The Money Factor

Balderdash.

Appearing on Bill Maher's Real Time in October of 2024, Van Jones had stated 

If progressives have a politics that says all White people are racist, all men are toxic, and all billionaires are evil, it's kinda hard to keep them on your side. if you're chasing people out of the party, you can't be mad when they leave.

This quote had become most widely circulated only recently, and nothing Jones has said or even hinted at suggests that he has revised his perspective. So earlier this week I wrote "in 2020, neither Jones, or (Rahm) Emanuel (nor Carville) was heard offering criticismor even skepticism, maybe a word of caution,of the Black Lives Matter protests or the movement it symbolized. That would have demonstrated leadership, boldness, or prescience."

I have not changed my opinion but have changed my perspective. There are such Democrats who bash their own party because, among other things, it (allegedly) says that all white people are racist. These Democrats in neither 2020 nor the intervening years have uttered even a word of skepticism about BLM, thus rendering them feckless.

Most Democrats, even most progressives, don't argue that all white people are racist. However, the idea that some whites don't believe they're fully accepted by the Democratic Party because of their race has merit.

This (real or imagined) perception goes back decades. However, it was placed on steroids by the George Floyd protests of 2020,  of which the Democrats publicly skeptical could fit inside a phone booth, were one to be found.

Yet, as Sam Seder recognized, the thrust of Jones' comments was not directed toward race or gender. It concerned primarily money, or class. Seder remarked (with remarks in parentheses made by off-screen contributors)

It sounds like he's making an argument like "look, you just don't have the votes if you say no white people or no men. Yea. But honestly, like how many votes could we lose if we said no billionaires? (About a thousand.) I mean, how many billionaires do we have voting for, uh, Democrats now or progressives? How many billionaires do we have that are supporting progressives?

I don't know. Yea, a bunch. And with, uh (there are 200 billionaires in the United States but they're all in, um, in Ohio.) We could be losing a small town somewhere. (We'd be losing Pritzer?) It just gives you a sense of what his project is and it, it really is one of the best illustrations of that whole cohort of voices that you hear across the spectrum who considers themselves moderates The will argue we've got to stop this identitarian politics.

Characterizing Jones' sentiment, Seder adds "we've got to stop demonizing, uh, white people, we've got to stop demonizing, uh, black people. I mean, excuse me, we can still do that. Uh, we've got to stop demonizing men, etc. etc."

For one brief moment, Seder geot it wrong. Not only does Van Jones never demonize black people but no reasonably prominent Democrat on the national level demonizes black persons. A black person, obviously, can be demonized but never black people as a race nor anyone because he or she is black. Never.

Pardon the digression (or as they say on ESPN, Pardon the Interruption).  

Date:  July 6, 2017

Motorist: Philando Castille, 32-year-old black male

Police Officer: Geronimo Yanez

Location: Falcon Heights, a suburb of Minnesota

Incident: Officer stops car with whose two adult occupants look like robbery suspects. Castille tells Yanez that he has a gun (legally/illegally carried unclear). Yanez tells Castille not to reach for it or pull it out. Castille makes a move. Yanez believes Castille is reaching for gun, shoots him five times, killing him.

Trual: Prosecutor argues that Yanez was "a nervous officer who lost control of his traffic stop. He was too quick to pull the trigger after learning Castille had a gun" (CNN).

Verdict: Not guilty of "culpable negligence" 

It was awful police work, Castille shouldn't have been shot, and Officer Yanez soon thereafter was separated from the St. Anthony, Minnesota Police Department. 

The victim should not- and was not- blamed by anyone anywhere for having been shot. It proved tragically disastrous that Castille was carrying a firearm while driving with his wife and his child. The police officer, as the prosecution conceded in its own argument, panicked. Following the killing, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain issued a travel advisory as they warned of the USA's "gun culture." (Good point, guys.)

Gun safety advocates joined all notable Americans  (NRA excepted, for its own reasons) in acceptance of an individual unnecessarily carrying a firearm. Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, otherwise a gun safety advocacy group, argued "A traffic stop should not be a death sentence for Black men but, in America, it's an all-too-oommon occurrence."

Not "a traffic stop should not be a death sentence" but "a traffic stop should not be a death sentence for Black men." He was a hero because he was black, which runs contrary to Seder's notion that blacks can be demonized. Moms Demand Action hardly demonized blacks, Van Jones did not demonize blacks, and given black women as the base of the Democratic Party, no Democrat demonizes blacks. However, Seder is spot-on when he continues 

But what they're doing is they're protecting money interests. They're just trying to distract you with the first two. It was really the perfect illustration, the perfect and most concise illustration. And the context in which he said it also was sort of magnificent. You would literally have to goto a laboratory and create that.

Van Jones et al. are trying to distract us with the other stuff.  Moms Demand Action was unintentionally and stupidly diverting attention from its calling, gun safety. However, Jones and others usually are trying to distract us, turning our attention from their support of monied interests. Race and gender are easy distractions, but money talks.

 

Share |

Mythmaking

Blogger Steve M, whom I quote probably more than anyone else, recognizes that President Donald Trump's State of the Union address Tuesday

was aimed exclusively at the Trump/GOP voter base. That base -- the last people in America who still admire and respect Trump -- doesn't want the president and Congress to pass a bunch of laws. The people in the base want Trump to make them feel good, partly through simple-mided flag-waving patriotism, but mostly through endless Democrat-bashing. Like the rest of us, they've stopped expecting the political system to improve our lives. But they're content if Trump hurts the people they want to see hurt, demeans the people they want to see demeaned, and declares that America is strictly Republican.

