I just finished watching the first televised meeting of the January 6th panel, including the testimony of the embedded documentarian, Nick Quested, as well as injured police officer Edwards. I suppose I should have live blogged it, but I wasn’t up for it.

And, for the most part, there was nothing new, with the exception of the video footage of the witnesses who testified to the committee, the video footage of some of the rioters, standing trial or prepping for trial, remarking on their motivations, and some of the footage of the riot.

And the latter is quite violent. Three points came to mind while I watched all this firsthand footage:

1. There were only a couple of thousand rioters present, it seems to me. This wasn’t a mob of even tens of thousands, much less what the former President would have us believe. Just a couple of thousand, give or take. That’s enough to overwhelm an ill-prepared police force denied backup, yes, but even with sympathizers scattered throughout the nation, this is no Moral Majority-equivalent. Malcontents is closer to it.
2. Building on that, these folks are sadly lacking in critical-thinking faculties. They were disappointed in the results, the loser shrieks it was rigged, and rather than calmly exploring that possibility, or accepting that the courts, who are charged, in effect, to be our proxies in matters such as these, and the courts universally ruled against the loser on all substantive matters, they took the loser at his word and tried to force the result they wanted. They should have realized that Trump claiming it was statistically impossible for him to lose doesn’t make it so.
3. I forget. If I remember, I’ll publish an addendum.

I must say that splitting time between the Democrats and the Republicans, in the persons of Chairman Thompson (D-MS) and Rep Cheney (R-WY) was very effective.

The question, though, is what will independents who’ve been trying to ignore the matter going to make of this? I know the Republican pundits will all try very hard to discredit it, which is why I’ll just ignore them.

But independents are the key to power these days.

Addendum: #3: For the good of the nation, as well as his conscience, Rep Andrew “they were just tourists!” Cyde (R-GA) should resign immediately. And go into seclusion. His remarks on the matter at the time are incredibly shameful.

A message the Democrats should use in communicating with the electorate is inspired by Steve Benen’s commentary on what is passing for a Republican plan for responding to anthropogenic climate change. First, it’s Benen:

[From The New Republic’s Kate Aronoff] The six pillars themselves are a grab bag of buzzwords presumably harvested from the party’s favorite think tanks and trade associations: “Unlock American Resources,” “Let America Build,” “American Innovation,” “Beat China and Russia,” “Conservation With a Purpose,” and “Build Resilient Communities.” The policies therein, accordingly, are the same things Republicans have been asking for for as long as anyone can remember.

The blueprint barely exists in any meaningful way: House Republican leaders issued a relatively brief press release, noting the six prongs of their climate vision, accompanied by a two-page document calling for more oil drilling. (Aronoff added that the document “exists mainly as a chaotically formatted two-page list of talking points.”) …

Ultimately, however, much of the right scrapped each of these talking points and simply concluded that global warming was “the biggest hoax ever put over on the American public.” The idea of addressing the climate crisis wasn’t just rejected, it was derided by GOP officials as ridiculous.

Yep, that Republican plan reflects my view of the Republican Party: a pack of fourth-raters. My apologies to those long-time readers who tire of my repetition on the subject.

But this ‘plan’ highlights an opening that seems to have been overlooked by the Democrats, even a strategy. Here’s my suggestion (and I hope I’m being redundant with some message crafter in the Democratic Party):

VIDEO: SCENE OPENS with two to three scenes of massive wildfires from the fires of Australia, 2019-2020.

VOICEOVER: This is Australia. It’s burning, unlike anything seen before. Climate scientists believe this is due to humanity-caused climate change.

Ask Australians. Before 2019, they were four-square behind their fossil fuel industries.

Today? They booted out fossil-fuel backing Prime Minister Scott Morrison, along with his Party, for refusing to acknowledge that their nation and environment was badly damaged by climate change powered by fossil fuels.

For refusing to act like rational adults.

Democrats have been warning about humanity-caused climate change for years, and we’ve watched world-wide average temperatures climb, just as predicted.

VIDEO: Insert movies of the worst California wildfires.

VOICEOVER: Do we have to wait until the California wildfires overrun our entire nation before the Republicans begin acting like rational adults?

Or you can vote Democratic on Election Day and begin working on the problem now. This won’t be pain-free, but, together, we can solve this problem.

There ya go.

Temperatures going up, California is in flames, big weather events are becoming larger, fisheries are depleted or destroyed, reefs are bleaching, pigeons and coyotes are invading American cities, and the poles are melting. Who’s inheriting what appears to be destined to be a world whose ecology is damaged enough to endanger wildlife populations and, therefore, a badly overpopulated humanity?

Not me.

No, it’s folks like the members, if involuntarily^[1], of the Millenials and Gen Z and whatever other generations have garnered as names. And, as I’ve written before from time to time, all these younger generations have a key advantage over the Boomers and Gen X folks, and that’s this:

They’ve observed the status of the world’s ecology and economy, and they’ve observed, close up and personal, the philosophies, practices, economic theories, and all the other paradigms by which we operate these days. Because of their age, and I might argue the advent of The Age of Skepticism & Rationality, their investment in those paradigms is not nearly as high as that of the predecessor generations, such as the Boomers. In fact, disaffection with some of

But, uniquely, from nearly their beginnings they’ve had telecommunications and social media at their fingertips, and even better, or worse, pick your adjective, it’s unmediated by communications gatekeepers. That is, publishing is unmediated by those who think, and sometimes do, know better. In some ways, it’s like evolution, which is notorious for exploring solution spaces by trying all of them until one works.

What brings this up is a couple of articles in WaPo. First up is Jennifer Rubin, discussing the recent successful effort to unionize an Amazon Corp shop:

The newly formed Amazon Labor Union won the day on Staten Island not with the help of traditional union behemoth such as the Teamsters Union. Instead, the New York Times reports, the Amazon organizers “relied almost entirely on current and former workers rather than professional organizers . . . [and] turned to GoFundMe appeals rather than union coffers built from the dues of existing members.” It was an intensive person-to-person effort using everything from social media to employee barbecues to win over the support of the workers.

Given the success of these campaigns, major unions and progressive politicians (whose appearance in a failed Amazon organizing effort in Alabama proved ineffective) might want to steer clear. Instead, progressive groups and donors can lend financial support.

I’ve bolded the part that really caught my attention. If senior progressives cannot move the needle for a unionizing matter, what does it mean?

And then there’s this article by Philip Bump on the puzzling loss of popularity by President Biden in the face of economic success and a Republican Party positively packed with fourth- and fifth- raters who have little allegiance to democracy or to competency – but only broken ideologies:

The first poll was from Quinnipiac University. Released on Wednesday, it measured Biden’s approval with those ages 65 and older as about even — as many viewed his job performance positively as negatively. Those under 30, though, were more than twice as likely to view his performance with disapproval.

That’s Quinnipiac, the pollster that Biden’s team once went out of its way to disparage as an outlier. Then, early Thursday morning, new polling from Gallup showed a similar pattern. It was among the youngest Americans, not the oldest, where Biden was struggling most. What’s more, it was with those Americans that his approval had fallen the most over the course of his presidency.

Here’s that Gallup poll:

For me, what we’re starting to see is the rejection of the ways of the previous generations. Old wisdom, particularly that which does not fit with reason, as well as that which does not fit with the spewings of “social influencers,” is likely to be disputed and, often, discarded.

And there’s going to be a lot of anguish and gnashing all along the political spectrum as the American youth, watching disaster unfold, observing their wishes are not immediately satisfied, and communicating thoughts, pictures, and video in real time, begin to come together more and more cohesively than ever before.

¹ I am, technically, a tail-end member of the Boomers, who are somewhat reviled for greed, selfishness, and such things as First World problems. Much like some small percentage of the Millenials, et al., towards their own imposed group memberships, I have felt not one iota of kinship with the Boomers.

For those who are unaware, Dr. Oz, a TV celebrity and surgeon, is running for the Republican nomination for Senator from Pennsylvania, and it appears he’s well and truly in the grasp of the Sirens of Greek myth. Here’s HuffPo’s take on the matter:

Mehmet Oz, the celebrity TV surgeon better known as Dr. Oz, used to write and tweet about the health benefits of coconut oil, lavender oil, CBD oil, MCT oil, avocado and olive oil.

