A (or One) Skeptic

Since the Supreme Court liberated Trump from criminal liability in Trump v. United States, the Donald’s assault on legality has been non-stop and unrelenting. There are so many examples that we could examine, but I want to examine one particular issue, because it’s one that (as a former government lawyer) I have some familiarity with.

And that issue is Trump’s demand for $230 million compensation under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

So, let’s back up for a minute and answer the question, what is a tort claim act?

Federal Tort Claims Act

And briefly, a tort claims act is a way for citizens to sue their own government when they’ve been damaged by the government’s negligence. Historically, under English common law, the King could not be sued in his own courts (“The King can do no wrong”). This doctrine carried over into the U.S., where for much of American history, the federal and state governments were immune from civil lawsuits unless they expressly consented. In 1946, Congress enacted the Federal Tort Claims Act, to replace the system of ad hoc compensation that had grown over the years.

The way the Tort Claims Act works is that one has to make an official claim for a tort committed by one or more federal employees working within the scope of their employment. A tort is not a crime, but typically an accident where someone is injured. 

• So, with respect to the federal government, a car accident caused by a postal worker delivering mail would be a good example of a tort. 
• Another example might be a medical malpractice case against a doctor at a federally funded health clinic. 

The claim must be based on negligence (and not an intentional tort or a crime); if the federal employee was acting within their discretion (such as a federal judge), that will disqualify the claim. In other words, the Tort Claims Act is a very limited and specific exception to the rule that you cannot sue the federal government.

In order to make a claim you have to provide a presentment within two years of the incident; the claim must indicate the specific amount of money sought. The agency against whom the claim is made has six months to investigate and either approve or deny the claim. If the agency denies the claim (or fails to act within six months) the claimant can file in federal district court.

Trump’s Claims

Trump had made two claims (1) about the Aug. 8, 2022 search at Mar-a-Lago, and (2) about the “Crossfire Hurricane” Russia investigation back in 2016. The first claim is for $100 million and the second is for $130 million. It appears that most of these damages are “punitive” as opposed to “actual.”

Of course, punitive damages are not allowed under the tort claims act.

And that is only one of many problems with these two claims. These problems include:

• First, neither of the claims involves a tort.
• Second, both of the claims involve the discretionary function exception because they are part of an investigation. 
• Third, in the Mar-a-Lago case the upper damage limit is $200,000 because that is the tort claims limit in the state of Florida.
• Fourth, the “Russia” investigation is barred by the two year statute of limitations since it took place back in 2016, and in any case, Trump could have made the claim in the four years that he was out of office. (Just a quick reminder that the Mueller report did not exonerate Trump but that DOJ internal rules did not allow the prosecution of a sitting president).
• And fifth, as already mentioned above, the Tort Claims Act does not allow for punitive damages.

But really, most astonishing of all, Trump has asked his own Department of Justice to investigate the previous actions of the Department of Justice.

No President has ever made a FTCA against his own government. No Governor has ever made a tort claim against his state’s government. It is a complete and 100% conflict of interest.

And who, in this Department of Justice, is going to tell Donald Trump that he cannot have his $230 million?

• Donald Trump has already received $16 million from CBS on a meritless defamation claim so that the Skydance merger could go through.
• Donald Trump has already received $15 million from ABC on a very weak defamation claim so that Disney/ABC could get regulatory clearance for a spinoff of ESPN and Hulu assets

And for those who argue that Trump has given up his $400,000 presidential salary, I can only say, give me an effing break. It’s estimated that Trump has increased his personal wealth by approximately $3 billion since the beginning of his second term, much of it through cryptocurrencies. 

By the way, Trump gets a one-time $100,000 for redecoration of the White House. The new East Wing ballroom is expected to cost over $300 million (or 3000 times the allowed limit), and while Trump claims it is privately funded, most donors remain anonymous or undisclosed. The financing is routed through a nonprofit, allowing contributors to deduct donations and shield their identities.

Trump’s Corruption

It will take historians literally years to unravel the corruption of this Trump administration.

Trump doesn’t want that $230 million because he needs the money. He’s just peeved that he was ever investigated for anything, and he’s going to get himself compensated.

This, then, is just one of many examples one could cite that expose the glaring illegality of the Trump administration.

Trump himself will never see the inside of a jail cell, the Supreme Court has pretty much seen to that. His administration, however, is not so shielded.

That is why Steve Bannon recently said that if Republicans lose the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election, “some in this room are going to prison, myself included.” (Bannon made the remark on November 5, 2025, at a gathering hosted by the Conservative Partnership Institute, a pro-Trump advocacy group.)

