Tag YouTube

A brutal forecast in effect well past winter

Pat Ryan 1 Comment

The view from the front window today is beautiful: only very high, wispy clouds hanging in an almost windless afternoon that is colder than it looks, but so much better than the three days of real winter we just had, and which I expect will complete our annual allotment here in southeast Texas.  Then, it was the very definition of dreary when I looked through the glass, as it was again last evening when I did a double-take looking into my true window on the world, the television.

Since the party primaries for this coming November’s statewide elections in Texas are held in March, we’ve been blistered by white-hot MAGA-flavored political ads on TV for months already.  I don’t rush to mute these ads (like I do the ones when a particular furniture salesman shouts at me) since I’ve mostly learned to ignore them.  Mostly.  But this line broke through the noise:

“Islam is not compatible with Western civilization.”

So said Aaron Reitz, a candidate in the Republican primary for Texas attorney general.  Never been elected before, but not a fringe guy: a Phi Beta Kappa from Texas A&M University, Marine Corps veteran deployed to Afghanistan some 15 years ago, then a deputy state attorney general (while also being a campaign adviser to his boss’ re-election campaign; that doesn’t seem quite kosher), then chief of staff to Senator Ted Cruz, and then confirmed by the Senate last March for a job as an assistant U.S. attorney general.  A job he resigned less than three months later to run for AG back home.  Yep, just three months.

Now, anti-Muslim bigotry is cynically worn as a badge of honor among many Texas Republicans these days.  Last year the governor declared that the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations are foreign terrorist and transnational criminal organizations, and this year the Republicans in the U.S. Senate race in Texas can’t stop finding new ways to make it clear they are anti-Muslim.  As GOP consultant Vinny Minchillo put it for Politico, “The Muslim community is the boogeyman for this cycle….One hundred percent this message works — there’s no question about it. This has been polled up one side and down the other, and with Texas Republican primary voters, it works. It is a thing they are legitimately scared of.”

But my instinctive reaction to the Reitz ad was that this is different: no cutesy dog whistle sending a clear message only to those who own the decoder ring.  He didn’t blast the individual Muslims who’ve committed acts of terror in Western nations, he didn’t accuse all Muslims of hating America, he didn’t even nonsensically claim – as Greg Abbott and others have – that Muslims in Texas are trying to build towns where only Muslims can buy property and their religious law will supersede Texas law, although he did do that later in the ad.  No, he relied on some unspecified religious and civilizational authority to proudly proclaim, as if there was ever any real doubt, that “Islam is not compatible with Western civilization.”  Without specifying why, of course.  Perhaps we can construe that he feels Muslims do not conform to the (unspecified) “Christian values” which he promises to defend from the Muslim “invasion” that has been supported by “politicians.”  (Do you wonder if the Christian value of recognizing that others may find their own path to God is one of the Christian values he’ll defend?)

That’s some pretty assertive, take-no-prisoners religious bigotry.  And just the dreary worldview that Christian nationalists – who by definition reject the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty for all  in the United States – are selling.  Please, don’t buy it.

Petard, hoist away

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

Clown-show fascism describes a regime marked simultaneously by hubristic and defiant assaults on the democratic and constitutional order on the one hand and, on the other, a nearly laughable incompetence in just about every other area of the regime’s activity.

Michael Tomasky, The New Republic, April 28, 2025

We can disagree about the goals of any president. In the before times, we all had some point of departure with what every president wanted to do. It was expected, frankly: any honest observer of and thinker about political issues disagreed with the current administration on something, even when it was a president you had voted for (or even a president you worked for!). That’s one reason why the slavish, Stepford Wives-ish acceptance of every grunt and string of incipid cliches out of TFG by MAGA nation is so hard for me to accept.

But whether or not we agree with the goals of a president, or the means by which he or she tries to accomplish them, we all should demand a president who respects the Constitution and the laws and who doesn’t make things worse while trying to implement his plans. And, as is the case with this president, is not blatantly using his office to enrich himself in so many ways “like you’ve never seen before.” The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank makes a strong case that “Across the executive branch, in agency after agency, it’s amateur hour under the Trump administration.” The unnerving of the world economy; the chaos at the Pentagon; the threat to Harvard that was sent by mistake; the deportation that was a mistake but we’re powerless to correct it so shut up you federal judges; the firing of thousands of government workers with no plan to pick up the workload — all these and more, and the cruelty inherent in so much of it, have made the whole world nervous about what he might do next.

And let’s not forget the hypocrisy so prominently displayed but never acknowledged at almost every step. Most obvious, at least to me, is the mountain of executive orders. Has this president even tried to get Congress to pass laws to do what he wants? (A Congress he controls, by the way.) I don’t think so. Many self-described conservatives have for years railed any time a Democratic executive implements policies through executive order, screaming about the abuse of power. In this case, both before and during his first term of office, the man who threw a clot over Barack Obama’s use of executive orders

“The country wasn’t based on executive orders,” Trump said at a South Carolina campaign stop in February 2016. “Right now, Obama goes around signing executive orders. He can’t even get along with the Democrats, and he goes around signing all these executive orders. It’s a basic disaster. You can’t do it.”

has proudly done the same thing, but to a greater extent: Fox News reports (yes, that Fox News) that Trump has signed 135 executive orders so far in his second term, smashing the previous record of 99 by Franklin Roosevelt as he began implementing the New Deal. Trump doesn’t want to govern America, he wants to rule it. He wants to issue orders, edicts, diktats, whims-on-paper, and have his wishes carried out…no need to bother the Legislative Branch. (Don’t get me started on Congress’ abdication of its responsibilities.)

Will we get to a point where those who’ve drunk Trump’s Kool-Aid start to see the real world? Maybe: current polling indicates Trump’s approval rating at the end of his first 100 days — 39% — is lower than any president in 80 years, even beating his own record from 2017. Strong majorities believe his economic policies will cause a recession soon, that his administration is trying to avoid complying with court orders, doesn’t respect the rule of law and is going too far to expand presidential powers. As should be expected, “83% of Republicans said they approve of Trump’s work in office, while 93% of Democrats and 60% of independents said they disapprove.” Also to be expected, Trump’s reaction to his poor showing in the polls is to…call for an investigation of the pollsters for election fraud. (Election fraud? There’s no election.) Remember, nothing bad is ever his fault, there’s always some bad person trying to hurt him. So unfair.

What are we to do? Well, you know me — always looking for the positive. I found some in this column in The Guardian in which the foreign affairs commentator Simon Tisdall expresses confidence that Trump will fall victim to himself. (Remember: “I alone can fix it.”)

Policy failures and personal misconduct do not usually collapse a presidency. The US constitution is inflexible: incompetence is protected; cupidity has a fixed term. Trump is in power until 2029 unless impeached – third time lucky? – for “high crimes and misdemeanors”, or else deemed unfit under section 4 of the 25th amendment.

(snip)

This fight has moral and ethical aspects, too – and, given this is the US, prayer is a powerful weapon in the hands of those who would slay evil-doers. Of the seven deadly sins – vainglory or pride, greed or covetousness, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, sloth – Trump is comprehensively, mortally guilty. In Isaiah (13,11), the Lord gives fair warning: “I will put an end to the pride of the arrogant and humiliate the insolence of tyrants.” God knows, maybe he’ll listen. Miracles do happen.

Of all the tools in the tyrant-toppling toolbox, none are so potentially decisive as those supplied by Trump’s own stupidity. Most people understand how worthless a surrender monkey “peace deal” is that rewards Putin and betrays Ukraine. Does Trump seriously believe his support for mass murder in Gaza, threats to attack Iran and reckless bombing of Yemen will end the Middle East conflict and win him a Nobel peace prize?