He also appeared to be a strong opponent of fracking, warning his readers  in multiple articles about the potential health risks associated with one of the more controversial fossil fuel extracting technologies.

And now?

But now that Oz is a GOP Senate candidate in Pennsylvania, he is apparently less concerned about fracking’s possible health effects on his potential constituents and more interested in preserving an industry active in the state.

“Back off Biden! Give us freedom to frack!” Oz said Wednesday in a rambling TikTok video while pumping gas somewhere in the Keystone State.

Oz’s campaign is even denying that he ever voiced any concern about fracking in the first place, claiming that he had no part in any of those earlier columns — even though he is listed as their primary author.

That denial calls into question which of Oz’s medical advice columns he actually stands behind and raises questions about his brand as a trusted health professional.

If he’d said, Well, on further investigation, my team found that fracking does not introduce dangerous chemicals into aquifers, then at least he’s be showing some smoothness and planning. People do accept that viewpoints evolve as more information is discovered. Although we’d be depending on his truthfulness.

But, no, like his brethren, he’s a fourth-rater. Maybe he’s a great surgeon, like Dr. Carson, but as a politician goes, he’s in thrall to the sweet flavor of political power.

And I think his opponents will use that to beat him at the polls.

Representative Nancy Mace (R-SC) makes her pitch – literally:

One day after former President Donald Trump endorsed one of her Republican primary challengers, South Carolina U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace stood outside Trump Tower in New York City to make her case.

In a video posted to Twitter Thursday morning, Mace defended her political credibility, touted her ties to Trump and questioned Republican Katie Arrington’s ability to deliver for Republicans, even after Arrington secured Trump’s endorsement.

“If you want to lose this seat once again in a midterm election cycle to Democrats, then my opponent is more than qualified to do just that,” Mace said in her video, looking straight into the camera as the 68-story glass skyscraper that is also home to the Trump Organization loomed behind her.

Here’s that video:

I’m standing in front of Trump Tower with a message this morning…#SC01 #LowcountryFirst pic.twitter.com/CpmMYA63qt

— Nancy Mace (@NancyMace) February 10, 2022

And all this despite claiming, with regard to the January 6th Insurrection, “I hold him accountable for the events that transpired.” It says something about her judgment and morals, and none of that story is good. Yet another tale of the flexibility of morals when it comes to power.

I’ve mentioned Trofin Lysenko a time or two on this blog, most recently here, but now Skeptical Inquirer’s David Robert Grimes has published a lovely article on this walking disaster of a scientist that I really enjoyed:

Lysenko’s 1928 announcement of a new way to hugely increase crop yield, dubbed “vernalization,” was music to the Party’s ears. Inspiring stories of ingenious workers solving practical problems by wits alone were a trope of Soviet propaganda, so this agronomist from peasant origins without any formal scientific training outsmarting a bourgeois scientific establishment was widely embraced. Bestowed with political and scientific awards, he was elevated up the Party hierarchy. Such praise was premature; Lysenko’s lack of scientific training translated into poorly controlled, subpar experiments. Nor was he above bolstering his heroic image with fabricated data.

Still, Lysenko was an unimpeachable Party darling, and the audacity of his claims increased steadily. He insisted that the offspring of seeds treated with his process would inherit wondrous properties, allowing wheat to transmute into barley. This caused consternation to biologists, as it pivoted on Lamarckian evolution. This obsolete theory suggested acquired characteristics of an organism could be passed down to descendants, so a plant plucked of leaves might have leafless offspring. Biologist Julian Huxley pithily observed that “if this theory is correct, it would follow that all Jewish boys would be born without foreskins.”

Bold mine.

And where did it all lead? Not well for his critics:

As World War II consumed Europe, Lysenko began purging scientists who contradicted his grandiose claims. Arrested on overblown charges, his mentor and early champion Vavilov ultimately died in prison from malnutrition. In 1941, Germany attacked Russia, putting Lysenko’s crusade temporarily on ice. At the war’s end in 1945, Lysenko still held dictatorial sway with the Party—but closer evaluations of his work by others began to reveal unjustified and blatantly falsified claims. Apprehensive of his position, Lysenko implored Stalin for support, promising to increase the country’s wheat yield tenfold. Despite ample evidence this was impossible and Lysenko incompetent, Stalin bowed to this much-vaunted genius of the proletariat, bestowing the entire political machinery of the Soviet Union on Lysenko.

But after Sakharov unloaded on him, as I mentioned previously, the Soviet Union dismissed him to dishonor and obscurity, and began clawing its way out of the feverish swamplands of quackery and ideological allegiances into which his ideology had led them:

The state press, which had once heralded his genius, now damned him absolutely. Lysenko retreated into obscurity, dying quietly in 1974. His cult of personality had stifled advances in genetics, biology, and medicine across the Soviet Union. His peaceful end was a stark contrast to that of the scientists whose destruction he had authored in his violent purges. The Lysenko affair was, in the words of scientist Geoffrey Beale, “The most extraordinary, tragic and in some ways absurd, scientific battle that there has ever been.”

And I fear this is what we’re seeing again, only a lot closer to my porch, as the folks who are characterized as anti-vax, or anti-science, might be better considered as alt-world people. They’ve had a taste of cultural power and, if only imagined, social superiority, and damned if they’re going to let a pandemic knock them out of their seats of power. It’s a hoax, medicines pushed by their leaders are effective, the vaccines don’t work or are morally flawed or will kill them. We’ve seen people die of Covid, whispering with their last breath that it is all a hoax, that if only the doctors gave them the real medicine, they’d get better instantly.

It’s all of a piece with the rejection of experts, as advocated by former Speaker Ryan (R-WI), isn’t it? He told the conservative base they could figure out anything, they didn’t need experts, and when an overwhelming problem descended upon them, they sought a magic cure, because that’s what they wanted and Ryan told them they could find it. And then out come the vultures who prey on such people, the latest appearing to be, in an imperfect analogy to Lysenko, the highly credentialed Dr. Robert Malone:

Timothy Caulfield, the Canada research chair in health law and policy at the University of Alberta, said Malone injecting himself into a conversation with the kind of credentials he has, and “cherry-picking rotten data,” was “a worst-case scenario.”

“You have this individual who has all these credentials and this history in the biomedical world, so that looks impressive. And he’s referencing a study that, on the face of it, may look impressive. But you don’t know that the study is fraudulent,” Caulfield said, adding that Malone has “weaponized bad research.”

In November, Malone shared a deceptive video to his Twitter followers that falsely linked athlete deaths to coronavirus shots. The video suggested that coronavirus vaccination killed Jake West, a 17-year-old Indiana high school football player who died of sudden cardiac arrest. But the vaccine played no role in West’s death. The teen died of an undiagnosed heart condition in 2013. [WaPo]

But when Malone says

“Regarding the genetic covid vaccines, the science is settled,” he said in a 15-minute speech that referenced the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and John F. Kennedy. “They are not working.”

It’s red meat for a base hungry for victory over those annoying liberals, and finding Covid doesn’t obey their wishes, their prayers, their earnest demands, not of themselves, not from the movement leaders, such as Trump or Copeland, they’re looking for confirmation of their alt-world fantasy.

The Soviet Union died, in part, from motivated reasoning: where the tires met the road, their technology and social management miserably came up as third-rate. Will the far-right conservatives, such as Trump and Speaker Ryan, who put their narcissism and ideological priorities, respectively, over the opinions of the best trained people available, suffer a similar fate?

And how much damage will their fatally flawed machine do before it’s finally abandoned?

The explosions are merely metaphorical expositions of the heartburn caused by the artificial coffee.

Free Guy (2021) is a mild-mannered exploration of a topic that’s long interested me: what happens when “artificial intelligence” actually becomes self-aware – and self-interested? In this case, it’s a video game in which the human players interact with each other as well as the NPCs – non-player characters who form the background to the city in which all exist. An artificial intelligence feature permits the NPCs to interact more realistically with the human players.

But then Blue Shirt Guy begins questioning why he does the same thing every day. And then he gets a hold of a pair of glasses that lets him see what the human players are seeing.

Mind blown. And he does seem to have one.

And then he stumbles across a human player who happens to have a grudge against the provider of the game, because she helped write the artificial intelligence and feels it was stolen. But she has to prove it’s present in the game, and she’s searching for it. Guy swirls about in her wake, learning, trying to help.

And being an instantiation of her goal.

It’s all a bit silly, but undeniably fun as well. While it doesn’t have any great insights, it does raise the most important question of all: does an artificial intelligence have any sort of right to existence?

Too bad the potential for a completely exotic “reality” is wasted here, but the real point of this movie is to make money, not explore one of the more outre questions potentially facing humanity. Have a laugh.

A couple of days ago, Erick Erickson tried to look angry at Vice President Kamala Harris (D-CA):

Also, shame on the current Vice President.

Unless Kamala Harris can show us videos of people jumping to their deaths from the Capitol Dome to escape the mob, she needs to shut the hell up instead of comparing January 6th to September 11th. What a ridiculous and shameful thing to say. But I’m sure she doesn’t care, which makes it even worse.

The first red flag was the context of his anger, which is a post reprimanding Republicans and right wing extremists who might be angry at former Vice President Dick Cheney (R-WY), who served in the Bush II Administration, and happens to be the father of Rep Liz Cheney (R-WY). This slam of the Vice President was tacked on to the end.

Why is this important? Because Erickson is trying to stay relevant to the conservative base, and by criticizing a base angry at the former vice president, he’s running a risk. This is risk-mitigation, where he invokes conservative base anger and derision and throws it at Vice President Harris.

And don’t forget the ridicule. That’s the second red flag for me. Ridicule of someone for stupidity, who just happens to have a reputation for being really smart, is a good, but not infallible, red flag.

Erickson didn’t provide a link, but, if she did say anything applicable, I think there’s not much question of what it would be, given Erickson’s description. So does it make sense to compare the 9/11 Tragedy and the January 6th insurrection?

There’s potentially more to an incident than just counting bodies or dollars; that is, metrics, as always, matter. So what’s the proper metric here?

Incidents in the past function as indications of what may happen in the future. To pick out an astronomical example, the telescopic and radar watch for Near Earth Orbit (NEO) objects is motivated, in large part, by the Tunguska event of 1908. This immense air blast over a fortunately sparsely populated area of Siberia has been a topic of speculation for decades, and one of the better theories is that a huge meteor entered the Earth’s atmosphere and blew up in mid-air over Siberia. If we want to prevent having this event replicated over, say, New York City, the first step is to detect an incoming object, and then do something about it, two projects that remain under development.

What you are motivates metric selection. Insurance companies count the dollars in sometimes-stomach turning detail^[1], first responders count bodies. What do leaders such as VP Harris and Cheney do?

They worry about tomorrow. What’s the risk of this happening again? is what they should be asking. Measuring existential risk, and mitigating it, is their job.

And here’s the thing: for all of the nightmarish horror of 9/11, future risk is not that big a deal for 9/11. Only a few extremists were involved, who took advantage of a very lax security system. We have since tightened security, closed loop holes, and hunted down the criminals responsible. There have been no more incidents.

The insurrection: How do we assess the risk? We can compare personnel: a collection of foreign nationals for 9/11, compared to several hundred Americans, people who should know better than to believe the “Big Lie” of widespread electoral fraud, who invaded the Capitol building, chanted intimidating slogans, set up an executioner’s stand, and vandalized parts of the Capitol building.

Motivation is important, too, as most foreign nationals with access to the America have no interest in inflicting violence on us. Meanwhile, members of one of the two major American political parties continue to believe, to an unsettling extent, that electoral fraud occurred in the 2020 election, despite a complete and utter lack of evidence.

Leaders? The 9/11 leader is dead. The insurrection leaders are not, and some are still free, although the Department of Justice is working on that problem.

And was 9/11 an existential threat? Not in the least. It was clever, but not backed by sufficient resources to endanger the entire country, and there hasn’t been another attack like it in 20 years, and those who are thought to be in sympathy with it find themselves dead or pinned down, thanks to the combined efforts of Republican and Democratic Administrations, otherwise known as American Administrations.

Meanwhile, simply getting Republican leaders to admit that Biden won in 2020, fair and square, is like pulling teeth out of a five year old: kicking, screaming, denying, head-shaking, and NO NO NO NO! is all de rigeur. Each one of these “leaders” is a potential leader, although the former President doesn’t tolerate dissent, nor wannabes jockeying for position. And 20%, maybe, of the conservative base thinks it’s been cheated.

Perhaps most frighteningly, without evidence. This lack of rationality is perhaps the most frightening: they have no idea how to assess reality or predict the future.

In essence, once the metric changes from counting dollars or nightmares to existential risk, all of a sudden VP Harris suddenly appears a lot more credible than Erickson is willing to give credit.

Does Erickson realize all this? Is he a hypocrite simply simply trying to keep his audience happy, to reassure them that disbelieving the 2020 results is really acceptable, by slamming a Vice President who has to sit the hot-seat, moreso than many others have because of the age of the President? Or does Erickson really believe that measuring a tragedy stops with the body count?

Beats me. But I don’t think it does. This is all about “Fool me one, shame on you. Fool me twice … we’re all dead.”

¹ I once worked for a word-processing company, and in order to report bugs our customers would submit documents to show how our print subsystem didn’t work. Some of these documents came from personal injury attorney firms, and reading those documents could be a hair-raising experience.

A reader writes concerning Professor Richardson’s observations of elite internecine warfare now that the Soviet Union is gone:

Yes, exactly. And also, you may have noted a rather large degree of coziness between those young-punk Republicans and Russia (as well as the old corrupt Republicans) — something that’d be unheard of 50 years ago. Those old Republicans invented McCarthyism after all. Today they kiss up to the reds, the communist Russians.

And in response to a query:

Any Republican politician under the age of say 35 who has said anything positive about Russian policies or oligarchs will fill the bill, in my book. For example, Ashley-Madison Cawthorn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asJTYp-rgao

I do have a vague memory of Representative Cawthorn (R-NC) having some Russian connection, and here’s a recent story by Susie Madrak on Crooks and Liars about the matter:

Madison Cawthorn recently announced his divorce from Cristina Bayardelle, an Instagram fitness instructor.

But now he’s sharing the strange story of how they met — set up with a fake story by an American stranger he just happened to meet in Russia! I suspect there will be much, much more about this story, because this sounds like a national security problem:

Grant Stern on Twitter said, “Madison Cawthorn’s divorce just went from boring information to national security concern in about 77 seconds of interview time with the Daily Caller.

“This does not sound a normal meet-cute story whatsoever. Very few of these stories involving Russia are.”

“All I got from this video is that Madison Cawthorn married a honeypot,” tweeted Angry Staffer, a former White House staffer.

Make of it what you will. Sourcing someone calling themselves Angry Staffer is a bit of a red flag for me, I must admit.

But this also reminds me of a tempest in a teapot from a few years ago, when Senator Cruz (R-TX) endorsed the idea of McCarthyism. McCarthyism was putatively about stamping out Communism in the United States in the 1950s, a position from which being anti-Russian is a very small stretch. Those who study the era will know that McCarthyism was really about Senator Joe McCarthy’s (R-WI) frantic clutching after power & influence; once a few politicians stood up to him and he was revealed for what he was, his influence waned and he eventually died, in office, an alcoholic.

The tempest was a brief return – maybe a week long – to endorsement of the tenets of McCarthyism. How that is incompatible with the concept of Young Republicans becoming intertwined with the successors of the Soviets is the motivation for me to laugh. The intellectual incoherence of the Republicans is certainly a topic worthy of pursuit.

Another reader remarks:

“Great Power” by Molly McCew on Substack has a lot of this information.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/…/02-supply-and-demand…

Thank you.

In response to a retirement interview with Dr. Francis Collins as head of the National Institutes of Health, Steve Benen soberly assesses failures in philosophy:

I see NFTs (non-fungible tokens, or “ownership” of, mostly, digital constructs) remain inexplicably popular:

This makes me wonder if the Web is doomed:

We’ve all heard of the Ancient Aliens theory, a pseudoscientific belief that aliens built (among other things) the Egyptian pyramids. This week, however, history buffs on TikTok were confronted with a brand new conspiracy theory: “Ancient Rome isn’t real.”

