truthdogg

[truthdogg]

I’m still digesting yesterday’s Supreme Court disastrous ruling stating that lower courts do not have the authority to stay Executive Branch orders, but my first thought is that it’s yet another power grab by the conservatives Justices in the majority.

The conservative theory of the all-powerful Unitary Executive was pushed hard by Bill Barr and others, but the Supreme Court has been the institution that has worked most to make this a reality. However, there’s always a method in their rulings that brings the final say back to the Supreme Court Justices themselves.

This was true when they ruled that the president cannot be prosecuted for official acts, but left determining “official acts” to the Supreme Court. And it’s true now, when they’ve ruled that lower courts do not have the authority to stay illegal actions by the president, but that those actions must be first reviewed by—you guessed it—the Supreme Court.

The goal here appears to be to provide zero guidance in constitutionality, but to always point final decision-making back to themselves. They’re introducing a new level of unpredictability into US law that’s based on who is in charge. While Trump consolidates unprecedented power into the Executive Branch, the Court is setting themselves up as the only check on the Executive Branch’s authority. That doesn’t mean the Judicial Branch of government—they’re undermining that—but literally the nine Justices.

When Chief Roberts said he wanted the Court to call “balls and strikes,” it sounded like he meant that the Court would only weigh in on minor matters and give guidance. But it seems we’re learning that the Roberts Court intends to treat every major decision as a simple ball or strike, making the law itself a minor matter, in favor of rule by Imperial Court.

[truthdogg]

A look back at what BAM (the Black arts movement) gained in turning Black cultural and scholarly institutions into wellsprings for Black political action explains why the Trump administration sees Black culture as an enemy. It also reveals what Americans got wrong by emphasizing the soft politics of representation and inclusion while shortchanging the capability of Black artistry to dethrone the great myth of white superiority. At the height of one of the most violent eras of the 20th century, BAM organizers set their sights on Black liberation, not conciliation. As a result, BAM’s blueprint for Black power reoriented institutions and organizations and persists half a century later. Our stakes today are just as high, but in reducing Black culture into diversity and inclusion efforts we’re playing directly into a game where Trump can expunge these politically inconsequential gains as soon as they are made.

- -

My first inclination here was to disagree with this paragraph’s dismissiveness of DEI programs. Indeed, in later points, diversity and inclusion is derided for undermining Black independence and progress. For me, diversity and inclusion is essential to the health of the country and difficult to achieve, and not simply a bone to toss someone. But I come from the point of view of the business community, where that has (slowly) transformed companies like mine into accepting places by improving their cultures for everyone.

Upon reading more, I understand the point.

A dominant culture tends to remain dominant, with new arrivals and oppressed people adapting to it in order to survive, strive and thrive. They rarely have the opportunity to shape it in ways important to their birth culture and important to themselves. This means that every striver must make those same and often difficult adaptations to move up within that society.

We see an example of this with language—only one piece of a culture. As immigrant groups arrive in a country, they tend to lose language differences within one or two generations. For natives within a unique subculture, code-shifting makes integration and inclusion possible, but does not bridge gaps or create genuine inclusion.

To that end, building a Black (or Latino, or gay, or other subcultural group) movement that stands on its own, disconnected from straight white patriarchal culture, is important and necessary for members of those groups to more fully shape society in their own ways. Having a black leader at IBM _might_ help IBM diversify perspectives, improve hiring equity, and focus their business differently, but it might not. One the other hand, building a black-founded tech company based on unique cultural principles and intellectual thought can do exponentially more.

Intriguing article. I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on it.

[truthdogg]

A key tool in the authoritarian playbook is to lie to your face, about things you can easily check.

Vance is trying that here, both with the deployments and the assault on Alex Padilla. The goal is to show strength by steamrolling opponents and creating your own reality. Because it’s Vance, however, he looks more like an idiot than a tough guy.

It’s the same for Trump. He lies deliberately to change the narrative or to insist on his version of things. Acting this way can make a strongman appear unstoppable, but it mainly makes Trump look like his dementia has progressed. Perhaps it has, but it’s important to know when pointing out the truth that these lies are made with purpose and without shame.

Similarly, Vance “mixes up” Alex Padilla with Jose Padilla as a way to associate the Senator from California with a convicted terrorist. This was a naked attempt to tie the two’s activities (and sympathies) together that his spokesperson tried to further reinforce, giving away the game.

Anyone with any sense can see they have nothing at all in common, but he’s trying to plant that seed. Since newspapers are running with it as their headline without calling out the likely intent, he may have succeeded. The goal is to make us think “Padilla = brown terrorist” before we check to see what the story is even about. They are attempting to insert an unconscious bias against anyone with the name.

