Dictatorship update: Federal agency collapse

Federal agencies are in full blown collapse. Yesterday, the USSC issued another shadow docket ruling that allows djt to illegally fire the three Democratic commissioners on the Consumer Products Safety Commission. Current law requires the president to show cause for firing, e.g., fraud or professional negligence. That agency is now completely powerless to do anything about unsafe consumer products, new or old. Other recent USSC shadow docket rulings that allow djt to illegally fire independent agency employees have stripped away protections from workers (National Labor Relations Board gutted), consumers (Consumer Finance Protection bureau gutted) and federal elections (Federal elections Commission gutted). Gutting of the FEC leaves federal election laws no longer enforceable. 

In a different line of attack on federal agencies, djt's pro-pollution MAGA elites will gut the Environmental Protection Agency by getting rid of its power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The MAGA plan is simple. The EPA will rescind a 2009 declaration known as the “endangerment finding,” which scientifically established that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane endanger human lives. Rejecting that science leaves the EPA powerless to deal with global warming. Some of fallout will affect auto and power plant emissions. For autos, the MAGA thugs behind this kleptocratic move argue that that imposing climate regulations on automakers poses the real harm to human health because it would lead to higher prices and reduced consumer choice. 

In addition to gutting EPA power to regulate, the MAGA thugs running the EPA plan to completely stop its climate science research and climate protection efforts. The agency is now charged with fostering carbon polluting activities and blocking green energy efforts, e.g., MAGA elites have blocked $20 billion in green energy spending. For the environment, MAGA’s overall strategy, which was laid out in Project 2025, is to (i) promote the use of fossil fuels, (ii) reduce or eliminate environmental regulations and green energy development, and (iii) stop federal climate research. MAGA will also eliminate air quality monitoring, particularly near industrial sites where it is most needed.

One can clearly see the authoritarian and kleptocratic goals of djt and his MAGA wealth and power political movement. Essentially all MAGA efforts are aimed at (1) deprotecting and disempowering major aspects of the public interest such as consumers, workers, the environment and government functions that protect all of that, and (2) transferring wealth and power from the public interest to wealthy and/or powerful individuals, groups or special interests that cooperate with elite MAGA players. We have a very corrupt pay-to-play system where cooperative special interests pay authoritarian MAGA elites, especially djt, for our wealth and power. 

In essence, djt and MAGA elites are selling us out piece by piece to the highest special interest bidders.

Qs: Is it reasonable to claim that what is happening mostly boils down to democracy and the public interest vs. kleptocracy and authoritarianism (a djt dictatorship with some oligarchy and Christian nationalist theocracy)? Or, do we need to see more evidence that djt and MAGA are authoritarian kleptocrats seeking power and wealth by generally opposing and taking power and wealth from the public interest and its federal protections? 

The US Population is Aging

 And what that will mean for the future generation who will have to find ways to support an aging population...........

The number of Americans ages 65 and older will more than double over the next 40 years, reaching 80 million in 2040. The number of adults ages 85 and older, the group most often needing help with basic personal care, will nearly quadruple between 2000 and 2040.

The nation is aging. By 2040, about one in five Americans will be age 65 or older, up from about one in eight in 2000. Because younger people are much more likely than older people to work and pay taxes that finance Social Security, Medicare, and all other public-sector activities, population aging could strain government budgets.

The number of workers sharing the cost of supporting Social Security beneficiaries will soon plummet unless future employment patterns change dramatically. The latest Social Security Administration projections indicate that there will be 2.1 workers per Social Security beneficiary in 2040, down from 3.7 in 1970.

