The Weekly Sift

Monday, June 22, 2026

Shared Values

These are the values and traditions I believe in, and they are not Republican or Democratic values. They’re American values we can all share.

- Barack Obama, opening the Obama Center Friday

This week's featured post is "Story Games".

Ongoing stories

Trump's assault on American democracy. The attack on California's elections as "fraud" are a preview of what we'll see when Trump's party gets pounded in the fall elections. The charges are a clear example of "truthiness". No one has any evidence of fraud, but the charges just feel right to the MAGA faithful. "It’s impossible to prove, but I think everybody knows instinctively, something is wrong here," says Speaker Johnson.
Climate change. The Trump regime continues to pay money to cancel wind-power projects. The total bill has reached $2.5 billion. It's hard to imagine a more wrong-headed policy.
Iran War. For months commentators have been saying that Trump was losing the war. The agreement he signed to end the war proves he did. Now we get to see whether the US can control Israel and Iran can control Hezbollah, because the Lebanon front is key to maintaining the ceasefire.
Ukraine. The war continues to shift in Ukraine's favor. The video below of the roof flying off of a Moscow oil refinery is striking. Putin's war has followed him home.

This week's developments

This week everybody was talking about Trump's Versailles Agreement

The full text of the US/Iran memorandum of understanding finally came out. I don't know what's more striking: What a bad deal this is for the United States, or how many people are surprised it came out this way. What did they think was going to happen? The phrase that springs to mind is: Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Pentagon simulations had consistently demonstrated two reasons for avoiding a war with Iran:

Air power by itself won't topple the theocracy.
When Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, we have no effective answer short of a costly land invasion or nuclear war.

We've now had four months to watch those two obvious truths play out. Sure, we can destroy a lot of Iranian stuff and kill a lot of their people, while using up a lot of weaponry it will take years for us to replace. But no one in the Trump regime was ever able to explain how destruction and killing by itself could lead to some positive outcome for the US. Wednesday,

Trump said that “the alternative would be a worldwide depression”, arguing that if he had not struck a deal, “the strait [of Hormuz] would never have been opened."

Of course the Strait was open before Trump attacked, so maybe he could have thought about worldwide depression then. But he didn't, so he ended up making a number of concessions to Iran in order get it open again. Avoiding a bad outcome is an explanation for why you sign a bad deal, not something to crow about as an accomplishment.

Is the Strait of Hormuz open now? Kinda-sorta. Some ships are getting through, but the traffic is limited.

If you want to mix some laughter into your tears, watch British pseudo-journalist Jonathan Pie recount the course of the war.

For an example of the kind of military cluelessness that got us into this war, look at WaPo columnist Marc Thiessen's reaction to the Versailles agreement. He thinks Trump had achieved a "historic victory" on the battlefield, which the peace agreement mysteriously screws up.

What victory is that? Well, we destroyed things and killed people. And if we'd just kept doing that for two more weeks we wouldn't need an agreement at all.

I have been clear about my view from the start: Trump would be better off ending the war without a deal, with a final 10-to-14-day bombing campaign that completes the destruction of Iran’s military capabilities — and then declaring victory, ending combat operations and launching a covert effort to arm the Iranian people and help them overthrow the regime in time.

Where does that 10-14-day estimate come from? From "the target list [Admiral Cooper] was assigned at the start of Operation Epic Fury".

Yep, that's how war works: You make a target list before the shooting starts, and when you finish it you've won. Easy-peasy. Why didn't anybody think to do that in Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq?

and Obama's new library/museum

When an ex-president who is widely respected and admired throws a party, people show up. Friday, on Juneteenth, the Obama Presidential Center opened in Chicago. Every living president other than Trump was there, along with celebrities like Oprah Winfrey, Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, Stephen Colbert, and Dwayne Wade.

The musical line-up put Trump's Freedom 250 effort to shame: Bruce Springsteen, Stevie Wonder, Common, Christina Aguilera, John Legend, Bono, and others. But the highlight was President Obama himself, who can still give a great speech:

[T]he exhibits here focus not just on policies, but on the shared values that make democracy possible, a belief in the intrinsic dignity and worth of all people, and that no one is above the law or beneath its protection, a belief in checks and balances in our government and an accountability that comes with an independent judiciary and a robust, free press. A belief that our military and law enforcement owe allegiance not to any president or political party, but to the people and our Constitution.

A belief in the peaceful transfer of power after the people have spoken in fair and free elections, recognizing that in a large, complicated society like ours, no group or faction gets its way 100% of the time. And a belief that qualities of character, honesty, integrity, kindness, compassion, a sense of duty and honor, those things matter in our public dealings, just as they do in our private lives.

These are the values and traditions I believe in, and they are not Republican or Democratic values. They’re American values we can all share.

The word "Trump" did not appear in his text. It didn't have to.

and masculinity

The combination of the UFC bout on the White House lawn, a match winner telling an outrageous lie about Michelle Obama (who wasn't there and had nothing to do with the event), and neither the White House nor any of the sponsoring corporations making any statement about it afterward -- it started a lot of people writing about how the MAGA movement has distorted and corrupted the notion of masculinity. Mitch Jackson comments:

Here is the product Trump and his supporters are selling. Be loud. Be cruel and a male chauvinist. Racism is fine. Mock the weak. Call people names. Shout down anyone who corrects you. Repeat whatever Fox News told you this morning as gospel, even when you know nothing about the subject. Wrap all of it in a red hat and call it manhood. ...

Here is what the Trump manosphere salesmen do not want you to know. A man stands tall and tells the truth even when the truth costs him. A man keeps his word. A man protects the people who have no one else to protect them, the kid getting bullied, the worker getting cheated, the stranger getting hounded by a mob. A man stays calm when calm is hard. A man extends his hand to the person everyone else wrote off. Compassion is strength. Empathy is strength. Owning your mistakes out loud is strength. Shouting the loudest in the room has never once made anyone a man. Name calling is the move of a coward who ran out of arguments.

