America > Trump

Of this I have no doubt, or fear.  Though we have allowed this person of the lowest character and subterranean behavior to be elevated to our highest political office, he does not rule over us in the way he thinks. Instead, he clings to the throne with underhanded means, writhing in his self-made bunker as his level of popular acceptance sinks further. Though I am observing him from afar at present, it only makes it easier to see him digging his sinkhole of madness ever deeper. His attempts to distract from his evil past actions only create more damage. Watching his underlings from a distance--imagine how they can possibly remain beneath him!--failing in their appointed tasks and drawing ridicule upon themselves brings gratification, knowing I am largely beyond reach of their putrid scheming. 

Truth be told, America is greater than just the United States of America, though I have covered that subject before.  It holds a great idea, that of the universal human goal of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but the truth that is self-evident in the domain of mankind's affairs these days is:  power.  Nothing more. The USA's power is unmatched (still), but the national government's purposes in this time are not worthy of this great land.  Greed, indifference to the global community, and the shocking, reactionary impulses to subject other nations' to our selfish interests are the unmistakable content of our external actions, mirroring similar foul intent domestically toward those without power or the means to resist. 

Our Own Litmus Test 

Yet we, the people of the USA, do have the means, if we act collectively to fight back.  We have only one effective, substantive way to strip this evil regime of its power, and we must protect that chance with all our own powers of action. Though the forces of oligarchy and incipient fascism seek to make our votes meaningless, we have--so far--still our chance this November. Are we worthy of our unrivalled privilege as a nation? Let's not waste this shot. 

I know better than to appeal to the cause of saving our democracy.  We are far from being democratic--ruled by popular will--in our national affairs, and that appeal failed loudly in 2024--the response amounted to a big, lazy yawn.  Still, we can work within the limitations of our constitutional republic to overthrow part of the system driving us downward and begin the reclamation project.  All the corrupt maneuvering and manipulation is still unable to prevent us from expressing our will, if our numbers are large enough and broad enough.  What drives the electorate may not be such a noble purpose as dethroning evil, but it is enough that our sense of frustration and desperation at the destruction of our economy and the quality of our public life move enough of us for a decisive electoral victory.  

A "litmus test" is an objective measure, in chemistry a device to determine a binary result, acid or base, though it can also have a directionless result proving neither. So it will be with our election:  victory or defeat, though the result could end up less than definitive.  It is easy to define victory in 2026:  gaining control of both the House and the Senate. Plenty of associated results would accompany that victory, not least would be breaking the Trumpist cult's sense of superiority. Getting one and not the other would not be defeat, but it would result in two years of dubious stalemate before another climactic showdown in 2028, which would then be under less-than-favorable circumstances. The good news is that victory in 2026 is feasible; more than that, it is still attainable, despite the enemy's attempts to cheat us of our opportunity.  If the Republicans are defeated in Congress, the forces of authoritarian rule will be checked, put squarely on defense, and defense is something they really can't employ well; their only mode is attack.*

Somehow we will have to muster both our people's warmth and humane nature, and our revulsion at injustice and practical objections, all at the same time.  Both our moral sense and our common sense.  I'm not saying it's going to be easy.  The shape of this battle is now pretty well formed; I will have more to say about tactics in the 24 weeks to come. 

Light in a World of Woe

 Pope Leo's recent words are enough to make me a Follower, if not a Believer with a paid subscription.  I am so proud that our co-national, first ever to that high position of authority and grace, has chosen to speak wisely and confidently for us.  "Masters of war", indeed. Am I allowed to say "our Pope"?  Not from a nationalistic, possessive point of view, but isn't he supposed to be for all us humans, not just the Catholics who are bound to swear allegiance?  Of all the groups deserting the Drumpfenreich's support, it appears that Trump's blasphemous behavior has hurt him lately with religious observants of Catholic and Protestant evangelical faith.  He'd already lost most women, the mass deportation fiasco reversed his gains with Hispanics, and his gross warmongering has undermined him with young men. Surely there can't be enough remaining for him to rig the election in his favor

 

*I give credit to Pete Hegseth for little, but he was right about that when he re-named his cabinet department.  A name is not everything, though, as he has proved that war is sometimes about more than killing more of them than they get ours, something we should have learned long ago. .  

 

 

The 60 Minutes Interview was Fire

 Or, it was must-see TV, if that is clear.   

At least the part I saw. 

Norah O'Donnell had him on the defensive on the domestic issues, the ones that matter for the election this week.  OK, he could look haggard, black-circled eyes and bad makeup and hair, but his face looked Trumpian.  That's just jet lag, basically. 

The side view, though, that CBS went back to show time and again, showed a sodden, pyramidal Jabba-the-Hut-ish pile, sitting oddly on a high-backed chair with he fully six inches in front of it, spouting nonsense.

I saw her hammer him on his violations of law and order, ICE, the tariffs, and especially the shutdown.  He got aggressive, threw out the usual bullshit, and showed himself extreme and unwilling to compromise.  So, he didn't come back any wiser than when he left. 

He may have compensated in the last part, with the more softball questions that he could answer by throwing in his foreign affairs successes, his great relationship with Benyamin Netanhahu, how he could destroy this and that if he wanted to.  He got a chance to brag about Iran and look Presidential. He looked brutal and scary. But that was too late to save his numbers. 

He got a few digs at the Democrats, staying with the tired line about how "all they have to do is vote" for his bullshit, no changes, he won't be coerced. As for the Senate Republicans, he both threw them a bone ("nuke" that filibuster) and threw a bone at them, depending on your point of view.  

This was his last-minute shot at the elections this week:  pump the base's turnout.  The limitations of this approach show it to be very much short-term, basically a bet that 2026 will be OK, or a war. 

2028: The Final Question

Trump's blowing his cool was evident, particularly in the first part of the interview, as what was shown (edited; this time with his permission, I'm afraid) more than sufficed. It will definitely hurt the Repubicans' cause, if not in 2025, in the larger, later contests. I give CBS a little credit for asking some of the tough questions, a situation he rarely faces in a public setting. His answers were definitive, defining insanity itself.  He took great pains to saw his lines, pains to all, in fact. 

I had to go out for a minute, so I missed the part about destroying the environment, or about the Epstein File.  Maybe that's when they happened. 

But I did come back when we saw that we can finally stop worrying about 2028.  He basically admitted he won't do it, so why talk about it?  

Anyway, if he did find some underhanded way to do it and run, then Obama could counter it and do the same, even starting after the convention if necessary. I know just how he could do it, too--it would be to use the Electoral College for the Democrats cause, for once.* I think the White House's team of soulless skunks** realized that Obama could kick any of the Trump clan, or any other of the other guys in a fair fight. They're pretty much all the same, now.

The 2025 Preview, and to 2026

The Democratic response to the inputs that suggest the Republicans are making general-election level effort in Virginia and New Jersey, instead of off-year election level, then, is President Obama's appearance on the scene there.  Let's just make sure we get that extra 2-3% that didn't show up for Kamala. 