Well, the Senate voted last night to re-open the government after 41 days of getting nowhere. The seven Democrats who voted to re-open are Dick Durbin (IL), Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen (NV), John Fetterman (PA), and Tim Kaine (VA). Independent Angus King (ME) also voted in favor while Republican renegade Rand Paul (KY) voted against.

The approved bill would keep much of the federal government funded through January 30, while certain agencies would receive funding through the end of next September. The bill still needs to be passed by the house and signed by the President. A procedural vote on Sunday night secured the necessary 60 votes, paving the way for the final passage on Monday.

What Democrats got out of the deal was protection for federal workers who were furloughed or laid off during the shutdown (rehiring, back pay, and prohibiting additional mass reductions-in-force until the end of January); a full-year appropriations bills for certain agencies (military construction, veterans affairs, agriculture, and the legislative branch); and a promise of a future vote in the Senate on extending the Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits that are set to expire on January 1st.

What they didn’t get was a promise to extend those ACA tax credits. 

After the vote there was quite a bit of gnashing of teeth and outrage among the progressive side of the party, that the Democrats had “caved” instead of fighting to the bitter end.

I don’t know about that.

After the vote, Angus King explained that for his part he didn’t see any movement or any possibility that the Republicans would provide that guarantee, even if the government had stayed shut down for another month.

I don’t know that he’s wrong.

For whatever reason, Republicans seem hell bent on depriving Americans of health care and making their health care insurance costs go up.

Is that a winning strategy?

It sure doesn’t look like one.

I mean by now:

• Farmers finally understand that Trump doesn’t give a shit about them and that his tariffs on China have closed the soybean market for soybean farmers.
• Ranchers finally understand that Trump doesn’t give a shit about them and would rather support ranchers in Argentina than to open markets for ranchers here at home.
• Latinos who voted for Trump finally understand that Trump doesn’t give a shit about them and is happy to have his ICE agents racially profile them all over the streets of America.
• Black men who voted for Trump finally understand that Trump doesn’t give a shit about them and has actively worked to scrub DEI initiatives from American life.
• SNAP recipients who voted for Trump finally understand that Trump doesn’t give a shit about them and is eager to deprive them of food as a means to an end.
• Americans who voted for Trump (and who didn’t vote for Trump) now clearly understand that Trump doesn’t give a shit about them and will eagerly deprive them of their health care and send their health care costs skyrocketing.

The results of these policies precipitated the mini-blue tsunami we saw Tuesday of last week. It wasn’t a good look for Republicans.

Democrats have already proved that they are ones trying to save health care and health care costs for Americans. Would being shut down for another month make that any clearer? 

Those Americans who believe that Democrats are “just trying to give health care to illegals” are going to continue to believe that regardless of the evidence before their eyes. Cognitive dissonance will not let them believe anything else.

Would it have been nice to get those health care guarantees? Of course.

Would it have been nice to notch a win over Trump and the Republicans? Of course.

But I don’t think that was going to happen, no matter how long the government stayed shut.

And one hidden benefit that may prove to be important in the long run, the Republicans did not nuke the filibuster. That could have led to a lot of bad things being done. And that didn’t happen.

So President Trump, and a few of his acolytes (I’m looking at you Karoline Leavitt) are literally losing their minds. 

Let’s start with Karoline Leavitt, Trump’s official spokesperson. She said this last week before “No Kings” day:

So that’s literally, “The Democratic party’s main constituency are Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals.”

Wow.

Let me just start by noting that none of those three groups can vote in the United States. It seems that Karoline has lost touch with reality.

Too bad. She’s a cute little thing, and at age 28, with her blond tresses, is the perfect Trump spokesperson. She ran for Congress in NH in 2022 and almost won.

Now to the real thing: the day of the “No Kings” protests, Trump posted a video in which he is depicted in a fighter jet wearing a crown, flying over what appears to be Times Square in New York City.

The jet is labeled “King Trump”, and the soundtrack is Kenny Loggins’ “Danger Zone” from Top Gun.

As he flies over the crowd, streams of brown sludge (intended to resemble feces) are dropped on protestors, including a close-up of left-wing influencer Harry Sisson (a 23-year-old political commentator and social media influencer.)

(The video is, frankly, too disgusting for me to post here.)

The video is AI-generated and was created by an account named @XERIAS_X, known for surreal pro-Trump memes. Trump did not add commentary, but the video was widely interpreted as a mocking response to the “No Kings” protests, which drew nearly 7 million participants across 2,700 U.S. cities.