This idea was put forward by @momllennial_, a history TikToker who often sparks controversy on the app. Previously, she’s theorized that Alexander the Great was a woman, that Jesus Christ’s name can be translated as “clitoris healer,” and that the iconic 18th century painting “The Swing” is full of hidden codes about the French revolution. Over the past few weeks she’s posted a lot about Ancient Rome, including a TikTok claiming that “Hadrian’s Wall can’t be proven to be of Roman construction.” [daily dot]

There’s ruins, ancient documents, history, archaeology, all documenting Rome. But this person, whoever it is, flings out some baseless assertions and gets attention.

Never mind that science is the search for truth. Attention!

This makes me play with the idea that people respected for their hard work in academics may one day pull out of the Web, out of Twitter, Facebook, and their own web sites, leaving it to be the domain of those who, like some narcissists I’ve known, will monopolize anything in order to get attention. People have already announced they’re leaving Twitter, leaving Facebook. Will they take the next step out of the hog’s pen?

And so much for Andreesen’s dream of the Web democratizing information. When information is not prioritized by truth-value, it all becomes swill, swill of uncertain intellectual nutrition value.

And will people walk away from that? Or will someone find a way to make the Web useful again?

In the meantime, it’s a sort of … well … I apologize … a Greek tragedy, now isn’t it?

For the most part though, the response to @momllennial_’s theories came in the form of factual debunk TikToks and history jokes. Right now, HistoryTok is full of academics satirically mourning the end of their careers because Ancient Rome Isn’t Real—and people generally making fun of the drama.

We saw the final a performance (we were told it was the final performance, but the theatre’s website disagrees, and we know who runs the world these days) of a run of Clue at the Zephyr Theatre, in Stillwater, MN, last night.

Clue is a pleasant farce, meant to entertain and delight the senses, and Zephyr’s staging of the play matches well with these ambitions, providing a shape-shifting staging that permits far more than the normal number of viewing angles on the stage, while supplying the audience, which currently lacks stadium seating, an opportunity to see the play at multiple levels and angles. Finished with a rainstorm composed of real water, which we were fortunate enough to inspect post-performance, it was eye-catching and delightful.

The actual performance was also quite good, with no one unsatisfactory; the performances that stood out from the others are that of the Butler, Wadsworth, who carries on at length, and the french maid, Yvette, whose performance, featuring much bouncing movement, bizarrely reminded me of a Russian dance performance^[1]. At an early juncture, the two work together in such a way as to suggest a certain obsessive-compulsive disorder. But it is also fair to say that sometimes the actors had to struggle with the stereotypes provided by the script.

Perhaps the weakest component of the show is the one they have the least control over: the story Clue tells. It is such a strong farce that, for those with a dislike for that art form, it can seem a bit overwhelming. Characters do tend to be superficial, so it won’t haunt you for days afterward.

But if you like farce, or are just looking for a refuge from a world that seems to have gone mad, visit the madness in Stillwater’s Zephyr; it’s ever so much more pleasant. There’s only a few performances left, so don’t hesitate.

¹ Only click on this link if you have tolerance for a low-resolution video of some years age. And, yes, the resemblance is fleeting, but there it is: I tend to be a random connection machine.

I know there’s a lot of bitterness and disbelief concerning Kyle Rittenhouse being found innocent of all charges earlier today. I’m neutral on the matter, as not only did I not sit on the jury, I didn’t even follow the trial.

But I did read this CNN article in which they cite legal experts who were unsurprised by the verdict. That caught my attention, because I’m not an expert, and neither are most of the people – numbering in the millions, I’m sure – who are commenting on it. So what’s going on in the minds of the experts?

Wisconsin law allows the use of deadly force only if “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.” And because Rittenhouse’s attorneys claimed self-defense, state law meant the burden fell on prosecutors to disprove Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

And it was an uphill battle to climb from the start, because of the facts in this case, experts said.

“(Prosecutors) weren’t able to show that his response to each of these men, to each of these sets of threats was unreasonable,” criminal defense attorney Sara Azari told CNN’s Pamela Brown.

“When the jury came back a couple days ago and watched the videos… frame by frame, they were looking to see whether Kyle did something to provoke the threat and whether his response to that threat was reasonable in terms of using deadly force and they agreed with the defense that it was,” Azari added.

Putting myself in the shoes of the jury, if what they saw was someone reacting in self-defense to an existential threat, then just maybe he was justified in the moment. I don’t think he should have been there, as I think he betrayed severe immaturity in interfering with local authorities who were dealing with the situation, but he was there.

There’s a larger point inherent in what I’ve written so far, and it’s this: perhaps the left should take a big step backward, make the very-hard-to-swallow assumption that the jury got it right – remember, legal experts were unsurprised by this verdict – and ask themselves: What is wrong with their information-gathering and / or information analysis strategies?

So far, all I’ve seen are bitter claims that this is all about white supremacy, that the judge was prejudiced, that our moral system is wrong. These are all intellectually lazy, unless they come with detailed and persuasive arguments that engage with this specific incident, because they disengage the authors from any personal responsibility for their disappointments. Yes, that’s right – lazy. They point, without supporting evidence, at some terrible power as being responsible for what they perceive to be an injustice, then they shrug their shoulders, incidentally disrespecting a jury that put in something near three weeks of examining evidence and making judgments, and proclaim the system broken.

And then go off and hate their fellow Americans some more.

They may be right, maybe this is a result of a system informed by white supremacy, but to my mind, the jury, unless later proven to be prejudiced, did its duty to its best and found Rittenhouse, within the framework of applicable law, not guilty. If you were surprised at this, or not surprised but certain that it was the wrong verdict, perhaps, if you’re intellectually honest, you should be asking if there’s something wrong in your information sources – I know I was mislead into thinking Rittenhouse shooting at random – or in your analysis.

And maybe society is broken. But, perhaps, not in the way the left would have us believe. Or the right. If we’re so willing to hate each other, maybe that’s the clue to the real source problem.

Today Professor Richardson and Erick Erickson managed to echo each other in a way that is positively eerie, as if their epistemic bubbles are connected by some hidden tube, perhaps like the hypothesized connection between astronomical black holes and white holes. Richardson is up first, discussing, initially, the censuring of Rep Gosar (R-AZ) for his hacked anime of himself killing Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and assaulting another, before coming to a conclusion:

This is an important moment. It appears that all but two Republican lawmakers are willing to embrace violence against Democrats if it will lead to political power.

There is a subtle difference between their willingness to defend the violence of the January 6 insurrectionists, and today’s stance. When Republicans have defended the insurrectionists, they did so with the argument—false though it was—that the rioters simply wanted to defend the country from a stolen election. Today there was no pretense of an excuse for Gosar’s violent fantasy; it was defended as normal.

The march toward Republicans’ open acceptance of violence has been underway since January 6, as leaders embraced the Big Lie that the Democrats stole the 2020 election, and then as leaders have stood against mask and vaccine mandates as tyranny. Those lies have led to a logical outcome: their supporters believe that in order to defend the nation, they should fight back against those they have been told are destroying the country.

When Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, an organization devoted to promoting right-wing values on campuses, spoke in Idaho last month, the audience applauded when a man asked when he could start killing Democrats. “When do we get to use the guns?” the man said. “How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?” Kirk denounced the question not on principle, but because he said it would play into Democratic hands. He agreed that, as he said, “We are living under fascism.”

Erickson, also today, has to go back in history a bit to make a case, before coming to these conclusions:

According to a 2001 report, “Leftist extremists were responsible for three-fourths of the officially designated acts of terrorism in America in the 1980s.” They tend to be younger and better educated than right-wing extremists and they tend to live in urban areas thereby making high population centers more target-rich. (Source)

Most importantly, progressives have now internalized several propositions that make it very likely they are about to re-embrace their historic violence.

First, progressives believe they are now the majority in the United States. Progressives, bolstered by media, cultural, and academic institutions present themselves as the dominant actors, voices, and policy makers in the United States. As much as the right, in the Bush and Obama era, sought to run hardcore conservatives in moderate areas convinced they could win, now progressives are routinely rallying around progressives in moderate areas convinced their victories are inevitable.

