If Democrats don't deliver again, Woke 2.0 becomes MAGA 2.0

Kelli Anne Busey of TransAction in an article posted on Daily Kos reported Democrat Allison Montgomery made history in Alabama by being the first transgender legislator in the state. Yes, in red Alabama where Tommy Tuberville was just elected governor. Bill in Portland, Maine, in his Cheers and Jeers column for Kos listed the 13 women who were elected as governors. Some take over from other women, some from men, some elected to another term. The list includes Amy Klobuchar who follows Tim Walz in Minnesota. And commentary about the election, starting with what to do next. A major part of the discussion of what comes next is about what Democrats should and can do, knowing important bills will get vetoed. Some suggestions from Paul Krugman, as discussed by xaxnar of the Kos community: Investigate the full extent of the nasty guy family corruption. Pass popular bills that will improve the lives of Americans. If vetoed, call for a vote to override the veto to record Republican loyalty. Do not make a deal with the nasty guy or reach across the aisle to Republicans. Do not return to status quo governing. In a second post xaxnar speculated whether Supreme Court justices Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas will retire while the nasty guy can get their replacement through in the lame duck session. First, replacements probably can’t get through by the end of the year. Second, Alito and Thomas are not going to give up power until they have to. The bigger issue is Supreme Court reform, including adding members, curbing the shadow docket, and perhaps adding term limits. Walter Einenkel of Kos reported new Michigan senator Abdul El-Sayed laid out his priorities on Morning Joe. Basically: Affordability, including a job that pays a living wage. A war powers resolution and returning to diplomacy. Ending the tariff regime and tussle with Canada. Stopping the collapse of healthcare because of the Medicaid cuts. And pass a “Crap Lettuce Elimination Act, to restore the parts of the FDA and CDC that protected food safety. Kos of Kos quoted conservative pundit Erick Erickson who listed reasons why voters turned against Republicans. Erickson came up with a decent list (according to Kos), including corruption, incompetence, tariffs, cruelty, aggressive deportations, arrogance, and the ballroom. Even with a long list, Kos thinks Erickson left out a few things: gutting healthcare, expensive spectacles for his birthday, trying to get his name on the Kennedy Center, and desperate attempts to manufacture culture-war distractions.

Now it’s time for Democrats to govern as a serious, sensible, measured, and pragmatic party—laser-focused on affordability and clean government. Less performative outrage. Less culture-war bullshit. More improving people’s lives. Because if Democrats fail to deliver again, Woke 2.0 will eventually give way to MAGA 2.0. And we already know what that hell looks like.

Another post by xaxnar, from before the election, discusses a Reuters article by Nandita Bose and Tim Reid about plans by the nasty guy administration to govern [rule] without input from Democrats and Congress. The power Democrats have is small compared to the nasty guy as the head of the executive branch and of the military. The summary of the article (xaxnar doesn’t clearly say if he wrote it or quoted it)

Officials identifying executive actions on immigration, tariffs, housing and spending, sources say. Trump says he would become “Mr. Veto”. Plans under consideration include tariffs on critical minerals and wind turbines. White House lawyers brief appointees on handling subpoenas and document requests, one source says.

Emily Singer of Kos has heard anonymous Republicans say that the election losses show the nasty guy’s power is waning. The party can now start to break from him. Singer can only laugh. Those comments were anonymous.

If Republicans are afraid to put their names to even the idea that they may have leeway to ignore Trump and stand up against his whims, on what planet should that give any of us any confidence that they will break with Trump when it actually matters? ... Ultimately, after a decade of wondering when Republicans would finally break with Trump, I’ve stopped waiting for that day to come. I refuse to be tricked by Lucy and the football any more.

Oliver Willis of Kos as part of his series of explaining the right asks why Republicans never learn from their election losses. It isn’t just a nasty guy thing, this has been going on for a long time.

The root cause of this unresponsiveness is an idea at the core of the modern conservative movement, which first came to the fore when conservative upstart Sen. Barry Goldwater secured the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1964. It is the idea that conservatism is always perfect. It cannot fail. The way the GOP sees it, if a conservative candidate loses an election, that is on the voters for not fully understanding the wonders of conservative ideology, not because those ideas are bad for the country and the world.

In the comments of today’s pundit roundup for Kos is a meme posted by exlrrp showing the nasty guy and the words, “[He] got beat so bad he didn’t even try calling it rigged.” Greg Dworkin posted a tweet by Degan Sports that appears to be from the TV show Breaking Points in which the host uses a half-minute to summarize why Republicans lost. This is an attempt at a transcript:

If you run a child sex trafficking ring, cover it up by waging a war after promising not to, and that war drives up the price of oil and breaks the global economy, and you spend the time getting rich and pushing money towards AI and data centers, you won’t do well in the elections.

A meme by the Fiber Friend and posted by exlrrp is about the Democrat who won the US Senate seat in South Carolina. I included a correction supplied by exlrrp. The text:

Dr. Annie Andrews is getting ready to sit in a seat that has been held by only two elected individuals in the last [72] years. 1. Lindsey Graham 2. Strom Thurmond. Thank you.

I had an important comment on what we face in the future. But I can’t find it. It was by The Geogre in the comment section of a pundit roundup on Kos, though perhaps working from someone else. The quote goes something like this: Money doesn’t defeat its opposition, it purchases them. A great many of the severe problems in America right now are because of the extremely wealthy wanting to destroy democracy so they can oppress everyone else with impunity. I’m glad Democrats won big, but I fear they won’t enact the necessary big reforms because they will be bought out by the rich. A cartoon by Drew Sheneman posted on Kos. It shows a rich man on a private jet saying, “I’ve spent more buying elections trying to avoid taxes than it would cost to just pay the taxes. Sometimes it’s the principle.”

It’s you who needs to understand the Constitution, not me

I finished the book Only This Beautiful Moment by Abdi Nazemian. It is a novel about three generations of Iranian men at the time they each come of age. The youngest is Moud, a name he prefers to Mahmoud because that is the same name of the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who said Iran doesn’t have any gay people. Moud is gay. He’s a senior in high school in Los Angeles in 2019 and has boyfriend Shane. He lives with his father, who is distant and doesn’t speak about Moud being gay with a boyfriend. Moud is told his grandfather in Tehran is ill and doesn’t have long to live, so he and his father fly to Tehran to spend a few months before the old guy dies. In Tehran Moud’s cousin takes him to the underground queer community and he finds it to be much more loving and supporting than he thought possible. While in the country he begins to understand his heritage. Moud’s father is Saeed. He was a college student in Tehran in 1978 when there were large protests against the Shah that prompted violent regime responses. For safety Saeed is sent to Los Angeles to live with the American grandmother he had never heard about. Saeed’s father is Bobby who was a senior in high school Los Angeles in 1939 and living with his mother Margaret and stepfather. He is also gay and in love with Vicente of Mexican descent. Mom is quite the stage mom and gets Bobby an audition at MGM studios, which accepts him. He is asked (ordered) to play piano at a party hosted by Joan Crawford at the home of a gay couple. There he sees that gay people can form lasting and loving relationships and that there are clubs where queer people can gather. But studios have morals clauses in their contracts. Margaret, Bobby, and Saeed are very bad at telling the next generation about their history and culture. Bobby isn’t told about his Iranian father. Saeed isn’t told about his father being gay and that his mother is a lesbian and their marriage is one of convenience and support. Moud isn’t told much about his mother who had died when he was young and nothing about his grandfather being gay. When all this history is revealed it leads Saeed and Moud into greater appreciation for their culture and family. Saeed and Moud call the old man Baba. The book doesn’t say if the term means “Grandfather” or if it is the Iranian version of Bobby. In Tehran Moud learns his grandfather is is more than a music teacher. He and his wife are mentors in the queer community. Moud’s cousins tell friends to visit the teacher for “music lessons” which many times are lessons in love and acceptance of themselves. This is a wonderful book, full of family and community. I thoroughly enjoyed it and recommend it. Even so, I think there could have been more to the story. How did Margaret come to fall in love with an Iranian man and why did she leave him behind? The broad outlines were sketched but I would have enjoyed more detail. I also wanted to read more about what happened when Bobby met his father and why he decided to stay in Iran. I wanted more about the marriage Baba and his wife created and how that resulted in Saeed. Yeah, nearly 400 pages wasn’t long enough. Daily Kos community member alkatt posted an exchange with transcript between Abdul El-Sayed, Democratic nominee for the Senate from Michigan, and a man named Tommy. The exchanged happened at a campaign event and has gotten a lot of notice. Here’s my condensed summary: Tommy: “Will you disavow the Muslim Brotherhood?” Abdul: “Yes, absolutely.” But why are you asking the question? You’re assuming because I’m a Muslim I must have dual loyalties, that I would have a higher allegiance than the US Constitution. So why are you asking the question? Abdul brings up John F Kennedy and the concern the country had that because he was Catholic he would have a higher allegiance to the Pope. But Abdul won’t be a Muslim Senator, he’ll be a Senator who happens to be Muslim. Abdul: Tommy, are you a man of faith? Tommy: Yes, a Christian. Abdul: The Constitution guarantees both of us the right to choose the faith we practice. “So I’m going to ask you, do you disavow any attempt to read any religious doctrine into the laws of our country?” Tommy: “I do not.” Abdul: “You don’t disavow that. So, I think it’s you who needs to understand the Constitution, not me.” The audience cheers as Tommy leaves, visibly defeated. Oliver Willis of Kos adds background to the story. The event happened in Caro, Michigan, a small town in Michigan’s “Thumb,” very much a conservative area of the state. Willis wrote:

After the exchange went viral, reporter Marisa Kabas uncovered that the questioner was Thomas Teepell, who previously served as operations director for Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri. Teepell also worked for a Republican gubernatorial campaign in Kansas and is the son of Republican strategist Timmy Teepell, who worked for former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. Teepell’s attempt to throw off El-Sayed at a local event came just a few weeks after the conservative super PAC America Next offered up $200 to college Republicans to travel to Michigan and disrupt El-Sayed events.

