Viewpoint Discrimination at Substack — AI Bot??

3 Replies

The previous post elicited one reply: “I am appalled.” As I reflected on that, I thought, “that was a very human reaction that mirrors my own response to this situation.” Then it hit me.

The Substack content moderation is being run by an AI bot, not a person or group of persons. That would explain its inability to respond appropriately to my comments about its claims of spam and phishing, as well as its apparent insistence on the presence of links that do not appear in my Substack posts. The bizarre “conversation” narrated in the previous post has all the marks of a chatbot with limited understanding of our language and of the content posted on Substack.

I could be wrong about this, of course, but I suspect pretty strongly that my insight is correct. In any case, sadly, I have requested that my Substack account be cancelled.

If Substack’s content moderation is in fact being run in whole or part by an AI-based bot, Substack should disclose that to its audiences immediately.

Viewpoint Discrimination at Substack

1 Reply

A while back I decided to create a Substack account as another outlet for writing and sharing my thoughts about the political situation, among other things. I had already decided to stop active participation in Twitter/X given the undermining of the original concept by its new owner, Elon Musk. I thought I would over time transition away from this blog to using Substack as my primary outlet. Substack hosts a number of people I follow closely, like Prof. Timothy Snyder, and I wanted to write in that same environment.

So, I signed up. I used my Gmail account with the shiningseausa as a pen name because that is the pseudonym I have used on most social media accounts. My thought was that using a single pen name would make it easier for readers to understand who was writing and, if they desired, to choose which social media in which to follow me.

My first Substack post, on September 23, 2024, was a message, a plea into the ether, that Jill Stein should do everyone a favor, including herself, by withdrawing from the 2024 presidential race in which she stood a zero chance of success. It was titled simply, “A Proposal for Jill Stein.”

The second post was Only the Best People, on November 17, 2024, about some of the people Donald Trump was proposing for his cabinet and other high government positions. It contained only one link, to an opening poem, and no one clicked on it. This post was also published in this blog but no one reading it in Substack would have known that unless they subscribed to both.

Substack posted this no-reply message on November 17:

Share Only the Best People

We’ve generated custom assets to help you promote your post on other social networks. Download your videos and images and share with a link to your post!

https://shiningseausa.substack.com/p/only-the-best-people

That message was accompanied by other links created by Substack, that clearly encouraged me to repost on Twitter/X, Instagram, TikTok and possibly others. I did not act on that invitation.

My third Substack post was called, “The Nauseating Descent of Mainstream Media,” posted on December 5, 2024. It was also posted in this blog, but the only link in the post was to a Substack post by Harry Litman that I urged everyone to read.

Then, it happened. Jennifer Rubin, whose opinion pieces I followed in the Washington Post, announced her resignation in the face of Jeff Bezos’ interference in the editorial side of the paper. Shortly thereafter, Rubin announced in the BlueSky app, the formation of The Contrarian, described as “a new media outlet not owned by anybody.” I tried to subscribe and at that point, for the first time, learned this:

Your account is currently suspended. Something you posted may have violated Substack’s Spam & Phishing policy. If you believe this is a mistake, you can submit a appeal to our Trust & Safety team here: https://substack.link/account-ban-appeal.

Consider that message closely. “Something” I posted, but unidentified. “May have violated” … presumably that means “actually violated,” since the result of my posting the unidentified material resulted in suspension of my account, not an inquiry about it.

On December 3, 2024, two days before my third post, Substack sent me a reader statistics report. No mention of any issue related to spam or phishing. On December 5, immediately after my third Substack post, I received another no-reply Substack email:

Share The Nauseating Descent of Mainstream Media

We’ve generated custom assets to help you promote your post on other social networks. Download your videos and images and share with a link to your post!

https://shiningseausa.substack.com/p/the-nauseating-descent-of-mainstream

Again, no mention of spam or phishing issues, but including the same sharing suggestions as before. The next day, another reader statistics report with no issues raised.

On December 17, 2024, Substack announced a new project:

The new media, powered by Substack

Partnering with The Free Press to better support media organizations

The Free Press, a media organization founded by the journalists Bari Weiss, Nellie Bowles, and Suzy Weiss, and hosted by Substack, has relaunched its website with a fresh design….

This relaunch showcases a model that, in the years ahead, will give big-vision publishers a new option for starting a fully-fledged media business, encompassing rich design, advanced websites, deep analytics, automated marketing features, and first-class support for video, audio, and more.

Substack will always be dedicated to helping individuals and small teams publish across formats, build an audience, and make money from subscriptions, but we also want to support publishers’ ambitions as they grow on the platform. With that in mind, we are building a toolset that will allow high-volume publishers with sophisticated needs—including custom branding, website design, and support for large editorial teams—to take advantage of Substack’s best-in-class publishing system while also being plugged into a network that drives subscriptions.

On January 3, 2025, Substack sent me another reader statistics report with no indication of anything amiss.

At this point I was, and remain, thoroughly confused as to what the issue really was at Substack. The site was encouraging me to share my Substack posts using my shiningseausa pen name and simultaneously telling me I had violated some policy I was unable to divine from Substack’s policy statements while simultaneously proclaiming its dedication to free expression.

I appealed the suspension. Substack acknowledged the appeal on January 13 and responded with this:

As noted in our Content Guidelines, Substack is not intended for advertising-based accounts or conventional email marketing.

The moderation team has reviewed your account and determined that its content is in breach of these guidelines. Specifically, we have concluded that the primary purpose of the account is to advertise external products or services, drive traffic to third-party sites, distribute offers and promotions, enhance search engine optimization or similar activities. [Bolding added]

I responded on January 16:

I have examined all three of the posts I placed in Substack & do not understand how you reached the conclusion you assert unless it’s the single reference to my blog in the first post on Sept. 24, 2024, which reference was related solely to matters of policy content of the argument I was making. In the other two posts, no reference is made to the blog. The blog has no commercial component, no advertising, no product promotions except a single reference to a book I published in December. I do not therefore understand the basis for your conclusion that the primary purpose of my entire Substack account is to “advertise external products or services, drive traffic to third-party sites (all are cited only as sources or references to arguments being made), distribute offers and promotions (there are none), enhance search engine optimization or similar activities.” My second Substack post was devoted entirely to criticism of Trump’s cabinet & other nominees, and the third post related solely to disputing attacks on President Biden for pardoning his son. With all due respect, since you cite nothing specific to support the sweeping conclusion you state about the purpose of my Substack account, which is barely off the starting block, I ask that you identify precisely where the offense lies. I have read many Substack posts by many different authors, all of whom cite authorities & sources for their arguments. All seem identical substantively to what I posted. If you’re going to permanently ban me from Substack, you should at least be specific as to the offense committed. [Bolding added here]

On January 17 Substack responded with this:

As noted, Substack is vehemently anti-spam and may ban accounts that post spam when interacting with others on Substack, such as in comments, discussion threads, or email replies.

To reactivate your account, please confirm we may remove previous notes and comments engaging in these activities, and we will be happy to remove your account restrictions.

Within minutes, I replied:

I too am vehemently anti-spam. The issue here is that I don’t understand what the spam is that Substack is concerned about in my three posts. If Substack has in mind deleting “notes and comments” from the 3 posts, it would be most helpful if you told me what those were so I can give informed consent. Right now I truly have no idea what the concern is.

Less than an hour later, Substack responded:

We’ve reviewed your account activity and noted your interactions on other newsletters. Specifically, we’ve identified two comments on separate newsletters which included links directing to your personal website. Additionally, the bio section of your Substack profile includes a link to the same site.

Our moderation team regards these actions as promotional activity geared to direct users off-site to an external webpage. As stated in our Content Guidelines, while advertising and marketing are allowed on Substack, these activities should not be the main focus of a Substack account. The primary purpose should be creating valuable, unique content for subscribers.

In this case, the frequent linking to an external site gives an impression of an account primarily intended to drive traffic elsewhere, rather than engaging with the Substack community.

To resolve this issue and reactivate your account, we propose to remove these external links from your comments and profile. Once removed, your account restrictions will be lifted.

We’re awaiting your consent to proceed with this step. If there are any further concerns or queries, please let us know.

The very next afternoon Substack sent me a survey asking me to “rate the support you received.”

I replied that same day that “I am still waiting for you to identify the claimed offending statements.”

On January 24, Substack finally responded:

To resolve this issue and reactivate your account, we propose to remove these external links from your comments and profile.

https://shiningseausa.com/
https://shiningseausa.com/2024/12/05/the-nauseating-descent-of-mainstream-media/
https://shiningseausa.com/2024/12/05/the-nauseating-descent-of-mainstream-media/

Once removed, your account restrictions will be lifted.

