On a Prospective Government Shutdown; the Comey Indictment

As all who care are aware, the federal government will shut down on October 1 unless Congress passes the appropriate funding measures. The first time the government faced such a deadline during President Donald Trump’s second term, a sufficient number of Democratic Senators, led by Senate Minority Leader U.S. NY Sen. Chuck Schumer – to the extreme irritation of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party — supported Republican, Administration-supported measures to keep the government open. (I agreed with Sen. Schumer.) Now, understandably even further inflamed by Administration policies that are increasingly autocratic and clearly favor the interests of the well-to-do over the impoverished, and frustrated with their own glaring political impotence, many on the left are urging that unless the Administration provides certain concessions to Democrats (which I understand primarily involve ensuring against the loss or maintaining the continued affordability of health care for millions of Americans of lesser means), Senate Democrats should withhold the votes needed to continue to fund the government, thus forcing a shutdown.

All who read any of these notes are well aware that I am appalled by the Administration’s priorities and terrified by the direction our country is heading. While I acknowledge that Democrats’ choice has moral as well as policy dimensions, I nevertheless submit that causing a government stoppage would be an egregious political blunder for Democrats. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but the next time that Americans ultimately blame a government shutdown on the party in power … will be the first time. In these sorts of conflicts, the MAGAs have proven to be as savvy as they are ruthless. They don’t care if the government shuts down. One can easily anticipate that the Trump Administration will continue to pay federal debts, military defense costs, and immigration enforcement expenses, while laying off federal workers, trimming support for state services, Social Security benefits, Medicare reimbursements, and FEMA (remember, we’re in hurricane season). Timing is everything. The dangers to Americans’ health care costs that Democrats are seeking to avoid won’t meaningfully occur for months. On the other hand, how long will it take for those being laid off or on Mainstreet America to decide that Democrats are to blame for the jobs, benefits and services they’re losing now?

I’ll take this one: Democrats might be able to hold favorable public sentiment for about a week if they were skillful publicists. Unfortunately, Mr. Schumer and House Minority Leader U.S. NY Rep. Hakeem Jeffries couldn’t rally a class of kindergarteners to an ice cream stand. Democrats are seemingly expecting centrist voters, some of whom clearly either couldn’t discern or forgot that Mr. Trump incited an insurrection, ignored Mr. Trump’s 34 felony convictions, presumably believed that Mr. Trump would lower inflation while imposing tariffs, and were apparently confident that Mr. Trump would conclude the Russian/Ukrainian and Israeli/Hamas conflicts in one day, to look beyond the ends of their noses and grasp Democrats’ nuanced justification for bringing about a shutdown. I give the Democrats three days before they are publicly overrun by MAGA propaganda. The fact that Mr. Trump and Republican Congressional Leadership cancelled a negotiation session with Congressional Democrats scheduled for this week indicates that they agree with me.

I consider the October, 1974 Heavyweight Championship Title Bout between Champion George Foreman and Challenger Muhammad Ali to aptly fit the Democrats’ current situation. In the fight’s early rounds, Mr. Ali, the heavy underdog then well past his prime, let the younger, at that point stronger and more able Mr. Foreman punch himself out in the African heat before coming back to knock Mr. Foreman out. Mr. Ali understood that he had to absorb the punishment until the time was right to respond. If Mr. Ali had come out swinging too early, he would have lost.

The only way to win back America is to win at the ballot box. With all the obstructions I expect that MAGAs will institute to free and fair voting in 2026 and 2028, achieving electoral victory is going to be hard enough. Although it may be natural to focus on the 2028 presidential election, the Administration has moved so quickly to install an American Apartheid that the democratic aspirations of those who oppose its efforts may rest on Democrats’ ability to secure control of Congress in 2026. While premature gallant gestures will make some feel good, I would submit that Democrats cannot provide MAGAs with any pretexts that will enable them to shift blame for Americans’ difficulties elsewhere. I fear that progressives and liberals are living in their own delusional bubble as to how “the people” will ultimately attribute responsibility for the impending government stoppage. The time still isn’t right for a showdown. The one positive that could result from millions of Americans being callously deprived of their health care in 2026 is that no one – not even MAGAs – will blame Democrats. Democrats are so viscerally associated, across the political spectrum, with efforts to expand American health care that the coverage losses and degradations credibly predicted to occur in 2026 will be rightly blamed on the Trump Administration. If Democrats prematurely distract and inflame members of potentially decisive voter segments who may be having qualms about Mr. Trump’s leadership by forcing a government shutdown now, they may make their path to a 2026 electoral victory even harder than it already will be.

