What their superpower is...

by liberal japonicus

I'm sure everyone is following the various clown cars the Orange the 1st is setting/has set in motion, and you are welcome to talk about them here. But, a bit of meta  (surprise, surprise), I think it is illuminating to identify what is the 'superpower' that underlies all these things. While I'm tempted to suggest the pathological lack of a sense of shame, I've come to the conclusion that it is the ability to rationalize and to do so concerning any outcome. Some examples

• birthright citizenship- well, these migrants hadn't invaded the US, this wouldn't be an issue
• the likelihood of failure after rewriting code in various government software- well, if they had written it better, it wouldn't crash
• The coming Gaza Riviera - well, if they had the wisdom to develop it themselves, we wouldn't have to come in and do it
• sending US citizens to prisons in El Salvador - Well, if you do bad things, you don't deserve citizenship, amirite?

Of course, there was a build up to all this. Phillip Morris arguing that smoking was a net benefit because it reduced health care costs, the idea the climate change will benefit humanity by increasing areas where crops can be grown and increase crop yields, I'm sure you all can add to the list. But the feeling of dread I have is that it has reached a point where no outcome is bad enough to resist this superpower.

Anyway, a thread to refresh the page a bit and give y'all a place to put your thoughts. Have at it.

Comments

[Hartmut]

I think one superpower is the ability to induce amnesia and then to implant false memories. The GOP has honed the skill long before His Orangeness.
Remember for example that there were no terror attacks on US soil under Bush the Lesser? That no illegal got deported under Obama and Biden? That there either was no Covid at all or it was all under Biden and that there were either 11 victims of it (under his Orangeness) or several millions under Biden? That there were at least 3 billion votes by illegals for Hillary Clinton and that she actually got not a single vote?
Not to forget the nuclear attacks of Sadam against the US (which according to a study made at the time many FOX viewers believed, although neither the administration nor FOX had made the actual claim).

[hairshirthedonist]

Hartmut, my theory is that what you're describing is Anti-Cognitive Dissonance Mandela Effect Disorder. (And my theory is, of course, mine.)

[Hartmut]

That's at least part of it but imo does not completely cover everything there.

[nous]

Hey, leopards gotta eat, too.

[liberal japonicus]

I should have led with this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QbUSjnhv6M

[novakant]

Phillip Morris arguing that smoking was a net benefit because it reduced health care costs

To be fair, I employed this argument at times when I was still smoking and people wouldn't get off my back about it.

Granted, it was a rather specious argument but I was fed up with the sanctimony around me - especially since everyone was drinking, eating meat and driving cars like there's no tomorrow (the tide turned aggressively against smokers sometime in the early naughties).

So I guess I can see where the apres moi le deluge impulses of some of the Trump voters are coming from - not that I empathise much with them...

[liberal japonicus]

I should have led with this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QbUSjnhv6M

[Wonkie]

Hee hee Randy Newman!

One of Musk's minions got fired for his racist and pro-eugenics posts on social media. As someone on Bluesky said, "It must be weird to get fired for the reason you were hired."

[GftNC]

It seems to me that Randy Newman is the best musical satirist since Tom Lehrer, and if he isn't I'd love to hear about other contenders.

Today from Josh Marshall:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-three-headed-chimera-of-trumpian-destruction/sharetoken/d6fa3565-e97a-47da-bfda-36922344c91c

[russell]

their superpower is the same as any other mafiosi.

1. rules are for suckers.
2. if you don't like what I'm doing, go ahead and try to make me stop.

[novakant]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we're in the middle of a coup or something:

Elon Musk Installs Illegal Server to Seize All Federal Workers’ Data

https://www.vox.com/politics/398618/elon-musk-doge-illegal-lawbreaking-analysis

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/02/03/elon-musk-is-shredding-americas-government-as-he-did-twitter

[wj]

What worries terrifies me most is the way Musk's immature minions are taking a meat axe to Federal computer systems. People who are fired can be rehired relatively, relatively, quickly, if/when the current (non)administration ends. But rebuilding those computer systems will be a nontrivial exercise.

I pray that the bacback-ups of the current code are still available. That is, that those kids don't know enough to trash them. Having worked with kids fresh out of school, I think there's a good chance that they're unfamiliar with the very concept. Here's hoping.

[russell]

America, did you remember to save your work?

Funny / not funny. :(

[Hartmut]

Well, saving is un-American and anti-growth. Or at least that's what the Great Prophets of Prosperity preach.

[novakant]

Ok, let's all boycott Twitter at least - you'll be a happier person for it anyway.

And I never considered buying Tesla in the first place.

Now I just have to cancel my plans to go to Mars, but hey, you can't have everything.

[russell]

A serious question - why are we putting up with this? Why haven't these guys been arrested, or at least required to stop?

What authority are they working under? Is Congress - or whoever - unable to find a single judge in the whole freaking country who will issue an injunction to demand that they stop?

They refuse to allow members of Congress to enter federal buildings? This is a bunch of candy-ass punks.

It's beyond my understanding.

[Hartmut]

As far as GOPsters in Congress are concerned, I believe that a significant number actually supports what's happening (although they would prefer it less chaotic and with a more reliable dictator-in-all-but-name. Others believe that in sum it will be to their advantage, although they'd rather return to normalcy (post-Gingrich normalcy to be sure). And the rest for the most part are simply in fear for their career and/or life (both their own and that of their families). They do not believe they would survive standing up to His Orangeness and in particular the goons and thugs that will act on his behalf, even if they would be able to topple him (which they doubt). They cult leader may get overthrown but the risk to get murdered by his enraged followers is real. And while some of the lower courts try to stop the worst illegal excesses, the higher courts could as well overturn their injunctions. And His Orangeness, the Musk ox and their accomplices are not unlikely to simply ignore the courts. DOJ and federal law enforcement get systematically purged and His Orangeness has already set examples withdrawing protection from fomer officials that displeased him.
I think a lot of congressbeings are biding their time waiting for His Orangeness to take himself out somehow. They do not like Vance either personally, although he would at least be the reliable austrofascist they'd prefer.
As for the Dems in Congress, the GOP has made clear in words and deeds that they will be treated as mere annoyance. As for necessary votes (because their own fringe can't be relied on), that's were abandoning the power of the purse to His Orangeness comes into play. If He will do financially what he wants anyway, what need is there to borrow votes from the opposition with the results getting ignored at best or drawing his wrath down on those who show a shred of independence.
Being senators under the Caesars meant losing one's former powers but keeping the privileges and social status. And that's what many GOPsters are after anyway. Wether the Musk Ox will turn out to be the new Incitatus, is yet to be seen.
Btw, I can't remember anything bad written about the actual horse. No idea, wether it suffered its master's fate (innocently).

[GftNC]

A serious question - why are we putting up with this? Why haven't these guys been arrested, or at least required to stop?

***

It's beyond my understanding.

This. When he/they trashed norms, we could understand (somewhat) that the norms had always been followed, and therefore somehow had never been codified. But now? It's incomprehensible.

[GftNC]

Josh Marshall today. I have guest links, but it isn't long, and seems very relevant:

Where’s the Real Power Nexus? How Does the Opposition Get To It?­
February 7, 2025
­
I’ve made this point a few times in passing in other posts. But as events develop I wanted to explain it succinctly and with emphasis. Democrats are out of power and have very few actual levers to impact what’s happening. Yelling is important. Driving opposition in what is ultimately a battle for public opinion is important. Contesting everything through the courts is important. But there is only one hard lever of power currently available: that’s the help the White House needs from Democrats on a budget and the debt ceiling. This morning explainer from Punchbowl makes clear why that help is essential. It’s not just helpful. It’s essential. The GOP majorities are simply too small, especially in the House. The GOP is simply too fractious.

This is the one area where it isn’t a matter of yelling as loud as you can when no one actually has to listen, or working through a decidedly hostile judiciary. Trump needs this. It’s not a matter of working out a deal with Mike Johnson. Trump needs this help and there’s only one place to get it. It’s a not a discussion with John Thune or Mike Johnson. Only with Trump.

I had been somewhat pessimistic about what I was seeing from congressional Democrats on this front. But starting yesterday they began to change their tune and started saying explicitly that the budget and debt ceiling were a key lever for them in handling the situation. That’s real progress. But I think the terms need to be sharpened a lot. The standard should be: no help on the budget or the debt ceiling until the lawbreaking stops. Period. End of story. No wilding gangs marauding through the federal government. End the criminal conduct. Period.

That’s it. No nuance.

There are many terrible things Trump and his supporters can do by passing new laws. They can shut down USAID, the Department of Education, FEMA. Whatever. They can do a ton of other horrible things. They can try to take away everyone’s health care to fund tax cuts for his billionaire friends, as they are in fact intending to do. All of that is terrible but legal if they can put together the votes. They are in the majority. Joe Biden passed big legislation with tighter margins. What they are doing now, on the contrary, is not only brazenly illegal but an overt and undeniable violation of the federal constitution. When that stops then Democrats will consider helping on the budget and the debt ceiling. And they can negotiate on particulars. But nothing until the lawbreaking stops.

