Monday, November 24, 2025

Don't Believe It

At some point, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to believe almost anything that Defendants represent.

- US District Judge Sara Ellis,
commenting on ICE and Border Patrol testimony
contradicted by their body camera footage

This week's featured post is "The Vibecession and the AI Bubble".

Ongoing stories

  • Trump's assault on American democracy. A judge found that federal agents in Chicago repeatedly instigated violence against protesters, then lied about it in reports that painted the protesters as violent.
  • Climate change. According to Grist, the COP30 conference in Brazil closed with "no new agreements to wind down fossil fuel use or curb deforestation".
  • Gaza. Ostensibly there's a ceasefire, but there are still attacks and people still die. The famine conditions have abated but "the UN's World Food Programme (WFP) reports that a quarter of households in Gaza are eating just one meal daily".
  • Ukraine. Representatives of Trump and Putin put together a 28-point peace plan, which Trump has given Zelenskyy until Thursday to accept. It comes at a time of internal Ukrainian weakness, and amounts to a demand for surrender. It's currently being revised in talks with Ukraine and Europe, who were left out of the original formulation.

This week's developments

This week Trump did a lot to raise your outrage

Maybe it comes from the sting of his defeat on the Epstein Transparency Act, or from worsening dementia limiting his ability to control himself, but Trump has said and done outrageous things recently at a pace that is unusual even for him. It's hard to know how to cover them. It would be easy to fill the entire Sift with nothing else, and several hour-long news shows I watched on the rechristened MS NOW did precisely that. But I'm torn.

On the one hand, these incidents only reinforce things you already know:

  • Donald Trump is a disgusting human being.
  • He regularly gets away with outrages that would have ended the career of any previous president, or just about any previous American politician. We're a long way from the era when Obama could spark outrage by wearing a tan suit or putting his feet up on the Resolute Desk.

Meanwhile, substantive things have been happening in foreign affairs, in the economy, in the courts, and so on. Being drawn into Trump's Crazytown antics removes us from the world of events that have lasting consequences for our lives and for the future of our nation.

On the other hand, ignoring these persistent outrages makes us complicit in normalizing them. American presidents have never acted like this before, and no one should want this kind of behavior to become acceptable.

So here's my compromise: I'm going to list the three biggest outrages and link to longer accounts of them, because you should know what happened. But I'm also not going to let them take over and drive out all other news.

  • He threatened six Democratic lawmakers with arrest, trial, and death for making a video repeating the standard Defense Department doctrine that soldiers should refuse to carry out unlawful orders. (No one seems to remember the origin story of the right-wing Oath Keepers after President Obama took office: "More specifically, the group's members, which number in the thousands, pledge to disobey orders they deem unlawful". Right-wingers considered that position patriotic in 2009.) Trump has since denied that he was making a death threat, but who knows how his more rabid followers might interpret his statements? If somebody actually does shoot at (rather than just threaten) one or more of the Democrats, it will be a textbook case of stochastic terrorism. Notably, one of the Democrats is Arizona's Senator Mark Kelly, whose wife Gabby Giffords has already survived a shooting.
  • He called a female White House reporter "piggy". A week ago Friday, Catherine Lucey from Bloomberg was part of a press gaggle on Air Force One. She asked the kind of hard, direct question reporters are supposed to put to presidents: “if there’s nothing incriminating in the [Epstein] files”, why was he blocking their release? Trump pointed to her in a threatening way (see photo above) and said, "Quiet, quiet piggy." The White House press secretary later defended this response as "frank and honest".

This wasn't an action of Trump himself, but falls into the same outrage category: The Coast Guard briefly considered reclassifying swastikas and nooses as "potentially divisive" rather than hate symbols. Public outcry made them walk that back.

Meanwhile, we still haven't seen the Epstein files. The Epstein Transparency Act gives the Justice Department 30 days to produce the files. Trump says his DoJ will because there's nothing to hide, but we'll see what happens.

The Trump-ordered sham investigations into Epstein's links to prominent Democrats opens the possibility that DoJ will claim it can't release information related to an ongoing investigation.

It bears repeating that Trump could have ordered the files released at any time and still could. He didn't need an act of Congress to force his hand. It's absurd to claim that you support doing something that you could have done a long time ago and chose not to do.

The best people to deal with absurdity are comedians, so here's The Daily Show's take on the situation, where Jordan Klepper applies "Occam's Giant Fucking Machete". The whole routine is amusing, but if you're pressed for time skip ahead to about the 12:30 mark.

and Marjorie Taylor Greene

It's been interesting these last few months watching MTG become estranged from the Trump regime on issues like Medicaid, ObamaCare subsidies, and the Epstein files. In every case, she has taken the path consistent with Trump's base and the promises he made them, while Trump has done something else. Just before he flipped back to the release-the-files side (sort of), Trump branded MTG as "Marjorie Traitor Greene", which MTG claimed (believably) resulted in death threats.

Sadly, like Jeff Flake, Adam Kinzinger, and others before her, MTG decided not to stand and fight. Friday night she released a video announcing that she will resign from Congress on January 5 (coincidentally, just after her pension vests).

Her video is worth watching, mostly because of how well she describes the people she claims to represent. There's some Christian-right stuff in there about abortion and trans rights, but mostly she's talking about working-class people who have seen their prospects diminish and who have little hope for their children to have a better life. She's not wrong about that, and Democrats have to figure out how to speak to and for these people.