But what about the Comey indictment, you ask? I just added this reference to former FBI Director James Comey’s indictment yesterday to this previously-scheduled note to show you that I was still awake. While it remains important to note that the Administration was able to obtain an indictment from a panel of citizens who believed that there was probable cause, based upon the evidence presented to them by the Administration, that Mr. Comey had committed the crime for which he is charged, it is beyond any doubt that the United States Department of Justice is prosecuting Mr. Comey at President Donald Trump’s instruction because Mr. Trump hates him. The Administration’s action provides as clear a basis as we’ve had to date for the autocratic dangers I alluded to above. Frankly, although you have enough to worry about with your own psyche without hearing about mine, what surprised me most about the news of Mr. Comey’s indictment was that I received it with such equanimity. Then, I understood: the day this man was reelected, I knew what was going to happen. I already knew.

On Campaign Finance

“The laws which I shall promulgate will not be complete in detail (that would be an endless task), but will present the gist and sense of the provisions.”

Roman Statesman and Philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero; The Laws

Over much of the last year, these pages have focused primarily on the threat to our republic presented by President Donald Trump and his MAGA acolytes. While the Trump Administration has moved even more quickly than I anticipated to establish an American Apartheid, in this note and at times in the future, I intend to venture sentiments as to how we might address various issues I consider of concern to the future of our nation – whether or not there is any realistic possibility of their being enacted. (The one addressed here would, given the Supreme Court’s decision, Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, require a Constitutional Amendment or a reconstituted Court.) There may be points at which the suggestions I offer in one of these notes might be inconsistent with what I express in another; in a nation as complex as ours, there are always competing valid interests in need of reconciliation. In these posts, I am going to try to follow the counsel of Cicero, and set forth a “gist and sense” of direction on an issue without delving into detail. (We’ll see how well I succeed. 😉 )

“In order to achieve the widest possible distribution of political power, financial contributions to political campaigns should be made by individuals, and individuals alone. I see no reason for labor unions – or corporations – to participate in politics. [Emphasis in Original]”

The late U.S. AZ Sen. Barry Goldwater; The Conscience of a Conservative

Mr. Goldwater’s book, published in 1960, was the first book I reread after I retired. Whether or not one agreed with him on all issues, he was a straight-talking, no-nonsense traditional conservative, not the MAGA variety. Since our nation, assisted by a Republican-dominated Supreme Court, has gone in the opposite direction from that urged by Mr. Goldwater 65 years ago, we are confronted – as he in effect suggested we would be – with a concentration of political power in few hands. The premise that money is speech is absurd.

I would suggest that our body politic would be better served by the following rules:

Only natural persons can contribute to political campaigns. (No corporations, no labor unions, no centralized political parties, no Political Action Committees, etc., etc., etc.)

A natural person can only contribute to the campaign of a candidate for whom s/he can vote. (This would eliminate the flood of money into state and local races by outside influences.)

A natural person can only contribute to one candidate in a campaign. (Limiting the ability to curry influence with both sides.)

A natural person’s contribution limit is $3,500 per campaign, adjusted annually for inflation.

A candidate and the candidate’s spouse can contribute up to $50,000 to the candidate’s campaign.

Any campaign contributions a candidate retains at the end of his/her campaign (i.e., either as of election day or the day the candidate end/ceases active campaigning, whether or not the candidate formally ends or suspends his/her campaign) must be refunded on a pro-rata basis to the contributors (with appropriate sums from the cache deducted to pay the cost of returning the refunds).

It shall be illegal for any person to give money to or receive money from another person with the intent that the recipient will contribute the gift to a candidate’s campaign.

It shall be illegal for any person or organization to influence a natural person to contribute to any campaign.

It shall be illegal for any organization to fund or publish works explicitly or impliedly endorsing or criticizing any candidate or political party.

I have undoubtedly missed points that have occurred to you; there are certainly loopholes in what has been suggested; but you get the “gist and sense.” These notions may only be a start; but I would submit that instituting them would put us in a better position than we are now. Feel free to add any suggestions — or indicate why you feel what is set forth here is entirely misguided Noise 😊.

Stay well.

Jimmy Kimmel

You can write this post; you don’t need me. A couple of observations to support yours:

First, consider again ABC Late Night Host Jimmy Kimmel’s comments on Monday night regarding the assassination of MAGA Activist Charlie Kirk – comments I understand that Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr thereafter called the “sickest possible,” and suggested could cause the FCC to revoke ABC affiliate licenses — which seemingly resulted in Mr. Kimmel’s suspension:

“The MAGA gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it. In between the finger pointing, there was grieving.”

Any humor there? No. Arguably in poor taste? Sure. But as political commentary, Mr. Kimmel’s remarks seem to me remarkably benign. The first half of his first sentence — if that’s all there was — has all the earmarks of having been torturously approved by an angst-ridden lawyer (who, if so, may well have also lost his/her job), and doesn’t allege that Mr. Kirk’s murderer was a MAGA adherent. The remainder of Mr. Kimmel’s comments — given what we’ve seen spewed from President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller since Mr. Kirk’s murder – is certainly tenable.

Second, not to be overlooked in the hubbub, is a social media post by Mr. Trump after Mr. Kimmel’s suspension, which declared in part:

“Kimmel has ZERO talent and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that’s possible. That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!! President DJT” [Capitalization of ZERO by Mr. Trump; italics added].

