A balanced life instead of gilded pressure cooker

I heard part of this story on the radio and was intrigued. So I found it online. As part of the NPR show Here & Now host Deepa Fernandes (I think, she didn’t say her name) talked to Jennifer Wallace about her book Never Enough, When Achievement Culture Becomes Toxic – and What We Can Do About It. The audio is ten minutes. We can pressure our kids too much. Achievement becomes toxic when a child believes they’re only lovable when they’re achieving. Setbacks aren’t seen as a setback but as proof to the child that they’re worthless. It’s harmful to mental health. Parents think that things like achievement test coaches are a help but each achievement bumps the child into harder challenges and life becomes only about achievement. It can lead to high rates of anxiety and of substance abuse. Kids refer to it as the gilded pressure cooker. Back in the 70s there was more slack in the system. A parent didn’t need to demand perfect performance from their child to be sure the child could do at least as well as themselves. In contrast, modern parents see the middle class eroding with a lot of economic uncertainty. So they try to give their child, starting from a very young age, all the economic advantages they can. That includes everything that might look good on a college application – extra curriculars, sports, volunteer work, and more. The child has no time to be a child. They learn their mental health can be sacrificed on the altar of achievement. Parents of healthy youth recognize they needed teach their children about how to have a balanced life, one without the need to escape through drugs or alcohol. They insist on down time, family time, and outside time. They teach their children they matter outside of their achievements. There is a “mattering movement” that teaches children have value in their core, outside of their achievements. A second component is children are taught to also add value. This protects the children from the anxiety that comes from stress. Some children were never taught that they matter. Others were never taught to add value to people other than themselves. The second part is social proof that they matter. Too many youth associate a good life with going to a top tier college. Parents need to reject that myth. Instead, they need to talk about the components of a good life – good relationships, purposeful work, and a feeling of making a positive impact in their world. Of course, I did a search for “mattering movement” and found it at thematteringmovement.com. It says it is co-founded by Wallace and inspired by her book, mentioned above. The site offers, new in 2024, curriculum for grades 6-12, professional development for teachers, and will soon have a guide for parents. What I saw looks like it is well supported by scientific studies. I went to one of the articles in the curriculum. This one is by Zach Mercurio. It explains what mattering is and why it is important. Then it explains three broad things one can do to help others see that they matter. First, notice them. Make eye contact. Ask how they’re doing. Don’t brush past them on the way to the coffee pot, instead ask if they want a cup. Second, acknowledge their unique strengths and talents. Instead of saying “good job,” describe how their strengths they showed and what the impact those strengths had on the situation. Third, make sure others know they aren’t disposable, that they and their talents are essential to the whole. The radio segment and the movement caught my attention because of how much I’ve been thinking about the social hierarchy and how much effort those higher in the hierarchy put out to maintain their position or to climb higher. A big part of the hierarchy is comparing oneself to others – I’m better than those people. A big part of maintaining their place in the hierarchy is by making the lives of those in lower positions to be worse, also known as oppression. When parents are frantic to make sure their children do as well as they do part of the reason is they don’t want their children to fall lower in the hierarchy. From the audio I got the impression that the anxiety tends to come from families on the upper side of middle class. These tend to be parents more concerned about their position in the hierarchy. So the big question is what does our society need to teach everyone so people don’t need to compare themselves to others, that each person feels they are valued for who they are and what they can do without basing their identity on whether they are better than someone else. People need to learn how to be complete within themselves. This mattering movement sounds like it is a good start. Some fun stuff. A cartoon by Zachary Kanin, posted to New Yorker Humor, shows a king lamenting, “I want to be feared as a tyrant, loved as a father, and revered as a god, but I also want them to think I’m funny.” Tom Gauld of New Scientist posted a cartoon with the caption, “Every Friday, a truck pulls up at the Mathematics Department to collect all the used numbers. They will be cleaned, sorted, and sold on to manufacturers of calendars, rulers, and clocks.” Matt of the Political Cartoon gallery of London posted a cartoon of a couple coming out of a restaurant. The man says, “It was delicious, but the Chinese fortune cookies were alarmingly well informed.” Massimo poses if a person on one side of the world puts a piece of bread on the ground at the same time as someone on the exact opposite side of the world does the same have they made an earth sandwich? What’s the ratio of bread to filling?

Rambling praise for criminals and serial killers

My Sunday movie was The Swimmer (don’t confuse it with The Swimmers). This is an Israeli drama from 2021 about Erez at the tryouts to be the swimming contestant for the Olympics. There are five guys at the camp, only one will go to the Games. We see what they go through to get into condition. For those that enjoy this sort of thing this movie has plenty of eye candy. The lads are quite fit – they are Olympic athletes – and much of the time they wear only a Speedo. Between that and hanging out with Nevo, another competitor, Eraz sees he is aroused by it all and begins to understand he is gay. At the same time Erez feels the pressure building. The coach sees him as a leading contender. His dad is a former swimming colleague of the coach. And the coach (and nearly everyone else) reminds him that swimming is a solo sport and at camp one must focus on the training. At the end there is, of course, a race to determine which one will go to the Olympics. Though some of the race is shown, much more of it is represented by the five guys doing a dance on the bottom of the empty pool to suggest the progress of the race. That was pretty cool. At a couple of movie sites I don’t think the movie is accurately described. On Fandango, where I watched it, the end of the description is, “However, their swimming coach does not believe in friendship between competitors.” But it isn’t their friendship that is the problem, it’s their being late for practice. And IMDb says, “Sees the discriminative tendencies in sports against LGBTQ people, and how a sportsman learns to accept and love himself despite that.” But discrimination against LGBTQ people in swimming or any other sport is never mentioned or shown – unless one counts Eraz dying his hair yellow and the coach telling him to cut it. Which I don’t count. Aldous Pennyfathing of Daily Kos wrote:

Florida Sen. Rick Scott has bitter complaints about the alleged persecution of Donald Trump, and he’s using his own trials and tribulations to illustrate his point. Trump himself loves to claim he’s been treated more unfairly than any politician ever... But instead of proving that Trump is being unfairly targeted, what Scott really demonstrated is how unnervingly easy it still is for rich white men to get away with egregious s--- in America.

Scott presided over one of the worst Medicare frauds in American history, yet was still able to get elected as Florida’s governor, then its junior senator. “In other words, criming is okay if you’re a Republican—especially if you’re a rich, white, male one.” Pennyfarthing has details on Scott’s scandal. Kerry Eleveld of Kos reported that Rep. Scott Perry of PA has been pushing the Great Replacement Theory, which claims that Democrats are letting in all these brown people so they can register to vote and drown out the white vote. Yeah, they can’t be registered that fast. Perry isn’t the only one and the word “invasion” is being used by lots of Republicans to scare people about the southern border. But that has consequences. The El Paso shooter in 2019 said he acted because of the “Hispanic Invasion.” And two years ago the Buffalo shooter mentioned invasion or invaders 39 times in his screed. Only a few Republicans will use the term “replacement theory.” But so many are using “invasion” it becomes a way to track the escalation of this theory. Mark Sumner of Kos reported that the nasty guy, in his election fraud case, can’t attack the judge, jury, or witnesses. He’s already been fined for contempt of court for violating the gag order. Though the nasty guy can’t, his surrogates can and are. One of those surrogates is Gov. Doug Bergum of ND. This may be part of his bid to be the new vice nasty. Don’t “be surprised if ‘who can craft the best social media attack’ becomes the new test for Trump's would-be VPs.” An Associated Press article posted on Kos lists the major events of the case, going all the way back to 2005 when the “Access Hollywood” tape was made. It didn’t become public until 2016, just before the election. The list goes up to the start of the trial. Joan McCarter of Kos reported Speaker Mike Johnson was the latest Republican to show up at the nasty guy’s trial and speak to the cameras outside to declare how terribly unfair the trial is. That news prompted a tweet from Liz Cheney:

Have to admit I’m surprised that @SpeakerJohnson wants to be in the “I cheated on my wife with a porn star” club. I guess he’s not that concerned with teaching morality to our young people after all.

