"It's long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year..."

"... in the most hateful and despicable way possible. For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world's worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now.... Radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives. Tonight, I ask all Americans to commit themselves to the American values for which Charlie Kirk lived and died — the values of free speech, citizenship, the rule of law, and the patriotic devotion and love of God.... Today, because of this heinous act, Charlie's voice has become bigger and grander than ever before, and it's not even close...."

Said Trump in an address from the Oval Office last night.

My attention was called to that by this Maggie Haberman piece in the NYT: "At the White House, Trump’s Grief and Shock Turn to Rage Over Charlie Kirk/President Trump asked for updates and met with advisers in the Oval Office before recording a four-minute video in which he blamed rhetoric from the 'radical left' for the killing."

The headline prompts us to question Trump's basis for purporting to know what motivated the killer. Maybe we ought to wait until we learn more, and maybe the hateful rhetoric is coming from both sides, and maybe there are leftwing targets of violence. I'm imagining those on the left scurrying to prevent Trump and his allies from controlling the narrative.

I wrote that last paragraph based on the headline and drawing on my own expectations. Then I read the article and did not find what I'd thought I'd find. It is more of a straightforward description of the scene at the White House yesterday. We're told "the corridors... were quiet, as staff there absorbed news," and "Televisions affixed to walls in different rooms blared minute-to-minute coverage.... Some staff members appeared to have been crying."

The last sentence of the article makes me jerk my head to check the calendar icon in the sidebar of my computer: "The president was still on track for a visit to New York on the anniversary of the last significant event to unite nearly all Americans across parties: the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."

It's a very somber day, not a day to strain to find a way to advantage your side. And yet, there is Trump in that video, forthrightly blaming the radical left. He didn't take a day or 2 off for reflection and what either is or looks like prayer. And that's a temptation to all on the left and all those pumping for Democrats to assert that the right is also responsible for the violence. Yield to that temptation and you might be the next Matthew Dowd.

See "Matthew Dowd Fired From MSNBC for Charlie Kirk Comments" (Variety). What Dowd said, probably feeling this was measured, accurate, and smart: "[Charlie Kirk] is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that is the environment we are in. You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place. And that’s the unfortunate environment we are in."

"Unfortunately, when you have a society where you do have ubiquitous crime, you do need some kind of an authoritarian leadership."

"Not saying you need tyranny, not saying you need a dictator, but you need fucking laws and you need rule of law. And sometimes those people come off very harsh and very uncaring and unloving and you know, the total opposite for, like, the reason why people voted for Jimmy Carter, I think, 'cause Jimmy Carter represented like a, like, a genuinely sweet good guy. Right. But, like, look how that presidency was a disaster 'cause they were all working against him for sure. And on top of that, it's, like, hard to, like, you gotta gotta be a bit of a hard ass if you wanna run the world...."

 Said Joe Rogan, on his #2370 podcast, transcript and audio, here, at Podscribe.

"The musical was closely associated with Barack Obama’s administration: Lin-Manuel Miranda... took inspiration for musicalizing George Washington’s Farewell Address from a video..."

"... in which will.i.am set Mr. Obama’s 'Yes We Can' speech to a melody. But it didn’t appeal to liberal audiences alone. Lynne and Dick Cheney praised it as much as Hillary Clinton. In the 2016 documentary 'Hamilton’s America,' Paul Ryan and George W. Bush shared their appreciation alongside Elizabeth Warren and Mr. Obama.... It was seen to represent the promise and limitations of the Obama era, a celebration of America as the land of immigrant achievement, expanding and fulfilling the founders’ imperfectly realized plan. ... Ezekiel Kweku called it 'the Hamilton consensus': a vision of 'an America whole but unfinished, waves of progress bringing it closer and closer to its founding ideals' as 'a meritocracy wrung clean of bias, whose creed is both a promise and invitation to anyone talented and hardworking enough to lay claim to it.'... Ten years on, 'Hamilton' feels less like a fantasy than a warning: This is how quickly America’s promise could curdle...."

Writes Daniel Pollack-Pelzner, in "A Decade After It Opened, ‘Hamilton’ Feels Like a Warning" (NYT).

