Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
Welcome to the weekend: it’s CaturSaturday, January 25, 2025, the Sabbath for all Jewish cats, and National Irish Coffee Day, a drink that shouldn’t be disdained, especially when made with good Irish whiskey, strong coffee, and real whipped cream. Proper preparation: running the cream into the drink over a spoon:
Anke Klitzing, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
It’s also National Fish Taco Day (perhaps the most horrible item in Mexican cuisine), Fluoride Day (soon to disappear), and Burns Supper (honoring the birthday of Robert Burns in 1759, and the meal goes this way:
Supper begins with a soup course, which usually is a Scottish soup like potato soup, Scotch broth, Cullen skink, or cock-a-leekie. The main course is haggis, a traditional Scottish meat dish. Vegetarian haggis has become an option in recent years. Everyone stands as the haggis is brought in, usually by the cook, on a large dish. The bagpiper plays and the haggis is brought to the host’s table and set down. Address to a Haggis, written by Burns, is then recited. During the poem, a knife is usually sharpened and used to cut the haggis. At the poem’s end, a Scotch whisky toast is given for the haggis, and the guests are seated. The haggis is usually served with mashed potatoes (tatties) and mashed swede turnip (neeps).
I suppose it’s better than a fish taco, so long as the haggis is McSween’s haggis with meat rather than offal.
Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the January 25 Wikipedia page.
Da Nooz:
*Hamas has apparently reneged on the ceasefire blackmail deal that Israel agreed to by releasing four female soldiers tomorrow instead of four female civilians. (Note that the fmale hostages were captured in their pajamas, but were released in IDF uniforms, a clever piece of propaganda by Hamas.) This could mean that there are only a handful remaining live female civilians, though one may be released next week by Palestinian Islamic jihad. This also means that Israel has to gin up extra Palestinian prisoners: instead of 30 per hostage, for soldiers it must produce 50 freed terrorists, each on imprisoned for murdering Israelis. This was a serious enough violation that Netanyahu had to huddle with his security officials before deciding what to do, but in the end accepted Hamas changes (the pressure from the U.S.—from the Trump administration—for Israel to adhere to Hamas’s blackmail was too great).
Israel has informed the mediators that the list of four female hostages Hamas published earlier this evening violates the terms of the agreement, which requires the terror group to release all living female civilians before releasing female soldiers, Channel 12 reports.
Hamas has informed the mediators that it remains committed to the deal and that there were simply technical complications that led to the violation. Arbel Yehud, one of the last female civilian hostages believed to still be alive, is being held by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, not Hamas.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held consultations with his security chiefs and ultimately decided to move forward with the list that Hamas has provided, despite the violation. Participants in the meeting determined that while Hamas violated the agreement, the violation was not serious enough to blow up the entire deal.
Israel has informed the mediators that the list of four female hostages Hamas published earlier this evening violates the terms of the agreement, which requires the terror group to release all living female civilians before releasing female soldiers, Channel 12 reports.
Hamas has informed the mediators that it remains committed to the deal and that there were simply technical complications that led to the violation. Arbel Yehud, one of the last female civilian hostages believed to still be alive, is being held by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, not Hamas.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held consultations with his security chiefs and ultimately decided to move forward with the list that Hamas has provided, despite the violation. Participants in the meeting determined that while Hamas violated the agreement, the violation was not serious enough to blow up the entire deal.
It is not yet clear, though, whether Israel will retaliate with steps of its own that violate the terms of the agreement. Israel is slated to begin allowing Palestinians to return to northern Gaza tomorrow. It is also required by the deal to release 50 Palestinian security prisoners for each female soldier freed.
The families of the four female hostages have not yet been formally notified by the government that their loved ones will be released tomorrow.
Those notifications are expected to take place shortly, Channel 12 says.
Later this evening, Israel is slated to publish the list of Palestinian security prisoners that it will release tomorrow.
The list of the four soldiers is in apparent violation of the ceasefire agreement, which states that female civilians are to be released first, then female soldiers, followed by the elderly and then those who are deemed extremely ill. Israel however reportedly agreed to receive the hostages, deciding the breach was not grave enough to collapse the deal.
Outside of the five surveillance soldiers, there are two female civilian hostages from the original list of 33 slated to be released in the first phase of the ceasefire deal: Arbel Yehud, 29, and Shiri Silberman Bibas, 33. Israel had conveyed to Hamas that it expected Yehud — who is thought to be held by fellow terror group Palestinian Islamic Jihad — to be released this weekend, however, she was not named by Hamas on Friday.
So far Israel has kept its part of the bargain, but Hamas is toying with the negotiations like a cat with a mouse. How long will it be before Hamas starts handing back coffins instead of living hostages? Believe me, they will be the last “hostages” released, and yet Israel has agreed to exchange 30-50 Palestinian prisoners for each body of a dead hostage. I predict that the turnover of dead hostages in coffins will not be filmed.
As President Trump pushes aggressively to reshape the federal government, Democrats have retreated into a political crouch that reflects their powerlessness in Washington.
In some cases, Democrats are even making a show of working with Republicans.
Scores of them voted for the Laken Riley Act, which allows the deportation of unauthorized migrants who are accused but not yet convicted of crimes. Others volunteered to work with Republicans on a border security bill. And while Democrats are fighting the nominations of Pete Hegseth as defense secretary and Tulsi Gabbard as national intelligence director, Mr. Trump’s other cabinet appointees appear on a glide path to confirmation without much vocal resistance.
It is telling that in the opening days of the new Trump administration, the loudest pushback to the president’s policies has come not from an elected Democrat but from the bishop at Washington National Cathedral, who asked Mr. Trump directly during a service to have mercy on immigrants and L.G.B.T.Q. children.
“We’re no longer trying to win a news cycle,” said Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii, a Democrat who has become an outspoken messenger for his party on social media. “We’re trying to win an argument, and that’s going to take time and patience and discipline.”
A group of 70 progressive House Democrats and six Senate Democrats gathered at the Capitol on Thursday to try to settle on a single message of opposition to Mr. Trump as he takes aim at myriad liberal constituencies and priorities. The assembled Democrats concluded that their best course of action was to focus on economic concerns, which they believe led to the party’s November defeats.
Well, yes, economic concerns was one issue, and Trump had better bring down inflation by the midterms, but there was more to the defeats than economics. Immigration, to name one. Perhaps Schatz could conceive of the strategy more as having to confect a program that Americans will vote for than to “win an argument”!
