Author Archives: weeklysift

Doug Muder is a former mathematician who now writes about politics and religion. He is a frequent contributor to UU World.

Trustworthiness

April 22, 2024 – 11:19 am

I wouldn’t believe Donald Trump if his tongue were notarized.

– potential juror not seated for Trump trial

This week’s featured post is “Defending American Values: Trial by Jury“.

This week everybody was talking about the dysfunction of the House GOP

I guess all’s well that ends well. Saturday, pro-Russia House Republicans were finally overcome and the Ukraine aid President Biden requested last September was approved. The aid passed with Democrats voting 210-0 in favor and Republicans 101-112 against.

The road to that vote was very strange. Typically, passing a bill begins with passing a set of rules for the vote. The rules resolution defines the process for passing the bill, including the timing of the vote and what amendments will be in order. This is done through the Rules Committee, which typically is a rubber-stamp for the Speaker, whose party has a majority on that committee. Rules Committee votes are often party-line.

This time, though three Republicans voted against the rule, which only got out of the committee because Democrats supported it. Similarly on the floor of the House, 55 Republicans voted against the rule, which would have failed without Democratic support.

The Senate is expected to pass the Ukraine aid package tomorrow, and the weaponry (some of which is already stockpiled in Europe), should start arriving within days.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, who Colorado Republican Rep. Ken Buck accused of “mouthing Russian propaganda“, reiterated her threat to oust Johnson (in the same manner Kevin McCarthy was removed in October after refusing to shut down the government), but did not bring her vacate-the-chair resolution to the floor before the House adjourned.

That could mean that she knows she doesn’t have the votes, but it’s hard to say for sure.

This whole episode points out the dysfunction of the House’s right wing. They managed to delay Ukraine aid, but not stop it. And they got nothing in exchange for letting it pass.

In February, Senator Lankford (R-OK) had negotiated a Ukraine-aid package that included very much of what the GOP wanted in a border bill. But Trump decided he wanted the border as an issue in November, so he torpedoed that compromise.

So now Republicans get to complain that we are spending money to secure Ukraine but not to secure our southern border, but it’s empty rhetoric. Democrats were willing to take action on the border, but Republicans weren’t.

One of the most ridiculous stories of the week was the Freedom Caucus worrying that Speaker Johnson was going to launch a surprise attack on them.

Conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus are signing up to take shifts to monitor the chamber floor in order to prevent their own party leaders from making unilateral moves that could curb their power.

This group called itself the Floor Action Response Team, a.k.a. FART. You can’t make this stuff up.

and Trump’s trial

Last week I was hearing that it might take as long as a month to find a jury for Trump’s Manhattan trial, which began last Monday. In fact, 12 jurors and six alternates were in place by Friday. Opening statements are happening this morning.

The most unsettling story of the week (other than the disturbed man who set himself on fire to send a message that no one has been able to decipher) was MAGA-world’s attempt to rig and intimidate the jury. In the featured post, I take a step back and consider Trumpists’ attacks on the jury system as part of their larger authoritarian project.

Trump has quite obviously been defying Judge Merchan’s gag order. The judge will hold a hearing tomorrow. What he decides to do should tell us a lot about how the trial will proceed.

It’s obvious that Trump believes he can’t be jailed, and that any fines will just be the cost of doing business. I’ll be curious to see how Merchan punctures that confidence. I hope he has had somebody working on the logistical problem of jailing a man with Secret Service protection. A good first step would be to send Trump on a tour of the facilities Merchan has picked out.

Trump is having trouble accepting the fact that he has been indicted by a grand jury of American citizens, and so is a criminal defendant.

Case in point: Barron Trump’s high school graduation. Trump asked Judge Merchan to adjourn the trial for a day on May 17 so that he can go to the ceremony. Merchan said maybe; if the trial is on schedule then, an adjournment might happen. Trump took this as a rejection and complained bitterly on social media, inciting his followers to denounce the judge. (Michael Cohen then posted that Trump had never attended his other children’s graduations, which seems not to be true.)

But the upshot is that Trump is being treated like what he is: a criminal defendant. Defendants don’t typically get to arrange the court schedule for their own convenience. They also don’t get to control the court sketch artist or the room’s thermostat, or to prevent reporters from mentioning that they fall asleep in court.

Merchan is simply using the levers he has to keep Trump under control: If Trump keeps trying to delay the trial any way he can, he won’t get to go to Barron’s graduation. In other words: If you want something from me, behave yourself.

My conclusion: Trump knows he won’t behave, and is already setting up to deny that it will be his own fault when he misses the graduation.

Trump scheduled a rally Saturday in North Carolina, but cancelled it due to weather. It’s got to be wearing on him to go so long without the encouragement of a worshiping crowd.

If there’s one person who’s enjoying all this, it’s Jimmy Kimmel. While he was hosting the Oscars over a month ago, Kimmel read aloud Trump’s social-media rant against Kimmel’s performance, and then addressed Trump directly:

Thank you for watching. I’m surprised you’re still [up]. Isn’t it past your jail time?

Five weeks later, Trump hasn’t been able to let that go, so Wednesday he used his day off from court to post another rant about Kimmel and the Oscars, pretending it was Kimmel who couldn’t get over it.

Stupid Jimmy Kimmel, who still hasn’t recovered from his horrendous performance and big ratings drop as Host of The Academy Awards, especially when he showed he suffered from TDS, commonly known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, to the entire World by reading on air my TRUTH about how bad a job he was doing that night, right before he stumbled through announcing the biggest award of all, ‘Picture of the Year.’

Wednesday night, Kimmel took this apart line by line: Ratings were up, and as the host, Kimmel didn’t present any awards.

The person who presented the [Best Picture] award was Al Pacino, not me. We are different people. … You’d think he would know that because I’m pretty sure ‘Say hello to my little friend’ is what he said to Stormy Daniels that got him in all this trouble.

Kimmel later suggested that if he hosted again next year, Trump might be able to watch “on the TV in the Rec Room at Rikers”. The whole monologue is worth watching, and proves that a politician should never get into a back-and-forth with a comedian.

The phrase “Trump derangement syndrome” is a classic projection, as Kimmel pointed out. (“There’s only one person who suffers from Trump derangement syndrome. His name is Donald Trump.”) The surest way to get yourself diagnosed with TDS is to look at facts about Trump, apply ordinary standards of morality and decency, and reach the obvious conclusion that the man is a piece of shit.

But what’s truly deranged is the way Trump cultists distort reality to justify whatever their idol does. Take sexual assault, for example. At least two dozen women have publicly accused Trump of some form of inappropriate sexual advances, up to and including rape. Their stories are remarkably similar, and they track with the behavior Trump bragged about on the Access Hollywood tape.

The Trump cult explanation is simple: All the women are lying, and Trump’s confession was meaningless “locker room talk”.

Who’s deranged here?

Kevin McCarthy is trying to normalize Trump’s denial of the 2020 election by asking “Has Hillary Clinton ever said she lost the 2016 election?” Yeah, she did. On national TV. There’s video.

and Israel/Iran

Cooler heads may be prevailing. The tit-for-tat between Israel and Iran seems to be dying down and may have ended. After Israel bombed Iran’s diplomatic compound in Damascus, Iran vowed to retaliate. On April 13, it sent over 300 drones and missiles flying towards Israel, nearly all of which got knocked down. Then it was Israel who vowed to retaliate, which it did early Friday morning.

