A report on the Titanic sinking that doesn't mention icebergs

My Sunday movie was 10Dance. Netflix showed it ecent. I read what it was about and since I saw no reviews I decided to take a chance on it. In the world of competitive dancing there are two broad categories, Ballroom and Latin. Each has five different dances. The dancers in one rarely do the other. The exception is the World Championship, when the dancers do all ten dances from both categories. This is a challenge because dancing in one category means by the time a couple gets to the finals they have danced each one four times, or twenty dances. Doing both categories means doubling the effort and stamina becomes an issue. The setting is Japan. Shinya Suzuki is a male (we Americans don’t always know the gender of non English names) dancing in the Latin category. He dances with Aki (female) and he has some Cuban ancestry. His dancing emphasizes the erotic. Shinya Sugiki (yes, the names are quite similar) is a top competitor in the ballroom category. He is elegant and cultivates being a gentleman and dances with Fusako (also female). He can’t seem to win first place. Sugiki proposes to Suzuki that they go for the 10 Dance. After his manhood is challenged Suzuki accepts. Each is to teach the other their style of dance. And that requires a great deal of close contact. Aki and Fusako see the men look at each other quite differently than they look at the women, though the men take a while to figure it out. Along the way there are more dance competitions, explorations of the past, and mentors telling them that a major component of dance is love between the dancers. Before watching I had checked Metacritic for reviews. They had none. Afterward I looked it up on IMDb. It doesn’t link to professional critics, but does have user reviews, which give it 6.9 out of 10. I enjoyed the film, though that rating seems about right. One question IMDb did not answer was whether the leads were dancers that had to be trained in acting or actors that had to be trained in dancing. They were quite good in both talents. I found online reviews, though the one I read today was on Fangirlish, not a major media outlet with well known reviewers. The writer was Lisette Lanuza Sáenz. The story is taken from a Japanese Boys’ Love manga by Inouesatoh. The choreography is great. The ending begs for a sequel. When you make it, add more yearning. But please drop the stereotypes of Latinos! At least the show wasn’t as racist as the original manga. Recently I wrote the Democratic National Committee declined to release the autopsy on the 2024 election to explain what led to Kamala Harris’ loss. Oliver Willis of Daily Kos reported that party Chair Ken Martin has now released it.

But the actual document is a puzzling 192-page compilation made by Martin ally and Democratic strategist Paul Rivera. The report avoids conclusions about party strategy during the election and omits references to key issues, like former President Joe Biden’s initial decision to run for reelection and controversy over his stance on the Israel-Hamas war. Rivera neglected to interview Harris, Biden, and senior campaign operatives. Also, the report contains many basic factual errors and is annotated with remarks from the DNC distancing itself from the report’s assertions. The autopsy does note that Democrats were unprepared for the right’s political onslaught, which included smears of Harris, her running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, and the wider left-wing movement. But as a “comprehensive review” of what went wrong, the report comes up woefully short, which makes the decision to bury the document for months even more curious.

The mess is another reason why Martin isn’t the right guy to head the DNC. Some Democrats are now calling for his removal. Stephen Fowler of NPR also discussed the release. The article discussed Martin and his reasons to delay the release. Then Fowler described the report, referring to Martin.

He defended the work the national party has undertaken in his year and a half as chair to invest more into state parties and reiterated his belief that the Democratic Party brand needs fixing and its infrastructure needs to be updated to focus on year-round organizing. Similar themes emerged in the autopsy, which said since former President Obama's first election in 2008, the "Democratic Party has vacillated between stagnation and retrogression." Former President Joe Biden's name only appears a handful of times in the document, but one key takeaway the author suggests is that the White House "did not position or prepare" former Vice President Kamala Harris to help Biden govern.

If the Democratic Party brand needs fixing and its infrastructure needs to be updated, when is that work going to begin? There is little evidence that it has. After Fowler presented the basic story host Steve Inskeep of NPR spoke to Paul Begala, a longtime political strategist who helped orchestrate Bill Clinton's presidential win in 1992. Inskeep asked Begala what he had learned from the report.

Oh, my gosh. It's not just the errors and omissions, OK? It's - I mean, as your reporter mentioned, affordability, cost of living inflation - it's barely even mentioned. Imagine the after-action report after the sinking of the Titanic and it doesn't mention icebergs. That's what drove the election. By the way, apparently, they didn't even speak to President Biden, Vice President Harris, Governor Walz or any of the top strategists. Not Mike Donilon, not Anita Dunn, not Steve Ricchetti, not Bruce Reed, not Jen O'Malley Dillon, not Steph Cutter. So imagine a medical autopsy, where you don't examine the brain, the heart, the liver, the lungs, the kidneys. But, man, we know everything about her left foot.

Asked if Martin was doing a good job:

It's hard to argue he's doing a good job. OK, we are winning, but I don't think anybody believes Democrats are winning because of the party chair.

One big problem with Harris’ campaign was people felt the economy was in a bad way and she didn’t run on economic change. Another problem was, according to James Carville, “she didn't get any votes on Election Day she didn't already have on Labor Day.” As for the current election cycle Begala said Democrats closer to the center are doing better than those farther to the left. In today’s pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin quoted G Elliott Morris of Strength in Numbers discussing the Democrat’s 2024 autopsy report.

But the biggest problem is that the autopsy straight up ignores the major reasons Harris lost in 2024. Yes, it’s bad enough that the report doesn’t mention that party bosses failed to coordinate an early exit for Joe Biden, who was too unpopular to win. And there is no mention of Israel/Gaza, low turnout in the cities, and nothing on Harris’s race or gender. But this is a data-driven site, so I want to really focus in on what the numbers can tell us. When we boot up the data, it’s obvious the main reason Harris lost — and the reason I am going to explore here, at this website, it being a data-driven website — is that 2024 simply had too much inflation-induced anti-incumbent sentiment for the incumbent party to overcome. This is curiously missing from its main diagnosis. The word “inflation” isn’t mentioned in the autopsy a single time (except in the context of inflation-adjusted ad spending). ... Another reason consultants don’t focus on structural factors more often is that they can’t sell you any services to solve that problem, because there’s nothing you can do about them.

Jonathan Cohn of The Bulwark discussed the Ebola outbreak in Africa and the hampered world response to it compared to the previous outbreak (in 2015?).

After a slow start, the Obama administration poured personnel and materiel into the affected countries, while helping to coordinate the global response. It was, as officials said at the time, a “whole-of-government” effort, with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) playing a big role because it possessed the knowledge and contacts necessary to make public health efforts work on the ground. USAID isn’t part of the American effort this time. Trump and his then-adviser Elon Musk effectively killed the agency last year. And according to almost everything I have seen and heard, including several advocates and scientists I interviewed over the past forty-eight hours to gauge how seriously we should be taking this outbreak, the withdrawal of so much American assistance has left African governments and independent organizations less able to mount an effective response.

Andrew Mangan of Kos discussed a recent survey:

Let me make you an offer. I want to build a warehouse of machinery that will fill the ears of every passerby with the soft whine of industrial noise, will drink up your water reserves so much it lowers the pressure in your shower, and will jack up your utility bills—if not force your town to risk losing its access to electricity altogether—all in support of a technology expected to cost millions of Americans their jobs. In return, my warehouse will hypothetically provide you with significant tax revenue, though you will need to give me a 90% tax abatement for the next 20 years. Fair trade? It is little surprise the vast majority of Americans say no. In fact, about half say, “Hell no.” Over 7 in 10 Americans oppose the idea of an AI-focused data center being built in their area, according to a new poll from Gallup. Nearly half (48%) “strongly oppose” it.

Near data centers wholesale electricity rose 267% in five years. Around Lake Tahoe in about a year the nearly 50,000 residents will lose electricity because it will be redirected to data centers. Another worry is data centers use vast amounts of water for cooling. A big center can use as much water as a town of 50,000 people. There is a need for more water infrastructure – and more water when much of the US is in drought. Data centers may require hundreds of workers to build the place, but may need only 20-50 people to run it. So the claim of creating jobs is hollow. This article includes a map of the number of data centers in each state. The highest is Virginia with 603 and the lowest is 3 for Vermont. Even Alaska has 8. That got me wondering how many data centers are there (so far) across the country. I went to the source of the data for the map which is Data Center Map. It says there are 4287 data centers across all 50 states. I work that out to be about one data center for every 79,000 people. https://www.datacentermap.com/usa/ Not surprisingly a citizen revolt is building. Both major parties are responding to it. Some towns are enacting bans and some states are enacting moratoriums. I’ve written about the slush fund the nasty guy created to pay the Capitol attackers for the indignity of being found guilty. Last Thursday Emily Singer of Kos reported that many Senate Republicans are furious at the nasty guy for creating that fund, furious enough to refuse to pass a needed immigration funding bill. Because of the fear of them putting limits on the slush fund and enraging Dear Leader Senate Majority Leader John Thune started the Memorial Day recess a day early. The nasty guy just might endorse more primary opponents.