The President presented a master class in mythmaking and "simple-minded flag-waving patriotism" designed to make people feel good.  A moment or two into his speech, Donald offered one of his golden oldies, "winning too muc," when he boasted

People are asking me, please, please, please, Mr. President, we’re winning too much. We can’t take it anymore. We’re not used to winning in our country until you came along, we’re just always losing. But now we’re winning too much. And I say, no, no, no, you’re going to win again. You’re going to win big. You’re going to win bigger than ever. And to prove that point, to prove that point, here with us tonight is a group of winners who just made the entire nation proud. The men’s gold medal Olympic hockey team. Come on in.

And then, at his command, out strode the men's gold-winning USA hockey team. It was a dramatic moment brought to the audience by a man expert in the ways of Hollywood through The Apprentice, which followed a stint as an awful businessman in New York City.

He spoke of the "spirit of 1776," and introduced 100-year-old Buddy Taggart, who fought in the Battle of Manila and earned a Purple heart and a bronze star. "From 1776 to today," declared Captain Bone Spurs, "every generation of Americans has step (sic) forward to defend life, libety and the pursuit of happiness." 

The flag-waving segued effortless into mythmaking, such as when he claimed "we just received from our new friend and partner, Venezuela, more than 80 million barrels of oil," an estimate off by more than 50 million. He later stated

Moving forward, factories, jobs, investment and trillions and trillions of dollars will continue pouring into the United States of America because we finally have a president who puts America first. I put America first. I love Aaerica. For decades before I came along, we had the exact opposite.

Trump consistently exaggerates the amoung of investment made in this presidenial term, but that's not where the critical myth lies. "I love America," states the man who called the USA "evil" and its people "bloated, fat, and disgusting."  "I put America first" contends the man who in December released from prison former Honduran President Juan Carlos Hernandez, who had been sentenced to 45 years in prison for conspiring to distribute more than 400 tons of cocaine and related firearms offenses. 

Loving America and putting America first is a myth invented by the man who in his first term alone on at least six occasions- most famously, with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki- sided with foreign governments over the USA. In Tuesday's State of the Union address itself, Trump condemned his immediate predecessor four times, including an accusation that Biden "gave us the worst inflation in the history of our country" (which did not occur then) and that he "created (our) housing problem," which was ludicrous.  Directly criticizing a former President while you yourself are President is virtually unprecedented.

Nonetheless, the most intriguing and very significant myth has gone unexplored, for fear of any politician, news organization, or pundit being accused of "political incorrectness" or worse. After boasting of an initiative of the First Lady, Donald said 

I’m very proud to say that during my time in office, both the first four years and in particular this last year, there has been a tremendous renewal in religion, faith, Christianity and belief in God. This is especially true among young people, and a big part of that had to do with my great friend Charlie Kirk. Great guy. Great guy.

So last year, Charlie was violently murdered by an assassin. And martyred, really, martyred for his beliefs. His wonderful wife, Erika is with us tonight. Erika. Please stand.

Thank you. Erika, thank you a lot. In Charlie’s memory, we must all come together to reaffirm that America is one nation under God. And we must totally reject political violence of any kind. We love religion, and we love bringing it back.

The only accurate portion is that Charlie Kirk was murdered, and for his beliefs, though even that is not confirmed. There is a critical myth circulating in respectable conservative circles that "there has been a tremendous renewal in religion, faith, Christianity and belief in God."

It is reflected in the Gallup headline from last June "More Americans See Religion Increasing Its Influence in U.S." The article's author wrote "thirty-four percent of U.S. adults believe religion is increasing its influence in American life, similar to the 35% measured in December but up from 20% a year ago."

Nevertheless, he says the increase "likely does not reflect a change in Americans' personal religious commitment, as 47% of U.S. adults say religion is 'very important' in their lives, unchanged from a year ago."  Americans, as far as we can tell, are not becoming more religious- they believe others are. (It's a comforting thought.)

The reason for this is quite simple. Americans keep hearing, from Trump and others. that religious faith is booming in this country. Donald is an accomplished actor, thus an extraodrinarily convincing liar, especially because practice makes perfect. Most of his lies are fact-checked at one point or another. However, bold would be the man or woman who would dare to check for veracity the claim that religion is gaining influence in society. "Anti'Christian" would be the least of the attacks leveled. 

Gallup found also 

The most notable increase occurred after the 9/11 terror attacks, when 71% in December 2001 saw religion as increasing its influence, up from 39% in February of that year. The 71% reading is the highest in Gallup’s trend, which dates back to 1957.

A second surge occurred amid the COVID-19 pandemic. In April 2020, 38% of U.S. adults believed religion was becoming more influential, up from a pre-pandemic reading of 19% in December 2019. The April 2020 figure was the highest Gallup had measured since 2006.

In 2016, a Duke University academic explained

After the Sept. 11 terror attacks, many expected American houses of worship to be jammed with parishioners seeking refuge, community and a place to grieve.

And that spike in church attendance did in fact occur. Briefly.

But the attacks did not have a lasting effect on American religiosity, says Mark Chaves, a Duke professor of sociology, religious studies, and divinity. Chaves directs the National Congregations Study, which examines American religious places of worship over time. He says the jolt to church attendance following the attacks lasted just a few weeks.

“People thought this type of crisis of national significance would lead people to be more religious, and it did,” he says. “But it was very short-lived. There was a blip in church attendance and then it went back to normal.”

