Monday, January 13, 2025

Apt Comparisons

No sift next week. The next new posts will appear on January 27.

From what I can tell, the manager of your local Applebee’s has more experience managing a bigger budget and more personnel than Pete Hegseth.

- Senator Tammy Duckworth

This week's featured post is "A Disastrous Development in Our Response to Disasters".

This week everybody was talking about the LA wildfires

As I write, the fires in the the Los Angeles area are still burning, driven by dry conditions and hurricane-force winds. A weekly blog is not the right way to cover breaking news, so I won't offer anything more than a few observations.

Fires driven by such strong winds don't look real; it's like somebody has speeded up the video.

The problem wasn’t only a shortage of manpower. Even the most formidable human efforts are useless when bone-dry undergrowth is whipped by the strongest winds the area has experienced in years, with gusts up to 100 mph. “When that wind is howling like that, nothing’s going to stop that fire,” says Wayne Coulson, CEO of the aerial firefighting company Coulson Aviation that’s battling the fires. “You just need to get out of the way.”

The New York Magazine article that quote is taken from gives some context:

Historically, the danger of wildfire has waned with the arrival of winter rains, but in recent years that pattern has changed. “On average, California’s rainy season is occurring about a month later than it did historically,” Swain says. And that increases both the length and the potential intensity of the fire season. By this time of year L.A. normally should have received several inches of rain, but it’s only gotten a fifth of an inch since last July, making the period the second-driest in over a century of record-keeping.

The trend isn’t limited to Southern California. Climate change has increased the number and severity of wildfires around the world, with higher global temperatures leading to drier weather in some regions. The Russian arctic, which hadn’t historically been prone to wildfire, has started to experience it on an epic scale, while southeastern Australia is burning with new intensity. Europe, too, has seen a steady increase in wildfires. Last year’s wildfires in Canada choked the eastern U.S. in smoke and painted the daytime red.

This is something to bear in mind whenever someone makes the argument that programs to cut fossil fuel use are expensive or uneconomical. Fossil fuels are a false economy. The reason we keep having these increasingly expensive disasters is that we have burned too much "cheap" fossil fuel. And yes, the money we spend subsidizing electric cars or installing solar panels this year won't lessen our risk of climate-related disasters next year; there's way more lag time in the system than that. But refusing to change at all is going to be much expensive in the 10-20 year time frame.


Republicans may not believe in climate change, but insurance companies do. Why aren't the wealthy climate change deniers funding new insurance companies to take advantage of established companies pulling out of Florida and other climate-threatened places?

As Noah Smith points out, climate change doesn't just increase risk, it breaks the whole model of insurance. Statistically, fire insurance works because house fires are usually uncorrelated: The insurance company can deal with one person's house burning down, because it is still getting premiums from all the other houses in the neighborhood. But when the whole neighborhood burns down at once, the company could be in trouble.

and Jimmy Carter

Carter deserved better than to have his funeral driven out of the headlines by a natural disaster, especially one caused by climate change. If all world leaders had followed Carter's lead in taking climate change seriously, that disaster might not have happened at all.

It's hard not to pair Carter's funeral with Trump's looming inauguration. Americans used to value decency and virtue in their leaders, but on the whole we no longer do.

and Trump's legal issues

Despite a flurry of legal filings, Trump was unable to prevent being sentenced for his 34 felony convictions. His sentence amounts to approximately nothing, but his convictions stand. A week from today he will enter office as the first convicted felon to become president.

While this is a victory of sorts for the rule of law, it also shows how close we are to being a government of men, not of laws. There was no real legal reason to block his sentencing, but four Supreme Court justices wanted to anyway. Trump's argument was based on expanding the reasoning of the Court's immunity decision, which similarly had no legal basis beyond the Court's partisan makeup.

It is notable, however, that even in this low-stakes dispute, four justices dissented. That suggests there is strong support within the Court for reading the July immunity decision very broadly. And, of course, if any one of the five justices in the majority should flip their vote, Trump will prevail the next time this dispute arrives on the Supreme Court’s doorstep.

Two days before that decision, Trump and Justice Alito spoke on the phone.

Alito said in a statement that the two did not discuss the case or any others involving Trump. He said they talked about William Levi, Alito's former law clerk, and if he was qualified for a potential position in Trump's administration.

Alito says this as if his excuse makes the call OK. It doesn't. Quite the opposite, giving Alito's former clerk a position in his administration could be considered a favor. Alito, of course, was one of the four justices who wanted to block Trump's sentencing.


Other legal maneuvers attempted to block release of Jack Smith's report. How that will play out is still up in the air. Obviously, if Trump can run out the clock until his inauguration, he can block release of the report himself. He's hoping to use the courts to do that.

and his fantasies of conquest

As I've mentioned before, I'm having a hard time taking seriously Trump's threats against Panama, Greenland, and Canada. I think he's trying to burnish his image as a strong man, because his weakness is about to be exposed. In The Atlantic, Robert Kagan considers the possibility that Ukraine will fall in the next 12-18 months without more aid from the US.

When Trump said during his campaign that he could end the war in 24 hours, he presumably believed what most observers believed: that Putin needed a respite, that he was prepared to offer peace in exchange for territory, and that a deal would include some kind of security guarantee for whatever remained of Ukraine. Because Trump’s peace proposal at the time was regarded as such a bad deal for Kyiv, most assumed Putin would welcome it. Little did they know that the deal was not remotely bad enough for Putin to accept. So now Trump is in the position of having promised a peace deal that he cannot possibly get without forcing Putin to recalculate.

Kagan puts his finger on the key point: Losing Ukraine weakens America in the eyes of the world. It's the exact opposite of America becoming "great again".

