Always more links of interest

 
DeSantis flubs his campaign launch in New Hampshire by scheduling an event opposite a major GOP women's event. 

The federal indictment against Trump for his part in Jan. 6 and trying to fraudulent overturn the election. 

I'll need to check back on this: a very strong El Nino is forming in the Pacific due to the high ocean temperatures. This has been a very strange weather year already and there may be more. 

Two articles on the GOP scorched earth plans for the federal government.  

Hezbollah might be getting advanced anti-aircraft missiles from Russia. 

Great Lincoln Project takedown of that quack RFK Jr. 

WaPo does a survey of AI (artificial intelligence) and finds that it is saturated in Western stereotypes. This isn't at all surprising. 

Info from 2016 unearthing past wrongs. The sugar industry bought and paid for a health study in 1967 that downplayed the negative effects of sugar in heart disease, and emphasized the role of fats. This was published as a scientific study, but it used value judgements and gray areas to support a bias. Scientific studies can be stilted. It's important to beware and be critical. 

Holding onto this link about Epstein: The 128-page report from the inspector general. I wanted to check in particular about the level of available video. Many camera feeds weren't being saved/stored, but some were. There was good video of access points to the units, and that video shows no people accessed the units. That means no assassin team. Scans of Epstein's address book. This is the most interesting page, perhaps his most important contacts, which are handwritten.

A listing of Trump PAC payments to lawyers. Probably not a complete listing either. 

Image: epsteinblackbook.com

Update 7/17/25. Parking links to more Epstein-related documents. Evidence list. Boastful memo from the Department of Justice about how thorough they will be.  

Update 7/24/25. A timeline of an Epstein investigation. An article about a story/narrative that Trump threw Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago. I've read several different versions of how the friendship ended, and I have to wonder what is the truth. 

Update 11/13/25. Former Harvard President Larry Summers and professor Dershowitz are exposed in Epstein emails. The Harvard Crimson has been doing the most complete coverage. Summers discussed trying to have an affair. Dershowitz tries to make distance but emails don't help him. His suggestions on how to discredit a witness is disgusting. 

Update 12/9/2025. More revelations from Epstein emails. Wexner really did leave a lot of financial management and allocation in Epstein's hands. To me that doesn't look like a blackmail situation but offloading a chore onto someone eager to do it. 

Update 12/20/2025. The Epstein files were due to be released yesterday, but only about 1% of the gigabytes have been released. Due to all the reporting, I'm going down a rabbit hole. Found this video from Wired about open source information about the tracked visitors to Epstein's island. No names but fascinating how the information was put together. A former girlfriend whom Epstein allowed Trump to grope on a visit. A feisty girl who was friends with Epstein until he was sleazy with her friend. The first person to report Epstein to the FBI, an artist he hired. Her suit against the US government for negligence over his threats to her for years. Her interview telling how Epstein called her in for a late meeting and Trump showed up in a creepy way. A suit from a 13-year-old girl picked up by Epstein and Maxwell at the famous Interlocken Arts camp, with another Trump connection. 

Epstein was also important in Jewish and Israeli charitable work centered around the wealthy Wexner family whose finances he managed. 

Email from US Assistant Attorney about Trump flying more often on the Lolita Express than previously known. The dishonest Department of Justice pretended in the X post that all the accusations against Trump are being found to be unfounded. Uh, no. A collection of many story of Trump being a sleaze in a similar mold to Epstein. 

The phenomenon of Trump support

Some seem to support Trump because he perfectly encapsulates their anger. They're angry at immigrants, at Muslims, at leaders who are 'losers,' at Obamacare, at Obama, at George Bush, etc. These supporters love it when Trump insults others. Maybe they are rage addicts, and he's their daily dose.

Then were are others who feel Trump is on their side, at least somewhat, and won't sell them out as so many other politicians have--making promises and not delivering for them and their class. I don't know why they think Trump will be different except that he's already rich, and therefore won't sell them out to become richer. He says he won't do that, but what makes it more believable from him than from countless others?

I don't totally understand the attraction Trump has for the second group, though I grasp it a bit. There is certainly reason to doubt that the GOP will follow through on their promises, especially promises to make the economy better for the little guy. The GOP has provided much more constituent service to business owners who want to keep wages and benefits low. They've done it by opposing more regulation, mandatory health insurance, and by not working toward enforcement of immigration law. The GOP helps businesses on labor issues (with de facto support of immigrant labor) by reneging on implicit promises to and screwing over the little guy wage earner. And the GOP has chosen the business guy again and again.

So I get Trump's popularity. I'm not sure what Trump means for the future of the Republican party. It's not surprising if the GOP business elite is finally losing control. They've let blowhard talk radio jocks be the spokesmen and missionaries, and maybe they're finally going to pay the price for that.

Or possibly they'll just pay a short-term price until things go back to normal:

...it would be better to effectively rent the party to Mr. Trump for four months this fall, through the general election, than risk turning it over to Mr. Cruz for at least four years, as either the president or the next-in-line leader for the 2020 nomination.

What an excellent insight, though it may not be true. Maybe that's a third way Trump is attractive. In a no-win situation, he'll do less harm than the other potential nominees. He'll let those in the mines blow off some steam, and then will fade away as quickly as Mondale did.

Perhaps there's even another way he is attractive, captured by this quote: "I can’t stand Trump, but I love what he’s doing." And what is he doing that is exciting or admirable? Maybe it's calling out all the political hypocrites (except himself, of course). There are lots to be called out, and it's good that someone is doing it. However, that attraction isn't going to last because the seams in his own ideas will begin to fray with all his vigorous denunciations of all the rest of those hypocrites. How will it happen and how soon? Damned if I know. But it'll be exciting to watch.

Image: dailymail.co.uk

Extras. Great reads about Trump: Is Trump disproving the theory that the party decides? If so, how and why is it happening? (From Nate Silver.) The GOP has no intelligence on Trump because they are completely cut off from his supporters. That's a risky position to be in. A sampling of readers of Dreher, many of who are religious, and why even they like the philandering, foul-mouthed gambling czar.

Short: What's in a (nasty) name?

I hate a particular kind of name-calling where you make a nasty play on a person's name. As my rules for commenters says "Insults such as libtard, Obummer, Repug, wingnut, and moonbat are not welcome."

From what I've seen, conservatives tend to be worse in this sort of behavior. Some positively relish coming up with new concoctions on the name Obama. I'm pretty sure it's a major pastime for Limbaugh.

Now there's a new one: cuckservative.

It definitely sounds nasty, but the sound is just the beginning. A cuckservative is a conservative who stupidly isn't on board with ... (how should I phrase this?) ... 'white interests.'

Here's a mostly clean version of the viewpoint. Here's a very raunchy version. Beware before you click.

Image: theoccidentalobserver.net

Extras. This reminds me of Derbyshire and dark enlightenment. More etymology, if you're not repulsed enough already. I've got a strong stomach and training with bodily fluids. That's my excuse.

Not an ideal hero

Is it my imagination or do the conservatives in this country make poor choices for their everyday heroes? They have rallied around George Zimmerman, who turned out to be a bad choice. Now there's Cliven Bundy--rancher, scofflaw, squatter, citizen of sovereign Nevada, and part-time constitutional scholar. We can also add embarrassing racist to the list too.

Two isn't much of a list, but can I add Ben Carson? There's also Herman Cain, Joe the plumber, and on the more professional side there are Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin.

Cliven Bundy, just like George Zimmerman, should have triggered warning bells. He doesn't acknowledge the U.S. government as sovereign. Yet he's mixed up enough to talk about the Constitution, and I don't think he's referring to the the Nevada state constitution either. He hasn't paid the fees for grazing his cattle for decades (or maybe ever) and he thinks he owns the land they graze on. What are the chances that he pays his federal taxes? Not high, I'm guessing. Yet a bunch of conservative pundits rallied around him, undeterred by his questionable legal status and questionable judgment. A bunch have had to temper their enthusiasm in light of his racist remarks.

He's certainly an attractive figure for gun rights whackos. He's protectin' his property from those dang lawless federales, who would take his property (and yours) if you gave them a chance. He collected a lot of people who'd enjoy a showdown with federal agents, but the agents didn't give it to them. That was probably wise, though it depends on how many people decide to copy the strategy.

Conservative hero worship is earned too easily, rarely recanted, and then the mistake is repeated again. The worship commences based on some big action, not quiet, thoughtful deeds. Conservatives could find thousands of heroes if being a hero wasn't based on shooting someone or disrespecting Obama to his face. But they choose what they choose, and evidently they choose the ones who provide red meat. That's dumb, but it's going to happen again and again.

Image: news.google.com

Another reason conservatives should be more careful--the left-leaning MSM will search for the Achilles heel of their hero, and report it with fanfare.

Update 7/28/14. George Zimmerman is positioning himself to shoot someone again. This guy is either stupid or sick. 

Post-election: The demographic surprise

The biggest surprise of the election was the demographics, with blacks and Latinos increasing their participation over the record turnout in the historic election of 2008.

According to conservative pundits, this wasn't supposed to happen. Well, too bad for those pundits and too bad for the GOP. Perhaps there is no surer way of increasing the vote of a group than trying to suppress it or vilify it. This is just desserts for those who passed voter ID laws or tried to change voting schedules to disadvantage Dem voting blocs.

The changes in demographics is the major issue conservatives will have to grapple with if they want electoral success in the Senate and the presidency (that is, beyond Congressional districts subject to gerrymandering). As I wrote earlier, some conservatives are doing a better job than others to start this work.

I actually wish them well because competition creates improvement in many areas, including political ideas. A Democratic party that can count on a huge proportion of minority votes is likely to be a corrupt or hackish party.

Here are some sources for demographic data: CNN, WaPo, and FoxNews.

Image: cnn.com

Extras. Is Fox News already trying to nudge conservatives into acceptance and strategic engagement with the new demographics? Beautiful graphical representations of demographics and electoral choices from the NYT. Brief, pointed discussion of demographics and get-out-the-vote in Ohio.

The sprawl of the welfare state

I was reading a political blog and read this not-atypical comment:

"... a  few partisan leftists rolled their eyes at conservatives who think death panels are a feature of socialized medicine...

"All that said, the reason this stuff is so much more offensive on the right is because the nation has basically drifted leftward, in some respects rapidly, over the past several years. Who would have thought, even 15 years ago, that opposition to gay marriage would be basically fringe in the US? Or that we would reach a point where the viability of political candidates is largely, perhaps mostly, predicated on how well they avoid taking stuff away from key constituents? It is, practically, an increasingly liberal country and world." -- A plainblog commenter

I started to write a comment arguing against this viewpoint. It's easy to defeat the idea that avoiding "taking stuff away from key constituents" is only a problem for the left. I can point to some juicy benefits for the wealthy and medical corporations during the Bush administration to show that the GOP does constituent service the same as the Democrats, but do I really need to?

It's so easy to talk about marriage for same-sex partners as being mixed lefty and conservative, since marriage is a traditional, conservative sort of institution.

However, it was a lot harder to argue that the country hasn't drifted leftward over the past several years, or maybe I should say four decades. I wanted to make the argument that, in terms of social acceptance, there has been definite leftward shifts, but not on fiscal issues.

Yet when I tried to find examples of conservative ideals becoming more prevalent in society and government, I could think of only one example--the welfare reform of the 1990's. Most government policy has expanded government's role, responsibilities, and expenditures. But remember that not all government spending is "liberal" spending. Increased defense spending, which we've had, has more of a conservative constituency. Increased spending on Medicare had bipartisan support when it was voted on in Congress, so it's not exactly fair to label it "liberal" now. If the country is in a rightward shift now, as shown in the GOP/Tea Party gains in the 2010 election, it hasn't penetrated spending or policy yet.

For movement in a fiscal conservative direction, you may have to look to business. Many are pushing back on healthcare with co-pays and higher employee contributions. They're also offering 401K retirement plans instead of fixed pensions.

Whether you think the leftward direction is good or bad depends on your political viewpoint. I'm afraid (or glad) you'll have to make up your own mind about that.

Basically blue

Analogies: Carter is to Obama as Reagan is to...

If (note the 'if') Obama is the Carter of the 21st century, do we have a Reagan to defeat him after one lucklustre term? As the tragicomedy of the Republican nomination campaign continues, it becomes more and more apparent that there is no 21st century Reagan to run against Obama.

I hope I'm witnessing the demise of Newt Gingrich's campaign. I loathe Newt because he has consistently put his ego above the good of the country, or honesty, or countless other virtues. He is definitely no Reagan.

Today, I regret that there isn't another Reagan, with the caveat that the myth of Reagan glosses over many characteristics out of favor today: negotiating with Democrats, raising Social Security taxes, closing loopholes to increase revenue, increasing deficit spending.

It could be that Reagan picked the low hanging fruit that ripened during years of Democratic domination of Congress. Not that I want to downplay his accomplishments. He showed that the country could reverse the trend of ever increasing social spending without the dire outcomes that liberals predicted (upsurge in crime and desperation with the end of social programs). He also showed the possibility for strong conservative policy objectives after the previous 20 years had been mostly in line with liberal objectives.

Today's Republicans are in a much different situation. Republican ideas have been dominant for 30 years. So would a would-be 21st century Reagan be running against the 20th century Reagan?

Maybe this is the problem we're seeing. Republicans are running against their former selves, at least to a certain extent. That's a problem Reagan didn't have. He could go full bore against the excesses of the Democrats and the exclusion of conservative ideas. Today's Republican candidates have to thread the needle very carefully--use the tactic of blaming Democrats as much as possible, throw in a few mea culpas and 'back to basics' rhetoric. But they can't go full Reagan.

There's a bigger problem than rhetorical positioning, however. Candidates can't promise initiatives the way Reagan did because our fiscal situation limits what we can do. Reagan's sunny outlook just doesn't fit with the times. Would the electorate believe a candidate today who says we can build up our military, face down our enemy, be the leader throughout the world, reform entitlements and put them on a stable footing for the next century, cut taxes, and unleash growth? We would probably roll our eyes and ask: "We already did this. What do we do now?" That's a question even Reagan couldn't answer.



Carter is to Obama as Reagan is to: _____________________  (Your answer here.)