Israel attacked a military base very close to a major Iranian nuclear facility. So the attack was mostly a message: If we had wanted to strike something much more important, you couldn’t have stopped us. So far, Iran seems to be ignoring this attack, at least in public.

So we can hope that this particular episode is over, and Iran will go back to fighting Israel through proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah.

and the Supreme Court

The Court has some interesting cases lined up this week, which is the final week of arguments in this term. Thursday, it will hear arguments on Trump’s claim of criminal immunity. The big question here is not whether it will find in his favor, but whether it will continue playing along with his delay strategy. (I have a fantasy in which the Biden administration files an amicus brief, urging the Court to decide this case quickly so that Biden knows what laws he can break before his term ends. In particular, can he order the assassinations of certain justices while he still has time to nominate replacements?)

Liz Cheney writes:

Mr. Trump believes he can threaten and intimidate judges and their families, assert baseless legal defenses and thereby avoid accountability altogether. Through this conduct, he seeks to break our institutions. If Mr. Trump’s tactics prevent his Jan. 6 trial from proceeding in the ordinary course, he will also have succeeded in concealing critical evidence from the American people — evidence demonstrating his disregard for the rule of law, his cruelty on Jan. 6 and the deep flaws in character that make him unfit to serve as president. The Supreme Court should understand this reality and conclude without delay that no immunity applies here.

Today, the Court is hearing arguments in Grants Pass v Johnson, which involves a longstanding principle of American law: In order to break the law, you have to do something, not just be a certain kind of person.

The issue here is homelessness. Grants Pass has such sweeping laws against sleeping in public that it is nearly impossible for a homeless person to live there and stay within the law. On the one hand, it seems like it shouldn’t be illegal simply to be homeless. On the other, municipalities want to have some way to regulate homeless encampments, which can be health hazards.

Wednesday, it’s time for Idaho v United States. Here the issue is a Reagan-era law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, Emtala for short. Emtala requires emergency rooms to treat people who show up there (or risk losing Medicare and Medicaid funding).

The case was brought after Idaho imposed a near-total abortion ban that allowed doctors to perform an emergency abortion only if a pregnant patient was on the brink of death.

That law is in direct conflict with Emtala, which requires doctors to stabilize emergency patients so they won’t face severe health consequences – a radically lower bar for intervention than Idaho’s. Shortly after Roe was overturned, the Biden administration issued a guidance stating that the federal law pre-empts state abortion bans, ultimately suing Idaho over its ban.

So if a woman with a problem pregnancy shows up at an emergency room in Idaho, and isn’t at death’s door, but needs an abortion to, say, preserve her future fertility or prevent some problem that may lead to death in a week or two, what should happen?

These cases should all be decided by the end of the term in June.

and you also might be interested in …

Not content to simply waste its own time, the House Republican majority tried to waste the Senate’s time as well. The Senate refused.

The House had impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas essentially for policy differences. Ostensibly, he was charged with refusing to observe a 1952 law requiring applicants for asylum to be detained until a decision is reached — something no administration has done in recent years, largely because Congress hasn’t appropriated the money to do it. (One of the goals of the border bill that Trump torpedoed was to streamline the asylum process by funding more courts and judges.)

Once an impeachment has been voted by the House, the Senate is supposed to drop all its other business and hold a trial. Republicans were hoping for a grand show trial that would give them a stage to pontificate about border issues.

Democrats refused to play ball. In short order, a party-line vote (where Republican Lisa Murkowski voted Present rather than No) ended the trial because the bill of impeachment “does not allege conduct that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor” as required in the Constitution.

Workers at a Volkswagen factory in Chattanooga overwhelmingly voted to join the United Auto Workers. The factory had rejected the union in 2014 and 2019, but this time the union held nearly a 3-1 majority. Historically, the South has not been welcoming to unions.

and let’s close with something spectacular

Two of nature’s most striking spectacles are the Northern Lights and a volcano erupting at night. In Iceland, you can sometimes get both.

Posted in Weekly summaries | Comments (2)

Defending American Values: Trial by Jury

April 22, 2024 – 8:52 am

If we can’t trust ordinary people to be jurors, then we’ve already given up on Democracy.

The central mission of a rising authoritarian movement is to destroy public trust in any institution that can stand in its way, and in particular, in any source of truth that is independent of the movement and its Leader. And so over the last few years the MAGA movement has told us that:

  • We can’t trust our public health institutions to guide us through a pandemic.
  • We can’t trust what climate scientists tell us about global warming.
  • We can’t trust the FDA’s opinion on the safety of abortion drugs.
  • We can’t trust historians to recount the story of American racism, or librarians to make sound decisions about books that discuss either race or sex.
  • We can’t trust women who tell us they were sexually assaulted, or any women at all to make decisions about their own pregnancies.
  • We can’t trust the news media to report simple facts (like the size of Trump’s inaugural crowd).
  • We can’t trust our secretaries of state and local election officials to count votes.
  • We can’t trust the FBI and the Department of Justice when they fail to find evidence of voting fraud.
  • We can’t trust our intelligence agencies when they tell us about Trump’s friend Vladimir Putin.
  • We can’t trust a judge of Mexican ancestry to oversee the Trump University fraud lawsuit, or any judges appointed by Democrats to handle Trump’s other trials.

And so on. Because in an authoritarian system, the Leader defines Truth. Only he can be trusted.

In each of these situations, we are presented with a Manichean choice: There is MAGA and there is the Deep State. There are Trump followers and Trump haters. If you are not one, you are the other — and that’s all that matters. No one can be trusted to simply do their job in a fact-based, objective, or professional manner.

This week we saw another example of that authoritarian trust-destroying mission: We can’t trust juries. Specifically, we can’t trust a jury of New Yorkers — or any jury convened in a blue state — to stand in judgment over the Great Leader himself. Most New Yorkers didn’t vote for Trump, and so by definition they are Trump haters who are incapable of listening to evidence and forming objective opinions about his guilt or innocence.

Already in August, Kellyanne (alternative facts) Conway was telling Fox News that Trump couldn’t get a fair trial in three of the four venues where he has been indicted — “the most liberal county in Georgia, D.C., New York City, all these places that voted against him”. Apparently only in south Florida, under the supervision of a judge he appointed himself, could Trump possibly get a fair shake. Because a courtroom is just another political arena where all that matters is the love or hate you feel for Donald Trump.

It’s important to push back on this insidious belief, because it strikes at the heart of any notion of Democracy. If ordinary people can’t be trusted, then they can’t be allowed to govern themselves. If they are too unreliable to be jurors, why should these same untrustworthy people be allowed to vote or protest or express themselves in any way at all? If ordinary people can only be trusted when they belong to the Leader’s party, then why let any other party compete for power?

There’s a reason that trial by jury goes back to the Magna Carta, and was guaranteed by the Founders in the Sixth Amendment. A belief in juries is fundamental to the whole project of Democracy.

Encouraging corruption. Once you convince yourself that an institution is inherently corrupt, the obvious next step is to make that corruption work for you rather than against you. So conservative talk-radio host Clay Travis made this plea to his listeners:

If you’re a Trump supporter in New York City who is a part of the jury pool, do everything you can to get seated on the jury and then refuse to convict as a matter of principle, dooming the case via hung jury. It’s the most patriotic thing you could possibly do.

In other words: Don’t answer the judge’s questions honestly, and once you get on the jury, don’t do your job with integrity. Don’t listen to the evidence and form an objective opinion. Refuse to convict “as a matter of principle”.