Two places in the video stand out for other reasons. Around the 6:30 mark, she has just finished outlining all the ways she has fought for Trump and the Trump agenda in Congress before differing with him on a few issues. But then she says:

Loyalty should be a two-way street, and we should be able to vote our conscience and represent our district's interests, because our job-title is literally "representative". ... Standing up for American women who were raped at 14 years old, trafficked and used by rich powerful men, should not result in me being called a traitor and threatened by the president of the United States, whom I fought for.

Around 9:15, she compares her relationship with Trump to a broken marriage:

I refuse to be a battered wife, hoping it all goes away and gets better. If I am cast aside by the President and the MAGA political machine and replaced by neo-cons, Big Pharma, Big Tech, military-industrial war complex, foreign leaders, and the elite donor class that can never ever relate to real Americans, then many common Americans have been cast aside and replaced as well.

But there was real news about Ukraine

Thursday, Axios published a leaked draft of a 28-point peace plan worked out by representatives of Trump and Putin, without input from either Ukraine or its European allies. The plan is shockingly one-sided. Ukraine gives in to Russia's demands: limiting the size of its army, rewriting its constitution to outlaw NATO membership, and even surrendering more territory than Russia has conquered. In exchange it gets only nebulous commitments without clear enforcement mechanisms. Timothy Snyder goes through the proposal point-by-point.

Snyder points to something others have noticed: The plan's curious phrasing suggests that it was translated from Russian. In other words, Trump's peace plan was really just Trump's name attached to Putin's demands. Much of the plan is in the passive voice, like "Ukraine's sovereignty will be confirmed." Exactly who is doing this confirming is never specified. Treaties and other agreements are not written like this.

At first it wasn't clear whether this was a final product, but Trump quickly got behind it and insisted that Ukraine accept it by Thanksgiving. "He's going to have to approve it," Trump said of Zelensky, who is politically weak right now because of a corruption scandal in his administration.

Europe pushed back, and Trump fumed. But today it looks like a second draft will happen after consultation with Europe and Ukraine. Probably Russia will reject this, and we'll be back to square one.

and the AI bubble

That's covered in the featured post.

and the regime's bad week in court

Thursday, US District Judge Sara Ellis ordered ICE and Border Patrol thugs to stop brutalizing the people of Chicago. But an appeals court stayed her order, claiming it was too broad. Then she released 233 very damning pages of her findings. Specifically, federal agents and their leader Greg Bovino repeatedly lied, submitting reports that didn't match what their body cameras recorded.

After reviewing all the evidence submitted to the Court and listening to the testimony elicited at the preliminary injunction hearing, during depositions, and in other court proceedings, the Court finds Defendants’ evidence simply not credible. ... Defendants specifically directed the Court to certain videos and timestamps “to aid the Court in its review of those videos.” Presumably, these portions of the videos would be Defendants’ best evidence to demonstrate that agents acted in line with the Constitution, federal laws, and the agencies’ own policies on use of force when engaging with protesters, the press, and religious practitioners. But a review of them shows the opposite—supporting Plaintiffs’ claims and undermining all of Defendants’ claims that their actions toward protesters, the press, and religious practitioners have been, as Bovino has stated, “more than exemplary.”

Quite the opposite, the videos repeatedly show federal agents as the provocateurs, introducing violence into otherwise peaceful protests:

For example, Defendants directed the Court to two videos of agents outside the Broadview facility the evening of September 19, 2025. In those videos, agents stand behind a fence preparing to leave the facility’s gates and disperse what Defendants described as an unruly mob. The scene appears quiet as the gate opens, revealing a line of protesters standing in the street holding signs. Almost immediately and without warning, agents lob flashbang grenades, tear gas, and pepper balls at the protesters, stating, “fuck yea!”, as they do so, and the crowd scatters. This video disproves Defendants’ contentions that protesters were the ones shooting off fireworks, refusing orders, and acting violently so as to justify the agents’ use of force.

Or this:

Defendants also highlighted an October 3, 2025 video, presumably to show that agents driving the streets faced constant danger from cars ramming them on purpose. But instead of leaving this impression, the video ... suggests that the agent drove erratically and brake-checked other motorists in an attempt to force accidents that agents could then use as justifications for deploying force.

After listing other examples and alluding to many others, Ellis conclude:

[A]t some point, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to believe almost anything that Defendants represent. ... Overall, after reviewing all the evidence, the Court finds that Defendants’ widespread misrepresentations call into question everything that Defendants say they are doing in their characterization of what is happening at the Broadview facility or out in the streets of the Chicagoland area during law enforcement activities.

Slate's Mark Joseph Stern quotes Skye Perryman to respond to the objection that none of this matters because the Supreme Court will knuckle under to Trump anyway:

Listen, this is why we’re doing what we’re doing in the district courts. We are fully aware that somewhere down the line we can lose. But this is the place where the fog of war doesn’t enter the room. What enters the room is people telling the truth and the judge making findings. That is the story we tell, and it’s what we can do to hold the line right now. ... [I]t’s frustrating that this order has been stayed. In other words, this changes nothing on the ground. But it is important to have the judge who ordered agents to wear bodycams now make findings in which she says: You just lied. And I think that is the value of all this.


Also Thursday, US District Judge Jia Cobb ruled that Trump's deployment of the National Guard to DC was probably illegal. Her preliminary injunction gives the government until December 11 to get the troops out of DC.


