around the edges of programs that already exist isn’t going to convince anybody that you’re on their side.

It’s easy to find this debate on social media, or to live in an echo chamber where you hear only one side of it. So far, it doesn’t seem to be a very satisfying or healthy argument: The two sides talk past each other and shout louder rather than engaging each other’s best points.

The two axes. If you want to try to make progress on this argument, I think the first key point is to embrace the two-axis model, which Josh Marshall has been pushing (though mostly behind the TPM firewall).

[T]here are two political spectra in the Democratic party, one that is right/centrist to left and another that is accommodation to fight.

The first axis is the issue-oriented one moderates point to: shoring up ObamaCare vs. Medicare For All, providing more education assistance to needy students vs. free college, and so on.

But the second axis revolves around the question: How serious is the current crisis of democracy? Do we just need to return to the halcyon days before Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America, when Congress debated issues but came up with bipartisan compromises to get things done? Or is Trumpist fascism a bigger threat than that, one that requires more drastic solutions?

Marshall illustrated the tension between the two axes by looking at his own response to the Colorado primary, where incumbent John Hickenlooper faced a challenge from the left. One the one hand, Marshall found himself mostly agreeing with Hickenlooper on policy and believing he had the best chance to hold the seat in the general election.

He seems like a very solid guy. I’m sure I’d like him. But it’s my strong impression that he is very much in the camp of Democratic senators who don’t want to do any of the big necessary things: abolish the filibuster, reform the Supreme Court, fight against encroaching autocracy as opposed to preserve decorum and regular order. In other words, he’s approaching the senate gig as though we were still in the 1990s or perhaps the W. era. To listen to my own oft-repeated arguments, he is the problem.

If you focus on the fight/accommodate axis, Harris’ loss in 2024 wasn’t a matter of being too liberal or not liberal enough. It’s that her rhetoric about Trump’s threat to democracy wasn’t matched by what she proposed to do about it. Trump’s resurgence after January 6 proved that electing a Democrat wasn’t a sufficient solution. A Harris administration wouldn’t end the threat any more than the Biden administration had.

How rank-and-file Democrats lost faith in their leaders. A deeper dive into this issue is Brian Beutler’s “The Insurgency Will Continue Until Morale Improves” which fortunately is not behind a firewall. Beutler lays out a history of missed Democratic opportunities, going back to the 2008 campaign.

What was striking to those of us on the outside was that none of these candidates, and no one else in the race, would even gesture at the most straightforward theory of change: that in a democracy, majorities should govern. In 2008 it was too early to foresee that a corrupt Republican judicial putsch would eventually necessitate farther-reaching democratic reforms. But the legislative crisis was already upon us. If Democrats won the election, and grew their congressional majorities, they should be prepared to change the Senate rules and simply legislate their plans into existence.

But the Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi Congress colored within the traditional lines. They got ObamaCare passed, but the opportunity for real change vanished. McConnell obstructed everything, and when the Great Recession dragged on, Obama got the blame.

How much more could Obama have accomplished without the filibuster? How much more quickly would we have recovered from the Great Recession if Obama and his majorities could have scaled up stimulus as needed to hasten a return to trend? How much less receptive would progressives have been to Bernie Sanders’s insurgency in a climate of full employment? Would Sanders have even run for president?

Again during Biden’s first two years, Democrats controlled not just the White House but both houses of Congress. And again, little happened. Merrick Garland’s Justice Department delayed investigating Trump, allowing the Supreme Court to run out the clock on his most serious indictments. Voting rights bills died. DC and Puerto Rico wouldn’t become states.

Democracy protection would have to wait. There would be hearings. There would be speeches. But the architecture would not change. The official substantive Democratic response to decades of legislative nullification, the theft of the Supreme Court, and a failed coup would be nothing.

So when Harris tried to raise the alarm about autocracy in 2024, it rang false. It sounded more like political rhetoric than something she really believed.

The axes really are orthogonal. The point Marshall keeps making, and that moderate voices like Matt Yglesias refuse to take seriously, is that the two axes really are different. You can take moderate positions on immigration or healthcare or border enforcement or trans rights (if that’s what voters in your state demand), and still advocate that Democrats play the same hardball politics Republicans have been playing for years. You can stop bringing a knife to a gun fight and go all out.

Whoever Maine Democrats nominate, that’s what I really want to hear from them. The old message of “Trust us. Once we get power we’ll put the country back on track” isn’t credible any more.

The economic system is rigged towards the rich and monopoly corporations. The political system is rigged towards Republicans. The Supreme Court has made itself into a super-legislature. Those problems won’t get fixed automatically by putting Democrats into office. Once they get into office, they’ll have to do something about those problems.

Tell me what.

July 13, 2026 – 10:51 am Categories: Articles | Comments (14)

Tagged , |