It especially burns me to hear the MAGA imitation of a man called a "cowboy". I grew up watching westerns on TV, and Mitch Jackson is describing the heroes of those westerns. Ben Cartwright, Matt Dillon -- they were the kind of men Jackson is describing. They were nothing at all like Donald Trump.

Here's a question: If, as right-wing ideology insists, there are only two genders, established by God and unalterably built into our bodies -- then why does masculinity require a performance like this? Can't MAGA males just be men? Why do they have to go to great lengths to perform their masculinity?

But if, on the other hand, gender is at least partly a performance, that opens up a lot of interesting discussions and possibilities.

Another example of MAGA "masculinity": Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is a right-wing leader who had been one of Trump's few allies in Europe. Recently there's been some friction between them after Trump started attacking Pope Leo. (Popes tend to be popular in Italy -- who knew?)

She's also a comparatively young and good-looking female head-of-state who stands out in a graybeard meeting like the recent G-7 in France. So of course Trump had to comment to an Italian TV interviewer about how Meloni "begged" to have her picture taken with him, as (no doubt) all good-looking younger women beg when overwhelmed by his manly presence.

She’s probably happy I talked to her. I didn’t have to talk to her. She begged me to take a picture with her. She wanted a picture with me so badly. I wouldn’t have taken it, but I felt sorry for her.

Meloni, and apparently all of Italy, took offense at this comment. The Italian foreign minister cancelled a trip to the US. Meloni said that Trump had "fabricated" the interaction and said "Italy and I do not beg."

Trump make something up? Heaven forefend. Just the other day, someone said to him "Sir, you are so honest. You never invent conversations that didn't happen." But I think Meloni should count her blessings. At least he didn't grab her by the pussy.

and the reflecting pool

This is the kind of trivial thing I usually ignore. The $14-or-so million Trump spent to repaint the bottom of the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool isn't significant in any fiscal way, and the resulting mess isn't something I walk past on any regular basis. Even the fact that the job was done on a no-bid contract awarded to somebody Trump had hired at one of his clubs -- it's barely a drop in the bucket of Trump regime corruption.

But the series of incompetent moves -- the huge cost overrun, not understanding the biology of algae, awarding the no-bid clean-up contract to another crony, dumping hydrogen peroxide into the pool to kill the algae without realizing it might cause the new layer of paint to peel up, and then blaming all his failures on "vandals" -- it's just too typical of the whole regime. Trump ignores expert opinion, pats himself on the back for his brilliant solution, siphons taxpayers' money off to insiders, and then blames somebody else when it all goes wrong.

Like the Iran War, in other words. Max Boot comments:

I’m sure Trump will catch the vandals desecrating the Reflecting Pool just about the time that Captain Queeg catches the thieves who absconded with his strawberries.

Sadly, though, law enforcement in the capital now serves the Mad King's fantasies. People are being arrested for vandalizing the pool, including an ex-Olympian who stopped by in the middle of his morning bike ride. Prediction: None of these cases will go to trial. Either grand juries will refuse to indict or judges will throw the charges out for lack of evidence.

but I want you to read an essay

"Winning the Story Game" by A. R. Moxon. I discuss it in the featured post.

and you also might be interested in ...

Most stunning video of the week: During a massive Ukrainian drone attack on Moscow Thursday, the city's largest oil refinery literally flips its lid. The roof is blown off and turns over in the air. Later, it turned out that the refinery wasn't hit by a drone, but by a misfired Russian anti-drone missile.

The anti-ICE protests outside Delaney Hall in New Jersey are continuing. The latest: video of a protester getting hit by a car.

The $400 million bribe Trump took from the Qatari royal family is now ready for service as Air Force One.

Sci-fi TV shows like "For All Mankind" sometimes feature nuclear-powered rockets. Russia has one now, but it's "wildly expensive and very dangerous".

Since the Supreme Court reversed Roe v Wade, the number of abortions nationwide has nearly doubled. Nobody knows for sure why, but one possibility is that women in remote areas did not realize before that they could get abortion pills through the mail. NPR reports that even if telehealth clinics are banned from sending mifepristone through the mail, the companion drug misoprostol will work by itself, but with more discomfort.

I'll repeat something I've pointed out before: Christian abortion opponents can stretch certain Bible verses to claim that the prophets would have banned surgical abortion if they'd known about it. But drugs to induce miscarriage are as old as time, and the Bible does not mention them. Mifepristone and misoprostol are just more effective modern versions of folk remedies that go back to the Egyptians.

Paul Waldman asks why Trump's increasing mental and physical infirmity isn't being covered the same way Biden's was.

While there are occasional articles analyzing Trump’s aging, the mainstream media — especially the most important agenda-setting outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal — treated Biden’s age as one of the most important stories in politics, a four-alarm fire that demanded every ounce of attention they could give it. ... There’s no way to know for sure [how age has affected Trump's judgment]. But the nature of Trump’s personalist presidency, in which the entire government is organized around turning his whims into reality and the barest hint of dissent is swiftly punished, makes the question of his age even more important than it was with Biden, who was surrounded by competent people who could run the government even when the president was less engaged than he ought to have been.

Ta-Nehisi Coates' article in Vanity Fair is headlined: "Did Kamala Harris’s Silence on Gaza Cost Her the White House?", but it's also a meditation on the long-standing American conflict between democracy and human rights at home vs. empire abroad.

Gaza is not a betrayal of American democratic tradition but an expression of an American imperial tradition.

Coates describes "survivalist democracy", when the lesser evil of a leader who protects many groups within America allows many Americans to ignore brutality against the groups left out.

So Georgia won't be redistricting to kill its majority-Black districts. At least not this year.

Using solar panels to create needed shade always seemed like a no-brainer to me. Now California has a pilot project to cover its canals with solar panel canopies to avoid evaporation while generating electricity. Next we need to do big retail parking lots.

UCLA Professor of Medicine Robert B. Shpiner pulls together a bunch of Trump initiatives that don't look nearly so ominous when you see them one-by-one.

The schedule of newborn vaccinations has been cut back from 17 to 11. One of the missing vaccines is hepatitis B, a disease which turns chronic in 9 out of 10 infants who catch it.
The monthly food stamp fruit-and-vegetable benefit for small children has been cut from $26 to $10.
About four million people are being pushed off food stamps, many of them parents.
Two million fewer children are covered by Medicaid or CHIP than were at the end of the Biden administration.
A program that bought locally-grown produce for school lunches has been cancelled.
Enforcement of the law guaranteeing an education to children with disabilities has been moved from the Department of Education to the Department of Justice.
The federal government is no longer gathering data that might show the effects of these changes.

He concludes: "I’ve never seen the US harm its children this deliberately."

Pete Hegseth cancelled the Pentagon's requirement for flu vaccines. Now there's been a flu outbreak at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio. Over 220 cases have been reported so far.

The military forces people to live in close quarters that facilitate the spread of disease. Such diseases are often have military significance. The Plague of Justinian in the sixth century (an early version of the Black Death of the Middle Ages) put a stop to the Byzantine Empire's attempt to reconquer the western territories that had been lost after the fall of Rome.

Requiring vaccines is just military good sense.

and let's close with something twisted

Occasionally I've managed to glimpse a hummingbird before it flitted away. But my eye has never been sharp enough to see one's extended tongue.

Monday, June 15, 2026

Pacts

guy has a trillion dollars, 0 friends, and has never landed a joke. I know a pact with the devil when I see one.

- Amy (@lolennui.bsky.social)

This week's featured post is "What to make of Graham Platner".

Ongoing stories

Trump's assault on American democracy. Our rapidly declining empire has hit its bread-and-circuses phase. For the Mad King's birthday yesterday, we witnessed the corrupt spectacle of a UFC cage match on the White House lawn.
Climate change. You don't have to deny scientific data you never collect. So the Trump regime is dismantling our ocean sensors.
Iran war. An agreement was announced yesterday, but we don't have the text, and the most contentious issues were put off until the next round. If we're lucky, it will get us back to where we were before Trump launched his ill-fated war.
Ukraine. This week's update from Phillips O'Brien focuses on Ukraine's effort to cut Crimea off from Russia. If they succeed, Crimea becomes a drain on Russia's war effort rather than a strategic asset.

This week's developments

This week everybody was talking about the Iran agreement

After months of Trump claiming a deal was at hand and Iran saying no, some kind of agreement was announced yesterday and is supposed to take effect Friday. No specific text was released, so I can't tell you exactly what is in it. We just have to go on what various leaders are saying about it.

Apparently, the Strait of Hormuz will be open again, as it was before the US and Israel attacked Iran. The US will drop its blockade of Iranian ports, so Iran will be able to sell oil as it did before the attack. The US and Iran will be negotiating about the future of Iran's nuclear program and the fate of the Iranian assets frozen in the US-controlled banking system, as they were doing before the attack. The ceasefire will be extended 60 days and will include Israeli forces in Lebanon, which Israel may not accept.

The obvious question now is: What did we gain from launching this war? Trump and Hegseth have been claiming victory since the first day, but what did we win? Aren't we just back where we were before we got 15 of our own people and God knows how many Iranian civilians killed, spent hundreds of billions, depleted our stockpile of missiles and other weapons, cost American consumers billions at the gas pump, and disrupted the world economy?

Michael Sellers:

The right comparison is not between today and yesterday’s worst-case scenario. The right comparison is between today and the day before the war began.

And we may not even be back to where we started. There appear to be several points of possible misunderstanding, like this one:

[Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem] Gharibabadi said those negotiations [over Iran's nuclear program] would only begin once Iran can verify that the U.S. has complied with the current agreement, which he said included unfreezing Iranian assets and lifting the naval blockade. U.S. officials, however, said Iranian assets would not be unfrozen until Tehran had demonstrated compliance with the agreement.

Sellers lists the possible issues in the agreement, and offers practical tests for judging them. Example: "does Hormuz return to normal freedom of navigation, or does Iran emerge with a new coercive role over passage?"

Whatever the reality, Trump will spend the next several weeks claiming he got concessions that aren't in the agreement, in order to tell his base that his claims of victory weren't lies. Iran will not validate these claims, but we'll see if they will be content to let Trump do what he does. That would give the world 60 days of breathing space before reality must be faced again.

My best guess: Something like this agrement will eventually take effect, but first it will have to come apart a couple more times. Maybe Israel will scuttle it, or the "memorandum of understanding" will fail to reflect a mutual understanding of its terms. And maybe Trump will just blow it up when his MAGA base starts to accuse him of weakness.

Meanwhile, the global markets seem to be taking this agreement at face value. I've never been a commodities trader, but if I were, I'd be tempted to buy oil futures and wait for the first glitch. If this does all come apart, a true catastrophe looms: The world has been burning through its oil reserves, and the tanks seem to be a month or two from running dry.

and about symbolic milestones

So Elon Musk's net worth crossed $1 trillion (due to the SpaceX IPO I warned you to avoid last week). And after a bunch of legal flailing by Trump's puppet board, his name came off the Kennedy Center. (I think.)

Trump used his power under the Defense Production Act to put $700 million of your tax dollars behind the coal industry, which is doomed for economic reasons even if you ignore the environmental damage it does. In May, for the first month ever, the US used more solar energy (12.8% of total electricity use) than coal (12.2%). Remember when Republicans wanted the market rather than the government to sort out energy use?

Musk's trillionaire status has sparked debate about what our economic system rewards or doesn't reward. Exemplars of vast wealth are always controversial, but it seems to me that previous ones gave their fans more to work with than Musk has. If you drove a car, you understood what Henry Ford had done. John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie represented oil and steel, which anyone could appreciate.

Bill Gates exemplified the personal computer revolution (whether it would have happened without him or not). For better or worse, Jeff Bezos and Sam Walton changed the way we shopped.

But Musk? His fortune is based on dreams of a future that may never come to pass, or may be made real by a competitor rather than Musk himself: self-driving cars, humanoid robots, colonies on Mars. Tesla and Starlink are real, but so far they account for very small parts of the car or communications industries.

Paul Krugman elaborates:

But these achievements weren’t enough to make Musk the world’s richest man. His wealth has, instead, historically rested mainly on self-fulfilling faith — investors believing in Musk’s genius have piled into stocks in Musk-controlled companies, and the rising value of these companies has enhanced his reputation for genius.

We have a term for enterprises that look successful because they keep drawing in new investors and keep drawing in new investors because they look successful. They’re called Ponzi schemes. And Elon Musk is basically a human Ponzi scheme. ... Which brings me to my final point. The immense human Ponzi scheme that is Elon Musk will eventually collapse.

In a different post, Krugman compares our era to the Gilded Age.

So, are we living in a second Gilded Age? If only. We surpassed Gilded Age levels of income and wealth inequality decades ago. We’re now in an era of oligarchy in which the power of great wealth and the abuse of that power by a tiny elite eclipse anything we saw in the late 19^th and early 20^th century. And the super-wealthy themselves are far more lacking in redemptive qualities than their predecessors.

If you really enjoy seeing someone dunk on Musk, follow Will Lockett's substack. In particular, this post examines the one piece of SpaceX that is supposed to be profitable already: Starlink. But is it really profitable, or do those earnings come from an accounting game enabled by Trump's Big Beautiful Bill?

Then there's Musk's most serious downside: Current Affairs interviews Nicholas Enrich, who has a book out about the destruction of USAID during Musk's months as head of DOGE. And Musk was involved: He bragged about "feeding USAID into the wood chipper".

[USAID] was kind of the embodiment of American generosity overseas. We operated under a flag of people shaking hands that said "from the American people", but it wasn't just a charity organization. I think that that's it's really important. It was an implement of national security. It kept Americans safe from infectious diseases. You know, we had developed a global early warning system, so that countries could detect and respond to infectious diseases before they could potentially threaten us. We built partnerships over decades with countries that enhanced stability and increased American soft power around the world, that really allowed for Americans to thrive in a stable world order for over 60 years.

Enrich gives a few simple examples of threats to national security: When the Ebola outbreak started in Uganda, USAID wanted to screen passengers boarding international flights out, because "that's how you get an international catastrophe". The funding was denied. Clinical trials of drugs to fight currently drug-resistant tuberculosis were stopped, creating a risk of new TB strains resistant to those experimental drugs.

Enrich wasn't prepared for the level of ignorance he encountered from the DOGE people.

There was another political appointee who told me, when I was pushing to restart lifesaving Ebola activities, he told me just that Ebola is a scam.

The first signs of the unfolding disaster were

families that had spent all day walking to a clinic in Sudan—you know, with the USAID logo on it—expecting to get food and medical supplies, seeing that clinic ends up being shuttered and were then forced to go home and then make the heart-wrenching decision of which of their children to feed. And there were pregnant women who were unable to access emergency childbirth services because the ambulance service that provided them was cut off and they ended up perishing. These were just like the initial anecdotal experiences that we started to hear that have since expanded.

Now we're seeing conservative estimates show that 750,000 people have already died, most of those are children, and that's within the first year. And unfortunately, what we're learning is that really this is just the tip of the iceberg. It's what we're going to see in the next few years, where new babies who are born are no longer getting the immunizations we used to provide, babies are being born with HIV at high rates in some clinics, where just a year ago those rates were near zero. The impacts of this are going to—we're not going to see the full effects of them for four years. I mean, I honestly believe that when the dust settles on the Trump administration, his cuts to USAID will end up being a major part of his legacy, because of just how far-reaching those impacts really are.

The Lancet medical journal published a study anticipating the results from a global cut in official development aid (ODA).

Sudden and severe reductions in ODA funding could have catastrophic consequences, with a potential global death toll comparable to—or even exceeding—that of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even modest defunding that simply extends current downward trends is likely to lead to sharp increases in preventable adult and child mortality, potentially resulting in tens of millions of excess deaths in the coming years.

It's important to understand the full evil of Musk's actions. For decades, I've been hearing conservative rhetoric about how private aid should replace government aid. But not only does Musk (unlike Bill Gates or Warren Buffett) give essentially nothing from his vast wealth to help the world's least fortunate. (The Musk Foundation has focused on self-dealing with his businesses, and funding schools his children attended.) But he uses his wealth to buy political power, and then uses that power to prevent any help from reaching the poor.

Trump is being as petty as possible about taking his name off the Kennedy Center. Legal challenges went to the last minute, and then a 12-hour extension was granted. After the name came off, they left the tarp up so that no one can see the place where his name was taken down. The tarp serves no purpose but to avoid giving Trump's enemies the satisfaction of defeating him.

News articles about taking down Trump's name quote a lot of opinions about whether he deserves such an honor. The answer seems obvious to me, but it's an irrelevant point: Trump and his puppet board had no power to change the name of the Kennedy Center. Only Congress can do that.

This is typical of a lot of Trump's legal controversies. Whether what he wants to do is a good idea or not -- I usually think not -- he gets into trouble because he exceeds his legal powers. The tariffs are a prime example. Whether the US would benefit from higher tariffs is something reasonable people can argue about. But under the law, Trump had no power to impose his tariffs. The right argument to have there isn't against tariffs, but against dictatorship.

Consider this exchange in the court case about Trump destroying the East Wing of the White House and beginning to build his gilded ballroom. Trump's DoJ is arguing that courts have no power to intervene.

"If the government decides, very quickly, to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty," asked Judge Patricia Millett, "[if] the government moved too fast…nothing can be done?"

"I think that's right, yes," [DoJ attorney] Roth replied, which, according to ABC News, "sparked audible gasps in the courtroom."

Now, nothing in the Constitution commits the US government to maintaining the East Wing (or the Statue of Liberty). But under our system of government, such decisions aren't based on the whims of one man.

Republicans would recognize this truth immediately if the one man were a Democrat. President Obama was denounced (more than once) for putting his feet up on the Resolute Desk. ("The picture of Obama with his feet on the desk in the Oval Office shows that he has never been taught manners. That desk is history and should be treated with respect.") Imagine if he'd torn down a wing of the White House purely on his own authority.

and Graham Platner

See the featured post.

and Social Security

As if Republicans running for Congress this fall didn't face enough problems, Speaker Johnson just gave them one more: If he's still speaker after the elections, he has a plan for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to be "adjusted and fixed".

We know what this means, because it's been a staple on the Right for decades: Any government spending that benefits people creates a budget problem. But there is infinitely much money available to pursue wars, cut billionaires' taxes, and glorify God-Emperor Trump.

In particular, a Heritage Foundation article from 2024 proposes to "fix" Social Security by raising the retirement age to 69 or 70, establishing a "more accurate" (i.e., less generous) inflation metric, and partially privatizing the program.

The ostensible reason to "fix" Social Security is that the SS trust fund will run out of money in the early 2030s. If no other funding is provided by Congress, benefits will be limited to the Social Security taxes that come in, necessitating cuts.

However, the trust fund has always been a bookkeeping device rather than anything real. As Paul Krugman explains, the real question is whether the country wants to keep funding its elders at this level, not whether it can afford to.

and a war crime

Almost since the beginning of the Iran War, Trump has been threatening to commit war crimes. Occasionally, people have debated whether something we've done in Iran is a war crime or not. Bombing the girls school, for example, would be a war crime if it had been done intentionally. Attacking bridges and power plants might be war crimes, if the intent was to destroy economic infrastructure rather than impede Iran's military.

Tuesday, all doubt was removed. After Trump unleashed another round of war-crime threats on Truth Social, this happened:

On the evening of June 9, the USA, with what seems to be intent, attacked two reservoirs and a water treatment facility in southern Iran. Almost immediately afterwards, water was cut off to about 20,000 Iranian civilians who live around the southern Iranian town of Sirik.

Why was this most likely a deliberate attack? Well, there seems to have been nothing nearby of military value and the destruction was precise.

When asked about this attack and the possibility that it was a war crime, Pete Hegseth offered no defense.

Well, it’s precisely the kind of disingenuous question that I’m used to from the media, impugning the motives of the folks on our side who are incredibly professional and incredibly effective.

and Trump's birthday

Yesterday Trump held a UFC cage match on the White House lawn. Not only was this garish and violent, it often turned partisan. Also, it was another example of Trump profiting off his office: He owns stock in the TKO Group, which sponsors UFC fights. And the White House was not the only federal property involved: Weigh-ins and other pre-match festivities took place at the Lincoln Memorial.

and you also might be interested in ...

Don Moynihan raises an interesting point about the Supreme Court's assault on Black representation in Congress. It really comes in two parts:

States can't intentionally create majority-minority districts because that violates the Court's "color-blind" interpretation of the Constitution.
States can gerrymander for partisan purposes, which in red states has the effect of eliminating majority-minority districts that might arise naturally, i.e., in urban areas with large minority populations.

Moynihan considers what would happen if both partisan and racial gerrymandering were unconstitutional.

By accepting partisan gerrymandering as a regrettable but inevitable part of American democracy, the courts made racial justifications, rather than broadly democratic justifications, the last basis for maintaining constraint on gerrymandering. So isolated, it became easier to eliminate this last line of defense.

Nothing about this was inevitable. Imagine an alternative scenario, where the courts decided that both racial considerations and partisan gerrymandering were unconstitutional. Commentators like Rubenfeld could still have trumpeted the end of “the racial districting game” but Black and Democratic voters would still have had a realistic chance at representation.

A new analysis at the New York Times by Nate Cohn and Eve Washington adds numbers to the debate. It makes clear how monumental the decision to accept partisan gerrymandering was to blocking a truly colorblind map.

A map that was organized more simply around the non-partisan values of natural geographic settings would preserve a similar number of Democratic and minority-leaning opportunities.

Video of a crime committed by one particular Sudanese asylum-seeker in Southhampton went viral and resulted in an anti-immigrant riot in Belfast. Wired examines the role a far-right youth group played in making the riots happen. The New Yorker has a longer, deeper article on how anti-immigrant politics is spreading in the UK and elsewhere.

Approaching the 10-year anniversary of the Brexit vote, the UK economy is clearly doing worse outside the EU than it would have done remaining inside.

One of the more controversial parts of FISA surveillance law is Section 702, which allows intelligence agencies to monitor the communications of certain foreign nationals, even when they communicate with Americans that the agencies are not supposed to spy on. Section 702 gets reauthorized from time to time, because it's been too controversial to make permanent.

The tricky point is what the agencies can do with their databases of collected information. Maybe the NSA (say) has no justification to surveil you, but it has your conversations with foreign nationals in its database. Can it search that database for your communications without a warrant, essentially spying on you via its spying on other people?

Anyway, the appointment of Trump attack dog Bill Pulte as acting DNI raised the profile of this issue, and Congress failed to renew the authority when it lapsed last week.

Japan is depopulating.

Laurie Garrett explains:

young men aren’t eager to marry, and Japanese women are more than happy to pursue life without them. Marriage rates continue to plummet, along with birth rates. This is less about policy initiatives the government might take than it is due to a wide gender gap in hopes, dreams, aspirations, concepts of family and cultural interests.

But of course, the US is developing similar gender gaps, and a similar (if less extreme) drop in births-per-woman.

Japan is not the exception – rather, it is the avant garde, the cutting edge, the leader the rest of us ought to pay close attention to as it struggles to find the right combination of humanity, gender equity, financing and social policy to care for its elders, encourage its young adults, bridge the political and economic gaps between men and women, and grow its children.

This is an issue conservatives recognize, but their approach is 180 degrees off. The decline in White reproduction is a key part of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. The true part of the theory is that if our economy continues to create jobs and our people don't produce children to fill them, immigration is the obvious way to keep the wheels spinning. This will inevitably shift the racial demographics.

But the MAGA approach to increasing fertility is basically to roll the clock back, so that women have fewer choices in life and are essentially forced into motherhood. Garrett suggests another path: Change male culture so that men take more responsibility for children. If men and women see equivalent costs and rewards for raising children, their expectations will begin to align.