I've never seen "Hamilton," but I've always thought will.i.am's video, "Yes We Can," was fantastic. Perhaps it still calls to mind the feeling of 17 years ago, when it expressed a wan, sad hope. Now, looking back on the Obama administration, there's no hope about what is in the past, but the wan sadness remains. What that has to do with rapping in 18th century costumes and stomping about and pointing at the ceiling, I do not know. I've never seen "Hamilton," but I hear that it used to express hope and now it's supposed to be regarded as warning us about Trump. I'm still not going to watch it. Too pushy. I'm fine with whatever subtle feeling there is in "Yes We Can," as the Obama presidency fades into the distance.

"I think it’s going to require a little bit less navel-gazing and a little less whining and being in fetal positions. And it’s going to require Democrats to just toughen up."

Said — guess who? — Barack Obama.

This is another one of those statements to fundraisers that you weren't supposed to hear, but they manage to leak out somehow.

In this case, the statement was "exclusively obtained by CNN."

The reputedly amiable but often crabby ex-President also said: "You know, don’t tell me you’re a Democrat, but you’re kind of disappointed right now, so you’re not doing anything. No, now is exactly the time that you get in there and do something. Don’t say that you care deeply about free speech and then you’re quiet. No, you stand up for free speech when it’s hard. When somebody says something that you don’t like, but you still say, 'You know what, that person has the right to speak.' … What’s needed now is courage."

What have they got that I ain't got? 

Obama's remarks made me think of this "printed, foldable card that can fit right into your ID badge holder" given out by the UW School of Medicine and Public Health, developed by the Office of Social Impact and Belonging:

"I just think it's a huge mistake for the world's wealthiest man... to be at, at, at this war with the world's most powerful man who I think is doing more to save the country than anybody — I mean, I'm 40 years old — anybody in my lifetime."

"You think about it, it's a guy who not even a year ago, nearly took a bullet in the process of campaigning, went back on the horse the next day. And if you look — obviously I'm biased — but you look at what we've done on the border, you look at what we've done with trade — fighting back against a generation of theft of the American dream, which is what the president's trade policies are starting to do. I just think you've got to have some respect for him and say, look, yeah, we don't have to agree on every issue I'm talking about. If you're Elon Musk, you don't have to agree with this on every issue. But is this war actually in the interest of the country? I don't think so."

Said JD Vance, talking to Theo Von. Audio and transcript here, at Podscribe. YouTube here.

Vance continues:

"What craft is in playwriting is where in the end someone stands and says, Oh my God, it was in front of me the whole time!'"

"Everything that I thought — this doesn't make sense, this doesn't make sense — ah, now it makes sense!... That's what Aristotle said. He wrote the book called The Poetics a little while ago. He said, the ending has gotta be surprising and inevitable.... So if we know that, as dramatists, it's no different than a joke. The ending's gotta be surprising — oh, aha! — and inevitable.... That's why we laugh.... Because it re-convinces us, happily, that we really aren't that fucking smart.... The joke and the good play frees us from our self-absorption. I'm so smart or why am I not doing better? Or someone's trying to fuck me.... I'm too lazy. I'm too this and that.... And da, da da da da. That's what we do on our stupid minds all day long. So a joke frees us from that. Yeah."

Said David Mamet, when he was talking with Bill Maher the other day.

I thought about that discussion when I clicked on The New York Times and got a glimpse of the play written by Donald Trump and Elon Musk:

 

We're in the audience, and it's the this doesn't make sense phase of the play, but I trust that the end will come and we'll be all "Now it makes sense!" We'll get it later and laugh and be re-convinced, happily, that we really aren't that smart.

Of course, I'm thinking I'm smart and can predict the end, but if the geniuses are geniuses, I'll be surprised, even as I recognize that where we ended up was inevitable.

"The left is full of empathic people. Right. And so those who parasitize empathy have a field day on the left...."

"The ethic is pretty straightforward. Anything that cries is a baby, it's like, no, some things that cry are monsters....Well, let, let's take the case of Nicola Sturgeon. The, the Scottish Prime Minister, the previous Scottish Prime Minister. Any man who wants to can be a woman. It's like, okay, any man, you mean any man? Do you? Yeah. Ha! Have you encountered the nightmare men? Oh, they don't exist. They're all victims. Yeah. You just bloody well wait till you encounter one. You'll change your story very rapidly. Yeah. And for the, for the naive and sheltered empaths of the radical left, they're either psychopaths, so they're wolves in sheep clothing, or they're people so that are so naive that the, the — what would you say? — Red Riding Hood's grandmother can definitely have his way with.... There are no shortage of naive people who've never really encountered a monster and have no imagination for it.... And they're, and they're very good at crying like infants... And then the mothers, the naive mothers come flooding out...."