What principle would that be? That the Leader can do no wrong? That he is above the Law?

Rep. Byron Donalds (who a few months ago was in the running to be Speaker of the House) similarly denied that there was any need for jurors to listen to the prosecution’s case:

My plea is to the people of Manhattan that may sit on this trial: Please do the right thing for this country. Everybody’s allowed to have their political viewpoints, but the law is supposed to be blind and no respecter of persons. This is a trash case; there is no crime here; and if there is any potential for a verdict, they should vote not guilty.

But of course, there is a crime: falsification of business records, which is illegal in New York. Donalds knows this, just as he knows that Michael Cohen has already served time for his role in this illegal plot. If he truly believed Trump to be innocent, he could simply urge jurors to do their jobs with integrity, and express faith in the outcome. But he didn’t, did he?

Fox News has been doing its best to out the jurors, so that they can be vulnerable to intimidation and coercion from the violent MAGA faithful. In one case they have already succeeded: A juror who was seated on Tuesday came back Thursday asking to be excused because people had already begun to guess her identity. Fox host Jesse Watters had picked her out (by number) as a juror who might be difficult for Trump. (The evidence against her? She had blasphemed by saying: “No one is above the law.”) He then slandered (and Trump retweeted him) the jurors in general.

They are catching undercover Liberal Activists lying to the Judge in order to get on the Trump Jury.

In reality, Trump’s lawyers had caught people with liberal views saying that they could be objective. There is no reason to believe they can’t, beyond the dogma that all liberals are irrational Trump-haters.

In the face of this attack on a core democratic value, it’s important to reaffirm our faith in it, as Vox’ Abdallah Fayyad does:

Regardless of what the former president says, the demographics of New York or Washington, DC, won’t determine whether or not he will receive a fair trial. That will depend on how the prosecution makes its case, and whether the jurors will take their jobs seriously and evaluate the case on its merits rather than on their views of the defendant — something that juries are more than capable of doing.

That’s why Trump’s disingenuous attacks on the jury are dangerous: not because he’s questioning their potential fairness (juries can indeed be unfair, and defendants have the right to point that out), but because he’s broadly deeming some Americans — that is, anyone who doesn’t support him — as inherently illegitimate jurors.

If you believe in Democracy, the legitimacy of jurors doesn’t depend on who they voted for in 2020 or plan to vote for later this year or what they think of Donald Trump. Trials are not popularity contests. You can believe Trump is the scum of the Earth, and still evaluate fairly whether the prosecution has proved its case against him. As many a defense lawyer points out in summation: “You don’t have to like my client to find him not guilty.”

Could I be a juror? As I watched (from a distance) the Manhattan court’s effort to form a Trump jury, I did what I think a lot of people did: wondered how I would answer the questions prospective jurors were asked. In particular: Could I be objective? Could I listen to the evidence and arguments from both sides and reach a fair verdict?

I decided that I could. Now, as anyone who reads this blog or follows me on social media knows, I have a very strong negative opinion of Donald Trump. I have openly said that I think he’s guilty, not just in this case but in the other three cases as well. Had I been in that courtroom, the defense would undoubtedly have used one of their peremptory challenges to make sure I never came anywhere near the jury box. So how could I imagine being a fair juror?

Here’s how: I have a clear sense of the duties of a juror takes on. And the principle of trial by jury is more important to me than the fate of one man. Demagogues and grifters like Trump will come and go in American history, but trial by jury is something that I hope will endure through the centuries. I wouldn’t want to be part of screwing it up.

In particular, I believe that everyone accused of a crime deserves a fair trial, and that the prosecution has a responsibility to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I also believe in the rules of evidence. As a juror, it wouldn’t matter to me what I had read in the news media or what I thought I remembered from the internet: The real evidence, the trustworthy evidence, isn’t what I heard on Fox News or MSNBC, it’s the evidence that shows up in court. And so when the trial ground to its conclusion, I would ask myself: Given what I’ve heard in court, has the prosecution proved its case? If it hadn’t, I would vote to acquit.

Now, I sincerely doubt that anything that might happen in this trial will change my opinion of Trump. At the end of the trial, I’m sure I will still believe he’s a fundamentally dishonest man who cares for no one but himself. I may even still believe that he’s guilty of the charges against him.

But if I’m a juror, that doesn’t matter. The question isn’t “Do you believe he’s guilty?” but “Has the prosecution proved he’s guilty.” If they haven’t, I could vote to acquit — even as I continued to hope that the prosecutors in one of his other cases would have more success.

Can this jury be fair? I have great faith that it can.

Part of my faith comes from having served on a jury several years ago in an emotionally fraught federal drug case. The defendant came from a household that in many ways exemplified the American dream: He and his wife were Hispanics who had worked their way into the middle class and were raising several children, all younger than 10. He worked in a local factory, and she was a nurse. The real bad guy here seemed to be the defendant’s brother, a career drug dealer that the government had been failing to make a case against. He sold drugs out of the defendant’s basement, and when the undercover cop showed up wanting to buy, he was too smart to sell. But the defendant trusted the cop, so the brother in essence said, “If you trust him, you sell to him.” The defendant did, and that was how he came to be on trial.

After the evidence was presented, we deliberated for an afternoon and most of the next morning. We were all over the map, and I had a very difficult night while I shouldered my responsibility. All of us sympathized with the wife and children. Several jurors who had been leaning not-guilty in the afternoon changed their minds overnight: By morning they were angry at the defendant for letting his brother sell drugs out of the house where his kids lived.

In the end, we answered the question we were given: Had the government proved that he sold the drugs? It had, and we convicted him. (We also had a meeting with the judge where we pleaded for him to sentence mercifully. I never checked whether he did.)

I learned a few things from this experience: First, the ritual of the court is powerful magic. You may come in with all sorts of impressions and opinions. But you very quickly learn to appreciate the awesomeness of the power you have been delegated and the responsibility it puts on you. (Spider-Man is right: With great power comes great responsibility.)

Second, no matter how different the individuals are, some kind of group loyalty develops. Not reaching a verdict feels like failure, and the jury doesn’t want to fail. We had each given a week of our time to this trial, and we didn’t want to believe our time had been wasted.

This is why I have faith in the Trump jury. Yes I can imagine all sorts of scenarios where somebody follows Clay Travis’ instructions: lies to the court so that they can get on the jury and rig the outcome. But that’s a harder mission to pull off than you might think.

My jury only met for a week. This one will probably sit for a month or more. During that time, they’ll share a lot of cups of coffee and more than a few lunches. They’re not supposed to discuss the trial until deliberation, but they’ll undoubtedly find other things to talk about: kids, jobs, the weather, TV shows. They’re going to see each other as people and develop a sense of common purpose.

Imagine spending that whole month with people while animated by a single malevolent thought: “I’m going to make sure you all fail. Because of me, this month we’ve all sacrificed will come to nothing.”

That would be a hard mission to carry out.

Even if you came onto the jury with a fairly strong belief in Trump, I think the ritual of the court and the camaraderie of the jury might well capture you. Every day you will look at Trump and realize that he is (as one prospective juror put it) “just a guy”, and not the great savior you imagined him to be. You will see him glower and bluster and doze off and treat you and your fellow jurors and the judge with disrespect. You will hear the prosecution witnesses assemble the case against him step by step. (You will have heard that the case is all politics, but in fact no one is talking politics. They’re presenting evidence.) When the defense takes its turn, you will hope for some grand revelation that shatters the prosecution’s case. And you will be disappointed.