And the prosecution of James Comey continues to be a comedy of errors. Recall: The career prosecutors found no case worth bringing to a grand jury, so Trump fired the US attorney and brought in Lindsey Halligan, his former personal lawyer. She couldn't get any other lawyers in her office to accompany her, so she went to the grand jury alone. Having never prosecuted a case before, and trying to move quickly before the statute of limitations ran out, she made a botch of it.

Law-fare's Benjamin Wittes comments:

It is actually hard to keep up with the pace of developments. Multiple times a day, documents land on this docket that contain new inanities, new abominations in the sight of the law, new factual revelations, new reasons to wonder not whether this case will collapse but only how. At the hearing the other day, Judge Michael Nachmanoff seemed to be struggling with exactly this question, asking an attorney for Comey—in effect—which motion he wants the judge to dismiss the case based on.


US District Judge James Boasberg will hold hearings next week to determine whether contempt charges are justified in the case where administration officials refused to turn around a plane deporting detainees to El Salvador.

and you also might be interested in ...

One of the week's great mysteries is why Trump's Oval Office meeting with NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani was such a love-fest. In the photo above, Trump is wearing the expression that South Park uses when Trump looks at his lover Satan.


The NYT is staying with the Kash Patel abuse-of-government-perks story. There are two pieces of it: use of his government jet for personal travel (something he criticized previous FBI Director Christopher Wray for), and assigning FBI SWAT agents as a protection team for his country-singer girlfriend.

and let's close with something to be thankful for

I've long thought that the Fox News canard of a "war on Christmas" had it backwards: Christmas is the aggressor and is rapidly advancing against all our other holidays. As soon as Halloween was over, Christmas decorations started appearing, and the deluge of Christmas music can't be far behind.

If you want to try to hold the Thanksgiving line, though, Country Living has a playlist of Thanksgiving songs you can use.

Monday, November 17, 2025

Obliviousness

Urbana is basically the country club and the ghetto, and neither group has any idea that the other group exists.

- Beth Macy, Paper Girl,
on returning to the Ohio town where she grew up

This week's featured post is "Beth Macy Goes Home Again".

Ongoing stories

  • Trump's assault on American democracy. Post his election disaster, the shutdown, and the growing threat of the Epstein files, Trump's coalition is showing some cracks.
  • Climate change. The COP30 international conference is happening in Brazil, without the US. Everyone is frustrated by the world's slow progress in addressing climate change.
  • Gaza. The UN is voting today on a US-sponsored resolution to establish an international Gaza stabilization force.
  • Ukraine. As the weather gets colder, the drone war moves to center stage. Russia blew up an oil tanker in Odessa; Ukraine hit an oil refinery.

This week's developments

This week everybody was talking about the shutdown aftermath

No one is happy with how the shutdown came out. It lasted a record 43 days, during which a lot of people worked without pay, saw their government services delayed, or perhaps even went hungry. But in the end it turned out to be an almost entirely symbolic fight, as Democrats got no concessions on their central issue: keeping ObamaCare premiums from skyrocketing in 2026.

The question is whether a better deal could have emerged later. Fundamentally, the Democrats' problem is that you can't play chicken with somebody who's not afraid to wreck their car. As much as Americans were suffering, and as much as they were blaming that suffering on Trump, it's not clear that Trump cared.

As Politico notes: SNAP benefits will start again soon, if they haven't already. But meanwhile, millions of Americans will lose their benefits, due to "work requirements" that seemed designed to trap people into disqualifying themselves.

and whether Trump was involved in Epstein's crimes

Last night, Trump flipped on releasing the Epstein files. After unsuccessfully trying to badger Republicans like Nancy Mace and Lauren Boebert into removing their names from the discharge petition to bring the Epstein Transparency Act to a vote in the House, and facing an overwhelming defeat when it finally will be voted on later this week, Trump reversed course, announcing that "House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files" because "we have nothing to hide".

Probably this means that he is confident the Senate will block the bill, but we'll see.

I have to confess that when the Jeffrey Epstein sex-trafficking scandal got sucked into Q-Anon's crazy theory of a world-ruling pedophile cabal, I lost what little interest I had. Surely this was just another conspiracy theory, blown way out of proportion by a cult of lunatics. (After all, if Democrats were synthesizing some eternal-youth elixir out of the blood of children, why did Joe Biden and Bill Clinton look so old? This was just one of the many bits of cognitive dissonance even a cursory glance at the theory raised.)

But lo and behold, there's a kernel of truth at the center of all that nonsense. Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell either induced or forced hundreds of under-age (or barely above the age of consent) girls into offering sexual services to their friends, who appear to have been some very powerful people. Rather than just internet rumors, there are real victims speaking out publicly, providing evidence strong enough to strip Prince Andrew of his title, send Maxwell to prison for sex trafficking, and get Epstein arrested and held in federal prison, where (the government says) he hung himself before a trial could happen.

In addition to trying to block release of what the Justice Department knows, various other facts make Trump look guilty of something:

There's certainly a lot of smoke there, but whether Trump himself is in the fire has not yet been proved. This week we got even more smoke, as the House Oversight Committee released 20,000 emails it obtained from the Epstein estate. Trump was mentioned thousands of times in the emails -- more than anyone else -- and the emails strongly imply that Trump knew what Epstein was doing but stayed quiet about it. In one, Trump is described as a "dog that hasn't barked".