And that, my friends, is our President of the United States.

Previous examples of memes that he’s posted include Trump as the Pope, Trump as Superman, Trump turning Gaza into a resort, and even a fake Taylor Swift endorsement.

The man is losing his mind.

When all is said and done and Trump is finally in the ground, this is going to be the Republican’s legacy. From the party of Abraham Lincoln to the party of this moron, the Republicans are going to own this legacy. It will likely stain them for the rest of their existence.

So, this story about the Young Republican National Federation is really quite astounding, and should reverberate throughout our news cycle for a while to come.

If you’ve been hiding under a rock, or just tuned out our relentlessly frustrating news cycle, there is a group of young Republican leaders that are part of the National Federation, that have been carrying on an extraordinary chat on the messaging app Telegram.

These messages were exchanged between leaders of four chapters — Arizona, Vermont, Kansas and New York — six of eight of whom were young(ish) white men. Incels, if you like.

• Samuel Douglass, state senator from northern Vermont.
• Peter Giunta, former chair of the New York State Young Republicans.
• Bobby Walker, chair of the New York State Young Republicans and former vice chair.
• William Hendrix, vice chair of Kansas Young Republicans.
• Alex Dwyer, chair of the Kansas Young Republicans.
• Anne KayKaty, New York’s national committee member.
• Joe Maligno, general counsel for the New York State Young Republicans.
• Rachel Hope, Arizona Young Republicans events chair.

While the chat at times involved formal conversations about votes, social media strategies and logistics, the chat included a “slew of racist and antisemitic slurs, white supremacist slogans and symbols, comments encouraging rape of political opponents to drive them to suicide, praise for Adolf Hitler, promotion of gas chambers, and enthusiasm for Republicans who they believed supported slavery.”

Wow.

Somehow, reporters from Politico managed to obtain 2,900 pages of messages spanning about seven months, roughly from January through August of 2025. How they got these pages is not clear, and unsurprisingly, Politico has declined to reveal its sources.

So there are two things about this story that I find remarkable. First, this seems to be the consequence of decades of grievance and resentment and fingerpointing on the part of conservatives, so that the Republican party has now fully become the party of hate. How else to describe it? Young white conservatives in America are actually doing pretty well in 2025. And yet, the “we love America” party seems to hate everyone in it.

Second, these  people were willing to put it into writing. When I worked for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it was pretty much understood that you didn’t put into writing anything that you didn’t want published in the Boston Globe. And here are these young government professionals putting despicable things into writing. One of them reportedly wrote, “If we ever had a leak of this chat we would be cooked [for real, for real].”

No kidding.

So this is where we are in 2025. The GOP is going to have to own what it has created. And this is what it has created. Not for every member of the Republican party. But for a lot of them. A while back someone said something to the effect that “even if you’re not a racist or sexist or homophobe, still Trump’s racism or sexism or homophobia was not a deal-breaker for you.”

And that’s right.

It wasn’t a deal-breaker for you.

And then we had Vice-President J.D. Vance — who has now fully made the transition from sympathetic memoirist to soul-selling scumbag — saying that this was something that “kids do” — “Kids do stupid things, especially young boys.” These are professionals in their 30s, not kids. These are the future leaders of the Republican party.

God help us all.

The Politico Story

Should President Trump be eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize because of his efforts to procure a lasting peace plan between Israel and Hamas? The question is no longer quite the joke that it would have been a few months ago.

Below we consider that question in detail, here are the main points of the proposal. How many of these will actually be fulfilled, only time will tell. But here is what was negotiated.

