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.

They keep volunteering to be fleeced

I finished the book Theater Kid, a Broadway Memoir by Jeffrey Seller. He’s famous for being the producer of Tony winners Rent, Avenue Q, In the Heights, and Hamilton. He also brought other shows to the stage. Yes, he was a theater kid from an early age. He was born in the suburbs north of Detroit, adopted into a Jewish family, and grew up in a poor part of the suburb Oak Park. His father had been in a motorcycle accident and wasn’t a good provider. His mother worked at a drug store. His goal was to get out of Oak Park. He first got involved in a play at his temple. Then it was community theater, when there were parts for boys, and school theater. Then off to University of Michigan with summers directing kids at an arts camp. He got a job at a booking agency in New York, a company that books touring shows into theaters across the country. He did community theater at night. That’s when he realized he was not very good at directing and much better at producing. With a colleague they formed a production company focusing on musicals. One of their early efforts was Rent. In college he realized he was gay and had a steady boyfriend who was also into theater and also moved to NYC. It didn’t last. Through his experiences with Rent we learn what a producer does. This was at a time when there were few musicals on Broadway and those weren’t all that good. It seems the old formulas for musicals had run out of ideas and the older producers didn’t have any interest in new ideas. So he had a wide open field to find and develop the talents of the next generation of storytellers that brought a different kind of music and told stories of a different kind of people than previous Broadway musicals. Rent was definitely both of those. He, as a producer, recognizes, nurtures, and guides the shaping of a worthwhile story. He was blown away by Jonathan Larson’s one-man show that became Tick, Tick, Boom... (which eventually became a pretty good movie). So when Larson had ideas for his next show Seller was ready to help, as in providing feedback and signing up for workshops so others could provide feedback. The show that appeared on Broadway was at least the fourth version. He raises funding and manages the money. He determines what kind of theater is appropriate and books it. He figures out how many people will want to see the show, which determines the size of the theater. And when the show is ready for Broadway he books that theater too. In New York that means meeting with the big theater companies. He assembles the talent. That includes the director and perhaps actors to play important roles. He gets the designers and teams for the sets, costumes, lighting, and advertising (though Seller learned 90% of ticket sales are people telling friends a show is worth seeing). He hires the musicians. He makes sure everyone is paid. He arranges for the cast album and, when appropriate, the movie rights. I found the story to be fascinating and enjoyable. If you are someone who delights in theater and wants to know how it works this is a worthy story. However, I do have a quibble or two with the book. Seller says a lot about that first boyfriend and their relationship and then talks about years without a lover. But he says very little about the man who became his partner and helped him raise two kids, and we hear very little about them too. He says a great deal about the development of Rent, which is good, but he says a lot less about the other three shows that got him Tony awards. That was somewhat annoying because two of them are by the now-famous Lin-Manuel Miranda (and famous long before this book came out last year). Kos of Daily Kos wrote the nasty guy proclaimed himself to be the “crypto president.” Back in October of 2024, before his election, Bitcoin was at $60K. It rose from there to $120 last October. It is now back at $60K. The crypto industry was delighted the nasty guy took the Oval Office, thinking he would give them everything they want and there would be a crypto golden age. They did get a lot – friendly regulators, government backing, a proposed strategic reserve, direct access to the White House, even legitimacy. It just didn’t make anyone rich – except him. He made out quite well. I’ve heard the nasty guy didn’t make his money from buying and holding the various crypto currencies. He made it through the deals surrounding the buying and selling the currencies or through branding. The coins could fluctuate or lose money and he still raked it in. Kos’ conclusion discussing the crypto bros:

They mistook a salesman for a true believer. He didn’t see a financial revolution. He saw marks for a new grift. If you judge the crypto industry’s bet by political access, it has been a spectacular success. But if you judge it by investment returns, it’s more of a disaster. And if you judge it by who is actually getting rich, there may never have been a better investment than becoming the crypto president.

Kos also wrote about the people who bought the nasty guy’s meme coins. The nasty guy made $2.3 billion off crypto, according to Reuters. That money came from his supporters. One might think that his income and their losses would enrage them. But the people Reuters interviewed think he’s such a wonderful businessman he’ll still change their losses into profits. Then Kos looked at the fine print of nasty guy’s crypto business and the various meme coins. They all say similar things: Buyers should not expect to make a profit. The coin has no real value. The coins are an expression of support for the ideals of the coin and are not intended to be an investment opportunity. You may experience substantial losses. They’re not pretending to have value. And still people bought. And still they voted for him.

No matter how much evidence people are given of Trump’s corruption, incompetence, or failed ventures, millions convince themselves that this time will be different. It never is. The remarkable thing isn’t that Trump keeps finding new ways to profit from his supporters. It’s that they keep volunteering to be fleeced.

To mark Independence Day Alix Breeden of Kos listed 11 times (only 11?) that the nasty guy and his cronies were unpatriotic. We could probably expand the list. I won’t list all 11. He cut care for veterans. He demonized immigrants. He pardoned those who attacked the Capitol. He is erasing history. He tried to get rid of birthright citizenship. He is making the America military partisan. Two weeks ago an Associated Press article posted on Kos reported a federal judge halted the nasty guy’s executive order to create a federal voter list which would be used to limit who could receive a mail ballot. The reason is the president has no role in national elections. Oliver Willis of Kos reported the nasty guy and his minions released its report attacking the Smithsonian National Museum of American History on Sunday.

The report, titled “Saving America’s Story,” claims that the widely celebrated museum has been the subject of “ideological capture” and says the institution is guilty of erasing “our heritage.”

This looks like one of those places where an accusation is actually a confession. Willis noted the report uses language long used by white supremacists. Examples are “heritage” to mean white culture and “degeneracy” for non white culture. Willis summed it up quite well:

Trump wants history rewritten to excuse abuses by white supremacy.

In today’s pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin quoted Dana DuBois of Blue Amp Media:

They call us hysterical. They always have. The word itself tells you everything. Hysterical comes from the Greek hystera — uterus. The ancient diagnosis for women who wouldn’t calm down, who felt too much, who saw things men didn’t want to see. The language they invented to dismiss us was named after the organ they wanted to control. This isn’t a coincidence. This is a blueprint. Women said Roe was going to fall. We were called hysterical. It fell. No one apologized. Women said the voting rights protections were fragile. We were called hysterical. The SAVE Act passed in the House and barely died in the Senate — for now. No one apologized. Women said birth control was next. We were called hysterical. The quiet legislative pressure on contraception access has been building for three years. No one’s apologized for that either. The pattern isn’t incidental. The pattern is the point. The consistent thread running through it all? The United States hates women.

Drew Sheneman posted a cartoon on Kos. One guy wears a MAGA hat, has a shirt that says, “Corporations are people,” and has a sign showing “Mamdani” with a line through it. The other guy has a shirt that says, “In DOGE we trust,” and has a sign that says, “Billionaires know best.” The first guy says, “I know I’m supposed to hate Democratic Socialism, but I don’t know why.” Mike Luckovich posted a cartoon on Kos commenting on the recent Supreme Court decision that allows corporations or at least their PACs to work more closely (I think share more money with) political campaigns. The cartoon shows a house labeled “US Elections.” In front the Supreme Court is posting a sign, “For Sale to Highest Bidder.” And here comes a rich guy with a bag of cash. Anastasia Tsioulcas of NPR reported on the premier of Philip Glass’ Symphony No. 15 “Lincoln” by the Boston Symphony Orchestra at the Tanglewood Music Festival. The symphony includes a singer and has a text of Lincoln’s own words. The symphony was supposed to be premiered a month ago by the National Symphony Orchestra at the Kennedy Center. But when the nasty guy added his name to the side of the building Glass withdrew it, saying the current values of the Center were in direct conflict with the message of the symphony. I’m not a big fan of Glass’ music. But since he has now written 15 symphonies I, as a lover of classical music, thought I should listen to them. So I found his first symphony on YouTube and listened while working. It was boring. One was enough. My dislike for his music does not stop me from praising Glass for standing up for principles.