Religious behavior isn’t usually affected in the long term by single events, Chaves says. Rather, religious practice in a society tends to change slowly over a long period of time, often owing to demographic changes. For example, changes to family structure -- like people marrying later, or not at all, or choosing not to have children -- have led to changes in church attendance and other sorts of religious involvement, Chaves says.

And though church attendance spiked briefly after 9/11, America’s overall participation in religious activities was actually in decline at that time -- a trend that was slow enough not to be identified until recently. The best data point to a slow, steady drop in religious involvement dating back to at least the 1970s, he says.

There was a flurry of increase, which then evaporated, in church attendance after the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, whereupon religiosity continued its long-term decline in the USA. And the effect of Charlie Kirk's murder upon the American psyche, despite the GOP's effort to create the myth that Kirk was an overarching figure in society whose death mobilized right-thinking people everywhere, was perhaps 1-2% as great as "9/11."  Donald is eager to perpetuate the myth- hence, the invitation to his widow and the claim that her "great guy" was "martyred."

There is also the the disingenuous notion that America is "one nation under God." The idea emanates from the Pledge of Allegiance, which was written in 1892 without a reference ro religion. "Under God" was added by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 in response to "the second Red Scare, a period when U.S. politicians were keen to assert the moral  superiority of U.S. capitalism over Soviet communism, which many conservatives regarded as "godless."

Typically, individuals who believe in God recognize God as all-powerful and "in control."  The "under God," was added to the Pledge to emphasize our superiority to communist nations, To Donald Trump, a little less obviously to other individuals wishing to exploit religion for political ends,"under God" now asserts superiority over every other nation.

It's absurd to argue that the USA, under the leadership of Donald Trump, is guided by the hand of God. That may be good and may be bad, and is probably both. It would an improvement generally over Donald John Trump- but lends easily to the claim that America is a "Christian nation," all others be damned.. 

However,crushing truths perish from being acknowledged, especially those persisting to make us feel good. The untruth that our country is a land of Christian faith led by a benevolent patriot is only one. But it's bad enough.  

Share |

Come Clean, Fellas

And from the anti-Democrat wing of the Democratic Party, we have Van Jones:

Van Jones: “If progressives have a politics that says all White people are racist, all men are toxic, and all billionaires are evil, it’s kinda hard to keep them on your side. If you’re chasing people out of the party, you can’t be mad when they leave.” pic.twitter.com/WchdC0u5wx

— Taya (@travelingflying) February 23, 2026

Jones added "and maybe if we had a different politics, dignity for everybody everybody is respected and we need you, more pople might stay."

Actually, though, the Democratic Party does have the kind of politics embodied in Jones. It is a politics of self-flaggelation. Last July, James Carville described his own party as "Constipated. Leaderless. Confused..... The Democratic Party is in shambles." Similarly, Rahm Emanuel a year ago maintained "politics is adddition, not subtraction, and we've been doing subtraction really well." he claims "both the political and economic establishment.... and we're all part of it, I'm part of it- we have failed the American people."

Not that the Republican Party has failed the American people- us, too! And Van Jones appears to be concerened that Democrats are chasing white people, men, and billionaires out of the party, which would repesent significantly more than half of voters.

Nonetheless, if there is a better way of chasing voters generally from your political party, there may be no better way than by saying "we have failed the American people" or "we stink, too."

The criticism of Emanuel and Jones- and the other Democratic politicians who have said something similar- is particularly ironic. They both see their Party as subtracting people and they are, in an odd sort of way, correct- just not in the manner they believe (Jones, probably) or not as they care to admit (Emanuel, probably).

Because a funny thing- somewhat controversial but insufficiently so- happened three years ago this month, when the Democratic Party placed South Carolina first on the party's presidential nominating calendar. It was catapulted to the head of the table, granting the state status which New Hampshire had previously possessed. Two months earlier, President Biden had written the Rules and Bylaws Committe, maintaing

For decades, Black voters in particular have been the backbone of the Democratic Party but have been pushed to the back of the early primary process. We rely on these voters in elections but have not recognized their importance in our nominating calendar. It is time to stop taking these voters for granted, and time to give them a louder and earlier voice in the process.

Prior to 2024, South Carolina had been sixth on the party's presidential primary/caucus schedule and as the state immediately preceding Super Tuesday, had more than once proven pivotal. However, as was noted shortly before the 2/24 primary in the state

The campaign's not just signaling. It's broadcasting to Black voters that they are the priority, and they're why the Party chose South Carolina to lead the nominating contest.

Toutin a "six-figure" ad blitz in South Carolina, Demoratic Party officials noted it's the party's earliest ever spending during a presidential contest on outreach to Black voters.

"When you think about he heart and the backbone of the Democratic Party,if there are any folks who deserve to go from the back of the bus to driving the damn bus, it's the Black folks here in South Carolina," Jaime Harrison, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said last week at a historically Black college in Sumter.

South Carolina was not given the interests of diversity. Not only are there many black voters in the Democratic primary in the state, they are a clear majority. If the Party wanted to reward a state which has a large number of black voters but which is more racially representative of the nation, it could have chosen Maryland, Illinois, or perhaps a couple of others. If it wanted to give a nod to a swing state, it could have chosen to be first New Hampshire (as it had been), Nevada, Wisonsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, or perhaps Colorado, Minnesota, or New Mexico, which typically vote Democratic but not by rock-solid margins.

Instead, the Party selected South Carolina for reasons of racial preference and, as usual in presidential and statewide elections there, got their rear-ends kicked, as it expected.