Said Jordan Peterson on Joe Rogan's podcast. Scroll to 02:30:52 for the part I excerpted.

 

"I am happy to have dual citizenship, with access to all 27 EU countries. If the next president is cut from the same cloth as Trump..."

"... I will conclude the dream is over, and it's time to go. This country had so much promise."

So writes a commenter at "Want to leave the U.S. for good? How to get dual citizenship. Depending on your ancestry, you could get a second passport and live abroad" (WaPo).

That's a free-access link, so you can see all the other comments that display a shocking thinness of love for one's native land. Imagine being born in the United States of America, then leaving in a huff and running off to a non-place called "all 27 EU countries." Where's the love?!

If you really hate what the President is doing, what good is it to remove yourself and observe from afar? Presumably, you hate him because of what he is doing to hundreds of millions of people, who will remain where they are, victims of his (as you see it) evildoing? Your leaving the premises does absolutely nothing to help. Why would it matter where you are? 

"Worrying about amorphous dangers can be paralyzing. Instead, if you’re considering non-coöperation work, write up a plan..."

"... for the worst-case scenario—what you’ll do if you get fired or audited, or find yourself in legal trouble. Reach out to a lawyer and an accountant, or others who could help you navigate complicated decisions. Now is the time to clean up your life—your digital life and even, perhaps, your personal life. Dissidents describe a pattern: autocrats and their cronies use even the most minor personal scandal to undermine the credibility of activists and weaken their movements. 'You have to be a nun or a saint,' a prominent Venezuelan political activist, who asked not to be named, told us. 'If someone wants to find dirt on you, they will find it, so give them the least dirt possible.'... Another key strategy, ironically, is compliance—as in compliance with as many laws as possible. Tax laws. Traffic laws.... The price for those who stand directly in the way of Trump’s plans may indeed grow steeper in the coming months and years. But these early acts... point to a coherent vision of a just and compassionate society.... [Soviet dissidents] raised their glasses in the traditional toast: 'To the success of our hopeless cause.'..."

From "So You Want to Be a Dissident? A practical guide to courage in Trump’s age of fear" (The New Yorker).

"There is certainly enough anger in the Democratic Party to create its own Tea Party. Democrats loathe Republicans..."

"... just as much as Republicans loathe Democrats, but there are important cultural differences between the parties that make a Democratic Tea Party less practical. For one thing, the Democratic turn toward more-educated voters means that the Tea Party’s anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism would be a poor fit for millions of Democrats.... Do Democrats think embracing Tea Party rage is the path back to power? Do they believe they can control that intense anger, once it’s unleashed?....  The Tea Party became a slave to its own rage. No fury was too great — no contempt was too deep — for the Democratic foe. And now we endure a presidency motivated by vengeance and spite. Opposition is necessary. Anger is natural. Courage is indispensable. But under no circumstances will we be better off if another Tea Party takes the political field."

Writes David French, in "The Last Thing Democrats Need Is Their Own Tea Party" (NYT).

Fake outrage, isn't it?

I'm reading, among other things, "Young Democrats’ Anger Boils Over as Schumer Retreats on Shutdown/A generational divide, seen in newer lawmakers’ impatience with bipartisanship and for colleagues who don’t understand new media, has emerged as one of the deepest rifts within the party" (NYT)(free-access link).

The Democrats have to make a show of fighting Trump, but Schumer's move was more important anti-Trumpism, and I think they all know it:

On Thursday, Mr. Schumer explained his decision to vote to keep the government open in an opinion piece in The New York Times, a version of which he read on the Senate floor.

“As bad as passing the continuing resolution would be, I believe a government shutdown is far worse,” Mr. Schumer wrote.

From the written opinion piece:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates debate.

The difference between these Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel is sharply defined.