And then there’s his greed – the blatant, shameless money-grubbing that has already brought accusations of insider trading, oligarchic kleptocracy, and myriad conflicts of interest unpoliced by the 17 government oversight watchdogs Trump capriciously fired. His relatives and businesses are again pursuing foreign sweetheart deals. Corruption on this scale cannot pass unchallenged indefinitely. Avarice alone may be Trump’s undoing.

All this points to one conclusion: as a tyrant, let alone as president, Trump is actually pretty useless – and as his failures, frustrations and fantasies multiply, he will grow ever more dangerously unstable. Trump’s biggest enemy is Trump. Those who would save the US and themselves – at home and abroad – must employ all democratic means to contain, deter, defang and depose him. But right now, the best, brightest hope is that, drowning in hubris, Trump will destroy himself.

So keep a good thought. Meanwhile, we’ll have to put up with one of the most annoying aspects of anything that has to do with you know who: his insistence on being the center of attention in all things. As Tomasky puts it today in The New Republic:

Even the gross incompetencies take us into treacherous territory because they contribute to making this all about one man, the man who must be in front of the cameras every day. He doesn’t have policies so much as he has urges, which he must announce to the world on a constant basis in a desperate plea that we keep him front of mind at all times. Some of those urges are cruel; some of them are a joke. What unites them is that they make the story entirely about him.

That is not how it’s supposed to work in democracies. Which we still are, for now, as we reach this 100-day mark. Only 1,361 to go.

It ain’t over unless we let it be

Pat Ryan 1 Comment

The tariff fetishist is starting a trade war with our friends and our foes, and it’s going to mean higher prices for you and me, just as predicted by all sane economists. But he says he “couldn’t care less.”

The leader of the free world is trashing his country’s friendly relations with neighbors and threatening a new era of manifest destiny that is forcing some world leaders to publicly acknowledge they cannot trust America to be a loyal friend and ally. (But TFG suddenly changes his tune when one of them calls him on it.)

The chief of the executive branch of government authorized what amounts to a group of consultants to fire government employees and carry out cuts to government budgets, none of which has been authorized by the legislative branch which is suddenly incapable of protecting its own lawful perogatives. The action is sloppily conceived and largely illegal, and being sold to the public as fulfillment of a campaign promise to lower the cost of government…with hopes it will also clear financial objections to a planned upcoming extension of tax cuts for wealthy Americans. (And today he attacked unions representing federal employees.)

The champion of law and order is allowing the illegal kidnapping of people from American streets and having them held in secret, people whose “crime” was lawfully expressing an opinion contrary to the president’s or appearing to be an undesirable. And the guy who has never shut up about the alleged “weaponization” of the U.S. Justice Department by his political enemies to persecute him has installed an acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia who is accused of threatening his political opponents and supports the president’s ludicrous calls to impeach judges who rule against questionable Trump policies. And, the president has brazenly used government authority to intimidate lawyers and law firms from daring to oppose his actions or represent anyone who does. Or who has at any time in the past. (The highly-respected conservative jurist Michael Luttig believes Trump will ultimately lose his legal fight against the courts; long-time federal trial attorney and columnist Sabrina Haake hopes the chief justice gets a chance to get specific about what presidential actions don’t qualify for immunity.)

The man who harshly criticized a previous president’s use of executive orders as a “power grab” is doing all this through an unprecedented wave of executive orders that is apparently not a power grab at all. Dan Balz sees it as evidence of Trump’s desire to rule rather than to govern: he can’t be bothered waiting for a Congress (that is already controlled by the party he controls) to pass laws when he can act as king and simply issue edicts.

Is all of this part of the MAGA plan? Is all of this what those Americans wanted to have happen, or expected to happen, when they re-elected him? For many of us who did not vote for him, there is a tendency to feel some level of helplessness, which I think is at least part of the administration’s intent with the non-stop pace of activity. But Timothy Noah reminds us that we don’t have to give up.

