There is a difference

Among the new, never-before-tried things I’ve done over the years that have left me physically and mentally drained: I left home to go to college, I got married, I started exciting new jobs (more than once), and now I’m retired and focused on near-daily time on the driving range to improve my golf game.  None of that compares, though, to how I feel watching President Musk remake the U.S. government, in many cases without the benefit of the law to support his actions.  It’s exhausting.

I firmly belief that he and his little friend – uh, I mean TFG, not the literally “little guy” on his shoulders – are trying to do as much as they possibly can as quickly as they can so that we can’t keep track or keep up, to breed fear and confusion, and to cover up the graft and corruption.  The scope of what is laid out in Project 2025 is no small task; they don’t want to wait until the other team is ready to go before they start the game.

“There’s too much going on. It’s overwhelming.” If that sounds familiar, this piece is for you. Jay Kuo breaks up Donald's latest power plays into three categories: bad, worse, and worst. It may sound heavy, but understanding them makes it easier to stay informed without feeling buried.

George Takei (@georgetakei.bsky.social) 2025-02-20T22:12:49.649Z

The smug ones love to grin and remind us with a tsk tsk that “elections have consequences.”  That is so, and even if I don’t like it Trump won the election (although not with the “mandate” for a such radical remaking of the government as they claim) and got right to work doing some of the things he promised.  He’s also doing some things that he never ever said a word about, and some of his voters are already expressing regret about their election choice.

(BTW, as far as him “working” is concerned: have you ever seen a cleaner president’s Oval Office desk in your life?  Two big phones, a Diet Coke button, and a large box of big fat Sharpies to etch his scribble onto another Executive Order.  But not one thing for him to read, digest and understand before making a decision.)

Yes, so far some of it seems to violate the law and/or the Constitution, but this is not the first president to do something not permitted under law.  In the past, Congress and the courts, the other two branches of government designed to provide the checks and the balances to the Executive, have taken steps to rein in a president, and already there are a number of lawsuits seeking court action to rule against this Administration.

But where is Congress?  Yes, I know, the president’s party controls both the House and the Senate and so those members are not going to be quick to challenge the leader of their own party.  But, c’mon: this Congress has turned into the three blind mice and is not even standing up for itself and its prerogatives, and that is highly unusual.  A body full of folks who have never been accused of being shy, retiring wallflowers, who are generally quite assertive when it comes to their own high-and-mightiness and the rights and privileges thereto appertaining, are acting like they have no part to play.  I get it that the Republicans are scared of MAGA nation being mobilized to challenge them in the next party primary election, but that excuse doesn’t explain what happened to the Democrats.  The Democrats are only four seats shy of a majority in both the House and the Senate; “divided government” isn’t much of a hindrance to the majority when the minority goes into hiding.  There’s a difference between being a member of Congress supporting the president of your party, and abdicating your responsibility under the Constitution: “Congress has not authorized [Trump’s] radical overhaul [of the federal government], and the protocols of the Constitution do not permit statutorily mandated agencies and programs to be transformed — or reorganized out of existence — without congressional authorization.”

"there is no reading of the Constitution that allows any president to claim that a political mandate, or a political promise made, obviates or supersedes the role for Congress."wapo.st/4hSE7Ox

Pat Ryan (@patryan12.bsky.social) 2025-02-12T06:25:52.462Z

Trump says he is fighting to defeat the un-American actions from within the government undertaken by elements of “the deep state,” a self-generated boogie man (boogeyman?  bogeyman?) that can be blamed whenever no responsible party can be identified for something the MAGAs don’t like.  But I think it’s very important for all of us to remember, it is not only not true just because Trump says it, in fact it is very likely not true because Trump said it, because he is the most prolific and shameless liar of our lifetime.

There’s a difference between bad policy and illegal activity.  There’s a difference between a guy you didn’t vote for doing things you think shouldn’t be done, and that same guy breaking the law—with a smirk on his face—and daring anyone to do anything about it.

There’s a difference between being the leader of the free world, and presuming to dictate to the rest of the world what they are to do.  Or to do a thing yourself and tell them to get used to it, as in the case of I’ll negotiate an end to your war, Ukraine, you don’t get to be there.  That is just the kind of thing that makes the rest of the world hate America.  By the way, you really shouldn’t accuse the leader of a country that should be our ally of being a dictator, and accuse his country of being responsible for being attacked by Russia when that is so obviously not true.  What it is is helping spread Russian propaganda and disinformation, and making the rest of the world nervous thinking they can’t trust this American president, and maybe not the United States at all, about anything.


THIS JUST IN: I just ran across another possible reason for all the members of Congress to be afraid to challenge TFG. Gabriel Sherman writes in Vanity Fair that many are “scared shitless” that they will face physical violence from MAGA Nation. Sounds about right.

In the matter of the new-but-same-old president, I have a few thoughts; let the sharing begin

Presidential inaugurations are historic moments. I watch them all, even when it is a president I didn’t vote for, and I’ll watch this one, too. Here are a few things I’ll be thinking about.


