Mandatory service or no?

 

Should the United States Enact Mandatory National Service?

Should any country? 

Mandatory national service (also called compulsory service) is a requirement, generally issued by the federal government, that people serve in the military or complete other works of service, most often as young people, but age requirements vary. Modern propositions for compulsory service in the United States include young Americans serving in the military or working on civilian projects such as teaching in low-income areas, helping care for the elderly, or maintaining infrastructure, among other ideas.

https://www.britannica.com/procon/mandatory-national-service-debate

More snippets from the link:

More recently, between 2003 and 2013, former U.S. Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) made five unsuccessful attempts to pass the Universal National Service Act, which would have required all people in the United States between ages 18 and 42 to either serve in the military or perform civilian service specifically related to national defense.

Many countries require national military service of some or all citizens, including Brazil, Greece, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Requirements for each country vary; in Israel, for example, military service is mandatory for women, too.

Globally, a few countries have nonmilitary national service. Nigeria (as example) has a social mandatory service requirement for college graduates: the National Youth Service Corps

U.S. public opinion on mandatory national service is split but changing, moving in favor of mandatory service. In a 2013 poll, 59% of younger voters ages 18 to 39 strongly opposed such a system. In a 2017 Gallop Poll, 57% of 18- to 29-year-olds opposed mandatory service.  But in 2023 survey, 75% of young people aged 18–24—those most affected by the proposal—supported an 18-month mandatory national service program (if they received compensation for their service, free room and board during their service, and could choose from either civilian or military service options)

More to consider:

As Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine reminds European countries about the importance of manpower, many are once again weighing the promise and perils of compulsory military service.

While most European militaries suspended mandatory military service after the end of the Cold War, some retained it. And several countries, such as Latvia, Lithuania, and Sweden, have in recent years reinstated conscription in response to a changing security environment. In the last several months, Western European politicians, including in Germany and the United Kingdom, have publicly pondered the benefits of returning to mandatory military service. 

In Denmark, Latvia, and Lithuania, the selection of recruits is lottery-driven. Lithuania reintroduced conscription in 2015 after Russia’s first invasion of Ukraine and illegal purported annexation of Crimea the year before. Lithuania requires somewhere around 3,500 to 4,000 male citizens between ages eighteen and twenty-three to enlist for either six or nine months of military service each year. After their service, the conscripted soldiers then become reserves for the Lithuanian Armed Forces. According to the Lithuanian Armed Forces, since conscription was reinstated, the majority of eligible males has enrolled voluntarily in military service. 

https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/07/europes-conscription-challenge-lessons-from-nordic-and-baltic-states?lang=en

I suspect the reaction in the U.S (and likely Canada) would be HELL NO! That aside, should some form of mandatory service be instituted? Would YOU be in favor of such a program? 

Kleptocracy in the law; Stupidity in regulations

Last August I posted about the radical right authoritarian USSC decision in a case called Loper Bright. In July, I posted about the likely horrific impacts Loper Bright. In that lawsuit, Republicans on the USSC gutted a long-standing (1984) USSC legal decision called the Chevron defense. The Cheveron defense required courts to give deference to federal agency regulations that implement the usually incoherent laws that congress writes and passes. Last August, the US Air Force was relying on the Loper Bright decision to blow off environmental regulations the EPA was trying to impose. 

Today, the NYT writes (not paywalled) about a major repercussion from the incredibly damaging, hyper-radical Loper Bright decision: 

Net Neutrality Rules Struck Down by Appeals Court

After nearly two decades of fighting, the battle over regulations that treat broadband providers as utilities came to an end on Thursday

A federal appeals court struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s landmark net neutrality rules on Thursday, ending a nearly two-decade effort to regulate broadband internet providers as utilities.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, said the F.C.C. lacked the authority to reinstate rules that prevented broadband providers from slowing or blocking access to internet content. In its opinion, a three-judge panel pointed to a Supreme Court decision in June, known as Loper Bright, that overturned a 1984 legal precedent that gave deference to government agencies on regulations.

“Applying Loper Bright means we can end the F.C.C.’s vacillations,” the court ruled.

The court’s decision put an end to the Biden administration’s hallmark tech policy, which had drawn impassioned support from consumer groups and tech giants like Google and fierce protests from telecommunications giants like Comcast and AT&T.

The F.C.C. had voted in April to restore net neutrality regulations, which expand government oversight of broadband providers and aim to protect consumer access to the internet.  

The regulations were first put in place nearly a decade ago under the Obama administration and were aimed at preventing internet service providers like Verizon or Comcast from blocking or degrading the delivery of services from competitors like Netflix and YouTube.

As is usual in law and politics these days, wealthy special interests and their money talk and the public interest walks. This is a great example of that truth. The radicalized Republican USSC, DJT and MAGA have been on the side of killing the Chevron defense. That is an effective way to get rid of dozens or hundreds of all kinds of regulations that protect the environment, consumers and workers. In this case, ISPs like Verizon can now jack up prices and profits without regulatory hindrance. Consumers will pay more. Verizon and other corporate winners here might feel compelled provide a “gratuity” (formerly called a bribe) to the appeals court and the USSC for a fine job well done.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

This NYT article describes some of the basis for hostility to federal regulations. The problem is that some regulations are worse than merely stupid. Some cause harm. By smearing all regulations as the basically the same, MAGA has finally managed to kill off essentially the entire federal regulatory infrastructure by killing the Chevron defense. The main targets of MAGA are regulations that protect the environment, consumers and workers. The NYT writes about a stupid regulation and an equally stupid fix:

The Most Reliable Scapegoat in Politics? Red Tape.

Less regulation is an easy rhetorical pitch. Better regulation is harder to stump for

Just before the November election, Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Democrat from Washington’s Third Congressional District, posted a video explaining why she was running to keep her seat. Unlike many other Democrats, she didn’t talk about Donald Trump or the state of democracy. She talked about fruit. She dressed casually and spoke directly, like one parent sharing a grievance with another at the playground. It all started, she said, when a constituent who worked at a day-care facility complained to her that she was not “legally allowed to peel bananas or oranges for the kids.” Why not? “She said peeling fruit is considered food prep.” (Here Gluesenkamp Perez tightened her eyebrows, as in: Can you believe it?) Even worse, while peeling a healthful banana was against the rules, opening a bag of potato chips was apparently fine.

The congresswoman looked into it. At first, she said, the regulators she talked to gave her the runaround, insisting that this wasn’t what the rules said. [hence public hostility toward regulators and regulations] But eventually she concluded that it was true: This day care would need to install “like six more sinks” to meet the legal requirements to serve fresh fruit. To Gluesenkamp Perez, this was an absurd example of how regulations that made “good reading on paper” [how could that reg ever look good on paper?] easily went awry in “the real world,” a policy emblematic of “an ingrained disregard for working people by policymakers in D.C.”

This video is part of a long tradition of bashing American bureaucracy and a perfect example of how easy it can be. Candidates perennially tell us that they’re the ones who understand the pain of being constrained by thickets of red tape — the warriors of common sense who will pick up a machete and hack away at the meddling of clueless elites who gaze down on real life from up high.

Trump often goes further, casting the entire administrative state as useless at best and a malevolent, corrupt, anti-American fifth column at worst and pledging to empower business-world titans like Elon Musk to hew through it in search of inefficiency. In the aftermath of Trump’s victory, politicians of both parties clearly feel some pressure to communicate that they understand this zeitgeist; Representative Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, quickly declared himself ready to work with the proposed Department of Government Efficiency to “slash waste.”

When I read the bill, though — officially titled the Cutting Red Tape on Child Providers Act of 2024 — it turned out to be, well, not particularly concrete, even as an exercise in messaging. It proposes just one change: the addition of a single sentence to the federal law governing block grants to states to support child-care programs. Any state that takes these grants, the new sentence says, must “not create any barriers on the simple preparation” — defined as “washing, peeling, cutting and serving” — “of fresh fruits and vegetables.”

To which I could only think: Hold on. No barriers? I’ve never worked in a day care, but I drop my kids off at one most weekdays, bearing partial witness to the endless flows of snot and other bodily fluids that turn such places into potent germ-distribution centers. It seems uncontroversial to say that some barriers on fruit preparation might be welcome — say, not washing it in the same sink where children are cleaning up after using the bathroom, or at least washing your hands before serving it. These things are “common sense,” but codifying “common sense” is a great deal of what rules do. To borrow Gluesenkamp Perez’s own phrasing: “No barriers” sounds nice on paper, but what about the real world?