I could remark on the obviously ominous relentless nature of that declaration, but won’t. After all, you’re writing this one.

On the Passing of Charlie Kirk

As all are aware, MAGA Activist Charlie Kirk, 31, was assassinated via long-range rifle shot on September 10. A few impressions arise, none terribly unique.

The first is my realization that as I decry MAGAs for staying within their own media silo, I clearly remain within my own. If you would have asked me on September 9 who Charlie Kirk was, I would only have been able to indicate that he was an alt-right influencer; I was not nearly as aware of him or of the outsized influence he apparently had on the MAGA movement as I am, for example, of Steve Bannon.

The second is the most important: no one should be a victim of violence, in the political sphere or otherwise. Mr. Kirk leaves a wife and two children. The terrible atmosphere of violence to which we have devolved need not be elaborated upon here. I understand that some on the right are loudly criticizing some on the left whom the rightists feel either haven’t shown sufficient remorse or perhaps indicated outright pleasure at Mr. Kirk’s demise. I don’t follow much in the social media sphere (quite an admission for a blogger 😉 ), but any expression of pleasure or satisfaction at Mr. Kirk’s passing is more than callous; it is barbaric. To the extent any such expressions have been made, those on the right are absolutely correct to condemn them. At the same time, although it is only human nature to feel more deeply the loss of those with whom one feels kinship, I would suggest that the rightists criticizing those on the left are entitled to expect the same level of regret from the leftists regarding Mr. Kirk’s passing that they themselves felt regarding the hammer attack on 82-year-old Paul Pelosi, or the June shooting death of liberal Minnesota House of Representatives Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman, or the spring arson attack on PA Gov. Josh Shapiro.

The third impression is as ominous as it is predictable. I have seen reported that in a video following Mr. Kirk’s death, President Donald Trump denounced the “radical Left” for rhetoric that he claimed to be “directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today” – while failing to mention the incidents involving Ms. Hortman and Messrs. Pelosi and Shapiro. The President reportedly added, “It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible.” (Mr. Trump’s hypocrisy is, of course, palpable.) Also on the day of Mr. Kirk’s murder, the New York Times reported that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller tweeted, “All of us must now dedicate ourselves to defeating the evil that stole Charlie from this world.” [Emphasis Added] Coming from arguably the most partisan member of the Trump Administration, such an expression was chilling. It remains to be seen how aggressively the President and his acolytes will try to exploit Mr. Kirk’s assassination against their political opponents. In these situations, one rarely goes wrong assuming that they will proceed the most shamelessly.

Since Mr. Kirk’s assassination, I have become acquainted through various sources with a number of his pronouncements. Although Mr. Kirk was clearly an able, articulate, and bright man, I consider most of what I understand to be his positions to be abhorrent trash. I have seen one of his 2023 declarations, dealing with gun rights, quoted in several quarters, presumably because it is considered ironic by those who have cited it: “I think it’s worth [it] to have a cost of unfortunately some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”

While I have now confirmed that I agreed with Mr. Kirk on very little, I will nonetheless take the liberty of paraphrasing him: it is worth the cost of having those with whom we vehemently disagree speak and move safely among us so that we can all enjoy the First Amendment Right of Free Speech to protect our other God-given rights. That Mr. Kirk was struck down is as great a danger to our democracy as the divisive views he espoused. I understand that he frequently proclaimed his Christianity. May he, as I pray I will, be judged by a merciful God.

Sticking It to the Man by Getting Stuck

We’ll get to the main point of this note in a minute.

First, I’m old enough to actually remember U.S. NY Senator, former U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. His life has been chronicled hundreds of times: at 5’9” or 5’10”, he was the shortest of the four Kennedy brothers – Joe, Jack, and Ted were all six foot tall or more – but the most feisty; the ramrod manager of his brother’s successful campaign for the presidency; as the Right Hand of the Man, the Kennedy Administration lightning rod tough guy who nonetheless provided the sagest advice during the Cuban Missile Crisis (because of his relationship with his brother, he could psychologically safely counsel a softer approach than the more warlike measures urged by the majority of President Kennedy’s Crisis ExComm team); a more passionate, empathetic figure than his brother – who was coolly intellectual behind closed doors – he had his Justice Department provide quiet assistance to the Civil Rights Movement, and in the years following his brother’s assassination was the most powerful advocate for Civil Rights in America. (Dr. Martin Luther King was the movement’s leader, but never had the influence with White America commanded of Mr. Kennedy, the closest link the grieving country had to its charismatic martyred president.) I doubt that any white American politician will ever again have the passionate allegiance of the black community that Robert Kennedy had the day he was assassinated. Not as gifted a speaker as his brother, he nonetheless inspired millions. He might or might not have made a great president of the United States; our great presidents have relished being president, while Mr. Kennedy was more comfortable being “the guy who stands next to the guy,” and only assumed a role at the forefront due to his outrage at the mistreatment of Black America and President Lyndon Johnson’s handling of the Vietnam War (he and Mr. Johnson hated each other). But Robert F. Kennedy was without doubt in the top tier of the most important non-presidents America had in the second half of the last century. Immediately below is a link to Edward Kennedy’s eulogy at his brother’s funeral; it is worth listening to not only for Edward’s Kennedy’s description of his brother but for Robert Kennedy’s own words, which his brother quoted at length in the middle of his remembrance. Listening to these, I think one can assume that Robert Kennedy would be unspeakably saddened at how we have handled the more than half-century since his passing.