McCarter concluded:

None of this is surprising, as Johnson was an architect of Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. But his standing by Trump and declaring a court of law illegitimate is definitely taking it a step further. Johnson is doing all of this in an attempt to consolidate his support in the fractious House GOP conference—and he’s going to need it. After these antics, he can kiss goodbye to any help from Democrats to save his ass again.

Recently there was news that Biden awarded 19 Presidential Medals of Freedom. Congress can hand out awards too, the Congressional Gold Medal. These are awarded much less often. Sumner reported six Republicans want to award one to the nasty guy as a way to suck up to him. The award would be for “dedication to strengthening America’s diplomatic relations,” apparently as in abandoning allies, enabling Putin, verbally sparring with Canada, and insulting G20 leaders. Don’t worry, the nasty guy isn’t going to get this nugget anytime soon. It’s a rough route to the House floor and when it gets there, it must get a two-thirds vote. In a pundit roundup for Kos, Chitown Kev quoted Hannah Knowles and Marianne Levine of the Washington Post:

Ambitious Republicans are eagerly parachuting onto the sidelines of the first criminal trial of a former president, with a lineup that includes former Trump critics plunging themselves into the proceedings. The pilgrimages demonstrate the imperative in today’s GOP to show loyalty to Trump and his fervent base in the midst of a case that has become a showcase of salacious scandal. ... The visits show how the party has changed in some respects since 2016, when Republicans initially scrambled to distance themselves from Trump’s suggestion on the “Access Hollywood” tape that, as a celebrity, he could kiss and grope women whenever he wanted. Now, they have provided a small army of surrogates arguing that the charges are unfair and unusual, and amplifying his often exaggerated or baseless claims about the case and the legal system.

Notably missing from the court are the nasty guy’s wife and daughter. Down in the comments are a cartoon and a meme. The first is the editorial cartoon for the West Central Tribune. It shows a man talking to a woman wearing a “MAGA” hat and “Freedom” shirt.

Man: We are going to mandate that everyone wear a mask until this pandemic is over. Woman: What?! The government can’t tell me what to do with my body! Man: We’re going to force you to have a baby whether you want to or not. Woman: Okie-dokie!

The meme was posted by user exlrrp. It shows a photo of the nasty guy, his wife, and Stormy Daniels. The text says, “A Bible salesman, his pregnant wife, and the woman he never ever ever ever met, but paid her $130,000 for something they never ever ever ever did...” Eleveld reported the nasty guy’s campaign is trying to say they are focusing on quality over quantity. I’m not sure what that means. Quality of what? Votes? How does one get higher quality votes? What it probably means is quality of field offices. Lots of Republican state strategists are wondering why there are so few of them, especially in battleground states. Perhaps it is because so much of his and RNC campaign dollars are going to legal fees? Sumner wrote about the New York Times coverage of the nasty guy’s speech in Wildwood, New Jersey. Sumner wrote that few news outlets reported what the nasty guy actually said.

That was certainly true of The New York Times, which breezed through 99% of Trump’s speech: “Mr. Trump’s speech largely consisted of what has become his standard fare.” This oversimplification of Trump’s speech failed to mention Trump’s comparing himself to Al Capone, praise for fictional serial killer Hannibal Lecter, or his bizarre series of statements that an unidentified “they” were “emptying out their mental institutions into the United States.” Instead, The New York Times edited down Trump’s speech to create the candidate they want to exist: one who is romping to victory and threatening to win a solid blue state.

The parts left out included: Grade-school insults aimed at perceived enemies. His attacks on the trial judge. His tossing off a series of nonsensical statements. That thousands walked out as his rambling included praise for criminals and serial killers.

As Esquire points out, the Times coverage is a masterclass in how not to cover an event. “The only story to be written about this event is that a huge crowd gathered to see and hear the presumptive presidential candidate have some sort of episode in public,” wrote Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce.. Instead, the Times created such an object lesson in normalization that it “ought to be taught in journalism schools as an example of what never to do.”

I’ve heard that Biden challenged the nasty guy to a couple debates and the challenge was accepted. If the nasty guy is tossing off series of nonsensical statements I think Biden will have no trouble eating his lunch – and drawing a strong contrast between a competent and a senile mind. But I’d be torn between avoiding debates as I usually do and wanting to watch the takedown. Popcorn, anyone? Sumner used Colorado and Tennessee as examples of what a state controlled by Democrats can accomplish compared to one controlled by Republicans. Colorado: Two free years of college, making school funding less dependent on community property wealth, tax credits to reduce child poverty, zoning changes to increase affordable housing, and fees on oil and gas to promote transit, conservation, and renewable energy. Tennessee: A bill to arm teachers, another to fortify campuses, a third to require age appropriate firearms training starting in pre-kindergarten. And a law requiring teachers to out trans students. An article by Piper Hutchinson of the Louisiana Illuminator posted on Kos reported state Rep. Beau Beaullieu (R), on behalf of Gov. Jeff Landry (R), is preparing legislation to call for a constitutional convention. The primary purpose is to take things out of the state constitution and turn them into ordinary laws that are a lot easier for legislators to change. Since many things, especially rights, are put into constitutions to protect them from meddling legislators we know what this is all about. A big reason why this news is getting a lot of exposure is because of a piece that is reportedly to be left in the new constitution. That is the ban on same-sex marriage. That’s even though 62% of residents support same-sex marriage. Half of Republicans nationwide also support it. That piece is currently not operational because of the Supreme Court decision back in 2015 that declared such bans as unconstitutional. But Republicans want to leave it in the state constitution because of all the talk from various Supremes that they’re looking for a case to overturn the 2015 decision. Even if Beaullieu’s bill passes, convention delegates may decide on their own what to leave in and take out. And even if a new constitution is written it must be approved by voters. But this is Louisiana. I’ve written a few times about Project 2025, the 920 page Kos document of how to implement Christian Nationalism when the next Republican becomes president. Dartagnan of the Kos community reported Republican senators are laying groundwork by introducing ...

an Orwellian bill that would establish a federal website, Pregnancy.gov. The website would enable the Department of Health and Human Services to solicit and collect personal identifying information on pregnant women and others, ostensibly for the purpose of providing them with prenatal advice on how to proceed with their pregnancies... Innocently termed the MOMS Act, the explicit purpose of the legislation is to “support, encourage and assist” women in “carry[ing] their pregnancies to term,” by directing them to so-called pregnancy crisis centers whose purpose is to discourage—and often intimidate—women and others from terminating their pregnancies. The proposed law provides for direct, personal contact to be initiated by a cadre of newly installed, theocratic government employees toward pregnant patients who register their contact information with the site in order to pressure them in their reproductive decisions. It also implements a federalized regimen for child support payments that commences at the moment of pregnancy, laying the groundwork for governmental regulation that treats “fetal personhood” as a recognized status under U.S. law. This legislation is being touted by Republicans—stung by recent electoral defeats by voters who abhor their forced-birth policies—as an example of their compassion toward women and others who become pregnant. What it reveals, however, is not compassion, but coercion, harassment, and ultimately, control.