We’re awaiting your consent to proceed with this step. If there are any further concerns or queries, please let us know.

The same day I replied:

Remove those links from what accounts specifically? How do I access my bio with account suspended?

Four days later Substack had not responded. I wrote:

I am astonished and disappointed that Substack has chosen to resist explaining its bizarre position that my posting(s) are somehow spam. I have asked for straightforward factual information on which to base a decision to the path Substack has demanded and you simply repeat the same demand with no discernable effort to address the questions I have posed. I am finished repeating myself to be faced with apparent stonewalling by Substack’s team. You leave me no choice but to address this another way. Very unfortunate.

And so, here we are. Someone familiar with the workings of social media has suggested to me that Substack’s action is driven by a complaint someone filed. If so, that has not been disclosed. I am at a loss.

As a result of Substack’s persistent refusal to explain its concerns and demands, I am left with no choice but to terminate the account. Very disappointing.

Time to Face Reality

Leave a reply

As Trump’s proposed cabinet of losers, criminals, and traitors continues to take shape, it is perhaps time to face certain realities. I am reminded of the statements of several wise people over the years.

Alan Bennett, 90-year-old English playwright and creator of The History Boys, wrote, “History? It’s just one f***ing thing after another…”

You no doubt recall the famous line attributed to the philosopher George Santayana, but here is the full quote:

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Many others, Winston Churchill among them, have reiterated the last line, usually as a warning, usually ignored.

A variation attributed to Eugene O’Neill was that “There is no present or future – only the past, happening over and over again – now.”

And, of course, President Lincoln stated in his address on June 16, 1858, at what was then the Illinois State Capitol in Springfield, after he had accepted the Illinois Republican Party’s nomination as that state’s US senator, an election he lost:

A house divided against itself, cannot stand.”

I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new – North as well as South.

The wisdom of these statements is often overlooked. Not now.

The Republican Party needs a new name. The Republican Party is no longer conservative or patriotic. In the hands of Donald Trump, the GOP is threatening to reduce the federal government to a shadow of its current self and turn such political power as remains outside Trump’s personal dictator hands to the states.

So, let us take a spin through some history that Trump and his billionaire shills have either forgotten, never knew, or simply don’t think is relevant.

I refer to the Articles of Confederation. The Articles were the first “constitution” adopted during the Revolutionary War. The ConstitutionCenter.org explains it this way:

The Second Continental Congress approved the document on November 15, 1777, after a year of debates. The British capture of Philadelphia helped to force the issue. The Articles formed a war-time confederation of states, with an extremely limited central government. The document made official some of the procedures used by Congress to conduct business, but many of the delegates realized the Articles had limitations.

Two days later, Congress submitted the Articles to the states for immediate consideration. However, it took until March 1, 1781, for this “immediate” consideration to become final.

Here is a quick [edited] list of the problems that occurred, and how these issues led to our current Constitution.

1. The central government was designed to be very, very weak.The Articles established “the United States of America” as a perpetual union formed to defend the states as a group, but it provided few central powers beyond that. But it didn’t have an executive official or judicial branch.
2. The Articles Congress only had one chamber and each state had one vote.This reinforced the power of the states to operate independently from the central government, even when that wasn’t in the nation’s best interests.
3. Congress needed 9 of 13 states to pass any laws.Requiring this high supermajority made it very difficult to pass any legislation that would affect all 13 states.
4. The document was practically impossible to amend.The Articles required unanimous consent to any amendment, so all 13 states would need to agree on a change. Given the rivalries between the states, that rule made the Articles impossible to adapt after the war ended with Britain in 1783.
5. The central government couldn’t collect taxes to fund its operations.The Confederation relied on the voluntary efforts of the states to send tax money to the central government. Lacking funds, the central government couldn’t maintain an effective military or back its own paper currency.
6. States were able to conduct their own foreign policies.Technically, that role fell to the central government, but the Confederation government didn’t have the physical ability to enforce that power, since it lacked domestic and international powers and standing.
7. States had their own money systems.There wasn’t a common currency in the Confederation era. The central government and the states each had separate money, which made trade between the states, and other countries, extremely difficult.
8. The Confederation government couldn’t help settle Revolutionary War-era debts.The central government and the states owed huge debts to European countries and investors. Without the power to tax, and with no power to make trade between the states and other countries viable, the United States was in an economic mess by 1787.

George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Dickinson and others met and proposed that all 13 states meet in Philadelphia to resolve the debacle. The current Constitution emerged from that meeting, was ratified, and then promptly amended by the Bill of Rights to cure certain glaring omissions in the original version. Constitution-making is hard work.

While the issues with the Articles of Confederation were clear, by the time of the Constitutional Convention white people in the southern states were deeply entrenched in the system of slavery on which their economy depended. Compromises were required and made in order to reach a constitutional document that could be promoted among the states for ratification. Without those compromises there would have been no Constitution and no country, at least not one comprised of all the former colonies and territories. Even then, ratification consumed two years and eight months. Ratification of the Bill of Rights took another year.

A very detailed history of the events leading to the Constitution may be found in https://www.britannica.com/topic/American-colonies/The-decision-for-independence if you have interest in it.

What lessons can be learned from this early experience with nation-making?

One is that in the modern world of, say, the post-WWII era, a “nation” in which the major powers are dispersed among many widely spread and independent entities (read “states”) is extremely vulnerable to nations with more power concentrated in a central authority. It’s true, of course, that the separation of what became the United States of America was driven in major part by rejection of the totally centralized power of the King of England. But that king’s authority resided in one person and was absolute.

Under the Constitution (not the Articles of Confederation), the power of the central authority, the federal government, was strong but restrained by several features built into the system, not least of which was the division of federal power into the three co-equal branches we call the Executive (President), Legislative (Congress) and Judiciary (Courts). The idea was that each would serve as a check against the power of the other two. And, among the many brilliant elements of the new Constitution was the principle that the church and state must remain separate so that individuals would always be free to practice, without interference from the government, whatever religion, or none, that they chose.

Over time amendments were judged necessary as the country grew and society recognized that further centralization of certain principles was essential to secure the freedom that the Framers, and the Americans who fought the Revolutionary and Civil Wars to create and preserve the union, sought to protect in perpetuity. For example, the requirements of ‘equal protection’ and ‘due process of law’ apply to both the federal government and the states.

It is now clear that the constitutional regime thus formed has several serious flaws, not least of which is the unplanned for development of political parties. The operation of the Electoral College has also proved to be quixotic at best.

It is also apparent that the widespread rhetorical framework under which Americans claim to a special place in the world is a myth. American “exceptionalism” viewed against the reality of lingering racism, fear of “foreigners,” and fear of the future leads to the inevitable awareness that Americans are no more exceptional than the people of other countries. The US history of intervention in other countries has not endeared the nations of the world to unqualified respect for the intentions of this country.

The threat of climate change and our newly realized vulnerability to disease should be sufficient to bind all peoples together in a common effort to protect the species by protecting the only planet we’re ever going to know. But that’s not what’s happening.

The United States has one of the strongest economies in the world. Our people overall enjoy a standard of living far above most of the rest of the planet. Yet fear of change, fear of the “other” and fear of displacement have led the people to elect a convicted felon as national leader. That same “leader” is plainly guilty of other crimes that will never be adjudicated, including his leading an insurrection against the government to overturn the 2020 election and his theft, and refusal to return, highly confidential government documents.

The Supreme Court, laced with conflicts of interest and outright corruption, has held that the President of the United States may not be held accountable for crimes committed in office if, for example, they are committed while conducting “official acts.” Thus, the Court held that the President may with complete immunity enlist the Department of Justice to join him in a criminal enterprise by simply “discussing” the matter with leaders within the Department.

Trump has made clear that he and his cronies intend not to lead the federal government but to dismantle it. His initial selection of incompetent and blatantly unqualified departmental and other senior leaders is conclusive proof that he has no intention of complying with the oath of office he will nominally take on January 20, 2025.

Trump is literally free, per Supreme Court decision, to ignore the law and proceed with his agenda. Little stands in his way, given the composition of the Congress and the abdication of responsible jurisprudence by the high court. What then?

Many large companies, like Meta and Apple, have surrendered by providing massive funds for Trump’s inauguration, ignoring the advice of Prof. Timothy Snyder not to comply in advance. Trump knows these economically influential entities and their leaders will not resist him. Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post, stopped the paper from endorsing Kamala Harris.