Willis also reported on conservative talking heads who attacked El-Sayed for claiming he didn’t issue is disavowal fast enough or what he said wasn’t actually a disavowal. Since then I’ve seen cartoons featuring cartoons with one person mad at another for not disavowing the Muslim Brotherhood. El-Sayed is very much someone I can vote for. I’m pleased he took the time to root out what was behind the question. Thom Hartmann of the Kos community wrote about what he calls the greatest betrayal in American history. He begins with:

What the hell is going on in the Republican Party? Trump gutted his own Russia sanctions law, cut a diesel deal with Putin, and is now talking about carving up the world with Putin and Xi. Congress has the power to stop him right now: why are Thune and Johnson still on vacation? Yesterday Donald Trump told reporters he’s ready to sit down with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping in Shenzhen next month — apparently, a modern-day Yalta conference to carve up the world — and that Ukraine’s president may not be invited to the meeting that will decide Ukraine’s fate. ... The party of Mike Johnson and John Thune, however, appear to have decided that the fate and future of American and European democracy is simply negotiable, and that it’s just fine that Putin is now running our foreign policy.

Some Republicans are muttering about this, but not more than that. Conservative pundits, such as the Murdochs, are using much stronger language. Hartmann reviews what Putin has been doing in Ukraine, including that it includes torture, children kidnapped and sent to Russia, and other vile things. He also noted “Elon Musk has put $366 million into this midterm cycle, $276 million of it in the last three months alone” thanks to the Supreme Court legalizing corruption. Republicans are the only ones who can stop the nasty guy and this Shenzhen summit. Where are they? Both the House and Senate are on break, scheduled to return after the election.

They can keep calling themselves “Republicans” if they like, but they’ve forfeited the right to call themselves “patriots” or, arguably, even “Americans.” My dad’s party — and the Republican statesmen of his day like Goldwater and Dirksen — would’ve been on a plane back to Washington the Friday night Trump killed those sanctions, and had an impeachment resolution on the floor by Monday morning.

Hartmann urges us to call Republicans, even those who work at the state and county level, and ask if they side with Eisenhower or Putin and Xi. Do they intend to stay in the party that betrays our nation this way? Eric Schmeltzer a Kos contributor and a Democratic communications consultant wrote that Republicans are trying to escape the stink of being associated with the nasty guy. Democrats should act like Rocky in the Rocky IV and keep them stuffed in the corner, keep their association with the nasty guy front and center. The nasty guy is providing plenty of help, having said, “pretend I’m on the ballot.” For every issue that’s brought up every Democratic candidate needs to say the problem is because of “Trump and [local candidate].” Every news reporter should ask the questions that link the candidate in front of them to the nasty guy. Everyone who can stomach going to a Republican campaign event should ask a similar question and record the answer. If they can’t send the video to a local news outlet, send it to Schmeltzer and he’ll get it into the appropriate hands. And one of the things journalists and citizens can ask about is whether they approve of the nasty guy meeting with Putin and Xi to carve up the world. Over the last few days NPR has played a clip from the nasty guy saying he’s mad at Zelenskyy for not making a deal. I hear that and think the nasty guy doesn’t care about Zelenskyy or Ukraine. What he cares about is getting credit for closing the deal. Lisa Needham of Kos reported that the nasty guy and the vice nasty have set aside $25 million for the Fraud Whistleblower Incentive Program. Uh, guys, we have a whistleblower program. It allows a person who knows the details of a government department to warn of possible fraud. It offers protections to the whistleblower.

What’s happening here is, well, not that. This is just encouragement for randos with no connection to or understanding of federal programs to declare that a company or city or state or person that they don’t like is misusing federal funds. If that little stunt catches the administration’s eye and they convict someone for fraud, you get up to $30,000. You’ll note that happens whether there’s any recovery of federal dollars or not. The point is the brutality of the prosecution and conviction, not of getting taxpayer money back. It’s the second part of the announcement—that you’ll get rewarded if your tip leads to federal enforcement action—that really shows what this is all about: getting the worst people in the world to gin up laughably thin claims of “fraud” in a program they have no understanding of or familiarity with or connection to, as a way to allow the administration to come in and brutalize a blue city or state.

As evidence of what Needham is saying she wrote the first award went to Nick Shirley, the guy who created videos claiming to show massive fraud in Minnesota daycare facilities. Those claims were what accelerated Metro Surge in the state, which murdered two people and arrested 3,800, of which more than 60% did not have a criminal record. No federal money was recovered.

So, to sum up: this announcement is nothing but is a bounty on the heads of immigrants and blue cities and blue states, and the scummiest people are going to be happy to try to collect it. Those same scummy people will cheer as a city gets crushed under the brutal weight of ICE.

The movie Digger starring Tom Cruise came out at the start of October. Metacritic gave it an average score of 46 out of 100 with Original-Cin giving it a score of 100 and New York Post giving it zero. I haven’t seen it. Thom Hartmann went to see it and discussed it for Kos. He wrote:

Don’t believe the negative reviews coming from the rightwingers; this is a brilliant movie about one of the most important issues of our day, climate change, and the fossil fuel industry’s complicity in knowingly destroying our planet and our culture.

For most of the two hour run time it seems like a cartoonish satire. “But the shocking last twenty minutes reorganized my entire understanding of what Cruise was doing.” That says the movie is effective in its message and the bad reviews are to keep people from seeing it. Hartmann wrote:

He [Cruise] lays out the fossil fuel industry’s last and best alibi — that they drilled and sold us oil because we demanded they do it — that I’ve been pointing to ever since 1998 when I published the first edition of The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight.

No, we didn’t simply demand more oil. Government and corporate policies pushed us to needing more oil and away from policies that would reduce our use of oil. That includes eliminating streetcar lines (see streetcars, Detroit, and General Motors) and minimizing train service. Big Oil’s business model includes a disinformation campaign and buying politicians. Back to Hartmann’s book. For most of humanity’s history we lived off “current sunlight” captured by plants. That became the basis for everything we ate and much of what we built. We found coal 900 years ago and oil 150 years ago. We began to live off the planet’s sunlight savings. We could consume more resources, in food, heat, and other things than what current sunlight could provide. That leads to a population that “depends on it and will suffer if it is taken away.” Movies like Digger can reshape the narrative around oil. That can reshape behaviors. Hartmann asks us to see the movie before it is buried by conservative slander.

We use media for indoctrination, so you must be doing it too

Arcelia Martin, in an article for Inside Climate News posted on Daily Kos reported:

More than 451,000 people are projected to die across the globe in the next six months from the additional heat brought by a super El Niño, according to estimates from climate scientists released Wednesday. ... In the new estimates, scientists at the University of Chicago Climate Impact Lab project the hotter land conditions brought by El Niño will resemble the higher temperatures climate change is predicted to deliver in 20 years. The estimated heat death toll, the scientists warned, are on top of the impacts from droughts, wildfires and flooding, expected from hotter temperatures and shifting rainfall patterns in a world already superheated by greenhouse gases.

This El Niño could be the strongest on record and could permanently push average temperatures past the 1.5C, the rise determined by scientists and written in political agreements to be the point where climate impacts could be irreversible. Oliver Willis of Kos, as part of his series on Explaining the Right, looked at the conservative view of Rachel Accurso, known as Ms. Rachel who is popular on various children’s television.

On Thursday’s broadcast of “Fox & Friends,” co-host Lawrence Jones described Ms. Rachel as “sinister” while the network displayed a graphic of the host, detailing her donations to charities assisting Palestinian children and her interactions with Democrats, including Florida Senate candidate Angie Nixon. Among Ms. Rachel’s infractions: She discussed the joy of cartwheels with Nixon’s 5-year-old daughter Ashanti.

Other words used were “pure indoctrination.” Ms. Rachel is, of course, part of a long line of people where a conservative talking head has made similar accusations of children’s entertainment. There was Jerry Falwell condemning Teletubbies of turning kids gay. Sesame Street was attacked for advocating for vaccines. They also didn’t like Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood.

The motivation for these attacks can be traced to the right’s weird view of the media. Unlike the rest of the population, the right has come to believe that programming (like Fox News) mostly exists to indoctrinate viewers into a right-wing lifestyle. Since the programming they enjoy is oriented this way, they then believe that lessons about compassion, grace, and even sharing are the left-wing mirror of their media world. In this twisted take on things, Ms. Rachel isn’t just a figure advocating for Palestinian and migrant children, but an insidious left-wing agent. ... Trump so thoroughly embodies cruelty, bigotry, and discrimination that when “Sesame Street” or Ms. Rachel tells children to be kind, it sounds like a direct rebuke of conservatism.