Big lies move like viruses in the culture

Kos of Daily Kos discussed why the nasty guy, the vice nasty, Musk, and many of their associates are calling for white women to produce more babies. Musk is even using the term “population collapse.” To keep the population steady, the fertility rate needs to be about 2.1 children per woman. But the fertility rate for every ethnic group in America except Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (2.24) ranges from 1.97 for Hispanic to white at 1.57 to Asian at 1.35. There are reasons why a declining population is a problem: A shrinking workforce leads to economic stagnation and a smaller tax base cuts into the needs of an aging population such as Social Security and Medicare. Innovation is done mainly by the young before they get stuck in “It’s always been done this way.” Smaller population lowers rural property values now and will soon affect cities. The population decline could be fixed by immigration – the solution that conservatives hate the most because most immigrants aren’t white. Immigration is also best for the world population that is way too high. Fertility rates are low because of Republican policies that care about babies only before they are born. The policies they oppose include: Day care support. Health care support, including Medicaid. Abortion care. Paid maternity leave. Promoting vaccines. School lunches. Help to pay for college. Livable wages. Kos says liberals oppose a piece too, that being affordable housing, to which liberals say Not In My Back Yard. All of those are reasons why fertile adults choose to have one or no children. Instead of addressing those issues the nasty guy and friends are proposing: Scholarship support for the parents. $5,000 cash “baby bonus” paid to mothers after delivery. Programs to teach women the best time to conceive. A “National Medal of Motherhood” to women with six or more children. They’re not serious about addressing the problem. Oliver Willis of Kos discussed why Republicans love torture. Yes, Willis establishes the premise. Two planeloads of deportees, including Kilmar Abrego Garcia, were sent to the CECOT prison in El Salvador known for its violence. And Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem went there in late March to be photographed in front of prisoners to show what a badass she pretends to be. In 2017 the nasty guy joked to police officers in New York they should abuse people they arrest. Bush II is known for the “enhanced interrogation” in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Willis asks, if torture has been proven to be ineffective in fighting crime and terrorism, why do conservatives still embrace the barbaric techniques? Willis answers:

Conservatism is weak. Problems like immigration, terrorism, and crime are complex. There is no magical button to make the fallout from these issues disappear. These are systemic issues that have to be addressed from multiple angles, which sometimes involves diplomacy, science, study, and reason. Conservatism would rather tell the public that the bad people will go away as long as they act “tough” instead of addressing root causes, which sometimes can indicate that the United States’ actions created the problem or made the problem worse. The right would rather just back torture and abuse—particularly if the subjects in question have brown skin.

Conservatives love to use strong solutions to show liberal weakness, even though the liberal approach has made progress on many big issues

It’s weak to resort to abuse and torture and posing in front of incarcerated people to get clout with the in-crowd. What is stronger is standing up against abuse and championing human rights.

I feel Willis doesn’t get to the real issue. Republicans claim a higher level in the social hierarchy. People who are obsessed with their position in the hierarchy oppress the levels below them. And torture is very useful in that. Getting to a browser tab that’s been there a while. In a pundit roundup for Kos posted on April 1, Chitown Kev quoted Ian Bogost of The Atlantic discussing the ways the nasty guy has cut billions in federal grants to universities. That has prompted universities to cut staff or freeze hiring and cut back on graduate admissions. Deportations have made international students and faculty scared, lowering foreign admissions which tend to pay full price.

Yes, academic freedom is at stake, along with scientific progress. But the government’s attacks also threaten something far more tangible to future college students and their parents. The entire undergraduate experience at residential four-year schools—the brochure-ready college life that you may once have experienced yourself, and to which your children may aspire—is itself at risk of ruination. Few administrators have talked about this risk in public, but they take a different tone in private as they try to figure out how broken budgets can be fixed. I’ve spent the past month discussing the government’s campaign to weaken higher learning with current and former college presidents, provosts, deans, faculty, and staff. And in the course of these informal, sometimes panicked text exchanges, emails, and phone calls, I’ve come to understand that the damage to our educational system could be worse than the public comprehends—and that calamity could arrive sooner than people expect.

Historian David Blight wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times about the executive order demanding the Smithsonian Institution make some changes. I heard about these demands when they were issued and mentioned them in passing. Now I have a way to share a bit more.

The order’s repeated invocation of the Smithsonian Institution echoes now-familiar right-wing goals outlined in Project 2025 and elsewhere: ending the alleged “woke” agendas on race and gender, creating “parents’ rights” and school choices and promoting history aligned with founders’ “values.” According to the president, “objective facts” have been replaced with a “distorted narrative driven by ideology.” And then comes that penetrating epithet, the order’s organizing logic: the desire to end the “revisionist movement” carried out by unnamed historians. [...] The order is nothing less than a declaration of political war on the historians’ profession, our training and integrity, as well as on the freedom — in the form of curious minds — of anyone who seeks to understand our country by visiting museums or historic sites. [...] Big lies move like viruses in the culture, and though we do have evidence, facts and ethics on our side, there are no vaccines. The crude intent of this order is to further break institutions and to silence historians.

That paragraph about “objective facts” being replaced by “distorted narrative driven by ideology” sounds very much like projection – accusing opponents of doing what they are doing. This is a day for pundit roundups. This second one is from last Saturday and is by Greg Dworkin. He quoted EJ Dionne of The New Republic:

The most conspicuous moment of truth has been for Trump’s supporters in big business and other advocates of a loosely regulated free market. They thought they could get what they wanted out of Trump, mainly lower taxes and less regulation, without having to worry about his very explicit campaign promises to impose tariffs, let alone to do so in a madcap way that now threatens their own wealth. They couldn’t imagine that Trump would happily wreak such havoc in the national and global economies or demolish the entire post–World War II economic system. Why did they miss this? The fact that Trump lies regularly and has few fixed principles has, perversely perhaps, been a source of his political strength. Those who rally to him fool themselves into thinking they can have Trump à la carte. They assume he really means his pledges to policies they like and that he’s lying to the masses when he promises policies they don’t like. All the old nonsense about taking Trump “seriously but not literally” was a way for his apologists to assume he couldn’t really mean the more outlandish things he said. His supporters in business and among the wealthy like to view themselves as gimlet-eyed realists, so the ease with which they were bamboozled is quite remarkable—and is easily measured.

A Ukraine peace deal, though stalled, is still in the news. So this tweet by Ruth Deyermond from last Friday is still appropriate:

Trump admin threats to abandon "peace deal" negotiations would be more worrying if they'd ever shown the slightest interest in actually helping to achieve peace in Ukraine, instead of trying to compel a ceasefire on Russia's terms while grabbing Ukrainian assets.

Paul Offit of Beyond the Noise:

RFK Jr. believes many weird things about the causes, treatment, and prevention of infectious diseases. These false beliefs might seem disparate and unrelated, but they’re not. They’re all rooted in a single belief described on pages 285-288 of his book, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. In short, RFK Jr. doesn’t believe in the germ theory. He believes in something called the miasma theory. The miasma theory is a long-abandoned medical theory that holds that diseases are caused by poisonous vapors (i.e., miasmata) that are generated by rotting organic matter, such as trash sitting out on the street. According to the miasmists, diseases aren’t passed from one person to another; rather, they are the product of poor hygiene and sanitation.

I first heard about the miasma theory way back in November of 2009 when I read and discussed the book The Ghost Map by Steven Johnson. It is about how physician John Snow and cleric Henry Whitehead figured out the cause of the 1854 London cholera outbreak. At the time the miasma theory was used to explain disease outbreak. The sleuthing of Snow and Whitehead to trace the source of the outbreak to a water pump contaminated by bacteria was quite remarkable for the day. That prompted London to create an adequate sewer system, though that took about a decade. Dworkin also quoted a tweet by Craig Fuller:

Many truckers I've spoken with don't realize how quickly container volumes have collapsed. Starting in May, port freight out of California will be almost eliminated. Its going to be a bloodbath in dray, followed by intermodal, and then a collapse in I-20 & I-40 trucking.

The pundit roundup for Sunday was assembled by Kev, who quoted Rosemary (Marah) Al-Kire, Clara L. Wilkins, and Michael Pasek writing for The Conversation.

Our 2024 research, as well as other scholars’ work, suggests that people’s beliefs about anti-Christian discrimination are tied with their attitudes about race. These studies suggest that when politicians talk about anti-Christian bias, it does more than signal a concern and commitment to Christians – it can also serve as a signal of white solidarity. Even though they remain the largest religious and racial groups, white Americans and Christian Americans have both declined as a proportion of the U.S. population. Over the past two decades, the percentage of Christian Americans has decreased from 78% to 63%, and the percentage of white Americans has decreased from 69% to 60%. White Christians now account for less than 50% of the country. Many scholars have argued that, at the root, some white and Christian Americans feel threatened by these demographic shifts. Increasing secularization and other cultural changes have added to some white Christians’ sense that their identity is under attack. According to FBI data, however, only 3% of hate crimes over the past five years targeted Christians. In comparison, 14% targeted Jews, Muslims or Sikhs – groups that make up just 3% of the population. The Public Religion Research Institute found that 55% of white Americans believe discrimination against white people is as much of a problem as discrimination against minority groups. Meanwhile, 60% of white evangelicals say that Christians in the U.S. face discrimination.

Timothy Snyder writing for his “Thinking About...” Substack on the 30th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.

In just three months, the Trump people have made the unthinkable much more likely. They have created the conditions for terrorism, and thus for terror management. This is true at several levels. Most obviously, they have debilitated the services that detect terrorist threats and prevent attacks: [the CIA, FBI, DHS, and NSA]. The Musk-Trump people run national security, intelligence, and law enforcement like a television show. The entire operation of forcible rendition of migrants to a Salvadoran concentration camp was based upon lies. It is not just that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was mistakenly apprehended. The entire thing was made for television. Its point was the creation of the fascist videos. But this is a media strategy, meant to frighten Americans. And a media strategy does not stop actual terrorists. It summons them. Terrorism is a real risk in the real world. The constant use of the word to denote unreal threats creates unreality. And unreality inside ket (sic) institutions degrades capability. Security agencies that have been trained to follow political instructions about imaginary threats do not investigate actual threats. Fiction is dangerous. Treating the administration’s abduction of a legal permanent resident as a heroic defense against terror is not only mendacious and unconstitutional but also dangerous.

In the comments of Wednesday’s roundup are several more cartoons commemorating the death of Pope Francis. One by Steve Greenberg and posted by paulpro shows a smiling Francis and the words, “Pope Francis was really a DEI hire. Devotion, Empathy, Inclusion.” Also posted by paulpro is a cartoon by Antonio Rodriguez Garcia showing Francis on his way to heaven. In one hand is a soccer ball and the other hand is pulling a carryon bag with the Palestinian and LGBTQ rainbow flags. Way down in the comments Sotto Voce posted a cartoon by B. Smaller that had been printed in the New Yorker. It shows a woman talking to a young man. “Just remember, Mr. Big Fancy Libertarian, no one is a self-made man to their mother.” I’ve been a fan of the amazing videos put out by the band OK GO, though I’m not much of a fan of their music. I discussed their videos five times between 2010 and 2016 (sorry, I didn’t spend time finding the links). Just recently I heard an interview of a new video. And I may have missed one or two in the meantime. The video “Love” has a lot of fun with mirrors, both with robots holding mirrors and bigger mirrors used as big kaleidoscopes. At the end the singer puts on a mirrored suit. As usual, the video is amazing. I watched the video about making the Love music video. They used robots because they wanted the mirrors to be moved and held in precise ways that a human wouldn’t be able to do. And each of those robots had to be precisely programmed. Then they had to fit it all together to shoot in one take, though they needed 39 tries. Tomorrow I’m off to a handbell event, returning home late Saturday. So with a movie on Sunday and bell stuff on Monday and Tuesday I probably won’t post again until Wednesday.

A better trade deal for whom?

My Sunday movie was The Pass, a 2016 film based on a 2014 play. The story focuses on Jason, who was played by Russell Tovey in both the play and the movie. Jason, a white guy, and Ade, a black guy, are roommates and good friends at a football (what Americans call soccer) camp. They’ve been attending since they were young. They’re now at a hotel in Bucharest and a big event is the next day. I think the event is one that gives some of the attendees a chance to go on to professional jobs. I get the impression Jason knows Ade is gay. The boys wear nothing but briefs. They joke around and do some roughhousing. And towards the end of the evening Jason leans in to kiss Ade. The rest of this review should probably be classified as a spoiler alert. I enjoyed the movie, but I don’t really recommend it. Five years later in London Jason is with a woman. The situation gets complicated, though the main reason why they’re together is Jason is desperate for evidence he’s not gay. He needs to protect his image of a strong footballer. His marriage (not to this woman) is falling apart. Five years after that Jason in living in a hotel in Manchester. Though he hasn’t seen Ade since the time in Bucharest he invites Ade for a visit and Ade comes. Ade wonders why Jason invited him. What does Jason want? It seems Jason hasn’t figured that out yet. Part of what he wants is for Ade to be jealous of his high status lifestyle. But Ade sees what Jason doesn’t have and he does. He has a boyfriend he loves. That long scene has a lot of drinking and a lot of downing medications of some sort (Jason says it is for his knee). Does Jason need to be drunk to kiss Ade again? The drinking and the meds are a big reason why the film doesn’t get a recommendation. Through that final scene I saw Jason is way messed up, a gay guy whose profession and social conditioning won’t let him admit it. I finished the book The Piano Shop on the Left Bank by Thad Carhart, published in 2000. This is a memoir of Carhart’s time living in Paris during the 1990s and it is centered around his love of pianos. When he walks his children to school he passes a shop that looks like it supplies tools to repair pianos. He encounters the French custom of privacy – parts of a French shopkeeper’s business is only open to those whom he trusts. Carhart must get a referral from an existing customer. Even then the owner is hesitant about letting him into the workroom. Once in Carhart sees a big workroom with maybe forty pianos, some in bad shape and others well restored. He meets Luc, the primary craftsman about to take over the business. The rest of the book is mostly about pianos and his love for them. Carhart had taken lessons through school but stopped when he went to college. Seeing Luc’s wares prompts him to want to take lessons again, though just for his own enjoyment. Even after buying a piano Carhart spends time socializing in the workroom (in his many visits he rarely describes Luc actually working on a piano). Carhart writes about the history of pianos, many of the great piano builders through history, some of the beautiful pianos that come through Luc’s shop, how to tune a piano, his efforts to find a suitable teacher and his enjoyment in the lessons, his work to find teachers for his children that aren’t geared to prepare children to be concert pianists, and what he learns while watching master classes by professional pianists. I very much enjoyed the book. EricAZ of the Daily Kos community wrote that according to the US Constitution Congress has the power to impose tariffs. So the nasty guy’s tariff proclamations are illegal. Because of that Charles Koch and Leonard Leo are filing suit against the tariffs. EricAZ does not mention Congress ceding tariffs to the presidency. Koch is the remaining Koch brother and the two are known for generous support of far right causes, the Koch network. Leo is the head of the Heritage Foundation, known for recommending far right Supreme Court candidates and making sure, once on the court, billionaires are able to take care of them. He’s the court puppet master. So a Koch brother and Leo teaming up to sue the far right nasty guy is big news. They found a plaintiff, a stationery shop that would be ruined by the tariffs. Suing the nasty guy could eventually put the case before the court Leo has stacked. The Court loves “major questions” and trashing the world economy doesn’t get any major. On Monday Oliver Willis of Kos wrote that many of the nasty guy’s billionaire backers publicly complained about the tariffs applied against most countries of the world. The billionaires speaking out included JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon (and Dimon is a respected economic voice). Even Elon Musk complained – he wants “a zero-tariff situation.” In response the nasty guy wrote, “Don’t be Weak! Don’t be Stupid!” Yeah, calling your billionaire backers “stupid” isn’t going to endear yourself to them. Max Burns of Kos gave a history lesson:

Donald Trump’s chaotic ethos can be summed up in this sentence: Never admit you’re wrong, and only weak countries carry trade deficits. Those two pillars of Trump’s political thought have followed him from his days as a Manhattan real estate developer, through the dawn of the social media era, and right into the Oval Office. His latest global trade war is combining those two toxic ideas into what economic experts warn is an “astonishing act of self-harm” that has left business leaders “terrified” of the financial chaos to come.

Burns says “closing the trade deficit may be Trump’s only core value,” unlike abortion and immigration which are values he holds only to get himself elected.

Trump’s protectionist trade views are a product of the late 1970s, when the collapse of the post-World War II Bretton Woods economic system, a rising Japan, and a global oil shock made protectionism the hottest political fashion. In 1987, Trump would make his political debut with full-page ads in The New York Times and The Washington Post slamming American trade policy and accusing foreign leaders of “laughing at” American leaders like Ronald Reagan.

Burns included the full page ad from 1987.

Trump implemented some of the harshest tariffs in American history because he believes a nonsensical set of myths about how our economy works. His economic policy is guided solely by what he misremembers about the 1970s, and nothing is swaying him. A great example of how Trump’s delusion is screwing the economy is his remark last week that American manufacturing will easily replace all U.S. imports in just two years. Actual manufacturers say that number is more like 10 to 12 years, and that assumes the economy remains stable. In the meantime, prices will spike and supply chains will be devastated, leading to potential product shortages and—you guessed it—even higher prices!

At lunchtime today Alex Samuels of Kos wrote:

Well, that backfired. After President Donald Trump slapped a punishing 104% tariff on Chinese goods, Beijing hit back, announcing on Wednesday that it would raise its own tariffs on U.S. goods from 34% to 84%. ... On top of an existing 20% tariff imposed earlier this year, Trump hiked tariffs on Chinese goods by another 34% during his ill-fated “Liberation Day.” China matched it, so Trump doubled down—literally—with a jaw-dropping 50% increase, bringing the total tax on Chinese imports to 104%. China countered with an 84% tariff on U.S. goods. ... Negotiating with a man who is obsessed with appearing like a winner is no easy feat.

China will hold firm. China’s response is in contrast to 70 other countries (I’ve heard) that have sent messages to the nasty guy with variations on “Let’s negotiate.” So China’s authoritarian leadership is refusing to appease the authoritarian nasty guy. A few hours later Emily Singer of Kos reported:

President Donald Trump partially caved on his absurd and destructive “Liberation Day” tariffs, announcing on Truth Social Wednesday that he’s lowering his universal tariff on nearly every country to 10% for the next 90 days, while raising his tariff on China to 125%. ... Trump’s announcement sent the stock market soaring, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbing more than 2,500 points minutes after his announcement. But a 10% blanket tariff on nearly every country is still insane and inflationary.

As near as I can figure from various news reports, the nasty guy imposed a 10% tariff on nearly all countries (excepting Russia and perhaps Canada and Mexico already dealing with separately imposed tariffs), and did so last weekend. The extra “reciprocal” tariffs went into effect last night at midnight, and lasted about 15 hours before being pulled. A pause of 90 days only continues the chaos. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia wrote that companies will pause big investment decisions during that time. In response Republicans in Congress are doing nothing to stop the nasty guy – worse, they’re trying to sneak a rule into the budget bill saying members cannot force votes on legislation to cancel tariffs. On Sunday, in a pundit roundup for Kos, Chitown Kev quoted Alaa Elassar, Shania Shelton, and Mina Allen of CNN:

Millions of people took part in protests against President Donald Trump and Elon Musk across all 50 states and globally on Saturday, organized by a pro-democracy movement in response to what they call a “hostile takeover” and attack on American rights and freedoms. [...] Nearly 600,000 people had signed up to attend the events, some of which took place in major cities like London and Paris, according to Indivisible, one of the organizations leading the movement in collaboration with a nationwide coalition that includes civil rights organizations, veterans, women’s rights groups, labor unions and LGBTQ+ advocates. Organizers say they have three demands: “an end to the billionaire takeover and rampant corruption of the Trump administration; an end to slashing federal funds for Medicaid, Social Security, and other programs working people rely on; and an end to the attacks on immigrants, trans people, and other communities.”

From Tiffany Hsu of The New York Times:

President Trump’s team is selectively stripping away the public record, reconstructing his preferred vision of America in the negative space of purged history, archivists and historians said. As data and resources are deleted or altered, something foundational is also at risk: Americans’ ability to access and evaluate their past, and with it, their already shaky trust in facts. [...] The casualties are not just digital. The head of the National Archives, which has been described as “the custodian of America’s collective memory,” was fired by Mr. Trump in February. A key source of federal funding for public records depositories nationwide, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, was named in an executive order calling for its elimination “to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law” (its acting director said he planned to “restore focus on patriotism”). As the U.S. Agency for International Development was being gutted, a senior official told employees to shred or burn classified documents and personnel files. [...] The campaign of deletion does more than amplify the administration’s policy priorities — it buries evidence of the alternatives in a MAGA-branded memory hole. Several information experts said that Mr. Trump’s executive orders have authoritarian overtones, reminiscent of when Russia cloned Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, and stripped it of unflattering material. Information experts and civil rights groups fear that a historical vacuum could jeopardize accountability and breed mistrust, especially in an already hostile political environment for researchers who are trying to fight disinformation.

Down in the comments kurious quoted bits from “Trump’s Tariffs Give Him a New Way to Dole Out Reward and Punishment” on Mother Jones. My summary of the few quotes: In traditional politics the tariffs don’t make sense. If the nasty guy is willing to hurt the economy he must be getting something he wants even more. That thing is power, personal power that doesn’t have to go through Congress.

With tariffs, Trump can exercise a kind of corruption that the country hasn’t experienced in some 150 years—a kind of control that is ultimately incompatible with both democracy and prosperity. ... An economy run on political favors is unpredictable, which causes slowdowns and inefficiency.

This transforms the government into a tool for reward and punishment. I read that and thought of the 70 countries saying they are willing to negotiate on tariffs. If the nasty guy is the sole arbiter of tariffs these countries can offer him personal favors, such as money for his pocket or business or a pledge of loyalty, in exchange for lower tariffs. Yup, corruption. I went to that Mother Jones article. It is by Pema Levy. Some additional thoughts from it: Traditional politics means a president’s political future is tied to the economy. If economists say something is bad, presidents aren’t going to do it. We’ve already seen the government being used as a tool for reward and punishment. Prosecutions against friends dropped. Law firms who did something against him targeted. Universities bullied into shutting down free speech. Countries that are rich have good governments where everyone plays by the same rules, not one run on favors and grievances. In that latter type of government investors can’t trust anyone. When the economy is manipulated to hold factions together capitalism and democracy cannot thrive.