The two topics in this blog post are deeply entwined with each other. Both are essential tools in the rise of kleptocratic American radical right authoritarianism. MAGA elites desperately want to get rid of regulations so they can profit from fun activities like political payoffs, plunder, pollution and persecution of consumers, workers and the environment. MAGA elites demagogue the hell out of the deep state with its allegedly tyrannical and sometimes actually stupid regulations.

Getting rid of regulations is one of the key requirements to the rise of kleptocracy. The other two keys are (1) getting rid of anti-fraud oversight, e.g., by replacing independent inspector generals with corrupt DJT loyalists as Project 2025 proposes, and (2) neutering law enforcement for elites who tow the MAGA line, and properly tip their federal judges, congresspersons and of course DJT himself.

America's consumers, workers and environment need smart regulations that work reasonably well with the lowest practical adverse impact for regulated interests. That is smart, reasonable regulation. What authoritarian MAGA kleptocrats want is little to no regulation for elites and lots of control over the people, i.e., by gutting civil liberties and protective regulations. 

An analysis of America's Afghanistan failure: The role of kleptocracy

A NYT opinion by John Sopko, special inspector general for Afghanistan dissects the disaster. The bottom line is that we were lied to and our own system was rigged to hide catastrophic failure from the American people and most of the US government. Vast corruption shot through the whole doomed enterprise. Sopko writes:

The collapse of the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan on Aug. 15, 2021, revealed what little American lives and money had purchased over 20 years there. It also laid bare a gaping disconnect between reality and what senior U.S. officials had been telling Americans for decades: that success was just around the corner.

As the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction since 2012, my staff and I have audited and investigated U.S. programs and spending to rebuild Afghanistan ....

In hundreds of reports over the last 12 years, we have detailed a long list of systemic problems: The U.S. government struggled to carry out a coherent strategy, fostered overly ambitious expectations, started unsustainable projects and did not understand the country or its people. American agencies measured success not by what they accomplished, but by dollars spent or checklists of completed tasks.

Why did so many senior officials tell Congress and the public, year after year, that success was on the horizon when they knew otherwise?

A perverse incentive drove our system. To win promotions and bigger salaries, military and civilian leaders felt they had to sell their tours of duty, deployments, programs and projects as successes — even when they were not. Leaders tended to report and highlight favorable information while obscuring that which pointed to failure. After all, failures do not lead to an ambassadorship or an elevation to general.

The sudden collapse of the Afghan government and rise of the Taliban showed that the United States could not buy favorable Afghan perceptions of the country’s corrupt leaders and government, or of America’s intentions.

Yet over two decades — and even as Afghan provinces fell like dominoes in the summer of 2021 — I do not recall any senior official telling Congress or the American people that failure was a real possibility.

Official statements across successive U.S. presidential administrations were, in my view, often simply untrue. Just six days before the Afghan government collapsed, the Pentagon press secretary declared that Afghanistan had more than 300,000 soldiers and police officers, even though the special inspector general’s office had been warning for years that no one really knew how many soldiers and policemen were available, nor what their operational capabilities were. As early as 2015, I informed Congress that corrupt Afghan officials were listing “ghost” soldiers and police officers on rosters, and pocketing the salaries. (emphases added)

One of the problems the US could not fix was the fact that Afghanistan was and still is a true kleptocracy. Feeding into that intractable problem was all US money flowing through the various NGO and US agencies. Everybody wanted to keep the cash flowing. What happened in Vietnam also happened in Afghanistan.

 In 2015, anti-corruption expert Sarah Chayes published her book, Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security [1]. Chayes made it obvious obvious that the US was doomed to fail. It took years before she understood what Afghanistan was really like, i.e., Vietnam before the US got kicked out:

Chayes co-founded a charity “of unclear mission,” that was run by President Hamid Karzai's brother, Qayum. “At first I believed Qayum’s description of himself as constituting a ‘loyal opposition’ to his younger brother the president. . . . . Not for years would I begin systematically comparing his seductively incisive words with his deeds. .... I had, in other words, been an accessory to fraud.”

One big point here is that kleptocracy is real and it really does threaten global security. Chayes warned us again about corruption in 2024 a few weeks before the election[1]. People other than Chayes have been warning about growing corruption in the US. All the warnings have been ignored. 

The US is on the verge of becoming a true kleptocracy run by various morally rotted, radical right authoritarian kleptocrats, e.g., Christian nationalists, the brazenly autocratic DJT, his autocratic Republican Party, the authoritarian US supreme court, and various oligarch billionaires and multi-, multi-millionaires.

Too bad we do not learn from our mistakes. This time it will very likely cost us dearly. Trillions in theft per year is a scenario that is now truly on the horizon. We are powerless to stop it because both parties want the cash.

One last point: Was the US government really ignorant about how bad the situation in Afghanistan was? I rather doubt it. But if it really was mostly ignorant, that points to gross incompetence, deep corruption and/or complicity in the charade, knowing or not.

Footnote:

1. In Oct. 2024, Chayes urgently warned about corruption among Democrats and the Democratic Party. By then, she knew that the Republicans already were truly kleptocratic. The GOP had become completely impervious to warnings about deepening corruption: 

For a party that wraps itself in the mantle of truth and integrity, pointing across the aisle and saying “they’re worse” is not good enough. For the sake of their electoral fortunes, not to mention the country they purport to serve, Democrats must show voters a serious plan to curb corruption and corporate crime — including within their own ranks.

Since 1987, U.S. Supreme Court justices appointed by Democrats have largely concurred in a series of decisions narrowing what legally qualifies as corruption.

Although liberal justices dissented in the most recent such ruling — which legalized what amounts to bribes, so long as the money is paid after the official renders the service — almost all the previous votes in these cases were unanimous.  

With this kind of track record, Democrats’ effort to contrast themselves with the lawlessness of Mr. Trump’s Republicans can be taken only so seriously.

An important rhetoric lesson: Criticism vs other forms of negative rhetoric

A comment here and a post at Law Dork by Chris Geidner raises the issue of criticism vs other forms of negative rhetoric such as mockery, insults, irrationality, assertions of logic fallacies (crackpottery), lying, slandering and disrespect, including violation of the Principle of Charity in rhetoric.

 

Geidner raises this issue in the context of chief justice Roberts criticizing legitimate vs illegitimate criticism of judges:

John Roberts attacks court criticism that 

he decides lacks a “credible basis” as “illegitimate”

Conflating violence against judges with broad criticism the court faces for its extremism, the chief justice ultimately sends a chilling end-of-year report

 

Chief Justice John Roberts decided to take on critics of the U.S. Supreme Court in his annual end-of-year report on Tuesday with a disingenuous half-response that is nonetheless instructive — and disturbing — for what he does say.

On the last day of the year, the chief justice of the United States traditionally releases his end-of-year report. It generally addresses a topic of the year in a vague and uninspiring way, leading to little coverage and even less change. This year, however, the nine pages from Roberts come across as more of a lashing out than a reasoned report.

While acknowledging that “the courts are no more infallible than any other branch,” Roberts spent the second half of the report conflating violence and lies with legitimate criticism. He does so, moreover, while completely ignoring the ethical questions that have swirled around the court and Roberts’s leadership of it over the past two years, as well as substantive opposition to the court’s rulings.

The end result is a chilling, if vague, condemnation by Roberts of the widespread opposition to the extremism exhibited by the high court in its decisions and the ethical failings of justices responsible for those decisions.

Roberts writes:

I feel compelled to address four areas of illegitimate activity that, in my view, do threaten the independence of judges on which the rule of law depends: (1) violence, (2) intimidation, (3) disinformation, and (4) threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.

This is Roberts’s point in this once-a-year moment he is given — to highlight what he views as “illegitimate” criticism of the court.

Then, in the low-water mark of Roberts’s report, he made what I think is an extremely concerning comment, coming from the head of the federal judiciary:

Public officials, too, regrettably have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges—for example, suggesting political bias in the judge’s adverse rulings without a credible basis for such allegations.

Putting aside the questionable, subjective nature of assessing whether there is a “credible basis” for such claims, by providing no examples, Roberts was damning all manner of utterly legitimate, appropriate, and even necessary speech from public officials as illegitimate intimidation.

So, what I take from Chief Justice John Roberts’s report to the nation is that judges are supposed to be able to handle criticism, but not too much and not in a way that Roberts doesn’t like, and he will only vaguely tell us what that means, but if criticism crosses that invisible line it is illegitimate.

Got it.  

The words “ethics” or “ethical” do not appear even once in Roberts’s report.