I’ve never even thought about the Senator and the terrorist having the same last name before today. Now I’ll think of it whenever I hear that name, whereas before I could’ve met someone named Padilla without connecting them to either of these men. This is some underhanded shit, but it doesn’t work as intended if we point out that intent. When we’re aware of what he’s doing, it can simply seem like a more common name than we might have previously thought.

The way to respond, I believe, is to push back while calling out the idiocy of the statements. Pearl-clutching and exasperated calls for shame or civility feeds into their strongman desires and are the responses they want.

When Trump lies, point out his dementia and ask if he’s lying to us on purpose. When Vance lies, point out his ineptitude and ask the same. Never ask them if they’re embarrassed or ashamed, that makes the questioner look weak. Instead, insist on hearing why the lie was told and let them know that these feeble attempts at appearing tough are pathetically weak.

[truthdogg]

Nothing is ever a narcissist’s fault. Ever. When they fuck up, keep away from them, because they will always find someone to blame. They simply cannot function without doing it.

And telling the truth about Trump was a fuckup on Musk’s part. It tanked his stock holdings, because they were based on the promise of future government handouts and under Trump, every government contract will be based on personal favors, not business value. When Musk threatened to take his toys and go home from supplying the ISS, his bluff was called. His personality disorders gave him no choice but to grovel back and find a scapegoat to justify it.

You might be thinking, “Musk could withdraw, hang out in one of his houses and focus on his hobbies, like impregnating as many women as possible, so why’s he gotta grovel? Or he could cash out and spend the rest of his life bankrolling whatever he wants. Why does he have no principles?”

Because he’s a narcissistic billionaire. The only things that matter to him are protecting his fragile ego and hoarding more money. That’s it. Those are his principles. It’s the same for all of these guys, Tump included. Once we accept that, everything they do makes sense.

[truthdogg]

Adding:

It appears that I may have misread the mood at the DC parade in the post above, based on early reports, and that the Army pulled off a difficult task. The loose gait of the marchers was interpreted by later writings as comfort and approachability, not resentment. The Army was apparently able to make this parade about civics and service, not militarism and jingoistic nationalism, and certainly not about Trump. That’s even more inspiring.

Further, protesters on Saturday are estimated to have been around 5m people. That’s a stunning number and it hits the arbitrary historical target noted above. It does appear to be changing the coverage so far, but of course it isn’t enough on its own. Hopefully we can continue that enthusiasm No Kings Day into more action, more street parties, and more visibility.

It’s fitting and inspiring that trump’s ridiculous birthday party was not only attended by troops who clearly did not want to be there, but was heavily overshadowed by regular people holding their own better-attended marches all over the country.

Putting personal profit aside for a moment, there has been one primary motivator for Trump’s actions in his second term: obeisance.

Every move he has made, every speech he has given, every order he has signed, can be traced back to his desire for people to bow down to him. It was the point of his unauthorized tariffs, it was the point of illegally calling up the national guard and marines, it was the point of his recent “you spit, we hit” speech, all of it.

“No Kings Day” was aptly named, and it was motivating. Remember that it typically takes only 3.5% of people protesting to effect a major social change. That’s it. If you’re out protesting, you’re punching way above your weight.

Despite the paltry coverage of protests by US media (we have to read foreign papers to even find out about them), and the subsequent overcoverage of isolated property damage, it’s possible that this weekend could wake them up.

There’s a market for honest coverage, and I believe that the 3.5% number is key in making them aware that this market exists. In our hyper-capitalist society, it’s sadly essential for them to internalize that before their stories will reflect it. Perhaps we are getting there.

[truthdogg]

It’s fitting and inspiring that trump’s ridiculous birthday party was not only attended by troops who clearly did not want to be there, but was heavily overshadowed by regular people holding their own better-attended marches all over the country.

Putting personal profit aside for a moment, there has been one primary motivator for Trump’s actions in his second term: obeisance.

Every move he has made, every speech he has given, every order he has signed, can be traced back to his desire for people to bow down to him. It was the point of his unauthorized tariffs, it was the point of illegally calling up the national guard and marines, it was the point of his recent “you spit, we hit” speech, all of it.

“No Kings Day” was aptly named, and it was motivating. Remember that it typically takes only 3.5% of people protesting to effect a major social change. That’s it. If you’re out protesting, you’re punching way above your weight.

Despite the paltry coverage of protests by US media (we have to read foreign papers to even find out about them), and the subsequent overcoverage of isolated property damage, it’s possible that this weekend could wake them up.

There’s a market for honest coverage, and I believe that the 3.5% number is key in making them aware that this market exists. In our hyper-capitalist society, it’s sadly essential for them to internalize that before their stories will reflect it. Perhaps we are getting there.

[truthdogg]

One thing about the extremely wealthy, as Trump has shown for years and now even Musk has made perfectly clear, is that they can always be bought off or pressured by hitting their wallets.

Threaten his billions in government money and he’ll come groveling with his hat in hand. And that’s what happened here. He pointed out something we all already knew, and even that was too much for the notoriously sensitive Trump.

If the most important thing in the world to you, your one true love, was threatened, wouldn’t you react similarly? For most of us it’s our family or friends that we will do anything for. But for people like Musk, or basically any billionaire, it’s money. They’ll do anything to get it, and anything to keep it.

This was as predictable as the sun rising.

[truthdogg]

“Once again – is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of the possibility of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process that they would choose a government that won’t stand up to tyranny? Would they really elect a tyrant in the first place? They did, so I suppose they must be OK with all of it.”

Yes. This is what Republicans want. They want the poor to suffer. They want the working class to be poor. They want the middle class to be the working class again. The Republican Party has wanted this for a century. Why would today be any different?

[truthdogg]

The media often portrays Putin as a master strategist, but that is not exactly right. His war strategy hasn’t evolved since the failed blitz on Kyiv. He demands the moon, then lashes out when it is not delivered. What he is, however, is a master manipulator. He believes that if he cannot take Ukrainian territory by force, he can secure it through narrative – by convincing sympathetic voices in the west that Russia deserves it anyway.

- -

After claiming he would “end the war in 24 hours,” Trump has essentially given up, most recently announcing that this is more complicated than he thought and—bafflingly—that the new Pope should solve it.

What most news stories are missing in reporting that, however, is just how much Trump’s involvement has undermined Ukraine to the benefit of Putin. He hasn’t simply failed, he’s made things measurably worse.

Trump has insisted there is a “deal” to be had, and that Zelenskyy is the one who must accept it. This feeds the narrative that Putin is being reasonable instead of the reality of a murderous invader.

Putin wants the whole country. The only reasonable deal to be made here is for Russia to leave Ukraine and pay for the destruction the invasion caused. That’s the starting point for discussions based on the strength of the armies fighting. Trump’s ridiculous push for Ukraine to surrender its territory has only reinforced Putin’s position that he can continue throwing Russian cannon fodder into the front lines for years, until Ukraine is abandoned by its allies.

[truthdogg]

Conservatism exists mainly to preserve the existing power structure, so it easily and quickly devolves into excuse-making for powerful individuals.

And that’s where it sits with Trump. He has lived an aggressive life with wealth and control over others, so conservatives tend to see power as his rightful place.

It’s a strange reversal of reality—those leaders whose only power comes from voters are derided by conservatives as illegitimate tyrants, but those with inherited wealth or unchecked greed are celebrated as if they are returning benevolent kings.

[truthdogg]

Does anyone believe that the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia was accidental?

I get that it was a “mistake,” and an “error,” in that the Trump Administration should not have done it, that it was a bad idea, and that it is bad PR. But it was also a very deliberate act, with no effort even made to bring him back until the Judicial Branch stepped in. (If indeed there’s any effort being made even now.)

But many, MANY innocent people will definitely get caught up in these sorts of sweeps—and that’s the point of having due process, to ensure that doesn’t happen. Lack of due process and use of foreign prisons simply make it highly unlikely that anyone at all can have any recourse, or any safety, including asylum seekers here legally who are likely to be killed if sent home. That is the point. Otherwise there would be hearings here, in the US, like the law and treaty obligations require.

So, does anyone actually believe that deporting this guy was somehow an accident?

[truthdogg]

Do colleges change students to be more liberal?

No. It is in fact the other way around. The presence of liberal and diverse students has changed college campuses. So why is this such a conservative talking point?

Consider that for very old conservatives like Donald Trump, their college experience was massively different from today’s students. Up until about the 1970s, and much longer in many places, college was mostly the domain of the white managerial and upper class. Families that sent kids to college were _generally_ anti-union, patriarchal, white, and Republican. The boys were expected to get management jobs and the (few) girls to get secretarial, teaching or nursing degrees.

A college education didn’t—and still doesn’t—make people liberals. But liberals and educators DID make colleges more egalitarian and diverse. The people going IN are very different than 60-70 years ago. If people are becoming more empathetic and open-minded, it’s not from the teachings, it’s from the socialization.

When Trump himself got his UPenn bachelors degree, there were only a handful of black students in the entire university, and they tended to be isolated from their white classmates. That has changed over time as campuses have slowly become more socially inclusive, and not only for black students, but for foreign students, LGBT students, and all sorts of other people traditionally kept out of places of influence.

Older conservatives just can’t wrap their heads around that. They still imagine their college experience, with just a few women, just a few black people, and just a few professors who tried to get them to think for once in their lives. That’s all they can fathom when wondering why graduates don’t vote Republican as much as they used to. And they’ve convinced younger people that this is a thing.

It’s simply not. Their reference point is a different country than we have now.

[truthdogg]

Guys!! I think I’ve finally figured out Trump’s economic plan. It truly is all about the trade deficit.

Bear with me here:

IF the primary economic problem to address in the US is the trade deficit (as Trump claims, and based on his statements over the past decades, he truly believes), then look at why we have it. We have it because we are wealthy & we buy a lot of things.

So to stop Americans from buying foreign goods, make them unaffordable. He’s even based the tariffs on making our most common purchases our most expensive ones.

But Trump isn’t content to stop there, he’s much more ambitious. So he’s ended price controls on drugs, has fired thousands of people and ended contracts that have put many times more out of work. He won’t establish any certainty in the markets because building new factories here is just a short term fix, and he needs high unemployment to really put his plan into action.

He’s got to make us all poor long-term in order to really help us prosper.

And how did we get so wealthy in the first place? In part because of our federally-funded research sector. So kill that, too.

Maybe even Lesotho can now hire us to manufacture things if we can get our average incomes down under $25/ day.

Trade deficit fixed! America is great once again.

[truthdogg]

I just listened to a data analyst talk about the uncertainty in the investment, real estate & construction markets due to the unpredictability of the Trump trade policy.

Basically, he presented a lot of interesting recent historical data with projections based on those, and then noted that none of his forecasts are reliable. Confidence is dropping along with the stock market, and while the luxury goods market is the one stable spot today, even the rich may curb their spending as they watch their real wealth dwindle.

So far, this all made logical sense. But at the end of the talk he made a surprising optimistic statement, and I’ll paraphrase. “Trump ran on a pro-business platform so we have to think he’ll eventually do things to improve business.”

Why? Why would “we” expect that? it’s not like there’s some anti-business party that he’s replaced, so now that they aren’t in power the economy will improve. (Besides, the economy has consistently performed better under Democrats for over 100 years.) Why would any informed person assume that Trump will suddenly start making policy decisions that are good for the economy, when he has never done that before?

Look, I understand why an average uninformed voter might think that. Trump played a businessman on screen for decades, and the idea that he knows something about business has been hammered relentlessly. But I’d think a data analyst (and this guy is a good one) would surely look at numbers and facts instead.

Perhaps this is just something that people in the finance world do. Perhaps he feels he needs to in a meeting such as this, because he was asked to provide positivity. I hoped to ask him directly but he’s already left for another meeting, but do people really expect that Trump even cares about creating a strong economy? That trust has not been earned. I don’t think it will be.

[truthdogg]

Before Elon Musk and his hacker bros cut in half the Social Security Administration’s staff, as he’s planning to do, he could save the government a ton of money if he first revved up his chainsaw and took it to what could be the biggest “welfare queen” on the books … himself.

An analysis by The Washington Post showed that Musk and the companies he runs have received at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits.

That’s at least $38 billion.

- - -

$38,000,000,000.00. To Musk.

And that’s only so far. It’s not even counting the new contracts Musk has personally given to SpaceX to manage the FAA, or the upcoming massive government payment system he will own.

But then that’s the whole point of DOGE: Cut essential services until there’s a public outcry that can no longer be ignored, then outsource any services that are mercifully restored to Musk & whichever hand-picked cronies he chooses. If military & prison privatization is any guide (and why shouldn’t it be?), this will be done at around ten times the original cost, mind you, with that extra 90% going to further enrich our newly-minted oligarchs.

The end game here is monopolistic state-funded capitalism, by and for the elite. All profits privatized, all losses paid by taxpayers. We already have this system with captured utilities and the aforementioned privateered government services, plus a similar state-capitalism model for fossil-fuel companies.

This will expand that corrupt system in a way that likely can’t be undone.

[truthdogg]

The root of conservatism is the fear of societal change that comes from marginalized or minority groups. When people concerned about abuse of the marginalized win elections, the right is doubly afraid, and ready to leave democracy.

Government of the people, by the people, and for the people is our only guarantee against dictatorship, but when those people come from a less privileged background, conservative preference for aristocracy (or oligarchy) takes precedence.

We’re seeing it now.

Our underlying political problem isn’t Trump or MAGA. They are simply the destructive forces it has unleashed. The main problem is conservatism.

[truthdogg]

ALWAYS ask who benefits. Gutting the FAA . Who benefits?

It looks like the firings, the plane crashes, and the destruction of the agency from within were all done so that Elon Musk & SpaceX would profit from it.

Try not to look so surprised.