To state the obvious: I just took your time with the last paragraph because it aggravates me that for the rest of their lives most Americans younger than septuagenarians will primarily associate the name, “Robert F. Kennedy,” with the Senator’s namesake son, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who is, of course, an idiot supported by pinheads misleading the gullible. Yesterday’s Senate Finance Committee’s meeting featuring Mr. Kennedy, Jr. allowed Senators of both parties to sound off but did nothing to protect public health or the scientific integrity of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

We have a significant number of different pharmaceutical outlets in our Madison area, and have a number of friends over 65 who are desirous of receiving the latest version of the COVID vaccination despite the quackery being spouted by Mr. Kennedy, Jr. and his clown menagerie. You’d think that even under the unduly restrictive guidelines recently spewed by Mr. Kennedy, Jr.’s CDC, it would be relatively straightforward for anyone over 65 in the Madison area wishing a COVID vaccination to get one. But seemingly not so, at least not yet. Seniors compare notes of their experiences. As of earlier this week, one regional chain had yet to receive the new vaccination; a representative of another, larger, organization indicated that it was reluctant to proceed with vaccinations because it wasn’t sure of the new rules; another, yet more established pharmacy, told a friend of ours that it required a prescription to administer the vaccination, which our friend understood applied to all ages; but we found another – which, at least as of earlier this week, would administer the new COVID vaccination if simply provided with identification, age, and the same consent forms as have been required with past inoculations.

We scurried over. I don’t know how our request for a vaccination would have been received had we been under 65, but this was one instance where being of Medicare age was a true plus. We got our COVID shots.

The depth of emotion I felt as I got my shot made me recall my emotion when I received my first COVID vaccination in 2021. Then, it was immense relief: there seemed a way forward from the danger that had literally plagued us and cost millions of lives during the preceding year. This time, my depth of emotion was similar, but the sentiment was different; it was intense – no, savage – satisfaction at having thwarted, at least in this one case by this one old American, the buffoonery and confusion being foisted upon us by an Administration equal parts autocratic and moronic.

Get some perspective, you say: this week Chinese President Xi Jinping rallied the world’s primary autocracies against democracies that are currently in disarray due to President Donald Trump’s own dictatorial inclinations and incompetence, Mr. Trump currently appears intent on consolidating his American Apartheid, and getting the vaccination wasn’t that big a deal for me since Mr. Kennedy, Jr.’s CDC has authorized those 65 and older to get the COVID shot if they want it. True enough. However, I can’t do anything about the first, and can only protest and blog about the second; as to the last, even if Mr. Kennedy, Jr. is saying that I can get the shot – at least this year – we both know that he didn’t want me to.

We stuck it to The Man by getting stuck. It was … priceless.

In September, Baseball is Hard

Since I have addressed the fortunes of the Milwaukee Brewers here a few times over the years, it should be noted that as of today, the team, which lost one of its primary contributors to free agency during the past offseason, nonetheless surprisingly – nay, stunningly – maintains the best record in baseball. Notwithstanding its loss to the Philadelphia Phillies yesterday, it has a credible 5 ½ game lead in the National League Central Division over the Chicago Cubs, and respective 4 ½ and 6 game leads over Philadelphia and the Los Angeles Dodgers for the National League’s best record; if Milwaukee finishes the season with a better record than Chicago and either the NL East or NL West Division winners, it will be entitled to a first-round playoff bye. Although one might have reservations about the team’s ability to prevail in the postseason against payroll-heavy, star-studded heavyweights like the Dodgers, the Brewers are a heartening example of the little guy getting ahead.

Even so, as all of us with knowledge of the game’s history are well aware – and as the Brewers were reminded yesterday – in September, baseball is hard. On September 2, 1951, the Brooklyn Dodgers held a 5 game lead over the ultimate National League Champion New York Giants (although New York’s victory is tarnished by credible reporting that its late-season surge was aided by a sign stealing scheme); on September 2, 1964, the Philadelphia Phillies held a 7 ½ game lead in the National League over the ultimate World Champion St. Louis Cardinals; on September 2, 1969 (I know; this hurts) the Chicago Cubs held a 5 game lead in the National League East over the ultimate World Champion New York Mets; and on September 2, 1982, the Milwaukee Brewers held a 5 game lead in the American League East over the Baltimore Orioles [although this turned out happily for Brewer fans, it took two home runs by Most Valuable Player and future Hall of Famer Robin Yount off Baltimore Ace and future Hall of Famer Jim Palmer – plus a career catch at a crucial point by Leftfielder Ben Oglivie (not exactly known for his fielding) — in the last game of the season for Milwaukee to win the AL East].

