In putting Donald Trump on the cover of its 2024 Person of the Year issue, Time magazine has pawned off all its gravitas, integrity and credibility in the uncritical service of a known publicity hound and con man, and given away publicity you literally cannot buy. For free. 

There is a term for that: abdicating one's civic responsibility. 

This is exactly why Trump is still able to ascend to public office, after all his countless scandals: he has understood how to exploit the media, and the media has allowed itself to be exploited, normalizing all the truly awful things he has done and said – and with this cover even glamorizing, elevating and canonizing him. 

A cover is not a place for nuance or context. It is not the place for educating or informing people. All a cover does is afford its subject prominence for the purpose of increasing sales. So, in essence, Time magazine has pimped itself out to a convicted felon who derives virtually all his net worth and his viability from his face and his name. This is absolutely disgraceful.

Defenders of Time magazine and corporate media will say that the cover is a supposedly ”neutral” commentary on which person has had the greatest effect on the world in the past year, but that is not how publicity works – something that Donald Trump knows very well. Nobody needed to be reminded of Trump's effect on the world. If anything, we needed to be shielded from it.

Time does not have absolute command of the truth, and this choice of a subject for its cover says absolutely nothing about their actual intent, or absolve them of responsibility. They are a commercial publication whose actions affect the world and how people view it. Their choice is in effect glamorizing and elevating a fascist, to the detriment of society as a whole, and if that isn't actually what they intended (as one would hope), then their true intent was misguided, and they have failed miserably.

The issue is this: like all media outlets, Time's publisher has a moral obligation to the world, and this is a really shitty way of harnessing that responsibility. What they are doing is exactly – almost literally – the same as cities preserving all those glorifying statues of southern Civil War generals, who were nothing but traitors to their country. A magazine's cover, much like a statue, carries absolutely zero educational or informational context. All it does is give free publicity to the person on it, for the sole purpose of selling more copies of that magazine.

If, as would be appropriate, Time magazine were to provide a disclaimer clarifying their choice of Trump for the cover – a disclaimer adequately explaining why the cover should not be seen as a way of glorifying Trump and his despicable actions – there would be no room whatsoever for his vile face on that cover. There aren’t enough disclaimers in the world to justify or balance out this absolute abdication of publicistic and moral responsibility. The cover is seen and perceived by a vast majority of people who do not actually read the contents of the magazine, by a ratio of more than a million to one (if not more). As in: for every person who buys the magazine, a million people will see that cover (entirely uncommented). It's like plastering Trump's face on the surface of the moon.

So, in this case, we really should judge a book (or a magazine) by its cover. What it says about the culpability of corporate media in getting Donald Trump elected, not once but TWICE, is not something Time magazine will want to take to the history books. 

They are complicit.

It really doesn't speak very well to the integrity of law enforcement, or even the justice system as a whole, when the leader of its highest federal division steps aside folowing a mere dismissive handwave by an incoming president - a man who is a convicted felon, has been involved in countless lawsuits, has been impeached twice, nurtures troubling relationships with dictators, and has already deposed one FBI director who subjected him to investigation. 

This follows the already crumbling integrity of the justice system evident from this wannabe mobster being granted virtually complete immunity from criminal prosecution by corruptly installed, spineless loyalists on the nation's highest court. 

I don't know how anybody anywhere is going to be able to have any confidence whatsoever in the fairness and impartiality of the justice system as a whole, when its corruptability is on such blatant public display. 

The rather crass and once startling assertion that this man could go out and shoot somebody without it costing him any votes is now paired with the grotesque reality that he would also be able to do so without any judicial consequences whatsoever.

This disgracefully public political spectacle is mirrored by the feigned media outrage on the conservative side over a murderer becoming a "folk hero" after the shooting of a health insurance executive. Those same media figures, who object so vociferously when violence is used in defense of ordinary Americans, cheerfully applauded another murderer - Kyle Rittenhouse - when he made himself a violent tool of an oppressive, racist system, and murdered a democratically empowered protester with complete impunity. It's quite disgusting.

Of course, this is not news to black people across the nation - they already know from countless firsthand experiences just how warped the justice system is. But the fact that it is now on such public display, at the very highest levels of government, where we have been told there are supposed "checks-and-balances" at play, really pulls out the rug of integrity from under every aspect of law enforcement, for every single American, at every level.

America descends into an ever deeper abyss of corruption and shocking perversion of the law. It's deeply, deeply troubling.

America,

There is no coming back from this.

You looked a narcissist, convicted felon, sexual abuser, con man and a bully in the eye, and told him you wanted more of whatever it is he is offering. Fully knowing who and what he is.

One time could perhaps have been regarded a fluke, a mistake, a temporary lapse in judgment. You didn't know who you were voting for. Maybe you wanted to protest; to send a message. You didn't mean for it to go this far.

Twice, and you have told us exactly who you are. What you stand for. There are no more excuses, no more deflections.

You have told us you want more unfettered racism.

You want more hate, you want more disparagement.

You're OK with more lies, with less civility, with more misogyny.

You told us you want mass deportations.

You told us you want more women dying in parking lots from being denied life-saving care.

You told us you want mob rule by people who think they should be allowed to beat up and murder police officers with impunity, smear feces on the walls of our place of government, and then go threaten to hang a vice president as he is performing his constitutional duty.

You told us you're OK with bomb threats to polling stations. 

OK with destroying the lives of innocent poll workers by spreading savage lies about them

OK with kidnapping governors.

OK with threatening the media with violence, vowing to jail political opponents, or turning the military upon them.

You told us you're OK with handing over the reins to wealthy plutocrats who only want what further enriches them, and are willing to grease the palms or flatter the egos of politicians to get it.

You told us you'll accept the appointments of political arsonists who have no interest in governing.

You told us you're fine with having shadowy think tanks set the political agenda behind the scenes, to dismantle our entire societal construct.

And all this because you wanted a few more dollars in your wallet, and you thought that selling out your principles would get you that - from a man who continuously cheats his contractors out of money, and even brags about it. A man who doesn't pay his taxes. A snake-oil salesman who sells bibles and sneakers online, and profits from cheap labor i China, even though he professes to want to "make America great again", and has vowed to put tariffs on imported goods.

There can be no doubt anymore. This is clearly who you are, America.

You're callous, you're ignorant, you're bigoted, and you are thoroughly bereft of morals.

Anyone would be absolutely insane to want more of this.

I certainly don't; I want nothing more to do with you.

I've had it.

You can go fuck yourself.

Except I think you already did...

I have been ruminating a lot on the collective American pathology since I migrated to the US in 2006. 

It strikes me as terribly cruel that this society inflicts the stigma of loserdom on the majority of its citizens, and then uncaringly foists a predatory capitalist system on them. A system that continues to actually, deliberately make people into losers, locking them in an uncharitable, inegalitarian societal construct where prosperity is offered to only a select few. It cruelly dangles that elusive American Dream in front of people, while systematically placing it just out of reach for so many, and then silently guilt-tripping people for not attaining it. 

This systemic cruelty is bound to create unhappiness and breed resentment. 

I think it explains Trumpism, but it also explains a lot of other societal ills like mass shootings, excessive consumption of pharmaceuticals, mass obesity, etc. 

All these things are symptoms of widespread unhappiness, and it surfaces in many people as a deep seated desire for payback, which we see in the unapologetic devotion to Donald Trump. Trump promises them that payback, since he himself is a man so full of grievances, they have consumed him whole, and they are all he ever talks about.

The thing about a predatory capitalist system is that it breeds losers. It NEEDS losers, to allow the gilded minority to profit. And there is only so long a person can take being made into a loser before they snap. Such is the pathology of Trumpism. The problem is, Trump himself only SEEMS like a savior for these exploited people - he, too, seeks nothing but to profit from them, and monetize their grievances.

What is especially awful is that the payback – while readily available through social media, where MAGA cultists continue to fixate on "owning the libs", seemingly without any other, more productive goals – only serves to tear others down in a vicious spiral that aggravates the ingrained conflicts further. It only creates victims, who then proceed to victimize others. 