If you're wondering about the current legal situation around Trump's slush fund for the January 6 criminals, the best summary is here. Two courts are still wrestling with issues related to the fund, and the regime is claiming the courts' concerns are moot, because the fund isn't happening. At least one judge wants a written commitment from the Justice Department that the fund really is dead and won't be revived. We'll see if DoJ gives that commitment.

The Trump administration is dismantling the Ocean Observatories Initiative,

a $386 million network of more than 900 instruments funded by the U.S. government’s National Science Foundation (NSF), which has provided real-time data on the world’s oceans for more than a decade. The sensors are distributed across both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans to monitor coastal environments, marine ecosystems, and ocean currents that influence the global climate.

The decision to end OOI, described by the foundation as a “descoping,” will remove nearly all in-water infrastructure located off the states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon and North Carolina, and the Irminger Sea, an area between Iceland and Greenland. The OOI was designed as a 25-to-30-year project specifically to capture long-term climate signals, which scientists say require at least three decades of continuous data to be meaningfully detected. The network has achieved just 10 years of observations.

The simplest way to deny climate change is to refuse to gather data on it.

and let's close with something precious

"Rare photo of a mother wrench feeding her young. Breathtaking." - ScottH

Monday, June 8, 2026

Self and Others

A man does what’s right when no one is watching. He upholds his commitments to his family and neighbors. He doesn’t lie, cheat, & steal his way through life. Real men serve others. Weak men serve themselves.

- James Talarico

This week's featured post is "All Americans Need Pride Now".

Ongoing stories

Trump's assault on American democracy. To me the week's most disturbing quote was from DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin. Testifying before a Senate committee, Mullin was asked (by Chris Murphy) whether he would commit to following court orders. Mullin could not say yes. Instead, he said he would follow orders he believed were legitimate, but not politically biased ones. In other words, he will be the judge of what the law says. That's not how the rule of law works.
Climate change. El Nino continues to build, threatening record heat this summer.
Iran. Nothing new to report: Trump keeps saying Iran is defeated and a deal is at hand that will achieve all his goals. Iran keeps refusing to act like it's defeated. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed and the world's oil reserves continue to sink.
Ukraine. Phillips O'Brien's biweekly updates continue to be the easiest good way to keep track of this conflict. Ukraine's growing drone-and-missile campaign is making it increasingly difficult for Putin to claim that everything is OK.

This week's developments

This week everybody was talking about budgets

The Senate passed the Republicans' reconciliation bill. It needs to go back to the House now, where there may yet be some snags. Prevailing opinion is that it will wind up on Trump's desk by the end of the week.

If you remember, originally this was about whether Congress could stop ICE and the Border Patrol from being rogue agencies that terrorize American cities and run concentration camps. But as so often happens, once the train started rolling a lot of other controversial issues got attached to it. So it's easy to forget that this all started when Trump's storm troopers murdered Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis. Democrats then proposed tying funding to some common-sense limits, the kinds of limits all other law-enforcement organizations already follow, like not wearing masks and going to a judge to get warrants.

Republicans refused to compromise on this, so the funding had to be dropped from the big appropriation bills that funded the rest of the government and then the rest of DHS. By going the reconciliation route, Republicans no longer needed Democratic votes, so they added a nasty kicker to the bill: It funds ICE for three years rather than the usual one. So if Democrats retake Congress in the fall, they won't be able to defund this rogue agency. In essence, the reconciliation bill puts ICE beyond the power of the voters.

For a while the bill included money for Trump's White House ballroom and the fund to pay off the thugs who rioted for him on January 6. But those provisions were too toxic even for Republicans, so they were removed. Acting AG Todd Blanche went so far as to say that the administration was dropping the proposed thug-fund, but he wouldn't put it in writing, and Democrats failed to get explicit language into the reconciliation bill disallowing the fund. Trump says he still loves the idea, so we'll see it again, either after he signs the bill or maybe after the fall elections.

But that dispute is about the current year's budget. By October Congress will need to pass next year's budget, where Trump wants to raise defense spending from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion.

Timothy Snyder observes that this kind of increase doesn't make sense in any conventional frame.

Increasing the military budget from about a trillion dollars to about 1.5 trillion dollars makes no fiscal sense. We can’t pay for it without destroying basic government functions and soaking the American taxpayer. It makes no military sense. It is based upon no doctrinal innovation or review of technology. The “Trump-class” battleships it proposes are archaic, nonsensical, and more than a little embarrassing. The budget proposal makes no managerial sense. The Pentagon has never passed an audit, and Pete Hegseth has proven himself spectacularly unable to manage organizations of any kind. Putting an additional half a trillion dollars under his authority annually is superpower suicide.

It's not like this is a Sputnik moment and we suddenly realize our potential adversaries are way ahead of us. It's not like $1 trillion represented a whittled-down military that needs to be rebuilt. It's also not like there's an upswelling of public opinion demanding more defense. If you asked Americans what they want the Pentagon to spend $500 billion more on, you'd draw a blank from the vast majority of voters. And virtually nobody would volunteer to sacrifice their own benefits -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc. -- to pay for a bigger military.

So why then? Snyder has a theory:

The military budget proposal ... makes authoritarian political sense. It is designed to popular among the people with guns who Trump imagines will help him control the population at large (and they should realize this, and they should be offended.) It shifts taxpayer money to soldiers and officers in exchange for their personal loyalty to an aspiring dictator. It is a bribe to stay in power as part of an attempt to change the regime of the United States. It is not a military budget but a military dictatorship budget.

and 60 Minutes

The story so far: Skydance Media, controlled by the Trump-allied Ellison family, bought Paramount Global, giving them control of CBS. The merger raised anti-trust issues, so Paramount paid a bribe to Trump (and fired Stephen Colbert after he used the word "bribe" on the air) to let it go through.

The Ellisons then turned CBS News over to Bari Weiss, whose experience was mainly as a opinion writer for print media. So she begins her career in broadcast journalism at the top, as head of the organization made great by people like Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow. I don't have to summarize Weiss' career, because John Oliver already did.

Weiss' career has centered on claims of "liberal media bias". So since taking over, Weiss has shifted CBS Evening News to the right, which has been disastrous for its ratings: CBS is never going to win over Fox News viewers, so all they have done is alienate the viewers they already had.

This week, she brought her wrecking ball to 60 Minutes, the most popular news show on television. Of course, she had already messed with 60 Minutes before, in December. Hours before its scheduled airing, she pulled Sharyn Alfonsi's outstanding report on the CECOT prison in El Salvador that Trump was deporting people to. After the episode was leaked by a Canadian broadcaster, garnering Weiss a lot of bad press, she relented and let the episode air (with a few changes) four weeks later. Stephen Miller demanded that the people responsible for the report be fired, which Weiss at the time did not do.

But a week ago Thursday, heads began to roll, beginning with Alfonsi, but also including correspondent Cecilia Vega, executive producer Tanya Simon, and executive editor Draggan Mihailovich. Last Monday, correspondent Scott Pelley told the executives what he thought about their moves, and was subsequently fired himself. (Perhaps seeing the writing on the wall, Anderson Cooper had left the show voluntarily in mid-May.)

Friday, the remaining correspondents -- Lesley Stahl, Bill Whitaker and Jon Wertheim -- said they plan to stay on. But their joint statement was hardly a vote of confidence in the new leadership.

We want to express how sorry we are that these principled, fair and honest journalists were treated so shabbily, with such indecency. Tanya deserves to be celebrated, not cruelly cast off. Draggan too. It’s been heartbreaking. But, we have decided to stay on. We feared that our returning might be construed as an endorsement of the existing power structure. That is simply, categorically not the case. Here’s why we’re are staying: We don’t want to see 60 Minutes die.

Pelley gave an interview to the NYT where he fleshed out some of his previous claims of political interference from Weiss.

[A]bout four hours after our deadline, Bari Weiss sends an email to my boss, Tanya Simon. Two of the things in the email include, can we make the protesters look more violent? Now, I’m paraphrasing. I don’t have the quote, but that’s what was communicated to me. And the other thing, Renee Good’s car. You need to describe her as driving toward the officer.

This is not what you see on the video. On the video, you see the officer standing slightly off the front of the car. And you clearly see Ms. Good’s wheels turned completely as far as they will go, away from the officer. But he shoots her in the head, kills her, and says something about her that I can’t repeat in polite company.

We have gone out of our way in our plan from the very beginning to show the protesters for the responsibility that they had. We had already scrubbed the video archives, looking for those scenes. Somehow that wasn’t enough for Ms. Weiss. The video showed that the officer wasn’t standing in front of the car and she wasn’t driving toward him, but that’s what the president said about that, and that’s the way she wanted it described.

Jay Rosen is an insightful observer of journalism. Here's his take: Maybe CBS looks so chaotic because no two executives are playing the same game.

If you follow the mess at CBS, don't dismiss the possibility that Ellison thinks he's been clear about playing nice with Trump, while Bari Weiss thinks she can get by with "Center Right," while Nick Bilton thinks it's Mike Wallace all over again— but super digital. All at once.

and the SpaceX scam

Elon Musk's SpaceX (SPCX) will become a publicly traded company on Friday. This is sketchy for a bunch of reasons.

If the stock trades at anything like the asking price, it will be the biggest initial public offering (IPO) ever, raising $75 billion for the company and valuing the full enterprise at $1.75 trillion. That would launch SpaceX into the top 10 corporations by market capitalization, roughly the same size as Saudi Aramco and ahead of both Facebook and SpaceX's sister-company Tesla.
Elon Musk's stake will be worth over $800 billion, making him the world's first trillionaire.
The asking price wildly overvalues the stock. The company is still losing money hand-over-fist, with a $4.3 billion loss in the most recent quarter. With no profits to go by, investors might evaluate the stock by its revenues. SpaceX's asking price clocks in at 95 times revenues, compared to 20 times for a hot tech stock like Nvidea.
Musk has occasionally used SpaceX as a piggy-bank for Tesla. In 2025 SpaceX bought $131 million worth of Tesla Cybertrucks, representing 6-9% of the total sales of that marketing disaster.
Stock exchanges have bent their rules to get SpaceX into their indexes. That means that index funds (which are considered safe investments for retirement accounts) will be forced to buy the stock, no matter how overvalued it is.
Due to owning higher-vote shares, Musk will control 80% of the votes in any shareholder decision, so he can do anything he wants with the company. Fine print in the SpaceX prospectus means that minority shareholders have very little recourse if he mismanages the company.

When you put it all together, Musk is essentially defrauding America's retirees. Here's how the fraud works: Musk has a small-but-loyal following of investors who think he can do no wrong. By only offering a small percentage of SpaceX's shares in the IPO, he has created a situation where their opinion of SpaceX's worth can become the market price. Then, index funds will be forced to buy some sizeable percentage of all the shares available, creating an artificial demand that will pop the stock higher -- at least temporarily.

The whole scheme is self-referential: People want to get in on the over-valued IPO, because they anticipate being able to sell at an even higher price to the bigger fools in the index funds.

When the market manipulation is over and the stock collapses, your 401k will be left holding the bag.

At the moment, here's what you need to do: Check your retirement accounts to see if you have any Nasdaq or Russell index funds. If you do, sell them and move the money to an S&P 500 index, because that index hasn't changed its rules to let SpaceX in prematurely.

In pro-capitalism propaganda, the great entrepreneurs' quest for wealth creates more wealth than they can capture for themselves, so all of society benefits. This may have been true at certain points in capitalism's history, but we're past that now. Our current oligarchs are so powerful that they not only capture all the value of their innovations, they suck wealth away from the rest of us.

It's worth noting that Musk has profited in the past by scamming the public. Remember DOGE? Musk was going to save the taxpayers $2 trillion in a single year by finding and eliminating government waste. In reality, he saved nothing.

What did the people in America actually get as a result of DOGE? Chaos at Social Security field offices, uncertainties about veterans’ access to critical care, the end of civil rights enforcement in schools, limited staff to go after corporate billionaire tax cheats, an unstaffed consumer complaint database leaving people vulnerable to bank scams, the end of foreign aid programs that led to the death of hundreds of thousands across the globe, and so much more. And that's only what we've seen so far...as time goes on, we will see the impacts of the loss of expertise and capacity across federal agencies.

But in the process Elon walked away with more government contracts and untold quantities of illegally procured government data. Not a bad return for the $290 million he spent getting Trump elected.

and you also might be interested in ...

I usually minimize Trump-acting-out stories, because they happen so often and get a lot of coverage without me. But the last few minutes of his Meet the Press interview with Kristen Welker stand out. Trump makes a series of unfounded claims about Democrats cheating in elections, both his 2020 loss to Joe Biden and this week's California primary. Welker keeps insisting that he provide evidence for those claims -- which he does not have because his claims are false. Trump responds by getting angry, insulting Welker, and leaving the set.

It amazes me the deductions many people never make. If you ask a guy for evidence and he starts sputtering insults, it seems obvious to me that he has no evidence. Similarly, if a detention center keeps out people who are legally entitled to inspect it, they must be up to no good in there. How can anyone deny that?

Trump's former national security advisor John Bolton, who turned against Trump and has consequently been prosecuted, will plead guilty to retaining classified information. Bolton appears to be one of the rare Trump enemies who is actually guilty of something, unlike E. Jean Carroll, James Comey, Letitia James, Jerome Powell, Jack Smith, and a host of other people Trump's Department of Injustice has been investigating and/or prosecuting simply as harassment.

The cartoon points out the irony of Bolton going down for something that Trump did much worse, but got away with after he won the election and took over the government.

Another crime Trump commits himself is insider trading. This week Trump pardoned a former Republican congressman convicted of insider trading. He made hundreds of thousands by trading stocks based on his inside knowledge of upcoming mergers.

A study says that deploying the National Guard to Washington D. C. has had very little effect on crime.

This doesn't surprise me, because I've been to D. C. recently. The Guard seems to be there for show. I saw some troops deployed on the National Mall in daytime. That's a high-traffic area that has got to be one of the safest places in the city. However, one night after dinner in a restaurant, I had to walk across the Mall after dark. This actually did make me nervous, though nothing happened. But the Guard was nowhere to be seen.

I concluded that the point of the deployment is for a lot of people to see the guardsmen and think "Trump is protecting us." If nobody is around to see them, though, they don't need to be there.

The NYT reports on Israel's use of white phosphorus in Lebanon. I had thought this was a war crime in itself, but apparently the substance is itself legal, and only becomes illegal when it's used in populated areas.

The Times does its best to tip-toe around accusing Israel of war crimes, but the photos in the article show white phosphorus plumes with buildings in the background.

After the first half-dozen happened with no political consequences, the Navy's strikes on boats suspected of smuggling drugs have started to seem normal. It's easy to forget that these are murders. Now we're up to 200 or so of them.

Fascinating article about how America's huge national debt interacts badly with the problems Trump caused in the world economy by attacking Iran. First, Jay Martin explains why the debt is not a problem in normal times:

Countries around the world - Japan, the UK, China, South Korea, and dozens of others - hold roughly $9.4 trillion worth of these American IOUs. They bought them because Treasuries are safe, liquid, and denominated in dollars. For decades, this system worked beautifully. The U.S. borrowed cheaply. Foreign governments parked their savings in a safe asset. Everyone won.

But the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has created a situation where lots of our creditors need to cash out at the same time: Oil exporters like the United Arab Emirates have seen their revenues drop without any corresponding drop in expenses. Oil importers like Japan need to pay more for imported oil. They all need to sell their Treasury bonds to raise cash.

Meanwhile, the US also needs to sell Treasuries because we don't pay enough tax to cover our spending. (The government is running about a $2 trillion deficit this year. If a Democrat were president, this would be a big deal.)

So what happens when the number of sellers go up and the number of buyers doesn't? Prices fall. Or (saying the same thing another way) buyers are in a position to demand higher interest rates. And if the world economy seems fragile now, picture it operating with higher interest rates.

There's tough competition to be the least qualified person in a Trump cabinet meeting, but we're about to have a new leader: Bill Pulte as acting Director of National Intelligence.

Pulte is a third-generation real estate guy and has no experience in intelligence. (The legislation establishing the DNI position lists experience as an essential qualification.) He has been serving as director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency where he pleased Trump by cooking up mortgage fraud cases against Trump enemies like Letitia James and Adam Schiff. The James case was dismissed by the judge and Schiff has not been indicted.

We can expect Pulte to do two things as acting DNI: fire a lot of people and use the awesome powers of the intelligence agencies to harass more Trump enemies. We can only imagine how happy China and Russia will be to see America's intelligence agencies masterminded by this bozo.

Most of us have heard about the leveling off of American life expectancy. Lately it has had some negative years and positive years, but the overall trend has been flat: up only a quarter of a year in the 2010s, compared to an average of 1.75 years per decade in the previous five decades. A variety of explanations have been floated: Covid, deaths of despair, bad diet, and so on.

A recent study looks deeper than the year-by-year mortality stats. It tracks generational cohorts and how their death rates compare to previous cohorts at similar ages. They found something interesting and worrisome: The cohort born in the 1940s had the lowest death rates per year. The 1950s cohort (mine) was only slightly worse, but marked a turn-around.

Among all the findings, the most alarming concerns Americans born after 1970. At the ages these people have already reached, roughly 30 to 49 depending on the cause of death examined, they are already dying at higher rates from heart disease, cancer, and external causes than people born just before them were dying at those same ages. Colon cancer, strongly tied to obesity and diet, is a particular concern, with death rates rising at younger ages beginning with cohorts born around 1955 and worsening from there.

Because the post-1970 generations are still relatively young, they represent a small percentage of total deaths, and so their effect on the nationwide life-expectancy averages hasn't really shown up yet. But it will. Whether anything similar is happening in similar countries isn't part of this study, but in recent decades they have been pulling away from the US averages.

and let's close with a stunt

In honor of the NBA Finals, Jimmy Fallon recaps recent news while using the names of all 30 NBA teams.