Perhaps that's wise,or at least not grossly unwise, because black voters have been particularly supportive of the Democratic Party. Yet, choosing a state precisely because its (primary) voters are predominantly black should be abhorrent to  a prominent Democrat who complains that his Party "says all White people are racist." Nor is it consistent with advocating that Democrats concentrate on "addition."

Similarly, in 2020, neither Jones, or Emanuel (nor Carville) was heard offering criticism or even skepticism, maybe a word of caution, of the Black Lives Matter protests or the movement it symbolzied. That would have demonstrated leadership, boldness, or prescience.

But there was no criticism then, nor was there more than a tiny bit when the Democratic Party decided race would trumpet all considerations. Now, people are questioning the Party while being either ignorant or dishonest about it, and they're doing it without offering specifics. It all rings hollow. 

Share |

Wise Tactic

As recognized by the former chess campion, Donald Trump is dangerous and emboldened by suceess in grabbing power, and will only get worse. While he repulsively lashes out at critics, his party will continue to object only at the margins.

Trump is deranged and dangerous and is only going to get worse. He is emboldened by success in his power grabs and lashes out like this when rebuked. The most pathetic thing is the GOP is never going to do anything about it. An orchestra of fiddle players as Nero throws matches. https://t.co/iFBvgBvN2a

— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) February 21, 2026

In his speech following the Court's decision, the President complained  "The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country."  He claimed

Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic. They’re so happy, and they’re dancing in the streets, but they won’t be dancing for long, that I can assure you.

The Democrats on the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no. They’re an automatic no, just like in Congress, they’re an automatic no. They’re against anything that makes America, strong, healthy and great again. They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices….

"Others" are

just being foools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radicalleft Democrats and not that this should have anything at all to do with it, they're vry unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.

It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think.

In a post on his ironically, yet intentionally, named Truth Social platform that evening, Donald remark in part

What happened today with the two United States Supreme Court Justices that I appointed against great oppsition, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, whether people like it or not, never seems to happen with Democrats. They vote against the Republicans, and never against themselves, almost every single time, no matter how good a case we have.

If X is any indication, his remarks inspired the desired response. One tweeter argued (with picture of the offender) "Meet Amy Coney Barrett. She just went against President Trump and struck down his tariffs. She is one of the biggest disappoints we've ever seen. Betraying the American people."

Another- also with photo attached- raged 

SHE IS A TRAITOR. Amy Coney Barrett is a traitor to the conservative movement! 

Since her appointment in 2020 she has AGREED WITH THE LIBERAL JUSTICEs in approximately 65% to 75% of cases on average. 

This average varies by term and specific justice but the pattern is crystal clear. Trump gave her the seat to deliver for us yet she sides with the left way too often! 

It feels exactly like a fox slipped into the conservative henhouse t wreck it from inside. 

Patriots who cheered her cconfirmation now feel stabed straight in the back!

Still another wrote 

President Trump just called out the corrupt SC Judges who are bought and paid for by FOREIGN COUNTRIES. TRAITORS TO AMERICA. 🇺🇸 ☠️

Chief Justice John Roberts (who wrote the majority opinion)

 •  Justice Neil Gorsuch

•  Justice Amy Coney Barrett

•  Justice Sonia Sotomayor

•  Justice Elena Kagan

•  Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

“And they’re dancing in the streets but they won’t be dancing for long.” 

This tweeter summed up the sentiment: AMY CONEY BARRETT IS AN ABSOLUTE TRAITOR."

AMY CONEY BARRETT IS AN ABSOLUTE TRAITOR

Which is to say: Donald Trump is not "deranged."  CBS News noted that after Trump's prepared remarks

A reporter asked the President if he regrets nominating dissenting justices Barrett and Gorsuch. The President said he didn't want to say that, but lobbed personal insults at the justices.

"I don't want to say whether or not I regret. I think their decision was terrible" he said, pausing before continuing. "I think it's an embarrassment to their families, you want to know the truth, the two of them."

Barrett and her husband have seven children, while Gorsuch and his wife have two.

Donald Trump has appallingly attacked Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch. Many of his supporters have taken the hint.

There are three possible outcomes to President Trump's excoriation of two Supreme Court justices. Of course, the two justices may put aside the personal insults. They may rise above the noise and rule in the future as they othewise would, usually as a conservative in the case of Barrett and almost always in the case of Gorsuch.

Or perhaps the two will be intimidated. Trump typically attempts to intimidate friend and foe alike and his record of success is impressive. That is especially plausible given Barrettt and her husband have seven children, while Gorsuch and his wife have two.

The third possibility, obviously, is that one or more of Trump's loyalists will conclude that traitors have to be eliminated, as stated in some circles, neutralized.  If that were to occur, in the case of either or both, we know who will be blamed. It will be, as has been the case with the murder of Charlie Kirk and the assassination attempts upon Donald Trump himself, the "left" or "Democrats" or "they," the latter unspecified enemies of the MAGA movement and/or its leader. The crime would be exploited ruthlessl by President Trump- think Reichstag fire.

The one consolation is that the perpetrators would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as were the January 6, 2021 insurrectionists. And like those individuals, they would be..... oh, yea, granted clemency or pardons.  

Donald Trump is not deranged, stupid,or unhinged. He understood quite well the possible ramifications of his incendiary remarks. And most of those, for him, would be positive.

Share |

Make America Sick Again

Donald Trump has issued an executive order about weed but it has nothing to do with marijana. On February 18, as The New York Times explains, he issued an executive order

aimed at spurring the domestic production of glyphosate, a widely used weedkiller that has figured in health lawsuits.

The move immediately set off alarms among supporters of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” movement, and appeared to put Mr. Kennedy in an awkward position.

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, which has been the target of tens of thousands of lawsuits that claim it causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In 2018, as a plaintiff’s lawyer, Mr. Kennedy helped win a landmark $289 million jury verdict against Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, in a case contending the company knew the weedkiller caused cancer....

Mr. Kennedy has taken an aggressive posture on pesticides in the past. “The chemicals pollute our bodies the same way that they pollute the soil,” he said in 2024. In a report issued last year, a commission he chaired to examine the causes of chronic disease singled out glyphosate and another pesticide, atrazine, as potentially harmful to children.

Surely, though, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a plain-spoken, authentic, and principled guy. The Times continues

But in a statement issued through a spokesman Wednesday night, the health secretary said he supported the president.

“Donald Trump’s executive order puts America first where it matters most — our defense readiness and our food supply,” Mr. Kennedy said in the statement. “We must safeguard America’s national security first, because all of our priorities depend on it.”

Mr. Trump’s order invoked the Defense Production Act, a 1950s-era law typically used in national emergencies to compel companies to produce certain materials or supplies that the president deems necessary for national security. Mr. Trump declared both glyphosate and phosphorus, used to manufacture the weedkiller, “critical to the national defense.”

“Lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would critically jeopardize agricultural productivity, adding pressure to the domestic food system,” Mr. Trump argued.

He ordered the agriculture secretary, in consultation with the defense secretary, to “determine the proper nationwide priorities” and gave them authority to compel production of the materials “to ensure a continued and adequate supply” of phosphorous and glyphosate-based herbicides, if necessary...

The Defense Production Act provides a pathway for companies to be shielded from certain liability suits, and Mr. Trump’s order appeared to extend that protection to producers of glyphosate. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in weeks in a case that asks whether federal law shields pesticide manufacturers from such lawsuits.

It's simply extraordinary or, in the literal sense of the word, unbelievable that continued over-production (and over-consumption) of soybeans, corn, and wheat- already heavily subsidized by the federal government is criticial to the national defense. However, those crops are intrinsic to maintaining a high rate of disease in the USA. Robert Kennedy, the con artist behind "Make America Healthy Again," knows that but total allegiance to the King is required.

The announcement was made at a rather curious time in that 

Bayer, the German pharmaceutical and biotech giant that acquired Monsanto in 2018, announced on Tuesday that it had reached a tentative agreement that would pay plaintiffs $7.25 billion to settle tens of thousands of lawsuits that claimed Roundup caused cancer.  The company maintains that the weedkiller is safe and an essential tool for farmers.

Last year, several pharmaceuticals each gave one million dollars to subsidize Donald Trump's inauguration. They included Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Gilead, and- you guessed it- Bayer. If in fact, the agreement with Rondup victims is tentative, it can be pulled back or renegotiated. The President has given the company a powerful bargaining chip.

Nonetheless, this may be overthinking Donald's motivation for the executive order.   He  may have something different in mind.

In January of  2016, presidential candidate Donald J. Trump boasted, in only a slight exaggeration, "I could stand in the middle of Fifthe Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters, O.K.?  Ten years and one month later, in the first Cabinet meeting of his second term, the President called the American people "bloated, fat, and disgusting."  Earlier, he had labeled the country itself "evil." A President bent on total power gives "disgusting" citizens of an "evil" country cancer-causing food may make sense to such a twisted individual.

 

Share |

George W Bush Has Not Joined the Resistance

Commemorating Presidents' Day, former president George W. Buxh recently wrote a piece honoring President George Washington for More Perfect initiative of the substack In Pursuit. (This was a segment in a series in which ex-presidents and others are invited to write about an ex-President.) The second paragraph of his essay captures its spirit:

Few qualities have inspired me more than Washington’s humility. I have studied the corrupting nature of power, and how retaining power for power’s sake has infected politics for generations. Our first president could have remained all-powerful, but twice he chose not to. In so doing, he set a standard for all presidents to live up to. His life, with all its flaws and achievements, should be studied by all who aspire to leadership. George Washington’s humility in giving up power willingly remains among the most consequential decisions and important examples in American politics.

Much of the media swooned. Inquisitr recognizes "reports suggesting criticism of Trump argue that the essay is heavy with subtext" while "some readers.... believe that Bush is directly being critical of Trump." A reporter for the Culture section of The New York Times, contrasting the Washington presidency with the Bush presidency, remarked

The essay praising Washington's decision to step aside comes as the idea that Donald Trump would run for a third term has continued to circulate since the beginning of his second term last January- by the president and people in his inner circle. Trump 2028 merchandise went on sale in early 2025.

The New Republic noted that Bush 43 had praised the first President for his "'humility', a deep appreciation for history, a revernce for knowledge superior to his own, and an unwilliness to retain power'for power's sake.'" Moreover

Bush’s adoring gaze toward the qualities of America’s first president only served to underscore just how unpresidential the current administration has become.

Bush waxed poetic on several of George Washington’s qualities, but paid particular attention to ones that are currently in short supply. Those included “humility,” a deep appreciation for history, a reverence for knowledge superior to his own, and an unwillingness to retain power “for power’s sake.”..

The message carried particular weight considering that Donald Trump has continually contested election results in fruitless grasps at power, including an attempt to overthrow the 2020 presidential election and threats to run for president a third time, against the constraints of the law.

Yet, the Republican ex-President invoked only those attributes which President Washington possessed. He did not mention those things Washington avoided: a love of tyrants; encouraging a violent insurrection or the execution of his political enemies; monetizing the presidency; a penchant for lying: a fondness for calling enemies "vermin" or "radical left thugs."  or "Dummy Beto," "degenerate animal," "Dirty Cop," "third rate reporter," or "crazy" anybody.