Epstein victims made a one-minute video pushing to have all the Justice Department's files released.


OK, just for a moment assume the worst: Trump is shown to be an Epstein client; he's abused underage girls. Does it make a difference?

Tim Whitaker argues that for Trump's Evangelical supporters, it won't. His argument has two main points: First, none of Trump's previous sexual scandals (which Whitaker lists) have dented the MAGA/Evangelical alliance.

Despite these realities White Evangelicals overwhelmingly voted for him in 2016, 2020 and 2024 choosing instead to ignore or explain away what is an obvious reality: Trump already IS a sexual abuser. He doesn’t need to be on a client list for that to be demonstrated. His words, actions and court cases prove that he is.

Second, Evangelical churches have tolerated vast amounts of sexual misconduct in their leaders. Even if a big-time preacher loses his position in scandal, before long he's been rehabilitated and is leading somewhere else.


Megan Kelly is already lining up how she'll defend Trump if he turns out to be a participant in Epstein's crimes: Epstein wasn't really that bad.

Kelly went on to allege that she knew "somebody very, very close" to the Epstein case "who is in a position to know virtually everything." She claimed the unidentified individual "told me, from the start years and years ago, that Jeffrey Epstein, in this person's view, was not a pedophile."

"He was into the barely legal type. Like, he liked 15-year-old girls. And I realize this is disgusting. I'm definitely not trying to make an excuse for this," she continued. "I'm just giving you facts, that he wasn't into, like, 8-year-olds. But he liked the very young teen types that could pass for even younger than they were, but would look legal to a passerby."

OK, let's start here: A 15-year-old isn't "barely legal" in most states. At best she's barely illegal. Here in Massachusetts, the age of consent is 16 -- and the only reason it's that low is to avoid criminalizing 16-year-old boys. If somebody wanted to raise the age-of-consenting-to-men-over-25 to 18 or higher, I'd be for it.

Additionally (as I've observed before about Israel and genocide), when you start listing technical distinctions in the definition of a word like "pedophile", you've already gone far astray.

meanwhile, Trump's coalition begins to crack

In the most plausible American-democracy-survives-Trump scenario, a Democratic sweep of the 2025 elections is followed by elected Republicans claiming independence from their president. It's too soon to say that's definitely happening, but there are signs.

One of the biggest factors enabling Trump's rising autocracy in the nation as a whole has been that he had already achieved autocracy in the Republican Party. Combined with narrow Republican control of both houses of Congress, his complete domination of elected Republicans has allowed him to usurp congressional powers and avoid investigations of the most blatant corruption.

Recently, though, cracks have been forming. Trump's cover-up of the Epstein scandal and the Big Beautiful Bill's deep cuts to Medicaid and SNAP have allowed Marjorie Taylor Greene to get between Trump and his base. This week that dissension erupted into outright schism, as Trump withdrew his support of MTG, called her "Wacky" and "a ranting Lunatic", and dangled an endorsement to tempt some Trump-loyal Republican to challenge her in a primary.

Tucker Carlson has also been increasingly critical of the regime lately, most recently claiming that the FBI is hiding something about Thomas Crooks, the gunman who tried to assassinate Trump during the 2024 campaign. Previously, he had denounced the post-Kirk-murder crackdown on free speech as well as the Epstein cover-up and the attack on Iran. (Isolationism is another issue where a Republican can out-MAGA Trump. Look for resistance to Trump's escalating threats to Venezuela.)

When Trump demanded that Senate Republicans end the shutdown by scrapping the filibuster, Majority Leader John Thune calmly said no. Indiana just refused to accede to Trump's redistricting demand. And former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels published an op-ed that appears to be even-handed, but contains some veiled criticism of Trump. He offers this hope for the future:

At some point, the public could tire of playground insults and asinine nicknames, and start asking for a little more substance from those elected to serve them. Interminable stalemate, especially when the country enters a stretch of serious economic or national security difficulty, could trigger a collective demand to “Grow up.”

It's not a revolt yet, but Trump's levers of power are becoming unreliable. A would-be autocrat's most important asset is the belief that his power cannot be resisted, that everyone must either give in or be run over. That's slipping.


Jack Hopkins is always more cynical and speculative than I am. Now he's assessing signs that the powers behind Trump are already choosing their new champion.

and you also might be interested in ...

Following up on last week's featured post: The Washington Post spells out how the Trump administration is allowing junk insurance back into the market.


CBS hasn't been completely MAGAfied yet. Last night 60 Minutes focused on one of Trump's corrupt pardons:

Last month, President Trump granted a pardon to a billionaire felon, after the felon's company enriched a Trump family business. The pardon went to Changpeng Zhao, a Chinese-born businessman, who was accused by the Justice Department of causing, quote, "...significant harm to U.S. national security…" The president says he does not know Zhao. Our reporting shows that Zhao's company supported a Trump family firm at critical moments leading up to the president's pardon.


Trump's feds seem to be pulling out of Chicago. The next American city for them to invade is Charlotte. This is the first swing state Trump has invaded, and I suspect he'll regret it in 2026.


The reason global air temperatures don't go up every year is that some years the oceans soak up more of the extra heat. But that energy doesn't go away. An article in Grist explores what happens when oceans start expelling heat rather than absorbing it.


United States Conference of Catholic Bishops voted overwhelmingly for a statement critical of Trump's immigration policies.

