Regarding the insurrection

There is a lot of criticism from non-MAGA people of the idea that DJT is an insurrectionist and barred from office by the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. It goes without saying that DJT and MAGA fly into an apoplectic rage at the mere mention of the idea, so I won't say it. 

DJT: "A day of love"

(after calling it a "heinous attack")

In view of the criticism of the idea by non-MAGA, some points are worth consideration.

The legal argument for barring DJT from office from the rule of law point of view is fairly simple: 

1. The 14th Amendment bars people like DJT who took an oath of office to defend the Constitution from holding office later if they participated in or supported an insurrection.
2. DJT participated in and supported an insurrection.
3. DJT had taken an oath of office.

4. DJT cannot be sworn into office because he is barred unless congress votes by 2/3 majority to remove the bar.
5. Congress will not vote to remove the bar because Democrats won't vote to do that and Republicans do not have a 2/3 majority in the House or Senate.
6. Therefore DJT cannot be sworn into office, period.

The criticisms I am aware of from non-MAGA people boil down to arguments like this:

1. Even talking about the 14th Amendment bar makes DJT a martyr, making him more powerful among the MAGA rank and file. 

2. Even talking about the 14th Amendment bar makes DJT worse than he already is and not open to appeasement or compromise.

3. Disqualifying DJT from office is anti-democratic because it overrides the will of the voters.  

4. Let DJT and MAGA get power and hang themselves.

None of those arguments address the rule of law point of view. All four arguments directly negate and disrespect the rule of law. Among many rank and file MAGA, DJT already is a martyr and powerful. The public record indicates that DJT is a true authoritarian. When circumstances permit, he is unwilling to compromise or be appeased. However, he is willing to be bribed. 

Regarding 3, the only thing the 14th Amendment says about the voter's will is that only a 2/3 vote by congress can remove the bar. Voters therefore need express their will by telling their representatives and senators to vote to remove the bar. Finally, if DJT and MAGA get the authoritarian power they clearly want, they might succeed in hanging us and our democracy before they hang themselves. Whether a person wants to take that risk is a personal choice, but that choice does not change the fact that their choice negates and disrespects the rule of law.

DJT and MAGA argue it was not an insurrection but instead something else, e.g., a riot, or according to DJT, "a day of love." The Colorado Supreme Court held that 1/6 was an insurrection in the scope of the 14th Amendment and DJT participated in it, thereby disqualifying DJT from holding office or being on the Colorado ballot. In reversing the Colorado Supreme Court decision, the USSC (US supreme court) could have, but refused, to state that (i) 1/6 was not an insurrection under the 14th A, and/or (ii) DJT was not involved in the scope of the 14th A. Thus, one high level state court has held that DJT was disqualified. That holding cannot be ignored as mere blither from unqualified partisans.

Therefore, it remains an open question, support or oppose the argument that DJT is barred by the 14th A? If a person chooses to oppose invoking the 14th A, they are directly opposing and disrespecting the rule of law based on personal judgment. If a person chooses to support the invocation, they are forcing the rule of law to be vindicated because that will force the USSC to decide this issue, which it chose to ignore when it had the chance.

I am a huge fan of the rule of law and democracy. Along with genuine respect for civil liberties, the rule of law is one of the two top hallmarks of government that distinguishes a rule of law-based democracy from a rule of the tyrant/kleptocrat-based authoritarian regime. 

I solidly support congress acting to disqualify DJT as eligible for office. That would force the issue to the USSC to decide. Presumably it would decide in DJT's favor. Then we would have to live with the consequences of that holding. But for better or worse, that is how a real rule of law should work. For authoritarians in power, it works in other ways.

 

Global warming: Individual behavior vs government involvement

What can individual people and their families do to try to reduce global warming? The most common things that are cited include reducing meat consumption, putting up solar panels, recycling, and using mass transit, bicycles and/or electric or hybrid vehicles. So far, me and my family are engaged in that. Consumption of beef is a lot lower, chicken higher and for our vegetarian, meat consumption is zero. There's recycling bins we use regularly, solar panels on the roof, and an EV and a hybrid in the garage. The solar, EV and hybrid are all social virtue signals aligned with wanting to reduce global warming and taking it seriously. That is knowing and intentional.

But to me, far more important than what I can do is serious government action. Citizen virtue signaling is offset by America's vast, powerful and wealthy profit from pollution commercial sector. In view of our corrupted pay-to-play federal government coupled with climate science denial ideology, government doesn't get serious things done. How true is that?

Q: My understanding is that what individuals do to reduce global warming is generally irrelevant, but what governments do can be relevant. Is that understanding mostly correct or not?

A: Your understanding that individual actions to reduce global warming are generally irrelevant while government actions are more significant is partially correct but requires some nuance:

Individuals
If a large number of individuals reduce their carbon footprint through lifestyle changes like reducing meat consumption, using public transport, or adopting renewable energy, this can lead to a noticeable reduction in emissions.

Individual actions can create a ripple effect, influencing others and leading to broader societal changes. This can build momentum for systemic change, as people's choices can influence market demand and encourage businesses to adopt more sustainable practices.

Governments

Governments have the power to implement policies that can significantly reduce emissions. This includes setting emissions targets, regulating polluters, investing in renewable energy, and promoting sustainable practices.

Governments can drive systemic changes through legislation, incentives, and infrastructure development. Policies like carbon pricing, emissions trading, and subsidies for green technologies can shift entire industries towards sustainability.

Governments can hold major emitters accountable, which is crucial since a significant portion of emissions comes from a small number of large corporations.

Conclusion
While individual actions are not irrelevant, their impact is indeed limited compared to the potential of government policies and systemic changes.

Social resistance to DJT; Regarding the intention eonomy

Yesterday, the daily dot reported about the last gasp effort to stop DJT from being sworn into office:

14th Now: Thousands expected to convene in nation’s capital 

to demand Congress bar Trump from office

This is our last chance to make our mark in this moment in history.

Donald Trump is set to become the 47th president on Jan. 20. In a last-ditch effort to keep him out of office, thousands are expected to show up in Washington D.C. and elsewhere this weekend to pressure lawmakers to refuse to certify his win.

If they’re successful, Vice President Kamala Harris (D) would become president.

They are among those who argue that the 14th Amendment bars Trump from becoming president. That amendment prohibits current and former officials who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. They claim that Trump’s involvement in the Capitol riot means just that.

The protest, which began today in Washington, D.C. and continues through the weekend, is called 14th Now. They’re using the hashtag #14thNow to promote it online.

The activists are encouraging those not attending in person to reach out to their members of Congress and ask them to object to certification of Trump’s electoral votes.

I wrote to my congressperson and both Senators, (i) asking them to refuse to refuse to certify DJT's win, (ii) informing them this is of the highest importance to me, and (iii) asking for their response to my request. We'll see if I even get a response. I doubt it.

FWIW, here's my email to my Senators:

Dear Senator Schiff (or Padilla),

Please oppose the certification of Trump as President on the basis of his deep involvement in his 1/6 insurrection against the US. He is unequivocally barred from serving in office under the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. Your oath of office and respect for the rule of law in a democracy demand no less. This matter is of the highest importance to me. Thank you.

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

There is a new front in the war on human minds by unscrupulous marketers, ideologues, plutocrats, theocrats, politicians and other morally debased opportunists! On Dec. 30, 2024, the HSDR (Harvard Data Science Review) posted an article about this nascent new war. Viewed from my cognitive biology and social behavior point of view, this constitutes an entirely new political, religious and economic gold rush. The HSDR calls it the intention economy. The HSDR sees this new mind war about the same way I see it, scary or worse. 

Long story short: Artificial intelligence gives the opportunists a way to discover and manipulate your intentions and motives to do or not do something, e.g., to buy or not buy a product or to vote for or against a political candidate. This new mind war is truly scary:

ABSTRACT

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) invites the possibility of a new marketplace for behavioral and psychological data that signals intent. This brief article [it's not brief, it's well over 4,500 words] introduces some initial features of that emerging marketplace. We survey recent efforts by tech executives to position the capture, manipulation, and commodification of human intentionality as a lucrative parallel to—and viable extension of—the now-dominant attention economy, which has bent consumer, civic, and media norms around users’ finite attention spans since the 1990s. We call this follow-on the intention economy. We characterize it in two ways. First, as a competition, initially, between established tech players armed with the infrastructural and data capacities needed to vie for first-mover advantage on a new frontier of persuasive technologies. Second, as a commodification of hitherto unreachable levels of explicit and implicit data that signal intent, namely those signals borne of combining (a) hyper-personalized manipulation via LLM-based sycophancy, ingratiation, and emotional infiltration and (b) increasingly detailed categorization of online activity elicited through natural language.