The liberal world order is inseparable from American power, and not just because it depends on American power. America itself would not be so powerful without the alliances and the open international economic and political system that it built after World War II to protect its long-term interests. Trump can’t stop defending the liberal world order without ceding significantly greater influence to Russia and China. Like Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un, and Ali Khamenei see the weakening of America as essential to their own ambitions. Trump may share their hostility to the liberal order, but does he also share their desire to weaken America and, by extension, himself?

Trump has boxed himself in. The only way to make Putin respect his "strength" is to push a massive new Ukraine aid package through Congress, which is the exact opposite of what his MAGA base wants.


Trump keeps moving the goal posts. During the campaign, Trump said he would solve the Ukraine War in 24 hours. Now his point man on the issue is saying 100 days.


Tuesday, Don Jr. and assorted MAGA influencers like Charlie Kirk went to Greenland for a photo op with "supporters" of the idea that Greenland should join the United States. But later it turned out that the photo op was staged.

Danish media reported Thursday that a series of photos featuring Kirk and Greenlandic residents in MAGA hats was staged. The MAGA cohort reportedly rounded up homeless people from the area—including one person from under a bridge—promising them a meal at the Hotel Hans Egede in exchange for their participation in the pro-Trump photo circuit.

Videos of the trip that circulated on X describe the Greenlandic participants as “the local community in Nuuk,” but several local sources that spoke with DR News described the photographed individuals as “homeless and socially disadvantaged” people who are often outside the supermarket directly across from the hotel where the Trump event was held.

“All they have to do is put on a cap and be in the Trump staff’s videos. They are being bribed, and it is deeply distasteful,” Tom Amtoft, a 28-year resident of Nuuk, told the Danish news outlet.

Trump has floated the idea of using tariffs against tiny Denmark to force the Danes to hand over Greenland. However, Denmark is part of the European Union, so tariffs targeting Denmark would mean a trade war with the whole continent.


Here's the best response to Trump's proposal to change the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.

and you also might be interested in ...

The Biden administration's last jobs report is stunningly good. 256K new jobs, unemployment falling to 4.1%. Paul Krugman assembles statistics on the health of the economy overall, and comments

the fact that [Trump] inherits an economy in such good shape is actually a problem for his agenda


A statistical analysis in The Lancet claims deaths in Gaza have been underestimated.


Elon Musk is moving the goal posts: Previously he said he'd find "at least $2 trillion" to cut in the federal budget. He now claims there's "a good shot" at cutting $1 trillion.


In some alternative timeline:


The feud within MAGA is real. Here's Steve Bannon commenting on Elon Musk:

He is a truly evil guy, a very bad guy. I made it my personal thing to take this guy down. ... I will have Elon Musk run out of here by inauguration day. He will not have full access to the White House. He will be like any other person.


Speaking of Elon, his X platform has turned into a great place to spread racism.

There have been several reports of the newest Grok update being used to create photo realistic racist imagery of several football players and managers. One image depicts a player, who is black, picking cotton while another shows that same player eating a banana surrounded by monkeys in a forest. A separate image depicts two different players as pilots in a plane’s cockpit with the twin towers in the background. More images depict a variety of players and managers meeting and conversing with controversial historical figures such as Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Callum Hood, the head of research at the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), said X had become a platform that incentivised and rewarded spreading hate through revenue sharing, and AI imagery made that even easier.

“The thing that X has done, to a degree that no other mainstream platform has done, is to offer cash incentives to accounts to do this, so accounts on X are very deliberately posting the most naked hate and disinformation possible.”


The price of political influence in the Trump administration is rising faster than the price of eggs. Want face time with Trump and his VP on Inauguration Day? It will cost you twice as much as it would have in 2017.

To get access to the candlelight dinner with Trump and the vice-president’s dinner with Vance, donors would need to have contributed at the $1m level. A $500,000 contribution would limit access to only the candlelight dinner, unlike in 2017 when it was enough for both.


Here's the central problem with the idea that "drill baby drill" will lower the price of energy (and eventually everything else"): We have a lot of oil and gas in the ground, but we don't have a lot of cheap oil and gas in the ground. Every time the price goes down, more and more potential drilling sites become unprofitable.

Case in point: Wednesday, the Interior Department held an auction for drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- and had no bidders.

The sale, which was required by Congress, marks the second time in four years that an effort to auction oil and gas leases in the pristine wilderness — home to migrating caribou, polar bears, musk oxen, millions of birds and other wildlife — has been a flop.

The repeated failures suggest that oil companies are either not interested in drilling in the refuge or do not think it’s worth the cost, despite insistence by Mr. Trump and many Republican lawmakers that the refuge should be opened up for drilling.


Smartmatic's $2.7 billion defamation suit against Fox News for lying about its software's performance during the 2020 election is still alive. Fox settled a similar suit by paying Dominion Voting Systems $787 million in 2023.

Imagine if everyone Fox has lied about had the deep pockets of a major corporation.

and let's close with something colorful

The Guardian published an unusual year-in-review piece: 2024's best photos of the Northern Lights.

Monday, January 6, 2025

Con and Context

For journalists, failing to situate Trump’s words and actions in the context of an ongoing con is tantamount to deception. It’s not just failing to tell the whole story, it’s failing to tell the central story.