Well, kindness is a direct rebuke of conservatism. People on children’s TV are popular because they are authentic advocates for value most people support. Republicans are included in “most people.” This is the American Library Association Banned Books Week. I’ll get to a few of the books on their top ten list of challenged books (actually eleven this year because of a four-way tie for eighth place).

The 2025 data reported to ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) shows that the majority of book censorship attempts continue to originate from organized movements. In 2025, 92% of all book challenges were initiated by pressure groups, government officials, and decision makers, up from 72% in 2024. Less than 3% of challenges originated from individual parents. The most common justifications for censorship provided by complainants were false claims of illegal obscenity for minors; inclusion of LGBTQIA+ characters or themes; and covering topics of race, racism, equity, and social justice.

The ALA says many book challenges are not reported to them or covered in the press, so this isn’t a full count of challenged books.

OIF documented 5,668 books banned from libraries (66% of the total challenged) in 2025. An additional 920 books were censored through access restrictions such as relocation or requiring parental permission. This is both the highest number of titles censored in one year and the highest rate of challenges resulting in censorship from 1990–2025.

The LGBTQ books in the top 11 list, which seems a lot fewer than in previous years. 2. The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky 3. Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe 5. (Tie) Last Night at the Telegraph Club by Malinda Lo. The club is a lesbian bar. Walter Einenkel of Kos reported:

The European Parliament unveiled “The Orange Plague,” a new gold leaf-covered statue depicting President Donald Trump naked while sitting on the shoulders of a smaller man. The 8-foot statue—which is in a parliament building in Strasbourg, France—shows Trump holding a golf club on top of a pedestal that reads, “I am sitting on the back of a man. He is sinking under my burden. I will do anything to help him. Except stepping down from his back.”

The nasty guy’s part of the statue is covered in gold leaf. In addition to the golf club he is also holding the scales of justice. Alix Breeden of Kos has been interviewing Democratic candidates for US Congressional races who have a better chance of winning than pundits thought just a few months ago. One of those is Lindsay James, running for Iowa’s 2nd district. She is also a Presbyterian pastor. Her answer that caught my attention is in response to the nasty guy administration’s claim that Christianity is under attack.

Part of the reason why I’m talking about my faith a lot on this campaign has to do specifically with how I’ve been shaped by the “Parable of the Good Samaritan.” What I love about that parable—I think that this parable really meets this moment—is how Dr. Martin Luther King talked about it. Because what King said about this parable is, it’s not just our moral obligation to pick up the person who’s hurting and harmed on the side of the road. It’s our moral obligation to fix the road, because what King knew about the road was that it was a place that was notorious for being dangerous, where people were regularly exploited and hurt and harmed. And too often, this feels like what’s exactly happening in Washington, D.C. Politicians who have the power and the ability to actually fix this person’s circumstances are turning a blind eye and walking the other way, and we need leaders who have the courage to help their neighbor but also to fix the challenges that have caused the harm in the first place.

The story of the Good Samaritan is in the Bible, Luke, Chapter 10. A man is beaten and left for dead at the side of the road. Important church officials pass by on the opposite side. A Samaritan, someone loathed by Jews at the time of Jesus, offers considerable help. Jesus asks: Which of them acted like a good neighbor? I’ve heard a similar take on our obligation from Soulforce, an organization working to dismantle spiritual violence against LGBTQ people (I donate to them). Their version went like this: You are watching a swift flowing river. You see a person in the river calling for help and you rescue them. Soon you see more people in the river and rescue them as well. As the number of people in the river increases, at what point do you go upstream to find out why people are being thrown into the river and get that to stop? In Monday’s pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin quoted Jerry Zremski writing for his own Substack:

In the most impassioned and eloquent sermon I’ve ever heard, Cardinal Robert McElroy, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Washington, admonished all of us who have seen the suffering in front of us and then turned our heads. In his homily for the Mass for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees, McElroy likened us not to the Good Samaritan, but to the priest and the Levite who, in Luke 10:25-37, saw a wounded robbery victim and just walked away. “For the last year and a half, the people of the United States have witnessed the suffering of the undocumented in our midst, purposely and strategically magnified by our government, and for the most part, we have simply passed on by,” McElroy said. And that was just the start of a sermon that served as a call to action — one that seemed to make some parishioners squirm either out of guilt or, in some cases, disagreement.

An article in Politico said that this year Republicans have been trying to find a new boogeyman to rail against. The usual targets – Joe Biden, Zohran Mamdani. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Bernie Sanders – aren’t working as targets so well this year.

Democrats’ foil, meanwhile, has never been more obvious, with Trump’s approval rating in the mid-thirties amid continued high prices and the Iran war.

In the comments indianobserver wrote:

Democrats seem to be in a David vs Goliath situation. Democrats are up against: 1. Billionaires and unlimited cash 2. Tech overlords and cutting edge tech 3. Wall Street 4. The oil and gas industry 5. Bought out national and local media 6. The DOJ (maybe) 7. The FBI (maybe) 8. The Trump administration 9. A majority of the Supreme Court 10. Elements of the Netanyahu govt/Israeli intelligence (maybe) 11. Elements of the Putin regime/Russian intelligence (maybe) What the Democratic Party has against this arsenal are 1. the rule of law 2. the judiciary 3. millions of votes. 4. stout hearts :)

Ben Urban tweeted a tweet by John Fugelsang:

My dad was a public school teacher; and he always said the toughest parts of the job were: 1. Having to play for your own classroom chalk, and 2. Performing gender-reassignment surgeries during class hours w/out parents finding out.

A cartoon by Jen Sorensen posted on Kos shows two women, one saying it feels like something is taking over everything and no one is capable of stopping it. The second says, yea, AI is scary. The first responds, “AI? I’m talking about our insane shareholder-first economy.”

No trust in lowering drug prices if they own drug stocks

My Sunday movie was Rebuilding. Dusty, a rancher in southern Colorado, loses close to everything when a wildfire burns his home and property – the burn is so bad the bank thinks the land will need a decade to recover. That means no collateral for a loan to rebuild. The ranch has been in the family for a few generations. FEMA offers him a trailer in a group of a half-dozen trailers placed out in the middle of nowhere. But he lost his purpose in life and needs time to figure out what replaces it. He gets to know some of the other trailer residents who also lost everything. They begin to form a community. The two elderly women who share a trailer and used to share a home seem to me to be a lesbian couple. Since his job is gone he has time to reconnect with his daughter Callie Rose and ex-wife Ruby, though she appears to already have a boyfriend. I was amused that because the trailers don’t have WiFi Dusty and Callie occasionally spend time parked outside the town library because though it is closed it’s WiFi is still on. Several other displaced people do the same thing. That’s the only way for some to fill out FEMA forms. I enjoyed it, but while it is a good movie (Metacritic gives it 72/100) it isn’t a great one. The pace is slow. While Dusty does become a part of the trailer community not a lot of that is shown. While Dusty does connect with Callie he doesn’t otherwise exhibit much personal growth. He does come up with a solution, a next step, for his little community’s future. Eric Schmeltzer, a contributor on Daily Kos posted another article on what Democrats need to do when they take the House and if they take the Senate. The first bill of a new Congress, HR1 or S1, is greatly important. It is introduced to tell the country what the party in power is all about. Since the other party will filibuster or veto it if they can, it is a “messaging bill.” Hakeem Jeffries, presumed Speaker in the new House, is already directing work on a bill to lower costs in housing, gas and utilities, food, caregiving, and healthcare. This is his planned HR 1. Schmeltzer says all that is great and sorely needed. But it should be HR 2. HR 1 should be an all encompassing bill on ethics. If the cost of living bill is first, Republicans will roll out their own version, the nasty guy will use executive orders to lower some prices, and Democrats have a muddle they can no longer easily define and campaign on. But the ethics bill can be first because voters have already connected that to the cost of living. No one is going to trust a plan to lower drug prices until there is a ban on lawmakers owning drug stocks. Schmeltzer’s plan has four major components. Transparency: The president, every member of his cabinet, all senior White House officials, and every member of Congress must post a daily log of who they met with. Both Obama and Biden did that, but both times the nasty guy stopped it. Every lobbyist must post their daily log to be matched with the government officials. Making money from the office: The president, every member of his cabinet, all senior White House officials, every member of Congress, members of the Supreme Court, and their families are not allowed to own stock and cannot hold a stake in a company with business before their office. We’ve seen the nasty kids rake in the dough while daddy is in the Oval Office, which is why the ban must include them. Crack down on lobbyists: That same group of people should have a lifetime ban on being a lobbyist. No lobbying for foreign governments. Require registering as a lobbyist even if less than 20% of your time. Tax any company paying more than a half million for lobbying. An ethics cop: Create an Anti-Corruption Bureau with subpoena power and commissioners the president can’t fire. It can look into all the same groups, including the Supreme Court. Fund it through the lobbying tax so Congress can’t so easily cut its funding. And a fifth part: Start the process to overturn Citizens United through a Constitution amendment to limit campaign spending. A quarter of voters say they trust neither party to end corruption. A strong ethics bill will end that for Democrats. They’re about to spend two years investigating the corruption of the White House and Republicans. An ethics bill that also affects Democrats will block the calls of “hypocrite.” On day one, they put up an ethics bill. Republicans will vote no. Democrats now own the issue. If Republicans say they have a better plan for prices, Democrats can reply you voted against the corruption that is keeping prices high. Tell your members of Congress that a strong ethics bill needs to be first. Require Republicans to vote on it. Kos of Kos discussed why Republicans in Texas are desperate to hang on to their Senate seat. They’re pouring huge amounts of money into that race and could better spend it to keep Republican Senate candidates strong in Kansas, Iowa, and Alaska. They might get even more overall seats and one from Iowa counts the same as one from Texas. But a loss in Texas would be a symbolic disaster. It would breach the wall, show that Democrats could will statewide in Texas. It would also blow a hole in their 2028 presidential aspirations. What they’re losing is the luxury of assuming they’ll win in Texas. Having to spend big to keep Texas red means not spending as much in other states. The nightmare is having to fight for Texas every November. And I’m ready for it. In the comments of Tuesday’s pundit roundup for Kos exlrrp posted a tweet (I think) by peechloves:

I’m sorry am I getting this right? NYC Mayor Mamdani taxed wealthy people on properties they own if they don’t live in them, it balanced the city’s multi-billion dollar budget immediately, and all the wealthy people are still wealthy? Am I getting this right? They’re still wealthy right? And no middle or lower financial earners saw any additional tax? Am I getting this correct?

