In The News: Ryan Murphy’s Writing This One (We’ve got Feuds, Crimes, and Horrors)

A Tiger and A Baby Squabbling in an On-Fire Garbage Can

On February 13th, President Donald Trump called Mitch McConnell a “very bitter guy”, said he was mentally unequipped to be a leader, and that McConnell “never had it.” This word vomit came when Trump was asked by a member of the press about McConnell’s vote against RFK Jr. for the position of Health and Human Services Secretary, a position for which RFK Jr. is wholly unqualified. Trump insisted on attributing the vote against the appointment from McConnell as a personal attack- according to him, McConnell wasn’t voting against RFK, he just wants Trump to lose. He also dismissed the possibility that McConnell could be motivated to vote on this particular cabinet position by his childhood experience with polio, stating he’s not even sure that happened. 

What I love about this moment is that, on the face of it, doing everything in his power to ensure a President fails is not without precedent in the McConnell playbook, and there is a known frosty history between the former Senate Majority Leader and the newly reelected President from the impeachment trials. The likelihood that he has turned the ire he concentrated so mercilessly on President Obama onto a member of his own party is unlikely, which means we are left with a pathetic picture. Two addled men, who are supposed to be on the same side and have productive discussions on the most advantageous direction for the country over the course of the next four years, are squabbling in a manner that is barely a half-step above Blair Waldorf’s childish Gossip Girl Schemes. This is the kind of struggle Trump attracts, because he is an infantile man. I don’t want there to be any mistaking my meaning- I do not believe all Republicans are childish or evil or stupid. Trump has a unique ability to bring out the very worst of people, and some of those people might not have been great to begin with. When McConnell’s unpatriotic tendencies to tank a presidency come up against Trump’s ego (the only measuring stick in play when deciding if a policy/party member/politician/non-profit/judge/foreign leader, etc. is good or bad), the only loser is the American people. Also, you know, vaccines and common sense. Those are just casualties of the next competition to determine who is more petty and weird. 

Lawsuit Jenga

In between all the headlines of the alarming things the Trump administration is doing in its first month, we get word of someone suing the Trump administration. Many of these lawsuits and restraining orders are targeting the executive orders ordering that federal workers be fired from their jobs. This week, The New York Times reported that a Federal Judge from the Washington District Court had paused a case brought against the administration by inspectors general who had been fired. According to the piece in the Times, The judge paused the case because of procedural errors, not because she does not intend to try the case. I admit to feeling the effects of burnout already, and we’re barely a month and a half into the year, but this case, out of many, stuck out to me (AP News has a full overview of all lawsuits against the administration and the executive orders if you are interested).

These inspectors oversaw many key departments, including Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, State, and the Small Business Administration. I believe Veterans Affairs oversight was also involved. The full caseload being brought to various districts against the Trump White House is climbing daily, but this group is suing to be reinstated and return to work immediately. Their arguments in favor of immediacy have been significantly weakened by the Judge, a Biden appointee, pausing the case until the t’s have been crossed and i’s have been dotted. These workers are not the only federal employees to lose their jobs suddenly, but the departments they oversee are particularly in immediate need of competent, experienced oversight. I’m not surprised that this president feels that a group of people intended to provide oversight and accountability are unnecessary to the political process, but they are vital especially when the departments are headed by alcoholic Fox News hosts and full time residents of the Q Anon Rabbit Hole. While I understand that the legal process has rules and procedures for a reason, I hope that those trying to keep the guardrails in place will face less hindrance for the sake of procedure. Procedure has not been an effective defense for the American People against Donald Trump, and while it is as valuable as our storied institutions, it is time to take a thorough look at which aspects of the rulebook do more harm than good when the chips are down. 

A Plague Of Fascism

JD Vance spent Valentines Day making googly eyes at Germany’s far-right anti-immigrant AFD party, joining the party leaders in denouncing the use of “firewalls”. This is a political term that is popular in countries where there are mainstream and fringe parties, and the mainstream parties or majority of parties will not work with one party in particular. In Germany, the AFD party is facing a firewall. In America, the MAGA party got a Welcome Back sign and capitulation to power. Go figure. 

While the AFD is shut out of party politics, they are in second place among voters, with 20%, heading into their election on the 23rd of February. France is facing a rise in far-right views as well. As this recent election cycle was bad news for incumbents, this kind of vocal support between countries for far-right extremism increases the likelihood that fascist subcultures and fringe movements will continue to embolden themselves and gain a foothold among voters as dissatisfaction grows. However, the guardrails seem to be stronger in Germany than in the US. 

In his support of the party based in racism and fascism, JD Vance called the rejection of such values, and rejection of misinformation and disinformation, “Soviet-era,” saying that freedom of speech is dying across the globe. Top German officials rejected this out of hand, pointing out how stupid JD Vance sounds when he compares protecting democracy to authoritarian regimes. What a world it would be, if that was America’s response to the three clowns (one of whom we didn’t even elect!) holding court in the Oval Office, eating McDonalds and practicing their favorite hobby- firing people and diddling legal loopholes. It is possible to do so, I guess is my point. It’s possible to say no. We just didn’t take that option. Republicans didn’t take that option.

Capitulation, Collusion, and Real Estate Ventures

Birds Of A Feather: Trump Expected to Pardon Blagojevich

Up next on Trump’s pardon list is Robert Blagojevich. He already commuted the former governor’s sentence in his first term, and is now ready to issue a full pardon. This is not surprising, given that immunity for Republicans, and only Republicans, from charges for government corruption seems to be the only item on the agenda for President Trump. It was not enough to secure a packed Supreme Court- he must erase all wrongdoings against which his actions could be held from the record books.

It also must be said that the charges against Blagojevich in particular must feel all too familiar to Trump. He was convicted for attempting to sell Obama’s vacant senate seat, and for shaking down a children’s hospital. Injecting money where it doesn’t belong in American politics and unethical behavior when it comes to caring for the sick are directly out of the Trump family playbook. Then there’s the time that Trump literally funneled donations for children with cancer into his other endeavors, mostly his golf courses. This move continues the trend of Trump’s second term pardons (including 1,500 January 6th participants and 14 proud boys), all of which go to show that his second term is one giant parade proving that Donald Trump can do whatever he wants forever, and stay out of jail.

I believe we can use who Trump pardons as a guidebook for what else he will try to do- if the Proud Boys are scot-free, then racism, antisemitism, and hate will continue as a through-line of his second term. With Blagojevich pardoned, more money where it doesn’t belong in our fair and free (so far!) elections are coming soon to a theater near you. None of this is news; this man has shown us who he is time and time again, but I will be checking the trends in pardons and executive orders. I suspect he isn’t just going down a list of people Democrats don’t like. 

Turn Right- It Will Set You Free

This afternoon, AP News reported a memo from the Justice Department, ordering that the charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams be dropped. It seems unprecedented in Trump World- letting a Democrat Mayor (who also happens to be a Black man) of a liberal city off the hook for political corruption and mismanagement of funds and abuse of power is off-brand for Trump.

When the story initially broke I was concerned that the story would be political fodder for pinning political corruption on Democrats as an impetus for his radical changes and abuses of the system. However, it appears that Adams has, since being charged, the mayor has been inching to the right on an issue that is a pillar rather than a plank of the MAGA platform- immigration. Trump has claimed that Adams was treated unfairly, hinted at pardoning him, and said that the charges were not for any wrongdoing on Adams’s part, but because he was critical of Biden’s immigration policy. Adams says he is willing to dismantle New York’s sanctuary city status, and to assist Trump in his mass deportation efforts.

This is the only possible way, I believe, Trump would defend a Democrat or a man of color from criminal charges. Nevermind that the charges came before Adams made any comments on Biden’s presidency or immigration policy. Facts don’t matter! What does matter, however, is that letting Adams off the hook to accomplish his own deportation agenda seems to be the very most Trump is willing to do. Apparently the order from the DOJ left open the possibility that once he has done what he needs to do to help the Trump administration, Adams could be subject to the charges being refiled. This development proves the capitulation to Trump’s craziness could come from anywhere, and that unless they prove otherwise, people from both parties are for sale, at any price. Anyone here believe the art of the deal isn’t willing to buy, if it makes him look good? Yeah, me neither. 

Real Estate For The Future, Disregarding A Treacherous Past

I need Ron Howard to narrate and Jason Bateman to try to get everyone in line when I read how this story unfolds. A clearer case of arrested development is hard to find, than in the man currently enjoying his Look At Me World Tour, which so far includes forbidding Palestinians from returning to the Gaza Strip and attending the Super Bowl. To be entirely clear, he has not done anything yet, but the collusion of dictatorial personalities going on between Trump and Netanyahu does not bode well for the region.

Trump has said that he plans “ownership of the region”, and contradicted officials who have scrambled to walk back his comments. While Trump is most likely drawing up blue-prints for a casino in the shape of his face, many have tried to say that he only meant the current occupants would need to temporarily relocate. As of today, he has doubled down, stating plainly that current occupants would have no right to return. While claims of antisemitism and hatred of Palestinians plague the country he is elected to lead, Trump makes it clear that the only thing he cares about is himself. Rest assured, he does not care about the Zionist Jewish concerns in Gaza, and he does not care for the Palestinian people whatsoever. He wants to be viewed as the man who solved the conflict, and got a monument to his own amazingness put up in the process.

I am betting that if the plans for the development and Trump’s ownership of the Gaza strip goes through, he will tell Fox News that it was all Israel’s idea, and they love him so much. Meanwhile synagogues in America will burn, and Trump will say “There are fantastic people on both sides.” The tragedy on the domestic side is that far too many American voters will believe every word, and people that live the day to day experiences of the conflict will be left trying to convince people that denouncing genocide and terrorism is not an inherently anti-Palestinian or anti-semitic belief. I’m ready to keep shouting into the void. 

I’m Just Mad As Hell Because I Loved This Place

It is Inauguration Day in America, and I love this country. I have loved it since my childhood was spent watching the news and discussing campaigns. I cannot tear myself away from this country; even the fiction and entertainment I consume seems to be a monument to the American political system, how it has served us, when it has failed, and the numerous safeguards in place to keep the lights on. Since I last checked in, there have been funerals for President Jimmy Carter, confirmation hearings for Hegseth (and Bondi, I believe), and more pardons that I have mixed feelings about. We will unpack it all this week, and I’ll be back on my media monitoring today as well, but for now it is Inauguration day, and I feel simultaneously lighter than I have in so long, and at a loss for the kind of words I normally have. I like to come in like a friendly neighborhood blogger, and explain and analyze it all so you don’t have to, and then wrap it up with a pretty picture and a nice little bow. 

Today, I don’t have any interest in looking back and pointing fingers. There will also be time for that later, but today we have to look forward. Our mandate in the next four years is as follows, in several parts. 

We must do our best to come to a place where extremism and lack of education are disqualifying factors to sit in that esteemed office. We do this by learning from and talking openly with those who disagree with us, and by a bipartisan push to restructure the priorities within. The Republicans must take a step back from allowing the most divisive and outlandish among them for presidential primaries, and Democrats must jump into the fray with issues that impact more than 1-2 percent of the population. Shocking as it may seem, the answer to one party wishing to maintain an obscene wealth concentration and corruption within the political system is not to prioritize trans athletes. Both parties are currently catering to populations too small to reflect the problems of average Americans. As average Americans, the rest of us must come together to stand up for ourselves.

Our second mandate can help take care of the first. For two years at least, we must all turn off our televisions and radios and open a book, or a piece of written news media. Education is the enemy of extremism and anger, and can champion the kinds of conversations we need to be having. The whole country isn’t California, or Georgia, or wherever the most outlandish ideals of an American liberal or conservative come from. We have more in common than we are currently equipped to imagine right now. When we educate ourselves on this country, we can share our awareness that for most of us, we have all lived our whole lives in unprecedented times. We had never had a president as investigated and then exposed like Clinton, never had a President so thoroughly unqualified as W. Bush, never thought we’d see a President as well-spoken and frankly, cool, as Obama, setting aside for a moment that he’s a Black man. Our parents and grandparents couldn’t imagine Hilary or Kamala running, and they certainly could not have imagined Donald Trump coming into office, then losing, then leading an insurrection effort, then being re-elected after the Democrats gave us the only one with name recognition as a one term president. In the political history of the United States, my whole life has been full of bizarre aberrations from the norm we as a country could have come to expect. I have that in common with many of you, and I believe it is a jumping off point for understanding. Learn how the executive branch is supposed to work, the details of the jobs that Trump’s people will be doing on a daily basis in the unlikely event that they are confirmed. Learn about what a chief of staff, communications director, staff assistant, press secretary, special counsel, and so many more are supposed to do in service of our government. Compare it to the lifelong republicans who have testified to the fact that people like Trump cannot work within that structure, and re-examine what you want from your party. The Democrats must do the same, but I cannot and will not pretend that the Democrats have ever put forth a candidate that is this crazy. 

On that note, I also believe we have a mandate to conduct ourselves in a way that is becoming of our morals. We have a right to peaceful protest in this country, and we should absolutely make use of that right, but statistics show that people that show up to protest don’t always show up to vote. If you didn’t vote, then don’t go to a march. If you saw what happened on January 6th and were disgusted, examine how much disruption and danger to others and to government spaces your protest efforts will create, and be critical of doublethink within yourselves. Would you roll your eyes if the other side did what you are doing? Would you want someone to do to your front yard what you’re about to do in someone else’s? Do you want someone to have the right to go after you for your actions the way you want to go after them? These are all important questions to ask before you do something in the name of a political movement. And if I may add one more- how educated are you on the history of what you are protesting? Would opening a book be a more significant act of service to your cause and your country than making a neon sign? In order to bring our country to commonality and understanding, these are critical questions to ask ourselves.