Fixing a problematic opera ending

I finished the book This is Why They Hate Us by Aaron Aceves. I’ll start by saying I didn’t figure out what the title had to do with the story. This novel is narrated by Enrique, also known as Quique. He is of Mexican descent living in Los Angeles. He is bisexual and currently into boys, though he is still mostly in the closet. The story takes place from the end of his junior year in high school, through the summer, and into the start of his senior year. His best friend is Saleem and he’s also deeply smitten with him but is quite afraid to try to upgrade their relationship from best friends to lovers. He’s afraid he’ll lose his friend if Saleem isn’t gay. And since Saleem is Muslim he may be gay yet not feel he can act on it. So Quique decides to look for a boyfriend elsewhere in hopes of forgetting Saleem. There are three classmates in his school he thinks are hot who he might try to discover if they’re gay. Tyler is a white boy, Manny is Latino, and Ziggy is biracial black/white. As the story got going and Quique lays out his plan for the summer it sounded rather juvenile (well, yeah, they are 17). Thankfully, the story is much deeper than that. Quique does a lot of maturing over the summer. He deals with a mental health crisis from a few years before and starts coming out. His three prospects also teach him a few things, though not always in a nice way. Yeah, from the start we know where this is going. The book was published in 2022, though one scene resonates quite well with today. A few years before that summer Saleem is in a world history class. The teacher talked about the founding of Israel. Saleem asks what happened to the people already on that land? He knows because they were his ancestors. Nina Totenberg is NPR’s reporter of the Supreme Court. She is also their opera reporter. And she has a seven minute report on this weekend’s offering at the Washington National Opera at the Kennedy Center. The opera is Turandot by Giacomo Puccini. This opera is famous, as are his operas Tosca, and Madame Butterfly. The famous bit of Turandot is the aria Nessun dorma featured in arena concerts by Pavarotti and the Three Tenors, and also by any tenor able to sink his teeth into it. The whole opera is lush and filled with beautiful tunes. But Turandot has a big problem – it’s ending. And part of it is Puccini died before he got to the ending. Another composer finished it, but Puccini didn’t give much indication of how it should end (I haven’t heard what the librettist had finished and what he hadn’t). The plot is this: Turandot, a princess of China, declared she will not welcome any man unless he answers three riddles. If he gets it wrong he is executed. Amazingly, lots of men make the attempt. Then here comes Calaf, a disguised prince. He gets the riddles right and poses one of his own – find out who he is. That Nessun dorma is him bragging that he’s won. The usual ending, described by Francesca Zambello, the artistic director of the Washington National Opera, is: “He kisses her and she's like, okay, fine, I'll do whatever you want.” Yeah, rather sexist. So, now that the opera is coming off copyright, Zambello commissioned a new ending. Susan Soon He Stanton, who won an Emmy for her work on TV's “Succession” did the libretto, though had to be reminded that singing a text takes about three times as long to speak it. For the music there is Grammy Award-winning composer Christopher Tin. Both are Chinese American – yeah, another problem of the opera is the 1920s European view of China (Madame Butterfly, set in Japan, has the same problem). The new ending also explains more why Turandot hated men. And Calaf brags less and discovers love is worth sacrificing for. He talks to Turandot about not being vengeful, but loving and forgiving. The NPR link also has many photos of the production, including showing that the setting has also been updated to a modern China. I also have a link to an article by Olivia Giovetti in the Kennedy Center program book about the opera and its new ending.

If Roe v. Wade can fall, anything can fall

The little yellow bird that fluttered against my windows yesterday was at it again this morning. This time its target was the side mirror of my neighbor’s car. That little guy was quite persistent in attacking the intruder it saw in its reflection. I looked again later and saw a cloth draped over the mirror. Mark Sumner of Daily Kos reported the nasty guy has been campaigning on all the stuff he says Biden will do when reelected. The claim is that there would be a bloodbath and World War III. The stock market would crash, the economy would sink, crime would be rampant, the US would become a hellscape, and the Constitution would be shredded. There’s just one problem with these predictions. The nasty guy said pretty much the same thing in 2020. Biden has had nearly four years to make it all happen – and hasn’t. Since 2020 the stock market has been setting record highs. The economy has been roaring along, with unemployment under 4% for longer than any time since the 1960s. And despite what the nasty guy says, murders surged 30% in the last two years of his term and have dropped under Biden. Even gun sales have declined. What they nasty guy has been saying wouldn’t be projection, would it? If so, he’s really describing what would happen in America under his own second term. Sumner also reported that Sen. Tim Scott, the one appearing to be the most desperate to be the nasty guy’s running mate, was on Meet the Press on Sunday. Host Kristen Welker repeatedly asked, “Senator, will you commit to accepting the election results of 2024?” Scott wouldn’t answer. It’s discouraging, but it makes sense. The guy he wants as his boss won’t answer it either, essentially saying that if he loses, it’s because the election was rigged. Scott was the second VP wannabee to refuse to answer that question. The first was Doug Bergum, current governor of North Dakota. I didn’t think much about it when Bergum refused to answer. But when Scott also didn’t answer I knew it was an important trend. The nasty guy has repeatedly violated the gag order imposed during his election interference trial. He’s paid $10,000 in fines for ten violations and threatened with jail time if he did it again. Which has some people saying jail time should have been imposed long ago as it would have been for other people. This story prompted Dennis Gorlis to create a cartoon about it. A man and woman are at a bar and the man says, “I thought the gag order was about something everyone was supposed to do when they saw him.” And a cartoon by Pat Byrnes shows a prosecutor talking to the judge, “The gag order isn’t working. Does he expect us to pay him hush money?” I get my news primarily from NPR and Daily Kos online and an actual paper edition of the Detroit Free Press on Sundays, which can take until Thursday or later to finish reading. Well, there’s also Between the Lines for Michigan LGBTQ news that comes out every other week. I’ll venture to other news sources if one of these links to a story or I become aware of a story not covered by my primary sources. I mention all that because Mitch Albom’s column in the May 5 edition of the Free Press (online it is for subscribers only). Albom had two main points to his article: First, the student protests going on at various colleges and universities are a lot more antisemitic than they are portrayed in the media. The protests aren’t so much about sympathy of Palestinians in Gaza who are facing bombs from Israel. The protests are much more about Israel should be destroyed. Protesters have been using highly antisemitic language in their signs and speeches. Albom provides examples. Now I see why so many Jewish students are afraid. Second, why has the media watered down the antisemitic language of the protests so that we might believe the students are pro-Gaza and not anti-Israel? Albom raised the question, but I don’t think he provided much of an answer. So I’ll give it a try. Those media sources tone down the antisemitic message of the students because the media is also antisemitic. Yet, they know they’re not supposed to be. I get very little news about the protests in Daily Kos because they primarily cover the liberal/conservative divide. BtL won’t cover the protests unless there is an LGBTQ angle. But NPR does and has been covering the protests. Yet, I’ve heard very little about the high antisemitic content of the protesters. The same is true of the Free Press. Kaili Joy Gray of Kos reported that Marjorie Taylor Greene demanded a vote on the motion to remove Mike Johnson as Speaker. She filed it several weeks ago to hold over Johnson’s head as a threat. On Tuesday she would not pursue it. On Wednesday she changed her mind. Greene had already told Democrats would help the Speaker hold his job. That only infuriated Greene more. Most of the Freedom Caucus decided trying to find another Speaker right now was not a good idea. Greene went for it anyway. I heard elsewhere that as soon as Greene demanded a vote Steve Scalise (second in the Republican hierarchy) called for a vote to table Greene’s demand. Gray’s report adds that the vote to table happened quickly and was resoundingly approved. I think only 45 voted against (meaning to proceed with the vote to remove) and only 11 of those were Republicans. Greene’s demand lost. Johnson remains Speaker. For now. On Thursday (today) Joan McCarter of Kos reported:

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s attempt to oust House Speaker Mike Johnson Wednesday was a resounding failure, but her stunt did make something strikingly clear: Johnson’s leadership among Republicans is tenuous, and Democrats have all the power when it comes to protecting him. They were quick to remind him of that. Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters after the vote to table the motion that he hasn’t considered whether to back Johnson up again.

A lot of people are saying there will be another attempt to remove Johnson. There are 11 Republicans willing to do it, so if Democrats don’t protect Johnson he would be out. Between now and November a budget needs to be passed and these 11 Republicans want to extract big budget cuts. And they’re still annoyed that Johnson used Democrats to get the budget passed earlier this spring. So Johnson remains Speaker. For now. Dan K of the Kos community discussed an article by Paul Krugman of the New York Times talking about a new law that DeathSantis signed in Florida. The law bans making and selling meat grown in a laboratory. We’ll set aside whether the stuff is good for you, whether it will help the environment, whether it is less cruel to animals, and what it will do to farmers. That leaves... From Krugman:

First, it puts the lie to any claim that the right is the side standing firm for limited government; government doesn’t get much more intrusive than having politicians tell you what you can and can’t eat.

Dan K responds:

Well, actually it does get more intrusive: government telling women they have to risk their health, sanity, even their lives, to carry their rapist’s fetus to term is about as intrusive as it gets. But Krugman is making the same point about food.

Krugman again:

Many never truly believed in freedom — only freedom for some. Beyond that, however, meat consumption, like almost everything else, has been caught up in the culture wars.

The culture war aspect is: Real men eat real meat. Dan K adds:

But, the point is, it’s [Krugman’s] choice (also mine) whether or not to eat beef or some plant-based equivalent. DeSantis and the GOP want to take that choice away from us. (Pro-choice: It’s not just about abortion.)

Kerry Eleveld of Kos wrote about how the Supreme Court was able to overturn abortion rights and the consequences of that.

But voters' initial reluctance to believe in the fragility of a constitutional right to abortion, which had existed for nearly half a century, is a golden opportunity for Democrats to shed light on what Republicans could do if given the power to enact their dystopian vision for the U.S.

Then Eleveld talked about Jeffries appearing on “60 Minutes”:

Jeffries began by framing abortion as a fight for "freedom," using the "erosion of reproductive freedoms" to warn voters about the myriad other staples of U.S. democracy that Republicans could come for next. "If Roe v. Wade can fall, anything can fall. Social Security can fall. Medicare can fall. Voting rights can fall. And God help us all, but democracy itself can fall," Jeffries said.

Eleveld looked at a Siena Poll that showed the nasty guy is seen as a threat to democracy by 41% of voters. Biden is seen as a threat by 28%.

Framing Republican abortion bans as a broader assault on freedom is a no-brainer for Democrats. But using abortion to remind voters that the unthinkable not only can happen, but that it has happened, is crucial to helping voters imagine the unimaginable.

Eleveld also reported:

A recent Marist poll for NPR and PBS NewsHour surveyed Americans' biggest concerns for the country's future, finding that "the rise of fascism and extremism" topped the list, at 31% of U.S. adults. The partisan breakdown, as usual, was illuminating, with a plurality of Democrats and independents choosing the rise of fascism and extremism, at 47% and 32% respectively, as their primary concern. The issue dominated with Democrats—nothing else even broke 20%. But among independents, "a lack of values" came in second at 24% with "becoming weak as a nation" just behind at 23%. Republicans’ top two concerns were "a lack of values," at 36%, and "becoming weak as a nation," at 30%, while the rise of fascism was a distant third at 15%.

In a pundit roundup Greg Dworkin of Kos quoted Mark Jacobs of “Stop The Presses” on Substack. Jacobs wonders where are the page 1 editorials against the nasty guy.

Donald Trump is a fascist who wants to be a dictator. How do we know this? Because he tells us so, over and over. America’s major news organizations are beginning to say it too, belatedly. The nation’s two most influential newspapers, the New York Times and Washington Post, are writing stories about how he plans to weaponize the Justice Department to punish his political enemies, how he plans to put millions of immigrants in camps, and how he may order the military to shut down public protests if he takes office in January 2025. But these news outlets sometimes sugar-coat Trump’s poison. A recent New York Times headline, for example, referred to Trump’s “authoritarian leanings.” Really? Leanings? If he “leaned” any more, he’d be lying down.

Down in the comments of this roundup Anagram Man borrowed from Mary Poppins:

Super Callous Fragile Bigot Sexist He’s Atrocious

One can run the GIF for the anagram, but it isn’t so family friendly. Mike Smith posted a cartoon of the nasty guy:

Joe Biden says I’m a threat to democracy... He’s got it all wrong... Democracy is a threat to me.

In the comments of another roundup is a meme posted by exlrrp. There have been many variations of a woman in a red dress, a man turning to admire her backside, and his girlfriend with an expression of what are you doing?! Each variation labels the three people in a manner suitable for the situation. This one has replaced the woman in the red dress with the nasty guy. The man is labeled “Conservative Christians” and the girlfriend labeled “Jesus.” Matt Wuerker posted a cartoon of and album cover for the band “Felonius Funk and the Grifters” with the nasty guy as singer and pianist. The album says it contains several hits. Here are some of them:

Born to Scam Hush Lil’ Porn Star Like a Trolling Stone

We are all going to hell with you

I had a minor annoyance today. Two birds, one at a time, attacked my windows, fluttering against and pecking at the glass. I’m sure they saw their reflections and were fighting the bird they thought was invading their territory. I could wave something inside near the glass and they would fly away. But soon they would be at it again. Both birds were about the size of my fist. One was yellow and white, the other yellow and black. Midday they were at the south-facing windows. In the afternoon they shifted to the west windows. I suppose I could have just let them do their thing since they weren’t damaging the glass, but they were rather noisy about it. My Sunday viewing was two films, each less than an hour. The first was Hans Zimmer, Hollywood Rebel. He has written the music for 150 films and won Oscars for The Lion King (yeah, Elton John wrote the songs, Zimmer wrote all the rest) and just recently for Dune. He was born in Frankfurt, Germany in 1957 and moved to England as a teen. He rebelled against strict discipline in school and the discipline to learn to play the piano lasted about two weeks. So his music is self taught. He started a recording studio with Stanley Myers in the 1980s. In that time he explored how to use synthesizers and computers, both fairly young, to create music. He branched out on his own in 1987 and was on his way to Hollywood with Rain Man in 1988. With that his rebel sensibility was back. Rain Man is a road movie and he didn’t follow the usual instruments used in road movies. In writing the music for the opening scene for Lion King he forgot he was told to limit it to 20 seconds. He was surprised when the director said they didn’t want him to change the music, they would reanimate the opening to fit what he wrote. After several big films, such as Interstellar, he could have lived off big films for the rest of his career. But he wanted variety and practically volunteered to score 12 Years a Slave to do something different. He doesn’t read the script for the movie. Instead, he has a long conversation with the director, which some say is almost like psychoanalysis. He also brings his assistants to meetings so they get exposure and learn how to navigate such meetings. Younger composers talk about how he influenced them. Lately, he has been filling arenas with live performances of his film music and is greeted like a rock star. Retire? Not anytime soon. The second movie was Elephant Whisperers, which won an Oscar for best short documentary. It’s a simple story. Bellie and Bomman, a couple who are grandparents, work at an elephant rehab camp in southern India. During the film baby elephants Raghu and Annu are rescued. Raghu was badly injured and they nursed him back to health, then cared for him for a few years. They said he was like their child. They loved him and saw he loved them back. Care included feeding, bathing, and sometimes decorating him for religious festivals. They are pleased that younger generations are willing and learning to become elephant caretakers. I was delighted when the service this past Sunday at my United Methodist Church started with the good news out of the just concluded General Conference. Our congregation’s song leader talked about the elimination of language harmful to LGBTQ people and explained what a big deal that is. She also talked about the globally centered revised Social Principles, which passed, and the regionalization proposal that lessens the colonization aspects of denomination structure. That bit passed GC and now has to be ratified by subregions (like Michigan). Then the praise choir sang “Draw the Circle Wide.” The big part of the harmful language was the phrase that homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching.” After 52 years of it being part of the denomination rulebook and 40 years of effort to repeal it that is now gone! A lot of other rules were built on that phrase, rules such as an LGBTQ person could not be ordained, pastors could not officiate at same-sex weddings, those weddings could not be held in denomination churches, and money can’t be given to organizations “promoting the acceptance of homosexuality” (like funding programs to reduce LGBTQ suicide rates). All of those are now gone! I talked briefly with a delegate yesterday. She said she was amazed how quickly these proposals passed and that they passed with such high margins. She expected a struggle and there just wasn’t. The congregation song leader later said the denomination still has work to do. One is the healing of those who were hurt in the 40 year struggle. I am one of those. I went to the 2012 GC to urge the vote for removing the incompatibility clause and felt burned by the experience. Another place needing work is the difference between passing legislation and actually getting local congregations to fully accept LGBTQ people. Another proposal that caught my attention was an “Apology for the Illegal Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom” in the 1890s. It passed. Yes, the Hawaiian Islands had their own monarchy and it was doing quite well for the people. But the United States conquered the islands and eventually allowed it to become a state. If one is curious the Love Your Neighbor Coalition is putting together a legislative summary. On the page already are the three main areas of regionalization, revised social principles, and removal of harmful language. LYNC is the LGBTQ caucus joined with various ethnic caucuses and other groups working towards an inclusive church. Over the last couple weeks the United Methodist Church made a big step towards being an inclusive church. I feel a lot better about being a member. The latest edition of Between the Lines and its online presence at Pridesource included an interview of David Archuleta by Chris Azzopardi. Yes, Archuleta won American Idol back in 2008. Last month he was back on the American Idol stage as a guest and he sang a song he would not have dared to sing when he was a contestant. In the intervening years Archuleta felt stifled by the Mormon Church and left it. He also came out as gay. And the Mormon Church has a very different stance on being gay than the United Methodist Church just passed. Some time after coming out to his mother she texted, “If you’re going to hell, we are all going to hell with you.” She also left the Mormon church. That prompted him to write the song, “Hell Together.” It’s what he sang on the family friendly American Idol stage. He hopes it inspires other parents to to be wholehearted allies to their queer children. The official video of the song is at the bottom of the Pridesource article and is dedicated to his mother. Here’s a bit of what Archuleta said in the interview that matches something I strongly believe:

I feel like, as human beings, we need community. And that's what was so beautiful about religion: it's community and you're there for each other. And so when you leave religion, people think, "Oh, you've lost the meaning of life." It's like, "No, I just have to find community elsewhere," and I have meaning for life again. So I think that's something else, to be encouraging to people who haven't left religion and haven't come out, because they're afraid of losing their community, and feeling like they'll lose their purpose to live. It's like, you know what? There is a community elsewhere and it's beautiful, and it'll give you a whole new sense of meaning to live, and it's wonderful.

Another important article from Pridesource is about the people awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Biden just handed out 19 of them. And one new recipient is Judy Shepard. She’s the mother of Matthew Shepard, who was killed in 1998 in a hate crime that was in the news quite a bit when it happened. Judy and her husband Dennis created the Matthew Shepard Foundation to raise awareness about violent hate crimes committed against LGBTQ people. Judy “was instrumental in working with then-President Barack Obama for passage of the landmark Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in 2009.” TrueWordsRSpoken posted a cartoon that explains Free Speech in a way that my friend and debate partner would approve. The first couple panels:

The right to free speech means the government can’t arrest you for what you say. It doesn’t mean that anyone else has to listen to your bull----, or host you while you share it.

I’ll end today with a cartoon for music nerds posted by Ron Carter. It shows a car in a repair shop and scratched on the doors is a bit of a musical staff, complete with a clef and a couple sharps. The technician tells the owner:

Your car has been keyed. The good news is that the damage appears to B minor.