During deliberation, you will have no real argument to make against your fellow jurors who want to convict. Over the month, you will have learned that they are not the frothing Trump-haters Fox News led you to expect. They’re just ordinary people trying to do their civic duty. Are you then going to look them all in the eye and admit that out of sheer stubbornness, you are going to make them fail?

Maybe. But I doubt it.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , | Comments (12)

The Monday Morning Teaser

April 22, 2024 – 8:29 am

This week, a Trump criminal trial actually started, and a jury is already in place. Opening arguments should begin this morning.

During jury selection, we saw right-wing media mount an all-out offensive against the fairness of the jury system. Trump, they claimed, could never get a fair trial in New York, or in any venue where most people didn’t vote for him. In the Manichean world of MAGA, there are Trump lovers and Trump haters, and no Trump haters could possibly put aside their hatred to listen objectively to the evidence of the case.

In this week’s featured post, I push back on that. I think we need to, because trial by jury is close to the heart of Democracy. If ordinary people can’t be trusted to be jurors, then how can we trust them to be voters?

I think it’s important to see this attack on the fairness of juries as part of a larger authoritarian attack on all sources of truth other than the Great Leader himself. Over the last few years, we have heard that we can’t trust public health officials, climate scientists, women, the news media, judges, election officials, historians, librarians, or pretty much anyone else. Only the Leader speaks the Truth. Only he can be trusted. That’s the essence of any authoritarian system.

I look back on my own experience on a jury and argue that we can trust juries, including this jury. Rigging a verdict, even if that’s what you intend at the beginning of the trial, is actually pretty hard.

That post should appear shortly.

The weekly has a lot of other news to cover, including some Trump trial news other than jury selection. But the big news is that Speaker Johnson stood up to Marjorie Taylor Greene and let Ukraine aid come to a vote. It passed easily, as it would have if it had come to the floor six months ago. The House also passed aid to Israel and Taiwan, as well as humanitarian aid to Gaza. MTG is promising a vote to depose Johnson as speaker, which may or may not turn into yet another pointless Republican circus.

It looks like the Iran/Israel trade of attacks won’t escalate into a larger war. A VW plant in Tennessee voted to unionize. The Senate gave the Mayorkas impeachment effort exactly as much attention as it deserved. The Supreme Court is about to consider several interesting cases. And somebody shot a video of an Icelandic volcano erupting under the Northern Lights.

I’ll aim to get that out around noon EDT.

Posted in Morning tease | Comments (4)

Dreams of ease

April 15, 2024 – 11:53 am

The fact of the matter is that almost nobody who works for a living has the time they wish they did to look, feel or be their best, much less to cultivate a highly aesthetic relationship with a thing called ease.

– Monica Hesse
“Tradwives, stay-at-home girlfriends and the dream of feminine leisure”

This week’s featured posts are “A Different Take on Retro Conservative Fantasy“, “The Arizona Abortion Ruling“, and “Republicans Scramble to Contain their Abortion Disaster“.

This week everybody was talking about abortion

My thoughts about the week’s developments are parceled out between two featured posts. I specifically examine the Arizona Supreme Court’s reinstatement of a draconian 1864 law in “The Arizona Abortion Ruling“. (Surprise: I agree that the majority read the state’s horrible laws correctly.) And I look at the larger political situation in “Republicans Scramble to Contain their Abortion Disaster“.

and Iran’s retaliation against Israel

Ever since Hamas’ October 7 attacks, one of the main goals of the Biden administration has been to keep the situation from escalating into a larger war involving Iran directly, and possibly drawing in Saudi Arabia and other regional powers. That got more difficult two weeks ago when Israel bombed an Iranian consulate in Syria, killing two Iranian generals.

Iran vowed to respond, and Sunday it launched hundreds of drones and missiles at Israel. With American help, Israeli air defenses seem to have handled the attack, which resulted in little damage.

If this were a playground spat — something I think the Middle East often resembles — the proper Israeli response would be something like “Nyah, nyah, missed me.” But apparently not everyone thinks so. So Biden is now trying to talk Israel out of launching some kind of attack on Iran.

and Trump’s first criminal trial

So the day has actually arrived: Trump is in court as a criminal defendant. Jury selection is underway.

Nobody has come up with the right name for this case yet. Sometimes it’s called the “hush money” indictment, but that makes it sound as if Trump were accused of paying hush money to cover up his affair with porn star Stormy Daniels — which isn’t true. Cheating on your wife with a porn star and then paying her not to tell anybody may be sleazy, but it isn’t illegal.

The actual charge here is falsifying business records, which makes the case sound like some technical bookkeeping error. That also is misleading. The course of illegality here is more circuitous: Trump had his fixer, Michael Cohen, pay for Stormy’s silence out of his own funds just before the 2016 election. (I can imagine the conversation where Cohen explained to his wife that he had taken out a home equity loan so that he could give money to a porn star.) That money wasn’t recorded as either a campaign expense or an in-kind contribution. And then the Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen, recording the expense as legal fees. Those legal-fee invoices are the false business records.

So at its root, the case is about defrauding the electorate in 2016.

Anyway, all Trump’s last-minute motions to try to get the trial delayed failed, so here we are. Estimates on the timing vary, but most legal commentators predict a verdict well before the summer conventions.

There’s a lot of debate over what political impact the trial will have. One school of thought says this is all good for Trump, because it plays into his persecution narrative. His voters are never going to believe he’s guilty anyway, so there’s nothing to gain by convicting him.

I disagree. Trump is strongest politically when his campaign can spin gauzy tales about how great everything was in 2019. (They’ve shoved the nightmare of 2020 down the memory hole.) He’s weakest when his personality is front and center, reminding people of how much most of us hated having him as our president.

Trump on trial is going to be Trump at his worst: glowering, muttering, unable to control himself, and doing his best to incite violence against the long list of people he thinks have wronged him. The main issue at the trial is going to be whether Trump knew how this whole scheme worked, and numerous witnesses are going to say that he did. The only person in a position to testify that he didn’t is Trump himself, and Trump (as we’ve seen in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case) is a terrible witness. If he testifies — which he says he’ll do, but I doubt — he’ll insult the judge, alienate the jury, and probably convict himself.

One thing I’ve picked up from online interactions with Trump defenders is that most of them have preserved their faith in his general innocence by refusing to see the evidence against him. They didn’t watch the January 6 Committee hearings, haven’t read the indictments, and so on. They don’t have some alternate interpretation of the evidence that clears him, but they just say “politically motivated persecution”, believe him when he says “I did nothing wrong”, and refuse to delve any deeper. That kind of intentional ignorance is going to be hard to maintain once this trial takes over the news cycle.

In particular, it’s going to be hard for members of the jury. So even if a juror or two comes in as a Trump sympathizer, they might end up voting to convict. Especially after he glowers at them for several weeks.

Trump’s cognitive decline is getting harder to explain away. Here, he doesn’t just get the wrong word (as Biden sometimes does), his verbal center seems to glitch completely.

and you also might be interested in …

Kansas’ Democratic governor, Laura Kelly, vetoed a bill banning gender-affirming care, saying that it “tramples on parental rights”. Republicans have a supermajority in the legislature and are going to try to override the veto.

This is typical of Republicans: They support the rights of parents until the parents do something they don’t like. Similarly, they support local control until local governments do something they don’t like. All their apparent “principles” are just rhetoric.