Second, progressives view the GOP as a threat to democracy. In so doing, just as some Republicans have internalized 2020 was a stolen election, it has become dogma for Democrats that the GOP is suppressing votes. Voter suppression explains the Democrats’ losses and, again, the progressives believe they’re really dominant. As they internalize both that the GOP is suppressing the vote and that the GOP is a threat to democracy, as a wave election shapes up in 2022, we should expect the left to mobilize more aggressively to stop those they view as a threat to democracy.

Third, progressives have internalized both that we have only a decade to stop the irreversible destruction of the planet and that non-progressive forces are blocking solutions with the help of corporate interests. They truly believe we’re headed towards the end of humanity as we know it unless extreme measures are taken yesterday. They fundamentally, truly, and very literally believe the planet is at a tipping point and the United States must act immediately. But the United States will not act because of Republicans, Joe Manchin, and corporations.

There’s more points, but I’ll stop here. Except to note that his assertion that progressives live in their own little bubble sounds a lot like the right-wing epistemic bubble that has been recognized for twenty years:

Fourth, while only about a quarter of Americans are on Twitter, it is predominated by progressives who increasingly in the real world and online are more prone to self-isolate with likeminded people. It makes them less able to relate, more willing to believe their own narratives and mythologies, and less able to understand or tolerate dissent. It makes it more likely that progressives will both generate and believe online agitation against conservatives and bolster the first point — they think they are the majority. They think Twitter is real life. This is not my opinion. This is the actual data. See also this.

Bold mine – the words that describe the Republican Party stalwarts the best are what he uses for his political opponents.

There are a lot of “it’s worth noting” things in both posts. Erickson mentions the old Weather Underground group, a faction of the Students for a Democratic Society, without noting that it was an anti-Vietnam War group. The Vietnam War is best known for the dubiousness of everything connected to it, from how the soldiers were treated by society, to the deceptions practiced by the military, right up to and including the Secretary of Defense, to the barbarity of both sides. He wishes to bring to the fore a supposed lefty tendency to violence, without mentioning the terrible tragedy of Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building, or the shocking actions of Kirk that Richardson mentions.

And there’s no mention of the admittedly difficult subject of measuring frequency of violence, nor the question of the morality of violence – when is violence considered justified? If someone takes a completely legal action that threatens someone else’s existential future, is violence justified or not in the face of intransigence? How about the suggestion that violence connected to the abortion issue is simply murderous violence would no doubt draw protests that they’re protecting unborn babies – a ridiculous remark to my ears, but justified to him.

Richardson, likewise, ignores her own side in favor of the other. Even today, though, we can see extreme actions by the left, such as this:

Two young women scaled a huge coal handling machine shortly before dawn on Wednesday, disrupting operations at the world’s largest coal port for several hours to protest what they say is Australia’s lack of action on climate change.

“My name is Hannah, and I am here abseiled off the world’s largest coal port,” 21-year-old Hannah Doole declared on a live-streamed video as she hovered high over massive piles of coal bound for export. “I’m here with my friend Zianna, and we’re stopping this coal terminal from loading all coal into ships and stopping all coal trains.” [WaPo]

It’s not precisely violence, but it is an extremism. How many more steps before murder becomes acceptable?

For me, I see this as another example of one of my favorite morbid subjects, the historical demographic shifts described in SECULAR CYCLES (Turchin & Nefedov), in action. There’s no doubt that each of these writers are elite members of society, one a professor on the left, and the other a lawyer and radio host on the right (who, incidentally, disclaims being an intellectual), and one of the observations of Turchin and Nefedov is the tendency of a disintegrating empire’s elite to engage in internecine warfare, once all existential foes have been vanquished and overpopulation has set in. Richardson and Erickson are each attempting to control the narrative by which the “warriors” essential to the power of the elites will be attracted to this or that faction, one by spinning stories that invoke American history, mostly from the American Civil War forward, the other using a religious foundation that preserves an element of irrationality and love of amateurs quite out of proportion to its destructiveness to society.

And which side will win? I remain a rationalist and agnostic, which means I find Erickson’s moral and intellectual foundation at least somewhat dubious. Nor is Erickson’s history particular encouraging. For example, his claim that the passing of Justice Ginsburg and the ascension of Judge Barrett to SCOTUS would result in riots and bloodshed, to the fault of Ginsburg, never came true. Some people turned red in the face, it’s true, but it wasn’t bloodshed. In brief, Erickson’s understanding of how the world acts is not something I’d put money on.

But the left, traditionally the resting place for at least pretending to respect science, has certainly diminished my confidence in the last few years. Between, again, violence, and the apparent dismissal of the liberal democracy under which we’ve lived for so long, in company with the use of debate as a way forward, in favor of near-religious decrees, it’s become hard to see a clear way forward without dismissing this political grab for power. When Erickson or, more credibly, Andrew Sullivan dismisses claims of meritocracy, or punctuality, or any of a number of other qualities as being merely tools of oppression, it is depressing – not because either is wrong, but because they are right, and it’s a self-condemnation of the left and its lack of intellectual rigor.

In the end, we may see violence on both ends, and whether this is a condemnation of political positions or religious institutions or civics education, I don’t know. I deplore it. But it may be inevitable.

And I’m quite serious – this caught me a bit by surprise:

Oklahoma’s two-term State Superintendent of Public Instruction Joy Hofmeister announced on Thursday that she is switching her party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and challenging Republican incumbent Gov. Kevin Stitt in next year’s gubernatorial election, according to a video Hofmeister posted to Twitter.

“I believe Governor Stitt is running Oklahoma into the ground,” Hofmeister told the Tulsa World in an interview. “I am changing parties to run as a Democrat and that is because I also believe in the values of supporting public education, supporting quality and good access to healthcare, as well as rural infrastructure.”

Stitt’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic was a top reason for Hofmeister’s decision to challenge the incumbent, and she told the Tulsa World that if Oklahoma “had a leader who contemplated expert advice and opinion and set an example to help protect Oklahomans, we could have avoided thousands of people dying.” [CNN/Politics]

I figure that, at this point, most Republicans are very well aware of the extremist nature of their party and are OK with it.

Evidently, I have that wrong – or Hofmeister has a cast-iron constitution, metaphorically speaking. It’ll be interesting to see if we have more defections from the Republican Party, and if there is any correlation with the interests of the defector. For instance, the Republicans have jumped all over Critical Race Theory (CRT) making it into schools, which most teachers will testify hasn’t happened. Perhaps Hofmeister realized the Republicans were basically being dishonest on the matter, investigated other areas, and chose to exit the Party rather than continue to be associated with them.

But I speculate and look to the future.

In order to function in the world, we each construct an internal and incomplete model of reality. From how the physical world functions in terms of what we have to deal with – I’m not talking quantum mechanics – to how the social world works. These models help guide our behaviors and choices, and, because they are often shared models that guide social groups, we often modify each others’ behaviors via various communications modes: writing, pictures, social media, art, etc.

These originally began as survival strategies, but have gone beyond that. For example, the internal models may include constructions of what the Divine is, and what it demands. In the absence of real evidence of, or communications with, a Divine entity, we are left with baroque imagination, human desires, and, of course, inflicted models: charisma, intimidation, and warfare are, indisputably, modes of communications.

The advent of the Age of Reason and Science has served to obscure the reality of these various models. This is unsurprising, since mental models are definitionally not tangible; the Theory of Mind, the idea that, unlike most animals, we recognize that other creatures have a mind, and that it models reality, is not something we can reach out and feel. We recognize it primarily by behaviors, whether directly observed or from historical sources; artifacts, either contemporary or from archaeological sites; and the like.

And the models of reality associated with the Age of Reason and Science have enjoyed an almost unreasonable success in the areas of medicine and technology, leading to greater comfort, longer lifetimes, and a generally accepted notion that we’re better off than when, say, smallpox was rampant; philosophy has struggled to keep up, by comparison. Indeed, one might say the currently dominant model reality, powered by reason, excites a certain jealousy among adherents to old models of reality.