Surveying this Boschian hellscape, many good people will despair. Yes, Trump is much more dangerous than he was during his first term (which was harrowing enough). He’s more giddily reckless about impounding funds, shutting down agencies, disobeying court orders, and using the government to punish political enemies. But if you allow yourself to tune out this ugliness, you might as well have voted for the man. The president is counting on such demoralization.

(snip)

How can ordinary citizens fight back? To scout the best approaches, I canvassed activists, lawyers, scholars, politicians, and union leaders for advice. Some of what they suggest will lie beyond your abilities, expertise, financial resources, or sense of personal safety—in which case, choose something you can do. Just about everyone I spoke to emphasized that there is no silver bullet—no single arena, not even the courtroom, where Trump’s illegal power grab can be stopped. “There’s no messiah” who will “sweep in and make everything better,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. That’s up to you and me. The good news is there are a lot of us.

Indeed, there may be even more than we can know just yet. Because Trump isn’t careful about whose interests he acts against, Resistance 2.0 has potential to evolve into a bipartisan movement. “Successful authoritarian regimes determine what their winning coalition is,” observed Leah Greenberg, co-founder of the resistance nonprofit Indivisible, “and then they work very hard to keep that coalition together.” Trump lacks such discipline, and as a result he frequently screws over natural allies.

Trump alienates the military by installing as defense secretary Pete Hegseth, a boozer and womanizer who called an officer of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps a “jagoff” and, after he was confirmed, fired the top JAG officers in the Air Force, Army, and Navy. Trump alienates Big Pharma by installing as health and human services secretary a recovering heroin addict, womanizer, and (according to his cousin Caroline Kennedy) “predator” who less than two years ago said, “There’s no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective.” As HHS Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recommends treating measles with cod liver oil and letting bird flu spread unchecked through poultry flocks. Trump Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says, “I’m not worried about inflation,” and “access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream.” Trump, meanwhile, terrorizes Wall Street with market-killing tariffs and stray threats not to honor the national debt.

No matter who joins this fight, it won’t be won next week, or next month. Barring impeachment and removal, Trump will be president for four long years, and not even his allies expect him to become less authoritarian and kleptocratic. So pace yourself. But the sooner you join in, the more effectively we can limit the damage.

The article goes on to outline a number of ways that each of us can do something, the best each of us can, to be part of the resistance, from protests to lawsuits to just staying informed. Don’t give up: the fight isn’t over.

Recommended election reading, for those inexplicably eager for more election news

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

This week both The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post issued the surprise announcement that they will endorse no one in the race for president this year.  Those decisions were made by the owners of the newspapers, who in that capacity have every legal right to make the choice they did.  Just not the moral and ethical rights, not if they want their newspapers to mean anything to the readers they claim to serve.

In the case of the LA Times, as the editorial board prepared a series of editorials leading to an endorsement of California native and former state attorney general and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, it got a message from owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, “with scant internal or public explanation, abruptly vetoing the planned endorsement, informing the board through an intermediary that The Los Angeles Times would make no recommendation in the presidential race.”  Through an intermediary?  Dude didn’t have the guts to deliver the news face to face?  The story at the above link has more.

The choice at the Washington Post, which was expected to endorse the Democratic candidate, too, was to cease any endorsements in presidential elections from now on; it was announced by the paper’s publisher and framed as a choice to maintain neutrality.  That choice has been interpreted as an effort by the owner, Jeff Bezos, to avoid antagonizing the former guy; the Post itself has published the very critical reactions of 17 of its own opinion columnists under this declaration:

The Washington Post’s decision not to make an endorsement in the presidential campaign is a terrible mistake. It represents an abandonment of the fundamental editorial convictions of the newspaper that we love. This is a moment for the institution to be making clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law and international alliances, and the threat that Donald Trump poses to them — the precise points The Post made in endorsing Trump’s opponents in 2016 and 2020. There is no contradiction between The Post’s important role as an independent newspaper and its practice of making political endorsements, both as a matter of guidance to readers and as a statement of core beliefs. That has never been more true than in the current campaign. An independent newspaper might someday choose to back away from making presidential endorsements. But this isn’t the right moment, when one candidate is advocating positions that directly threaten freedom of the press and the values of the Constitution. [emphasis added]

