The great improvement in health that high-income countries experienced in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was not a result of better medicine -- as William McNeill claimed -- or even economic growth per se. It was, rather, the consequence of political decisions to make massive investments in drinking water, sanitation, housing and poverty reduction.
- Jonathan Kennedy, Pathogenesis: A history of the world in eight plagues
I intend the quote above as a general comment on the House Study Committee's report on its FY 2025 budget proposals (the subject of "What Republicans Want"). If 19th century leaders had demonized "spending" the way the HSC does, we'd still be having cholera epidemics.
This week everybody was talking about Trump's finances
The other Trump-related thing happening today is a hearing on his New York criminal case, the one concerning the fraudulent business records that hid his payoff to Stormy Daniels prior to the 2016 election. What most observers expect to come out of today's hearing is a trial date in April.
House conservatives are of course unhappy that the government is going to keep governing. Marjorie Taylor Greene filed a motion to recall Speaker Johnson, but did it in such a way that it won't immediately come to the floor. She's being coy about exactly what would cause her to force a vote.
There is still narrow path out of the hellscape of Gaza. A temporary ceasefire and hostage release could cause a change of Israel’s government; the rump of Hamas fighters in south Gaza could be contained or fade away; and from the rubble, talks on a two-state solution could begin, underwritten by America and its Gulf allies. It is just as likely, however, that ceasefire talks will fail. That could leave Israel locked in the bleakest trajectory of its 75-year existence, featuring endless occupation, hard-right politics and isolation. Today many Israelis are in denial about this, but a political reckoning will come eventually. It will determine not only the fate of Palestinians, but also whether Israel thrives in the next 75 years.
If you are a friend of Israel this is a deeply uncomfortable moment. In October it launched a justified war of self-defence against Hamas, whose terrorists had committed atrocities that threaten the idea of Israel as a land where Jews are safe. Today Israel has destroyed perhaps half of Hamas’s forces. But in important ways its mission has failed.
The left wing of the Democratic Party has been skeptical of Israel for some while now. So it's not surprising that AOC told Jake Tapper yesterday that Israel had "crossed a threshold" that justifies use of the very serious term "genocide". Most progressives are reluctant to consider Israel's post-Holocaust mission as a special case, and instead see the Palestinians as just another victim of Western colonialism. (Among European nations, Ireland in particular identifies with Palestine, casting Israel in the role England played in Irish history, right down to causing a famine.)
A recent Pew Research poll found Americans marginally supporting Israel's conduct of the war, with 38% finding it either completely or somewhat acceptable, compared to 34% who found it completely or somewhat unacceptable. This is a remarkably small margin given Americans' longstanding sympathy with Israel, and it could quickly vanish if the famine that the World Food Programme calls "imminent" becomes a reality that Americans regularly see on their TVs.
Jared Kushner is thinking about Gaza's "valuable waterfront property" that might become available for development after Israel moves current residents to the Negev Desert. (Plans for such a move have not been announced. So far, I think, this is just Jared's fantasy.)
North Carolina Republicans have gotten a lot of bad press nationally for their loony candidate for governor, Mark Robinson. But the rest of the ticket is pretty far out too. Their nominee for State Superintendent of Public Instruction is Michele Morrow, who defeated the incumbent Republican Catherine Truitt in the GOP primary.
North Carolina is not that red a state any more. Due to gerrymandering, its legislature has a substantial Republican majority. But the state also has a two-term Democratic governor (Roy Cooper, who can't run for a third term), and Trump carried it in 2020 by less than 75K votes out of more than 5 million.
Facing attention from Congress (particularly Bernie Sanders), a couple big drug makers (AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim) cut the price of their inhalers to $35 per month from as much $645. The other two major suppliers (Teva and GSK) so far have not responded.
There's a lot of competition to be the wackiest red-state legislature, but Tennessee is definitely in the running.
Last Monday, the Tennessee Senate has passed SB2691, including an amendment "to prohibit the intentional injection, release, or dispersion, by any means, of chemicals, chemical compounds, substances, or apparatus within the borders of this state into the atmosphere with the express purpose of affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight". According to The Tennessean, the amendment is based on the chemtrail conspiracy theory, which holds that the contrails of airplanes contain chemicals "sprayed for nefarious purposes undisclosed to the general public".