As ever, social evolution, or the competition between social aggregates, has demanded certain features of most such entities. Of interest here is the hierarchy of roles, and bodies to fill them, because it serves to efficiently order societal groups to fulfill those requirements peculiar to them. For example, the most basic societal structure, underlying all others in some geographical space, has responsibility for the physical needs basic to the human organism: sustenance, first and foremost; defense; and sanitation come immediately to mind. In response to these needs, we’ve developed several models of governance: monarchies, theocracies, democracies are familiar forms, while a few more outre forms have existed. Each of these have a hierarchy as a defining characteristic, as well as the methods, stable or chaotic, of filling the roles defined by the hierarchy. By comparison, a model train club may have more modest needs, such as a provider of a physical space, a historian, PR officer, etc. The hierarchy may be less stable, or, better put, more pliable, as well as flatter, but it will exist. In comparison to an undifferentiated mob, a group possessing a recognized and respected hierarchy has a greater chance of surviving a conflict. A hierarchy is generally considered a social good.

Accompanying most, or even all, such hierarchies is the concept of prestige. Prestige brings influence and esteem, at the very least; in more important societal structures it may bring wealth, more desirable foodstuffs, access to religious items, even unparalleled sexual access.

Prestige, particularly for those who lack it, or have lacked it, and suffered the boot heel of disdain, is a precious commodity. For all that I write very little of it here, prestige is akin to the gold of the avaricious 1500s Spanish: It motivates choices and behaviors even more firmly than do moral systems; indeed, moral systems often assign prestige as a way to entice adherents to certain actions. The prestige of orthodoxies can be the pillars of societies.

Or its undoing.

Prestige’s position on the meter of social goodness is in the eye of the beholder; it can certainly lead to uncertain outcomes.

So why am I blathering? I’ve noticed that the frustration and bewilderment of pundits commenting on vaccines and treatments for Covid-19 who are not of the far-right persuasion seems to be growing. Here’s former Republican Jennifer Rubin:

That so many people refuse to receive a vaccine approved by the Food and Drug Administration but trust the FDA-approved monoclonal antibody treatment for covid-19 or — worse — unproven drugs such as the horse dewormer ivermectin, suggests a level of irrationality and oppositional behavior (Biden want us to get shots, so we don’t!) more indicative of a cult than people capable of self-governance.

On a more general level, the MAGA cult’s claim that their anger is the result of elite condescension or economic dislocation never made much sense. MAGA politicians and their most virulent supporters seem more motivated — to the point of self-destruction — by unhinged and illogical resentment. Ending that phenomenon may be more challenging than ending the pandemic itself. [WaPo]

Notice Rubin’s use of the terms irrationality and oppositional. Steve Benen remarks “I will never understand this” when it comes to … vigilante treatments:

Anti-vaccine Facebook groups have a new message for their community members: Don’t go to the emergency room, and get your loved ones out of intensive care units.

Consumed by conspiracy theories claiming that doctors are preventing unvaccinated patients from receiving miracle cures or are even killing them on purpose, some people in anti-vaccine and pro-ivermectin Facebook groups are telling those with Covid-19 to stay away from hospitals and instead try increasingly dangerous at-home treatments, according to posts seen by NBC News over the past few weeks.

The messages represent an escalation in the mistrust of medical professionals in groups that have sprung up in recent months on social media platforms, which have tried to crack down on Covid misinformation. And it’s something that some doctors say they’re seeing manifest in their hospitals as they have filled up because of the most recent delta variant wave. …

Others are turning away from hospitals altogether. In recent weeks, some anti-vaccine Facebook groups and conspiracy theory influencers on the encrypted messaging app Telegram have offered instructions on how to get family members released from the hospital, usually by insisting they be transferred into hospice care, and have recorded those they’ve successfully removed from hospitals for viral videos.

Some people in groups that formed recently to promote the false cure ivermectin, an anti-parasite treatment, have claimed extracting Covid patients from hospitals is pivotal so that they can self-medicate at home with ivermectin. But as the patients begin to realize that ivermectin by itself is not effective, the groups have begun recommending a series of increasingly hazardous at-home treatments, such as gargling with iodine, and nebulizing and inhaling hydrogen peroxide, calling it part of a “protocol.” [NBC News]

Speaking as someone who shares with Benen a model of reality in which Science & Reason is dominant, I can understand his lament: it’s not easy to assume a viewpoint that is not rooted in the belief that the collection of protocols that is science is the best, if imperfect, way to understand and respond to reality.

But the part that I think Benen and Rubin really miss is the prestige component. Whenever joining a group that is an alternative view of reality, there is going to be more than a bit of prestige that goes along with it within that group. You are special for perceiving that reality is not what the dominant model depicts. That, in turn, feeds the ego.

So now the dominant model has vaccines available to strongly ameliorate Covid-19, and the alternative models are faced with a challenge: do they bow to the dominant model’s decree?

Or do they declare their model superior?

For the sake of the egos of the leaders, and in fact just about all members, it’s the latter. They have social position, they have wealth coming in, they have influence. For those who have no allegiance to the religiously agnostic dominant model of science & reason, it’s an easy decision: preserve social position.

Preserve and, by inventing and pushing ‘miracle treatments’ that are so much better than the dominant treatment of a vaccine, even if so much more expensive, improve one’s social position.

Or, for those pastors too lazy to even push that, just proclaim that God would never permit members of this congregation to become ill – and, when they do, claim it’s a blessing on the congregation. (No, I’m not making that up. I’m too lazy to supply the links.)

And the lure of prestige for the ill. You have the Covid, you take the Ivermectin, you get better, your prestige improves because both you and your social group makes the usual logical error of thinking the treatment cured the problem in the absence of a real study that can distinguish causation from incidental. But by following the orthodoxy of the group, the prestige increased. And that’s a good thing.

So long as you survive the tribulation.

But the fact of the matter is this: all models of reality are tested against reality, and those that are inferior models will cause suffering to their adherents. But the siren song of the ego is, truly, a siren song. Its wailing engenders gross moral misdeeds that are horrifying to those whose allegiance doesn’t lie in servicing their egos through leadership or suffering.

From those who are still adherents to inferior models of reality we can expect even more exotic claims of cures, of non-existence, of things I can’t even imagine, and will no doubt find horrifying when they say it.

But the dying and illness will continue. All for the sake of prestige.

I’ve never been one to get all excited about symbolic meanings or secret messages, so I have to admit the latest conspiracy theory from the QAnon-folk leaves me a bit baffled:

On Aug.16, hundreds of Afghan civilians swarmed an Air Force C-17 cargo plane after it landed at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul. Before military officials could unload the aircraft, security concerns led the crew to take off as some Afghans clung to the side of the aircraft.

In the days since, conspiracy theorists have pointed to viral videos of the deadly events as evidence the conflict in Afghanistan is not actually happening. Proponents of this “false flag” theory are highlighting the number 1109 on the side of the cargo plane as a signal the events are somehow connected to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

One lengthy Instagram post from Aug. 18 presented the conspiracy this way: “I find it an odd ‘coincidence’ that the US plane that was in the Afganistan (sic) Taliban video was 1109, which seems to be hinting at 9/11 and thus another false flag event to provoke WW3 and order out of chaos and the crowning of the Antichrist false Savior and One World Leader.” [USA Today]

I know that such fields as Christian Art have well documented symbolic images, which make some sense when it comes to getting messages across compactly when it costs substantially to go with a more prolix, if I may use such a term in painting, message. Hidden messages are more of a mystery to me.

I mean, Why have a hidden message at all? What function does it serve to hint that a plane carrying refugees is somehow connected to the 9/11 attack of 2001, and that it means the whole Afghanistan withdrawal is a hoax – even though 9/11 was not?

Yeah, once you ask that question, the whole edifice comes tumbling down.

I don’t know what the conspiracy theory experts have to say – and, yes, they’re out there – but, to me, it feels like the conspiracy theorist who has sussed this sort of thing out of whole cloth is climbing the social ladder. Look at me, they say, I’m smart enough to see the clues.

It’s all about self-importance.

This is related, in an odd way, to this dude, who thinks – or grifts – that because the number 45 came up in a football score – uh, sort of – that means God wants our 45th President to remain President. And he wants to be known as the guy who saw it.

The climb up the social ladder to power and prestige can lead to some rather odd rungs.

