Debacles #2

Everyone has their favorite complaints about the Administration now, even if you are still supporting it in some way, which is to say doing its bidding. 

Whether it's recurring inflation, the stagnant job and home markets, the spread of the Epstein Files virus and flailing efforts to contain it, that stupid bill that was last month's story, the destructive effects upon almost every Federal agency not committed to a mission statement imposing nationalism by force, failure to properly observe legitimate court orders,  the debt limit increase and the upcoming budget-driven shutdown threat...and did I mention the lack of "release of the Epstein Files"?   We all have several. 

Number One for me, the domestic issue most dangerous for the future of our nation, is the fate of the aggressively provocative redistricting effort going on in Texas, prompted by Trump and endorsed by despicable Governor Greg Abbott.  This one has the potential to lead to major conflagration, particularly if the mentality of "avoid being the loser" continues to cause escalation.  

Essentially, the rethink on the Republican side is that they didn't gerrymander aggressively enough when they had the chance.  They went for safe districts, instead of maximizing potential wins. That response was after completion of the 2020 Census, during the Biden Administration, when even red states believed they had to pay attention to propriety and national public opinion.  

Factually, new districting boundary lines only had to be approved by state legislatures and governors, unless there was some other review required by law (one downside of the Democrats' retaliation strategy).  The Supreme Court had already shown a lot of tolerance for redistricting done with an objective of partisan gain. That was a very big first mistake; the second was eliminating the requirement that redistricting in certain Southern states subject to the Voting Rights Act of the sixties be consistent with that law, one of its main provisions. 

The way it works out, Republicans still want to create districts with majorities of minorities within large cities, because they can surround them with competitive or safe red districts; in medium-sized cities they want to break those center-city districts into pieces outnumbered by adjacent suburban areas, or even better, rural ones.  Texas Republicans are using those strategies, along with one to break up some Hispanic seats near the Mexican border by mixing them with more Republican areas inland.  It could gain the Republicans 3-5 seats just from Texas in 2026, which could make the difference if the count on House seats is very close.  (And in the House, majority control, with even a very small margin, is everything, as shown by this Mike Johnson House.)

The response from the Democratic side is led by Gavin Newsom, who as Governor of California is in a position to say that there are a number of seats in his state that he could gain for the party through a counteracting move. It would be very controversial, and would take a while with an uncertain outcome, but it could be done.  There is a similar possibility in New York, and there are additional Republican ones in some of their states with large partisan majorities. 

It's quite easy to see where this form of nuclear war would go in the end if this continues.  Those with large statewide partisan margins would end up with state contingents entirely of one party or the other, and generally less contested seats.  Ironically, though, the Texas maneuver, if successful would do the opposite: safe Texas Republican seats would become more competitive, and this could backfire if Democratic turnout is strong in 2026 and Republican faithful and their leaners do not turn out as well. 

These short-term opportunities are huge:  Texas Democrats should use all means, as they are doing now, to resist this anti-democratic measure, even to force the Republicans to make shameful authoritarian moves to get them to come back and vote.  I think Democrats can delay this measure for months, months in which the Democrats in a couple large states can prepare their counter-measures. 

I see the following possible outcomes, perhaps in order of likelihood:

1) Republicans get away with their maneuver, significantly more than Democrats.  That does not mean the Democrats will come up short in their strong case to take back control of the House. 

2) Every Republican maneuver will be countered by equivalent Democratic ones. The PR battle would be fierce. This one should be a net positive for Democrats, despite going against their own principles.  

3) Both sides see the possibility to coexist, with these big-state powers being a mutual deterrent, and Texas doesn't do what Trump wants.  Everyone chickens out, and our President reluctantly TACO's, as well.  This is the best possible outcome for all, even Trump, because one way or another he would have to live with the Democrats after 2026, quite possibly with their having a majority.  You see how low I think the odds are for this. 

4) A California Republican Representative has proposed a bill that would make it illegal for states to redistrict for partisan purposes during the period between census updates, after each state gets its shot at the beginning of the decade.  If that passes, Texas would be blocked from the change, and so would the other states.  I see this as having little chance, as Republicans will not go against Trump's wish.  

5) Something goes wrong.  Let me give an example:  one of the Texas Democrats is roughly handled and injured by Federal marshals coming to capture them, against the local authorities' own orders.  There is now a martyr; Texas Republicans respond by imposing the new map without a quorum after they change the rules. It would be something comparable in its arrogance to South Carolina passing secession in 1861, except the secessionists would have the White House.  I can only hope this is not what will happen. 

There is one clear winner in this escapade (a lot of potential losers)--his name is James Talarico.  He is a Democratic State Senator from Texas, and his potential as a political leader has now been discovered by several journalists with national credentials.  He speaks well, understands the complexity of the situation, and he is walking the walk by challenging the Republicans and leaving the state.  His is a name to watch, and he may end up leading the statewide charge in the Democrats' desperate 2026 Senate race there*, against either incumbent John Cornyn, but more likely against the (even more despicable than Abbott) Attorney General there, the corrupt and evil Ken Paxton, who is running against Cornyn from the Trump-side in the primary.   

A good outcome is possible, both in public sentiment and practical results. The most important thing is to establish that gerrymandering--like this exceptional case, but even in the normal course of affairs--is contrary to real democracy.  It's a tricky objective for the Democratic party to pursue, to avoid seeming hypocritical, especially if some states will tit for Texas' tat. 

Transitional:  Tariffs 

 I pose this as a transition from navel-gazing at domestic issues to what is even more important to me, the importance of what the USA does in these years in the world, for both the short-term security of us all as well as the long-term course of history. 

Tariffs may seem a foreign policy issue, and thus under the direct control of the Executive, as foreign policy really is, but it is really a domestic one, and that is reflected in the Constitution--the legal power of raising revenue is with Congress.+ The taxes will end up being absorbed domestically, either by businesses afraid to raise prices in response--perhaps viable in the short term--or by consumers.  What I think more likely is that the larger businesses will raise prices, now, before they absolutely have to do so.  In this case, the spoils are there for the quickest and most greedy.  This will be noticed, though!

From the international side, though, if we just look at it for a moment, it's quite different--if and when the USA ever stops changing the tariff rates and compensatory investments Trump will require.  Or if the courts realize that his whole scheme is unconstitutional and illegal, until such time as Congress goes along.  Which they would, maybe even relatively quickly, but there would be some comical unwinding and rewinding involved.  This is just one example to say that the chaos is not yet over. 

I saw an email the other day, on the occasion of the agreement with the European Union, one which has been roundly criticized as too favorable to Trump and too unfavorable to the EU.  I was sent an email in response to that with the subject line "Bye Europe: Buy America".  Let's think about the reverse:  "Bye America: Buy Europe".  If we just split for Europe, we don't pay the US tariffs there, and we have access to American goods without tariffs. ** Just sayin'. 

Anyway, from what early evidence is being produced now, and still before TrumpThink takes over all our Federal economic reporting, the effect of tariffs domestically will be a few hundred billion dollars of windfall revenue, as long as it lasts.   Which would not seem to be very long, unless Trump gets tired of winning his tariff extortion game. Inconsistency is the hallmark of Trump 2.0, along with incompetent execution. A tax on all citizens, one Congress has not blessed.

The problem for the rest of the world with Trump's regime is not necessarily that there are tariffs on goods sent to the US.  Except in the case of Brazil and a couple others with the punitive rates, the US' market will remain a premier destination among many for exporters.  It's knowing that he can turn around and cripple your business for any reason. It produces overpricing and other harmful short-term strategies.  

*The principal names I have heard named to run as a Democrat against the Republican Texan nominee are not confidence-inspiring, in that they have tried and fallen short before.  Paxton winning the nomination against Cornyn, though, would give the Democrats a chance for an upset if they can push the Republicans to extremity and campaign like crazy.  It's the kind of upset Democrats will need to have any chance of getting control of the Senate in 2026.  

 + Let's not talk about Congress' abdication of foreign policy influence, probably as well-deserved as states' abdication of the death penalty would be. If you can't possibly do it right, just kick it upstairs.

 ** There may also be attractive base pricing of US products over there in some cases due to the drop in the value of the dollar since the beginning of the year, something like 15%.  