Enrique Tarrio thought he would be in prison until 2040. As he waited to board a plane to Miami, now a free man thanks to President Trump, the Proud Boys leader wasn’t certain what was next for him except for one thing: retaliation.
The 40-year-old Tarrio was among the roughly 1,500 individuals who received pardons for their involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. “I was innocent of the charges,” he said in an interview before his flight, but alleged the legal system was “weaponized” against him and others. Now, he said, it’s time to turn the tables and prosecute the prosecutors, including former Attorney General Merrick Garland.
“The name of the game for some of these people is to take the other opponent’s pieces off the board,” he said. “We can play that game.”
Trump’s sweeping pardons mark a dramatic turnaround for the far-right groups involved in the Jan. 6 attack. Some resorted to violence to try to prevent the certification of Trump’s 2020 electoral loss. The rampage led to the largest prosecution in Justice Department history. Former President Joe Biden vowed to defeat domestic extremism, launching a national effort to refocus U.S. national security agencies from foreign terrorism to what he said was the more pressing threat back home.
The crackdown seemed to spell the end of many of the groups involved, including the Proud Boys and self-styled militias such as the Oath Keepers. As their leaders faced prison, the organizations were torn apart by infighting, members went underground, and many local chapters spun off or went silent.
Four years later, they are jubilant—and feeling vindicated. This week, dozens of Proud Boys once again marched through the streets of Washington. Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes visited congressional offices on Capitol Hill, and waves of pardoned inmates were released from jail to cheers of “We are back!”
“Spirits are high within the fraternity right now as some of us return home from the inauguration and are reuniting with our brothers who have been locked away under harsh conditions for the past four years,” the Proud Boys of Kentucky said in an email. “We are forever grateful to President Trump for keeping his promises.”
For while some convicted rioters seem genuinely remorseful, and others appear simply ready to put politics behind them, many others are emboldened by the termination of what they see as unjust prosecutions. Freed by the president, they have never been more dangerous.
Take Stewart Rhodes, whose Oath Keepers group staged firearms and ammunition near Washington on Jan. 6 in anticipation of a “bloody and desperate fight.” Or Enrique Tarrio, whose Proud Boys led rioters into the Capitol and who had declared just after the 2020 election that while he and his followers would not start a civil war, they would be sure to “finish one.”
They are now free to pursue revenge, and have already said they want it. Upon his release this week, Mr. Tarrio declared that “success is going to be retribution.” He added, “Now it’s our turn.”
The effect — and I believe purpose — of these pardons is to encourage vigilantes and militias loyal to the president, but unaccountable to the government. Illiberal democracies and outright dictatorships often rely on such militia groups, whose organization and seriousness can range widely, from the vigilantes who enforce Iran’s hijab dress code to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia that have killed government opponents.
Here in America, lynch mobs and the Ku Klux Klan bolstered a racial caste system with violence that state governments, for the most part, were unwilling to commit themselves. But for decades, we had little reason to fear that vigilantes or militias would enforce the will of the state.
That may be changing. Rioters who assaulted police officers at the Capitol have called for politicians who oppose Mr. Trump to be hanged, declared that “there will be blood,” and that “I plan on making other people die first, for their country, if it gets down to that.” But it’s not just their readiness for violence. One officer, who’d worked lots of riots, explained to me how Jan. 6 felt different: Most rioters know at some level what they’re doing is wrong, he said, but these guys thought they were right. Monday’s pardons will reinforce these rioters’ beliefs in their cause, and their loyalty to the man who leads it.
“Success is going to be retribution.” “There will be blood.” Get prepared for more armed standoffs between these morons and the authorities—IF Trump even lets the authorities stop domestic terrorism. Yes, Shoot me now.
*As usual, I’ll steal three items from Nellie Bowles’s weekly news summary from the Free Press, called this week “TGIF: I solemnly swear“. Oh hell, I’ll add another, as Nellie’s collection this week is simply too good:
→ The Dem reformation is coming: First the bad news for Democrats, then the good news for me. Bad news: The Democrats have never been more unpopular. From CNN, which this week announced layoffs for about 200 staffers: “Overall, just 33% of all Americans express a favorable view of the Democratic Party, an all-time low in CNN’s polling dating back to 1992.” The good news: This is rock bottom. And now we can look around and think about what brought us here and why some of us made the choices we made. We can think about what we’ve done until we’re ready to come back to the table and act nicely. I’m still waiting for apologies from my old Hamasnik friends but I’m sure those are on the way, right? Hello? Stop throwing Vegenaise at me, I’m just here to gloat!
I used to think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was the future of the party. She’s so pretty and put-together and has such a great origin story. But AOC has not evolved with the times. Her vibe has not shifted. Here she was this past Sunday, on her couch while delivering a straight-to-camera warning:
We are on the eve of an authoritarian administration. This is what twenty-first-century fascism is starting to look like. Republicans really model themselves after Orbán’s Hungary. And so you can look to see how Viktor Orbán runs Hungary to get a taste of how they will try to govern and control media, and companies in the United States. . . . As far as what we do, you know, this is a time of experimentation. A lot of people will still use platforms—can still use platforms—but I also look towards places where you have more ownership as well and develop your audiences there.
→ The long arm of the Kama-law: The Democrats’ official social media posted an image of Kamala Harris that is fully AI. How can you tell? Her arm has been stretched to strange, unnecessary proportions. The caption reads: “History made.”
Perhaps it was a heavy-handed metaphor: Kamala’s reach was so inspiring, so historical, that her arm had to be doctored to show it. Or maybe they’re saying she made history for having the longest arm ever. Were there no real-life pictures of Kamala Harris walking?
→ Hamas’s startling show of strength: As three young Israeli hostages were finally freed from captivity, Hamas militants used the moment to project some amount of strength. Gone was their ragtag civilian garb, the flip-flops; now they had clean, matching military uniforms and bulletproof vests. They stood on top of trucks jeering and waving guns, as if saying resolutely: “We’re still in charge of Gaza.” Which raises the question: How in the hell is Hamas still in charge of Gaza? How could Israel wipe out Hezbollah in what seemed like days but Hamas is still holding hostages, still marching, still waving guns from trucks? As the hostage girls were loaded into cars to go back to Israel, they were given special gift bags that included photos of them in captivity. Someone there has a sick sense of humor.
One clue to Hamas’s continued hold might be that the UN department in Gaza is quite literally an extension of Hamas: The hostages reported that they were held in a UNRWA refugee camp. I’m pretty dumb, but even I’m not dumb enough to believe that the folks running a UNRWA refugee camp would have no idea there were Israeli hostages there. Like, a camp with a bunch of refugees and then three Israeli girls with ropes around their hands and ankles. Just normal, everyday Gazans at the refugee camp, screaming in Hebrew, begging to go home?