The NYT is reaching the point where parodies just can’t keep up. Wednesday, it did a both-sides treatment of abortion: “Two Imperfect Messengers Take On Abortion“. I mean, Trump brags about torpedoing Roe v Wade and Biden supports legislation to restore it, but they’re basically the same.

The WaPo talked to Trump Media investors who are trying to keep the faith in the face of a plunging stock price. No matter how much they lose, they’ll never admit that they’ve been had by a lifelong conman.

Meanwhile, the conman and his insider cronies took steps this morning to offer more shares for sale, driving the stock price down to a new low: $27.55 a little before noon today. That’s down 15% since this morning, and down from its March 27 peak around $70.

So O. J. Simpson died of cancer this week. I’m somewhat amazed by how much coverage this has gotten. Yes, his murder trial dominated the news in 1994 and was an important moment in the transition to news-as-entertainment. But if you’re under 40, you may not know who he was.

I thought I’d add something to the discussion nobody else seems to remember: what a cultural presence OJ was before the murder and the trial. Here’s a 1978 clip from the Robin Williams comedy Mork and Mindy, where Mork was an alien sent to explore Earth. (This was the role that first made Williams famous.)

Every episode would end with Mork reporting to Orson, his contact back on Ork. This episode’s report included a terrible pun. Mork told Orson that some Earth people worship O. J. Simpson. “The Juice?” Orson asked, displaying a mysterious familiarity with OJ’s nickname. Mork replied: “Yes. And the gentiles also.”

and let’s close with something dark

Last Monday’s eclipse dominated public attention for a few hours. Maybe you watched a partial eclipse, or traveled to see totality, or missed it completely. But never mind. Lots of people took pictures. Here’s Wired magazine’s selections of the best ones.

Posted in Weekly summaries | Comments (5)

Republicans Scramble to Contain Their Abortion Disaster

April 15, 2024 – 10:20 am

Trump’s let-the-states-decide statement looked clever until Arizona actually decided.

All across the country, the abortion issue has been helping Democrats and hurting Republicans.

For decades it worked the other way: Pro-choice women were confident the Supreme Court would protect their rights, so they mostly ignored the extreme positions Republican politicians took and based their votes on other issues. But since the Dobbs decision reversed Roe v Wade last year, the intentions of elected officials matter again.

After taking their lumps in the 2022 elections, Republican politicians have been trying to figure out how to finesse the issue. How do they avoid the ire of female voters without alienating their personhood-at-conception base? Last fall, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin thought he had the formula: a “compromise” abortion ban at 15 weeks. But that idea went down in flames as Republicans lost control of the Virginia legislature.

Trump also has been searching for an answer. For a while he also toyed with a 15-week ban, but then last week he stalled for time, saying he’d make a statement this week. I was skeptical about this, because Trump often says he’s going to do something and then doesn’t. But in fact he did make a statement on Monday.

I don’t usually post Trump videos, but I think you need to see this to appreciate just how far off-the-rails this guy has gone. To start with, his make-up is comical; he almost looks like he’s wearing blackface. Then there are the obvious, how-stupid-do-you-think-we-are lies about how “all legal scholars, both sides, wanted and in fact demanded” the end of Roe, and Democrats “support abortion up to and even beyond the ninth month”. (In fact, Biden supports restoring the pre-Dobbs status quo, which drew a line at viability, i.e. 24-28 weeks. More radical people, like me, want the government to butt out completely and let women decide how to handle their own problem pregnancies. But describing that view as “support” for abortion is dishonest. I, for one, am neutral on abortion; I have never tried to persuade a woman to get one.)

But the gist of the statement is that Trump is proud of engineering the conservative Supreme Court majority that decided Dobbs, and he doesn’t want to take any public position beyond letting the states (and not women together with their families and doctors) decide when abortion is permissible. He later said he wouldn’t sign a federal abortion ban if Congress presented him with one. (But then, Trump says a lot of things, and most of them turn out not to be true. When he was president, he claimed his tax plan wouldn’t help the rich. But when Paul Ryan gave him a plan that focused most of its benefits on the rich, he signed it. And we’re still waiting to see the “terrific” health care plan he promised in 2015. )

He’s also proud of being opportunistic on the issue.

You must follow your heart on this issue. But remember: You must also win elections.

That let-the-states-decide position looked clever for about a day. But then a state decided: Tuesday, Arizona’s Supreme Court reinstated an 1864 law banning all abortions that aren’t necessary to save a woman’s life. (In the previous post, I explain why I believe this is a correct reading of a horrible legal situation. It’s the legislature, not the court, that should never have allowed this to happen.)

Then Trump had to scramble: He said Arizona went too far, and predicted the situation would be “straightened out”. Arizona’s mini-Trump, Senate candidate Kari Lake, completely reversed her position. Previously, she had specifically endorsed the 1864 law (by its number in the legal code). But now she says

I oppose today’s ruling, and I am calling on Katie Hobbs and the State Legislature to come up with an immediate common sense solution that Arizonans can support.

So far as I know, this is the first time Lake has admitted that Katie Hobbs (who defeated Lake in 2022) is indeed governor. I also love the invocation of “common sense solution”, a conservative buzz phrase Sarah Palin popularized: It’s a placeholder. You’re supposed to insert whatever position you think makes sense, and then imagine Lake said that.

But Lake hasn’t said anything. As of this moment, neither Lake nor Trump (nor any other Republican who either has real power or is running to get it) has made an actual proposal to fix Arizona’s draconian abortion law. When it comes time to govern — and not just posture — that’s what you need to do: put a real proposal on paper and vote it up or down, knowing that you’ll make some people unhappy.

Are any Republicans, at either the state or national levels, ready to govern? That’s what the coming weeks will tell us.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , | Comments (3)

The Arizona Abortion Ruling

April 15, 2024 – 9:25 am

The result is horrible, but it’s a correct reading of the the legislature’s mess.

Before he was appointed to the Supreme Court, Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes is supposed to have admonished an idealistic lawyer: “This is not a court of justice, young man. It is a court of law.” In other words, courts exist to apply the laws, not to fix them.

I was holding that idea in mind when I read the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling reinstating an 1864 abortion law. Undoubtedly, this result — that all abortions are banned excepting only those that protect a woman’s life, and not excepting cases of rape or incest or even health consequences short of death — is horrible. But it could nonetheless be a correct reading of Arizona’s laws.

So here’s the timeline, as I understand it.

In 1864, the territorial legislature passed a law that said:

A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years.

That wording got adopted as part of the penal code approved by the legislature in 1913, shortly after Arizona became a state.

The statute’s constitutionality got challenged in 1971, before Roe v Wade, and after some back-and-forth, an appeals court ruled it constitutional. Then the US Supreme Court’s Roe decision came in 1973, and Arizona courts recognized that the 1864 law was unconstitutional under Roe’s recognition of a federal constitutional right to abortion. But this didn’t stop the legislature from testing the boundaries of Roe.

Between 1973 and 2022, and conforming to the federal abortion right established in Roe, the Arizona Legislature codified dozens of abortion statutes in Title 36. … To the extent permitted by Roe and its progeny, all of these statutes restricted abortions, including adding many procedural requirements for physicians performing abortions.