I must add, full disclosure, that this sort of reasoning even applies to me, only I don’t use the religion or conspiracy theory route. I just see some potential future event happening due to an occurrence in the recent past, and I put it on the blog. A lot of it is just me venting, but if other people think it’s an insightful thought, then, hey, it puffs me up, too.

Sort of.

Erick Erickson has continued to bail out his leaky dinghy of ideology through claims of moral equivalence to the Democrats in a post of a few days ago. I had not responded to it because one of his points disturbed me and I was not aware of the context, so I held myself back – not to mention not having a lot of free time. Last night’s storm, however, means I won’t be gardening today, and I did finally get the necessary context as well.

His post reads like some of the right-wing emails I’ve dissected in the past – here’s an old favorite – and, technically, it did show up in my email, but it’s really a blog post. After some righteous incendiary indignation, he writes:

On June 29, 2021, five members of the United States Supreme Court said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did not have the authority to issue a moratorium on evictions. Only Justice Kavanaugh decided that since the program was set to expire at the end of July, he’d let it finish out because of the legal principle of equity (different from critical theory’s equity).

So while five members of the Court let the moratorium continue, five members of the Court also declared the CDC had no power to do such a moratorium in the future without specific congressional authorization.

SCOTUS does not get to have it both ways; Kavanaugh probably should have ruled the other way, rather than giving in to expediency. But he didn’t, which makes Erickson’s upcoming indignity … specious.

Congress sat on its hands and did nothing until July 30, 2021, when progressive members began some performance art to demand Congress pass a moratorium. On August 1, 2021, Nancy Pelosi blamed the CDC for not extending the moratorium and never mentioned the Supreme Court’s decision.

Performance art and sat on its hands are lazy denigratives used by those who are desperate to portray inaction as somehow indicative of incompetency – or worse. A judicious observer doesn’t walk down that path; instead, they try to find a fair & balanced^[1] reading of the motivations for a given behavior.

In this case, we’re talking about the pandemic. I think it’s fair to assume that the assumption since the SCOTUS decision was that the Administration could implement the ban; and, even if not, getting the ban through the Senate might prove to be a battle better fought elsewhere.

And why are we discussing this at all? Oh, yeah: the unvaccinated, who are mostly, but not all (see: RFK, Jr.), conservatives, are keeping the pandemic going, which in turn impacts the economy as the delta variant emerges, rendering the vaccines less effective against mutation aka variant concerns, and thus making the vulnerable less likely to return to work. I should not be surprised if key leaders claimed they didn’t anticipate the need for a furthering of a ban that complicates Federal response and hurts the economic recovery, at least for those who depend on rental income.

But, on August 3rd, Joe Biden decided to extend the moratorium through executive power even while admitting it was unconstitutional. He wants to put the blame on the Supreme Court and take blame away from the Democrats.

But the rule of law is clear. One can both feel sorry for those who will be evicted and also concurrently recognize the CDC really does not have the power to issue a moratorium on evictions without congressional legislation.

This is the item that concerned me. Is this what really happened? Turns out there’s more context that turns Erickson’s point into dust:

After White House legal advisers found he could not extend a national eviction moratorium, President Biden told Chief of Staff Ron Klain to seek the advice of Harvard law professor emeritus Laurence Tribe about whether an alternative legal basis could be devised for protecting struggling renters across the country, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The phone call between Klain and Tribe — held Sunday amid a national outcry over the expiry of the moratorium — set in motion a rapid reversal of the administration’s legal position that it could not extend the eviction ban. Tribe suggested to Klain and White House Counsel Dana Remus that the administration could impose a new and different moratorium, rather than try to extend the original ban in potential defiance of a warning from Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, the person said. [WaPo]

I’m no lawyer, but I think Kavanaugh’s opinion does not apply. And so Erickson’s point implodes. But he lumbers onward, stating his thesis:

The left, however, does not care about the rule of law. They only used the phrase when Trump was President. Therein lies the problem.

The opposition is hypocritical! And off the rail he goes, understandably desperate to blame the left for the transgressions of the right:

For all the talk about the right disrespecting the rule of law and embracing authoritarianism, the right is only behaving as the left has long behaved. In fact, there is consistently more respect on the right for the rule of law than the left has had — including among the judicial class.

The bit about the judicial class is interesting, as even Trump-appointed (or -aligned) judges rejected, for the most part, the former President’s hysterical claims concerning the election. But are lawyers are part of the judicial class? If so, the actions of L. Lyn Wood, Sydney Powell, Rudy Guiliani, and a host of former and current Trump lawyers, and various members and officials of the Federalist Society certainly are counterexamples.

But, taken overall, that paragraph is another example of Erickson wanting to have it both ways – Oh, yeah, we do disrespect the rule of law, except when we don’t! For the forward, it’s really just a null argument designed to stir up anger and stop the reasoning process.

For Joe Biden to do something everyone knows is unconstitutional and for him to even go so far as to admit it and for the left to cheer really does give away the game. It was always about power, never actually about the rule of law.

And now you understand why so many on the right have been moving away from the rule of law and towards some level of authoritarianism. It didn’t happen in a vacuum but in response to the left’s behavior. It was the reaction to the left’s action.

Sorry, but no. From this independent vantage point, both sides push legal envelopes all the time – Bush did it, Obama did it, Trump did it, and so much legislation pushes envelopes as well. Here, Biden is clearly relying on legal advice from an eminent Constitutional scholar who opines that he can do what he did. This is clearly a refutation of Erickson’s point.

And I find it hard – no, impossible – to find some sort of lefty insurrection during my lifetime. There’d disappointment, grumbling, protests, self-righteous whining, but no insurrections.

Erickson’s just propagandizing here. It’s all reminiscent of the right wing emails I used to see so much of. And it’s an example of a growing trend in Republican circles: Blame the lefties for our sins! Here’s Rep Steve Scalise (R-LA), House Minority whip, working this line of attack that is so reminiscent of the Trumpian habit of projecting his sins on his opponents. The various claims in the video have been debunked, of course.

¹ Yes, that is a bit of humor at the expense of Erickson and Fox News.

For those readers who want to believe former President Trump is building a political movement, it worth examining his associates, including those he endorses. For example, Politico has showcased one of his latest and most full-throated endorsements, that of former aide and a candidate for the House, Max Miller:

Miller, 32, is the poster child of Trump’s post-impeachment retribution tour. In his mounting efforts to punish Republican apostates in next year’s midterms and to bolster his political sway for a potential run of his own in 2024, Trump has endorsed an array of supportive candidates in House, Senate and state-level races—but there’s nobody on the list like Miller. He’s not merely a loyalist—he’s a loyalist who worked on both Trump campaigns as well as in the White House and used proximity to the president to foster by all accounts an actual affinity and rapport. He’s not just one of Trump’s “Complete and Total” House endorsements—he was the first. And he’s pitted against one of the impeachment voters who galls Trump the most—in a state he won twice. While the statement that accompanied Trump’s late February endorsement called Miller “a wonderful person,” this rally on a sweltering summer Saturday marked a yet more full-throated and visual showing of his backing.

“An incredible patriot,” Trump said, “who I know very well.”

Maybe not well enough, according to police records, court records and interviews with more than 60 people. Ranging from people who grew up with Miller in the affluent Cleveland inner suburb of Shaker Heights to those he worked with and for in the White House and on Trump’s campaigns—some of whom were granted anonymity because they fear retaliation from Miller, Trump or both—these people told me Miller can be a cocky bully with a quick-trigger temper. He has a record of speeding, underage drinking and disorderly conduct—documented charges from multiple jurisdictions that include a previously unreported charge in 2011 for driving under the influence that he subsequently pleaded down to a more minor offense.

Not all of Trump’s endorsements are of dubious personalities, but it’s worth noting his associations with Paul Manafort, Roger “ratfucker” Stone, Ray Cohn, and many others who have had charges brought against them, convictions, and pardons.

And even when the endorsee appears to be clean, they may be vulnerable in other ways. Susan Wright, recently running to replace her late husband Ron Wright in a special election, had little exposure to the electorate, and while she was initially the favorite, polls eventually showed her behind. Trump endorsed her and bought advertising in the sum of $100,000 for her at the end.