Improvements in life expectancy have also propelled the increase in the older population. Between 1900 and 1960, life expectancy at birth increased from 51 years to 74 years for men and from 58 years to 80 years for women, primarily through reductions in infant, childhood, and early adult mortality. Longevity gains since 1960, fueled by declining death rates at older ages, have been slower, especially for women. Life expectancy's future course is uncertain but could grow dramatically. Some experts claim that half of girls born today will live until age 100 (Vaupel 2000).

https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/program-retirement-policy/projects/data-warehouse/what-future-holds/us-population-aging

This phenomenon is NOT unique to the US and what is missing in the above analysis is suggestions on how an aging population and longer life spans can be dealt with. Especially in an era where immigration is being discouraged and birth rates among WHITE populations is sharply declining. 

I would imagine ANY suggestion on how to tackle this future nightmare will be met with resistance. Raise taxes? Not on my dime will be the response. Raise the retirement age? Any political party in any country suggesting this will be in for a nightmare. And quirky ideas like Trump offering kids $1000 in an account for the future  will not work, as it doesn't help struggling families in the here and now. 

A sharp increase in immigration from overpopulated countries would be another suggestion, but the US and other Western nations are actually now going the other way and restricting who can enter their countries and by what numbers. 

So, what we are left with is a growing problem with no workable solutions that will fly with the general populace. THERE IS THE RUB - any solution for tackling this problem would require a massive change in taxation and having seniors work longer and/or a sharp increase in immigrant populations. 

Unless anyone else has any suggestions? 

Genocide and journalistic ethics, or lack thereof

A NYT opinion (not paywalled) by Bret Stephens, No, Israel Is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza, was recently published. The title, along with the author, instantly felt very much like pro-Israel propaganda. But was that instantaneous emotional response reasonable? Yes, it was reasonable.

Stephens' opinion is flawed and/or wrong in facts, and logic or reasoning, which undermine and/or contradict the conclusion that Israel isn't committing genocide. 

Stephens falsely implies that the UN Genocide Convention requires explicit written documentation of an "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." He also blithely downplays the death count, currently about 60,000 Palestinian civilian and military deaths according to the source he cites. 

In short, the first question the anti-Israel genocide chorus needs to answer is: Why isn’t the death count higher? .... But furious comments in the wake of Hamas's Oct. 7 atrocities hardly amount to a Wannsee conference, and I am aware of no evidence of an Israeli plan to deliberately target and kill Gazan civilians.

The legal threshold for establishing genocidal intent can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, not just explicit written documentation. Right there, Stephens knowingly tries to deceive us twice. Once about the death count not being high enough. And again about the evidence. That is propaganda, not honest journalism.

Why knowing? Because he presumably isn't stupid or ignorant. He must know (1) there are two ways to prove genocidal intent under international law, and (2) the body count is not specified and already is sufficient to find genocide. But if he is ignorant of these things, highly unlikely, then he is incompetent.

Stephens also asserts this:

First, while some pundits and scholars may sincerely believe the genocide charge, it is also used by anti-Zionists and antisemites to equate modern Israel with Nazi Germany. The effect is to license a new wave of Jew hatred, stirring enmity not only for the Israeli government but also for any Jew who supports Israel as a genocide supporter.

That amounts to three logic fallacies bundled together. It packages the guilt by association fallacy[1], the poisoning the well fallacy, a subtype of an ad hominem attack, and the appeal to consequences fallacy. Here, Stephens intentionally conflates legitimate academic, legal, and moral debate over whether a specific situation constitutes genocide. He maliciously misuses the charge by anti-Zionists and antisemitic propagandists to unjustly equate Israel with Nazi Germany. He falsely implies that all such accusations are inherently illegitimate or propagandistic. That is not just is a flawed comparison that ignores the distinction between genuine legal or scholarly analysis and tendentious, prejudiced rhetoric. It is deeply insulting to people who sincerely believe that Israel has crossed the line.

What about journalistic ethics? Analyzing the opinion piece for adherence to journalistic ethics indicates this one is full of problems when evaluated against established journalistic standards and ethics. The Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics establishes four fundamental principles that serve as the foundation for ethical journalism: (1) Seek truth and report it, (2) minimize harm, (3) act independently, and (4) be accountable. The opinion piece violates these standards multiple ways.

Media ethics researchers identify "bias by omission" as "leaving one side out of an article, or a series of articles over a period of time; ignoring facts that tend to disprove liberal or conservative claims". The opinion piece demonstrates systematic omission across several categories:

Source Attribution Failures: Journalist ethics requires identifying sources when feasible along with information about sources' reliability. Stephens dismisses extensive documentation by organizations like Law for Palestine without engaging with their methodology or findings. That violates the fair source evaluation ethic.

Expert Opinion Exclusion: Professional journalism standards require presenting diverse expert perspectives. Stephens systematically excludes the large body of genocide scholarship, including analyses by Holocaust historians and UN Special Rapporteurs, that reaches contrary conclusions. This ethics breach is called "bias by selection of sources". 

But Stephens has more ethics problems that just that. He asserts a false equivalency argument by drawing inappropriate analogies (WWII, Mosul) without accounting for major context differences. He downplays important relevant evidence. He dismisses documentation of official statements of genocide as merely "vengeful sound bites" with insufficient supporting evidence to validate his claim.

He also underestimates the total death count using a 60,000 deaths based on an earlier Palestinian Ministry of Health estimate that has been contradicted by later estimates. This survey and this survey put the body count at a minimum of ~75,000-80,000. The count is necessarily higher because they only count violent trauma deaths, and therefore the true total including indirect causes is necessarily higher. Other estimates are in or above the higher range, e.g., this survey and this survey.

Journalistic ethics requires accountability. I'll write to Stephens and the editors of the NYT to see what response or rebuttal, if any, they have to these criticisms. In my opinion, Stephens and the NYT should retract this opinion and apologize to the public and the Palestinian people for propagating pro-Israel propaganda and falsehoods.

Q: What is the likelihood that Stephens or the NYT editors will be accountable about this in some demonstrable way, e.g., printing a retraction, rebutting these criticisms somehow, etc., low ~1-35%, medium ~36-66%, or high ~67-99%?

Footnote:

1. Stephens' guilt by association flaw works like this:

Premise 1: “Anti-Zionists and antisemites” equate Israel with Nazi Germany when they invoke genocide.
Premise 2: Antisemites are morally disreputable.
Conclusion: Therefore, anyone using the genocide label, or the label itself, is suspect.

The logical error presumes that because some disreputable groups deploy the term, the term itself, or other people’s use of it, must be discredited. This conflates the character of certain speakers with the truth-value of the claim. That is the textbook definition of an association fallacy. Thus, by equating the genocide allegation with antisemitism, Stephens sidesteps substantive legal and factual analysis. That deflection blocks honest engagement with evidence, also a hallmark of guilt-by-association reasoning.

Poisoning the well: Stephens poisons readers by saying that any advocate of the genocide claim is tacitly aligned with antisemites, so their evidence should be pre-emptively distrusted. The poisoning the well tactic simply starts with negative information about potential opponents before their arguments are heard. That poisons or primes the audience's reception. It is a deceptive persuasion tactic.

The appeal to consequences fallacy: 
Premise: If the genocide claim spreads, it could “license a new wave of Jew hatred.”
Implicit Conclusion: Therefore, the claim should be rejected or regarded with great suspicion.

This is fallacious because the desirability or undesirability of potential consequences does not determine factual truth of the genocide claim. Predicting social harm if a claim is believed does not demonstrate that the claim itself is false. This propaganda technique uses emotional leverage, fear of antisemitism in this case, to evaluate factual truth. That violates the principle that truth claims stand or fall on evidence, not on anticipated reactions. 

Dictatorship updates 3: Attacking the GAO; Regarding Russell Vought; CN's bigotry

The NYT reports (not paywalled) about Trump attacking the GAO (Government Accounting Office), the last or one of the last standing major defenses of democracy in the federal government. The GAO has opened dozens of investigations to determine if djt and his MAGA elites have illegally withheld billions of dollars in congressionally approved funds. Frighteningly, Republican lawmakers are now working with the White House to block those inquiries. If the GOP successfully guts or neuters the GAO that would give the MAGA dictator a lot more control over the nation’s budget than current law allows.

The GAO is about a century-old. It was formed to help Congress keep track of federal spending. The legislative office primarily produces detailed reports on ways that Washington can save money. That sometimes angers administrations that hate to see allegations of waste.

The main source of GAO power is a 1970s law that explicitly prohibits the president from defying congressional instructions on spending. That is the power of the purse. Trump wants that power for himself. Since taking office, djt and MAGA elites been testing the law by illegally disbanding entire agencies and programs without lawmakers’ approval. Now, with the federal courts mostly neutered, with the USSC openly supportive of dictatorship, there is little to nothing that can protect the GAO and its independence.

The NYT writes:

The G.A.O. has twice determined in recent months that Mr. Trump’s actions violated rules that prohibit him from unilaterally canceling funding, a move known as impoundment. The office has 46 open investigations into other allegations that Mr. Trump illegally withheld funds, the agency confirmed this week.

Russell T. Vought, the White House budget director, has strenuously denied any wrongdoing, arguing that the administration seeks to manage taxpayer dollars more effectively. He and his deputies have also initiated a series of attacks on the G.A.O., deriding it as partisan and publicly refusing to comply with some of its investigations.

Vought is a person with enormous power to corrupt, neuter and/or completely destroy federal agencies and spending programs. He is a major author of Project 2025. He is a staunch Christian nationalist theocrat, and a practiced demagogue and liar. He is working furiously to build a federal infrastructure that will convert American government from being secular to a bigoted, fundamentalist Christian theocratic monster.

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

 

Pxy:

Q2: How important is Russ Vought in the advancement of Christian nationalist theocracy in the federal government?

A2: Russ Vought’s Central Role in Federal Christian Nationalist Theocracy

Over the past eight years, no figure has done more than Russell T. Vought to translate Christian nationalist ideology into the day-to-day machinery of the United States federal government.

.... long analysis ....

Conclusion: An Indispensable Architect
Russ Vought is not merely one strategist among many; he is the central node through which Christian nationalist ideas are converted into executable federal policy. His dual command of (a) the budgetary “chokepoints” that keep agencies alive and (b) the personnel system that decides who interprets the law gives him outsized leverage over the trajectory of American governance. While other figures—Flynn for grassroots zeal, Leo for the judiciary—remain powerful, none combine statutory authority, ideological commitment, and presidential proximity as comprehensively as Vought. Should the Christian nationalist project achieve lasting institutional victories, historians are likely to identify Vought as its chief engineer.

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

 

For context about Christian nationalist bigotry and racism, Pxy:

Q1: Analyze and comment on the role and influence of bigotry and racism in (1) Christian nationalism, (2) the broader MAGA wealth and power movement, and (3) who those two interact or synergize. Focus on events since 2017, once Trump was in power.

A1: Conclusion
The intersection of bigotry, racism, Christian nationalism, and the MAGA movement represents a systematic challenge to American pluralistic democracy. Since 2017, these ideologies have moved from the political margins to positions of significant institutional power, influencing policy, electoral politics, and social norms.

The evidence demonstrates that racial animus is not incidental to these movements but central to their appeal and organizational structure. Christian nationalism provides religious legitimation for racial exclusion, while MAGA provides political power and institutional access. Their synthesis creates what researchers identify as a "permission structure" for political violence and democratic norm violation.

.... from the analysis ....

Christian nationalism, as measured by extensive public opinion research, represents far more than traditional religious conservatism. According to the Public Religion Research Institute's (PRRI) comprehensive surveys spanning 2022-2025, Christian nationalism is "a political ideology and cultural framework that seeks to merge American and Christian identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America's constitutional democracy". The PRRI studies, involving over 22,000 adults annually, reveal that approximately 30% of Americans qualify as Christian nationalism adherents (10%) or sympathizers (20%).