It's a very basic, sticking-with-fundamental strategy, if Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill represent the national Democrats' bid to regain the center in swing states, ones of the type that will absolutely be needed in 2028. It's a serious approach, with good, well-known candidates--a true test. 

There's a lot of talk of Mamdani, and the future he represents, and Gavin Newsom is the leading candidates for the states' resistance through the gerrymandering vote, which he seems sure to win.   Those last two weren't the target of the GOP's guns, though.  They are of relatively limited importance nationwide, unless Newsom fails somehow to deliver the numbers on the referendum, which would be career-ending and a significant handicap in Democrats' ability to counter the Republicans' power play for the House next year.  Finally, Andrew Cuomo looks ready to take the dive into the Hudson. 

I'm looking at two states in particular next year, beyond individual congressional races in a few states and an interesting shot at picking up a Senate seat in Alaska.  They are Texas and Ohio, two states given up as hopeless after the 2024 voters there gave  Kamala/Biden's administration the heave-ho by ten percent or more.  James Talarico (or Colin Allred or Beto, if they surprise me) in the Lone Star State represents a more convincing case to get that extra 5% or more the Democrats have been seeking in statewide elections since the turn of the century, and Sherrod Brown in Ohio is looking to reverse his 2024 Senate loss by tackling the appointee (elected only to whatever) Governor Dewine picked to fill J.D. Vance's hole. So to speak. We're going to need wins there; if we get them, we can take back control of the Senate, filibuster or no. 

 

*You know, the states' Electors--they can be pledged to vote for Obama or the Nominee of the Democratic...)    

** What's left of the White House, that is, the dank dungeon parts.  The soulless skunks, they remain a-plenty. 

The Shutup

I'm taking off the filters and calling the thieves and reactionaries for what they are in this post, so please excuse the blunt and uncouth language, if you can. 

This ending of approved Federal government funding is a "massive opportunity", as King Dickhead I himself said, but for different reasons than the ones he cited.  The Democrats are holding many government activities hostage, as a weaker force surrounded by hostile enemies is wont to do (see Hamas).  The hostages should not all be released, but only in exchange for real benefits to our people, and for real political damage to Trump 2.0 and its attempts to steal the 2026 elections, our last real hope to save our polity.  

The continuing resolution ploy proposed by the Republicans in Congress is a trap into which our Opposition must not fall, even though its allocation of spending is undoubtedly much better than the alternative, the painstaking working through budget negotiations which is going to produce only terrible outcomes, which the "CR" approach would allow to happen (though the time frame originally proposed for it will be over before you know it).  

Instead, some budgeting should be approved and others blocked. Military pay and air traffic controllers  should get paid.  The alternative to paying our soldiers is not only unjust, but also quite dangerous:  history tells us that soldiers who are not paid are likely to rebel.  In this case, Dickhead and Kegbreath having pissed off the top brass tremendously, the coup threat of that outcome is multiplied.  A regime headed by our military, though disastrous to our constitutional republic, would likely be less oppressive and dangerous than what is happening now, to our nation and to the military itself.  But that's short-term thinking:  pay our military, we will give you the votes.  

Same with the air traffic controllers:  we want them to show up for work.  The alternative there is bloody, for certain.  And while you're at it, add funding to get more of them. 

No money for ICE--forget about the Big Stupid Bill's provisions, entirely. No money for the State Department, which is doing us wrong in the world.  No money for EPA, FTC, CFPB, Energy, all of which have been captured by our opponents and are working diligently to eviscerate their stated missions.  The eventual funding for the DOJ and the FBI could be restored, after the full and mostly unredacted Epstein Files virus is spread upon the land.  Protect only the names of the victims.  I for one do want to see the video Jeffrey took of some young girly jacking off our future Dicktator with her face blurred beyond recognition. Other Homeland Security provisions could get approval, on the condition that ICE Barbie is replaced with someone who knows what is right and wrong, nothing more. 

Funding for the IRS should be approved--we don't want the rich grifters and conmen to get away unaudited--but the price for that is something that will benefit us all in the long run and hurt the Republicans in 2026:  an agreement to remove the cap on Social Security contributions, a regressive tax that benefits only the high-income people and will eventually imperil the whole program. Suck it up, tax cheats! 

As for funding our judiciary, the price for that is some reasonable term limits on future appointments.  We can promise not to stack the Supreme Court when we get power back in 2029 in exchange for that.  Right.

Budget negotiations ultimately can begin--say, next year, when the pain becomes extreme, but on the conditions that Congress pass legislation removing Presidential immunity (in particular, we need personal accountability in the form of civil damages) for illegally impounding funds or spending unauthorized ones, and that electoral ratfucking of the 2026 elections will be criminally prosecuted. I'm sure those are both illegal areas of proposed Project 2025 evil, but it needs to be restated.  Make Trump veto them. 

The tough call is really the healthcare question, the hill Congressional Democrats have decided to defend at all costs.  We should all be fully aware that, if we get into negotiations with the Republicans on restoring the cuts, doing so in a way that can become law, they will put a variety of asterisks on the funding that will make it painless for theirs and painful for ours.  It's all or nothing--rescind the cuts in their entirety, or no deal.  

Yes, the Republicans may ultimately counter by removing the 60-vote requirement for ending Senate filibusters.  I'm OK with that, as it has been weakened tremendously already as a safeguard.  It will cause a lot of bad in the short run, but when we get the trifecta back in 2029, and that is already on the table, we will be able to reverse their illegality with the force of law.  For all its noise and fury, Dickhead 2.0 has operated almost entirely through Presidential orders, the majority of which violate the law, though the emergency lawsuits and restraining orders often can only close the barn door too late to prevent harm.   

While we're at it, give the judiciary some enforceable force. It won't cost very much, and it would make a big difference.  Basically, make US marshals answer also to Federal judges, with their jobs and more, and provide gun-toting protection for Congresspeople (when they ask for it) and courtrooms. 

More Domestic Disgrace

 

 I am annoyed that the latest news from the US' political quagmire must take precedence over subjects that are much more fun, like sports, music, film, the beauty of this season, or more consequential, like preserving that which remains of our planet's beauty and bounty. Some subjects in the US' current disaster and recent escalation of violence, physical and verbal,  need to be addressed, even if their importance is transitory. 

Unforgiven 

In the above film, without a doubt one of the greatest in the history of the genre called "Westerns" the Clint Eastwood character makes the following statement as he rides to an expected violent confrontation in a lawless town: 

It's a hell of a thing to kill a man.  You take away all that he's got, and all that he's ever gonna have.

That is my main reaction to the murder of the man, Charlie Kirk, shot down as he engaged in political debate at a Utah college. It is the same I would have for anyone unjustly killed, like the students in too many schools, or other victims of politically-motivated violence in the US.