Domestic Debacles

 Nevermind

 In over their heads, they flounder.  Apologies to bottom fish for the verb; I mean them no disrespect.  After destructive acts toward agency after agency providing services to the public, incompetent reforms, and flat-out hand-outs, they are doing it to themselves, and that's what will really hurt (them). 

Though the content of the scandal is merely sordid and hardly mysterious, the rise of the Epstein Files conspiracy at this moment is one of those flukes of history. It has already broken the unity of the MAGA movement, and the power of the raging controversy, due to the ongoing cover-up, may end up rivaling Watergate as revealing a flaw in the Republicans' defenses leading to a catastrophic result. 

The current story cycle arose suddenly when a routine probing question from a White House presser hit a nerve that went straight to our President's lizard brain. His response revealed, in a moment, all that we will learn as facts over time. There's a deeply hidden scar on his record from his playboy days, his political tertiary syphilis.  

   Two phrases central to understanding the Epstein Files Scandal

Pedo-Adjacent -   This label is the minimum we can confidently hang on Trump in relation to this scandal.  It is fact that he hung out with him, not once but over a long period of time, which means that he was fully aware--at a minimum--of Epstein's decadent form of entertainment, and he did nothing about it. The files, whatever they are and what they contain, will confirm all that. Trump was in with a real bad group, whether he was all-in will be determined over time, primarily in the public mind. 

Reputation risk - This is the term for what is at stake for those who will end up implicated in the documents which will come out one way or another.  Saying that, I am assuming and hoping desperately that the privacy of the victims will be protected throughout.  Trump has a lot of public reputation to risk (somehow, after all this), he knows it, and the efforts to prevent the names, dates, and degree of offense coming out are only going to make it worse.  That risk is really the only one that I think is critical here; though there is no statute of limitations necessarily for the kind of criminal allegations potentially arising, there's no evidence Trump's DOJ will cause any charges to be brought.  On the other hand, the possibility of pardon if Ghislaine Maxwell will go the full line-toeing route would bring even more disrespect for the practice of justice in this case.* As for civil suits, maybe additional ones will result, but I think there are quite a few already.

Reputation, though, is what electoral contests are all about.  So, this is something to make political benefit from, with again the caveat that we put the interests of the many victims before all else.  So far, what I've heard, mostly through their legal representatives, is that they want the facts to come out (without their own names, of course).  As for Trump, Bondi, Patel and the loyalists, they are not so avid about disclosing facts, though Trump keeps talking about it, while the other two are trying to stay mum. 

Distraction that Matters 

Epsteiniana is one of those side stories that come to rule the airwaves, but is it just a distraction?  Not if it causes the Drumpfenreich electoral pain in 2026, which I think it will, in the form of reduced turnout for their side in swing districts and among Trump-leaning independents.  So, let it take its full course, and the inevitable secondary industry products as well, like books and movies.  Democrats have little to do besides demand to see more, at every opportunity. 

The Big Bogus Bill, on the other hand, was a colossal waste of energy.  Instead of a simple bill to fund a ramping up of immigration enforcement and military expansion, while leaving the 2017 tax cut and subsequent debt increase, for the same kind of $3.8 trillion hit, they had to mess with everything.  As should be expected, all bad.+  Typical Trump 2.0, furious expenditure of political capital for no good purpose except favoring Trump's allies and hurting those he disfavors. 

Yes, the first is our rich and the second is our poor, but the target that will feel the pain above or below all others is, to use the name given by Peter Gabriel some time ago, our Big Blue Ball.  What is this thing Trump has that makes him so crazy-bad about the environment, or anything that might preserve it?  The damage he is doing will be hard or impossible to undo, and it will take too much time, once it becomes feasible again (that looks like 2029, and that's maybe).   So that is one for which we will all feel the result. 

Like most of his "successful" outcomes, it will be "OK, that's what I wanted and expected" for a few who benefit, but disastrously bad for some. Most, though,  won't feel all the pain right away because many of the effects on the public are delayed or indirect. As for the tax cut, most will not feel anything different, because it won't be different.  Medicaid? SNAP?  Those cuts are for the losers, they deserve it, right? Medicare?  That's a little more tricky, as is Social Security, neither of which is addressed in any of the legislation, though there are apparently cuts in Medicare spending implicit in the projected numbers. On the whole, it's more money doing less for the public, with pork for the human hogs the main product. 

Running against this legislation should yield some results with the working-class voters the Democrats claim to be building their message towards, but because of its subdued short-term effects I don't think BBB will have the visceral impact in 2026 that  Dobbs had in 2022 to charge up their Democrats' own turnout, something which will be absolutely necessary to win back Congress.  There's still time for that killer issue to emerge clearly, but I'm thinking now it will be fear of Big Brother. 

As for the two real winners in the bill--the profiteers of the military and deportation/prison industries--I will take that up soon, in a rant about our foreign affairs.  Both of those are not domestic problems at their root, though we fool ourselves into thinking that they are.  (the environment, too)  

 

 * My prediction would be a partial commutation of her sentence, say from 20 years to 10, after a rather anticlimactic testimony.  It won't please anyone, but any other outcome would not work in this delicate situation. 

+There was one worthwhile thing in the final bill, from my study of what's been reported to be in it.  A deduction of $1000/$2000 (single/joint) is possible for those who do not itemize (now, most of us, except the wealthy and business owners) for charitable contributions.  This will help these charities fill the gap caused by the lack of government support for worthy causes; more people will give.  A good policy for a time marked by stinginess and greed.  

Lisa, Lisa...

 

Senator Murkowski's agreement to vote in favor of a bill she largely opposed, in exchange for some "carve-out" benefits for her Alaskan constituents could easily be excused as the classic small-state bargaining.  It happens routinely that a vote is locked up in exchange for some concessions.  The problem was the timing of her sellout, when it was clear that her vote could be decisive.  If she and her conference leadership had arranged her betrayal sooner, it would not have stood out so much, though she is always one of the key votes.  She is this term's Manchin/Sinema, along with the only other one of her endangered GOP faction, Susan Collins. 

 

Murkowski has resisted such temptations before, as with the vote in Drumpfenreich 1.0 to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, but not this time.  Surely, Lisa, you can see that the harm to your fellow countrymen should outweigh the compensatory gains a few Alaskans will get. 

 

For that reason, because it is so obvious, I would assert that her political career is essentially finished.  She does not have to run again until 2028, but she would have little chance then:  none except for the unpredictability of a three-way race.  She may have gotten back the party base, though I doubt it, as they will remember many demerits, MAGA-wise.  On the other hand, she will no longer have the luster which attracted many moderate Democrats and Independents in the past, which got her through the tough times with the state's party.  Since she should see this to be true, and her legacy is the only question anyway (since she would lose if she voted against, also), why would she choose the path of future shame?  Is something covering your eye? 

 

Her comment afterwards was either disingenuous or foolish in the extreme.  She hoped the House would remediate some of the additional poison the Senate added in its version of the bill.* It is precisely because of her and the concessions to her that House Republicans cannot afford to touch the bill in any way.   I feel that most of what the House would add would then be rejected by the Senate, so that is earnestly to be wished, but I am afraid that won't be allowed.  So, that is why the House Republicans will vote on it just as it is when coming over, swallowing their objections.   

 

On the other hand, if that limitation means the bill will fail in this added-malignancy version, then I will credit her with Machiavellian tactics and insight. 

Which Is the Worst Part? 

I am willing to debate the question, but I would say that it is the set of measures to repeal our efforts to slow climate change.  That is true, self-mortifying reaction. 

Second would be the increased funding for ICE and for the border wall, though that is only what we should expect of this administration. 

The principle of encouraging continuing chaos (such as Trump-Musk) remains valid.  Since every product of Drumpfenreich 2.0 will be of negative value, it follows logically that anything that reduces that product is at least possibly relatively beneficial.  By this, I don't mean to obstruct Federal proceedings (as Trump did), but stalemate is our friend.  

 

*I've heard that Chuck Schumer proclaimed he had successfully renamed the bill.  I would suggest that it will be/should be known as the "Lisa Murkowski" bill.  

They Went and Did It. Finally.

 After "Barbara Ann"

R.I.P., Brian Wilson 

Bomb, bomb, bomb, Bomb bomb Iran

 We bombed Iran!