Perhaps even more remarkably, the Post’s Editorial Board has published a list of some Trump key appointments and indicated they should be confirmed. The list includes the likes of election-deniers Elise Stefanik and Pam Bondi (Trump’s second choice behind the disgraced and grossly unqualified Matt Gaetz. Also Kelly Loeffler, rejected by the voters of Georgia. The only ones who fail to pass the Post’s low bar are Robert Kennedy Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Hegseth, and Russell Vought.

Granted the Post spend little effort in explaining itself, but the criteria it chose to mention are, well, mind-blowing.

First, the Post says:

We would not have picked any of his choices for our hypothetical Cabinet. But, as we have argued for decades, that is not the standard we — or U.S. senators — should apply when evaluating potential executive nominees for Senate confirmation. The president-elect won the election. He deserves deference in building his team, and the Americans who elected him deserve an operational government, absent disqualifying deficiencies in competence, temperament or philosophy.

By that standard, all but two of Trump’s planned Cabinet nominees seem confirmable — as well as all but two of his picks for Cabinet-rank jobs that require confirmation.

But then the Post describes some of the nominees this way:

Marco Rubio for Secretary of State – “The son of immigrants, Rubio is respected by Senate colleagues and understands the vital importance of American leadership.”

My comment: this was news to me given Rubio’s post-2020 obeisance to Trump and the MAGA crowd. No sources are cited.

Scott Bessent for Secretary of Treasury — a “hedge fund billionaire, who seeks to stimulate growth and reduce the deficit, is among Trump’s most reasonable intended nominees.”

My comment: Again, no sources or authority cited. Maybe “billionaire” is sufficient for the Post’s purposes. It certainly is for Trump.

Pam Bondi for Attorney General – “Florida’s former attorney general is qualified; lawyers who have worked with her report that she is serious.”

My comment: Bondi is a 2020-election-denier and apparently has lobbied for foreign governments in the past. She’s serious alright. Bondi will be the perfect accomplice to Trump’s continuing efforts to use the Justice Department, with his Supreme Court’s approval, to commit further crimes without accountability.

Doug Burgum for Secretary of Interior – “The outgoing North Dakota governor and Stanford MBA built a successful software company that he sold to Microsoft.”

My comment: Being a software entrepreneur is not an obvious qualification for managing our natural resources. Prepare to lay your body down in front of a national park.

Howard Lutnick – Secretary of Commerce – “The co-chair of Trump’s transition team is a natural fit for a job traditionally held by a presidential friend.”

My Comment: A founding member of DOGE. Billionaire. His pinned Twitter/X account says: “Welcome to DOGE. We will rip the waste out of our $6.5 Trillion budget. Our goal: Balance the Budget of the USA. We must elect Donald Trump President. @elonmusk @realDonald Trump” The accompanying photo is of Lutnick & Elon Musk!

Balance the budget – riiight. Standard Republican rhetoric. Balance the budget and destroy the economy. A “natural fit.”

Lori Chavez-DeRemer – Secretary of Labor – “The former congresswoman from Oregon maintains surprisingly unorthodox views on organized labor.”

My comment: what “unorthodox views” means we are left to guess, and I’m guessing they are not good for unions.

Scott Turner – Secretary of Housing & Urban Development – “The former motivational speaker has never run a big organization, but that is not disqualifying.”

My comment: Lack of experience is self-evidently irrelevant in a Trump administration.

Sean P. Duffy – Secretary of Transportation – “The former reality TV star is also a former congressman from Wisconsin. He’ll still need to study.”

My comment: …..

Chris Wright – Secretary of Energy – “The Colorado oil and gas executive acknowledges that climate change is real.”

My comment: I suspect he also agrees the Earth is not flat. Prepare to lay your body down in front of a national park.

Linda McMahon – Secretary of Education – “The other co-chair of the president-elect’s transition team led the Small Business Administration during Trump’s first term.”

My comment: Betsy Devos redux? Her SBA experience definitely, certainly, obviously, assuredly qualifies her to lead American education policy, though her opportunities to do more damage to our education system may be brief if Trump fulfills his plan to eliminate the Department.

Douglas Collins – Secretary of Veterans Affairs – “He was a firebrand as a congressman from Georgia, but his heart seems to be in the right place in caring for veterans.”

My comment: You can’t make this stuff up. The most the Post has to say is that the nominee cares about veterans.

Kristi L. Noem – Secretary of Homeland Security – “Dog jokes aside, she has served in Congress and two terms as governor of South Dakota.”

My comment: The Post apparently thinks Noem’s shooting her dog was a joke! And, South Dakota being at the center of our national security concerns, Noem is imminently qualified for … something, though not the complex task of securing the homeland against attacks, especially with Trump in charge.

Interestingly, the Post did not mention Trump’s anointing of Kash Patel as inside man at the Department of Justice with instructions, redundant in his case, to get even or better with many of Trump’s main enemies list.

You get the picture, I’m sure. This is the “government” that Trump promised and that the American people chose, albeit by the slimmest of margins.

The United States is in the deepest trouble.

Corporate America is lining up to bend the knee to Trump. Under Donald Trump the United States seems destined to become a weak state and an international pariah as Trump in turn bends the knee to dictators like Vladimir Putin.

Thus far, the Democratic Party, reeling from the loss of the presidency and both houses of Congress, and with a Supreme Court having conferred immunity for the president’s crimes in office, has nothing much to say. Everyone, it seems, is waiting to see the actual shape of the catastrophe about to begin. It won’t be long now.

A Story for the Season … & All Seasons

Leave a reply

Four years have passed since we returned from a three-year sojourn in New York City. We lived for two years in the District of Columbia and now two years back in Alexandria. As I have previously noted, I have tried to include in this blog a variety of topics, although politics came to dominate because of the troubled history we have lived through since 2016. The original idea behind the blog was to cover a potpourri of subjects about our country – hence the title, ShiningSeaUSA, borrowed from the song, “America the Beautiful. “

While in New York I started another blog, AutumnInNewYork, that was about our life in the great city in the autumn of my years. We expected New York to be the last place we would live. It turned out otherwise, thanks largely to the pandemic, and AutumnInNewYork was terminated.

The post that follows was originally published in AutumnInNewYork on December 24, 2018. I have reposted it before and am doing so again today in continued acknowledgement of both the person whom it concerns and the spirit of the holiday season. The scene is as vivid to me now as when I first witnessed it. We must remember in these troubled times there are still moments of beauty, kindness and joy. I was fortunate to witness one and I share it with you now.

A Story for the Season … & All Seasons

I can’t shake this story from my mind and, considering the season and everything that is going on, I must share it.

I recently visited a doctor in New York City for a follow-up to an earlier consultation. Not unexpectedly, there were patients sitting in the waiting room so I knew it might be a while before I was seen. I always have a book with me for such situations.

As I read, I happened to glance up and notice across from me a younger (30-something, I’m guessing) woman slumped sideways in her chair, obviously dozing. I continued reading but my attention turned to the young woman again when my doctor unexpectedly emerged from the back and approached her, quietly calling her name. The young woman did not react; she was “out cold.” The doctor, realizing the woman was deeply asleep, walked over to her, reached down and gently took each of the woman’s hands in her own. She did not pull or poke. She massaged them gently while speaking softly to the woman. This did the job of waking her, and, after a few moments to collect herself, they walked together into the back, the doctor asking her some question I didn’t catch.

I sat there for several minutes, reflecting on what I had seen. I was moved by it in ways I didn’t, and still don’t completely, understand. The power of witnessing the simple gesture of care and sensitivity took me by surprise. Then, my turn came; I went back, visited with a nurse to take the required “vitals” and waited in a room to see the doctor who came in very shortly.

After some small talk, I told her that I had witnessed what she had done, how gently and sweetly she had awakened the young woman. The doctor responded with “I’ve known her for years and she’s very special.” I said, “you are special, doctor. Doctors generally don’t do what you did.” She thanked me, somewhat embarrassed, I suspect, and we moved on.

I still often think about that simple gesture of kindness that, in most other circumstances I have witnessed over the years, would have been treated quite differently. The way my doctor chose to awaken her patient has stayed with me as an extraordinary example of how natural kindness can work with remarkable power. As I reflect on the scene, as vivid to me like it just happened, and as the holidays come on, it stands in vivid contrast to our national political life that is dominated by rancor, conflict and fear. We’re all trying to experience the holidays in a good way, and likely most of us will succeed in the end. And ‘will’ is the right word, because it feels more like an act of will than a natural thing to do at this time of year.

Part of the power of the doctor’s act was, I think, that it was so natural, so spontaneous. I am virtually certain she did not mull it over first; she just naturally reacted to the situation with humanity and compassion. That young lady is lucky, as am I, to have a doctor with such instincts for kindness. It’s a lesson we all need to learn and re-learn, especially when the times we live in are so burdened with acrimony and lack of concern for those in need of a helping hand. I suspect I will always have that image in my mind and hope to remain aware and grateful for its reminder of what is possible.

Happy Holidays.

The Nauseating Descent of Mainstream Media

2 Replies

[+Homage to Harry Litman]

This is not how I had planned to spend this day, but I can be silent no longer. This morning I read the latest USAToday hit-piece on President Biden’s decision to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, to protect him from the vengeance that has been promised by the incoming Trump administration and the compliant Supreme Court that has granted the President of the United States king status, free of criminal responsibility to pervert the Department of Justice to serve the personal goals of the president rather than do its statutory jobs with political neutrality.

I have stated previously my belief that the media’s obeisance to Trump will cost it, and the country, dearly. Now, we see plainly the media doing exactly what experts in authoritarianism, like Yale Professor Timothy Snyder, have repeatedly warned against – obeying in advance. If they believe that someone of Trump’s ilk is going to give them credit for this, they are ignoring the lessons of history and will come, too late, to regret their cowardice.

I subtitled this piece regarding Harry Litman, who, after starting to write, I chanced to discover had resigned from the Los Angeles Times in protest to the editorial interference of its billionaire owner and Trump supporter. For those interested, Mr. Litman’s statement can be read here:

https://open.substack.com/pub/harrylitman/p/why-i-just-resigned-from-the-los?r=4gbf6r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Everyone should read it.

Returning to my own thoughts inspired by USAToday’s attack on Biden, the title implies there is a “debate” over Biden’s legacy resulting entirely from his “broken promise” not to pardon his son. To clarify, the author, Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy is, as near as I can tell, not a relation to Vivek Ramaswamy, the Trump bootlicker of same last name. An odd coincidence, but there it is.

The article notes that “The backlash against the 82-year-old lame-duck chief executive was predictable, swift and bipartisan,” implying the criticism is justified and widespread. The first “authority” cited is Marjorie Taylor Greene, Congressthing from Georgia, famous for belief in QAnon and other phantasmagorical conspiracy theories, screamer during Biden’s SOTU speeches, supporter of Matt Gaetz, and, well, you probably know the rest.

But, as if there were no history, notable Democrats have also jumped on the “let’s self-immolate” bandwagon. Adam Schiff is cited, claiming “It sets a bad precedent.”

Ramaswamy goes on to note that Biden’s pardon has “precedent-setting nature” that “could shape how he is remembered for years to come” because, according to Douglas Brinkley, presidential historian and professor of history at Rice University, he said he wouldn’t do it and “There’s nothing positive about it.”

There are plenty of positive aspects to it, to which I will return after I finish excoriating this execrable piece of journalistic nonsense. The author, for example, claims that virtually universal condemnation of Biden’s about-face on the pardon “make clear that his legacy will be defined by his two sons – and his nemesis Donald Trump, whose two nonconsecutive terms as president will serve as bookends to Biden’s single term in office.”

I suggest, with full disrespect, that Ms. Ramaswamy and the USAToday editors need to read some more history. And, after noting that Biden stepped in after the catastrophic failure of Trump’s administration to effectively deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, promising to and “mobilizing vaccination shots and instituting an unpopular mask mandate. Over time, COVID deaths declined, Biden lifted the mask mandate, and Americans went on with their lives.”

But that apparently counts for nothing because “Biden’s presidency also was at times rocked by turmoil. Inflation rose to a 40-year high [not plausibly charged to Biden], 13 soldiers died during the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan [a deal made by Trump], migrants poured into the country illegally along the southern border [Trump stopped the bipartisan deal to address this], and wars in Ukraine [Putin, Trump’s idol, started that war, not Biden] and the Gaza Strip [chargeable to Biden, really???] “tested the nation’s influence on the world stage.”

Well now, considering that Trump’s legendary ignorance and refusal to learn about foreign affairs, almost certain conspiracy with Russia to get elected and with whom he treasonously shared U.S. state secrets, any testing of the nation’s influence, if chargeable to anyone, is chargeable to Trump. And, to quote from the line in Natural Born Killers (movie), “you ain’t seen nothing yet.”

The author’s bias is further evident in the claim that Kamala Harris’ loss to Trump dealt a “serious blow to Biden and his legacy since many of his accomplishments in office will almost certainly be wiped out by Trump when he returns to the White House in January.”

The reality is that history, if there is any after Trump’s presidency, will condemn Trump’s legacy for destroying the progress made under Biden’s presidency. If you don’t know about the American economy under Biden, you haven’t been paying attention. If you don’t realize what a bunch of losers and lunatics Trump is proposing to populate his cabinet and bring down the federal government, you understand nothing about how this country is governed.

It’s more than a little curious that a historian like Douglas Brinkley is so quick to make sweeping interpretations of current affairs when historians have always warned us against premature judgments about historical realities. Maybe he just likes seeing his name in the media. Equally disturbing in a piece of this nature, is the author’s observation, delivered without context, that Trump’s “attempts to pressure Ukraine into investigating Joe and Hunter Biden resulted in his first impeachment, which ended in a Senate acquittal.”

Yes, Trump was acquitted but he wasn’t found “not guilty” of the acts he obviously took (it’s on the tapes and everyone with a functioning mind knows what he did); he was “acquitted” because the Republicans in the U.S. Senate refused to do their duty, refused to hear evidence or witnesses of Trump’s traitorous conduct because they feared his vulgar retributive response. The author ignores those facts because they conflict with the narrative flow and, besides, Trump would not approve.

Finally, the author gets around to the reality of the Hunter Biden situation. Quoting the ever-quotable historian Brinkley:

If it had been a different type of Republican being inaugurated president in January, Biden may have thought twice. But the thought of Trump in the end having control over his son’s future in a federal prison was a bridge too far.

Indeed. Imagine that Joe Biden leaves office with his son exposed to Trump’s promise revenge along with the useless space-occupying Congressman Comer also promising to continue pursuing Hunter after years of fruitless and costly investigations into the Biden family. Republicans smell blood in the water and like the sharks they are, figured Hunter was an easy target once Joe Biden was out of the way. What would be said about Biden then? That he failed to protect his family in the face of multiple overt threats by Trump and his vengeance army? That he was a “bad father?” Worse?

Nevertheless, Ramaswamy persists with a roundup of Democrats eager to get their names in the press by criticizing Biden’s decision to protect his son, including Sen. Michael Bennett, D-Colo and Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash.

Finally, the author notes, without acknowledgment, that her earlier statement about the “unprecedented” nature of the Biden pardon was exaggerated if not outright false:

…many [presidents], like Biden, have faced criticism for how they’ve used that power. Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon probably cost him a second term. Bill Clinton was pilloried for granting a series of pardons in his final hours in office, including one for his brother Roger Clinton, who had been convicted of selling cocaine to an undercover police officer. Trump pardoned dozens of people during his first term, including his son-in-law’s father and some of his closest allies who were convicted of crimes ranging from financial fraud to witness tampering and more.

Ah, but Ramaswamy notes that “Biden … is the first president to pardon one of his children” while dragging into the story the unnecessary criticism of a Trump-appointed judge who gratuitously offers his judgment that “nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history.” Another example of a Trump-appointed judge speaking about a political matter that is none of his business. Maybe he’s looking for a Trump appointment to a higher court. We’ll know soon perhaps.

Finally, Ramaswamy drags in Melissa DeRosa, identified as a “Democratic strategist and author” bitching that Biden’s protection of his son from the promised vengeance of Donald Trump and his army of mindless sycophants was somehow going to contribute to the further splintering of the Democratic Party. Until now I though Ms. DeRosa was bright and committed to the country’s welfare. She was the “right hand” to Governor Cuomo during the pandemic that rages through New York in 2020, killing tens of thousands. Cuomo, you will recall, was forced to resign in the face of accusations of sexual misconduct, about which one hopes Ms. DeRosa was ignorant. Why she would choose now to say that Biden’s decision to protect his son against Trump creates questions Joe’s standing as an “honorable man with integrity” is beyond my ability to understand.

You might think from all this that Joe Biden acted arbitrarily to free his son of the potential consequences of an objective, independent prosecution directed by politically neutral law enforcement. In fact, however, the reality is that Trump has sworn vengeance against Joe Biden and his family. Anyone with a reasonably objective mind should be able to understand that the President had good reason to protect his son from what Trump credibly promised.

