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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instant family!

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

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

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

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

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

We lived that history. We saved the evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zac Harmon added:

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

Rambler797 also posted a tweet from theleahfiles:

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

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

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

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