His pitch to voters in each of his campaigns was that he would get a better trade deal with every country. But a better deal for whom? Businesses may discover they get exemptions if they eliminate DEI programs, donate to Trump’s political organizations, or buy his meme coins. Countries may find that they get exemptions if they are friendly to Trump’s business interests, as Argentina was in his first term. That would indeed be a better deal for Trump personally. But the best deal for Trump, he seems to believe, would be the power that comes from picking winners and losers. It would also erode the strength of the US economy and ultimately its democratic political system.

Like a tacky, cheap, vase hit by a really big hammer

I usually check the Daily Kos blog in the morning and scroll through the posts from the day before. That’s usually enough reading for the day as I try to do other things. Since I did that yesterday morning there were four posts on the progress of Ukraine’s counteroffensive in the Kharkiv region I started writing about over the last couple days. This afternoon there was a fifth post (yeah, I read ahead a bit). All of these posts (one, two, three, four) by Mark Sumner and Kos document how quickly Ukraine advanced through Russian held territory. They showed maps of the ground covered, until Sumner said it was useless to keep up, though he drew one more for this afternoon’s post. There are photos of the Ukrainian flag being shown in this city and that town. They show the equipment and ammo the Russians left behind as they fled. There are videos of liberated cities and of Russian commentators and propagandists realizing things have turned decidedly against Russia. And tweets of Russian’s fleeing. At about noon today in the fifth post Sumner felt he had to show a map of the gains. The main thrust was to liberate the railroad hub of Kupyansk. Done. The Ukraine army also moved south to liberate Izyum, essentially from behind. Another thrust appears to have taken Lyman and even Lysychansk, a place that had been bitterly fought over back in May. Yet another thrust appears to have liberated Vovchansk, another key railway town just 7Km from the Russian border. In the fourth post Sumner wrote:

Honestly, I don’t know what to make of this. My first reaction is to say “Vovchansk? How can any Ukrainian force be even near Vovchansk? That’s impossible” You know, like I said about Oskil two days ago.

In the fifth post Sumner wrote about the tankies, those who are convinced all that is bad in the world is because of the US and all the good comes from Russia. Yeah, some are even Americans. They were convinced that the first Ukrainian thrust towards Kupyansk was a Russian trap – Russia allowed them to move at such speed and once the Ukraine army was well on their way the Russians would close in behind and encircle them. Didn’t happen because there were too few (perhaps no) Russians for such a maneuver. And when that was obvious there was the prediction this liberation would lead to a disastrous defeat. The tally is Ukraine liberated over 3,000 square kilometers of territory in about four days which includes three major cities and over 100 towns and villages. Tobias Schneider explained what is going on:

I'm trying not to lap up every rumor circulating around Telegram, but the main challenge in establishing a clear picture of the situation in Kharkiv appears to be that Russian lines are collapsing faster than Ukraine can even advance and clear liberated areas. Astonishing. ... So far events seem to have mostly born out what I thought as was the most likely outcome of a second Russian offensive in the Donbas: Over stretch despite limited success, with no plausible theory of victory, eventually inviting local collapse. Important to maintain perspective: This is a local success on an apparently under-resourced front. But it does reverse the overall dynamic and - if it holds - will surely deny Russia its Donbas breakthru. Maybe they'll rally, but again: towards what end? And all-importantly: This offensive is proof of concept. Ukraine can re-conquer its territory thru deft tactics, smart use of modern weapons, and advantages in morale and cohesion. This encourages Western partners to keep the aid flowing. There is a path.

In the fifth post Sumner explained why Russian lines are collapsing:

Like a tacky, cheap, vase hit by a really big hammer, the Russian occupation of the entire central portion of Kharkiv oblast just … fell apart. Everywhere, Ukrainian forces are moving, and everywhere Russian forces are running away before they even catch sight of a blue and yellow banner.

To me it is telling that Russian soldiers did not stand and fight to protect their territorial gains. Part of that is their forces were so hollowed out there weren’t enough of them to stop Ukraine’s advances. Part of it was also this isn’t their fight. It’s Putin’s fight. A few paragraphs later Sumner wrote:

No. This war isn’t over. Unfortunately, the ego and sheer brutality of Vladimir Putin means that many more people, including thousands of Russians, will die between now and when the last gun is put down. But, as far as Russia’s plans go, it’s very definitely lost.

GQ Magazine wrote about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and how she has become a voice for her generation and a cultural star. I haven’t read it, but did see this excerpt, a quote by AOC, tweeted by Leah McElrath:

My experience here has given me a front-row seat to how deeply…so many people in this country hate women. And they hate women of color. People ask me questions about the future. And realistically, I can’t even tell you if I’m going to be alive in September.

Lauren Sue of Kos reported:

For the first time, 60 schools across the county are piloting an Advanced Placement course in African American studies this fall, with a plan to make the course available to all interested high schools in the 2024-25 school year. "If the pilot program pans out, it will be the first course in African American studies for high school students that is considered rigorous enough to allow students to receive credit and advanced placement at many colleges across the country," New York Times journalist Anemona Hartocollis wrote. Emphasis on “considered rigorous enough.”

Later in the article Sue wrote:

Marlon Williams-Clark, a Florida social studies teacher who helped pilot the new AP course, told NPR the reactions from students, most of whom are Black, have been "very positive." "They have been ready to indulge in conversations, and they don't shy away from it," the educator said. "You know, when we first began the course—on the first day, I said, ‘I cannot offer you a safe space, because, quite honestly, some things that we will talk about in this course could trigger someone, and I wouldn't know that.’” “So I can't offer you a safe space, but I can offer you a brave space—brave to indulge, brave to ask questions, brave to be curious. And so they've really taken that mantra, and they've just kind of gone full blast.”

Rebekah Sager of Kos wrote:

My son’s partner’s mom has recently become acutely interested in the idea that division and hatred in the U.S. can only be combatted when the nation’s two sides (MAGA Republicans and Democrats) sit down and talk with one another. Which all sounds good in theory, except how can there be a coming together of hearts and minds when one side refuses to accept the reality of the past and wishes to redact the parts they don’t like?

Sager briefly mentioned the brutality of stealing land from the natives, the slave trade, and Jim Crow. That’s our history, like it or lump it.

The way I see it, the only way forward is not only to have some acknowledgment of the truth, but as Germany has done with its horrific past, I’d like to criminalize denial. That may sound harsh, but I think it’s the only way for this nation to truly progress.

Yeah, there are some free speech issues there. Sager also discusses the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that was done in South Africa after Apartheid. She concluded:

Our nation is on a precipice. The question is, which way will we go? Will we decide to embrace our reality, or will we become a nation living under a false narrative and refusing to see the truth?

Tim Urban shared maps produced by Alasdair Rae showing population density across the world. The height of each spike shows the population density in that location. Much of North America shows little. The spikes in in South America are only around the edges and only go so far south. Australia barely registers. The big spikes in Africa are (I think) Kenya and Nigeria. The biggest spikes fill India and the southeast half of China. Back in June I wrote about a Pride event in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho that was threatened with violent disruption. Before they could do anything 31 disrupters were arrested. David Neiwert of Kos reported this coming weekend is Boise Pride, a quiet event for 33 years, and it is being threatened by several far right groups. Bill in Portland, Maine, in a Cheers and Jeers column for Kos quoted late night commentary. Here’s one:

Once again, the planet is experiencing record temperatures, wildfires, and droughts. And I know it can't be climate change because Fox News says that's not real, so it's probably pronouns? —Trevor Noah