In 2022, shortly before Dobbs was officially announced, the legislature passed S. B. 1164, which amended Title 36 of the state laws. The main thrust of S.B. 1164 was to ban abortions after 15 weeks, which would violate the rights established in Roe. This was one of many laws red-state legislatures passed after Trump’s three judges joined the Supreme Court. The purpose was to see if the new Supreme Court would chip away at Roe’s protections. What’s relevant for this case is the exact wording:

A. Except in a medical emergency, a physician may not perform, induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion unless the physician or the referring physician has first made a determination of the probable gestational age of the unborn human being and documented that gestational age in the maternal patient’s chart and, if required, in a report required to be filed with the department . …

B. Except in a medical emergency, a physician may not intentionally or knowingly perform, induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being has been determined to be greater than fifteen weeks.

Notice that both provisions are phrased negatively: “a physician may not perform …”. Under the prevailing legal interpretation of 2022, i.e. Roe, the abortions not explicitly prohibited would be allowed. But nothing in S. B. 1164 says they are allowed. Quite the opposite:

This act does not: (1) Create or recognize a right to abortion or alter generally accepted medical standards. The Legislature does not intend this act to make lawful an abortion that is currently unlawful. (2) Repeal, by implication or otherwise, section 13-3603, Arizona Revised Statutes, or any other applicable state law regulating or restricting abortion

Section 13-3603 was the descendant of the 1864 law.

So then the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision reversed Roe. This undid the 1973 finding that the 1864 law was unconstitutional, leaving the current state court to pick up the pieces.

Arizona’s Democratic attorney general argued that by banning abortions after 15 weeks, S. B. 1164 implicitly authorized them prior to 15 weeks, and implicitly repealed the 1864 law. A dissenting opinion in the decision agrees with this argument, but I think the majority got it right: There is no affirmative language in S. B. 1164 that authorizes any abortions.

I agree completely with the moral arguments denouncing this outcome: It’s barbaric that Arizona’s women’s rights are constrained by a law passed before statehood and before women had a right to vote. No court of justice would allow this. But we don’t have courts of justice; we have courts of law.

What can be done? The obvious way to repair this situation is for the legislature to do explicitly what the dissenting opinion thinks it did implicitly when it passed S. B. 1164: repeal 13-3603. That would leave Arizona with a 15-week abortion ban recognizing certain exceptions — maybe not the ideal outcome, but a far better one than the current situation.

Democrats in the legislature proposed this solution, but Republicans blocked it.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , | Comments (5)

A Different Take on Retro Conservative Fantasy

April 15, 2024 – 8:54 am

Sometimes unrealistic fantasies raise questions that deserve serious answers.

The Washington Post’s “Tradwives, SAHGs and the dream of feminine leisure” is one of those rare articles that is way more interesting than its apparent topic. OK, there’s a “tradwife” trend of sorts: social media influencers who style themselves as classic 1950s housewives, and a parallel group of stay-at-home girlfriends (or what we used to call “kept women”). But this “trend” doesn’t represent all that many women, and you probably don’t need a major newspaper to tell you what to think about them. After all, if women had been happy in these kinds of roles, second-wave feminism would never have caught on.

But Monica Hesse takes a much more interesting approach. She doesn’t analyze tradwifery as a serious option, as in “Were women really happier before feminism?”. Instead, she approaches that vision for what it is: a fantasy. “I dream of feminine leisure”, say many of the tradwives and SAHGs. And then Hesse asks why that dream might be beguiling.

Her down-to-earth answer is simple: Life is hard these days.

The fact of the matter is that almost nobody who works for a living has the time they wish they did to look, feel or be their best, much less to cultivate a highly aesthetic relationship with a thing called ease.

What if the problem is not feminism but capitalism — specifically the American version, where work-life balance is a punchline? What if instead of 11 paid vacation days, as the average American gets, these women got the full month that is standard in the United Kingdom? What if instead of five (or six or seven) days a week, they worked the four days that countries such as South Africa and Belgium are piloting? Would that allow enough time to do a full skin-care regimen and pack a great suitcase? If college weren’t so ghastly expensive here, maybe that one lady’s daughter wouldn’t be so keen on the patriarchy as a route to leisure that bypasses the long, uphill road to financial independence.

It wasn’t fair when women had no choice to stay home. It’s not fair if women are working but are still doing the work of maintaining a home. It’s not fair if both men and women are trying to juggle it together and are still finding that there aren’t enough hours or dollars in a day.

Who wouldn’t dream of feminine leisure?

To her credit, Hesse also imagines the male side of this fantasy: Who wouldn’t want to return from work each evening to find a home in perfect order, dinner on the table, and a well-rested spouse ready to draw you into the “ease” she has been cultivating all day? (Now you just need a willing partner and a senior-vice-president salary to pay for it all.)

Hesse’s article expresses a point of view that could generalize: Maybe we’re approaching retro conservative fantasies all wrong. At root, most of them aren’t really about then, they’re critiques of now: Why does life have to be so hard? Why is it so hard to pay for college? To get a career started? To find a serious relationship partner and stay together? To afford a home? To fit children into the equation and offer them at least as good a chance as you had?

Maybe people who are trying to wish their way out of this box deserve our empathy rather than our condemnation. The various retro fantasies they indulge may not be fact-based or workable in practice, but at least they address the question: Life wouldn’t be so hard if some sugar daddy would take care of me. Or if immigrants and minorities hadn’t stolen my place in line. Or if everybody went back to Jesus. Or if the government stopped sending our money overseas. Or if we had a strong-man leader who could make our country great again (whatever era “again” is supposed to point to).

Maybe the best liberal response isn’t a screed about the evils of sexism or xenophobia or authoritarianism. Maybe we should skip past the specifics and give our own answer to the underlying question: Why is life so hard these days?

We do have such an answer, one that I believe is far more realistic and supportable than anything conservatives offer: Life is hard because sometime in the late 1970s, the US scrapped the controls that kept the rich from capturing all the growth in the economy.

We scrapped antitrust enforcement, so as a consumer you have to take whatever deal monopolies offer you. (The endless “choices” you face at the mall are often just different tentacles of the same octopus.) We scrapped unions, so as a worker you have no negotiating power. And we changed the tax system so that whatever the rich capture, they keep. The result is this graph, which every American voter should be able to draw on a napkin.

If hourly compensation had kept up, the average Americans would make more than double what they do now. So you could afford a one-income household, if that’s what your family wanted. Or you could save up for year-long sabbaticals and return to the workplace with new vision and energy. Or you could retire at 50 and see the world.

Corporate talking heads may denounce this point of view as “class warfare” or “socialism”, but such name-calling isn’t really a refutation. And it is nostalgic in a manner of speaking, but the point isn’t to recreate some past era; it’s to get back to the trends that held in the 50s, 60s, and early 70s, when economic gains were widely shared.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , | Comments (13)

The Monday Morning Teaser

April 15, 2024 – 8:31 am

I went kind of wild this week: Three short notes got out of hand a demanded to be featured posts. (I must be feeling better. I can even talk a little.)

The first spins out of a WaPo article by Monica Hess about the “tradwife” trend — the online influencers who post about their idealized 1950s-housewife lives. What I love about this article is that Hess doesn’t do the obvious (and dull) thing: take tradwives seriously and give a lecture about everything that was wrong with the actual 1950s and the few opportunities the decade offered women.

Instead, Hess looks at tradwifery as a fantasy, and asks why it’s attractive. What’s wrong with women’s lives today that might motivate this kind of escapism?

She got me thinking about how we might approach all kinds of conservative retro fantasies: not as workable options we need to knock down, but as symptoms of modern problems that need real (and liberal) solutions. That’s the theme of “A Different Take on Conservative Retro Fantasy”, which should be out shortly.