Former US Representative Joe Wilson, an early and now repentant Tea Partier, is having none of it. Responding to the whitewashing of George W Bush, Wilson argues

And W has not said a damn thing. His utter silence in this age of Trump. He could have made a difference. His utter silence in this age of Trump has been so damn cowardly and such a damn dispappointment, I don't give a flying fuck about George W Bush's "subtle jabs" or "subtle swipes" at Trump. Fuck his subtle jabs. George W- what a disappointment. Respectfully, you can fuck right off."

George W Bush’s utter silence in this age of Trump has been so damn cowardly and such a damn disappointment. Respectfully George W, you can fuck right off.👇 pic.twitter.com/Sg1ABiSN5L

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) February 17, 2026

If Bush wanted to take a figurative shot at, or throw "shade" (as the Times put it) upon Donald Trump, he could have mentioned any of these, or a couple of dozen other, faults. He might have invoked the name of the incumbent President, referred to "the President" or the "office's incumbent." Anything to suggest that he was thinking of Donald J. Trump. But he didn't. Instead, the stunningly dishonest Bush concludes

I often say that the office of the president is more important than the occupant; that the institution of the presidency gives ballast to our ship of state. For that stability we are indebted to the wisdom of our founding fathers’ governing charter and the humility of our nation’s first president. It has guided us for 250 years, and it will strengthen us for our next 250 years.

Donald Trump has proven that the office of the President can pale in comparison to the occupant; that there currently is no "ballast" to "our ship of state" and the country is deeply unstable; that the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and humility of our first President does not currently guide us. There is no indication that any of that "will strengthen us for our next 250 years" any more than it will guide us for the next 250 days. If, without endorsing any specific policy, Bush had tried to defend and honor the current President, he need not have changed one word of his article.

Odds were overwhelming, as George W Bush left the presidency and in the years following, that he would not be as bad an ex-President as he was a President. He has defied those odds.

Share |

"Shut Up and Ski"

Prior to the opening ceremonies of the 2026 Winter Olympics, American freestyle skater Chris Lillis remarked

I love the USA. I would never want to represent a different country in the Olympics. With that being said, a lot of times, athletes are hesitant to talk about political views and how we feel about things.

I feel heartbroken about what’s happening in the United States. I’m pretty sure you’re referencing ICE and some of the protests and things like that," he continued. "I think that, as a country, we need to focus on respecting everybody’s rights and making sure that we’re treating our citizens as well as anybody, with love and respect. I hope that when people look at athletes compete in the Olympics, they realize that that’s the America we’re trying to represent.

Colleague Hunter Hess expressed a similar sentiment, went slightly further and was critized by President Donald Trump and other conservative snowflakes. (But I repeat myself.). So afterward, he clarified

I love my country. There is so much that is great about America, but there are always things that could be better.

One of the many things that makes this country so amazing is that we have the right and the freedom to point that out. The best part of the Olympics is that it brings people together, and when so many of us are divided we need that more than ever. I cannot wait to represent Team USA next week when I compete."

It brings up mixed emotions to represent the U.S. right now, I think. It’s a little hard. There’s obviously a lot going on that I’m not the biggest fan of, and I think a lot of people aren’t," Hess said.

I think, for me, it’s more I’m representing my friends and family back home, the people that represented it before me, all the things that I believe are good about the U.S. If it aligns with my moral values, I feel like I’m representing it. Just because I’m wearing the flag doesn't mean I represent everything that’s going on in the U.S.

I just kind of want to do it for my friends and my family and the people that support me getting here.

But any deviation from complete loyalty to Herr Trump has become risky. And so it was that talk radio host Boomer Esiason, a former New York Jets and Cincinnatti Bengals quarterback, was asked on February 10 whether such skiers, who ended up winning a gold medal were "happy to represent America."  He told his co-host on their New York City show

They seem to be happy to represent America.  Not everybody is buy everybody should just pipe down and just do their sport and play for our country and respect the flag and respect everything that's going on.

Threre are at least two excellent responses to Esiason's response, the first no less valid because of being obvious. Rick Strom of TYT Sports reminds us that sports is in fact heavily politicized:

If it's not the place for political statements, why do we have flyovers from fighter jets that are sent to different parts of the world to kill people and wipe out regions for United States imperialism. Why do we see Palantir's sponsors on the scoreboard? That occurred. Why do we see Ring, who's partnering with Floc to surveil us for police departments and now the Department of Homeland Security? That is a political move.

Why do we allow poltiicans to attend games? Those are poltical acts. Why do we allow the President to go on a nationally televised game for an interview/discssion during said televised game? Why is the United States flag on the field? Why is the national anthem played? Why do we have military reunions that the NFL partnered with the military for?

The flyovers are a brazen military maneuver conducted to ensure support for any military action, but especially for continually expanding the Pentagon's budget, expected to be a record $838.7 billion for fiscal 2026, $8 billion more than the Department requested. And Donald Trump is a member of professional wrestling's largest promotion, World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), with which he has a close connection, and of the company's Hall of Fame. Even before being elected in 2016, Donald appeared at Wrestlemania XXIII and was participated in the Battle of the Billionaires. A long-time mixed martial arts fan, the President is set to host with the Ultimate Fighting Championship on June 14 the first live professional sporting event on the South Lawn of the White House. 

Even better, though including a point media will ignore, was the rant of ESPN host Michael Ryan Ruiz of the Dan Le Batard Show, who directed his comments toward Esiason, maintaining (profanity left in because, well, that's what he said)

Say what you mean. Say it wih your chest. You chickenshit. Because your MAGA-coated bullshit has been going on for ten years. The guy has been in office for a second time because his whole platform is how much this country stinks. Yet you sit on the sidelines when Nick Bosa wears a MAGA hat post-game. Ehere's the same energy?

I'm a sports fan. My soccer team won the club World Cup. He was on the freakin' stage. I had to eat it. I'm a NASCAR fan. Riley Gaines is giving incantations. The President is literally taking laps at the Daytona Motor Speedway. 

It took me 45 minutes to get into the national championship game because the Secret Service is there checking everybody because he so effectively uses sports to sportswash his image. And yet I've had to eat it. You got your way. They're not kneeling during the anthem. They're doing every thing they can so you can live in your little bubble and not be threatened by the reality of your decisions, the cost of what you actually voted for. 

The liberals, the left, they all had to eat it because you gus were so loud, and so soft, and so triggered. But you can't tune in to the Winter Olymics, a sport that you probably only worry about every four years and you don't want to be faced with the reality that maybe some people- and according to the polling, a hell of a lot of people- aren't exactly thrilled with how things are going in this country and they are using their one moment, in most cases, to highlight that because that is universally American. And you want them to shut up? Quit being a pussy, Boomer Esiason. Put your name to it. Say what you fucking mean.

Ruiz referred to "your MAGA-coated" b.s. and "you got your way" because Esiason is a consrvative who condemned Colin Kaepernick and celebrated Donald's recent election victory. And he urged Esiason to "put your name to it" because the ex QB is not coming clean on partiality to right-wing politics.

Nevertheless, Ruiz's most important point came early: "the guy has been in office for a second time because his whole platform is how this country stinks."

This is something both the media and the Democratic Party completely miss. In Trump's first inaugural speech, he described what he viewed as "American carnage."  Between Donald's two terms, he attacked the USA as "rigged, crooked, and evil." Early in this term, he claimed Americans are "bloated, fat,  and disgusting." He has been determined to undermine a range of American insitutions, both rhetorically and in practice. His campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again," reinforces this contempt- no need to make something "again" if it no longer is. 

His "whole platform is how much this country stinks." Ultimately, skiing is not the issue. The freedom to criticize one's own government is. And so is the movement whose leader brooks no criticism of its leader and god, and a nation which will does not acknowledge that its President believes it is loathsome.

Share |

Together

After the State of the Union message delivered on March 4, 2025

President Donald Trump mocked Democrats who sat in front of him Tuesday night, needling them with a grin, “nothing I can say or do to make them happy.” Democrats mostly responded with silent protest — wearing pink, waving placards emblazoned with “FALSE” and “Save Medicaid.” More than a dozen walked out of his speech early, some revealing shirts that said “No Kings Live Here.”..

Democrats’ protest was “very silly, and unserious, but I can’t help but feel some level of empathy for them,” said a Democratic strategist granted anonymity to discuss the issue candidly. “I’m sure they feel like they have to do something, anything, [but] that wasn’t it.”

At best, the protest of Democratic members of Congress to, and during, the State of the Union Address was a dud, a flop, a bust (synonym* day!).

Thus, asked on Fox News about President Trump's State of the Union message to be delivered on February 24, 2026, Pennsylvania senator John Fetterman stated

I do plan to attend. And I hope that this year, they don't put up those silly paddles and all these kinds of weird protests. You don't have to agree, or agree with whatever you hear but like last year, it just made us look like, like children and you know, exactly, I can see you're referncing that. You know, it's like show up or not but to do that kind of thing, like have some dignity and just, you know, we can agree to disagree and not call people names and behave in such ways like that.

🚨 Senator Fetterman plans to attend the State of the Union and hopes his fellow Democrats "don't put up those silly paddles and all those kinds of weird protests."

"Last year, it made us look like children."

"Have some dignity... we can agree or disagree and not call people… pic.twitter.com/plpJmEOs75

— Kayleigh McEnany (@kayleighmcenany) February 14, 2026

It's an overworked cliche, but I'm going there anyway. Given this report from the inauguration on January 20, 2025 of Donald Trump, maybe Fetterman should sit this one out. It was then that

Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman wore shorts and sneakers to the U.S. Capitol for the swearing-in ceremony of Donald Trump and J.D. Vance.

Despite chilling temperatures that moved the inauguration inside, Fetterman, 55, was seen sitting in the front row in the Capitol Rotunda as attendees took their seats before the ceremony began on Monday, Jan. 20.

The senator was also wearing a black hoodie to the event, where he joined guests such as Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos to watch Trump take office for his second term.

CBS reporter Scott MacFarlane shared a photo of Fetterman arriving at the Capitol on Monday, when temperatures were hovering in the 20s.

"Wind chill in the teens… as Sen John Fetterman (D-PA) arrives at Capitol in shorts," MacFarlane wrote on X.

There is nothing that says "dignity" better than an overweight, middle-aged man wearing shorts to a traditonal national ceremony like the swering in of an individual to the American presidency. Nor is there anything weird about that. No, nothing.

It's tempting to call Fetterman an imbecile but he's correct that Democrats writ large were not dignified and looked a little like children. He may or may not understand that Democrats were easily ridiculed precisely because most did not do what some were doing.  When a few members of the party- either party- do this while some do that, they are easily mocked or scorned* by the opposition and disparaged or dismissed* by traditional and mainstream* media. 