We oppose the indiscriminate mass deportation of people. We pray for an end to dehumanizing rhetoric and violence, whether directed at immigrants or at law enforcement. We pray that the Lord may guide the leaders of our nation, and we are grateful for past and present opportunities to dialogue with public and elected officials.


In some previous week, we saw that Kash Patel was using an FBI plane to go to his girl friend's concerts. This week we find out that he has given her an FBI security detail.

Something I wonder about: With all the federal agents doing stuff like this, or trying to find dirt on Trump's enemies, or working on deporting nannies and landscapers, is anybody actually trying to catch criminals any more?


The regime didn't start blowing up boats it claims were smuggling drugs until September, but apparently Emil Bove, who was acting attorney general at the time and has since become a federal appellate judge, was describing the policy back in February.

So far, 20 strikes have killed about 75 people, and the regime has offered no evidence for its claims that the boats were smuggling drugs.

Ignoring the morality of killing people because you suspect them of a crime, the attacks are also bad strategy. When you capture people, you can flip them to get information. You can also capture their phones and other information devices. When you blow the boat up, you can't do any of that.

"All this strategy is doing is killing people and the same amount of drugs is getting into the U.S.," the former senior DOJ official said. "You didn't save anybody or increase the number of people you're saving in the U.S. It's extraordinarily shortsighted and I don't think it gets you the goal you want."

Monday, November 10, 2025

Law and Order

Our residents have been attacked by a lawless entity, and we can't just stand by and pretend this is acceptable.

- Mayor Daniel Biss of Evanston,
commenting on Border Patrol attacks on Evanston residents

This week's featured post is "What would a Republican healthcare plan look like?" I feel good about this post. Even if you usually skip the longer articles, you might want to read this one.

Ongoing stories

  • Trump's assault on American democracy. Tuesday's elections show that the clock is ticking on Trump's bid for autocracy. If he allows fair elections in 2026, he's going to lose control of Congress. Meanwhile, his thugs continue to abuse the citizens of Chicago.
  • Climate change. The COP30 summit is meeting in Brazil this week, with no US participation.
  • Gaza. The next step in the Gaza peace plan is to assemble a "stabilization force" of peace-keeping troops from other Muslim countries. The UAE has opted out. Turkey wants in, but Israel is dubious. Meanwhile, Netanyahu pledges to enforce the ceasefire "with an iron fist".
  • Ukraine. The Russian advance continues, but it's very slow and costly.

This week's developments

This week everybody was talking about the Democrats' sweeping election victory

Every major contested race -- Virginia's and New Jersey's governors and other statewide offices, NYC's mayor, the California's Prop 50 -- went the Democrats' way, usually with high turnout and by unexpectedly large margins.

Many words have been written and spoken about what this means. To me, it comes down to this: In the rosy scenarios where the Trump autocracy fails and American democracy survives, winning big in 2025 was a key step. An autocrat's biggest strength is the myth of his invincibility. You go along with what he wants because there seems to be no other choice.

Certainly that has been the case inside the Republican Party. For 10 months, Congress has virtually ceased to be a factor in American government, because the Republican majorities are so cowed by Trump. The Senate approved cabinet nominees (like Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, and RFK Jr.) that everyone knew were unqualified and probably dangerous. Both houses have sat mutely while Trump usurps Congress' power of the purse and its war powers. Trump's Big Beautiful Bill needed near-unanimous Republican support to pass, and got it -- despite the fact that it will take Medicaid coverage away from millions of Republican voters. The House has simply gone home for six weeks rather than vote on subpoenaing the Epstein files.

After Tuesday, Republicans in elected offices have to wonder if they're committing political suicide by following Trump so blindly.

The big message comes from New Jersey, where Trump's 2024 gains among Hispanic and Asian voters vanished. Passaic County is 43% Hispanic, according to the 2020 census. But it went for Trump by 7% in 2024. Tuesday, it went Democratic by 26%.

Statewide, Trump lost New Jersey by less than 6%, but Mikie Sherill won by more than double that margin. A similar 6% swing in 2026 elections could flip a lot of Republican seats to the Democrats.

Of course, there is a downside to these results as well: Now that's it's obvious that MAGA candidates won't hold control of Congress in free and fair 2026 elections, the pressure to steal those elections grows.


I think it's important not to get caught up in the Democratic polarization narrative the mainstream media is pushing. Yes, Mamdani won as a Democratic Socialist, while Sherill and Spanberger won as moderate Democrats. I don't see this as a problem.

The unifying principles are to be authentic, to recognize that a large percentage of the electorate feels poorly served by our economic system and left out of our politics, and to say to those people: "I see you, and I want to do specific things to help you."

The specific policies, and whether they are leftist or centrist, are far less important.

Above all, don't get caught up in the Socialism vs Capitalism argument, as if these were two Manichean forces inevitably at each other's throats. We are all socialists and we are all capitalists. Do you support your town having a public fire department? To that extent, you're a socialist. Do you want your town's restaurants to compete on price and quality, letting the local market decide which ones thrive? To that extent, you're a capitalist.

The issue is where to draw the line between the public and private sectors. That's a serious and important question, but it has many viable answers and many opportunities for compromise that you'll miss if you see nothing but capitalist/socialist polarization.