 I mourn for his family, and that he will never have the opportunity to redeem himself from his hateful, bigoted rhetoric.  Because I do believe it could have been possible; he seemed sincere in his beliefs, but he needed that critical human encounter that might have changed his mind and his tone. Enough about him, though.  I reject the attempt to make him a martyr for his cause, because his cause is not just.   And I never followed him or read any of his words when alive, so his death is no personal loss for me. 

One thing more I want to say:  we should not assume anything about why the killer did it, not until we have more evidence or capture the perpetrator.  I would submit that the shooter was either extremely lucky, or more likely a highly skilled marksman, given the range and angle indicated for the single shot that pierced Kirk's neck.  

We Should Let it Shut Down for Awhile 

The product of this Trump final term is all bad--all of it.  This, once again, is no surprise, and this is all part of his evil plan.  We who oppose it have no reason to facilitate its continuation. 

The Republicans in the Senate need seven Democratic votes (at a minimum) to continue normal operations of the Federal government beyond the end of September.  My position is that we will not call them, they must call us, and what they have to offer to get any support is a major change in direction, one that will force Trump to sign, or veto, and thus accept that his power will be diluted, or that he will own the shutdown that results. 

My suggestion, once again, is that in order for Democrats to fall in line with a resumption of government function, there must be a reversal of tax cuts for the rich, tax increases for consumers.   The best way to do most of this is through a bipartisan agreement to remove the cap on Social Security contributions, which end annually at about $160k of income per year. The resulting revenue increase will fund the program indefinitely and scale down the budget deficit problem.  Direction on tariffs should follow; Congress could give Trump some authority to set them, subject to Congress' oversight.  Finally, the measure must include language which restates what the Constitution demands: that money cannot be spent without Congressional authorization, and that spending approved by Congress and signed into law must be spent (with strictly limited exceptions). 

Democratic Senators who do not show toughness in this moment must be voted out. By us. 

More About Migration 

In a very recent post, I went over some of the basic, global principles that govern the movement of people, those that should apply, and those that will remain regardless of the obstacles. The current immigration policy violates all of them, but it is really the enforcement policy, with its violence and unnecessary cruelty, that makes us cringe. 

 We need to rethink the whole attitude toward our treatment of undocumented immigrants and stop the outrageous violations of our own laws.  If we have fair policies on the treatment of those here without the rights of citizens or of residency or visitation, if they are understood, defended by our citizens and implemented with respect for individuals and consistency,  then, maybe, we could move toward an intelligent strategy, one which will then end excessive migration into the country and allow for a true reckoning of those who reside here.  

The main point is that the US should not be the nation where people can burrow into hiding indefinitely without the knowledge of the authorities, which is the root of the issue today.  

We must accept true refugees from the Americas, seeking political asylum or escaping cataclysmic economic or environmental failures, for as long as is necessary, and we should apply sound judgment to those whose move here would be voluntary, not forced by circumstance, in order to enhance our society.  

 

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.  

A Wholly Admirable Person

I owe you readers a tome on the world beyond, but the passing of President Jimmy Carter today pushes my thoughts back to domestic "res publica". 

The chorus of eloquent praise to Carter and his legacy is heartwarming and unanimous. I will say that the eulogists had plenty of time to prepare their words, as he has been in declining health for several years, in hospice itself for two.  His mammoth accomplishments in life extended way beyond his four years in the White House, which were themselves highly significant in US and world history. I particularly liked President Biden's recommendation to young people to study Carter's life as a model.*

I'd like to focus on his second greatest triumph--after the Begin-Sadat peace accords in '78--his dramatic Presidential campaign and electoral victory in 1976.  I remember a lot of it very well, as it was my own first Presidential election. Eighteen-year-olds had just gotten the vote, which in those years of demographic upheaval seemed to have great importance. At least the disconnect between the draft age and the voting age had been addressed.  Carter was a surprise winner in the Democratic primaries; he was a first-term Georgia governor who had come from next-to-nowhere to win that office.  

In the general election, he had several advantages which allowed him to overcome the great advantage (greater back then) of the incumbency of President Ford in a close, fair election. Number one was that he was, correctly, viewed as a big change from the ruthless, unclean presidency of Richard Nixon, and his pardoner, the unelected Gerald Ford.  For the election he was able to present himself as honest, accomplished but humble, and intelligent.  The key moment of the campaign in one sense was Ford's misspoken claim that Eastern European nations were not dominated by the Soviet Union. The electoral key to Carter's victory, which Bill Clinton was later able to replicate, was to break up the Solid South for the Republicans, which none of the other Democratic Presidential candidates of the era were able to do. His win was a great relief for all from the ongoing culture wars focused around the generation gap, lingering after the antiwar protests and racial strife of the previous years, and a recognition of the rising power of the Baby Boom generation.  The result was close, with a margin similar to this year's one, but accepted by all. 

Carter resembled in many ways my ideal statesman, one who rose to the top through pure merit, who served without seeking personal gain, and then returned to a virtuous life after leaving public office.  He had ambitions, but they were about accomplishing things for the people, and his political ambitions ended up being cruelly crushed in 1980, due mostly to events beyond his control (Iran hostages, economic weakness), but also because he was willing to take chances, some of which were unpopular politically. Objections to them, from left and right, and a general sense that, while he worked tirelessly, his administration was not effective, mounted to the point that he was vulnerable politically. I personally was out of the country in 1980, so I missed most of the campaign, but I believed it impossible the voters could elect Ronald Reagan, and I was disappointed in how Carter's term was going. My vote that year, my first and last ever for a Republican (even if he ran as an Independent), John Anderson, was one I remembered and regretted forever after. 

You could say that he was too nice to be President of this country, and I would not dispute it.  If you look at the whole of his life though, he cannot be criticized. 

 Unacceptable:  That's What We Are

“Many people have come up to me, telling me they feel tired… maybe even resigned… That they’re not sure whether they have the strength, much less the desire, to stay in the fight. But let me be very clear: no one can walk away.”

— Vice President Kamala Harris, quoted by CNN.

I would like to look more closely at that closing line.  She is seeking to regroup support for yet another fight, that is her intent, but I want to challenge the assertion.  For example, it may be much wiser to--in the figurative sense--leave involvement behind, to drop a growing compulsion to take some action which one will regret, if they even have the chance to regret it later.  Perhaps some thought that way already, but the November election was the wrong time to withdraw. Better than surrendering to Trump, though, which uncountably many have done. 

I do concede one thing:  there is nowhere on this planet where one will be totally beyond the impact of this ugly phase of the domestic US political evolution. Personally,  I think it is altogether advisable to experience from abroad the stink a'risin'.. 

“The one thing I’ve always believed about public service, and especially about the presidency, is the importance of asking yourself: ‘Have we left the country in better shape than we found it?’ Today, I can say, with every fiber of my being, of all my heart, the answer to that question is a resounding ‘yes.’“

— President Biden, quoted by ABC News, at a holiday party for DNC staff. Courtesy of my good source Political Wire. 