But don't worry, good citizens of Tennessee, your legislature is on the case.
and let's close with something unexpected
Once in a while, days don't go the way you planned. Buzzerilla collects a few examples.
Strongman rule is a fantasy. Essential to it is the idea that a strongman will be your strongman. He won't. In a democracy, elected representatives listen to constituents. We take this for granted, and imagine that a dictator would owe us something. But the vote you cast for him affirms your irrelevance. The whole point is that the strongman owes us nothing. We get abused and we get used to it.
I was going to summarize the controversy over Trump's prediction of "a bloodbath" if he doesn't get elected, but the length got out of hand, so I made it a featured post.
and Florida
Ron DeSantis suffered two major defeats this month in his war on woke. The first was two weeks ago, when a federal appeals court blocked enforcement of one provision of his Stop-Woke law. The opinion, written by a Trump appointee, lays things out pretty clearly.
Here's a short version: Among other things, the law bans employers from having mandatory meetings where they promote certain notions that state doesn't like about discrimination, diversity, and so forth. On its face, this sounds like a violation of the employers' freedom of speech, but the DeSantis administration claims it's really a limitation on conduct (holding these meetings), not speech.
The judge rightly points out that mandatory meetings are only banned if certain ideas are presented, so there's no way to know ahead of time whether a meeting is banned without knowing what people are going to say. That makes it a limitation on speech.
The second defeat was the settlement of a lawsuit against DeSantis' Don't Say Gay law. The worst thing about Don't Say Gay has been the vagueness of it. Nobody knew exactly what ideas the law banned from Florida schools, so teachers and administrators who wanted to be safe just wouldn't say anything at all about non-traditional gender roles or sexuality.
Under the agreement, the state must clarify the law’s scope to schools across the state, ensuring that, among other things, it does not prohibit references to LGBTQ+ persons, couples, families, or issues in literature or classroom discussions.
and the Trump trials
The trial that we thought was on track fell off track, and another one got rolling again.
The New York state trial for the pre-2016-election cover-up of the Stormy Daniels payments was supposed to start next Monday, but it's delayed into at least April. At issue are some documents that just got released by the US Attorney's office, and whether the defense has had adequate time to review them.
In the Georgia RICO trial, the judge has allowed Fani Willis' office to go forward, after removing Willis' ex-lover from the prosecution team. If the judge had disqualified Willis, it's not clear when or whether the case would have proceeded. No trial date has yet been set.
but I want to call your attention to two books
One of my favorite observers of the intersection of technology and society is Cory Doctorow. He currently has two new books out, one fiction and one non-fiction.
The novel is The Lost Cause which takes place in a late-2030s California dealing with a much-advanced climate crisis, as well as the residue of our current political polarization. The country has had 12 years of Green New Deal administrations, and is now going through a backlash that includes a lot of old white guys in MAGA militias. To me, it's ambiguous whether the "lost cause" in the title is the MAGA effort to maintain white male privilege or the Green New Deal effort to save the world itself.
Two things stand out: Climate-change futurism tends to bifurcate simplistically into we-save-the-world or we-don't-save-the-world. I found it enlightening to spend time in a world where a lot of bad things have happened, but the struggle goes on. There's a lot in this novel that is dystopian and a lot that is hopeful.
Second, I think Doctorow is right about where MAGA is headed with regard to climate change. Right now, the MAGA consensus is to ignore the problem. (Trump wants to be a dictator on Day 1 so that he can "drill, drill, drill".) But in Doctorow's future, they turned on a dime from "it's a hoax" to "not everybody is going to make it, so we have to make sure our people do". Climate change has become one more justification for anti-immigrant fascism.
The nonfiction book is The Internet Con: how to seize the means of computation. He emphasizes that the current tech and social media giants are not natural outcomes of the free market, but stem from changes in the laws, especially antitrust enforcement and copyright laws.
It's not that there was one magical generation of entrepreneurs like Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, et al, but that the leading corporations at a particular moment in history were allowed to cement themselves into place and insulate themselves from competition.