A lot of people are angsting over the conflicting poll results: Trump's approval continues to sink, but the public's opinion of the Democratic Party hasn't improved. I don't think it's that mysterious: In most of the country, you can't win just by being a generic Democrat. People don't connect the Democrats with any particular message, so you have to bring your own message. You also have to be an individual and project a personality people identify with.

We might go into next November with the polls still close on whether people want Republicans or Democrats to control Congress. But if Democrats do their job right, people will look at the Democrat running in their district and find something they like or are even excited by.


Too much fun to pass up: A kindergarten teacher responds to Trump's tantrum after losing Tuesday.

and the shutdown

Which will probably end in a few days as the longest in history, breaking the record from Trump's first term. Senate Republicans got the exact number of Democrats they needed to pass their "compromise", which amounts to Democrats surrendering without getting anything meaningful in return.

The deal:

  • funds the full government through January 30
  • funds the Departments of Agriculture and Veterans Affairs for the full fiscal year (i.e., until October 1)
  • funds SNAP (i.e. food stamps) for the full fiscal year
  • gives federal workers fired during the shutdown their jobs back and prevents further layoffs through January 30
  • grants backpay to all federal workers furloughed or working without pay during the shutdown

What it doesn't do: anything to help the tens of millions of Americans whose ObamaCare premiums are going to skyrocket for 2026. Majority Leader Thune has promised a vote on a bill to preserve the subsidies that kept those plans affordable, but that's a political concession rather than anything real. Even if the Senate passes that measure, Speaker Johnson has said it won't get a vote in the House. So basically, the Senate vote will frame the issue, positioning Democrats as the ones who voted for it and Republicans as the ones who blocked it. But it won't actually help anyone pay for health insurance.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, one of the eight Democrats who voted for the bill, exemplified the defeatist attitude Democrats so often bring to negotiations: "This was the only deal on the table." The Republican position is what it is, and Democrats just have to adjust to it.

The Democrats' surrender came in spite of all indications that they were winning the political battle of the shutdown: Polls showed Trump and the Republicans were taking more of the blame, and Democrats overwhelmingly won Tuesday's elections.

Josh Marshall recognizes all that, but finds this silver lining:

When the time came Democrats fought. They held out for 40 days, the longest shutdown standoff in history. They put health care at the center of the national political conversation and inflicted a lot of damage on Trump. At 40 days they could no longer hold their caucus together. And we got this.

That’s a sea change in how the congressional party functions. And that’s a big deal. Many people see it as some kind of epic disaster and are making all the standard threats about not voting or not contributing or whatever. That’s just not what I see. It’s a big change in the direction of the fight we need in the years to come that just didn’t go far enough. Yet.

... Meanwhile, keep purging all the folks who can’t get with the new program. If a senator is from a comfortably Blue State and wasn’t vocally in favor of fighting this out, primary them — toss them overboard. After March, Dick Durbin realized he needed to retire. Let’s see some more retirements. But don’t tell me nothing has changed or that this is some cataclysmic disaster. It’s not. This accomplished a lot. It demonstrated that Democrats can go to the mat when the public is behind them and not pay a political price. It dramatically damaged Donald Trump. It cued up the central arguments of the 2026 campaign. It just didn’t go far enough.

Meanwhile, passing the House is not a done deal yet. It'll be interesting to see how many Democrats hold out, and how many Republicans think even this victory isn't big enough.

And the House will have to come back into session to end the shutdown. Will Johnson find some new excuse not to seat Adelita Grijalva? Will he violate House rules to avoid a vote on subpoenaing the Epstein files? Expect a lot of soap opera in the next few weeks.

and Trump's violent thugs

Don't miss this interview, where Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss talks to a woman who was victimized by Border Patrol agents in an Evanston incident that has gone viral. "They're more afraid of us than we are of them," she says.

What they -- ICE and the Border Patrol -- are afraid of is not violence, but people following their vehicles, blowing whistles around their agents, and making videos of what they do. Biss was also interviewed by Democracy Now (the link at the top of the page) in a segment that included video of major ICE abuses in Evanston.

Well, on Friday, which was, by the way, Halloween, ICE and CBP were all over Evanston. It was a terrifying day. I couldn’t go two minutes without a notification coming up on my phone: They’re at this corner; they’re at this corner; they’re grabbing this landscaper, and so forth. And they were doing what they usually do these days, which is drive around town looking for someone working on a lawn whose skin is not white, and grab that person and abduct them. And so, the rapid responders were out in force, and there was a lot of activity, and I was driving around trying to do what I could.

And then, in the early afternoon, the following thing happened. The vehicle, which was driven by a CBP agent, for whatever that’s worth, that had been driving around the region and was being followed by residents — which is what happens all the time because our community is rising up against this invasion — they decided they don’t want scrutiny, they don’t want to be followed, they don’t want to be observed, they don’t want to be videotaped, and, most of all, they don’t want to be criticized. They appear to have acted deliberately to cause an accident. They jammed on the brakes right after going through an intersection and to force the car following them to rear end them, which, of course, created a scene. And there were people who gathered, who were watching and who were yelling at them and blowing their whistles and screaming. And then they appear to have just started beating people up for no reason. And folks may have seen these videos, that have gotten a lot of attention, including one where they’ve got this young man on the ground, and his head is on the asphalt, and they’re literally punching him in the head. And then, after a while of this, they jammed three people into their vehicle, abducted them, drove them around, and eventually, later on, released them.