The man who will take the oath of office as president of the United States this Monday has the support of only one-third of Americans who were eligible to vote in the last election.  The other two-thirds either voted for someone else (most of them for Kamala Harris) or didn’t vote at all.  According to data gathered by the University of Florida Election Lab, and neatly organized for even easier reading here on Wikipedia, the 156.3 million Americans who voted in November are less than 64% of all those Americans who were eligible to vote in that election.  The majority of citizens who did cast ballots, 77.3 million, voted for Donald Trump; that number of people is only 31.59% of the Americans who were eligible to vote in that election.  To Trump’s credit, there have been only three winners of presidential elections since 1980 (the period covered by this research) who got a higher percentage of votes from among all those eligible: Joe Biden in 2020 (33.78%, from 81.2 million voters), Barack Obama in 2008 (32.58%, 69.4 million votes) and Ronald Reagan in 1984 (32.47%, 54.4 million voters).

The hardest truth, I think, is this: 88.3 million Americans who were eligible to vote…didn’t.  Put another way, of those who had the right and privilege to participate in their own governance, 36% did not…either could not vote for some reason, or could not be bothered to.  That’s more than who voted for Trump, more than who voted for Harris.  Even though that is still the second-best participation rate in the period studied, trailing only the 2020 election.


Some of the youngest folks who voted this past November would have been as young as 10 when Trump was elected the first time, so they wouldn’t have been paying attention to the 2016 campaign or maybe remember some of those highlights. I found this handy reminder list on Twitter, and share it here as a public service.


Although the announcement came from TFG (now meaning “the felon guy” rather than “the former guy”), I do not believe for one instant that the man who eight years ago lied about the crowd size at his first inauguration to protect his fragile ego is the same guy who now made the very sensible decision to bring this year’s ceremony indoors to protect people from the cold.  In fact it is the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies which plans and executes these events, and I can completely see it not taking public credit for this choice so as not to be seen as bigfooting an incoming president, especially this one.  I’m not buying that the guy who four years ago encouraged Americans to risk their safety to commit violence at the Capitol as part of his attempt to overturn an election is the same guy who is looking out for others when he says “I don’t want to see people hurt, or injured, in any way. It is dangerous conditions for the tens of thousands of Law Enforcement, First Responders, Police K9s and even horses, and hundreds of thousands of supporters that will be outside for many hours on the 20th”.  Also, I think it should be “it will be dangerous conditions” rather than it is.  And also just by the way, who taught this nitwit the rules of capitalization?


It was disheartening to see the tenuous relationship with the concept of “truth” exhibited by some of the Trump Cabinet nominees during confirmation hearings.  To be fair, Republicans and Democrats are just as adept as MAGA persons are when it comes to the kabuki dance of non-answer answers to pointed questions, finding it a preferred alternative to perjury.  I accept the validity of politely refusing to provide a speculative answer to a hypothetical, or for judicial nominees to refuse to express an opinion about a case that might come before them some day.  But to say, for example, that some of Pam Bondi’s responses strained credulity is to really streeeetch the definition of “strained.”  Am I really expected to believe that Bondi did not/does not know certain facts of life, as reported by Dahlia Lithwick at Slate:

  • Did she hear Donald Trump’s telephone call to Georgia’s secretary of state asking him to find more votes? No, she never listened to it.
  • Did she hear Trump’s comments about prosecuting Liz Cheney? She never heard that.
  • Does she know about Trump’s pledge to prosecute Jack Smith? She does not.
  • His threat to go after Merrick Garland? No idea.
  • What does she think of Kash Patel’s much-vaunted enemies list? Oh. Did he say that on TV?
  • Patel’s threats to shutter the FBI? She doesn’t know.
  • Pardons for those convicted for the Jan. 6 insurrection? She dare not judge a matter that may come before her.
  • And did Trump lose the 2020 election? Biden is the president.
  • No really, did Trump win the 2020 election? She saw some STUFF on the ground in Pennsylvania.You have NO idea.
  • What does she know beyond a shadow of a doubt? There was a “peaceful transition” after the 2020 election.

Or her flat-out refusal to acknowledge that a part of the law is in fact a part of the law:

Padilla: Will you defend birthright citizenship as the law of the land?Bondi: I will study birthright citizenshipPadilla: You're asking to be considered for Attorney General and you still need to study the 14th Amendment of the Constitution?

FactPost (@factpostnews.bsky.social) 2025-01-15T18:29:45.201Z

I really wish that in cases like this senators would at least stand up for themselves and the prerogatives of the Senate even if they won’t call bullshit on behalf of their constituents or their country. Some day, when a nominee refuses to answer a direct question in these ways, I would love the senator to respond by saying “Thank you. The lack of candor displayed by your refusal to respond to my question, and your refusal to participate in this Constitutionally-mandated procedure in good faith, means I will not vote to confirm your nomination and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you for coming.”