1. Deradicalized Gaza: Gaza should be transformed into a zone that “does not pose a threat to Israel” or its neighbors.
2. Re-development for Gazans: Reconstruction, infrastructure, public services, and economic revival for the people of Gaza.
3. Immediate ceasefire and suspension of hostilities: If both parties accept the plan, war would end immediately. Israeli forces would withdraw to agreed lines, and all military operations (air, artillery, etc.) would be suspended.
4. Hostage return within 72 hours: Within 72 hours after Israel publicly accepts the plan, all hostages (alive or deceased) held in Gaza must be returned.
5. Release of Palestinian prisoners: After hostages are returned, Israel must release 250 life-sentence prisoners plus ~1,700 Gazans detained since October 7, 2023 (including all women and children detained in that context).
6. Amnesty / safe passage for Hamas members who disarm: Hamas members who relinquish weapons and commit to peaceful coexistence would be granted amnesty; those who choose to leave Gaza would receive safe passage.
7. Immediate large-scale humanitarian aid: Once the agreement goes into effect, humanitarian aid would be deployed immediately, including water, power, sanitation, hospitals, debris removal, road reopening, etc.
8. Neutral distribution of aid: Aid entry and distribution would be via the U.N. and other neutral international agencies (e.g. Red Crescent), free from interference by parties to the conflict. Opening of border crossings would follow pre-agreed mechanisms.
9. Transitional technocratic governance: Gaza would be governed temporarily by an apolitical committee of Palestinian technocrats, overseeing essential services and municipal functions.
10. Supervision by a “Peace Board” / international oversight: The transitional authority would be overseen by a “Board of Peace,” chaired by President Trump, and involving international experts.
11. Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza: The plan states there should be no Israeli annexation of Gaza.
12. Phased withdrawal of Israeli forces: As security and control are transferred to international stabilization forces (ISF, see below), the IDF would withdraw in stages, subject to conditions, milestones, and security assurances.
13. International Stabilization Force (ISF) / security arrangement: A multinational force would help secure border/perimeter areas, prevent arms smuggling, support new Palestinian police, and maintain stability.
14. Joint security cooperation: Israeli, Egyptian, and ISF / Palestinian security forces would coordinate border and security in Gaza to ensure no re-entry of weapons, etc.
15. “Free zones” and contingency if Hamas rejects or delays: If Hamas delays or rejects the proposal, Israel and its partners would begin implementing security, aid, and administration in “terror-free zones” that have been cleared.
16. Limitations on future Israeli attacks on Qatar: The plan commits Israel not to launch future attacks on Qatari territory, such as previous strikes to assassinate Hamas leaders.
17. Countering radical elements and narrative change: Educational and interfaith dialogue measures would be introduced to counter extremism, reshape narratives, and promote tolerance (including revising curricula).
18. Reforms of Palestinian Authority & governance prospects: The plan contemplates a reformed Palestinian Authority and opening the door to Palestinian self-determination when conditions are met.
19. Pathway to statehood / political horizon: While the plan does not immediately establish a Palestinian state, it envisions a future credible path toward statehood if reforms and security are achieved.
20. Dialogue to establish durable coexistence: The U.S. would launch a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians to define a more permanent political horizon and vision of coexistence.

To state the obvious, there are a LOT of places where this plan could still fall apart. The first and most crucial test is whether Hamas will release the 48 hostages (only 20 of whom are believed to still be alive) and whether that will happen on Monday, as is currently contemplated. If so, Israel has a lot of prisoners that they have promised to release in return.

Now the question arises, who actually negotiated this agreement on behalf of the United States. The answer, it turns out, are Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, and Bishara Bahbah. Kushner, some of you may remember, helped to negotiate the Abraham Accords during the first Trump Administration. Maybe the Nobel Committee should give him the peace prize next year. Boy, wouldn’t that take Trump over the edge?

But, to be fair, Trump did apparently make a phone call to Bibi Netanyahu telling him “this is the deal that you have to take.”

So, there is an argument to be made for Trump.

Of course, he’s not getting the prize this year, since this year’s prize has been awarded to María Corina Machado, a Venezuelan opposition leader and activist.

On the other hand, there are many arguments to be made for why Trump should never get the Nobel Peace Prize.

• The first and most obvious argument is his descent into fascism. 
• Then there is his lawlessness. 
• There is his refusal to acknowledge that he lost the 2020 election. 
• There is his weaponization of the Justice Department.
• There is his destruction of boats in international waters without any evidence that they are “Tren de Aragua”
• There is his holding of immigrants in concentration camps like “Alligator Alcatraz” in violation of habeas corpus.
• There is his unilateral withdrawal from international agreements, such as the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the Global Compact on Migration, and a number of others.

I’m really just scratching the surface here, and honestly, I don’t have the time or inclination to list all of the reasons that Trump should never get a Nobel prize. It doesn’t really matter, in any case, because the Norwegians hate Trump, and they are never going to give it to him regardless of what else he does.

It’s also pretty well known that Trump only wants the prize because Obama got the prize. He doesn’t care about peace in Palestine. He likes Netanyahu, but he doesn’t care about the Israelis. Just like he doesn’t care about his own voters, who are about to (or already have) get screwed on health care and farm subsidies and tariffs on consumer products.

As for the Nobel, Obama himself has conceded that he didn’t really deserve the prize. He mostly got it for “presidenting” while being black. Formally, Obama got the prize for promoting nuclear disarmament, diplomatic engagement, promoting multilateralism, climate change leadership, and his work on human rights and democracy. That’s not nothing, but again, it’s not the kind of thing that would normally get you the prize.