If you're not familiar with the Chicago area, you may not realize how incredible this whole scene is. Evanston is the lakefront suburb just north of Chicago. It is the home of Northwestern University, and in general is very upscale. It's not a place where ICE or CBP should be looking for "the worst of the worst", as Trump promised during the 2024 campaign. So if you look at what Trump's thugs are doing and say, "That would never happen here, in my town", think again.

and the Supreme Court's tariff hearing

I have been deeply skeptical of this Supreme Court's ability to defend the Constitution against Trump. In particular, I've doubted they will apply the same standards to Trump that they did to Biden. They invented the "major questions doctrine" and greatly expanded the "non-delegation doctrine" precisely to limit Biden's executive authority. Now, those same standards clearly apply to Trump's sweeping tariffs, but I've doubted the Court will bother to notice.

I'm less sure about that skepticism now. Wednesday's oral arguments showed some of the conservative justices -- especially Gorsuch -- worrying about major questions and non-delegation. The issue in a nutshell is that tariffs are taxes, and the taxing power belongs so intrinsically to Congress that it can't be delegated to the President.

Gorsuch raised the question of whether Congress could also delegate its power to declare war, and later wondered what a more liberal president could do with the tariff power: Suppose a Democratic president declared a climate emergency and tariffed the importation of internal combustion engines?

You can't always deduce justices' final opinion from the questions they ask, but I expected the conservative justices to be creating room for themselves to give Trump what he wants, as they so often do. I didn't see that.


The Court also won't be reversing its same-sex marriage decision this term.

and you also might be interested in ...

Nancy Pelosi announced her retirement from Congress when her current term ends in January.

By any standard, Pelosi is a giant in congressional history. She was the first female speaker, and the most effective speaker of either party in my lifetime. She took criticism from the left because of her broadly centrist policies, but I can't remember her blocking any liberal proposal if the votes were there to pass it.

Retirement, like death, is one of those moments that calls for a magnanimous response. But of course, Trump doesn't have a magnanimous bone in his body. He responded to the news by calling Pelosi an "evil woman" and saying that "she did the country a great service by retiring".


I'm going to display my own lack of a magnanimous response by commenting on the death of Dick Cheney. I won't rehash all the things I fault him for, but I regret that now he will never stand trial at the ICC in The Hague.


When 60 Minutes asked Trump about pardoning crypto billionaire Changpeng Zhao, he claimed not to know who Zhao is. The company Zhao founded has made deals with the Trump family's crypto venture, but that couldn't have anything to do with the pardon, could it?

I'd like to ask Speaker Johnson which option is worse: that Trump is lying about a corrupt pardon, that he signs pardons without knowing who the people are, or that his dementia has progressed to the point that he can't remember the decisions he makes.


Here's a cartoonist's take on how media coverage has changed in the last 50 years:

and let's close with something natural

The Guardian has a spectacular gallery of nature photography.

Monday, November 3, 2025

Despotic Encroachment

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.

- George Washington, The Farewell Address (1796)

This week's featured posts are "The Shutdown Gets Serious" and "Could a Third Term Happen?".

Ongoing stories

  • Trump's assault on American democracy. The most important article to read this week came from the NYT's Editorial Board: "Are We Losing Our Democracy?". It lists 12 traits of an autocratic regime, and details how Trump has achieved some and is making inroads on the others. Articles like this one make it clear that words like "autocrat", "fascist", etc. or not just insults or evidence of Trump derangement. They are clear assessments of where we are.
  • Climate change. I'm late to notice, but the rhetoric of climate denial has changed.
  • Gaza. Nominally there is still a ceasefire, but the killing continues: "On Tuesday, Israeli airstrikes killed more than 100 Palestinians, at least 66 of them women and children, in the deadliest day since Donald Trump declared the war was over. Israel said the bombings were in response to an attack in Rafah city that killed a soldier carrying out demolitions there."
  • Ukraine. Russia continues a slow and costly advance in the Donetsk region, while Ukrainian drones get increasingly effective inside Russia.

This week's developments

This week everybody was talking about the shutdown

A lapse in SNAP benefits and higher premiums on ObamaCare policies both kicked in on Saturday. That's the topic of one of the featured posts.

This week Trump floated his solution to the shutdown, which is the one I predicted two weeks ago: The Senate should do away with the filibuster so that he wouldn't have to negotiate with Democrats. So far, Senate Republicans don't seem interested.

and tariffs

The Senate voted three times this week to revoke the national emergencies Trump declared to raise tariffs on Canada, Brazil, and the broad range of countries in his "liberation day" tariffs. The votes will have no practical effect because the House will not concur and Trump would veto the resolution if they did, but they do mark the first stirrings of resistance in the Senate, at least among Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Rand Paul, and Mitch McConnell.

Friday the Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether the  International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 really works the way Trump says it does, and gives him the power to do whatever he wants with tariffs. Lower courts have said no, but that's because they were doing law; the Supreme Court may be doing something else.

The Brazil and Canada tariffs should be the biggest piece of evidence against Trump having the power he claims. Both seem to have less to do with national security and more with Trump's personal rages.

He imposed 50% tariffs on Brazil because that country prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned its former president, Jair Bolsonaro, for doing essentially the same thing Trump did on January 6. He recently raised tariffs on Canada because the province of Ontario produced an ad he didn't like.

and tomorrow's elections

Odd-numbered years are usually slow for elections, but there are a few: Tomorrow New York City will elect a new mayor, and Virginia and New Jersey will elect new governors.