My first reaction:  What do you mean by "we"?  Are you and your family leaving the country, too?  There shouldn't be too much concern for injustice imposed by the DOJ/FBI, given the Supreme Court's view of Presidential immunity, but on the other hand, you can't rely on those guys.

My second:  The country is not in better shape than 2021, though it's not his fault.  The clear evidence of that is/was Trump's electoral victory.  Perception is reality in this case, and, despite what anyone else may say, we are not in better shape to face our future, which is what matters.  The problem is not the economy, or the borders; it's in our minds. 

Yale Professor Timothy Snyder is perhaps way too much out there in the internet traffic these days:  who wants to hear about history, when we're making (breaking) it now?  (/s)  I will give him credit, though, for the verbal epiphany of "mump" to describe the Musk/Trump duopoly of power.  The sickness coming now has a good name, even if Elon has to hit the space highway soon:  this will be a case of The Mumps.

 

 *Note: J.C.  Just sayin'; he's something like a Protestant saint, if his religion had 'em. 

...Anni Aurei

("Of the Golden Ages") 

Everyone's doing their Best Of...lists.  Here's some of my picks, throwing in a few Latin words (as we follow blindly down ancient Rome's path toward dissolution): 

Word (nomen) - brainworm. 

There have been multiple mots thrown out there on the wall, Time Magazine-style.  The most ridiculous I heard was the first one, "demure", from Dictionary.org, but really from some influencer who misuses it all the time to the point that it has become standard English, like the varied usages from "literally", "precipice", "leafy", and "vibrant".  In this case, I wouldn't know, maybe it trended strongly; but, do we have to celebrate it? 

Oxford went with "brain rot'.  I don't know, was this their translation of RFKJr's former malady, or are they still being haunted by the prions of mad cow disease?  

The Economist dragged it out in their essay, but finally went with "kakistocracy", the rule by the incompetent.  They remain indignant at the lack of good government.  I think "idiocracy" will surely be nominated by someone; that movie made a big comeback this year as it seemed to signal a logical endpoint for all our society's worst trends toward, yes, incompetency, performative politics, big piles of shit, etc.  I think what we're getting so far is just the first part, "Id-cracy", rule through the id of an idiot.  But that's just temporary; we could still avoid full idiocracy with  more education of the populace and a little less nihilistic "don't give a shit" attitude. .

Returning to my main point, I am still going with the Kennedy reject as my personal focal point of dissatisfaction with this year's version of the multiverse.  (see "Lathe of Heaven", below)  There must be some other place where the Kennedy heritage is destined to end up,  other than kneeling at the foot of  Drumpf, then playing the Fool in spreading some widespread, avoidable avalanche of a health catastrophe.  In my outlier thesis, it's his fault that Harris lost.  This is altogether too weird.

Film - (cacumen) 

For me, it will be "Dune, Part Two", though it was released too early to be a significant Oscars contender.  I thought it lived up to my expectations, which were high.  I think one additional episode should be enough from Mr. Villeneuve, who has now topped The Mexicans (take your pick of the big 3) as top international film director.  A year or so for him to get perspective on how to handle all the the many successive novels and the gist of them, but some of it can be speed-walked.  Particularly the part about the Dominant Worm ("God Emperor"). A little more "Chapterhouse of Dune", the backstory that is behind the streaming serial "Dune: Prophecy"(not impressed) might help the understanding.  Anyway...

I'm eager to see the early Dylan biopic with Timothee Chalamet ("A Complete Unknown").  I'd have to guess he may be Best Actor in the Oscars, and this is surely Angelina Jolie's chance to win Best Actress for her portrayal of Maria Callas (in "Maria"), unless she messed it up entirely.  I'm not considering any of these post-Thanksgiving entries, though;  they can be on my Film of the Year list for 2025, if they are good enough.

I'd say "Lee", Kate Winslet's WWII vehicle, and "Conclave", the story of a fictional election of a Catholic Pope, are movies that were released in good time and had some good points ("Lee" was an unheralded true story, "Conclave" had good use of foreign languages in the Vatican's polyglot environment, fine roles for Ralph Fiennes, Isabella Rossellini, and Italian Sergio Castellitto), but did not reach paradigm-shifting excellence.  One that went for it was "Anora", the tragicomic sex flick of a stripper and a Russian oligarch's wayward son.  It has the same crazy energy as two recent international triumphs, "Parasite" and "Everything, Everywhere, All at Once" but I think it falls short in terms of social significance.   

As for the season's two big blockbusters, I haven't seen "Wicked", but I will do so though it's not my cup of witches' brew, and "Gladiator II" does not interest me--I love historical fiction but this is an unhistorical one. 

Song (canticum) -

 I've read a few of these top 2024 songs lists--rarely one of albums anymore, though they are still made.  These lists have a lot of stuff representing our fractured "popular" musical environment, while I only hear a couple of the genres (rock, indie). I will try to take some listening suggestions from them--YouTube is so easy, if you don't mind a few commercials.  These Best Of.. unanimously name Kendrick Lamar's "Not Like Us" as #1. Yes, it's odious, but so are we all--I guess. 

The one I'd go with is Karen O, with Danger Mouse, on "Super Breath".  I think it's 2024, anyway.  Karen O's re-emergence as a powerful, controlled vocalist of renown in recent years was late but welcome, and D.M. gives her a suitable, classic backing instrumental line.  Yes, the breakthrough album for the Yeah Yeah Yeahs was in 2022.

Book (librum) -

 Again, I've read a few of these lists, and there is one name always on the list (some respectfully refuse to rank within the top 5 or 10).  That is "James", by Percival Everett, taking the Huckleberry Finn story from the other side, that is, Jim's.  I have to try that one. Mostly I have read Yuval Noah Harari this year and some sci-fi, and I regret little of it.  The late Ursula LeGuin still entices my reading--she wrote so much, so well.  A re-reading of her "Lathe of Heaven" (1971) was revealing in what she anticipated of our future world, and it got me thinking more about dreams, an underappreciated aspect of our lives.  Anticipating a lot of free time to read in the near future, I do have a powerful list going forward.

Person  (persona)

 TIME came out with theirs before I, to my temporary embarrassment. I was going to critique their list, which had some interesting names, along with the unnecessary repeat candidates (Trump, Musk, Putin).  Of their list, I would strongly support Yulia Navalnya . It said she was previously a candidate, but did Alexei ever win? If not him, not Nemtsov before him, TIME has let history down.  My pick: Alvin Bragg - he is the Buster Douglas (of Mike Tyson fame) of Donald Trump challengers, the one who won.  It may not have been the "World's Biggest" prize of all time, but he did it and 2024 was the year. (Biden already got his in 2020, with Harris alongside).