For example, your email app doesn't own your email files, but Facebook owns your Facebook posts, which you'll lose if you close your account. As a result, you can change email clients whenever you want, but switching from Facebook to some other social media platform is much more arduous. You can send email to people who use other email apps, but you can't see X/Twitter messages on BlueSky.
The result is what Doctorow has elsewhere called the "enshittification" of the internet. Companies can implement policies for their own advantage rather than yours, and there's little you can do about it.
The book is full of suggestions for how to turn this around.
and you also might be interested in ...
The House passed a ban/forced-sale of TikTok, which is owned by a Chinese company and heavily influenced by the Chinese government. What will happen next is unclear.
Trump abruptly switched his position on this issue: He tried to ban TikTok by executive order when he was president, but now he's against the legislative ban. The flipflop closely followed a meeting with conservative financier Jeff Yass, who is heavily invested in TikTok.
Have I mentioned that Trump needs a lot of money?
I really enjoy this Biden ad, especially the last few seconds.
Russia held its version of an election, and you'll never guess what happened: Putin was reelected to a fifth term as president with 87% of the vote. There were other names on the ballot, but only the ones Putin allowed to be there. No candidate was vocally anti-Putin or against the Ukraine War.
Supporters of Alexei Navalny (who wanted to run against Putin, but instead died in prison), staged a subtle protest by all showing up to vote at noon. The long lines at the polling places were, in effect, Navalny demonstrations.
Russian prosecutors threatened any voters who took part in the “noon against Putin” action with five years in prison. In the southern city of Kazan, police detained more than 20 voters who had joined the protest, according to the independent rights monitor OVD-Info. Arrests were also reported in Moscow and St Petersburg.
It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the government finds to charge these people with.
When we talk about climate change, we usually focus on rising air temperatures. But maybe we should be paying more attention to how fast the oceans are heating up.
A rule change could make it much harder to go "judge shopping".
and let's close with something backwards
Tim Blais is one of those people whose collection of talents seems unfair. He's musical, does great videos, and also knows a lot of science. His A Capella Science YouTube channel has some amazing stuff, like a Billy Joel parody "The Arrow of Entropic Time".
I know I may not look like it, but I’ve been around a while. When you get to be my age, certain things become clearer than ever. I know the American story. ... My lifetime has taught me to embrace freedom and democracy, a future based on core values that have defined America — honesty, decency, dignity, and equality — ; to respect everyone; to give everyone a fair shot; to give hate no safe harbor.
This week everybody was talking about the State of the Union
They were also talking about Katie Britt's disastrous Republican response. The featured post covers both.
and Super Tuesday
As expected, Trump locked up the Republican nomination and Nikki Haley withdrew. She didn't immediately endorse Trump, but I have to believe that's coming. She sees what he is, but she's going to bend the knee to him anyway.
On the Democratic side, Biden was not seriously challenged. In fact, Biden has done quite well in the primaries: His vote totals compare favorably with the percentages Obama got when he ran for reelection in 2012.
So here we are: a Biden/Trump rematch in the fall. It's time for everybody to stop fantasizing that they'll get some other choice and decide whether they want a democratic future or a fascist one.
Jay Kuo points out an aspect of Super Tuesday that hasn't gotten much coverage: Polls appear to have a pro-Trump bias. Kuo means "bias" in the statistical sense, not the conspiracy-theory sense. In every state but North Carolina, Trump's margin of victory was smaller than the polls predicted. Kuo doesn't accuse pollsters of trying to promote Trump, but apparently something in their technique makes them more likely to include Trump voters in their samples. Kuo links to University of Michigan Professor Justin Wolfers:
By my count Trump's actual margin in the primaries has underperformed that predicted by the polls by: 0-5%: AL, IA, TX
If the national polls are overestimating Trump’s strength at anywhere near the levels that the primary polls did, then Biden would be leading Trump in all of them.
Super Tuesday also included downballot candidates. North Carolina nominated right-wing crank Mark Robinson for governor, giving Democrats a serious chance to hang onto that office as Governor Roy Cooper term-limits out.