Just 'cause we can

We bombed Iran

We got Iraqi roles in harm's way

And World War feeling to-day, Bomb Iran

Bomb, bomb, We bombed Iran.

Too bad we couldn't wait Trump's classic "two weeks", as the deal was there to be had.  Now, he wants to find "peace"--fat chance.  Why would Iran want to negotiate now, if the nuclear program has been "completely obliterated", or even if it hasn't?  

"Thank You Falettin' Me Be Mice Elf Again" 

--the late Sly Stone, also recently departed 

That's what our leading "warfighters" and other neo-cons should be singing today, if only they had a bit of soul and musical memory.  Because, what good is having the best military in the world if you can't use it against lesser foes once in a while?  

People of good will are saying that it is for the best, despite it being the product of the warped minds of Trump and Netanyahu.  I will never be convinced that it was necessary, and I am far from convinced that it helped anything.  Maybe those centrifuges are destroyed (though they can be replaced), but where did those six bombs' worth of enriched uranium go?  I don't have a good feeling about that. 

People asked why Bibi chose this time to go after Iran; it is easy for me to answer.  He just had a narrow escape in preserving his coalition's majority in the Knesset, as the campaign in Gaza wears on, producing no results and much bad will.  Trump and Iran were possibly going to make the deal that would, by all rights, prevent him from completing his dream of ending Iran's nuclear weapons threat.  The amazing thing is that he got Trump and the US warhawks to buy in to their attack, that they believed they could waltz right over the undefended airspace, drop their 5B (big beautiful bunker-busting bomb) and then come safely home, and that would be the end of it.  

Ha! Nothing's that simple. 

I woke up this mornin' and none of the news was good

Death machines were rumblin' 'cross the ground where Jesus stood

And the man on my TV told me that it had always been that way

And there was nothing anyone could do or say ...

But I believe there'll come a day when the lion and the lamb 

Will lie down in peace together in Jerusalem 

--"Jerusalem", Steve Earle (2002) 

 

Sports Take

 Watching the sixth game of the NBA Finals now.  Indiana hosting Oklahoma City, down 3-2.  A very good series, regardless of what the TV audience numbers may suggest.  Two small-market teams,  you know.  Indiana claims to be the Basketball State, and it has a considerable claim on it, but these Pacers have never won the NBA title.  Neither has the OKC franchise as the Thunder; there was a title for the old Seattle Supersonics (in the 70's) before they split for a warmer city. 

The teams that survived the star-filled opening rounds to reach the championships do not have the big-deal superstars. What they have in common is ferocious defense,,and coming into the playoffs healthy and playing their best.  The teams with the stars but lesser records that tried to turn it on for the playoffs came up short, the exception being the Denver Nuggets, led by MVP runner-up Nikola Jokic, that pushed the Oklahoma City Thunder to the edge before succumbing in seven. 

The MVP winner, Shea Gilgeous-Alexander (SGA, for short), has led OKC to the best regular-season record for the second year in a row.  SGA is a marvelous player and deserves all the praise that is now coming to him. This time, nothing less than the title will suffice, for him and his fiercely loyal teammates, and they have two chances to win it. 

The Thunder were a 6.5 point favorite, which I think is way too much of a point spread. Both teams have all the motivation for an exceptional effort, but the Pacers will have a frenzied crowd behind them, and their key player, Tyrese Haliburton, will play despite being injured--there was much speculation about that which could have influenced that spread. 

Note:  Went away for dinner, when I came back it was halftime and Pacers had opened up a 20-point lead.   Should be a great Game 7 now; Thunder favored despite this blowout loss. 

MLB 2025

 This is the time when teams make their strategic mid-season decisions, whether to make trades to strengthen for a stretch run, hoping also for the playoffs, or to sell off expiring contracts for more depth, or to adopt the infamous stand pat strategy. 

It's a week or so before the midpoint of the season, enough time that the teams very likely to make the playoffs have self-identified. They don't have that small-market problem: two from NYC, LA, SF, Philadelphia, Houston.  In terms of players, two sluggers from the largest TV markets have once again stood out with incredible half-seasons:  Shohei Ohtani for LA and Aaron Judge for the NY Yankees.  

There will be a team from the Central divisions from each league:  Detroit has established itself now in the AL as a legitimate playoff team, and the Chicago Cubs have invested profitably and sit well ahead of a host of contenders.  That leaves one Wild Card spot up for grabs in a broad scramble in each league, with the San Diego Padres the current leader in the NL and the Tampa Bay Rays in the AL, Those teams may be good enough to build a substantial lead down the stretch, but otherwise there could be five or more teams going for that last spot (assuming none of the leaders falter enormously). 

Those also-ran contenders are the ones with the tough decisions. Most of those scrambling teams are not going to make it to the playoffs, which is the minimum standard, the entry ticket for success. So, will they trade off veterans and just play for next year?  Very few of them, for their own reasons, but mostly to keep fan interest alive.  

My Cincinnati Reds are a good example. They are just barely a contender, with three teams ahead of them for the last NL Wild Card spot, but SD is only one game ahead of them. If they got hot, they could take it, going away.   More likely, though, their youthful inexperience and sore-armed pitchers will end up being a little short of the playoffs (again, assuming the Cubs don't fold).  The Reds have one of the most exciting young players in the majors, in Elly de la Cruz, and the question hanging over the team is whether they will do enough in the next couple years to keep him around. So, they won't do much to weaken or strengthn, they will add another pitcher or two, grab a couple guys off waivers.   They should be in contention, though, until mid-September or so.  And there's always next year!

FIFA Club World Cup 

 A great event is going on in the US that hardly anyone is noticing.  There is a 32-team soccer tournament with top pro teams from all regions, played at various US venues.  It's a sort-of warmup for the World Cup, which will be held in the US, Canada, and Mexico next year. It is almost criminal how little attention this quality competition is drawing.  From what I've seen, it's the backers of the foreign teams who are showing up for the games, while the North American teams of MLS draw little. 

I have seen a couple of games--one excellent one in which Al-Hilal, a Saudi team of high-end recruits, tied the famous Real Madrid, so many times European champion. Most of the games, though, are being televised on something called DAZN.  Right. 

Real is also the team with the most wins in the Club World Cup, five.  It has always been contested in a much different mode.  In the past few years, only a few teams--one per region--went to the finals in a big-money locale (Japan, Dubai). The series was held during the European season and was a bit of a distraction for the team sent from there; now it's during this fallow period between seasons, and I believe it will be held less often.  Sounds good!

Inter Ruptus  

When I arrived in Italy on my recent trip, the talk was of a possble "treble" (Britishism) for Inter Milan--winning the Coppa d'Italia, the "scudetto" of its top full-season competition, Serie A, and even the Champions Cup, the finale of the European Champions League of top-performing teams. Over the course of my trip, I saw them eliminated in the semifinals of the Coppa, then to lose the lead and end up one point behind Napoli in the Serie A standings.  Still, despite the evidence to the contrary, they came up with big wins in the Champions Cup knockout rounds (including Real Madrid, I believe).  They had the chance to more than make up for the recent shortcomings by winning the biggest club cup of all*.   Instead, they were comprehensively drubbed, 5-0, by PSG. 

Both these teams have rich and long pedigrees, but Paris Saint-Germain could still be considered an upstart, as they won without the trio of superstars (Messi, Neymar, and Mbappe) they had in recent years. Look out for France!  As for Inter (formally Internazionale), they don't generate the same kind of fanaticism as the teams in Naples, Rome, or even their crosstown rival, A.C. Milan.  Professional, disciplined, and this year anyway, disappointing.  (Note:  My Italian team is Fiorentina, classy mid-table losers who keep a close eye on rising Slavic players for their bread and butter, so I don't judge from a position of superiority.)

 

* Definitely more significant to fans, and thus to teams and players, than the FIFA Club World Cup that I discussed above, even though that could be considered a higher-level tournament.      

Five Takes on TDS

 

 

 

 I have often seen the acronym misused with regard to those who sense reality, applied incorrectly by those whose motivation is only to "own the libs". I propose several alternative views of it. 