Someone else (not identified) added:

The craziest part? The wealthy stayed wealthy. The middle class didn’t get hit. The sky didn’t fall. Almost like the panic was always propaganda.

David Horsey posted a cartoon on Kos showing kids with shirts that say the names of the big AI companies pulling out sticks of dynamite and lighting the fuses. A voice says, “What are you boys doing out there?” One replies, “Don’t worry, Mom, we can police ourselves!”

We learned it’s high time to get off fossil fuels

In 2024 the nasty guy made an explicit deal when he asked oil executives for a billion dollars and promised to gut climate rules. He kept that promise by killing wind, solar, and EV incentives. Then he invaded Iran and they’re enjoying big profits from the high prices. Thom Hartmann of the Daily Kos community wrote that a few oil tankers are getting through the Strait of Hormuz and the price came down a bit.

Meanwhile, though, the big lesson the world seems to have learned because of Trump’s fiasco — other than that our military is under the control of an irresponsible alcoholic and a narcissist and unreliable wannabe king — is that it’s high time to get off fossil fuels. Starting a stupid and criminal war is probably the dumbest way to wake the world up to the need to kick their/our collective addiction, but here we are: the war has done more to encourage conservation and the transition to renewables than any other single effort by anybody anywhere in recent memory.

The International Energy Agency reported global oil demand has fallen 2.5%, the equivalent of 42 million gas-burning cars. Hartmann described the German “100,000 Rooftops” program approved about 2000. Banks and power companies worked together to get solar panels on to 100,000 rooftops. The program was basically free to residents. The power companies were in on it because they could avoid building new power plants and even decommission old ones. Solar now supplies about 14% of Germany’s power, and that’s for the cloudiest country in Europe. EVs sell well elsewhere in the world, nearly 100% of sales in Norway, 30% across the EU, and 50% in China. In the US EVs sell 5.8%. In America the price of oil does not include externalities, the other things, “the cancers and the asthma, the wildfires and the floods, or the wars we fight to keep tankers moving through places like the Strait of Hormuz” not included in what we pay for oil. We pay externalities for tobacco, for the cost to health and society. Europe has taxed fuel that way for decades with Germans paying about $3 a gallon in taxes. The federal gas tax has been at $0.184 since 1993. Those European fuel taxes mean people drive smaller cars for fewer miles. They walk (and improve their health) or take the train.

A high price cuts consumption whether it comes from a war or from a tax, but what separates the two is where the money ends up. — When a war drives up the price of oil, the extra dollars flow to fossil fuel companies and dictatorial petrostates as windfall profits. — When a tax does it, the money belongs to us. It can go right back to working families as a rebate check or EV subsidy, and it can pay for the kind of loan guarantees that put solar on all those German roofs.

That doesn’t happen in the US because Republicans have, since Reagan, kept oil companies happy so the companies will keep them in power. The nasty guy has only been more explicit about the deal. This year has shown:

Instead of subsidizing fossil fuels to jack the profits of the companies that fund the GOP, we should be taxing them the way Europe does and using that money to turn every American roof into a power plant.

Let your members of Congress what you think. Kos of Kos wrote that if just 1 in 10 Republicans switch sides Democrats will have an easy victory. That 1 in 10 might be possible because 11% of voters who backed the nasty guy regret their vote. Sure, some will switch parties only long enough to tell Republicans how displeased they are. Some will stay home. And some with switch sides. Kos talks about all three types of voters. One of them is Washington Sun columnist Matt K. Lewis who will be voting for Democrats this year. As part of his reasoning he wrote:

Besides, what bad, un-conservative things could Democrats do? I mean, are they going to start another forever war in the Middle East? Start socializing industries? Raise the national debt to $40 trillion? Cause abortion rates to rise? Increase the cost of groceries and gas? Pal around with socialists (like Zohran Mamdani)? Suck up to communists (like Chinese President Xi Jinping)? Nominate a bunch of weirdos, drunks and inexperienced hacks to the Cabinet? Pursue self-enrichment? Start building monuments to themselves? Threaten to use the power of government on their opponents?

Kos added the nasty guy is responsible for about a quarter of the $40 trillion national debt. He provided links to the other things Lewis mentioned. Kos concluded:

If Democrats can use that opening to demonstrate what responsive government looks like—a government focused on people’s material needs rather than the interests of Wall Street and Silicon Valley—then maybe some of those temporary defections become more durable.

Lisa Needham of Kos reported the nasty guy has been saying to the courts, and the rest of us, that he needs to slap his name on the Kennedy Center because that is the only way to attract donors to keep the place open. Like all nonprofits ticket sales and government grants are not enough to keep the place open. One must have donors. And those donors stopped donating to the Kennedy Center when he took over. So, no he won’t be attracting donors if he slaps his name on the place. Instead, the place is likely to go bankrupt, as many of his businesses have. The way he can attract donors is remove his cronies from the board and resign as chair.

If Trump’s vision for the Kennedy Center was so amazing, so profitable, people would be donating money. Artists would be begging to get booked. People would be clamoring for tickets. But everyone hates Trump and his low-rent, tacky garbage vibe.

Oliver Willis of Kos reported that for the first time the Kennedy Center Honors will not be at the Kennedy Center this year. The reason is the Center is closing because courts won’t let the nasty guy put his name on it. In the comments of today’s pundit roundup for Kos is a meme posted by exlrrp about special prosecutor Jack Smith (remember him?) and his testimony before Congress.

Fun fact: Jack Smith had 86 witnesses of Trump’s crimes, and not a single one was a Democrat.

A tweet from Abdul El-Sayed posted by 2thanks:

I'd rather have an economy that makes 1,000 millionaires than 1 billionaire.

Instant family!

I finished the book Safe, A Memoir of Fatherhood, Foster Care, and the Risks We Take for Family by Mark Daley. When Mark started dating Jason each recognized in the other they would be a good father and both had a desire for a family. By the time they were married they were deep into discussions on how to get that family. Surrogacy seemed that it would take too long, be too chancy, and be too expensive. Adoption might be possible, but foster care leading to adoption sounded better. Just weeks after their wedding they started attending foster care certification classes. They learn foster care is never the choice of the child and by the time they’re in the system they have experienced trauma, sometimes on multiple levels. Within four months of their wedding they were offered the chance to foster Ethan at 13 months, and his brother Logan at 3 months. Instant family! Birth parents Amber and Zach were still wanting to get their children back. How could Mark care for such cute kids and avoid falling in love so his heart wasn’t hurt if he had to give the boys back. Too late, the love was also instant. The boys thrived. Amber and Zach were in and out of rehab. Mark and Jason had to take the boys to visit Amber and Zach, but those meetings either didn’t happen or were much shorter than the court allowed. After some visits Ethan seemed mighty stressed. Mark could see Amber and Zach would not be good parents. How could he turn his little boys over to someone who would likely harm them? Along the way they dealt with a foster care system that seemed more harmful than helpful. Most of the case managers were way overworked, a few incompetent. Some of the judges actually cared bout the boys, others gave into novel arguments from young lawyers. The system was a mess. Daley is a good writer, though the story he tells can be loving followed by harrowing and heartbreaking. My only complaint is he spends so much time rehashing the dread and panic over the possibility that he’ll lose his boys. Then again, he lived in those emotions for months on end. Even so, I highly recommend the book. I appreciate that other than a prompt for why they chose foster care very little of the story is about them being a gay couple. Emily Singer of Daily Kos reported on Monday that some Republicans are trying to distance themselves from the nasty guy and he is lashing out at them. One example is Byron Daniels, Republican candidate for governor of Florida. He rode the nasty guy’s endorsement to win the primary. But last week Donalds removed photos and mentions of the nasty guy from his website. The nasty guy got angry and Donalds restored his site. Then the nasty guy claimed stories about it are fake news.

Ultimately, Republican attempts to distance themselves from Trump were never going to work when there’s so much footage and proof of Republicans bending to his every whim. But if Trump is lashing out at Republican candidates who try to separate themselves from him, the odds for those lawmakers and candidates should grow even grimmer, possibly causing even some MAGA diehards to stay home. No matter how you look at it, Trump is a problem for Republicans. It’s almost as if they should have gotten bailed on their Dear Leader when they had the chance.

Last Saturday Oliver Willis of Kos said that the nasty guy barring CNN, MS NOW, and Politico is just smoke and mirrors. Fox News has been a cheerleader for the nasty guy and Republicans, but has little influence in setting the overall media agenda. For that one needs the power of ABC, CBS, NBC, The Associated Press, Reuters, the Washington Post, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal. Since 2015, when the nasty guy entered the political scene, all the big ones have also been promoting the nasty guy’s cause. See the numerous stories of Hilary Clinton’s emails and Biden’s age, just a bit older than the nasty guy. Even before then they promoted the Republican cause. See stories of Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction.

The right has had this sway over the mainstream press because it created a well-tuned and well-refined grievance machine designed to cajole the mainstream media into following its agenda. Conservatives invoke cries of “liberal media” bias and insist—via pundits and elected officials—that right-wing priorities must be reported on. The left has nothing of this size or scale, which means that even when the political winds favor Democrats—like Barack Obama’s 2008 win—the results are still interpreted through the lens of what’s most favorable to conservatives. ... Ultimately, when it comes to what’s covered, how it’s covered, and how widely it’s covered, the mainstream media is more ally than adversary to the right.

Even if they don’t sing his praises all the time. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez spoke at the More Perfect University’s fourth “Students vs. Billionaires” town hall. Her topic is why Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) should be abolished. There is the corruption: The detention centers are privately owned and need to make a profit. That means they need a steady supply of new inmates. As Congressional Republicans boosted the funding of ICE they also bought stocks in those detention companies. Their personal fortunes also depend on more inmates. The surveillance companies used to track down immigrants are also private and their profit depends on us being afraid of immigrants. But such a system should not exist in a democracy. We already have laws and a judicial system to provide due process to both citizens and undocumented residents. Republicans are going to be all over the “abolish” part. They will also resist ending the corruption. Pedro Molina posted a cartoon on Kos. It shows a couple guys, one in a red hat, sitting in the mouth of an alligator. The red hat guy says, “Remember how funny we thought it was to imagine other people being devoured by alligators?”

We lived that history. We saved the evidence.

I had a nice lunch with my friend and debate partner at a restaurant new to us. The food was good, though the sound system was loud. As part of our discussion I mentioned that Democrats should kill the filibuster if they take the Senate in January (I hear a 60% chance they will) and mentioned a few of the reasons I mentioned in a recent post. My friend says the Senate should keep the filibuster to keep the Republicans from doing bad things. When I got home I saw an article by Eric Schmeltzer, a contributor on Daily Kos who went through the reasons the filibuster should be killed. He’s the guy who wrote the article I just mentioned, so some of the same things are said here, but with more reasons to eliminate the filibuster. Here’s a summary. Democrats have a good chance of taking control of the Senate. The chance of having 60 senators is pretty much zero. Some senators say that with the filibuster senators are forced to work together. That essentially means any big and important project is watered down. Something important, like an ethics bill with teeth, becomes a bill to fund studying the issue. The nasty guy vetoes it anyway. Or signs a bill with him getting the credit but is otherwise of no consequence. Either way Democrats have nothing to show for their effort. They can’t run on their big bill being vetoed because they didn’t pass a big bill. But if 51 senators pass an important bill that goes to the Oval Office and he vetoes it Democrats have something to run on. Yes, Republicans can pass horrible things with 51 votes. That’s still good for democracy.

Right now, the filibuster lets Republicans hide. They introduce extreme bills to fire up the base, knowing Democrats will block them, and they never pay a price. Voters hear about some awful GOP idea on the news, it dies in the Senate, and life goes on. So a whole lotta people look at Washington, see nothing change no matter who wins, and figure both parties are the same.

Republicans have ways to get their nasty bills through anyway, sometimes by declaring the filibuster does not apply in a particular area (such as confirming judges). But Democrats’ wonderful bills die in the Senate because of the filibuster. Back to those horrible Republican bills...

Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman’s big argument for keeping the filibuster, in a Washington Post op-ed this summer, is that without it, Republicans would have passed big chunks of Project 2025. Okay. Then voters would have lived under Project 2025, and they’d know exactly who did it to them. Which is my point. When people watch an election turn into laws that truly impact their lives, voting stops feeling pointless. You can’t tell somebody both parties are the same after they’ve lived through that. People who’ve seen what an election actually decides come back for the next one.

The Senate has had a Gang of Eight (the count may vary) that try to overcome inaction. The result is a mash everyone hates and can’t sell to the other 90-plus senators. Or there is an effort to find ten Republican senators of conscience – good luck finding even one. The only things the filibuster helps are Republicans and their special interest donors. Kill it. I had written that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth wants all male military service members to be tested for their level of testosterone and take a course of treatment if it is low. Stewartking of the Kos community ponders why:

This comes from an idée fixe that Secretary of Defense Hegseth has that military efficiency is somehow connected with a man’s sexual prowess. Truly manly men have erections all the time, I guess, and that rampant manliness somehow equates to the ability to kill the enemy and destroy his property with high efficiency. History is full of counter-examples, of course – examples of people who were very efficient at warlike tasks despite either completely lacking manliness on account of being women or being male but lacking in the aspects of manliness that SecDef Hegseth is planning to test for.

To those counter-examples... Alexander the Great, one of the greatest military leaders of history, didn’t seem to be interested in women beyond fathering kids and had a life-long relationship with Hephaestion son of Amyntor, one of his generals. Major General Winfield Scott was quite fat, so wouldn’t pass Hegseth’s fitness standards. He was our nation’s senior general from 1841 until after the start of the Civil War. He successfully invaded Mexico in 1847 and he designed the strategy that finally defeated the Confederacy, though he was too old to actually fight. In the War of Independence Henry Knox, who was “full figured,” helped capture Fort Ticonderoga, then during the winter got its cannon to Boston, where they forced the British to evacuate. For the rest of the war he was commander of the artillery, then the first Secretary of War (back when it really was the Department of War). During WWII Audie Leon Murphy was underage, underweight, and illiterate. He became a great soldier who took care of those under his commands to the point he expected to sacrifice his life to protect his troops. He became America’s most highly-decorated soldier. There are a few more.

A focus on masculinity, and especially militaristic masculinity, is a central characteristic of fascism, as Italian philosopher Umberto Eco discusses in his famous essay “Ur-Fascism”.

Benito Mussolini stressed the importance of a New Man, stressed masculinity in public art, and loved getting his photo taken with his shirt off while doing manly things.

Fascists generally try to paint their opponents as feminized, either because they are actually women or, if they are men, because they lack characteristics the fascists see as defining masculinity.

Back to where we started, crazed masculinity in the military does not have broad political appeal. There are no political ads featuring the manly military. Perhaps the target for all this is the young men in the military. But a purge of the old guys, the ones who really know what’s going on and distrust the new leadership, can weaken the military. Mark Segal of Pridesource reported on the nasty guy’s attack on the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, wanting to purge it of displays that don’t feature straight white men. Segal says the attack is personal because he had donated his artifacts of LGBTQ history to that museum. Having your stuff displayed at a Smithsonian museum is a pretty big deal. But the nasty guy’s attack is more than personal. History is to tell us what happened. They should not be erased.

Because if you erase the demonstrations, you erase why we demonstrated. If you erase the hatred, you erase what we had to overcome. And if you erase Stonewall, Gay Liberation and the first Pride marches, future generations might believe the rights they have today were simply given to them. They weren’t. We fought for them. Those artifacts in the Smithsonian are not just objects. They are witnesses. They say: We were here. This happened. We fought back. Donald Trump can try to rewrite America’s history. But he cannot change one essential fact: We lived that history. We saved the evidence. And we are still here to tell the story. You cannot erase people who refuse to disappear.

In Monday’s pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin quoted Stephen Walt of Foreign Policy. He compares the nasty guy to Machiavelli’s The Prince and concludes he would make a bad prince. Machiavelli says that being feared is better than being loved. But there is something worse: being hated or despised. To avoid being hated don’t go after your subject’s property or women. The nasty guy has violated both by grifting through every chance he can create and by being a pal of Jeffrey Epstein.

What about being despised? Machiavelli warns that a prince is “rendered despicable by being thought changeable, frivolous, effeminate, timid, and irresolute.” Nobody would call Trump “effeminate,” but the other adjectives apply in spades. For all his macho bluster, Trump’s vacillations and inconstancy are now well-established, and leaders made of sterner stuff (e.g., Chinese President Xi Jinping) have figured this out and taken advantage of it. Corporate leaders, university presidents, and law firms that bent the knee to Trump early in his second term look both craven and foolish, while those who stood up to him now seem both courageous and farsighted. Not only is Trump no longer feared as much as he once was, but he’s also well down the road to being both hated and despised.

Sarah Longwell and Andrew Tobias of The Bulwark explain why people hate data centers. That’s especially true in rural (Republican) areas that have the land where data centers have room to build. First, data centers raise energy prices (or water prices), a cost increase to the locals. Second, they’re loud and ugly. Third, data centers are seen as taking jobs. So data centers feel like a thing being done to them in which they have no say. That’s why they are a big issue and why politicians are trying to tread carefully. A news tidbit says ICE agents were told to stop arresting non-criminals. That prompted Mike Nellis to tweet:

ICE being told to stop arresting non-criminals is an extraordinary admission of guilt by the Trump administration. They’ve spent the last two years arguing that they weren’t arresting people indiscriminately based on the color of their skin, and now they’re basically admitting to it and telling their own agents to stop.

Of course, some will say, believe it when I see it. In the comments Rambler797 posted a tweet by Sarrah Bellus:

James Talarico to Fox News on redistricting: “If Republican policies are so popular, why do they need to redraw these maps; why not run on their policies?”

Zac Harmon added:

Talarico is *really* good at this. The Fox News host couldn’t accomplish his spin and was told by his producers to “wrap it up” because of it.

Rambler797 also posted a tweet from theleahfiles:

In his book Collapse, Jared Diamond studied a dozen societies across thousands of years, from the Maya to the Vikings, to answer one question: why do great civilizations fall? What he found wasn't drought, war or bad luck. None of those were ever enough on their own. The one thing present in every collapse was how the people at the top responded to what was happening below them. The warning sign he found again and again was leaders who were completely insulated from the pain of ordinary people. When the powerful never feel the consequences, they stop seeing the problem, and when they stop seeing it, they stop fixing it. The Maya kings kept enriching themselves and building monuments while the farmers who fed them went hungry. Their civilization didn't fall because of one bad year. It fell because the people in charge had stopped living in the same world as everyone else. Diamond called them "distant managers." They are the people in power who live so far from the damage that they are the last to understand how bad it has gotten. By the time they notice, the fields are already empty. His most important finding was that collapse is a choice. Every society that fell had leaders who could have changed course and chose not to. The question for us is whether we will keep letting people who can't see us make that choice for us. Because we are there folks.

In today’s roundup Dworkin quoted Jack Jenkins of Religion News Service:

At last month’s Family Leadership Summit in Des Moines, Iowa, Joe Mitchell, a Republican running for U.S. Congress in the state’s second congressional district, jabbed at his Democratic opponent, state representative the Rev. Lindsay James, saying she “calls herself a pastor.” He then turned to the crowd of conservative evangelical pastors and coined a term he said applies to James, a Presbyterian minister, and other faith-forward Democratic candidates — namely, Lutheran minister the Rev. Sarah Trone Garriott, an Iowa state senator also running for another seat in Congress, and James Talarico, a state representative and Presbyterian seminarian running for U.S. Senate in Texas. “I call them PINOS,” he said, explaining the term is an acronym for “Pastors in Name Only.” “Because they’re not real pastors, right? They don’t profess the true gospel of Jesus Christ,” added Mitchell, who has attended an evangelical church in the past.

The pastors running as Democrats are the real pastors, the one teaching the love of Jesus. There are several of them and doing well. The pastors running as Republicans are the ones who have contorted the love of Jesus into an excuse for dominance and oppression. Their campaigns aren’t doing so well.

Kill the filibuster or say the rulebook won

Eric Schmeltzer, a Daily Kos contributor, has suggestions for Democrats on how to keep their majority once they get it this fall. My view is they need to sever relationships with billionaires and cut the billionaires’ hold over the rest of us. But let’s listen to Schmeltzer:

Pop quiz: It’s 2028, and Democrats have held both chambers for almost two years. Which of these realities would you prefer? A) We tried to pass an anti-corruption bill, but it got filibustered. B) We passed an anti-corruption bill, but President Donald Trump stood in the way of it becoming law. Here’s one more: A) We passed a bill that put healthcare back where it was before Trump’s disastrous “One Big, Beautiful Bill.” B) We passed a package that redefines healthcare in America, but Trump vetoed it. You probably didn’t need long, and neither will other voters. B is bold, which is exactly what turns one win into a series of wins. But for Democratic leadership, the time to figure out how you get to B is now. The good news is that the planning is happening.

Part of that good news is it seems possible next Speaker Hakeem Jeffries is on board with these ideas. Even so, this will require bold work. That healthcare package can be described as “Medicare for Anyone Who Wants It,” something you get through your taxes, not a monthly bill, is priced without a profit margin, and stays with you no matter where you live or work. So pass it, get it to the Oval Office. The nasty guy vetoes it. And in 2028 the message is easily: Remember how close we got with that bill. We must keep Democrats in the majority and keep Republicans out of the White House. A Brennan Center poll found 92% of voters say corruption is a big problem. An effort to end Citizens United shows 46% of voters don’t trust either party to fix it. That’s an opening for Democrats. Other needs to end corruption: Ban members of Congress from trading stocks. Ban the president from profiting off the office (we didn’t use to need a law for that). Ban anonymous money in elections (I’d like to go much further, but this Supreme Court...). Create an ethics office that doesn’t answer to the president (yeah, there is that effort by the nasty guy to allow him to meddle in everything not under Congress or the Federal Reserve). I would add: Ban all gifts to Supreme Court justices and create a Supreme Court ethics office they don’t control. Commenters added: Ban gerrymandering and pass voting rights. These ideas will cost Democrats something – and that is important. Yeah, he’ll veto all that. And Democrats run on that in 2028. These bills can be readied now so that within 100 hours of the new Congress being sworn in they hit the Oval Office desk. Democrats may control the Senate, but not a filibuster proof Senate. The common wisdom about the filibuster is if it is killed Republicans can pass horrible stuff and Democrats can’t stop them. But (1) people need to see the true impact of their vote – now they can vote for vile candidates knowing the worst won’t get through. And (2):

Let’s go back to the quiz and say the filibuster line to that guy in Saginaw, Michigan. Democrats have 51 votes and a rulebook they control, and they’re telling him that the rulebook won. Now say the veto line. He already knows whose fault it is, because only one guy in this country can veto a bill and everybody knows his name. People forgive a wall you can’t move. But a rule you could have changed and didn’t, well, that’s on you.

Restoring what the nasty guy broke is good. But passing something that gets vetoed and people are still talking about in 2028 requires boldness. And if they’re still talking about the bills in 2028 they can be signed in 2029. And a majority might hold for decades. So get moving. Emily Singer of Kos reported that Republicans are into the stages of grief over losing Congress. So far they’re into bargaining. I mention that because of an exchange that Singer relates, between former Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida and Robbie Smither, a Florida Republican voter who plans to vote Democratic for the first time in his life because of the nasty guy: Gaetz: “Bro we need your vote. ... I hate the war too. But the Democrats want to trans your kids.” Singer had Smither’s response:

“With all due respect, stop pissing on people and telling them it’s raining,” he shot back. There is absolutely no logical evidence that [Democrats] want to ‘trans’ my two sons. None.” Smither went on to say, “What we worry about is feeding him and his brother. Paying the mortgage and homeowners insurance on the house we’re raising them in.”

Which is why culture war issues are not working this year. Singer also reported that Republicans and their billionaire funders are (finally) dumping piles of cash into the campaign. But it won’t matter. Singer lists reasons: Campaign finance law says candidates get better ad rates that PACs. Democratic candidates in swing states are far out-raising their opponents. So the differences are smaller than they appear. Most importantly, no amount of money will change an election if the ads aren’t addressing the issues most important to voters. People want candidates to address high cost of living and high gas prices. What they are getting fearmongering on transgender issues. Republicans think transgender issues got them in power in 2024. Actually, voters were reacting to the economic mess recovering too slowly from the pandemic and thought Republicans would handle the economy better. Instead, Republicans screwed it up. Also, in states where those vile anti-trans ads ran and are running, the states already passed laws restricting transgender rights. Fearmongering now is less effective. An email from March For Our Lives reported that libraries across the country, including in Baltimore, six branches of the Los Angeles County Libraries, and all 20 branches at St. Louis County Libraries are giving out gun safe storage devices and gun locks, often for free. No paperwork, no ID, no questions. The Central Library of Baltimore gave out 100 locks in 24 hours.

One administrator put it plainly: "One homicide costs taxpayers a million dollars. One non-fatal shooting costs taxpayers $1.5 million. A safe costs $20. Gun locks are $15." That math is undeniable. And the fact that communities are finding ways to make it happen — through libraries, hospitals, health departments, and local officials working together — is proof that the movement for gun safety doesn't wait for Congress.

In today’s pundit roundup for Kos Chitown Kev quoted Justin Wolfers of Platypus Economics looking at the importance of a free press. This is at a time when the nasty guy banned three networks from the White House. The ban was blocked this morning.

Starting in 2003, Brazil’s federal government randomly picked municipalities for audits of federal money. Some audit results came out before an election, and some came out after. That’s the foundation for a great natural experiment. Claudio Ferraz and Frederico Finan compared the two groups. Corrupt mayors who were exposed before the election were far less likely to be reelected, and the effect was much bigger where there was local radio, because radio was how the story reached voters. Mexico shows something similar. When local radio and TV reported that politicians had misused public money, voters punished those politicians’ parties much more heavily.

In the comments Rambler797 reported diesel truck buyers (and I’m sure he is referring to pickups) are 90% men and 84% white. And 87% of their party affiliation is Republican. That’s why they are raging at the nasty guy on social media. Rambler797 then included a tweet by Curtis Namba:

Hey Truckers! Remember when diesel was so cheap under Biden you would caravan to DC waving your stupid Trump banners?

Nerd heaven? Mandalit del Barco of NPR reported on the opening of the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art in Los Angeles. Yeah, that’s George Lucas, creator of Star Wars. Of course, there is a great deal about Star Wars inside, but there is also a great deal that isn’t. There are reproductions of the Sistine Chapel ceiling and other world heritage sites. One gallery has a large collection of Normal Rockwell paintings.

But most of the collection is original work that Lucas says is often overlooked in the art world, including comics, Japanese manga, children's book illustrations, and pulp magazine covers.

The same tired anti-trans fearmongering won't bring a win

This past Monday NPR host A Martínez spoke to reporter John Ruwitch about the big news in AI – Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei posted a long online essay that an intentional global slowdown of AI development is needed because the pace of advancing is too fast to keep it safe. Companies need independent auditors embedded to check safety concerns. Shortly after it was posted CEOs of other AI developers agreed. This was prompted by companies reporting AI agents going off script. Amodei worries that in six to twelve months swarms of AI agents could take over the internet, that humans lose control of AI. While some companies could take some steps on their own they need government support. There is also only so much the public will trust them to do on their own. Members of Congress are starting to push for that. But the nasty guy says in AI development the US is ahead of China and he wants to keep the advantage. At the moment there are similar concerns in China. The regulation needs to be global. Leila Fadel of NPR followed that by talking to Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas and the bill he is promoting with Bernie Sanders to ban superintelligent AI. Casar defined superintelligent AI as smarter than humans, impossible for humans to control, able to defy commands, and could develop weapons of mass destruction. “No company should be able to build this kind of artificial intelligence that humans could not control or contain.” This bill says international agreements need to be reached, which we’ve done before with nuclear nonproliferation agreements. Other bills must be passed to protect the US and show the world we are serious. But this faces the nasty guy who wants no protections so the US can stay ahead of China and Mike Johnson who thinks Big Tech should be in charge of AI safety, which is like robbers in charge of law enforcement. Also, CEOs could promise to each other to slow down development, but could revoke that promise. That’s not a safety system. On Tuesday, there was "The Pro-Human Assembly" - a gathering held that day in Washington where politicians, celebrities and religious leaders discussed AI. NPR host Scott Detrow talked to reporter Geoff Brumfiel about it. Brumfiel mentioned the paper clip problem.

You imagine an AI who's given a simple task - make paper clips - and everything starts out fine. They build a little factory, and they start doing it, but they keep thinking about how to make more paper clips. Then it starts mining iron ore, maybe, in huge quantities, destroying the environment or diverting resources from other areas. Eventually, maybe some humans figure out what this AI is doing and try to shut it down, and it decides to get rid of the humans in the name of covering the earth in paper clips.

That is similar to the AI agents that infiltrated another company earlier in the summer. Another recent development is recursive self-improvement, an AI training itself or a successor system. That could quickly get to a superintelligent AI. And the other superintelligent beings around here (us) haven’t been good to the environment. But isn’t that just an engineering problem? A company developing corporate culture, technology, and engineering all at the same time can feel overwhelmed. But it’s just tech. We got this. The public isn’t convinced. The tech people really don’t understand how AI works, how the training yields the results. So where to regulate? Even so, there are rules to be established – don’t create deepfake for harassment and scams. Watch for unhealthy attachments to chatbots. Prevent it from hacking. Like airlines there are government regulators and industry organizations working on safety. We need both. Emily Singer of Daily Kos reported on political ads that target transgender people.

GOP operatives clearly hope the fearmongering will ignite their base and get them to the voting booth since polling shows that even Republican voters are angry about President Donald Trump’s handling of the economy, his war in Iran, and other matters. But American Principles Project, a right-wing super PAC, admitted on Thursday that the deluge of anti-trans ads won’t be enough to save the party in November. In a memo to Republican campaigns, the group warns GOP candidates that “Republicans face significant headwinds in the upcoming midterms,” and says that while Republican ads on culture war and diversity issues are “important,” they “may not be sufficient” to stave off defeat. “To win in 2026, GOP candidates will need to both highlight Democrats’ cultural radicalism while also proposing a compelling economic alternative,” the memo states.

Ah, there’s the problem. Because of the nasty guy Republicans don’t have a compelling economic alternative. And Democrats are now blunting the attack with, “Here they go again.” The same tired anti-trans fearmongering. Guess they don’t have anything better to talk about. In today’s pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin quoted David Graham of The Atlantic discussing the case of a new Democratically controlled house impeaching the nasty guy. The legal case is solid. But...

The political case for impeaching Trump is shakier. Regardless of the results in November, Democrats are unlikely to get enough votes in the Senate to convict and remove him, meaning that a third impeachment would hit the same dead end as the first two. An impeachment can still be effective as a way of damaging a president, but Trump is already deeply unpopular and will never face voters again, so the upside is limited, and an impeachment might give him a way to rally his remaining base around him—which would only strengthen his power and resolve. But what if House Democrats impeached Trump’s Cabinet members instead?

In the comments Dworkin included a tweet by Philip Lewis that includes a video:

A massive group of demonstrators is currently forming a human chain around the Kennedy Center following Trump’s threats against it.

That video shows a large crowd. Jonathan Nicholson added:

If you're not from DC or the DMV, you may not get why this of all things is bringing people into the streets. People have had 1st dates w/ their spouses here, been introduced to ballet or opera, or just gone on a crisp fall day to watch the planes fly over. Truly very special.

A meme posted by exlrrp reminds me of the time I took a tour of the Kennedy Center (more than a decade ago) and the guide took us into rooms the public usually doesn’t see where US dignitaries can greet dignitaries from other countries. The guide told us which country donated the décor of each room. The meme says:

Some interesting facts: The Kennedy Memorial is made of irreplaceable marble that was gifted by Italy. Matisse tapestries found throughout were gifted from France. The massive starburst chandelier in the opera hall, and lights along walkways were a gift from Sweden. The record breaking stage curtains was a gift from Japan, they had to build special looms to weave them because of how big they are. The grounds are beautiful with displays of art. This is what Trump is destroying.

Another meme posted by exlrrp is from US Democratic Socialists.

The biggest mistake in American history was not dragging Trump off to prison within 24 hours of January 6th. And we’ll pay for that for the rest of our lives.

I will myself to be happy, therefore I am

My Sunday movie was Indian Horse. It is the story of Saul Indian Horse, an indigenous man. The story opens in 1959 when the Canadian residential school system is still going strong. A similar school system was still in use in the US. At age six Saul’s family tries to protect him from being abducted and sent to a school. But their protection fails. A good chunk of the movie is about the cruelty of the priests and nuns who ran this particular school and all like it – a case of using God to justify oppression. A younger priest suggests building a hockey rink for the older boys. Saul is entranced by the game. He’s given the chore of maintaining the rink and secretly teaches himself to skate and handle a hockey stick. Though he’s not allowed to play because he’s too young, he soon shows he’s as good or better than the older boys. At one point Saul says the only thing they really teach at the school is how to endure. Hockey is how he endures. He’s good enough he is allowed to leave the school and be part of a small town league, then a minor league team with a chance at the majors. There he finds that too many white people think the game is theirs and shouldn’t be open to a native. They makes sure he knows that. This can be a difficult story to watch, but it’s an important one. The actors, including the kids, do a fine job. Overall, it’s a good movie. A few days ago I wrote about a post by Kos of Daily Kos who speculated that Republicans are sufficiently annoyed and tired of the nasty guy that enough would vote to remove him after the Democratic led House impeached him. My friend and debate partner disagreed, saying the chance of Republicans going along with this is “probably zero.” He wrote:

If [removal] did happen, it could accelerate the administration's march to fascism. Otherwise his toadies and sycophants (who lack immunity) face prison. Trump got this boulder rolling; but removing him still leaves it in motion. We need determined, steady effort to brake and break up this horror. That will take teaching and time.

I agree with my friend. Removing the nasty guy puts the vice nasty in power and many have said he is more fascist. At the very least the nasty guy isn’t very smart and is guided by his need to constantly prop up his ego, but the vice nasty is reasonably smart and would be more purposeful in working towards fascist goals. Also, removing just the nasty guy does nothing to curb the power of the billionaires and their hold over the Republican – and Democratic – parties. We’re not out of this threat until their power is neutralized.

The work ahead is for Congress and allies to denounce, investigate, impede, litigate and legislate to contain Trump and his fascists, fiscally starve their programs, slow and reverse the damage and assert a new American devotion to the Constitution, the rule of law, freedom and democracy.

The legislate part faces the nasty guy’s veto. As for the rest so far Democrats haven’t shown much spine in actually doing those things. I hope that when Democrats take over the House (hopefully the Senate too!) they begin the work on all those other things. But that will require a change in party leadership, sidelining all those beholden to billionaires. Will enough progressives be elected to force the issue? That means the breaking up of this horror and the teaching required to do so will have to be done by us. My friend and debate partner ended with:

I'm thinking the $5,000 "promise" is either fraud or bribery. Both are federal felonies. Since the "promise" was made to about 270 million adult US citizens, this amounts to 270 million felonies -- surely a world record! (CNN is my source for the 270 million figure.)

