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.

Democracy is not exported by missile strike

My Sunday movie was Swan Song, a documentary about putting on the ballet Swan Lake. The title has a second meaning in that it was the last production by former ballet star and artistic director Karen Kain. Kain was a big deal in Canadian ballet. She became a principle dancer and a star at a young age, even becoming a protegé of Rudolf Nureyev. She has a painting of herself done by Andy Warhol. After she retired from dancing she joined the leadership of the National Ballet of Canada and rose to becoming the artistic director. Back in 2020 Kain decided the NBC’s production of Swan Lake would be her last. She wanted something different than the standard treatment the ballet usually got. But COVID delayed that for a couple years. This documentary is about what has to happen to get the show from concept to opening night. Swan Lake is a ballet by Peter Tchaikovsky. An evil guy turns women into swans. Through the help of the Swan Queen they try to get their humanity back – and that’s about all I know about the plot. There are principle dancers, though a major part of this ballet is the corps de ballet, the women who portray all those swans. This production might have had a corps of two dozen. And that’s what makes this ballet difficult, these two dozen dancers have to move in synchronization or the critics will pounce. The film shows Kain at work guiding the production. She was in charge, but she wasn’t the choreographer, working out what each dancer did when. That was done by Robert Binet. So there are several scenes where Binet shows Kain what the dancers have done so far and does that meet with her approval. We also see some of the life of principle dancer Jurgita Dronina, who played the Swan Queen. Her life started in the Soviet Union. Her family escaped when it collapsed. We also see Shae Estrada, who is in the corps who faces tensions because she doesn’t fit in. She’s also a lesbian, though that doesn’t seem to be the source of tension. Something this film doesn’t show is the scenery design and what goes into that. We see some of the scenery being made and some of the installation at the theater, but not the design. As opening night approaches and the company shifts from the studio to the stage with scenery, lighting, and costumes, a lot of adjustments need to be made. Kain and Binet hope it all gels by the time they are before an audience. Since the show is so strenuous there are four sets of principle dancers that rotate the roles. But the corps has to rehearse with all four sets. I quite enjoyed it. I’ve written about capitalism needs to be strongly regulated to survive and thrive, and to be compatible with democracy. I did a long post on that based on articles by Trenz Pruca. Daily Kos community member dratler says there is a country that is regulating capitalism quite well so that their economy is thriving and doing all the things that capitalism does best. From my earlier post an easy guess is that country is not the US, where late stage capitalism is making a mess of things. No, this country is China. While democracy is not a part of the Chinese system...

China’s great industrial firms are beating ours, Europe’s and even some in Japan in productivity, price and more recently quality. They are nearly all privately owned and privately run and therefore “capitalistic” in every sense. In this respect, they resemble the robust private firms of the postwar US.

We used to have such a robust economy. That was after WWII when capitalism gave us an amazing array of innovative goods and services. That was also a time when business was strictly regulated and antitrust laws were enforced. Those in control may be the Chinese Communist Party, but their handling of the economy is nothing like the state control of the Soviet Union. Many in US politics see “Communist” in the name and don’t see how it differs from the disastrous Soviet model. The author returns the focus to the US, listing three (out of many) signs that US capitalism is collapsing. The first is “financialization,” which is making money without producing anything. An example is the huge number of private equity firms that buy up property or companies, load them with debt to finance the purchase, then squeeze out all the wealth they can before letting the husk file for bankruptcy. Workers and other shareholders get little to nothing. Another example is cryptocurrencies. Do we really need a replacement for money, credit cards, and internet services like PayPal that already thrive? The only people who benefit from crypto are criminals. The second sign of economic decline is the crash in the rate of real innovation (by this dratler excludes software, which just improves productivity).

During the late nineteenth and the last century, we Americans made or rapidly adopted most of the innovations that make our modern world. They include electric lighting, airplanes, electric grids, voice recording, broadcast radio, antibiotics, television, high-altitude flight (with pressurized cabins), rocket ships for space flight, digital computers, transistors, chips full of tiny transistors, minicomputers, microcomputers/PCs, MRIs, CAT scans, cells phones, smart phones, genomic medicine, and now “designer drugs” conceived by computers analyzing possible chemical compounds. Yet since Apple introduced the first smart phone nearly twenty years ago, I can’t think of any physical invention (except perhaps genomic medicine and designer drugs) that we Americans produced or rapidly adopted that is remotely comparable in economic potential to any of those in the previous paragraph.

And the software improvements – social media and AI – have many undesirable side effects. The third sign is marketing, advertising, public relations, and propaganda all combined into the word promotion or “promo.” In all forms it is the effort of getting people to do thing, not in their own best interest, but in the interest of the information provider. Much (most? all?) is based on things not true. Disinformation rivals facts. An example of promo is web searches. One had been able to used logic operators, such as “this” and “not that” to search directly for something. Now the search results are flooded by paid promotions to prioritize their links, whether the match is close or not. And I’m pretty sure “not that” searching does not work. AI is supposedly free of that promo pressure, but likely won’t stay that way. Besides, isn’t the power and wonderfulness of AI also propaganda?

It’s the capitalism of a self-indulgent, self-regarding, under-educated, over-egoed and exploitive computer/financial class that has no clue about physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, medicine or the histories of successful human societies. It’s a recipe for the most rapid decline of a successful capitalist democracy in human history. ... The essence of today’s China is a vast state-capitalist nation, ruled by smart, practical leaders (many of them trained as engineers) whose main motivators appear to be not their own private wealth, but their nation’s advancement. If you’d ask me to compare the leadership of China’s elite with the “leadership” of our tech-bro class and the likes of Elon Musk, I’d say there isn’t even a contest. Intelligence, experience, practical knowledge, genuine scientific curiosity and real patriotism beat ego, self-regard, self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment as useful character traits and motivations every time.

Before you complain, I’m very aware that China does not permit many rights I hold dear, the top being freedom of speech that includes the freedom to criticize the government. I don’t want to live in such a country. But we can admire and learn from the way the Chinese regulate capitalism. In Sunday’s pundit roundup for Kos Chitown Kev quoted an editorial in El País discussing the nasty guy’s operation to kidnap Maduro of Venezuela.

Donald Trump’s decision caps a year of impulsive, personalistic foreign policy that ignores multilateral norms. Trump is not acting here as a guarantor of democracy, but rather placing force above the rule of law. Other powers will take note of these new rules as they look at Taiwan or Ukraine. Pointing this out is not a defense of the Venezuelan regime, but a warning: democracy is not exported by missile strike, nor imposed from the air —much less when invoked by someone who has repeatedly shown contempt for institutions.[...] Added to this political ambition is another, no less alarming: the announcement that U.S. companies will take over Venezuela’s oil industry to “make money,” reinforcing the perception that the intervention is not aimed at restoring rights, but at managing power and wealth. Even if the reconstruction of devastated infrastructure is invoked, this amounts to the forcible external appropriation of natural resources, blurring the line between aid, investment, and economic domination.

Collette Capriles of the New York Times

For Venezuelans, our situation will not be fixed by Mr. Maduro’s departure, let alone by a foreign occupying force. We are not a nation held together by a government or a social contract, but a collection of individuals trapped in a struggle for survival. Replacing the man at the top will not dismantle the web of bosses, private loyalties, corrupt practices and institutional ruins that have replaced public life here.

Whitney Neulich, Sophie Hills, and Caitlin Babcock of Christian Science Monitor

“If the United States asserts the right to use military force to invade and capture foreign leaders it accuses of criminal conduct, what prevents China from claiming the same authority over Taiwan’s leadership? What stops [Russian leader] Vladimir Putin from asserting similar justification to abduct Ukraine’s president?” asked Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, following Saturday’s operation. “Once this line is crossed, the rules that restrain global chaos begin to collapse, and authoritarian regimes will be the first to exploit it.”

In the comments there are, of course, many memes and cartoons about Venezuela. That includes a meme posted by exlrrp:

Anyone who has a problem with Maduro being captured and brought to justice should review the following footage of what Maduro did to his own people. THIS IS WHO YOU STAND WITH COMMIES. Free Venezuela!

Mickey Lenin responded:

The city of Portland would like a word.

Oliver Burdick tweeted:

Homosexuality is a different type of evil. The Bible rarely refers to something as “an abomination.”

Dr. Kevin M. Young responded

Sweet Summer Child, the Bible lists at least FORTY-TWO different things as an "abomination" (תּוֹעֵבַה). That isn't a rarity; it's one of the most common words the Bible uses for anything that is taboo. The 42+ include: — Businessmen who lie — Using faulty weights/measures — Divorce — Breaking Fri/Saturday Sabbath — Arrogance Oh, it also lists "those who bring false witness or stir up conflict in a community" as an abomination, like you are here. That, along with your arrogance and (I presume) your lack of keeping the Sabbath each Fri/Sat, YOU ARE AN ABOMINATION THRICE OVER. So you might as well go ahead and have sex with that dude.

Melanie D’Arrigo tweeted:

Trump’s billionaire allies now control X, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, TikTok, Truth and Twitch. They own Fox News, CBS, WaPo, WSJ and NY Post — plus 185+ local tv stations and news in 100 markets. They control the AI you're asking for answers, the algorithms feeding you content, your personal data you've given up for access, and the devices you rely on. The news and your privacy are now what Trump and his billionaire pals say it is. This is all by design.

That tweet includes a chart of which rich dude owns what. Larry & David Ellison: CBS News, CBS, Paramount+, plutoTV, TikTok. Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and a few more logos I’m not familiar with. Murdoch Family: Fox (including News, Business, TV stations), tubi, Wall Street Journal, New York Post. Sinclair Family: 185+ local news affiliates of ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and CW, plus The Baltimore Sun. Jeff Bezos: The WashingtonPost, Prime Video, twitch, Wondery. Alphabet Inc.: Google, YouTube, Android, Google Play, Gemini, Blogger (where these words get posted). Elon Musk: X, XA, Grok. Apple Corp.: Apple, AppleTV, iTunes, Apple Intelligence. Sam Altman: ChatGPT. Every so often I’m reminded Doonsbury by Garry Trudeau is still around. His comic from Sunday is pretty good.

Just dismiss any evidence that clashes with your prejudices

No movie tonight because my entertainment was this afternoon. I saw a performance of Les Ballets Trockadero de Monte Carlo that was a part of their 50th anniversary tour. The “Trocks” are an all male ballet troupe, even the dancers wearing tutus. First, they are quite good in all the things one expects in ballet dancers. These men are able to dance en pointe and do it well. They do all the leaps and spins, as well as the solo, partnered, and ensemble dancing one expects. Second, a part of their performance is parody. There are frequent little things that don’t fit classical ballet – the “dying swan” that enters losing feathers, the glide around the stage the looks more like power walking, the dancer who appears onstage a bit too soon, steps that fit more with modern dance than ballet, and many more. In watching the swan ensemble dance in their white tutus I could tell these men do not shave their chests. The program lists the names of sixteen ballerinas and eleven male dancers. Their bios are similar to this:

Varvara Laptopova is one of those rare dancer who, with one look at a ballet, not only know all the steps but can also dance all the roles. As a former member of the Kiev Toe and Heel club, she was awarded first-prize at the Pan-Siberian Czardash and Kazotski Festival for artistic mis-interpretation.

But the page after the bios lists only fifteen men in the company. The Detroit Opera Orchestra supplied live music and did a fine job supporting the dancers. I had seen the Trocks once before, at least 35 years ago. They have been a part of several TV programs, including with Kermit and Miss Piggy in Muppet Babies. I’m sure they can be found online somewhere. Of course, with a ballet troupe in which men dance the women’s roles and where nearly all of the dancers are gay Between the Lines would have a nice article about them. Lindsay Beyerstein of The Editorial Board discussed that the nasty guy campaigned against reality and won. Every plank in his platform was based on easily provable lies. He created a “conspiracist permission structure” to ignore facts and focus on hate. An Ipsos poll towards the end of the campaign found the more a person believes the conspiracy theories the more likely they were to vote for the nasty guy. The more they understood the truth the more strongly they voted for Harris. Part of that is media that is shy about calling out the nasty guy and is in the game for the bucks, not the truth. Part of it is the conspiracist mindset that says the media is controlled by the deep state.

Once you adopt a conspiracist mindset where you can dismiss any evidence that clashes with your prejudices as part of the conspiracy, you are free to create your own reality. Since it’s a worldview that scapegoats your fellow citizens as diabolical deceivers, that reality is bound to be ugly. Worse still, your willingness to discount mainstream sources of evidence in favor of the outlandish claims of demagogues becomes a badge of ideological purity. You welcome the lies. This is why social scientists have been warning about the link between conspiracism and totalitarianism for a century. There was never any evidence that the Jews secretly controlled the world – but it didn’t matter because lack of evidence was proof that the Jews controlled the press, and the universities, and science and the arts. Jews in pre-war Germany didn’t control any of those things – but no evidence to the contrary could penetrate the conspiracy theory. And the complete absence of evidence for their hegemony was just proof of their total domination.

This mindset also removes the possibility of good-faith debates.