Athlete (athleta) - 

 I saw that one of the sports mags named women's basketballer Caitlin Clark as Sportsperson of the Year, and I respect that choice for the huge impression she has made this year for the sport.  I would go with Stephen Curry, for a career of great NBA success, somehow exceeded by his amazing series of three-pointers in the desperate fourth-quarter comeback against Nikola Jokic and Serbia in the semifinal game of the 2024 Olympics.  Meaningful, and memorable.  Second choice would be for Freddie Freeman, for a similar career of success topped off by a remarkable game-winning homer for the Dodgers in Game 1 of the Series.

Food  (cibus) - 

 This is the Golden Age of Global Food.  I think a lot of the international shipment of food items will tail off due to increased price, climate change considerations, and more blights of food products.   Coffee and avocados are two products we can expect to become more scarce, much more expensive.  Forget about those lousy unripe Chilean fruits we see in the market.  My pick is a domestic product--Talenti gelato and sorbetto, which captures the essence of Italian high-end iced product and packs it tightly in nearly unopenable jars and sells it for $5-6 a pint--high-end price also, but well worth it.  The man credited with putting it on the market, Dean Phillips, ran a quixotic campaign in '24 to replace "too old" Joe Biden. He didn't get far, but he planted the idea that blossomed out of control after Biden's debate with Trump.

Lots of links I could have added--go find the lists yourselves if you want.  I gave you my choices.  Latin translations by Google translate, which isn't too swift on the Latin.  Not enough current data for the AI learning machine, I'd say.

Some Gratitude

To start off, I am grateful that our family has been able to stick together.   No one in the immediate family is estranged.  Our sister's successful gall bladder operation this week, our children have been able to find work that suits them, our niece continues to build her sustainable fashion design work, even our cousin who's been forced abroad because her husband is wanted for questioning will probably be able to return with a new government and Department of Justice (bad as that will be in general).  I'm particularly grateful that our son returned safely from his overseas military deployment. That's about as much as I will ever say about those closest to me in this blog. 

Saturday I finally got over my mood and need for intensive "self-care" after the election debacle.  I woke up that day to find that my blessed Cincinnati Reds made a good trade:  acquiring a promising young starting pitcher (Brady Singer)--one can never have enough starting pitching--trading a good infielder, Jonathan India, who didn't have a position in the coming season and wanted out.  I think the Reds are ready to compete in 2025.  Next, that morning I watched an interview on MLB-TV between Greg Amsinger (encyclopedic memory of baseball, on demand) and Johnny Bench, the greatest catcher of all-time (core Red in the heroes' Pantheon), who rarely does that kind of thing.  Chelsea defeated Leicester, a signal result for the Blues' new coach, Enzo Maresca, who led Leicester to qualify for promotion to the Premier League last year.    

Currently visiting Newport, Rhode Island for the first time.  It's offseason here, a little cold and windy, but still has a lot of charm, as do the folks who live here.  The International Tennis Hall of Fame is a beauty (though the museum there is closed for renovation).  I'd suggest visiting here in April; still offseason prices but should be nice. 

I am grateful for my town, Taos, which maintains its defiant independence (better than 3-1 for Harris--a quick search indicates it has the second-best margin of any rural county in the lower 48); it should be one of the last places to feel the pain of the new hateful regime coming in.  At the same time, though, I am grateful that my wife and I have the liberty and the means to look abroad for some respite from the political circus.  2024 has shown us that our Constitution can't protect us, that the rule of law has been overrruled, so our freedoms depend on the people, and they aren't so dependable, electorally.   We plan to spend a lot of time away, at least for the next two years until Trump Clown Car 2.0 crashes to earth.  The best thing that can happen to Earth. 

We are past the precipice, pushed out the window, but as they say while falling, "So far, no problem!"

 

Have a good Thanksgiving!

Two Somewhat Weird Ideas about the 2024 Election

 I have heard much talk about this Trump-X voter, X being a Democrat, and how that seems strange.  I agree, though that there are some such people, I don't doubt.  But here are two hypotheses about them: 

1) There are quite a few (a million or so?) who just left the President line blank!  I've not heard anyone say this.  It is not logical to conclude that the difference in the partisan margin of two races is made up entirely of people dividing up their vote by party, but it could simply be the effect of voters not selecting in every race.  

There should be data to confirm or refute this hypothesis, but I haven't seen it.  It's the sum of the difference, precinct by precinct, of the total number of valid votes submitted and the sum of all entries on the President line (including all party lines, but also all write-ins).  

On the one hand, I could see voters who are dissatisfied with all their listed choices voting for no one.  On the other, if it were a desire to have divided or limited government, as I have often heard suggested,  a voter's choice would have made more sense the other way:  a Republican Congress to control a Democratic President.

The bottom line is that there is a gap of several million votes for Biden-Harris that did not accrue to Harris-Walz.  They did not (all) go to Trump-Vance, and the 3rd-party vote appears quite similar to that of 2020.  The gap does not appear to be in the number of voters, either.  Maybe they didn't stay home, after all. Understanding where those blank-liners are, and what their particular concerns are, would seem to be extremely valuable--perhaps they are persuadable.

  (I have to think a bit more about the fact that turnout was higher in the swing states, and how that affects this hypothesis, though surely it shows that swing voters were responding to the constant stimuli, It goes back to the difference between the national vote and that of the individual swing states.)

2) Those Trump-X voters may have been in large part those upredictable RFKJr fans. Who can know what they are, collectively, thinking or doing beyond that weird predilection?  Democrats looking for someone to demonize could do worse than targeting the Kennedy pariah:  apart from getting zero Democratic Senator votes, there is plenty of oppo to feed Republican Senators about his abortion and climate change views.  It's one time when it makes sense, even if the substitute would only be worse (having made the current DH-elect person angry),  Behavior like his should be punished.   You know, "it's going to hurt me more than it will you,"  the old lie.

Social Media OK?

We have just moved to open up a bit to other channels: 

Bluesky:

j1stoner.bsky.social

 and Substack chat

 https://open.substack.com/pub/stonerj/p/join-my-new-subscriber-chat?r=33u6d&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=tr

Yes, I am a "slow adopter".   You never saw me referencing X, or Twitter, or Facebook, as far as I can remember.  They don't matter in The Bigger Picture, which will be the next post.

This Is The Day...

 of our maximum discontent.

There is literally nothing I will allow myself to watch tonight, so I have sworn not to turn it on.  (That includes streaming, which I basically don't do anyway.)

Not even the All-Star Game, which in baseball terms is something less than the real thing--that was over a couple nights ago, providing a few moments of relief.  Regular baseball action starts back up tomorrow.   

The Cups--of Europe and of the Western Hemisphere--of soccer have concluded--congratulations to Spain and Argentina.  It was a big test, before the World Cup in 2026, for coaches' ability to put functional teams together.  Some passed the test, others will lose their jobs. 