As Harry Litman noted in his resignation announcement cited at the outset of this post, Trump is exactly what you see. With the help of his appointed judges, the inexplicable reticence of Attorney General Garland, and the unprecedented interference of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Trump-appointed majority, Donald Trump has escaped accountability for his many crimes before and during his presidential terms. Now that he has been given a free hand to exact retribution against his perceived enemies, he has made clear his determination to use that power to the fullest.

Given that reality, I salute Joe Biden for protecting his family to the extent he can by using the power the Constitution gives him (no exceptions for President’s family members and plenty of precedent). There was no reason for Biden to leave his son at the mercy of a criminal like Donald Trump so his “legacy” could remain untouched. Like all presidents, who occupy the most difficult job in the world, there are many grounds for criticism for those who never stood in his shoes. In my book, Joe Biden has no reason to be concerned about how history will judge him in relation to his predecessors and successors. He has much to brag about, and his decision to protect his son is among those difficult decisions of which he should be most proud.

Only the Best People

Leave a reply

Que Theme from The Twilight Zone

And:

But where are the clowns
Send in the clowns
Don’t bother, they’re here

[4^th stanza of Send in the Clowns by Stephen Sondheim]

To understand the musical reference, see Wikipedia at https://tinyurl.com/27nxhtxh

The majority of Americans who voted are about to get the full dose of what they chose. Unfortunately, the rest of us will too. You may decide for yourself who are the fools here.

Donald Trump has boasted many times that based on his deep knowledge of people, his administration would and did hire only “the best people.” Now that he has managed to bamboozle a majority of Americans into reinstalling him in the presidency, we can, once again, see this claim playing out in real time with real effects on the country. It is impossible to see his appointments as anything but political payoffs to a collection of traitors and incompetents who have no chance of successfully managing the federal government, even the reduced (emasculated?) one that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy (in the new Department of Government Efficiency) imagine in their fever dreams. Hard to imagine Musk co-leading anything with anyone but time will tell.

Trump has said these two acolytes will “dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.” None of these people seem to have the slightest insight into the complexity of the federal government’s operations or their impact on the economy and the welfare of the American people. Rough times ahead.

Maybe that is what Trump really wants: destroy the government to prove what a giant of … something … he is. Catastrophic failure seems inevitable. In the last Trump administration, Trump’s goals, to the extent he had any well-formed thoughts about goals other than enhancing his personal wealth, were largely defeated by the Keystone Kops character of many of his appointees. It was also true that working for Trump was an ordeal beyond the tolerance of many of his appointees, so much so that Cabinet-level appointees quit or were fired in numbers that equaled the total of Reagan and George HW Bush combined and far exceeded the combined total for Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama.

We also know that many of Trump’s former Cabinet members, and his Vice President, have stated flatly that he is unfit for office. Nevertheless, the American people have spoken, rejecting an intelligent, experienced Democrat in favor of a multiply-convicted felon, rapist, corrupt, racist, dishonest remorseless serial liar, insurrectionist traitor, and violator of his oath of office. What can go wrong? Everything. And we’re still more than two months from Trump’s assuming office.

Announcements of his intended nominations for Cabinet and other critical high positions in the government are chilling beyond anything one might have imagined. If there is any good news in any of these appointments, it is that some of these people will no longer be in Congress. But that is killing with faint praise because they will be positioned to impose much more serious harm on the nation and the world.

Trump has, for example, chosen Matt Gaetz as the next Attorney General. As recently as June 18, 2024, the House Committee on Ethics has had this to say about the estimable Mr. Gaetz:

Notwithstanding the difficulty in obtaining relevant information from Representative Gaetz and others, the Committee has spoken with more than a dozen witnesses, issued 25 subpoenas, and reviewed thousands of pages of documents in this matter. Based on its review to date, the Committee has determined that certain of the allegations merit continued review. During the course of its investigation, the Committee has also identified additional allegations that merit review.

Accordingly, the Committee is reviewing allegations pursuant to Committee Rules 14(a)(3) and 18(a) that Representative Gaetz may have: engaged in sexual misconduct and illicit drug use, accepted improper gifts, dispensed special privileges and favors to individuals with whom he had a personal relationship, and sought to obstruct government investigations of his conduct. The Committee will take no further action at this time on the allegations that he may have shared inappropriate images or videos on the House floor, misused state identification records, converted campaign funds to personal use, and/or accepted a bribe or improper gratuity.

Recall that in Trump v United States, the worst decision in American legal history, the Supreme Court held that the President’s “discussions” with the Justice Department seeking to suborn DOJ into supporting false claims of 2020 election impropriety were “absolutely immune” from criminal prosecution.

The Gaetz appointment appears to be causing something of a stir among some Republicans, too much even for the Wall Street Journal.

This is a bad choice for AG that would undermine confidence in the law. Mr. Trump lauded Mr. Gaetz’s law degree from William and Mary, but it might as well be a doctorate in outrage theater. He’s a performer and provocateur, and his view is that the more explosions he can cause, the more attention he can get. “It’s impossible to get canceled if you’re on every channel,” he once said. “If you aren’t making news, you aren’t governing.”

The larger objections to Mr. Gaetz concern judgment and credibility. The U.S. Attorney General has to make calls on countless difficult questions of whom to investigate and indict. Mr. Gaetz’s decisions simply wouldn’t be trusted. He’s a nominee for those who want the law used for political revenge, and it won’t end well.

Contesting for the most insane actions by an elected president in history, I have just seen that Trump has, as predicted, appointed anti-vaxxer Robert Kennedy, Jr. to head the Department of Health and Human Services. While Kennedy has had many jobs and roles during his lifetime, he has never had a management responsibility even remotely on the scale of HHS. This appointment, like many others, seems destined to produce a nightmarish disaster for the country.

Even the Wall Street Journal found RFK Jr to much to choke down:

Only months ago Mr. Trump was calling the Kennedy family scion a “liberal lunatic,” yet now he wants to hand RFK Jr. the power to “make America healthy again.” Good luck making sense of this nomination.

Mr. Trump’s desire to focus on America’s health agencies is welcome, but RFK Jr. won’t make America healthier. He’s more likely to harm public health by spreading confusion and attacking the American companies that are saving lives and feeding the world.

Trump selected Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. Russian media has gleefully reported her claims that the Biden administration was intent upon prolonging the war in Ukraine, “out to destroy Russia” and that the Democratic Party was the enemy of democracy driven by an “insatiable hunger for power.” Armed with those deep thoughts, Gabbard joined the Republican Party and endorsed Trump’s candidacy. Given her positions and statements, some commenters have labeled her a “Russian asset.” Quite possible.

Trump chose Elise Stefanik to be Ambassador to the United Nations. This is the same Elise Stefanik who supported the January 6 attack on the Capitol and stated that she would have violated the law, the Constitution, and her oath of office by refusing to certify the 2020 election result. A solid Trumpian choice to represent the country in the council of nations.

Trump anointed South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem to head the Department of Homeland Security – you remember her, the person who shot her dog because she disapproved of his behavior. She will likely struggle with Trump’s related selection of Tom Homan as “border czar.” Homan served as acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the first Trump administration. About this appointment, Trump reportedly said that in addition to overseeing the southern and northern borders along with maritime, and aviation security, Homan “will be in charge of all Deportation of Illegal Aliens back to their Country of Origin.” Homan’s appointment apparently does not require Senate confirmation.

The reference to aviation security being under Homan is curious in that the Transportation Security Administration is part of the Department of Homeland Security. Trump may be signaling an intention to move it. I will leave to your imagination the implications of that for the travel security process at airports. Or maybe Trump simply doesn’t know anything about the organization of the federal government.

As the lead lunatic and merciless serial killer played by Woody Harrelson in the 1974 movie, Natural Born Killers, said when asked what he had to say to his fans, “you ain’t seen nothing yet.”

Trump has chosen a Fox News anchor, Pete Hegseth, for Secretary of Defense. Hegseth’s qualifications are that he was a soldier once and wrote some books attacking our current military policies. He is well-educated with a bachelor’s degree in politics from Princeton University and a master’s degree in public policy from Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Axios reports that Hegseth opposes using women in combat roles, believes the military is too “woke,” has (per CNN) urged Trump to pardon some U.S. servicemen accused of war crimes and to fire the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A quote attributed to him says, “You’ve got top-down political generals who’ve gained rank by playing by all the wrong rules that cater to the ideologues in Washington, D.C.”

It seems likely that Hegseth, who has been with Fox since 2014, is going to disrupt the chain of command while the U.S. is involved in large support roles in at least two wars: Middle East and Ukraine. Do you feel safer? Oh, and check out the photos of his tattoos. Oh, and check out the stories about his alleged sexual assault, that Hegseth denied but paid hush money anyway to secure the obligatory non-disclosure agreement. Curiously the stories I have seen don’t mention anything about DNA testing. Trump spokesman Steven Cheung reportedly has crowed that “Trump is nominating high-caliber and extremely qualified candidates to serve in his administration.” No doubt, Trump will be pleased with Cheung’s praise.

Trump also picked for Secretary of State the man he referred to as “little Marco” during the 2016 primaries. Rubio will exit the Senate, but Florida will no doubt elect a “suitable” MAGA replacement, so no joy there.

Trump’s pick for national security adviser, Michael Waltz, another Florida Republican, is reported to be a “China hawk” and likely opposed to giving more aid to Ukraine. If so, the seeds of internal conflict among Trump’s Cabinet on the Ukraine may be sown. Republican leaders generally seem disinclined to support Ukraine, and NATO itself, against Russia’s expansionist agenda, so Trump may well be on the verge of giving “aid and comfort” to one of our country’s principal adversaries. Treason, anyone?

Perhaps driven by his problematic experience with the gaggle of lawyers trying to help his campaign undermine the electoral process in 2020 and thereafter (also 2016, don’t forget), Trump has chosen William McGinley as White House counsel. Without a hint of awareness of the irony of it, Trump touted McGinley as someone who would resist the “weaponization of law enforcement.” Reportedly, McGinley’s MAGA credentials are solid: he was White House Cabinet secretary, Republican National Committee outside counsel for election integrity and general counsel for the GOP Senate campaign arm, the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Trump also chose right-wing Christian religious fanatic former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as U.S. Ambassador to Israel. Likely this means the slaughter in Gaza will continue. One report I saw indicates Muslims in Pennsylvania and Michigan who supported Trump are now upset with his pro-Israel nominations. This is what you get for single-issue protest votes.

In a related development, Trump appointed Steven Witkoff, a New York real estate baron, his special envoy to the Middle East. Witkoff, co-chair of Trump’s inaugural committee and a regular Trump golf partner, has reportedly been central to Trump’s connection with the Jewish business community.

Perhaps the least surprising and least interesting appointment so far is that of White House Chief of Staff that went to Trump campaign co-chair Susie Wiles, a Florida political operative. Lots of political folks from Florida in Trump’s crew.

Semi-finally, based on reports I’ve seen so far, the new CIA Director will be John Ratcliffe who was Trump’s former Director of National Intelligence. Ratcliffe previously was a Republican House member from, where else, Texas.

I will close this post for today with further observations about the Gaetz appointment. While Hegseth’s appointment as Secretary of Defense is shocking even for someone like Trump, it is put to shame by the elevation of Gaetz to the top federal law enforcement post.

USAToday noted that “Trump chose Gaetz to end ‘weaponization’ of Justice Department.” Again, awareness of irony is in short supply among these MAGA Republicans. USAToday notes

Trump and Gaetz both became fierce critics of the Justice Department after being investigated.”

Yes, that is to be expected, I suppose, but the idea that Gaetz is going to “end the weaponization of DOJ,” the agency Trump tried so hard to weaponize, is absurd. Trump only desisted because of threats by multiple DOJ leaders to resign if he put Jeffrey Clark in charge. Then the Supreme Court came along and found that Trump didn’t need to worry about weaponization of DOJ or any other federal agency because he was “absolutely immune” from prosecution for doing that very thing.

In replay of the replay of the replay, two female senators, Murkowski and Collins, engaged in brief public “shock” at the Gaetz nominations. Five will get you ten they will vote for confirmation.

Finally, here are some reactions among former government officials with knowledge:

“I cannot imagine a worse pick for Attorney General than Matt Gaetz.” [Edward Whelan, a deputy assistant attorney general during the George W. Bush administration]

“On a scale of 1 to 10, I’d call it a disaster.” [Harry Litman, a top Justice Department official during the Clinton administration]

“Our next Attorney General will be tasked with the safekeeping of the rule of law and our democracy, and Matt Gaetz is not fit for that job.” [Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee]

“He’s just trolling America at this point.” [Alyssa Farah Griffin, White House and Pentagon spokesperson in the first Trump administration]

“it must be the worst nomination for a Cabinet position in American history. Gaetz is not only totally incompetent for this job, he doesn’t have the character.” [John Bolton, Trump’s first term national security adviser]

Meanwhile, Jack Smith is closing his criminal prosecutions of Trump who will walk away unscathed for his traitorous behavior in office.

To end, finally, I turn to one of the smartest humans to share his brilliance with us in modern times: Edward O. Wilson (two Pulitzer Prizes), requoted from Your Brain on Art by Susan Magsamen & Ivy Ross:

Along with ants, bees, wasps, and termites, we humans are one of the only nineteen species on the entire planet that are eusocial. In other words, we work together to ensure our collective future. Group selection over individual survival developed with the core huma traits we have honed to this day including sympathy, empathy, and teamwork.

Altruism was essential to build and support community as a portion of the group members made sacrifices for the good of the group as a whole.

The authors added:

While it might not always seem the case, humans throughout history have more often chosen community and altruism over isolation and selfishness because irresolvable rivalry, from an evolutionary perspective, is deadly.

Woodward Nails It

Leave a reply

Disclosure: Bob Woodward and I knew each other in college, a long time ago. He was in the class behind me. We were friends then, and I still consider him one. We do not, however, socialize or otherwise see each other on a planned basis. This has been true since we talked occasionally during the Watergate crisis. He once generously referred to me as an advisor. I don’t know about that, but I do have high regard for his achievements as a consistent and reliable reporter on the inside stories of Washington into which he has had unique access and insight over many years and 23 books. If I have criticized (rarely) some of his conclusions, I have never questioned his commitment to truth as best he could discern it, a challenging undertaking in a place like Washington. One doesn’t earn two Pulitzer Prizes for fake news.

I have just finished War, his latest. As I read the book’s treatment of two international crises during the Biden administration (the latest and ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023), my first thought was how vivid was the portrayal of the complexity and stress of the nation’s international relations. The step-by-step negotiations, the dissembling, the uncertainty, the constant risk of escalation to unthinkable disaster – all of it — is laid out in remarkable detail.

The other main thought was how masterful Joe Biden was as leader of the United States’ response to these astonishing complex and fraught situations, while Donald Trump was violating US law by interfering in negotiations to enhance his status as an international king-maker. Biden’s constant masterful probing for pathways to success, considering options for de-escalation, serving as a calming influence while influencing often hostile nations to consider options to avoid calamity was extraordinary to observe.

Woodward’s ultimate conclusions bear repeating, but everyone should read this book, War, to get deep insight into how diplomacy is conducted and how difficult and fraught every interaction can be when lives are on the line. In those details is the ultimate proof of why the presidency should never be entrusted to Donald Trump again.

Woodward quotes Jake Sullivan’s assessment that seems exactly right:

The president has essentially created the necessary permission structure for sustained American support to Ukraine…. Would there be a war in Ukraine today if Trump were president? I would say probably not. Why? There’d be no war because Putin would be in Kyiv…. Trump would have waved him right in. Because when it comes to these dictators, Trump’s basic view: I let them do what they want….

The legacy of the Biden presidency will be the core national security team that he built and kept in place for nearly four years. They brought decades of experience as well as basic human decency. War shows the traditional and novel ways Biden and his core team pursued an intelligence-driven foreign policy to warn the world that war was coming in Ukraine, to supply Ukraine with the weapons they need to defend themselves against Russia, and to try to tamp down escalations in the Israel-Gaza war.

The real conclusion comes from Woodward himself, just before the end of the book:

Trump’s war was the coronavirus pandemic and his performance revealed his character. These interviews showed a man with no fidelity to the truth, fixated on re-election and unequipped to deal with a genuine crisis.

Trump was warned by his national security advisers that the virus was deadly and a major threat to the country but he never developed a plan to respond. He did not know how to use his extraordinary executive power to prioritize saving American lives. Through defiant pronouncements, he downplayed and deflected any responsibility for handling it. There was no compassion. No courage….

I once asked Trump, “What’s the job of the president?” He said, “To protect the people.”

It’s a good answer, but Trump failed to do it.

And then:

Donald Trump is not only the wrong man for the presidency, he is unfit to lead the country. Trump was far worse than Richard Nixon, the provably criminal president. As I have pointed out, Trump governed by fear and rage. And indifference to the public and national interest.

Trump was the most reckless and impulsive president in American history and is demonstrating the very same character as a presidential candidate in 2024.

Add to that the recent New York Times Editorial Board’s assessment:

Duplicity at the Washington Post

1 Reply

I was planning to name this post “Out-Snarking George Will’s Snark” but in the event, the bigger issue loomed larger. Following Jeff Bezos’ incoherent and logically deficient decision to withhold the endorsement that the editorial staff had prepared, the Post has continued its “both sides are equivalent” approach to what it thinks of as journalism.

The prime example that leapt to mind as the election looms is the continued publication of George Will’s “Opinion” articles. I have no insight as to why the Post has felt for decades now that Mr. Will’s “opinions” have such merit as to warrant regular presentation to what was once the Post’s vast audience. Mr. Will is, we know, a stalwart “conservative,” and a bastion of “conservative thought.” How this came to be I don’t know and don’t much care.

I address this now, on the eve of the most important election in, most likely, the history of the country, because Mr. Will’s latest exercise in verbal chicanery caused a hormonal overload of angst that I am helpless to control. I can exorcise it, if at all, by writing about it. Doing so will not change anything except perhaps bringing my heart rate back to safe levels.

Mr. Will’s “opinion” at issue here is entitled, “Voters face the worst presidential choice in U.S. history.”https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/01/donald-trump-kamala-harris-worst-choice/

One might think that he was both-sides-ing again (“There have been mediocrities and scoundrels in the 59 previous presidential elections. But nothing like this.”), but that would be wrong. Mr. Will’s duplicitous article, presumptively acceptable to the Post that published it, is, properly understood, an endorsement of Donald Trump.

A snarky aside: George Will is 83 years old, older even than I am. The photo accompanying his opinion articles is either Photoshopped or from decades ago. Compare the Getty Images at https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/george-will-columnist or in this idolatrous piece in the National Review wherein Mr. Will is lionized as a “dazzling writer and political thinker.” https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/george-f-will-an-appreciation/ Return now to the main point.

Mr. Will’s gift for word play is on full display in this piece: “Why prolong this incineration of the nation’s dignity?” While accurately describing Trump as a “volcano of stray thoughts and tantrums” who is “painfully well known,” he immediately pivots to insulting Kamala Harris by defining her exclusively by “her versatility of conviction” that “means that she might shed her new catechism as blithely as she acquired its progressive predecessor.”

Mr. Will pivots again to attacking the Democratic Party’s “reckless disingenuousness regarding the president’s frailty” followed by “the nimbleness of those without the ballast of seriousness about anything other than hoarding power … foisted on the electorate a Play-Doh candidate. Her manipulators made her malleability into her platform. Prudence is a virtue, so do not fault her handlers for mostly shielding her from public interactions more challenging than interviews with grammar school newspapers.” That is followed by more insults of Tim Walz whose “achievement during his pirouette in the spotlight has been to make his counterpart, JD Vance, resemble Aristotle.” Aristotle? I think not. More like Marcus Junius Brutus who conspired to murder Julius Caesar.

Mr. Will pivots again quickly to undermining Vance: his “stories,” or “fairy tales” claimed to be didactic, “might be if he, a bristling porcupine of certitudes, candidly demarcated his fictions from reality.” Pivot again to stating that Biden and Trump are equally guilty of bad choices of running mates. Mr. Will purports to prove his “both sides are bad” argument by outlining each side’s “pitiless exposure of the candidates’ peculiar promises and reprehensible silences.”

Mr. Will thus compares Trump as “pithy” when promising the impossible to “settle” Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 24 hours to Harris as “loquacious” in an interview about the US role in trying to influence events in the Middle East. He says, rightly, that Trump will not state, “Putin is an enemy” and Harris will not defend what he describes as Israel’s “right to fight as fiercely against genocidal enemies next door as the United States fought in World War II against enemies oceans away.”

I interject here if Mr. Will knew a tenth as much as he presumes to know about the Middle East, he could comment with authority. But it’s apparent to me he has either not read Bob Woodward’s new book, War, or simply refuses to understand the inconvenient realities of possibly the most complex political, cultural, ethic, and religious situation in modern history.

Mr. Will pivots again to whining about what he calls “entitlements,” referring to the large sums of my, and your, money withheld from your pay over your lifetime to assure you had a fiscal lifeline in retirement by returning your money to you. Entitlement? Nah. And Medicare, the other subject of Mr. Will’s angst? We might not need it if our health and related insurance systems weren’t such a pathetic joke.

I will here skip over some of Mr. Will’s further distortions of stated positions to the real beauty in this article. He purports to claim that the award for “most embarrassing voice” this year goes to an unnamed “Idaho Republican who, in a public forum, told a Native American to “go back where you came from.” Mr. Will concludes that part with “Let’s do go back to where we come from: the nation’s founding of a limited government.”

Ah! So, there it is. Mr. Will believes “where we came from” as a nation is “the founding of a limited government,” the siren song of the traditional, now long lost in the miasma of Trumpism, “conservative” understanding of what the country is all about and how it got there. Unwittingly, perhaps but likely not, Mr. Will gives us the “big reveal” by failing/refusing to grasp the parts of our national history that inconveniently ignore the “Americans” who were here before us and the abject inadequacy of the Articles of Confederation that failed to produce a national government that could manage even the rudimentary nation that emerged in the immediate aftermath of the American Revolution.

The Articles were the “limited government” of Mr. Will’s fever dreams. They are close to the most likely model for the “government” that Trump/Vance promise to give us and that the Supreme Court has to some extent already ordained as the preferred method of managing our more than 330 million people spread over more than 3.7 million square miles of contiguous territory. Trump/Vance promise to eviscerate the federal government, returning us to the fantasy land of yesteryear when a confederacy of states each of which will be in charge of its own destiny (at least until the next hurricane strikes) and the “United” States will withdraw from most international relationships in favor of an isolationist “America First” that in the past has led straight to war.

Thus, in the end, while purporting to argue that the two presidential candidates of 2024 are deficient in all and mostly mutual respects, Mr. Will ultimately buys into Trump/Vance’s “vision” of a country consisting of 50 separate entities, each acting as its “locals” prefer with a national government populated by political loyalists of the President and free from the inconvenient constraints of the Constitution and criminal laws.

You would think Mr. Will has not read or understood much of American history, modeling Trump’s “don’t tell me, don’t ask me to read it, I already know everything I need to know to benefit me.” Mr. Will’s opening suggestion that both candidates are equivalent and deficient is overwhelmed in the end by his implicit recognition that his historical understanding fits neatly with Trump/Vance’s ravings. Thus, although Mr. Will claims the 2024 candidate have been “greeted … by grimaces from sea to shining sea” (sorry, but I had to include it), in the end only one will be victorious and if it’s Mr. Will’s “favorite among equals,” the nation is in for a disastrous end. See, for example, https://shiningseausa.com/2024/10/25/america-trump-wants-for-you-your-children/ and https://shiningseausa.com/2024/07/02/another-day-that-will-live-in-infamy/

The Strongman Fantasy (And Dictatorship in Real Life)

Leave a reply

Professor Timothy Snyder, an expert in, among other things, the theory and reality of politics and law, has written an extraordinary summary of the result of electing a “strongman” to power. Professor Snyder, the author of, among other works, On Tyranny – Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, wrote this for Substack and encouraged sharing of his thoughts.

Here they are, verbatim but with hyperlinks removed. Pay attention. It may be your last chance.

“Quite a few Americans like the idea of strongman rule. Why not a dictator who will get things done?

I lived in eastern Europe when memories of communism were fresh. I have visited regions in Ukraine where Russia imposed its occupation regime. I have spent decades reading testimonies of people who lived under Nazi or Stalinist rule. I have seen death pits, some old, some freshly dug. And I have friends who have lived under authoritarian regimes, including political prisoners and survivors of torture. Some of the people I trusted most have been assassinated.

So I think that there is an answer to this question.

Strongman rule is a fantasy. Essential to it is the idea that a strongman will be your strongman. He won’t. In a democracy, elected representatives listen to constituents. We take this for granted, and imagine that a dictator would owe us something. But the vote you cast for him affirms your irrelevance. The whole point is that the strongman owes us nothing. We get abused and we get used to it.

Another pleasant illusion is that the strongman will unite the nation. But an aspiring dictator will always claim that some belong and others don’t. He will define one group after another as the enemy. This might feel good, so long as you feel that you are on the right side of the line. But now fear is the essence of life. The politics of us-and-them, once begun, never ends.

We dream that a strongman will let us focus on America. But dictatorship opens our country to the worst the world has to offer. An American strongman will measure himself by the wealth and power of other dictators. He will befriend them and compete with them. From them he will learn new ways to oppress and to exploit his own people.