If everything you don’t like becomes evidence of your opponent’s plot to destroy you, you can’t discuss anything rationally.

An example is evidence that vaccines save lives and prevent suffering. A conspiracist would respond, “Well, that’s what conspirators to kill our children would say.” We have to address the conspiracist mindset. There is an adage that’s been around for a while: fool around and find out (though the original has a different first word). It essentially means do something wrong (even through omission) and you will discover the consequences. That adage is now being applied to nasty guy voters, especially the ones who voted for him out of some vague economic malaise that the few policies he’s stated will make worse. Once they suffer the consequences they will turn to Democrats. John Stoehr, also of The Editorial Board doesn’t believe these people will make the link to consequences. Yes, they’ll suffer. But they won’t connect their suffering to their vote.

So let me get this straight. People who can’t or won’t understand tariffs are going to deduce all by themselves that tariffs are the reason they’re now paying three and four times more for their sneakers, T-shirts and video-game consoles? People who voted against their own economic interests are going to figure out on their own what exactly those interests are, but only after they’ve been screwed over by the president they voted for? To paraphrase Mark Twain, it would be easier to continue scamming these people than convince them that they’ve been scammed. And the scamming will continue.

Stoehr lists several reasons why they won’t recognize what they did. + The the far right media apparatus, global in scale, blocked these people from knowing all the good things the Biden-Harris administration did to set the economy on a great path. That same apparatus will make sure the same people don’t know the cause of any economic downturn. + The nasty guy administration will certainly corrupt government data that would normally show what is happening in the economy. + No voter dissatisfaction will prompt the nasty to change from his stated goals. Either he won’t run because he’s term limited (or dead) or there won’t be elections. + See above about not believing in reality. + Even if they recognize the source of their suffering the far right media apparatus won’t let them know the Democrats are offering something better. + The don’t take democracy or their own lives seriously.

I’ll put my faith in good people who seek out good trouble in the name of liberty, equality and justice for all. They’re a minority these days, but that’s OK. The world never changed for the better because a majority wanted it to. It changed because a righteous minority demanded it.

A month ago – before the election – Kos of Daily Kos wrote about how Democrats can unintentionally hurt their cause. Kos criticized something Obama said at a campaign stop for Harris. He talked about the pandemic stimulus checks. Obama criticized the nasty guy for putting his name on the check that went out while he was still in the Oval Office. Those checks weren’t supposed to be about “feeding his ego.” But people remembered the first check came from the nasty guy. They did not connect that the second and third checks came through Biden’s efforts. They credited the nasty guy for caring about them. Biden didn’t get the same credit and people wonder why Biden didn’t care for them. A savvy marketing moment missed.

People have no clue what the government does, how it works, or how it serves them ... even when they’re getting checks from the government.

That same savvy marketing has been playing out with Republican members of Congress who voted against the big infrastructure act yet are taking credit when the dollars flow to their state or district. I’ve written a lot over the last two weeks about what the nasty guy has been doing. Here’s a bit of what the opposition is doing. Two weeks ago Morgan Stephens of Kos wrote that Biden and his team have been preparing for the last few months of his administration, no matter who won. Some of the things they’ve been doing: + Getting all of the already approved funds and weapons to Ukraine. + Getting infrastructure project money out the door. + Getting the money for clean energy projects spent and shifting as much policy as they can from executive orders to government regulations, which are harder to undo. + Help the Senate appoint as many judges as possible. A week ago Stephens reported that “Governors Safeguarding Democracy” is being formed. It already has Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois, Gov. Jared Polis of Colorado, and Gov. Gavin Newsom of California. The number of additional governors is unclear and may include a few Republicans The group will have think tanks, legal experts, and democracy advocates. They will share tools and resources. They are working out how to protect their residents from deportation and are preparing legal challenges to efforts to undermine democracy. Also last week, Stephens discussed what Democratic governors might be able to do when the nasty guy sets his deportation plans in operation. But what can they reasonably do? Immigration advocates are pushing Democratic governors for executive orders and laws to tell state personnel to not voluntarily help with federal immigration enforcement. But some sheriffs will be glad to work with the feds. Beyond such laws there isn’t much Democratic governors can do. Last week Jon Stewart of The Daily Show noted a big difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats respect norms and traditions. Republicans look for loopholes. And with a bureaucracy as complex as our federal government there are always loopholes to the rules. Democrats need to also look for the loopholes. Alas, too many still are still respecting the norms and traditions Republicans rejected long ago.