AND: Here's a new NYT article, "The Trump Loyalist Aiming to Swing Wisconsin Back to the Right/Brad Schimel, a judge who is so supportive of the president that he dressed up as him for Halloween, is hoping to flip the Wisconsin Supreme Court for conservatives":

The state’s Democratic Party is airing television ads tying Mr. Musk to Judge Schimel....

Click that link to see an ad that shows Elon Musk wielding the chain saw and giving the "Nazi" salute over and over again.

We're told law professors are saying we're in a "constitutional crisis," but at what point would they switch to the term "constitutional moment."

One could avoid either term. Even though both terms include the word "constitutional," neither term appears in the Constitution, and I cannot imagine how a real case could hinge on the perception that we are in a "constitutional crisis" or a "constitutional moment." 

But I'm thinking about these 2 terms together because I just listened to today's NYT "Daily" podcast: "A Constitutional Crisis." The phrase was used 23 times, as if we could be convinced by repetition. But convinced of what? 

Michael Barbaro: The phrase du jour, Adam, right now, in Washington, is "Constitutional Crisis." And we come to you as our resident scholar of the law and the courts to understand what A Constitutional Crisis actually is and how you know when you are in the middle of one....

Adam Liptak: I've been talking to a lot of law professors and what emerges from those conversations is that there's no fixed, agreed-upon definition of A Constitutional Crisis. It has characteristics, notably, when one of the three branches tries to get out of its lane, asserts too much power. It often involves a president flouting statutes, flouting the constitution, flouting judicial orders. And it can be a single instance, but it's more typically cumulative. But it's not a binary thing, it's not a switch.

Liptak's been "talking to a lot of law professors," but apparently not to Alan Dershowitz. I highly recommend his "Trump versus the courts: who will win? My legal analysis" (from February 10th):

Alan Dershowitz: I want to be very clear the New York Times had a front page story major story.... All the law professors in the world the entire academy,  all the law professors think there's a horrible constitutional crisis going on. Of course, they interviewed 3 or 4 left-wing anti-Trump law professors. They didn't introduce anybody who would have a neutral view of the Constitution, and they didn't give their readers an honest assessment of the issue. There is no constitutional crisis! Take it from me! I've been study studying the Constitution for close to 70 years now. I know a thing about the Constitution. The United States has a system of checks and balances. That system is designed to prevent constitutional crisis. The Democrats are crying wolf. Schumer screaming out there like a like a mad person about about the Constitutional crisis. People talking about going to the streets and war. No no no no.....

The NYT article he was talking about, published February 10th, was written by Adam Liptak — "Trump’s Actions Have Created a Constitutional Crisis, Scholars Say."

"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive...."

Wrote William Wordsworth, in "The French Revolution as It Appeared to Enthusiasts at Its Commencement."

The famous old line came to mind as I was listening to "The Joe Rogan Experience" and Joe, talking about the first days of the new Trump administration, exclaimed: "Wild times! Just wild! Like what a fun time to be alive!"

Bret Weinstein followed on:

"It just feels different. I have to tell you, I don't know what's coming, but it's at least, it's at least delightful not to know what to think."

He's got delight, as Wordsworth's French revolutionaries had bliss, but Weinstein professes to find his delight in not knowing what to think. He's distancing himself and enjoying his distance. I think of the spectators who lined the Place de la Révolution. Did they have reservations about the guillotine? Did they think I don't know what to think and find that unknowingness delightful? 

Weinstein's thoughtfulness continued:

"The cynicism that was required to understand what was going on two months ago is now no longer required. You actually have to think about what you're, what you're told is coming down the pike and think, well, I don't know. Is that a solution? Is it, is that, yeah. Is it a negotiating tactic or is it a solution that's actually being proposed and would it work?"

Withhold judgment. Meanwhile, 10 more heads will have rolled.

"Stop trying to sane-wash, RFK Jr. Just. Stop. It."

That's the top-rated comment at The Washington Post's "Did RFK Jr. or Michelle Obama say it about food? Take our quiz" (free-access link).

All that's going on there — the supposed "sane-washing" — is that you are confronted with how much RFK Jr. and Michelle Obama sound like each other.

I closely followed this issue on a daily basis for the entire relevant time period, and I scored 3 out of 7 — worse than the average of random guessing!

And did you listen to the NYT "Daily" yesterday? Here's "How R.F.K. Jr. and ‘Health Freedom’ Rose to Power" (audio and transcript at Podscribe).