Wimbledon is over.  Alcaraz established himself as King of the Hill, though there will be a multi-sided effort to dethrone him at the US Open in a couple of months.  Sinner is still the points leader, but Carlos is on the warpath.  On the women's singles side, chaos continues to reign at Wimbledon.  Swiatek hasn't figured the grass out quite yet, and Sabalenka bowed out. The title went to Barbora Krejcikova of Czechia, for her this was not her first chaotic rodeo victory. 

The Olympics - not yet. I'm not so hardcore that I have to watch NBA Summer League. MLS (Major League Soccer) doesn't tend to hold my interest for long. 

And then there's the news, which I am strenuously avoiding, all week.  Not interested in watching the selected Republican bootlickers, nor in seeing the nominee's speech, or the discussion of it before, during, or afterwards.  I am certain that Trump profiled his new con:  pretending to be a normal political candidate in a constitutional republic.  Don't believe it. 

As for President Biden, he took up the challenge to go out on the road and campaign actively for a few days, as I suggested.  The result was Covid, and I am now of the opinion that it is time for him to admit his limitations and bow out of the race (though he does not need to resign his position). He should vigorously endorse his VP Kamala Harris and offer his ongoing counsel to the Democrats, particularly should they win and hold the White House.  With our thanks.  

I have thought a bit about the attempted assassination of Trump over the weekend.  As for the young Republican incel gun nut who shot at him, nicking Trump's ear but killing one in the audience and wounding two others, he was following in the footsteps of other fools who think their act of stochastic violence would provoke a general mass uprising.  It's failed many times before.  Clearly, there was a slip-up by the Secret Service and local authorities allowing someone with a long rifle to post up less than 200 yards from the stage. 

Say, Hey!

The photo here is of the 1964 Strat-o-Matic card for the great baseball star Willie Mays, who died recently at the age of 93.  The card, frankly, was the main way I knew him:  he was playing on the West Coast then, and the Game of the Week (the only game on TV) was usually the Yankees and someone, and the SF Giants came around to Cincinnati (my team) about once a year.  1964 was a very good year for him, near his top (1965 was his second Most Valuable Player year), as he led the league in homers with 47.  His .296 batting average was near his lifetime average.  He was consistently at the top of the league from 1954 (when he returned from military service) until the late '60's.  

We saw more of him later, as he began to decline.  He was in a race with Henry Aaron for the second-most home runs for a while, but he retired and Aaron stayed on for several more years, eventually catching Babe Ruth for the all-time lead.  On the subject of the All-Stars, he was named 20 times to it. Certainly one of the greatest of our lifetimes. 

I will mention here the comedian Bob Newhart, who passed away even more recently at the age of 94.  I remember the early version of him, when he did a sort of nerdy, white-guy stand-up comedy (air-traffic controller sketch?).  What most will remember of him, though, was his starring role in the Bob Newhart Show, much later, when he played a normal guy reacting with good humor to his unusual neighbors (in Maine, was it?). His deadpan, accompanied by laugh track, was a good formula for situation comedy for several years. 

 

 

Part II: The International One

 Chuck, Well-done! 

I salute Sen. Majority Leader Schumer in his call for new elections in Israel. 

 I respond to those who object to interference in another nation's affairs by pointing to interference in past political affairs here by the same unprincipled man now heading Israel's government. The extremist nature of Netanyahu's coalition is temporarily overshadowed only by the necessities of active warfare, but the conduct of neither does honor to Israel.   They take their cues from us, or vice versa; we need to seek what's right from one of our closest allies to be true to ourselves.

There is also the fact that Schumer--to be plain-spoken about it, a classic New York Jewish politician--is the one to make the call. If friends can't call friends, who can they call? Schumer's loyalty to Israel over the years, through thick and thin, is unquestionable by anyone of any stripe. 

Is anyone in Israel listening?  I think the answer is 'Yes'.  For one thing, they know that President Biden, who is playing this very cagily, could have stopped Schumer from making the statement at this time. His response upon receiving prior notification appears to have been, "Go ahead.  Knock yourself out."  (Schumer taking that as permission...)

I have only one question:  To whom is this call addressed?  Did he miss the Benny Gantz visit?  Was he the only one who did (besides Biden, who dodged it)?  In my view, the intended recipients are Schumer's contacts among Likud, who are "ghosting" that call for now.  One more humanitarian disaster is still required. 

I heard the contours of the newly-proposed deal reported tonight.  These seem more reasonable for a partial hostage release and six-week ceasefire, with the threat of an (approved) Rafah offensive by Israel, accompanied by some (panic) evacuations of civilians hanging over the head if Hamas doesn't take it.  I think Hamas will do so, once the appropriate ratio of prison release is determined (somewhere around 20:1 has been empirically observed, so far, in deaths; that provides a rough estimate). 

If the Hamas counter-offer after temporary ceasefire is release of all hostages for permanent ceasefire, Israel should take it, even if the terms require relaxation of the current siege. (This Netanyahu government wouldn't take it, of course, either way.  Thus the Schumer ask.)  When and if Hamas violated the ceasefire again, Israel could continue the liquidation campaign, and they would have the hostage situation finally ended.  That is why Hamas will never release all the hostages they control.  

The outcome obtained by Israel so far is the middle result:  not the complete removal of the Hamas leadership, which was the stated war aim, but more than the minimal one of making Northern Gaza into a buffer zone, buying critical moments of time for their defense against future launched attacks from Gaza. Effectively, they have a siege around the remaining parts of Hamas-dominated Gaza, as long as the Rafah border with Egypt holds.   

My conclusion, and Schumer's, is that there is no way forward, no partners for enduring peace. Time to shake things up, politically.  What he really is looking forward to is a parliamentary coup, a change in authority, with Netanyahu out as PM, but it is slightly more diplomatic to ask for new elections, which if they occurred, would produce the desired result, but much too slowly.  (Schumer also called for changes in the West Bank and in Gaza.)  Gantz' message is that he would still need to liquidate Hamas if he were to lead the government.  

Ukraine Slava!

Winter in the plains of Ukraine is no time for heavy ground maneuvers.  There has been a season of hunkering down, while the Russian artillery and missiles faced less defensive interception or retaliatory strikes. That period has to end soon; the clock is ticking.  Speaker Mike Johnson is trying to find the formula to allow the foreign aid bill to get approval without doing anything.  Very laissez-faire! Doesn't quite get 'er done, though...

Europe is filling in, for the moment.  Even the rightists are seeing the light, as Hungary approves Sweden's joining NATO and Georgia Meloni's far-right Italian government is fully backing Ukraine's cause.

Immigration

If you think this belongs in the forthcoming domestic affairs post, I choose to differ.  Migration is a worldwide problem, and the global nature of the challenge is beginning to be felt more acutely on our southern border now--before, it seemed just a hemispheric problem (which it is, also).  I do think there is a hemispheric solution to the problem, one that requires active participation with Mexico for mutual benefit.  It would look like massive expansion of a US consulate in one of the northern Mexican cities, Monterrey, maybe. There is precedent for that kind of cooperation, but it's the kind of idea that doesn't get traction.  The only kind of workable solution moves the problem off our shore/border, but we pay for (cheaper) services in the chosen focus location.  