→ Also, knives: Actually, there are two big English scandals, and the second one is knives. They’re too easy to buy! Knife-wielding terrorists don’t kill people, knives do.
After a young terrorist in Southport stabbed to death three young girls in a dance class, much was done to suppress that information. And to suppress the fact that the killer, Axel Rudakubana, was of Rwandan descent and an Islamist who wanted to kill the little girls because dance class is sinful. The police went so far as to say it absolutely wasn’tterrorism, and the media only described him as a “quiet choirboy” from Wales. Eventually, it all came out. The killer had an al-Qaeda training manual and ricin at home. Plus, people tried to report him to the police three times beforehand. Anyway, here is the British response:
Now to buy a knife, you’ll have to present ID and appear on live video. Axel killed three people that day in the dance studio and stabbed 10 more. And these were horrific slayings: He stabbed six-year-old Bebe 122 times; seven-year-old Elsie had 85 knife wounds—a teacher hiding in the closet thought everyone had escaped until she heard the girls asking him to stop. And the British response was to protect Axel, to hide his motives, to smear those who were upset over the killings, and now to make all British people do a video call before buying a kitchen knife, which is more likely to deter tech-illiterate Boomers who want to up their kitchen game than would-be terrorists. Modern England is the best argument against genetic determinism that I could imagine. Because the same set of genes that once conquered the world have now made for a small, poor little island, worried over seeming too harsh toward the teenager with the kitchen knife killing children—don’t offend him, Barnaby! It’s fascinating. Into the nature vs. nurture debate, we must add the case of the British people.
[JAC note]: the perp was 18, but I can’t find evidence of an Al-Qaeda training manual at Nellie’s link]
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is being intellectual:
Hili: Do you really believe in what is written in the newspapers?
Andrzej: No, but for a sociologist lies are important information about society.
In Polish:
Hili: Czy ty naprawdę wierzysz w to, co piszą gazety?
Ja: Nie, ale dla socjologa kłamstwa są ważną informacją o społeczeństwie.
From Masih; if you don’t think the Houthis are terrorists, when they fire on ships of several nations going through the canal, you’re blind (or have a weird definition of “terrorism”):
Yes, let’s call terrorists by their name: It’s time to END the era of appeasement.
President @realDonaldTrump’s decision to re-designate the Houthis as a terrorist organization is a bold and necessary move. For too long, the Houthis have acted like international pirates,… pic.twitter.com/g22OnDS7kj
Two from Dr. Cobb. First, a well camouflaged caddisfly (with attached debris):
Another Caddisfly larva feeding, this time on a more typical food, scraping algae/biofilm off a dead leaf Pretty sure this is Limnephilidae #Pondlife #BugSky #UKWildlife #inverts #Insect #Caddisflies
The caddisfly (Limnephilidae – I enjoy the Latin) is indeed mesmerizing to watch – all those tiny motions – and detail – also really like videos silent … can think…
Sorry, but the “shoot me now” joke is far from funny.
I find your comment far from civil, and I don’t really care whether you find my cry of pain funny.
To say there was no rational reason to pardon the January 6 rioters is a bit much. I’m not going to go into the whole mishegas, but one of the primary reasons is that people feel the rioters/protestors were singled out unfairly for punishment and persecution compared to the people who rioted in 2020 in association with the Trump inauguration and the George Floyd murder. A few hundred people were prosecuted for all of those riots combined. Several times that number were prosecuted for the January 6 riot. Many of those committed no greater crime than walking through the Capitol, with police on video opening doors for them. The DOJ at the end of last year said it had identified up to 4,000 people it was considering prosecuting in relation to January 6. It sure looks like two-tier justice.
Really tired of the excuses for Trump and MAGA. It seems no matter what they do, there’s always something worse on the other side or some mitigating factor. Ugh.
Everyone who swarmed the Capital in the January 6 riots was there for one reason: to overturn the outcome of a peaceful, fair election. That alone is damning.
Of course, in the USA, one has a right to believe and express all manner of nonsense, including the opinion that you can reject any election outcome that doesn’t go your way. But plenty of those folks went a lot further than just throwing an entitled, ignorance-fueled fit on the National Mall. Some performed real acts of vandalism and violence. Others engaged in seditious conspiracies to use violence to overturn the lawful outcome of an election. Under no condition should those people have been pardoned.
The notion that they should be pardoned because other criminals weren’t proportionately punished is absurd. Not every criminal gets caught. Not every criminal gets prosecuted. Not every prosecuted criminal gets punished in direct proportion to the harm inflicted by their crime. In fact, I’d wager the scales are off one way or the other most of the time. But that doesn’t mean we should stop prosecuting and punishing people who are obviously guilty of crimes. Particularly when those crimes involves trying to overturn elections and seize power through violence.
Hauling water for Trump sure must get exhausting sometimes.
Everyone who swarmed the Capital in the January 6 riots was there for one reason: to overturn the outcome of a peaceful, fair election. That alone is damning.
While I agree with you that the outcome was indeed fair, it does matter what the state of mind of the rioters was.
Isn’t it pretty obvious that their “reason” for the riot, as they saw it was not to “overturn the outcome of a peaceful, fair election” but to protest against an outcome that they regarded as having been rigged and “stolen”?
Isn’t “we think the election was unfair and rigged and we are damn well going to protest about it” a lot less damning than “ok, we lost fair and square, but now we’re going to try to overturn the result”?
I think Trump’s supporters knew he lost the election, but they did not think the election was particularly fair. Here are some reasons:
1) The FBI and CIA interfered in the election by suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story. This allowed Biden to claim “Russian disinformation” during the debate.
2) Many states made last minute changes to their election laws without legislative approval in violation of their state constitutions.
3) The rejection rate of mail-in ballots was significantly lower in 2020 compared to other years, suggesting the rules were relaxed to favor Democrats.
I think by refusing to admit that there were real problems with the 2020 election, the Dems only reinforce the perception that they are only interested in playing by the rules when they win. Dem proposals to eliminate the electoral college, pack the Supreme Court, and get rid of the filibuster further reinforce this perception.
The WSJ suggested that pardoning the non-violent ones wasn’t such a bad idea, but drew the line at the others.
It would have been nice if the President— quite some time ago, would have tasked…someone… to sort out the cop bashers from the “tourists” before he made the blanket pardon that even he couldn’t defend, when asked.