You get the point. Although September 2 sounds like the playoffs are almost here, there is still a sixth of the season left to play. It remains to be seen whether this year’s Brewers have the grit and tenacity of the 1982 team.

All that said, this year it has been difficult for me to pay much attention to the Brewers’ success; as I watch President Donald Trump and his MAGA cohort dismantle our republic, I can’t escape the notion that any enthusiasm I have for a team’s fortunes is akin to a Czech’s optimism in early 1938 about his nation’s chances in the 1940 Olympics. I am hopeful that the intensity of the upcoming NFL season will provide me with an occasional temporary distraction that baseball, with its daily, languid pace – traditionally, the core of its charm — has not.

But don’t listen to me. In early 1942, Major League Baseball Commissioner Kenesaw M. Landis asked President Franklin Roosevelt whether America’s Pastime should suspend its season in light of America’s entry into World War II. Mr. Roosevelt responded with his so-called “Green Light Letter,” in which he indicated, “I honestly feel it would be best for the country to keep baseball going. … [E]verybody will work longer hours and harder than ever before. And that means that they ought to have a chance for recreation and for taking their minds off their work even more than before.” Despite my much more attentive following of the Packers than the Brewers in recent years, if given a choice between a Brewer World Championship and a Green Bay Super Bowl title, I would, in memory of the 1982 Brewers, opt for the Brewer World Championship.

So heed Mr. Roosevelt’s long-ago sentiments. A pleasant distraction has its place. Go to the ballpark and have a hotdog and a beer (avoid elitist crap like sushi and canned fruity alcoholic concoctions 😉 ). The days of summer are waning. Cherish those that remain.

The Standing of Labor

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital, producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor community exists within that relation. …

The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages for awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires a new beginner to help him. This is the just, and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way to all – gives hope to all, and consequent energy, and progress, and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty — none less inclined to take, or touch, aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which, if surrendered, will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them, till all of liberty shall be lost.”

Abraham Lincoln; Excerpt from the President’s Annual Message to Congress; December 3, 1861

Although many, including me, decry our seeming current descent toward autocracy, it is too easy to overlook that desperation spawns desperate measures, including the placement of hope in false Messiahs. I fear we have fallen into the trap that Mr. Lincoln warned about over 150 years ago. While there are obviously a number of factors that have contributed to our present dysfunctional political state, it is undeniable that almost a half century of policies encouraging greed over community have contributed mightily to where we find ourselves today. Former President Ronald Reagan started this transition. I consider Mr. Reagan a good man who truly believed that men, less regulated and less taxed, would do the right thing to ensure the betterment of all. He was wrong. I sincerely question whether our current president cares about the struggling millions, somehow blinded by calls of “freedom,” who follow him so ardently. May we see the adoption – under the next president, if not this one – of policies that will start to remedy the inequities that have so sullied the American experience. Let each of us take a moment during the coming weekend to remember and celebrate the efforts of those — both Americans and those from other lands — who toil, or yearn to toil, to make America stronger.

Enjoy the Holiday.

On California Legislative Redistricting

As all who care are aware, the MAGA-controlled Texas legislature recently enacted legislation redrawing Texas’ legislative districts in a manner that could net Republicans an additional five seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 Congressional elections, and the Democrat-controlled California legislature has responded with measures which, if approved by California voters, will redraw the state’s Congressional districts through 2030 in a manner intended to cancel out Republicans’ projected gains in Texas. Other states may join the fray. Commentators indicate that on the whole, these machinations favor Republicans.

Obviously, gerrymandering legislative districts at congressional and state office levels by both parties is nothing new, although computer analysis now enables unscrupulous legislators to eke out advantages previously unattainable. At the same time, as all who care are also aware, until this latest exchange by Texas and California, mid-cycle redistricting (i.e., between decennial censuses) has been uncommon.

I would suggest that it is difficult for any analyst to predict the final result of these maneuvers. Redrawing legislative boundaries seemingly narrows the controlling party’s advantage in previously “safe” seats, and Republicans could be running under fairly adverse political conditions as the Medicaid cuts in President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” take hold and if his tariffs reignite inflation as many economists predict. Republicans currently hold a 7-seat advantage in the House of Representatives. Since World War II, the average midterm loss for the party in the White House is 25 seats. Democrats lost 50 seats in 2010 under President Barack Obama. Republicans lost 40 seats in 2018, the last time Mr. Trump was mid-term. If Mr. Trump’s initiatives sufficiently irritate the weakest segments of his 2024 electoral support, the Democrats may reclaim the House even if the California initiative loses.

I have seen different credible philosophical arguments about ethical redistricting. Wisconsin is a prime example: the state, with 8 House seats, has a citizenry divided almost evenly between Democrats and Republicans, but the vast majority of Democrat-leaners are heavily concentrated in the Milwaukee and Dane (Madison) County metro areas. While one can argue that congressional districts should be drawn to reflect the state’s even political divide, one can also argue that given the geographic confines of the Democratic strongholds, a 6/2 Republican/Democrat split – the current Wisconsin House composition – is not unreasonable.