[Michael Cain]

Last month Tesla signed a deal to provide the batteries for what will be the largest utility-scale power storage facility in Belgium. This past week they signed a deal to provide the batteries for what will be the largest facility in Japan. Last year grid storage accounted for about 10% of Tesla's revenue. They are supply limited -- ie, orders coming in faster than they can manufacture systems. Over the course of 2025 they will roughly double their production capacity.

[Donald]

Novakant—

I would boycott the NYT before I would boycott Twitter. Twitter is where there is easy access to firsthand reporting from Gaza and the Palestinian viewpoint in general, along with clips of Israeli soldiers.

We need politicians with a conscience and a spine.

[bobbyp]

their superpower is the same as any other mafiosi.

A pliant Congress enables this. The Republican Party needs to be destroyed.

[novakant]

I think it's a bit strange to compare the NYT to Twitter, Donald. For all its faults, and there are many, the NYT is a generally credible news source while Twitter is a cesspit that is designed to make its readers addicted to the dopamine hits generated by a constant stream of posts from whoever is most adept at generating outrage.

I'm not denying that good information can be found on Twitter but that's not the business model and users like you (and the former me) are very likely a tiny, tiny fraction while the hatemongers and their eager followers contstiute the vast majority.

And let's not forget that it is the business and the platform of the new boy king who is hell bent on destroying the political system of the US and other countries. So sorry, he's not getting any of my money anymore.

Regarding Gaza and IP, I thought that the NYT coverage was actually pretty good and sometimes even brave within the parameters of a major mainstream newspaper.

Of course the 'broad church' editorial approach comes with some annoying compromises like Brett Stephens, but that's to be expected and hey, they also publish e.g. Peter Beinart (who whas undergone one of the few credible conversions I have seen in the media). Also, they actually do report the on the destruction in Gaza and take pains to do so in quite some detail.

All in all not bad for a mainstream newspaper majorly owned and controlled by a Jewish family.

[CharlesWT]

Twitter is where nobodies can get 15 seconds of attention from somebodies.

[Donald]

God, this makes me want to scream.

Yes, the NYT has published some good articles and some good opinion pieces and also some horrific crap.

There are basic problems with the NYT which virtually every single Palestinian or pro- Palestinian writer on Twitter and elsewhere points out. Constantly.

First, yes, they point out the suffering of the Palestinian civilians. Yay, good for them, they meet the absolute lowest bar on this. What they almost always do is couch this in terms of an Israeli campaign to eliminate Hamas—again, with a handful of exceptions ( like this one article on the IDF use of captured Palestinian civilians as human shields) they do not present the evidence that much of this suffering is intentional on the part of the Israelis.

The language reflects this, No reader will have any doubt that Hamas was brutal on Oct 7. They will tell you this, The language becomes abstract when referring to Israel’s campaign to root out Hamas, with civilians caught in the crossfire. They refer constantly to Israel excuses for every action they take in ways they would never do for Russians in Ukraine, One is given the impression that there is always a benefit of a doubt you could give Israel. Maybe Hamas was using that hospital as a base. The NYT does not go into the details. You don’t see pictures of hospital equipment deliberately vandalized. You don’t read account after account of doctors and nurses arrested and taken away to be tortured. You don’t see fully described what you can see on Twitter, both in Gaza and what people are saying elsewhere.

And they whitewashed the Biden Administration.

I read Assal Rad (and numerous other Twitter accounts) regularly and one thing Rad does and sometimes a few leftist American journalists is that they would link to the State Department press briefings with Matthew Miller and Vedant Patel and occasionally John Kirby ( I am familiar with Kirby from the Obama- Yemen days) and you get to see their nonstop lying and BS- ing about Gaza. Their endless references to “ asking our Israeli partners for more information” their endorsement of the Israeli justice system as a way for Palestinians to obtain justice, their pseudo- earnest claims that they care deeply about civilians, their claims that the State Department continues to “ assess” claims of Israeli war crimes and hasn’t reached any conclusions because it is so hard. They reached them in mere weeks with Russia.

If you read the NYT you will have been told that the Biden Administration was hard at work on a ceasefire and constantly pressured the Israelis on civilian casualties. They present Biden propaganda as sincere and real. If you watch the press conferences you know it was Kabuki.

Twitter provides constant links to articles in the Israeli press. The NYT printed one story about Israeli targeting procedures six months after 972 published the same story and the NYT tired to claim it got there first. And if you read the 972 stories, even they whitewash a bit, though in a recent one they had a throwaway line that Israeli targeting intelligence people in the hallways and around coffee tables tallied informally about how all Gazans were complicit.

The Dahiya doctrine explains what Israel did in Gaza. The nly references in the NYT are from many years ago. The Israeli press has stories about the Hannibal directive. I have seen no story in the NYT.

[Donald]

And oh yes, let me talk about how the NYT covers the bigotry issue here in the US on this subject. Here Imdont need Twitter since Imhqve been to a few of my own protests, but Twitter gives everyone a broader view.

In the real world, which Twitter reflects on this subject, there is some antisemitic behavior from some protestors and anti- Palestinian racism on the other side. In fact, you see plenty of blatant examples of the latter in NYT comment sections. Out in the protests there has been violence from bad actors on both sides, and also from the police.

For the NYT and many others, the only form of bigotry manifested at protests is antisemitism. It is the only ne that matters. You could see blatantly racist and misogynist ( pro- rape) behavior on the pro- Israel side if you watched Twitter and I saw it five feet in front of me a few times but in the NYT — never saw it referenced. And of course in many of these protests the police just beat the crap,out of some people, including female and elderly male college,professors. Saw this on Twitter.

The,protest I sometimes attend is a small local one with mostly aging hippies and a few young people and we are nonviolent and nobody is antisemitic— a big chunk are Jewish and no, not self- hating. We get passers- by who are sometimes racist. One wanted to see everyone in Gaza die, though he switched to “ terrorists” when the cell,phones came out, On another occasion he ripped the sign out of the hands of an elderly woman half his size.

If I never had a Twitter account I would be suspicious of the one- sided nature of the reporting about protests from just seeing in microcosm what happens. But Twitter confirms it at other places.

Charles is correct. I despise Musk, but you need places like Twitter. The NYT is what it has always been— sometimes great, sometimes bad, and sometimes, I would say, deliberately misleading.

[Donald]

One last, more general comment about the NYT.

I don’t know how the internal decisions are made but there is an ideology that governs the NYT and it is basically pro- establishment, which can be good or bad depending.

They almost invariably portray the US government as serious people with good intentions struggling to make the world a better place though sometimes making mistakes. I think they see this as a necessary stance to take in a democracy. Maybe. But since US foreign policy is often an ugly thing it distorts the coverage and when people are breaking the law, quite deliberately, the model fails completely. It is sort of a “ West Wing” TV show version of reality. I see the appeal. It ought to be true. Frequently it isn’t.

They even fall into this with Trump in some stories— as a commenter at a NYT said, they sometimes try to “ sane wash” him.

And here is a piece from last May about NYT coverage of Biden and Gaza, but again, if you paid close attention to other sources, this was completely obvious at every stage.

https://www.columnblog.com/p/why-does-the-nyt-keep-lying-about

[wj]

What is their superpower?

After giving this a lot of thought, my conclusion is that they don't really have one.

But then, you don't need one if most people, especially those with power of their own, are willing to just roll over and let you rampage. Which seems to be what we are seeing.

[russell]

there is an ideology that governs the NYT and it is basically pro- establishment

I think this is right on.

FWIW, I left the NYT in the Bill Keller / Judith Miller / Daniel Okrent days, because IMO they utterly failed in their responsibility as journalists. The press has a privileged position in this country, guaranteed by the Constitution, and with that comes a responsibility. They failed, in the interest of maintaining their position in the "cool kids" circles, and then failed in their handling of that initial failure.

Great writing, excellent prose style, but not willing to do anything that will get them shut out of the cool dinner parties. To be blunt, I think they are kind of the house organ for privileged mostly white mostly liberal Very Nice People who want to feel like they're on the "right side" but who don't really want their world disrupted too much.

And I say all of that as (a) a privileged white more-or-less "liberal" and (b) a former and for years daily reader of the NYT.

These days I mostly get my news and analysis from sources outside of the US. Reuters, the Beeb, the Guardian. The exception is the AP.

[novakant]

there is an ideology that governs the NYT and it is basically pro-establishment

Well sure, that should be very obvious to anyone who is somewhat informed, but how is that news? Maybe my expectations are rather low since about 2003 ...

I don't use the NYT as my main source of news and opinion either and never have.

I was making a comparison to Twitter because you brought it up, and I do find it quite astonishing how you seem to treat it basically as some sort immutable fact of life, while it is clear that:

a.) it ruins public discourse by amplifying political violence, radicalism, division, conspiracy theories and outright lies

b.) it is owned by one of the most nefarious characters in US history, who in cahoots with his buddy the wannabe Mussolini is pursuing the wholsale destruction of democracy and the international order as we speak

[Hartmut]

These days I mostly get my news and analysis from sources outside of the US. Reuters, the Beeb, the Guardian.

Unsurprisingly, that makes them targets for the US Right. MTG is a bit extreme there, admittedly*, but the general sentiment is shared.