- Dan Froomkin, "Trump coverage needs to change and here’s how"

This week's featured post is "A Meditation on American Greatness"

This week everybody was talking about the new Congress

The headline news was that on Friday Mike Johnson hung on to the speaker's gavel. Initially, it looked like he had failed to win a majority on the first ballot, with all 215 Democrats voting for Hakeem Jeffries, 216 Republicans for Johnson, and three Republicans not voting for Johnson. (Six other Republicans expressed their reluctance in a minor way by passing during the alphabetical rollcall. They voted for Johnson when called a second time.) But the vote was held open long enough for Johnson to negotiate with two of the holdouts and President-elect Trump to call them. They flipped their votes, giving Johnson a 218-vote majority.

Johnson's reelection avoided all kinds of chaos and a possible constitutional crisis: The House and Senate are constitutionally obligated to meet today in joint session to count electoral votes, but the House can't function without a speaker. If no speaker had been elected yet, the country would be in uncharted territory.

What Johnson's narrow first-ballot election portends is open to interpretation. Until Republicans took control of the House in 2023, speaker elections typically weren't very newsworthy. The majority party hashed out its differences between the November election and the January vote, and the identity of the new speaker was not in doubt when the new Congress convened. In 2023, though, Kevin McCarthy needed 15 ballots over five days to win the speakership, a position he held for only nine months before losing a motion to vacate the chair. The House was then incapacitated for three weeks before the Republican majority united around Mike Johnson.

Compared to what McCarthy went through, and what the House endured trying to replace him in October 2023, Johnson's reelection was smooth sailing. But compared to any other recent speaker election, this one was full of drama and anxiety. In "normal" years, the visible intervention of the President-elect would have been frowned upon; electing a speaker is the internal business of the House, and not a matter for the executive branch to weigh in on.

It's also worth bearing in mind that Johnson was originally the candidate of the right wing of the Republican caucus, the very people who were dragging their feet about reelecting him. What happened in the meantime? Reality happened. The right-wing "Freedom" Caucus is a movement of ideological purity. But the Speaker has a responsibility to govern the nation. Again and again, the House would need to pass some kind of bill to keep the government functioning, and no ideologically pure bill could pass the House, much less get through the Democratic Senate and be signed by President Biden. So Johnson, like McCarthy before him, was forced to either compromise with Democrats or lead the country into disaster. His decision to avoid disaster made him impure, causing "Freedom" Caucus Republicans to support him only with reluctance and as a favor to Trump.

Going forward, Johnson's majority in the House is narrower than McCarthy's, but the GOP also holds the White House and a majority in the Senate. So in theory, Johnson should not have to compromise any more. He'll be negotiating with Trump and Senate Majority Leader John Thune rather than with Biden and Chuck Schumer.

However, reality is due to raise its head in a new way: Trump comes into office having raised impossible expectations. MAGA voters expect him to cut taxes, shrink the federal deficit, strengthen the military, and do wildly expensive things like round up and deport millions of undocumented immigrants -- all without touching Social Security and Medicare. All this is supposed to happen in "one big beautiful bill" that presumably will also deal with the looming debt ceiling crisis.

At some point, somebody is going to have to write that bill. And all but two House Republicans (maybe fewer if Trump's nominees from the House are approved and not yet replaced) are going to have to vote for it.

Friday's vote for speaker is only the overture to that opera.

and two terrorist attacks

Within about eight hours on New Years Day, the United States suffered two terrorist attacks: A man drove a pickup truck down Bourbon Street in New Orleans and then began shooting, and a Cybertruck exploded outside the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas. The New Orleans attack had more casualties: 15 killed (including the driver during a police shoot-out) and 35 injured. The Cybertruck attack killed only the perpetrator, but seven other people were injured.

It's striking how differently the two attacks have been covered. The New Orleans attack fit a familiar pattern: A native-born American from Houston with a Muslim-sounding name, Shamsud-Din Jabbar, became radicalized, presumably online. While there is no indication of foreign direction or assistance in the attack, he claimed to be inspired by ISIS and had a ISIS flag in the truck.

The coverage of the attack otherized Jabbar, painting him as a radical Islamist attacking the United States from the outside, and playing down the fact that he was a US Army veteran. Right-wing media pushed the false claim that he was foreign-born, and "crossed the U.S.-Mexico border at the Eagle Pass crossing just two days ago". In reference to the attack, Trump posted "the criminals coming in are far worse than the criminals we have in our country".

At first, the Las Vegas attack seemed anti-MAGA, pairing a Musk-related vehicle with a Trump-related target. But as details emerged, Matthew Alan Livelsberger proved to be a Trump supporter. An decorated active-duty special forces soldier from Colorado Springs, Livelsberger's first marriage broke up in 2018 at least partially due to his support for Trump. He had told people he intended to vote from Trump again in 2024.

His political manifesto seems pretty clear:

Consider this last sunset of ‘24 and my actions the end of our sickness and a new chapter of health for our people. Rally around the Trump, Musk, Kennedy, and ride this wave to the highest hegemony for all Americans! We are second to no one.

That aspect of the story has been almost completely buried. Instead, the narrative has shifted into another familiar pattern: Livelsberger is a victim, a troubled soul with PTSD.

We see this again and again in our news coverage: Muslims who kill are evil members of a global conspiracy, while right-wing White Christians who kill are troubled loners. Tom Scocca:

Two disturbed guys rent trucks and commit public acts of violence to deliver explicit ideological messages: one gets the scare story about who radicalized him, the other gets a sympathetic, nonpolitical account of his trauma


Amanda Marcotte notes the similarities rather than the differences between the two attackers: They were both men who had a certain amount of professional success while making a mess of their personal lives. Both found an extremist ideology through which to channel their rage and deflect blame for their problems, ultimately resulting in violence.

and it's January 6 again

Four years ago, Donald Trump inspired rioters who attacked the US Capitol and delayed a constitutionally mandated joint session of Congress to count electoral votes from the 2020 election. The point of doing this was to reverse a free and fair election that he lost.

At the time, both parties were united in condemning this attack. But within months, Trump had pulled the Republican Party back into his orbit.

Last March, the Supreme Court ruled that section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which appears to ban insurrectionists from holding public offices like the presidency, has no real meaning. It was therfore unnecessary to determine whether Trump's actions on January 6 amounted to insurrection. A few months later, after delaying long enough to make further prosecution impossible before the election, it ruled that presidents are, for nearly all practical purposes, above the law.

This November, 49% of voters decided that attempting to overthrow democracy was not a deal-breaker. Today, Congress will certify his election, setting up his inauguration on January 20.

One thing that won't happen today: Democrats won't riot, and the Capitol won't be occupied by a violent mob. That's because Democrats are not traitors, as so many Republicans are.


By all accounts, Trump is getting ready to pardon people convicted of January-6-related crimes. Many of the low-level trespassers and minor offenders have probably learned their lesson and won't commit further Trump-inspired crimes. But I expect that a core of folks are learning the opposite lesson: that crimes committed in Trump's name are not really crimes and will be tolerated.

An essential piece of any fascist movement is a Brownshirt contingent of violent followers who will do the Leader's will in ways that the official police can't or won't. I expect the pardoned rioters to form the core of Trump's Brownshirts.

and Trump's sentencing

Friday, Trump will be sentenced for his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records. The judge has indicated that there will be no jail time.

Trump's rhetoric is all about the prosecutor and the judge, but he was found guilty by a jury of 12 ordinary Americans. His attorneys had full opportunities to make their case, but the jury unanimously found him guilty beyond a reasonable. doubt.

and the growing subservience of The Washington Post

Meanwhile, at The Washington Post, Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Ann Telnaes submitted a cartoon showing media barons -- including Post owner Jeff Bezos -- making offerings before a statue of Trump.

Along with Bezos, Telnaes depicted Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg and OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman shown bringing Trump sacks of cash. Los Angeles Times owner and billionaire medical innovator Patrick Soon-Shiong was shown bearing a tube of lipstick. Also lying prostrate was Mickey Mouse — the avatar of the Walt Disney Co. Last month, Disney settled a Trump defamation suit against ABC News by agreeing to pay $15 million to an as-yet non-existent Trump foundation and $1 million toward his legal fees.

The sacks of cash refer to the million-dollar contributions the aspiring oligarchs have made to Trump's inaugural fund. Most of the legal opinions I've seen say that ABC would have won the lawsuit and didn't need to pay Trump anything. The contributions to Trump's inaugural fund dwarf what the same rich men gave to the comparable Biden fund.

The WaPo refused to publish the cartoon, whereupon Telnaes quit after working at the WaPo since 2008. She explained on Substack:

While it isn’t uncommon for editorial page editors to object to visual metaphors within a cartoon if it strikes that editor as unclear or isn’t correctly conveying the message intended by the cartoonist, such
editorial criticism was not the case regarding this cartoon. To be clear, there have been instances where sketches have been rejected or revisions requested, but never because of the point of view inherent in the cartoon’s commentary. That’s a game changer…and dangerous for a free press.

The American Association of Editorial Cartoonists released a supporting statement:

With the resignation of editorial cartoonist and Pulitzer Prize winner Ann Telnaes from The Washington Post, corporate billionaires once again have brought an editorial cartoon to life with their craven censorship in bowing to a wannabe tyrant. Her principled resignation illustrates that while the pen is mightier than the sword, political cowardice once again eclipses journalistic integrity at The Washington Post.

The AAEC called on its members to draw cartoons supporting Telnaes and use the hashtag #StandWithAnn. Here are a few responses:


And while we're talking about Bezos and the Orbanization of the press, Amazon is bowing down to Trump in another way: Amazon Prime will be releasing a documentary about First Lady Melania Trump. Melania herself is the documentary's executive producer, a position which typically implies editorial control.

and you also might be interested in ...

There's an ever-growing consensus that what Israel is doing in Gaza really is genocide. Here's Amnesty International's report. Germany's Der Spiegel reports that "The Israeli army is systematically destroying towns in northern Gaza and expelling the population ... laying the groundwork for a military occupation - and for the possible construction of new Jewish settlements."


Not to be missed: A guy who infiltrated right-wing militias and gave his files to ProPublica.


Every year, TPM announces its Golden Duke Awards, for outstanding achievement in political corruption and scandal. This year, the best general interest scandal was the Supreme Court. I interpret this as a collective award, encompassing the particular scandals of Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, as well as the general political hackery of John Roberts. The best sex scandal is Matt Gaetz. And so on.


Jess Piper expresses her frustration with the voters in her state of Missouri, who repeatedly pass progressive referenda, but then also vote for Republican legislators and other state officials who will circumvent whatever the people have just voted into law.


In spite of Trump's rhetoric, the US is actually in pretty good shape right now:

For the first time since that transition 24 years ago, there will be no American troops at war overseas on Inauguration Day. New data reported in the past few days indicate that murders are way down, illegal immigration at the southern border has fallen even below where it was when Mr. Trump left office and roaring stock markets finished their best two years in a quarter-century.

Jobs are up, wages are rising and the economy is growing as fast as it did during Mr. Trump’s presidency. Unemployment is as low as it was just before the Covid-19 pandemic and near its historic best. Domestic energy production is higher than it has ever been.

The manufacturing sector has more jobs than under any president since Mr. Bush. Drug overdose deaths have fallen for the first time in years. Even inflation, the scourge of the Biden presidency, has returned closer to normal, although prices remain higher than they were four years ago.

We can expect to hear negative views of the US for at least another couple months, and then Trump will start taking credit for Biden's good results, which much of the country will begin to notice for the first time.

Helen Cox Richardson notes that Biden's strong economy results from a policy change that Trump is likely to reverse:

Trump has promised to swing the country away from Biden’s investment in rebuilding the middle class. Biden’s focus on employment meant that unemployment dropped dramatically during his term, more people got access to affordable health care, labor unions showed historic growth, and real wages went up so much that according to economist David Doney, workers now have the highest real hourly wages since the 1960s.

Good news for workers was good news for everyone: the country’s economic growth was more than double that of any other country in the Group of 7 (G7) economically advanced democracies.

But Trump has been very clear that he rejects this system and intends to take the country back to supply-side economics, in which the government encourages the concentration of wealth at the top of the economy.

Oh, and what about inflation? Paul Krugman notes how closely US inflation tracked Europe's inflation, and concludes that Biden's policies probably weren't at fault.


One of my regular walking partners has Covid. Be careful out there, folks. It's not over.

and let's close with something practical

Over the holidays, I flew for the first time in a year and a half. So of course the question came to mind: Why is it so hard to get people on and off and airliner?

Monday, December 30, 2024

Daddy Issues

When Elon tweets something and when Trump tweets something,
Republicans don't know who their Daddy is.

- Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

This week's featured post is "Cracks in the MAGA Coalition".

This week everybody was talking about Jimmy Carter

President Jimmy Carter died Sunday at the age of 100, after 22 months in hospice care.

Carter was president from 1977 to 1981. His single term was marred by high inflation and the Iranian hostage crisis, but looks much better in retrospect than it did at the time. I find myself pining for the roads not taken. Carter created possibilities which his successors did not pursue, and the world is worse for America's failure to follow his lead.

Carter was the first president to recognize global warming as a problem. He installed solar panels on the White House roof (which his successor, Ronald Reagan, promptly removed). While the country did not take the path to sustainable energy he envisioned, much of the sustainable energy used today is based on research funded under his presidency. Rolling Stone makes the case that he was America's Greatest Environmental President.

In 1978, he brought Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin together to negotiate the Camp David Accords. The two countries have not fought a war since, and for a time, peace in the Middle East seemed possible.

Today, Carter is best known for his post-presidency. He ran for president in 1976 as a born-again Christian, and his subsequent life exemplified the Christ-like values so often lacking in Evangelical leaders. He and his wife Rosalynn (who died in 2023 after 77 years of marriage) championed Habitat for Humanity, and into their 90s were still swinging hammers to build houses for the poor. The Carter Center has been a voice for peace, democracy, and human rights for more than 40 years.

After his presidency, he returned to his farm in Plains, Georgia. He regularly taught Sunday school classes at his church. (My sister recently posted a picture she and her husband took with the Carters after attending his class in 2015.)

His death should remind us all of an era when we expected our leaders to be virtuous people -- and occasionally they even were.


Jay Kuo posted a charming memory about meeting Rosalynn Carter when he was a child.

and US expansion

Recently Trump has tweeted about a variety of possible "territorial expansions" of the US -- conquests, really, because there's no sign any of these folks want to be part of the MAGA empire.

Greenland. On December 22nd, Trump released a statement that "For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity." Apparently, having Greenland continue as a territory of our NATO ally Denmark is not good enough.

And you'll never guess why we have to take over Greenland: global warming. Here's former Trump national security adviser Robert O'Brien on Fox News:

It’s strategically very important to the Arctic which is going to be the critical battleground of the future because as the climate gets warmer, the Arctic is going to be a pathway that maybe cuts down on the usage of the Panama Canal.

So climate change is a hoax when we're talking about limiting the burning of fossil fuels, but it's absolutely real when it justifies taking territory from our NATO allies or ruling indigenous peoples against their will.

Panama Canal. On Christmas, Trump charged that Chinese soldiers are operating in the Canal Zone illegally. (A Hong Kong based corporation has the contract to manage two ports near the Canal's entrances. That's the closest anyone has come to making sense out of Trump's ridiculous claim.) He suggested that the spirit of the agreement through which the US returned the Zone to Panama in 1999 has been violated, and said he was going to demand it back.

James Fallows (who during the Carter administration was involved in formalizing the treaties that returned the Canal to Panama) covers all this in much more detail. The push to return the Canal to Panama, he says, originally came from the military, which doubted its ability to defend the Canal if the local population viewed it as an enemy occupation. (If you're worried about Chinese influence now, imagine if they could arm an indigenous uprising.) That's why he estimates the chances of the US actually retaking the Canal by force as "zero".

The issues Trump raises about Chinese soldiers and discriminatory pricing are complete fantasies.

Fallows also points out that the Canal is a climate-change issue: Operating the locks requires water, and depends on rainfall in the local watershed. Lately that rainfall has been declining.

Canada. This is almost certainly trolling on Trump's part. In his Christmas message he tried to appeal to Canada's citizens: If they became "the 51st state", he claimed, their taxes would go down and they'd reap all kinds of benefits. (Of course they'd also lose their health coverage, and their life expectancy would probably drop 3 1/4 years to match ours.)

I find myself unmoved by these visions, which I suspect are entirely vaporous. (In other words, I don't expect to see US aircraft carriers move to menace Nuuk.) During Trump's first term, Rachel Maddow used to say, "Watch what they do, not what they say", implying that Trump might be doing something behind the scenes that contradicted his public rhetoric. The same thing applies here, but in reverse: He's saying things that will excite his base and inflame his critics, but I suspect no action will result. So I refuse to be inflamed.

Liberals often suggest that Trump's outlandish rhetoric is supposed to distract us from something else he's doing. But here I think his own supporters are the target, and they're supposed to overlook what he isn't doing. Trump is not going to cut trillions from the federal budget, he's not going to lower the price of eggs or gas, and if you're not rich you won't notice whatever tax cut you get. But if he can get his supporters excited about Greenland and Panama, they may not notice the bankruptcy of his other promises.

Fallows has this right: The point of Trump's rhetoric is to stoke his followers' sense of grievance.

and Matt Gaetz

Just as I was getting ready to post last week, the House Ethics Committee released its report on Matt Gaetz.

In sum, the Committee found substantial evidence of the following:

  • From at least 2017 to 2020, Representative Gaetz regularly paid women for
    engaging in sexual activity with him.
  • In 2017, Representative Gaetz engaged in sexual activity with a 17-year-old girl.
  • During the period 2017 to 2019, Representative Gaetz used or possessed illegal drugs, including cocaine and ecstasy, on multiple occasions.
  • Representative Gaetz accepted gifts, including transportation and lodging in
    connection with a 2018 trip to the Bahamas, in excess of permissible amounts.
  • In 2018, Representative Gaetz arranged for his Chief of Staff to assist a woman with whom he engaged in sexual activity in obtaining a passport, falsely indicating to the U.S. Department of State that she was a constituent.
  • Representative Gaetz knowingly and willfully sought to impede and obstruct the Committee’s investigation of his conduct.
  • Representative Gaetz has acted in a manner that reflects discreditably upon the House. Based on the above, the Committee concluded there was substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz violated House Rules, state and federal laws, and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, acceptance of impermissible gifts, the provision of special favors and privileges, and obstruction of Congress

The 42-page report outlines that "substantial evidence". Gaetz' protest is that the Justice Department also investigated him and did not press charges, which he (falsely) claims "exonerates" him.

Reading the report, you can see how many of the witnesses might not be credible in court, where a beyond-reasonable-doubt standard would apply to any criminal charges. In court, Gaetz' refusal to answer questions or explain his actions would not count against him.

However, the evidence in the report is quite persuasive if the question is "Should this man be in Congress?" or "Should this man be Attorney General?". I find it striking that the dissenting opinion at the end of the report says "While we do not challenge the Committee’s findings ..." and only protests that the report should not have been released after Gaetz resigned from the House. In short, not even the Republicans on the committee were willing to defend Gaetz' conduct or claim the process had been "weaponized" against him, as Gaetz himself claimed.

and you also might be interested in ...

Whooping cough is on the rise, largely because fewer children are being vaccinated for it. Cases are up five times over last year's totals.


You might naively think that as sea levels rise, they'll rise the same amount everywhere. Apparently this is not true. The US Southeast seems unusually prone to sea-level rise, with an increase of seven inches since 2010 in some places.


Now that the Supreme Court has banned universities from considering race in their admissions process, Black enrollment in elite programs has dropped. Harvard Law School has 19 incoming Black students, down from 43 the previous year.


It makes headlines when police kill some unarmed person of color for no justifiable reason, but such incidents are comparatively rare. More significant, this WaPo article claims, are the less extreme but more-or-less constant abuses dished out to women, the poor, and the homeless.

I remember a similar point being made after the killing of Michael Brown started demonstrations and violence in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014. The national coverage focused on that particular death and the conflicting accounts of what really happened. To the community, though, the killing was just an extreme example of what they saw every day.


SkepChick thinks the case against black plastic utensils has been overblown.

and let's close with something timely

Tomorrow is New Year's Eve, when many of you will be tempted to make resolutions. Resolutions, as we all know, are extraordinarily hard to keep. The ideas always sound great: Who doesn't want to exercise more and read more and learn a new language? But there are reasons you have lived your whole life so far without doing those things, and those reasons don't go away just because you get a new calendar.

So more often than not, making a resolution is just setting yourself up for failure. But there is an alternative: CGP Grey suggests declaring a theme for your year rather than committing to specific goals you will probably not achieve.

So rather than commit to read one book a week, you could declare 2025 the Year of Reading. It's a softer goal, one that will allow you to try, fail, and come back to try again. Or rather than committing to lose 15 pounds, run two miles a day, and become a vegetarian, you might declare a Year of Health. Each day, you might remind yourself that you're trying to be healthier this year. And who knows? Maybe you will be.

Monday, December 23, 2024

Opening Skirmish

I don’t think markets are properly pricing in the likely inflationary consequences of Trump’s coming war on arithmetic.

- Paul Krugman

There are no featured posts this week.

This week everybody was talking about shutting down the government

It didn't happen, but it came close, and how it came close has implications for the future.

The federal government was set to run out of money at the stroke of midnight Saturday morning. Congress hasn't been able to pass an actual set of appropriations bills since Republicans gained "control" of the House two years ago, but the government has kept going via a series of continuing resolutions that keep kicking the can down the road. Basically, a continuing resolution says that spending can continue at current levels for a few more months. Usually, a few additional expenses get added on to a continuing resolution to respond to events unforeseen by the previous appropriations.

This time, the two parties had reached consensus on a new continuing resolution to keep things running until March, and to include extra money for hurricane relief and a few other uncontroversial things. But at the last minute, Trump and Elon Musk convinced Republicans to withdraw their support. It was a typical Trump move: Blow up an agreement by asking for one more thing.

Apparently this tactic worked for him during his business career, when he was dealing with small businessmen who had already delivered their products and foolishly expected to be paid in full. But in government all it has done is delay or completely scuttle deals that benefit both sides: Trump said he would get a better agreement when he scrapped Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, and also when he pulled out of the Paris Accords on climate change. But to the best of my knowledge he has never actually closed one of these "better deals" he keeps talking about. (His supporters will claim the revision of NAFTA as a success, but that treaty was due for revision anyway, and the concessions from Mexico and Canada were almost entirely issues that Obama had already worked out as part of the TransPacific Partnership, another agreement Trump nixed. If Trump's trade war with China accomplished anything, I was never able to identify what it was.)


Anyway, the one-more-thing Trump wanted this time was to eliminate the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is a limit on how much debt the US government can issue. Currently, the Treasury is actually over the limit by about $5 trillion, but Congress had avoided a self-inflicted economic disaster by suspending the debt limit until January 1. So in a few weeks the Treasury will find itself doing tricks to avoid default, unless Congress can pass something.

I have strong feelings both ways on eliminating the debt ceiling. On the one hand, the ceiling is stupid, and other nations don't have one for a simple reason: It can create situations where all options violate the law. (Congress has ordered the government to spend money, but not authorized any method of raising that money.) It's not that I'm for unlimited debt, but the place to control borrowing is through the annual budget process. Once a deficit budget is approved, the government should be authorized to borrow money to cover it.

The need to keep raising the debt limit has created a series of artificial crises: Even if nothing is wrong with the actual economy, an economic disaster will ensue unless Congress acts to untangle its own knots. For the last two decades the debt limit has been a self-destruct button that Republican terrorists in Congress repeatedly threatened to push. Eliminating it would be a good thing.

On the other hand, though, after so many years of shenanigans, I don't think Republicans should now be allowed to say, "Oh, never mind", or to posture against unlimited debt while Democrats take the blame. I want an apology for all these past crises. I want an admission that they need to raise or circumvent the debt limit because they actually have no viable plan to control the deficit, and they foresee budget deficits extending into the years when they have unified control over the government.

If they're actually as worried about debt as they always claim to be, they can pass unpopular tax increases or spending cuts.

Republicans may spout all kinds of nonsense about how their tax cuts will pay for themselves through higher growth -- which no past tax cut ever has done. And they can fantasize about huge spending cuts that only target "waste, fraud, and abuse" without causing harm to any real American households. But when it comes time to collect money and pay it out, accounting ledgers refuse to be fooled: Something will have to cover the gap between revenue and spending.

But Trump had made his demand, so House Republicans had to respond. Speaker Johnson put together a new continuing resolution that essentially just added a two-year debt ceiling suspension to the previous deal. It failed. Two Democrats voted for it, but 38 Republicans voted against it. Then the House put together a bill more-or-less the same as the one Trump and Musk rejected, and it passed.

and what this vote portends for the new Congress

Ever since Barack Obama's landslide election in 2008, the GOP has been the Party of No. What unites them is opposition to what Democrats want -- healthcare for all, equal rights for women and minorities, the rule of law, and taking action against climate change and mass shootings, for example. But for any issue other than cutting rich people's taxes, they struggle to get to Yes. Even during Trump's first term, their attempt to repeal ObamaCare -- a position they'd been running on for years -- failed because they couldn't agree on a replacement plan.

The vote on the continuing resolutions was similar. Trump could demand that Republicans reject the deal on the table, but he couldn't get them to approve the resolution he wanted.

It will be interesting to see if the House will be able to function at all when the new Congress starts in January. Will Republicans be able to return Speaker Johnson to the gavel? Or agree on any speaker? What happens if they haven't resolved that question by January 6, when they're constitutionally obligated to count the electoral votes and announce the new president?


Going forward, Republicans in Congress will need to unite around a plan to circumvent the debt ceiling and fund the government past March. Then Trump will have an FY 2026 budget proposal. That budget will have to solidify the vague posturing he did in the 2024 campaign and is still doing. It either will or won't implement sweeping spending cuts like the ones Musk keeps talking about. It will or won't include billions to build the concentration camps his mass deportation plans will require. It will or won't repeal ObamaCare or cut Social Security benefits or eliminate the Department of Education.

During the 2024 campaign, Trump created a fog of uncertainty around his plans that journalists never bothered to dispel. He will deport 10-20 million immigrants, but only the criminal ones. He will raise tariffs, deport cheap labor, and still bring down inflation. He'll massively cut government spending without touching the programs that any particular voter cares about. And so on.

But budgets are not foggy. They fund some things but not others. They tax some things but not others. The number on the bottom line is either positive or negative.

This is the beginning of what I talked about last week: Until Trump actually takes power, he can be all things to all people. He can just claim that America is going to be great again, that all our problems will disappear, and that only bad people will be hurt by his policies. But governing involves choices, and the choices he makes will disappoint many of his voters. What those disappointments are will dictate how Democrats run against him in 2026 and 2028.


I'm late noticing this, but Paul Krugman did a good job of taking down the "waste, fraud, and abuse" claims of Musk and the other would-be budget-cutters. We've seen these government "efficiency" commissions before, usually better staffed and more serious that DOGE appears to be.

There is, of course, inefficiency and waste in the federal government, as there is in any large organization. But most government spending happens because it delivers something people want, and you can’t make significant cuts without hard choices.

Furthermore, the notion that businessmen have skills that readily translate into managing the government is all wrong. Business and government serve different purposes and require different mindsets.

I think Krugman has come up with a good label for the kinds of cuts the DOGE barons keep talking about: doing Willie Sutton in reverse. Sutton was the mid-20th-century thief who famously answered a question about why he robbed banks: "Because that's where the money is."

What's fundamentally unserious about Musk and his partner Vivek Ramaswamy is that they keep targeting places the money isn't, like foreign aid or federal payrolls. Cutting all foreign aid (including the money that goes to countries you like) and firing all government employees (including the ones you rely on) would not make a serious dent in the deficit.