That means putting an amendment on the floor that blatantly rebukes Trump could cause them just as many problems as allowing this corrupt slush fund to proceed.

Why couldn’t the nasty guy announce the slush fund until after the important bills were passed? In a thread unrolled on Threadreader Barb McQuade listed the way the slush fund is corrupt. + He’s suing himself, strange for the unitary executive theory. + He’s evading judicial review. + In the background case of leaked tax returns the DOJ didn’t follow procedures and didn’t show actual harm. + There is no “weaponization” statue. + The money is going to people unrelated to the nasty guy’s original suit. + The fund will be administered by Blanche, who had been the nasty guy’s personal lawyer. + The deal pushes the false claim that the attackers were victims instead of perpetrators of serious crimes. In Friday’s pundit roundup Dworkin quoted several sources discussing Republican fury at the slush fund, including this one from Semafor:

The most urgent reason for the delay is boiling anger among Senate Republicans at the president’s $1.8 billion fund of taxpayer money for people who allege they’ve been targeted by the government. That includes, potentially, rioters who participated in the 2021 Capitol attack. But the bill is slowing down for other reasons, none of them related to immigration: Trump is unsuccessfully pushing for security funding for his White House ballroom renovation, and his goodwill with GOP senators is at a second-term low as he seeks to defeat his second Republican incumbent in as many weeks. Republicans had little appetite for giving Trump what he wanted this week, according to senators and aides.

Senators are furious at this slush fund because many of them were in the Capitol when it was attacked by the people slated to get the money. In Saturday’s roundup Dworkin quoted The Bulwark

How far beyond the pale, how ludicrously far outside the bounds of law and morality, is Donald Trump’s $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” slush fund? Far enough, apparently, to shock even the dead, embalmed consciences of GOP lawmakers back to life. House and Senate Republicans do not, as yet, share my view that the creation of the Slush Fund from Hell is a cut-and-dried impeachable offense. But the energy to oppose it is stronger in both houses than I expected it to be. In the House, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) joined Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) to introduce a short, simple bill: “No federal funds,” it reads, “may be used for the payment of any claim submitted to the Anti-Weaponization Fund, established by the Department of Justice on May 18, 2026.” And in the Senate, Republican anger over the fund burned hot enough to derail, for now, the must-pass reconciliation bill intended at long last to restore funding for ICE and the Border Patrol.

Robert Kagan of The Atlantic discussing the Iran war:

The outlines of President Trump’s endgame in the Iran war are now emerging. In a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday, Trump reportedly explained that the United States was negotiating a “letter of intent” with Iran that would “formally end the war and launch a 30-day period of negotiations” on Iran’s nuclear program and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. The purpose and effect of such an agreement should be clear: The United States is walking away from the crisis. Trump may launch another limited strike to look tough and satisfy the demands of the war’s supporters, but it would be a performative gesture. Endgame in this case is a euphemism for “surrender.”

In Sunday’s roundup Derek Thompson wrote:

Again and again, the president has taken the federal government in his hands, turned it upside down like a child’s piggy bank, and smacked it on the side until billions of dollars poured out of the hole in its back. As Republicans excuse his behavior by alleging misdeeds by the other side, I fear that a warped philosophy of amorality is settling over American politics, where fewer people are arguing for universal principles of decency and more people are perfectly comfortable justifying their own side’s uninterrupted immorality by insisting on the enduring presence of a greater evil on the other side. This is no way to build a world. After years of conservatives criticizing the left for “virtue signaling”—that is, cravenly performing a version of virtue for public approval—we now have something even worse than its opposite. The president and his allies are not merely vice-signaling. By empowering a figure who is oblivious to virtue and choosing to ignore his crescendoing depravity, we are creating a mode of politics that openly celebrates the death of morality. This is the age of vicemaxxing. The question is whether this is our new normal—or, I hope, the sort of cultural overreach that shocks our collective conscience and sets the stage for a more decent politic.

I’ve written many times about Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported. A court required him to be returned to the US. Instead admitting an error the nasty guy administration has been working hard to accuse Abrego Garcia of something so they can deport him again. An article by the Associated Press posted last Friday on Kos reported that the latest case against him has been thrown out. The case accused him of human smuggling. Abrego Garcia’s team successfully argued the prosecution was vindictive. He was charged only because he was back in the US.

Meanwhile, Trump administration officials have said Abrego Garcia cannot remain in the U.S. They have vowed to deport him to a third country, most recently Liberia.

They aren’t giving up. Kos community member commander ogg says recent research confirms a statement attributed to President Lyndon B. Johnson, one I’ve mentioned in the past.

If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket, Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.

The research was posted in Sage Journals and an article on Alternet discussed it, which commander ogg excerpted.

Research reveals that white people appear to support social safety net programs unless they perceive those programs as also helping nonwhites…“This effect only appears when people compare their political standing directly to that of racial minorities… …in many developed nations, high levels of income inequality usually lead to increased public demand for these programs…the U.S. is different in this regard…University of Delaware scientists Sumeyye Mine Iltekin Gocer and Joanne M. Miller learned…that hostility to safety net programs appears to be…primarily with White people — even those in poverty — because they fear the programs give nonwhites a boost.

Oliver Willis of Kos, in his series Explaining the Right, explores why conservatives get so mad at movies. This time I think he actually answers the question. After giving several examples of movies that get the Right in a tizzy, Willis wrote:

What the right’s serial anger about the movies is truly about is the influence that the arts have on society. When entertainment better reflects the diversity of the world, there’s a documented positive effect on society’s attitude toward race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. And that’s exactly what the right hates. Conservatives hate that a moviegoer—especially a child—might see acceptance and openmindedness on screen and adopt those attitudes. What also causes a backlash is the right’s ineptitude on this topic. Conservatives are notoriously bad at creative endeavors. For all the right’s political success, their movies, television shows, and books are niche with little to no cultural impact.

There is no incentive for them to end their criminality

A couple days ago I wrote of the fund the nasty guy (well, his Department of Justice) set up to award money to the people who attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021. I wrote about the many ethics problems of the fund. Of course, that’s not the end of the story. Walter Einenkel of Daily Kos reported acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified before a Senate subcommittee Tuesday and had to face intense grilling from Democrats. Blanche sidestepped and did the usual muddying of the issues. And, as Einenkel concluded:

If you’re keeping score, Blanche declined to rule out payments for people convicted of assaulting law enforcement, political donors, and insurrectionists accused of sexually abusing children.

Oliver Willis of Kos reported Rep. Dan Goldman of New York told CNN on Monday night that creating the slush fund is an impeachable offense. He said when Democrats take back the House the fund will be one of many intensive investigations. Other Democrats criticized the fund. Lisa Needham of Kos reported the DoJ added an addendum to the Settlement Agreement, which is really an order. The “settlement” is between the nasty guy and the IRS because an IRS contractor revealed some aspects of the nasty guy’s tax returns. The settlement was not reviewed by a judge and is a “settlement” is in name only with the purpose of obscuring what is going on. On to the addendum. That’s also skeezy because the original agreement left a loophole to allow things to be added. This isn’t just any little thing.

Instead, we just got Blanche dashing off a single paragraph that, on behalf of the United States government, provided an entirely new waiver that says the IRS will never audit, investigate, penalize, or prosecute Trump and others for anything at all, known or unknown, for anything that happened prior to May 18, 2026. ... That sweet forever freedom from prosecution no longer just applies to the plaintiffs in Trump’s sham lawsuit: Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization. Now, it applies to “Plaintiffs or related or affiliated individuals (including, without limitation, family or others filing jointly), or parties including trusts, parent, sister, or related companies, affiliates, and subsidiaries.” Yeah, that’s a lot more people, and a lot more protection.

A tweet by Ronald Brownstein included a tweet by Acyn of Meidas Touch. Acyn included a video of (Josh?) Shapiro, governor (of Pennsylvania?) and quoted a bit of the video:

Somehow, he can’t find the money to pay for healthcare, but he can steal from you to pay off the criminals who stormed the Capitol.

Brownstein added:

One of what will be many many examples of how easily Trump’s move to funnel taxpayer money to J6 rioters will fold into the core Democratic message for 2026.

Oliver Willis of Kos reported:

Two of the police officers who responded to the pro-Trump Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol are now suing the administration after it revealed plans for a taxpayer financed slush fund to reward insurrectionists and other Trump allies. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department Officer Daniel Hodges and former U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn filed suit on Wednesday. The suit seeks to block the so-called “Anti-Weaponization Fund” created after Trump dropped his suit against the IRS and “negotiated” with his own officials to create the $1.7 billion slush fund. In the suit the officers allege that the fund “encourages those who enacted violence in the President’s name to continue to do so.”

In today’s pundit roundup for Kos Chitown Kev quoted Paul Krugman writing in his own Substack:

At this point Trump and his MAGA minions have stolen so much, committed so many crimes — not just theft but taking America to war illegally, abusing ICE detainees, and much more — that if and when they lose power many of them will face personal ruin at best, years of jail time at worst. This would happen even if they stopped committing more crimes. So there’s no incentive for them to end their criminality, or to end the attempts to bribe others to go along. Either they succeed in destroying America as we know it, or they won’t. And until that’s resolved, they may as well engage in even more corruption and criminal acts.

Sherrilyn Ifill of her own Substack wrote:

It is by now widely understood that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, and protection from state interference with citizenship rights. The Amendment incorporates the concept of equality – racial equality – into our Constitution for the first time. In so doing the 14th brings our Constitution into harmony with the core principle of the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.” The drafting and ratification of the 14th Amendment constituted a stunningly ambitious act of constitutional repair and reconciliation. […] Trump and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s grotesque scheme to reward January 6th insurrectionists with payouts from the federal treasury completes the Trump administration’s section-by-section effort to violate the 14th Amendment. Section 4 of the Amendment bars the United States from paying money to those who participated in insurrection. Congress, the branch of government empowered by Section 5 of the Amendment to enforce the 14th Amendment’s guarantees, must block this blatantly unconstitutional scheme from moving forward.”

Thom Hartmann of the Kos community and independent pundit quoted a friend. If the nasty guy is funneling my tax money to people who attacked the Capitol, why am I paying my taxes? Why not cheat as so many acquaintances have? Hartmann added an explanation:

By the way, the entire frame — picked up and dutifully repeated by the corporate media — was a lie. Trump’s lawsuit was about to be thrown out by a skeptical judge, so he simply killed it. There’s no “settlement.” No “in exchange” for dropping the suit, none of that. Instead, Trump wants us to think that, but in reality — as Rachel Maddow pointed out — Trump is just forcing us taxpayers to give him a $1.776 billion slush fund.

I’ve heard NPR repeat the frame that the slush fund was a settlement. Hartmann added that nasty junior has created venture firms that have contracts with the Pentagon and other federal agencies. So in addition to being routed to an insurrectionist slush fund a man’s tax money is being routed to the private fortune of the nasty guy’s son. More corruption. The corruption and dismantling of democracy is happening while the nasty guy is breaking our alliances that kept the free world safe since 1945. And that is happening while Russia and China are cooperating in military efforts. How to stop all this? The mess deserves more than a shrug and can’t wait until 2029 or even 2027.

House and Senate Democrats should be holding shadow hearings right now, on the record, with witnesses named and a documentary record being built in real time, so that the day the gavel changes hands there is no two-year Merrick Garland-style delay while everyone studies their shoes. And the Blue states’ attorneys general, who answer to their own voters and not to Todd Blanche, should be opening criminal inquiries into the Trump organization’s conduct under state law, where no federal addendum and no presidential pardon can reach. Letitia James already showed in New York that state fraud statutes have teeth. There’s no reason the attorneys general of at least a dozen blue states couldn’t be coordinating that work this afternoon.

Hartmann says to call your senators and representative and tell them you want hearings on corruption, and do it now, not next year. Emily Singer of Kos reported Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky lost his primary to a guy endorsed by the nasty guy. The reason the endorsement didn’t go to Massie is he led the charge to release the Epstein files and voted against the One Big Brutal Bill. Massie’s lost came just after Sen. Bill Cassidy lost his primary. He had also displeased the nasty guy by voting to convict him in the 2021 impeachment trial. The nasty guy has also endorsed Ken Paxton over Texas Sen. John Cornyn, pretty much assuring Cornyn will soon lose his primary runoff. Add to that the five Republican state lawmakers in Indiana who lost primaries because they refused to go along with a mid-decade gerrymander. All that shows how much the nasty guy still controls his voters. Republicans who risk defying him could also be removed. These lawmakers have hurt feelings and have nothing more to lose. They could be problematic for the nasty guy. For example, Cassidy has flipped his vote on the war powers resolution Democrats have been bringing up repeatedly to stop the war in Iran. Kos of Kos wrote the nasty guy is winning the wrong battles.

But forcing Republicans into total submission comes with a cost. Every GOP candidate will now carry the weight of Trump’s 38% approval rating and disastrous economic numbers. There’s no room left for distance, nuance, or independence. Trump is making every contest on the ballot about himself, and Republicans can’t win that choice. After Democrats retake one or both chambers of Congress this November, Trump will discover that less-MAGA Republican lawmakers, however much he may hate them, are more useful as allies than as enemies.

The more a candidate grovels to the nasty guy the easier a Democrat can win. An Associated Press article posted on Kos announced the death of Barney Frank. He was 86. He served in the House for 32 years, first elected in 1980, representing Boston suburbs. He was able to get a lot done because he recognized what could be accomplished and didn’t turn things that couldn’t be done into a litmus test. He was a pioneer of LGBTQ rights and in 1987 voluntarily came out as gay, rather than being outed. He is also well known for his work in response to the 2007 economic collapse, in what became the Dodd-Frank Act that enhanced consumer protections and strengthened banks. Alas, the nasty guy has worked to undo many of the Act’s provisions, saying they were too onerous. Having an unashamed gay guy in Congress way back in 1987 is pretty cool!

I worked all day and can’t feed my family

In Sunday’s pundit roundup for Daily Kos Chitown Kev quoted Leonard Pitts, of his own Substack:

In her 2020 book, Caste, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Isabel Wilkerson argues that those of us who have accused white people of voting against their own interests are defining those interests differently than white voters do. We assume those interests would be economic, particularly in financially straitened rural communities. But Wilkerson contends that those voters actually have no greater interest than to maintain white dominance. When you’ve got nothing of social value other than the tint of your skin, to what lengths would you go to protect it? As historian Taylor Branch, also a Pulitzer Prize-winner, observes in Wilkerson’s book, “If people were given the choice between democracy and whiteness, how many would choose whiteness?” The answer, according to the last election: 57 percent. About 61 million people.”

Emily Singer of Kos reported:

But while Republicans may have a short-term high, their racist gerrymandering appears to be having the unintended and politically damaging consequence of boosting Black voter turnout in the midterms, erasing any gains the GOP made with the voting bloc in 2024. In Louisiana—where Republicans went as far as to throw out already cast ballots and delay the House primaries to redraw a new map more favorable to their party—Black voter turnout is skyrocketing.

Andrew Mangan of Kos wrote “the era of gerrymaxxing is upon us.” If both parties took gerrymandering as far as they could which party would come out on top.

If all states where one party controls redistricting were to maximize their number of safe seats in that same way, Democrats would walk away with 106 seats to Republicans’ 184. To win a majority in the House, Republicans would then need just 34 more seats out of the 145 that reside in states where redistricting is not under single-party control. Democrats would need 112.

Add to that five states – Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and Washington – that have a separate redistricting commission but have Democrats in control of the government and could bypass their commissions. Republicans have only two states where this is the case – Idaho and Montana.

[That] would raise Democrats to 170 seats to Republicans’ 187 in states with single-party control over redistricting. That narrows the gap to 17 seats in favor of the GOP, which is seven better for Democrats than where things stand now.

This is theory. State laws might prevent the worst gerrymandering. Another way to win is for Democrats to control more state legislatures to reduce Republican’s efforts to rig maps. And there are places where Democrats are close, such in Minnesota and Pennsylvania.

It is a crime against democracy that this is what electoral politics in America has come to. But until partisan gerrymandering can be outlawed nationwide, Democrats must fight back. And hopefully, one day, they can gerrymander themselves into enough power to ban the practice forever.

Mangan also reported on a poll showing the net favorable opinion of the Supreme Court justices. The first important number is how many respondents chose “Don’t know.” That varies from 27% for Thomas to 44% for Kagan. As for net favorable, the three liberal justices all have a positive view, ranging from +7 to +11 and all six conservative justices have a negative view, from -4 for Gorsuch to -10 for Roberts.

Much of this difference is likely due to more highly educated Americans being more likely to have an opinion on the justices. For example, 43% of those without a college degree don’t know who Ketanji Brown Jackson is, while the same is true for only 25% of college graduates. And in general, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to have college degrees. So it would make sense that they, in turn, have a more positive view of the court’s liberals and a less sunny view of its conservatives.

David Horsey posted a cartoon on Kos showing a black man with a ballot being directed to throw that ballot into a trash can marked “Colored” instead of a ballot box marked “White.” The sheriff holding the trash can lid says, “It ain’t racism. It’s redistricting.” In Tuesday’s roundup Kev quoted Muflih Hidayat of the Australia-based Discovery Alert discussing the closed Strait of Hormuz on the availability and price of fertilizer. The quote includes a chart that shows the Persian Gulf share of the global supply ranges from 13% to 36% depending on the type of fertilizer.

These figures represent physical product that is no longer moving through global trade channels. Unlike a price spike that can be managed through substitution or efficiency, a physical removal of supply at this scale has no quick remedy. The world cannot conjure nitrogen from alternative sources on a growing-season timeline.

Fertilizer plants in the rest of the world will have trouble manufacturing the stuff because much of it is based on liquified natural gas and 20% of that comes from the Persian Gulf. That shortage will also lower the availability of fertilizer. Garrett Owen of Salon reported on how that affects American farmers.

The price of chemicals necessary to produce fertilizer — phosphorus, nitrogen and ammonia, among others — has risen sharply since the start of the war, putting even more pressure on the nation’s small and independent farmers and producers. When the Iran war began, fertilizer prices jumped from around $400 per ton in early February to nearly $600 per ton in early March. It’s only risen since then. This would be a problem in any other year, but this year is especially bad. Coming off of 2025, market volatility saw farmers across the country hesitant to buy their year’s fertilizer early, opting instead to buy it closer to the start of the spring growing season. What had been an expensive fertilizer became unaffordable for many, even after accounting for the Trump administration’s bailout to farmers. […] An April report from the American Farm Bureau Federation found that 70% of the nation’s farmers cannot afford the fertilizer needed to operate another year. The problem is especially acute in the Southeastern U.S., where just 19% of farmers and producers pre-booked their fertilizer shipments prior to the Iran war. As such, a whopping 78% report being unable to afford all the fertilizer they need.

Bobby Ghosh of his own Substack discussed Iran’s efforts to charge ships for passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

The closure of the Strait, in Tehran’s plan, is no longer a temporary act of war. It is the beginning of a permanent revenue stream and a permanent claim of sovereignty over the most important oil chokepoint on the planet. The pitch is aimed less at shipping companies than at the Trump administration, the Gulf monarchies and governments of countries that get their hydrocarbons through the Strait: Tehran wants them all to accept that this is the new normal. “We own the Strait now,” it is saying. “The world will pay.” It is a bluff. Iran threatened to close Hormuz for 40 years and never did it; there was a reason for that, and that reason has not gone away. I argued in a column for Foreign Policy a month ago that the surprise element of the Hormuz weapon was already spent — that the world would adapt and the costs Iran could impose would dwindle. The picture today is harsher than that for Tehran. The world is not adapting to Iranian leverage. It is dismantling it.”

Oliver Willis of Kos reported far right podcaster Ben Shapiro lashed out at other conservative media people. The division seems to be between traditional conservatism and the MAGA movement. Willis wrote:

But what’s happening is even more contentious than simple infighting. Right-wing media had a sense of unity and purpose under Democratic presidents, like Barack Obama and Joe Biden. But in Trump’s second term, they’re finding it hard to keep up the sustained attacks against Democrats while also making excuses for Trump’s increasingly unpopular policies. ... The right-wing media world is fundamentally based on decades of grift, where a willingly receptive audience is sold falsehoods, smears, and bigotry—where they’re constantly told to buy this product or donate to this campaign, all with the purported goal of defeating the left. ... The increasingly extreme beliefs among the right—and the need to constantly one-up each other—have reached a natural end point...

Willis reports that New York Mayor Mamdani has opened the first of five city owned grocery stores. At the opening he said:

“I cannot help but think of the words of our 40th President Ronald Reagan. He famously said, ‘The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help,’” Mamdani said. He continued, “It’s a good quote. But I disagree. I think nine more terrifying words are actually ‘I worked all day and can’t feed my family.’ We are going to use the power of government to lower prices and make it easier for New Yorkers to put food on the table.” Mamdani’s statement was a direct rebuke of the right’s consistent attacks on government help that became mainstream orthodoxy following Reagan’s presidency.