I think the WSJ should better have asked why non-violent people needed pardon in the first place.
They assaulted the Capitol. They tried to overthrow a democracy. They are traitors. Stop making excuses for them.
Please be a bit more civil in your answers, please.
To me, it looked like a repressive move by an authoritarian regime. Particularly the progressive young adults tipping the authorities to arrest their parents sent “Pavlik Morozov” vibes across Eastern Europe.
Okay, let me say this: there was no rational reason to pardon those rioters given long sentences for hurting other people. And of course there is no comparison with the Capitol riots and the George Floyd murder: for the latter the police, for reasons of optics, didn’t want to make arrests.
A pardon wipes out a conviction completely, so do you think that if people invade the capitol despite police warnings, trespass, look to hurt congresspeople, and in fact injure cops and others, should never have been prosecuted in the first place? And of course how justice is dispensed depends on the dispenser. Presumably you think that if people who engage in vandalism or insurrection aren’t arrested by one administration, then nobody who does that under another administration should get arrested. Ideally, justice should be dispensed evenly, but I don’t agree that if clear lawbreakers don’t get arrested in one case, then people breaking the law in the same way but in a different case should not get arrested.
But we’ve each had one say, so I suggest that the discussion stop here.
Not to mention the message is: commit violence for Trump and you will not suffer consequences. No parallel to the George Floyd rioters.
Let’s keep in mind that Trump could have pardoned them in 2021, but didn’t.
Egypt is building a zombie army!
LOL If that worked I could almost believe in jesus.
I told my long suffering partner…
Picture a turned up nose, OMG!
“is that after he kills her”!
“to be abused until he finds a replacement”!
A law legalising necrophilia could be argued to be enlightened and progressive. Despite finding the practice disgusting, I can’t think of a rational, secular reason why it should be banned. Arguably, an enlightened and progressive legal system would be legislating based on avoidance of harm, not avoidance of disgust. I should clarify that I actually don’t have a problem with necrophilia being illegal, but I don’t think its illegality is the enlightened progressive position, as that tweet seems to imply.
What is genuinely not enlightened and progressive about the proposed Egyptian law is that I’m sure it’s not gender neutral.
I also thought a law against having sex with your dead wife was strange and unnecessary — until I started thinking about the sort of men who’d welcome its repeal.
What if this law is the only thing keeping some wives from being murdered?
Don’t the men already have several built-in excuses to murder wives and female relatives for the mildest of transgressions? Raping them—not “having sex with them” — is just another layer of insult.
No, I meant more like “I would kill my wife for (mildest of transgressions), but then I could no longer have sex with her …. Wait! You mean I could??”
Corruption of the flesh would make that a viable proposition in only the shortest of terms. Maybe too short to incentivize murder. But I do hear your deeper meaning.
Did the Egyptian law just now go into effect, or is this just a reminder of a law previously passed? It’s odd, the news report carries a date from April 27, 2012, while having current tabs visible (“Trump Inauguration”, “Budget 2025”). Not sure what that means…
What a week! Trump’s activism is a stark contrast to Biden’s somnambulism—not that releasing violent January 6 criminals onto the streets is a good thing; it’s not—but Trump is definitely a contrast. It will take us a while to get used to but yet again, as with Trump’s first term, there will be a new outrage every day.
Yes, there will be, and some people demand that I write about those outrages because it’s coddling Trump. I will continue to criticize the bad things he does and laud any good things he does, as I lauded or criticized the Democrats for their actions. But I do NOT want these comments to be venues for outrage.
Uncivil comments will be called out (in extreme cases, deleted), and obtuse commenters sanctioned. I again urge people to read “Da Roolz” on the left sidebar.
<
blockquote>;[JAC note]: the perp was 18, but I can’t find evidence of an Al-Qaeda training manual at Nellie’s link<\blockquote>;
A detail. I’m no fan of the idiots and clowns and violent criminals of Jan 6th….
” pardoned 1500 convicted insurrectionists, and doing that is similar (but not identical) to freeing Palestinian terrorists.”
…but absolutely no. They are in entirely different universes.
I’m unaware of Jan 6thers who blew up busses or stabbed random civilians in the street. I doubt most 6ers will be committing violent crimes in future. With Pal prisoners I’d bet money every last one will.
D.A.
NYC
+1 sort of a big distinction, I would think.
I doubt most 6ers will be committing violent crimes in future.
I’d like to believe that. But their own words don’t give reason for comfort. Here are some quotes:
Now that he is out, the Proud Boys leader wants revenge, he told Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist host of Info Wars.
“The people who did this, they need to feel the heat, they need to be put behind bars, and they need to be prosecuted,” Tarrio said.
“Success is going to be retribution,” he added. “We gotta do everything in our power to make sure that the next four years sets us up for the next 100 years.”
And when Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers, was sentenced, the judge said:
“You are smart, you are charismatic and compelling and frankly that’s what makes you dangerous. The moment you are released, whenever that may be, you will be ready to take up arms against your government.”
Now, these guys who just itch to larp as anti-govt revolutionaries have not only been released from prison, but emboldened by the knowledge that they have a president on their side.
“It was astonishing how insanely hard legacy media tried to cancel me for saying “my heart goes out to you” and moving my hand from my heart to the audience.”
… which is a clear statement by him of his intent. (The clip of Macron quoted in that Tweet is also somewhat amusing in this context.)
Ceiling Cat,
Guessing you saw Cathy Young’s article (worth reading though I dislike the tone) and the kerfuffle between her and Rufo?
No, I have not seen that. Not sure I want to, as these internet fights, which of course will become more frequent and more heated as the days wear on, are wearing me out.
Birthright citizenship:
Why should visitors or temporary residents (legal or illegal) expect that their babies born in the United States (or Canada) should automatically be citizens? As visitors and temporary residents they aren’t by definition planning to stay in the country permanently to settle…are they? So why should they care that their babies will be citizens only of their home country to which they said they would be returning when they applied for visas? If they have children -> citizens, does it not suggest they were being disingenuous, hoping to put down roots? For illegal aliens it seems inescapable that they have children in order to throw a roadblock in front of the deportation process when they are eventually discovered.
How does it benefit the United States (and Canada) to have children growing up in foreign counties around the world who will have zero inculcation into our values? They may be taught by their own parents to hate us, yet they will have the unvetted right of return whenever they choose.
Of course President Trump’s executive order can’t unilaterally change the interpretation of the Constitution. It has been blocked by temporary court injunction on those very constitutional grounds. That’s appropriate. It’s how the process works. He says the injunction was expected and his Administration will appeal around the meaning of “jurisdiction”. Likely the Supreme Court will make the call. That’s also how it works. If he loses, it might get the ball rolling for an Amendment to rewrite the 14th, or move birth citizenship into the ordinary law so it can be changed as necessary by simple Act of Congress, as with Canada’s Citizenship Act.
Of course partisans will hope he loses or wins on partisan grounds, but stepping back, is automatic birth citizenship only for citizens and permanent residents a bad thing on it merits or not? Should Canada change our law? If he wins, I bet we will.
It’s worth pointing out that “birthright citizenship” is a peculiarity of the Americas (deriving from the unusual foundation of the USA and the “new world” countries), and is not normal in the rest of the world.
How does it benefit the United States (and Canada) to …
You’re asking the wrong question! In “Western” countries, policy on immigration and citizenship is all about “does it benefit the immigrant?”, not “does it benefit the host country?”.
Most of the W. hemisphere has birthright citizenship. Australia and W. Europe have variously edited versions. I like the idea of it b/c it is not so “tribal” as jus-sanguis (blood/inheritance) citizenship.
Thing is – and lost in this entire debate – actual pregnant women getting on planes to squeeze out new citizens here is pretty small. Further, it is self selective to be wealthy new citizens.
I think it is the feeling that birth tourists (mainly from China) are gaming the system that pisses people off. Fair enough – they are.
In Argentina there’s a small industry in Russian birth tourists helped by the fact that adults can naturalize there in two years.
Illegals naturally having babies while here …. happens but it isn’t the biggest issue.
Bigger fish to fry when it comes to immigration.
D.A.
NYC
legal Aussie immigrant to the USA, 1994
Occasional immigration lawyer (ret.)
Neither Australia nor New Zealand any longer awards automatic birth citizenship. Only a child born to couples where at least one of the parents was a citizen or legal permanent resident at the time of conception is automatically a citizen. If the couple is in country on temporary visas the child gets an equivalent visa that allows it to stay as long as the couple can but it will not be a citizen. If the couple is in the country illegally, then so is their baby.
Both countries made the change on account of an inconvenient number of visitors just passing through or working temporarily and acquiring jus solis citizenship for their babies. President Trump’s EO would make the American citizenship rule congruent with Australia and New Zealand if it is ruled constitutional.
In the UK, children over 10 but under 18 can apply for citizenship if they have lived continuously in the UK since birth and they don’t have any claim to be automatic UK citizens, such as one or both married parents being citizens or permanent residents. This is the closest the the UK comes to birth”right” citizenship.
You want immigrants congruent with our values? Scatter green cards to Christians in the Islamosphere. They’re extremely persecuted and have our values, good success metrics. And keep out the (minority?) of (most?) Muslims who want to destroy us.
I’d say import as many Jews from the Islamosphere as we can but…. there really aren’t any left. Funny about that eh?
D.A.
NYC
By the way, some of these “accidental Americans” have great problems with banks, because of bizarre American laws taxing them (only Eritrea has similar taxation).
I respectfully disagree about fish tacos, I love them.
I have often read accounts about the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. The message is usually: be very afraid. One would think these were contemporary incarnations of the Mafia or the older Hells Angels or even some of the left-wing terror groups of the 60s and 70s. They apparently lean to the political right—maybe even a Woke version of it. You see where I’m going: I have little trust in our media or in those who trust it uncritically. I also readily dismiss the relative and subjective word “extremist” and its variants—whether wielded by government or by either pole of our political spectrum. (The reasons should be obvious.) When Elon is a Nazi, what must we think about some uncouth, right-wing dudes denouncing feminism and the glory of the Trans New World all while running around in the woods with guns and stocking food supplies? After all, many of us have warned about the backlash that Wokeism would provoke, particularly in young white men. And others have cautioned that if you don’t like the religious Right, wait until you meet the nonreligious Right.
Let’s omit January 6th, which has been widely reported and in its violent elements is cause enough for concern—as long as we don’t let the word “violent” carry our imaginations away. But I was hearing about these groups long before then, and I want to understand the scale and significance of the threat. What are the other documented criminal histories of these two groups—as opposed to one or two individual members who might have committed nonpolitical crimes and been expelled from the groups? What are the documented “armed standoffs” with police? What violence have they committed as groups? From what I can find, they tend to be brawlers at political protests, the equivalent of bar-room fisticuffs with Antifa (Proud Boys) and dorky survivalist types (Oath Keepers). What else? Extortion? Trafficking in persons, drugs, weapons, stolen goods? Prostitution? Bombings? Assassinations? Murder? Shootings? Conspiracy to commit murder? Kidnapping? Hostage taking? Hijacking? Can anyone please shed some light on how they are like Palestinian terrorists only different? I’ve already asked AI; perhaps some here have more informed answers.
Looking at the Proud Boys I note that Canada has designated them a “terrorist entity.”
But I don’t find any stories of their terrorism or other violence.
Canada was very slow to designate the vile antisemitic group Samidoun as terrorists.
Samidoun carries out no violence in Canada but supports Hamas and joins pro-Hamas rallies.
“As you know, for no rational reason, Trump pardoned 1500 convicted insurrectionists…”
No rational reason and counterproductive from the point of view of the country. Entirely rational from the point of view of Trumps goals.
In his last term Trump did want to stay in power regardless of the outcome of the election. He did lay groundwork to that end by endless unevidenced assertions of voter fraud. He did push Pence to overturn the election. When he encouraged his followers to march to the capitol it is impossible to believe he did not know what the groundwork he had laid might lead to. He knew. And when the insurrection began he could have easily shut it down but he didn’t.
When I said a couple of days ago that I did not believe that Trump was a Nazi but instead an opportunist, it’s important to note that I do not believe that he is ideologically opposed to fascism – instead he simply has no ideology. His relationship with the ideologic right is symbiotic – he gets the power he wants, they get to implement their agenda through him by proxy. The MAGA rabble is merely the grease that makes it work.
Trump is now back in power and he will not give it up without a fight. He started laying the ground work to stay in power this time well before day one and he’s doing a much better job of it this time. Democracy, the constitution, term limits, mean nothing to him. The only thing that means anything to him is power and winning. What he wins is an abstraction to him. What matters to him is simply being the biggest winner with the most power.