I believe we have a fourth mandate, to ourselves. We should all find some creative pursuit or passion. Not only is this a chance for togetherness and commonality, it is a surefire way to hold on to hope and make life work for you on your terms. It does not change the nature of the 24 hour news cycle, and the never ending storm of crazy that will be coming from the adjudicated rapist that currently sits in the White House, but it is a process of empowerment and it will contribute to you finding and using your voice. We are no good to our country if, in four years, we are all in stress comas and cannot comprehend getting to a voting booth. The only way to win any fight is to simply be here. Decisions, as they say, are made by those who show up. So just find something that motivates you to show up. Diversify your interests and commit to learning and trying something new. 

I’ll be posting my craft pursuits, and I hope you will all join me. This is the time where American heroes are the ones who dare to do something they believe in, something untried, something courageous. I believe that courage in this day and age takes the form of volunteerism, quiet reflection, and abandoning the small window through which we have looked out at the big wide world. There are interests at play that many of us don’t think of on a daily basis, but we would do well to do so. In the meantime, I’ll be here, writing as often as possible, spending time with the mascot, sewing pretty things, cooking delicious food, and above all, looking out for the interests of my clients. It’s what makes my heart sing. Let’s be honest, something has to.

80 Years Later

I pride myself on being among the last of my circle to compare Donald Trump and the cult of personality surrounding his presidencies to the third reich.  Today, I am reminded of why. On this day 80 years ago, the surviving prisoners of the Holocaust were released from the Auschwitz and Auschwitz-Birkenau camps in Poland. Approximately 1.1 million people were killed throughout the 5 years the camp was operational, and on the anniversary of the end to such radical slaughter, I am reminded that people still don’t understand the gravity of what happened, or they do not care. 

Elon Musk performed the Sieg Heil salute on inauguration day, and many defended him. So many people defended him. The people who defended him were the same ones who said that liberals and democrats were antisemites, who would overuse the comparison to the Third Reich in order to score some cheap points, and did not understand the severity of the history and what happened to people at the hands of the Nazi party. 

Donald Trump said that he needed the kind of generals Hitler had, in a private conversation with his former generals that has since been leaked to the Atlantic, which was written off by his supporters as an outrageous lie, but I cannot think of any other reason why serious men who entered into the armed forces to serve this country would be driven to say that about a former president unless it was true. You get to a point with things like this where you can only say someone else is crazy or someone else is the problem so many times before the common denominator shows itself. But that’s not what happened in Nazi Germany, and it is not what is happening in America right now. 

I believed for years that the comparisons between our current leadership in America and the regime of Nazi Germany were too quick to be made. At first, the comparisons were inaccurate. America is full of safeguards to keep something like that from happening, and everyone who expresses a racist thought or racial prejudice is not guilty of being a Nazi. They just aren’t. I’d argue that it takes a lot more than wildly disorganized rhetoric and a comparatively small fraction of people storming the Capitol to create an environment bearing even passing resemblance to what began in Poland 85 years ago. If it seems as though I am minimizing, I do not mean to. Strange as it may seem given that hyperbole is my favorite form of humor, I am exhausted by the exaggerations employed by my fellow Americans who do not like or agree with the new Republican Party, and that those exaggerations almost always come back to the slaughter and imprisonment that took place at Auschwitz. I believe when it comes to matters of tyranny, we all have a responsibility to use the tools at our disposal, and language is our most formidable weapon. Words should be used deliberately, and actually, when you compare the MAGA republicans to the Nazi Party, you are not only minimizing the Holocaust. I believe such language also minimizes the MAGA republicans, and their role in American Politics.

 People still made the comparisons though, and now that they are real concerns, based on real actions, no one is listening anymore, but they should. We should all care as viscerally about this as we do about other historical conflicts that rear their ugly heads once every few decades, because here it is. The instinct to rule over our fellow man and cast out and punish those who are unknown to us is cyclical, and it is among us now. With that kind of leadership comes those who will not support those tendencies to punish people for being different, but they will vote for the other things the punishing person or party wants to do. They don’t support the divisiveness, but it is not a dealbreaker for them either. I know many people feel sadness and grief over the direction the republican party has taken. I am one of them. I can imagine that there were many people in Germany who felt sadness, shame, and loss over what their homeland became during the second world war. 

And still, America is not Nazi Germany. There are alarm bells being rung, I won’t deny that, but there are so many options we have as citizens (are we still citizens? I gotta check) and so much history we can learn from. As I write this, there are 56 survivors of the Auschwitz camp gathering together today to meet with world leaders and royalty, to discuss the rise of that hatred and distrust that made the holocaust they endured possible in the first place. According to them, that unrest is happening again, and not just in America. The silent hatred, they call it, that opens the door for antisemitism, racism, and homophobia to cause massive destruction to people worldwide, is spreading around the globe. 

Here, today, it does not feel so silent, but that is one of the things that I treasure about America, even on the days when being here is hard. We can loudly declare our feelings, our political ideologies, our beliefs. We are guaranteed the right, and we are assured of the privilege of hearing the way our leaders and representatives feel about the most vulnerable of us. Just as it is their right to speak their mind, we also benefit infinitely from listening when they speak. If we want to truly honor this day, and that small but mighty group of survivors, listening must become a priority. We have to start getting our  information from every news source, not just from our favorites, and not from places that might not be in the business of reporting the actual news. We owe it to ourselves and to the people who came before us to learn from past failures, and we cannot do that unless we acknowledge that the failures occurred. I’ll go first.

85 years ago, my ancestors were put in camps, and gas chambers, and hunted down by an oppressive regime that incentivised their neighbors and friends to turn on them and inform the government of their whereabouts and activities. This happened because people were complicit participants, even if they did not truly believe in the actions being taken by the Third Reich. Campaigns of propaganda and hatred made that regime possible, and then powerful. My country that has been my home my whole life got involved too late, and antisemitism was prevalent here throughout the conflict. On inauguration day, Elon Musk did the Sieg Heil salute twice, and people all over the country, Gentile and Jewish alike, defended him staunchly. Prior to election day, the opposition party who was in the White House for four years was not successful at combating misinformation and campaigns of hatred, and were ineffectual in putting an end to the power people like Elon Musk have over public opinion. I am not sure how they will recover from that inability to act. 

Those, as I see them, are our failures. There have been many more, and many more will come, but today I am thinking of those in particular. I am wishing for better for all of us, and I wish peace and light to those who survived that unspeakable horror. I hope that they have an enlightened and inspired gathering today, and that the memories of those they lost to tyranny will be a blessing on their meeting. 

Happy Birthday, Weirdest Day Ever

Today is the fourth anniversary of the January 6th assault on the Capitol. I have written extensively on this subject and yet, there is so much more to say. When the events of that really bad day unfolded, they were the results of a man throwing a fit because he lost a free and fair election, and he drummed up violent support from his followers. He stoked the flames of discord and unrest, and during the day in question, he encouraged his own supporters to hang his own Vice President. Following that day came acts of courage and honesty, from those closest to the Trump White House, and from the other members of the Republican party. Some chose to stand firm by their actions that contributed to the uprising, and some chose to clam up and say nothing at all. 

Despite the best efforts of those who came forward, the Senate vote to convict him of inciting an insurrection and other charges related to the day did not meet the two-thirds majority requirement to do such a thing, but the majority did vote in favor of conviction. Trump was acquitted, and is heading back to the White House in a few short weeks. Given the acquittal, and his re-election, why is Trump’s role on that day still examined so thoroughly?

Well, for one thing, the well is already being poisoned again, and Trump’s not even in the building. Steve Bannon, in a speech  last month, said “Trump 2028”, on the basis that Trump’s two terms are not consecutive. While that has absolutely no legal basis in fact, and the claim has been denounced in various news outlets, it should be noted that Trump’s claims that the only way he would lose the election is if the results were falsified was also baseless. That statement became the pillar of belief for those who stormed the Capitol in 2021. When people closest to him say these things, Trump is unique in his propensity to believe it wholeheartedly if it suits him, and to repeat falsehoods  told to him by these supposed experts. Bannon is setting the country up to fail again, and Trump will most likely buy into the charade completely. 

Make no mistake, that is what happened that day. The country failed. Over my prolonged break, I have been having conversations with people about both parties, and a conclusion I came to is that this is yet another area where the difference between the Democrat and Republican parties is most starkly displayed. The Democrats run people who could not possibly win an election that does not strictly take place in New York and California, and the Republicans run their craziest, most idiotic candidates time and time again because their voter base is becoming susceptible to any candidate that promises themselves to be an anti-establishment agent of change. 

This is bad, not just for the parties, but for the country. Not to jump too hard on a point, but there are a million ways the DNC could handle one party being responsible for an event like January 6th, and they didn’t choose any  of the ones I would have gone with. The search should have been on immediately for a strong candidate that fit the American vision of a president, who could denounce the actions of hose responsible, offer support for friends on both sides of the aisle who stepped up, and offer the American people no choice but to sit down and take in the facts of the case, and the state of the Country. The RNC should have done the same, and dropped Donald Trump like a hot potato. Had this been the response from both parties to the clearest sign we’ve ever seen of the unrest in this country, we might be in a much different place now, heading towards inauguration. We might even hold a place of higher esteem on the global stage, which would be good news for us. Sadly, that is not how the day, and the years following, transpired. 

Donald Trump appears to be uniquely immune to the pulls and sways of public opinion that might have made any other man completely ineligible for the Oval Office, and this began before he refused to concede a free and fair election. His actions on that day proved that he has no love for America. When you love something, you don’t threaten it, and when you love the people you proudly serve as their elected leader, you don’t incite violence against them for participating in the one thing that is endemic to our name, to our flag, to our nature; voting and elections. There I go, participating in the fetishization of the act of punching a ballot, which is something I normally can’t stand, but occasionally it is worth stepping back and looking at the awesome power we have as citizens, and how that power has been wasted on a man who doesn’t deserve to walk the halls our greatest presidents have walked. 

President Jimmy Carter was ineffectual at times, and could be considered proof that the best men don’t make good presidents, but I do not accept Donald Trump and his violent temper tantrums as an alternative to a man who was just too kind to do the job. Both parties can and must search for a middle ground, and both parties must not forget the extraordinary acts of courage from Republicans in the months after January 6th. Most importantly, they must not forget that pretty much everyone that served the special committee kept their seats. Trump’s hold on certain branches of the Republican party, and voter base, was too strong for those who stood against him to stay in office. 

That is not likely to change; Lara Trump, the President-Elect’s daughter in law, is now the co-chair of the RNC, and the DNC remains determined to cough up the ball the second they gain an inch of ground. The overwhelming feeling I am left with, four years after the culmination of President Trump’s poisonous rhetoric, is that the only way out is through. It has been said that America’s darkest times are followed by her finest hours, and that our better angels win in the end. Our Better Angels is actually the title of a John Meacham book detailing this exact sentiment, with historic evidence to back up the idea that we can be more, and we will be again. I’ll be keeping that book by my bedside for the next four years, and I invite all of you to do the same. 

I will also be encouraging my friends from all over the political spectrum to ask questions, and to engage with news sources that do informative reporting, such as A.P. Their primer on what happens next after Biden stepped down was excellent and I learned a lot, and I went to school for this crap. Information is the only way to combat the level of divisiveness and nitpicking we are entrenched in now. I sure hope we can do better in 4 years, and by then, the January 6th storm on the capital will be almost 8 years old, but not forgotten. Happy Birthday to you, Weirdest Day Ever. I hope we never see the likes of you again.

The Pardon Heard Round The World

On Monday, just before this humble blogger set out on the road for home, President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden. Historians say that a pardon has not been so sweeping since the blanket pardon Gerald Ford granted Nixon, according to a well-thought Politico piece I will link below. The move sparked a lot of fury, understandably, especially considering the following factors.

Much of the criticism of corruption and incompetence regarding the way in which Trump manages (or fails to) the executive branch comes from the public picture and political reality of employing close relatives for a President’s White House staff. It is commonly acknowledged among high ranking members of both parties, and confirmed by staffers during the January 6th special committee hearings, that the structure of Trump’s White House was very flat, and full of people unqualified to be in the position they held. People understandably attribute this in part to the fact that Donald Trump favors his family. The Democrat party has been singing that tune since Donald Trump’s first campaign, and this move from President Biden seems hypocritical at best.

The other factor that fuels the angry response to the pardon is that President Biden said emphatically, publicly, that he would not do such a thing. He has gone back on his word, and pardoned his son, not just for the crimes he faces charges for, but any crimes he may have committed in the past decade, if I am reading the articles right. Naturally, people are upset, and this reneging on the promise he made to the American people, that “no one is above the law,” is seen as the straw that broke the camel’s back. This is a problem because President Joe Biden achieved quite a lot in one term, and had what should be, on paper, one of the most successful terms from a one-term president that we’ve seen by any technical measure. The downfall is in his disastrous last 7-ish months. He failed to step down in time to give Harris the chance to campaign properly or at least have a second debate, and after his own catastrophic debate performance he sent prominent democrats out to talk shows to say that he is fit to lead for another term. Then, when Harris campaigned, she had no room to run and was dragged down by Biden’s “Garbage” comments. In other words, anything Biden may have done throughout his term will most likely not be reflected in his legacy, at least in the short term. However, I actually think that the pardoning of Hunter Biden is a positive in the long run, if Democrats can take advantage.