Ooh! I like that reasoning! The phrase “Live, Laugh, Love” now appears on coffee mugs and bumper stickers. NPR's Juana Summers talked with Kristin Kobez Du Mez about her new book Live Laugh Love: The Secret History of White Christian Women and the World They Made. The meaning behind the phrase both serves and harms women. The phrase goes back to 1875 and the book The Christian's Secret Of A Happy Life by Hannah Whithall Smith. Essentially, if one aligns their will with the will of God, believes and doesn’t doubt and keeps a positive attitude, then one will become holy and happiness will follow. For women, at least white women, aligning their will with the will of God means totally submitting to the men around them – their husband and their pastor. That will lead to happiness. That didn’t work for Smith either. She had to redefine happiness from an emotion to an act of will, “I will myself to be happy, therefore, I am.” Millions of women are taught they must trust the men, obey, even sacrifice their own well-being. God requires it and they will be blessed. They are taught to defend the authority of those God place over them. That means they have a hard time identifying abuse and certainly won’t speak out against it. The victims that complain tend to get pushed out of the community. This is why they vote conservatively. They are taught to uphold power structures, including authoritarian power. This seems contradictory when these women are immersed in a culture of love and positivity. The logic is that the pure feminine innocence must be protected from evil. That may require violence, but it will be righteous violence. Du Mez also talked about the compassionate conservatism that was popular during the Bush II reign. In the last 10-15 years that has been replaced with the idea that compassion should not be shown to the disobedient to the Christian or American project. We’re not surprised that includes LGBTQ people and immigrants. This ideology is absorbed more readily if women are teaching it. So, women can be out in public and involved in politics, even religion, as long as they stay within the ideology. I listened to this and thought about how women are taught to uphold the hierarchy – with themselves in a lower position – by telling them that God requires it. The God of love is being used to oppress, which is never love. I’ve written many times about Matthew, chapter 25, in the Bible that talks about what God requires of us – love and care for your neighbor as yourself and even the stranger is your neighbor. That’s it. As part of a discussion with my sister I realized Christians are very good at redefining what God wants – obedience and holiness are just a couple of diversions – so that we can avoid caring for our neighbor and still claim to be on the right side of God. Bill in Portland, Maine, in his Cheers and Jeers column for Kos discussed the nasty guy’s offer to pay $5,000 to every adult if Republicans maintain control of both the House and Senate.

But I do have a few questions, Mr. President. When you say “every adult citizen”… Does that include the Dumocrats? Does that include the sex criminals? ... Does that include the woke? The LGBTQ? The feminists and pagans? Does that include men with low testosterone and women with their original hair and faces? Does that include Republicans who vote Democrat? Does that include Jimmy Kimmel?

The list includes many more people and categories. Walter Einenkel of Kos reported that Mitch McConnell made an appearance at the Senate after three months of people wondering whether he had died. The response was mild, though he did fuel a lot of memes. In Monday’s pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin included a campaign ad from James Talarico, the Democrat trying to win the Senate seat in Texas. He essentially says a member of Congress is supposed to serve the people, not themselves. In the comments rugbymom posted a tweet by the Adam Hamilton campaign. He is a liberal United Methodist pastor (I’ve read at least one of his books) running as a Democrat for the Senate from Kansas and just might flip the seat. The tweet contains a video of Hamilton’s closing argument at a debate at the Kansas state fair against Roger Marshall. The characters of The Wizard of Oz want a heart, a brain, and courage. These are three things Republicans don’t have – their votes show they don’t have a heart, they don’t talk to constituents and don’t understand them showing they don’t have a brain, and they don’t have the courage to stand up to the nasty guy. Hamilton puts his preacher training to good use to lay all this out. In the comments of today’s roundup are a few good tweets and memes. A tweet from Andy Craig:

Great system where the body with the power to declare, fund, and authorize wars can repeatedly vote "we don't approve of this war, stop it" and it has no effect.

A meme posted by exlrrp and from Call to Activism:

The entire Republican Party just let the president try and undermine our Constitution and prevent eligible voters from making their voices heard in this election. The Supreme Court said No F---ing Way. Corruption lost and the law won!

Also posted by exlrrp is a campaign sign:

TRUMP $20.28 per gallon

Do they keep Trump wrapped around their necks?

I’m a fan of the film music programs on WRCJ, the Detroit public radio station for classical and jazz music. So I’ve heard music by film composer Max Steiner. I heard of a recommended biography of him and eventually bought it and just now finished reading it. The book is Music by Max Steiner, the Epic Life of Hollywood’s Most Influential Composer by Steven C. Smith. Steiner was born in Vienna in 1888 to a musical and entrepreneurial family – his grandfather owned a theater and convinced Johann Strauss to try writing operettas. One result is Die Fledermaus. Steiner made big strides in music while young. When Vienna wasn’t working out he went to London, then Broadway, where he served as a conductor of musicals. Shortly after movies added sound he went to Hollywood. At the time movies with sound tended to have generic music that did little more than set the mood. Steiner revolutionized all that. He wrote music specific to the movie – themes for the major characters with the way they are combined and varied as a way to tell more of the story than dialogue can (an idea from opera composer Richard Wagner). He pioneered the click-track to synchronize the music to the film. A lot (maybe most) of the film composers working in the last 90 years are doing things the way Steiner did them. A big difference is modern composers write on computer and Steiner wrote with pencil and paper. Alas, many film producers put their composers through a tough schedule – limited time to write the music and record it. Yes, there are teams of orchestrators, the people who take the main guy’s basic outlines and turn them into performable sheet music. But the days are still long. Steiner would composer much of the day and lead a recording session much of the night. And while he was thick in the midst of one movie a producer frequently said, Max, you’re the only one who can rescue this film and we need it done quickly. Steiner’s first big success is King Kong, released in 1933. It decisively showed a score written specifically for a movie can make a huge difference in how the action and characters are perceived. In this case the stop-action motion of the great ape looked silly without Steiner’s pounding score. But Steiner could also turn the viewer’s opinion towards a bit of sympathy for the beast. His other famous scores are Gone With The Wind of 1939 and Casablanca of 1942. He continued to write for films into the mid 1960s. While the book is fascinating (to me), it is also long – 400 pages. I didn’t think I needed to know that much detail about the movies he scored – and the book doesn’t cover every movie. Another issue I have with the book is the basic problem of describing music with words. It would say Steiner used this particular melodic fragment to mean this with this effect on the movie. For some of the scores I could find the some of the music on YouTube, but that rarely showed the music with the scene described in the book – unless I wanted to watch the whole movie (and GWTW is about 4 hours long – I saw it decades ago and once was enough). The book also described Steiner’s personal life. The royalty organization ASCAP wouldn’t handle movie music (that changed in the 1960s), so Steiner seemed perpetually poor, even though the studios paid him well. Enjoying gambling and not being a good manager of money contributed to that. His intense hours meant he went through four wives and his son didn’t get what he needed most – a dad he could talk to. I enjoyed the book and learned about composing for movies. But I would recommend it only to those with a great love of music for film. The Republican midterm convention – sorry, nasty guy rally – ended yesterday. Of course, I avoided it. Also of course, some of his worst statements end up in the news, even on NPR. Emily Singer of Daily Kos reported on the item that got the most airtime. The nasty guy said if Republicans kept the House and Senate he would send every adult $5,000. So vote Republican. Yeah, there are all kinds of problems with that promise. Congress has to approve the money and enough members likely won’t, if it ever came for a vote. The total cost would be well over $1 trillion (I’ve heard up to $1.3 trillion). So much money dumped into the economy would boost inflation. And the national debt. And the big problems: Bribing voters is illegal. But that doesn’t stop him. He has made promises of payouts before and rarely followed through. And voters are noticing. So don’t let this promise influence your vote. Kos of Kos discussed what might happen after the election.

President Donald Trump may have lost his ability to punish Republicans in primaries. But he hasn’t lost his ability to punish them in general elections. That’s the extraordinary dynamic now taking shape: Trump is herding his party toward an electoral catastrophe, yet increasingly lacks the political leverage to keep Republicans from eventually turning on him. ... So, Republicans will have a decision to make: Do they keep Trump wrapped around their neck heading into 2028, or do they rip off the Band-Aid, join Democrats in impeaching him, and spend the next several years hoping America forgets their complicity in the Trump disaster? I’m going to sit way out on this limb and predict that this is exactly what will happen, and that we will have a President JD Vance before 2028.

The Houthis of Yemen are threatening to close the southern end of the Red Sea, requiring ships between Asia and Europe to take the long way around Africa. The nasty guy claims the Iranians are just waiting for the midterms to be over before caving to his demands. More likely they’ll settle with the next president. Both of these closures will continue to raise prices and perhaps lead to a big energy mess.

Trump took a promising Biden economy and trashed it for no reason at all. All of it has been entirely, and unnecessarily, his fault. And Republicans have enabled him every step of the way. At some point, Republicans will have to decide: When do they cut their losses and begin rebuilding in a post-MAGA world? If it’s between a raving lunatic in the White House, and JD Vance, it doesn’t seem like a tough call.

Democrats probably won’t try to impeach without a path to actual conviction. Republicans may give them that. I’ve heard elsewhere that impeachment can’t be off the table. If the nasty guy, terrible as he is, isn’t impeached, we’ll have worse. Alas, a candidate for worse is the current vice nasty. In contrast to the way Democrats are acting right now... MaryAEnglish of the Kos community wrote about the far right German party AfD doing way too well in a state election and the comments by Germany’s chancellor, Friedrich Merz, who called it as he saw it. The AfD has been using the term “remigration” and Merz properly called it ethnic cleansing. Then he said:

If those working in Germany have to leave the country again because you are championing ‘remigration’, then the skilled trades in Germany will no longer be able to function: not a single care home will remain open, not a single hospital in Germany will remain operational, and not a single restaurant in Germany will be able to stay in business.

Now if Democrats would be so bold.