Nothing but Bluesky from now on

So it’s late at night and I’m at the desktop computer bopping around the interwebs looking for entertaining but brief stories…nothing too dense, you know, I really ought to just go on to bed.  I was checking out Slate and hit this headline: “Sick of X and Elon Musk? This App Might Be for You.”  Since I am that, I read on and learned that there is a thing called Bluesky, which is currently making news for its growing popularity as an alternative to Twitter.  (I still call it Twitter, can’t help it.)

What, then, is Bluesky? Until this week, one could think of it as a small, clean lifeboat, sitting off to the side of a sinking cruise ship where most of the passengers also have norovirus.

For more than a year, Bluesky has been the boat for left-leaning Twitter refugees who were so fed up with Musk that they beat the masses in deciding not to stick around on his platform. That could have some echo-chamber effects, not that such an outcome was any worse than being surrounded by the most obnoxious people on the internet over on X. (For example, a critical mass of Bluesky users were a good ways behind the rest of the internet last summer in recognizing that Joe Biden had no chance of political survival after his last debate performance.) X has remained where most of the action happens, because it is where politicians, companies, the biggest media outlets, and their reporters still live. The discourse has steadily degraded there, but the power users have not fled en masse.

But while X has spiraled deeper into a racist fever dream and Threads has kept building its sunshine-pumping text app for influencers, Bluesky has been building.

So OK, I signed up to check it out, the same way I did with Twitter in 2008, when I initially resisted because I bought the criticism that Twitter was just a bunch of people telling other peoplebafkreickppry5djbfnkxqijqap3bvglmguqdkgicr3rdzcdciritdbqzxu what they had for lunch today.  You’d have thought I’d just fallen into The Time Tunnel: it all looked and felt like Twitter did back in the early days, but without the overtly annoying stuff including the incessant interruptions from Musk with some new misleading or downright false information.  The Washington Post says Bluesky is where liberals who are fleeing Twitter are going:

With Musk taking on a central advisory role to Trump’s administration after leveraging X and his personal fortune to boost Trump’s campaign, U.S. liberals and others disenchanted with the site are once again scurrying to friendlier pastures. This time, though, the primary beneficiary may not be Meta’s Threads, which is controlled by Musk’s fellow billionaire Mark Zuckerberg and has acquired 275 million users in just over a year, many of them X refugees.

Instead, the upstart social network Bluesky is surging. It has more than doubled in size in the past three months. And in the eight days since the election, it has added more than 1.25 million users, bringing its total to more than 15 million as it topped Apple’s App Store rankings on Wednesday. Of those, some 8.5 million have logged in within the past month, spokesperson Emily Liu said Wednesday.

That’s nowhere near the number of users on Twitter or Threads, not even close.  But I found that a lot of the people who I enjoyed following on Twitter are already on Bluesky, and a visit there doesn’t have the feel of the slog I get whenever I check out Twitter.  Which, I will say, has become less frequent in the last few months since I realized I shouldn’t subject myself to getting bogged down in the negativity I kept finding.  Alex Kirshner on Slate characterizes the vibe this way:

Bluesky does not trap users in nonchronological feeds. It gives people only what they ask for, and it does so in real time. It turns out that when a lot of people join the fray, that creates a feeling of controlled but wholesome chaos that resembles what Twitter felt like to some of its earlier addicts around, say, 2014 or 2015. I have been on Bluesky for more than a year but cannot claim to have dived into it in earnest until this past weekend, when I found its college football–watching crowd to be much more energetic and fun than what I had seen this fall on X.

Eventually, more power users should migrate, in part because Bluesky does not throttle access to their work in the way that X, Meta, and Google have so frequently done. There are no bought-and-paid-for blue check marks that flood the zone. Bluesky doesn’t go out of its way to deprioritize posts with links. It encourages members of the news and sports media to spend time there and bring along their audiences. As the journalist Matt Pearce put it: “​​Hard to describe as a journalist how grateful I am to have a text-based app that does not suppress hyperlinks. I don’t know if people realize exactly how hostile the corporate internet has gotten toward news.” In building a social media site that does not go out of its way to be unusable for people distributing news or trying to consume it, Bluesky has been an innovator.

The platform already works as a place where people enjoy spending time on the internet, with a more bespoke experience and less online sewage than they find on X. That will need to be its value proposition to win over more people in moments when Musk isn’t helping Donald Trump return to power or peeling away more features that once made Twitter popular.

(snip)

Bluesky is winning a segment of the internet not because it is ideological but because it is customizable, allowing people to take more control of their experience online. It has not displaced X as a hub for the formation of elite public opinion, but it could dent Musk’s monopoly on that kind of discussion if enough power users, politicians, and companies eventually move. For now, it is a nice place to hang out with pals on the internet, get news without being confused, and take a quick break from thinking about Elon Musk.

I recommend checking it out.  That light blue butterfly icon in the sidebar of this blog is a link to my feed on Bluesky; use it as a way in the door.