This new dimension of automated persuasion draws on the unique capabilities of LLMs and generative AI more broadly, which intervene not only on what users want, but also, to cite Williams, “what they want to want” (Williams, 2018, p. 122). We demonstrate through a close reading of recent technical and critical literature (including unpublished papers from ArXiv) that such tools are already being explored to elicit, infer, collect, record, understand, forecast, and ultimately manipulate, modulate, and commodify human plans and purposes, both mundane (e.g., selecting a hotel) and profound (e.g., selecting a political candidate).

CONCLUSION

The possibility for harm made feasible by a large-scale, multiparty intention economy merits sustained scholarly, civic, and regulatory scrutiny. In whatever way these data partnerships turn out in practice, the ambition of making conversational interfaces and generative AI systems unavoidable mediators of human–computer interaction signals a turn from the attention economy, whereby access to the limited resource of human attention is traded through advertising exchanges, to the intention economy, whereby commercial and political actors bid on signals that forecast human intent. This transition would empower diverse actors to intervene in new ways on shaping human actions. This ambition must be considered in light of the likely impact such a marketplace would have on other human aspirations, including free and fair elections, a free press, fair market competition, and other aspects of democratic life.

All of that is going on right now. As far as I can tell, the mainstream media has not picked up on this yet. It constitutes a vast new playing field for bad people and interests to (i) manipulate minds and beliefs, (ii) create false realities, and scarier yet, (iii) implant desires and motivations in a person's mind.  

Q: How well known is the concept of the intention economy, as exemplified in this article: https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/ujvharkk/release/1 ?

A: The concept of the intention economy is gaining traction in academic and tech circles but remains relatively niche in broader public discourse.

Attention vs. Intention: There's a distinction between the attention economy, which focuses on capturing user engagement, and the intention economy, which aims to predict and influence user decisions. Some discussions mistakenly conflate the two, but the intention economy goes beyond mere attention to actively shape consumer behavior.

Ethical Concerns: The intention economy raises significant ethical questions about privacy, autonomy, and manipulation. Researchers warn that without proper regulation, this economy could undermine fundamental societal values, including free and fair elections, a free press, and fair market competition.

Marketplace for Intentions: The intention economy envisions a marketplace where AI systems not only capture attention but also anticipate and influence user intentions. This could lead to a scenario where our decisions are influenced before we consciously make them, creating a new commercial frontier.

Hm, Perplexity sees it about the same way that HSDR and I see it. All the experts are agree!* Well brain war fans, there we have it. A whole new front against us has opened up and we are clueless.

* Just kidding.

Of course, this could also be used for good. But think about our current political, social, commercial, financial and religious situation. Where does the balance of power lie, with super wealthy, self-serving special interests and ideologies or public interest-serving ones? 

Q1: What array of forces and finances is most likely to more aggressively and more deeply apply this new kind of mental manipulation, (1) morally bankrupt for profit commercial interests and various kinds of authoritarians seeking power and wealth, or (2) nice people wanting to do good things for people and society?

Q2: Which political party is most likely going to oppose regulating the intention economy for wealth and power purposes, the Repubs, the Dems, or both about equally?

Q3: Can you see the potential for a further shift in the balance of power from the seriously weakened public interest to the already more powerful special interests?

Commentary on the rule of law; Global warming update: Propaganda for power & profit

The Financial Times editorial board writes:

America’s gathering legal storm

Donald Trump promises the mother of all stress tests for the US rule of law

The former attorney-general Bill Barr alleged that in his first term Trump suggested that rivals be “executed”. Barr said that he did not worry about Trump’s impulses because he knew they would be thwarted. 

Such complacency is no longer merited. The Supreme Court last July significantly boosted Trump’s powers by granting near sweeping immunity to the “official acts” of the US president. In theory this could include assassinating political adversaries. In practice, it will almost certainly include legal witch hunts against Trump’s detractors in politics, the media and civil society. Some of them, such as Liz Cheney, the former Republican congresswoman, and Mark Milley, the former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, he has repeatedly singled out.

The FT editorial goes on to point out DJT's low quality cabinet appointees and his outright contempt for international law as evidence of pressure on the rule of law generally. His public track record of criminality, treason, felony convictions, outrageous courtroom shenanigans, and open contempt for the rule of law all speak loud and clear. The intent of DJT and MAGA elites to subvert the rule of law cannot be much clearer. How our democracy responds, or fails to respond, is the open question. 