1)  Trump Derangement Syndrome:  According to the Cambridge Dictionary, derangement is defined as the state of being completely unable to think clearly or behave in a controlled way, especially because of mental illness. This applies, not to those who react with anger or sadness to Trump's maladministration, but it is better applied to those who are still under his spell after all these years--the MAGA believers.  These folks are generally still out of their minds and beyond reach. 

2)  Trump Delusion Sufferers:  These are the people who had some rational thought that a change of administration might benefit them, in terms of their chief concerns--say, the economy.  They now realize that the expectation they drew from what was promised was merely a scam.

The way to interact with them is as you would with someone who is a victim of fraud, whether their own credulity caused them to become victims, or just were outwitted.  Sympathize with them for their loss; then you can safely share with them how you, too, suffer from the damage.

3) Trump Depression Sufferers:  These are the many people who have observed what is happening and cannot get over the sadness it brings them.  Depression is very hard to treat; the recourse to alcohol and/or drugs is the wrong medicine.  In this case, it would seem best to try to interest them in something else besides politics, such as horseback riding, a fitness and dieting regime, comedy, or Tai Chi. 

4) Trump Dethronement Schemers:  Some of them are motivated by a spirit of revenge, others from a righteous desire to defend our Constitution, but the common thread is what King Crimson called "Radical Action to Unseat the Hold of Monkey Mind" (album cover illustration above).*  This is all well and good but needs to be put on hold, lest the 8647 Police come to take you away. I will admit that this is the version to which I am most susceptible. 

5) Trumpism Defeat Scenarists:  At last we come to a worthwhile version.  People are coming at this from all sorts of angles. There are various ways to skin this cat, and the only question is to unite around the one script that is most feasible. It must start with taking control of the US House of Representatives in the 2026 midterm elections, then using the control of the House committees to expose the full range of corruption in this administration and the damage its economic and foreign policies are causing.  The goal is a complete wipeout of the Trumpist program in 2028, and then to move forward with policies that will prevent any recurrence of unconstitutional and anti-democratic governance.  The progress will then follow.

 

*Photo from the Wikipedia article about that musical release, by the sterling formation of the 2010's which performed the last live tour of the band.  Highly recommended, as is the more reduced "Live in Toronto" release.  I hope this plug makes up for the appropriation of the intellectual property.

Future Project 2025, Part I

So, "Where Do We Go Now?" 

(I hate Axl Rose and not fond of Guns 'n Roses, but the guitar solo is irresistible.)

 

An Inquiry into the Human Prospect (Robert L. Heilbroner)

This begins a series of posts to develop some ideas about our future, utilizing past studies of the question of our collective future, what they knew and didn’t know, and what we can learn from their analyses,  This first one was written some 50 years ago; most of the others will be from the time around 2000, when the question of the future figured prominently in popular culture.

Heilbroner was a prominent professor of economics at the New School in New York.  He branched out into areas of the history of economics, philosophy, and political economy.  He wrote at a time like ours in many ways, when various national proxy-type wars were being experienced, internal strife in the US was strong, and anxiety was high.  I note also the similarity between the so-called Generation Gap of the time, between the young Baby Boomers and their parents, and the modern gap between those same Boomers, now aging, and the younger Gen Z and Millennials. 

Heilbroner's Theses

In terms of  threats to humanity, he named 1) population growth; 2) the potential destruction caused by wars; and 3) environmental limits to growth and its effect on quality of life.  The fourth development, the rapid progress in scientific and technological prowess, he identified as both an enabler to solve problems and a catalyst for accelerating them.  

In particular, he saw as probable that the relatively easy path to nuclear proliferation raised a likelihood that underdeveloped countries would use their ability to produce them in order to blackmail the developed ones with the threat of nuclear terrorism, in order to demand major economic concessions.

In terms of our internal capability to address these threats, he was quite pessimistic, seeing human nature as basically unchangeable and the framework of nation-states as also next to permanent. In full recognition of the seemingly unstoppable momentum of industrial growth and of the accelerating pace of scientific and technological achievements of  recent decades, he nevertheless asserted that these could not continue, due primarily to approaching environmental disaster and exhaustion of primary resources needed for industry.  In particular, he named climate change as something that would arise and threaten the continuation of humanity, along with exponential population growth. 

The volume I re-read for this post was copyrighted 1975 (W.W. Norton), which reprised his original 1972-73 work but included his own postscripts written shortly afterward.  In these, he noted how events immediately after the initial publication-- the Arab-Israeli War and the oil embargo imposed by OPEC, and the expansion of the nuclear weapons club with India's first successful test-- gave his warnings additional public impetus, but his perspective was much more long-term.  While admitting that he fully partook of the benefits of advanced industrial civilization, his point of view was that, while events in the short-term or even medium-term might vary trends, the long-term reality remained that industrial growth, augmented by the inevitable development in the Third World, could not continue apace.  He mentioned the possibility that conversion toward service industry and that improvements like solar energy could ameliorate the crisis and lengthen the term of our progress, yet he remained pessimistic for the long run. 

His conclusions included the thought that strong authoritarian governments--such as the Maoist China of his time--might be able to both stem population growth and control popular demand for economic growth. He admitted that he loved being in a democratic society with free speech, etc., but didn't find it conducive to the changes that must come.  He acknowledged that people do not think about the long-term result of their daily lives and even might question the need to do so, but he urged us to bear the burden of keeping on with doing the right things for posterity. In the aftermath of the convulsive end to our headlong race to self-destruction, he saw the possibility for something like nationalistic, religious societies to emerge in a "monastic" future civilization.

The View from 50 Years Beyond

It seems now that his pessimistic views of human nature and societal flexibility are more in tune with today's reality than the hugely optimistic view prevalent at the millennium. Three or four big changes came that he did not fully anticipate: 

1)  The collapse of the Soviet Union, with its follow-on developments for Eastern Europe and the evolution of the European Union have been game-changers over the past few decades.  One hugely positive result has been a period with less wars between the powers, conducted through proxy contests. Of course, few if any saw the fall of the Iron Curtain coming until the years just before those events at the end of the Eighties.  This changed the status of socialism; I would point out that the movement toward Euro-Communism, or "socialism with a human face", that was rising in the Seventies, had also faded by then, with capitalism emerging dominant in most of the world.  

Even China found its way toward economic development more like that of capitalism though the Communist Party retained its exclusive hold on power there.   In that sense, modern China has become even more like the kind of political force that can successfully influence the course of society and domestic economy, through coercion combined with massive investment. On the other hand, the supreme power position of the US, leading the so-called Western nations, has endured longer, though its unchallenged reign seems almost over, MAGA notwithstanding, and even assisting in its eclipse.

2) Resource limitations do exist and are apparent in some areas, but the continuing identification of extractable fossil fuels has been a surprise which has allowed ongoing growth of things like heavy industry  (in many parts of the world), the transportation vehicles using them, and the industries that make and distribute those vehicles of individual transport. This result thus continues environmental degradation.

3) Population growth has slowed in most parts of the world, so that we can now foresee a leveling off of population--it is still on the order of 10 billion, as compared to the 3 billion of Heilbroner's time. The ability to provide food for all the world's people is real--which would surprise some of his time-though economic inequality makes its distribution to all a real challenge.  Heilbroner asserted that exponential population growth must end, and that appears to be the case; it may have happened faster than expected.  Some of that was through coercive policies in China and India, but just as much through a natural reduction in the birth rate as more societies achieved full modernization and greater economic security.

In terms of the environmental threat, there is some of the progress that he foresaw as possible, but also setbacks, due to the reason of continued industrial development facilitated by the availability of resources.  An unanticipated effect in a negative sense resulted paradoxically from the reduction of air pollution due to cleaner fuels, as greater absorption of solar energy on land and sea due to clearer skies has actually accelerated global temperature increase. One challenge that he mentioned doubtfully was successfully addressed internationally:  the elimination of the production of the most damaging chlorofluorocarbons.

4) In terms of technology and how it affects the human prospect, the greatest change has been the development of immense digital capability, as computing power has increased exponentially, along with data storage capacity and the density of electronic microsystems.  The effects on consumers of electronic devices have been a combination of greater capabilities, especially in communication, but also societal changes which we do not fully understand yet. The advent of artificial intelligence, which was merely theoretical fifty years ago, has resulted from greater computing power and enormously greater data to train AI programs upon; it presents a frontier in which we are only taking the first steps forward.