 

 

Viewing The Trumpian Menace from the Outside

Any sensible foreign government should have considered both of the two main outcomes of this election and what their national interest should require for each. If one outcome is particularly bad for their country, it only makes sense to do what they can to affect the outcome, only being careful that they not have it backfire and produce a contrary effect. 

For the most part, though, it neither makes sense to commit too much for the Biden win strategy, nor for a Trump one.  Best not to commit.  Thus the Taiwan's election led to a clear status quo outcome, Xi has pulled back a little from his aggressive posture, and the great democracy of Indonesia takes a more studied distance from the pro-Obama Widjojo days. Even Putin knew enough to say he preferred Biden because he is more predictable: unarguable, yet showing respect for the internationally-infamous Drumpfen unpredictability.  Japan, India and Korea seem more concerned with domestic affairs--well, why not?  So are we. 

That seems to be the strategy with regard to mitigating climate change, every nation doing its own thing, the combined effect being neither synergistic nor sufficient. I won't deny progress is being made, both in developing alternative energy sources and in raising awareness.  But the global temperature is progressing on the graph toward the upper-right corner, too, as is the graph of major serious weather events. . 

More elections coming all over, I hear.  In the U.K., the ruling Conservative party is in a position similar to Netanyahu's, with a serious parliamentary drubbing forthcoming when the election is finally called. In England's case, though, there's a statutory requirement that will make it happen this year. It will be interesting to see how the Labour party will change the path, seemingly irreversible, that is steadily moving London away from relevancy.  Argentina threw in its lot with a major shake-up in a Trumpian direction, but that is an extreme reaction with plenty of popular frustration behind it.  

The Summer Olympics

The Paris Olympics will be held this summer, after the Republican convention and before the Democratic one. I am hopeful they will provide a welcome distraction from the political wars. So far, I've heard too little about the preparations for them, either here or there.  I did hear a few sports (softball, baseball among them) are not being retained; I've heard each sport federation is making its own rules on transgendered, I've heard those Russians who haven't failed their drug tests will be competing under the Olympics flag, not their own. That's about it.  I haven't heard much about the USA teams in specific sports.

 I'm very idiosyncratic about this, both a strong supporter of the Olympic ideal and a fervent opponent of the way it is done with all the nationalism, which is contrary to that ideal.  It is possible to make the centralized sport federations able to conduct competition qualification, but the block to that is that the resources would have to be provided by nations, perhaps through the medium of the United Nations.    This will no doubt feature in my upcoming listing of my brilliant ideas so far not picked up by anyone....

The Oscars

A bit of a stretch, I admit, to consider the awards of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, basically a LA.-centered bunch, in the international affairs category.  There were several awards given outside of the US film center, once again--let us not forget the recent-year successes of "Parasite" and "Everything, Everywhere, All at Once"--but the liberal US coastal elite judgments were clearly present. As an electoral body, quite predictable. 

"American Fiction" winning the adapted screenplay suited the self-referential critical Zeitgeist, for sure. So did the award to local comeback hero Robert Downey, Jr. for his role as the McCarthy-ist foil to Oppenheimer, post-bomb.   Above all, note the John & Yoko-inspired animated short winner calling for "Peace Now" (Sean Lennon on the scene)--I preferred the French "Pachyderme", if one wants to go deeper. 

The award for documentary feature to "20 Days in Mariupol" showing the brutality of the war in Ukraine also showed that liberal sensibility, which now increasingly shows some awareness of the world beyond. (My point being that the show tells.)  There was also the Godzilla movie getting the award for effects, the Mayazaki film winning the animated feature, and the four awards to the itinerant sci-fi costume drama "Poor Things", the movie that finally showed what Yorgos Lanthimos could achieve. "Zone of Interest" dominated the foreign film lane, a bit of a ruse for the British production, but it was performed and filmed on location at Auschwitz in the original languages (German, Polish, Yiddish), which is a real credential to be foreign to us.  Finally, I mention "Anatomy of a Fall", the one that got away (likewise, I couldn't catch it at the cine.).

To close, we transition through the shocker highlight of the Oscars' Obit show, the face of Alexei Navalny.  With the eponymous documentary feature of the previous year an Oscars winner, they earned the right. 

Shocking but not surprising, Navalny's death was a challenge to the world, a pure expression of ruthlessness. Navalny will be taking the cherished position in that square of political martyrs that many cities in Russia now have. There are others that are due to have places in this pantheon. But not just yet, it seems:  Putin may have been faking mortal health symptoms.  He has no doubt told his doctors to keep him alive until he can clinch a victory in 2025, though he's not sure which President he has to defeat to do it.  When that doesn't happen, he will wither up and give out.

 

The One and Only

 Spin Uncertainty Despite Certain Outcome

That's quantum mechanics for you.   Check for photo

The primary season will begin and end tomorrow.  The sudden irrelevance of that democratic--even overly democratic--institution came after a rising distrust of the whole partisan system.  R.I.P.?

It's a power game now, as the Trumpites have a real foothold in the government, despite the Democratic President. The stakes are huge:  China, Russia, and even North Korea and Iran are licking their chops at the end of American global leadership they have reason to anticipate. 

The crisis of immigration is just another case in which America--by which I mean, the Federal government of the US--shows the limits of its power.  It's a result of our lawless global political framework (using the term loosely) and the collapse of populous states.  There will be more of them.  

Within the government's limited realm, though, the executive power of the President has only risen since the days of Johnson, Nixon, and the like.  These Presidents may talk about the unlimited nature of Presidential power, but  not about themselves in that role.  Meanwhile, each has looked to expand powers. Congress' moves to limit Presidents fall short repeatedly.  We would be turning loose a monster. 

It's a shame that this New Hampshire Republican primary will be likely the only meaningful decision point before we effectively go into the general election. 

As least as far as the two major parties and the selection of the Presidential candidates.  A lot of interest will then go onto the possibility of third-party alternatives.  The only one that interests me is the one implied by Chris Christie's "failure" to endorse Nikki Haley*. I see him and Liz Cheney deciding to run and get on ballots, most importantly to get into debates (ones Trump would use that excuse to escape).  I'm not sure who gets "on top", though:  I'm thinking Liz, unless Chris goes for the Ozempic soon.  (I apologize for that one.)

RFKJR polling way better than he has any reason to do indicates the range of opportunity that lies out there. His numbers will surely go down, and I doubt he will end up qualifying for any debates, though a Libertarian endorsement could change that.  In the case of Cheney-Christie, though, a few percentage of Republicans, maybe a significant result in a couple of states, could mean the difference. 

Meanwhile, the Democrats

The Biden campaign has badly handled the question of the initial primary.  Now there will be undue attention to how an unauthorized write-in campaign does against a couple of throwaway candidates (Rep. Dean Phillip and the lovely Marianne Williamson).  And the fact that Independents are being furiously wooed (mostly by Democrats) to come out  to defeat the Party of Dickhead can only reduce Democratic turnout.  