As for the woke left, they are the biggest gift Trump has ever received. I completely agree with Jerry that Trump could not have won without them. They practically handed it to him on a platter. I am not prone to crude expression and it’s probably not helpful but I feel like it: if the woke left cares about the people they claim to care about, they need to pull their heads out of their postmodern asses and open their eyes.
Not to denigrate your comments about the woke left in any way, but there is likely a more important reason for the Harris loss.
According to Greg Palast, who has a pretty impressive background and experience in forensic statistics, and who is using data now available from the US Elections Assistance Commission, about 4.77 million voters were wrongly purged from voter rolls with high bias against black and youthful voters. This is more than enough to account not only for the popular vote, but also the Electoral College victory by Trump.
Do you have a news source on this story? Anyone can say anything on Substack.
1) I suggest you check out his Bio on his site. Greg Palast is not just “anybody”.
2) The tactics used by bad actors to improperly remove eligible voters from the rolls, as described by Palast in his article, are documented at length and with references by the Center for American Progress here:
Just So. When I come in late someone — or several people — have written comments that cover my thoughts. When I first found this site I objected to the epithet “woke” to cover illiberal embarrassing nonsense.
But I guess nothing else seems to catch, so no I’m like, whatever. — Woke — Those moments in the Harris campaign (say, a speech) when the rhetoric and issue coverage seemed strong, to be undermined, then by passages that had me cringe, had think — this won’t play well with the public. Will the Dems double down on tribal woke? My newest peeve is now: “affirmation therapy” and the redefinition of conversion therapy — woke as hell in blue states, woke in the medical establishment. This needs to be corrected asap.
The caddisfly (Limnephilidae – I enjoy the Latin) is indeed mesmerizing to watch – all those tiny motions – and detail – also really like videos silent … can think…
Sorry, but the “shoot me now” joke is far from funny.
I find your comment far from civil, and I don’t really care whether you find my cry of pain funny.
To say there was no rational reason to pardon the January 6 rioters is a bit much. I’m not going to go into the whole mishegas, but one of the primary reasons is that people feel the rioters/protestors were singled out unfairly for punishment and persecution compared to the people who rioted in 2020 in association with the Trump inauguration and the George Floyd murder. A few hundred people were prosecuted for all of those riots combined. Several times that number were prosecuted for the January 6 riot. Many of those committed no greater crime than walking through the Capitol, with police on video opening doors for them. The DOJ at the end of last year said it had identified up to 4,000 people it was considering prosecuting in relation to January 6. It sure looks like two-tier justice.
Really tired of the excuses for Trump and MAGA. It seems no matter what they do, there’s always something worse on the other side or some mitigating factor. Ugh.
Everyone who swarmed the Capital in the January 6 riots was there for one reason: to overturn the outcome of a peaceful, fair election. That alone is damning.
Of course, in the USA, one has a right to believe and express all manner of nonsense, including the opinion that you can reject any election outcome that doesn’t go your way. But plenty of those folks went a lot further than just throwing an entitled, ignorance-fueled fit on the National Mall. Some performed real acts of vandalism and violence. Others engaged in seditious conspiracies to use violence to overturn the lawful outcome of an election. Under no condition should those people have been pardoned.
The notion that they should be pardoned because other criminals weren’t proportionately punished is absurd. Not every criminal gets caught. Not every criminal gets prosecuted. Not every prosecuted criminal gets punished in direct proportion to the harm inflicted by their crime. In fact, I’d wager the scales are off one way or the other most of the time. But that doesn’t mean we should stop prosecuting and punishing people who are obviously guilty of crimes. Particularly when those crimes involves trying to overturn elections and seize power through violence.
Hauling water for Trump sure must get exhausting sometimes.
While I agree with you that the outcome was indeed fair, it does matter what the state of mind of the rioters was.
Isn’t it pretty obvious that their “reason” for the riot, as they saw it was not to “overturn the outcome of a peaceful, fair election” but to protest against an outcome that they regarded as having been rigged and “stolen”?
Isn’t “we think the election was unfair and rigged and we are damn well going to protest about it” a lot less damning than “ok, we lost fair and square, but now we’re going to try to overturn the result”?
I think Trump’s supporters knew he lost the election, but they did not think the election was particularly fair. Here are some reasons:
1) The FBI and CIA interfered in the election by suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story. This allowed Biden to claim “Russian disinformation” during the debate.
2) Many states made last minute changes to their election laws without legislative approval in violation of their state constitutions.
3) The rejection rate of mail-in ballots was significantly lower in 2020 compared to other years, suggesting the rules were relaxed to favor Democrats.
I think by refusing to admit that there were real problems with the 2020 election, the Dems only reinforce the perception that they are only interested in playing by the rules when they win. Dem proposals to eliminate the electoral college, pack the Supreme Court, and get rid of the filibuster further reinforce this perception.
The WSJ suggested that pardoning the non-violent ones wasn’t such a bad idea, but drew the line at the others.
It would have been nice if the President— quite some time ago, would have tasked…someone… to sort out the cop bashers from the “tourists” before he made the blanket pardon that even he couldn’t defend, when asked.
I think the WSJ should better have asked why non-violent people needed pardon in the first place.
They assaulted the Capitol. They tried to overthrow a democracy. They are traitors. Stop making excuses for them.
Please be a bit more civil in your answers, please.
To me, it looked like a repressive move by an authoritarian regime. Particularly the progressive young adults tipping the authorities to arrest their parents sent “Pavlik Morozov” vibes across Eastern Europe.
Okay, let me say this: there was no rational reason to pardon those rioters given long sentences for hurting other people. And of course there is no comparison with the Capitol riots and the George Floyd murder: for the latter the police, for reasons of optics, didn’t want to make arrests.
A pardon wipes out a conviction completely, so do you think that if people invade the capitol despite police warnings, trespass, look to hurt congresspeople, and in fact injure cops and others, should never have been prosecuted in the first place? And of course how justice is dispensed depends on the dispenser. Presumably you think that if people who engage in vandalism or insurrection aren’t arrested by one administration, then nobody who does that under another administration should get arrested. Ideally, justice should be dispensed evenly, but I don’t agree that if clear lawbreakers don’t get arrested in one case, then people breaking the law in the same way but in a different case should not get arrested.
But we’ve each had one say, so I suggest that the discussion stop here.
Not to mention the message is: commit violence for Trump and you will not suffer consequences. No parallel to the George Floyd rioters.
Let’s keep in mind that Trump could have pardoned them in 2021, but didn’t.
Egypt is building a zombie army!
LOL If that worked I could almost believe in jesus.
I told my long suffering partner…
Picture a turned up nose, OMG!