The point is that she was vulnerable, and if she wins, Trump would claimed the credit and then expect her to be loyal – or else. Similarly, Trump associates with those with a dubious pasts. Not that reformation or redemption is impossible for them, but the fact that he is drawn to them as a group suggests not that he’s redeeming them, but that he’s building a group that isn’t a movement so much as collection of dependents. He knows the accusations and convictions against them, and these constitute a fulcrum with which he can leverage support.

Such an approach doesn’t lead to an ideologically coherent political movement; it’s reminiscent of a mob boss and his fellow criminals.

So for those looking forward to a renaissance in American politics deriving from Trump, forget it. This is all about ego, enrichment and building power.

And Wright lost her special election, and by quite a bit, to fellow Republican Jake Elzey. So much for the power of the Trump endorsement. Long time readers may remember other Trump endorsees who’ve lost. There’s no magic touch in Trump; indeed, it may be a noir moment for a candidate to receive a Trump endorsement.

Which makes Steve Benen’s comment today interesting:

* In Pennsylvania’s open U.S. Senate race, most Republicans are desperate to curry favor with Donald Trump, but political consultant Craig Snyder (R) kicked off his candidacy this week, running as an anti-Trump Republican. Snyder, among other things, created a political action committee in 2016 to support Hillary Clinton.

Will the currying continue? What happens if this Snyder wins the Republican nomination?

Perhaps she dissembles, or is avoiding some sexual predator, but here’s former President Trump’s lawyer Jenna Ellis:

Jenna Ellis said she’s done with the GOP because its members aren’t backing ex-President Donald Trump enough.

Trump’s former senior legal adviser announced she was leaving the Republican Party during a lengthy monologue on her Real America’s Voice show “Just The Truth” on Monday.

“The truth matters,” began Ellis, who as a member of the Trump legal team pushed the former president’s lies in trying to overturn the 2020 election.

Ellis, who once described Trump as an “idiot,” said Republicans had back-stabbed Trump. She also accused the Republican National Committee of “not championing the issues” that make America great.

“All of them, including Ronna McDaniel, should resign now,” declared Ellis, referring to the RNC chair. [HuffPost]

Dangle power in front of them and watch their ethics dissolve, I guess.

News that El Salvador is adopting Bitcoin as a national currency may have reached your ears. But this made me laugh:

The law passed by El Salvador’s legislative assembly makes no mention of mining. But during a live conversation on Twitter Spaces on Tuesday night, Bukele announced an idea that had suddenly occurred to him: El Salvador’s volcanoes could be used as a renewable source of geothermal energy.

“Every day is going to be a new idea,” Bukele told the audience of over 25,000, according to Coindesk. The following day, he announced on Twitter that he had directed the country’s state-owned geothermal electricity company to develop a plan that would allow bitcoin miners to tap into “very cheap, 100% clean, 100% renewable, 0 emissions energy from our volcanoes.”

Hours later, Bukele said that engineers had already dug a new well that would become the center of a new bitcoin mining hub, and shared a video of the steam pouring out. [WaPo]

As El Salvadoran wealth transfers from American dollars, the other national currency, into bitcoin, I’d view that as being at increasing risk. If things go south, will Bukele survive? People hate it when their wealth disappears after trusting the word of their leader.

And, weirdly, this all reminds me of the Internet bubble of 2000. Things became downright bizarre just before the big meltdown. Just a word to those who remember.

Long time readers know I view the Russian invasion of the Crimea, followed by the increased output of oil by the United States, and the interference in the 2016 and 2020 elections, as a series of maneuvers in an undeclared war between Putin’s Russia and the United States.

So astute readers will no doubt being asking Why was there little to be seen in the 2016 – 2020 period, beyond American warnings of attempts to interfere in the 2020 election?

Because in Donald J. Trump, President Putin had a patsy with whom it was better to treat politely as Trump labored to keep Putin, widely rumored to have a hold on Trump, happy. Certainly, top secret information flowed from Trump to Putin, and it started virtually from Day One. How else did Putin benefit?

Ask a Russian expert, not me. I can pick out the obvious stuff, such as top secret information and the opportunity to sell Russian arms to former American ally Turkey. But what else could there be? Back to the real story:

But Trump only lasted a single term, and, regardless of his ceaseless whining, he’s not returning. It only makes sense, therefore, for Putin to get in the next counterstroke while President Biden and his people work to unwind the foolishness we saw from Trump and his people.

And what is the counterstroke?

Ransomware. CNN/Politics provides a terse summary of recent events in an alarmingly titled article, “Ransomware attacks saddle Biden with grave national security crisis“:

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said during a congressional hearing on Monday that Biden would make clear when he saw the Russian leader that “states cannot be in the business of harboring those who are engaged in these kinds of attacks.”

His comment came after Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm Sunday warned that “very malign actors” had the US in their sights after attacks on a pipeline, government agencies, a Florida water system, schools, health care institutions and, even last week, the meat industry and a ferry service to millionaire’s playground Martha’s Vineyard.

“Even as we speak, there are thousands of attacks on all aspects of the energy sector and the private sector generally … it’s happening all the time,” Granholm told Jake Tapper on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Alarmingly, the former Michigan governor said that foreign hackers have the capability to shut down the US power network, and counseled firms against paying ransoms demanded by hackers.

Fortunately, it appears that at least some American officials recognize this as a war:

Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, warned that the US was now reaping the consequences for failing to respond sufficiently boldly to past attacks by China, Russia and North Korea.

“We have been a cheap date. And you can’t defend yourself simply by bobbing and weaving and patching. The adversary has to understand they will pay a price, there will be a cost for attacking the United States or for attacking our critical infrastructure,” King said, also on “State of the Union.”

And others, sad to say, don’t:

Unlike after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon in 2001, the new threat is exposing fractured US political unity. Republicans were quick to seize on the aftermath of the recent hack on the Colonial Pipeline that sparked gas shortages, panic buying and long lines at the pumps last month to suggest Biden was weak and had lost control. Ex-President Donald Trump, who is seeking a political comeback, claimed Saturday that cyberattacks showed lost respect for US leaders since he left office.

Such political opportunism raises doubts over whether Biden would be able to unite Washington around him, if he needed to muster a counter-attack from a major breach of US cyber defenses by a hostile foreign power.

Trump was “strong” enough to deter attacks? Highly doubtful. The people he nominated for important positions were amateurs, at best, who often were opposed to the purposes of the agencies they headed. The last Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe (R-TX), had no experience in the area, and was rejected once by the Senate for a history of mendacity on the subject. One can only imagine then-President Trump putting the squeeze on then-Majority Leader Senator Mitch “Moscow” McConnell (R-KY) to get his patsy approved on the second try.

No, Putin’s move with ransomware is designed to give the Republicans, who’ve forgotten where their loyalties, not to mention their best interests, lay, the opportunity to attack President Biden, trying to make him look bad.

Nevermind that when Trump was faced with a challenge, he retreated into magical thinking and endless lying.

It’ll be interesting to see if President Biden, and his Press Secretary Jenn Psaki, are up to the challenge of portraying this for what it is: the latest move in an undeclared war between autocratic Russia and democratic America.

Do the Republicans have any idea which side they should be on?

PS Don’t put too much faith in this report. Post-event recovery is not much of a discouragement.

A bit of guilty schadenfreude on my part, I fear:

When another boat began circling their vessel in a lake on Memorial Day weekend, a group from Washington assumed they were trying to signal support for their gay pride flags.

But then someone on the other boat flipped a middle finger and yelled something about “gays” and “flags,” a passenger on the boat said. So the group started recording in case the situation escalated.

It did — but not how they might have expected.

Moments later, the other boat burst into flames, forcing its passengers to jump into the lake — and leaving the victims to become rescuers as they filmed a moment that turned into a viral video this week. [WaPo]

Sadly, I fear the Divine’s attempt at a teachable moment was a flop:

“The passengers were quite rude, shouting over us, ignoring my [inquiries] about their well being when on the 911 call and smoking a Vape pen on our boat without even so much as asking if they could; several passengers of our boat have asthma,” Robbie told The Post.

Eventually, police arrived to extinguish the flames. The rescued boaters left to jump on a friend’s vessel without saying thank you, Robbie said.

Haters with no class, I fear.