That said, there is no philosophical underpinning to what the Texas Republicans have done. They have redrawn their state’s Congressional district boundaries because they perceive it to be to their political advantage, and because they can. It is a pure power grab.

Long prelude to a simple point: I support the California Democrats’ redistricting efforts. In the past, I wouldn’t have. I have generally been of the mind that if one stoops to the MAGA level, it’s hard to determine who the scoundrels are. But it has become glaringly apparent that in the struggle to maintain our democracy, there are few holds barred. I’m putting my scruples aside. If the California Democrats’ effort passes, it will be smarmy, but no smarmier than the Texas effort, or any other state legislature’s partisan mid-cycle redistricting efforts. All of these measures are apparently lawful, if unprincipled.

In the summer of 1941, as Great Britain finalized an alliance with Communist Russia after Nazi Germany invaded Russia, Prime Minister Winston Churchill – always a strident critic of Communism – defended the pact in part with the observation, “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.” Less elegantly, Baseball Hall of Fame Manager Leo Durocher is by legend reported to have declared, “Nice guys finish last.”

We have descended to the lowest defensible denominator. I feel that I no longer have the luxury of being fastidious.

On Frogs in Warming Water

[Note: This post was delayed until now because a note on the Ukrainian-Russian conflict, published on Monday, had greater immediacy (although not greater importance.) That said, I cannot overstate my chagrin as last Friday night we watched PBS NewsHour Commentators Jonathan Capehart and David Brooks discuss the danger I address below, citing many of the same incidents and using the same analogies – right down to referencing frogs 😉 . If you saw the NewsHour last Friday, accept my solemn pledge that what you read was saved before I saw the broadcast. If you didn’t see the NewsHour, if nothing else you’ll learn how we have underestimated the sense of a well-known member of the amphibian community. 🙂 On the substance of what follows: it’s being made in many quarters; what follows has very probably already occurred to you; but it cannot be repeated too often.]

On August 11, flanked by his Secretary of Defense, his Attorney General, and his FBI Director, President Donald Trump declared as he announced his deployment of National Guard troops to the nation’s Capital: “We’re taking our Capital back. … This [crime] issue directly affects the functioning of the federal government and is a threat to America, really; it’s a threat to our country. We have other cities that are bad, very bad. You look at Chicago, how bad it is. You look at Los Angeles, how bad it is. We have other cities that are very bad. New York has a problem. And then you have of course Baltimore and Oakland, you don’t even mention that any more, they’re so far gone. We’re not going to lose our cities over this. And this will go further. We’re starting very strongly with D.C. … You’ll have more police, and you’ll be so happy because you’ll be safe when you walk down the street. You’re gonna see police, or you’re gonna see FBI agents. We’re going to have a lot of agents on the street. You’re gonna have a lot of essentially military – and we will bring in the military it it’s needed, by the way [Emphasis Added].”

Note how adroitly Mr. Trump and his minions have shifted the goal posts of our sensitivities:

We’ve had the pardoning of those convicted of participating in the January 6, 2021, assault on our nation’s Capitol incited by Mr. Trump, including those convicted of violent and seditious activities. The pardons probably offended the majority of Americans, but even Mr. Trump’s critics concede that he has the Constitutional power to grant pardons and he was elected.

We’ve had the purge at the Justice Department and the FBI of those officials who took part in the investigation of the January 6, 2021, insurrection. These actions were offensive to many Americans, but even Mr. Trump’s critics concede that he has Constitutional authority over the Executive Branch.

Through Mr. Trump’s authorization to Industrialist Elon Musk’s “DOGE” squad, we’ve had the purge of career civil servants in those federal departments and agencies, from foreign policy to health to climate science, most likely to debunk the nonsense that the President and his supporters spout. But the federal government is not as efficient as we’d like, and even Mr. Trump’s critics concede that he has Constitutional authority over the Executive Branch. (Mr. Musk, who spent millions on Mr. Trump’s campaign, took the brunt of the bad public relations for these efforts and was then jettisoned by the White House – a true tour de force demonstrating who, after all, was indeed president.)

Recently, Mr. Trump fired Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics confirmed by the Senate on a bipartisan basis in 2024, when the Bureau issued a jobs report that reflected badly on the President’s stewardship of the economy. But there is a credible position that the manner in which the Bureau gathers and analyzes jobs data is flawed, and even Mr. Trump’s critics concede that he has Constitutional authority over the Executive Branch. (Put aside that Mr. Trump didn’t dismiss Ms. McEntarfer for incompetence, but said – without evidence as far as I am aware – that he thought that Bureau’s report was “rigged” against him. Also put aside that the financial markets continue blythefully upward, seemingly oblivious that accurate assessments of the economy require accurate – not Trump-sanitized – federal government data.)

Mr. Trump has deployed National Guard troops and Marines to the streets of Los Angeles, but such deployment was ostensibly done to protect ICE agents enforcing our immigration laws against illegal immigrants, and even Mr. Trump’s critics concede that he has Constitutional authority to protect Executive Branch officials exercising their responsibilities.

Mr. Trump has deployed National Guard troops and FBI agents to our nation’s Capital, but it’s undisputed that D.C. has a crime problem, and even Mr. Trump’s critics concede that the federal government – of which he is the chief magistrate — has the overall legal authority for managing the District.

Mr. Trump has indicated that the “homeless [in D.C.] have to move out, IMMEDIATELY,” and that his Administration “will give [the homeless] places to stay, but FAR from the Capital. [Emphasis Mr. Trump’s].” But it’s undisputed that homelessness is a serious problem in many of our cities, there are vagrancy laws, and even Mr. Trump’s critics concede that that the federal government has the overall legal authority for managing the District. (Put aside where and – from an Administration that enthusiastically embraced the notion of an “Alligator Alcatraz” for illegal immigrants — how hospitable these “places to stay” for the homeless – the majority of whom are American citizens, a tragic subset of them veterans — will be.)

Now, go back and look at Mr. Trump’s August 11 comments. Although I am confident that those in dangerous neighborhoods in Chicago, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Oakland, and countless other cities desperately and understandably want safer streets, crime – outside the nation’s Capital — is quintessentially a local issue. One Chicagoan or Angelino killing another in a grocery store, heinous as it is, is a local matter, not a federal one. If citizens in these cities don’t feel safe on their streets, they should by all means get new city officials. I am sick unto death with those who refuse to take Mr. Trump at his word: that his Administration intends to go further, that it is starting with the nation’s Capital, that it will bring in the military if it’s needed (i.e., if the Administration thinks it’s needed). No matter what trumped-up rationale (the adjective, of course, intentional) the Administration dreams up, any deployment of National Guard troops to enforce local criminal laws outside Washington, D.C. would involve federal troops acting beyond their legal purview – i.e., acting illegally — against American citizens. Some would welcome it — at least initially.

Mr. Trump is slowly, skillfully, turning up the burner. We are being warmed up.

It turns out that frogs have more sense than they’re given credit for. When I conducted an internet search to determine whether frogs will indeed stay in gradually warming water until they boil to death, the now-ever-present Google “AI Overview” indicated: “No, a frog will not stay in boiling water and will attempt to escape. The idea that a frog will stay in water that is gradually heated until it boils is a common myth, often used as a metaphor for how humans can fail to react to gradual changes. Scientific experiments and observations have shown that frogs will jump out of water that is heated to uncomfortable temperatures, regardless of whether the heating is gradual or immediate.”

While it is easier for those of us who live in safe areas to look at this issue dispassionately, I fear that too many of our people don’t have the sense God gave a frog.

Mr. Trump is deftly bringing us to a boil.

The Horns of a Dilemma

“It is an admirable dilemma. I have rarely seen one with so many horns and all of them so sharp.”

The fictional detective Nero Wolfe; Rex Stout; Fer-de-Lance

As all who care are aware, President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met on Friday in Alaska – without Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – to discuss a resolution to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict precipitated by Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Mr. Trump went in declaring that his primary goal was to obtain a ceasefire; such was not obtained. It was clear from the video of Mr. Trump’s fawning greeting to Putin that nothing positive would be achieved. When the meeting ended – with an uncharacteristic acknowledgement by Mr. Trump that he and Putin had failed to reach any agreement – I actually felt relief. Since I had expected nothing good to come from the meeting, I initially considered it a victory that Mr. Trump seemingly hadn’t done anything to worsen the Ukrainian cause.

Silly me. I understand that Mr. Trump has now, contrary to his position before the Alaska meeting and that of Ukraine and other NATO nations, abandoned his calls for a ceasefire – so Ukrainian civilians will continue to be killed by Russian missiles – and is instead seeking to persuade Mr. Zelensky to agree to Putin’s demands for Ukraine to cede certain Ukrainian territory to Russia — including some territory Russia doesn’t now even militarily control – in return for Putin’s written promise not to attack Ukraine or any European country again. Such is absurd. Not even the most gullible MAGA – save the President himself – would believe Putin’s promises.

Although I may be grasping at straws, the only heartening report I have heard about recent developments is that at least NATO and European leaders, who obviously understand the precariousness of the situation not only for Ukraine but for their own nations if Mr. Trump capitulates to Putin, are going to join Mr. Zelensky in Washington today as he meets with Mr. Trump. It will be psychologically much more difficult for Mr. Trump – who, like any bully, shrinks from conflict when he does not have overwhelming advantage – to abandon Mr. Zelensky and Ukraine in the face of united European opposition.