Zero punitive policies to wind down old stuff

In the recent edition of Between the Lines, Michigan’s LGBTQ newspaper, I read about the HBO show We’re Here. It’s a reality show hosted by Bob the Drag Queen, Eureka O’Hara, and Shangela Laquifa Wadley, all former contestants of RuPaul’s Drag Race. In each episode these three queens go into a Southern town and help three locals prepare to be in a drag show. I watched an episode. In this one they went to Del Rio, Texas (recently in the news because of the encampment of Haitians at the border, but this was taped before then). Bruno is the mayor of Del Rio. The townsfolk knew he is gay when they elected him. His opponent tried to make a big deal of a photo of Bruno in a tutu. Didn’t work. He wanted to be a part of the drag show to demonstrate he will always be true to himself. Joey wasn’t sure of their identity. There is a scene where Joey tries to talk to parents about what they’re going through and parents keep talking about Joey as a son. Esael lives in Del Rio and frequently visits parents and sister across the border in Mexico. He isn’t out to his parents, so there is discussion about that. He wants to be their son, not their gay son, where that is the most important thing about him. His drag mama suggests Esael use Bruno as an ongoing mentor and we see their first meeting. He wants to be in the show to boost his confidence because it is they gayest thing he can do. Some of the show is about how to do drag. Much more is about how to live an authentic life. I enjoyed the show and I appreciate it is out there, though I doubt I would watch another episode. I watched it through broadcast TV. The episodes can be streamed. One thing the show did not mention is how the three locals are chosen. Does the show advertise? Do they search for people to be on the show? They don’t say. Ten days ago I wrote about listening to a Gaslit Nation bonus episode (available to subscribers) because I had asked a question. They didn’t answer in that episode, but did in the next (though I am about a week late in actually listening to it). I was probably helped in posting my question to one show’s comments rather than trying to send a message through Patreon, which hosts Gaslit Nation. Bonus episodes do not have a transcript for me to read. So I listened (all 52 minutes) while I prepared supper. That means I didn’t take notes to share all the juicy details. My question: Democrats in Congress say all the right things but act like they’ve been bought by corporations. Do we know how many or what percent have been bought? The answer from host Sarah Kendzior: We don’t know. That would be worthy research. One reason why we don’t is the gutting of the news departments of major newspapers and media outlets. But the party is definitely acting like a majority have been bought. The first evidence is their tepid response to the Mueller Report. Those who have obviously not been bought – such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – have been getting a lot more in campaign donations than those who have accepted money from Exxon. I asked a second question, but she didn’t exactly answer it, so I won’t comment on it. The first part of the episode was a discussion of bad book deals by former nasty guy cronies. The crony is encouraged to save juicy details for the book (as in not disclosing it to the public in a timely manner to matter in public opinion or legal prosecution, which is a form of a non-disclosure agreement). The crony is paid a big advance, whether or not sales will be worth it (he gets paid for keeping his mouth shut when it matters). Many Republicans and conservative organizations then buy lots of copies as a way of laundering money. Michael Harriot tweeted a thread, excerpts:

Ok, let’s not call it Critical Race Theory. We won’t even call it “Black History.” Instead, let’s accept the premise they propose. So, how does American history look if K-12 social studies & history teachers don’t teach kids about racism white supremacy. ... In 1776, America declared its Independence from Britain. Then there was a Revolutionary war. Then created a constitutional oligarchy that allowed 25% of the population to vote. But we’re going to call it a “Democracy” because words don’t mean things. We cannot discuss the legislative branch or Article I of Constitution because we would have to talk about race. We cannot discuss Article 2 because we would have to talk about the electoral college, which means we’d have to talk about race. We cannot talk about Article 4. We cannot talk about America’s Founding document because we cannot talk about race. America is not a racist country. ... In 1861, 11 states in the richest country in the world decided they would rather form their own country. No one knows why. I could say “it was about States Rights” but someone might reply: “The right to do what?” So we cannot talk about the bloodiest war in American history. ... Then came the Civil Rights movement. Martin Luther King said something about little girls and little boys. Some people did not like him (I can’t say who). ... This version will also mean people will THINK they know history because they got good grades in Social Studies, but they will have no idea that they’re really ignorant to the truth. And here’s the crazy part: THIS IS ACTUALLY HOW HISTORY IS CURRENTLY TAUGHT! Social studies is the only subject in the American education system that damn near EVERYONE is taught wrong. ... If you use legislation to create a system that protects ALL white kids from simply having to LEARN the history that Black and indigenous people actually endured… Then aren’t you PROVING that CRT was correct this whole time?

Jarrett Renshaw, a White House reporter for Reuters tweeted:

A Democratic proposal to impose a methane fee on U.S. oil and gas producers is not likely to be included in the party's massive spending bill amid opposition from within their own ranks, sources tell me.

That prompted David Roberts, who writes a newsletter about clean energy and politics, to respond:

That's it -- the last remaining policy in the BBB Act that actually restrained fossil fuels. Now the bill is exactly what Manchin wanted: a bunch of subsidies for new stuff; zero punitive policies to wind down old stuff. ... Worth saying: there is NO path to the US hitting its climate targets that does not involve rapidly shutting down all coal power plants & sharply reducing methane leaks. None. This isn't a subject of reasonable debate. Manchin is rendering Biden's stated target unreachable.

Leah McElrath tweeted a couple videos from Hunger Strike 4 Climate Justice, one of which included:

On Day 6 of our hunger strike, we find strength in solidarity with growing frontline power, demanding a government that works for us, not paid off politicians. We are putting our minds and bodies on the line because this is a life or death moment. #BidenChooseUs

McElrath added:

We are failing our children. We are leaving them a far worse world, not a better one. Prioritize action on global warming. Now. The idea of these babies hunger striking because my generation and the generations before me have failed you all so badly is almost too much to bear. In Matthew 27:46, Jesus is on the cross, fearful and facing death. He cries out in despair: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” That’s what these young people are asking all adults, but especially those with power like @POTUS.

Hunger Strike also tweeted with a video:

Abby, 20, confronts @Sen_JoeManchin on his fossil fuel corruption on his way out of a corporate donor luncheon on hunger strike day 7. Abby can stand up to Manchin, why can’t @POTUS? Joe Manchin is corrupt. He takes millions from the fossil fuel industry—he profits from the climate crisis. His corruption is deadly and dangerous—millions will lose their lives if the United States does not deliver on climate justice. We haven’t eaten in 7 days because @POTUS is caving to Manchin’s corruption and backtracking on his commitments to bold and transformative climate action. We will not eat until he delivers on climate justice. It’s us or Manchin, @POTUS #BidenChooseUs

Matthew Miles Goodrich tweeted a photo if a climate protest that include “Biden Lead or We Drown” and added:

Spent 11 hours in jail after protesting for the least cool thing possible - for the Democrats (who are in power) to pass their president’s agenda??

McElrath quoted a tweet from Greg Sargent of The Plum Line:

The idea that Manchin is to blame for killing the billionaires' tax is too convenient. Pelosi privately slammed the proposal hard at a meeting this week, aides tell me. And other Dems are waiting in the cloakroom to kill it w/no fingerprints.

McElrath added:

Thank you, @ThePlumLineGS. Much of what is happening to water down this legislation is political theater. Manchin and Sinema wouldn’t be getting away with this level of obstruction unless there was greater support for their actions within the caucus and leadership

In the same thread McElrath quoted the starting tweet of a thready by Dr. Thrasher, a professor at Northwestern University:

Lyndon Johnson would have dragged every one of Manchin’s & Sinema’s skeletons out of their closets, blackmailed them with them, cut off their donors, shamed them publicly & forced them to support his agenda. Bipartisan Biden is a BAD retail politician WITHIN his party!

McElrath added:

There are sticks to be used—some gathered by “opposition researchers” hired by Dem leadership to know our own lawmakers’ vulnerabilities—and an endless variety and quantity of carrots to be offered. Too many people have watched too much West Wing. I’ll just say this: I was punished more severely by national level Dem operatives for doing comms consulting for a local congressional candidate the DCCC didn’t want to win then Manchin or Sinema have been. Make that make sense.

McElrath offered another tweet:

Many of my generation who were activists have been fortunate: we lived at the right time both to witness progress and to receive some degree of resulting gratitude. Most of those on whose shoulders we stood didn’t. This is a different time. This is a time to become shoulders.

Freedom under God

The NPR program Fresh Air interviewed Kevin Kruse about his new book One Nation Under God, How Corporate America Invented Christian America. A title like that definitely caught my attention. Kruse started writing about how the phrase "In God We Trust" was added to American money in the 1950s. The more he researched the more he realized important threads to the story went back a couple more decades. The quotes below are from the "highlights" on the interview's webpage.

The story begins in the 1930s with the New Deal. This empowered unions and regulated businesses in ways that hadn't been done before. That annoyed business leaders so they launched a PR campaign to sell the values of (unrestricted) capitalism. It flopped. Jim Farley, head of the Democratic Party at the time, described the companies behind the campaign this way:

They ought to call it The American Cellophane League, because No. 1: It's a DuPont product, and No. 2: You can see right through it.

DuPont was a leader in the campaign.

How else to get their point across? Outsource it to ministers, the most trusted men in America. The corporate bosses helped preachers equate Christianity and capitalism and to equate the New Deal with evil. The first equation:

Essentially they argue that Christianity and capitalism are both systems in which individuals rise and fall according to their own merits. So in Christianity, if you're good you go to heaven, if you're bad you go to hell. In capitalism if you're good you make a profit and you succeed, if you're bad you fail.

The New Deal, they argue, violates this natural order.

Ah yes, the fallacy that the more money one has the more moral one is. Conservatives are still spouting this one.

The second equation comes from the Ten Commandments:

[The New Deal] makes a false idol of the federal government and encourages Americans to worship it rather than the Almighty. It encourages Americans to covet what the wealthy have; it encourages them to steal from the wealthy in the forms of taxation; and, most importantly, it bears false witness against the wealthy by telling lies about them. So they argue that the New Deal is not a manifestation of God's will, but rather, a form of pagan stateism and is inherently sinful.

I don't know how the New Deal encourages the worship of the federal gov't, but I've heard that line many times since used against any law that has a whiff of liberalism. As for telling lies about the wealthy, I suspect what was actually said was a truth the wealthy didn't want to be known.

A key player in this religious campaign is Rev. James Fifield of First Congregational Church in Los Angeles. His congregation had a high number of millionaires, so he told them what they wanted to hear.

He says that reading the Bible should be like eating fish: We take out the bones to enjoy the meat; all parts are not of equal value. Accordingly, he disregarded Christ's many injunctions about the dangers of wealth, and instead preached a philosophy that wedded capitalism to Christianity.

Quite the contrast to the churches that demand one must obey the full Bible (to make sure the parts that justify discrimination of gay people are included). This sounds like the modern "prosperity Gospel" that says a believer will become rich, though the only one to manage the trick is the pastor. See here about what the Bible says about the dangers of wealth – one of the key messages of the Bible because the love of wealth is so destructive to community.

Fifield, with a generous corporate backing, recruited lots of pastors – 17,000 – to the campaign. There are, of course, slogans: "Freedom Under God" (not slavery to the state) and "the American way of life." There are soon radio programs and magazines and big public celebrations (one organized by Cecil B. DeMille).

This equation of Christianity with capitalism was successful, though not in dismantling the New Deal. It also lasted a lot longer than the corporate backers needed it to, becoming a big part of American Christianity that still persists. It was this branch of Christian thought that created the National Prayer Breakfast, which Eisenhower attended and no president since then has dared not attend. It also prompted the phrase "under God" be added to the Pledge and "In God We Trust" to be put on our money. The movement got a boost from the Cold War that was portrayed as Christian America against the godless Commies. That was part of the fusion of piety and patriotism.

The movement also launched the career of Rev. Billy Graham. Some of what he said was a delight to corporations: A good Christian would not join a union to avoid taking advantage of the boss (no matter the reason for unions was to prevent the boss from taking advantage of the workers).

There was one more effort by this movement – to approve an amendment to the Constitution legalizing Christian prayer in public schools. The effort was widely popular. But many pastors condemned it, saying it promoted a watered-down, lowest common denominator style of religion. This one failed.

Alas, this movement that badly misinterprets the Bible is still going strong, and still the source of a great deal of mischief in America and its politics.

Jingoism isn't up to snuff

The school board of Jefferson County, Colorado, under conservative control, declared history classes should be purged of anything that is "unpatriotic." High school students walked out in protest. Conservatives responded by declaring students must be pawns of the teachers' union. Apparently, students are incapable of thinking for themselves. Joseph Palermo of Huffington Post put it this way:

Young people today have lived their entire lives under the shadow of multiple foreign wars, the worst economic collapse in 75 years, and governing institutions dominated by Koch Brothers plutocrats that seem wholly unresponsive to the needs of the people. They've been exposed to terrorist attacks and beheadings by America's vast array of enemies, and are now urged to get behind yet another American war in Syria. They've lived through the dashed hopes of the Obama presidency, and they've been subjected to fossil fuel industry propaganda telling them to bury their heads in the sand about global warming.

They've also lived through the Occupy Wall Street movement's exposure of the bankers' crimes, and ongoing racial conflict like we've seen recently in Ferguson, Missouri. The same week their protests broke out calling for critical thinking in their American history courses the world saw the giant People's Climate March in New York City. The student demonstrations in Jefferson County are about the present as much as they are about the past.

Given what they've seen throughout their childhoods it's not surprising that these kids would sense that the jingoistic version of American history that their right-wing school board wants to spoon feed them isn't up to snuff.

Support for us is the default position

The Democratic Party platform committee has endorsed gay marriage, called for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which bans firing for being gay. Yay! The platform still must be approved by the convention in Charlotte before being "official."

All this means support for us is the default position for all Democrats running for office. That is a tremendous gain. Individual candidates don't have to follow the platform, but they need to explain why they don't. And we are now at a point in this society that such an explanation could be awkward at least.



The leadership of the Boy Scouts of America recently reaffirmed their stance that gay youth and adults are not welcome. That has prompted many Eagle Scouts, presumably all straight, to protest that position by sending their Eagle badges to headquarters with a letter of protest. Many of them say that it was the ethics and morals taught to them by the Scouts that prompt them to renounce their association with scouting. As of yesterday, 105 Eagle scouts have shared their pictures and letters.



David Barton has made a career of writing revisionist history books to "prove" the Founding Fathers intended the USA to be a Christian nation without a separation between Church and State. His latest book is The Jefferson Lies. Regular historians raised such a stink that the publisher investigated the issue and declared they would no longer print or distribute the book. Reason: it is full of lies.



Rob Tisinai has noted that many straight people aren't convinced gay couples want to get married for love. They think we're in it for the benefits or to destroy marriage for everyone. But the real reason we want marriage is simple: From the time we were little you -- the families we grew up in and the society around us -- taught us the most important thing in life is to find someone you love and marry them.



Rob Tisinai also comments on Free Speech. He notes that a lot of what gays say in their writings and in their protests would be seen by Fundies as speech that should be banned (if banning speech were permitted). Tisinai's blog entry includes several such protest signs. My favorite is, "Jesus said: Feed the Poor. They said: Sorry, Jesus. We Spent $40 million on hate & fear."

Another foundation of American law

The US Supremes have long approved versions of the Ten Commandments in government displays as long as they are one part of a display of documents that form the foundation of American law. Thus the Top Ten can be joined with the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Pledge of Allegiance, the words of the Star Spangled Banner, and King's "I have a Dream" speech. Not all of these have to do with law, but I won't quibble. South Carolina has added a new member to the list: The Lord's Prayer. They justify it this way (and this text is to be on the accompanying plaque):

"The Lord's Prayer, used to teach people how best to seek their daily needs, is a model of philosophy and inspiration for legal and moral systems throughout the ages. In the colonies, James Oglethorpe brought debtors to freedom in our neighboring State of Georgia in remembrance of 'forgiving our debts as we forgive our debtors'."

Can you say revisionist history?

* Oglethorpe did not bring colonists from England's notorious debtor's prisons.
* This text confuses financial debts with the intended meaning of "sins".
* The guy who describes the prayer as the core of moral systems, one Christopher G. Weeramantry of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, described how each word or phrase of the prayer relates to international law or human rights, but always in a way that leads human rights back to religion. For example, by starting the prayer with "Our Father" we declare basic equality among all humans so that everyone, no matter how lowly, can address the Almighty directly.

This was signed into law this past June.

Negotiate v. Appease

With the GOP eagerly tossing around the idea that negotiating with terrorist or dictators is the same as appeasement, here is a thoughtful Newsweek article by Evan Thomas about the history of this rhetorical grenade. In 1938 Neville Chamberlain went to Munich struck a deal with Hitler that Germany would be allowed to take over Czechoslovakia with no objection and would then leave Britain alone. Hitler took over Czechoslovakia and a couple years later went after Britain. Chamberlain's blunder has echoed through American politics since then with mixed results. The good results were the Cuban Missile Crisis (in which Kennedy successfully followed "Munich" in public and negotiated in secret), and Reagan's success in negotiating arms reductions with the USSR. The bad results were wars in Korea, Vietnam, and the Bay of Pigs. After we were bogged down in Vietnam it served as a balance to Munich. The lesson is that global situations rarely neatly fit the mold of Munich or Vietnam and that negotiation is not always appeasement.

In a companion piece, Christopher Hitchens takes a look at the recent book "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War" by Pat Buchanan (yes, the occasional candidate for prez. on the GOP side). Buchanan did get a few things right -- the abysmal bungling of French and British attempts at diplomacy is one bright spot in the book. But the rest includes a lot of ignoring or misinterpreting of facts to allow Buchanan to fit his view of the war into the thesis he is trying to prove. While Hitchens does a good job of ripping the book to shreds, he doesn't answer my burning question. To what end is Buchanan reinterpreting history? Who gains? What political or cultural idea is he trying to promote? The book doesn't seem to serve the idea that America is a Christian nation, the goal of lots of other historical revisionism. Nor does he seem to be promoting Bush's reasons for going to war, because his idea is that even WWII wasn't worth it. So what is it?

Those pilgrims were such wonderful people

The Dover, PA School Board controversy over Intelligent Design and Creationism reasserted that both those ideologies are religion, not science, and not to be taught in science classrooms. Yet, according to a Pennsylvania State University survey of schools, about one in eight high school biology teachers teach those two topics. Almost all also taught evolution, but spent a lot less time on that than the religious view of things. It is up to the teachers to carry out the curriculum. They're the ones, not the judges, who are actually in the classroom.

But it seems Creationism pales before another scary onslaught -- fake history. Our national mythology, from the pilgrims (religious bullies of their day) on down, is such that Christian revisionist history isn't challenged nearly as much as Creationism. The method of dissemination of fake history is much wider than biology textbooks are for Creationism and includes insertion by the Department of Defense into Junior ROTC programs. And it may matter more.

The reason for all this fakery is simple: He who controls the past controls the future. History, and the mythologies we build around it, permeates every aspect of our culture. If the Right can convince enough schoolkids their historical identity has been stolen and must be restored, their battle is nearly won. It doesn't matter that such history doesn't stand up under scrutiny. It only needs to be believed to affect culture. It is being believed to the point that fake history is being used in Congressional debates.

One would expect such government sponsored lies from a totalitarian regime, such as Germany in the 1930s or the Soviet Union. But this is free America! Isn't it?

Here are a few of the consequences of fake history:

Destroy the separation of Church and State through the idea that while the state is supposed to stay out of the church, the reverse is not true. We as a society allowed its steady erosion over the last two decades because so many are convinced the idea is a fraud, a pernicious myth.

Undermine the rights and increase the persecution of minorities. Undermine religious liberty. Put pluralistic society and American democracy at risk. Divide our country into two camps, one embracing false history, leading to the collapse of the center and polarization of all debate.

By 2002 only 45% of Americans believed the USA is a secular nation.

If today's Congressmen, educated before revisionist history was developed, spout fake history and create government policy based on it, then what will our nation be like when those who are taught it begin to get elected to government?

It seems a common refrain is to brand the Left as "secular fundamentalist" who are so anti-religious that they want to keep all hint of religion out of the public square. That statement has at least two faulty debate points. (1) Accusing your opponent of acting on your own misguided traits (I want to ban all hints of secularism from the public square, so you must be aiming to ban all religion from the public square). (2) Offering a false choice of only two extreme options. Here are a number of quotes about religion in the public square and some of the speakers show how pervasive the "Christian nation" ideas have become.

Separate Church & State benefits church too

Blogger Frederick Clarkston comments on an article by Jill Lepore in the New Yorker about four books of Founding Fathers and their approach to religion. Some thoughts from Clarkston and Lepore:

A lot of people wonder what the Founding Fathers would think about various issues, such as whether "In God We Trust" belongs on our money. According to Thomas Jefferson, it is a ridiculous question.

"This they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. . . . Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind."

We are different from our founders and have a different needs from our Constitution. To defer to ancestors without examination is to be a slave to the tyranny of the past.

Our country was founded neither as a Christian nation nor as a secular one.

Many of the founding fathers, including Washington, Madison, Jefferson, and Adams, were not Christian. They doubted the divinity of Christ. An example is the Jefferson Bible.

The reason why we have such a vigorous religious society is because we don't have a government established religion. The separation of Church and State is for the benefit of the church as well as for the state. Religion and politics are two different things and each should not be under control of the other. As a result, Americans are more active in their religion. I lived in Germany for a couple years and saw that few of my colleagues paid attention to the state religion.

Clarkston's article is here.

Looking at Lepore's article directly reveals these ideas.

In 1797 Royall Tyler wrote the novel The Algerine Captive about a New England Calvinist enslaved by the Barbary pirates in Algiers. His master agrees to a debate about religions and challenges what good is a religion that you receive unquestioningly from your ancestors? Isn't that essentially worshipping your ancestors and not God? Isn't it better to thoroughly examine, question, and debate your faith and thus deliberately claim it as your own?

Religious freedom in American is traced to four foundation texts:

Jefferson’s 1786 statute (“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry”); Madison’s 1785 “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” (“The Religion of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man”); Article VI of the Constitution (“No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”); and the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”).

Voltaire said:

"History is after all only a pack of tricks we play on the dead.”

The Founding Fathers played a different sort of trick -- they turned their backs on history. They did not blindly inherit the faith of their fathers.

Though the Constitution has always been controversial, Article VI and the First Amendment have been especially so in the last 60 years since the "wall of separation" between Church and State was named, reaffirmed, and applied to the states by the Supreme Court. That decision rests strongly on the four documents listed above. The whole business of revisionist history is to knock out the supports of that wall of separation by supplying an explanation of why those four documents don't accurately reflect the intent of the Founding Fathers. Thus the claim that Jefferson and the rest were really godly Christians.

Battles in the culture wars -- as in the church -- are fought on both sides by selectively picking historical quotes or biblical verses that promote their agenda or refute their opponents.

James Madison wrote that if you make a religion the official one of the state then those who are not believers become suspicious that followers are too aware of the faith's fallacies to trust it to survive on its own.

Royall Tyler (mentioned above) wrote in 1817 about Connecticut's established religion,

"A State Religion always has, and ever will be intolerant.”

Lepore's article is here.