At least, the fantasy goes, the strongman will get things done. But dictatorial power today is not about achieving anything positive. It is about preventing anyone else from achieving anything. The strongman is really the weak man: his secret is that he makes everyone else weaker.

Unaccountable to the law and to voters, the dictator has no reason to consider anything beyond his own personal interests. In the twenty-first century, those are simple: dying in bed as a billionaire. To enrich himself and to stay out of prison, the strongman dismantles the justice system and replaces civil servants with loyalists.

The new bureaucrats will have no sense of accountability. Basic government functions will break down. Citizens who want access will learn to pay bribes. Bureaucrats in office thanks to patronage will be corrupt, and citizens will be desperate. Quickly the corruption becomes normal, even unquestioned.

As the fantasy of strongman rule fades into everyday dictatorship, people realize that they need things like water or schools or Social Security checks. Insofar as such goods are available under a dictatorship, they come with a moral as well as a financial price. When you go to a government office, you will be expected to declare your personal loyalty to the strongman.

If you have a complaint about these practices, too bad. Americans are litigious people, and many of us assume that we can go to the police or sue. But when you vote a strong man in, you vote out the rule of law. In court, only loyalism and wealth will matter. Americans who do not fear the police will learn to do so. Those who wear the uniform must either resign or become the enforcers of the whims of one man.

Everybody (except the dictator and his family and friends) gets poorer. The market system depends upon competition. Under a strongman, there will be no such thing. The strongman’s clan will be favored by government. Our wealth inequality, bad enough already, will get worse. Anyone hoping for prosperity will have to seek the patronage of the official oligarchs. Running a small business will become impossible. As soon as you achieve any sort of success, someone who wants your business denounces you.

In the fantasy of the strongman, politics vanishes and all is clear and bright. In fact, a dreary politics penetrates everything. You can’t run a business without the threat of denunciation. You can’t get basic services without humiliation. You feel bad about yourself. You think about what you say, since it can be used against you later. What you do on the internet is recorded forever, and can land you in prison.

Public space closes down around you. You cannot escape to the bar or the bowling alley, since everything you say is monitored. The person on the next stool or in the next lane might not turn you in, but you have to assume they will. If you have a t-shirt or a bumper sticker with a message, someone will report you. Even if you just repeat the dictator’s words, someone can lie about you and denounce you. And then, if you voted for the strongman, you will be confused. But you should not be. This is what you voted for.

Denunciation becomes normal behavior. Without law and voting, denouncing others helps people to feel safe. Under strongman rule, you cannot trust your colleagues or your friends or even your family. Political fear not only takes away all public space; it also corrupts all private relationships. And soon it consumes your thoughts. If you cannot say what you think, you lose track of what you believe. You cease to be yourself.

If you have a heart attack and go to the hospital, you have to worry that your name is on a list. Care of elderly parents is suddenly in jeopardy. That hospital bed or place in a retirement home is no longer assured. If you draw attention to yourself, aged relatives will be dumped in the street. This is not how America works now, but it is how authoritarian regimes always work.

In the strongman fantasy, no one thinks about children. But fear around children is the essence of dictatorial power. Even courageous people restrain themselves to protect their children. Parents know that children can be singled out and beaten up. If parents step out of line, children lose any chance of going to university, or lose their jobs.

Schools collapse anyway, since a dictator only wants myths that justify his power. Children learn in school to denounce one another. Each coming generation must be more tame and ignorant than the prior one. Time with young children stresses parents. Either your children repeat propaganda and tell you things you know are wrong, or you worry that they will find out what is right and get in trouble.

In a dictatorship, parents no longer say what they think to their children, because they fear that their children will repeat it in public. And once parents no longer speak their minds at home, they can no longer create a trusting family. Even parents who give up on honesty have to fear that their children will one day learn the truth, take action, and get imprisoned.

Once this process begins, it is hard to stop. At the present stage of the strongman fantasy, people imagine an exciting experiment. If they don’t like strongman rule, they think, they can just elect someone else the next time. This misses the point. If you help a strongman come to power, you are eliminating democracy. You burn that bridge behind you. The strongman fantasy dissolves, and real dictatorship remains.

Most likely you won’t be killed or be required to kill. But amid the dreariness of life under dictatorship is dark responsibility for others’ death. By the time the killing starts, you will know that it is not about unity, or the nation, or getting things done. The best Americans, betrayed by you when you cast your vote, will be murdered at the whim and for the wealth of a dictator. Your tragedy will be living long enough to understand this.”

This Is How It’s Done!

Leave a reply

The following is verbatim the published endorsement of Kamala Harris by the Seattle Times:

Hell yes! The Seattle Times edit board endorses Harris for president

Oct. 29, 2024 at 3:53 pm

The Seattle Times editorial board endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president on Sept. 1. (Courtesy of the White House)

By Frank Blethen and Kate Riley

Seattle Times publisher and Times editorial page editor

As one of the country’s very few family-owned and -operated metro newspapers left, The Seattle Times is also apparently one of the few whose editorial board is willing to endorse presidential candidates. (For the record, the board, which operates independently of the newsroom, backed Vice President Kamala Harris Sept. 1.)

This is unfathomable, given that the other leading candidate clearly threatens the foundation of our 248-year-old American democracy and the rule of law.

How does it happen that someone as selfish and destructive as former President Donald Trump could actually become our president — again? After he fanned the Jan. 6 insurgency, after his felony convictions and after a civil court ruled he committed sexual assault?

One answer is the demise of local newspapers across our country.

Once the pride of rural communities and big cities alike, about half the country’s daily newspapers have been lost. Too many of the rest are inferior products being milked to death by absent mercenary investors.

Since my great-grandfather, Alden Blethen, founded The Seattle Times in 1896, the Blethen family has proudly guided The Seattle Times. Our current fourth generation has been in control since 1985.

We take our journalism and community service very seriously. We have been preparing our fifth generation for Times leadership when I step down at the end of 2025. And members of the sixth interned in our newsroom this summer.

So it is with consternation that I and editorial page editor Kate Riley learned that the publishers of two of America’s most venerable newspapers on both coasts decided not to weigh in at all, even though their editorial boards were preparing Harris endorsements.

The decisions appear to have been made by the billionaire owners — Jeff Bezos of The Washington Post and Patrick Soon-Shiong of the Los Angeles Times. That prompted protests and resignations at both papers. The reasons given were about political divisions, wanting to let voters make up their own minds and to restore public trust, according to the Columbia Journalism Review.

Bezos, founder of Amazon, explained his decision in an op-ed on the Post’s Opinion page. Read it here: st.news/bezos

“Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, ‘I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.’ None,” Bezos wrote. “What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.”

At The Times, we have a wall between the newsroom and the editorial board. Editorial writers do not ask news staff about their opinions, nor do we get involved in their coverage. We do our own reporting.

We were pleased The New York Times joined our editorial board in endorsing Kamala Harris. In fact, NYT Opinion doubled down, making a dramatic statement by filling the front of its Sunday section with just 23 words. In large, bold type, the NYT editorial board made this indictment:

DONALD TRUMP SAYS HE WILL
PROSECUTE HIS ENEMIES
ORDER MASS DEPORTATIONS
USE SOLDIERS AGAINST CITIZENS
ABANDON ALLIES
PLAY POLITICS WITH DISASTERS
BELIEVE HIM.

Trump has become shameless in his pronouncements of his plans and his denouncements of so many Americans. He can only set the country back and put our nation at risk.

The Seattle Times editorial board, and the Blethen family, enthusiastically endorse Kamala Harris.

Frank Blethen; is publisher of The Seattle Times and the great-grandson of the 128-year-old company’s founder.

Kate Riley; is the editorial page editor at The Seattle Times: kriley@seattletimes.com; on Twitter: @k8riley.

	hackmannuidahoedu on The Deposition of Jack Smith,…
	wmmanuel on WAPO, Your Bezos Is Showi…
	Nadine Godwin on WAPO, Your Bezos Is Showi…
	shiningseausa on Which Side of the Boat Should…
	J. Rebekka Bonner on Which Side of the Boat Should…

SHINING SEA

Ideas & Images

Viewpoint Discrimination at Substack — AI Bot??

Viewpoint Discrimination at Substack

Time to Face Reality

A Story for the Season … & All Seasons

The Nauseating Descent of Mainstream Media

Only the Best People

Woodward Nails It

Duplicity at the Washington Post

The Strongman Fantasy (And Dictatorship in Real Life)

This Is How It’s Done!

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: