Monday, July 29, 2024

Forward or Back?

Make America great again.

- Donald Trump

We are not going back.

- Kamala Harris

This week's featured posts are "The Harris Surge" and "Couches, cat ladies, and J. D. Vance".

This week everybody was talking about the Harris surge

That's the subject of one featured post. Here's something I left out of that piece: Fox News' Brian Kilmeade criticizing Kamala for speaking to 6,000 members of the historically Black Zeta Phi Beta Sorority rather than attending Netanyahu's speech to Congress.

She'd rather address, in the summer, a sorority -- a colored sorority. Like she can't get out of that.

This segment of Nicole Wallace's show demonstrates what Harris candidacy means to Black people and especially Black women. Erin Haines describes Republican's racist attacks on Harris as "a train that is never late".

The segment replays part of a Harris interview:

So here's the thing about breaking barriers. Breaking barriers does not mean that you start on one side of the barrier, and you end up on the other side. There's a breaking involved. And when you break things you get cut. And you may bleed. And it is worth it every time.

Maya Wiley responds:

We have been cut. When she says that ... we have lived that cut as students at Ivy League schools. We lived that cut when we were lawyers standing in front of a judge that said "Where's the lawyer?"

And she calls out the sense of "victimization" Trump keeps appealing to:

People who are victimized by fairness. Who are victimized by competition from the competent. And who are upset because they have for so long gotten to be mediocre and rise.

The whole thing is worth watching.

and J. D. Vance

the subject of the other featured post. And I didn't even get around to mentioning this weird conversation he had on a podcast in 2021. He claimed "a core part of what's wrong with journalism in America" is that female reporters are panicking about their biological clocks running out. And then this:

they're all fundamentally atheist or agnostic. They have no real value system.

Because to him the only values are Christian values. If you don't have those values, you don't have any values.

and Trump's "You won't have to vote any more"

A mistake journalists and pundits often make with Trump is to hear what he says and think: "He couldn't possibly have meant that." Then they search for some less threatening interpretation, and claim that's what he must have really meant.

Well, this weekend I caught myself about to do the same thing. Friday, Trump spoke to Turning Point Action, a political group of right-wing "Christians" [About that: How much of the Sermon on the Mount would they reject as "woke"?] founded by Charlie Kirk. He said that Christians needed to get out and vote for him just this once.

You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what? It’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.

That sure sounds like he's confessing to exactly what his enemies charge: If he gets another term, democracy will be over in America. Nobody will have to vote any more.

But then I thought: No, he must not have meant that. He must be talking to Christians who usually ignore politics, telling them that they should make an exception this time. (Even that isn't a very positive take: He's pitching his message to people who think democracy is a burden; they should vote for him so they can slough off the chore of self-government.)

But he said what he said. He should have to explain it, not me.

As he so often does, Pete Buttigieg had the perfect response when he talked to Jen Psaki yesterday: "I don't want to have to worry about what he means."

Marcy Wheeler traces how the NYT covered this speech: Its initial headline was about Trump calling Harris "a bum". Only after the won't-have-to-vote clip caught fire on social media did the NYT mention it -- in paragraph 14, with the explanation I suggested above.


As he so often does, Trump wants it both ways on his failed assassination: He wants to brag about "taking a bullet for democracy", but he doesn't want to provide any transparency about his injuries. (In recent appearances, his ear looks fine.)

Predictably, the NYT completely ignored the transparency issue and did its own analysis to back up Trump's claim about the bullet. The FBI later said more-or-less the same thing, though they left open whether he was hit by a whole bullet or just a fragment of one.

This is the result of Trump successfully working the refs: He has complained so loud for so long about "the fake news media" that the NYT is too intimidated to apply the standards every other politician is subject to.

Appallingly, the Times' editorial board then framed transparency as a both-sides issue, and called on Harris to make the first moves: "she needs to do more, and she needs to do it quickly".


Trump won't release the real ER report on his injury, so somebody made one up. It's fake, but I love it.

and Elon Musk

Elon had a bad week. On Tuesday, Tesla announced that its second-quarter earnings dropped 45% compared to last year. It was bad news in two ways: the number of cars sold was down 4.8%, and profit on each car dropped as well, as the company had to cut prices on some models. Tesla, which the market treats as a growth stock, saw its shares drop from around $250 to $225. Musk owns over 700 million shares, so his net worth went down nearly $18 billion. The shares still sell at over 60 times earnings (more than double the market average), so there's still a long way to fall if growth doesn't resume.

Tesla has a number of problems, starting with increased competition in the electric-vehicle market, and including the Cybertruck, which is looking like an Edsel-level blunder. The company's fantasy of self-driving robotaxis continues to recede into the future. But Musk himself has also become a drag on Tesla, as liberal electric-vehicle buyers are turned off by his increasingly fascist social-media presence.

Last month, Tesla shareholders approved a plan to grant Musk tens of billions of dollars worth of additional stock options, under the implied threat that he might take his future ideas elsewhere. If those ideas are anything like the Cybertruck, the company will be sorry it didn't let him go.

Musk's personal image took yet another hit this week, as his 20-year-old trans daughter responded publicly to comments he had made about her Monday in an interview on Jordan Peterson's podcast. Musk told Peterson that his "son" was "dead", "killed by the woke mind virus", and that Musk himself had been "tricked" into approving gender-affirming treatments.

Thursday, Musk's child, Vivian Jenna Wilson, gave an interview to NBC News.

I think he was under the assumption that I wasn’t going to say anything and I would just let this go unchallenged. Which I’m not going to do, because if you’re going to lie about me, like, blatantly to an audience of millions, I’m not just gonna let that slide.

Wilson, who had her name legally changed two years ago to disassociate herself from Musk, described him as "absent", "cruel", and "cold". Looking at what he said, it's hard to argue with her.

and you also might be interested in ...

Last Sunday was the hottest day ever recorded on Earth. That record lasted until Monday. 2024 has consistently broken temperature-on-this-date records, and now that we're getting into the hottest part of the year it's breaking all-time records.


"Librarians are my suspects ...". This is the world MAGA is building.


Jess Piper, who writes the blog "The View from Rural Missouri", which I have linked to in the past, got swatted on Tuesday. One of her posts had drawn the ire of Libs of TikTok, which Wikipedia defines as "a handle for various far-right and anti-LGBT social-media accounts operated by Chaya Raichik". A few days later (a correlation whose causality is impossible to prove), a deputy sheriff interrupted her gardening to inform her that the sheriff's office, and several other law enforcement entities in the area, had received an email. The local water department had gotten a letter.