The other two featured posts have something to do with abortion, but didn’t combine easily into a single post. The first takes an unpopular position on the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling that reinstated the state’s draconian 1864 law: I think they got it right. It’s a horrible outcome, but that’s because the legislature created a horrible legal situation. It’s not up to the courts to invent better laws. “The Arizona Abortion Ruling” should post around 10 EDT.

The final featured post looks at the political gyrations Trump and other Republicans are performing as they try to come up with a viable political position on abortion. Trump’s leave-it-to-the-states statement looked smart last Monday, but the next day Arizona turned the clock back to 1864, pointing out what’s wrong with leaving the issue to the states. “Republicans Scramble to Contain Their Abortion Disaster” should post by 11.

Then we get to the weekly summary, which still has to cover Trump’s Manhattan trial, which starts today. There’s also the Israel/Iran attack and counterattack, OJ, and a few other things. I’ll try to get that out by noon.

Posted in Morning tease | Comments (1)

Systems

April 8, 2024 – 11:49 am

This is tragic but it is not an anomaly.
The killing of aid workers in Gaza has been systemic.

– Scott Paul of Oxfam,
commenting on the death of seven World Central Kitchen workers

This week’s featured post is “Will the World Central Kitchen attack change anything?“

This week everybody was talking about signs and wonders

This morning, all eyes are on the narrow corridor of the total eclipse, which stretches from Texas in the South to Maine in the North, and goes through Dallas, Cleveland, and Buffalo along the way.

I’ve never experienced a total eclipse myself (and won’t see this one either), but I imagine there must be a significant oh-wow effect to seeing the Sun go dark in the middle of the sky. It’s not hard to see why pre-scientific peoples tried to read portents into such an event, just as they read meaning into the appearance of comets and other celestial phenomena.

It’s much harder for me to understand why so many people are still doing it. We know what causes eclipses and can predict them hundreds of years in advance.

Friday, Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted:

God is sending America strong signs to tell us to repent. Earthquakes and eclipses and many more things to come. I pray that our country listens.

and then doubled down yesterday:

Many have mocked and scoffed at this post and even put community notes. Jesus talked about that in Luke 12:54-56. Yes eclipses are predictable and earthquakes happen and we know when comets are passing by, however God created all of these things and uses them to be signs for those of us who believe.

First off, MTG should re-read Luke 12:54-56. I don’t think it says what she thinks it does.

But more importantly, I think signs and wonders appeal to charlatans like MTG precisely because they have no content of their own. The event itself is striking, but its meaning is wide open for whatever claims people want to make.

So America should repent? OK, how about we repent our long history of racism? our wasteful burning of fossil fuels? our cruelty towards refugees who arrive at our border seeking help? our willingness to let people die of preventable causes rather than provide medical care? the vast gulf between our rich and our poor?

No? Not what you wanted us to repent? Show me what part of the eclipse points out same-sex marriage or drag shows or socialism or letting people use the “wrong” bathrooms.

And what counts as a sign that demands interpretation? As several people have pointed out, the recent earthquake was centered in New Jersey, not far from the Bedminster golf club of a noted Bible salesman. Could that be what God is angry about?

Oh, and what about this sign? During the previous administration, God sent an actual plague that killed over a million Americans. The deaths continue to be concentrated in counties that support that leader. Is that something to interpret?

When MTG talks about “those of us who believe”, she means authoritarian communities, where some leader is empowered to define a sign and attach an interpretation to it without debate. As soon as the meaning is open to discussion, though, the underlying emptiness of the “sign” quickly becomes apparent.

and the World Central Kitchen attack

This is the subject of the featured post.

and Caitlin Clark

In the women’s NCAA basketball tournament, both the Iowa/Connecticut final-four game Friday and the Iowa/South Carolina championship last night set records for TV ratings. Final numbers for last night’s game aren’t in yet, but Friday’s game drew 14.2 million viewers, making it the most-watched basketball game ever on ESPN.

Friday’s blockbuster matchup with a controversial finish peaked at 17 million viewers, surpassing every NBA Finals and MLB World Series game last year. It was only topped by five college football games in 2023. Meanwhile, no Daytona 500 race or Masters Tournament final round has exceeded Friday’s numbers since 2013. Game 6 of the 2019 NBA Finals between the Toronto Raptors and Golden State Warriors beat Iowa vs. UConn with 18.59 million viewers, but it was aired on ABC.

People who don’t watch sports usually don’t grasp the soap-opera aspect of being a fan. You watch not just for the competition and the beauty of the sport, but because you’re in the middle of a story and want to see how it comes out. Like soap opera, each episode/game answers some questions, but raises others that will keep you watching future games.

Women’s sports have languished behind men’s sports largely because of the inherent chicken/egg problem of attracting new fans: If you haven’t been watching, you don’t know what questions the next game is supposed to be answering.

This year, the stardom of Iowa’s Caitlin Clark got women’s basketball over the hump. Once you started watching, you also began to wonder about Paige Bueckers, Angel Reese, Kamilla Cardoso, and a bunch of other stars. You might continue to follow them in the WNBA or watch next year’s college games.

Women’s basketball is on the map now.

and trials

It increasingly looks like Trump is actually going to face a criminal trial. The fake-business-records-to-cover-up-paying-off-the-porn-star case is due to start next week.

That may not be the case you’d really like to see. The Mar-a-Lago documents case is more open-and-shut, and the two January 6 conspiracy cases go to the heart of Trump’s assault on democracy. But it is a real indictment of a real crime. If any other ex-president faced such a thing, it would be extraordinary. We’ve just gotten used to taking Trump’s wrongdoing for granted.

You can tell Trump himself is worried, because he’s acting out. He’s been attacking the judge’s adult daughter, and now says that he is willing to go to jail on the free-speech principle that he can attack anybody he wants, no matter what the judge’s gag order says.

Trump says a lot of things, and most of them turn out not to be true. I think he’ll whimper like a small child if he has to go to a real jail. I also think Judge Merchan will have to do something to establish who is in control of his courtroom.

The drama of Trump’s bond isn’t over yet. So, two weeks ago, he was supposed to come up with nearly half a billion dollars to secure the civil fraud judgment against him while he appealed. But then at the last minute, a NY appeals court lowered it to $175 million and gave him ten more days to come up with it, which he appeared to do.

The coverage came from Knight Specialty Insurance, whose CEO is Don Hankey, the “king of subprime car loans” and a major Republican donor. State AG Letitia James noticed that Knight is “not an admitted carrier in New York, and lacks the certificate of qualification required by New York Insurance Law Section 1111” so she challenged the sufficiency of the bond.

So now the question isn’t whether Trump has the money, it’s whether Knight does.

Steve Bannon, you may recall, was criminally charged in a scheme to defraud people who wanted to build chunks of Trump’s border wall with private funding. Trump pardoned him, so he wasn’t convicted with his co-conspirators, one of whom was recently sentenced to more than four years in prison. (Think about the weirdness of that for a second: Somebody defrauds your supporters, so you pardon them.)

But presidential pardons don’t get you out of state court, so Bannon is scheduled to go to trial in New York in May.

and you also might be interested in …

The House goes back to work today, which means something will have to happen with Ukraine funding. Speaker Mike Johnson is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t, so he might as well do the right thing. But we’ll see.