In another widely watched race, Democrat Adam Schiff and Republican Steve Garvey (the baseball player) advanced to the November election for Senate in California.
and the NYT
For weeks I've been harping on the NYT's coverage of Biden: Whatever he says or does, the story is about his age, and no good news about Biden can be presented without "balancing" it with negative possibilities. Biden regularly gets a higher percentage of primary votes than Trump does, but Trump is portrayed as romping to victory while Biden's results are ominous.
Well, this week the chorus of NYT-critical voices swelled. Salon columnist Lucian Truscott wrote "There's something wrong at The New York Times".
I don’t want to bring up but her emails, but for crying out loud, why is the New York Times so clearly making the same mistakes of bias and emphasis they made in 2016 covering Hillary Clinton all over again? ...
There are no scandals with the name Biden attached to them, unless you consider the lies Russian spies supplied the so-called impeachment committee with. So The New York Times has apparently devoted half a floor in its Eighth Avenue headquarters to a search for bad news about Biden, and then they reserve a space nearly every day above the fold on the front page for whatever grain of grim shit the Biden hunters have managed to come up with. They’re probably working on a story on how Biden is losing the pro-choice vote as we speak, while pointing out the wild success of Trump’s “move to the middle” on abortion with “centrist” voters.
Dan Froomkin critiqued an interview with NYT's publisher, and "translated" the underlying message to the NYT's reporters and editors:
One: You will earn my displeasure if you warn people too forcefully about the possible end to democracy at the hands of a deranged insurrectionist.
And two: You prove your value to me by trolling our liberal readers.
That explains a lot of the Times’s aberrant behavior, doesn’t it?
And you can always count on Andy Borowitz to get to the heart of the issue:
POLL: A majority of Americans now believe that The New York Times, which was founded 172 years ago, is too old to be an effective newspaper.
After pleading to the judge that the bond he needed to post was too high, Trump posted the $91 million on Friday, secured by an insurance subsidiary of the Chubb Group. Chubb chairman Evan Greenberg had been on an advisory committee during Trump's administration. The bond was required in order for him to proceed to appeal the verdict.
Now he needs to come up with $454 million by March 25 to appeal his civil fraud case.
Where exactly Trump gets this money should be a political issue, because we probably won't know where it came from or what promises Trump made to get it. I suspect, though, that these questions won't get the attention they deserve.
Last week I talked about the Nazi tactic of dehumanizing a group by treating their crimes as special, and in particular, how that tactic is being used against undocumented immigrants by presenting the Laken Riley murder as something uniquely horrible.
Gary Andover makes that point more sharply than I did:
Republicans are very concerned about one woman who was killed by a migrant. If she had been killed in a mass shooting by an American citizen with an AR-15 they wouldn't give a shit. Their response would be to loosen up gun laws even more.
And Fred Guttenberg, father of Jaime Guttenberg who was murdered in the Parkland school shooting, makes it personal:
To all MAGAT's using Laken Riley, where were you when my daughter was killed by a teenage American male? Where were you when Trump lied about the Parkland murder? You don't give two f-cks about Laken or her parents, just as you don't about victims of gun violence by Americans.
He’s a non-controversial figure because he says, "This is the way it’s going to be," and that’s the end of it. Right? He’s the boss.
One of the ways Orbán has achieved this lack of controversy is that his government and its political allies now own all the major news outlets, and he has stacked the judiciary so that it's useless to take him to court. He has reorganized the legislature into gerrymandered districts that his party can easily control with a minority of voter support.
I am filled with curiosity about Wilson's new airless basketball, which is 3D-printed and designed to have the exact weight and bounce of an NBA ball. Unfortunately, the prototype currently goes for around $2500, so I think I won't get my hands on one for a long time.
But Marques Brownlee did get to play with one, and here's what he reports.
In some ways, all this is no surprise. Trump the businessman and politician is to a great degree a creation of the American judiciary. Early in his career, he figured out that the legal system was acutely vulnerable to someone with money and total shamelessness. He learned that if he categorically refused to admit defeat, clogging up the proceedings with endless motions and filings, he could rip off his contractors, repeatedly default on his debts, seemingly cheat the IRS out of millions in inheritance taxes, and get away with it just about every time. If you’re a star, they let you do it.
This week everybody was talking about the Supreme Court helping Trump
It would be easy to write at length about this, but I refuse to do it. I would just rant, and plenty of people are rantingalready.