The email claimed to be from a close family relation. The letter stated that the family member had murdered me and my husband the night before. It went on to state that they intended to shoot and kill anyone who came on the property.

Needless to say, Jess was fine, and so was everyone else in her household. The point of a hoax like this is to provoke police to come into the situation with guns blazing, and maybe kill the unsuspecting target or her loved ones. Failing at that, the person being swatted should be terrorized, maybe so terrorized that she'll stop doing, saying, or writing things that far-right or anti-LGBT people find offensive.

It might have worked, but for the fact that Jess really does live in rural Missouri, where local authorities know most of the long-term residents. So the deputy sheriff decided to drop in on his neighbor rather than call in a SWAT team.

It sounds like the terrorizing part of the plan didn't work either.

In the end, this is the time in which we live. The internet has allowed me to find a following with like-minded people. It’s allowed me to organize across the state and remind people that folks like me exist in rural spaces. A whole lot of us live here and it’s getting out. We are contesting more rural seats and this will lead to more Democratic wins in my state.

But, with the good comes the bad. I have folks threaten me on a regular basis and now it has escalated to a swatting. But, I can’t bend to fear and I can’t stop the momentum we are building. So, I move on. We move on.

We lock arms. We do this together. I could not organize without support.

BTW: I notice Jess made an appearance across the river in Quincy, Illinois, my home town. She reports that Democrats in rural areas and small towns are just as energized as they are everywhere else.


Watch these clips of Don Jr. interviewing Vance and see what you think about those drug use rumors.


I just noticed Betsy McCaughey showing up as a panelist on CNN. Betsy is the well-known liar who is most famous for starting the death-panels hoax against the Affordable Care Act. Shame, CNN.

and let's close with something big and loud

I can't say elephants share my musical taste, but they're clearly playing something.

Monday, July 22, 2024

Resolutions

Friends and Fellow-Citizens: The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

- George Washington
The Farewell Address, 19 September, 1796

This week's featured post is "The Two Kinds of Unity".

This week everybody was talking about Joe Biden's decision

Yesterday, Joe Biden announced that he is ending his candidacy, but will continue as president to the end of his term. He endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to take his place. He promises to make a formal address to the nation later this week. (He's been in Delaware recovering from Covid. I suspect he wants to be more recovered and back in the White House before he makes the address.)

I have a million reactions, but let's start with this: Can you imagine Donald Trump ever, under any circumstances, doing something that selfless? Despite the pressures brought to bear on him, if Biden had stood his ground, he would not have been denied the Democratic nomination. And despite all the recent pessimism, the fall election was still virtually a toss-up. Polling averages had Biden around 3% behind, which is not much at this stage, especially considering how late-deciding voters broke for the Democrats in 2022. So he is giving up a very real chance to continue as president for another four years.

But that scenario also includes a substantial risk of Trump being elected again, which would be a disaster for this country. So Biden is stepping aside. As historian Jon Meacham wrote in today's NYT:

By surrendering the possibility of enduring in the seat of ultimate power, Mr. Biden has taught us a landmark lesson in patriotism, humility and wisdom.

Trump could never do that. He showed on January 6 that he would risk pulling the whole country down around him in order to stay in power.


Then we come to Kamala Harris. Biden has endorsed her, and so have a few key Democrats like Rep. James Clyburn. More importantly, none of the frequently mentioned competitors has stepped up to challenge her.

The media is spinning all kinds of theories about the process for choosing a nominee, and salivating over the prospect of the first contested convention in many years. But I refuse to speculate until some major candidate other than Harris steps forward. For weeks we've been comparing Biden to Somebody Else, and that kind of conversation needs to stop. If you can't identify who Somebody Else is and point me to the place where they have announced their candidacy, I don't want to hear it.

The Democratic Convention starts in Chicago on August 19. A "virtual vote" was supposed to happen sometime in early August, because of an Ohio deadline that could have kept the Democratic nominee off that state's ballot. But Ohio has since changed its rules, so that's not necessary any more. That vote, though, has neither been scheduled nor called off, so we'll see what happens.


These are maddening times to watch the news networks, because we all want to know what's going to happen, but nobody can tell us. So the airwaves are full of speculation that is mostly baseless. I advise ignoring it: Tune in occasionally to see if there's any actual news, but turn the TV off as soon as the talking heads start speculating. You'll be happier and saner.

Also ignore the polls for at least a week. Harris-as-candidate will poll differently from Harris-as-possibility. Maybe better, maybe worse. (I notice myself feeling more excited about her than I thought I would.) Wait and see.

A few speculations are worthwhile: anticipating attacks on Harris, as Judd Legum and Kat Abu do. Abu's take is particularly interesting: She thinks the Right has wasted four years when it could have been assembling a supervillain image of Harris, a la Hillary Clinton. Instead, they've just painted her as ditzy, which definitely should make swing voters see her as the lesser-of-evils compared to Trump. They'll undoubtedly try to paint a new supervillain image of her, but it won't penetrate as well as it would have if it had been marinating for four years.

Dueling ads are already out: an attack ad against Harris blaming her for covering up Biden's shortcomings, and a pro-Harris ad billing her as "the anti-Trump". "She prosecuted sex predators. He is one."


Josh Marshall:

Donald Trump and [Trump campaign adviser] Chris LaCivita are about to hit Kamala Harris with an avalanche of racist and sexist attacks and a ton of slut-shaming. Democrats across the board need to be saying now what we all know, which is that this will bring out the very worst of Trump. Racism and sexism are his brand. Charlottesville is his brand. You can’t just be on the receiving end of this stuff. Trump is about to show the kind of gutter white nationalist and racist pol he is. Force the press and all observers to see this totally predictable move through that prism. ... Of course Trump will go there, and these attacks and those attacks can be very damaging. But Trump the racist bully and gangster is what kills him in the suburbs. It’s what embarrasses people.


One thing Biden's decision does is put the too-old-to-be-president shoe on the other foot. Trump is 78, which means that in four years he'll be older than Biden is now. Unlike Biden, he's fat, out of shape, and eats a lot of junk food. Like Biden, his mental acuity is dubious. His proposed VP is 39 and has been a senator for a year and a half, during which he has accomplished essentially nothing. That VP, who very well could be president soon if Trump wins, has no other experience in public office.


I'm reposting a David Roberts quote from a few weeks ago:

So, say Biden stepped aside in favor of Harris tomorrow. How long until the vapid gossips we call political reporters find something wrong with her, some alleged flaw they just have to write 192 stories about? ... About 30 f'ing seconds, is my guess.