I believe that it’s okay, given the loss of legacy President Biden is already experiencing, the personal loss that he has suffered throughout his life, and the bleak future that the Democratic party faces in the coming years. President Biden’s political life is over. His time is short, given his rapid decline. He has lost two children and a wife, and if he wants to spend his remaining years with his children and grandchildren, then so be it. That part doesn’t really matter to me as much as what can be done with this information going forward. By pardoning Hunter, President Joe Biden has provided an avenue for any serious Democrat to define themselves as a potential leader of upright moral character, and anyone who wants to get in the race in 2028 can act now. Denouncing President Biden’s actions, reminding people that no one is above the law, and declaring the pardon disgraceful would be the perfect segue for a Democrat to step into the forefront of the race for our next President. It may seem early, but I have said in other posts that I firmly believe the lack of early start on selection and testing of potential candidates was one of the most significant failures of the DNC following the election of President Biden. If they didn’t want him to run again, he should not have been alone in the room when primary season was ramping up.

In order to give voters a primary election and their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of choice, an early start is what is needed. This is especially true for the Democrats now. Harris is a two-time loser, who does not make a good candidate for the top spot. Democrats are already begging her not to run again, if the unnamed sources are to be believed. The Democrats need to, in many ways, start over. If they can get a candidate who will stand up to the level of scrutiny that a Democrat presidential candidate must withstand now, it would be extremely beneficial to both party and country if the candidate pool also included Democrats who denounced President Biden’s pardoning of his son.

We should also be seeing candidates who are able to run the campaign Harris should have run, and that includes publicly declaring all the ways in which they are different from Joe Biden. Harris said repeatedly that she could think of nothing she would do differently from her predecessor. This was, I believe, her downfall. A comment made by AOC holds this up to be true, and I believe I have discussed it before. Essentially, she said that people in her district voted for both her and Donald Trump, not because they are at all similar politically but because they are both seen as agents of change. The path is now clearer for a new crop of Democrats to make a name for themselves in a similar fashion.

In pardoning Hunter, President Joe Biden has offered Democrats a way to prove that they are very different from him on a proverbial silver platter. I suggest that any Democrat who wants to be taken seriously ahead of the midterm and Presidential elections in 2026 and 2028 should get about the business of distancing themselves, loudly and proudly, from what is being viewed as a wholly corrupt and indecent act. The gifts don’t get any bigger than this. Hopefully the Democrats have learned a lesson and can take action now, and stop letting the pitch go by.

Here is the Politico article I mentioned in the first graph.

Failure To Act: How The DNC Crashed the Car

As we move forward from the shocking events of the early November and rush into that in between place wherein we look to the future but wish to revel in the moments with friends from home and family members we’re still speaking with, it is time for democrats from all circles of political involvement (voters, activists, elected representatives, and everything in between) to turn the watchful eyes of accusatory suspicion inward at what needs to change in the Democrat national party and voter base in the next two to four years.

When Kamala Harris lost, by a shockingly small margin given the incumbent’s approval ratings and her meager 100 days to campaign, many people on the left assumed that the country had declared whole hearted support for Donald Trump and this is just our country now. Respectfully, I disagree. The down ballot numbers, and the lack of MAGA presence in congress, suggest what I had pointed to in my post following the appointment of Thune: People did not want Kamala Harris to be President, but they also didn’t want Donald Trump to fully be Donald Trump. This is a theory that is already holding. Matt Gaetz had to withdraw among insistence that the results of pre-existing ethics reviews and investigations be seen by members of congress, and Pam Bondi, the subsequent nominee, is a marked improvement by several political benchmarks. I would like to note that she still fulfills what appears to be requirement number 1 to be part of the second iteration of the MAGA cabinet- she is a 2020 election denier.

Fully planning to get into all of that later, I will set that aside for now and focus on the issue facing Democrats today. People didn’t really want Donald Trump to be able to have whatever he wants. They counted on the checks and balances that apply limits to any and all occupants of the Oval Office. Arab Americans who voted for Trump are already expressing regret, and others who voted for him are balking at some of his cabinet picks. So why, then, did they not just vote for Kamala Harris? Because the Democrats are fundamentally out of touch with what the voters need to hear from a Presidential candidate. Some of this is on them, some of it is not. The first thing that Democrats must do is reshape their image and the process by which they select candidates.

For those paying attention to print and online news as well as televised news and opinion anchors, we know that Democrat candidates play well in these circles. This intellectual circle doesn’t reflect the reality of the voter base. It reflects the interests of college educated people who are highly interested in politics and systems that keep our government afloat. There are a multitude of voters in this country who fall into the category of “no-college white Americans” who do not see their needs reflected by the voices of the Democrat Party, because they have lost sight on how to connect. They make space for people of color, the LGBTQIA+ community, Indigenous People, and so many others. They have forgotten to make space for the bulk of voters whose support is not guaranteed. Very few members of those groups I just mentioned will abandon a Democrat candidate when push comes to shove.

Those groups have become host to performative rage activism over the smallest of issues, cancelling people left right and center for little to no reason, and threatening action against any candidate, even on the Left, who says something they don’t agree with or choose to interpret as offensive because it fulfills their narrative of phony outrage. However, when it comes to voting day, they will not vote Republican, and most of them tracking the news cycles closely enough to jump on every little comment a candidate makes will see the importance of voting. In short, the Democrat Party has their votes. They can stop bending over backwards for them now, because in trying to appease those outcries, they have pulled back completely from middle America. This is not the fault entirely of Democrats. They have been saddled by false claims from the Republican party about bathroom issues, women’s sports, gender reassignment surgical procedures for minors, etc. that no one on the left has run on or brought up with the dogged repetition seen from the right on these issues. The Democrats have extra work to do, because they now have a mandate to buck off baggage that is not theirs, but buck it off they must.

One of the ways in which the Democrats fail to shake off these issues, and in so doing, fail to connect, is by running candidates that work for the highest educated groups of American voters. While I have always hated the “you can have a beer with him” narrative with a blind passion, the Democrats need to drum up candidates that can go out into the streets and speak normally with groups of average Americans. It’s not the folksy, plainspoken ideal the “beer” dream strives for, but it is an ability to connect with people whose needs are not reflected in the politics of Florida or California. Neither fiercely liberal nor staunchly conservative, just people trying to go about their days, keep their business afloat, and a roof over their heads. Those people desperately want to be heard. We know this because of the ads run in states where Harris didn’t stand a fighting chance, and the ads were successful. “Kamala Harris is for they/them. Donald Trump is for you.” These ads worked, because while Kamala Harris did not run on trans issues, her record in California whispered louder than she could shout. It followed her everywhere, as did her inconsistencies on key issues and her refusal to separate herself from Joe Biden. Which brings me to another failure on the part of the Democratic National Party.

Democrats can stop running solid, by-the-book, good by technical measure campaigns. AOC made a comment since the election that people in her district voted for both her and Donald Trump, because she knows that both her and the President-Elect are viewed by many as agents of change. This, I believe, is a solid analysis. Given the binary choice between two major parties, it is simple to take the easy interpretation and say that a vote for Trump is a vote for hate. While I have little patience for people who made this choice a second time, I believe that AOC is correct- people generally want change, and they do not have all the information at their fingertips that I, and others like me, do. Given that this desire for things to change is now known and widespread, Democrats need to change the way they run candidates and campaigns. Like Tim Miller said, and I agree, if a candidate cannot run, at least in part, their own fully functioning social media presence, they should not be the 2028 candidate, full stop. The memes and overuse of pop culture references can stop now. Young people know that the Presidential candidate is not one of their friends or influencers on TikTok. They are okay with that. The online presence of a successful Democrat candidate will be funny, informative, engaging, and full of calls to action that reflect the concerns they hear from American people they meet on the campaign trail. They will post small businesses they visited in each stop, ideally, and they will engage in conversations with people that are not arranged to simply be photo ops.

The biggest mountain the Democrats need to climb now is packing their primary with good candidates that can appeal to people from all parts of the country, and make sure that these people are so aggressively normal they could give Tim Walz a run for his money. The reason they must do this is because Trump’s behavior, the worst of which Republicans seem very eager to contain and control, is abnormal, erratic, and all based on personal ego. He is just crazy enough to have a passionate following, and just handled enough to be seen as not too big a threat to Democracy. The most interesting thing about Trump, and other Republican Candidates for a few election cycles, is they have semi-successfully ran against Democrats that don’t exist. They invent issues about surgery on minors, women’s sports, and so many other outlandish issues that impact less than 2% of the country, blame the Democrats for it, and offer themselves as a solution. Meanwhile the Democrats run on the economy, the environment, anti-tyranny, and many other issues that are actually problems, without refuting a single one of the Republican candidate’s claims. This has given the Republicans permission to get crazier and crazier, and has painted the Democrats into a weird corner of running a candidate that won’t bother people, with the result that their candidates flipflop their stances, don’t ever dispute fringe claims, and can’t seem to get a foothold. The Democrats will never run the kind of candidates Republicans think they are running against, so now they have to give them a candidate to run against that they will absolutely not be able to stand up against. The next Democrat candidate needs to be able to call out a lie for what it is, stop letting the pitch go by when absurd claims about minority groups are thrown around, and proudly proclaim their thoroughly researched stances on key issues that quickly become deciding factors in elections. I hate to say it, but at this point, given the rhetoric surrounding Trump and his associates and the way they treat women, and the fact that this was not a losing proposition for the American people, the next Democrat Presidential candidate must be a married man with a family.

People have pointed out, some in dismay, some in victory, that Trump’s proposed cabinet is revenge for the Me Too movement. The support for Trump in 2016 can be interpreted as revenge for the two-term success of President Obama. The progress we thought we made when Obama was elected twice was immediately followed by backsliding into fractured parties, partisan division, and a surge of racial and gender-issue driven tension the likes of which could not have been foreseen. While it may be incredibly difficult, for now the Democrats must redefine progress as a newfound ability to handily win elections, by maintaining a stream of candidates that can support those civil rights issues without getting sandbagged by claims that they are neglecting average Americans and communicate to the American people what’s true and what isn’t, preferably in a relatable and funny way.

Ironically, the biggest failure of the DNC is that they did not start the search for this fabulous pool of candidates from Day 1 of Biden’s presidency. The signs were clear that Biden intended to be a one term president, or at least that he should have been regarded as a bridge candidate. The DNC should have begun immediately finding the next person who would be suitable to be victorious against Donald Trump in 2024. I do not know that Kamala Harris would have been successful with more than a hundred days. I actually believe that she might have, based on the numbers. This cautionary tale applies strictly to the future of the Democrat Party, but I am left to wonder what would have happened if the DNC had not fallen asleep at the wheel. I do know for certain that they cannot afford to do so again.

No one likes to be lied to. No one likes to be patronized, or condescended to. No one likes to feel like the villain for getting out of bed in the morning. And no one likes to be the only one in the room who doesn’t know what’s going on. By following a new campaign and messaging model guided by those 5 principles, the DNC would be amazed at what they can achieve. I know they can do it. I hope they do, because by following this model and forcing sanity into our national conversation, the Republicans who are also tired of Trump and his ilk will be reunited with the party they know and love. This method will, overtime, enforce a leveling out of the American party system, wherein each party will be a spectrum- liberal and conservative Democrats and Republicans working together for a common goal, disagreeing only on how best to achieve it. America deserves nothing less than that distant utopia. We were there once. Surely, we can do it again…

H.R. 9495: A Failure and A Warning

Recently, the House killed a bill that would allow for Treasury Secretaries of administrations to punish non-profits, including political action groups, charitable organizations, news outlets, cause oriented organizations, and many others by stripping them of their tax rights, ostensibly for “supporting terrorism”, a charge that could be brought to political opponents with little bearing on the administration or treasury secretary to explain how they arrived at the accusation.

H.R. 9495, informally called the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, would be the first step to massive infringements on the 1st amendment, and creates more opportunities to expand the “enemy within” narrative, as it would permit political targeting of Palestinian advocacy groups, the ACLU, and many others as “terrorists.” Normally I would not talk in depth about something that congress defeated, but I am doing so for a few reasons. Number 1, I believe it is important to know recent history of the legislature as we come head to head with the prospect of yet another Trump presidency (the administration and leadership style that inspired the creation of this bill), and Number 2, when my followers ask, I answer. In short, this bill might be dead. There is nothing saying they won’t try it again. 

The large scale problem with this bill is that it perpetuates an idea that dismantles democracy. The safeguards of our civil liberties are vast, and include groups informally known as “legislative influencers.” These are groups such as unions, the ACLU, medical associations, etc. that do the work that the political process cannot, or will not do. They have political sway in their endorsements, public statements, open letters, and op-eds. They can influence legislation, and are stakeholders in many political matters, but they are not political powers in the traditional sense. They operate legally under the first amendment, and have been a consistent pillar in the lives of citizens of our country. They exist in service to their work and their causes, whatever they may be, regardless of who the President of the United States is.

Term limits are the second pillar of democracy that this bill seeks to weaken. A President serves a maximum of 8 years (if you’re watching, that means nonconsecutive too, Donald), but this bill ensures that a particular President’s overtly combative and monarchical political agenda could outlast their administration. While I firmly believe in the rights of a President to make their mark on the history of that illustrious office, whether or not I agree with their political agenda, I am not sure that certain powers should last in the executive office if they are the antithesis of the philosophy of leadership. In other words, should we cement the idea for Presidents to come that the people they are leading are their enemy? Is there not something to be said for upholding the notion that the president is the President of the United States, not The President of People Who Agree with Them (Thank you Aaron Sorkin)? I believe that we should be eliminating the “enemy within” sentiments, immediately if not sooner. 