Just have a billionaire buy you a luxury RV

In a report from almost two weeks ago A Martínez and Jennifer Ludden of NPR take a look at a case before the Supreme Court about whether people can be punished for sleeping outside. The cases come from Oregon and Idaho. The 9th Circuit Court ruled that fining someone for sleeping outside when there is no shelter space is cruel and unusual punishment. The cities say they need to be able to clear homeless encampments because they are a threat to health and safety. Lawsuits over the issue mean judges are micromanaging the issue. Cities want the litigation to end because that’s paralysis when they need action. They also want clarity. What is adequate shelter? What if someone refuses shelter? Homeless advocates say the cities are targeting the people simply because they are homeless, which courts say is not allowed. What the cities really want to do is drive the homeless out of town. Punishing a person for something they have no control over is not going to change their situation. Criminalization means getting stable housing is harder. Putting the people in jail diverts money from better solutions. There are a quarter million unhoused and whatever the ruling not much will change until more housing is built. That will take years. Barry Deutsch posted a cartoon on Daily Kos of a cop rousing a homeless man sleeping in a doorway. The man pretends to call his butler for suggestions on which mansion he should sleep in tonight. The cop thinks, “Next step: outlaw sarcasm.” Pedro Molina posted a cartoon on Kos showing a homeless man beside a bench that explains why he might be sleeping on it: “Lack of affordable housing, lack of access to effective addiction treatments, lack of access to mental health care, lack of empathy.” One way to reduce homelessness is giving basic income payments. More cities are showing this can be quite effective in alleviating poverty and giving people enough financial space to get into better jobs. Kevin Hardy, in an article for the Arizona Mirror posted on Kos, reported that Republicans in various state legislatures are passing laws banning basic income programs. Ken Paxton, AG of Texas, sued Harris County (Houston) to block a pilot program. Republicans complain a person must work before getting free money (most do work and for poverty wages) or claim the government giving money away is unconstitutional (though they don’t complain when their corporations get bailouts). One claimed it gets people “addicted” to a government check. A big reason for these bills is blue states are seeing basic income programs work and they’re starting to spread them, perhaps statewide. The article reviews some of the basic income pilot programs that have been done around the country. They show how helpful the programs can be in changing lives. Recent polling shows there is broad support for programs that supplement safety net programs. Ludden of NPR also reported on this Republican effort. She adds this to the story:

All of this is part of a coordinated push, says Harish Patel, a vice president with the Economic Security Project, which advocates for guaranteed income. He says the backlash is spearheaded by the lobbying arm of a conservative think tank, the Foundation for Government Accountability. "They helicopter in, hire lobbyists in a bunch of states, and then they provide these copycat bills to undo this very popular program," Patel says.

The FGA also promotes work requirements for federal anti-poverty programs and also opposes Medicaid expansion. They’ve contributed to the nasty guy’s campaign and have contributed to Project 2025. In the comments of a pundit roundup for Kos is one by Drew Sheneman. It shows Clarence Thomas talking to a homeless man: “Just have a billionaire buy you a luxury RV.” And a cartoon by Ted Littleford: “If the election was rigged... Why didn’t those Democrats rig it so that every Republican lost?” Jessica Huseman, in an article for Votebeat posted on Kos, reported on the talk by the nasty guy, Speaker Johnson, and other Republicans about advocating for a bill banning noncitizens from voting. The response to it is simple: First, it’s already illegal for noncitizens to vote and has been since 1926 in all states. Second, it’s not a problem. Third, it’s unoriginal, going back 200 years.

Fear-mongering over noncitizen voting is among the oldest tactics in American electoral politics. The Republican Party is not trying to assemble a squad of noncitizen-voting hardliners; it is fomenting this fear to anger its base into turning out. Parties have done it dozens of times in our history, even before noncitizen voting was illegal in this country.

The article provides several examples of that history and concludes:

It is not logical that an immigrant who’s ineligible to vote would risk jail or deportation to cast a single ballot in an election. The cost-benefit analysis for such a vulnerable person doesn’t make any sense. The reason bans on noncitizen voting have never caught on as federal legislation is that there is simply nothing to legislate.

The movie Civil War has been doing quite well at the box office the last few weeks. Charles Jay of the Kos community used that as an opportunity to remind us:

But viewers, liberals and conservatives alike, should be aware that Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s propagandists are hoping that a second American Civil War actually happens.

Then Jay reviewed what several Russian propagandists have been saying for years.

One is racist unless one consciously does the hard work to not be

I finished the book White Fragility, Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism by Robin DiAngelo. The author is a white woman who does training in race relations, so the book is an extension of her work. This is some of what is discussed in the book. American society (well, European colonial societies and all the culture they export to the world) is steeped in white supremacy. The idea that whites are supposed to be placed above every other people comes through clearly in thousands of messages a day. Yes, some are quite subtle. The idea is so suffused through our culture that everyone learns it. We learn it so thoroughly that we think all those messages are normal, the way things are supposed to be. Along with that is the idea that racism not to be talked about. And if anyone tries to talk about it there are plenty of ways to shut down the conversation. We learn those too. Only white people can be racist because only white people have the laws and culture to enforce it. White people have political, economic, legal, and social rights a privileges denied to people who are not white. An example is education. Were you raised in a segregated school? Nearly all Americans are. How many of your teachers were a different race than you? What grade were you in when your teacher was of a different race? What do you think of when hear the term a “bad” school? If you went to an integrated school who was bused in and out and who lived locally? From my own life, all the way through elementary, middle school, high school, college, and graduate school none of my teachers were non white. That is a message right there, though I didn’t recognize it at the time. Claiming that you see the person and not the color of the skin is a way to claim you aren’t racist. Does the non white person hearing that greet it with joy? The claim means you aren’t dealing with all the racist assumptions you’ve been taught all your life. White people are very good at calling racism by many other names. A neighborhood isn’t “black,” it is “bad” or “urban.” Our workplace is all white because black people don’t apply, not because the hiring process is racist. The concept of white privilege has a lot more dimensions than I had thought. For example, a white person can go almost anywhere and feel they belong there. Most novels, movies, and TV shows are about white people. White people can go into stores and they will find products for them. Other white people will support their supremacy. When reading history white people will read mostly about white people. White people don’t have to deal with race and racism. When white people are arrested for crimes it is seen to be a problem of the individual and not of their race. White people believe that they can’t be racist because racists are “bad” people (insert a heap of stereotypes) and they’re “good” people. They can do this because of the belief that racism is made up of conscious and isolated acts, and not systemic of the society and culture. But it is a false dichotomy. In a culture so steeped in racism and where everyone has a white frame of reference, one is racist unless one consciously goes through the hard work to not be. There are also plenty of ways people claim they can’t be racist. Some examples: I was taught to not be racist. I grew up poor, so I can’t be racist. Focusing on race divides us. I lived in a diverse neighborhood. I lived in Japan, so I know what it’s like to be a minority. Instead of focusing on whether those statements are true, focus on what they do to the conversation. They almost always stop the discussion, which protects racism. Back to that statement, “Focusing on race divides us.” It usually appears when someone actually names white supremacy. It isn’t the racism, it’s the naming of racism. That is seen as the problem because it breaks the pretense white people hold that there is no racism. The author discussed the movie The Blind Side in which a young black man was rescued by a white family and went on to become a player in the NFL. It was hugely popular and Sandra Bullock won an Oscar for her role. White people loved it. However, the author lists all the racist black stereotypes in the film with the biggest being that a black man needs a white savior. On to “white fragility.” Since being white is seen as normal, yet is so full of privilege, white people expect to feel comfortable everywhere in their world. When they are challenged in their racism they become uncomfortable and that’s supposed to be not allowed. When they are uncomfortable they strike back at what caused that feeling. That conveniently turns the conversation from the racism the non white person is experiencing to the distress the white person is feeling. And white superiority is maintained. In the author’s work of diversity and racism training she has seen that many times. As long as she’s talking generalities white people are fine. As soon as she says something like: that little thing you did or said is actually racist, white people claim they’ve been attacked. The one receiving the correction and all the other white people there usually leave, not to continue with the training. So what can one do? Simply be open to correction and feedback from a non white person. Then act on it. That is difficult for a couple reasons. First, the white person has to overcome a lifetime of messages that claim they’re superior. Second, non white people are so used to the attacks that come from white fragility they won’t offer that feedback unless they know they can trust the white person to receive it. The author wrote racism is so pervasive she expects she’ll need that feedback the rest of her life. I highly recommend this book. It does an excellent job of explaining white superiority and racism. So get it and read it – and act on it.