And What This Means for Our Own Future...and Beyond

 Heilbroner specifically mentioned the 1.5 degree Celsius increase--even then!--as a known threat to our quality of life and the planet's biology.  That threshold now seems to have been reached or surpassed, with little doubt that the mean global temperature is still on the rise; we do not have a firm idea how much more will be coming, or even that clear of an idea of all the consequences.  There is some reason to believe we can slow that growth, through voluntary means or possibly with the assistance of some technological fixes, despite the current trends in some nations (speaking to you, USA under Trump 2.0) to ignore or go against the needed changes. 

The USA is just one part of the problem, though; some parts of the world are still industrializing and using dirtier means than necessary to do so.  China is both rapidly advancing in solar energy and building more polluting coal plants. There is a real possibility of sea level rise producing dramatic, if gradual, threat to the huge portion of our planet's human population living near coasts. Ecologies are being disrupted, and climate change is also taking the form of more severe storm systems. Our progress in feeding the world could be at risk, too, if our agricultural capability deteriorates. One can envision a future where many or most societies have to "hunker down"into safer areas and reduce activity, along the lines that Heilbroner suggested, but also a different, worse one where relatively few, well-off societies or subgroups within societies can hide from the devastation experienced elsewhere.      

The threat of nuclear annihilation remains, through wars between nations--now re-emerging in comparison to recent decades--or terrorism.  The club of nations with nuclear weapons has expanded some, with North Korea being an especially threatening new member, and that expansion could easily accelerate if, for example, Iran tests a nuclear device.  The limited progress of the past in preventing unlimited expansion of strategic weapons development seems to be receding rapidly, and warfare is becoming ever more mechanized and less restricted. 

Heilbroner was surely correct in his assessment that social, economic, and political structures of the time would be unable to adapt successfully to the threats posed by war, exponential growth, and climate change. So, where do we go from here?  My inspiration is the relative success the world has had in slowing population growth; it has not happened everywhere, but it has happened enough that we can see the light.  I disagree strongly with those who feel there is some crisis because the wealthier countries' birthrates have dropped below replacement level--there are plenty more people to fill the gaps, and the pig in the python will pass through eventually. 

There is a way forward without coercive or oligarchic survival mechanisms. We must first reverse the negative trends in our confidence and find our voice to make smart choices, democratically.  We must figure out how people--all people--can earn a decent living in a capitalist, or mixed, economy in which so many jobs will be eaten up by artificial intelligence programs and robots. Some nations will make more progress toward a successful path to the future, some less, and we must tolerate both.  

The greatest disappointment of the past decades to me is the absence of transnational cooperation.  The United Nations has failed under its current charter in its primary role of ending warfare, though it accomplishes much in humanitarian areas and does provide some means of participation for smaller countries. The climate change conferences produce agreements, agonizingly constructed, that are not respected. Crimes against humanity continue, and the US "exceptionalism" has been exceptionally uncooperative when it comes to international treaties designed to have accountability for them.  I have not lost hope for progress, but it will likely come far into the future.  Until then, our dreams of interplanetary exploration are a sad joke. 

Heilbroner thought religion could help make the necessary transitions.  My response was initially skeptical, when I read his book decades ago:  I am a confirmed agnostic, in that I know that I don't know.  I have seen enough of all the religions to know that they converge on certain ethical and moral principles, ones that, from a game theory or business model point of view, are necessary to share:  how could a belief system that encourages harm to one's neighbor, theft, and deception survive for long? 

I am encouraged by some progressive trends in the Catholic church, and I believe the new pope Leo XIV may make his mark toward reducing warlike behavior, and follow his predecessor's steps in recognizing the validity of other religious beliefs and their followers.  The fact that he is a US citizen (also one of Peru) is significant and may make a real difference in a movement among us toward tolerance, respect for the natural beauty of our planet, and reduced militarism (and, I might add, excessive nationalism).  The church's stance on "allowing" women to have multiple children has been harmful in some regions--it is not alone in that antisocial stance--but has also been overcome, broadly, and as I say, population growth is not the huge problem it appeared to be in the past.  

What Is To Be Done?

Kamala Harris' Presidential campaign, and that of President Biden before her, focused their energy on the cause of defending democracy.  Millions of potential voters turned away.  That, and the betrayal of RFKJr made the difference in a close general election in 2024. 

Democratic post-mortems, of which there have been way too many, proposing a variety of solutions, seem to agree that the problem was the lack of a substantial alternative to that being proposed by the Trump candidacy, that moronic, lying, hateful, fearmongering proposition backed by a narrow plurality, just short of a majority, of those who chose to vote.  And it's true, our democracy, as it is practiced today, is barely defensible.  Defending this status quo proved to be a loser. 

The answer to Democrats' lack of a credible alternative is not an economic one, really.  The US economy was not so bad in 2024, or in 2016.  In both cases, the Democratic-led administration had made real progress, with its limited real means to control the economy, in digging the country out of deep holes created during the Republican-led administrations of W Bush and Trump I.  It didn't win the election for them. 

There is talk of the Democrats developing some kind of vision of Abundance as a policy to campaign upon.  That's pretty much just apple pie thinking--yes, we would all like to be wealthy, but promising that is only going to backfire in the long run, as the realization sets in that it isn't happening.  The failure of that promise of super-abundance is pretty much happening in real time to Trump's promises of MAGA.  Frankly, the US already has abundance, and the likelihood that it will flourish ever more doesn't look so good as global commerce fades, climate change hampers us, global competition rises around us, and AI eliminates jobs all over.  Just ask the young about the prospects. 

Yes, the economic failure that is coming at us rapidly will likely cause a reversal in the political fortunes for the Republicans, whose hold on government is strong, but electorally very thin, and getting thinner week by week.  That would just be another swing of the pendulum, though, and will not bring us any closer to a more successful, stable polity that we can believe in. 

Bernie Sanders was right when he said, recently, that the US is a "pseudo-democracy".  The fact of the matter is that the policies of this Federal government are not popular ones. I would accept that there are times when the collective judgment of our elected representatives should override the popular whims of the moment and pursue wise policies to benefit all of us, but that is not at all the case now.  The authoritarian, destructive policies being pursued incompetently now are harmful to most, but excessively beneficial to a few who control the power. This is not democracy; it is barely a constitutional republic. 

The Reinvention of Democracy is the Vision We Need

The reforms I suggest below are generally non-partisan (not bipartisan), and some will tend to weaken the Democratic party's power relative to what it controls today; however, because it will work to remove built-in obstacles to people's will, we can expect the Trumpist Republican cult would oppose them fiercely.  I am limiting myself to changes that can be accomplished without constitutional amendment, as that is out of the question in today's political environment, or any that we can foresee in the near future.  Once the people are back in control, though, I would think that we could consider it possible to utilize the Founders' other channel to change the constitution, a new convention, without preset limits.   

Number one of these obstacles to democracy is the obscene level of expenditure for political campaigns now.  There has been an exponential escalation of the costs in the past twenty years, and now it is on a scale where only the rich and well-funded lobbyists can participate meaningfully.  For the others, massive efforts are required, but as we saw in 2024, not sufficient.  For Federal elections, the only choices are accepting the implicit bribery of huge donations, constant fundraising, or, increasingly, self-funding by multi-millionaires.  2024 saw Trump's winning campaign funded by hundred of millions of dollars of support from Elon Musk, who's been rewarded by getting a free hand to steal the nation's personal data and re-jiggering any regulations that get in the way of his profit-making.  For the Democrats looking forward to 2028, their best chance may be billionaire J.B. Pritzker, whon I could support if and only if he agrees:  Ending unlimited campaign spending is the start of returning democracy to our electoral process. 

I realize that in the odious Citizens United case some ten years ago the Supreme Court ruled that political spending fell in the category of free speech protected by the constitution, but the lines that were drawn between true campaign-support funding and parallel "nonprofit" organizations' theoretically separate activity have been blurred, then practically eliminated entirely.  "Dark money" contributions have eliminated any accountability for political contributors, and guardrails to prevent foreign interference or produce any limitations on direct contributions have had workarounds making them ineffective.

Congress does have the responsibility of setting the dates and broad outlines of federal elections, a prerogative they need to exercise.  My principal recommendations are to re-energize the moribund Federal Elections Committee, give it increased powers to monitor campaign activity, levying fines proportionate to the danage violations cause to elections--and remove all partisan appointments to it.  Congress should emulate some parliamentary democracies and declare a period of some 60 days immediately prior to the elections in which political activity should be closely regulated.  Restore "Equal Time" provisions for free media, penalize factual inaccuracy (also known as "lies"), and limit direct campaign spending by individual campaigns to some ratio to population (I'd suggest 10 cents per person, at current dollar valuations.)  

I don't have much to complain about the actual methods of voters' registering their choices, or about the counting of the votes; these are controlled within states and localities, and there is something to be said about their being decentralized, and thus not subject to centralized or hacked manipulations.  I do believe that the ongoing debates about voter suppression and voter fraud are totally unnecessary:  Congress should authorize the issuance of tamper-proof Voter ID's to every citizen of age, equipped with 21st-century digital technology and easily transferable between precincts, counties, or states as people move their residence.  Issued universally without charge to the individual, for the first ID at least.  Coming of age would then bring this privilege of citizenry, reinforcing the special, though universal, benefit of suffrage.  I do not believe the issuance of this credential to be a difficult challenge for this nation to achieve, either in terms of the cost or the technology. 

The Electoral College is an ongoing irritant and distorter of the popular will.  In past elections, it transformed close popular votes into electoral vote landslides; now it evidences a much greater problem, reversing the outcome itself with greater frequency, something which undermines the whole prospect of the democratic choice of our top leader tremendously.  It is something fundamental to the original constitutional framework, though, and could never be changed to mere popular vote plurality without a radical set of amendments.*  

What is not at all in the constitution is the "winner-take-all" electoral slate, in which the candidate with the plurality of votes wins all the electoral votes of the state, something in effect in every state except Maine and Nebraska. It is something that developed in the 19th century as states competed to have their votes count more than others, another escalation that distorted popular will.  Now, because of it, 40 states or more have all their electoral votes virtually  put up on the board before the election even starts.  The entire presidential election is focused on a few states, with the resulting effects on policy subtle but clear.  All serious contenders for the Presidency have to focus on the needs of Pennsylvania, above all others, with a few others like Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin getting secondary attention, and the rest--nothing.

I would recommend that a compact of Congress prohibit winner-take-all, combined with enabling provisions. The Maine/Nebraska approach gives two electoral votes to the statewide winner, and the other electoral votes are determined by the candidate winning the individual House districts.  It's a good remedy, and one that would show no favor, if accompanying the measure is a resolution ending gerrymandering:  congressional district boundaries would be determined by nonpartisan analysis considering natural and significant man-made boundaries, trying to build around intact communities and metropolitan areas. 

The political parties' power of over elections, another "feature" which the US Constitution's authors opposed, needs to be reduced, and the narrowing of the field of practical candidates to the two parties' nominees, chosen through primaries which, though intended originally to give power to the voters, has resulted in recent times to intensify partisan division to dangerous levels.  The introduction of ranked-choice voting and instant runoff would address this problem.  In this, voters would be able to indicate the preference, in ranked order, for most or all of the candidates on the ballot (or write-in);  if no candidate gets a majority, then the votes of the lowest candidate, in first-choice votes, would be immediately allocated to the remaining candidates by the voters' second choice, and so on until someone achieves a majority.  It could be used for any and all elections of officials--even the Presidential one, which might head off the prospect of the constitution's infamous resolution method for outcomes without an absolute Electoral majority (voting by the House, with each state getting one vote).

The provision has settled in a few states' elections, but it is not clearly understood by most of the electorate--I would suggest that it is because opposing it is one thing both parties can agree to put aside.  It clearly gives greater opportunity to third parties and independent candidates. Most importantly, it would lead to the end of the discouraging prospect of having to choose between the "less-evil" of two, which so many decry in so many elections these days, with the winning candidate being truly chosen (to some extent) by a majority of voters. 

The final recommendation I'd suggest for now would be to extend the right of representation to all US citizens, through granting statehood to  1) District of Columbia, 2) Puerto Rico,  3) US Territories and expatriates.  Three new constituencies, and if possible, mandating voting rights to those citizens disenfranchised for whatever reason. 

Why should the Democratic party advocate this set of reforms, which as I say seem somewhat limiting to their partisan interests? Because they are necessary for our nation, because they embody the party's name and purpose, and because they will be politically efficacious. This platform for reinvigorated democracy would seem to be something broadly popular, difficult in the extreme to oppose without denying the fundamental principle that the political will of the electorate should not be suppressed or distorted beyond recognition. 

 

*The Popular vote initiative--to mandate that all electoral votes would be allocated to the national popular vote winner--is stalled well short of its needed objective of having 270 electoral votes' worth of states supporting it, and I see no chance of that being reached.  Even if it were, it would not eliminate the partisan firestorm that would occur if a candidate (let's say, Trump) would have 270+ electoral votes from the states under the current system, but the victory denied because of lack of a popular vote plurality. I can just see the rebellion that would result, and the chaos following when the Supreme Court throws out the popular vote-driven result.    

 For the title, I borrowed from Vladimir...Lenin, that is, and from 19th-century Russian idealist Nikolay Chernyshevsky, from whom Lenin borrowed it in his turn.

I am Furious (Yellow)*

 

 

King D------d  issued a threat yesterday in a conversation with another fascistic American President (Bukele of El Salvador), that "home-grown" US citizens would be captured and sent to Bukele's house of horrors prison there, with no recourse, as the Drumpfenreich has done with the asylum-seeking Maryland resident, the native Salvadorean Kilmar Abrego Garcia.  Just label his opponents as "terrorists", with or without any evidence, and make them disappear.

Do I find this threat credible?  No, in the sense that one cannot simply believe that anything Trump says is a) serious; or b) not a lie.  I have no doubt that he would like to be able to do it, if he felt that he could, but he's lacking the means to do such a thing to natural-born citizens, whose status and ability to block illegal arrest is different from those we are hosting as asylum-seekers or those foreigners who have no legal immigration documentation or have overstayed their visas.  If he continues to get his way with the Supreme Court, which so far seems to want to play ball with Trump in a mistaken belief he will abide by constraints they put upon him, the next step would be to try this stunt with naturalized citizens, or those whose citizenship comes from first-generation birthright within the nation's territory.  Creeping totalitarianism from the asshole contingent.

Still, a threat is a threat, and this is one of existential proportions, and in response all US citizens should consider their responses, and "nothing is off the table", as Trump himself likes to say.  Though I may be slightly optimistic in thinking this would not happen to me, I am laying down two red lines as regards myself and my dear ones.  The first is arbitrary application of the famous "no fly list" from the government  upon us, which would take away a fundamental liberty, and the second is his half-serious suggestion that he would seek a constitutionally-prohibited third term.  Sure, he could do the latter legally if he were to get a constitutional amendment--go for it!  Otherwise, rebellion in defense of our constitution is something I would be compelled to seek.  

The View from Italy

I'm in the second month of a long vacation from the US political maelstrom, my physical presence in which is intolerable to this person, at this time.  I wanted to be gone from the get-go of Drumpfenreich 2.0, but I was convinced to delay the trip a bit longer to get some of the beautiful spring weather springing out all over here.  It's about quality of life, and the 90-day limit of my visa.

Of course, one can't get away completely from it, and here it is all over the news:  the talk of the "dazi" (tariffs) and mention of "Tramp" (or, sometimes "Trampa")--Italians don't really have the short "u" vowel sound, and don't usually end words with a hard consonant, either.  There is something appropriate about calling our fraudster a tramp, or suggesting (in my mind) how he is "trampa-ling" over our republic.

Italy's current coalition government is in a unique position within the European Union, which is providing it certain advantages in the ongoing war--of words, more than actual economic warfare--between the US government and the EU.  The three parties that make up the government range from center-right (Forza Italia, the former Silvio Berlusconi party), xenophobic right (the Lega, which has successfully pivoted from a Northern Italian party hostile to Southern Italians--the Northern League-- to a nationalistic one hostile to all other nations not headed by authoritarians), to the hard-right Fratelli d'Italia (Fd'I in the local shorthand), headed by Giorgia Meloni, the head of the national government (the Council of Ministers, the parliamentary head, as opposed to the titular head of state, the non-partisan President of Italy).  The three parties are not aligned on everything:  a key example is with regard to Ukraine.  Forza Italia is very pro-Ukraine, the Lega's head, Salvini, is pro-Putin, while Meloni takes a moderate view, respecting the EU's support for Ukraine but opposed to any direct involvement of the Italian military.  They are pretty much aligned on hostility to illegal immigrants coming across the Mediterranean from Africa, and expecting the EU to back them up on preventing their assimilation into Italian society, which is probably the most important domestic issue apart from the economy.   They aren't having much trouble so far in beating down the disunited center-left and left nationally, or in several of the larger, more centrist regional and local governments.

In a lineup of the heads of European governments, or of the G7, Meloni is by far the shortest person in stature, but she is not short at all on ability.  She speaks well and has shown some agility in policy and in minimizing the obvious historical lineage of her party to the postwar neo-fascists and their nostalgia for Mussolini. She, among all the heads of European governments, has the best direct relationship with Trump, and thus she is more able to reason with the US (to the extent anyone can reason with these idiots) than the official EU representatives, whom Trump disparages and mistreats.  She can't really toe a separate line from the EU on trade, but her influence probably helped the EU getting the proposed 25% tariffs down to a more survivable 10%. Of course, the tariff rate is not reciprocal (yet), as the EU had very low tariffs with their ally and trading partner, the US, pre-Drumpf. (I am considering advising my non-governmental Italian friends to refer to him as that, which would be a good, insulting name-calling for him--it sounds, and is, German, and, though the Germans have come a long way forward, there is still some residual resentment among Italians.)

One last Italian-Trump note:  in Italian, there is a phrase called "prendere in giro" which is used very frequently.  The usage means joking, or teasing, and is only slightly aggressive.  It literally means "to take (someone) for a ride".  It applies perfectly to the Trump/Bukele disingenuity (is that a word?) about who can return poor, abducted Abrego Garcia and why neither one of them will do it.  Also, they literally took him for a ride, but not the circular one the phrase implies.

* I am quite serious about my fury, but I couldn't resist the Dad-like reference to the Swedish porno film of the '60's, "I am Curious (Yellow)".   Trump's administration is pornographic, in the worst sense of the word, but I admit to being somewhat physically a coward when it comes to frontal confrontation to it at this time.

Curb Your Enthusiasm, For Now

Apologies to Larry David--while this episode's ultimate final scene  will be the epic humiliation of the main character, it will be a prolonged one. 

While we can draw hope, and maybe inspiration, from recent successes in the efforts to prevent complete global disintegration and subjugation, we should not get ahead of ourselves.  If we were keeping score, we would still be trailing, but at least we are on the board. 

TarifFail 

The tariff plan announced by the US' King D------d I the other day exhibits the three I's typical of Drumpfenreich 2.0:  Ignorance, Incompetence, and Incoherence.  The main problem is that, at a deep level, Trump believes that a trade deficit--the value of goods and services imported being greater than those exported--weakens the country, weakens our currency, and is clear evidence the other side is cheating on trade.  The first two notions are false, and the third only true in certain cases. There are some countries, India being one, that use protectionist trade barriers to prevent imports and maintain its currency artificially high, but those measures weaken the countries' foreign investment and economic development instead of enhancing it.  Beyond that, some countries subsidize certain domestic industries excessively, and those industries might be justifiable targets for tariffs of our own.   

None of that seems to have been in the thinking of what is actually being imposed--just a shot across the bow of any country that trades with us, which will generate retaliation, either across the board, as we have done, or targeted specifically to hurt Trump-favored industries and regions.  If these tariffs linger for long, they will be a recipe for stagflation, as jobs related to exports will be lost, consumers will pay more for everything, and accompanying that will be depreciation in the relative value of our currency--perhaps even the end of the US dollar being the preferred reserve currency, which would be a tragic loss of influence for us globally. 

I suspect they will not linger.  Our government's trade people say these blanket tariffs are not a starting point for country-by-country negotiation.  I don't believe that for a moment, as Trump will want to play bully-boy and offer tariff concessions to those who give him goodies.  Moreover, as the pain begins to deepen, he will be convinced that he needs to back off or lose political leverage as the midterms approach.  Personally, I hope this is true, although the US public should get a taste of what his ignorance is producing before it ends, and then punishes his party appropriately anyway.  Perception will drive reality.

Booker Rides, High and Dry

Trump believes, or seems to believe, that these tariffs are going to provide so much revenue that he can get the tax cuts he promised in his campaign, for things like tips and Social Security income.  This is a delusion, but I suspect he will get the extension of the regressive tax cuts he was able to pass during his first term, enabled by compliant Congressional action on a budget resolution, followed by a budget reconciliation bill with phony projections, a very real and very large debt limit increase, and a host of damaging spending adjustments. 

In this regard, Cory Booker's marathon speech of over 24 hours, facilitated by days of fasting and abstaining from liquids, is laudable but irrelevant to the bigger picture.  It does show that Democratic representatives can, in extreme cases, use their words to capture the attention of the public for a short while. Going forward, I am looking for targeted attacks on specific individuals and policies, not so much overcoming strategic obstacles, though the Senate filibuster rules should prevent most harmful legislation from going forward.  I suppose it will be beneficial for Booker's political status in the party, though I don't see it propelling him into a new national campaign.  A moral victory is what he can provide for us. 

Off-year Elections as a Side Gambit

D------d I proclaimed the other day through an executive order that voters must provide proof of citizenship, and that votes must be counted the same day, and some other nonsense, I guess.  None of that will pass muster, as the constitution provides that the states run the elections, the Federal government just providing the dates of them and some of the other implementation of their results.  He did come up with the threat of withholding all funding from those states that don't follow it, something I suggested might be possible to enforce some reforms, even that of the national Voter ID, which I support in the interest of ending, once and for all, disputes about who can vote--as long as the ID is issued, free of charge, to all citizens and has smart technology to support voters' maintaining their registration when they change residence.  As for the rest of it, forget it. 

The special elections in Wisconsin and Florida were a good indication of two things:  some slippage in Trumpian support, but also the different electorate in off-year elections.  Hard to be sure exactly how to parse the two effects separately at this point.  There will be more of them this year, in Arizona for the replacement to the death of Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva, and likely for the upstate New York district of Elaine Stefanik.  Her nomination for the UN Ambassadorship was withdrawn when there was concern in White House circles that the Democrats would take one of the Florida seats and reduce further the narrow Republican majority, but that didn't happen.  They will still probably put her up for a job, one they will consider important.  Not the UN one, which they don't rate so highly--though it would be a tragic miscalculation to pull out of the UN as some idiots have suggested.  See in the organization's history how the US got the UN to authorize forces in the Korean War when the Soviet Union unwisely was boycotting the Security Council. 

What Trump didn't seem to get in his proclamation is that making voting more difficult will end up hurting his party, which has a higher proportion of low-information, low-motivation voters. 

Signal of Incompetence

The scandal around the security lapse involved in the Signal text chat isn't about the attack on the Houthis that was discussed, as that is ordnance out the bomb bay, and they are basically a bunch of resilient pirates.  Biden had them bombed also, somewhat unsuccessfully, and they will continue regardless of whether Iran makes a deal with Trump or not.   The inclusion of  The Atlantic's editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg in the chat was a hilarious error, one that will ultimately end Michael Waltz's job as national security advisor (though Trump will do it later, to cover the tracks), and Goldberg covered himself with respectability in the way he handled it. 

The real point was the look behind the scenes at decision-making in Drumpfenreich:  VP Vance is even more treacherous and evil than we knew, Hegseth just as blunt a tool, while the real power is vested in Stephen Miller as the Voice of Trump.  His say-so makes all the difference; no one need question it.  Miller is also the policy director for all the Project 2025-inspired discriminatory cuts Musk has sought to make. When Musk goes, and it will be soon, the vampiric Miller should be the focus for public calumny.

Hands Off! Demonstrations

The mass demonstrations planned for this weekend should be a good opportunity for those who are intended victims of Trumpian arbitrary violations of civil liberties to show themselves, protected by being surrounded by well-meaning people in safer status (i.e., natural-born citizens).  It will be worth watching if there is focus on the demonstrations--around the assault on free speech, on job security, or just general hatred of Drumpfenreich--or not.  

I would just advise attendees who may feel vulnerable to disguise themselves somewhat, and stay in crowds.  There will be spies, and likely provocateurs from the other side who will try to create violence as a premise for authoritarian crackdowns afterward.  Protect one another!  

(No demonstration planned here in Italy, as far as I know.)

 

Raw Earth!

 I hear we are going to get a large shipment of it, in exchange for the munitions we have sent to Ukraine.  I don't think it's a great deal for the US, but they have been very brave.  We should take the raw earth and make it wet so it's more usable, and then dump it outside Mar-a-Lago to help protect it from the rising sea level. /s

It's pretty clear that Trump thought he could impose the terms on Ukraine that he has had his people work out with Russia.  He seems not to have considered that Ukraine, and Europe behind them, would refuse a deal that is as unfavorable as:  ceasefire at the current front lines; no concessions, no admitting of responsibility, no reparations, no guarantees of security, release of sanctions on Russia. Ukraine is well aware that the Korean War ended similarly (but with the guarantees) and there is no peace, only an armistice, 70 years later.

With regard to Trump's touted materials deal, Zelensky tried to make it into more than what it was, an agreement forced upon him under duress, which perhaps was negotiated further to become more of a win for him and for the US.  One of my old bosses used to refer to that tactic as "negotiating after the close", which just causes problems. This US President is not going to get sucked into the conflict with new security assurances under any circumstances, and he sees the need to take Putin's side to beat down that request.  Trump and Vance's behavior was embarrassing, shameful, but not surprising given the lack of a real accord.  It does appear that Trump is losing his mind.

I would suggest, though, that Zelensky and Europe should go along with an end of active hostilities, just as they are, with the provision that there be a conference to finalize a peace in which the many outstanding issues would have to be addressed.  Trump needs the quick win soon, though, or he will cause more pain.  Merely stopping the fighting will, if the ceasefire holds, leave unresolved problems that will only set the stage for future disaster.     

 Turkey Gets a Seat at the Table

As I indicate, this is not a deal that can be arranged just between the US and Russia.  The US and Russia can make a number of deals between themselves on important matters like strategic weapons, but the US' claim to represent Ukraine's side, or even to act as an impartial arbitrator, is out the window with Trump, who is manifestly untrustworthy--a liar  The proposed peace deal Trump's people and Putin's will come up with surely will be unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe. 

And, if they are not considered, Turkey.  I noticed Zelensky meeting with Turkey's Erdogan the other day; Ukraine is smart enough to bring them in, even though Turkey is relatively close to Russia at present.    Turkey controls what goes into the Black Sea and what goes out, though the Bosporus.   Turkey does not want Russia to be able to return its navy to Sebastopol in Crimea after fighting is stopped.   During this war, Ukrainian drones have chased the Russian navy from the port.  Turkey wants the Black Sea to be a zone of peace.                                 

 

This pentagonal design would allow each party to sit next to two parties with which they are somewhat aligned, and that does not require them to be too close to those most distasteful to them.  The only exception is requiring Europe's representatives (from the EU, NATO, the U.K., France, and Germany, for example) to sit next to the USA to keep them behaving just a little.

Artificial Intelligence, All the Time?

A Conspiracy Theory

So what are Elon & Co. doing with all that data?   One thing I'm pretty sure of, and one I suspect. The first is using the data to train AI machines to do as much of the work as possible. That work done by humans, and that which occurs more automatically, but is supervised by humans.   He can't get rid of it all, despite trying real hard (!), but he could potentially get something like the classic 80/20 result, with 80% of many departments reassigned (to a bot). If he wires the data up properly, he could even run his machine learning programs on the data without even having to swipe it all, in which case it's legal. Then someone else can figure out the rest, and he can go back to playing rocket ships.

The basic thinking is that if the civil servant gets this particular function right 95% of the time, the AI machine can get it 98%.  That will apply to some functions, without a doubt.  The 2% of what remains of that function, you can get the remains of the civil service corps to work on.  It all sounds awful, and it is, but that's the logic. 

That second thing, though, my conjecture, is that he wants the data, for commercial purposes (100% illegal), but that he will disguise that when (not if) he downloads the data.  He will have to separate name from social, at a minimum, with the data attached to one or the other but not both.  The data mining itself and the machine learning do not need the name, and the social is of limited predictive value (though there is some intelligence in it). 

This is the tricky part:  the data can be made available more broadly, within the government or beyond, in this separated way--the user would have to use inference to make full use of it.  There could be an encrypted key to put the two together, or a series of them, and the US Government would have the exclusive access to this key stuff. 

 Except for the backdoors his coders put in to control the flow of money. And the copies he's made on the sly.

The New Era

It is incontrovertible that we have moved on from what history will eventually know as the Postwar Era.  We have reached the point by which many people might have no idea which "War" that phrase describes; a vanishing few have live memories of World War II; a few more recall the devastation out of which this period emerged.  The period we finished had two principal parts:  the Cold War, and the one which followed.  That one is over, but it doesn't really have a name yet, as it's too soon.  I would say--sincerely-- it was the Golden Age of the US, which would not please our current Presidential officeholder to hear, the next one being the Age of Golden Showers?

Now, though, the US wants to be just one among many--globally, and arguably, even in our half of the populated world, America (the Western Hemisphere).  Brazil, Mexico, Canada, the more successful parts of Central America and the Caribbean--they won't allow themselves to be dominated by the Monroe Doctrine, no more. In the Pacific, we strain to maintain; in Africa, the fastest-growing continent in population, we are losing the game fast.  

Culturally, too, we are entering a different direction than that which has been predominant.  The five nations which "won the war" and together formed the United Nations, giving themselves veto powers--the US, UK, France, Soviet Union (given to Russia), and China--have been among a handful of nations which have hosted international development--above all, in military might, but also in music, visual arts, and above all, rapid changes in technology.  Social development has been mostly continuous and slow --there have been real improvements in women's rights, in combating racial inequity in some nations, in feeding the world--but international political progress from the original UN Charter has been halting and is now being abandoned.  The clearest examples are global efforts to slow climate change or limit nuclear weapons.  Liberal democratic and social democratic values rise and fall in the esteem of the people, who are guided by the simple, sound principle that they would rather have their nations--always nations!--do what most want, rather than not (the way of kings and dictators who do what they want). Now, so many are feeling that they are not getting it. 

Nevertheless, so far, resistance in the 21st century has been reactive, generally nonviolent.  We don't see much new coming forward, politically.  Now come the destructive technology masters, culturally everywhere and now politically coming to dominate the US Federal government:  they are promising something new, in effect. 

We just need to cede.  

If only humans would give up this silly notion that they need to control things, we could operate much more efficiently!!  A good example is the driverless car situation, currently stalled.  There is a tipping point, I would guess it's about 75%, when the driverless cars will be able to stop worrying so much about the crazy things people-driven cars do and can just send signals back and forth from the vehicles on the net and things will work much better.  The cars will go much more efficiently and faster, without errors (except the occasional hallucination, I guess, but we're working on that!)--The tech bros.  

It is already a fact that first point of contact for consumers is going to be a chatbot, in most cases.  Voice response, sure, but the real question is whether you can get to a human and what you have to do to get to it.  I don't see that changing anytime soon, though the battlelines will shift back and forth at any particular entity, along with the location housing the humans or machines, and based on the needs of the shareholder, whoever that might be.  

So, that's when you're reaching out to them.  There's also the other side, though:  we call it marketing. What ad you're going to see when, what video or sound is in it when you get it, what email, what response to your polite inquiry.  

My request for legislation is a simple one:  in those cases, when what you are being presented is pure AI, there needs to be a bug that you can click that will tell you so--also what program or series of programs is being used, and that's that.  Or, if it is AI but there is a human behind it who has specifically approved or edited it, then that person is not wholly anonymous but can be accountable in some sense.  That's all I ask; then the consumer can judge the content knowing its provenance.