These two facets of democracy intersect with this bill. A President should not be able to say that a faction of their citizens, that operate legally and for the good of the people, will be punished for disagreeing with them and can be labeled as “supporting terrorism.” For one thing, it destroys the first amendment protections we are all entitled to. For another, it fundamentally tarnishes the office of the President Of The United States. I cannot imagine running in a campaign for the highest elected office in the land, promising to defend the citizens of this country, and swearing loyalty to the Constitution of the United States, and being so petty as to seek punishment for those who do not agree with you. Wanting to charge those who disagree with you with treason, for their legal and long standing work, is un-American. A President, traditionally, works with such groups by hearing them out and signing or vetoing bills related to their causes that come across his desk. If the House overrides, then so be it. Such is the system set forth by the Founding Fathers. The power, ultimately, rests with the people.

I want to note that the House, not Donald Trump, introduced this bill. I want it noted that the bill was introduced while Joe Biden was president. However, it was introduced by Republican New York Congresswoman Claudia Tenney, who claimed the charges against Donald Trump were “a shameless attempt to silence” the then-former President. He called the trials and charges a clear election interference from Joe Biden, saying that the justice system was being abused by the Left because Trump was beating President Biden in the polls. She nominated Donald Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize earlier this year.

In short, while I have expressed optimism about the makeup of Congress because of the narrow majority held by the Republican Party, and the Senate appointing John Thune, it is important to remember that there are still people like Tenney in Congress. She kept her seat. I do not think, as I have said, that it is a foregone conclusion that all the Republicans in Congress are staunchly for Trump, but it also cannot be discounted that there are several congressional representatives who have set themselves apart from the traditional party and joined the MAGA Republican movement. 

It is important to remember first and foremost that the House killed the bill, and along the way there were many attempts from both parties who introduced cuts and amendments in an attempt to gut the most dangerous provisions of the bill, before it finally failed to pass in the House. It is possible that this is the end of the road for overreaching legislative dismantling of the Bill Of Rights. I hope that is the case. However, it is also possible that Tenney and those like her will be emboldened by the re-election of Donald Trump, and will try again to hand him tyrannical power on a congressionally approved silver platter. The real work to be done, with this knowledge in mind, begins now, because more bills like H.R. 9495 can be stopped completely in two years, not four. If this bill, and what it will say about our country, about the office of the President, concerns you, then say so. We can get ourselves the congress we, as a free nation, deserve. 

A Democracy In Winter: What Trump Can and Cannot Do

As Trump’s outlandish list of nominees and sweeping declarations of what he will do on “Day 1” (a phrase borrowed from Ronald Reagan during the hostage crisis) continue, there is a lot of anxiety in the air as people count down to the day he takes office. The American people who wanted a different outcome are   scared, and I completely understand the fear. As someone living in California, I hesitate to catastrophize too much, but I understand that our state is incredibly lucky. With that in mind, I began looking at all the things the president can and cannot do from the comparatively weakened seat of the executive branch.

Keep in mind that when the founding fathers crafted our country’s laws and customs within the constitution, they were fresh off a war with a king. Their fears are clearly outlined in our Bill of Rights- violent retaliation for their faith, their land being taken from them, their home being overtaken by armies, and their rights to defend themselves against tyranny being taken away. With that said, it is important to remember that the executive branch is weaker than the other branches, by design. Sure there are executive orders, but what can be achieved by the executive orders is limited because so much of what a President wants to do needs approval through congress.

When the Republican party was declared the majority in the senate, I know many people were afraid that Trump would be able to get everything he wanted during his term. Here again, it is important to remember a few things. The first is that some things require a supermajority, and he does not have that. The Republicans hold the majority by a very small margin. For another, I have always enjoyed that each Congress gets its own number, because each new congressional lineup has a chance to define themselves and their role. The Senate in particular has a history of seeing itself as an exclusive club, able to hold power and send a message. This week, my plans to tell you what Trump can and cannot do got turned on a dime with the appointment of John Thune as Senate Majority Leader. Thune was not Trump’s favorite to win the position, and he was chosen for the job over other candidates who hold greater favor with the President-elect. I go over this in my mini post which you can find here for reference, but essentially, this appointment, I believe, was a message from the Republicans in the Senate that Trump will be President, but that his instinct for loyalty over qualifications will not be indulged. Thune is a qualified and serious man, who is committed to country over party, if Senators from both major parties are to be believed. Given that, here is, in the best of my estimation, a list of Trump’s goals and whether or not he can accomplish them.

Donald Trump seems very insistent that his cabinet nominees be confirmed, implying recess appointments. He has also said that he doesn’t want the new Congress in session until his first day in office. Without a two-thirds majority, Donald Trump will not be able to change the rules of the legislative branch that are laid out in the constitution. Without the approval of the Senate, he will not be able to change the rules of the Senate. Given the protective nature that Senators feel of their office, and the chamber they serve, the second is unlikely. The first is impossible. Republicans do not have a two-thirds majority in the Senate, and I believe the appointment of Thune solidifies what we saw on election night- even among the Republicans in Congress, it is not a foregone conclusion that they are all in sympathy with Trump’s agenda. To provide specifics, I believe it is unlikely that Hegseth will be able to be confirmed. If a recess appointment is taken advantage of, Trump could face problems in the senate. Recess appointments exist because there was a time when the only option was to get to Washington D.C. by train or carriage, and they must come with the assumption that the appointment would be confirmed if the Senate was able to gather in session. Gaetz, while repulsive in my opinion, is at the very least an attorney, but Hegseth being so obviously unqualified will pose a problem if Trump decides to make the case of presumed confirmation regarding a recess appointment. 

As I pointed out tangentially regarding Senate rules, Donald Trump cannot change the Constitution. Anything regarding Constitutional amendments or changes requires the supermajority that he just will not get. This is important to remember, because one of the scarier actions he has spoken about taking includes turning the military on “the enemy within.” While he is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, enlisted citizens and officers take their oaths to the Constitution of the United States, not the President. This means while theoretically possible, it is unlikely to be an effective move with Generals Kelly and Mathis speaking up about their concerns about Trump. It is also unlikely that his advisors will be eager to entertain such a notion, even with the list of Pentagon officials Trump plans to fire. These organizations are beholden to the Institution and structure above all else. I realize it sounds as though I am taking a lot of faith, but we need only look toward treaty law and compliance for the root of my optimism. To put it simply, domestic norms and structure have just as much to do with treaty compliance as international compliance. I believe that when it comes to men and women who have been in service to these institutions long enough to be in high command roles, the same principles will apply. They have been there a lot longer than Trump, and most, if not all, are committed to being there long after he is gone. For these reasons, Trump will not be able to hold military power over his own constituents at his beck and call.

Donald Trump is also promising to target career civil service members, firing them en masse. While this is theoretically possible, this will be costly, create a burden for unemployment, inspire demands for job creation, and impact the economy and federal budget in ways that cannot be comprehended at this juncture. Federal budget changes require approval from Congress, and I believe that when Donald Trump inevitably ends up with a Cabinet that is confirmable, as opposed to sycophantic, they will also tell him that the move is ill-advised from an economic standpoint. 

Another of Trump’s bizarre claims is that Governors cannot do anything without consulting the President. This is most definitely not true. California, for example, has kept several key aspects of neonatal health care, contraceptive care, women’s health, LGBTQIA+ rights, drug use, and many other hot button issues legal and treatable under Presidents who have been more restrictive. The states have a lot of constitutional power, and many states have either Democrat or more traditionally Republican governors. This also ties back to the Constitution, as the 10th amendment gives powers not laid out in the Constitution to the states. Trump will have no possible path to changing the Constitution.

A lot of panic has spread through trans youth that have concerns about funding for the support they receive at school, and the concern is palpable amongst parents as well. This is likely because Trump has promised to roll back funding to public schools that teach critical race theory, gender and queer theory, and offer support to trans, nonbinary, and queer students. This will not be feasible. Changing funding to public schools requires approval from congress to amend the federal budget for education, and taking funding away from public schools arbitrarily because the administration suspects that support is being given will not pass. Too many Senators have worked hand in hand on bipartisan legislation supporting education, and once again, permitting a sweeping budget change will most likely not be realistic from a Senate that just brought an incoming President to heel. 

I’ll be talking more about the Bill that would have allowed this, but the President will not be able to create a mechanism for punishing nonprofits and political activist groups. Senators, and this Senate in particular, have declared their interest in working for the country, not one man, and the Congress as a whole shows little interest in first amendment violations. The House just voted to block the Bill in question, H.R. 9495, which would have allowed for the punitive action, and another is unlikely to pass even if something similar comes to the House floor. 

Ironically for those who voted for Trump because of his immigration and mass deportation policies, his mass deportation plan will not be achievable, mostly because it would involve too many entities who have no legal obligation to comply with the Executive Branch. State police forces are not, strictly speaking, controlled by the federal government. The FBI is a federal law enforcement agency, but close contact between FBI Directors and Presidents is forbidden. Comey famously expressed concerns previously about Trump’s violation of the proper procedures for contacting the FBI, and the kind of cooperation and possible collusion this kind of mass deportation would require is one of the reasons why. State police forces would most likely have to be involved in transporting the massive numbers of people, and they are beholden to their state, not the federal government. They can be required to turn matters over to federal agents, but the question of whether any one law enforcement agency has the resources required to pull off transportation and deportation on this level still stands. It is much more complicated than Donald Trump grasps to deport the estimated nearly 11 million people who are in the United States illegally. Law enforcement resources are just the tip of the iceberg. Infrastructure demands for massive detention facilities would have to be met, and there would have to be coordination with foreign nations where they would be sent. In short, this is most likely not possible, and most assuredly it is not a feasible “Day 1” goal.

More broadly than the things he has said he wants to do, which, as we’ve seen, can change at a moment’s notice, Donald Trump will be unable to do quite a few things. He will not be able to negotiate treaties without ratification from the Senate, he will not be able to declare war, spend federal money as though it is in his own pocket, or interpret laws to fit his whims. Judicial review is required on any and all interpretation of law. He may be able to pardon those who participated in January 6th, and I am sure he will try to find any workaround in the book to make his own federal cases go away. However, he will not legally be able to pardon himself for his actions and dismiss cases in that way. I guess it’s going to have to be the little things, now.

With this information firmly shielding you against the more pressing anxieties, I hope that while the news may not get any less crazy, you, my readers, will be able to dismiss the more outlandish wishlists of the President-Elect. I welcome questions in the coming months of the specifics of the things Donald Trump says or has said, as well as any other figures in Washington or your state legislature that say something that just doesn’t feel right. You are smart, capable people, and your gut instinct is your best defense against the nonsense, no matter where it comes from. I am happy to be here, writing for you all. Please let me know if you have questions or concerns. 

A New Majority

Today, John Thune was named the Senate Majority Leader. While he may be a McConnell favorite, thus making him bad news to democrats and some republicans in a traditional election cycle, the move signals that Republicans in the senate are prepared to curb the natural impulses for staunch allyship that the American people frequently see from Donald Trump. This is very good news for the country, as Donald Trump stands out as a President who values loyalty and a personality cult over traditional ability to do the requirements of the job (look no further than picking a Fox and Friends host to take on the role of defense secretary). John Thune is respected and well liked, partially because he has always presented himself as someone who would carry out the job of Senate Majority Leader in a way that is more open, transparent, and conducive to the spirit of bipartisan debate on the senate floor. 

Democratic leader Chuck Schumer has echoed these sentiments, commenting in his congratulatory message to Thune on the number of bipartisan efforts they have worked on together. While Thune joined in with his fellow contenders in cozying up to Trump to get the top job in the senate majority, his words, to me, showed more of a commitment to the job than to the President-elect. While other nominees have been openly favored by Trump, and Thune was a favorite of McConnell (with whom Trump has had a famously soured relationship), Thune maintained his stance that, and I quote, “We have a job to do”, and that he will work with the incoming president to get that job done. He seems committed to the task, not of appeasing Donald Trump, but of being a leader of an institution that is rich with tradition and entrenched in the function of our government. 

I struggle to write anything off as an out and out win at this point, but when examining the record and regard surrounding Thune, it is hard to imagine that Trump’s most outlandish nominees (again, looking at you, Hegseth) will be confirmed to the positions that they are unqualified for. Thune is a serious man, and has a record in the legislature that precedes and supersedes Donald Trump. I believe his appointment to the role firmly sets the tone that was suggested by the contrast between Donald Trump’s electoral and popular victory and the narrow margin by which the legislative branch (the peoples’ branch, if you will), is controlled by republicans. Take note that the majority is not populated by many Trump-backed candidates. I continue to cite Kari Lake as an example, but it is worth remembering that Arizona ousted a MAGA republican from their senate seat, and Harris remained competitive in the state to the end. I will continue to watch and update you until the full picture of your congress is revealed, but I believe that there are many people who did not vote for the democratic candidate, but also did not want Trump to be, in full, Donald Trump. The senate is a stalwart safeguard against the most outlandish whims of the executive branch, and I believe we are seeing a commitment to America, rather than one man in one office.

Thune has mentioned that recess appointments are possible, but I also believe his long tenure in the senate speaks to a level of rationality regarding the incoming cabinet. I believe, as I have said, that Donald Trump is fully incapable of running a functional executive branch, and we may again see the flat structure that staffers experienced in his first term. However, there may be some hope that the cabinet will not be populated with unqualified candidates that are totally in the weeds trying to tackle the most dire of concerns and matters of national security that arise at a moment’s notice. On that same token, if Trump keeps picking republican representatives and senators for positions in his White House, special elections may see the tide of majority turn in the legislature as he continues to create vacancies. Things will certainly be interesting to follow, but I am committed to a measured tone and explaining my responses thoughtfully. This little mini-blog is mostly backed by instinct, and a few hard facts, and from those hard facts I can confidently say by appointing Thune, the senate went against Donald Trump. Let us hope this is merely the first time, not the last. 