Goals that the right cannot achieve through the ballot box

Joan McCarter of Daily Kos wrote:

The U.S. Supreme Court heard Donald Trump’s immunity claim in his federal criminal trial for trying to overturn the 2020 election Thursday, and the conservative majority is likely going to give Donald Trump what he wants: a delay of the trial until after the election. If Trump wins again, the conservatives have essentially signaled that they would be open to blanket immunity for him against any future criminal charges. The fact that Supreme Court justices are suggesting that the president is above the law proves why the court must be reformed. Four of the justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch—even went so far as to suggest that special counsel Jack Smith’s entire prosecution is unconstitutional, and they reinforced Trump’s argument that the president is immune.

Reform of the Supremes should be a top priority of the next Congress. In a pundit roundup for Kos Chitown Kev quoted Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times who looked into a disturbing question asked by Alito in the oral arguments of the presidential immunity case:

“Now,” Alito continued, “if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?” The implication of Alito’s question is that presidential immunity for all official acts may be a necessary concession to the possibility of a politically motivated investigation and prosecution: Presidents need to be above the law to raise the odds that they follow the law and leave office without incident. If this sounds backward, that’s because it is.

Dartagnan of the Kos community wrote that conservative judges are issuing rulings to take away rights, not expand them. The opinions are lengthy and complex, which nearly all citizens will never read or understand if they did. But they have real consequences.

This transformation is deliberate. It’s the desired byproduct of a concerted, far-reaching strategy by the political right to achieve unfair and unpopular goals, spanning social, cultural, and economic sectors—goals that the right cannot achieve through the ballot box. Operating through the institutional mechanism of lifetime appointments which cannot be reversed, this political bastardization of the judiciary—most particularly at the federal level—by a virulent and reactionary “movement conservatism” is approaching its apotheosis. It now openly ignores its own precedents in favor of exalting paeans to “originalism”—and most recently, “history” and “tradition.” These amount to opportunistic exercises in cherry-picking, designed to achieve the results conservatives want, rather than what the law and modern society plainly demand. ... It’s a strategy mostly created to serve the country’s ultra-rich, who have carefully planned for decades to achieve their goals of cementing into law a continuous spigot of multi-generational wealth... But none of this is occurring for the good of the American public. Rather, it’s intended to serve the needs and desires of a tiny minority at the expense of the rest of the country.

For an example of how bizarre some of these opinions can get to pull out the desired outcome Emily Bazelon of the NYT says to look at Alito’s decision to end abortion rights in the Dobbs case. Lower courts are taking their cue from the Supremes to pursue the conservative agenda. They’re also using “history and tradition” to justify their desired outcomes. Another component in these opinions is to pretend they aren’t really endorsing the conservative view, that’s just where the evidence takes them.

As [Reva] Siegel [of the Texas Law Review] emphasizes in a forthcoming analysis of this trend, these types of judicial “memory games” are really efforts to hide the fact of their agenda from Americans who lack the expertise to call them out. She notes that the only instances where these historical exercises are used appear to be instances where the court is intent on changing the law from what it actually is to what conservatives want it to be.

Who you elect for the Senate and for president in November matters a great deal. Tom Dreisbach and Carrie Johnson reported on an investigation by NPR into federal judges. The Supremes aren’t the only ones that don’t report luxury trips. Dozens of federal judges don’t either. These trips aren’t just pleasure. They are built around conferences for the judges. And, yeah, they’re at luxurious resorts (such as outside Yellowstone), a few thousand in expenses are paid for, and the speakers at the conferences might include corporate CEOs, which would create a conflict of interest. That these judges are offered and take these trips is bad, though apparently not illegal. Neglecting to report these trips is both bad and illegal. The full article spells it all out in much more detail, including listing some of the judges. The problem isn’t just the judges. Walter Einenkel of Kos discussed a segment from Rachel Maddow’s show. Said Maddow:

There are at least 53 Republican officials and lawyers and activists who are facing felony criminal counts other than Donald Trump himself.

Many are election deniers and some are in court for fake elector schemes. What prompted this segment is a couple of those indicted Republican officials in Arizona were elected to represent the state in the Republican National Committee. They want the criminals in control. There is good news out of Arizona. An Associated Press article posted on Kos reports the state Senate has approved a bill to overturn the state’s 1864 abortion ban. Two Republicans voted with the Democrats. It has already passed the House and will go to Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, who is expected to sign it. The state’s Supreme Court ruled the 1864 law can be enforced. But it will be a while before the ruling goes into effect. This bill doesn’t go into effect right away either. So the question is which one goes into effect first? And will there be a period in which abortions in Arizona are banned? When the 1864 law is overturned a 2022 law comes into effect that bans abortion after 15 weeks. And then it is on to dueling proposals on the November ballot. Mark Sumner of Kos discussed the state of the National Rifle Association. Back in January its chief executive Wayne LaPierre resigned as he faced a trial for using NRA funds to treat himself. At the trial he was ordered to pay back close to $4.4 million. The leadership has descended into infighting. Their bank accounts are low – they donated $50 million for the 2016 election and only $11 million this year. Membership is down a million, to about 5 million. And gun sales have declined – down 5% in March 2024 compared to March 2023. Yeah, Republicans like to pose for Christmas cards with every member of the family holding a gun. But only 6% of Americans hunt. And while an assault rifle is good for war, it is bad at defense. It’s also expensive. There are other gun lobby groups who would love to be more influential. But they haven’t spent decades connecting politicians and deep-pocket donors. Perhaps we’ve passed Peak Gun? Which means now is the time to push for more gun control legislation. Bill in Portland, Maine, in a Cheers and Jeers column for Kos, listed a few things he has come to know:

Trump locked up the nomination so quickly because the party of personal responsibility and family values prefers the candidate who has committed more crimes, sexually assaulted more women, swindled more vulnerable people, plotted more insurrections, stiffed more clients, and broken more commandments. The red-hatted cult's attempt to smear gay people as "groomers" can't help but backfire. Everybody already knows they're groomers. They've dominated the hair care industry since forever.