It’s a moot point, because Trump isn’t getting the prize. Not now, not ever. All I’m saying is, in the interests of objectivity, there is an argument to be made for giving him the prize.

For this latest shutdown you can thank Newt Gingrich.

He was the guy who invented the “who will blink first” game of chicken back in 1995 in the pair of shutdowns against Bill Clinton. That’s when Gingrich wanted significant cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, education, environmental protection, and other social spending along with tax cuts — where have you heard that before? — and triggered a five day shutdown in November and a 21 day shutdown in December to get his way.

That shutdown ended with Gingrich backing down after the media portrayed the Republicans as at fault for the shutdown and Gingrich (in particular) as petulant, with Gingrich having complained publicly complained about being snubbed on Air Force One by Clinton during a trip to Israel for Yitzhak Rabin’s funeral.

But the switch had been set.

Before that there had been the occasional one or two day “shutdown” at the end of budget cycles where the Congress and the President hadn’t finished dotting their I’s and crossing their T’s before a new budget came into effect. But those never caused major disruptions to the functioning of the United States government and never caused people to be furloughed.

It may also be of interest that these kinds of shutdowns never seem to happen in parliamentary governments around the world, where failing to agree on a new budget just causes the old budget to roll over until a new budget is enacted.

Only in America do these disputes lead to shutdowns. 

Only in America.

Trump, of course, procured the all-time record for shutdowns in his first administration, a 35 day imbroglio with Congressional Democrats over “border wall” funding, DACA, immigration caps and budget caps.

Trump, Mr. Art of the Deal, eventually backed down on that one. 

Will the GOP back down this time again?

I guess we’ll see. 

They, of course, are claiming that the Democrats are trying to “give health care to illegals.”

You would think that at some point just lying straight through your teeth would come back to bite you. Hasn’t happened yet.

What the Democrats want is (1) extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies, (2) reversing cuts to Medicaid made in the “Big Beautiful Bill,” and (3) restoring recissions for previously scheduled funding that the Trump administration unilaterally took out of federal funding (and the Republicans then rubber-stamped).

In other words, they don’t want health insurance to become more expensive for the average American.

Why Republicans want to burden their voters with more expensive health insurance (again, just like in the earlier Gingrich-Clinton dispute), remains a mystery to me.

But J.D. Vance and Republican leadership are out there claiming Democrats want to give healthcare to “illegals” even though they know perfectly well that the undocumented are not entitled to Medicaid, or ACA subsidies, or any other federally-sponsored health care funding.

(Not to get too technical, but in Massachusetts and other states there is something known as the Uncompensated Care Fund, which pays back hospitals when people without insurance walk into their emergency room and receive care that hospitals are federally mandated to provide. Before the enactment of the ACA this was a much larger problem because people with non-emergencies would walk into an emergency room to get some kind of routine medical care, and yes, that sometimes included the undocumented.)

Democratic leadership was roundly criticized by their own voters for backing down to Trump and the Republicans the last time that the federal budget was about to expire. They are well motivated not to let that happen again.

On September 22, in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Trump filed an executive order intended to designate Antifa as a “domestic terrorist organization.” Like so many of Trump’s other executive orders, this one is likely to be ineffective because there is no identified organization, leadership or membership to apply it to. In fact, if you look at the text of Trump’s anti-Antifa executive order there is no specific person or recognized organization mentioned in the text.

As our dear Leader and beloved President and his many acolytes toss adjectives around that they don’t understand, it may be time to distinguish between various of these terms, just so that our right wing friends can get a few modest guideposts to what these things actually mean.

To establish some modest bona fides, I should mention that I did actually study Marxian economics in 1976-80 at the University of Massachusetts, back when UMass was one of the three universities in the country where one could actually study Marxian anything. At the time UMass had inherited distinguished faculty from Harvard University, where they had not received tenure. It ended up being our blessing.

Also, I should also point out that there is no “radical” left wing in the United States. That pretty much went out of fashion with the death of Eugene Debs in 1926 and the subsequent demise of the Communist Party during the Second World War. 

About as radical as it gets in the United States these days is Bernie Sanders — still hugely popular among the masses — is a “Democratic Socialist” who believes in European style social democracies, such as Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and mostly the other Nordic states. And maybe New Zealand. Those are hardly “radical” states by any historic definition.

So what do these terms actually mean?