The Young Women of January 6th

Trump is back in the White House, with voters undeterred by the fact that his presidential campaign was an active attempt to stay out of jail. His actions as he left office in 2020 are the source of his concern, and also the concern of many never-Trump republicans who voted blue for the first time in their lives. The events of January 6th have been studied by journalists and pieced together with the highly publicized testimonies from the hearings called by the committee led by Elizabeth Cheney. Over the course of that investigation, the sources that have been most forthcoming, and followed their testimony by campaigning to keep Trump out of office, were three young women. Cassidy Hutchinson continues to be a familiar name, but joining her in the effort, then and now, are Sarah Matthews and Alyssa Farah Griffin, both of whom also worked in the White House leading up to the Big Day. In light of the results on Wednesday, I believe that the spotlight should shine on the bravery of these three women, using entirely their own words and my impression from watching their testimonies. 

“People Will Die.”

Throughout the coverage of January 6th, and the ensuing investigation, there were claims that one of the many texts sent to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows that day was a message insisting that Trump condemn the riot, saying that “people will die.” CNN told the world in December 2021 that the text was real, and that it was sent by Alyssa Farah Griffin. 

Griffin came to the White House, at the urging of Mark Meadows, from her job as the Pentagon press secretary. Before holding that position, she was Vice President Mike Pence’s press secretary from October 2017 to September 2019. In addition to being exceptionally qualified, Griffin stands out in this story as someone who should have had significantly more pull than she did according to the traditions of her job description. 

 While she was forthcoming and voluntarily participated in speaking on the record with the January 6th select committee, Griffin resigned from her position as White House Director of Strategic Communications on December 4th, 2020, and was therefore not present as the dark day unfolded. However, her testimony revealed the important details to contextualize the events described by Hutchinson, Matthews, and many others. I was moved to wonder while watching the testimonies how all of this fell on the shoulders of two young women, who, from my understanding of White House hierarchy, held comparatively low level positions, especially when held up against the weight placed on their shoulders. Griffin’s testimony filled in many of the pieces. While Matthews and Hutchinson both were working as assistants in the White House on January 6th, and quit immediately after, Griffin played what should have been a more significant role in crafting the message of the administration and was gone by the time the trouble started. The White House she experienced was, per her vivid description, complete chaos. She described a flat structure, precisely the kind that would place a low level staffer in a position to be screamed at, by name, by the speaker of the house during a riot incited by the President. But we’ll get to that in a minute. The result of this flat structure, and the way Trump wanted his days to go, was people being hired for jobs that they did not end up performing, or able to perform. Hope Hicks was cited specifically as someone hired under a title that had very little to do with what she actually did. Hicks was ostensibly hired as a scheduler, but could rarely get anything on the president’s calendar, much less get anything to stay on there. Griffin said that the way in which staff had contact with the President was also entirely bizarre. There were always people in the President’s personal dining room that had no business being there. Most relevant to the topic at hand, and to voters next week, however, is that the highest level positions in the Trump White House had been vacated a few times over by people that were experienced at the kind of work those jobs entailed, and demanded. The result of this turnover was that no one in Senior Staff positions were qualified for the jobs that they had. Mark Meadows was not qualified to be the chief of staff.  

“Can You Believe I Just Lost to This Fucking Guy?”

In mid-November, shortly after election results had been certified and called, Alyssa Farah Griffin heard that admission of defeat from then-president Donald J. Trump in the presidential dining room. One month later, she resigned. Griffin described in her testimony an icing-out of sorts. She did her job as the Director of Strategic Communications to the best of her ability, but McEnany was not on speaking terms with her at this point, and her texts to Mark Meadows on the day the election was called for Biden went unanswered. She says that Meadows assured her that in the initial stages of what Griffin calls “The Big Lie” that Trump was merely going through the stages of grief, and would accept the results. As Griffin left Meadows’s office from that meeting, she saw him ushering the staffers behind Trump’s wildest conspiracy theories being ushered into the office. She knew Meadows was “talking out of both sides of his mouth,” as she put it. After the election, she described a period wherein she took ten days off, barely coming into the office, and when she went into Mark Meadows’s office to resign, he asked her if she could give him a couple weeks. She informed him that she did not like the direction that the administration was going in light of the results, and that she was ready to move on to the next phase of her life. In response, Meadows asked her to stay because they were going to have another term, and that no one was leaving, that “things are going to go in a different direction.” Griffin stood firm, and on December 4th, she resigned for good. 

Griffin spoke to the January 6th select committee and the transcript can be found online, but the Justice Department never contacted her to testify in the way that Matthews and Hutchinson did, according to Griffin. Her talks with the select committee were entirely voluntary, and she provided invaluable insights. Cassidy Hutchinson’s book also reveals that Griffin was instrumental in getting Hutchinson into a better position to tell the truth as she knew it, an act of courage that would not have been possible under counsel from her Trump appointed lawyer. Griffin continues to be an important part of the conversation, and lent her voice to coverage on election night on the way forward. She has continued to lend her voice to the fight against Donald Trump, and to give credit and platform to the women she worked with and remained close to after the 2020 election, including Cassidy Hutchinson and Sarah Matthews. 

“I knew he was not a good man, but I wanted him to be surrounded by people of good character.”

Sarah Matthews was the deputy press secretary of the Trump administration from June 2020 to January 2021. She was just 25 years old when she walked out of the White House, and 27 years old when she testified. Matthews resigned on January 6th. Like Hutchinson, she could not defend the actions taken by Trump and his chief of staff Mark Meadows in the course of performing the duties of her job description. According to Matthews, when in conversation with Tim Miller from the Bulwark Podcast, she went into the job knowing that Trump was not a good man, but she wanted to be part of doing the right thing for the country. She wanted him to be surrounded by people of good character. 

On January 6th, she watched people at all levels of the administration beg Donald Trump to call off the building riot, walk back his call to action, and declaratively end any stirrings of violence. This account matches the well publicized account provided by Hutchinson during her testimony and in interviews afterward. Mattews’s job as spokesperson would be to stand in front of cameras and defend his decision to not lift a finger, and she could not defend that. On the day in question, Sarah Matthews spoke to Kayleigh McEnany about convincing Trump to call off the rioters, and watched things unfold with Ben Williamson, the acting director of communications in Alyssa Farah Griffin’s absence. Williamson was also senior aid to Mark Meadows. Williamson, McEnany, and Matthews agreed to go to their bosses and make the recommendation that the president call the whole thing off declaratively. That the messages never got through is no surprise, given the flat structure Griffin described. In the Trump White House, everyone was everywhere. 

Testimony given by people involved that day, particularly Matthews and Hutchinson, centered emphatically on concern regarding the tweet about Mike Pence. Matthews  testified that the tweet about Pence was “the last thing that was needed”, because she saw firsthand that his followers hang on every word that he says, and when he tweeted that, he was giving people the green light to do “what needed to be done” in the way that Pence had failed. For Matthews, McEnany was still speaking to her and on this day in particular, the two were in frequent contact. Matthews told McEnany in that moment to tell the president that he needed to declaratively call for peace and an end to the violence, to which McEnany replied that the president sent a tweet.  Matthews’s response reflected the signal that his followers at the capitol got from that tweet- she told McEnany then and there that the tweet didn't go far enough to condemn violence and call the whole thing off. McEnany reported to Matthews that the president needed to be convinced to include any words about peace at all, and that this was as good as they were likely to get. In fact, he resisted writing any call for peace. It was only Ivanka who could convince him to put out the “stay peaceful” language. 

“Does It Look Like We’re Fucking Winning?”

For Matthews, that tweet heralded the unraveling of the day. A conversation in the press office following the debate about tweets that she deemed insufficient included a colleague saying that the President shouldn’t condemn any of the violence because they didn't want to “hand the media a win”.  Describing this moment, and what came after, Matthews appeared hardened with resolve and an understandably lingering frustration. She pointed at the television and said, “Does it look like we’re fucking winning?”

She was done. She was through arguing the politics of a tweet. She was through with watching this unfold with no admonition from the elected official who had fired the starter's pistol. She reiterated then that the president needed to condemn the violence. According to Matthews, she said that to her, it doesn't matter if it's from the left or the right, violence should be condemned a hundred percent of the time, and she resigned that evening.

She could not defend Trump’s decisions that day, and as a spokesperson she knew it would be her job to do so. She walked out, and risked much more than a job in doing so. 

“Things might get real, real bad on January 6th.”

The most publicized story in the events surrounding January 6th came from the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson. She was an assistant to Mark Meadows, the chief of staff at the time, although Farah Griffin describes her as “The Chief of Staff to the Chief of Staff.” She had an unprecedented level of access for someone of her age and experience level, a phenomenon Hutchinson and Farrah Griffin have both agreed could only happen in the flat structure of the Trump White House. She was only 23 when she walked out, and just 25 when she testified before the select committee. Leading up to January 6th, Hutchinson has described the feeling of anxiety and unease that she experienced, particularly as a result of other conversations with those closest to the President.

Pat Cipollone from the White House Counsel’s office was concerned about charges of defrauding electoral counts and obstructing justice in particular, as per his private conversations with Hutchinson in the days leading up, and days before, Rudy Giuliani asked her if she was excited for the 6th when she was walking him to his car. She asked him to explain what he meant, as she had only heard stirrings. He told her that “we’re all going to the Capitol, the chief knows about it, talk to the chief.” The chief was Mark Meadows, Hutchinson’s boss. When she walked back to the office and saw Mark scrolling on his phone, Hutchinson said “I just had an interesting conversation with Rudy, he says we’re going through with going to the capitol”. He answered her, “There’s a lot going on, Cass, things might get real, real bad on January 6th.” This conversation, in Hutchinson’s own words, was the source of a lot of the anxiety she felt in the days before. She has said that she was already nervous, but that night of those conversations, she was scared and deeply concerned. That night, she also received a call from Robert O Brian, the national security adviser, wanting to speak with Mark Meadows about January 6th plans. The plan was in motion. 

At 10 am on the 6th, Hutchinson was in a meeting in the Oval Office that included Mark Meadows, and Tony Ornato, the Deputy Chief of Staff. In this meeting, we learned from her testimony, Ornato described to Hutchinson and Meadows the scale of the weaponry at the rally at the Capitol that would become a riot. Ornato mentioned guns, knives, and “these fucking people are fastening spears to flag poles.” Hutchinson said that despite her prompting, Meadows had no reaction to the news about the scale of the weaponry, and Ornato confirmed that the President had been informed of this as well. 

Hutchinson’s testimony also centered around the particularly distressing tweet about Vice President Mike Pence. She said that as a staffer, she felt frustrated and disappointed by the Mike Pence tweet. To her, the tweet felt personal as a staffer. As an American, she was disgusted. It was unpatriotic, she said, that the whole country was watching the capitol get defaced for a lie. But Hutchinson’s testimony is so valuable because she was not a spectator. She was in the very thick of the chaos. 

Hutchinson heard many discussions that morning with Eric Herschmann, who served as a senior advisor to the Trump administration, during which he said that including the president's requested rhetoric in the speech would be foolish. The lines he was referring to included inflammatory statements about the vice president and telling people to fight for Trump. She said that Trump wanted an off the record movement set in motion so that he could go to the capitol and join the rioters. Thankfully the committee asked her to explain some jargon- a scheduled movement is the stuff that is on the schedule that everyone, including secret service, the public and the press, are aware of. OTR movements include a very small number of staff, and the press and the public are not made aware. Cipollone urged Hutchinson throughout the day to make sure the movement did not happen. It was his belief that Meadows was pushing for it right along with Trump. He told Hutchinson again to make sure that doesn’t happen, to stay in touch with him through the day, and that if they make this happen, they will all be charged with “every crime imaginable.” 

According to Hutchinson, Cipollone was also concerned about the appearance that they were inciting a riot. But Hutchinson, and so many others, were not given a chance to follow Cipollone’s, or anyone else’s, instructions to stop the show. Chats shown during her testimony revealed that the staff learned about the attack in real time.

“Get Rid Of The Fucking Mags.”

Leading up to the speech, Trump’s fury was, predictably, over the crowd sizes. He was told that the people in the arena at the ellipse were the ones who wanted to come in, and the others waiting outside wouldn’t come in because of the weapons they carried, which Ornato had listed for Meadows and Hutchinson earlier in the day. They knew they wouldn’t make it past the mags, which Trump was very angry about. Here again, Hutchinson clarified jargon. “Mag” is short for magnetometer. Magnetometers are devices used to detect the presence of metal objects, and are commonly seen at sporting events, concerts, and government buildings.

Trump wanted those taken away from the event at the Ellipse. He was adamant that he wanted more people at his event for the photos of the crowd. He kept telling his staff to “get rid of the fucking mags” so supporters who were carrying metal weapons, including firearms and knives, could enter the rally. He said that they should come in and march to the Capitol from there, and that the mags weren’t necessary because they weren’t there to hurt him. All throughout this, there was still discussion of an off the record movement, talks between Giuliani and Meadows, and also between Meadows and Scott Perry, a representative from Pennsylvania, who other accounts have claimed was central to the planning of the events of the day. He declined to be interviewed by the committee, as far as I am aware. The tone of those conversations reflected his staff was pushing to arrange for him to be at the Capitol. 

“Figure it Out, Cass.”

For all her unprecedented access, Hutchinson’s testimony reflects a feeling of being shut out of the conversations that would most critically impact her. Throughout the day, Hutchinson said information was coming in faster than she could communicate it to relevant parties. During Trump’s speech in the ellipse, Mr. Meadows shut the control car door on her twice, and by the time she was able to talk to Mr. Meadows, there was a backlog of information from the capitol and staffers, wondering what in the world was going on. All Mr. Meadows had to say “how long does the president have left in his speech?”

One of the concerned calls came from then-speaker of the house Kevin McCarthy. called Cassidy on that day as things unfolded, and then she texted Deputy Chief Of Staff Tony Ornato and said “McCarthy called me too,  asking are you guys coming to my office?”

But Hutchinson couldn’t answer. For the bulk of the speech, she was standing behind the stage, and from that position, according to Hutchinson, it is not possible to hear what the speaker is saying. When McCarthy called her and asked her if they were coming, she was confused because she didn't hear what Trump said. McCarthy sounded frustrated and angry at her, and she didn’t know why. All day she had communicated to people what she knew to be true- the president and his staff are not going to the Capitol. It was McCarthy who told her, “the president just said he’s marching to the capitol, you told me this whole week you’re not coming up here, why would you lie to me?”

Hutchison had no option but to protest, and she told McCarthy she wasn’t lying. That they weren’t going up to the capitol. He said that the president just said it on stage, and to “Figure it out, Cass, don’t come up here.” At 23 years old, Hutchinson had the weight of the decisions of a president, not just any president, Donald Trump and his infamous capacity for tantrums, placed on her shoulders by the Speaker of The House. She assured McCarthy that the decision has already been made not to go, but he pressed the issue out of frustration that Trump had made the claim at all. Hutchinson said she then texted Ornato confirming that they weren’t going to the capitol and then texted McCarthy to confirm that Ornato said they weren’t going. He did not respond. 

“He Doesn’t Want to Do Anything.”

After the speech, the President was put in the car and the motorcade, including Hutchinson, went back to the White House. When she returned, she went immediately back to the chief of staff’s office. Mr. Ornato waved her into his office when they made eye contact as she passed. She went into his office and Secret Service agent Bobby Engel was there, looking lost and discombobulated. He asked if she heard what happened in The Beast (car president was put in- side note: Y U C K). He then told her that when Trump got in the car he was under the impression from Mr. Meadows that the OTR movement to the capitol was still possible and likely to happen. When he got in the car with Bobby, he thought they were headed to the Capitol. Trump was very angry when he found out that it wasn’t happening. He said “I’m the fucking president, take me up to the capitol now”, but Engel said they had to get him back to the West Wing. 

This is when the infamous story of Trump lunging at his driver took place.Trump tried to grab the wheel of the car, and then used his free hand to lunge at Engel for trying to get him to let go of the wheel of the car. Engel has never recanted this, and neither has Ornato. McEnany had said he wanted to be part of the march but that he’d be happy to go in “The Beast.” He ended up blaming Meadows for the fact that he never made it to the Capitol that day. Meadows had told Trump before he got on the stage that he was still working on getting an OTR movement underway. Hutchinson had relayed to Meadows a conversation she had with Tony Ornato saying that the movement wasn’t possible, Meadows said okay and went to the motorcade. He told Trump “we’re working on it, talk to Bobby”. Meadows said Trump believed Engel should have pulled it off for him, and that Meadows didn't work hard enough to make it happen. 

Back at the White House, Trump had read the Attorney General’s AP interview, and threw his lunch against the wall. The valet warned Hutchinson to steer clear of him because he was so angry. Hutchinson helped the Valet clean ketchup off the wall before going back to her office from the presidential dining room.

Hutchinson said  Meadows was alone in his office most of the day until around 2 pm. Hutchinson said it was like watching a bad car wreck about to happen, wanting to stop it, but feeling powerless. She remembered thinking that Meadows needed to snap out of it, that he needed to care. She was the point of contact for congressmen and secret service agents trying to get through to the president, and she didn’t know how to snap her boss out of his scrolling  and lack of reaction. 

“Hang Mike Pence.”

At some point in the afternoon, Cipollone came rushing into the room asking if Meadows was in his office. Hutchinson nodded, and then he informed her that “The rioters have gotten to the capitol, we need to talk to the president”. Meadows said “He doesn't want to do anything, Pat.” Cipollone said “We have to stop this, if we don’t do something people are going to die and the blood is going to be on your fucking hands.” Meadows and Cipollone left and Meadows left his phones with Hutchinson and told her to let him know if Jim Jordan calls. Jordan did call, and Hutchinson went to the dining room to get Meadows’s attention. Meadows took the call, and this is how Hutchinson first heard of the chanting to “Hang Mike Pence.” 

Meadows hung up the phone and Meadows and Cipollone came back to the offices a few minutes later. Cipollone said “Mark we need to do something more, they’re calling for the Vice President to be fucking hung” and Mark replied “You heard him, he thinks Pence deserves it, and he doesn’t think they are doing anything wrong.” Cipollone replied that this is fucking crazy we need to do something more. Hutchinson put two and two together- “They” were the rioters. They weren’t doing anything wrong, according to the President. 

Hutchinson wrote a note that day saying “Everyone who entered the capitol without proper authority should leave immediately”. Meadows was dictating to her and told her to write it. Hershhmann chimed in and said “illegal” should be written in addition to “without proper legal authority”. Hutchinson and others said that Ivanka wanted her father to send them home and tell them to leave peacefully. Hutchinson informed Meadows at some point that she was hearing that cabinet secretaries were discussing the 25th amendment. 

“Deflect And Blame.”

Kevin McCarthy said that it was unamerican, he was disappointed, and that this was not in the spirit of the first amendment but that didn’t stop him from putting all the pressure on the shoulders of a young woman. 

The night before, on January 5th, Trump asked Meadows to call Randall Stone and Michael Flynn. She wasn’t sure what they were talking about, but a “war room” was set up with Mt. Giuliani and John Eastman, one of Trump’s lawyers, at the Willard hotel. Meadows wanted Hutchinson to coordinate his movements to the hotel. She made it clear that it wasn’t smart for him to go. She didn't know what the meetings were about but she knew what Giuliani was pushing for, and said it wasn't appropriate for the White House Chief of Staff to go. 

Meadows dropped the subject of going in person, and dialed in to the meeting from his office. 

Hutchinson said the reaction afterward fell into three categories. Mark Meadows fell into “Deflect and Blame”. White House council and staff were mostly in the “Get him to stop this” camp, and many others were neutral. Many of these figures will surely seek pardons now that Trump is back in the White House. Meadows encouraged Trump by putting in language about pardoning the rioters, though Cipollone thought it was a bad idea. Giuliani and Meadows both sought pardons from Trump for their actions on January 6th. 

In initial talks with the select committee, Hutchinson told the truth as much as she could while unable to afford her own lawyer and under the counsel of a Trump-appointed attorney. Alyssa Farah Griffin was the one who helped her make the break, and once she was free to do so, she was able to share more and speak up to tell the story we know today.

So why am I sharing this in excruciating detail, when you could just watch the footage on youtube? Well, for one thing, Cassidy Hutchinson’s book is not on youtube and neither is Alyssa Farah Griffin’s testimony. For another, we are here again. He is going back to the White House. I have my own thoughts about that, which I will share later, but for now I want to share these stories and my apologies to these young women. I sincerely hope we will not fail you again, and that the republican party can become a reasonable coalition once more. I hope that MAGA will run its course over these 4 years, and that our democratic republic will see normality and liberty for all who tell the truth even when it is hard will be guaranteed again. I am reserving judgment on calling doomsday about these next four years, because the stories of these women give me hope. I have hope that there are people who will say something when they see something. I have hope that people we cannot even imagine yet will become household names for their outstanding courage, and I will not share my table with those who say those people will be too late to the party. Hutchinson said she didn’t know how to be in the world if she came forward, and people on both sides have to take responsibility for her feelings of isolation. Remember who you were when you were young, when you didn’t know better. I will close with a quote, as I have used before, from Ted Lasso. 

“I hope that either all of us or none of us are judged by the actions of our weakest moments, but rather by the strength we show when, and if we’re ever given a second chance.”

Lastly, I would like to thank Liz Cheney for her role in the creation of that second chance many people needed. I hope that the republican party looks a whole lot more like her, quite soon. 

…And Things That Shall Not Come To Pass

Aaaand we’re back!

Thank you so much for your patience with my non-existent cliffhanger skills as I completely neglected to leave room in my first post for vetoed bills. One of my favorite parts of the vetoed bills to examine is the statement. As a huge believer in context, I am always a huge fan of a window into the process. In my view, as I read through these vetoes, it seems that Newsom turned against wasteful and redundant laws, as well  as costly steps backward in key issue areas for the state. Kicking off one such issue area, we have a bill related to prison spending and overcrowding. Furthering his apparent passion for prison reform, Newsom vetoed AB 2178, which would legally cap the number of empty beds in California prisons. This would also create a minimum capacity requirement, creating a massive backslide in working towards a solution for prison overcrowding in the state. Note that prisons still take up a significant piece of the California State budget. Newsom’s veto statement said as much, and he stated that he didn’t grant the basic premise of the legislation. “We must leave the practice of warehousing incarcerated people in the past and instead focus on a future that provides humane and dignified housing that facilitates rehabilitation. Codifying this prescriptive approach to ‘empty beds’ will undermine this effort,” he said when he vetoed the bill. 

In the healthcare field, Newsom opted against potentially redundant oversight of private medical industry practices merging or being taken over. AB 3129 would have allowed the attorney general to oversee private industry businesses the same way nonprofit medical mergers and such are monitored. It would also give the AG’s office more oversight on transactions in the private medical sector, as I understand it. When Newsom vetoed the bill, he did so because of the existence of the Office of
Health Care Affordability, which performs duties very similar to what this bill would put on the shoulders of the Attorney General. 

Healthcare was featured heavily in the veto list, and I know this one has stirred a lot of opinions, my own included. AB 2442 would have sped up licenses for gender affirming care providers. The bill was likely inspired by a similar bill back in 2022 that was essentially California’s response to Roe v. Wade being overturned, but that bill requires review after a few years to check in if it's still necessary. Newsom’s veto message mirrors my own concerns. By not changing the process of getting licensed to practice, only prioritizing those that wish to provide certain kinds of care, many applicants will fall by the wayside, and by creating a higher demand to get things done quickly, fees could increase and availability to start a practice offering other types of care could become extremely limited. Although I believe that California should remain a safe haven for these increasingly endangered groups, I also know how hard it is to get an appointment with a doctor. I fear the process becoming more difficult and expensive in the long run. 

Continuing in the healthcare field, Governor Newsom vetoed SB 966 that would limit the power of Pharmacy benefit managers to control where patients fill prescriptions, as they can currently restrict options. Pharmacy Benefit Managers are sort of go-between actors between drug companies and insurance providers, and from what I understand, they make a lot of money doing it. The bill that was vetoed would also have required transparency regarding prices, as the lack thereof is, I gather, a huge source of income for PBMs, and require additionally that any savings they negotiate from the drug companies have to be granted to the insurance companies so that patients can benefit. When he vetoed the bill, Governor Newsom said that prices are too high for prescriptions, but vetoed the bill in favor of gathering more research on PBMs, ostensibly to see exactly how opaque PBMs currently are. In my mind, the instinct to get more information, while honorable, isn’t negated by passing a controlling measure. Drug prices are too high now. Why wait?

While healthcare is a huge issue, so is the health of outdoor workers as California continues to break temperature records every summer. SB 1299 would have protected farmworkers by making the process of applying for workers’ comp claims related to heat-induced illness simpler. Essentially, under the legislation, it would have been easier to show that the heat related illness was a result of their field of work. I firmly disagree with Newsom’s veto of this bill, as he gave the choices about workers safety back to OSHA, instead of directly intervening with the process of getting compensation. 

I thought this one was going to bum me out, but I actually ended up approving of this decision. SB 1047 would have required AI companies and creators to test their programs to see if they would pose “a critical harm to society.” The bill also included provisions for people working for these creators if they privately raised concerns to the Attorney General’s office. I believe whistleblower protection is absolutely essential to preserving the fundamentals of our democracy, and AI scares the hell out of me, and apparently, Newsom vetoed the bill because he wants us to stay scared. His veto statement included a quote about the false sense of security that might be the result of applying these tests to AI. I concur- feeling prepared is not the same as being prepared. 

I saved the best for last in my coverage, because I think this should have made big headlines. SB 804 would have allowed uniformed civilian employees of the police department to testify at preliminary evidence hearings. Currently, that right is for witnesses, victims, and uniformed officers. Newsom’s veto message made it clear that he did not support creating unreliable sources at such critical points in due process. His veto message included the following: “The bill raises concerns about the reliability of evidence presented at a critical stage of criminal proceedings, in which decisions are made regarding whether probable cause exists to charge defendants with felonies.” I completely agree with his veto decision on this, and I am eager to see what pieces of legislation are inspired by his statement and critiques.

And there you have it! This list was much shorter, which interests me to no end, but I will ponder that privately while I write about many other things. 

Please review the article linked in part one for a complete list and the source on the included quotes.

Keep an eye out for big announcements, and if you found this bill review helpful, tune in to my ballot review next week!

Until next time!

Things That Are: Bills Passed by California Governor Gavin Newsom

The complete list of bills passed and vetoed by the governor’s office in California has been released, and I have some thoughts. I’d like to preface this by saying I am a detail oriented person, so at the risk of this becoming too lengthy, I’ll be presenting this in a two part examination, beginning with the bills that passed. The overall trend in the governor’s legislation decisions this election cycle has been a fairly strong statement supporting the preservation of democracy, civil rights, and freedom of speech. The presentation of his stance this year came through in signing and vetoing bills on all issues, running the gamut from inmate issues to AI use. AI has held salience with all corners of the political spectrum, and prisons, for those who don’t know, are a particularly divisive issue for California voters.

I want to start with the most important bill for California voters to know about as we get closer to the end of October. SB 1174 has banned local governments from requiring you to have an ID on you when you go to vote. According to what I have read, this bill is actually the latest escalation in a lawsuit brought by the California Attorney General and Secretary of State against Huntington Beach after the city enacted a voter ID policy to combat voter fraud, which has held fast in the headlines for 8 years now, despite limited evidence (in my opinion), that it happens at any significant level. But hey, it’s still good news. Go vote, and if you leave your wallet or your passport at home, you won’t be turned away. 

The rest of the bills I was interested in are what I like to call “secret third thing” bills. The issues on the table for California are fentanyl, crime, and homelessness. That will all be in the news ad nauseum. I am interested in the other issues, the bills that will make a difference in areas we don’t think about daily as a “top ten problem”. One of these, for example, deals with inmates’ rights. I was particularly impressed with AB 1810, an assembly bill passed by the governor requiring freely available menstrual products in our state prisons. Checking articles about this particular bill, I have seen that the wording of “Freely available” means that inmates don’t even have to ask for them.  

I’ll be honest right now and tell you that my knowledge of prison healthcare, particularly for women, is limited to op-eds and television, but the overwhelming impression I get is bad. Hopefully this will improve life for inmates in need of such products, and supporters of the bill say that the system in place for getting these items increases the already vast power imbalance between inmates in need and the guards. 

Healthcare was generally a big issue area for this legislation cycle, because SB 1300 and AB 1895 were also passed. This bill package requires public notification in advance of a  hospital labor and delivery or psychiatric ward closing its doors. The hospital moving forward with the closure is additionally required to hold a public hearing with the board of supervisors in the county the hospital serves, and explain why the closure is happening. The assembly bill in particular requires that hospital reports struggles in keeping the services available to regulating agencies so that those agencies may play a bigger role in assessing damages to patient care. This is no doubt in response to the spike in maternity ward closures in the state, and the growing concerns in the wake of the state’s fentanyl and homelessness crisis regarding access to comprehensive psychiatric care. I am personally relieved that psychiatric care is receiving strong support in the legislature, and in that regard, I have saved the best (in this topic) for last.

Giving her voice to the politics surrounding underage psychiatric patients, we have none other than Paris Hilton, giving voice to the trauma caused by for-profit residential treatment facilities for minors. She shared her own horrific experience, but noted that the groups most impacted by these facilities are foster youth, adopted youth, kids whose parents have passed away or children of parents who did not have the community or financial resources to provide proper support. She previously testified before the U.S. House Ways and Means committee, emphasizing the cost of keeping a child in one of these types of facilities. In California, SB 1043 received bipartisan support to provide more transparency regarding how the children in these facilities are treated. The bill specifically targets the lack of reporting to social services on restraining children or placing them in solitary, two experiences Hilton said she herself lived through while being treated. This bill will hopefully increase oversight, and parental input, as Hilton claims her parents were lied to by the facility where she was in residence. Hilton’s nonprofit, 11:11 Media Impact, is a co-sponsor of this state bill, and I hope that legislators on a federal level take note. Newsom’s signing of the bill came with support of Hilton’s efforts, as his statement includes, “I am proud to sign legislation today to help protect our youth against such harmful tactics, and I’m grateful to Paris Hilton for using her voice to ensure that no child suffers like she did.” I wholeheartedly agree, and I believe her work on this issue highlights the extreme danger in telling entertainers to, figuratively, “Shut up and sing.”

Another issue that impacts celebrities and also everyone is doxxing. Doxxing is the act of publishing someone’s identification information- private addresses, phone number, personal contact details- with the intent to cause them harm. AB 1979 allows victims of this kind of invasion to sue in civil court for damages up to $30,000. My impression is that this is generally a good thing, but just like any crimes related to the internet, privacy is relative. I have a whole complicated set of beliefs surrounding the ethics of this, which will be a separate piece, but for now I’ll just say that I support this because doxxing is one of those crimes that happens so much more often than it is prosecuted. As we move through the most divisive time in our country, not just politically but regarding identity and personal choice, the time is now to crack down on potential harmful invasions of privacy and sharing people’s home addresses (and potentially deadnames) on the internet. 

Speaking of bills designed to curtail those who would use their powers of tech knowledge for evil, three bills have been passed with the express purpose of protecting voters from misinformation caused by AI deepfakes. In case I just started speaking a different language, that basically means that voters are now more vulnerable than ever to artificial intelligence creating intentionally deceptive manipulated audio clips, photos, and videos that would willfully deceive them into making a choice at the ballot box that isn’t right for them and their families. AB 2839 attacks the creators and publishers of willfully deceptive misinformation, AB 2655 requires online platforms (lookin at you, X) to clearly label or wholly take down such materials within 3 days of someone reporting the content, and AB 2355 hits the final nail in the coffin, by requiring political campaigns to publicly disclose AI use in their ads. The timing of this could not be more perfect. Aside from the AI images of Taylor Swift endorsing Trump, which I have already complained about enough for one decade, Elon Musk published materials mimicking Kamala Harris’s voice. The ensuing struggle between Newsom, who said that the material should be illegal, and Musk, who said it was parody (which is a form of protected speech), culminated in this bill package becoming law. Thank goodness. One drawback is that this package really does seem to target only the biggest and baddest of social media and content sharing platforms, and Truth Social just doesn’t have the numbers to be regulated. Sad… or is it?

In further defense of democracy, AB 1784 stops candidates seeking more than one office at a time, and AB 2041 allows for more use of campaign funds for security for the candidate. Under AB 1784, candidates can also withdraw candidacy up until the deadline to file, a choice they could not make until this package passed. I like this bill package. It seems like a no-brainer that you can’t run for more than one thing at once, particularly the power-grabby methods that are all around us, but yay! It’s a law now! You can’t! I’m also fond of the increase in fluidity surrounding funding for security. particularly as riots and violence seem to be in the news daily, and I know that campaigning is a full time job. Asking candidates to fund security for their children out of their own pockets is a steep ask, depending on what kind of background the candidate comes from. Which is the point, really. No matter your economic background, you can run for office and be safe. The language in this bill had to be cleaned up and specifics had to be outlined- Newsom previously vetoed something very similar because it could lead to misuse of campaign donations. 

Giving everyone a fair shake when it comes to fulfilling their goals became one of the themes for this cycle. AB 1780, preventing a private nonprofit college applicant’s relation to alumni or major donors from being considered in their acceptance, was also passed. This is incredibly cool. When affirmative action was formally struck down by The Supreme Court, college admission was talked about a lot, although California formally banned it many years ago (1998, I believe?). Possibly because of my close friendship with the hardest working student on campus, someone who’s family came to the US from Ukraine, I became aware of the face we put on the words “first generation” and “immigrant student.” The picture we paint doesn’t cover nearly everyone it applies to. This bill, in doing away with yet another barrier, is an unequivocally positive step. By beginning to chip away at advantages related to wealth, in addition to race, we bring our country many steps closer to that shining goal-education, for everyone. 

Just when I think I am running out of segues, speaking of education, we cannot learn from our comfort zone. Education is like healing- it happens overtime. And sometimes you’re in a cast, and it itches. AB 1825 takes aim at the increase in the desire to see schools become a place where feelings are bubble wrapped and the comfort zone of bias and misinformation is a protected innocence, rather than a barrier ready to be shattered by a competent educator. The bill moves forward with rebelling against the book banning feature of this mindset, mandating that public libraries create and maintain a policy surrounding the process of choosing books. Specifically, banning books containing issues of race and sexuality is forbidden. The law allows for librarians liberty to choose where to display books with heavy sexual content, and it calls for creating a way for communities that go to the library to voice their opinions on the displayed material. The thing that I really like about this, is that it proves that California’s legislature is, in some ways, highly effectual. As arguably the most notoriously blue state in the union, the problems we face are not as dramatic as the federal level. We don’t have reproductive care worries on a state level, we don’t have to deal with too much police violence (again, relative to other states), and we don’t have lasting and evolving over which of our citizens can be counted as people. Book banning and attacks on education are two of the only things that we deal with at the level that such issues are displayed on national news, and when the chance arose to nip those oppressive practices in the bud, California legislators got it done. 

When it comes to banned books, and having access to reading whatever the hell you want (where my fae smut queens at?), an issue that plagues democracy constantly is freedom of choice. Not just who you love, what you read, what news you get, but in how you party. SB 969 was passed, protecting this right, as it allows for bars and restaurants to sell alcohol that people can drink publicly, off the property of the establishment selling the drinks. Additionally, AB1775 made cannabis cafes legal, a bill that comes from the success of a program that experimented with this in the city of San Francisco. According to the article I got most of my bill tracking superpowers from (I was not, in fact, born this way,) establishments like this already exist in the state, but they can only sell prepackaged items. I gave this bill a very snappy intro, perhaps to hide my initial trepidation. If the law is changing so that prepackaged cannabis goods are no longer the legal requirement, how far does this go? I always struggle between not wanting to be a Karen, and wanting to remind people that maybe it's not a good idea for people to be smoking weed and legally publically drinking within a certain radius of a popular family shopping center or a school. I say this, of course, not knowing which cities will choose to act upon it, and how- all this means is that it is legal, if they so choose. 

Other bills that got passed that I won’t go into accomplished things such as removing medical debt from credit reports, giving tenants 10 days instead of the current 5, to respond to an eviction notice, and to make it easier to build tiny homes and streamline the process of creating homeless shelters. All of these things are very important. I also see all of these on the Breaking News front page. This is my view on the bills I didn’t hear much about. Maybe I’m beating a dead horse; if that’s the case, tell me what news you read and I’ll follow suit. 

Stay tuned for my analysis on the bills that were vetoed, and please connect with me in the comments or on social media if you disagree with everything I have written. Democracy is a process, and freedom of speech is your right. 

For a complete list, and my source on the quotes from the governor, check out this piece. 

A World Erased: Indigenous People's Day and Reframing Of America

This week was Indigenous People’s Day in the US. This is a renamed and reclaimed vision of what was formerly Columbus Day, wherein we all used to get the day off in celebration of the man who “discovered” (but not really) America, and initiated the slaughter of thousands of indigenous people. The lasting consequences of this have been catastrophic to the legacy of those tribes that were wiped from the earth. The act was not just killing people, it was an erasing of an identity. History was lost, thus doomed to be repeated. As explorers and colonists once tore down the way of life and rich history of the indigenous people who lived here, America is determined today to rewrite itself.

I firmly believe that renaming Columbus day to honor the people that were harmed is a good thing, because it is not an erasure that it happened, but a reframing in order to give the honor where it belongs. This is a good thing, a just thing. It is the more extreme examples that trouble me. Statues have been taken down in record numbers in recent years. Most of these statues are of slave owners or confederate figures from the Civil War. Some of the statues were of people with significance to the lives currently led by Americans, notably the Francis Scott Key statue in San Francisco and the Philip Schuyler statue in Albany. I guess I should make it clear now that I believe slavery is bad, but I also believe that trying to make history disappear is not the solution to our country’s complex history. Many local and state governments that have taken down these statues have emphasized that taking down the statues doesn’t encourage erasing history, but instead focuses on not honoring offenders. 

I used to think that, and then I took a class that was focused on international politics but left me with an important lesson about all realms of political life. Simply put, a significant factor in a given country’s obedience of international treaties and law is the domestic norms regarding what the treaty calls for, obedience to law, and honoring contracts. In other words, norms are incredibly powerful. Part of what statues and books that have been called “harmful” can teach us if they are left in their place is what norms used to look like, what it takes for a society to change, and that it can be done. In more sentimental terms, it helps to look back occasionally when you’re on a climb so you can see how far you are from where you started. I also believe that keeping the picture of the whole journey intact is absolutely essential for survival. 

Call it my Jewish heritage, call it thirst for chaos, or call it an eye for nuance- I don’t believe erasing the darker parts of our history is anything other than the one surefire way to ensure that it repeats itself. I also believe that the extremism surrounding monuments has created the voting block for the “guy who speaks his mind” candidate. Alienating people creates entrenched partisanship, and the divides in this country cannot solely be blamed on Donald Trump. When you erase part of history, and become too controlling of how people speak and think, you create a world of black-and-white thinking that discourages and inevitably punishes any thought for the shades of gray in between. 

The same can be said for eliminating books with now-offensive terms from libraries and school curriculums. Isn’t it better to know the historical content? The reins of control should be let loose, and power given back to the institution of education to teach us that this is how people used to speak to each other, but we have evolved, and we know better now. If there is no measuring stick, and no example left of what not to do, then we cannot continue to change for the better. Just as DeSantis’s “don’t say gay” plan will surely fall flat, this kind of language and history restriction creates hostility toward the different and the unknown. For an extreme example, let’s say we rid this country of all the slave owner history available to us. In 50 years, might someone believe that “hey maybe we should own, buy, and sell people” is something daring, untried, and the solution to everything? 

Fully accepting that that’s a ridiculous example, my point still stands. On both sides of the Civil War, people passionately fought for what they believed. Whether or not you agree with what they fought over, and what the indigenous people and colonists fought over, it does everyone for ages to come a disservice to erase the lasting relics of those conflicts. Instead of taking down statues, update the plaques reflecting what we know now. Instead of being the enemy of knowledge, be a champion of context. Instead of sanitizing literary content, make it a powerful lesson. The political situation we find ourselves in comes from one of my greatest frustrations with the American electorate; our short-term memory loss.

Every four years we forget who did what, and fall prey to the twisting of words and rewriting of even the most recent history coming from the campaign trail. Perhaps the way to extend the memory span of voters and candidates alike is to keep the history alive, and be better teachers. 

And I am not just talking about teachers in classrooms. Each and every one of us has the power to pull up reliable sources and share with the young people in our lives and share with them what really happened on the darkest and brightest days this nation has seen. Mostly, I believe that removing content left right and center is a key example of pandering to a group of people that don’t need to be pandered to. People of all ages are capable of being told what is happening in their lives, and why. Most importantly, their day in court, if they are angry when they find harmful patterns repeating themselves, comes every two years in the form of a ballot. It even comes with a sticker! (Okay, now who’s pandering?) 

It is my suggestion, in honor of Indigenous People’s Day, and all that they have endured, that we never forget. To do so is not a passive thing. It is an active mission to engage with material that is being questioned, torn down, and banned, and a resilience against the trend of throwing information at us, whether or not it's true, and waiting for something to stick. In honor of all the wounds sustained and inflicted in our history, it is better, I think, to live with that history, and when we see it, decide for ourselves not to destroy, but to keep walking forward.  

If you can, take the time to look at the mission statement of Not Our Native Daughters, and donate here if you are able.

And Here We Are, 1 Year Later

This week, I am reflecting on change and disruption. One year ago last week, Hamas (a Palestinian group categorized as a Foreign Terrorist Organization), kidnapped 254 people, including American citizens, and over 1,200 people were killed. The attack was launched from Gaza, and hostages who have not already been killed are still held there. Israel pushed back, responding with air strikes and a full scale invasion of the Gaza Strip. The conflict has now raged for one long, horrifying year. 

While the attack was shocking, it is certainly not unprecedented in the violent history between Israel and Palestine, and the reaction around the world is the factor that most often takes center stage when we think of the conflict now. The reaction in the U.S., particularly among younger generations and first-time voters has continued to shock and make headlines nationwide. 

Possibly because I was in college at the time, what struck me most was the escalation of protesting on college campuses, though protests were certainly happening everywhere. States made public declarations commenting on foreign policy, challenging the presidential administration and the building blocks in our history that reignited the conflict. Washington DC has not been untouched by these protests- there was a March on Washington in January of this year, and just a few months ago, in July, protesters rose up once more due to a visit to our Capital City from Benjamin Netanyahu. Protests arose around Europe, and are still ongoing. 

And yet, my mind still returns to the college campuses. From Cal Poly Humboldt in California to Columbia University in New York, protests were arising, and disrupting campus life. I think I keep getting stuck on this form of protest because I am thinking, often, of young voters as we approach the election. As students come back to campus and settle into the semester, it is my humble suggestion that the focus in the classroom, not just the quads, or the barricaded buildings (looking at you Humboldt), turns to this conflict before the responses to this foreign war from young people with no education on the area but a lot of rage about it, leaves a lasting scar. Let me explain.

I see, almost daily, the increase in social media posts denouncing the Democratic party, not in favor of the Republican platform, but rather expressing anger at the lack of action in aid of Palestine. People say in these posts that the Democratic party is no longer the lesser of two evils, and that they are responsible for what is happening in the Middle East. They demand a cessation of all support for Israel, immediately, in exchange for their support. They blame Joe Biden for the conflict, and claim Harris will be no better. Ordinarily I’d use more caution, firstly by not citing what I see on Social Media in the first place, and then secondly by verifying what I see by looking at polling, but Jill Stein pulling ahead by running on a platform that heavily features a cease-fire in Gaza. The third-party candidate is targeting key swing states ahead of the November election, and many voters have responded to her demilitarized foreign policy plans. 

What supporters of Stein forget, and what college-aged protestors probably don’t know, is the rich history of the US trying to solve this problem. It is the elephant in the room, the fly in the ointment, the contaminate in the fuel (this one is almost not a metaphor). Beginning with the Balfour declaration in 1917, establishing a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine, which was done partly in an effort to sway American jewish voices in favor of the allied powers during the first world war. For the British foreign secretaries writing the declaration, their sights were firmly set on protecting access to the Suez Canal. While the declaration made mention of protecting civil and religious rights of the existing religious communities in Palestine, it didn’t mention political consequences, and the protection for Palestinian people was very weak. The protection was further weakened when the State of Israel was established in 1948 following the second  World War. As they say on race day, Gentlemen, start your engines. 

From there, attempts were made to fix it. Carter tried, in an (at the time) unprecedented Hail Mary for peace. Egypt and Israel had come together to overcome conflicts between them, and the stickiest points of the talks quickly proved to be Palestinian autonomy. While the talks ended on a note of progress and a feeling that change was within reach, Palestinian representatives were absent for subsequent talks, and Egypt and Israel could not bridge their wide gap in beliefs regarding Palestinian self government, and Israel’s presence in Gaza and the West Bank in particular. 

Clinton tried in 2000, bringing Yasser Arafat, the chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and President of the Palestinian National Authority, and the Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak, to Camp David in hopes of ending the conflict. Arafat was not willing to make concessions, and Barak made none either, and the second Camp David Summit was just as fruitless as the first, although the lasting blame for the outcome in 2000 rested, in many eyes, on Arafat’s shoulders.

Lingering tensions that fuel the US role in this conflict are doubtlessly fueled by the Iraq war. One of Israel’s strongest and fiercest enemies is Iran, a country for whom power in the region has only grown since the US invasion of Iraq. It is widely acknowledged that we made critical errors in that conflict, indeed in the act of invading there in the first place. So before this turns into the world’s worst history paper, let me ask the question behind my writing: Do you know all of this?

When you barricaded the doors of that campus building, did you know two presidents had tried before and failed? Did you know that the creation of this conflict sprung up from building tensions and an inciting incident, just like what we see today, and that the final nail in the coffin was a too-little-too-late symbol of hope to a displaced and slaughtered people who didn’t know how to go home after a fascist war? Did you know that it was a Republican administration who lost us our final leg to stand on in the Middle East, especially when it comes to those likely to be victimized by Iran and Hezbollah?  In the words of Hilary Clinton, “Do you know who Yasser Arafat is?”

And when you make protests, and post for everyone to see, do you remember the war at home? Do you remember the tales of antisemitism and anti Islamic sentiments that are sweeping the country, particularly institutions of higher learning? Do you remember, when you influence your circle to vote a certain way or not vote at all, do you remember book banning, book burning, and the Dobs Decision? 

To wrap this up, I will leave you with this. It may be short-sighted of me, but foreign wars interest me far less than the version of us we become in the background while we wait it out or join the fray. I completely understand the compassion behind the outrage and the idea that nothing else matters while innocents die. I understand reading everything I just wrote and being angry that I didn’t mention the amount of people who have died. The graves are too many, and the streets of heaven are too crowded, but I argue that in the face of such massive bloodshed, the context I just outlined matters all the more, in order to understand the stakeholders, thus drawing a map how we might bring the violence to an end.

The US identity in this conflict is torn and driven by embedded systems, and youthful rage. And I get it. It’s a lot to take in, and what’s happening over there is horrible. It is also complicated, and older than many of us. But when speaking about these issues, think about asking a question instead. Learn something about how we got here, before firmly declaring a side. Before camping out, be very clear about why you are camping out, and ponder awhile if there might just be a better way to protest than inconveniencing yourself and many others.

Maybe the way forward is for all of you to pick up a book, go to class, listen to foreign radio, or go to someone you trust and ask the question. I realize this may be hypocritical as I have just written in great length on the topic, but I always say, those who know, don’t speak, those who don’t know shout the loudest. Consider this long winded, but quiet, reminder that against the unknown, against the powerful, against the most horrible parts of being human, the very best suit of armor is learning. 

Let me know if you emphatically disagree with every word that I wrote.

Until next time…

-Jane Elizabeth (Birdy)

Taylor Swift vs. Brat Summer

A look at Popular Culture in Campaigning and the celebrity endorsement

Taylor Swift “broke her silence” (a phrase that, nowadays, means “just said a thing”) about the 2024 Presidential election on the night of the presidential debate, pretty much immediately following the smackdown. I guess calling it a smackdown reveals my stances on this race. Oh well. He got ragdolled. Sorry not sorry.  

Taytay barely waited 5 minutes after the candidates had exited the stage before she posted a long caption on a photo from her Time Magaziner photoshoot, a post that Tim Walz himself described as “eloquent and exactly the kind of courage we need in America right now,” (Look it up! He said it!  About TAYLOR!! Okay I’m good) and the post endorsed Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Some commented that Taylor was a bit late to the party. However, the fact remains that Taylor Swift’s endorsement (and the subsequent endorsements from many celebrity legends including Stevie Nicks) did more to gain voters for the Harris-Walz campaign than anyone else this election cycle, including the Harris campaign itself.  

In fairness to the critics, Swift’s endorsement had been the topic of discussion since AI images of Taylor Swift endorsing Donald Trump circulated Truth Social, and then the entire internet. While the images looked fake, and came around the same time that Swift was occupied by other matters (canceling her Vienna tour dates due to credible terrorist threats), the images troubled Swifties and worried voters alike. Proud Swiftieswho had seen the netflix documentary “Miss Americana” had little doubt as to where she stood, but the fake images orchestrated by Trump highlighted the lack of statement from Swift herself, and showed that the  Taylor Swift endorsement was in high demand. Worried voters, who may never have heard a Taylor Swift song in their lives, were aware of Swift’s power over the youngest generation of voters, and were watching polls that had Harris and Trump inexplicably neck and neck. Swift’s famously cryptic instagram work hinting at an endorsement of Harris was fun, but didn’t seem to be getting the job done. 

While the weight of the celebrity endorsement concept  has been contested, Swifties in the know about how hard the singer fought in the past to speak out about her political ideology were eagerly awaiting a statement of some kind. Additional weight had been given to this particular endorsement by the posts from Trump. A candidate in this race wanted her endorsement so badly he conjured one out of thin air. Trump was not the only one attempting to gain the attention of young voters for his campaign leading up to the debate. The AI posts and subsequent clamoring for Swift’s statement was not the first time the waves of pop music have crashed against the immovable shores of our political system this election cycle. Nearly the very moment Biden stepped down and endorsed Harris, Charli XCX, the british pop artist behind the summer anthem “Brat”, declared her endorsement, stating “Kamala IS brat”. @kamalahq, the official page for her presidential campaign, began posting and reposting the brat memes and the coconut tree memes. The traction and engagement that those memes garnered from the younger electorate was instant and continuous. 

This was terrifying and fascinating to me, because I lived and died with every negative headline about Hillary Rodham Clinton leading up to the 2016 election. A big part of the criticism, that voters my age at the time in particular latched on to, was that she was overusing memes. Memes placing her face over Steve Buscemi’s in a widely circulated photo from the actor’s brief stint on 30 Rock days were all over the internet. In the scene the meme is taken from, Buscemi holds a skateboard and wears a hoodie, and tells a group of teenagers, “Hello fellow kids.” With the placement of Clinton’s face on his, the message could not have been clearer. The exhaustive meme use was not endearing her to young voters. “We find you condescending”, the meme’s popularity clearly said. “Your attempts to connect with us are transparent and ineffective,” and “You’re not funny and we are tired of you” could be read into the subtext of this meme without much of a stretch of the imagination.  

So when I saw that Harris’s campaign leaned into the “brat summer” trend so aggressively, I couldn’t help the well of acidic anxiety that rose in my throat. Memories swirled of cringing when Clinton said there were hot sauce packets in her purse, and turning my phone to go breathe deeply for a moment when I saw yet another meme mocking her for just trying to get young Democrat voters to care enough to go to a polling place. I felt for her. It has always been a hard job. The thing that troubled me about what the Harris campaign was doing was that it was essentially wasted. It doesn’t take much effort to get the average gen z social media user to interact with your content if it makes them laugh, or feel as though they are, with just two clicks of a button, participating in the process. That is the first step. The social media version of saying “hey how are you doing?”. That, for the Harris campaign’s social media team, was also the final step. They ended it there. 

As people continued to express interest in Harris and what her campaign was posting, and I stopped being so nervous she was going to scare everyone off barely more than 2 weeks into her candidacy, I found myself feeling offended instead. I was offended as a former teenage voter, who was condescended to and fed memes upon memes with Clinton’s face on them, videos parodying her attempts to get my attention, only for her to lose.  I was left with the impression that young voters of America had sent a clear message- that politicians seeking our vote could share real information with us and we would welcome the chance to feel included. The message was that using our  memes and our generation’s slang thrown into speeches and events were neither necessary nor impactful in gaining our attention. I was so offended because it seemed as though Harris’s campaign had looked at what Clinton had done and not learned from the example of what not to do. Harris was just getting lucky. Instead of content fatigue, she was met with excitement. Instead of muting her posts, people were eating them up, and the Harris campaign stopped short of following through on the vital next step once they had their audience. 

It should be noted that unless I, and several professors of mine, have grossly misunderstood federal election law, a political candidate can encourage the electorate to vote as much as they want. However, in all these memes and videos posted in an effort to reach young voters, the official campaign page did not tell young people to vote, to register to vote, or direct them to the website where they can find their polling place and register. The excitement drummed up by the effective use of pop culture references was devoid of any real information about key issues, why that age group in particular should care about the election, and did not remind them of the importance of exercising their constitutional right to cast a vote. In this way, the outreach will, in my opinion, be ultimately ineffective. The style of outreach employed by the Harris campaign drummed up exactly enough interest to make gen z voters feel included, but not urgently enough that they will rush to the polls. My prediction is that they will ultimately forget to make a plan for voting day, citing family commitments, work, etc., conveniently forgetting that legally,  their place of work is required to allow them to vote without penalty from management. They will forget because in their minds,  by sharing one of many posts targeting their interest, they will have participated in the process and following through on election day will be a forgotten second step to their activism. Harris’s “brat summer” may have sparked interest, but I very much doubt that they have done the work necessary to turn that interest into votes. Taylor Swift, though. She might get the job done. 

For more information on the “Brat Summer” phenomenon and the use of Chappell Roan’s iconic work in the Harris campaign social media presence, this story on CBS News is an excellent primer.