A mass release of joy

My Sunday movie was Dumb Money. It is based on the true story of the Game Stop stock price runup back in 2020 and into 2021. The term “dumb money” refers to money from regular people, not those guided by investment advisors or investments made by investment companies – people supposedly investing without their emotions. The story is primarily about Keith Gill who uses the online name Roaring Kitty. His job has been shut down because of the pandemic, so he switches to stock analysis and trading from home, where he puts a video of his analysis on the web. He chooses to invest in Game Stop because he feels it is undervalued. A part of his reasoning is that some big investors have shorted the stock, which is a bet that the company is worth a lot less than the stock price indicates and the price will drop. That video arouses the feelings of other ordinary people and we follow a few of them through the movie. Some lost their jobs in the pandemic and are hoping for a source of income. Some have experience with corporate raiders, people who buy out a company, suck out its value, and file for bankruptcy on the remains, which leaves employees dry. The Game Stop price heads up. We also see the big guys, the ones who shorted the stock, whose net worth is in the billions. They ignore the situation for a while, but the higher the price climbs the worse their position. And they get worried. The situation shifts to become the little guys against the big guys. Can they push the stock high enough to cause financial damage to the rich? The little guys find the rich have other rich people to bail them out. With a high stock price the little guys face a dilemma of whether and when to cash out. Hold on too long and the price might fall, leaving them with nothing. And many of them had little cash to invest and negative net worth from student loans and credit cards. That causes family tensions. At the end of the movie we’re told that Wall Street doesn’t ignore dumb money like it used to. This is a good story and good movie. It explains the situation as well as a lay person might want. It reminded me of the movie The Big Short, which dramatized and explained the mortgage collapse of 2008. While in my bed not sleeping I was thinking about the protests at many universities around the country where students are demanding their schools divest from corporations that directly or indirectly support arms sales to Israel. Students want to stop what has the appearance of Israel, with the assistance of the US, committing genocide on the residents of Gaza. What I thought about was how I think the situation should be handled. They are at an institution of education, so educate! The administration should challenge the students to carefully justify their position – essentially write a term paper or thesis on why they are making their demands. This should be complete with sources and footnotes. Interested professors can assist and can make sure there are no attacks on people without sound justification (as in no derogatory comments about Jews). From the paper the students also create a presentation appropriate for an educational symposium. The school’s financial managers, the ones who do the investing, do the same. They explain what companies they invest in and why they believe those investments are important to the college. And then both make their presentation at the symposium, each responding to challenges from the other side and from the audience (presumably all the other students, the faculty, the administration, and the board). I’m not sure what to suggest should happen at the end of the symposium. A vote? Who votes? Do they discuss until there is consensus? That may not happen if one side or the other is obstinate. Does the school’s board decide? The school should also lay out guidelines. Students are welcome to their encampment or other means of protest as long as they want. But they must not damage school property nor interrupt school functions. They must not threaten other students. I feel this will at least accomplish an important goal of the students – they want to be heard. Right now they can easily conclude the administration does not want to hear them. When I got up this morning and turned on NPR I heard: At Columbia University on Monday night students had left their encampment and had occupied Hamilton Hall. And Tuesday night the New York police staged a massive show of force to retake the hall and arrest the occupying students. Students were frightened by the show of force. The administration justified the raid by saying the protesters frightened other students, especially Jewish students. I wonder how much both the students and administration were equating the actions of the Israeli government with the Jewish religion. Portland State University closed its campus after protesters took over a library. At UCLA police arrived on campus wearing riot gear in response to overnight clashes between rival protest groups. Last Friday Dartagnan of Daily Kos listed several Republican members of Congress who have been calling for the National Guard or the military to clear the protesters. These statements seem to take their cues from the nasty guy, who has previously called for violent responses to protesters he doesn’t like. Dartagnan lists several times that call was made. Also, Russell Vought is a primary author of Project 2025, the plan to enable the next Republican president to be a dictator. His far right conservative think tank Center for Renewing America has submitted plans for invoking the Insurrection Act on the first day to “quash protests.”

As Adam Serwer, writing for the Atlantic, observes, these reflexive calls by Republicans for a military response to protests seem to be less rooted in genuine concern that the protests pose a serious danger to the public or Jewish people than “because these powerful figures find the protesters and their demands offensive.” Serwer points out that school administrators have, when necessary, called in local police to address potential violence, harassment, and property damage, and thus far, the protests do not evince the kind of “mass violence and unrest” that would normally suggest the need for federal involvement. He also notes that such a deployment of federal troops would likely escalate the protests. ... In other words, thus far we have seen a markedly asymmetrical, political response by Republicans to campus protests this week. But we are also witnessing something else: an explicit acceptance of a militarized solution to protests where Republicans find it politically advantageous.

One thing I learned a dozen years ago is that a show of force – violence – is an enforcement of superiority, an upholding of the social hierarchy. The administration, in calling the police, is declaring they are superior to the students. That’s especially true if the administration is acting this way because of their rich donors or well connected politicians. Jen Sorensen of Kos Comics asks: Where’s the crisis? Famine in Gaza is a crisis. A peaceful encampment in response to Gaza is not a crisis. College administrators corrupted by right-wing donors and activists is an actual crisis. News orgs demonizing protesters is a never-ending crisis. I’ve written about Sarah Kendzior’s articles for Gaslit Nation. She also has a newsletter, which is more about some of the things she thinks about and connects to while going about her life. An example is visiting Death Valley with her children as part of an effort to visit every national park and encountering a lake made possible by climate change. Her latest story is a reflection on seeing a sniper on the roof of the student union where she got her master’s degree and seeing police beat students at the school where she got her PhD.

At each school, I studied authoritarian regimes and how they brainwash people into believing that state brutality is not only expected, but deserved.

She got her master’s at Indiana University. Her thesis was on the Uzbekistan government and their invention of a terrorist group to justify killing seven hundred protesters in 2005.

I spent my time at IU studying liars. Most of the liars worked for the authoritarian government of Uzbekistan, but some worked for American think tanks. ... It is young people who are leading the protests against Israeli war crimes and US complicity. Their demands are straightforward. The US government is funding Israel’s slaughter of Palestinian civilians. Student protesters want them to stop. They want their schools to reveal their finances and divest from companies producing weapons and providing aid for Israel’s war crimes and apartheid policies. These are reasonable requests. They are prompted by the horror and sympathy created when one watches videos of Palestinian children being murdered for seven months while IDF soldiers brag about killing them.

She earned her PhD at Washington University, St. Louis. Her dissertation was on dictatorships and dissent in the digital age (well, the digital age of 13 years ago). She has a deep understanding of the authoritarian regimes, here and around the world, that she talks about. Back in 2016 I followed the United Methodist General Conference through Twitter. I did the same during the short GC in 2019. But Twitter and its replacement X are not available to me this year. So I’ve had to rely on short updates emailed to me from progressive coalition partners and from stories in the media. Fortunately, the big stories show up in the media, such as this one by Jason DeRose of NPR. And it is wonderful news! The Conference has voted 692-51 to repeal the ban on LGBTQ people becoming clergy and to repeal the ban on clergy officiating at same-sex weddings. That’s 93% approval! Yay! The changes were so popular they included them in a bulk package with 22 other petitions and didn’t bother with a floor debate. And delegates broke into songs of joy when the tally was announced. This is quite different from the 2019 GC in which those restrictions were upheld by a majority. The difference between then and now is simple: The reaction to the traditional position in 2019 was many congregations – and bishops – refusing to enforce the bans. And that prompted many conservative congregations to leave the denomination. I went to the United Methodist News site for this story. In addition to lifting the bans mentioned above GC has also eliminated the ban on using funds to “promote acceptance of homosexuality.” in 2016 that ban meant not supporting suicide prevention efforts for LGBTQ youth. As for removing those bans:

Many hugged and more than a few cried, in a mass release of joy for those who had pushed, some for decades, to make The United Methodist Church fully inclusive.

Though I’m not at GC this year I have been a part of the group pushing for this change since at least 2007. I am delighted!