The party of serious and normal people must respond appropriately. That could mean sitting on their hands throughout the speech, though they may have to join Republicans in jumping up and applauding when Trump wraps himself (figuratively, hopefully) in the flag or religion. Perhaps they all need a placard with identical words. In any case, coordinate.

The Democratic Party is a coalition of whites, blacks, and other ethnic groups; men and women; stratight and un-straight persons; Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others; and- well, you get it. It's difficult to get all these individuals to do any one thing in unison. Nevertheless, they must do so because Donald Trump will tear them apart if they lack a coherent message. 

Share |

Two Antithetical, Converging Philosophies

How do you say "if you don't love it, leave it" in left?  Lawyer Sunny Hostin tells us how in this excerpt from "The View":

You know, this country seems to be one of the only countries in the world that is so proud of being neolingual and not being able to communicate in more than one language. And the fact of the matter is, in about twenty years, multi-ethnic people will be the majority in this country. So if you don't understand Spanish,, maybe start taking a little Duolingo course.

🚨WATCH: Sunny Hostin tells viewers that if they wanted to understand Bad Bunny they should have learned spanish.

SUNNY: "Maybe start taking a duolingo course." 🤡

So let me get this straight — telling immigrants to learn English, the most widely spoken language in America, is… pic.twitter.com/esdkvQEAde

— Brandon Tatum (@TheOfficerTatum) February 11, 2026

One of the significant things in this remark initially escaped my attention, as it did the tweeter. Hostin says that in approximately twenty years, multi-ethnic people will be a majority in the USA.  Then she recommends individuals learn Spanish. However, in what may be the most recent estimate, the researcher refers  (emphasis mine) to "the growth in Multicultural populations in the U.S." There not only are more Latinos residing in the USA than in past years, but more immigrants from Africa and Asia and tribal populations remain. Relatively few in those groups speak Spanish. 

Nonetheless, the thrust of Hostin's statement is the warning that if  "you don't understand Spanish, maybe start taking a little Duolingo course."  The condescending reference to "little" and "start taking" may be unintentional. However, the implication is obvious and intentional: if you don't know Spanish, you won't belong here. If you don't love it (as it will be), just leave.

Perhaps Hostin has learned from the right. In  this tweet featured in my last post, lawyer and ex-Fox News talk show host Megyn Kelly remarks

So we have to keep the Super Bowl, which is a quintessential american event. Football, that kind of football, is ours. They cal it American football. And the halftime show and everything around it needs to stay quintessentially Amrican- not Spanish, not Muslim, not anything other than good old-fashion American apple pie. There should be a meat loaf, maybe some fried chicken, and an English-speaking performance. That's what the Super Bowl should be.

Food is a relatively superficial marker of nationalism but I can play the game as well as does Kelly. Meatloaf is, according to Wikipedia, "a traditional Slovak,German, Czech, Nordic, and Flemish dish." Fried chicken also originaed from abroad, perhaps from Scotland. And "good old-fashion American apple pie,"  according to Rossi Anastopoulo (and who would know more about food than a Rossi Anastopoulo?) originated in England, 'where it developed from culinary influences from France, the Netherlands, and even the Ottoman Empire. In fact, apple trees weren’t even native to North America until the Europeans arrived."

They all came from abroad and then were adapted to the taste of Americans. And that's the point. These dishes did not have to originate in North America. They were brought here, were adopted by Americans, and became what we think of as American. 

Bad Bunny was born in Puerto Rico and thus is a natural-born American. (He is eligible to become President once of age; please, spare me.) But you get the point: he was not born in any of the 50 states and speak a language foreign to most of us born in the USA.  But that does not disqualify him from being accepted by Americans, especially those who speak Spanish, are young (rap music), and were born outside of the continental USA.

It goes to the question of what is "American" which, to Megyn Kelly, evidently excludes non-English speaking peoples and Muslims. 

It is a mistake easily made, and not only by ethnocentric conservatives. Sunny Hostin, whose perspective is not the majority on the left, but not uncommon either, says you better learn Spanish.  In her utopian future, no one in her country may be uni-lingual unless Spanish is the only language they know. 

Kelly and Co. believe that a Super Bowl halftime show in Spanish is not "quintessentially American." Hostin and Co. believe that because, sometime in the not-distant future, "multi-ethnic people" outnumber non-Hispanic whites, everyone not white (which includes many people whose first language is neither English nor Spanish) must learn Spanish. 

Megyn Kelly argues that the halftime show of a game which is broadcast to the USA entirely in English (elsewhere, no doubt translated) should be in English, not Spanish. It is not even the championship game itself which must be in English, but the accessory to the game. And as far as we know and very likely, it will not become a habit.

Both groups believe that there can be one America, one in which everyone conforms to the majority (Kelly) or to a minority (Hostin). They both believe in the sadly enduring myth of the USA as a melting pot. Toss everyone into the cauldron and everyone becomes the same, Everyone must know English- or everyone must know Spanish.

The USA is not a melting pot. It never has been one, though we like telling ourselves it is. Kelly is representative of a narrow-minded conservatism while Hostin represents only a liberalism which, if seen clearly, is quite illiberal. 

If the NFL chooses periodically to slap English-speaking Americans in the face because it envisions a global, rather than a US-centered, market, it is entitled. If in 2046 or thereabouts many of us choose to continue to speak only one language, we will be entitled to do so. We will survive either- or both- because various and varied subcultures can exist side-by-side with individuals choosing to adopt- or shun- any portion they wish.  Ours need not be a society of forced homogenization but of a colorful tapestry.