“is that after he kills her”!
“to be abused until he finds a replacement”!
A law legalising necrophilia could be argued to be enlightened and progressive. Despite finding the practice disgusting, I can’t think of a rational, secular reason why it should be banned. Arguably, an enlightened and progressive legal system would be legislating based on avoidance of harm, not avoidance of disgust. I should clarify that I actually don’t have a problem with necrophilia being illegal, but I don’t think its illegality is the enlightened progressive position, as that tweet seems to imply.
What is genuinely not enlightened and progressive about the proposed Egyptian law is that I’m sure it’s not gender neutral.
I also thought a law against having sex with your dead wife was strange and unnecessary — until I started thinking about the sort of men who’d welcome its repeal.
What if this law is the only thing keeping some wives from being murdered?
Don’t the men already have several built-in excuses to murder wives and female relatives for the mildest of transgressions? Raping them—not “having sex with them” — is just another layer of insult.
No, I meant more like “I would kill my wife for (mildest of transgressions), but then I could no longer have sex with her …. Wait! You mean I could??”
Corruption of the flesh would make that a viable proposition in only the shortest of terms. Maybe too short to incentivize murder. But I do hear your deeper meaning.
Did the Egyptian law just now go into effect, or is this just a reminder of a law previously passed? It’s odd, the news report carries a date from April 27, 2012, while having current tabs visible (“Trump Inauguration”, “Budget 2025”). Not sure what that means…
What a week! Trump’s activism is a stark contrast to Biden’s somnambulism—not that releasing violent January 6 criminals onto the streets is a good thing; it’s not—but Trump is definitely a contrast. It will take us a while to get used to but yet again, as with Trump’s first term, there will be a new outrage every day.
Yes, there will be, and some people demand that I write about those outrages because it’s coddling Trump. I will continue to criticize the bad things he does and laud any good things he does, as I lauded or criticized the Democrats for their actions. But I do NOT want these comments to be venues for outrage.
Uncivil comments will be called out (in extreme cases, deleted), and obtuse commenters sanctioned. I again urge people to read “Da Roolz” on the left sidebar.
<
blockquote>;[JAC note]: the perp was 18, but I can’t find evidence of an Al-Qaeda training manual at Nellie’s link<\blockquote>;
This article (from the BBC) reports it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78w7nlwz9po
thanks!
Love the cat in the sun 😺 and the baby goats!
A detail. I’m no fan of the idiots and clowns and violent criminals of Jan 6th….
” pardoned 1500 convicted insurrectionists, and doing that is similar (but not identical) to freeing Palestinian terrorists.”
…but absolutely no. They are in entirely different universes.
I’m unaware of Jan 6thers who blew up busses or stabbed random civilians in the street. I doubt most 6ers will be committing violent crimes in future. With Pal prisoners I’d bet money every last one will.
D.A.
NYC
+1 sort of a big distinction, I would think.
I’d like to believe that. But their own words don’t give reason for comfort. Here are some quotes:
And when Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers, was sentenced, the judge said:
Now, these guys who just itch to larp as anti-govt revolutionaries have not only been released from prison, but emboldened by the knowledge that they have a president on their side.
The article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/24/trump-pardon-proud-boys-enrique-tarrio
Just returning to the issue of Musk and that arm of his, a recent Tweet of his says:
“It was astonishing how insanely hard legacy media tried to cancel me for saying “my heart goes out to you” and moving my hand from my heart to the audience.”
… which is a clear statement by him of his intent. (The clip of Macron quoted in that Tweet is also somewhat amusing in this context.)
Ceiling Cat,
Guessing you saw Cathy Young’s article (worth reading though I dislike the tone) and the kerfuffle between her and Rufo?
https://x.com/CathyYoung63/status/1882888041171460314
No, I have not seen that. Not sure I want to, as these internet fights, which of course will become more frequent and more heated as the days wear on, are wearing me out.
Birthright citizenship:
Why should visitors or temporary residents (legal or illegal) expect that their babies born in the United States (or Canada) should automatically be citizens? As visitors and temporary residents they aren’t by definition planning to stay in the country permanently to settle…are they? So why should they care that their babies will be citizens only of their home country to which they said they would be returning when they applied for visas? If they have children -> citizens, does it not suggest they were being disingenuous, hoping to put down roots? For illegal aliens it seems inescapable that they have children in order to throw a roadblock in front of the deportation process when they are eventually discovered.
How does it benefit the United States (and Canada) to have children growing up in foreign counties around the world who will have zero inculcation into our values? They may be taught by their own parents to hate us, yet they will have the unvetted right of return whenever they choose.
Of course President Trump’s executive order can’t unilaterally change the interpretation of the Constitution. It has been blocked by temporary court injunction on those very constitutional grounds. That’s appropriate. It’s how the process works. He says the injunction was expected and his Administration will appeal around the meaning of “jurisdiction”. Likely the Supreme Court will make the call. That’s also how it works. If he loses, it might get the ball rolling for an Amendment to rewrite the 14th, or move birth citizenship into the ordinary law so it can be changed as necessary by simple Act of Congress, as with Canada’s Citizenship Act.
Of course partisans will hope he loses or wins on partisan grounds, but stepping back, is automatic birth citizenship only for citizens and permanent residents a bad thing on it merits or not? Should Canada change our law? If he wins, I bet we will.
It’s worth pointing out that “birthright citizenship” is a peculiarity of the Americas (deriving from the unusual foundation of the USA and the “new world” countries), and is not normal in the rest of the world.
You’re asking the wrong question! In “Western” countries, policy on immigration and citizenship is all about “does it benefit the immigrant?”, not “does it benefit the host country?”.
Most of the W. hemisphere has birthright citizenship. Australia and W. Europe have variously edited versions. I like the idea of it b/c it is not so “tribal” as jus-sanguis (blood/inheritance) citizenship.
Thing is – and lost in this entire debate – actual pregnant women getting on planes to squeeze out new citizens here is pretty small. Further, it is self selective to be wealthy new citizens.
I think it is the feeling that birth tourists (mainly from China) are gaming the system that pisses people off. Fair enough – they are.
In Argentina there’s a small industry in Russian birth tourists helped by the fact that adults can naturalize there in two years.
Illegals naturally having babies while here …. happens but it isn’t the biggest issue.
Bigger fish to fry when it comes to immigration.
D.A.
NYC
legal Aussie immigrant to the USA, 1994
Occasional immigration lawyer (ret.)