*hysterically demanding to evict the complete foreign press for having an accent. Of course mainly because that French correspondent dared to ask an actual question in the WH press conference.

[Donald]

Novakant

You evidently didn’t pay any atrention to a word I wrote. I am well aware of the crap that is on Twitter. I am also aware of the enormous amount of,useful information I have seen on there during Gaza and apparently I am supposed to forget all that or pretend it wasn’t there.

Well,it was there and nothing you have said changes that fact, Twitter gave a lot of people and some of the best media criticism from the left that you are going to see is there.

I also find the ugly stuff useful ( and some of that is also on the left). Virtually every source, whether far left, centrist, rightwing or whatever, slants things and if you don’t step out of them you are going to miss a lot. There is a whitewashed version of the Palestine issue you can find in the far left. If you read Twitter you see people voicing their real opinions without much of a filter and yeah, a lot of it is ugly. It is a reality check for me.

I won’t be boycotting Twitter until or unless some social media site that is equally valuable for the Palestinian issue comes online , as getting people to boycott it would silence them. And when the subject comes up, I am going to point this out.

[Donald]

Russell—

The NYT is very valuable on some subjects, or even most subjects, so I still read them. But yes, the bias is there. The Guardian is pretty good from what I have seen.

At the press conferences with Matthew Miller and Vedant Patel that I have mentioned, one of the best reporters there who asked some of the best questions was Matt Lee from the AP, I think. There are some very good reporters out there.

[GftNC]

I've been reading the Guardian, the Times, the NYT and WaPo every day. As well as Josh Marshall, various links here and @hilzoy, and watching C4 News (generally regarded as lefty/liberal biased). I am planning to give up the WaPo in March when my sub runs out, but I might not be able to make myself. I do catch the Beeb fairly often, particularly for 24 hour news when there is big breaking stuff going on that I need to watch e.g. very late at night.

I still check a few twitter feeds, but feel a bit like novakant does about it. It does feel hideous to be giving Musk any more money or numbers. Donald, have you investigated bsky.social to see if many of the reliable Gaza people you follow are on there? hilzoy migrated there ages ago, and as we all know more and more people are doing so now, given the Trump/Musk situation.

[nous]

These days I mostly get my news and analysis from sources outside of the US. Reuters, the Beeb, the Guardian. The exception is the AP.

Same, though I found myself looking askance at the Beeb - and especially anything by Zurcher - during the election. I mostly read them to figure out how much of a bias adjustment I need to give the Guardian on any particular issue.

[russell]

The NYT is very valuable on some subjects, or even most subjects

No doubt. That said, they aren't the only fish in the sea.

I have no problem with anyone who does read the NYT doing so. They have great writers, smart people. But they made some really bad and consequential mistakes back in the day and I don't really trust them anymore. Even less so now than then, perhaps.

Re: Twitter - I might be the only person on the planet at this point who's never read Twitter / X / whatever, but I never have, so I don't feel like I'm losing anything by not reading it now.

If anything, I'm feeling the need to read more international sources. We're so far down the freaking Musk / Trump / culture wars rabbit holes here in the US that I think we're losing any realistic awareness of what's going on the world. I.e., the rest of the world. All of which is going to be consequential for us here.

That thing whoever the hell it was said back in the Bush days - "We create reality and you all just react to it" - is probably the most parochial bullshit statement ever made. We're a dominant nation, and the rest of the world has to account for us in some way, but whether we think so or not, we don't call all the shots.

[nous]

Donald, have you investigated bsky.social to see if many of the reliable Gaza people you follow are on there?

Not Donald, but I was thinking the same thing you were and went to check. I see that a lot of Palestinian activists are complaining that Bluesky's moderation is heavy handed and influenced too much by ADL framing of what constitutes antisemitism.

I can't stomach Twitspace, so I wait to see what Tweets make it onto activist feeds once they have been curated.

I've mostly given up on the breaking news cycle and wait for slow-cooked news. Most of the breaking stuff is not anything that can be fixed or responded to speedily, so I don't feel like I'm missing out if I'm a day or two behind on things.

I did make an exception for coverage of the shooting in Örebro, but there I turned to Aftonbladet in Swedish rather than to Twitter, just because I didn't think that the UK papers were doing an good job of understanding the issues there. I'm sure that Svensk Twitter was a roiling mix of rumor and racism, and I need someone else to curate and provide context, so Aftonbladet it is.

[Michael Cain]

I skim the headlines at USAToday because they occasionally publish non-trivial long pieces about the environment in the American West. Stuff that the NYTimes and WaPost, who largely ignore the country west of the Great Plains, would never touch.

[wj]

Re: Twitter - I might be the only person on the planet at this point who's never read Twitter / X / whatever, but I never have, so I don't feel like I'm losing anything by not reading it now.

Actually, you aren't the only one. Unless you count reading stuff which happens to sometimes involve images of Twitter posts.

[nous]

Michael Cain - have you read much High Country News? It's my go-to for environmental issues and the American West.

[CharlesWT]

Except for the occasional nasty comment on a tweet I don't see much of the bad stuff on Twitter. Perhaps the almost 900 accounts I'm following have a curating effect on what I see.

The occasional middle school food fights between otherwise smart and well-educated people can be entertaining.

[russell]

I skim the headlines at USAToday

Ditto.

And I will check out High Country New, thanks nous.

[novakant]

Donald, I'm not sure if the rather aggressive tone is needed, so peace.

I don't need Twitter to be well informed about Gaza or anything else really and I have made my reasons for boycotting it clear. I also don't need the NYT but was pointing out that they do have some worthwhile coverage sometimes. Now maybe they should be boycotted too but that's another discussion altogether. It's like me telling you I've become a vegetarian and you telling me I should stop driving or something.

Ironically, the Guardian has quit Twitter a while ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/13/why-the-guardian-is-no-longer-posting-on-x

There is also a larger exodus from Twitter by businesses, media, NGOs and others:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tech/which-brands-quit-x-twitter-elon-musk-guardian-npr-balenciaga-b1193886.html

https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20250120-french-ngos-quit-social-media-platform-x-trump-inauguration

https://ibt.org.uk/opinion/charities-are-falling-out-of-love-with-x/

[Donald]

Novakant, I am not carrying a grudge here but I do get really tired of how low the standards are for mainstream politicians and mainstream journalistic organizations. If I wanted to boycott organizations for carrying hate speech and conspiracy theories I would probably start with the NYT, the New Yorker and the Atlantic Monthly. I don’t subscribe to the Atlantic or the New Yorker but read them occasionally.

The New Yorker carried Jeffrey Goldberg’s piece linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein. He later became the chief editor of the Atlantic, which is aggressively anti- Palestinian.

The NYT carried Judith Miller and I have already talked about their biases but there is one more thing. They print genocidal hate speech in their comment sections— people who say everyone in Gaza is guilty, meaning they are all legit targets, and lately people who endorse Trump’s ethnic cleansing proposal.

I am not opposed to them printing those comments because it is good to have them out in the open, but NYT hypocrisy on the hatred question is extreme. We would not have just supplied the bombs necessary for Gaza’s destruction with so much bipartisan support if there wasn’t this level of either indifference it outright hatred involved. Which they don’t write about. And no, not just Republicans either.

As for Twitter, I will repeat that it was by far the best source for the Gaza conflict. You see things which the NYT sometimes covered— often months later— or not at all. There was firsthand reporting and long analysis as good or better than anything in any journalistic outlet. And there were also countless links to articles in journalistic outlets like in the Israeli press I wouldn’t have known about. Yoav Gallant just had an interview on Israeli TV where, among other things ( the other things were also fascinating) he said the ceasefire was virtually identical to the one Hamas agreed to in the summer.

Nobody has to read Twitter or anything else. But if you were interested in Gaza, you got all sides there. Nothing else came close.

I don’t think people who read the mainstream press understand just how much manipulation they do merely in their choice of what to cover, and how they summarize what they do cover, but the NYT is an absolute master of this and not just on Gaza either.

[Michael Cain]

...have you read much High Country News? It's my go-to for environmental issues and the American West.

Occasionally, but not as much as I should.

[russell]

As a counterpoint to the NYT and similar POV on Gaza and the Middle East in general, maybe consider Al Jazeera.

Definitely a strong stance there, but a different one.

[novakant]

I'm brushing up on my French at the moment and came across this yesterday, lol:

https://apprendre.tv5monde.com/en/exercices/b1-threshold/faut-il-quitter-x

[GftNC]

And now, from another viewpoint, Carole Cadwalladr on Substack about how IT'S A COUP. I've had a lot of time for her since her exposé of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and other assorted Brexit shenanigans, and God knows she suffered for it (almost wiped out in lawsuits), but she's still in the fight. I've copied the whole piece in my next comment, for anyone who hates following links, but if you want to hear the various recorded statements she makes reference to, I've also included the gift link to the whole thing:

https://open.substack.com/pub/broligarchy/p/it-is-a-coup?r=w2vx&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

[GftNC]

IT IS A COUP
This is what should be on every front page in 150 point banner headlines. All I have is this Substack but I lay it beneath your feet and pray to a higher power that I'm wrong.
Carole Cadwalladr
Feb 10, 2025

A short note here on what I’m covering and why. The political changes we’re seeing across the world are underpinned by technological ones that are now accelerating. For more than a decade, I’ve been trying to investigate and expose these forces. Since 2016 that’s included following a thread that led from Brexit to Trump via a shady data company called Cambridge Analytica and the revelation of a profound threat exploit at the heart of our democracies. But what’s happening now in the US is a paradigm shift: this is Broligarchy, a concept I coined last summer when I warned that what we were seeing was the proposed merger of Silicon Valley with state power. That has now happened. Writing about this from the UK, it’s clear we have a choice: we help lead the fight back against it. Or it comes for us next. Please share this with family and friends if you feel it’s of value. Thank you, as ever, Carole

This is an information war and this is what a coup now looks like.

Musk didn’t need a tank, guns, soldiers. He had a small crack cyber unit that he sent into the Treasury department last weekend. He now has unknown quantities of the entire US nation’s most sensitive data and potential backdoors into the system going forward. Treasury officials denied that he had access but it then turned out that he did. If it ended there, it would be catastrophic. But that unit - whose personnel include a 19-year-old called “Big Balls” - is now raiding and scorching the federal government, department by department, scraping its digital assets, stealing its data, taking control of the code and blowing up its administrative apparatus as it goes.

This is what an unlawful attack on democracy in the digital age looks like. It didn’t take armed men, just Musk’s taskforce of boy-men who may be dweebs and nerds but all the better to plunder the country’s digital resources. This was an organised, systematic, jailbreak on one of the United States’ most precious and sensitive resources: the private data of its citizens.

In 2019, I appeared in a Netflix documentary, The Great Hack. That’s a good place to start to understand what is going on now, but it wasn’t the great hack. It was among the first wave of major tech exploits of global elections. It was an exemplar of what was possible: the theft and weaponization of 87 million people’s personal data. But this now is the Great Hack. This week is when the operating system of the US was wrenched open and is now controlled by a private citizen under the protection of the President.

If you think I’ve completely lost it, please be advised that I’m far from alone in saying this. The small pools of light in the darkness of this week has been stumbling across individual commentators saying this for the last week. Just because these words are not on the front page in banner headlines of any newspaper doesn’t mean this isn’t not happening. It is.

In fact, there has been relentless, assiduous, detailed reporting in all outlets across America. There are journalists who aren’t eating or sleeping and doing amazing work tracking what’s happening. There is fact after fact after fact about Musk’s illegal pillaging of the federal government. But news organisation leaders are either falling for the distraction story - the most obviously insane one this week being rebuilding Gaza as a luxury resort, a story that dominated headlines and political oxygen for days. Or…what? Being unable to actually believe that this is what an authoritarian takeover looks like? Being unsure of whether you put the headline about the illegal coup d’etat next to a spring season fashion report? Above or below the round-up of best rice cookers? The fact is the front pages look like it’s business as normal when it’s anything but.

This was Ruth Ben-Ghiat on Tuesday. She’s a historian of fascism and authoritarianism at New York University and she said this even before some of this week’s most extreme events had taken place. (A transcript of the rest of her words here.)

“It’s very unusual. In my study of authoritarian states, it's only really after a coup that you see such a speed, such obsessive haste to purge bureaucracy so quickly. Or when somebody is defending themselves, like Erdogan after the coup attempt against him, massive purge immediately. So that's unusual.

I don't have another reference point for a private individual coming in, infiltrating, trying to turn government to the benefit of his businesses and locking out and federal employees. It is a coup. I'm a historian of coups, and I would also use that word. So we're in a real emergency situation for our democracy.”

A day later, this was Tim Snyder, Yale, a Yale professor and another great historian of authoritarianism, here: “Of course it’s a coup.”

History was made this week and while reporters are doing incredible work, to understand it our guides are historians, those who’ve lived in authoritarian states and Silicon Valley watchers. They are saying it. What I’ve learned from investigating and reporting on Silicon Valley’s system-level hack of our democracy for eight long years and seeing up close the breathtaking impunity and entitlement of the men who control these companies is that they break laws and they get away with it. And then lie about it afterwards. That’s the model here.

Everything that I’ve ever warned about is happening now. This is it. It’s just happening faster than anyone could have imagined.

It’s not that what’s happening is simply unlawful. This is what David Super, an administrative law professor at Georgetown Law School told the Washington Post.

“So many of these things are so wildly illegal that I think they’re playing a quantity game and assuming the system can’t react to all this illegality at once.”

And he’s right. The system can’t and isn’t. Legal challenges are being made and even upheld but there’s no guarantee or even sign that Musk is going to honour them. That’s one of the most chilling points my friend, Mark Bergman, made to me over the weekend.

Last week, I included a voice note from my friend, tech investor turned tech campaigner, Roger McNamee, so you could hear direct from an expert about the latest developments in AI. This week I’ve asked Mark to do the honours.

He’s a lawyer, Washington political insider, and since last summer, he’s been participating in ‘War Game’ exercises with Defense Department officials, three-star generals, former Cabinet Secretaries and governors. In five exercises involving 175 people, they situation-tested possible scenarios of a Trump win. But they didn’t see this. It’s even worse than they feared.

“Those challenges have been in respect of shutting down agencies, firing federal employees and engaging in the most egregious hack of government. It all at the hand hands of DOGE, Musk and his band of tech engineers. DC right now is shell-shocked. It is a government town, USA, ID, the FBI, the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, CIA, no federal agency will be spared the revenge and retribution tours in full swing, and huge numbers have been put on administrative leave, reassigned or fired, and the private sector is as much at risk, particularly NGOs and civil society organizations. The more high-profile violate the law, which is why the courts have been quick to enjoin actions.

“So yes, we've experienced a coup, not the old fashioned kind, no tanks or mobs, but an undemocratic and hostile takeover of government. It is cruel, it is petty. It can be brutal. It is at once chaotic and surgical. We said the institutions held in 2020 but behind institutions or people, and the extent to which all manner of power structures have preemptively obeyed is hugely worrying. There are legions ready to carry out the Trump agenda. The question is, will the rule of law hold?”

Last Tuesday, Musk tried to lay off the entire CIA. That’s the government body with the slogan ‘We are the nation’s first line of defense’. Every single employee has been offered an unlawful ‘buyout’ - what we call redundancy in the UK - or what 200 former employees - spies - have said is blatant attempt to rebuild it as a political enforcement unit. Over the weekend, the Washington Post reports that new appointees are being presented with “loyalty tests”.

Musk’s troops - because that’s what they are, mercenaries - are acting in criminal, unlawful, unconstitutional ways. Organisations are acting quickly, taking lawsuits, and for now the courts are holding. But the key essential question is whether their rulings can be enforced with a political weaponized Department of Justice and FBI. What Mark Bergman told me (and is in the extended note below) is that they’ve known since the summer that there would be almost no way of pushing back against Trump. This politicisation of all branches of law enforcement creates a vacuum at the heart of the state. As he says in that note, the ramifications of this are little understood outside the people inside Washington who study this for a living.

And at least some of what DOGE is doing can never be undone. Musk, a private citizen, now has vast clouds of citizens’ data, their personal information and it seems likely, classified material. When data is out there, it’s out there. That genie can never be put back into the bottle.

Itt’s what it’s possible to do with that data, that the real nightmare begins. What machine learning algorithms and highly personalised targeting can do. It’s a digital coup. An information coup. And we have to understand what that means. Our fleshy bodies still inhabit earthly spaces but we are all, also, digital beings too. We live in a hybrid reality. And for more than a decade we have been targets of hybrid warfare, waged by hostile nation states whose methodology has been aped and used against us by political parties in a series of disrupted elections marked by illegal behaviour and a lack of any enforcement. But this now takes it to the next level.

It facilitates a concentration of wealth and power - because data is power - of a kind the world has never seen before.

Facebook’s actual corporate motto until 2014 taken from words Mark Zuckerberg spoke was “Move fast and break things”. That phrase has passed into commonplace: we know it, we quote it, we also fail to understand what that means. It means: act illegally and get away with it.

And that is the history of Silicon Valley. Its development and cancerous growth is marked by series of larcenous acts each more grotesque than the last. And Musk’s career is an exemplar of that, a career that has involved rampant criminality, gross invasions of privacy, stock market manipulation. And lies. The Securities and Exchange Commission is currently suing Musk for failing to disclose his ownership stock before he bought Twitter. The biggest mistake right now is to believe anything he says.

Every time, these companies have broken the law, they have simply gotten away with it. I know I’m repeating this, but it’s central to understanding both the mindset and what’s happening on the ground. And no-one exemplifies that more than Musk. The worst that has happened to him is a fine. A slap on the wrist. An insignificant line on a balance sheet. The “cost of doing business”.

On Friday, Robert Reich, the former United States Secretary of Labor, who’s been an essential voice this week, told the readers of his Substack to act now and call their representatives.

“Friends, we are in a national emergency. This is a coup d’etat. Elon Musk was never authorized by Congress to do anything that he’s doing, he was never even confirmed by Congress, his so-called Department of Government Efficiency was never authorized by Congress. Your representatives, your senators and Congressmen have never given him authority to do what he is doing, to take over government departments, to take over entire government agencies, to take over government payments system itself to determine for himself what is an appropriate payment. To arrogate to himself the authority to have your social security number, your private information? Please. Listen, call Congress now.”

I found myself completely poleaxed on Wednesday. I read this piece on the New York Times website first thing in the morning, a thorough and alarming analysis of headlined “Trump Brazenly Defies Laws in Escalating Executive Power Grab”. It quoted Peter M. Shane, who is a legal scholar in residence at New York University, “programmatic sabotage and rampant lawlessness.” It was displayed prominently on the front page of the New York Times but it was also just one piece among many, a small weak signal amid the overpowering noise.

There’s another word for an “Executive Power Grab”, it’s a coup. And newspapers need to actually write that in big black letters on their front pages and tell their tired, busy, overwhelmed, distracted, scared readers what is happening. That none of this is “business as usual.”

Over on the Guardian’s UK website on Wednesday, there was not a single mention on the front page of what was happening. Trump’s Gaza spectacular diversion strategy drowned out its quotient of American news. We just weren’t seeing what’s happening in the seat of government of our closest ally. As a private citizen mounted a takeover of the cornerstone superpower of the international rules-based order, our crucial NATO ally, our biggest single trading partner, the UK government didn’t even apparently notice.

The downstream potential international consequences of what is happening in America are profound and terrifying. That our government and much of the media is asleep at the wheel is a reason to be more not less terrified. Musk has made his intentions towards our democracy and national security quite clear. What he hasn’t yet had is the backing of the US state. That is shortly going to change. One of the first major stand-offs will be UK and EU tech regulation. I hope I’m wrong but it seems pretty obvious that’s what Musk’s Starmer-aimed tweets are all about. There seems no world in which the EU and the UK aren’t headed for the mother of all trade wars.

And that’s before we even consider the national security ramifications. The prime minister should be convening Cobra now. The Five Eyes - the intelligence sharing network of the US, UK, New Zealand, Australia and Canada - is already likely breached. Trump is going to do individual deals with all major trading partners that’s going to involve preposterous but real threats, including likely dangling the US’s membership of NATO over our heads all while Russia watches, waits and knows that we’ve done almost nothing to prepare. Plans to increase our defence spending have been made but not yet implemented. Our intelligence agencies do understand the precipice we’re on but there’s no indication the government is paying any attention to them. The risks are profound. The international order as we know it is collapsing in real time.

We all know that the the first thing that happens when a dictator seizes power is that he (it’s always a he) takes control of the radio station. Musk did that months ago. It wasn’t that Elon Musk buying Twitter pre-ordained what is now happening but it made it possible. And it was the moment, minutes after Trump was shot and he went full-in on his campaign that signalled the first shot fired in his digital takeover.

It’s both a mass propaganda machine and also the equivalent of an information drone with a deadly payload. It’s a weapon that’s already been turned on journalists and news organisations this week. There’s much more to come.

On Friday, Musk started following Wikileaks on Twitter. Hours later, twisted, weaponized leaks from USAID began.

This is going to get so much worse. Musk and MAGA will see this as the opening of the Stasi archive. It’s not. It’s rocketfuel for a witchhunt. It’s hybrid warfare against the enemies of the state. It’s going to be ugly and cruel and its targets are going to need help and support. Hands across the water to my friends at OCCRP, the Overseas Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, an investigative journalism organisation that uncovers transnational crime, that’s been in Musk’s sights this weekend, one of hundreds of media organisations around the world whose funding has been slashed overnight.

By now you may feel scared and helpless. It’s how I felt this week. I had the same sick feeling I had watching UK political coverage before the pandemic. The government was just going to ignore the wave of deaths rippling from China to Italy and pretend it wasn’t happening? Really? That’s the plan?

This is another pandemic. Or a Chernobyl. It’s a bomb at the heart of the international order whose toxic fallout is going to inevitably drift our way.

My internal alarm bell, a sense of urgency and anxiety goes even further back. To early 2017, when I uncovered information about Cambridge Analytica’s illegal hack of data from Facebook while the company’s VP, Steve Bannon, was then on the National Security Council. That concept of highly personalised data in the control of a ruthless and political operator was what tripped my emergency wires. That is a reality now.

The point is that the shock and awe is meant to make us feel helpless. So I’m telling a bit of my own personal story here. Because part of what temporarily paralyzed me last week was that this is all happening while my own small corner of the mainstream media is collapsing in on itself too. The event that I’ve spent the last eight years warning about has come to pass and in a month, 100+ of my colleagues at the Guardian will be out of the door and my employment will be terminated. I will no longer have the platform of the news organisation where I’ve done my entire body of work to date and was able to communicate to a global audience.

But then, it’s all connected. We are living through an information crisis. It’s what underpins everything. In some ways, this happening now is not surprising at all. Moreover, many of the people who I see as essential voices during this crisis (including those above) are doing that effectively and independently from Substack as I will try to continue to do.

And, the key thing that the last eight years has given me is information. The lawsuit I fought for four years as a result of doing this work very almost floored me. But it didn’t. And I’ve learned essential skills during those years. It was part of what powered me to fight for the rights of Guardian journalists during our strike this December.

The next fightback against Musk and the Broligarchy has to draw from the long, long fight for workers rights which in turn influenced the fight for civil rights that must now power us on as we face the great unknown. What comes next has to be a fight for our data rights, our human rights.

This was former Guardian journalist Gary Younge on our picket line and I’ve thought about these words a lot. You have to fight even if you won’t necessarily win. Power is almost never given up freely.

If you value any of this and want me to be able to continue, I’d be really grateful if you signed up, free, or even better, paid subscription. And I’d also urge you to sign up also for the Citizen Dispatch, that’s the newsletter from the non-profit I founded that campaigns around these issues. There is much more it can and needs to do.

With huge thanks as ever and solidarity & support to friends & strangers in the US, Carole

[GftNC]

Urgent request:

I just tried to copy and post (twice) the whole text and it's obviously gone into Spam because a bit long. But I see before it disappeared that it had some personal data (how ironic) which I thought I had deleted in it - please delete both posts.

I will try again, heading it Last Try, and definitely deleting anything personal. If that gets through, please rescue it! Thank you.

Slow, but finally done -- wj

[novakant]

Sadly, she is right. And if you've never heard of Cadwalladr, Timothy Snyder, Ruth Ben-Giath and Robert Reich agree with her.

[GftNC]

OK, it's been a while, and I'm guessing anyone who is interested will have followed the link, so maybe whoever can go into the spam folder could just delete all three comments? I'd be v grateful if you'd let me know when done - thank you!

[GftNC]

wj: many, many thanks!

[Donald]

The local protest that I sometimes attend had a “stop the coup “ emphasis last week, though Gaza could rise back to the top of the issues if the fascist keeps pushing his “ audacious plan” as the NYT referred to it. ( Even with Trump, the NYT has difficulty sometimes restraining its bootlicking impulses.)

There is something also “ audacious” about his decision to take generations of friendship with Canada and flush it down the toilet.
I mean, who among us has not dreamed of picking a fight with our fentanyl smuggling neighbors to the north?

[novakant]

One theory is that all this nonsense about Canada, Greenland, Gaza and Panama is a big distraction maneuver to divert the attention of the public away from the administrative coup that is underway. Not sure if that is assuming a little too much intelligence and operational discipline on part of our new dear leaders.

[novakant]

One small glimmer of hope is that Tesla sales are way down in 2025 and this is being attributed by some industry experts in part to a distaste of Musk's public behaviour among the target buyership.

So maybe there is a way to hit these guys by targeting their bottom line. One tends to forget how much these type of people are about money, see also the leadership of e.g. Russia or Iran. Politics is often just a front and maybe we are sometimes just taking their bait...

[Hartmut]

For the Romans 'audax'(=>audacious) was connotated extremely negatively as opposed to 'fortis' (brave). Catilina was 'audax' to appear in the senate after Cicero blew his cover. Audacity was something for barbarians, foolhardy recklessness without the mind guiding the activities.
But words change meanings.
At least the NYT did not use 'bold' to describe it (except maybe in the lettering) but that's probably just a matter of time.

[GftNC]

Mmm yes, the NYT yesterday called Andrew Tate "aggressively anti-feminist" instead of what he is, which is an openly violent misogynist and alleged rapist and sex trafficker. It seems their urge to normalise and whitewash knows no bounds.

[Hartmut]

cf. the 'official translation' of Charlie Chaplin's Shtonk! speech in The Great Dictator. Although I'd say Adenoid Hynkel was more eloquent than many GOPsters these days.

[JanieM]

One tends to forget how much these type of people are about money

This "one" never forgets that for a nanosecond, nor do a lot of other ones that I know.

[hairshirthedonist]

They want to turn the entire world into the company store. It's a dystopian vision animated by nihilistic greed. It seems not good to me.

[novakant]

I feel very odd defending the NYT, but if you take a look at the opinion pages today gorgeous instance, it's full-on anti-Trump (except maybe for this Bret Stephens person, but watching him trying to resolve his cognitive dissonances is kind of entertaining).

[novakant]

don't know how "gorgeous" got in there and why it replaced "for"(shouldn't type on the phone...)

[GftNC]

novakant, although I complain about its normalising and whitewashing, I still think it's well worth reading. I believe that it still has proper fact-checking (in this case "I believe" = "I really do believe", as opposed to "As far as I know"), which in this day and age is, at least to me, more precious than rubies.

[GftNC]

hilzoy reposted a comment by someone saying This is by far the best, clearest and most realistic analysis of what we're in for that I've seen.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/path-american-authoritarianism-trump

[novakant]

That article is really good, thanks.

[hairshirthedonist]

Seconded. It's appears to be very much how things are going to go unless there's more resistance than expected, which I think is unlikely.

[hairshirthedonist]

It, dang it!

[Michael Cain]

The article frequently refers to independent courts. Our court system is getting quite close to being a partisan supporter of Republican goals. The Supreme Court, which establishes precedents to which other federal courts must adhere, looks set to sharply restrict the regulatory state this term. This year and next they are likely to establish an odd sort of federalism, where states are allowed to implement various socially conservative policies (eg, tax funds to support private religious schools) but not to implement progressive policies (eg, California is likely to lose its waiver to establish tougher air pollution emissions standards).

[bc]

"hilzoy reposted a comment by someone saying This is by far the best, clearest and most realistic analysis of what we're in for that I've seen."

I read the article. Delurking simply because I found this article so absurd. IMHO, it's pure projection. Very blind (deliberately, I take it) to what has happened over the past eight years. I don't think the post-2016 election "energetic defense of democracy" means what the authors think it means, unless that is a euphemism for trying to take out a candidate and president you don't like by the various methods then described in the article. And all said with a straight face. That being said, sure, one might be worried that Trump could use the same tools deployed by the Biden administration and its allies against political opponents. Apparently it's "defending democracy" if your side is doing it, "competitive authoritarianism" if the other side is doing it.

[russell]

Bc, good to hear from you.

I'll just say that I found your comment discouraging. You've always been an intelligent and reasonable voice, the fact that you see an equivalence between the Biden and Trump administrations (either Trump administration) makes me wonder if the differences between us and our points of view are bridgeable.

Sad days for this country right now.

[liberal japonicus]

bc, hi, I wanted to ask about your comment, though it will just be this one question. Are you coming from the idea that what Trump is doing is nothing different that what every other president has done and that's the problem or do you feel that Trump is using the tools in a way that is what you want to see. I ask because I would think that there might be some tiny common ground if it were the former, but probably too far apart if it were the latter. No need to explain, just which one is it for you. thx

[Donald]

BC, I will meet you one quarter of the way.

Hunter Biden’s laptop and 50 former intelligence agents saying it had the hallmarks of a Russian intelligence operation. They were being deliberately deceptive. .i hate that crap.

I didn’t like all the things people said in the name of being anti- Trump and some of these anti- Trumpers are terrible people themselves, especially some of these national security or intelligence types. It doesn’t change the fact that Trump is awful in more ways that most of us can keep track of.

[hairshirthedonist]

The idea that there wasn't sufficient evidence of wrongdoing by Trump to justify investigation, prosecution, impeachment, etc. in just about every instance is ridiculous. I'm not naive enough to think there was never any bit of political motivation in going after him, but I'm also not naive enough to think that about any high-profile political figure who ends up in legal trouble. That's how it is if you're in the game no matter how much people (pretend to) think otherwise.

The real question is whether your legal troubles can be justified free of political considerations. You shouldn't get a pass simply because you're in politics and the possibility of political motivation against you exists.

(And if one side can claim that they're more willing to go after their own than the other side is, I don't think it's the Republicans.)

[russell]

The idea that there wasn't sufficient evidence of wrongdoing by Trump to justify investigation, prosecution, impeachment, etc. in just about every instance is ridiculous.

FWIW, this is pretty much where I'm at.

The attemtps to make Trump accountable were, of course, political. POTUS is a *political office*. Impeachment is a political remedy.

He was also investigated through *legal* means. Because the things he allegedly did were against the law. And I'm using the word "allegedly" here in the interest of extending a benefit of the doubt. I'm extending a long, long way.

All of that is completely correct and reasonable. It's how things work, or should.

When people say "it's political" what they are implying is that there is no basis in fact for the allegations. That they have been manufactured in the interest of partisan advantage.

Sometimes that's true. That's why impeachment requires a trial. That's why courts require a demonstration of guilt beyond a shadow of doubt (for criminal cases) or preponderance of evidence (for civil).

To my eye, Trump was treated with extraordinary deference. Beyond extraordinary, see also the novel and expansive SCOTUS doctrine of presidential immunity. Some of which might be appropriate, if we exclude his treatment by the SCOTUS, given the office he held, regardless of his personal character.

But I'm at a loss to understand how an equivalence can be drawn between the actions in office (or out of office) of Biden and Trump other than as an expression of partisan animus toward Biden and (D)'s in general.

This country more than survived under Biden. It is not likely to do so, at least in a form any of us will recognize, under Trump.

[Mike S]

Just compare Jan. 6 2021 with Jan. 6 2025. In the first you had Trump lying about a stolen election, inciting his insurrectionist base to attack the capitol in an effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, while he watched on TV from the White House. In the second case Biden's vice president presided over an insurrection-free vote count that peacefully transferred power back to the man who denied Biden the same.

[hairshirthedonist]

In a sane world, Trump would be in prison for inciting the Jan 6 riot.

[GftNC]

But I'm at a loss to understand how an equivalence can be drawn between the actions in office (or out of office) of Biden and Trump other than as an expression of partisan animus toward Biden and (D)'s in general.

Clearly, what russell, hsh and Mike S said. Everybody here who regularly reads my comments knows that I am dead against "crime by association", i.e. condemning people or assuming things about their opinions because of sources or arguments they may find interesting without necessarily agreeing with them.

But (and I cannot confirm because I am not the Google-master that e.g. lj is), I believe I have a memory about bc. My memory is that s/he revealed that s/he was a lawyer when we were discussing the Kavanaugh confirmation. bc seemed to think that because Kavanaugh had "refuted" the allegations, his nomination was just fine, and that he had been treated unfairly. S/he also talked about Strzok and Page (the FBI agents) as "the lovers", a usage I had only heard before from Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Strzok

I can't remember what bc said that made me (perhaps somewhat pompously!) remind him/her that s/he was an officer of the court, and was saying things that would contravene the conduct expected of one. I rather think that bc disappeared soon after that, or maybe even immediately.

If I am right about all this, and I hope someone will correct me if I'm not, it becomes (to me at least) rather clear where bc is coming from. Perhaps s/he will come back to us on this?

I should also make clear that I have rightwing friends who see Trump as a tremendous danger to American democracy, and who fully agree with that Foreign Affairs article. Ditto an old pal of mine, a retired senior Foreign Service officer, who is very far from a lefty. He says "we take an oath to defend the constitution, we do our duty to it, and we judge others on how or whether they do the same".

[bc]

russell, I don't see an equivalence per se. I feel a similar discouragement by the lack of introspection on the left (speaking very broadly here) as to how these very tools have been implemented by Obama and Biden. So yes, lj, I’m commenting on the former. We can keep a bit of common ground! And I don’t see this as a case of whataboutism. Trump hasn’t even done many of the things mentioned in the article, where Obama and Biden have. Donald mentioned just one way the state was weaponized against Trump and conservatives in general. That one way (letter of 51) combined with government censorship of the laptop story through pressure on and threats to social media companies and with the collusion of mainstream media (save the NY Post) IMHO cost Trump the 2020 election. To that list, I’d add so many others (siccing the FBI on parents at school board meetings, targeting Catholic Americans because of their religious views, sending IRS agents to the homes of taxpayers, just to mention a few).

But in response to russell’s coment @11:20 AM, the war against Trump included the Clinton campaign laundering funds through her attorney to procure a bogus report, then fed to the FBI who then investigated Trump for collusion, while at the same time leaking the investigation to the press. Yeah, I have a real problem with that and I don’t see that as any sort of deference. Clinton paid a $113,000 fine for her deliberate and knowing (IMHO) election interference actions. Trump got prosecuted for far, far less.
Again, I’m not arguing for equivalence. The use of the government in this context was simply wrong.

January 6th was a travesty and a dark day. I understand it in context of how the 2020 election played out, but I’m not going to defend Trump’s actions.

As for what is actually happening right now, as an ex-pat Alaskan, I disagree with the name change of Denali. I agree with the expeditious rooting out of fraud and abuse in the government. I have some concerns about the process, but I also see what I think is disinfo out there. The administrative state is squealing loudly. I don’t take that squealing as evidence of wrongdoing, but I have concerns. I agree with the expeditious apprehension of violent criminals that were released into the country. I’d personally take a different approach for the remainder (on immigration). I like immigration overall, just not how Biden did it via EO’s, secrecy etc. So there is a lot I (and most Americans, I think) agree with in terms of what is happening now. And there is a certain amnesia over how rapidly things changed after the 2020 election. Biden immediately implemented policies related to immigration, DEI, gender identity, climate change, COVID (mask wearing), etc.

[bc]

GftNC, I do recall our interchange, and that it struck me as odd because I couldn’t understand what prompted such a strong reaction from you. I do remember “refute” being part of that discussion and perhaps it was an American English/British English question. But no, it wasn’t you in particular that has me lurking around and not commenting. It’s just my life was (and still is) too busy.

I am at a loss, however, how I did or said anything with respect to the Kavanaugh nomination that would violate my duties to the court as a member of the bar. Maybe I’m too jaded by the left’s “Borking” of conservative nominees, but that doesn’t mean I can’t voice an opinion on whether the attempt to derail the nomination was in good faith. And Strzok and Page were in fact in a relationship, . . . ? I didn’t get that from Trump, but from reading the IG’s report, I think, or from the news.

I am puzzled by how these interactions make it “rather clear” where I am coming from. I consider myself a moderate conservative. More moderate than my youth, certainly. I’m reasonably tolerant of others and their opinions, as shown by the fact that I am interested in what you and others have to say. I test my own opinions and listen to left-wing talk radio on Sirius when I’m on long drives to see how the other half thinks. I don’t like large government and have been concerned about the administrative state, since, well, forever. But I know most government employees are good people. I believe we should do more as individuals to improve the common good and not rely on the government. I believe we have a lot more in common that is frequently acknowledged. I’d gladly meet anyone here for a beer (if only I drank!) and would expect I would come out the richer for it.

[russell]

This could go on for some length. I'll try to be brief. I'm sure I will fail.

Trump is a lifelong fraudster, chiseler, liar, bully. Period. I won't recite chapter and verse, there isn't enough time in the day.

January 6 was not a "dark day", it was an attempt to prevent the peaceful and lawful transfer of power through violence. It is not understandable or excusable in this country for any reason or under any circumstance. And Trump was all over it. And was not and will not ever be held accountable for it because the SCOTUS slow-walked and then validated his claims of immunity, which in and of themselves is a travesty.

*That* was a dark day.

The Steele dossier was a clusterf*ck, and for Clinton's involvement she was fined $113K. And FWIW, the investigations into possible Russian collusion with the Trump campaign did not originate with the Steele dossier, they originated with Trump's drunken lackey Papadopoulos blabbing to Australian diplomat about all of the dirt Russia had on Clinton and about his attempts to set up a meeting between the Russians and Trump's campaign.

Trump paid Daniels to shut up about his affair with her because he thought it would damage his electoral chances, and attempted to conceal the payments. That is election interference. He was found guilty by a jury of all 34 counts. His sentence was... nothing. Nothing at all.

I call that deference.

The "expeditious rooting out of fraud and abuse" has so far resulted in the firing of tens of thousands of civil service employees, the shuttering of USAID, the exposure of personal information including financial information of hundreds of millions of Americans to a handful of 20-something uncredentialed weirdos (see also "Big Balls" and "normalize Indian hate"), among many other questionable and unaccountable things. The "transparency" Musk claims has so far resulted in some posts on X and a DOGE website that contains... nothing.

The administrative state you decry guarantees the safety of our water, air, health, food. It manages entitlement and safety net programs that many millions of Americans depend on for their income, health insurance, and assistance with paying for rent and food.

Biden did in fact move fast when he took office, and it was good that he did, because between the COVID epidemic and the general chaos of Trump I, the country was a sh*t show. And for the life of me I will ever understand the problem people had with wearing a mask in a public place during an epidemmic. It was, in my opinion, idiotic.

I'm sure there are many people who think everything Trump and Musk are doing now is great. There are many people who think tariffs are something other countries pay us as tribute for access to our markets. A third of eligible voters didn't show up at all. Of those who did, slightly less than half voted for Trump. So claims of a mandate are slim. And to be blunt, a lot of people are deeply and profoundly freaking ignorant about anything having to do with American governance or public life.

And if you think people were and are angry about Biden's misbehavior, however that is construed, you have no freaking idea how angry people are with Trump, Musk, and the spineless sycophantic (R)'s in Congress and elsewhere right now.

The significant difference between them and the folks who were so upset in 2020 is that they haven't taken to shitting in the halls of Congress.

Apologies for going off like this, I appreciate your participation here. and I'm not trying to discourage it. But from my point of view, Trump is a vile human being and a straight-up criminal, and he is on track to irreparably change the character of this country in all bad ways.

We're all going to pay, and very dearly, for allowing him to return to office. I am, and you are too. And, making some basic assumptions about our general position in life, we are likely to be among the least affected.

This is going to be a disaster. It's already a chaotic mess, and it hasn't even been a month. It's a shitshow.

I try to find ways to be sympathetic toward folks who support this vile asshole, but it really does challenge me, deeply. The vast majority of them - the ones who are not going to benefit from the multi-trillion dollar tax cuts currently proposed, which are going to be paid for with multi-trillion dollars of additional borrowing - are going to suffer. Some of them are going to suffer a lot.

But so are the rest of us.

And all of that is more than enough from me.

Peace out.

[GftNC]

bc, perhaps someone with better Google-fu (is that the right expression?) than I have can pull it up, but my vague memory of what prompted my "officer of the court" intervention was that it was for specific comments, whether about Kavanaugh or Strzok and Page, or something else, I cannot remember. At that time (the usage is so widespread now that I have stopped pushing back), I was astounded by the use of "refute" to describe Kavanaugh's denials, and I suppose it is possible that I objected to a lawyer using evidential language so misleadingly.

Strzok and Page were certainly in a relationship, but Trump's description of them as "the lovers", rather like his use of the term "witch hunt", was designed to cast a scornful miasma of illegitimacy on those criticising him or his actions. A sensitivity to the purposeful use of slippery language of this sort, and the repetition of such Trumpian terminology, immediately raised an impression of your sympathies, whether wrongly or not may become more apparent.

Further to which, if you agree with the expeditious rooting out of fraud and abuse in the government*, how do you feel about the firings of the 17 inspectors general and other officials, (many appointed by and/or who had served under presidents of both parties) some of whom were investigating issues that affected Elon Musk and his companies? I believe that their specific purpose is "To seek to detect and deter waste, fraud, and abuse in government operations, and improve their efficiency and effectiveness. They provide an independent check on government and hold powerful government officials accountable." How do you think their dismissal (which may yet be found to have been unlawful) aided in *this task?

[GftNC]

Or: what russell said.

[russell]

To make a more measured reply to a couple of points:

I believe we should do more as individuals to improve the common good and not rely on the government.

Efforts by individuals are excellent, however the problem with that as the sole or primary approach is the issue of scale.

It's not a mom and pop world anymore, for good or ill.

I believe we have a lot more in common that is frequently acknowledged.

I'm sorry to say that I no longer find this true.

[bc]

I'm sorry to say that I no longer find this true.

I blame my optimistic attitude on my tube amps. I have a fairly good stereo in my office with tube monoblocks. I listen most of the day while working. I don't know what it is, but listening to a good vocalist or combo through them always makes me feel better about the world. It must be the overtones.

[nous]

I'm mostly going to sidestep the current discussion, except to say that the major difference between the current GOP path and all that came before is that what was promised and what is being delivered by the GOP here is the repudiation of our international agreements and our longstanding relationships with our neighbors and allies.

Poof...gone. With warning. In the open.

No one can, or should, trust us as an ally or as a partner.

But that's just a sideline to my central thought.

My biggest concern about the "Competing Authoritarianisms" analysis is that, while the comparisons with other countries that they make are valid, I'm not entirely sure that the conclusions that they reach about our ability to maintain the system are warranted. American is exceptional in at least one objective way to all those other countries - we are awash in a ready supply of firearms far beyond what even the military dictatorships and cartel challenged republics face. There are far more opportunities for grievance to spill over into public violence here than there are in Hungary. I don't know that the institutions are strong enough at the seams to contain this all.

[wj]

I think most of us are keeping an eye out for anything which can give us at least a few upbeat moments. Because most of the prospects right now are seriously fire.

[russell]

I blame my optimistic attitude on my tube amps

And… we find a point of agreement!

Thank you for your forbearance in the face of my rants. I don’t recognize my own country anymore, and I am literally afraid of many people who live here. I truly don”t know what they are capable of.

It grieves me and that gets expressed as anger.

In any case, I appreciate you joining in, it’s good to hear from you.

[GftNC]

what is being delivered by the GOP here is the repudiation of our international agreements and our longstanding relationships with our neighbors and allies.

Poof...gone. With warning. In the open.

No one can, or should, trust us as an ally or as a partner.

I felt physically ill when I saw today what Hegseth was saying, and how he was saying it. As for how the Ukrainians are currently feeling, I cannot even imagine it.

On your greater point, nous, of course what you say rings terribly, horribly true. I only hope you are wrong.

[CharlesWT]

American is exceptional in at least one objective way to all those other countries - we are awash in a ready supply of firearms far beyond what even the military dictatorships and cartel challenged republics face.

As an aside, this is a graphic comparison to "cheer" you up. :)

Countries by Number of Firearms(YouTube)

Gun Ownership by Country (per 100 people)(YouTube)

[Hartmut]

From what I heard, the administration's 'peace plan' for Ukraine was originally supposed to be announced by an official during a visit to Germany. That announcement was canceled - it seems - at the last minute. There are speculations that someone just in time remembered history and persuaded the boss that effing MUNICH was not the ideal place to officially sell an ally in Eastern Europe to an aggressor.

[russell]

We're number one!!

[wj]

That announcement was canceled - it seems - at the last minute. There are speculations that someone just in time remembered history and persuaded the boss that effing MUNICH was not the ideal place to officially sell an ally in Eastern Europe to an aggressor.

Someone should have just told Trump that it was guaranteed to be 'historic'. He'd have insisted. Not realizing that it might be construed as Truth in Advertising.

[russell]

Here is the best version of sense that I can make of all of this chaotic mess.

Trump basically wants revenge on all the people he thinks have been out to get him. And he wants to wave a magic wand and create some kind of nostalgic Golden Age, for which he will be adored.

Musk seems to be trying to implement Curtis Yarvin's dictatorship of the technorati, while paving a path to achieving the coveted (by him) status as world's first trillionaire. He also seems to be personally deeply weird and in search of some kind of recognition and appreciation of his unique genius.

And the (R)'s in general seem to be interested in implementing Russell Vought's rollback of the administrative state to something resembling pre-New Deal America, or maybe even pre-Progressive Era America.

These goals overlap, but are not exactly the same.

Right now Musk is leading the charge because he comes from the break things, see what happens, and recalibrate culture of Silicon Valley. Which is, I guess, a plausible approach for building consumer platforms, but probably much less so for public governance. If your page doesn't load, it's inconvenient. If you can't get food or health care, you might die.

That's my analysis, and it's worth every penny you paid for it.

[liberal japonicus]

Thanks for the response, bc. I'd just note that any phenomenon like Trump is going to have equal measures of old and new. While I don't think I've gotten more conservative in my twilight years, I do have a much better appreciation of keeping things the same. I also feel that many of the things I don't like are unavoidable.

[Hartmut]

post-WW1 Germany had millions of trillionaires.
The highest banknote in November 1923 had a nominal value of 100.000.000.000.000 Reichsmark. A kg of rye bread had a price of 233 billion Reichsmark. The mint ran out of paper for the printing of money and had to overstamp existing banknotes with extra zeroes. It was also the year when a future head of state first made headlines (not the title of TIME Magazine yet though) for attempting an insurrection in Munich and got away with a minimum sentence that later even got commuted.

[russell]

I agree with the expeditious rooting out of fraud and abuse in the government.

Who wouldn't like to eliminate fraud and abuse?

But who gets to decide what is fraudulent and abusive?

If you look at the DOGE website right now, you'll see a long list of grants and programs that they claim to have terminated. Many of them are related to DEI.

What exactly is the problem with diversity, equity, and inclusion? Are there communities and demographics within this country that are underrepresented in positions of responsibility and / or access to opportunity? Is there no merit in affirmative attempts to address that?

Why is that bad?

And is Elon Musk and his crew of 20+ year olds the people we want making those decisions? Team "Big Balls" and "normalize Indian hate"? Making those decisions based on a couple of weeks of exposure to the systems and information they are working with?

The people and programs they are eliminating actually do things. Real things, in the real world. Do Elon et al understand what those things are? Based on what has to be a cursory look at a database?

What I am struck by in all of this is the incredible childishness, arrogance, and naivete of people who believe that, because they are successful technology entrepreneurs (or work for one) they therefore have some privileged insight into the function and responsibility of public governance.

I'm sure they're all very clever people, but in terms of the things they are actually dealing with, they are f***ing idiots. They are deeply ignorant, but their arrogance prevents them from understanding what they do not know. Or at least allows them to proceed in spite of that ignorance.

They're going to break a lot of stuff, which is going to be expensive in a lot of ways. And the cost will be paid by you and me, and also by the people who think all of this is a good idea.

The systems they are undermining evolved over many years to address problems and needs that these folks have little understanding of. They exist for a reason, and by far mostly not just to line the pockets of bureaucrats. Bureaucrats don't make that much money.

We'll discover what those systems and programs were intended to address when those things are no longer addressed.

[GftNC]

What I am struck by in all of this is the incredible childishness, arrogance, and naivete of people who believe that, because they are successful technology entrepreneurs (or work for one) they therefore have some privileged insight into the function and responsibility of public governance.

I'm sure they're all very clever people, but in terms of the things they are actually dealing with, they are f***ing idiots. They are deeply ignorant, but their arrogance prevents them from understanding what they do not know. Or at least allows them to proceed in spite of that ignorance.

Every word of this.

And, by the way and FWIW, the ignorance and arrogance extends much, much further than the activities of the DOGE guys. If you had heard Vance lecturing the European leaders in Munich about how censorship and their lack of freedom of speech is more of a danger to Europe ("the danger within") than Russia is, you would have wondered what kind of dystopian fantasy world you were living in.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/14/world/vances-speech-upsets-european-leaders-intl-latam/index.html

[GftNC]

Can I just say this, reverting to the issue of that Foreign Affairs article and bc's full throated condemnation of the suggestion in it that the levers of the law might now be used corruptly either to threaten or reward, as in authoritarian regimes.

For anyone following the saga of Pam Bondi's and the Acting Deputy AG Bove''s attempts to get DOJ lawyers to file court papers seeking to drop the pending corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, the following information is (and should be) staggering. After the resignations of several of the top attorneys and officials who refused to file such papers, including this masterpiece of a letter by Hagan Scotten:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/02/14/nyregion/scotten-letter.html

the next step was this, according to Former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade, as quoted in Politico:

“DOJ leadership has put all Public Integrity Section lawyers into a room with 1 hour to decide who will dismiss Adams indictment or else all will be fired,” McQuade wrote Friday morning on X. “Sending them strength to stand by their oath, which is to support the Constitution, not the president’s political agenda.”

Justice Department spokespeople did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

“I think it’s safe to say this is the most dire crisis that current attorneys of the Department of Justice have ever faced in a modern era of the Justice Department,” said one former senior Justice Department official, who was granted anonymity to avoid potential retaliation against colleagues still at DOJ. “The crudeness of the intimidation is just absolutely chilling.”

Well finally, and by such methods, they did get a couple of lawyers to sign the filing, albeit with the very unusual addition of Bove. But, again according to Politico [my bolding]:

Another former senior DOJ official deplored the wreckage caused by Bove’s bid to drop the Adams case and praised the prosecutors who quit for their principled stance.

“I’m very proud of how they’ve conducted themselves. It’s remarkable,” said the second ex-official, who also asked not to be named to avoid fallout for colleagues.

The second ex-official predicted that the resignations might get Trump’s attention and convince him that the upheaval is undermining his agenda — a notion that has bubbled up among some Trump supporters.

“It’s horrible, but this might have a beneficial effect. Rational people need to recognize these are conservative Republicans fighting corrupt Democrats,” the ex-official said.

Scotten, for instance, is an Iraq War veteran and Bronze Star recipient who clerked for Chief Justice John Roberts at the Supreme Court and at an appeals court for Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Both Scotten and Sassoon are registered Republicans.

Something else I read suggested that once they've run through all the principled, competent lawyers, they might have a problem of getting things through the courts. Perhaps a determined optimist like wj might take some comfort from such a notion, but I must say I don't.

[russell]

I'll put a more personal note on this.

I've mentioned before that one of my nieces has a child who is a trans boy. Born biologically female, i.e. with female genitalia, but who has identified since quite early childhood as a boy. Dresses like a boy, changed his name to a male name, plays soccer competitively in a boy's league. All on his own initiative, a completely self-motivated thing.

A boy.

He has been receiving gender affirming care in the form of testosterone. As of now, that is no longer available to him in his home state of Arizona. Period, full stop. It *is* available to kids with other conditions, but not for gender dysphoria, and only gender dysphoria.

This is going to be calamitous for him and his mom, who is now frantically trying to figure out how, and if, that care can be gotten in some other way. My niece is also in the process of researching whether and how to move to another country, because she doesn't understand what kind of life her son is going to be able to have here. That in turn is going to be a problem for my sister and brother-in-law, because they all live together as an extended family, with the intention that my niece and her kids would help my sister and brother-in-law basically age in place. My brother-in-law in particular has had some truly difficult health issues over the last few years, and they are in their mid to late 70's.

So, who benefits from this change? Who is helped by denying trans kids care? None of this is happening "behind the back" of his parents, my great-nephew's care happens with the full support of his family and his medical care providers.

Who does this help? What problem does it solve? What "government efficiency" is achieved?

It's just freaking bigotry. Some people are uncomfortable with other people whose sense of themselves doesn't fit their mental model of what it needs to be, and they are going to make sure that the thing that makes them uncomfortable goes away. Whether it's any of their freaking business or not.

My niece points out that about 40% of trans kids attempt suicide. So this will result in more kids dying. It will. Her son is less likely because his family is supportive, but even he's still got to live in the world.

That link, BTW, is to an NIH white paper, so it will probably disappear as soon as Elon & co. notice that it exists.

This is way beyond mere stupidity, although it is profoundly stupid.

This is malice.