Biased media outlets thrive on the innate, binary nature of clickbait outrage, continuing to stoke the fire. The disdain becomes a pressure cooker of hate that builds towards disaster, and it's hard to predict what the inevitable explosion will look like – we can only guess at the devastation. 

The desire for payback – a dogged focus on denying others that which was not made available to you – goes back to the early settler days, when the colonies wove an ever-present suspiciousness of "the other" into the fabric of this fragmented nation, and encoded the antagonism in the Constitution, where "states rights" eventually have become northing but a tool with which narrow-minded people are able to exert their dominance over others, unburdened by the societal concerns of a (utopian?) federal union. 

This nation refers to itself as the "United" States, but there is really not much of a union to be found. Instead, Americans seem to be fuming with deep seated hatred towards anyone who isn't like them, or who doesn't agree with them, as if they have nothing else to worry about. Populists like Donald Trump eagerly tap into this toxic energy, with zero concern for the calamity they will leave behind.

Thus, the American collective psyche seems like an Ouroboros which consumes itself, without thoughts towards sustainability, or peaceful coexistence.

Listen, I get that you are not going to give up on Donald Trump, no matter how many vile things he says, how poorly he behaves, or how disparagingly he treats other people. 

You have made him your avatar of hate, and you hold on to him because he continues to express it for you, as a megaphone of the disdain you wish you yourselves could broadcast to the world. So what if that hate and that disdain is expressed by a cretin with zero finess and tact, who lies and lies and lies so many many times, it becomes a chore to keep track of it.

All you care about is that your disdain is heard. And, trust me, it has been. But disdain is a very poor motivator for an election, because disdain does not come with solutions. Which are required to actually do anything meaningful about that which causes you to be angry.

If you listen carefully to what Donald Trump says (it's difficult, I know, but please try), you will notice that his words are painfully low on pro-active solutions to anything. His vitriolic proclamations are peppered with insults, inbetween which he spews incoherent ideas on how to punish people, how to get back at those he hates, and how to make his many many grievances take the semblance of a political shape. That is, when he is not outright lying. And lying. And lying. 

He lies with such ease, it has literally become a way of expression for him: "the likes of which we have never seen before", a hyperbolic statement with which he ends almost every sentence, and which almost always goes unchecked, especially on Fox News. Anything he has done, or takes credit for having done, is always "the greatest we have ever seen", and anything he dislikes is always "the worst in history". This is the verbiage of a pathological liar, who is so far removed from the truth, he cannot bring himself to check his self-aggrandizing lies and exaggerations. He just piles on and on and on, until we're buried in a mountain of lies (30,000 by the Washington Post's count, and that was just during his presidency.)

This is not a mature, sensible way to govern a nation. This is how a child behaves. Grievances do not lead to solutions that lift people up, or help people in need. They only lead to punitive action that makes you feel good for a brief moment, but then you are left with the very same issues that caused the grievances in the first place.

Donald Trump did not build the economy of seven years ago - he took over an already booming economy, which was salvaged on the brink of disaster by Barack Obama's administration, and Trump then proceeded to ruin it. Just look at where the economy was at the beginning of his administration (healthy), and where it was at the end of it (in the toilet). Take a closer look at what he actually DID for the economy: he signed off on a massive tax cut for the wealthy, and on tariffs on imported goods. Those measures were both inflationary – just ask any educated economist. This, once again, led to a Democratic president having to take over after the ravages of a Republican president.

Donald Trump does not care if you have more money left in your wallet when the month is over. If he did, then why did he implement tax policies that only helped those in his own elevated tax bracket? And why is he so fixated on tariffs for Chinese goods? Those will hurt YOU, not him, and those tariffs will only help his donors, wealthy industrialists like Elon Musk. Just ask yourself how many necessities you buy from WalMart or Target every week, and then take a wild guess how many of them were made in China. Tariffs will increase the prices on those goods, and YOU (not him) will pay that price.

Donald Trump does not care if the prices on groceries are high. If he did, then where are his proposals to curb those jacked-up prices? Literally all of those proposals come from his opponent. Do you really think Trump even knows the price of groceries...? I can guarantee you he does not.

Donald Trump does not care if you receive help to pay your bills, or receive relief from debt. Literally ALL of those policies are proposed by his opponent, in the form of childcare subsidies, housing down-payment subsidies, price reductions on medicines, eliminated tax on tips, forgiven student debt, etc etc. If you were indeed better off during Trump's presidency, that was the result of an economy built up by his predecessor. An economy doesn't magically grow overnight, when occupants are swapped in the White House. It builds over time. Unfortunately, as we saw both during the housing crisis of 2008, and during Trump's disastrous handling of the pandemic, the economy can crash in an instant. 

Donald Trump does not care about women's rights. If he genuinely wanted to protect women, he could have started by not deliberately appointing anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court. He could have refrained from saying women should be "punished" for having an abortion. He could have refrained from saying all those vile, sexist, misogynistic things about women, he could have refrained from cheating on his wives, and above all: he could have refrained from the sexual abuse of which he has been found guilty in a court of law. Remember that photo of him and Melania walking across the lawn in the rain? Trump held the umbrella over himself, and let Melania get soaked. That is how much of a "protector" he is.

Donald Trump does not care about border security.  If he did, then why did he have the (very conservative) border security bill killed in Congress? He cares about expressing his racism and his disdain for immigrants, but if he really wanted to keep them out, that wall he began constructing is not doing the job. There are many more effectve ways of doing that, but those ways have to clear congress, and as long as Republicans are not willing to cooperate, no bill proposed by Democrats will ever pass.

What Donald Trump DOES care about is popularity. He obsesses about his crowd sizes, he relishes when important people flatter him, and he demanded outright sycophancy from his cabinet while he was in office. And because he gives voice to your anger, you continue to feed his oversized ego with your misguided worship.

This man is not fit to be president. Never was, never will be. None of the things he actually, demonstrably cares about will EVER "make America great again". It's about time you, dear conservatives, came to your senses and realized this. The only thing he wants to make "great" is his own ego. You see it every single time he gets on stage.

I understand. You're angry. Point taken. You've expressed your disdain and your hate, and made it clear that you feel ignored by "the elites". But this collective temper tantrum has got to end.

Moving targets are things that favor the rich and powerful. The law should not be a moving target.

You might think that the privileged would prefer a status quo, but that only applies if the status quo is one of laissez-faire flexibility and lack of regulations; a situation where there are constant loopholes to exploit. So, their preference is not necessarily for an unchanging set of circumstances, but one where they control whatever changes happen.

This is also the case with free market capitalism. Moneyed interests are free to go wherever opportunities allow, and can freely exploit the leverage that their wealth and influence affords them – even if such exploitation ends up hurting others. If anyone gets caught between a rock and a hard place, that is typically none of their concern, as their privileges tend to lift them out of such situations.

Refuting the need for iron-clad regulations in favor of vague, unenforceable norms and malleable procedural structures – like legal or political "checks-and-balances", which are constantly subject to reinterpretation – is the governmental equivalent of letting free market capitalism direct what's right and wrong. It establishes a floating situation where the rich and powerful have an easier time shifting conditions in their favor.

Relying on structural and procedural checks-and-balances, like those outlined in the Constitution – the interpretation of which seems continuously and quite deliberately open to subjective partisan analysis – simply provides clear targets for those who seek to bend the law to their benefit. In some cases, those targets are other powerful individuals, whose compliance can be bought and sold. Case in point: Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas. No amount of liberal politicking can change the fact that he is a lifetime appointee doing the bidding of conservative sponsors – leaving the ultimate application of the law in a compromised, fluid state, and weakening the court's integrity.

In fact, the entire American judiciary is a very salient example of much needed societal checks-and-balances, which have been subjected to a continuous targeted shift to the right over the past few decades, simply because the system invites to such manipulative influence. Just like how free market capitalism is designed to slide imperceptibly in whichever direction favors the powerful, the judiciary has become a tool and an active participant in the manipulation of the very justice system it's supposed to safeguard. The law, in essence, is in flux. We now have a Supreme Court that has suddenly reversed a decision on bodily autonomy for women, and also decided that presidents can do as they please, without concerns for accountability. This would have been unthinkable a mere ten years ago, and the change itself posits clear evidence why constitutional textualism is a sham: the justices who insist on it are themselves clear examples of the fluidity of the law.

The only way around this seems to be to establish firewalls and regulations which prevent this kind of fluid manipulation, since these checks-and-balances are a) very much malleable, and b) clear targets for those who seek to influence things without having to consult the public. I.e., they represent a system that naturally veers away from democracy, as we have seen in the United States over the past decade. Even an age-old practice like gerrymandering offers an example of a procedural dial through which democracy itself can be manipulated.

One example of such a firewall or regulation is to apply term limits to the Supreme Court, and to ensure that the opportunity to appoint Supreme Court justices isn't offered randomly based on when a judge keels over and dies, ceding the choice to whomever happens to be in power at the time. 

Another example would be to simply cap how many justices a single president can appoint – after all, presidential term limits apply, so why should the same not be the case for the lifetime appointees of the Supreme Court? If a president can serve a maximum of two terms, why should there be no limit to the number of justices one president can appoint? Those appointments have a lasting decision-making influence, long after a president has left office.

One thing is certain: where there is room for manipulation, and there is something to be gained from it, things will be manipulated. Those are the corrupt, laissez-faire principles of free market capitalism. And while it could possibly be argued that the market can sustain this fluidity to some extent (though disputed by the perpetual boom-and-bust cycle of capitalist economies), justice cannot. Society cannot. 

Hence, we must establish definitions of where fluidity and moving targets are not in the best interests of the public, and create protective barriers against them. Anything less is tantamount to sanctioning the suffering of the needy.

One such definition, to offer but one example, is to legislate with zero ambiguity that a convicted criminal cannot be president, and presidents cannot commit crimes.

The fluidity presented by having criminality be a permitted facet of governance spells nothing but corruption and chaos. 

Mainstream media continue bringing the most disingenuously rigid and opinionated pundits on their debate shows, and then pit them against each other so they spend prime time arguing about every single pointless minutiae, from the most pointless of angles. Just watched an angry Republican and an angry Democrat arguing about the most basic principle in rhetoric: how to interpret statistics. When even a child knows that you can use statistics to prove anything, if you're selecting the criteria narrowly enough. Which they were both doing.

So, in this case, both the Democrat and the Republican were wrong, but their basic viewpoints were valid, though they never actually talked about those: you can (and should) base policies on both facts, and on feelings. Policy solutions need to affect the facts, but they also need to address the feelings of the constituents, otherwise the politician is not doing their job. Politicians are not button pushers, they are representatives. Of human beings. With feelings. Who vote based on both those facts, and those feelings. We can pretend to ignore that, but it leads nowhere. Or, worst case, it leads to another January 6th.

The REAL issue here is not what the facts or the feelings say, or how you interpret them - it's what politicians are proposing to DO about them. And Harris is proposing solutions, whereas Trump is stoking fears. 

When people feel (FEEL) that their fears aren't being taken seriously, they lash out in anger, or in desperation. So, the best thing to do is to acknowledge them, and try to bring down the fear levels. This is why it is so dangerous to have a major party candidate who basically does nothing but stoke fears.

Solutions can address BOTH facts and feelings. Stoking fears does neither.

It´s bad enough that the US continues to sell weapons to a party – Israel – that is disproportionately engaging in armed and indiscriminate retaliation with genocidal overtones. Now, it also has to be acknowledged that the political opposition (in the form of one of the candidates for president, Donald Trump) is apparently engaging to prevent a ceasefire agreement in the Gaza conflict, thereby needlessly prolonging the suffering of innocent civilians for his own selfish purposes. It´s outright disgusting. This is cynical political gamesmanship with zero concern for human lives.

Legally, this would appear –if true – to violate the Logan Act, but given how rarely that legislation has been applied, and the fact that it has never led to a conviction, it seems this is yet another in the multitude of ethical transgressions that the former president is likely to get away with scot free. 

Just as he did when he sent an unelected, unsanctioned representative (Rudy Giuliani) to pressure the Ukrainian president for dirt on Joe Biden in 2019, simply to benefit Donald Trump´s own re-election chances.

One wonders why these laws even exist, if they are not enforceable.

Increasingly, we see politicians seek office to do battle on behalf of an intrenched ideology, cultivating a loudmouthed public persona for clicks instead of seeing themselves as good-faith representatives of the population.

It occurs to me that this stance is actually reflective of the larger shift that´s happened especially in the Republican party over the past few election cycles: politicians act in their own self interests, instead of trying to represent the public at large. 

The concept of public servanthood seems totally dead within the GOP, and we see it in statements like those of JD Vance: he thinks people with children should have a bigger legislative representation simply because of them being perceived as having a larger "stake" in the nation´s future. I.e., there´s a deeply transactional nature of their rhetorical approach to policy issues. Instead of trying to balance the interests of all Americans, they cherry pick based on what they think will serve their ideology the best. 

This is a prime example of party over country, when we really ought to select candidates that are NOT inherently divisive and married to a certain demographic, but rather seek to serve the population as a whole - whether or not they have children, are white, are men, are christians, etc etc. Presidents are not meant to use the office to grow a fan base, they´re meant to represent the people.

I don´t see Republicans returning to a public servanthood approach anytime soon; they have sold out to the cult of personality. The entire public face of the party has bought into the concept of politics as a bloodsport, where representatives cultivate click-bait approaches to politics, building their individual "brands" as loudmouthed public personas (see: Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Bobert, Matt Gaetz, Donald Trump Jr, etc).

Gone is any consideration of the actual needs of the populace. Instead, what we get is political drama, where politicians pretend to be crusaders for good, and their opponents as representations of evil. 

It´s very hard to see how this benefits the public.

I like to think of myself as a reasonably objective, impartial person. 

If some presents me with a robust, well thought-out argument, I can usually at the very least see and appreciate the reasoning behind it, even if I ultimately may not agree. And if an argument really sinks in, I usually ponder it carefully, and consider changing my viewpoint, if I can find evidence that supports such a change.

But with initial republican criticism of Kamala Harris, I just cannot see anything but the flailing, insufficient intellects of lazy, privileged, prejudiced, old white men.  

She doesn't have children. 

She isn't actually black. 

She is a "DEI hire". 

She is "dumb as a rock". 

All of these weak ad-hominem attacks are just flat out pathetic, and a sad reflection of the intellectually and morally depleted GOP. It keeps lowering the bar with every public statement made by its representatives.

I would desperately want for them to be better, to do better, because vigorous, well-informed debate is a healthy, necessary thing in a democracy. But this current conservative MAGA-enthralled movement is clearly not up to the task. They have abdicated any claim on reason and thoughtful political rationale, and their depraved cult leader has substituted lying and bullying for meaningful discourse.

The ”DEI hire” line most recently comes from Tim Burchett, a representative from the House (not a senator like Harris); a guy who has a Bachelor in education from the University of Tennessee (whereas Harris graduated from UC Law); a guy who was a mayor of Knox County, pop. 478,000 (whereas Harris was a DA and the state AG of California, pop. 39 million). The DEI statement coming from this cretin is just fucking rich – ludicrous even. Especially from a party that supposedly espouses meritocracy, but is now far closer to Idiocracy.

Case in point: believe it or not, but Burchett once sponsored a bill to legalize the eating of roadkill. Roadkill! You really cannot make this shit up, it is so laughable. These people are really much closer to the fictional character of Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho than is comfortable.

Burchett really ought to think before he speaks, but I fear that is beyond him – as is the case for the rest of his intellectually feeble party in its current depraved form. They all seem to have a severe case of Tourette's of the mouth, and what comes out of them is often in equal parts misogynistic, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, and moronic. 

I can't believe they manage to win ANY elections at all - it's a sad testament to how little Americans care about politics.

Republican pundits are saying Harris' policies are Biden's policies, and in addition, she was supposedly part of a cover-up of Biden's ongoing, declining state. 

Be that as it may, I highly doubt this election will be decided based on policy issues, or continued harping on Biden's age.

The two issues of the highest importance to voters BY FAR  were the unsuitability for office of both candidates. Biden's decline had become the sole, exclusive focal point, preventing him from drilling down on Trump's deficiencies as a candidate. His stepping aside removes that issue entirely, and allows Harris to unleash her prosecutorial instincts to hammer Trump based on his greatest weakness: his track record of crime, insurrection, and sexual predation. Trumpers and MAGA fanatics won't care, but you can bet that swing voters will. 

Maintain the focus on Trump's venal nature and he will fade like a vampire in sunshine. Biden wasn't able to, for reasons quite obvious. Harris will be, and what's more: it's smack dab in her wheelhouse as a prosecutor.

Policies? They are sadly entirely secondary. American voters don't vote based on policies, or even facts. They vote based on feelings, hunches and emotions. Clinton lost due to an enthusiasm gap, despite a very comprehensive policy focus. Biden won due to a distaste for Trump and his vulgar, self-serving antics. If this was ever truly about policies, Biden would have been way ahead in the polls long before that fateful debate. Harris can bring the focus fully where it needs to be: on the assertion that Donald Trump simply should not be president.

Historically, most average voters have not been terribly interested in policy matters, and have perhaps chosen not to vote at all. However, Trump has turned elections into entertainment and a bloodsport, so now we have both uninformed and disinterested voters participating, who are much more susceptible to emotional manipulation. Democrats have not been able to adjust to that reality (though Sanders was more successful at it than Clinton).

For the country's survival, I suspect politics must become boring again. Those who are motivated to jump into political discussions by sensationalism, conspiratorialism, and a lack of understanding of policy issues, are a bear that ought best not be poked.

After yet another very public shooting, and another assassination attempt on the life of a prominent politician, Americans are once again shaking their heads in disbelief, and wondering why this keeps happening, pointing fingers in all the wrong directions. 

It prompts an overwhelming feeling of déjà-vu.

As is so often the case, the reliance on weapons to produce a false sense of security creeps to the forefront of the debate. Americans are victims of violence, and react by feeling insecure and resorting to buying more weapons to coddle their fragile emotions, thus feeding their own victimhood and paranoia. 

This is not just seen on an individual level; the argument for a nation building the world's largest army could also be a desire of its population to feel safe.

But if that were the case, why does the US have the world's largest private stash of firearms, and why do they consume 80% of the world's opiates...? Doesn't this in fact point to a population that is feeling anything but safe?

It seems to me that Americans are living in a permanent state of poorly concealed paranoia. It is a diverse melting pot, true, but that melting of different ethnicities and cultures seems to not have increased empathy or understanding of those who are different, but instead amped up the insecurity and distrust, and the bonding together of separate tribes.

Add to this the fact that the American political system does not reward thoughtfulness and deliberation, but instead builds on fearmongering and pandering to the lowest common denominator – which is typically emotional as opposed to rational, and anchors to that very same underlying distrust.

I hypothesize that this paranoia was hardcoded into the country's constitution, brought to these shores by inherently insecure and persecuted minotities, and then extended into legislation where each state wanted to protect itself from the supposedly evil intents of other states. Suspicion and distrust were essentially embedded into the country's foundational laws, devised to protect against the worst of our instincts, instead of enabling the best of our intentions.

Somehow, armed Americans seriously believe they could venture out into the streets en masse, and fight their own government with weapons and ammunition purchased at WalMart. 

Lurking behind this ludicrous notion lies the poisonous idea of ​​being able to crawl onto a roof and shoot at presidents, which is then denied as being an inherent part of the American pathology.

So, not only are these supposedly "united"  States paranoid to a tee, they are also deeply delusional, refusing to deal with that deep-seated collective trauma which foments all their violent actions.

But all recovery has to start with a clear diagnosis, and a realization of one's own illness.

Biden steps in front of a camera, and instantly confirms that which has been the fear for quite some time: that he is losing it.

Democrats are then offered an opportunity to step up, and do something to change the disastrous, election-losing trajectory, but instantly confirm that which has been known for quite some time: that they have no spine.

Trump is then proceeding towards securing the election, his opponent buried under dysmal approval ratings from which no president in history has recovered, and Trump in turn confirming that which has been known for quite some time: that he is a criminal con man and authoritarian who intends to dismantle our democracy.

Is there really nobody even trying to change these infuriating  inevitabilities...?

Most democrats are just sitting there with their fingers in their ears, refusing to listen, refusing to act. Some of them even appear to be covering up the fact that Biden is losing. 

Losing to Trump. A convicted sex offender and white collar criminal.  

It's really rather astonishing. Almost as if democrats don't WANT to win.

Ever since moving to the U.S. in 2006, I have somewhat deliberately made myself the test subject in an ongoing existential experiment, and an observer of what makes America tick, or – more importantly – what makes it NOT tick.

It has become increasingly obvious to me that Americans are caught in a process of ongoing, persistent victimization. In addition, they are being propagandized from childhood to believe that there is no other viable alternative, that accepting the heavy yoke of capitalism is good for you (and good for society), and – even worse – that objecting to it is un-American. As we all know from the pervasiveness of American mythology, being un-American is just about the worst thing anybody could ever be. And thus, nothing ever changes.

Squeezed in the vice of laissez-faire, end-stage capitalism, Americans are throughout their lives subjected to the oppressive demands and slowly increasing pressure of predatory capitalism, from which their only real protection is their earning power. Around every corner, there is someone who is trying to get them to part with their money, and it is made more and more difficult to determine if doing so would actually be good for them, or if bleeding money is simply an inevitable facet of existence. Ever present is the nagging suspicion of being conned, their resilience gradually worn down under the constant pressure of ever escalating financial demands from which there is no respite – not even when they're at death's door. They have essentially suspended their heads in what amounts to a fiscal guillotine, and have willingly or unwittingly accepted becoming prey to the increasingly callous predation of ever-present market forces, who see them only as sources of revenue.

While I am no psychologist, I think it's pretty obvious that being subjected to such relentless pressure through a whole lifetime, being victimized persistently, living in the slow-burning fear that comes from not having any form of safety net, is bound to take its toll on someone's mental health. Indeed, to support this claim, I submit the fact that Americans consume about 80% of the global opioid supply. This is a perfect example of cause-and-effect.

Now, conservatives claim that this is simply the way the world works; that this is the natural order of things. While hardly a ringing endorsement of capitalism, or a meaningful, pro-active stance in trying to make the world a better place, they are not wrong. Ironically, however, in fatalistically making this argument, they make themselves proponents of a social version of the very Darwinism they often reject on ideological grounds – especially if they are of the Evangelical Christian persuasion. And they also forget that Darwin never stipulated that survival is for the strongest, i.e. the ones who can take the most punishment. That argument was made by Nietzsche, whose philosophy became adopted by fascists worldwide. No, Darwin argued that the ones who tend to survive are the ones most adaptive to change. As humans, we all have the ability to change, and to change the world. So, doing what conservatives do – simply accepting an unjust and cruel system – is defeatist and unhelpful. We can and should do better. There is a moral imperative to consider here, from which conservatives often proclaim themselves exempt. I am not disagreeing that the nature of the world is callous and uncaring, but I object most strenuously to the defeatist conservative notion that we need to accept this, and not try to change it. Change is what has kept humanity alive since the dawn of mankind. The politics of change are what will keep us alive, and make us thrive.

We may think of ourselves as standing outside this system, and that to ordinary people, free market capitalism is a construct where there is give-and-take, and where the givers are also the recipients of necessary goods and services. I ask that you consider the issue in a broader perspective: how are shareholders in publicly traded corporations in any way part of this reciprocal give-and-take, and in what way would they ever really consider the net effects of the products or services delivered to consumers by the corporations in which they hold stock? Do they by-and-large ever consider how the buyers of these products are affected by them? No, what they are doing is engaging in an abstraction of the process. They're focusing solely on their own monetary rewards, and thereby giving the corporate officers an alibi for exploitation and corner-cutting. This is where so many many corporations go when regulations seem punitive to them, and restrict their earnings potential. 

Pharmaceutical companies evade regulations to poison us. Oil and chemical companies evade regulations to pollute our air and our water. Arms manufacturers evade regulations to sell more weapons. Food manufacturers evade regulations to be able to continue selling us products that make us sick. Financial companies evade regulations in order to trap us in debt. Still, these corporations have thousands and thousands of consenting shareholders, and we measure their success in how well they are faring on the stock market, never balancing this success against their failures to meet societal obligations.

In accepting this system, we make ourself complicit in its devastating effects – often unwittingly. We become the very predators of whom we are also the victims. It's essentially a societal ouroboros: the serpent that eats its own tail. It's fine if you're close to the head, but it means death if you're at the tail end.

As an example, let me tell the story of an acquaintance who got herself involved in a Multi-Level Marketing scheme. You know, the kind where all profits float to the top, but which are paid for by the losses of the newly recruited, and where you have to perpetually keep bringing in new suckers to keep the scheme going. This acquaintance was blinded by the (fictitious) potential, and naively focused on her own potential earnings, while remaining blithely ignorant of the fact that she was essentially scamming and fleecing her own friends and family. 

As another example, I once voiced similar concerns about capitalism to a family friend. In response, I was asked somewhat cynically if I made more money here in the U.S. than in my native country, as if this should tell me anything of real importance. The question flummoxed me, but I asked in return what good it is to earn more money on paper, if the lack of quality of life means you will be paying the vast majority of those earnings into healthcare, in order to repair you from the damage done in pursuing those higher wages.

This is what this kind of system will do to us, where capitalistic gains are not only seen as the norm but the imperative. It will de-sensitize us to the plight of others, even when it happens as an extension of our own actions. What's more, it will blind us to the gradual erosion of our own resilience.

Such a construct of co-dependencies, where we are systemically motivated to think only of ourselves – a system that preys on us to feed it more time, more effort, more money, more political capital, more blood sweat and tears – is not a healthy system. 

As human beings, we deserve better. 

We need better.

The very real consequences of Biden's disastrous debate performance just got immensely worse. The Supreme Court just released its ruling on whether a president has immunity for criminal acts committed while in office. The ruling is an abject disaster.

From Vox.com:  "Monday’s decision, in other words, ensures that, should Trump return to power, he will do so with hardly any legal checks. (...) A future president can almost certainly order the assassination of his rivals. He can wield the authority of the presidency to commit countless crimes. And he can order a subordinate to do virtually anything. And nothing can be done to him."

We're living through utter dystopian madness. This situation is absolutely, unfathomably absurd, and could not have been any more chilling if George Orwell had scripted it. The Supreme Court has now irreversibly and immorally squandered whatever flimsy legitimacy it once possessed, which is further aggravated by the clear fact that there is zero accountability for the court's officials, in any sense. They are appointed for life, they are not subject to any meaningful oversight, and they can make any decision to strip this democracy of all its guardrails – even doing so at the behest of someone else, with deep enough pockets. These are the makings of a profoundly corrupt dictatorship, and it is quite deliberate.

I've gone from being appalled at the shocking collapse of this nation in the past 8 years, to being downright afraid. I see an abyss opening up, and what I once thought was rock bottom now appears to have no bottom at all.

What is especially absurd is that Conservatives, likely rejoicing ignorantly in this outlandishly undemocratic ruling, don't seem to realize that Joe Biden is still president, and by this ruling, he would be perfectly immune to prosecution if he – as he does – deems Trump a threat to democracy, and decided to take action against that threat with deadly force. I find it immensely hard to believe that conservatives in Congress would not seek any accountability for such an act, but that is literally what this Supreme Court ruling spells out.

That the highest court in any nation could make this type of decision without regards for the monumentally devastating effects on democracy is absolutely preposterous and outrageous. We now see the shocking consequences of not keeping our eyes on the ball, and not preventing an authoritarian madman from seating a disproportionate number of justices to the bench, who then predictably proceed to act as his henchmen in dismantling anything even resembling a sane, stable society under the rule of law. 

This urgently needs to C-H-A-N-G-E. 

And we still think that a feeble, mumbling, absent-minded octogenarian is going to do it...? Please. WAKE UP! We CANNOT leave this up to a flimsy popularity contest between two deeply problematic, unpopular candidates. 

The stakes are MUCH too high. 

John Fetterman has decried Democrats who have asked for Biden to step aside after yesterday's disastrous debate, calling them "vultures". I can understand why he, of all people, might think quick criticism is a bad response to a poor debate performance, since he was in the exact same situation against Dr. Oz, after his stroke and an equally poor debate performance in the last midterms. But he is wrong. His condition is one you can improve from, and he has improved. The Fetterman we see today is a much more articulate person than he was right after his illness, and it's important to also recognize that his condition was not related to a cognitive decline. What we saw in president Biden yesterday, however, is not a condition you improve from. It is not a temporary condition. Biden shows signs of clear decline, and that decline isn't suddenly going to turn around. The kind of behavior Biden showed signs of last night is the exact kind of behavior where relatives need to step in and take the car keys away from grandpa.

If Democrats don't act, they are showing the nation that all their talk about Donald Trump being an existential threat to our democracy was just that: talk. You don't ask a doddering old man who can barely string sentences together to handle an existential threat – if you do, then it clearly means you're not really taking the threat seriously. 

Did Trump lie? Oh yes, did he ever. But that is nothing new for Trump. The Trump we saw yesterday was not materially different from the Trump we saw in the last election. We knew he was going to lie his ass off, and whatsmore, Biden spent a long time preparing for it, and yet he was entirely unable to respond to the barrage of lies. What WAS different was the Biden we saw yesterday – a very different man from the debates in the previous election, or even this year's State of the Union address. That is profoundly alarming.

Van Jones, for whom I normally have great respect, said in CNN's debate coverage last night that he thought Democrats now need to do what Republicans always have done when Trump has been criticized: rally behind the leader, and show loyalty. He is also wrong. The fact is, Republicans should NOT be loyal to Trump. The whole point about Trump is that he is demonstrably unfit to be president, and this is exactly the wrong time for loyalty. We're asking Republicans to break ranks, and be honest and truthful about Trump being unfit. The same exact thing goes for Biden. He is indicating very clearly that he is unfit to be president, because a huge part of the presidency involves instilling confidence that the nation is in safe hands, and he is emphatically not doing that. Anybody who thinks otherwise was not paying attention to the debate.

People calling for "loyalty" need to understand that you don't fight an existential threat by being loyal to someone who is not up to the task. You fight it by giving yourself the best chance of succeeding.

What Democrats need to do now, and which they have time and time again proven themselves very bad at doing, is to FIGHT.

In the run-up to the 2024 election, much is made of the supposed mental decline of both presidential candidates. Biden is said to be declining due to age, and Trump is said to be suffering from the onset of dementia (in addition to his very obvious other personality disorders).

I'm not doubting any of this, and we should definitely have a debate about an upper age limit for presidents, or at least some sort of mandated test that ensures their cognitive function. But in the specific case of Donald Trump, I feel that going after him for his "cognitive decline" and possible dementia is missing the bigger picture: he should not be, and should NEVER have been, allowed within a mile of power, simply because of his personality and his flagrant, mindbogglingly obvious unsuitability for the job. He is petty, vindictive, rude and self-serving. He demands subservience, doesn't listen to advice, and has no respect for the norms and institutions that he is supposed to serve. This was true in the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s and every single year since he entered politics. It is eminently observable, and requires absolutely zero psychological diagnosis, it just requires a tiny dose of common sense. We can argue until the cows come home about Trump's possible dementia and future decline, but the truth is, he has NEVER been an appropriate candidate for public office, EVER – even when he was at his "sharpest". 

The question is, what do we do about this after Trump is gone? Because he sure isn't the only person who is poorly suited for a job in public service, and conservatives keep foisting worse and worse candidates on us with each year, completly hollowing out the meaning of public servanthood. They have strategic reasons for this, and most of them are out in the open: they don't believe in government, and seek to prove that government doesn't work by simply ensuring that it doesn't. And for that reason, we have to prevent ill suited individuals to even run for office, because the bottom line is that our political system is being actively sabotaged.

This is not a matter of democracy, it is a matter of survival. There have to be checks and balances even in the selection of political candidates; they have to prove themselves worthy of the power we invest in them (case in point: the nuclear arsenal), and capable of executing the duties we assign to them (case in point: managing the resonse to a pandemic). We already have a representational democracy, so it goes against the very intent of this system to allow just about any nincompoop to be elected – our system is based on the idea of  the people making an informed selection between qualified representatives. It should not be a popularity contest. If we allow the broad masses to elect people based solely on popularity (as opposed to competence), we can rest assured that the important and difficult problems will never be addressed, or worse, they will actually be aggravated. Electing political officeholders by measure of popularity is tantamount to trying to solve the national issue of poor dietary habits by offering everyone McDonald's for every meal. It would be very popular, but it would lead to a staggering increase in premature deaths due to heart disease. 

So, this is a profound threat to our survival, especially given the powers we vest in our presidents. Trump proved just how bad it can get, and that's not the end of it – it could get even worse.

Populism is a very BAD, destructive element in politics, and our electoral system needs safeguards against it.

Conservative Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene's juvenile mean girl routine is wearing mighty thin. She doubles down even on the most reprehensible of stunts, from disparaging elected representatives for their appearance, to wilfully sabotaging the work of the House, wearing a MAGA hat during the State of the Union address, and shouting foul accusations at the nation's president. She takes any request for an apology, or suggestion that she tone down the vitriol, as an opportunity to grandstand arrogantly in front of the cameras, clueless as to the damage she is doing to the public perception of Congress. It shows a complete lack of tact, and a jarring lack of respect for decorum. 

None of her ill-considered actions bear any relevance to her assigned duties; the only place for that sort of behavior is on her social media accounts, which she appears to care more about than preserving the dignity of her office. Serving your country in an elected position is an honor and a privilege and should be treated as such, but she abuses that privilege almost daily with her shameless, vulgar bullying antics. 

She ought to be dragged out of Congress and publically shamed for the dishonor she is bringing down on the House of Representatives. Her entire persona is deeply cringeworthy, and sets a terrible standard for future members.

More importantly, such profundly undeserving individuals ought never to be placed in this position of responsibility in the first place, since they have no idea of what it means to serve your country. They evidently only strive for maximum division, and engage in pointless, unconstructive bickering. 

The nation's voters deserve better representation. 

Sweden and Finland have joined NATO as a direct result of Putin's aggressions in Ukraine. While I have never been a proponent of Swedish NATO membership, I have now actually changed my mind –  something I rarely do in such consequential matters, and never without careful consideration. 

Within Sweden, the question of NATO membership has been posed as an issue of domestic posturing and biased affiliations. I don't think this is primarily the case. There are obviously factions that are for and against NATO membership, but I don't think that was the key driver. Instead, I think these are the kind of real political consequences you have to demonstrate to despots like Putin, because those are the only outcomes that directly affect him and his reprehensible imperialism. We can try applying economic sanctions until the cows come home, but as long as Russia has support from China, Turkey, Hungary, Syria and Iran, and Putin can expand his Russian support network across Africa, sanctions will not achieve any direct results whatsoever. And in the case of Ukraine, Western nations have been able to step in militarily for several years, to demonstrate the direct consequences of the war of conquest that Putin is waging, but they have chosen not to do so. This is why strategic alliances are probably the only solution that remains, to show Putin that the kind of aggressive action he has taken in Ukraine has direct and immediate consequences for the geopolitical landscape in Europe. By invading Ukraine, his room to maneuver in the West has now been symbolically constricted.

I do lament that Sweden thereby loses its "independence" and "neutrality", but I actually believe that has been rather wafer thin to begin with, for several decades. So, while one can regret this outcome in theory, I doubt the practical difference will be all that great – Sweden has already been a participant in NATO exercises for many years. 

For Putin, on the other hand, this looks like an outcome that goes directly against his intentions in Ukraine, and right now this is extremely important for Europe. Otherwise we would have seen another weak Chamberlain-like response to the ravages of a dictator, and we know very well from history where that leads. You can of course always question how appropriate it is to align with the United States specifically, given its very similar imperialist history, but when internal politics are what they are in the U.S., and they have their own strong-arm authoritarian to deal with (who, like Putin, has expressed clear anti-NATO sentiments), I think supporting a development that goes counter to this regrettable authoritarian political trend is a wise choice. And I think it is also  good to put a stake in the ground against Turkey and Hungary, whose NATO memberships have thus far been mostly destructive and divisive. Adding another pair of sensible voices into the NATO plurality will only serve to reduce Erdogan's and Orban's leeway. That can't be a bad thing.

I can definitely agree that the internal Swedish process leading up to the decision to join NATO was troublesome and undemocratic, but the reason for that is debatable. I think that the passivity during previous decades created a certain panic when the war in Ukraine broke out. Of course, you always want decisions like this to be handled the right way, with the full consent of the population, but I think that as a small country, Sweden had already painted itself into a corner where there really wasn't time to let the process takes its due course. When Finland jumped onboard, I think the judgment pretty much was that "it's now or never". It led to a decision that may have been made somewhat hastily, but I still believe it was the right one.

As for the imperialism of the United States, I can agree with that in theory as well, but I don't believe that Sweden has made itself a bigger target for imperialist ambitions than it already was. The biggest imperialist player today in Sweden's corner of the world is undoubtedly Russia, and we can clearly see for ourselves what Putin is doing with isolated nations that try to assert their right to self-determination. And we already know in hindsight exactly what kind of concessions a small country like Sweden may be forced to make when we have a gun to our collective forehead: German troop transports through Sweden, and the extradition of of Baltic refugees during World War II are pretty ugly stains on the flimsy sham that is our neutrality. We really weren't very sincere either, when we claimed that "Finland's cause is ours", as our neighbour and brother nation was being invaded.

Of course, the USA has historically exhibited plenty of imperialist ambitions, but today those ambitions are not primarily visible in Europe - they are mostly about oil resources. As for their ambitions in Europe, quite to the contrary, American politics are again characterized by isolationism, and I think that is the wrong stance to take in today's predominantly global economy. The actions of the Allies at the beginning of WWII were certainly not characterized by imperialism. Getting involved militarily was then mainly a question of curbing imperialism, and I actually think that was more like what we're seeing right now. Will this, like in WWII, turn to imperialism once more? We shall see, but that is a topic for later.

No, at the moment I think this is actually about "better the devil you know". If a rabies-infected bear starts pacing outside your front door, then perhaps one will find that an alliance with the wolves may be necessary. I'm not sure that we actually had any other choices in reality, and in many ways that choice had already been made. If you truly want to oppose Putin, and stop Russia's aggressive expansion, NATO is probably your only choice. NATO is probably the only ghost that really haunts him. Of course, that assessment can always be debated - the problem is that it can be debated in theory, but at a certain point it is too late for a measured discussion, and you have to act. I believe Sweden acted just in time.

In my eyes, militaristic imperialism is not quite the threat that it once was, Russia being the one notable exception. The spread of global trade has kind of killed the whole militaristic imperialism thing – unless you're Putin, of course, who has other ambitions, and has general problems asserting himself on a purely economic basis. I see emerging domestic authoritarianism and xenophobia as bigger threats, even (or perhaps especially) in the U.S. 

And from that perspective, I don't think outward looking alliances are bad.

Self-help is all the rage. There are books on almost every subject known to man, and the Internet is overflowing with helpful content, trying to instruct people on how to do stuff – all kinds of stuff. There are presumably knowledgeable people lecturing and speaking at conferences about how best to do things, all sorts of things, and people are gobbling it up left and right.

I love the good intent behind this type of advice, truly, and I don’t want this to sound uncharitable, but I’ve personally had a pretty important realization over the past five-six years on this topic:

It’s not for me.

Don’t get me wrong: I used to LOVE this kind of “how-to” content. I read it voraciously, and I think I believed that it would make me productive; that it would clarify things for me; that it would empower me. I read loads of interviews with other creators, and clung to their words as if they were magic formulas. I thought that by absorbing their methods, and using their tools, I could emulate their successes.

But I’ve found that it actually does the opposite. For me. By focusing so much on how other people do things, and by trying desperately to internalize that, I lost sight of how I do things myself. I lost sight of the fact that I actually do know how to do stuff. I have the capacity to work through things, and figure them out for myself.

And after realizing this, I’ve become many many times more productive – so much so that it’s actually astonished me. I’ve been more productive in the past five years than I had been through the entirety of my career up to that point. It’s made me a bit regretful of the time I wasted; all the time I sat there thinking I needed to read up on something before I went ahead and did it.

I’ve done some soul searching to figure this out, and the answer – while not exactly revolutionary – still hit me like an epiphany. I think that I (and many others) learn principally by doing – not by reading, hearing, or seeing. And while I was trying to learn how to do stuff in those other ways, I actually wasn’t learning, and it made me feel that I couldn’t do whatever it was that I was trying to do. But by not relying on those crutches, and by instead immersing myself in the work, and trying to figure things out for myself to find my own solutions, it’s really uncorked my productivity.

So, for all the people out there who are helped by this type of helpful “how to” content: more power to you. But please also consider that you may actually be able to figure things out for yourself, and this may be a way of learning that could actually feel much more empowering for you. It could rid you of crutches, of methods which may ultimately not be for you, but which will hold you back as you struggle to make sense of them.

Sometimes, the right way to do something is what works for YOU, not what works for others.

Now I guess I need to go write a self-help book on the subject. Let’s see, how do you write self-help books…?

I’d better Google that.

If, as a politician and elected representative, you believe it is government's job to decide for people who they can or cannot love, what they can or cannot do with their bodies, which books they can or cannot read, or who/what people can or cannot worship or believe in, then you are by definition not a believer in freedom, or in small government. You are a small minded authoritarian with debilitating control issues.

Conservatives are bending over backwards and twisting themselves into pretzels to avoid having to address the "i" word. But you know what? It doesn't matter if January 6th truly was an "insurrection" or not. Even if it should only be labeled a "riot" (and the rioters incredulously be referred to as "patriots"), it was an event that interferred quite evidently and very deliberately with the peaceful transition of power, and that is a C-R-I-M-E. The only open question that remains to be answered is if the insurrectionists/rioters were directly incited by Trump, and whether he is liable for it. Given that he actually TOLD them to march on the Capitol right as the vote was being certified, I find it difficult to understand how his intent could even be in question. But that this should have been merely a riot, and that Trump should have merely been exercising his freedom of speech, that is flatly disingenous. Speech that encourages unlawful action is called incitement, and it IS a crime. If, in addition, it disrupts the peaceful transition of power, it is a very serious crime. But you don't have to take the word of this self-admitted "librul" for it – see what The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank, has to say about it.

Marjorie Taylor Greene is doubling down on her bold decision to show up at the State of the Union address in a baseball hat. She is taking a courageous stand for important principles, and making her voice heard on a profoundly meaningful subject that deserves the attention of the entire American people. Like a true rebel with a valid, righteous cause, she stood up for the rights of every baseball hat-wearing individual, and spoke out frankly and honestly about the injustice heaped on all these oppressed headwear aficionados. Fortunately, her political compass is so astute that we can trust her to navigate these treacherous Washington swamplands, so we don't accidentally pay attention to immaterial issues such as border control, women's rights, funding for schools and the military, income inequality, the wars in Gaza, Ukraine and Yemen, and the erosion of our democracy. THANK YOU, MARJORIE for restoring dignity and integrity to the cesspool of ignorance that is the U.S. Congress.

 Go onto YouTube and search for "critique", "comments", "first time watching" or "first time hearing" and you will find a depressing array of usually quite sad looking, presumably single men, hooking up their mics and webcams in order to record their flimsy opinions for the world to see. 

It's especially common in the world of fandom, and it is exactly why fandom is so grossly unappealing. Games fandom, comics fandom, movie fandom, music fandom – take your pick, it's all pretty much the same.

These fandom bubbles are full of sideline commenters who provide nothing of value, but desperately try to assert themselves using a very limited set of tools. Bullies who try to exert their verbal dominance over others with meaningless, opinionated fluff that is assembled in the crudest possible of ways, thinking that this YouTube funnel for their toxic bile somehow gives them a position of power, where previously they so very clearly felt emasculated and powerless. How else does one explain this curious need for self-assertion...? 

It is a very crude, primitive pathology that surfaces in this way. Critique has to come from a place of love to be meaningful in a broader sense, and not just a projection of a diseased bully mentality; of riling up and seeking the  testosterone-saturated approval of the pack. Good, productive critics always express themselves in a thoughtful, helpful manner, recognizing they are part of a bigger community that is joined together by a common cause, and that they have a role to play in refining the goals and quality of their chosen form of expression. Such critics typically genuinely want to help improve things within their chosen sphere of interest. By contrast, a bully who grabs the first available mic, and climbs up on his crudely crafted soap box to spew his contempt, is really nothing but a hater.

What these haters invariably end up doing is hurting the very industry on which they are commenting. They present an image to the world of an insular bubble full of opinionated bigots who have no desire to welcome others into the fold; who want to selfishly protect their fanboy privileges – because they are usually boys; aged and immature boys – and defend what they perceive to be "their" turf, in a petty and possessive way.

Unfortunately, social media provides very easy audience access for these vulgar bullies, who incessantly heap their toxic and wholly unnecessary, unwanted commentary on a whole industry to self-soothe their obvious lack of self-esteem. It enables their bullying, and it encourages it. It's so very easy for viewers to give in to the primal enjoyment of watching someone being ripped a new asshole: just hit the ”Like” button, and you don't even have to give it a moment's thought. But in doing so, viewers unwittingly encourage the bullies in expressing this deep seated, pathological need to be seen as some sort of authority figure on their chosen subject matter. And that is a deeply problematic motivation; one that doesn't further the interests of whatever fandom sphere we're talking about.

What gets lost in this flimsy economy if reactive insect-brain behavior –  a world where opinion is given near-equal stature to, and a certain level of power over the content on which it is commenting – is that real, authentic authority is earned from sophistication and expertise, not from crude bullying tactics. And the platforms unfortunately allow the bullies to drown out those more productive, meaningful voices.

 Following The Supreme Court's decision to strike down Colorado's decision to remove Donald Trump from the presidential election ballot, one cannot but conclude that the court is continuing the same nihilistic path it has been on, since the very person whose eligibility is now in doubt was permitted to seat three lifetime justices. 

This is nothing new, mind you. The Supreme Court has already been hard at work invalidating itself, with the unravelling of previous courts' decisions (see; Roe v. Wade). And here it is again, arguing against taking action in a matter that defines the very purpose of the court itself. 

It's absolutely disgraceful. What is the point of appointing these feckless clowns for life, if they cannot even follow through on the purpose of their existence, in matters that anchor to the very core of the Constitution?! 

What's more, it is utterly nihilistic – much like the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Muller, who also failed to fulfill the very obligations for which he was appointed: to make the tough decisions that Congress could not, and not kick the can further down the road. It's also much like the spineless decision of Mitch McConnell, who similarly kicked the impeachment can down the road to criminal court, clearly never intending for there to be any accountability there either. 

Reaching the conclusion that a single state cannot be allowed to decide who gets to run for federal office completely misses the point. That state (Colorado) ultimately deferred to the Supreme Court to rule on Trump's eligibility, not to rule on Colorado's right to decide the matter. And the court just ignored that issue entirely, as if Trump's eligibility was never in question. 

It's infuriating, almost Kafka-esque in its absurdity.

With no protective guardrails whatsoever in place, one cannot help but wonder how this republic is going to be able to survive further stress tests. 

One thing is certain: Trump won't be the last authoritarian to trample the principles of democracy, since it has proven to be so easy, and so devoid of accountability. Especially when those appointed to safeguard that very accountability are falling down on their posts.

Listen... 

I understand why so many people get caught in this political nihilism where they prefer to trust an "outsider" over the supposed "Washington elites".

I understand why political neophytes (who constitute the vast majority of the population) are so eager to vote for anything BUT the political establishment, because they feel left behind, and they can't be bothered to read up on the law, the Constitution, or any proposed policies. Instead, they are tempted to believe in fearful, simplistic, black-and-white propaganda that disparages the status quo. They misguidedly place symbolic votes for someone they believe is the antithesis of all that, and somehow believe that ANY change is better than what we have.

I understand all this. But that doesn't make it right.

You can't change the system through arson, by voting for a political arsonist and bomb thrower who has no respect for, or understanding of, our political institutions, our electoral processes, or even the need for civility and respect in our public discourse. All that you accomplish is burning everything down, only for the arsonist's successors to have to rebuild everything again. 

Even if you may want to think that trashing and rebuilding everything is going to be better than what we have, we will still have the same public servants we have now, and things will be the same as they have always been – because the public servants are US. WE are THEM. They don't materialize through some incubator in Wshington, they run for office in our home states and home counties. 

Changing things destructively over the course of ONE presidency does not improve things in the long run. Improvements have to happen carefully and incrementally, with patience and deliberation - not with nihilism, aggression and hate. Blowing up the bank doesn't suddenly give you more money in your bank account.

What we need is for people to take an active interest in politics, understand what's at stake, and inform themselves on which policies are actually needed. Not just vote with their insect brain, and cut off their noses to spite their faces – because that is actually what is happening right now. 

People want change so desperately that they throw all deliberation and rationality out the window, in favor of the popular conspiracy theory of the day, and the cretin who just happens to be most vocally and aggressively against everything.

It's an act of desperation, which can be fully understood and empathized with, but this is seriously no way to govern a country.

There are medications for almost anything, but sadly, there is no medication powerful enough to suppress the instinctive frustration and anger I feel everytime I hear Marjorie Taylor Greene's whiny voice and deranged commentary, which continues to make Congress seem worse than the ape house at the zoo. At least chimps are rather intelligent and could probably outscore her in an IQ test.

The argument can be made that bad faith actors like Marjorie Taylor Greene serve to cast a clarifying light on how far the Republican party has fallen. I would admit to her utility in that regard if she was actually recognized as a bad elected representative who was then voted out, but as long as she is in Congress, she is doing irreparable harm to the public confidence in our democratic processes, and our ruling bodies - not exclusively the republican side, but Congress as a whole.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, and other ”useful” idiots (emphasis on the latter), serve only to erode confidence in Congress, which plays right into Donald Trump's narrative that "he alone can fix it", and that we supposedly need (technically incompetent) "outsiders" to fix what's wrong with Washington. The more we allow these political arsonists to burn down our political institutions, the lower people's confidence will be, and the more susceptible to authoritarianism they become. It's a vicious, spiralling cycle. 

The way to "fix Washington" is not to allow MORE of these idiots to populate our halls of power, but to have stricter demands on their qualifications. Only competent public servants can fix what is wrong with the political system - it ought to be perfectly self-evident, but based on the current truth-resistant lunacy of our public discourse, people seem to misguidedly think that pouring crazy gasoline on the crazy fire is going to solve anything. The Republican strategy has long been to prove that government doesn't work, by striving to sabotage it. That is nothing but sheer nihilism. 

The erosion of confidence in our institutions is already spreading across the aisle, over to independents and to some on the left of the current administration. In a country where elections are typically decided by a few percentage points (but where a full 1/3 don't even bother to vote), this creates a lot of political volatility, which is extremely dangerous. It doesn't take that much lack of confidence in politicians for an opportunistic authoritarian liar and election denier like, say, Kari Lake to convince disinterested voters to suspend their disbelief, and cast a misplaced vote for even more arson, and the wholesale removal of people who happen to believe in the principles of our Constitution. 

By almost all metrics, the economy is doing very well, but the fact that people don't "feel" it – due to all the misinformation – means that elections are decided based on fear and hate rather than pragmatism and sanity.

1. Don't the people have the right to know for what office they are electing someone, and if that someone through that election is thereby to be considered ”an officer of the United States”?

2. Don't the people have the right to know if someone for whom they might be casting a vote has been guilty of either:

• Insurrection

• Obstructing the peaceful transfer of power

• Attempted election fraud 

– all three of which are crimes?

3. While such legitimate suspicion persists, would it not make more sense to render that person ineligible for the office, until their guilt or innocence can be proven? The risk of electing such a criminal seems much too consequential to allow election proceedings to continue as before. A company would hesitate to hire someone who was seen fleeing the scene of a murder with a weapon in their hand, and who is not just suspected of murder, but is being prosecuted for it. The legality of this issue should NOT be up for a vote. We don't vote on the Constitution, we don't vote on the law, and we most certainly don't get to vote on the rulings of the Supreme Court.

Isn't it about time we recognized that the fact that the Constitution requires so much interpretation, and produces so many fundamentally different interpretations, means it is a deeply flawed text? Its lack of clarity casts a somewhat ludicrous light on the efforts of originalists/textualists, making it seem at times as if they are splitting the hairs of a Dr Seuss hairpiece.

Case in point: if you can argue that the Constitution does not consider the president ”an officer of the United States”, and then have this interpretation become an issue for the Supreme Court to decide, it seems we're in dada land. 

Perhaps we should have an A.I. rewrite the Constitution..?

Sarah Matthews, Alyssa Farrah Griffin and Cassidy Hutchinson recently went on camera together on ABC, belatedly trying to whitewash their own complicity, enablement and collusion, pretending to want to do "the right thing". 

Only now, in 2024, they're calling Trump ”a week and feeble man”. And they only JUST figured that out, did they? They didn't hear the Billy Bush tape?! I'm not buying it. The signs were there many years ago, but they didn't object when being loyal to Trump seemed to serve their own cynical goals. 

They knowingly compromised their values a long time ago (if they ever really had any), and sought to crassly ride the wave of corruption and lies to a cushy, prestigious job in the White House. Now, they expect us to applaud their hypocritical about-face. It's much too late to try and claim to have some integrity at this stage. 

Just like conservative voters and conservative congresspeople, they need to come to terms with their own complicity in Trump's despicable, self-serving dismantling of all decency in our body politic. They and all the other Trump bootlicking sycophants allowed it to happen. 

Sure, it's nice and all that they are coming forward now, but it's much too late - the orange, stubby-fingered genie is out of the bottle. Where were they in 2016, when all the klaxxons were going off? The "right thing" was the exact same thing eight years ago as it is today. 

No, their moral compasses cannot be trusted, and the relevance of their comments –  though fully justified – is deeply compromised. This just smacks of disingenuous whitewashing;  a desperate attempt at trying to salvage their political careers. If you can't do the right thing when it really matters, you ought to just back away into obscurity, and hang your head in shame.

I'm equally fascinated and appalled by the unhealthy power dynamics on display here. Women who stand in support of this kind of awful, misogynistic, malignantly narcissistic person (who are, it must be said, typically men) legitimize this unhealthy type of ”leadership”. They give these men an alibi for their singularly masculine awfulness, and essentially provide cover for the "good ole boys club". They really ought to know better. 

Conservative women need to stop being enablers, or they are sabotaging the ability to govern for generations of women, in a time when we really need women to run for office, and be a counterweight to all this toxic masculinity in politics.

In addition, the people who were complicit in Trump's disastrous presidency need to be called out for it, so there is an understanding that there are actual consequences for acting in bad faith.

Aside from the many ethical and moral issues with generative A.I., especially as applied to the visual arts, there is the question of purpose. What are we, as a society, trying to accomplish with it, and why? Is art not, in fact, a fundamentally human endeavor...? Why are we trying to mechanize and synthesize it?! We could easily replace professional athletes or master chefs with robots, but what would be the point...?