Plenty of other papers are making endorsements, of course, including my hometown Houston Chronicle and my birthtown New York Times, both of whom are encouraging a vote for Harris.  And here are a few other recommended readings:

The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson with a vivid reminder of the double standard we’ve developed for covering the two major party candidates: high scrutiny for the woman candidate, and a kind of same-old same-old attitude when the former guy “spews nonstop lies, ominous threats, impossible promises and utter gibberish.”

In Slate, Steven Greenhouse with the consideration that the unfathomable (to some) closeness of this contest can be blamed on the richest of the rich Americans who are prioritizing their personal financial well being over the betterment of our country.

At The Bulwark, Will Saletan’s tight summation of just what – specifically – Trump is doing that warrants him being labelled – accurately – as a fascist.

And a lively reminder from The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart of the it-would-be-amusing-if-it-weren’t-so-dangerous reality that the former president is, in point of fact, demonstrably not many the things that his loyal army of supporters say are their reasons for voting for him.  He is, in fact, the opposite of what they say he is, but they can’t/won’t see that.  Sad.

We all saw it; we know what happened

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

“[Today marks] three years since thousands of Americans, lied to by the president of the United States and their elected representatives, perpetrated an assault on the building that has come to symbolize democracy across the globe, and the men and women who work on its grounds.  That’s not an opinion. It’s not an interpretation. It’s not one side of a debate. It is an unequivocal, demonstrable fact.”

Phil Mattingly of CNN stated it plainly, not to be misconstrued.  We all saw it for ourselves, plain as day on our TV screens: there was no doubt that armed protesters were attacking the Capitol.  That’s even what we heard from many members of Congress who were in the building at the time and experienced it first hand.

https://twitter.com/CNNThisMorning/status/1743274757796040901

I’m old enough to remember when it would have been stunning – unthinkable – to see some of those who lived through the attack on the Capitol from the inside completely change their story, now unashamedly insisting that we are being fooled by the evidence provided by our own eyes and ears.  Today, it’s another sad shoulder shrug as we witness a continuing assault on truth.  The Washington Post lays out the numbers from a recent national poll in which “a majority of Americans believe the events of Jan. 6 were an attack on democracy and should never be forgotten,” and yet…

…on the third anniversary of the nation’s first interruption to the peaceful transfer of power since the Civil War era, Republicans’ attitudes about Jan. 6 are increasingly unmoored from other Americans, and Trump holds a commanding lead in the race for the party’s 2024 presidential nomination.

The share of Republicans who said the Jan. 6 protesters who entered the Capitol were “mostly violent” dipped to 18 percent from 26 percent in December 2021, according to a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll. More than half of independents and about three-quarters of Democrats, on the other hand, believe the protesters were “mostly violent,” numbers that have remained largely unchanged over time, the poll found.

That’s good, but even that means almost half of people who consider themselves independents and about one-quarter of self-identified Democrats do not believe the protesters were “mostly violent.”  Why not?  Have they never watched the video?!?  OK, here’s some for you:

I call your attention in particular to the 11:48 mark where we hear the president’s voice describing what he had been watching on television for more than three hours without ever sending help for law enforcement; he says “They were peaceful people, these were great people.  The crowd was unbelievable.  And I mentioned the word ‘love.’  The love, the love in the air, I’ve never seen anything like it.”  There is no better example to prove that just because the president says something doesn’t make it true, and in the case of this president the fact that he said it makes it far more likely that it is not true.

I guess…I guess that the people who can watch that video and not see an assault on the American government are some of the same kinds of people who could have been persuaded that it was their “patriotic duty” to participate in that attack in the first place.  For the rest of us, this fight isn’t over yet.

Editorial: Three years later, beware dangerous revisionism of Jan. 6