If you want to cut government spending in any significant way, you have to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or Defense. Defense is its own discussion, but the other three are very low-overhead programs, so the only significant cuts would be cuts to benefits.

and Trump's media strategy

If Trump is going to succeed in his plan to turn America into a fake democracy like Orban's Hungary, he'll need a complacent media to keep the public complacent. His plans to achieve that are taking shape.

Fundamentally, American media is split into two parts:

  • News organizations that are part of giant corporations like CNN (Warner Brothers Discovery) or MSNBC (NBC Universal).
  • Stand-alone organizations like The Guardian or Pro Publica.

The Washington Post appears to stand alone, but its owner (Jeff Bezos) is also a major shareholder in Amazon. We'll get to The New York Times in a minute.

Trump's media-domination strategy is similarly twofold: The weakness of the conglomerate-owned sites is that their parent organizations are susceptible to government bribery or intimidation. Amazon, for example, either will or won't receive government contracts, and could be threatened with antitrust enforcement or profit-killing regulations. In court, it would be hard to connect those bribes and threats to specific news stories, and so their effect on the freedom of the press would be deniable.

The stand-alone organizations, on the other hand, don't have the deep pockets of a major corporation behind them, so they can be exhausted by frivolous litigation. We can see the beginnings of this already in Trump's suit against The Des Moines Register for a pre-election poll that (erroneously) showed Trump trailing in Iowa.

Matt Bai:

If bad polls put you in legal jeopardy, there wouldn’t be a newspaper left in America, which might be the goal. There is something truly diabolical, but also very smart, about trying to spend the media into submission at this moment. It’s un-American, but it might also work.

The Register is owned by Gannett, and so is not a perfect example. But it's easy to imagine how this strategy could unfold: Nearly every expose' by Pro Publica could be result in a defamation suit. All the suits would be baseless, but who would cover the legal bills to defeat them?

That leaves us with The New York Times, which is large enough to field a team of lawyers, but is also a stand-alone corporation. But in view of its sorry performance in covering the 2024 campaign, Trump may not need any nefarious way to keep the NYT in check.

and the Constitution

Trumpists are already floating the third-term idea, putting out the idea that the limit is only on consecutive terms. Just so you know, here's what the 22nd Amendment says:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

So there's nothing difficult to interpret here. Nothing ambiguous, nothing about consecutive terms. It's no third term, period. If Trump is president beyond January 20, 2029, the Constitution has been violated.


Another Constitution-busting idea we're going to hear a lot about is eliminating birthright citizenship. Here's what the 14th Amendment says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Trump keeps saying he can end birthright citizenship by executive action. If he tries to follow through on that, we'll have to count on the Supreme Court to decide whether the Constitution still means anything.

and you also might be interested in ...

Remember the uproar over "Defund the Police"? The slogan was a political loser, but the thinking behind it is catching on. The idea is that local governments should have emergency responders with a variety of skills, and that armed police officers may not be the best people to send to every disturbance.

Well, Oklahoma City is reporting that its police department has seen a 57% drop in mental-health-related emergency calls in the past year. The reason? The city has a 988 hotline that connects people to mental-health specialists rather than police. 988 calls have sharply increased over the same period of time.


The Montana Supreme Court has agreed with a group of local teen-agers that the Montana Constitution's promise of "a clean and healthful environment" applies to climate change. It will be interesting to see what the specific implications of this ruling are.


I'm really enjoying Paul Krugman's post-NYT Substack blog. More and more it looks like the imprimatur of the august New York Times has been baggage that slowed Paul down.

In this column, he explains why "Health Insurance is a Racket". The money for Americans' healthcare coverage overwhelmingly depends on the government, whether we're talking about direct government programs like Medicare and Medicaid or employer-sponsored programs that are motivated by tax breaks. A lot of that money passes through private health insurance companies, and they rake off a chunk of it. But what value do they really add to the process?

Paul also explains why he hasn't supported Medicare for All proposals: They make economic sense, but they're political losers. Most Americans covered by employer-sponsored programs report that they are happy with their coverage. So:

anyone proposing a radical reform like Medicare for all is in effect saying to large numbers of voters, “We’re going to take away insurance that you like, that you believe works for you, and replace it with something different. It will be better! Trust us!”

Still, though, even people who aren't running on MfA proposals should be pointing out that our current system makes no sense. Something different really would be better.


To no one's surprise, making sports betting legal and advertising it relentlessly during televised sporting events has worsened the nation's gambling addiction problem.


According to the New York Post, Jeff Bezos is planning to spend $600 million on his second wedding. This is Gilded Age stuff.


Elon Musk isn't just pushing fascism in the US, but in Germany as well.

Elon Musk has caused outrage in Berlin after appearing to endorse the far-right, anti-immigrant Alternative für Deutschland.

Musk, who has been named by Donald Trump to co-lead a commission aimed at reducing the size of the US federal government, wrote on his social media platform X: “Only the AfD can save Germany.”


Senator Dick Durbin interviews NCAA President (and former Republican Governor) Charlie Baker. Number of athletes competing in NCAA schools: 510,000. Number of those athletes known to be trans: 10.

That's what the panic has been about: 10 people out of 510,000. And I wonder: Do any of those 10 really qualify as unfair competition?


All my life I've been reading articles promising that the long-term solution to the world's energy problem is nuclear fusion. Well, maybe the long term is finally starting to get shorter.


Overall, it's been a crappy year. But at least we beat the murder hornets.

and let's close with something Christmasy

Dog owners in London put on an annual dog-centered nativity play. The little guy pictured above is playing an angel.