Does the 14th amendment disqualify Trump from office?

This is a funny asterisk or footnote, but it's also a bigger issue. Did Trump, like the civil war secessionists, commit an insurrection against the US government? We could actually have an extended argument over whether his actions leading up to and on Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection. In my view, it was an attempt at a coup with various laws broken. It's interesting that we haven't had to consider this question with other candidates. 

So here it is, 14th amendment Section 3: 

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

There have been all kinds of arguments that this doesn't apply to the presidency. Also that isn't not enforceable, or only enforceable by the Supreme Court. 

These are valid questions and there aren't loads of good answers because there isn't much case law on this. We really haven't had a lot of insurrections where we had to worry about barring the participants from office. 

One thing that's at issue is how this provision is enforced since no enforcement mechanism is listed. I tried to find out about the enforcement and found very little. The most detailed is about a potential senator from NC named Zebulon Vance. He had been a representative, then joined the secessionists and was selected as senator after the war. He was barred per the 14th amendment and didn't try to serve, and eventually NC found a different candidate who passed per the 14th amendment. 

It appears that officials had to present credentials, which could be rejected. After the Civil War, Congress refused to seat many senators and representatives from southern states. Pres. Johnson complained about this, and records show rejection of a GA senator.

Now the Colorado Supreme Court has blocked Trump from the primary there on the grounds of the 14th amendment Section 3. So this is strange, unprecedented for a candidate for president, but it is somewhat in keeping with a strict constructionist reading of the amendment. 

Per the amendment, it applies to anyone who 1) "having taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, then 2) "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same." For those, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, ... or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States..." 

There's no requirement of a trial to determine it, so it's hard to say that Colorado isn't within its rights to bar him. Well, such interesting times we live in. 

Image: Redbubble

Dangerous pregnancy? Texas says 'Too bad.'

I followed a series of stories from Texas because I care about freedom and bodily autonomy, and I wondered whether Texas would be compassionate or act to form. 

It starts with a lawyer in the attorney general's office writing that Texas isn't to blame if women aren't getting life-saving abortions. Nooooo, it's those terrible cowardly doctors who refuse to risk their freedom and licenses to perform perfectly legal abortions. The lawyer, a woman, suggests that women should be looking at suing doctors, not the state. 

There's a tiny bit of superficial logic to this. Possibly the doctors are being cowards. Possibly the state wouldn't consider trying to prosecute them for necessary abortions. Texas hasn't jailed any doctors yet for providing emergency abortions. So it's is possible that doctors are just being too nervous. 

More likely, though, is that Texas AG office is lying, trying to throw the blame elsewhere, and providing a talking point to supporters of the strict law. A woman who is 20 weeks pregnant, whose baby has a severe and deadly chromosomal defect, filed suit to get permission for an abortion in Texas. She is already suffering serious side effects. A judge granted her permission for an abortion, with the state arguing against it. What! I thought they supported necessary abortions for the health and life of the mother. Oh, wait, that was just window dressing. The state government doesn't actually support necessary abortions. 

The state appealed, got a ruling to stay the decision. And the AG showed how much they support women in this situation by threatening hospitals and doctors and reminding them that of the penalties for breaking the Texas abortion law. 

So the woman decided she had to leave the state to get her necessary abortion. In the meantime, the Supreme Court of Texas doubled down on the lie that doctors have all the discretion they need. 

So there it is. Texas doesn't really care how dangerous your pregnancy is. Enforcing the laws on those horrid doctors, women, and anyone else is more important. 

Image: Trisomy 18 Foundation

Extras. There's pushback in many states against the stricter abortion laws. Conservatives have a set of tactics to stymie pro-choice referenda, etc. 

How Republicans defended the House on Jan. 6

I discovered a fascinating Politico article about defenders of the House chamber. I'll quote extensively from the article and not clean up all the quote marks. 

“The idea was just to try to delay. I honestly didn’t believe we were going to keep them out of the chamber. I was 100 percent convinced that we were going to pile up at the door,” said Mullin. “It is all about time.”

Nehls (R-Texas), a former sheriff and military officer with five decades of military and law enforcement experience, ran over to Mullin, asking if he needed help.

“We have a choice. I’m with you, brother,” replied Mullin.

Mullin then broke two wooden upright hand sanitizer stations and handed a block of the wood to Nehls, giving both of them makeshift weapons...

“We didn’t know if it’s three people 30 people or 200 people. You just don’t have any way of knowing, and not knowing was unsettling,” said Fallon, who previously served in the U.S. Air Force.

“I thought, ‘We’re going to get in a street fight on my third day in Congress because we’re going to defend this place,” Fallon added, noting that they began shoring each other up...

Nehls looked through a cracked door window where rioters were attempting to break in and saw a man carrying a flag on a long wooden pole that was sharpened on the end, which he believes penetrated the window and caused the sound.

“It took an enormous amount of force to shatter that glass. You can see some remnants on top of the furniture — the little white sprinkling of dust from where the glass came in,” Nehls said.

Mullin then confronted the insurrectionists on the other side of the door through the tiny holes broken in the glass: “I said, ‘Is it worth it?”

When one rioter expressed confusion, he yelled again: “You almost got shot. You almost died. Is it worth it?’”

While some of the rioters paused temporarily after hearing Mullin’s warning, it wasn’t long until an agitator in the group began shaking the door again, yelling obscenities and shouting: “This is our House. This is our House. And we’re taking our House back.’”

Mullin shot back: “This is our House, too. That is not going to happen.”

Nehls then stepped in to attempt to deescalate the tense situation.

“I told the individuals on the other side of the door that they shouldn’t be doing this. ‘This is not the way we should be handling business. This is un-American, unnecessary and dangerous.’ And there’s no reason they should be doing this,” Nehls recalled. “I said, ‘You should be embarrassed of yourselves.’”

One of the rioters remarked that Nehls was wearing a Texas face mask and yelled at him: “You should be with us! You should be with us!”

To which Nehls replied: “No, sir, I cannot support what you’re doing right now.”

At about the same time, roughly 100 feet away, an officer shot and killed 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt, a former Air Force veteran who kept trying get inside the speaker’s lobby — where several lawmakers were — despite warnings that a gun was drawn.

The speaker’s lobby where the officer fired is directly adjacent to the House floor. People inside the chamber could clearly hear the gunshot.

Mullin said the officer who fired the fatal shot later entered back into the chamber and appeared “visibly distraught.”

“I hugged him and I said, ‘Sir, you had to do what you had to do,’” Mullin said.

Mullin and others who fought off the insurrectionists say if rioters had reached more doors leading into the House chamber, rather than just the one, then the situation could have ended far differently.

“He had to take someone’s life, but in return he probably saved a whole bunch of people’s lives,” Mullin said, praising law enforcement as the heroes that day...

Also reported is how one congressman decided to call his wife with a possibly final 'I love you.' Probably many others did that too. 

My big question now: Are these Republicans still talking this way about Jan. 6, or have they whitewashed it? Are they still supporting Trump? Probably most of them are. 

This is a sick outcome. The courage and principles that were so necessary on Jan. 6 were forgotten. It seems the partisan power is more important at the end of the day. 

Image: Politico

Fake polling to fuel a talking point

Talking point creation is an industry. No doubt some are paid very well for it. So here's one: Twitter closed down discussion of Hunter Biden's laptop for a week before the 2020 election. It probably wasn't a full lockdown because that would be very hard to do, but the New York Post twitter account was suspended. 

So how much effect could that blackout have? The conservatives have been trying to supersize the effect and actually did some polling to check on it, or to manufacture the data they wanted. 

Here is typical conservative reporting on the poll: 

WaPo reporting on the wording of the poll question. Wow. 

"According to our poll," the organization wrote a few weeks after Trump lost, "full awareness of the Hunter Biden scandal would have led 9.4% of Biden voters to abandon the Democratic candidate, flipping all six of the swing states he won to Trump, giving the President 311 electoral votes."

This is the poll question. Look at how stilted it was:

"At the time you cast your vote for president, were you aware that evidence exists, including bank transactions the FBI is currently investigating, that directly links Joe Biden and his family to a corrupt financial arrangement between a Chinese company with connections to the Chinese Communist Party that was secretly intended to provide the Biden family with tens of millions of dollars in profits?"

So this is more talking point manufacturing. The electorate already knew Hunter was a crackhead and had a cushy job that paid too well. We in the electorate didn't really care. No candidate is perfect--not even close. 

Image: Daily Mail

Extras. Politifact, if it helps any. NBC news from 10/30/20. I guess there was some coverage in MSM. 

What did the left actually say about Trump and collusion?

I read it all the time from conservatives: The left was sure Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 election. 

Did the left actually believe that? Ok, I'll use google to find out. Looking at June 2016 until mid-September, I don't see declarations that Trump was colluding. I see discussions of Trump's financial ties, his statements about Russia, his choices of advisers, and how Russians apparently hacked the DNC and gave the documents to Wikileaks. I don't see claims that Trump colluded with Russians. 

CNN 7/26/16. Discussion on Russian meddling, no accusation of collusion or conspiracy involving Trump. 

Lawfare 7/27/16. Q&A, no charges of conspiracy or collusion.

Washington Post 7/29/16. Q&A, no charges of conspiracy or collusion.

The Guardian 7/30/16. Long article. Direct collusion "probably not happening."

Vox 8/15/16. Conspiracy theorizing is wild but grounded in Trump's Russia ties. 

Reuters 8/25/16. Focus on Carter Page, who was one of many advisers who had close Russian ties. 

Politico 9/5/16. Russia is interfering, but no accusation against Trump except for spreading hate. 

After leaks of the Steele dossier

So now I'll look for how it was discussed after parts of the Steele dossier was leaked to Yahoo, and was published in its entirety in January 2017. 

NPR 1/10/17. Reports on the dossier, which was published that day by Buzzfeed. "NPR is not detailing the contents of the brief because it remains unverified....." but characterized it as discussing efforts to cultivate Trump, blackmail possibilities, and secret mettings with aides. 

NYT 2/14/17. Unnamed sources say Trump campaign had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence. Alarming, but sources say no evidence of collusion this far. 

USA Today 2/15/17. Timeline of contacts. Not veering into speculation. 

Politico Magazine March/April 2017. Trump/Russia connections in 7 charts. Looks solid and not veering into speculation. 

The Guardian 3/22/17. Comey testifies that Trump is being investigated. Speculation on effect of that news, but not about possible actions by Trump and his campaign. 

Politico 3/22/17. Schiff claims the evidence for collusion is more than circumstantial. He can't say what it is. 

PRI 3/30/17. Very accusatory tone, but still couched as investigations and suspicions. 

CNBC 4/6/17. Clinton says potential collusion should be looked into. 

The Guardian 4/13/17. British spy services warned US intelligence dating back to 2015. An unnamed source states there is "concrete.... evidence of collusion" and that's the strongest statement in the article. 

Reuters 5/18/17. More contacts between Trump officials and Russians disclosed. Sources say no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion. 

I also checked some further left media. Many have told me that Rachel Maddow pushed the collusion story night after night. This video would be one example. I didn't watch her so I don't know how representative it is, but it does push the story hard, with statements like the evidence is growing and the Repubs were meeting with Russians just as Russians were hacking the elections. 

Keith Olbermann was always a human flamethrower and he continues it, though from a very shoddy video studio with terrible lighting. He latches onto the accusations from Louise Mensch, a name I had forgotten. Well, she was a bit correct but also going deep into nutcase territory. 

Personal memories

What I recall about the Russian collusion story: I was tentative on it, preferring to wait for hard evidence. Evidence was being uncovered frequently, so it was very reasonable to wait and see. I was dubious about the Steele dossier and the way it was released encouraged wariness. It was labeled as unverified from the very beginning. 

In contrast, most of the information covered in the Mueller report had been leaked beforehand, and the solid news organization were right on most of it. I read the indictments as they came out, and they were loaded with info. So I never had to correct mistaken claims I made because I was cautious and conservative. The Mueller report wasn't a relevation. The good MSM sources continued being fairly good, including when they reported that the Steele dossier was financed by the Clinton campaign. Now that was quite an Aha! moment. 

So I was cautious in what I believed, and I recall most on the left being that way too. Maybe because I don't watch MSNBC or Keith Olbermann. My conclusion is that conservatives downplay the actual events of Russian interference and overhype the collusion/conspiracy speculation on the left. 

Image: The Intercept

Intelligence for Jan. 6

Reading some sources today that are trying to say that Jan. 6 happened because Dems let it happen, and their goal was to make Trump and his supporters look really bad. It could have been prevented. People like Pelosi and the intelligence community had the info but decided not to act because they benefited more if it went forward. 

There are some problems with that, but I decided to look into the intelligence and try to sort through it.

Tucker Carlson interview with the disgraced chief of capitol police who was forced to resign one day later. He seems to think he was set up. He's got some good points, but there's a lot questionable there. Transcript of his testimony to the Jan. 6 committee. 

Long piece about the Oathkeepers. I'm particularly wondering what their plan or plans were and how much was known about it in advance. They were highly involved in the Stop the Steal rhetoric and protests, emphasizing that they were willing to due Trump's bidding and defeat the deep state. Rhodes used rhethoric like "if we don't, there will be no more republic." They did appear to have a plan to infiltrate Congress and intimidate the elected officials and stop the peaceful, orderly transfer of power based on the certified election results. It wasn't a good plan or a successful plan, but it was a plan, and that is sedition. Testimony here. 

Just Security timeline of the intelligence failure. Very meaty with tons of links. In-depth reporting from WaPo on the intelligence failure. NBC news on the intelligence failure. 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) archive on what they gathered on the intelligence. Only two of 10 agencies correctly forecast that the capitol or Congress was going to be targeted.

Image: Live 5 news

My take on the Georgia indictments

Fascinating. Nineteen people are indicted so this is a contrast to the federal charges where Trump was the only named defendant. There is a lot of common territory though because Trump's plans to get states to overturn their elections results happened in Georgia as one of the primary places. These indictments are state-level charges, not federal, because states (unsurprisingly) also have laws against election hijinks. Nineteen defendants, 41 counts, and an average of over 7 counts per defendant since many counts have multiple offenders listed. 

Some of the charges:

A Rico conspiracy to do a bunch of bad shit with many threads and tentacles. 

Solicitation of violation of oath by public officers - trying to get officials to do illegal or unethical shit. 

Impersonating a public official, forgery, false statements for pretending you're an elector when you're not. 

Perjury and false statements galore - to the GA legislature, to investigators, committees. I assume that the perjury charges are based on lying when under oath in a legal proceeding. 

Can the Rico charges stand? Can defendants be charged in Fulton county with offenses that occurred in Coffee County? Is it a criminal false statement to wrongly characterize action in a video, or just a mistake that isn't criminal? This applies to statements about video of counting from the State Farm Arena. However before the State department of GA clarified the actions shown in the video, it may reasonably have been misinterpreted. 

When does conferring with a witness cross the line to the criminal act of influencing witnesses? 

Some of the incidents: Lying about the State Farm Arena video. Lying about election workers. Harassing election workers. Pressuring election workers over their testimony. Falsely saying and signing documents as a presidential electors. Unsanctioned access to voting machines in Coffee County. Lying about what you were doing with those voting machines. Pressuring the secretary of state of GA to find 11780 votes. 

These are the most satisfying indictments yet because the major players will be having to answer for their acts, unless they decide not to mount a defense. It's less complicated when Trump is the sole defendant, but it's fully complete when his henchman are there too. It's also great that they all had to come in and get mug shots. 

Image: PBS

Extras. The report from the investigative grand jury. They were considering indicting Sen. Lindsay Graham too. 

McCarthy is voted out of the speaker position

Of course there is going to be lots of drama in Congress when there is just barely a majority. Add in grandstanding fantasy-based reps, and it will be even more nail biting. 

Some of the play-by-play of the debate and the vote. A day before the vote, before Gaetz' motion to vacate was even filed, a pundit writes that McCarthy had fucked up all the goodwill he might have had from the Dems. Two days before the vote, this was the lay of the land, just after the surprise continuing resolution that avoided a government shutdown. 

The reasons why the Dems didn't save McCarthy's bacon. The less fun official version of it. A list of who's angry at whom, with the most interesting resentment in the second half of the article. Moderate GOPers thought the Dems would save McCarthy. The bipartisan ProblemSolvers caucus may actually dissolve over this, which would be a shame. 

The editorial board of WaPo recommends that House Dems vote present so that the new speaker doesn't have to make so many promises to the holdouts. We'll see...

My analysis

My own prediction was that the Dems would save McCarthy because they need him to pass appropriation bills and/or CRs, or there will be a shutdown of unknown length, and certainly longer because this leadership issue has to be settled first. That's what I thought and I was wrong. Reality didn't follow my logic, so I've been trying to understand the reasons. 

Here's my guess now: The Dems didn't think McCarthy was going to be able to deliver compromise appropriation bills. He was going to cave to the rightwing and pass big cuts, and then it would be a stalemate. There's a good chance that's how it would have played out. Well, in that case, you might as well dump McCarthy and try someone who might be more open to reality. Based on how McCarthy behaved, they had little to lose. 

Plus there is the issue of timing. If Dems were hoping to ax McCarthy, they can't do it at their convenience. They have to do it when a GOPer raises the motion. So if everything gets settled, maybe there's no disgruntled GOPer to make the motion and follow through, so the Dems have to continue dealing with McCarthy for months more and maybe straight through to the 2024 election. "Nobody trusts Kevin" was a quote I read from more than one representative. When enough in the House feel that way, you are OUT.

There have been so other twists and turns on this issue. A couple GOPers said they would nominate Trump. That's ludicrous because Trump doesn't have the work ethic or temperament for the job. But he's also a glutton for attention, so he said that he'd consider it for a short time. That set off warning sirens and the possibility has been shut down. Now on Friday, Trump has endorsed the slimy Jim Jordan for speaker. This is a major liar, a J6 coward, and a former coach at Ohio State University who didn't report all the sexual harassment that was going on. The other major contender is the next in the GOP leadership, Steve Scalise. I hate to think a scumsucker like Jordan can win. If he loses, it is a slap in the face to Trump, so all the more reason for it to happen. 

To be continued in the Extras...

Image: Newsmax

Extras. Trump was nominated as speaker back in January too with hilarious results. Lots of ridicule on certain networks. 

Unexpected Ukraine/Russia developments

I don't know that anyone predicted this. The head of the Wagner group (the Russian mercenaries) had been loud in his criticism for a while, but to head into revolt and threatening the government--that wasn't foreseen. And that lasted just 24 hours before it was settled, though it's probably not really settled. 

Here's one of the best early analysis. 

I've seen so much speculation. That Putin is playing 5D chess and it's part of a brilliant plot. That the Wagner general is experienced and daring, but didn't have a plan for air cover, so that was a huge hole in his planning. 

WHAT HAPPENED?

Prigozhin's private jet was downed with much of his high command and himself on board on August 23. That's what happens to traitors even if Putin assured otherwise. 

Image: Sky News

Shellenberger plagiarizes. Maui burns.

Michael Shellenberger, who I don't know from anyone until he signed up for the Elon Musk shill squad on the Twitter Files, is a hack journalist desperately trying not to appear as a hack. I haven't seen him not be a right-wing hack so far, so he seems to have picked his side. 

So he wrote about the high-fatality wildfire on Maui and headlined it this way:

Renewables Mania and Woke Dogma Behind Hawaii Fire, Not Climate Change

Of course it's a bunch of rubbish that he doesn't even support with citations. Plus he appears to be a denialist about climate change because it pays well. But it's funny how he plagiarizes in his tweet: 

"It is unambiguous that Hawaiian Electric’s grid experienced immense stress for a prolonged time," said one analyst. "There were dozens and dozens of major faults on the grid and any one of those could have been the ignition source for a fire."

..."I was already fighting with the electric company because they never maintain the lines," said a fifth-generation Hawaii resident who lives on a family farm.

Compare that to this unreferenced WaPo article:

"It is unambiguous that Hawaiian Electric's grid experienced immense stress for a prolonged time," Marshall said, comparing the fluctuating data to the grid's stable readings from weeks and months prior. "There were dozens and dozens of major faults on the grid and any one of those could have been the ignition source for a fire."

..."I was already fighting with the electric company because they never maintain the lines," said Rivers, a fifth-generation Hawaii resident who lives on her family’s 40-acre farm.

It's great when people confirm their lack of ethics.  

Shellenberger - Hack journalist for hire

Image:linkedin.com

Extras. Reporting on the delay in getting water. Elsewhere I've read that the common people are last in line for water while the hotels, resorts, golf courses, and farmers control the distribution. 

This is somewhat a story about climate change, but moreso a story of ignoring facts on the ground. A high risk of wildfire doesn't come out of nowhere. There are signs weeks in advance. However Maui didn't pay attention or didn't plan. The question is why. Local reports with comments> one, two, three.  

Jan. 6 trials and their results

The trials of the various Jan. 6 rioters and coup-plotters is a very long process, so I'll start this post and keep adding to it. Therefore it will be incomplete, and perhaps mostly a mess. 

Oathkeepers. They were highly involved in the Stop the Steal rhetoric and protests, emphasizing that they were willing to due Trump's bidding and defeat the deep state. Rhodes used rhethoric like "if we don't, there will be no more republic." They did appear to have a plan to infiltrate Congress and intimidate the elected officials and stop the peaceful, orderly transfer of power based on the certified election results. "We are sticking together and sticking to the plan,"  texted Jessica Watkins that afternoon. It wasn't a good plan or a successful plan, but it was a plan, and that is sedition. Testimony here. 

A juror talks about the Oathkeepers trial and the deliberations. She was very focused on the evidence, as was a lawyer in the jury. They had to overcome the bias of some jurors against any convictions. Some of the damning messages between Oathkeepers that led to convictions. 

Scientists and others argue about the origin of covid-19

This is fun. Normally it would only be a discussion among scientists doing expert research in virus evolution. However it seems like lots of people get into the game because of the huge global effect and the distrust of government authorities, scientists, and people in general. 

I have a good science background, but not much that will help me with virus genetics or the questions of whether covid-19 was engineered in some ways. Of course, nature itself is a great accidental engineer. A few genetic changes, some recombinant mix-ins, and lots of biological bodies to pass it all around, and many things can happen to a virus. 

But did people (in China) fool around with coronoviruses and make covid-19? Would there be telltale signs of human fiddling? I can't answer that based on my experience. Nor am I getting that information from scientific articles. I can believe that splicing leaves signs, but nothing confirms it. 

Some of the information in clearer forms:

Evidence that covid-19 isn't engineered. 

The furin cleavage site in covid is very unusual. However furin cleavage sites aren't uncommon, but maybe none is quite like covid's. A study on a bunch of furin cleavage sites. I'm not sure if it's relevant and what it means.

Then there are some government reports. A very long report from a senator on origins. Assessments from the US Director of National Intelligence in 2021 and 2023. 

There are also reports about experiments conducted at Wuhan Institute of Virology, but it's hard to say that they clearly indicate anything. Talk about recombinant virus experiments, etc. aren't by themselves proof that the actual covid virus was from WIV. We'd have to know the details of the genomes, wouldn't we? But none of it seems clear right now, and China has reason to cover up any information and make it murky. 

Perhaps these experiments will be clarified sometime. Speculation swirls in the meantime, including about this proposal for research and its mentions of furin cleavage sites on pages 13 and 41.

One thing I strongly believe. Intelligence investigations aren't going to tell us the origin. The strongest information isn't going to come from spies, intelligence analysts, or congress people arguing about gain of function. It's going to come from scientists and their discussions of the evidence in genomes and blood samples. So if scientists aren't leading the discussions, I'm going to discount the information. 

Image: American Chemical Society

Extras. Vanity Fair covid article based on intelligence, not genome. Timeline of covid origin. Claim that origin is wild, based on genomic evidence.

June interesting links

The Wagner group commander ranted about the war, supplies, and Russian military leadership as he proclaimed victory in a Ukrainian city. 

Reading a review of the 2001 anthrax response 10 years later. I learned that the CDC thought every state and major city needed a biolab capable of certain rapid testing. Fast-forward to 2022, I wonder if this explains the US-funded biolabs in Ukraine? I also learned that the CDC at the time didn't know the dangers of anthrax on mail handlers in bulk facilities. They thought it wasn't a danger, but that was wrong. 

This past year has had an explosion of artificial intelligence apps for artwork and writing. The artwork is wonderful, and some find the writing apps helpful for handling dull writing tasks. But don't use it for fact-based work that requires accuracy. Allegedly a lawyer used it for a brief in a civil suit, and ChatGPT produced bogus citations. Or maybe the lawyer lied and blamed ChatGPT. Here's an example of ChatGPT eagerly lying when asked about the accomplishments of an academic. In a 2018 article, he wrote that "a diverse workforce helps us think about problems differently, come up with new solutions, and approach the world in a more nuanced way." Except the academic never wrote on that topic, so the 2018 article and the quote are fabrications.

El Salvador has had gang problems for decades, but the latest president has made significan headway against them. Hopefully I'll keep an eye on it, see if it lasts, and see if other countries can copy the strategies. 

I don't usually recommend videos because you can't skim them. However this one is fast-paced and full of good critique of the Trump indictment for mishandling classified material. 

One poll which makes Biden look very good. Who are you sure you won't vote for? Maybe we need more polls that ask who you definitely don't want to see as president. That's often the way people are motivated to vote. 

Image: monmouth.edu

Assorted fascinating links

I've often read about the alleged conspiracy of the CIA and contra drug smugglers to introduce a new cheap form of cocaine into black communities, and how it started with south central Los Angeles. The reporting series was done by the San Jose Mercury News. I haven't read it but instead have read the critiques of it. This is the most detailed, and it shoots down most of the theory. Black people and black communities in the US have been badly mistreated for hundreds of year, but this was probably not perpetrated on them. Many other wrongs were. 

All of global warming is due to human activity, according this estimate. Actually, more than what we're experiencing because of mitigation. 

Fighting over which organizations are the true Trumpers. Gag! For a terrible, fascistic narcissist to have organizations fighting to be his representative on earth--why would that happen? Peter Navarro claims to be the true messenger. The evil ones include the America First Policy Institute with Larry Kudlow and Bobby Jindal. They're trying to con Trump and slip in their own candidate as the MAGA heir. 

Boris Johnson got outsted from his party leadership for being a boorish liar. Why didn't Trump? Good question. 

US prisons released thousands due to covid and only 17 were rearrested. This provides lessons for who and how to release prisoners, save money, be compassionate, and make life better. 

The Michigan GOP doubles down on right wing nutters with their election of an election-fraud diehard as state chair. 

Liar extraordinaire, unapologetic hatemonger, and possibly the worst person in the US, Alex Jones is finally facing some much deserved reckoning. This civil trial, in Austin, TX, is about the monetary judgement against him. He was in contempt of the original trial, didn't cooperate to such a degree that there was a default judgement against him.

Dominion Voting Systems settled its suit with Fox News for over $750 million on the day jury selection was to start. It's hugely embarrassing for Fox. Google will help with the links, I'm sure. All The Texts Fox News Didn't Want You to Read, but you can, snicker, snicker. 

I didn't write anything about the 2022 midterm elections, which were anticipated to be a blow-out hurting the Dems because of inflation, but didn't turn out that way. Here's a report on voter sentiment just after the election. 69% think the midterms were fair. 50% hate the Democratic party. 53% hate the GOP. No one is winning a popularity contest. 

TRUMP IS FINALLY INDICTED. In New York, for fraudulent business reporting or something? Reactions are delicious. Also about Trump: he is the focus of a major political movement. This is different from life as usual because a fairly large number of people are motivated to make changes.

The House held a hearing on China which wasn't just grandstanding. The focus was that there is an existential struggle between China and the US. I have my doubts about this. China has been a country for millenia, so they're unlikely to disappear. The US is a much newer country but still almost 250 years old, and quite vigorous. Neither seems likely to disappear for any reason, much less due to another country an ocean away. 

Image: youtube.com

Vague thoughts on trans issues

I have some trans friends, but not prolonged direct contact with trans issues. Because of that, my opinions haven't been tested in real life. So that's a big caveat.

Trans issues haven't been much on my radar, so I was surprised to find out how much change was occurring before 2020. Turns out it was a lot, and I missed almost all of it. I had to go back and see when Caitlyn Jenner made her announcement, but I wasn't very impressed. After all, it came from one of the Kardashian clan, whom I don't esteem at all. (By the way, it was 2015.)

There was the North Carolina bathroom bill fracas in 2016, but that was pretty much shut down with boycotts. Which was good because bathrooms weren't rendered unsafe by trans women. None of the women I know were worried about it. It was mostly fathers beating their chests instead of letting the women and girls speak for themselves. 

Heating up

So maybe trans issues exploded in 2021-2 when US kids went back to schools after covid. I have to wonder if the timing shows that US conservatives needed new issues. Two big new issues, trans rights (and treatment for trans kids) and critical race theory were centered on schools. But I don't have the proof, so it's just a speculation. 

When it comes to trans issue, I'm not that well informed. However, my scientific and healthcare backgrounds help me to some tentative ideas about it. I think trans, like same-sex attraction, are real human characteristics, and not just pathology or perversion. I know trans people for whom life is much more stable, productive, and rewarding, so that rules out it always being a pathology. So, using the experience of gay rights, let's jump to assuming that it's not a pathology without evidence in the individual cases. 

Trans identification has soared in recent years, so what does that indicate? I think the growth is partly due to increased awareness, partly due to having terms for what people were experiencing, and partly fads or social contagion. Considering the vast changes in numbers, I disagree that best practices for transition are known now. It was too rare before, and the major changes mean that there hasn't been enough time yet to digest those changes and develop tested, confirmed best practices. At this point, they are at best best guesses. 

When it comes to puberty blockers, again best practices aren't known at this time. I don't believe claims that they don't have downsides--it hasn't been studied well enough to know. 

With Solutions, More Problems Come

When it comes to detransitioners, that is a real phenomenon, and points to inadequate counseling. However detransitioning is a cause celebre on the right, so some of it might be publicity whoring. Also, high barriers to transition treatment has problems too. Trans folks bitterly complain about gatekeeping, where they have to repeatedly prove to the 'experts' that they deserve the treatment, thereby treating them more like children than mature adults. 

A big part of the current backlash is centered on trans women and the lesbian and/or feminist community. Some in the community reject trans women as actually being males who are pretending to be women for unclear reasons. Here are men again trying to take over! There have been very awkward arguments about whether lesbians can reject sexual relations with trans women as not being lesbian relations. I strongly support respecting individual preferences, which is why straight people can be straight, bi people can be bi, gay people can be gay, lesbians can be lesbians. Don't tell people who they have to sleep with. 

There's also the issue of athletic competition. Based on my knowledge of anatomy and physiology, I think it's fair to exclude trans women from women's competitive sports. For leisure leagues, why not let whoever play? 

Another important aspect to realize is that no person can undo their genetics or completely remake their body. Surgical penises and vaginas don't function nearly as well as homegrown. That's the biological reality at this time, and it should be spelled out clearly to anyone considering the surgery. Many trans people don't get those surgeries, and it's not a requirement for living as a trans person. Society at large doesn't need to know what's happening with a person's genitals. Clothing has made it a non-issue long before current times. 

Image: transequality.org

Extras. I didn't put a lot of links here because this is more based on my impressions than solid research, which is hard to do in this period of major flux. The very complex story of a US trans woman who also detransitioned but not completely. Another detransitioner who is now identifying as a lesbian. The stories I hear from my friends are joy that they can be their real selves. Those stories deserve representation so here are some traditional ones and also more modern ones. 

Link to downloads of the UK reviews of transgender care. 

A timeline of accusations of grooming leveled at LGBT folks. The grooming accusations may already have peaked because it was that rampant (accusations, not real grooming). 

Finally the Durham report lands

Republicans have been looking for a white knight who will finally prove that the deep state conspired to support Hillary Clinton and block Trump as much as possible. Sadly for them, evidence for this has been spotty, and there were never enough connections with the evidence that existed to make a convincing story of it. The Inspector General Michael Horowitz was supposed to blow the whole mess wide open, but he didn't come through. So Durham was the next and probably last white knight. 

Durham really tried to deliver. However it's rather hard if you can't fabricate evidence. When you're stuck with lackluster evidence, you just shine it up as much as possible, and this is what Durham did. 

Mostly he hammers on the FBI for moving too aggressively to a full investigation instead of a smaller investigation. He also hammers on the FISA warrant application, but that's a repeat of the criticism from IG Horowitz, so not new info. 

So it's page after page of Durham droning on about the FBI agents being too serious, not gentle enough, not having a light enough touch, being tougher on Trump campaign officials than Hillary campaign officials. Why were they so hot to investigate more deeply? Gee, Durham seems to think it was bias against Trump, and nothing to do with the unprecendented hacking and release of DNC documents. 

New from the Durham report: The Clinton Plan

I did learn something new from the Durham report. I'm not sure how I missed it, but back in late July 2016, some intelligence floated in that Hillary Clinton approved a campaign plan (the Clinton plan) to fabricate information and spin that Trump was conspiring with the Russians. This plan (which was just an allegation that floated in from somewhere unspecified) wasn't taken seriously by the intelligence community, so they didn't seriously look into whether there was such a plan and it was being executed. 

Now a lot of conservatives thought or still think that this is real. The deep state (which includes Hillary) did join together to fabricate the Russia hoax, and it was wildly successful. 

I knew about the deep state version of the theory, but not the Clinton plan version. The deep state version has Brennan, Hillary, Susan Rice, Obama, Biden, Comey, Clapper, FusionGPS and some others, and it's been around since before the 2016 election. I didn't hear about the Clinton Plan version until the Durham report. 

There are data points that support the deep state conspiracy theory, including the existence of Crossfire Hurricane, the Steele dossier, the texts between Page and Strzok, unmasking of names in intelligence, etc. However, a more likely explanation is that the US does have counterintelligence agencies, and they are activated in the case of Russians fucking acting like assholes and interfering in US elections. So having an investigation like Crossfire Hurricane is a reasonable and legitimate response to the fucking hacking. Unmasking--reasonable! Obama briefed--reasonable! And so on. 

The Steele dossier was a typical kind of opposition research, but it sure backfired, so that was a mistake, and it's on Hillary. The moral of that episode is not to get your oppo research from disreputable folks like Russia intelligence sources. Just don't do it because it's likely to be shit and you don't want contact with it. 

Image: sunjournal.com

Extras. Horowitz report. Wittes of Lawfare is slowly digesting the Durham report. A 2018 version of the Russiagate conspiracy theory. This article may contain the best synopsis of the Clinton Plan. However there isn't a lot there. Clinton hardly had to invent fibs about Trump and Russia because Russia and Trump were creating so much ammunition on their own. 

Surprising new factoids about the Ashli Babbitt shooting

I checked the available video of Ashli Babbitt again and again. Unfortunately, I can no longer find the long video by Jayden X that showed the bashing of the doors so clearly. However, so many of the facts have been known for so long, I was surprised to find out new information. 

For one thing, Babbitt wasn't unarmed, but had a folding knife in her pocket. Also there was a report that the officer shouted and warned before the shot. This comes from a Fox News article with details from the investigation. These details tend to support the view that the shooting was justified. Ironically, the article headline is: Babbitt shooting internal police docs reveal 'no good reason for shooting,' according to Judicial Watch. Hmmmm, not a lot of support for that odd conclusion. 

Politifact describes the hallway that was being defended, and provides a lead to a bombshell description of the scene from a GOP representative:

Congressman recalls moment woman was shot inside Capitol building

(ABC) Rep. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., said he witnessed the moment a police officer fatally shot a woman inside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, as Trump supporters stormed the building.

Mullin said the shooting happened as an angry, pro-Trump mob that had been protesting outside broke into the Capitol building and attempted to force entry into the House chamber, which was still in session.

"They were trying to come through the front door, which is where I was at in the chamber, and in the back they were trying to come through the speaker's lobby, and that's problematic when you're trying to defend two fronts," Mullin told ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos in an interview Thursday on "Good Morning America."

"When they broke the glass in the back, the (police) lieutenant that was there, him and I already had multiple conversations prior to this, and he didn't have a choice at that time," Mullin said. "The mob was going to come through the door, there was a lot of members and staff that were in danger at the time. And when he [drew] his weapon, that's a decision that's very hard for anyone to make and, once you draw your weapon like that, you have to defend yourself with deadly force."

A U.S. Capitol Police officer in plainclothes fired his service weapon as "multiple individuals" tried to gain access to the House room, striking a woman. She was transported to a local hospital where she was pronounced dead, according to Robert Contee, chief of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia. Authorities have not yet released the woman's identity.

Mullin said police "showed a lot of restraint" and "did the best they could."

"That young lady's family's lives changed and his (the officer's) life also changed," Mullin said. "But what also happened is that mob that was trying to go through that door, they left. And his actions will may be judged in a lot of different ways moving forward, but his actions I believe saved people's lives even more. Unfortunately, it did take one though."

Mullin said he "never thought" he would witness such a scene unfold in the United States.

"I get people being passionate and being frustrated, but there's a right way and and wrong way to do things and yesterday was wrong. There was absolutely no excuse for it," he said. "We're very fortunate a lot more people didn't actually lost their life. One is way too many." 

This is fascinating, and worth copying in whole because it shows that Congress members were still in the chamber and endangered by the breach. Also, Mullin was acquainted with the officer, and his opinion was that the officer did his duty and saved many lives. Video of the Congressman shows this. 

Image: the-sun.com

Extras. A couple videos showing the situation when Babbitt was shot.  The terse statement from the DOJ that the shooter won't be charged because a very high criterion can't be reached. That sells the officer short. I wanted more analysis, and found this from Lawfare. I don't agree with how they analyze the shooting, but then they are looking strictly at legal. My view is that Babbitt was part of the violent mob, there was a grave danger of death or great bodily harm, and the officer didn't have a viable alternative. If he had tried to arrest her, he wouldn't have been able to prevent the next people through the breach. If he let her proceed, that was a violent person in that space, and more coming in seconds. So he did what was needed. 

Could this be the origin of Dominion accusations?

This is bizarre if true. That's a big if, but I'll discuss that later. What if the accusation against Dominion Systems came from a woman in Michigan who also claimed to be protected by the wind and having other strange powers. 

This revelation comes by way of an article in the Daily Beast and a filing in the Dominion defamation suit. The woman (last name Bourne) sent an email to Sidney Powell. The email isn't that detailed, which works against it being the source of the rumors. However the Daily Beast showed how phrases from the email ended up in the show where Maria Bartimoro discussion of election fraud. 

But could similar rumors be floating around during that time, picked up by various people, not just this odd woman in Michigan? I think I recall that a conservative journalist claimed to get into a conference call by Dominion Systems in the summer of 2020, so well before this. However I didn't record specifics and haven't been able to confirm that. ,By Nov. 6, 2020, accusations were already circulating about Dominion systems. This is before strange lady in Michigan wrote her email. The rumors exploded Nov. 7 to 11. I don't know when Hugo Chavez got linked in, or the server farms in Frankfurt Germany or connections to Italy. 

So there isn't anything definitive here, but I want to hold onto this info because it's so strange, and such a scoop if it's true. 

Image: clipart-library.com

2022 Covid update

It's been an interesting year. Omicron swept in and infected almost everyone, which kind of equalized vaccinated and unvaccinated folks. It also killed a friend of mine--the first person I personally knew to die of covid. 

I got covid early in September and passed it on to everyone in my household. We all had mild cases with mild fever (2 out of 3 of us) and no shortness of breath. 

Winter is coming, and I don't know what to expect. A winter surge in the north is my best guess. 

One good thing about not publishing is that I can ask questions, then come back with the answers. Did we have a winter surge in the north. A bit of one, but not like previous years. See the MA covid deaths below:

Image: worldometers.info

Extras. Great article about how psych/emotional factors influence decision-making on taking the vaccine. According to the article, it's better for vaccination to be mandated when warranted so that people won't reject it out of fear of doing themselves harm. 

A UK doctor and anti-vaxer is ripped apart for his tactics and poor science. 

A listing of the major causes of death as they changed over the past 100 years. Back in 1915, the bigger killer by far was infections.

China had a severe lockdown strategy with people confined to their homes. Then an apartment block fire killed a number of residents, and Chinese people went out to protest in large numbers to the embarrassment of Chinese leaders. So they dropped their lockdown policy and predictably had a huge surge of cases that swamped a lot of hospitals. I'm not sure how it played out after that. Did it all calm down, and people decided it wasn't that bad?

One good thing about not publishing is that I can ask questions, then come back with the answers. China didn't do too badly. Hospitals swamped with old people for a while, and then it got better. 

My economic prediction for post--covid

Look at the supply chain issues. That's it in a nutshell. Unfortunately, I have no expertise in this area, but somehow I still feel that this is key to understanding what is happening and what will happen. And perhaps (well, absolutely) some other factors are involved. 

But first, let's list the big factors: supply chain, material shortages, labor not willing to be exploited like before, energy disruptions from the Ukraine war, investors desperately seeking to make some money.

The supply chain, transportation issues, and material shortages are all working together to hike up prices. This isn't going away anytime soon because the supply chains got royally jacked up. 

(Written in August 2022. Still applicable.)

Image: 6abc.com

Continuing saga of how Trump tried to steal his second term, plus Jan. 6 committee reports

Much of the plan is now known, though it actually was fairly open in late 2020. Once the lawsuits failed, Trump hoped somehow to discredit the certified slates of electors and throw the vote into the House. Luttig, a traditional Republican judge, lays out the plan. It didn't work because Mike Pence, as president of the Senate, didn't go along with it. 

Former Attorney General Barr testified that Trump was 'detached from reality' when it came to the election results. 

Since that plan failed, Trumpie Republicans are working on 2.0 of the plan, which involves Republican legislatures ignoring the vote totals in their states and choosing pro-Republican electors. 

The biggest revelations for me (so far) was how hard Trump pushed the DOJ and how hard the DOJ pushed back. But this was somewhat apparent at the time. Enough of it leaked within days. DOJ officials testifying at the Jan. 6 hearings. Transcript of that day's hearings. Reconstruction of that very important day, Jan. 3. Very important: the lying letter that Jeffrey Clark wanted to send out just days before Jan. 6. 

Highlights of Pence Day at the hearings, plus the danger was greater than it appeared. The prospect of 'wild' demonstrations was viewed as leverage. All the evidence that Trump was warned he was doing illegal shit, but he ignored it. 

More to be added as I find it or remember to add it. Publish now, continue adding. 

Image: wttw.com

Extras. Three video summaries of key points in the riots: the role of the Proud Boys, demonstrators breaching line after line, and bodycam footage of police being attacked. 

Truth Social, supposedly the no-censorship twitter platform, has suspended accounts for posting about the Jan. 6 committee reports. 

A group led by the Kraken lady Sidney Powell may be paying for the defense of some OathKeepers. Prosecutors are concerned that they aren't getting informed consent or client-centered representation. Whose goals are the priority? That's worth asking. 

The Jan. 6 committee was very well organized with excellent pacing and focus in their presentations. A critique of how they've done that. 

From the excellent Jan. 6 hearings, a beautiful, smart, serious White House staffer tells a lot of the inside stories of Jan. 6, but certainly not all of them. Trump's support is shaken. A longer piece of how she broke from the Trump circle.

After Elon Musk was forced to follow through and buy twitter, he reinstated Trump's twitter account. Now some of that history is available to see again, but some is strangely gone. The tweet where Trump blasted Mike Pence for cowardice? Gone. 

Here's a list of his Jan. 6 tweets.Two important tweets from Jan. 6. The two final tweets from Jan. 8 that got his account permanently suspended until Musk became owner. Yes, he deserved to be suspended because he was starting on the incitement again. Trump's tweet slamming Pence is gone, but his post on that material is still available on Facebook. The audience is so different between twitter and Facebook. Mostly negative on twitter, mostly supportive with a lot of religious references on Facebook. And a fun look at Junior being clueless about his own father. 

Some of Trump's illegal fake electors still have roles in government or elections.

A bunch of stories based on releases of the final days of the committee. Some in the inner circle were dismayed. A timeline of the 187 minutes that Trump wasn't calling off the riots. Many bits of interest from WaPo folks pouring over the releases. And some bigger ones also. WaPo's view of the 187 minutes. 

Some clarification on what the capitol police leadership were facing. 

Because I don't know where else to put this: the story of a Trump loyalist trying to do major troop withdrawals, but he's only 30 years old and doesn't know how to write up a presidential order. He also doesn't know it takes more than writing it and getting a signature. Lots of top-level officials saying I don't know about this. Do you know about this? FUNNY.

Can we do anything about school shootings?

Database of shootings. 

Everytown (Bloomberg org) on school shootings. Other tabs have more info, but need to dig. 

Researchers found commonalities in school shooters. Very important. 

More research on what policies work. Fairly important, but not as incisive. 

Another website with data on school shootings. A website on mass shootings. 

Information about the Uvalde shooting at an elementary school. The shooter had a high power AR rifle, so the rounds went through doors and walls. The article also explains the design of the AR, its ammo, and the damage done. 

AR from shooter in the Uvalde school

Image: texastribute. com

Extras. Pew research into mass shootings. A graph there shows the increase in active shooter incidents, but it's still not a significant contributer to the overal murder rate. 

Long WaPo article on the experience of a mass shooting with AR15 type rifles. Lots of graphic pictures and description.