Here's the gist: Wednesday, the Supreme Court put its thumb on the scale in Donald Trump's favor, virtually guaranteeing that the most significant case against him -- the federal case in DC arising from his plot to stay in office after losing the 2020 election -- will not reach a verdict by election day.
Their vehicle for aiding Trump is his absurd claim that ex-presidents are immune to prosecution for any actions they took in office, unless they've first been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. Basically, this means that a president who retains the support of 34 senators can break any law without fear of facing consequences (including consequences from the voters, because he can break any law to make sure he stays in office). During the oral arguments before the appellate court, Trump's lawyers had no answer when asked if a president could have the military assassinate his rivals.
If such immunity exists, the trial against Trump cannot progress. So everything has been on hold. Judge Chutkan's original calendar called for the DC trial to begin today. But Trump's lawyers filed their immunity claim back in October, and Judge Chutkan rejected it on December 1. When Trump appealed, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to take that appeal immediately and decide it quickly. The Court refused.
So there was an appellate hearing, resulting in a unanimous ruling rejecting Trump's claims on February 6. Trump appealed again, but because the appellate ruling was complete and unanimous, many observers felt there was nothing for the Supreme Court to resolve. It could have refused the case and let a trial start in May or June.
Nonetheless, the Court sat on Trump's motion for seven weeks, and then Wednesday announced that it will hear arguments April 22, which presumably will lead to a ruling near the end of their term in June.
Judge Chutkan's schedule still has about three months for pretrial activities, so if the Supremes take as long as they appear to be doing, the earliest jury selection could begin is the end of September. From there, it would be no trick for Trump's lawyers to delay the verdict until after the election.
No one thinks the Court will agree that Trump is immune from prosecution, which continues to be an absurd idea, rejected by every judge who has considered it. But they don't need to. Trump's strategy has never been to argue his innocence in court, because the evidence clearly says he's guilty. Instead, he hopes to delay, get reelected, and then tell his Justice Department to withdraw from the case. Even if there is a verdict against him in November or December, he can appeal. And if the Justice Department refuses to fight the appeal, the case dies.
Wednesday, the Supreme Court signed on to Trump's strategy. It did this because it is even more corrupt and partisan than I had previously suspected.
But I refuse to rant.
Just this morning, the Court released its opinion on the 14th Amendment case to disqualify Trump. It sided with Trump, ruling that states do not have the power to invoke the Amendment's insurrection clause. The decision reserves that power to Congress.
I haven't had time to analyze the decision yet, but it's worth noting that no justice addressed Colorado's conclusion that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection against the United States.
The other 2020 election case, the state RICO case in Georgia, is also on hold while the judge decides whether Fani Willis should be disqualified as prosecutor. Disqualification would almost certainly delay the trial until after the election, and could scuttle the case completely.
Hearing on that matter concluded Friday, with the judge saying he should rule in two weeks. Unquestionably, Willis' affair with another prosecutor looks bad, but the question is whether the issue reaches the rights of the defendants: Did Willis have some conflict of interest that compromises the defendants' rights to a fair trial? I think not, but we'll see.
The Trump-appointed judge in the Mar-a-Lago case continues to favor Trump in any way possible. Friday she denied Jack Smith's request for a July trial date, which she called "unrealistic". When the trial will actually happen is anybody's guess.
The only case that is on track to produce a verdict before election day is the NY state false-business-records case. According to the indictment, Trump Organization business records were falsified to hide Trump's reimbursement of Michael Cohen for paying off Stormy Daniels, so that voters would not learn about his affair with Daniels before the 2016 election.
The trial date is March 25, and the heart of the matter -- whether the records are false -- is pretty much uncontested so far. So if the case reaches a jury, Trump will probably be convicted. The way he could get off is through technicalities: If the crime should have been charged as misdemeanor falsification rather than felony falsification, then the statute of limitations has expired.
Meanwhile, we're all wondering about Trump's finances. He says he's appealing both the $83.3 million judgment against him in the second E. Jean Carroll case and the $454 million judgment in the NY civil fraud case. The rules around appeals require that he post some bond to guarantee that the people who won the judgments will get paid if his appeals fail. Appeal, in other words, is not a way to hang onto money longer.
Judgment in the E. Jean Carroll case was finalized on February 8 and in the NY civil fraud case on February 23. So if I count 30 days right, Trump needs to guarantee the $83 million on Saturday and the $454 million on March 24. (That's a Sunday, so I might be a day off. AP says NY Attorney General Letitia James could seek enforcement -- like seizing property, for example -- on March 25.)
In spite of his frequent boasting about his wealth, Trump doesn't have that kind of money available. So he's been treating the judgments against him as if they were negotiable: The court has made its claim, then he makes a counteroffer, and so on. (You should try this the next time you get a traffic ticket. "I know the ticket says $50, but how about I give you $15 and we call it even?") In the Carroll case, he offered that the court should just take his word that he's good for the money. (Carroll's responding court filing described his offer as "the court filing equivalent of a paper napkin signed by the least trustworthy of borrowers".) And in the fraud case he offered $100 million. Both motions were denied by the judges.
I guess we'll see what happens by next Monday.
and Mitch McConnell
The Mitch McConnell Era in the Senate will end this November. Most liberal commentary on McConnell's retirement has balanced two thoughts:
McConnell has done terrible damage to the Senate, the judiciary, democracy, and the country as a whole.
Whoever replaces him as leader of the Senate's Republicans will probably be worse.
Josh Marshall (I'm trying out a feature that allows me to share a members-only article; I hope it works) attempts to give the Devil his due like this: "McConnell was great at doing political evil."
Mitch McConnell’s great legacy is the thorough institutionalization of minority rule in U.S. politics, especially at the federal level. ... These days you often hear reporters and commentators saying matter of factly that legislation requires 60 votes in the Senate. This is truly McConnell’s greatest accomplishment. People say this like it’s in the Constitution, like the two-thirds requirement for conviction at impeachment or to approve a treaty. But it is a novel development and it has radically altered U.S. politics. It transforms the federal Senate into a genuinely Calhounian body in which minority factions exercise a de facto and permanent veto over the majority.
It’s what creates gridlock, the breeding ground of political disaffection and extremism. It also lays the groundwork for McConnell’s other great accomplishment, the corrupted federal judiciary and especially the corrupt Supreme Court.
DailyKos staffer Joan McCarter lists "The 17 worst things Mitch McConnell did to destroy democracy". She recalls his refusal to hold hearings on Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination (because it was months away from the 2016 election) combined with his steamrolling Amy Coney Barrett's nomination through (mere weeks before the 2020 election); his unwillingness to regulate either guns on the streets or money in politics; turning the debt ceiling into a permanent political hostage; and his vote to acquit Trump despite admitting that he was guilty.
That last was McConnell's biggest miscalculation: He thought Trump was finished after January 6, and figured he didn't need to tick off Trump's supporters by convicting him. And so he surrendered the old Reagan Republican Party to the new MAGA fascists.
Maybe the deepest critique of McConnell comes from a 2018 NY Review of Books essay by Holocaust scholar Christopher Browning (which is behind a paywall). Browning compared McConnell to the Weimar Republic's conservative president Paul von Hindenburg, who paved the road Hitler walked to power. Similar to the way Hindenburg hoped for a restored monarchy but wound up with Hitler, McConnell envisioned a plutocratic conservative ascendancy, but wound up enabling populist authoritarianism.
To me, McConnell is a villain who in the end was not quite villainous enough to win out.
and Gaza
Despite continuing rumors that a ceasefire agreement may be immanent, there's still no agreement. Naturally, each side blames the intransigence of the other.
Israeli troops fired on a crowd of Palestinians racing to pull food off an aid convoy in Gaza City on Thursday, witnesses said. More than 100 people were killed in the chaos, bringing the death toll since the start of the Israel-Hamas war to more than 30,000, according to health officials.
Israel said many of the dead were trampled in a chaotic stampede for the food aid and that its troops only fired when they felt endangered by the crowd.
It's telling, I think, that the Israeli account says that the situation in a part of Gaza its troops control has become so dire that people are trampling each other to get food. Also, the US has begun airdropping food aid into Gaza. To me, that points to an extreme level of frustration with the border crossings. Airdropping aid is well-known to be extremely inefficient.
The NYT's Megan Stack wrote an article about children without food in Gaza, but I bet she didn't choose the headline: "Starvation is Stalking Gaza's Children", as if "starvation" were an abstract force that no one is responsible for.
+972 Magazine (a Palestinian/Israeli journalistic consortium named for an area code) reports that Israeli settlers have begun reoccupying Gaza. The first "symbolic" settlement is unauthorized by the government, but soldiers did not interfere.
Israelis are protesting for a variety of reasons: Police broke up a fairly large anti-Netanyahu demonstration Saturday. But other protesters are trying to block convoys of food, water, and medicine from reaching Gaza.
and the continuing IVF fallout
The Alabama legislature is working on bills to get the state's IVF clinics open again. The state senate passed a bill whose official summary says:
This bill would provide civil and criminal immunity to persons providing goods and services related to in vitro fertilization except acts or ommission [sic] that are intentional and not arising from or related to IVF services.
The house is working on a similar bill, and presumably they'll work something out. If this gets passed, the official position of the State of Alabama will be that a frozen embryo is a human being and disposing of an embryo is murder, but murder is OK in this particular circumstance.
This is the kind of thing that happens when religious zealots get control of a state.
The majority of Louisiana’s fertility clinics have been shipping patients’ embryos out of state for years, with some ending up in Florida and others as far away as Nevada. The time-consuming and costly process is a result of a 1986 state law that banned the destruction of embryos created during IVF.
a constraint upon a service used primarily by wealthy White couples — IVF treatments run between $15,000-$20,000 for a single cycle — went too far. The logic of the judicial decision — if life begins at conception, embryos must be people — fails against the logic of Christian nationalism — that White people need to reproduce to avoid being replaced.
So if your fundamental mindset is racist, you love IVF because it makes more White babies. But if your fundamental mindset is sexist, you hate IVF because it gives women more control over their lives. If you're racist and sexist in equal measures, your head explodes.
and the polls
This week a poll showed Trump leading Biden by 5% among registered voters and 4% among likely voters. OK, that's a real thing that happened. But for some reason, the NYT put this poll at the top of its online news page for more than 24 hours, and fleshed it out with articles about how concerned Democrats are about Biden and how many people think he's too old.
The SECOND those polls reverse, they will, I promise you, stop talking about them.
Some of the crosstabs of the Times-hyped poll look weird, to use a technical poll-watching term. They says the race is even among women, Trump leads among Hispanics, and that he's getting around 1/4th of the Black vote -- about double what any Republican has gotten in a general election since Gerald Ford got 16% in 1976. There are two ways to analyze this:
Biden is in trouble among core Democratic constituencies.
I have an in-between interpretation: The issues in the headlines right now -- Gaza and the border -- are ones that split Democrats. Everybody to my left is absolutely horrified that Biden is letting/helping Israel do what it's doing in Gaza, and that Biden backs a border bill that gives Trumpists a lot of what they want (even if they refuse to take it). Consequently, many liberals are not willing to tell a pollster that they will vote for Biden.
However, I think a lot of these voters will come home in November. They may not have gotten any happier with a few Biden policies, but they'll look at the choice and realize that even on those issues a second Trump administration would be infinitely worse. (How much do you think Trump cares about children starving in Gaza?) And then there are the issues of democracy and climate change, which Trump links like this: "You know why I wanted to be a dictator? Because I want a wall, and I want to drill, drill, drill."
The first campaign I have clear memories of was 1968. That year, liberals opposed the Johnson administration's policies in Vietnam and were also angry about how they had been treated at the Democratic Convention. In August, polls showed Richard Nixon beating Johnson VP Hubert Humphrey in a landslide, with margins as high as 16%. But most of those voters came home, and the November election wound up being one of the closest in history.
A lot of people on social media are calling attention to Trump saying this in Richmond on Sunday. But it's barely been mentioned in major media.
And I will not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate or a mask mandate.
Critics point out that every state, including Virginia, has vaccine mandates. But I haven't seen enough context to know if he really meant ALL vaccines, or just the Covid vaccine. That's the benefit Trump gets from his sloppy way of speaking. There's always room for supporters to say: "He didn't really mean that." (Usually right after they claim "He tells it like it is.") And he never does an interview with a journalist persistent enough to pin him down.
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy analyzed the results of the Trump Tax Cuts. Their study covered "the largest profitable corporations from 2018 through 2022", 342 of them in all. Ostensibly, the law lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, but in fact the average company studied paid only 14.1%. One out of four paid a single-digit tax rate, and 23 paid no tax at all "in spite of being profitable every single year".
Companies paying less than 5 percent include T-Mobile, DISH Network, Netflix, General Motors, AT&T, Bank of America, Citigroup, FedEx, Molson Coors, Nike, and many others.
Sometimes (not today) I think the weather in New England is bad. But we never get buried in tumbleweeds, as some towns in Utah have been lately. And here's something I didn't know: Tumbleweeds may be icons of the Western countryside, but they're an invasive species -- the Russian thistle.
Adam Rubenstein writes about having been a conservative editor at the NYT. Mainly he's telling the sad tale of how the higher-ups scapegoated him when the NYT faced a serious backlash for publishing a Tom Cotton op-ed (calling for Trump to send the military into US cities to put down the sometimes violent protests after police murdered George Floyd). Scapegoating is something I can sympathize with, but Rubenstein is hoping for a more general stranger-in-a-strange-land kind of sympathy, which I can't offer him.
Rather than create sympathy, his essay underlines exactly why conservative points of view are shunned in many reputable newspapers: because they're based on bullshit, and you can't publish them without promoting bullshit. Like this:
I often found myself asking questions like “Doesn’t all of this talk of ‘voter suppression’ on the left sound similar to charges of ‘voter fraud’ on the right?” only to realize how unwelcome such questions were.
Well, maybe such questions are "unwelcome" because Republicans' incessant claims of voter fraud are never backed up by any evidence, while voter suppression smacks you in the face. (Can you name a rural White community where people have to stand in line for hours to vote? Or an acceptable form of voter ID that non-Whites are more likely to have than Whites?) Or think about climate change: Can you publish a conservative view without giving a platform to bullshit? It would be quite a trick.
Riley was indeed murdered; that much is true. What's false is the "migrant crime wave" invented by Donald Trump and echoed ad infinitum by Fox News.
An NBC News review of available 2024 crime data from the cities targeted by Texas’ “Operation Lone Star,” which buses or flies migrants from the border to major cities in the interior — shows overall crime levels dropping in those cities that have received the most migrants.
“This is a public perception problem. It’s always based upon these kinds of flashpoint events where an immigrant commits a crime,” explains Graham Ousey, a professor at the College of William & Mary and the co-author of “Immigration and Crime: Taking Stock.” “There’s no evidence for there being any relationship between somebody’s immigrant status and their involvement in crime.”
Trump and Fox are using an old Nazi tactic that can dehumanize any group. The Nazi newspaper Der Sturmer loved to publish articles about sensational Jewish crimes. Some of the crimes the paper made up or exaggerated, but probably not all of them. After all, Jews are people, and people occasionally commit crimes. If your ideology calls for making "Jewish crime" a special thing, you can.
Same thing here. Migrants are people, and people occasionally commit crimes, including murder. That doesn't mean "migrant crime" is a significant issue.
The Atlantic's Ian Bogost says TV resolution has gotten out of hand: HDTV was a noticeable improvement over the previous standard. But you won't sit close enough to your 4K TV to tell the difference from an HDTV. And now 8K is coming!
and let's close with something edifying
I suspect that the difference between good science education and bad science education is bigger than just about any other educational field. Bad science education quickly becomes tedious, while good science education has a mind-blowing oh-wow effect.
Take a look at the videos at Branch Education, where I've been having a number of oh-wow experiences lately. Some are explanations of fundamental scientific devices, like How Do Electron Microscopes Work?, while others undo some popular misconception or answer a question you'll wonder why you never thought to ask.
In the popular misconception category: We all understand the inaccuracy of the sound effects in movie battles between starships, because you wouldn't actually hear explosions in space. Sound is a wave traveling through a medium. And deep space is a vacuum, so it should be totally silent. Except when it's not.