Communism is a political and economic ideology advocating for a classless society in which the means of production (factories, land, resources) are collectively owned, and wealth is distributed based on need. Although the idea existed before him, it was most fully articulated by Karl Marx, who based his economic theories on the Labor Theory of Value, or the idea that what makes things valuable is the labor that someone was willing to put into it. (Capitalist systems are generally based on the Utilitarian or Subjective Theory of Value, where things have value based only on what people are willing to pay for it.) 

Socialism is a softer version of communism, and in Marx’s system, a “transitional” phase between capitalism and communism. It is an economic and political system where the means of production are owned or regulated by the community (often through the state) to ensure more equality in wealth and opportunity. Private property and markets are permitted, but the system emphasizes redistribution and public control of essential industries. The former Yugoslavia might be the best example of a functioning socialist state, a planned economy with a vibrant free market.

Marxism is mostly the economic and political theory developed by Karl Marx. Communism and socialism existed before Marx, but (like Freud in psychology), Marx really articulated the modern formulation. His seminal work is Das Kapital, which is really about the exploitation of labor and working class conditions in London. He analyzes history as a struggle between classes, especially the bourgeoisie (owners of capital) and the proletariat (working class). It is more of an economic and philosophical framework, and not a blueprint for how modern states should actually function.

Leninism, on the other hand, is a political ideology trying to apply Marxist ideas in turn-of-the-century Russia. (Marx really expected his ideas to take hold in modern capitalist societies, and not a predominantly agrarian and semi-feudal economy with limited industrial development.) Established by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Leninism advocates for a vanguard party of professional revolutionaries to lead the working class in overthrowing capitalism. The state must act as a “dictatorship of the proletariat” after revolution to suppress counter-revolution and build socialism. (Of course, in actuality a dictatorship of the proletariat really just ends up being a dictatorship, plain and simple, which is one of the hard-won lessons of the 20th Century.)

Fascism is less of a political philosophy than a designation for a type of authoritarian state. It is generally a far-right, authoritarian ultranationalist state that rejects democracy, equality, and individual rights in favor of a strong centralized state, led by a dictator. The prototypes for fascism are Mussolini (who invented the term), Hitler, and Franco. The advantages of fascism are primarily a certain kind of efficiency, such as in Italy under Mussolini when “the trains ran on time.” Fascism is often good for businesses and corporations, where there are few limits or regulations on what businesses can do, and bad for everyone else. Also, fascism almost always leads to war, at least to civil war. It can be distinguished from Monarchism primarily in that monarchs are hereditary, and that monarchs can occasionally be “enlightened” and actually make daily life better for their own people.

Anti-fascism is simply the opposition to fascism. It is not an administrative “system” for how to run a state and is not correlated with socialism or communism (although sometimes people believe in both). During the lead-up to World War II there were many individuals who were passionately anti-fascist, but it has never been a structured movement, especially in the United States. Antifa, in the United States, has no leadership, no fundraising, and no designated membership. They have generally not engaged in political violence (mostly some property damage during the George Floyd protests), but are more likely to have individual activists show up to counter-protest events like the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville during Trump’s first term. 

And that’s about it, my friends. These are the terms that Trump and his acolytes so consistently misuse, and throw around as red herrings to try to make us all mad. Name-calling, pure and simple, is Trump’s stock in trade. And for many, many Americans, who don’t really understand what these terms mean, that will be enough.

When I started this post Jimmy Kimmel had just been suspended. Since then he has been (mostly) reinstated after some serious blowback from the viewing public. (The Sinclair Group still has him off the air.)

In any case, let’s review how we got here. Kimmel was taken off the air, in this case over what he said about the death of Charlie Kirk. 

What did he say?

That’s what got Kimmel canned?

That’s what got him canned?

First of all, it’s true. While the MAGA team is working overtime to paint the shooter, Tyler James Robinson, as left-wing and infected with the “woke mind virus,” there seems to be no evidence for that at all. 

As it happens, organizations and researchers who have looked at the question, such as the Cato Institute — which is a Koch-funded libertarian think tank, in case you didn’t know —  have concluded that over the last generation, the vast majority of political violence has come from the political right (excluding the 9/11 terrorist attack). That would be 391 from the right and only 65 from the left.

As for Antifa, the right’s favorite bogeyman, it isn’t a thing. The term originated in Europe in the early 20th century as part of resistance to fascist movements like Mussolini’s Blackshirts and Hitler’s Nazis. In modern times, “Antifa” has been used to describe loose networks of activists, not a centralized group with formal leadership or membership, most of whose activities include protesting, counter-demonstrations, online organizing, and community defense.

That’s it. Antifa activists have not  gunned down anyone.

As for Robinson, we don’t actually know much about this kid, and what we do know is largely conflicting. We know that the kid is 22, that his family is Mormon and conservative Republican, that he was enrolled in an apprenticeship program at Dixie Technical College and briefly attended Utah State University but dropped out. We know that he was registered to vote as “unaffiliated,” and we know there is no record of him ever having voted. Robinson is said to have had a romantic partner who is transgender, and reportedly objected to some of the hateful things that Kirk had to say about the transgendered.

In fact, Kirk had many hateful things to say about all kinds of people. If you don’t believe me, read what Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote in an article for Vanity Fair about Charlie Kirk. 

Read some of the things that Kirk said about George Floyd, such calling him a “scumbag,” repeatedly claiming Floyd died of a fentanyl overdose, claiming that Derek Chauvin’s 9-minute knee-on-neck restraint was an “approved police technique” and questioning the legitimacy of systemic racism narratives.

Read some of the other vile things that Kirk has said, including claiming that prominent black women such as Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Ketanji Brown Jackson did not have “the brain processing power to be taken seriously,” and that they had to “steal a white person’s slot” in order to be respected.

Kirk publicly endorsed the “great replacement” theory, stating that immigration and border demographics are being used to replace white rural Americans.

Kirk claimed that “large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America” and that “Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.” 

But also, “Jewish donors,” were “the number one funding mechanism of radical open-border, neoliberal, quasi-Marxist policies, cultural institutions, and nonprofits.” Indeed, Kirk claimed that “the philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors in the country.”

And of course, most ironically, Kirk was emphatic that it’s “worth it” to have “some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.” 

And really, that’s just scratching the surface.

And  yet, somehow, it is Kirk who is now being deified and it’s Kimmel who was cast off the air. 

People like Erika Kirk, Charlie’s widow, keep saying things like “they” (meaning us) “don’t know what they (meaning us) have unleashed.”

Or Steven Miller, who said at the Charlie Kirk memorial on Sunday that “You (meaning us) have no idea the dragon you (meaning us) have awakened.”

“They” of course refers to us, the people who are still sane. And we haven’t unleashed anything because none of us took a shot at Charlie Kirk. That was actually one of “them,” the MAGA people, except that this particular MAGA person was also a whack job.

Steven Miller, in case you’ve forgotten, is Jewish, from the same tribe that, according to Kirk, represent the “number one” funders of “radical open-border, neoliberal, quasi-Marxist policies, cultural institutions, and nonprofits.”

Oh boy.

But actually, I think it’s the other way around.

The canning of Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel — and Fallon, Seth Meyers and Jon Stewart can’t be far behind — is awakening something in us, the people who are still sane and still understand how the First Amendment works.

I believe there will be a huge backlash from our side. Colbert and Kimmel will find new opportunities, and might combine their talents with Rachel Maddow and others to work on new projects. 

Ironically, Fox News, that world record fabricator of new lies on a daily basis, is still on the air because it does not have a broadcast license (although individual Fox stations do). That alone proves that there are plenty of opportunities in this media environment to have a platform without needing a broadcast license. 

And finally I will note what is already well known, that the specifics for why Colbert and Kimmel were picked on first has to do with two separate media mergers that do require FCC approval: in Colbert’s case the Paramount Global / Skydance Media merger, and in Kimmel’s case the Nexstar Media Group / Tegna merger. That last one is a merger that should be denied on the merits alone, since that would lead to as many as 80% of American  households getting their local TV news from that combined entity. The current rules that say that no more than 39% of households could get their broadcasts from one entity would also have to be suspended, which is a terrible idea.

Congress? Do you have anything to say about this?

(For another analysis see what John Oliver had to say about this on Last Week Tonight.)

Well, it’s very interesting to watch the Republicans tie themselves into knots trying to blame the assassination of Charlie Kirk on Democrats. At the outset it should be noted that agree with him or disagree with him — and I disagreed with him on almost everything — Charlie Kirk is exactly the kind of guy who should not have been assassinated, if we want to have any kind of civil discourse. Kirk put himself squarely into the civic debate, daring people to prove him wrong. And that is the forum in which he should have been (and often was) defeated. Not by shooting him in the neck.

It should also be noted that of the two people who tried to take out Trump last summer and the guy who did take out Charlie Kirk, none of them was a Democrat. 

• Thomas Matthew Crooks is a registered Republican; 
• Ryan Wesley Routh is “unaffiliated” although he has sometimes voted in Democratic primaries; and now,
• Tyler Robinson is the son of a Mormon family all of whom were Trump-supporting MAGAs. Robinson was also registered to vote as “unaffiliated,” although there is no evidence that he ever voted.

So none of them are Democrats.

All of that did not keep Elon Musk from exclaiming on X that “The Left is the party of murder.” Ignoring for the moment that the left is not a “party,” it is also, of course, factually untrue. 

And then we got these kind of posts on X:

Oh boy.

I will say that I was impressed with the use of the word “stochastic” here, although it wasn’t quite used properly.

But the American Reichstag fire?

For those of you who don’t know, the Reichstag fire is universally regarded as the event that precipitated the changeover in the early NAZI regime from an arguably legitimate regime into a clearly illegitimate regime. The Reichstag fire occurred on February 27, 1933, when a 24 year old Dutch communist set a fire in the German parliamentary building, doing significant damage. Although the best evidence is that Marinus van der Lubbe acted alone, the NAZI’s blamed the communists as an organization, which precipitated the signing of the Reichstag Fire Decree a couple of weeks later. That was the beginning of the end for civil liberties under the new regime.

In other words, the Reichstag fire is not the kind of event I would be touting as what is needed in the United States of America in order for us to move forward politically.

Actually, the way that the killing of Charlie Kirk is much more likely to be used is the way that the NAZI’s used Horst Wessel. Wessel was a young man who was an early supporter of the NAZI party. Aside from being a militant street fighter, Wessel also wrote a song entitled “Die Fahne hoch” (“Raise the Flag”), which later became known as the Horst-Wessel-Lied.

In any case, on January 14, 1930, Wessel was shot in his Berlin apartment by Albrecht Höhler, a member of the Communist Party, during a dispute reportedly linked to both politics and personal entanglements involving his landlady and a former prostitute. Höhler had been brought in as “muscle” to help evict Wessel and his companion. Although he was shot at the beginning of 1930, Wessel did not actually die until February 23, after he contracted sepsis while in hospital.

The Nazis quickly turned his death into propaganda. Wessel was elevated as a symbol of youthful sacrifice for the Nazi cause, and his song became central to the movement’s identity.  The “Horst-Wessel-Lied” eventually became mandatory at Nazi ceremonies and was often paired with the national anthem.

That is the political danger that I’d be on the lookout for. Mythmaking for Charlie Kirk that is completely disproportionate to his actual character and accomplishments.

What’s going on with the current Texas redistricting is crazy. And you can thank the Supreme Court for that. In what may be the 3rd worst modern decision behind Citizen’s United v. FEC and Trump v. United States we have the 2019 case of Rucho v. Common Cause — a case you have likely never heard of — which held that questions of extreme partisan gerrymandering are non-justiciable political questions, so the courts had to keep hands off.

Even though a previous court had already decided in Baker v. Carr that questions of redistricting were justiciable by the United States Supreme Court.

But let’s back up for a moment.

First of all, redistricting is something that is required by the Constitution after the decennial census in order to be able to draw districts that have an equal number of voters apportioned therein.

What normally happens is that the census is taken every 10 years — I  myself worked on the 1980 decennial census — and within the next year or two the state legislatures redraw the districts based on their own population. The number of the 435 congressional districts gets reapportioned between the states at that time. Texas, with its growing population, went from 36 to 38 districts for the decade from 2022 to 2031.

That’s when redistricting happens.

After the census.

This is the way it has worked since the Reapportionment Act of 1929.

And now, at Donald Trump’s urging, Texas is trying to change the rules.

Unilaterally.

Because of the Rucho case, there is nothing really out there to stop Texas from doing so.

The Texas democratic representatives who fled the state aren’t going to be able to keep their Republican colleagues from enacting this scheme, and Governor Greg Abbott — proof positive that you can be both disabled and a complete dickhead at the same time — from signing it into law.

So now California and New York are threatening to retaliate. With artificial intelligence and very detailed data on who is registered to vote where, any state can draw up districts in which they maximize the chances for one party over another, virtually disenfranchising most of us, regardless of which side we’re on.

There is an obvious fix for this, one that everyone should be able to get behind: a Constitutional amendment that requires districts be drawn as close as possible to existing municipal and country boundaries, so that the districts reflect the natural and actual composition of the people who live there.

Of course, that’s not going to happen. That would make way too much sense. And try getting that through our hyper-partisan Congress.

Oh, and fuck the Supreme Court.