A group of psychologists, gerontologists, and other mental-health professionals explain why Trump’s dementia symptoms are far more worrying than anything about Biden.

what I feel is happening right now is that we’re being gaslit. The press is pathologizing Biden’s normal signs of aging, and they’re normalizing Trump’s blatant signs of of dementia. And so the people are really being told a kind of double lie. Either it’s twice as many people believe Biden is not as cognitively fit as Trump. Or we have the tired old “two old men” narrative, you know, we have a gerontocracy. And the point is that, look, we’re talking about a tale of two brains here. Biden’s brain is aging, Trump’s brain is dementing. We’re comparing apples to rotted oranges here. They’re not the same.

One example I found persuasive is the Nancy/Nikki incident:

The Dementia Care Society says that a sign of advanced dementia is when you start combining people and generations. You literally mash people together into one person. … Trump showed us the combination of people when he made Nancy Pelosi and Nikki Haley one person. It wasn’t a slip of the tongue, okay? It wasn’t that he meant to say one name and he said the other. He gave a speech about the person I’m running against in this primary who was responsible for security at the Capitol. He actually confused the two people. You see the difference?

The Trump Media stock meltdown seems to be underway. It began publicly trading under the symbol DJT on March 26, and jumped up above $70 a share on the 27th. It closed Friday at $40.59. Last I checked this morning, it was $36.52.

DJT’s main problem is that the underlying business is worthless. The usual start-up story is that a company may be losing money right now, but its revenues and user base are growing fast, so profitability is going to happen eventually. DJT is losing money now, isn’t growing, and has no plausible plan to ever make money.

Meanwhile, it’s paying six-figure salaries to a small band of Trump loyalists, and a bunch of stakeholders are suing each other.

WaPo speculates on Trump’s plan to end the Ukraine War, which he has said he could do in 24 hours. The gist: Russia gets to keep Crimea and some section of eastern Ukraine. Ukraine gets … I’m not sure what. And the US drops its sanctions in an effort to make Russia less dependent on China.

The Munich analogy gets way over-used, but this does sound awfully Munich-like.

After much angst and fanfare, No Labels is not going to run a candidate in 2024.

The underlying problem of No Labels is that it reads the electorate wrong. Yes, most people do wish that the two major parties would compromise and govern, rather than posture and logjam. But that desire for compromise has no content on particular issues. There is no centrist philosophy that informs centrist positions on economic and cultural matters, and no centrist vision of America’s future.

Worse, most of the specific positions centrist politicians stake out are actually compromises already proposed by Democrats and rejected by Republicans. Take the budget deficit. Want to split the difference between Democratic tax increases and Republican spending cuts? Good luck with that; Obama already tried it.

The lack of a No Labels candidate means RFK Jr. is the only significant third-party option. I think the way to run against him is to let him talk. He’s a loon who never met a conspiracy theory he didn’t like. The more people see him, the less they’re going to want him to be president.

Jon Tester’s seat in Montana might decide the Senate majority. (Democrats currently hold a 51-49 advantage, but the seat Joe Manchin is retiring from is considered unwinnable.) This week WaPo published a weird and complicated story about the main Republican challlenger, former Navy SEAL Tim Sheehy.

It’s about the bullet in his forearm, which he says he picked up in Afghanistan but never reported. Then he later told a park ranger a story about shooting himself accidentally in a national park. That lie was technically a crime, but the statute of limitations has passed. As to why he covered up the wound to begin with, I’m still confused.

and let’s close with something natural

One of the best photo contests online is Smithsonian Magazine’s. Here we see a glacial lake in Denali National Park in Alaska.

Posted in Weekly summaries | Comments (13)

Will the World Central Kitchen attack change anything?

April 8, 2024 – 8:44 am

The Biden administration has finally begun to distance itself from the Netanyahu government. How much difference will that make?

Israel’s attack Monday night on a three-car convoy of the food-aid group World Central Kitchen brought to a head something that had been building slowly for a long time: American discontent with the war in Gaza.

Israel immediately said the attack, which left seven aid workers dead, was a mistake. But WCK Founder José Andrés wasn’t buying it:

This was not just a bad luck situation where, “Oops, we dropped a bomb in the wrong place.” … The airstrikes on our convoy I don’t think were an unfortunate mistake. It was really a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by everybody at the [Israel Defense Forces].

Thursday, the report of an internal IDF investigation told a more complex story.

The IDF’s investigation concluded that the army unit involved had believed the vehicles they were tracking from the sky had been taken over by Hamas gunmen, and that they were not aware of the coordination procedures put in place between the military and World Central Kitchen for that evening.

Andrés is calling for an independent investigation.

One reason this particular incident has had such an impact on world opinion is that it is part of a larger pattern.

Scott Paul, of Oxfam, said in a briefing with other relief organisations on Thursday before the results of Israel’s investigation were released: “Let’s be very clear. This is tragic but it is not an anomaly. The killing of aid workers in Gaza has been systemic.”

“Systemic” seems very carefully chosen. It does not necessarily mean “intentional”, but it includes that possibility. What “systemic” suggests to me is a kind of indifference: As things are, aid workers die on a fairly regular basis. This fact does not cause the system to change.

According to AP (which attributes the number to the UN) “at least 180 humanitarian workers have been killed in the war so far”. Those 180 are again part of a larger whole: around 33,000 Gazans, at least 13,800 of them children, have died since the war started. A much larger number of people are at risk due to the famine developing as insufficient quantities of food are brought in.

The larger numbers, though, are harder to form clear opinions about. Some of the 33K dead were the Hamas fighters Israel has every right to target. Some civilians were Hamas supporters, and some probably ventured into places they had been told to stay out of or ignored Israeli warnings about impending attacks.

But the seven WCK workers did everything right. They told the IDF what they were doing, which centered on delivering food to people who need it. They, like the 180 dead aid workers they joined, were people risking their lives to make sure strangers got food and medical care. We are, in short, talking about seven (and 180) of the best people in the world.

Until now, the Biden administration has chosen to keep its conflicts with the Netanyahu government behind closed doors. The public would hear reports that Biden was pressuring Netanyahu to be more forthcoming in negotiations over the ceasefire-for-hostages deal the US would like to broker, but publicly the US had Israel’s back at the UN and in every other public forum. Biden has paid a fairly large political price for this among progressive Democrats, especially young people. More recently, even longtime supporters of Israel, like Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, have begun criticizing Netanyahu.

Thursday, Biden and Netanyahu had a phone call. The White House account of that call had a significantly different tone: Biden was demanding specific actions, and threatening consequences if they didn’t happen.

President Joe Biden ticked through several things that he needed to see Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu do immediately: open up the Erez crossing into northern Gaza and the port of Ashdod in southern Israel for humanitarian aid; significantly ramp up the supplies getting in through Kerem Shalom.

For now, Israel seems to be doing what Biden asked. But it will take time to see whether anything has substantively changed: Will more aid get through to Gazans? Will the famine abate? Will an attack on Rafah produce a new spike in civilian casualties? Will some kind of ceasefire-for-hostages deal actually happen? And if nothing changes, will Biden follow through with the “changes in our own policy” Secretary Blinken has suggested?

I think it’s important to keep repeating a point I’ve been making from the early days of the Gaza conflict: Americans should not be bringing this war home. American Jews are not the Netanyahu government. American Palestinians are not Hamas.

I am in complete agreement with Rabbi Mike Harvey on this point:

Memo to the bigots. Israel does not set its policies or run its war from: Synagogues, Jewish community centers, Holocaust museums, Kosher grocery markets, Jewish-owned cafes & shops

Bringing a mob to scream outside these places is an act of hate and antisemitism, not protest.

Posted in Articles | Tagged | Comments (7)