After reading the year-end report (here), I basically agree with Geidner’s analysis. Roberts’ report is an immoral, partisan, authoritarian demagoguery. The intentional vagueness that permeates his report amounts to a logic fallacy called the Fallacy of Vagueness. This fallacy occurs when an argument depends upon the vagueness of its terms, leading to confusion or misinterpretation. Confusion arises when an argument’s validity or persuasiveness relies on terms that are not clearly defined or have borderline cases where it’s unclear whether they apply or not.

Alternatively, Roberts may be primarily using the Ambiguity Fallacy, e.g., in referring to disinformation and intimidation[1] as examples of “illegitimate” activity that threatens the independence of judges. Assertions of truth by one source can turn out to be disinformation. 

Criticism vs other forms of negative rhetoric is an issue I’ve thought about for years. When does legitimate criticism cross the line into irrational or "unprincipled" negative rhetoric? 

In my own writing, I criticize a lot but try not to cross the line into irrational or unprincipled negative rhetoric such as slanders, mockery, insults or disrespect toward the targets of my criticisms. Applying the Principle of Charity in mind helps with limiting disrespect. 

But no matter how principled me or anyone can try to be, at least some targets will see unprincipled negative rhetoric or rhetorical or logic fallacy. They call foul where none was intended. Sometimes they will be right because a person failed to stay on the side of principled criticism. In the case of honest mistake, all a person can do is accept and correct them. But sometimes, probably usually, it is not possible to come to agreement. Minds and perceptions of reality rarely change.

Both the “fallacy of vagueness” and the “fallacy of ambiguity” involve unclear language in an argument. The key distinction is that vagueness refers to a term with unclear boundaries or borderline cases, where the meaning is not precisely defined, while ambiguity means a term has multiple, distinct meanings that could be interpreted differently in the same context; essentially, vagueness is about “how much” of something, while ambiguity is about “which thing” is being referred to.

Q: Does my rhetoric too often stray from rational or principled criticisms into some form of irrational or unprincipled negative rhetoric?

Footnote:

1. The concept of disinformation is contested. Although there are common elements in the definitions of disinformation—such as the intent to deceive or cause harm—the term's application and interpretation are subject to significant debate and variation. This reflects not only the complexity of the issue but also the diverse contexts in which disinformation arises, from political campaigns to public health crises. 

The concept of intimidation is similarly contested.

Vox has the answer............

 OR................ pie in the sky sermonizing?

You decide:

https://www.vox.com/even-better/383873/coping-strategies-trump-presidency-processing

Some snippets:

Americans disheartened by this year’s election results may find themselves in a 2016 redux. Facing yet another Donald Trump presidency, you might be asking yourself: How do I cope? How will I steel myself to do it all over again for the next four years? This time around, Trump and his allies have vowed to deport millions of people, fire civil servants and appoint loyalists in their stead, and further restrict abortion access. These policies are genuinely distressing and can feel overwhelming for the many millions of people who will be affected by them.

But it is not 2016. Having a clear-eyed plan for how you’ll handle what lies ahead is more protective than succumbing to despair. You can take the lessons learned to buttress your coping skills and avoid psychological exhaustion to make it through the coming days — and the next four years.

Processing emotions requires quiet time with your thoughts. It’s important in this moment to tune out distractions, like social media, and resist avoidant coping strategies, such as sleeping or doomscrolling, and sit with your feelings instead — whether out in nature or while meditating in your living room. 

(sure sure, yup, we all gonna avoid doomscrolling, yup yup)

So, what is the solution you ask, well, read on............

instead of devoting your attention to things you have no power to change, like the enactment of specific policies or Cabinet appointments, focus on what you do have control over. Choose one issue that resonates with you and find ways to get involved locally. “It might be organizing something at the grassroots level to support new families who need child care, It could be going to a city council meeting to talk about housing.”

Knowing your neighbors and finding local groups of people who champion the same causes as you can help you form community. Mobilize to find events and volunteer opportunities near you. Think about what makes you feel like you’ve made a difference in the world. Is it protesting? Working with a mutual aid organization? Making dinner for your elderly neighbor? Ask yourself what issue in your town or city matters the most to you and how you could make an impact there.

“How we live is not really a question that’s intrinsically tied to a political outcome, Obviously, it has real-life impact, globally and personally, but that philosophical question of how you live your life is not something that can be dictated by other people.”

OR..........just escape to Canada. 

New Year's fiddly bits

 Aw geez, the news is just soooo good right now. A few fiddly bits are in order.

Fiddly bits

"You f**king deserve it": Lemon mocks "dumb" MAGA fans blindsided by Trump backing Musk visa push -- "Oh my gosh, I love this," Lemon said in a 40-minute video posted to his YouTube channel. "Now you’re finding out, you dumb f**ing idiots. Now you’re just figuring this s**t out. You’re so f**king stupid, and you deserve it. And you f**king deserve it because you’re so dumb. It’s hypocrisy. So go with me here. Yes. I am gloating over your stupidity and how you were taken. I’m cracking. I’m cackling – I am. You have been co-opted because you’re in a f**ing cult and you don’t even realize it because you have stupid MAGA brain, and you don’t get it. How stupid and dumb are you?" -- "We haven’t fought these battles over years and years and years to allow American citizens of every race, ethnicity, religion, be gutted by the sociopathic overlords in Silicon Valley,” Steve Bannon said on his podcast War Room on Monday.

Goodness gracious & great balls 'o fire! Don seems to be a bit vexed with MAGA voters over the outcome of the election. And Steve is in a snit too! Things seem to be degenerating into enraged irrationality.

Q: Have the wheels come off the cart of civilized democracy?

Nope, we're good -- wheels still on!

Whooping cough cases surge across the US as vaccinations decline -- The CDC reports more than 32,000 cases — a number nearly six times higher than this time last year -- Whooping cough, also known as pertussis, is a contagious respiratory illness, but it is preventable with a common vaccine. For many, it can start with symptoms similar to the common cold, such as a runny nose, low-grade fever, and cough. However, a very painful cough can develop a week or two later. Coughing fits can become so severe that infected people vomit or break their ribs.

They break their ribs?? Quick, get JFK Jr on the klaxon! Get rid of the polio vaccine. That will get rid of whooping cough!

Chief Justice Roberts condemns elected officials for intimidating judges -- “Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed,” Roberts wrote. “Public officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary, but they should be mindful that intemperance in their statements when it comes to judges may prompt dangerous reactions by others.”

Seriously?? Yabbut whaddabout supreme court judge's intemperate rulings that cause elected Republicans and other forms of extremist crackpot to (i) trash innocent people's lives, democracy and the environment, and (ii) get away with massive theft and corruption, e.g., via forced birth laws, voter suppression laws, obliteration of gun safety laws and legalization of (a) bribery in the federal government, and (b) crimes and treason by a US president? Those can and have caused dangerous reactions by others, sometimes lethal, to your insanely intemperate rulings!  

Elon Musk changes his name to Kekius Maximus on X --- Elon Musk changed his username to "Kekius Maximus" and updated his profile picture to an image of Pepe the Frog dressed in Roman attire. This action significantly impacted the cryptocurrency's value, causing it to surge by over 700%! "Kekius" appears to be a Latinization of "kek", a word roughly equivalent to "laugh out loud" popularized by gamers but now often associated with the alt right. "Kek" is also the name of the ancient Egyptian god of darkness, who is sometimes depicted with the head of a frog.

700%?? MAGA!! But Kekius Maximus? That inspires memories of Biggus Dickus.

OMG, Elon (Pepe the Frog) has done it again!

A 700% gain while playing a video game!

The Biggus Dickus scene

Elon Musk channels Hillary Clinton in calling Trump supporters ‘contemptible fools’ amid H-1B visa debate -- Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, is digging in his heels in his defense of H-1B visas, saying some Trump supporters are “contemptible fools” who “must be removed from the Republican Party, root and stem.” -- Good grief, now those poor MAGA voters are getting flack from sociopathic Silicone Valley Overlords! 

A blast from the past: Memo from 1970: ‘A Plan for Putting the GOP on TV News’ --  John Cook found “a remarkable document buried deep within the Richard Nixon Presidential Library” that addresses how to circumvent the “prejudices of network news” and deliver “pro-administration” stories to heartland television viewers. -- The memo explains why television was the way to go: Today television news is watched more often than people read newspapers, than people listen to the radio, than people read or gather any other form of communication. The reason: People are lazy. With television you just sit—watch—listen. The thinking is done for you.