Democrats are favored in the Virginia and New Jersey races.

In NYC, Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary, but the party establishment has not united around him. Former Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo is running as an independent. Mamdani is ahead in the polls.

Mamdani is a charismatic candidate who appeals to young voters. He is also Muslim, has been critical of Israel, and is part of the Democratic Socialist wing of the party. Big money is being spent to take him down, but it doesn't seem to be working.

and the White House

Three stories of Trump's abuses of power got attention these last two weeks:

  • tearing down the East Wing of the White House to build a massive gilded ballroom
  • filing claims against his own Justice Department asking for $230 million
  • hinting at a run for a third term

The third term, which he later backed away from, at least for now, is covered in one of the featured posts. As for the $230 million,

The president insisted on Tuesday that the government owes him “a lot of money” for previous justice department investigations into his conduct, while at the same time asserting his personal authority over any potential payout.“

It’s interesting, ’cause I’m the one that makes the decision, right?” Trump said at the White House, responding to questions about administrative claims he filed seeking roughly $230m related to the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago and the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The New York Times had reported the claims on Tuesday.

Trump’s comment lays out a circular situation: Trump as president would in effect decide whether Trump as claimant receives taxpayer money for investigations into Trump as defendant.

The circularity is the only reason these claims might be paid. Both the Mar-a-Lago search and the Russia investigation were totally justified, and his claims otherwise would be laughed out of court. Trump says he would give the money to charity, but he's said things like that before.

You might wonder how Trump can spend $300 million on a ballroom without consulting Congress, but he says he's raising the money privately, from a list of individuals and corporations all of whom will likely want government favors at some point. In the long run, taxpayers would probably be better off paying for the ballroom themselves.

He also hasn't consulted the National Capital Planning Commission. Hillary Clinton made the key point: "It's not his house."

and you also might be interested in ...


Here's a typical story about how the Trump administration responds to corruption: Last Sunday, FBI Director Kash Patel began taking heat on social media for going to State College, PA on an FBI jet so that he could watch his girlfriend sing the national anthem at a wrestling match. The plane then went on to Nashville, where she lives.

Clearly somebody should be fired for this, and somebody was: the guy who oversees the FBI's jet fleet. Patel appears to blame him for the story getting out, despite the fact that his flights were trackable by the general public.


The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) also considers disinformation to be part of its mission, which is how they got interested in climate change. They put out a report about how climate denialists have changed their tactics in 2024. (But I just noticed it this week). They distinguish "old denial" (which says climate change either isn't happening or isn't caused by humans burning fossil fuels) from "new denial" (which creates doubt about what can or should be done).

They had an AI algorithm produce and examine transcripts from more than 12K YouTube videos posted by climate denialists between 2018 and 2023. This graphic explains what they found.

https://skepticalscience.com/pics/CCDH-Report-Figure01-1200px.jpg

It's worth noting that President Trump mixes old and new denial. In September he said this to the UN General Assembly:

This "climate change," it’s the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, in my opinion. All of these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons, were wrong. They were made by stupid people that have cost their countries fortunes and given those same countries no chance for success. If you don’t get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail.

The PBS article I quoted this from debunks many of Trump's claims.


One big step towards the MAGA takeover of American media is faux-independent Bari Weiss becoming editor-in-chief of CBS News. How this happened is an instructive lesson in media consolidation: CBS was taken over by Viacom in 2000, spun off in 2005, then reacquired in 2019. Viacom took the name of its subsidiary Paramount, reflecting its entertainment-media focus.

Paramount then merged with Skydance. The merger was announced in 2024, but needed Justice Department approval to avoid antitrust issues. That approval came in August, after Paramount paid Trump $16 million to settle a his meritless lawsuit against CBS' 60 Minutes, and then cancelled Stephen Colbert's show after the comedian called the settlement what it was: "a big fat bribe".

Paramount-Skydance is now controlled by the Ellison family, who are Trump supporters. Larry Ellison, who co-founded Oracle, is #2 on Forbes list of the richest people in the US. He was briefly the richest man in the world in September with a net worth over $300 billion. His son David Ellison is the CEO of Paramount Skydance. David is the one who picked Weiss to head CBS News.

The best intro to Bari Weiss comes from John Oliver, who focused on her three weeks ago.

Now Bari Weiss is choosing the next anchor of CBS Evening News, which was the most important job in news back when Walter Cronkite had it. Most of the names being kicked around are from Fox News.


You might wonder why Texas AG Ken Paxton would do this:

Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue for deceptively marketing Tylenol to pregnant mothers despite knowing that early exposure to acetaminophen, Tylenol’s only active ingredient, leads to a significantly increased risk of autism and other disorders.

I mean, it's not like anyone but RFK Jr. actually believes Tylenol significantly increases autism risk. So how can Paxton hope to win a suit claiming that Tylenol's makers "knew" something none of the experts in the field know today?

Amanda Marcotte explains: Paxton has lost his lead over incumbent Senator John Cornyn for the GOP senate nomination in Texas. He desperately needs Trump's endorsement, so he is demonstrating to the Mad King that he is willing to act on whatever nonsense the regime spits out.

and let's close with a song parody

The Marsh Family adapts a Paul Simon tune to the RFK Jr. era: "Measles and Polio Down in the Schoolyard."