The NYT in particular is worth watching. It has been running a dedicated campaign to push Biden out since ... I don't know, around March at the very latest. Will they be happy now? Will they finally start covering Trump's inadequacies with the intensity they deserve? Or will they wait a week or so and then go after Harris just as hard as they went after Biden?

and the Republican Convention

The Republican Convention in Milwaukee just ended on Thursday, but it already seems like very old news. The featured post discusses Trump's record-long acceptance speech, which was billed as a call for national unity. The media has been describing it as two speeches at war with each other: a unity call followed by Trump's usual divisive rhetoric.

But I think they're missing something: What Trump means by "unity" is that his opponents give up and submit to his domination. Once you understand that, the two halves of the speech fit together perfectly: He will be a president "for all America" as soon as all Americans shut up and get in line behind him.

Oh, and the speech was full of lies, as CNN's fact-checker pointed out.


J. D. Vance's acceptance speech centered on the kind of false populism he specializes in:

We're done catering to Wall Street. We'll commit to the working man.

But Trump contradicted that sentiment at his first post-convention rally in Grand Rapids:

I love Elon Musk. ... We have to make life good for our smart people, and he's as smart as you get. But Elon endorsed me the other day. And I read ... [that] he gives me $45 million a month.

That's how it works in TrumpWorld. He'll be "committed to the working man" until that man's boss writes him a check.


The Convention's most vivid Party-of-Dumb moment came when Don Jr.'s girlfriend Kimberley Guilfoyle said:

It is no wonder that the heroes who stormed Normandy and faced down communism sadly say they don't recognize our country any more.

All over America, US History teachers were covering their faces and shaking their heads. The heroes who stormed Normandy were fighting Nazis. The Communists were our allies in that war.

Guilfoyle's historical rewrite got me wondering: Do Republicans even recognize any more that the Nazis were the bad guys? Present-day Nazis are MAGA now, so the idea that Americans could have been fighting them in World War II seems unthinkable. Near the end of Trump's speech, he recalled glorious past battles from our history: "Yorktown, Gettysburg, and Midway". Midway, a battle against the Japanese, not the Nazis. By itself, it's a trivial thing, but the pattern seems worrisome.

and the Trump shooting

When I wrote last week's blog, the shooting was still too new for there to be many reportable facts. There had been a shooting and Trump got hit, but he was OK. A few other people were wounded and one had died. The shooter, a 20-year-old White guy, was also dead. That was pretty much it.

Now we know a bit more: Trump was barely injured at all. His ear wound didn't even require stitches. The ear bandages his cultists wore at the convention reminded me of the purple-heart band-aids Republican conventioneers wore in 2004, to minimize John Kerry's war wounds. Then they were trying to make something serious look trivial; this time they wanted something trivial to look serious.

A lot of investigating has happened since last week, but nothing has come out that fits into a convenient narrative. The shooter was into guns, and had some vaguely conservative views, but wasn't particularly active politically. The lack of obvious hostility towards Trump

has left authorities puzzled about a motive for his assault and has had investigators speculating that his intentions may have been less politically motivated and more about attacking the highest-profile target near him. ... In addition to the former president, Crooks had searched online about President Joe Biden and had photos on his phone of other prominent figures from both parties. He searched for the location of Trump’s rally as well as the upcoming Democratic National Convention, the briefing notes say, and discovered that Trump planned to appear just an hour’s drive away from his home in the Pittsburgh suburbs. That suggests Crooks may have been looking to carry out a high-profile shooting, and the Trump event’s proximity and timing offered the most accessible opportunity, federal officials have speculated.

The New Yorker's Jay Caspian Kang suggests that the shooting may have no real political effect, for precisely that reason:

When an act of violence doesn’t lend itself to a clear argument or a tidy story, we often choose not to think about it.

and J. D. Vance

To my surprise, I discover I have a public record when it comes to J. D. Vance: In 2016 I reviewed Hillbilly Elegy for UU World magazine as part of a batch of white-working-class books.

Vance and I are both from what I like to call the "transitional class" -- people who grew up working class but got an education and are professional class now. (I became a mathematician while Vance became a lawyer.) Though we went different ways both politically and religiously, I thought Vance's book was a credible account of how a transitional class person might become a social and religious conservative:

Realizing how close he came to having no one who cared about him, he values traditional notions of duty—holding a marriage together, taking responsibility for children—over individual fulfillment. His feelings about government come not from the military or the state university that helped him, but from the foster care system that he feared would take him from his grandmother and give him to strangers. When as a teenager he reconnected with his father, he found a man who had converted to conservative Christianity and established a new family blessedly free from drinking, daily screaming arguments, and violence. Vance’s adult religion, though conservative, seems to be less about theology or salvation than about the hope of establishing such islands of peace and sanity in an unstable world.

As for who Vance has become since, I turn to two men of his generation also from the center of the country: Pete Buttigieg and Trae Crowder. "I knew a lot of guys like J. D. Vance," Pete says in his trademark blunt-but-not-nasty style.

When I got to Harvard I found a lot of people like him, who would say whatever they needed to to get ahead. And five years ago that seemed like being the anti-Trump Republican, so that's what he was. ... Five years later, the way he gets ahead is that [Trump]'s the greatest guy since sliced bread.

Pete compares Vance to Mike Pence, who similarly started out with one set of principles -- Evangelical Christian moral rectitude -- and then spent down his credibility making excuses for Trump's immoral behavior. Pete notes how that ended "with Trump supporters proposing that he be hanged for using the one shred of integrity he still had to stand up to an attempt to overthrow the government". Pete expresses his hope that things work out better for Vance "maybe not as a politician, but as a human being".

As for why Silicon Valley billionaires support J. D. Vance (Peter Thiel is Vance's biggest political donor) and Trump (Elon Musk is giving millions to Trump's SuperPAC) in spite of otherwise being pro-science, anti-climate-change, pro-gay-rights, and libertarian rather than authoritarian, Pete says:

We've made it way too complicated. It's actually super-simple. These are very rich men who have decided to back the Republican Party that tends to do good things for very rich men.


Trae Crowder, the "liberal redneck", is even less generous, seeing Vance as someone who has sold out the people they both claim to represent. His rant is entertaining, and more fun to watch than to read.

and you also might be interested in ...

A half-written article that keeps slipping from week to week as more urgent news erupts is "The Mythical Trump Economy", about nostalgia for pre-Covid America, which fundamentally has nothing to do with Trump or his policies. In the meantime, look at the WaPo's "Trump's Economy vs. Biden's in 17 Charts".