We all know what should happen to resolve the conflict. (Well, what should happen from a pragmatic standpoint. What should happen from a moral standpoint is that Putin and his cohort spend the rest of their lives in an international prison for war crimes, with Russia paying reparations to the families of those killed or injured through Russian aggression and for the restoration of Ukrainian infrastructure.) You are familiar enough with the map of conflict that a depiction need not be displayed here (even if I had the technological acumen to do so 😉 ). I would suggest that from a practical perspective, the following components might form the basis for a settlement (I’m undoubtedly missing a number; feel free to comment):

Russia keeps the Ukrainian territory it currently controls, and Ukraine recognizes these lands, Crimea and the other Ukrainian territory taken by Russia in 2014, as Russian territory.
Russia recognizes Ukrainian sovereignty and renounces all claim to Ukrainian territory not within the territories ceded to the Russians.
All Ukrainians (particularly including children) and all prisoners of war on both sides are immediately exchanged.
Establishment of a border zone similar that maintained by Finland and the Baltic States on their Russian borders, to be initially policed by a United Nations peacekeepers.
For a period of one year following the date of the settlement, any residents of the conceded-Russian territories who wish to move to Ukraine can freely do so; any residents living in the Ukrainian territory recognized by Russia that wish to move to Russia can freely do so. The ability for such residents to freely elect such a choice is also to be monitored by the UN.
Ukraine is granted immediate admission to NATO and to the European Union, with it thereby assuming all the responsibilities and receiving all the security guarantees of every other NATO member. It is specifically declared that any attempt by Russia to hinder Ukraine’s access to the Black Sea will be considered an offensive action against NATO.
The U.S. and the E.U. agree to lift their sanctions against Russia.
Russia and Ukraine release all claims for reparations against the other.

The above can be achieved – and can only be achieved – through American as well as European dedication of the military and financial support to Ukraine sufficient to convince Putin that his brutal invasion has no greater hope of success than that he has already achieved. Obviously, such American dedication will not occur while Mr. Trump is President of the United States. I understand why the European leaders feel they have no choice but to coddle and placate this man in order to protect Western democracies and their own people, but it turns my stomach to watch, and suspect that it makes some of them privately want to vomit.

[An aside: I don’t know why leading Democrats aren’t denouncing any capitulation by Mr. Trump to Putin with a simple message: “If Ukraine falls, it will be Trump who lost Ukraine.” Repeating endlessly: “It will be Trump who lost Ukraine.” That is the kind of message that “breaks through” in the public consciousness that MAGAs are great at, and that Democrats (there is no kinder way to put it) suck at. (I’d normally like to see former President Barack Obama make the case, but since he took no meaningful action when Putin took Crimea in 2014, Mr. Obama is, let’s say, a wee bit out of position.)]

From the time Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 until the present – from the day Mr. Zelensky responded to an offer of safe passage for him and his family out of his country with the reply – apocryphal or not — “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride” – the defense of Ukraine has rested on his shoulders, on his steadfastness. Anyone with any sense has realized that given his people’s sacrifices, while the struggle continues Mr. Zelensky cannot signal any willingness to give any concessions to the Russians unless Ukraine – what remains of it – is admitted to NATO; if he did, his people’s morale would collapse. Any lesser security guarantee is worthless. (I’m aware that U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff said over the weekend, “The United States is potentially prepared to be able to give Article 5 security guarantees, but not from NATO — directly from the United States and other European countries.” Mr. Witkoff’s representation sounds good; but recall that in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia agreed that if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons – which it did – they would respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and existing borders, and refrain from the use of force against Ukraine. With that history, is it reasonable for Mr. Zelensky to trust any security assurances he receives that leave Ukraine outside the parameters of the NATO alliance? Would you?)

I see an approaching dilemma for Mr. Zelensky: Mr. Trump will seize upon any concession made by Putin as a way to claim a public relations triumph. Mr. Zelensky will recognize that Putin’s empty gesture affords no safeguards for his nation, and that any agreement to it by Ukraine will inevitably result in Russia’s annexation of Ukraine. At the same time, Mr. Zelensky will also recognize that offending Mr. Trump – for example, expressing doubt that Mr. Trump, no matter what he says now, will commit American forces to defend Ukraine if Russia reinstitutes hostilities — will almost certainly cause Mr. Trump to blame Ukraine for the continuation of hostilities and angrily withdraw American aid from Ukraine. Most military observers opine that any such withdrawal — no matter how robust the assistance of the European NATO nations – will ultimately enable Russia, through its continued inexorable brutal slaughter of Ukraine’s civilians and soldiers, to annex Ukraine.

I suspect that Mr. Zelensky’s and his aides’ response to any empty offer by Putin will be similar to that expressed by Winston Churchill in May, 1940, as Britain faced the Nazi Wehrmacht alone: “[L]et it end only when each of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.” That said, on that occasion Mr. Churchill wasn’t addressing the British people, but other government officials. Does one knowingly sentence thousands more of one’s own people, including thousands of children, to die in what will appear a hopeless battle?

I can think of no dilemma with horns as sharp as that which Mr. Zelensky and his advisors could soon be confronting.

We’ll see what happens. Let us pray for the best.