Civics quiz

A 10 question civics quiz (not paywalled). I got 9/10. ☹️

Democracy updates: Rethinking regulations, etc.

I'm a huge fan of data-driven politics. But in my experience, that is a concept that is rarely touched on by the MSM or its MAGA counterpart. And when it is touched on, it tends to get distorted by ideology, political opportunism, etc. Fortune magazine writes:

Politicians claim regulation hurts small businesses. When you look at 

real-world data, the truth is more complicated

We found that regulation-related tasks account for up to 3.3% of total labor costs for the average American establishment—costing all companies combined a total of $239 billion in 2014 ($289 billion including equipment). To give a sense of the scale, U.S. gross business income taxes amounted to $353 billion in the same year. Yet regulatory burdens vary widely across firms of different sizes. Midsize firms with around 500 employees spend, on average, about 47% more on regulatory compliance costs per employee than small firms—and 18% more than large firms.

Some regulations only apply to medium to large-size businesses and exclude smaller businesses. This can facilitate entry by small firms but creates a big hill to climb as these businesses wish to expand.

Large firms benefit from economies of scale that allow them to hire dedicated compliance specialists and put systems in place for managing compliance and reporting efficiently. These practices are more cost-effective than spreading the task among many nonspecialized employees. Large firms may also have a hand in shaping the rules to limit competition. [Well duh! That's just pay-to-play politics]

The uneven impact of government regulations creates a hump that companies must climb as they grow. The high regulatory compliance costs faced by midsize companies could prevent their growth, or even deter them from trying to grow. Companies sometimes bunch below the size threshold at which onerous regulations would begin to apply. 

Agencies could also test whether individual regulations are truly worth the expense through pilot programs. Before adding a new sanitation requirement for restaurants, for example, a city’s public health department might first roll out the regulation to a subset of establishments. The agency could then track how much the costs of compliance go up, and whether rates of food-borne illness go down relative to restaurants that are not operating under the new regulation. [Unbelievable -- someone arguing for testing to see if and how well something works or fails to work! What a shocking idea -- too good to be true /s]

A person can easily see big companies structuring regulations to prevent companies from getting too big. That limits competition and fattens profits, a twofer! It's a win-win strategy for the behemoths and lose-lose for the pipsqueaks.


Trump picked his lawyer for a top Justice Dept. job. Does it matter? -- If confirmed as deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche should recuse from Justice Dept. matters related to cases where he represented Donald Trump, experts say. -- Blanche would fix “a broken System of Justice,” Trump declared in a statement. Days later, Blanche was hard at work in his current role, signing a court filing that derided one of the cases against Trump as “politically-motivated and fatally flawed” and argued that it should be dismissed.

MSNBC confronts viewer frustration, changes and an identity crisis -- The network’s audience has declined since the Nov. 5 election, as viewers have tuned out. Its parent company is spinning it off. -- “We’re going to become a guest-driven, fully opinion operation that doesn’t even have the appearance of being a news-driven operation,” predicted one MSNBC journalist who, like others quoted in this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment. -- Some critics questioned what the hosts meant by saying they were going to take a “different” approach to covering Trump. “The big problem with the announcement is that they all but said they’re going to give warmer coverage, which is a strange thing to announce,” the network insider said.

I've said it before and say again, professional journalism is not compatible with for-profit capitalism. Maybe it's not even compatible with rational politics, unless one defines rational politics to include irrational, e.g., populist, politics. Being at least somewhat irrational may actually be the rational thing to do for pro-democracy people.


Russia, Targeting Ukraine’s Grid, Moves to Cut Off Its Nuclear Plants (not paywalled) -- Moscow has increasingly hit critical substations linked to nuclear power plants in an effort to disconnect them. At the same time, Ukraine replaced the commander of its ground forces. “Ukraine’s energy infrastructure is extremely fragile and vulnerable, putting nuclear safety at great risk,” Rafael Mariano Grossi, the head of the agency, the I.A.E.A., said in a statement released late Thursday. Russia has targeted Ukraine’s energy infrastructure since the war’s first winter two years ago, in an effort to collapse its grid and make life miserable for its citizens. The Ukrainian authorities reported that Russia used cluster munitions — weapons that break apart in midair, scattering smaller bomblets over a wide area — to attack the grid.

Women despair over Taliban rules, but many Afghan returnees don’t see it (not paywalled) -- For the first time since the Taliban takeover three years ago, Afghans living outside the country have begun flocking back to their homeland, usually to visit relatives who have remained in Afghanistan. Upon their return, few seem preoccupied by the Taliban’s increasingly draconian restrictions on women — including bans on women going to university and school above sixth grade — or by the reluctance of many local women to leave their homes out of fear of encountering the morality police, according to interviews with residents and visitors. Instead, many of the visitors, carrying foreign passports or visas, marvel about the sense of security and the construction of new roads under Taliban rule. They post photos of their favorite Afghan dishes, discuss business plans and shop in the Kabul airport’s new duty-free store.  During a recent family trip to Kabul — her first since the Taliban takeover three years ago after years of war — Zahra, 34, was pleasantly surprised. “There’s freedom now,” said Zahra, an Afghan who lives in London. She indulged herself in shopping for gold jewelry and is already planning another trip to Afghanistan next year. For Afghan women who have had to live under Taliban rule, the enthusiasm of visiting relatives can be puzzling and, increasingly, frustrating.

Comment: This bit about Afghanis outside not caring about people living there is fascinating but disturbing. Assuming this reporting is more right than wrong, it clearly suggests that a lot of people have curiously limited amounts empathy. In this case, maybe that is mostly dues to an understanding that there is nothing outsiders can do to improve the plight of the oppressed, trapped natives. So why not take advantage of what there is to take advantage of and blithely carry on? Or, is something else going on here? 

Pandamonium!

The NYT writes about pandas (not paywalled):

For decades, American zoos have raised tens of millions of dollars from donors and sent the money to China for the right to host and display pandas. Under U.S. law, those funds were required to be spent protecting pandas in the wild.

But the Chinese government instead spent millions on apartment buildings, roads, computers, museums and other expenses, records show. For years, China refused even to account for millions more.

Regulators with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees the payments, have for two decades raised concerns about this with American zoo administrators and Chinese officials alike. The U.S. government, on three occasions, froze payments to China over incomplete record keeping, documents show.

Zoos, too, have known that the money was not always going toward conservation. But they worried that if Fish and Wildlife cut off the money altogether, China could demand the return of its bears. Zoos count on pandas for visitors, merchandise sales and media attention.

Ultimately, the regulators allowed the money to keep flowing and agreed not to check the spending in China so thoroughly, according to records and former officials.

“There was always pushing back and forth about how the U.S. shouldn’t ask anything,” said Kenneth Stansell, a former Fish and Wildlife official who traveled to China throughout the 2000s to discuss pandas. He said his Chinese counterparts argued that “it shouldn’t be of any concern to the U.S. government.”

None of this has been revealed to the public.

The rule of law? Meh, whatev dude. Don't get your knickers in a bunch.

Authoritarian propaganda: Powerful, subtle, cynical, aggressive and deeply embedded

I've been harping on the power of authoritarian dark free speech (lies, slanders, crackpottery, irrational emotional manipulation, etc.) for at least the last ~18 years. As American secular democracy continues to be under severe attack from the American radical right authoritarian wealth and power MAGA movement, the situation increasingly looks to be significantly worse than I thought. 

In this series of Q&A with Perplexity, one aspect of a huge problem became a lot clearer. Specifically, Perplexity does not take into account human cognitive biology or social behavior. That makes it shockingly vulnerable to MAGA propaganda. This is one of the Q&As buried deep in the string:

Q: Yes, the contemporary political landscape has seen a shift in what's commonly referred to as "conservatism." That is obvious. What you fail to understand in your search materials is that it is propaganda, i.e., a lie, for "bad" authoritarians to assume the mantle of "good" conservatism. You apparently misunderstand the power of propaganda on the human mind. Your searching apparently does not take into account human cognitive biology or social behavior. That is where the awesome power of lies, deceit, slanders and crackpot thinking comes from. If you want to get politics right, you can never lose track of cognitive biology and social behavior.

A: You raise an excellent point about the power of propaganda and its impact on political discourse. Indeed, the shift in what's commonly referred to as "conservatism" is a prime example of how propaganda can reshape political identities and ideologies. Propaganda's effectiveness stems from its ability to exploit human cognitive biases and social behaviors 1. It often appeals to emotions like fear and anxiety, which can [comment: and routinely does] override rational thinking. This emotional manipulation can lead people to accept ideas or support figures that may contradict their previously held beliefs or values.

In the case of contemporary "conservatism," propaganda techniques have been used to redefine the term, associating it with authoritarian tendencies that are fundamentally at odds with traditional conservative principles 4. This redefinition exploits people's desire for belonging and their fears about societal changes 3.

The power of propaganda lies in its ability to create an "us vs. them" narrative, which taps into our tribal instincts. This can lead to the acceptance of authoritarian figures or ideas, as people become willing to trade some of their rights and freedoms in response to perceived threats.

You're correct that understanding cognitive biology and social behavior is crucial for analyzing political phenomena. Propaganda exploits these aspects of human nature, using techniques like bandwagon effects, fearmongering, and name-calling to shape public opinion 3.

The misappropriation of terms like "conservatism" by authoritarian movements is indeed a form of propaganda. It's a deliberate attempt to clothe authoritarian ideas in the language of a more respectable political philosophy 4. This linguistic sleight-of-hand can confuse voters and blur the lines between genuine conservative principles and authoritarian tendencies.

Your insight highlights the importance of critical thinking and media literacy in navigating today's complex political landscape. By understanding the mechanisms of propaganda and our own cognitive vulnerabilities, we can better resist manipulation and maintain a clearer perspective on political realities. (emphasis added)

What prompted this post is me being told this morning that my post from a NYT opinion yesterday was written by a hard core Christian nationalist theocrat. I was unaware of who he is. That theocrat, Christopher Caldwell, is openly anti-democracy and anti-civil liberties. He advocates authoritarianism, but tries to deceive by calling it "populism." What a "Christian." 

Perplexity calls him a "conservative" because Perplexity does not "understand" anything, including the overwhelming role of human cognitive biology and social behavior in politics. If I were to go back and ask the same questions, I imagine I would get the same answers. Perplexity does not learn. All it can do is get occasional data updates.

We are in a worse situation than I thought. And even AI is more clueless than me. Crud.

An analysis of capitalism, market deregulation and populism

Happy Thanksgiving!

Hm, the bird looks

a bit undercooked

NOTE: In the comments below, it is made clear that the author of this NYT opinion, Christopher Caldwell, is a radical right Christian nationalist theocrat. In the opinion, he is subtly arguing against democracy and disguises his argument for authoritarianism as populism. However, that does not necessarily hold true for the Wolfgang Streeck, the person that Caldwell uses to try to deceive us into believing that democracy is dead. That comment is featured. It was my mistake to not look Caldwell up to see who and what he really is, an ice-cold, cynical authoritarian deceiver. 

A fascinating NYT opinion lays out a plausible analysis about most of what went wrong, and still is going wrong. In essence, the wrongness is the Titanic and now it’s not easy to control, maybe impossible. Bullet points in the post summarize parts of the essay, which is long.

Wolfie

Long story short: (i) Power flowed from the masses to business and finance interests in the name of globalism, (ii) failed political leadership made it worse by deficit spending, and (iii) people’s deteriorating economic situation sparked populism, which made things even worse. This is may not be 100% an explanation, but it feels pretty darn good, especially if one considers toxic populism in the mix. The opinion (not paywalled):

Who could have seen Donald Trump’s victory coming? Ask the question of an American intellectual these days and you may meet with embittered silence. Ask a European intellectual and you will likely hear the name of Wolfgang Streeck (rhymes with cake), a German sociologist and theorist of capitalism. .... His latest book, “Taking Back Control? States and State Systems After Globalism,” published this month, asks whether the global economy as it is now set up is compatible with democracy. He has his doubts. [So do I]

The problems started in the 1970s. Working classes in Western countries won good incomes and extensive protections, the “postwar settlement”, but profit margins suffered. What economies lost in dynamism, they gained in social stability [arguably that’s only partly right today]. However, after the Arab oil embargo of 1973, investors got nervous. The economy began to stall.

• That put politicians in a bind because workers had the votes to demand more services. That required making demands on business, and business was having none of it. Countries finessed by expanding the money supply. For a while the trick worked and workers got more but businesses didn’t pay for it. But in reality, governments had started borrowing from the next generation. They never broke the habit. 

• Soon borrowing from the next generation sparked inflation, but investors balked again. A painful tightening of money was needed to stabilize prices. Ronald Reagan’s supply-side regime eased the pain a bit on the back record government deficits. Bill Clinton was able eliminated those, but only by deregulating private banking and borrowing

• A series of mostly American attempts to calm the economy after the ’70s produced neoliberalism, which was a political-economic project to end the inflation state and free capital from its imprisonment in the “postwar settlement.” This debt-increasing mode of governing was never seriously reconsidered. One administration’s fix turns into the next generation’s crisis. At each stage of neoliberalism’s evolution, key decisions were made by technocrats, experts and other actors relatively insulated from democratic accountability. [Can you feel the power flowing away from the public interest?]

Mr. Streeck has a clear vision of something paradoxical about the neoliberal project: For the global economy to be “free,” it must be constrained. What the proponents of neoliberalism mean by a free market is a deregulated market. But getting to deregulation is trickier than it looks because in free societies, regulations are the result of people’s sovereign right to make their own rules. The more democratic the world’s societies are, the more idiosyncratic they will be, and the more their economic rules will diverge. But that is exactly what businesses cannot tolerate — at least not under globalization. Money and goods must be able to move frictionlessly and efficiently across borders. This requires a uniform set of laws. Somehow, democracy is going to have to give way.

A uniform set of laws also requires a single international norm. Which norm? That’s another problem, as Mr. Streeck sees it: The global regime we have is a reliable copy of the American one. This brings order and efficiency but also tilts the playing field in favor of American corporations, banks and investors.

• Non-technocrats, including a resentful old working class, are not going to be permitted to tangle up the system with their demands. Since economic policy is not democratically managed, it should not unfair outcomes happen. After the mortgage crisis, COVID, the war in Ukraine and so-called Bidenflation, this unfairness would gave rise to “tendencies toward deglobalization” — such as those that emerged with a vengeance on Nov. 5. The “global economy” is a place where common people have no leverage. 

• Parties of the left lost sight of these problems after the 1970s. They allowed their old structure, oriented around industrial workers and primarily concerned with workers’ rights and living standards, to be infiltrated and overthrown by intellectuals primarily concerned with promoting systems of values, such as human rights and lately the set of principles known as wokeism.

The essay continues, mostly making sense, but this concluding paragraph offers nothing at all encouraging or rational in my opinion:

Streeck’s new book is not about Mr. Trump’s triumph. But his message (or his warning, however you choose to read it) is not unrelated: The left must embrace populism, which is merely the name given to the struggle over an alternative to globalism. With globalism collapsing under its own contradictions, all serious politics is now populist in one way or another.

But if I am wrong and populism really is the only way out, that tells me that if the definition of populism I posted yesterday is basically correct, then democratic politics has to be populist and necessarily significantly irrational. That’s arguably a recipe for catastrophic self-annihilation, but that’s just my opinion.

When I try to embrace populism, it rejects me. I cannot be a populist, but humans doing politics cannot be much more rational rational than it is now. 

It makes me wonder if I am self-deluded and significantly more irrational than I think I am. . . . . . think, think . . . . . Nah, don’t think so. Sometimes wrong? Sure, but not intentionally or consciously so. My mistakes are in good faith. Populist mistakes are more in bad faith than good faith, at least as populist MAGA practices mistakes (lies, slanders, crackpottery, etc.).

Hm, what happens when 

the big hand hits 12?

This?

Rational populism, is that a real thing?

I've been in an introspective mindset for about 4-5 months. This one has lasted a lot longer than my past bouts of re-thinking my thinking. The appeal or pragmatic rationalism or rational politics to the public is extremely low. That appears to be mostly because it is too reality- and reason-tethered, cognitively way too hard and not nearly enough self-affirming fun. 

I tried the Bluesky social media, but it isn't a place for serious politics. Also, there's no interest there in rational politics. 

What about rational populism? It sounds like an oxymoron, but what do I know? I thought that populism wasn't a bulwark of rationality. Perplexity:

Q: How can a person act like a populist?

A: To act like a populist, one would typically adopt the following behaviors and characteristics:

1.  Present yourself as the voice of "the people" against a corrupt elite. 

2. Use simple, direct language and short slogans to appeal to a broad audience.

3. Engage in provocative or "bad-mannered" behavior that breaks political norms.
4. Criticize established institutions, including the media, academia, and government.
5. Promote an "us vs. them" mentality, often targeting minorities or outsiders.
6. Make bold promises and offer simple solutions to complex problems.
7. Claim to represent the "silent majority" and dismiss opposing views as illegitimate.
8. Use social media and public rallies to communicate directly with supporters.
9. Emphasize your outsider status, even if you come from a privileged background.
10. Perpetuate a sense of crisis or urgency to justify unconventional actions.

It's important to note that these behaviors are often criticized for undermining democratic norms and institutions.

Hm. I'm pretty much on board with 1, 4, 8, and 9. I don't know how to do 2.  Points 3, 5, 6 and 7 suck. I won't do those things, at least not intentionally. 10, justifying unconventional actions, sounds like the opposite of democracy, i.e., authoritarianism.

So no, rational populism isn't a real thing. I'm not a populist, rational or irrational. 

Also from the same Perplexity search:

Rhetorical Techniques:

Use phrases like "drain the swamp" or attack the "liberal elite." Employ an "anti" stance - anti-politics, anti-intellectualism, or anti-elite. Adapt your message to current crises or societal changes.

Remember that populism can manifest across the political spectrum, from left-wing figures like Bernie Sanders to right-wing leaders like Donald Trump. The key is to present yourself as the authentic voice of the people against a corrupt establishment, regardless of your specific policy positions.

Skimming headlines

MAGA is coming at us fast and hard. Political opposition will be attacked. People just doing their jobs, like federal prosecutor Jack Smith, will be attacked. Pipsqueaks in opposition like me are presumably under the MAGA radar and probably relatively safe. I hope.

1. Two Presidents, Two Policies, One Superpower: America in Transition (not paywalled) -- Even as President Biden brokers a cease-fire in Lebanon, President-elect Donald J. Trump is running his own foreign policy without waiting to be sworn in. -- Without waiting to be sworn in, President-elect Donald J. Trump effectively declared a trade war this week by announcing that he would impose tariffs on America’s friends, Canada and Mexico, as well as its rival China on Day 1 of his administration. The next day, President Biden strode into the Rose Garden to announce an agreement to end more than a year of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah.

Perplexity:

Q: Is it illegal for citizens to conduct foreign policy?

A: The legality of citizens conducting foreign policy in the United States is primarily governed by the Logan Act, a federal law that prohibits unauthorized private diplomacy with foreign governments. .... Violating the Logan Act is classified as a felony, punishable by up to three years in prison and/or fines. However, it has rarely been enforced since its inception, with only two known indictments and no convictions.

2. Inside the Plastic Industry’s Battle to Win Over Hearts and Minds -- Documents leaked from an industry group show how plastics companies are pushing back against a “tide of anti-plastic sentiment.” .... A trove of documents leaked from an influential industry group shows how some of the world’s largest petrochemical and plastics companies have been waging a campaign to push back against a “tide of anti-plastic sentiment” — especially among young people concerned about the environment. The industry group, the National Association for PET Container Resources, or NAPCOR, worked to deliberately obscure its connection to the campaign and make its content “authentic and from the creators’ viewpoints,” the documents show. .... despite being recyclable, PET (polyethylene terephthalate) remains a major source of plastic waste and microplastics, those extremely small pieces of plastic debris.