I also still haven't found time to read Judge Cannon's dismissal of the stolen-documents charges against Trump, the most obviously open-and-shut case against him. Here's the analysis on Law Dork:

It’s a weak-on-the-law ruling for which Chief Justice John Roberts deserves a not insignificant amount of blame — despite his name not appearing once in her 93-page opinion.

Roberts has led the Supreme Court into an era in which precedent can selectively be ignored, eviscerated, or overruled when it gets in the way of conservatives’ goals. That, in turn, has led lower court judges to feel that they have been given power to do the same — predicting, in essence, the precedents that they believe the current court would ignore.

This is not how the law is to work. And yet, one need only glance through Cannon’s decision to see that reality at work Monday in her effort to do Trump’s bidding.


Authoritarianism expert Ruth Ben-Ghait:

We know from studies of authoritarianism that the more despondent and despairing people are, the more they become dependent on the promises of a savior, someone who's going to save the nation. They become prone to accepting conspiracy theories. They don't know what's true any more, so they need an anchor, and that anchor would be Trump. So be very wary when you hear these slogans designed to discredit democracy and designed to convince people that America is failing.

Aaron Rupar posts a clip of Trump praising authoritarian leaders, concluding with:

We have to have somebody to protect us. And Orban was right: We have to have somebody to protect us.


Amanda Marcotte:

We asked RNC attendees when America was last "great." Regardless of age, most said when they were children. Says nothing about America, but lots about conservative psychology.

A Salon newsletter article fleshes this out:

As one commenter on Tik Tok aptly noted: "I'm amazed at the grown men who don't understand that life was simpler when they were children because they were children."

and let's close with something fake

Sometimes you just can't let the facts get in the way of a good story. When a flaw in a Crowdstrike security update crashed Microsoft systems around the world, somebody created a fake image of the Blue Screen of Death filling the Las Vegas Sphere. Snopes declared the rumor false.

Monday, July 15, 2024

Bickering

Yes. I know: Mr. Biden is old, is prone to gaffes, walks stiffly and had a disastrous debate with Mr. Trump. But this I also know: A presidential election is not an entertainment contest. It does not begin or end with a 90-minute debate. Enough! Mr. Biden may not be the ideal candidate, but he will be the candidate and should be the candidate. And with an effective campaign that speaks to the needs of working families, he will not only defeat Mr. Trump but beat him badly. It’s time for Democrats to stop the bickering and nit-picking.

- Senator Bernie Sanders "Joe Biden for President"

This week's featured posts are "Just Don't Do It", about the temptation to commit political violence, and "Don't Ignore the Republican Platform".

This week everybody was talking about the Trump shooting

I assume you already know that somebody shot at Trump during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania on Saturday. They hit his ear, but did him no lasting damage. The shooter was killed and so was one other person; two were critically injured. The shooter has been identified, and everybody is wondering how he established a position so close to the stage. Officials aren't speculating about his motives yet, so I won't either. Sometimes assassins have coherent political agendas, but sometimes what they do only makes sense in their own inner worlds. Wait and see.

There is a fairly standard statement that any responsible leader needs to make in this situation, and Joe Biden made it:

I have been briefed on the shooting at Donald Trump’s rally in Pennsylvania. I’m grateful to hear that he’s safe and doing well. I’m praying for him and his family and for all those who were at the rally, as we await further information. Jill and I are grateful to the Secret Service for getting him to safety. There’s no place for this kind of violence in America. We must unite as one nation to condemn it.

This sentiment has been echoed by Kamala Harris, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, and all sorts of other Democratic leaders -- including Nancy Pelosi, who put aside the way Trump and Don Jr. responded when an attacker looking to take her hostage instead seriously injured her husband.

As one whose family has been the victim of political violence, I know firsthand that political violence of any kind has no place in our society. I thank God that former President Trump is safe. As we learn more details about this horrifying incident, let us pray that all those in attendance at the former President’s rally today are unharmed.

I've decided not to speculate about the shooter, his motives, or the possible effects on the presidential campaign. For the most part, I find myself agreeing with Jay Kuo, especially his expectation that Trump and his cult will "overplay their hand". There's already an attempt to cash in.

One possible result of the shooting is pressure on Democrats to tone down their attacks on Trump, which I would hate to see. I understand why President Biden said in his televised address:

The political rhetoric in this country has gotten very heated. It’s time to cool it down. And we all have a responsibility to do that.

But of course we know what will happen: Trump will continue his violent rhetoric, and the media will call Biden a hypocrite any time he criticizes Trump, no matter how justified that criticism is. Rick Perlstein posted:

A predictable effect of the Trump shooting that the Republicans have worked the refs by saying that this is what happens when you say their candidate means to end democracy. This plays to agenda-setting elite political journalists'' cult of consensus--for their immediate response was to cluck about "politicized" responses, when the only politicized response were from Republicans (Democrats who went on the record also responded with consensus cliches).

Republicans thus are already succeeding in neutralizing the perceived legitimacy of Democrats continuing to make the true argument that the Republican candidate does mean to end democracy.

Nobody is addressing the elephant in the room, which is the temptation almost everybody feels to get violent, if only in fantasy. That's what one featured post is about.

and Democrats were still arguing about Biden's candidacy

Whatever you believed last week, this week proved you right. Biden kept a busy schedule, did a lot of the things his critics said he needed to do, and did them well but not perfectly. He hosted the NATO summit, held an hour-long press conference afterwards, and had enthusiastic rallies, including a fiery speech in Michigan in which he both went on offense against Trump and laid out his vision for a second term. Last night he addressed the nation about the Trump shooting. (This morning I can't find any articles about what he said, so he must have done fine.)

If you support Biden, you noted that his press conference (on foreign policy, mostly) displayed a depth of understanding we have never seen in a Trump press conference. He not only answered the questions directly, with detail and nuance, but recognized the individual reporters and made reference to their fields of expertise. If you want him out of the race, you noted that he sometimes said one word when he meant another ("Vice President Trump"), spoke in his characteristic interrupting-himself style, and wasn't particularly charismatic. It was all too little too late.

There are polls to support both points of view. 85% of Americans told an ABC poll that he's too old to be president and 65% want him to step aside. But the same poll found showed Biden within 1% of Trump, and a Marist poll has Biden up by 2%, belying the often-repeated claim that Biden "can't win", or that he needs some drastically different strategy that he still hasn't announced. 538's prediction model (which includes "fundamental" factors I don't fully understand in addition to polling) has Biden as a slight favorite.

Prominent Democrats continued to pick sides. AOC and Bernie Sanders are all in for Biden, but the number of congressional Democrats expressing doubts about his candidacy (or even outright calling for him to quit the race) is over a dozen now. Nancy Pelosi made an enigmatic statement about supporting whatever decision Biden makes, as if his announced resolve to stay in the race wasn't his final answer.


Whichever side of this argument you're on, you're probably annoyed that Trump doesn't get similar scrutiny. He never holds unscripted press conferences, only does interviews with friendly journalists who won't fact-check him or ask difficult follow-ups, hasn't released his medical records, and makes constant verbal blunders that the media calls no attention to. His bizarre rambling at public rallies is covered as Trump-being-Trump rather than medically significant symptoms.

If Trump did hold the kind of press conference Biden held Thursday, we know what we'd see, because we saw it so many times when he was president: Before long a reporter would ask him about something he didn't know, and he would respond with a word salad containing numerous falsehoods. Any follow-up question would trigger Trump to call the reporter "a disgrace" working for "the fake news media". Headlines and sound bytes from the conference would be all about Trump sparring with reporters rather than anything we learned from his answers.


More and more I feel like the media is covering itself rather than external events. Thursday, NYT analyst Peter Baker sort-of covered Biden's NATO press conference, but never actually got to the content of Biden's words, focusing instead on "every momentary flub, every verbal miscue" which "even if quickly corrected, now takes on outsize importance" because

The reality is that every public appearance between now and November will be scrutinized for evidence of infirmity.

Scrutinized by who? Well, by Peter Baker, for one. He's not reporting on events, he's announcing his intentions.

Similarly, I can't count all the headlines that have described Biden as "defiant" when he says he won't drop out of the race. But who is he defying, exactly? Mostly the very same pundits who now tag him as "defiant".


The NYT (where else?) provides Daniel Schlozman a platform to explain how the Democratic Convention can do whatever it wants, independent of what happened in the primaries. He notes that the Biden delegates are "pledged, not bound".

I realize that in the shadow of Project 2025, the long-term consequences of a bad precedent may seem small. But this kind of hair-splitting can't help but devalue the primaries going forward. Progressives should consider how this could come back to bite them.

Imagine that in 2028 or 2032, AOC pulls off some early primary upsets, gets momentum, and by summer is headed to the convention with a majority of delegates pledged-but-not-bound to support her. Unfortunately, polls show her losing to some MAGA successor like J.D. Vance or Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has been making hay by tarring AOC with the "socialist" and "radical Marxist" labels. Meanwhile, some Democratic centrist who didn't even run in the primaries -- let's say Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, who the Republicans haven't bothered to smear yet -- has better numbers. The Biden 2024 precedent would open the possibility of pushing AOC out, in spite of what the primary voters wanted.


In my opinion, the dumbest idea around is to remove Biden via the 25th Amendment, as was proposed in The New Yorker by Jeannie Suk Gersen. Of course she'd prefer that Biden resign voluntarily -- not just step down as nominee, but leave the presidency immediately.

But if Biden resists either an outright resignation or a break for the rest of his term under the Twenty-fifth Amendment, then it would be time to look to Section Four of the Amendment, which covers removing the President involuntarily. The Vice-President and a majority of the Cabinet can declare that Biden “is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” whereupon Harris would become the acting President.

Aside from the objection that this will never happen, there are two very good reasons why it shouldn't. First, the 25th Amendment isn't about the president polling badly, or worries about his abilities four years from now. It requires the VP and the cabinet to affirm that right now Biden is "unable to discharge the duties of his office". The example that everybody was talking about when the amendment was passed in 1967 was Woodrow Wilson's stroke, after which his wife Edith secretly ran the country.

Is there any evidence that Biden is incapacitated in the way the Amendment envisions? We just saw Biden host a NATO summit, which seemed to all outward appearances to go well; the alliance is united and taking decisive action to aid Ukraine. Inflation was actually negative in June. The economy continues to create jobs, and even as the unemployment rate ticks upwards to 4.1%, it remains remarkably low for this point in the interest-rate cycle. The stock market is at an all-time high. Biden has successfully negotiated with an insane Republican majority in the House, and has managed to keep the government open without giving up the gains he made (bipartisan infrastructure, the anti-climate-change provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act ...) when he had a Democratic House majority.

So independent of any policy disagreement (on issues like the border, say, if you're conservative, or Gaza if you're liberal) where's the evidence that the US is being mismanaged because Biden is unable to discharge his duties? You and I were never appointed to any office by Biden and owe him nothing, but could you sign a declaration to Congress affirming that he's incapable at this very moment? I couldn't. Using the 25th Amendment this way would set a terrible precedent.

But there's an even more serious problem, which is that once Harris is sworn in, there's no VP. So if anything happens to Harris Mike Johnson becomes president.

I know, I know: the Amendment makes provision for that:

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

So Harris can nominate Gavin Newsom or Beshear or some other White guy who could maintain the ticket's racial and gender balance. But then we're back to that insane Republican House majority, which would love to see Mike Johnson become president. Even if a handful of Republicans were willing to cross party lines, what if Johnson just adjourned the House without voting on the VP nomination?

So in the meantime, and probably until January, Johnson is next in line to be president. It would be an open invitation for some Christian nationalist nutjob to kill Harris. And if you think things like that don't happen any more, take a look at Donald Trump's ear.

and the Republican convention

It started yesterday in Milwaukee. I try to avoid speculation on this blog, but I've been expecting for months that this convention isn't going to help them. Most of the country discounts what a freak show the MAGA Republican Party has become, and I expect the Marjorie Taylor Greenes and Matt Gaetzes to be out in such force that the country can't ignore them. Most Americans haven't watched a complete Trump speech in four years, and I expect them to be surprised.

See the point made above about Trump overplaying his post-assassination-attempt hand.

Pundits are settling on J. D. Vance as Trump's VP, which fits the model I laid out some while ago. Trump's VP has to have

  • no moral code, so that his conscience won't keep him from doing whatever Trump asks (like Mike Pence's did)
  • no independent following, so that he never outshines Trump (as Marjorie Taylor Greene might among the true MAGA faithful)
  • no prominence prior to Trump, so that he owes Trump everything (which eliminates Marco Rubio).

but I've been re-reading a book

Three of them, actually: Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle, which is practically a time-trip to the late 1600s and early 1700s. Why is that worth mentioning here? Among many other things, Stephenson draws a strikingly simple line that divides Whigs from Tories: Tories believe that wealth comes from land, and Whigs believe that wealth comes from commerce.

Once you understand that, you see that generations later it was also the difference between two seminal American founders -- Jefferson and Hamilton. In Jefferson's ideal country, every family owned its own small farm. If you look at things that way, merchants and bankers -- Hamilton's people -- seem like parasites.

The Hamilton/Jefferson argument is still with us, though you have to look at everything sideways to see it: If you think wealth comes from land (and the modern assets comparable to land, like brands, intellectual property or anything else you might charge rents or royalties for), government has no natural role in the economy. (It can't create land, after all.) But if you think wealth comes from commerce, government can increase national wealth by building up the infrastructure of commerce: transportation systems, communication systems, education systems, and so on.

So if you dimly remember something in your high school US History class about Andrew Jackson fighting the Bank of the United States, that's what it was about: Does a reliable banking system play a role in generating wealth, or does it just suck money away from the common people? And if you run into somebody who thinks government can only "redistribute" wealth that it has no role in producing, channeling it from "makers" to "takers", you're hearing the latest round in an argument that is more than 300 years old.

and you also might be interested in ...

This morning, Judge Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against President Trump, the most open-and-shut of the cases against him. She wrote a 93-page opinion, which I haven't looked at yet. Marcy Wheeler is reading it, and the Lawfare blog will have a podcast on it this afternoon.

Based on nothing but intuition, I think this is a good thing, because it opens the possibility that her decision will get reversed and the case can be assigned to a judge who isn't in Trump's pocket.



When the Supreme Court's Loper decision came down two weeks ago, redefining the relationship between federal agencies and the courts, it was a little hard to describe what exactly it would mean in people's lives. Fortunately, the Public Notice blog has an article listing the cases that are already being affected.

Taken together, it’s evident that any moves the administration makes to tilt the playing field even slightly in favor of workers are designed to fail once they reach a conservative federal judge. And thanks to right-wing judge shopping, plaintiffs are often able to get their case in front of an anti-regulation judge they know will be favorable to their challenges.


Friday, Maine Senator Susan Collins told reporters she won't vote for Donald Trump.

Now imagine what a media storm there would be if Maine's other senator, Angus King, announced that he wouldn't vote for Biden. The event and the hypothetical event sound nearly the same, but clearly I'm missing something.


Rudy Giuliani's attempt to use bankruptcy to get out of his $150 million defamation judgment isn't going to work. Citing his lack of "financial transparency", a New York judge dismissed his bankruptcy case. Next stop: asset seizure.


Scientists announced a breakthrough in research on pancreatic cancer, which has the lowest survival rate of any common cancer.

and let's close with something visual

I love photo contests, and BigPicture has a great one. The photo below is called "Ghosts of the North", and I was sure it must violate the rules by superimposing one image on another. But in fact it just has a long time exposure. The wolf was there long enough to register, but not long enough to look solid.

Monday, July 8, 2024

Settled Understandings

If my colleagues on this side of the chamber actually think that President Trump committed a criminal offense, and let’s understand, a high crime is a felony, and a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. The words haven’t changed that much over time. After he’s out of office, you go and arrest him.

- Bruce Castor, lawyer defending Donald Trump against impeachment
Opening Statement, February 9, 2021

In sum, the majority today endorses an expansive vision of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the Founders, any sitting President, the Executive Branch, or even President Trump’s lawyers, until now. Settled understandings of the Constitution are of little use to the majority in this case, and so it ignores them.

- Justice Sonya Sotomayor,
dissent in Trump v United States

This week's featured posts are "The Immunity Decision: End of the Republic or No Big Deal?" and "The Biden Situation". In this morning's teaser, I promised a third article about the media meltdown over Biden, but much of that material made it into the other Biden article and the rest is below.

I also want to compliment everybody involved in last week's comments, particularly the discussion of Biden's candidacy in response to "They Both Lost. What Now?" Commenters disagreed a lot, both with me and with each other, but by and large the discussion stayed civil. We're all trying to save the Republic from autocracy; we just disagree on the best way to do it.

This week everybody should have been talking about the immunity decision

I cover this in the first featured post. Summary: It's not the end of the Republic yet, but could be a significant step in that direction. The fact that the law will no longer constrain presidents just underlines the importance of electing presidents we can trust not to abuse their power.

but we actually talked constantly about Biden's health and candidacy

The substance of what I think about Biden and his candidacy is in the second featured post: He is doing a good job and I still believe he can keep doing it. But settling down the media storm that has blown up requires political skills I don't think he has. So I am open to choosing a new candidate, but skeptical that this move will solve the problem.

Late in that post, I discuss just how out of control the mainstream media has gotten. I was originally planning to write a whole article on that, but managed to cover most of what I wanted to say in the article mentioned above. Here's the stuff that didn't make it into that article:

One day this week, I fired up my iPad's NYT app and noticed that the first six articles on the screen all had something to do with getting Biden out of the race. (Aaron Rupar noticed the same phenomenon.) All week, I kept checking CNN to see how they were covering the immunity decision, but I could never time it right: They were constantly talking about Biden's fitness for office and whether his support was eroding. In one segment I watched, Host Jim Sciutto raised those issues with CNN commentator Van Jones, pro-Biden Republican Adam Kinzinger, and Democrats Howard Dean and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. Whenever any of the four expressed support for Biden, Sciutto argued with them. No pro-Biden point could go unchallenged.

There's an agenda here, and it's not subtle.

This kind of sustained assault doesn't happen to Republicans. Republican scandals and pseudo-scandals last for a day or two and then go away. Donald Trump is still a convicted felon who tried to stay in power through force and fraud after he lost the election. Clarence Thomas is still blatantly corrupt. How often do those facts come up? Republican officials can appear on CNN without being asked about them.

But if you raise those comparisons, big-media journalists will protest, "We can't keep asking people the same questions over and over again." The Biden example, however, proves that they can. They're doing it right now. They just can't do it to Republicans.

Here's Jemele Hill's take:

The Republican Party in general is graded on a curve, but Trump especially. They’ve normalized his buffoonish bigotry. If you watched American news coverage, you would have no idea that Trump often threatens violence, promises to weaponize the DOJ against his “enemies,” is a felon, has been found liable for rape, tried to overturn an election, and incited an insurrection, among other things. If Biden is replaced, all of the coverage will be centered on the dysfunction of the Democratic Party.

AngryStaffer brings back some 2016 memories I had forgotten. We all remember how the NYT and other media blew Hillary's emails into some big scandal. But do you remember when Hillary's health was also supposed to be a big problem, one that should push her out of the race? Of course, it's eight years later now and Hillary is doing fine.

In the featured post, I raise the possibility that replacing Biden will just move the attack to the new candidate. One reason to think so is the essay the NYT published on (of all days) July 4: "Why I Don't Vote and Maybe You Shouldn't Either". If you click the link, you'll see a toned down headline "Why I Won't Vote". There's a reason for that. @capitolhunters did a deep dive into the author, one Matthew Walther, whose hairstyle and moustache looks more like Hitler than can be a coincidence.

After a big public outrage about an article denigrating voting on July 4, the Times shortened the title to "Why I Don't Vote". But then it turned out that records show Walther did vote in 2020 and 2022, so it got changed again to "Why I Won't Vote".

But anyway, what's the editor's motive in running this dishonest piece? Isn't it to suppress the youth vote, which any Democrat (Biden or not) will need in November?

and the Fourth of July

When I talk to people these days, I often hear the fantasy of going into a Rip Van Winkle sleep and not waking up until after the election. This week in particular my social media feed included a lot of mournful posts revolving around the theme of this being the last real Fourth of July, the last honest holiday of American freedom and democracy.

I don't necessarily believe that, but it's a possibility, and I understand why people are taking it seriously. But let me pass on some wisdom I picked up many years ago when I thought my wife was going to die. (She didn't.) If you're afraid you're about to lose something, appreciate it now.

So if we're really seeing the last gasp of American democracy, don't waste this time moping or wishing you were asleep. If you're worried that these might be the last days of freedom, don't miss them. Get out there and be free. Whatever "freedom" means to you personally, whatever activities you find meaningful that some authoritarian might try to stop you from doing, go do those things. Do them exuberantly and with joy.

and France and the UK elections

Counter to what this cartoonist (and a lot of other people) expected, the big winner in France's parliamentary election was the Left, not the Right. The right-wing National Rally (RN) party was leading in the first round of the elections, but ended up finishing third in the final round.

If that sounds confusing, here's how the rounds work:

The first round eliminates all candidates who fail to win the support of 12.5% of locally registered voters. Anyone who scores more than 50% of the vote with a turnout of at least a quarter of the local electorate wins automatically. The second round is a series of run-offs fought either by two, three or sometimes four candidates.

RN came out of the first round with 33% of the vote, compared to the left-wing New Popular Front's 28% and 20% for President Macron's centrist bloc. After that result, RN was expected to be the largest party in Parliament, if not winning an actual majority of seats. But instead:

The surprise result for the leftwing New Popular Front – which won 182 seats, followed by president Emmanuel Macron’s centrist Together alliance on 163 and the far right in third with 143 seats – showed the strength of tactical voting against Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN). The far right and its allies had forged a commanding lead in the first round but were ultimately held back by massive tactical voting to prevent them winning enough seats to form a government. ...

More than 200 candidates from the left and centre had pulled out of the second round last week in order to avoid splitting the vote against the RN. Those parties had called on voters to choose any candidate against the RN, in an attempt to prevent the far right winning an absolute majority and forming a government.

No party wound up with a majority, so forming a government could take some time. New Popular Front is already a cumbersome union of leftist parties, so holding them together and adding support from centrists might be tricky.


Meanwhile in the UK, the Tories are out of power for the first time since 2010. Labour won in a landslide and Keir Starmer will be the new prime minister. At least two factors are at work here: the general unpopularity of anybody who was in power during Covid (which hits both Biden and Trump here), plus the Britain-specific factor that Brexit has turned into a nightmare.

and you also might be interested in ...

You can tell something is losing popularity when Trump denies knowing anything about it. This week, he tried to distance himself from Project 2025, the plan produced by a consortium of conservative organizations to guide his second term.

Michael Steele points out the obvious:

Ok, let’s all play with Stupid for minute…so exactly how do you “disagree” with something you “know nothing about” or “have no idea” who is behind, saying or doing the thing you disagree with?

Here's why Project 2025 matters: Trump is not a detail guy. We saw that in his first term. He said he wanted a tax cut, but he knows bupkis about taxes, other than how to avoid them. So Paul Ryan had to write his plan. He said he wanted a "beautiful" health care plan to replace ObamaCare, but he knows nothing about healthcare either, so the Republican Congress ended up just barely failing to repeal ObamaCare without any replacement plan.

He hasn't changed or learned much of anything, so if he's going to have any policies during a second term, somebody else is going to have to create them. That's Project 2025.


Florida's law allowing "volunteer chaplains" from outside organizations to provide counseling services in public schools took effect this week, and the Satanic Temple announced that it was ready to participate in any district that started such a program. So far none have. The Guardian article says this about the church's beliefs:

The Satanic Temple champions Satan not as a literal, omnipresent demon, but as a symbol of rebellion and resistance to authoritarianism.

I may not be all that in touch with today's high school students, but in my day "rebellion and resistance to authoritarianism" was the de facto religion of a large majority.


If you're not from corn country (I am, originally) you might not find the length of this article worth your time, but Chris Jones' Iowa-based blog The Swine Republic has an insightful essay "Mr. Peabody's Corn Train" comparing Iowa's infatuation with corn-based ethanol to West Virginia's infatuation with coal. The West Virginia situation is further along, so it's more obvious what a bad decision the state made tying itself to a doomed energy industry. [Footnote for people younger than me: The title derives from an old song lyric. It's quite evocative if you catch the reference.]


So "dozens" of Nazis marched in Nashville Saturday.

Dozens of self-proclaimed white nationalists marched through downtown Nashville on Saturday. They wore matching uniforms, with ski masks and sunglasses to obscure their faces, and carried Confederate and upside-down American flags. Witnesses say they chanted the Nazi “Seig Heil” salute and called for mass deportations of nonwhite people.

[OK, it's actually "Sieg Heil", but don't ask how I know that.] You might expect "Should I denounce Nazis?" to be one of the easiest questions in politics. But if you're a Tennessee Republican it seems to require considerable thought.

As of Sunday morning, Gov. Bill Lee had not released a statement. U.S. Senators Bill Hagerty and Marsha Blackburn, as well as Nashville’s three congressmen, have also remained silent.

Nashville itself is Democratic, but due to gerrymandering all three of its representatives are Republicans. The only Democrat Tennessee sends to Congress is Steve Cohen from the Memphis area.

and let's close with something timeworn

Kueez collects a bunch of photos showing the long-term effects of small but persistent processes. Cat scratches can completely destroy a banister eventually. If people play an organ for over a century, their fingers wear dips into the keys. And here, a family photo kept inside the cover of this watch eventually imprinted on the metal.

Monday, July 1, 2024

Don't Panic

In many of the more relaxed civilizations on the Outer Eastern Rim of the Galaxy, the Hitch-Hiker's Guide has already supplanted the great Encyclopaedia Galactica as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom, for though it has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, it scores over the older, more pedestrian work in two important respects. First, it is slightly cheaper; and secondly it has the words DON'T PANIC inscribed in large friendly letters on its cover.

- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This week's featured posts are "They Both Lost. What Now?" about the debate and "Down to the Wire" about the Supreme Court's next-to-last decisions of the term.

This week everybody was talking about the debate

That's the subject of one featured post.


One issue in this campaign is whether the country was better off four years ago. To refresh your memory, here's a meme from April, 2020.


Scott Dworkin is keeping a list of Republicans who are not supporting Trump.


It's way too soon for this kind of humor, but here's Andy Borowitz:

There are some compelling arguments for replacing Joe with Hunter. You could still use BIDEN ‘24 campaign regalia. He’s a generation younger. And the fact that he’s a convicted felon could attract Republican voters.

and the Supreme Court

Having delayed to the very end of the term, the Supreme Court is about to post its decision on Trump's immunity claim. I'll punt my analysis until next week.

Everything from last week is covered in the other featured post.

and Oklahoma

Oklahoma is suddenly a central battleground for church-and-state issues. This week saw one effort to shore up the wall between the two, and another to blow a hole in it.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court defended the wall: It ruled 6-2 that the state's charter school program can't support an openly Catholic school.

The Oklahoma state constitution has a pretty sweeping statement separating church and state:

Article 2, Section 5: No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.

Article 1, Section 5 makes that provision specific to public schools:

Provisions shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of the state and free from sectarian control

Nonetheless, two Catholic institutions got together to create St. Isidore, which they pitched as a virtual charter school to be supported by the state. The majority opinion summarizes:

The Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa applied to the Charter School Board to establish St. Isidore, a religious virtual charter school. St. Isidore does not dispute that it is a religious institution. Its purpose is “[t]o create, establish, and operate” the school as a Catholic school. Specifically, it plans to derive ‘its original characteristics and its structure as a genuine instrument of the church” and participate “in the evangelizing mission of the church."

Despite the state constitution, the Oklahoma Charter School Board accepted St. Isidore's application by a 3-2 vote, and made a contract to fund the school that would have begun today.

The argument on the other side, which a dissent spells out, is something you're likely to hear again -- possibly when the sponsoring dioceses appeal to the US Supreme Court: St. Isidore isn't a "public school" per se, it's a private organization contracting to provide a service (i.e., education) to the state. It shouldn't be banned from competing for state contracts just because it's a religious organization. It's like a Catholic hospital providing medical services to Medicare patients.

Six justices weren't impressed with that argument, mainly because of that "participate in the evangelizing mission of the church". A Catholic hospital isn't trying to make good Catholics out of its patients, but St. Isidore would be trying to make good Catholics out of its students. That may or may not be a worthy goal, but State of Oklahoma shouldn't be paying for it.


Meanwhile, the state's Superintendent of Public Instruction dropped a bomb intended to knock the wall down.

In a state board of education meeting on Thursday, state superintendent of public instruction Ryan Walters announced a new memo “that every school district will adhere to, which is that every teacher, every classroom in the state will have a Bible in the classroom and will be teaching from the Bible in the classroom to ensure that this historical understanding is there for every student in the state of Oklahoma in accordance with our academic standards and state law”.

You can see Walters' statement in the video of the meeting. Don't be intimidated by the nearly-six-hour meeting length. Walters' comments happen early: Around the seven minute mark, he says he will challenge the Oklahoma Supreme Court's St. Isidore decision "all the way to the Supreme Court". He then goes on to make his comments about teaching the Bible in all classrooms, because of its historical significance for "the Constitution and the birth of our country". He's done by the ten-minute mark.

My comment: Christianity does have a lot of historical significance for the US, both for good and ill. But if we're going to be focusing on that in classrooms, I think we also need to teach about the constant religious strife in England during the 1600s, as Catholics, Anglicans, and dissenters (i.e., Oliver Cromwell) fought for control of the government. This was the English version of the continental Thirty Years War, in which battles between Protestants and Catholics killed millions and depopulated parts of Germany by 50% or more.

The Founders knew that history and didn't want similar wars of religion to erupt here. Hence the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which Jefferson summarized with the metaphor of a "wall of separation" between Church and State. Saying to the various denominations: "You can compete in all sorts of ways, but the government is off limits" was a very astute piece of statecraft.


In contrast to making kids learn the Bible, South Carolina has taken the opposite tack: Don't let them read anything else. The Department of Education's new regulation mandates that all books in classrooms or school libraries be "age appropriate" and not describe "sexual conduct". Any parent of public-school students can challenge up to five titles a month, and a state board is the decision-maker rather than any local authority. Those phrases sound fine, but the problem is their vagueness: Librarians who don't want to keep defending their choices to the state will self-censor all books about sexuality or race, including many that some students would benefit from reading.

For reasons no one seems to be able to explain, the legislature didn't discuss this during the standard 120-day vetting period for new regulations, so it took effect Tuesday.


And there's always Louisiana:

and you also might be interested in ...

My wife recently asked me if there was anything good happening in the world, so I pointed to this: California's shift to renewable energy is starting to show some serious results. Bill McKibben elaborates:

Something approaching a miracle has been taking place in California this spring. Beginning in early March, for some portion of almost every day, a combination of solar, wind, geothermal, and hydropower has been producing more than a hundred per cent of the state’s demand for electricity. Some afternoons, solar panels alone have produced more power than the state uses. And, at night, large utility-scale batteries that have been installed during the past few years are often the single largest source of supply to the grid—sending the excess power stored up during the afternoon back out to consumers across the state.

I mean, it's encouraging when some island in Denmark replaces fossil fuels with wind power ... but California!


Another good thing happening: Violent crime is falling. One good example comes from liberal Massachusetts.

Boston’s murder tally was already low. The city had 70 homicides in 2010 and 56 in 2020; last year, there were 37.

So far this year: 4.


Steve Bannon (a.k.a. inmate #05635-509) is supposed to start his four-month jail term for contempt of Congress today. Depending on how vindictive you're feeling at the moment, that also might lift your spirits.

Before he gets out, he'll have to stand trial on something else: defrauding contributors to the We Build the Wall campaign. Let me suggest a defense he might try: No harm was done, because people who would give to a cause like that, headed by someone like him, are so stupid they would have lost their money somehow anyway.

and let's close with something big

Depending on your mood, astronomy can either depressing or uplifting. Maybe it makes you feel insignificant, or maybe it makes your troubles seem insignificant. It's a Rorschach test.

This photo, pieced together from some number of Webb telescope images, is 340 light years across.