"Ms. Tilevitz, the sex therapist, said that a certain confidence can be gained by wearing generously sized sweaters."

"'There is a sexiness women can feel internally when they wear something that allows them to disappear from anyone else,' she said, comparing the garments to a security blanket. At a time when women in America have lost rights to their bodily autonomy, sweaters that 'obfuscate the body' can also serve as a sort of armor, said Kat Henning, 37, a senior footwear designer.... 'You feel a little under attack and being swaddled in a beautiful knit that completely covers you, not being available as a sex object, makes women feel better,' said Ms. Henning, whose has knits from Lauren Manoogian and Wol Hide, a brand in Philadelphia. Kelsey Keith, 40, a creative director in Berkeley, Calif., ... described their appeal this way: 'It’s about dressing on your own terms. The male gaze is not even a consideration.'"

From "Hefty Sweaters for Heavy Times/Thick, woolly and oversize knitwear has for some become a form of soft armor" (NYT).

Sweaters! This time, they're political.

Last time around, the political knitwear was the pussy hat, and you had to go to a big protest. This time, the knitwear is much larger, and you don't have to go anyplace... other than deeply inside it.

Additional reading: "Goodbye, 'Resistance.' The Era of Hyperpolitics Is Over. Where has the anti-Trump energy gone?" (NYT).

Today's the big day.

Trump inauguration

Let me take your temperature:

How are you feeling?

Wary

I'm in despair

Happy and hopeful

Ravenous for the revenge that begins today

 

pollcode.com free polls

"President Trump has ushered in an age of political theatre – a collective adrenaline rush that has enabled him to not only move masses of people into his camp..."

"... but also masses of people away from ours. It does not serve us to underestimate the historic nature of what he has achieved. In fact, it’s important that we recognize the psychological and emotional dimensions of Trump’s appeal. We need to understand it to create the energy to counter it. MAGA is a distinctly 21st century political movement and it will not be defeated by a 20th century tool kit.... [W]e must immediately get about the task of creating a new party. It will be….  A party that listens more, and makes people feel that their thoughts and feelings are as important as their wallets. A party that advocates unequivocally for the working people of the United States. A party with the humility to recognize we need to look in the mirror, and be willing to reinvent ourselves...."

Writes Marianne Williamson, announcing that she's running for chair of the Democratic National Party.

ADDED: I like how she spelled "theatre"... especially while touting herself as in touch with the mind of America. "Theatre" is British English. "Theater" is American English.

"Along with three quarters of a million other people, I’m a member of r/AmIOverreacting, a forum on Reddit devoted to the problem of potentially freaking out too much...."

"If anything, r/AmIOverreacting is a kind of reactivity buffer zone—a place where reactions can be mediated, and so slowed down. In that sense, it’s part of a larger, society-wide effort.... Mindfulness is another way of managing one’s reactivity. Broadly speaking, mindful minds seek to replace the question “Am I overreacting?” with the neutral observation that, yes, a reaction is happening. In the pre-baby mindfulness workshop I attended, our instructor told us to imagine our emotions as locomotives. 'You can watch the train leave the station without getting on board,' she said. She encouraged us to react to our reactions with nonjudgmental attention...."

Writes Joshua Rothman, in "Are You Overreacting? How to survive when provocations are a natural—and inescapable—part of life" (The New Yorker).

People don't want to shout out their own name, but Kamala Harris seems to have thought it would be a cool way to demonstrate that "It's about all of us."

They were loudly chanting her name, and she instructed them to shout out their own name, the idea being, I think, to unleash a hilarious, heartwarming cacophony:

This might be the most awkward moment ever, the second-hand embarassment is real pic.twitter.com/ObaMKPR9c3

— TaraBull (@TaraBull808) October 29, 2024

But she got silence. She still pretended she'd received the desired response, and declared the conclusion to be derived from the demonstration that hadn't happened: "It's about all of us."

Apparently, individualism is not in vogue... or not something her people feel good about expressing loud and proud.

If I followed the method of the elite media and the Democratic Party, I would call it fascistic. The crowd showed that it only wanted to be unified behind the identity of the adored leader.

ADDED: I feel the strong need to republish a post I wrote in September 2018: