California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

San Diego Throwing Money at Homelessness With Meager Results

by John Lawrence

An article in the San Diego Union titled, "San Diego to pursue buying three hotels to house homeless people" — at a cost of $383,000 per room" appeared on April 25, 2023. Although I think buying old motels to house the homeless is a pretty good idea, when you consider the price tag, there are probably better ideas out there. Katheryn Rhodes and I did some research in 2016 which was reported in the San Diego Free Press. According to Katheryn, the City of San Diego has all sorts of real estate that it has no use for so it usually just sells it on the free market. Although the series of 3 articles was slanted towards affordable housing, these available parcels could as well be utilized as safe campgrounds and safe parking areas. In addition Katheryn did an exhaustive analysis of the pots of money the City has that are just accumulating with no specific purpose in mind. Has the City done an analysis of all the real estate the City owns that has no designated purpose that could be turned into safe parking areas and safe campgrounds? Why not?

The article reported:

It doesn’t have to be this way. The City has squirreled away millions of dollars in off-budget funds which could be used for affordable housing and housing for the homeless. Besides that the City of San Diego owns numerous parcels of land on which affordable housing including housing for the homeless could be built. Since they’re not recognizing the emergency situation that lack of housing represents, they are actually in violation of a state mandate,Senate Bill 2 from 2007, authored by Senator Cedillo which stated the following:

This bill would add emergency shelters to these provisions, as specified, and would add provisions to the housing element that would require a local government to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. … By increasing the duties of local public officials, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Safe camping areas would provide portable toilets, portable showers, security, social services and other amenities at a fraction of the cost of the nearly $400,000 per room which is the cost of each motel room the City is investing in. The article went on:

Civil engineer Katheryn Rhodes has identified several funds where the City, the County, the San Diego Housing Commission and Civic San Diego are hoarding cash that could be used for emergency shelters and/or affordable housing or even pay for Emergency Shelter Tents and Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Housing Vouchers. There’s $28.7 million in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund (LMIHAF). There’s also $259 million in long-term assets that can be leveraged by using it as collateral and issuing bonds for much more.

One could note that most homeless could provide their own shelter in terms of tents which they are providing for themselves now. They just need a place to put them off the public sidewalks where they could have proper sanitation which they don't have now. The brutal fact that I have witnessed myself is that homeless people urinate and defecate on the public sidewalks. To be graphic, it's sad to see a woman with her pants down stooping over with the poop coming out of her ass in full view of other people and motorists on a public sidewalk in downtown San Diego. It used to be that you had to dodge dog shit on city sidewalks. Now you have to dodge human shit if you even have the courage to walk down some public sidewalks in the City of San Diego. Tents line both sides of Commercial Avenue with barely an inch between them. The homeless rule the streets in that area. I could hardly drive my car down that street without being run over by the San Diego Trolley which honked and honked at me till I was able to pull over without hitting some homeless person.

Seriously, people, check out the series of articles Katheryn and I wrote in 2016. The problem has only gotten worse since then.

God is the Power that Makes all Things New

Dear friends,

     Of all the provocative statements made by Dr. Ernest Holmes, the one that set me “on fire” was, “God makes everything out of itself by becoming the thing it makes.” That was when I realized there is a decidedly science aspect to spirituality. I then saw God, not as a human figure but as all sentient life. God became a force, a power, a universal intelligence embedded in all living forms. It is in the daffodil to the same degree as it is in you and me, in exactly the right portion to be the revealed idea. What is the idea of humans if not to express the qualities we attribute to God?  It is our boundless nature, that core of intelligence that is always greater than what we do with it.

     This realization is such a shift from how we were taught to think of God, that it can take a lifetime of study and reflection to grasp the real meaning. It scares us to think we are not the “children” of a “father” but the co-creators of our life. We don’t know how to implement this kind of power. Then Dr Holmes told us how. He said to straighten out our thinking by self-talk. He called it Spiritual Mind Treatment and it replaces od-time prayer, which is a petition to an outer power.

       I begin my treatments with a statement like this; “God is everywhere present, all of it, all the time, all at once.”  I am reminding myself of the ever-new life- becoming that I am. It lives and moves as this life I am living. It does not judge what I do with it. It cannot.  It is Presence and Principle acting in the same manner for all Beings. It responds by corresponding. This is life-changing information. It turns out that New Thought is not merely a technique for manifesting things. That is the carrot that keeps us engaged. It is the deeper truth the mystics have ecstatically tried to share with us.

     God is not a thing or a man.  God is the Power that Makes all Things New and it is Being You and Me.

Stay tuned in,

Carol Carnes www.carol-carnes.com

Off the Top of My Head

Why Didn't Democrats Raise the Debt Ceiling When They Controlled Both Houses of Congress?

by John Lawrence

What is clear is that Democrats can only get new legislation passed when they control all three branches of government. This legislation usually increases spending on social programs. Likewise, Republicans can only get their legislation composed - usually of tax cuts - when they control all three branches of government. Both cases usually require the government to deficit spend, the former because of increased government spending, the latter because of decreased government revenues from taxes. So whichever party controls Congress and the Presidency and passes a budget requiring increassed deficit spending should also at the same time raise the debt limit. Make sense? So now we're in this dystopian dilemma that, after Democrats passed Biden's budget requiring a huge amount of government spending, Republicans, who now control the House, effectively want to repeal Biden's budget or else they won't agree to raise the debt ceiling. What a conundrum! These problems would never come up if the party that deficit spent also raised the debt ceiling to accommodate the deficit spending.

Congress has raised the debt ceiling twice under Biden, by about $3 trillion. Republicans voted three times to raise the debt ceiling under President Donald Trump, who added nearly $8 trillion to the national debt. "Republicans in Congress raised the debt three times when Donald Trump was president and each time with Democrat support, but now they won’t raise it, even though they're responsible for more than $8 trillion in bills incurred in four years under the previous administration," Biden said. The 115th Congress (2017–2019) featured unified Republican control of the government with GOP majorities in the House and Senate, and Republican President Donald J. Trump in the White House. So Republicans had no problem with raising the debt ceiling during the Trump administration which added $7 trillion to the national debt. Please note that Democrats could have filibustered the debt ceiling increases during the Trump administration because Republicans did not have a filibuster proof Senate, but they didn't

Raising the debt limit is not about new spending; it is about paying for previous choices policymakers legislated. However, if the previous choice were made by a government controlled by the Democratic party in a two party system, there is every reason to get those choices reversed when the Republican party comes into power and vice versa although Democrats have never tried to bring the country to the brink of default, a game of chicken which Republicans have been all to eager to engage in. They were successful in doing this when Obama was President. Having seen that chaos and mess as vice Preesident, Biden is not willing to engage in negotiations this time around hoping that more sensible heads will prevail. It didn't used to be this way. Sometimes called the Gephardt Rule in honor of Representative Dick Gephardt who introduced its first version, the rule used to provide that when the House agrees to a budget resolution, the Clerk shall prepare a joint resolution suspending the debt limit for the fiscal year covered by the budget resolution. In other words the debt ceiling was automatically effectively raised to accommodate the budget. This all changed when Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House. When Newt Gingrich took over the House in 1995, he nullified the ingenious “Gephardt rule” that deemed the debt limit to be increased whenever a budget passed. This eventually led to the 1995 and 1996 government shutdowns, when Republicans refused to increase the limit because the president was a Democrat. In 2011, a showdown over the debt ceiling during Barack Obama’s presidency led to the Budget Control Act and ten subsequent years of austerity budgets.

So the simple answer to the question posed by the title of this piece is that, although Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress during the first two years of the Biden administration, they did not have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Therefore, they could get a budget passed under the budget reconciliation rule which prevents a filibuster, but they could not raise the debt ceiling because that is subject to the filibuster. Oh what tangled webs these politicians weave! Nothing makes clearer the need to end the filibuster than another round of hostage-taking of the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Add this to the mounting problems of American democracy. Congress has created an arcane jumble of chaotic rules which threatens government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Go figure.

Off the Top of My Head

The Sword of Damocles Which is the Debt Ceiling

by John Lawrence

The Federal Reserve can just create the money like they did with quantitative easing. They created the money and gave it to the banks. Now their balance sheet is $8.5 trillion. This is not a debt, but it is similar to the national debt which is $31 trillion. You could say that this $31 trillion is on the US' balance sheet or, similarly, the Federal Reserve has an $8.5 trillion debt. See if the Fed creates money, it's not a debt, but if the US Treasury needs money, it has to borrow it. What if no one wants to buy Treasury bonds? Well then, the Fed would buy them itself and just create the money to buy them and add it to its balance sheet. The debt ceiling is such a useless and bogus aspect of American democracy and has the potential of causing the US to default on its debts with disastrous consequences. The Fed never has to pay down its balance sheet nor does the US ever have to have its taxpayers pay off the national debt. The national debt is just an accounting mechanism as is the number on the Fed's balance sheet. As a sovereign fiat currency, the US can just create money. That's not to say that it should do this hap hazardly or willy nilly. But there was a lot of willy nillyness in the years after the Great Recession in 2008 when the Fed kept on quantitatively easing and creating money and giving it to the banks. However, the Fed is prohibited by law from creating money and giving it to poor people. Of course.

So why is the national debt so high? The simple answer is tax cuts for the rich. Americanprogress.org reported:

Tax cuts initially enacted during Republican trifectas in the past 25 years slashed taxes disproportionately for the wealthy and profitable corporations, severely reducing federal revenues. In fact, relative to earlier projections, spending is down, not up. But revenues are down significantly more. If not for the Bush tax cuts and their extensions—as well as the Trump tax cuts—revenues would be on track to keep pace with spending indefinitely, and the debt ratio (debt as a percentage of the economy) would be declining. Instead, these tax cuts have added $10 trillion to the debt since their enactment and are responsible for 57 percent of the increase in the debt ratio since 2001, and more than 90 percent of the increase in the debt ratio if the one-time costs of bills responding to COVID-19 and the Great Recession are excluded. Eventually, the tax cuts are projected to grow to more than 100 percent of the increase.

So why not tax the hell out of the rich, flood the coffers of the Treasury with cash and pay down the national debt? Or at least tax the rich as Biden has proposed doing? Biden famously changed the narrative from "tax and spend" to "no one making less than $400,000 will get a tax increase." So Republicans always want to reduce taxes on the rich and reduce or eliminate social programs which benefit mostly the poor and middle class. The alternative, which Democrats should loudly state, is to raise taxes on the rich and enact programs which benefit the poor and middle class. Voila, the budget is balanced. Raise taxes a little more on the rich and the national debt is paid down. Actually it doesn't matter what the figure of the national debt is. Foreign holders of US Treasury debt could be paid off tomorrow by virtue of the fact that the Fed could just with a few keystrokes on a computer create the money and take it on their balance sheet. This money would then be added, again with a few keystrokes on a computer, to China's or Japan's account at the Fed thus zeroing out the debt. Instead the US government goes on paying interest on its debt which could turn into a problem as it crowds out other budgetary items. Clearly, this is no way for the US government to conduct its business.

Off the Top of My Head

The World Needs the Cooperation of Russia to Forestall Global Warming

by John Lawrence

Ultimately, geography will determine which countries win and which countries lose as global warming and sea level rise progress. Landlocked countries with little or no exposure to the oceans will win as countries with large shoreline exposures and major coastal cities go underwater. Russia has no major cities that are exposed to sea level rise. Its only ocean exposure is in the far north to the Arctic ocean and a little bit to the northern Pacific ocean. In addition Russia has an abundance of fossil fuels which it is eager to sell to the rest of the world. It has an incentive to increase global warming rather than to mitigate it.

As the Arctic region warms, Russia profits from its northernmost regions becoming more inhabitable. In addition sea routes in the Arctic become more navigable. So Russia is in a position to profit from global warming and to profit financially from hastening global warming by selling fossil fuels. Russia has no disincentive to curtail the sale of fossil fuels which are its major natural resource and source of income. It can undercut and undersell renewables if it wants to. Sanctions have had little or no effect on Russia's internal economy. The departure of Starbucks and McDonald's accomplished nothing. Russia reopened these chains under Russian control with the profits staying in Russia instead of returning to the US. Starbucks became Starubles and McDonald's became Inanov's presumably.

On the other hand consider the world's major cities that are located right on the oceans and are subject to being submerged by global warming. Such cities as New York City, Miami, London, Amsterdam, New Orleans, Venice, Savannah, GA, Tokyo, Shanghai, Mumbai, Kolkata, Osaka, Dhaka, San Francisco, Sydney, Boston, Lisbon, Vancouver, Copenhagen, Los Angeles, Dublin, Honolulu, Lagos, Charleston, Long Beach, Key West and many others in China, Africa, Vietnam, Bangladesh and east Asia. The US and its partners in Europe have major exposure to oceans for many major cities. Billions of dollars in real estate are at stake, not to mention that major trading routes will be disrupted and infrastructure destroyed. Particularly, the US east coast is exposed not only to sea level rise, but to increasingly virulent hurricanes and tornadoes.

So considering the fact that the US has relatively the most to lose from global warming and Russia has relatively the most to win, does it make any sense to make a pariah out of Russia? Regardless of the war in Ukraine, worsening relations with Russia only hasten the day when geography will determine the outcome of the war on climate change. China also has a long shoreline and plenty of major cities that are exposed to the ocean. It would be in China's interest to partner with the US to combat global warming. Yet the US is in the business of making a pariah out of Russia and starting a Cold War with China. So even if  the US wins its wars with Russia and China, it can still lose the war with respect to global warming. In the final analysis Russia and Mother Nature will win. It's all about geography.

Off the Top of My Head

Elon's Folly Contributing to Rocket Fuel Greenhouse Gas Emissions

by John Lawrence

The Starship that exploded soon after launch recently had a methane based fuel. Methane is 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Whatever methane remained in the Starship after launch was fully released into the atmosphere after it exploded. Space tourism will cause even more greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere. At a time when we should have all hands on deck to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, NASA is going full steam ahead with its space exploration program. The astronauts should be repurposed to fight greenhouse gas emissions not to ramp them up. In an article by Mark Piesing for the BBC, titled The pollution caused by rocket launches we find:

In television, and film, spaceflight is usually represented as having little or no impact on the environment. Yet it should be obvious that rocket engines spew out pollution into the atmosphere, like any form of combustion-driven propulsion.

Perhaps the black carbon, or soot, and other emissions didn't matter when only around 70 commercial rocket launches a year took place. Now that number has doubled; it is expected to increase significantly more over the next two decades due to the growth in demand for services like satellite internet services and space tourism.

At least three scientific research papers have already been published this year [2022] on the impact of rocket emissions on the atmosphere, temperatures, and the ozone layer.

So at a time when planet earth is in peril of remaining a habitable planet for the human species, why are we continuing a quest to fire off rocket ships so we can some day put humans on Mars, an uninhabitable planet? It seems like pure folly. By the time they get humans on Mars, the earth will have become an uninhabitable planet also at the rate we're going. The US government should not be contributing to global warming with its space program at a time when it is professing to be curtailing global warming. If we are to save this planet, much more needs to be done than simply making all cars electric by 2050. Many more power plants will have to be built by then to generate the electricity to power all those electric cars. What kind of fuel will they use for all these new power plants? If they don't have enough renewables by then, it will have to be fossil fuels so what has been gained? Nothing.

People have totally compartmentalized the global warming syndrome. On the one hand they are for eliminating fossil fuels. On the other they go ahead with all sorts of activities that increase their use because alternative green forms of energy are not yet available. I guess it's OK to sacrifice a few neighborhoods to tornadoes here and there as long as we can keep the economy humming. We must not sacrifice the American way of life. Too many people might get upset and vote for the other party. Similarly, we can't restrict assault rifles because too many people would get upset and vote for the other party. So Joe Biden is the perfect President for our times. He understands that he can rub his belly and whistle Dixie at the same time. However, the pace of change in energy creation is much too slow even to counteract the population increases. More people on the planet means more demand for energy, and the fossil fuel industry is only too happy to provide it until renewables can totally take over some time in the future, some time that will be too late for a desperate human species.

Off the Top of My Head

Nice Economy You Have Here. It Would Be a Shame If Something Happened To It

by John Lawrence

The debt ceiling is not mentioned in the Constitution. It's an act of Congress, the Public Debt Acts of 1939 and 1941. Congress authorizes the amount of spending that can be undertaken by the US government, and also that, if there is not enough money in the Treasury for this spending, the Treasury is authorized to borrow the money by issuing Treasury bonds. However, the amount of borrowing cannot exceed the debt ceiling. If the amount of money the government has already been authorized to spend exceeds the debt ceiling, there is no other alternative except to raise the debt ceiling. Otherwise, the US government will default on its debt. The question arises why is there a debt ceiling at all? If Congress didn't authorize the spending of the money in the first place, then there would be no need to borrow at all or if Congress wanted to limit borrowing, it shouldn't authorize a budget which exceeds that amount. This is just another double bind in the law which makes the US "rule of law" dysfunctional. The 14th amendment of the Constitution says, "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." So there you have it: the government by law must pay its bills and the government by law cannot exceed the debt ceiling. It's what you call a contradiction. You would think that the provisions in the Constitution would take precedence over an act of Congress.

So that gets us to the minting of the trillion dollar coin. Although it's up to Congress to raise the debt ceiling, the Treasury Secretary could order the mint to produce the trillion dollar coin which could then be deposited in the Federal Reserve and voila, the US government could pay its bills. The Federal Reserve transfers all money deposited with it for taxes and the sale of Treasury bonds to the account of the Treasury of the US. The legal basis for the concept of a trillion-dollar coin arises from the fact that the United States Mint is authorized to produce platinum coinage without any restrictions as to the number of coins produced or their face value. Alternatively, President Biden could declare that the 14th amendment authorizes him to pay the bills. This is a major dysfunction of the US government and the US version of democracy. Republicans are eager to use their power to disrupt the fact that money was authorized by the previous Democratic controlled House and now it's up to them to raise the debt limit. So you might ask why hasn't Congress gotten rid of the debt ceiling provision that it enacted in the Public Debt Acts?The reason is that even when both Houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats, as they were in the first two years of the Biden administration, Republicans in the Senate filibustered any attempt by Democrats to do that or much of anything else. The filibuster represents more dysfunction. US democracy is hamstrung because one party refuses to govern in a sensible and cooperative manner. Their interest is only in defeating Democrats not in doing what's best for the American people.

Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times:

The issue at hand is whether to raise the federal debt ceiling. This ceiling is a peculiar — and destructive — quirk of the U.S. budget process. Here’s how it works: First, Congress passes legislation that determines federal spending and tax collection. This legislation may lead to a budget deficit. Whether that’s a good idea is beside the point: Congress made its choices, and the Treasury Department must do whatever is necessary to honor duly enacted legislation, which may require borrowing to cover the deficit.

But under current law Congress must also vote a second time to authorize federal borrowing by raising the limit on the allowed amount of debt. And we’re only a few months from the point where America won’t be able to keep paying its bills — that is, spend the money Congress has already told it to spend — unless Congress votes to raise that limit.

Yet now House Republicans aren’t willing to raise the limit unless they are given policy concessions they would never be able to enact via the normal legislative process. Basically, they’re saying, “Nice economy you have here. It would be a shame if something happened to it.”

The US Constitution needs a complete overhaul in which stupid conflicts like these over the debt ceiling are ironed out. Besides the Federal Reserve can just create money like it did with Quantitative Easing. The US dollar is a sovereign, fiat currency. It's only dysfunctional laws that prevents it from doing so. During quantitative easing the Federal Reserve bought Treasuries and other securties and gave the cash that was generated to the big banks to keep them afloat. So it could buy Treasuries and give the money to the US Treasury. It would be using the same quantitattive easing it used to keep the banks float in order to keep the government afloat. Problem solved and it wouldn't mean taking on more debt.

Off the Top of My Head

AI vs CRISPR

by John Lawrence

On CBS' 60 Minutes, April 16, 2023, there was a discussion about the revolution that AI will bring about. Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, spoke glowingly about all the good that AI would bring about for society while speaking hesitantly about the ethics involved. What he failed to mention was that the biggest customer for AI will probably be the military. They will use AI to develop even more lethal weapons including robots that will carry out dangerous missions instead of live human soldiers. Of course there was no mention of that. Only that robots would be able to carry out more dangerous missions in mining and search and rescue. So far every technological development has had military implications, usually not mentioned by the technocrats who are just interested in making billions from the latest developments. Similar negative consequences are just now being realized for social media whose inventors had only positive things initially to say about this money maker. On the other hand a truly revolutionary invention which has implications for ridding mankind of genetic diseases is CRISPR. The work has been documented in a book about biochemist Jennifer Doudna and others with the title, "The Codebreaker" by Walter Isaacson. This truly revolutionary development has gotten little attention by the media which has always been more fascinated by the latest technological gadget. Technologists have never been known to be concerned about the ethical implications of their work. They pretty much are just concerned about the money they'll make from it. On the other hand Jennifer Doudna is very concerned about the possible negative implications of CRISPR.

CRISPR is a method for gene editing. That means that it can accurately cut out a mutated gene that causes a human disease and replace it with a corrected one. For instance in the case of sickle cell disease, there is one letter of one gene that is incorrect. This gene can be spliced and the correct letter inserted at the precise location. It is the Holy Grail of genomics and Jennifer Doudna and a female colleague, Emmanuelle Charpentier, won the Nobel prize for discovering it. The ethical and moral aspects of CRISPR have to do with eugenics, the much discredited pseudo science, that was developed in America and used by the Nazis as a way to weed out inferior human beings and develop a master race. Ethicists are concerned that CRISPR could be used to develop designer babies wherein parents could decide which traits their children should inherit. Since this would probably devolve to the betterment of mainly rich families, it could bring about even more inequality in the human race than now exists. However, the promise of CRISPR for curing human diseases, especially the genetically transmitted ones such as sickle cell anemia, is a truly revolutionary development.

The Harvard Gazette reports:

For decades, artificial intelligence, or AI, was the engine of high-level STEM research. Most consumers became aware of the technology’s power and potential through internet platforms like Google and Facebook, and retailer Amazon. Today, AI is essential across a vast array of industries, including health care, banking, retail, and manufacturing.

But its game-changing promise to do things like improve efficiency, bring down costs, and accelerate research and development has been tempered of late with worries that these complex, opaque systems may do more societal harm than economic good. With virtually no U.S. government oversight, private companies use AI software to make determinations about health and medicine, employment, creditworthiness, and even criminal justice without having to answer for how they’re ensuring that programs aren’t encoded, consciously or unconsciously, with structural biases.

Scientists generally agree that CRISPR-Cas9 should be allowed for use in the creation of human disease models, and in understanding the development and molecular mechanisms of diseases; however, it should be prohibited for the purposes of eugenics or enhancement. The paper, Bioethical issues in genome editing by CRISPR-Cas9 technology, we find:

 

Genome editing technologies have led to fundamental changes in genetic science. Among them, CRISPR-Cas9 technology particularly stands out due to its advantages such as easy handling, high accuracy, and low cost. It has made a quick introduction in fields related to humans, animals, and the environment, while raising difficult questions, applications, concerns, and bioethical issues to be discussed. Most concerns stem from the use of CRISPR-Cas9 to genetically alter human germline cells and embryos (called germline genome editing). Germline genome editing leads to serial bioethical issues, such as the occurrence of undesirable changes in the genome, from whom and how informed consent is obtained, and the breeding of the human species (eugenics). However, the bioethical issues that CRISPR-Cas9 technology could cause in the environment, agriculture and livestock should also not be forgotten.

 

Technology is not an unmitigated good, and ethicists are relegated to a position far behind the people who are only concerned about advancing the technology and about making money. The implications for society and the human race are faced, if they are faced at all, only later. Case in point: the internet and social media. As it turns out, the algorithms used in social media are designed only to increase profits. If they were changed to be better for society, they would result in decreased profits. Who knew?

Off the Top of My Head

"Spare me the bullshit about mental illness"

by John Lawrence

In sane countries abortions are legal and assault rifles are illegal just the opposite of the US. Italian women are eligible to request an abortion for health, economic or social reasons, including the circumstances under which conception occurred. Abortions are performed free of charge in public hospitals or in private structures authorized by the regional health authorities. Assault weapons are not legal in Italy, nor are any fully automatic rifles or handguns. Noise suppressors, or silencers, are also illegal, along with any kind of military or police-grade weapons. Abortion in the United Kingdom is de facto available through the Abortion Act 1967 in Great Britain, and the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020.The following are generally prohibited: Fully automatic or burst-fire weapons, which may include some air guns. Semi-automatic or pump-action rifles that fire centre-fire ammunition (e.g. Ruger Mini-14, L1A1). The Swedish Abortion Act came into force in 1974, giving women the right to decide for themselves whether they wanted to end a pregnancy in the first eighteen weeks. Since then, abortion procedures have become more effective, safe, accepted and accessible. Current Norwegian legislation and public health policy provides for abortion on request in the first 12 weeks of gestation, by application up to the 18th week, and thereafter only under special circumstances until the fetus is viable, which is usually presumed at 21 weeks and 6 days. In Norway there is a total ban on automatic firearms for civilians, unless they fall into the collector category. Modification of semi-automatic guns into fully automatic without the consent of the police is a felony crime. The EU already bans all automatic weapons, plus some semi-automatic guns widely available in the United States.

Apart from the very few European nations that retain highly restrictive laws on abortion — Andorra, Lichtenstein, Malta, Monaco and Poland — no other European country “bans” abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Instead, almost all European countries allow abortion throughout pregnancy on a range of grounds, including where there are risks to a patient’s physical or mental health, and in situations involving severe or fatal fetal impairment. According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, 95% of European women of reproductive age live in a country where abortion services are available on demand.

NBC reported:

[Connecticut Senator] Murphy said the shooting deaths of 19 students and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas, on Tuesday was a uniquely American problem.

"This only happens in this country and nowhere else. Nowhere else do little kids go to school thinking that they might be shot that day. Nowhere else do parents have to talk to their kids as I have had to do about why they got locked into a bathroom and told to be quiet for five minutes just in case a bad man entered that building. Nowhere else does that happen except here in the United States of America. And it is a choice. It is our choice to let it continue," Murphy said.

In comments to reporters afterward, Murphy took aim at the Republican talking point that mass shootings are a problem of mental illness, not easy access to guns.

"Spare me the bullshit about mental illness. We don’t have any more mental illness than any other country in the world. You cannot explain this through a prism of mental illness, because we don’t — we’re not an outlier on mental illness. We’re an outlier when it comes to access to firearms and the ability of criminals and very sick people to get their hands on firearms. That’s what makes America different,” he said.

There are only three countries that have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms: Mexico, Guatemala, and the United States. The US quibbles while the earth burns and floods due to global warming. Nations are immersed in conflict while they need to be cooperating if the human species, despite all its vaunted high technology, is to survive. Earth itself will survive. The survival of the human species is doubtful unless every nation goes all out to prevent global warming which is not happening. What is happening is that nations are trying to prevent the release of greenhouse gasses on the margins without interfering with economic growth. It's a recipe for disaster.

Off the Top of My Head

The US has a "Version" of Democracy

by John Lawrence

Nowhere in the world does a pure democracy exist not even in the US. Witness one judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, who was not even democratically elected to that position, is the would be dictator over one issue - abortion medicine. How can this be democracy? None of the Supreme Court Justices who will make the final decision on this matter were democratically elected. They were all appointed by Donald Trump as was Kacsmaryk. Not only that, but this or some other appointed judge could decide unilaterally to take other drugs off the market. What else could they decide? The rule of law in the US is in shambles. Mini dictators in the form of appointed judges can hold sway over a whole host of issues. In fact the US does not even make the top ten list of the most democratic countries in the world according to the Economist Intelligence Unit which compiles an annual list in its Democracy Index. Stanford University political scientist Larry Diamond has a similar list, maintaining that any democracy must include four key elements:

1. A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections
2. The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life
3. Protection of the human rights of all citizens
4. A rule of law in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens

The US ranks 36th on a list Ranking Countries by Quality of Democracy behind such countries as Costa Rica, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Uruguay, Slovakia and the Czech Republic!

One can see why when one appointed judge can dictate an issue for the whole country! The Washington Post reported:

As a lawyer for a conservative legal group, Matthew Kacsmaryk in early 2017 submitted an article to a Texas law review criticizing Obama-era protections for transgender people and those seeking abortions.

The Obama administration, the draft article argued, had discounted religious physicians who “cannot use their scalpels to make female what God created male” and “cannot use their pens to prescribe or dispense abortifacient drugs designed to kill unborn children.”

But a few months after the piece arrived, an editor at the law journal who had been working with Kacsmaryk received an unusual email: Citing “reasons I may discuss at a later date,” Kacsmaryk, who had originally been listed as the article’s sole author, said he would be removing his name and replacing it with those of two colleagues at his legal group, First Liberty Institute, according to emails and early drafts obtained by The Washington Post.

Yet to hear American politicians talk about it, you would think that the American Constitution is sacrosanct, paramount and equivalent to Moses receiving the Ten Commandments on two tablets of stone. You would think that it is so perfect that it is unthinkable that anyone would want to try to improve it in any way. People take a sacred oath to defend it. It is inconceivable to want to try and replace it like many other countries have done with their constitutions over the years. It is like the Bible, something that cannot be transcended without being accused of heresy, treason or worse.The American Constitution has not been updated in 234 years! On the other hand the current Constitution of France, for instance, was adopted on 4 October 1958. It is typically called the Constitution of the Fifth Republic, and it replaced the Constitution of the Fourth Republic of 1946 ... .

Meanwhile as Republicans exploit every conceivable loophole in the American Constitution, and the Second Amendment is literally tearing the nation apart, the US seems to be making it clear that it is a Republic rather than a Democracy. As Benjamin Franklin said when asked what the US government represented, "It's a republic, my dear, if you can keep it." He didn't even pretend that it was a democracy. While we criticize foreign dictators, we have a homegrown dictator by the name of Matthew Kacsmaryk right here.

I Know How Nuclear War Is Waged, So I’m Calling for Peace With North Korea

By Dan Leaf, from the New York Times

March 29, 2023

 

Mr. Leaf is a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant general and a former deputy commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

 

A rally for unification of the Korean Peninsula in Paju, South Korea, near the border with North Korea, last year.Credit...Ahn Young-joon/Associated Press

Not many people know how to wage nuclear war. I’m one of them.

As a young U.S. Air Force fighter pilot in the late 1970s, I was trained to carry out nuclear strikes in a rigorous process designed to ensure that no contingencies — mechanical or ethical — deter your mission. Certain things remain burned into my memory: maps and photos of my target and the realization of the Armageddon I would leave in my wake. Training culminated with a sworn pledge to vaporize that target without hesitation.

Much of my 33-year career was spent as a nuclear warrior — I later oversaw the U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile fleet and served as deputy commander of American military forces in the Pacific — experience that informs my deep alarm over the growing risk of nuclear conflict with North Korea.

The United States has tried for decades to prevent the country from becoming a nuclear threat, veering from diplomacy to pressure to patience. None of these approaches have worked.

Here’s something that might: End the Korean War.

On July 27, 1953, an armistice was signed that halted combat, but the United States and South Korea technically remain at war with the North. This is no longer acceptable.

North Korea has nuclear weapons. It has conducted missile tests at a record pace since last year, including powerful ICBMs believed to be capable of delivering a warhead anywhere in the continental United States. In January, Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s leader, ordered an “exponential” expansion of the country’s nuclear arsenal, and last year his government passed a law authorizing a pre-emptive nuclear strike. In response, President Yoon Suk Yeol of South Korea has said his country may consider developing nuclear weapons.

In this hair-trigger environment, one bad decision or misunderstanding could kill millions.

I spent four years in South Korea, including in high-level positions at the headquarters of combined U.S., South Korean and U.N. forces, overseeing the vast destructive forces amassed for a war that was no longer being fought. In my time in the region, I went from scratching my head to pulling my hair out. The standoff is one of the great absurdities in global geopolitics.

You must be aggressive to win wars but assertive to make peace. No matter how challenging the negotiations and politics of securing peace on the Korean Peninsula may prove, they are nothing compared with nuclear war.

A permanent peace agreement would undermine Mr. Kim’s portrayal of the United States as an existential threat and his justification for building up his conventional and nuclear arsenal. It could also short-circuit the siege mentality underlying his repressive regime. Sanctions relief and economic development could follow, leading to long-hoped-for improvements in the quality of life and human rights for North Korea’s 25 million people.

The United States, North Korea and South Korea have all pledged in recent years to pursue a lasting peace agreement. Separate meetings that President Donald Trump and then-President Moon Jae-in of South Korea held with Mr. Kim in 2018 committed to that goal. It brought an immediate easing of tensions. Land mines were removed from portions of the Korean Demilitarized Zone, Korean families held reunions, Mr. Kim declared a moratorium on long-range missile and nuclear tests, the North returned remains of U.S. servicemen and released three detained Americans. Even after Mr. Trump’s outreach to Mr. Kim collapsed in 2019, Mr. Kim indicated he was still open to diplomacy.

There is currently a bill in the House of Representatives calling for a peace deal. The Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act would require the secretary of state to submit a “clear road map for achieving a permanent peace agreement”; pursue “serious, urgent” diplomacy in pursuit of a binding agreement; and begin to address America’s lack of diplomatic relations with North Korea by establishing liaison offices on each other’s soil.

The bill is imperfect. Much of it focuses on creating the conditions for Korean Americans to visit relatives in the North. (U.S. law currently bars travel by Americans to North Korea unless it serves an ill-defined “national interest.”) It also lacks other steps necessary to entrench peace, such as a process for U.S.-North Korean reconciliation, normalization of disputed maritime boundaries and a framework for talks between the opposing military forces.

There is an urgent need for progress. After the diplomatic overtures of recent years fell apart, Mr. Kim has only become more belligerent and the risk of conflict is more acute. Passage of a strengthened Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act is essential to securing a lasting solution, yet the current bill has not advanced since it was introduced in 2021.

Critics argue that a peace agreement may actually increase the risk of war by undermining safeguards put in place by the armistice nearly 70 years ago. These include specific demarcation lines and protocols for communications, movement and other actions within the DMZ. But there is nothing foolproof about the armistice. President Bill Clinton considered bombing North Korea in 1994, and Mr. Trump reportedly discussed using nuclear weapons in 2017. North Korea occasionally carries out provocations, and the North and South have exchanged artillery fire on several occasions.

There are other risks: Pyongyang may use a peace agreement as a pretext to demand the removal of U.S. troops from South Korea, which is a matter between Seoul and Washington.

But the hardest part of ending the war might be building the political will for it in Washington. Accommodating North Korea would inevitably lead to accusations that we are rewarding bad behavior and legitimizing a totalitarian regime. But the Kim family has ruled for 75 years; it’s time to accept that this is unlikely to change anytime soon.

At this moment, the next generation of men and women north and south of the DMZ are preparing for nuclear war. May they never have to put their training to use.

---

Lt. Gen. Dan Leaf (@figleaf31) is a retired three-star general, a former Air Force fighter pilot, a former deputy commander of the U.S. Pacific Command and a former director of the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu. He is the managing director of Phase Minus 1, a security and conflict resolution consultancy.

Off the Top of My Head

While Earthlings Argue Over Abortion, Planet Earth Is in the Process of Aborting the Whole Human Race

by John Lawrence

While we spend major amounts of energy going back and forth over abortion, books in libraries and who can use which bathrooms, the planet is warming beyond what humans as a species can endure. Floridians carefully labeled the recent flood in Fort Lauderdale a "1000 year flood" instead of a "global warming flood". People talk about rebuilding instead of getting the hell out of low lying regions. Disaster areas are declared right and left with the Federal government expected to send them billions of dollars. How stupid we earthlings are or put another way what tangled webs we weave. The Arctic permafrost is melting with the result that methane, a more potent greenouse gas than carbon dioxide, is bubbling up and going into the atmosphere. As the Arctic warms, methane that has been locked in permafrost for thousands of years escapes and can explode. Released methane that finds its way to the surface contributes to the greenhouse effect of climate change with even more heat retention capacity than carbon dioxide. Even igniting it doesn’t solve the problem, since that produces carbon dioxide as a byproduct. Tulare Lake reforms in California turning what once was productive farmland into a massive lake which will only get much bigger as snow in the Sierras melts. The Washington Post reports:

California’s historic snowpack has started to melt following its warmest days of the year so far, with the communities and valleys below the mountains bracing for the impact of any flooding as all that water makes its way downhill. The severity of any floods will depend on how quickly the snow melts, but as officials share the latest outlook, it’s clear the highest risk stems from the record snowpack in the southern Sierra Nevada.

An enormous volume of water is expected to flow into rivers and streams through the spring and summer. The epicenter of flood concerns lies in the San Joaquin Valley and the Tulare Basin to the west of the southern Sierra, as well as the valleys to the east of the mountain range.

Two rivers in the Tulare Lake region — the Tule and the Kern — are forecast to exceed 400 percent of their average runoff between April and July. The majority of the watersheds are forecast to reach peak water flow in May, though they’ll reach their highest flows at different times. A few rivers, including the San Joaquin River, will see sustained high flows through at least June because of prolonged snowmelt — much later than typical peak-flow timing of April or May for southern watersheds.

So, California, get ready for historic flooding as the snowpack in the Sierras exceeds 200% above normal. Just last year it was zip. People were praying for more snowpack in the Sierras which, if melting gradually, could fill California reservoirs and provide much needed water throughout the year. However, if it melts too fast, the result will be not more water for drinking and agriculture but historic flooding, and that's the more likely result as higher than normal temperatures start the snowpack melting sooner and faster. The year 2022 was the sixth warmest year since global records began in 1880 at 0.86°C (1.55°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This value is 0.13°C (0.23°F) less than the record set in 2016 and it is only 0.02°C (0.04°F) higher than the last year's (2021) value, which now ranks as the seventh highest. The 10 warmest years in the 143-year record have all occurred since 2010, with the last nine years (2014–2022) ranking as the nine warmest years on record. Of note, the year 2005, which was the first year to set a new global temperature record in the 21st century, currently ties with 2013 as the 11th-warmest year on record. The year 2010, which had surpassed 2005 at the time, now ranks as the 10th-warmest year on record.

So while Americans turn democracy into a travesty of itself with district judges setting national policies, and billionaires pollute the atmosphere with their mega yachts and private jets, the real problems affecting planet earth and human civilization are largely ignored at least partly in the pursuit of profits and a reluctance to give up any perceived privileges that have been established. Despite the large investments in climate change that the Biden administration was lucky enough to get through - not without a lot of resistance by certain segments, I might add - it is just not enough. Airplanes both civilian and military are adding immense quantities of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, as are container ships, without a solution in sight, and, rather than working on a solution, we are pursuing a world war contained within one country at least for now. The human race can not get along even in the face of certain destruction unless an all out effort is made by all nations to get rid of those processes which are releasing gigatons of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere.

A Yacht By Any Other Name …

by Paul Krugman, New York Times

April 11, 2023

Inequality Ahoy! On the Meaning of the Superyacht.

Recently ProPublica, a nonprofit, independent newsroom that has partnered with The New York Times on occasion, released a remarkable report about the relationship between Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court and the conservative billionaire Harlan Crow. It turns out that over the years Thomas, who has portrayed himself as a man of modest tastes who likes to hang out in Walmart parking lots, has taken many lavish — and previously undisclosed — vacations at Crow’s expense. The ethical questions seem obvious.

Still, The Wall Street Journal lashed out at ProPublica, with an editorial headlined “The Smearing of Clarence Thomas.” The article accused ProPublica of using loaded language to create the appearance of a scandal. For example, the paper complained, ProPublica’s report called Crow’s 162-foot private boat, which has been featured in places like the website Superyacht Fan, a “superyacht.” Smear tactics!

Actually, according to a 2022 article in The New Yorker, any yacht over 98 feet long is considered a superyacht within the yachting community.

Which got me thinking about big yachts and what they tell us about the state of society.

When rich people can afford to buy and operate big yachts, they do. Indeed, yachts are a highly visible indicator of inequality, the concentration of income and wealth in the hands of the few. The Gilded Age was marked by a proliferation of ever bigger, ever more elaborately furnished yachts; when J.P. Morgan built a large steam yacht, its 1898 launch was featured in The New York Times.

Conversely, the Great Compression of income disparities that took place during the 1940s and made America a relatively middle-class society for the next four decades put an end to the first golden era of superyachts. In 1955 Fortune published a remarkable essay, “How Top Executives Live,” which stressed how modest their standard of living had become compared with prewar norms. Among other things, large yachts had “foundered in the sea of progressive taxation. … Today, 75 feet is considered a lot of yacht.”

Now superyachts are back. Indeed, according to that New Yorker article, we’re living through “the greatest boom in the yacht business that has ever existed.”

I’ve spent a lot of time over the years following debates over income and wealth inequality. Ever since inequality began rising in the 1980s, there’s been a sort of intellectual industry devoted to what one might call inequality denial, questioning the data showing a drastic rise in incomes and wealth at the top. Indeed, measuring things at the top can be technically tricky — the very rich are such a small group that they can be missed by random surveys, and their ability to engage in tax avoidance makes it hard to track them with tax data, too.

But if you had any doubts about whether we’re living in an era of extreme wealth concentration, comparable to or even surpassing the Gilded Age, the superyacht boom should quell those doubts.

The rise of superyachts also tells us some important things about the motivations and consequences of spending by the very rich.

First, why do the rich buy superyachts?

Boating — being out on the open water, experiencing nature up close — can be a source of great joy to many people. (Not me — I’m so prone to seasickness that I’ve been known to return my breakfast to the ecosystem while snorkeling.) But really big yachts, which amount to floating mansions, would seem to defeat the purpose, insulating their passengers from much of the maritime experience.

Indeed, that 1955 Fortune article suggested that top executives were just as satisfied with the downsized vessels of their day as a previous generation had been with huge yachts. “The specifications of the boat that interests the great majority of seagoing executives today are ‘forty feet, four people, $40,000.’ In this tidy vessel the businessman of 1955 is quite happily sea-borne.” (For the record, $40,000 in 1955 would be about $450,000 in 2022 dollars.)

Owning and operating a really big yacht is, however, as clear an example as you’re likely to find of Thorstein Veblen’s theory of conspicuous consumption — spending intended to demonstrate one’s wealth and status, rather than for the direct satisfaction it yields. Indeed, the New Yorker article suggests that demand for superyachts really took off once owning your own plane stopped being an effective status symbol: “Once it seemed that every plutocrat had a plane, the thrill was gone.”

Yachts, however, can always be made bigger, so there’s no obvious limit to the game. The status competition isn’t even purely implicit: Every year Boat International hands out the World Superyacht Awards, which supposedly honor “ingenuity and craftsmanship” — but obviously, size also matters.

In a way, it’s quite sad: Rarely in the course of modern history has so much wealth been concentrated in the hands of so few, yet much of that wealth is being expended on zero-sum games of one-upsmanship.

The other point, emphasized in a guest essay this week in The Times, is that superyachts are immensely destructive to the environment. To be fair, it’s not entirely obvious whether billionaires do more environmental damage with their superyachts than they would if they spent the same amount of money in other ways. But it’s possible: Shipping and aviation — presumably including superyachts and private planes — are notoriously hard to decarbonize.

And in general, while I’m not a degrowther who believes that we must shrink the economy to save the planet, curbing extravagant and destructive spending by the very rich could be part of the solution to climate change.

In any case, the rise of superyachts — regardless of whether they carry Supreme Court justices — is a highly visible indicator of the extreme economic polarization that is certainly a factor in the extreme political polarization that is tearing our democracy apart. And if you’re the kind of person who insists that calling superyachts by their name is somehow a vile smear, you’re part of the problem.

Off the Top of My Head

Another Day, Another Mass Shooting. What Else Is New?

by John Lawrence

Einstein said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” The US' inaction with respect to gun control is doing the same thing over and over and expecting the same results. We just got used to the same results, and rather than doing what needs to be done to get different results, we are content with doing the same thing over and over and getting the same results. Rather than changing anything, Americans are willing to get the same results rather than doing anything in the hopes of getting better results. I'll call this sclerotic insanity. What needs to be done for starters is very simple: get assault rifles off the streets. In the long run the US needs a new Constitution sans the Second Amendment. Other countries change or revise their constitutions when it is beneficial and/or advantageous to do so. Human lives and the quality thereof is more important than a piece of paper. But not according to gun toting Republicans. They will exploit every loophole in our vaunted "rule of law" in order to impose mass insanity on the American public. Witness the fact that one judge can withdraw an FDA approved drug from the market!

So far there have been 146 mass shootings in the US this year, more than one a day. In France there have been 8. In Germany there have been 5. In Italy there have been 2. In the Netherlands there have been 2. In the UK there has been one, injuring 6, killing none. One in Norway, One in China. One in Australia. Even in Russia there have been only 21, 7 times fewer than in the US. Only in the US is there sclerotic, resolute and unwavering insanity. And we brag to the rest of the world about what a great country we are and how they all should emulate us! Now the spectacle of mass shootings, the details of which are duly reported by the media, are an ever present form of entertainment as we are treated to mass shooting porn on a daily basis. Each instance becomes the inspiration for the next mass shooter as he (isn't it always a "he") sees how much publicity he will get after he goes out and "legally" purchases an AK-15 and opens fire. It's just a continuation of the video games he has been playing at home. It's a real life video game, and obviously we all will recover very nicely because just as soon as the next mass shooting materializes (we shouldn't have to wait more than a day), the previous one is totally forgotten. Sometimes even the spectacle of the last one is cut off prematurely as the next one takes precedence.

The International Bar Association reported:

"[New Zealand] has introduced swift and sweeping reforms of gun laws following the mass shooting in Christchurch in March [2019] – a move that highlights the continuing lack of action to tackle gun violence in the United States.

"‘One of New Zealand’s darkest days,’ was how the country’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern described the mass shooting in Christchurch on 15 March. Fifty-one people were killed and 50 others wounded when a lone gunman opened fire at two mosques in the city, in the country’s worst peacetime shooting. The gunman livestreamed his actions on Facebook.

"Less than a month later, New Zealand’s Parliament voted 119-1 to introduce a nationwide ban on semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles. In addition to the sweeping reform of gun laws, a special commission is being set up to explore broader issues around accessibility of weapons and the role of social media.

"The rapid response to the Christchurch attack is in stark contrast to that of the United States. America has the highest rate of murder and manslaughter by firearms in the developed world and a high rate of mass shootings, yet even moderate reform of gun laws has been blocked for 25 years. Not even last year’s March for Our Lives (MFOL) demonstration in support of legislation to prevent gun violence – one of the largest protests in American history – could trigger political will for reform."

There are cracks in the armor of the US Constitution and rule of law that have appeared relatively recently due to the intransigency of one party in a two party system. Other countries have demonstrated that there really is a better way of doing some things. But the US stubbornly goes on its way stuck in the sludge of its own hubris.

Off the Top of My Head

The Normalization of Vulgarity and Violence in America

by John Lawrence

America has become accustomed to increasing vulgarity. It didn't just start with the Vulgarian in Chief, Donald Trump, but he contributed a lot including the complete transformation of the Republican party from a buttoned down, strait laced group of goody two shoes to a party of F bomb hurling insurrectionists. This has all happened in the last 30 years or so. Some of the other indicators are the fact that tattoos became mainstream in the 1990s. Gangsta rap became mainstream n the 1990s. Before that tattoos were only seen on Hells Angels and long shoremen. Then it became cool to emulate, if not belong, to the Hells Angels. Hip Hop and rap artists discovered that it was financially rewarding to glorify violence, but violence has been standard fare in American culture for decades. Gangsta rappers were not the first group to make money off of glorifying violence. Now drag queens are trying to normalize drag queen story hour. According to dragstoryhour.com:

"What is Drag Story Hour?

"It’s just what it sounds like! Storytellers using the art of drag to read books to kids in libraries, schools, and bookstores.

"DSH captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models.

"In spaces like this, kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where everyone can be their authentic selves!"

Really?! Gender fluidity of childhood? Unabashedly queer role models? Are rigid gender roles too restrictive? Everyone can be their authentic selves by defying rigid gender restrictions? This is the normalization of what until recently was a very fringe element of society. If somebody wants to be a drag queen, I say let them. I'm not going to discriminate towards them or wish them any harm. As far as I'm concerned they should have all the rights of any American citizen, but do I think my children benefit from be exposed to their "art form"? No! Tolerance of differences is one thing. The implication that their way of life is normal is quite another. Today it seems like there is an epidemic of gender dysphoria and drag queen story hour plays right into it.

So there was a reaction against Hip Hop not because it was too violent but because it was misogynistic. Queen Latifah was a rapper who objected to being called a "bitch." There was also a reaction after Topac Shekur and Biggy Smalls were killed probably as a consequence of embracing and glorifying a life of crime. On Sept. 7, 1996, Tupac, 25, was shot in a drive-by shooting in Las Vegas and died at an area hospital. Around six months later, on March 9, 1997, Christopher Wallace, known as Biggie Smalls or the Notorious B.I.G., was gunned down in his vehicle shortly after he left an industry party in Los Angeles. He was 24. The rappers had a certain "F you. I don't give a F" attitude which was also adopted by the female rappers, but the difference was that the female rappers like Queen Latifah rejected the misogyny of the male rappers. All the white kids ate up and wished they could emulate the same "F you" attitude. They bought the records making some of the rappers quite rich.

Now we get to 2016 and the political ascendancy of "grab 'em by the pussy" Donald Trump. His followers ate it up. There was a complete transformation of the Republican party from a party of tight asses to a party of profligates or as Hillary would say, "deplorables." Now Trump was a guy who could brag about shooting someone in broad daylight and getting away with it. Just a few short decades before Trump, Republicans were all concerned about whether Ronald Reagan was electable because he had been divorced over 30 years before he ran for President! Now here was a guy who had been divorced 3 times and had numerous affairs. Unfortunately for him, he thought he had to pay hush money to cover up these affairs before he ran for President. He should have known that, if he could shoot someone in broad daylight and get away with it, he could commit adultery all he wanted and get away with it. His voters, his base, they all would still love him. In fact they probably wished that they too could get away with it. They wanted to be like him, to emulate him. They couldn't get enough of his grossness and vulgarity. It made their grossness and vulgarity seem normal.

The culture wars in America are ongoing. On the one hand we honor and give awards to (mainly white) movie directors and producers who make money glorifying violence. On the other we honor and give awards to (mainly black) rappers who make money glorifying violence and use the words "bitch" and "motherfucker" freely. When all is said and done, it is like H. Rap Brown said at a press conference, "Violence is as normal as cherry pie." And so has become vulgarity.

Ordinance on public camping to get hearing

Council member aims to reduce S.D. encampments

A proposed ordinance getting a hearing Thursday would prohibit camping on public property, including sidewalks like this one in the Midway District. (Hayne Palmour IV For The U-T)

By Gary Warth, San Diego Union-Tribune, April 8, 2023

A proposal to ban homeless encampments on San Diego sidewalks, parks and other places is expected to get a hearing next week.
Councilmember Stephen Whitburn’s proposed ordinance is scheduled to be heard Thursday by the Land Use and Housing Committee, which could lead to it advancing to the full City Council for approval.

Whitburn and Mayor Todd Gloria announced plans for the ordinance last month . The proposal comes at a time when downtown encampments in the council member’s district have surged to record highs and residents in the area have expressed frustration at what they see as the city’s lack of response.
Change isn’t going to happen overnight, however. Besides having to first go through a committee hearing and then approval by the City Council, Gloria said last month that enforcement would begin after new resources for homeless people are created.

The mayor was referring to a new safe parking lot for people who live in vehicles and Whitburn’s plan to create a “safe sleeping” area, an alternative to shelters that would provide people in encampments a place to legally live outdoors. Federal law prohibits people from being cited for sleeping in public places if there are not other options, such as shelters. The addition of a new safe parking lot and safe sleeping area would give the city more flexibility for enforcement.

The safe parking lot is expected to open this month, but Whitburn has not found a place for the safe sleeping project.

“The safe sleeping initiative is going to take longer, but I’m hoping that by the summer we’ll get our first safe sleeping site up and running,” Whitburn said. “We have not settled on a location definitely yet.”

Homeless shelters, safe parking lots and even storage facilities used by homeless people often are opposed by community members who don’t want any homeless services in their neighborhood, and Whitburn already has run into opposition to his safe sleeping plan. He had discussed using an under-used parking area called Inspiration Point in Balboa Park as a safe sleeping site, but community groups that support the park have come out against the plan as an inappropriate use.
Whitburn has not abandoned the site, but isn’t committed to it as the only location for a safe sleeping area. But even after a site is located, there still would be many time-consuming steps before it could open.

Funding will have to be identified, possibly with the help of philanthropy, and the property would have to be prepared to accommodate the project. The city also would have to put a contract out to bid to hire a service provider to run the operation, adding more time to the process. With all those steps in mind, Whitburn is hopeful enforcement of a new ordinance could begin by mid-year.

“My intent is people will begin to see a downtown and a city where more people are living in shelter and safe sleeping sites and other better options, and fewer people living in encampments,” he said. “I’m confident we will get there. I don’t want to put a specific timeline on that because I’m more interested in doing this right, but I do think we will be making progress this summer.”

The word “homeless” does not appear in the proposed ordinance , which amends an existing municipal code, but it does contain new language about camping.
The ordinance prohibits camping on any public property, including sidewalks, and violations would be prosecuted as misdemeanors. Camping would be prohibited regardless of the availability of shelters in certain areas, including within two blocks of a school or a shelter, waterways, any transit hub or trolley platform, in Balboa Park, Mission Bay Park, Presidio Park and parks near beaches. Following an agreement that has been in place for several years, the ordinance states there will be no enforcement of the rule against public camping between 9 p.m. and 5:30 a.m.

“If people share my view that we need an ordinance like this, I would encourage residents to make their feelings known and help advocate for this ordinance,” Whitburn said about the upcoming meeting. People opposed to the ordinance have created a petition on Change.org that calls the proposal unconscionable and short-sighted because it offers no real solutions to homelessness. A protest against the ordinance is planned for 12:30 p.m. Monday outside City Hall.

[email protected]

Green Tinted Glasses

The Green Growth Delusion Advocates of “Green Growth” promise a painless transition to a post-carbon future. But what if the limits of renewable energy require sacrificing consumption as a way of life?

by Christopher Ketchum, Truthdig

A tree is surrounded by solar panels in Los Arcos, Spain, on Feb. 24, 2023. (AP Photo/Alvaro Barrientos, File)

In the annals of industrial civilization, the Green New Deal counts as one of the more ambitious projects. Its scale is vast, promising to reform every aspect of how we power our machines, light our homes and fuel our cars. At this late hour of ecological and climate crisis, the Green New Deal is also an act of desperation. Our energy-ravenous culture cannot continue producing carbon without destroying the systems that are the basis of any advanced civilization, not to mention life itself. Something must be done, and quickly, to moderate the pressure on the atmospheric sink while powering the economic machine.

The consensus on the need for scaling up renewable energy is rarely disturbed by a disquieting possibility: What if techno-industrial society as currently conceived — based on ever-increasing GDP, global trade and travel, and complex global production and distribution chains designed to satisfy the rich world’s unquenchable appetite for bigger, faster, more of everything — what if that simply cannot function without energy-dense fossil fuels? What if, despite the promises of Green New Deal boosters, it is impossible to make sustainable the current system that provides billions of people sustenance, shelter, goods?

This possibility is not mentioned thanks to the dominance of “green growth.” This is the idea that the organizing principle of our civilization — endless growth of economies and populations — can be decarbonized swiftly in a way that will involve no material disruption.  Green Growth holds out the promise of transitioning from fossil fuels directly into something like an earth-friendly utopia without a hitch and without meaningful sacrifice. This is the sales pitch offered by Green New Deal proselytes such as Ezra Klein, The New York Times columnist and podcaster who brings a relentless optimism to the belief — the faith — that renewables can underwrite business-as-usual.

Wind turbines at the Saint-Nazaire offshore wind farm, off the coast of France, on Sept. 22, 2022. (Stephane Mahe/Pool photo via AP, File)

In a 2019 episode of his podcast titled “How to solve climate change and make life more awesome,” Klein laments that “conversations about climate change are pretty depressing [but] decarbonizing doesn’t mean accepting a future of less — it can mean a more awesome, humane, technologically rich, and socially inspiring future for us all.” His guest, Saul Griffith, inventor and clean-energy advocate, agreed that “[o]ur cars could be just as big, only electric. The American Dream could be better than ever.”

Undergirding this vision of a bigger, greened American Dream is the work of a Stanford professor of civil engineering named Mark Z. Jacobson. In a series of major journal articles and studies, Jacobson has sought to demonstrate that the current world economy can be made to run entirely on a combination of wind, water, solar and geothermal energy. He has received plaudits and rousing applause from, among others, Democratic New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, co-sponsor of the 2019 Green New Deal resolution in Congress, who has anchored her proposals with Jacobson’s “roadmaps“ to a zero emissions society. New York state senators, meanwhile, have proffered a bill for renewables transition that explicitly “builds upon the Jacobson wind, water and solar study.” In 2016, climate action guru Bill McKibben said, “I’m convinced by the careful work of Mark Jacobson and others that [100% renewables] is possible.” More recently, in a March 2023 issue of The New Yorker, McKibben enthused about the ongoing “good news” from Jacobson and like-minded green-tech experts. “We have the technology necessary to rapidly ditch fossil fuels,” promised McKibben.

Less likely to appear in the pages of leading magazines are those with a more skeptical view of Jacobson’s assurances about building carbon free societies within a few decades. But these are far from marginal voices. When a group of scientists writing for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences took a close look at Jacobson’s wind-water-solar plan in 2017, they found it was based on “errors, inappropriate methods, and implausible assumptions.” 

Curious as to whether renewables could “power the future,” professors in design and mechanical and aerospace engineering at Monash University in Australia concluded in a 2016 study that estimates for the technical potential of renewable energy were all over the map. The academics, Patrick Moriarty and Damon Honnery, argued that “values at the lower end of the range [of technical potential] must be seriously considered… future [renewable energy] output could be far below present energy use.”

Moriarty and Honnery revisited the subject of renewable energy potential in a 2020 report published in the journal Energies, reiterating that “a future world entirely fueled” by renewables could end up being “a lower-energy one.” Moriarty then teamed up with seven co-authors — climate scientists, sustainability experts and engineers — to look at “energy descent as a post-carbon transition scenario.” The team concluded that “[d]eep uncertainties remain about whether renewables can maintain, let alone grow, the range and scale of energy services presently provided by fossil fuels.” As Moriarty and Honnery put it in their 2016 paper, the “prudent course” in a renewables-only future “would involve major energy reductions…we will likely [need] to re-evaluate all energy-consuming tasks, discarding those that are less important.”  

How much demand would we have to shed in a post-carbon energy descent where renewables power civilization?  “At a rough guess,” Moriarty told me in an email, “I would say 50% or more.” He approached the issue with the practical mindset instilled from decades as a civil engineer. If half of current energy use must be cut to reach true sustainability, Moriarty suggests a good start is ending global transport and trade as we know it. In other words, he said, “globalization will have to end.”

Ted Trainer, a lecturer at the University of New South Wales and founder of The Simplicity Institute, has reached a similar conclusion. “The limits to renewable energy have been almost totally ignored as a topic of study,” he writes. Elsewhere, Trainer notes that this topic is ignored with special fervor among the “technically sophisticated…participants in green and left energy camps.” The Ezra Kleins of the world adhere to what Trainer calls the “tech-fix faith,” which is marked by the assumption that there’s “no need to shift from…present energy and resource intensive lifestyles and systems, or from an economy driven by market forces, the profit motive and growth.”

Then there is the legendary energy and systems theorist Vaclav Smil. An emeritus at the University of Manitoba and author of more than 40 books on energy, environment and industry, Smil has declared the “rapid-speed transformation narratives” in the renewables field to be so full of “magic prescriptions” that they are “the academic equivalents of science fiction.” 

“Heavy doses of wishful thinking are commingled with a few solid facts,” Smil writes in his 2022 book “How the World Really Works.” 

To understand this mismatch, it is necessary to look closely at how we use our prodigious amounts of energy. The picture is very different from the one found in Green New Deal presentations full of high-speed rail projects and windmills. 

 

Good Comes Through

The hue and cry of youth has always been some version of “stop lying, get real, be fair, wake up, don’t pretend.” We saw it in the sixties and here it is again as young people, some not yet old enough to vote, are challenging those in power to “do the right thing.”  The right thing yesterday was directed at the Tennessee Legislature to put gun control laws in place. Led by a white woman, a black man and a biracial man, they chanted for change and were summarily dismissed from serving as elected Representatives. The white woman was spared by one vote. It was blatant racism, appallingly ignorant. She represented the Divine Feminine unafraid to align with Awakened Masculine.

     I am writing about this to underscore the need to see this type of behavior as indicative of how Good comes through when we have a critical mass of us believing in it. When power is challenged it will amp up its outlandish behaviors to incite fear in the rest of us. It is something that happens to us as well, for example, when we try to give up an addiction. The substance seems to have all the power and our ego mind will argue in its favor, even when we know it is harming our sense of Self. What we are seeing in the larger world is the dying breath of old-time religion, politics and the White Men Know Best world we have endured for so long. It was an addiction that harmed the soul of humanity.

     The two young men gave interviews after the decision to oust them from the House. They sounded like Martin Luther King, Julian Bond, John Lewis, and the leaders of the civil rights movement of the past. It was thrilling to hear their clarity, fairness, vision and intention to carry on.  I have hope for us because of young activists like these. This is our time, we are the people. Vote, speak up, support the brave ones who are on the front lines of positive change.

Stay tuned in,

Carol Carnes www.carol-carnes.com

 

Off the Top of My Head

Will Renewable Energy Be Sufficient to Stave Off Global Warming?

by John Lawrence

More than a third of the world's energy will come from renewables by 2025. The International Energy Agency says electricity demand is forecast to grow by 3% a year over the next three years compared to 2022. So in 10 years demand will be 30% higher than it was in 2022 Meanwhile, renewable energy generation is increasing about 10% a year. In 10 years renewables will be producing 100% of the energy demand as of today, but, since demand will be 30% higher than today, that leaves about 30% of demand still to be fulfilled by fossil fuels. But electricity generation is not the only source of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Steel and cement production also releases greenhouse gasses. Agriculture, especially cattle farming, releases large amounts of greenhouse gasses. Virtually every aspect of production and consumption releases greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. To reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses, the world's population needs to go to a plant based diet and get away from the demand for meat, especially beef. Substitutes in building materials need to be found for steel and cement. Otherwise the demand for fossil fuels will never go away. Airplanes and container ships release a lot of greenhouse gasses. Might we have nuclear powered container ships in the future? Will there be a substitute for jet fuel?

Meanwhile, the release of greenhouse gasses is increasing. NBC News reported on March 2, 2023:

"Communities around the world emitted more carbon dioxide in 2022 than in any other year on records dating to 1900, a result of air travel rebounding from the pandemic and more cities turning to coal as a low-cost source of power.

"Emissions of the climate-warming gas that were caused by energy production grew 0.9% to reach 36.8 gigatons in 2022, the International Energy Agency reported Thursday. (The mass of one gigaton is equivalent to about 10,000 fully loaded aircraft carriers, according to NASA.)"

World society needs to make an all out immediate effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, something it's definitely not doing. Instead the human race is preoccupied with war and preparations for war. It is also business as usual for production and consumption especially in the western industrialized societies. There needs to be an immediate cessation of consumption at the level that western societies are used to consuming, but that would bring about an immediate recession in the US whose economy is based 70% on consumption. It seems problematic to suggest that building materials should henceforth be of the kind used in medieval Europe, namely stone which was used to build the great cathedrals. Also earth based materials like adobe would not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions at the same levels that concrete and steel buildings do, not even to mention concrete roads and freeways. It seems all modern methods of production and consumption are based either on fossil fuels or carbon dioxide emissions from steel and cement production. Plastics which are based on fossil fuels need to be immediately replaced with other materials like glass and paper products. Even the wind turbines that produce renewable energy are made almost entirely of steel which generates huge amounts of greenhouse gas. Why couldn't a wind turbine be made of stone except for the moving parts?

Suffice it to say that, when you look at the entire picture, it is not enough just to go to renewable sources for electricity production. For sure that's one component in terms of automobile travel and electricity usage for homes and businesses, but until the problems associated with airplane and ship travel are solved and the problems associated with steel and cement production are solved, we will never reduce the levels of greenhouse gasses being spewed into the atmosphere enough to prevent climate catastrophe. We are moving at a snail's pace when an all out immediate effort is needed.

Off the Top of My Head

The Failure to Pacify Korea

by John Lawrence

Compare the two situations. Vietnam is a unified country, and after a horrific war, is on good terms with the US. Korea is a divided country with the north being still at war with the United States. A peace treaty was never signed after the Korean war and the country was never pacified and unified with the result that North Korea is a major threat to the western world. To boot, there is an axis forming with China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. It didn't have to be this way. One hint is that former President Trump, albeit in a publicity stunt, momentarily eased tensions by becoming friendly with Kim Jong Un. If this had been a sincere gesture and had been followed up on, North Korea could have been unified with the south and the situation there normalized much as it has been in Vietnam. CNN reported on October 24, 2019:

"Seoul, South Korea CNN  — 

"Kim Jong Un has praised his “special” relationship with US President Donald Trump, with one of North Korea’s most respected diplomats telling state media the two leaders maintain “trust in each other.”

"Kim Kye Gwan, a former nuclear negotiator who now serves as an adviser to the North Korean leader, said Kim Jong Un and Trump enjoy “close relations” – a statement that appeared to pin the future of diplomatic talks between Washington and Pyongyang on the two leaders’ unique connection.

“I sincerely hope that a motive force to overcome all the obstacles between the DPRK and the US and to advance the bilateral relations in the better direction will be provided on the basis of the close relationship,” the longtime diplomat said in a statement published in the country’s state-run news agency KCNA, using the acronym for North Korea’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea."

Then on June 12, 2020 NBC news reported:

"Never again will we provide the U.S. chief executive with another package to be used for achievements without receiving any returns," North Korea's Foreign Minister Ri Son Gwon said on state-run KCNA. Nothing is more hypocritical than an empty promise."

There was the possibility of movement toward normalization and peace in Korea, and this wasn't the first time. But does the US even know or care about achieving peace in Korea and officially ending the Korean war? I don't think so. But the Trump publicity stunt at least demonstrates that, in order to achieve peace, an effort must be made to achieve friendship between leaders of the concerned countries. In contrast current American leaders have gone out of their way to demonize and disrespect certain national leaders which makes it even less likely that peace will ever be achieved. Friendship, respect and diplomacy are the means by which to attain peace in the world. Otherwise, military standoffs and confrontation are likely to ensue, and they have. The US invests immense amounts of money in its military while investing paltry insignificant amounts in peace building efforts. The result is an alignment of western nations confronting an alignment of mostly everyone else.

Responsible Statecraft reported on February 6, 2023:

"A large majority of Americans support talks aimed at reducing tensions with North Korea and China, according to a survey released Friday by The Harris Poll. The results are at odds with the state of opinion in Washington, where policy elites continue to one-up each other over how to respond to an incident in which an apparent Chinese surveillance balloon flew over the U.S. in recent days.

"Two-thirds of respondents agreed that the U.S. should “engage in dialogue as much as possible to reduce tensions” with China, while 20 percent said Washington should “not restart official dialogue and instead spend more money on military build-up.” Support for talks focused on deescalation went up by five points since 2021, when Harris last asked the question.

"Meanwhile, 68 percent of Americans polled told Harris that President Joe Biden should offer to hold direct talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, and 58 percent said the United States should offer diplomatic or economic incentives “in exchange for steps toward denuclearization.” "

Wikipedia reported: "In 2017, a majority of the American public also had a positive view of Moon Jae-in, the South Korean President, who in 2018 supported a formal declaration to end the U.S.-North Korean war." So if leaders on both sides in Korea want the war ended and negotiations to proceed towards that end, why is the US not on board with that? Could it be that the US doesn't want to lose an "ally" in South Korea and also lose its military bases there? Does the US not want to lose influence in Asia by helping to create peace there?

Over the years there have been various attempts to bring about peace on the Korean peninsula:

"On May 24, 2015, International Women's Day for Disarmament, thirty women—including US feminist leader Gloria Steinem, two Nobel Peace laureates and retired U.S. Colonel Ann Wright—from 15 countries linked arms with 10,000 Korean women, stationing themselves on both sides of the DMZ to urge a formal end to the Korean War (1950-1953), the reunification of families divided during the war, and a peace building process with women in leadership positions to resolve decades of hostility.

"In the weeks leading up to crossing the DMZ, Steinem told the press, “It's hard to imagine any more physical symbol of the insanity of dividing human beings."

"On the day of the crossing, South Korea refused to give the women permission to walk through Panmunjom, a border town where the 1953 truce was signed, so the women had to eventually cross the border by bus. Nevertheless, Steinem labeled the crossing a success. "“We have accomplished what no one said can be done, which is to be a trip for peace, for reconciliation, for human rights and a trip to which both governments agreed.”

"U.S.–North Korea talks began in June 1993 but with lack of progress in developing and implementing an agreement, North Koreans unloaded the core of a major nuclear reactor, which could have provided enough raw material for several nuclear weapons. With tensions high, Kim Il Sung invited former U.S. President Jimmy Carter to act as an intermediary. Carter accepted the invitation, but could only act as a private citizen not a government representative. Carter managed to bring the two states to the negotiating table, with Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Robert Gallucci representing the United States and North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kang Sok-ju representing his country.

"The negotiators successfully reached the U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework in October 1994:

• North Korea agreed to freeze its existing plutonium enrichment program, to be monitored by the IAEA;
• Both sides agreed to cooperate to replace North Korea's graphite-moderated reactors with light water reactor (LWR) power plants, to be financed and supplied by an international consortium (later identified as the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization or KEDO) by a target date of 2003;
• The United States and North Korea agreed to work together to store safely the spent fuel from the five-megawatt reactor and dispose of it in a safe manner that does not involve reprocessing in North Korea;
• The United States agreed to provide shipments of heavy fuel oil to provide energy in the meantime;
• The two sides agreed to move toward full normalization of political and economic relations;
• Both sides agreed to work together for peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula; and
• Both sides agreed to work together to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.

Soon after the agreement was signed, U.S. Congress control changed to the Republican Party, who did not support the agreement. Some Republican Senators were strongly against the agreement, regarding it as appeasement.

Looked at from an historical perspective, it's clear that, although attempts have been made to bring about peace by some well meaning Americans like Jimmy Carter, other Americans have thought it in the US' best interests to continue a state of war on the Korean peninsula. It has been a complete and catastrophic failure to create peace there. Sometimes risks have to be taken to create peace. You can't be 100% sure that the other side will adhere to an agreement. However, as they used to say, "Give peace a chance." You can go all out for peace while remaining vigilant and militarily strong at the same time.

What the media doesn’t understand about Trump’s third presidential campaign

He's indicted. What does this mean? What the media doesn’t understand about Trump’s third presidential campaign

He’s no longer running for president of the United States

Robert Reich

 

Mar 30, 2023

 

 

 

Donald J. Trump was indicted in Manhattan today for his role in paying hush money to a porn star. In coming days, prosecutors in the office of the Manhattan district will likely ask Trump to surrender and to face arraignment.

What’s the real significance of this? What will it mean?

Last Saturday, at the first rally of his presidential campaign, in Waco, Texas, Trump talked about the criminal cases being prepared against him as if they were being prepared against his supporters.

“They’re not coming after me, they’re coming after you,” he said, predicting that “you will be vindicated and proud.”

The wording was no accident. To Trump, there is no difference between himself and his supporters, and no difference between his supporters and the parts of the United States where they’re the majority. 

This is key. Trump views himself, his supporters (whom he calls “my people”), and their domains as one and the same. Anyone who opposes him is “them” — outside the universe of his identity, past the places that embrace him, beyond the borders of his pathological ego.

Trump’s fusion of himself with his supporters galvanizes those who project onto him the power and status they feel they’ve lost in America — people who are mostly white, rural, and without college degrees. 

But Trump is not engaging in this fusion as a means of being reelected president. In fact, even if it helps him win the Republican nomination, it will lose him the general election, because it will turn off all Republicans who are focused on real issues or who worry that he’s nuts, and it will cause independents to flee.

The dirty little secret of Trump’s third campaign for president — one that the media has so far ignored — is that he is not seeking to become president of the United States, at least not the United States as it is now organized. He is seeking to become president of a very different nation — overwhelmingly white, straight, Christian, and authoritarian.

The policies Trump promoted in his speech are designed to change America into that nation — featuring, for example, the “largest mass deportation in United States history,” along with efforts to reverse “declining fertility rates” (white-nationalist code for encouraging white couples to have more babies).

Trump will use today’s indictment to galvanize his supporters even further.

***

At his rally last Saturday, Trump claimed that the greatest threat to the United States was “not China or Russia” but the people in the “Department of ‘Injustice,’” and “high-level politicians that work in the U.S. government, like McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer, and Biden.”

When he was president, Trump expressed admiration for Putin and Xi. Presumably, the reason he admires them is that both have fused their personal identities with the identities of their countries (and along the way eliminated all opposition). The greatest threats to Trump’s attempt to accomplish the same in the United States are his domestic opponents, along with Republicans (like Mitch McConnell) who fail to give him full-throttled support.

Similarly, when he spoke last Saturday of “demonic forces” trying to demolish America, he was referring to demonic forces trying to demolish him — and, by implication, his supporters and their America.

For Trump, every major challenge facing America is a major challenge to Trump, and vice versa.

Last Saturday, he called the “weaponization of our justice system” the “central issue of our time.” During last year’s midterms, he tried to make his lies about fraud in his 2020 election defeat the most pressing issue facing the nation.

In his mind, the two are linked. He is now recasting the January 6 attack on the Capitol as an act of patriotism by those who view the 2020 election as illegitimate. The Waco rally even featured singing by men who were imprisoned for their part in the attack. A massive screen flashed images of the January 6 attack while Trump recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

***

He still has not accepted the result of the 2020 election, because it was the product of people who voted against him, and Trump never considered himself president of people who reject him. Following the same sociopathic logic, he will not accept the result of the 2024 election if he is not elected. His mind is incapable of accepting it. The fusion of himself, his followers, and America renders such an outcome impossible, just as the 2020 outcome was impossible.

Yet in fact he will not be elected — unless the U.S. economy is by then in a deep recession, or Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has a serious health problem.

Brace yourselves. We have been here before. It culminated on January 6, 2021. The angry, xenophobic, misogynistic, racist, antisemitic, conspiratorial forces Trump unleashed then are still very much with us. And they are now more entrenched in Congress and state legislatures than they were then. By November 2024, they will be ready for a second attempted coup.

Trump wants and expects a civil war over himself, a final clash between Americans who love him and Americans who loathe him — between his egomaniacal views of good and evil. A civil war is unlikely, but the next year and a half is likely to be fraught — another stress test of American democracy.

Last Saturday was only Trump’s first campaign rally. It will not go up from here.