Neither Australia nor New Zealand any longer awards automatic birth citizenship. Only a child born to couples where at least one of the parents was a citizen or legal permanent resident at the time of conception is automatically a citizen. If the couple is in country on temporary visas the child gets an equivalent visa that allows it to stay as long as the couple can but it will not be a citizen. If the couple is in the country illegally, then so is their baby.
Both countries made the change on account of an inconvenient number of visitors just passing through or working temporarily and acquiring jus solis citizenship for their babies. President Trump’s EO would make the American citizenship rule congruent with Australia and New Zealand if it is ruled constitutional.
In the UK, children over 10 but under 18 can apply for citizenship if they have lived continuously in the UK since birth and they don’t have any claim to be automatic UK citizens, such as one or both married parents being citizens or permanent residents. This is the closest the the UK comes to birth”right” citizenship.
You want immigrants congruent with our values? Scatter green cards to Christians in the Islamosphere. They’re extremely persecuted and have our values, good success metrics. And keep out the (minority?) of (most?) Muslims who want to destroy us.
I’d say import as many Jews from the Islamosphere as we can but…. there really aren’t any left. Funny about that eh?
D.A.
NYC
By the way, some of these “accidental Americans” have great problems with banks, because of bizarre American laws taxing them (only Eritrea has similar taxation).
I respectfully disagree about fish tacos, I love them.
I have often read accounts about the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. The message is usually: be very afraid. One would think these were contemporary incarnations of the Mafia or the older Hells Angels or even some of the left-wing terror groups of the 60s and 70s. They apparently lean to the political right—maybe even a Woke version of it. You see where I’m going: I have little trust in our media or in those who trust it uncritically. I also readily dismiss the relative and subjective word “extremist” and its variants—whether wielded by government or by either pole of our political spectrum. (The reasons should be obvious.) When Elon is a Nazi, what must we think about some uncouth, right-wing dudes denouncing feminism and the glory of the Trans New World all while running around in the woods with guns and stocking food supplies? After all, many of us have warned about the backlash that Wokeism would provoke, particularly in young white men. And others have cautioned that if you don’t like the religious Right, wait until you meet the nonreligious Right.
Let’s omit January 6th, which has been widely reported and in its violent elements is cause enough for concern—as long as we don’t let the word “violent” carry our imaginations away. But I was hearing about these groups long before then, and I want to understand the scale and significance of the threat. What are the other documented criminal histories of these two groups—as opposed to one or two individual members who might have committed nonpolitical crimes and been expelled from the groups? What are the documented “armed standoffs” with police? What violence have they committed as groups? From what I can find, they tend to be brawlers at political protests, the equivalent of bar-room fisticuffs with Antifa (Proud Boys) and dorky survivalist types (Oath Keepers). What else? Extortion? Trafficking in persons, drugs, weapons, stolen goods? Prostitution? Bombings? Assassinations? Murder? Shootings? Conspiracy to commit murder? Kidnapping? Hostage taking? Hijacking? Can anyone please shed some light on how they are like Palestinian terrorists only different? I’ve already asked AI; perhaps some here have more informed answers.
Looking at the Proud Boys I note that Canada has designated them a “terrorist entity.”
But I don’t find any stories of their terrorism or other violence.
Canada was very slow to designate the vile antisemitic group Samidoun as terrorists.
Samidoun carries out no violence in Canada but supports Hamas and joins pro-Hamas rallies.
https://www.adl.org/resources/article/samidoun-what-you-need-know
“As you know, for no rational reason, Trump pardoned 1500 convicted insurrectionists…”
No rational reason and counterproductive from the point of view of the country. Entirely rational from the point of view of Trumps goals.
In his last term Trump did want to stay in power regardless of the outcome of the election. He did lay groundwork to that end by endless unevidenced assertions of voter fraud. He did push Pence to overturn the election. When he encouraged his followers to march to the capitol it is impossible to believe he did not know what the groundwork he had laid might lead to. He knew. And when the insurrection began he could have easily shut it down but he didn’t.
When I said a couple of days ago that I did not believe that Trump was a Nazi but instead an opportunist, it’s important to note that I do not believe that he is ideologically opposed to fascism – instead he simply has no ideology. His relationship with the ideologic right is symbiotic – he gets the power he wants, they get to implement their agenda through him by proxy. The MAGA rabble is merely the grease that makes it work.
Trump is now back in power and he will not give it up without a fight. He started laying the ground work to stay in power this time well before day one and he’s doing a much better job of it this time. Democracy, the constitution, term limits, mean nothing to him. The only thing that means anything to him is power and winning. What he wins is an abstraction to him. What matters to him is simply being the biggest winner with the most power.
As for the woke left, they are the biggest gift Trump has ever received. I completely agree with Jerry that Trump could not have won without them. They practically handed it to him on a platter. I am not prone to crude expression and it’s probably not helpful but I feel like it: if the woke left cares about the people they claim to care about, they need to pull their heads out of their postmodern asses and open their eyes.
Not to denigrate your comments about the woke left in any way, but there is likely a more important reason for the Harris loss.
According to Greg Palast, who has a pretty impressive background and experience in forensic statistics, and who is using data now available from the US Elections Assistance Commission, about 4.77 million voters were wrongly purged from voter rolls with high bias against black and youthful voters. This is more than enough to account not only for the popular vote, but also the Electoral College victory by Trump.
One can read about it here: https://www.gregpalast.com/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won/
Do you have a news source on this story? Anyone can say anything on Substack.
1) I suggest you check out his Bio on his site. Greg Palast is not just “anybody”.
2) The tactics used by bad actors to improperly remove eligible voters from the rolls, as described by Palast in his article, are documented at length and with references by the Center for American Progress here:
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/keeping-voters-off-rolls/
That said – yes, I too wish his report was published and vetted elsewhere.
That’s an extremely serious accusation.
The only news story I can find mentions purging 1,600 voters.
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/30/g-s1-30644/supreme-court-virginia-elections
If he’s correct it will be big news.
Just So. When I come in late someone — or several people — have written comments that cover my thoughts. When I first found this site I objected to the epithet “woke” to cover illiberal embarrassing nonsense.
But I guess nothing else seems to catch, so no I’m like, whatever. — Woke — Those moments in the Harris campaign (say, a speech) when the rhetoric and issue coverage seemed strong, to be undermined, then by passages that had me cringe, had think — this won’t play well with the public. Will the Dems double down on tribal woke? My newest peeve is now: “affirmation therapy” and the redefinition of conversion therapy — woke as hell in blue states, woke in the medical establishment. This needs to be corrected asap.