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

The fossil fuel industry has been running a large propaganda campaign for decades to promote pollution for power and profit. Industry tactics are well-known in propaganda campaigns, e.g., lying, delaying, slandering opposition and inconvenient science and scientists, distracting society and confusing the situation. Global warming is denied, distorted or downplayed.

CleanTechnica writes about a gigantic lie about solar energy the polluters and sympathetic news sources like the Wall Street Journal are spreading:

Fossil Fuel Interests Ramp Up Their “Solar Makes 

Electricity More Expensive” Falsehood

In the run-up to Trump 2.0, the fossil fuel industry is trotting out its biggest guns to attack renewable energy and electric cars, which should come as no surprise. They paid to get him elected and now they want to make sure they get the maximum return on their investment. This morning there were two emails in my “solar power” news alert that caught my eye. One was a headline from the Wall Street Journal that screamed, “Green Electricity Costs a Bundle. The data make clear — The notion that solar and wind power save money is an environmentalist lie.” The second was from a Koch Industries mouthpiece in Canada called the Fraser Institute that proclaimed, “Solar and wind power make electricity more expensive — that’s a fact.”

When faced with such outrageous and downright scary news from the likes of the Wall Street Journal and the Fraser Institute .... I reached out to Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering and the director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford University.

Mark responded with an information-packed email but also with a link to a study published December 22, 2024, by the journal Renewable Energy authored by himself and his colleagues that addresses precisely the questions raised by the WSJ and the Fraser Institute. Here’s what he had to say in response to my SOS for information.

“Table 1 of the paper shows that 10 of the 11 U.S. states with higher fractions of their demand powered by renewables are among the 20 states with the lowest U.S. electricity prices. Six of the states are among the 10 states with the lowest prices. For example, from October 1, 2023 until September 30, 2024, South Dakota (ranked #1 in terms of its penetration of WWS [wind, water (hydropower), solar] renewables relative to demand) provided 110% of the electricity it consumed from just wind (77.5%), hydro (30.1%), and solar (2.2%) yet had the 9th-lowest electricity price in the U.S. in March, 2024. South Dakota also produced another 16% of its electricity from fossil gas and 11.2% from coal so produced a total of 137% of the electricity it consumed but exported the additional 37%. Similarly, Montana (ranked #2) and Iowa (#3) supplied 86.5% and 79.4% of their demand with WWS but had the 8th and 12th-lowest prices.

“California (#12) also had high prices (ranked #49). However, it is easy to show California’s high prices have nothing to do with increasing renewables. For example, the same paper in Figure 8 shows that the spot (instantaneous) price of electricity in California dropped by over 50% during the period of interest covered by the paper (March 7 to June 30) 2024 versus 2023 despite a big growth in solar, wind, and batteries in 2024 versus 2023. A lower spot price means it is easier to match demand with supply. Spot prices dropped over 50% despite far more WWS on the grid in 2024 indicating renewables reduce the risk of blackout and make it easier to match demand.

“So why are California’s electricity prices so high? They are high for several reasons that have nothing to do with renewables. These include high fossil gas prices (3rd highest in U.S.), utilities passing on to customers the cost of wildfires due to transmission-line sparks, the cost of undergrounding transmission lines to reduce such fires, the costs of the San Bruno and Aliso Canyon fossil gas disasters, the cost of retrofitting gas pipes following San Bruno, the cost of upgrading aging transmission and distribution lines, and the cost of keeping the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant open. In sum, available data indicate that increasing the share of WWS reduces electricity price throughout the US. When high prices occur, they are not due to WWS.”

The error that both the Wall Street Journal and the Fraser Institute make in their articles is an example of the sort of trick apologists for the fossil fuel industry pull all the time. Because the price of electricity in Texas spiked after a winter storm, it must be because of those damned solar and wind farms (in fact, solar came through for ERCOT big time when the thermal generating stations failed). If the cost of electricity in Germany has gone up, it must be because of solar, not because Germany decided to take its nuclear power plants off line with little prior planning. (emphases added)

The war against democracy, the rule of law and the public interest that DJT and MAGA are currently engaged in is heavily funded, broad, deep, sophisticated and powerful. Attacks are coming simultaneously from hundreds of sources, including supportive, deceived and/or subverted mainstream media like the WSJ, the US supreme court, the Republican Party, many big corporations, including ones that own mainstream media conglomerates, and the Christian nationalist theocracy movement. Low information members of society are significantly deceived and mostly defenseless against the onslaught. They have been conned and betrayed. 

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.