The bottom line is that a candidate never wins by refusing to participate in the election. That is a general rule, for my money one that applies even in countries with elections that are truly fixed. And Trump above all knows that first you compete and then complain about the result being fixed. 

This does have a farcical recapitulation of 1968 feeling to me.  Incumbent LBJ withdrew after New Hampshire write-ins that year led Clean Gene McCarthy's quixotic antiwar campaign to finish behind incumbent President Lyndon Johnson by only a small margin.  The war situation is not the same, but there's simmering discontent in the Democratic tent, too.  Unimaginably, there is risk. 

The last third-party run to earn electoral votes electorally was in 1968, after a chaotic series of events.  The person gaining those states, which came short of throwing the election into the House but could well have done so, was George Wallace of Alabama.  (Ross Perot never won any, with a much higher percentage of votes.)  I could see Trump losing a Republican state like Utah, Montana or North Carolina due to a strong third-party run by an establishment Republican ticket running third-party, whether the electoral votes actually accrue to the Cheney-Christie team (Would they/could they then throw their votes to Biden?  Could be historic!) or, more likely, make possible a sneaky Biden win of a state or two not fully expected. 

Biden has made New Hampshire competitive, I daresay. The good news is that Trump's militant anti-Islamic bigotry is making that theoretical run to take Biden on in Michigan very unlikely for him.

*Nikki, nikki tekel upharsin - you have been measured, Nikki, and found wanting.

But Is It Appropriate?

It Was Balloon!

 I read recently the theory that US foreign affairs are entirely determined by domestic politics.  In which case our direction in an increasingly-critical global environment will certainly be directionless.  

It is clear that in the last decade foreign policy doesn't even rise into consideration of voters.  We did violate the titular command in the trendy 2019 movie "Don't Look Up" recently and saw, once again, that we are not alone on this planet, but that was a passing fancy, lost in the absurdity of our own navels.  But I will address the arraignment later on. 

Instead I want to dwell a bit on the stirrings abroad, and what I perceive we are actually doing in the world.  

America is performing a new role on the world stage, still a featured role but no longer a star turn. It's not all about what we want or do; major events arise and resolve elsewhere, and we can engage or watch from backstage.  You know we will be watching. 

China wanted to be watching, too.  They wanted a little-better resolution on that telemetry they were getting sent back from their satellites.  Can you really blame them for sending that innocent balloon?  Yes, they were sending back data the whole time.  Yes, we were recording the data they were sending back for de-cryption efforts.   Spy vs. Spy, remember that one (Mad Magazine)? 

China's leadership have read their history books with the US policy of "containment" (of the Soviet Union), and they have announced they will not settle for it.  Not unreasonably, they insist on the opportunity to compete in Africa, in South America, and they will make a move on Mexico before long.  We should applaud their efforts in ending the warring between Saudi Arabia and Iran. We must allow their competition, unfair as their terms may seem. 

China longs for the broad but lax regulation of the early WTO, as that was a business environment they could exploit.  Things are different now, after the pandemic sliced through the CCP's omnipotence facade:  once at the beginning, and once in the chaotic release of the lockdowns.  The party is going to yield to jingoism if we block the trade aggressiveness that is coming. 

We must insist on change, though, if we are truly to be more friendly.  Xinjiang's penal colonies, for one.  Tibet, for two. Hong Kong, for three.  And we are not yet talking about the South China Sea, the East China Sea, or Taiwan.  Those are matters for discussion, even if now is not the time.  But we cannot buy any more products from the captive states, and we will provide funds to protect the rights of Hong Kong citizens in some ways that are beyond the eyes of the PRC.  We make the commercial terms right for Taiwan to get all that it needs. We can guide that the long-term goal for Greater China is not annexation, or subjugation, or even assimilation and integration, but federation. 

None of this suggests anything other than wary re-armament occurring in the Far Pacific.  United, the challenge is readily met, but includes broad modernization and acts to increase readiness.  Defensive readiness, which today is most expressed as accurate and deadly response capabilities.  

And so we will. 

There is one constant in American foreign policy, and it is that the commercial interests we have will be defended, just as we will act on behalf of our citizens who are endangered abroad.  It is and always has been America First, in actuality if not in slogan-mongering.  So, what's the big deal? 

Biden's policies are a big (f-ing) one:  1) We will reassure our allies after the chaos of the Trump administration's policies; 2) We will keep the pressure on China, and on North Korea, without inviting conflict; and 3) We will defeat Putin, to spite Trump if nothing else.  We will bleed him dry. 

So, yeah, maybe that one is determined by domestic politics.  And the first one, too. 

Fraud

To be sure, misrepresentation is a big problem in our lives, something that affects the quality of our existence daily, through inconvenience if not worse. Adults are constantly bombarded with falsehood, with cheap tricks to make money off them, and promises that will never be believed, or fulfilled.  We are numbed to these, but younger people are not.  

How can we protect ourselves from entities which seek to take advantage of us?  I suggest we legislate a requirement that content generated purely from automatic engines identify itself as such, even if subtly so (think: those fast-speaking disclaimers on the radio or tv).  Violation of the law would be a misdemeanor with the penalty paid by its sponsor:  "Impersonating a human". When a human reviews, edits, and authenticates themself on their own behalf or their entity, then this disclaimer falls off, and it becomes that person's owned product.  It's a small requirement, though it may seem an impossible impediment. If we could get that, perhaps we could reinstate something like the Truth-in-Advertising standards that once existed.  And then apply them to political campaigns. 

 The arraignment of Donald Trump in New York was a necessary first step, and nothing could be more appropriate than that the first charge against the ex-President was for fraud.  He has perpetrated frauds throughout his career, and finally there was a DA ready to call him on it, criminally.  

I imagine the Old Drumpfster with his finger, or something, in the dyke,* trying to hold back the flood, all by himself.   He can't admit to anything on this old charge, now, though he might cop to the misdemeanor version once he has more serious, more dramatic charges to deal with.

Michele's Mistakes 

A fairly big story here in the state of New Mexico is a spate of vetoes of bills passed by the (Democratic-controlled) legislature by Democratic Governor Michele Lujan Grisham.  These have been executed almost completely without comment from the Governor. 

There are a variety of things she is cutting from their budgets and appropriations.  A lot of it is in the category of tax expenditure.  One that bites particularly sharply is a proposed credit (of $2500) for new electric vehicle purchase.  It looks like a sellout; MLG has been re-elected recently and is term-limited.  Very disappointing:  I was giving her credit for the legalization of marijuana (now called "cannabis"); perhaps that was also merely an economic ploy, one called "getting the Texans' money, so it's not just for Colorado". 

Did I mention that the state government is rolling in money?  Never mind, I'm sure it's a temporary condition. 

*Maybe his putter?