Pro-plastic pollution influencer on TikTok

praising plastics and lying about recycling

Another TikToc influencer lying to people

3. Trump tied migrant entries and fentanyl to tariffs. Here are the facts. (not paywalled)-- Neither his claim that border crossings are an unchecked “invasion” nor his depiction of drugs pouring across an unguarded border has any basis in federal data. .... Donald Trump’s claim that illegal border crossings are out of control — which was among the reasons he cited for the tariffs he said Monday he plans to enact against Mexico, Canada and China — is contradicted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection data showing lower levels of crossings this fall than during the final months of Trump’s first term.

Comment: Note the reference to federal data. Here is my 11/13/24 prediction about federal data: Federal data collection functions will be (i) stopped entirely, or (ii) almost completely kept from the public, and spun into lies when the data is inconvenient. (That was a Ronald Reagan tactic -- I think he invented it)

4. Did Merrick Garland Blow It? Left-wingers Blame AG as Trump Charges Dropped -- Merrick Garland, who leads the DOJ, has now faced backlash for not moving forward with the investigation quickly enough, including waiting until November 2022 to appoint Smith as special counsel. Others have said this delay ultimately led to Trump winning the 2024 election and being allowed to reenter the White House next year.

Comment: No, Garland did not blow it. He wanted to protect DJT and he succeeded. Garland helped put DJT in power. Those left-wingers now complaining are still clueless. Un-fracking-believable.

5. Ty Cobb says Trump has no ‘legitimate way’ of going after Smith’s team -- “They have vowed, certainly he has vowed, and others, you know, involved in the transition team have vowed vengeance with regard to the prosecutors and … the agents. Of course, they didn’t do anything wrong, and there’s really nothing to pursue them about,” Cobb told CNN’s Erin Burnett.

Comment: Cobb is clueless. DJT has made it very clear that he is perfectly willing to use illegitimate ways to get what he wants, vengeance in this case, if there isn't a legitimate way. After all, DJT will be immune from essentially all crimes (federal and apparently state) he commits while in office. When his thugs break laws, he will just pardon them. My Dog, how out to lunch are most of DJT's critics? Very far out as far as I can tell. I have to fight the urge to call 'em idiots.

The Tortoise and the Boulder

[update for clarity: This post by Dan T, not by Germaine!]

Like many of us, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking since the election. Well, before that, too. I agree with Germaine that we are headed for an authoritarian regime. I say that not with the conceit that I know the future–I don’t, and I sure hope I’m wrong. That just looks to me like where we’re headed. So what to do? Germaine is resolved to fight on. I respect that. 

I’m not resolved to fight on. When the boulder was rolling toward the cliff, it made sense to try to stop it. We did try. Now that the boulder has rolled off the cliff, I don’t see any sense in trying to stop its descent. The only outcome I can see from that is getting crushed.

I have not been reading a ton of news, though I skim some headlines. “The problem is this, the problem is that; the Democrats should have done this, they should have done that.” I think that’s all pissin’ in the wind. The problem is a majority of the electorate thought Donald Trump was an acceptable candidate; and a majority of those who thought he was acceptable actually wanted him. After everything he’s done over the past nine years to show us and tell us he is monumentally unfit for public office. A plurality of voters wanted him back in office. 

I can’t solve that problem. The boulder is going to take its course. It will eventually land, and when it does, it will probably shatter into pieces. I don’t know if that’s six months, six years, or sixty years from now. And I don’t know how it will happen, or what will happen next. If I’m still around and have the opportunity, I will try to help shape what comes next. In the meantime, it feels liberating to let go of trying to fight against where the world seems determined to go.

In the meantime, I will practice the Way in my daily life. That has always been more important than my politics anyway. Is that wisdom, or cowardice, or both? I don’t know, but I’d wager both. I don’t expect to be very active on dispol going forward, which is not to say I’ll never come around or make comments. But I think the likelihood of retribution for speaking out is real, if not imminent. And I am interested in self-preservation. So I’m going to tone it down. 

I’ll close with a story from Chuang Tzu. For context: Back in the day the Chinese would use tortoise shells for divination. They would throw the shell into the coals until it cracked from the heat, then read the cracks like we would read someone’s palm today. Here’s the story:

Once, when Chuang Tzu was fishing in the P'u River, the king of Ch'u sent two officials to go and announce to him: "I would like to trouble you with the administration of my realm."

Chuang Tzu held on to the fishing pole and, without turning his head, said, "I have heard that there is a sacred tortoise in Ch'u that has been dead for three thousand years. The king keeps it wrapped in cloth and boxed, and stores it in the ancestral temple. Now would this tortoise rather be dead and have its bones left behind and honored? Or would it rather be alive and dragging its tail in the mud?"

"It would rather be alive and dragging its tail in the mud," said the two officials.

Chuang Tzu said, "Go away! I'll drag my tail in the mud!"

This isn't good-bye, exactly, since I’m not planning on completely going away. But it does feel like a death. I wish everybody here fulfillment, safety, comfort and opportunity on our journey. Godspeed.

Following the flow of power and the battle for minds: Headlines & commentary

One can get a sense of where things are and will probably go from a scan of some headlines from two different points of view, the MSM and MAGA.

From the MSM

"Democrat propaganda": Marjorie Taylor Greene plans to team up with Musk to defund NPR -- Germaine's 11/6/24 prediction: Federal funding for NPR and PBS will either be shut off, or they will be turned into authoritarian propaganda outlets. 

Texas bill would reclassify abortion drugs as controlled substances -- The bill is modeled after a Louisiana law that doctors say has created chaos for other gynecological issues best treated by these drugs

Trump’s cabinet is filling up with Project 2025 authors despite him saying he has ‘no idea’ what it is -- Trump said he didn’t know who’s behind the blueprint for his return. He just hired the authors for key roles

Elon Musk and the age of shameless oligarchy -- We’ve never seen a political donor this loud, proud, and culturally influential -- “We are in an era that I call ‘in-your-face oligarchy,’” says Jeffrey A. Winters, a professor at Northwestern who researches oligarchs and inequality. Twenty years ago, it was a challenge to get his students to understand that there were oligarchs in the US. Now, he says, “I have a very hard time getting students to accept the idea that there’s democracy.”

Why Elon Musk can never balance the budget, in one chart -- Elon Musk wants to slash trillions in “waste.” Good luck, buddy! -- Germaine: Here, the MSM authors don't get it. Musk can cut trillions by calling what is cut waste even if it isn't. That's the point. Here's the budget.

Big cuts are not going to come from

defense, so where will they come from?

Trump Pentagon pick attacks UN and Nato and urges US to ignore Geneva conventions -- Revealed: Pete Hegseth writes scathingly of key institutions and says ‘If you love America, you should love Israel’ -- Germaine: "Ignore Geneva conventions" = mass slaughter of Palestinians -- Germaine's 11/6/24 prediction: There will be hideous genocide in Gaza, Lebanon and the Ukraine. 

From MAGA

Antony Blinken Holding Therapy Cry Sessions After Trump Win -- The Washington Free Beacon reported earlier this month about certain therapy sessions the State Department had been hosting for employees dealing with election fallout. 

The 2024 Presidential Election Landslide -- The SWAT raid on P’Nut’s house symbolizes an out-of-control totalitarian government. Elon Musk grasped this symbolism in his pithy posts on X. Thus, Elon Musk and Joe Rogan called P’Nut’s killing “proof America is no longer the land of the free...” P’Nut may be gone, but, with the election over, we can look back at the statist behemoth that killed him, and that may finally be reaching its end, leaving room for the Founders’ vision to bloom again.

P’Nut was killed by an out-of-control 

totalitarian statist behemoth

America is no longer the land of the free

Justice for P’Nut and Fred the Raccoon!!

Let’s say man is changing the climate. So what? -- if anthropogenic climate change were occurring, why should we assume it wouldn’t be beneficial? Oh, it’s not just that the Earth is greener and crop yields are higher when CO2 levels are greater [that is actually true but misleading]; it’s not just that relative warmth breeds life [that's incoherent]. It’s also this: Some scientists have said the Earth will soon enter, or has already entered, a significant cooling phase. Others even contend that another ice age is nigh. And if this is so, any man-caused temperature increase would merely mitigate this naturally induced but deadly phenomenon. [expert consensus says that is false]

Migrant murders put American communities on edge as over 1.4 million avoid deportation with shady tactics -- Laken Riley, Lizbeth Medina, Jocelyn Nungaray and Rachel Morin are among Americans allegedly killed by illegal immigrants -- VENEZUELAN MIGRANT GANG TREN DE ARAGUA NOW OPERATING IN 16 STATES: REPORT -- Question: Is it mostly migrant murders or mostly demagoguery about migrant murders that put US communities on edge, assuming "US communities" are "on edge"?

Leftists Are Fleeing X for Bluesky, But One Telling Statistic Reveals the Truth About Them -- “In the past 24 hours, we have received more than 42,000 reports (an all-time high for one day),” the Bluesky Safety team posted to its platform on Nov. 15. .... Of particularly notable concern, the safety team added: “We’re triaging this large queue so the most harmful content such as [child sexual abuse material -- CSAM] is removed quickly.” To say nothing of the CSAM content, that whole post is a bit telling, no? A public square is flooded by whiny leftists, and complaints exponentially skyrocket? That should tell you everything you need to know about the modern left in a nutshell. Leftism, at its core, is about division, and that’s why it just doesn’t work. Oh sure, it pretends to be all-inclusive, but inclusivity is the antithesis of intersectionality, and the latter is the primary currency of the left. -- Question: Does Bluesky trying to block CSAM support the allegation that leftists are whiney or that all Bluesky users are leftists? 

‘Sarah’ McBride Isn’t Just A Congressman In A Dress But A Trojan Horse To Force Men Into Women’s Spaces Everywhere -- McBride and his allies want women to give up privacy and safety, and all of us to give up our integrity and become complicit in their lies. -- The state of Delaware has elected a dude in a dress to the House of Representatives. Sarah (formerly Tim) McBride is a man who pretends to be a woman, and he will be going to Congress next year, which has provoked a fight over where he will, well, go when he is in Congress next year.

Q: Can you feel a difference in tone and degree of good will in MSM vs MAGA reporting?

The state of American ignorance/misunderstanding; About echo chambers

Lots of Americans are ignorant or misinformed about a lot of important things. Tom Nichols posted this bit of data on Bluesky. It's from a 2022 YouGov poll.

More data from the poll.

Nichols wrote the 2017 book The Death of Expertise (book review here). His key points include (i) there is a growing belief that everyone's opinions are equally valid, regardless of expertise or knowledge, (ii) many people are increasingly resistant to learning and hostile towards established knowledge, despite having unprecedented access to information, and (iii) metacognition, the ability to recognize one's own limitations and lack of knowledge in certain areas, is important to understand for democracy to survive in the face of toxic social media and dark free speech generally. He argues that rejection of expertise poses significant risks to society and democratic institutions.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

AOC posted this interesting thought about echo chambers on Bluesky:

It's coming to Canada too..........

 I too, am dismayed, that Trump won so easily. So, spending the last couple of weeks reading what the pundits have had to say and listening to talk radio, everyone is an expert all of a sudden on HOW it happened and WHY it happened.

It's coming to Canada too. The talk has started. And when the ruling Liberals lose, and the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre win, the same experts and pundits will have their say.

Just for fun, after the Trump win, one radio program I listened to decided to simply gauge their audience and the results might surprise you.

Not much about the well-oiled Republican propaganda machine, not even much about Kamala not being a good choice. Every day Americans calling in and simply saying............. we aren't being listened to.

I hear it here too now. Here in Canada. Just every day people saying Trudeau has tuned them out. They are getting fed up with being ignored.

Now, before I go further - even if Poilievre wins, he is NO Trump. There will be no attacks against abortion rights, or gay marriage or any move to "replace" our universal health care. But the themes will be similar......

Americans "felt", whether we acknowledge the fact or not, that the left and Democrats were tuning them out. The fact that Trump will do worse didn't factor into their calculation. Or maybe it did factor in, and they decided, hey, you ain't listening to us so what do we have to lose?

Tent cities. Unchecked illegal immigration. Transgender males beating girls in sports. Being forced to use the correct pronouns. Unsafe streets. Rising food prices. Watching anti-Semitism rise on college campuses. Being told constantly that we are being bigots for being upset by the things that we see.

Now in Canada, the same dialogue. 

In the town I lived for 30 years prior to moving back there was NEVER a tent city. Now tent cities everywhere. Rising crime as well. Complain, and be called intolerant, bigoted, small-minded.

People are angry. Not as angry as Americans, because, well because Canadians aren't quite as angry in general as Americans tend to get. Is it OK to say that?

Now the ads have come out, and you would swear they resemble the attacks made by the Right in the US, just watch........

Could the message be any more obvious? And how will the Liberals respond? Like this...............

A positive instead of a negative ad. As it should be................

 Problem is, it dismisses grievances that Canadians are expressing. It simply says we are a great people and should all get along. But when you speak against issues the left support, you get put down. You don't "get it." 

So, when you hear and read "how could Americans have voted for Trump, is something wrong with Americans? Were they hoodwinking? Were they taken in by rightwing media and Fox? Were we stupid?'............

THEN, you will know why Americans voted for Trump and likely,why Canadians will vote for Poilievre. 

Why Dems lost; In support of authoritarianism and kleptocracy; California CSP update

Why Dems lost in 2024

A recent Bill Maher show interviewed physicist Neil Tyson and former DNC chair Donna Brazile. Maher mentioned to Tyson a Dem argument that men and women are treated differently because of social structures, not because of biology. Maher said "that's nuts." After multiple attempts by Maher to explain the problem, Tyson refused to agree the Dem dogma-reality disconnect is real. Maher ended that bit by saying "OK, I'll put you down as part of the problem." I agree with Maher on this point.

When asked why the Dems lost the 2024 elections, Brazile was far worse than Tyson. Her answer (paraphrasing), "inflation was a beast we could not slay", was right for the wrong reason and it ignored the rest of the answer. The data I've seen so far indicates that inflation, illegal immigration at the border and aggressive wokeness, including like what Tyson was trying to assert, were the top three reasons the Dems got blown out. 

Regarding inflation, the GOP effectively put all blame for inflation on Biden and Harris. The beast the Dems could not slay was the false narrative that inflation was all Biden's and Harris' fault. The data I am aware of indicates that the top three causes of recent inflation were mostly (i) serious supply chain problems due to COVID (that is the reason I wound up with a Tesla instead of something else), (ii) Russia's war on Ukraine, and (iii) corporate greed. Biden's spending bills (mainly COVID relief and infrastructure bills) came in a distant 4th, not a close 4th. In other words, Brazile let the false MAGA narrative stand unchallenged. Worse yet, she did not even mention illegal immigration. Even worse than that, when the Republican in the interview mentioned aggressive wokeness was one of the causes, she simply denied it was a relevant factor. 

In my opinion, as long as Dem and liberal elites stay so shockingly wrong, clueless and rhetorically ineffective, they will remain out of power. They are not woke about themselves or American society generally.

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Democracy vs authoritarianism wars

In my opinion, there is a massive, ongoing attitude shift from staunch support for democracy to support for both authoritarianism and corruption in government. From what I can tell, a significant amount of rank and file support, probably most, comes from ignorance about what is really going on. The rank and file vigorously say they are pro-democracy and anti-corruption, but in my opinion, their votes say the opposite with equal vigor, but a lot more political impact.

But now for the first time, I've seen a defense of authoritarianism and kleptocracy openly asserted by a person who says they are pro-democracy and pro-reasonably helping people in real need (pro-service to the public interest, in my opinion). The reasoning goes about like this:

Authoritarianism or kleptocracy is not producing current excesses. Instead, the main culprits of widespread discontent and anger are a combination of American culture, skewed distribution of income and wealth, abuse of public and personal budgets (debt), and a poor alignment of education with available jobs. That situation in America produces a negative feedback loop leading us into deeper debt to keep people afloat while worsening the money gap (federal debt). That is an outcome of democracy, which isn't perfect, because people aren't.

How one can reconcile support for (or neutral acceptance of) authoritarianism and deep corruption (kleptocracy) with support for democracy and service to the public interest is beyond me. I do not know how to pound square pegs into smaller round holes. Is that the wrong way to see it?

Although people and democracy are not perfect, I also cannot understand why necessarily imperfect authoritarians and kleptocrats would not lead to worse income skewing and debt than our necessarily flawed democratic system. Again, I see square pegs and smaller round holes. Things can be a hell of a lot worse than they are now. In terms of fiscal policy, the Dems have been far less pro-debt than the Repubs at least since the 1990s. Compared to the Dems, the Repubs stand most solidly for federal and personal debt, authoritarianism and deep corruption.

What am I not understanding here, if anything? I really do believe there is a lot of ignorance and false beliefs going on here. I recently tried to make it clear that too many people do not know the difference between democracy and authoritarianism. I still stand by that belief and the facts and reasoning that support it.

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

The effort to get official party status for the Common Sense Party of California has more or less ended in failure. The group could not get the ~75,000 signatured needed to qualify for official party status. I ended my affiliation with the group. Lots of people bitch and whine about how horrific the two parties are, but they are either ignorant about politics and opposition, or they won't or can't lift a finger to even try to put up a fight. So, the status quo remains in serenely place unchallenged, fat, lazy and happy.

Double nuts

Summing up the nut harvest: In California, the Green Party is socialist. That's nuts. The Dems are clueless woke. Nuts. The Libertarian Party is enslaved to its sacred property and personal rights crackpottery. The LPs are completely unaware that there even is such a thing as the public interest. Double nuts. The California GOP is just as double nuts as it is in other states. The Peace and Freedom Party ("California's Feminist Socialist Political Party") is more aggressively and cluelessly woke than the Dems. Double nuts. The American Independent Party is hard core Christian nationalist theocrat, and it tries to hide that fact from the public. Triple nuts.

My goodness gracious, there a lot of nuts in the harvest this year. And last year. And next year. . . . . . . 

Double nuts

The rule of law is collapsing

This 1 page Nov. 22, 2024 order by judge Merchan indefinitely delays sentencing in DJT's massive fraud trial. He was convicted by a jury of 34 felonies for business fraud in New York state. One of the felonies was the Stormy Daniels hush money payoff.

The judge here, a state judge, not federal, gives DJT permission to file for complete dismissal of the case. No explanation is given. 

That order to delay is the direct effect of the radical right authoritarian supreme court's decision to grant immunity to Trump for crimes committed while he was in office. Trump committed those felony crimes before he was elected as president in 2016. 

So why the delay? The only answer that makes even a little sense to argue boils down to this: Legally, he is the president-elect. DJT will argue that a president-elect is immune from crimes committed as a regular citizen before being elected as president. Second, and if the 1st argument fails, that president-elect status extends to the existing grant of presidential immunity, even if DJT committed his crimes as a regular citizen. 

Does that make one shred of sense? Not to me. It certainly does to DJT and all or nearly all of his supporters. And, I am coming to believe it probably makes sense to a lot of people who are not DJT supporters. Why? In my opinion it is mostly due to sympathy for authoritarianism among Americans who have been taught to distrust and even hate democracy, whether they know or believe it or not.

Does that make any sense? Absolutely not, in my staunchly pro-democracy opinion. By definition, authoritarians can be as corrupt and brutal as their power and circumstances allow. In a democracy, the rule of law is supposed to restrain at least some of the more egregious brutality and theft. Those restraints do not exist under authoritarianism.

In my firm opinion the American rule of law is crumbling in real time, right now.

Peanut gallery

Peanut 1: Can someone help me make this make sense? He was tried and convicted while not president of crimes he committed while not president. He still isn't president right now when the sentencing was pushed out to for some reason. He was then elected president

What does the one have to do with the other? I understand the doctrine of sovereign immunity. I get that. The president can't be sued or tried for illegalities committed in office as part of his regular duties. But that's not what ANY OF THIS IS. So what the hell is going on here? I'm not a lawyer, but I feel like I'm a pretty smart guy and I can't come up with a way that this makes any sense.

Peanut 2: The judge is a coward is what's happening. He doesn't want to be the judge to order Trump to appear for sentencing and then be expected to answer the "now what" question that must be asked when Trump says, "No." There's a term for this when analyzing the rise of authoritarianism as well as fascism. It's called "preemptive compliance," and it's one of the warning signs that shows that it's almost too late to stop it.

Peanut 3: Exactly. He should have sentenced Trump in September. It would have made no difference anyway as he would have appealed it. The judge is probably afraid of getting sent to Guantanamo bay. And he might be right.

Peanut 4: The darkly hilarious thing is that if he's doing this because he's afraid of the new emperor coming after him...this doesn't prevent that. It guarantees it.

Perplexity

In response to my question 3, Perplexity summarizes deeper complexity of the legal landscape in answer 3.  

A3: The judge's decision to delay sentencing in Trump's hush money case, despite the crimes being committed before he was in office, is not directly related to presidential immunity. There are several factors at play. 

1. Legal complexities: The case presents unprecedented legal questions about sentencing a president-elect for crimes committed before taking office.

2. Procedural considerations: Judge Merchan is allowing Trump's legal team to file a motion to dismiss the case, giving both sides time to present arguments.

3. Practical concerns: Prosecutors acknowledged that sentencing might not occur until after Trump's potential term ends, given the unique circumstances.

4. Separation of powers: The court is likely considering the balance between the judicial process and the executive branch, given Trump's status as president-elect.

5. Pending motions: The judge has also delayed ruling on whether the Supreme Court's recent presidential immunity decision applies to this case, which requires further review.

My response to those legal concerns are: 

• 1 and 2 are bullshit -- all of this will either be decided by the US supreme court or New York state will figure a way to weasel out and let DJT off scot-free

• 3 is direct evidence of shocking weakness in the American rule of law for elites, i.e., waiting until DJT is out of office in 2028 (assuming he will ever be out of office again in his lifetime) is a complete failure of the rule of law -- America really does have a two-tiered system of law

• 4 separation of powers questions are for the supreme court to decide, not for a state trial judge who is obligated to follow the rule of law in New York as it exists right fracking now -- it does not matter what Merchan decides, because the case will go to the supreme court no matter what or, the law in New York will be chicken shit and unilaterally drop the prosecution and sentencing in some way 

• 5 is also bullshit -- it clearly contradicts Perplexity's assertion that this is is not directly related to presidential immunity

Q: Is all of that way too hyperbolic, regular hyperbolic, almost hyperbolic, basically correct, spot on or an elephino*?

* Elephino: What you get when you cross an elephant with a rhino.

Taking stock and reassessing the political war: It's worse than I thought

What is going to happen next is becoming pretty clear, pretty fast. It is going to be authoritarian, ugly and shockingly corrupt. What to do next isn't obvious. Most of my common sense-grounded predictions are well on their way to being more right than wrong. No surprise there. He's doing what he said he was gonna do and tried to do the last time.[1] 

Reflecting on America's current political situation, its feels reasonable to think that my understanding of the war between deeply corrupt authoritarianism and less corrupt democracy was significantly off the mark about the democracy side of the war. It appears to be significantly more corrupt and authoritarian than I previously believed. That reassessment comes from factors like (i) blind Dem support for the corrupt authoritarians running Israel and their goal of making criticism of Israel by American citizens illegal, and (ii) the plutocratic neoliberal wing of the Dems, which is in control. In essence, the Dem party has its own internal deeply corrupt plutocratic authoritarian war going on against already unacceptably corrupt democracy. 

I now think that internal war has made the Dems rather ineffective in dealing with at least ~20 years of constant Repub attacks on democracy and inconvenient facts and truths. The war seems to be better framed like this: Deeply corrupt radical right authoritarianism (autocratic, plutocratic, theocratic) against too corrupt democratic-plutocratic impulses. That doesn't look very good for democracy.

Worse, the MSM seems to be buckling under the open threat of radical right authoritarianism and the pressures of corporate ownership and demands for profit. Since Bezos bent his knee to protect his wealth in the face of DJT's very credible public threats, the tone of the WaPo has begun to change for the worse. I won't renew my subscription when it ends next April. The NYT is already under a massive threat that could put it out of business, i.e., a $10 billion defamation lawsuit. All or most of the rest of the non-MAGA mainstream media is in disarray and under intense economic pressure to simply survive. 

There is a hint that some in the non-MAGA MSM are starting to sense a deadly threat to democracy. What will lead to, if anything at all, is unclear. A WaPo opinionologist (not paywalled) put it this way, democracy needs a different model for journalism. Well, duh. One could reframe that as journalism needs a different economic model. The opinionologist suggested a non-profit model based on what ProPublica is doing.[2] 

I support ProPublica and recommend it to anyone who can afford to donate. It may wind up being among the last survivors standing in defense of democracy. Capitalism is implacably hostile to professional journalism, so the money for operations has to come from a different economic model. MSNBC and CNBC are up for sale and they could, probably will, wind up under the control of a MAGA billionaire or consortium. Again, all forms of authoritarianism are incompatible with professional journalism. Bye, bye Rachael Maddow, hello morally rotted, lying, slandering, crackpot MAGA propagandist.

Q: Is American democracy and honest governance on a bumpy road, in a rough patch, on the way to being great again, and/or something else?

Footnotes:

1. The one important prediction that might be going off the rails is about DJT handing Ukraine to Putin by a mutual agreement, presumably in secret, followed by mass slaughter of Ukrainians. It may be the case that Putin is going to be openly contemptuous of DJT and his blither about ending the war in one day. A lot of Russians are dead. Putin is probably implacably furious and out for bloody revenge, regardless of DJT's nonsense. 

Complicating the analysis is Biden's unexpected decision to allow the Ukraine to shoot long-range US missiles into Russia. In response, Putin issued a warning that aggressive move gives Russia the right to use nuclear weapons and to attack countries that supply the missiles. We just inched closer to nuclear war, in Ukraine, NATO and/or the US. Regardless, one probably can still reasonably expect the start of mass slaughter of Ukrainians in the next 2 years. NATO seems to be a steaming pile of uselessness.

What's the range, ~100 mi or ~180 mi?

2. The opinion comments:

The plight of the news business has gotten steadily worse over the past decade. Cable TV networks are shedding audience share at an alarming rate. Increasingly, they seemed to have forgotten who their audience even is. The hosts of “Morning Joe” visiting Mar-a-Lago was the sort of move, judging from the backlash, that is likely to increase its progressive audience’s flight from MSNBC. CNN, in its effort to be all things to all people, is also hemorrhaging viewers. Many national newspapers are losing subscribers (and hollowing out their coverage), and local media has been shriveling for years. (The Post’s decision not to endorse a presidential candidate unleashed an exodus of hundreds of thousands of readers who had expected a clarion voice in defense of democracy.)

It is not merely this shrinkage in conventional news consumption that should be alarming. The preponderance of voters who get no news whatsoever suggests the very notion of an “informed electorate” might become a thing of the past. 

ProPublica has pioneered an inventive partnership with local papers all over the country. ProPublica provides an enterprising investigative reporter with salary for a year plus the infrastructure necessary to report the story, including editors, research assistance and lawyers. 

Was the notion of an “informed electorate” ever more real than illusion? I doubt it, but that depends on how one defines the concept of “informed” in this context.  

Fighting against dark free speech: "Authoritarianism" propaganda wars

Propaganda tip #1

Key arguments that Trump and MAGA made and still make against basically the entire left are that (i) the left is radical and authoritarian, and by implication (ii) this alleged authoritarianism by the left justifies it by Trump and MAGA. False beliefs of allegedly radical left authoritarianism are deeply embedded in the authoritarian MAGA movement and also many or most conservatives outside of MAGA. At present, very few of those MAGA minds can be changed. Maybe that will change somewhat after radical right authoritarianism starts to take hold and bite.

 

A hypothetical example

Claim 1: Progressives need to remember that conservatives and especially social conservatives view the progressives as the authoritarians. When the employer or education establishment was forcing them to bend the knee to black lives matters, and same sex marriage, conservatives were viewing it as the heavy hand of the government. 

Response 1: One can argue that most MAGA people do not really understand what authoritarianism is or what democracy is. One can argue that a major factor is that decades of divisive, polarizing radical right authoritarian propaganda has deceived and manipulated tens of millions of Americans. Take this for example:

Q: Compare the seriousness and depth of authoritarianism in Trump, Project 2025 and the MAGA movement to the authoritarianism of progressives alleged by conservatives and other critics.

A: The comparison of authoritarianism between Trump/Project 2025/MAGA and progressives reveals significant differences in scope, intent, and potential impact.

Trump/Project 2025/MAGA Authoritarianism

Project 2025 and associated MAGA policies propose sweeping changes that would significantly expand executive power and reshape American governance. Consolidating presidential control over federal agencies, including independent ones like the DOJ and FBI. Reclassifying tens of thousands of civil servants as political appointees to replace them with loyalists. .... Imposing conservative Christian values in government and society. .... Weaponizing government agencies against political opponents. These proposals would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the U.S. government, potentially undermining democratic norms, civil liberties, and the rule of law.

Progressive Policies Criticized as Authoritarian

Conservative critics often label certain progressive policies as authoritarian, including:
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, expanded social welfare programs, environmental regulations, gun control measures, and COVID-19 public health mandates.

However, these policies generally work within existing democratic and constitutional frameworks, rather than seeking to fundamentally restructure government power. They aim to address social issues through legislation and established governmental processes, not by concentrating power in the executive branch or dismantling core democratic institutions. (emphasis added)

Scope: Project 2025 proposes a comprehensive overhaul of government structure and function, while progressive policies typically focus on specific social or economic issues.

Institutional Impact: MAGA proposals seek to fundamentally alter the balance of power between branches of government, while progressive policies generally work within existing institutional structures.

Democratic Norms: Project 2025 explicitly challenges many longstanding democratic norms and institutions, whereas progressive policies, even when controversial, typically operate within established democratic processes.

Individual Rights: MAGA proposals include rolling back certain civil liberties and protections, particularly for marginalized groups, while progressive policies often aim to expand protections for these groups.

While both sides accuse each other of authoritarianism, the scale and nature of the changes proposed by Project 2025 and associated MAGA policies represent a more significant departure from traditional American governance and democratic norms than typical progressive policy proposals. (emphasis added)

Q2: Did the black lives matter movement hurt or kill conservatives?

A2: Based on the search results provided, there is no evidence that the Black Lives Matter movement directly hurt or killed conservatives. The search results do not contain any information about Black Lives Matter protesters physically harming or killing conservative individuals.

In other words, progressives are not significantly authoritarian. But the politics that most Trump supporters have embraced, at least by voting for him, are authoritarian. 

Claim 2: The homicide rate in the U.S. jumped 35% starting soon after the George Floyd video hit the media. There are estimates that there were more than 1,000 additional homicides of blacks due to the push to de-police and end incarceration. Also, traffic fatalities also jumped in that time due to ending of enforcement of traffic laws in many areas. Progressives increased crime while trying to hunt down the thought criminals on the rights.

Response 2: It is doubtful that there is solid evidence to support any of those assertions.  Here is some data that contradicts those implications and allegations:

Q: Are the following comments mostly true? The homicide rate in the U.S. jumped 35% starting soon after the George Floyd video hit the media. There are estimates that there were more than 1,000 additional homicides of blacks due to the push to de-police and end incarceration. Also, traffic fatalities also jumped in that time due to ending of enforcement of traffic laws in many areas. Progressives increased crime while trying to hunt down the thought criminals on the rights.

A: The comments contain some accurate points but also include exaggerations and unsupported claims.

The claim of a 35% jump in homicide rates soon after the George Floyd incident is not supported by the provided search results. While there was an increase in homicides during this period, the exact percentage and direct causation are not verified.

There is evidence supporting an increase in traffic fatalities coinciding with reduced traffic enforcement. Experts attribute this to bad driving habits that developed during the pandemic and reduced traffic enforcement.

The search results do not support claims about:
1. Specific numbers of additional homicides among Black individuals.
2. Direct causation between progressive policies and increased crime rates.
3. Motivations related to "hunting down thought criminals on the right."

These assertions appear to be opinions or speculations not backed by the provided information.

Q2: Did the bad driving habits that developed during the pandemic and reduced traffic enforcement occur only in areas that liberals or progressives controlled, or was the phenomenon more widespread and included rural areas and conservative-controlled areas?

A2: The phenomenon of bad driving habits and reduced traffic enforcement during the pandemic was widespread and not limited to areas controlled by liberals or progressives. .... In summary, the increase in bad driving habits and the decline in traffic enforcement were widespread issues affecting both urban and rural areas across the political spectrum, rather than being confined to liberal or progressive jurisdictions.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Note the serious asymmetry in dealing with false information and false beliefs. False allegations and implications are usually short and easy to assert. It is rarely backed up with links to data sources. Claim 1 = 48 words, but Response 1 = 484 words, with a link to the information sources. Claim 2 = 73 words, but Response 2 = 342 words, with a link to the information sources. 

In short, falsehoods, deceit via opacity and DFS (dark free speech) generally have a sedrious advantage in their power of persuasion compared to honest speech. They are short, emotion-provoking and almost completely devoid of cognitive dissonance due to inconvenient facts or reasoning. In short DFS is a lot more fun and easy than honest speech. 

In my firm opinion, DFS is the most potent and effective weapon that American radical right authoritarianism brings to bear against secular democracy, civil liberties, the rule of law, transparency in government and inconvenient facts, truths and sound reasoning.

Bluesky link