Fueling the rising costs for everyone

Fuel prices are rising throughout the world due to Tr*mp’s war against Iran, and obviously New Zealand’s fuel prices are rising fast, too. A couple days ago, an economist predicted that petrol prices could pass $4 per litre (roughly US$8.81 per US gallon). I think our prices will probably reach that point in maybe a week.

Here's why I say that: Late yesterday afternoon, I used the Gaspy App to look at prices at around 50 petrol stations within a relatively short drive from my house. The cheapest price for 91 was $2.93 per litre (three stations), and the highest price was $3.26 per litre. This evening, the cheapest price was $3.14 per litre (one station), and the highest price was $3.40—that’s around 24 hours later. It will keep rising.

Despite being late to take the situation seriously, the current NZ government is starting to talk about “worst case scenario” solutions. They claim NZ has seven weeks of fuel supply, counting both what’s here and what’s on the way, but experts in the industry estimate it’s actually around five weeks. One specific—and big—problem is that around 47% of NZ’s refined fuel comes from Korea, and they’ve talked about suspending exports, and if they do, this situation could get serious fast.

The government’s first step will be to work with partner countries overseas to try to find alternative sources of fuel, and they’re talking about temporarily relaxing fuel standards (I think, but don’t know, that they mean things like allowing higher levels of Sulfur in diesel). They also are working on a series of escalating restrictions on sales (to prioritise essential users, like emergency services and truckers shipping food to supermarkets) that they could use, if that becomes necessary—along with security guards at petrol stations.

I’m extremely lucky in that I don’t need to drive much or far, so this shouldn’t affect me for a while. Sales restrictions, if they happen, would obviously affect me, too, but, like everyone else, rising prices will increasingly mean I won’t drive anywhere unless I have to.

However, we'll all share the pain of fast-rising fuel prices because EVERYTHING we need to buy will become more expensive, including groceries, which are already at too-high prices—and, of course, farmers need fuel to grow and harvest our food (plus fertiliser may be hard to obtain). We’ve also been warned that because of all the uncertainties, there could be fuel surcharges added to anything delivered directly to us. Could? Make that there will be.

Related to that, I realised recently that this situation could mean that the guy who mows my front lawn may raise his prices. However, he recently cut back to mowing every other week, so even if he raises his prices, I should still be paying less per month than when he was mowing weekly. Like I said, I’m lucky.

No one knows how this will play out, or when the war will end. It certainly doesn’t help that the USA has a government that doesn’t have a clue what it’s doing, and the Republican politicians clearly have no idea whatsoever how to bring their war to an end. So, things right now are serious and getting worse, but they're not yet dire—emphasis on yet.

New Zealand is as vulnerable as any other country, and our own “Coalition of Chaos” government hasn’t exactly been inspiring confidence that they know what to do. Even so, I’m not willing to jump on the panic wagon about all this. First, there’s absolutely nothing I can do about the cause of all this turmoil. All I can do is manage what’s within my control, and I’m definitely doing that.

But, seriously, isn’t it about time we finally got to have some precedented times?!!!

About that ‘hidden’ video

 The video above is Stephen Colbert’s interview with one of the Democratic candidates for the US senate seat in Texas, James Talarico. Colbert said that CBS wouldn’t permit the interview to be broadcast because the regime’s FCC said it would enforce the “equal time” rules on talk shows, which had always been exempt. Essentially the rule means that if a candidate is interviewed, all other candidates for that office must be, too. The FCC commissioner was quite open about the fact that this is about politics, though he framed it as about shows being “political”. His ire was apparently raised when ABC’s “The View” had Talarico on without any of his Democratic opponents. It's important to note that another Democrat runing for the Seante in Texas, Jasmine Crockett, has been on Colbert's show several times.

The first important point is that talk shows have always been exempt from the rule, and suddenly changing the rules is—odd. The second thing is that CBS itself disputes how this all came about. They deny it was the FCC “ordering” anything, but instead, about its “guidance”.

The interview was uploaded to the show’s YouTube Channel, which Colbert suggested was because he wasn’t allowed to broadcast it. CBS later claimed it was to avoid the “equal time” rule (the FCC has absolutely NO jurisdiction over streaming services, including YouTube). It’s worth noting that the YouTube video up top has had around three times the average viewership for the broadcast show, and the millions of views on other social media are on top of that.

So, what really happened? We weren’t there, we don’t know. Here’s what Colbert said to his audience before the interview:



The next day, CBS issued a very different story about what happened, apparently trying to blame Colbert, and issuing a startement without even showing it to him in advance. He responded on air:



I tend to believe Colbert over CBS, mainly because he’s earned the right to be trusted, and the spokespersons for the oligarch owners of CBS have not. Maybe that will change? Well, anything is possible, I suppose.

Let’s suppose that the FCC didn’t strongarm CBS (even admitting the current regime is absolutely capable of having done exactly that). But, IF they didn’t, why would CBS kill the broadcast of the interview? To suck up to the Republicans’ God-King. CBS is now owned and controlled by a far-right billionaire family that unreservedly backs the regime (danger enough), however, what could be behind it is that those oligarchs are currently trying to buy Warner-Discovery which would give them CNN, too (another huge danger; Netflix’s bid excludes CNN). If their offer is accepted, the regime will need to approve it, and that obviously gives the oligarchs a strong incentive to censor Colbert.

That raises a new question: Why would the regime want Talarico silenced? Because they consider him a huge threat to Republicans holding the Senate seat in Texas, and if Democrats win that seat, that may well win control of the US Senate. The incumbent Republican is unpopular, and his chief opponent is a crackpot extremist (IMO). Either Republican could be in danger of losing to a Democrat, and Republicans would fear Talarico the most because they’d consider the other main candidate, Jasmine Crockett, easier to defeat (because they automatically dismiss all they Black people, Black women in particular). Having said that, Talarico does indeed speak to a certain type of Texas voter, those that are more ostensibly more conservative than most Democrats, but they're not part of the red hat cult. Those folks are also some flavour of Christian, and Talarico speaks to them better than even the Republican candidates (not hard to do for genuine Christians…).

As the saying goes, I don’t have a dog in that fight, however, I do have a “position”: I will happily back whichever Democrat wins the primary. There are things I like about both candidates, but I know very little about Texas voters and wouldn’t presume to say which one is more “electable”. Anyone can have an opinion on the race, of course, and I do, and beyond firmly believing that either Democrat is far better than any Republican. But I think that the Democratic voters in Texas have to make their own choice. I know that I wouldn’t want anyone from out of state telling me how to vote.

I’m just glad that Democrats have such strong candidates. I hope that’s replicated across the country, because it’ll take a massive “Blue Wave” to save the USA.

Paths to redemption

This morning, I saw a meme on Facebook. It said: “I’ve done a lot of stupid shit on this planet, but at least I’ve never voted for [the convicted felon]”. I shared it because it’s true for me, too. However, for me, the meme is only part of the story.

I really hve made a lot of huge mistakes in my life, and, obviously, voting for him was never one of them. However, we all make mistakes—everyone—but the trick is to recognise our mistakes and then to try to repair the damage, beginning with admitting our mistake. Sure, voting for him is arguably the biggest mistake that some Americans have ever made, but if there’s no path to redemption for those who made that mistake and regret it, then, in my opinion, there’s absolutely no hope for healing the deep divisions and wounds in the USA.

Those of us who never supported him in any way also have a choice: We can be smug about having been right about him all along, or we can help those who were wrong about him get back out into the sunlight. There will be some folks who will never be able to admit their mistake (for lots of reasons), and there’s nothing we can do to help them. But I want to see otherwise good people have a path to help to undo the damage they helped enable.

At the same time, though, I’ll never condemn the folks who can’t forgive those who voted for him. I totally get that—in fact, I often felt the same way, especially when the regime unleashed its reign of terror. Even so, I nevertheless persist in holding onto hope for the folks who made the mistake of voting for him, but who truly seek and then work for redemption.

My attitude comes from two completely different places. First, it’s arguably an enduring lesson from literally growing up in the church: There were all those messages about not judging, about forgiveness, and turning the other cheek. However, the biggest thing has been my adult life studying and volunteering in politics. In a democracy, victories are built on coalitions, and if democracy is to survive in the USA, it will take a massive coalition of people working and voting together to create change. That’s because of the systemic and structural barriers that the felon and his party are trying to erect to prevent pro-democracy people from voting—or even speaking out. I’ve often spoken about my own personal political pragmatism, and this is an example of it: Leave no opponent of the regime outside if they repudiate their former support for the felon.

Having said all of that, I’m under no illusions about any of this. It’s human nature to never admit mistakes, especially ones that people are embarrassed about having made, but even those folks can still do the right things quietly. My personal preference would be for his voters to admit their mistake publicly and join the pro-democracy coalition, but I don’t know how many will be strong enough to actually do that. That’s fine—as long as they still vote out the felon’s political party.

History shows us that there will come a day—hopefully very soon—when it will become nearly impossible to find anyone who will admit to ever having voted for him. For example, that happened in Germany after World War 2 ended, and the reasons it will happen in the USA are quite similar. Until that time, and to help it arrive sooner, we need to try to help his now repentant former voters find a path to help us all build a better future in which this nightmare cannot be repeated.

Forgetting the weekday because of a good focus

This is the time of year when I can’t remember what day of the week it is. That’ll happen when there are two weeks in a row that each have two public holidays. This speaks volumes about how different life in New Zealand is from life in the land of my birth, but many countries have it far better than folks in the USA have it. It doesn’t have to be that way for the US, and some want to take it away from New Zealanders—though, yeah, nah, that’s not going to happen.

Christmas Day and Boxing Day (December 25 and 26) are both public holidays, and the following week January 1 and 2 are also both public holidays. There’s also a “trading ban” on Christmas Day, which, despite werdly complicated rules and exceptions, generally means most businesses must close on that day. The other three are ordinary public holidays, but in New Zealand that actually means something.

Public holidays are sometimes called “statutory holidays” (or “stat day” for short) because they’re specifically named in law and have specific regulations. For example, most full-time workers who are required to work on a public holiday will receive 1.5 times their normal hourly pay, and they’ll be entitled to another day off in lieu (as it’s called) at a time the worker and employer agree to. In reality, it’s a bit more complicated than that, with some variations because of a worker’s specific circumstances, however, that’s the gist of it.

Another important thing for workers about the public holidays for Christmas Day and Boxing Day and January 1 and 2 is that if one or both days fall on a weekend, the public holidays are observed on the following Monday, or Monday and Tuesday if both fall on a weekend. For example, in 2026 Christmas Day falls on a Friday, and Boxing Day on Saturday, so the Boxing Day public holiday for workers will be on Monday, December 28.

This same thing repeats the following week for 2027 New Year’s Day and the day after. So, most Kiwis get two four-day weekends in a row—not every year, but many years—which is supremely awesome, and it allows many folks to have a two week break from work while only using maybe six annual leave days (“vacation days” in Americanese) instead of ten. Full-time workers in New Zealand are generally entitled to 20 annual leave days per year, plus 12 paid days off for public holidays.

I mention all that, even though I have several times before, because it make a very important point: Workers’ rights to things like paid time off don’t have to rely on the graciousness or mercy of employers, and that governments can, and most do, enforce workers’ rights. American workers aren’t treated poorly compared to workers in most OECD countries because “it’s just the way it is” or because “government can’t change things”, but, rather, it’s because of weak or compromised politicians who refuse to do the right thing for working people, and instead do only the absolute bare minimum that won’t upset big corporations and oligarchs too much. They do only enough to prevent working people from using the power in their numbers to force change by electing politicians who are on the side of working people, and not consumed by doing the bidding of corporations and oligarchs.

Most politicians in US state and federal governments rely on campaign donations from corporations and oligarchs, directly or indirectly, and so, they vote to advance the interests of their financial benefactors and not the needs of ordinary working people. It’s said that “the love of money is the root of all evil”, but campaign contributions from corporations and the rich are particularly rich fertiliser for those roots, and the rotten fruit that grows is merely the logical result.

Money weakens democracy in nearly every country, and the love of money is certainly at the core of many Rightwing parties throughout the OECD, and that includes New Zealand. When conservatives are in power, we see attempts to restrict workers’ rights and to enrich corporations. But the centrist parties don’t push hard enough to do what ordinary working people want and need.

Most politicians spend most of their time telling ordinary citizens what they “can’t” have. What those things are will vary from place to place, but the tendency is pretty much universal. Politicians on both the Right and the Left do this, but there are difference: To the Right, nothing the people want is possible, but what corporations and oligarchs want always is. Centrist politicians do some things to help some ordinary people, but their difference from the Right is mainly one of degree, and perhaps a bit more humanity. Maybe this will soon change.

The mission of politicians—the people’s representatives—is to do one thing: Deliver what the people want. If something is difficult to achieve, then it’s their job to work how to deliver what the people want, and if there really are genuine trade-offs, then they must be open and honest with the people so they can weigh in on what should be priorities and what really can be deferred. In other words, politicians must do the work their bosses—voters—elected them to do. If they can’t or won’t to what voters want, they need to get out of the way.

I’ve seen signs that things are beginning to change in some countries, and that people are beginning to demand that their elected representatives do what the people want. This is the possible antidote to many governments sole focus on the needs of corporations and oligarchs. Ordinary people far outnumber the oligarchs, and only destruction of democracy can slow this gradual march toward more just societies—which means, it’s still possible for the oligarchs to kill off the infant people’s movement.

In the meantime, people like me who live in countries that respect workers will continue to sometimes get confused this time of year about what day of the week it is because of the time off that workers get at this time of year. But countries like the USA can still catch up. It’s time they did.

Ask Arthur 2025, Part 2: Rogues gallery

This is the final post answering questions in this year’s “Ask Arthur” series. A (very) short series, I know, but it is what it is.

This years' fiinal question is again from Roger Green, who wrote:

I'd like you to analyze the Worst of the Worst: your least favorite members of the regime and why. Don't feel limited to the executive branch; if you want to dis Mike Johnson or John Roberts, please feel free.

It would be much easier to list who among the regime’s inhabitants I like, or, at least, can tolerate, because that list would be empty. This is a first for me: Even when I’ve strongly disagreed with whoever was in the Oval Office, there nearly always was someone that I could at least tolerate—and that even includes the Convicted Felon’s first occupation of the White House. But that’s absolutely not true this time.

Most of the regime is made up of utterly incompetent, even demonstrably stupid, people, which has probably been the main thing that’s kept the USA from going fully fascist so far. There are, however, several people who are beneath contempt, the sorts who better pray every day that there are no Nuremberg-style trials once the regime is finally gone.

The worst of the worst are, in my sincerely held opinion, anyone and everyone who is any way attached to to the Department of “Homeland” Security, its secretary and the head of the ICE Gestapo, chief among them (I will refrain wherever possible from using the rogues’ names because refusing to utter someone’s name is probably a human’s greatest gesture of contempt). They have all broken numerous federal and state laws, violated the rights of thousands of people, and committed the sorts of crimes against humanity that in the Beofre Times would get a country on a US government watchlist.

The individual who outranks all of them in this list, though, has to be the guy often called “The Shadow President”, Herr Miller, who is the architect of the regime’s racist, inhuman, and inhumane war against immigrants, regardless of legal status. The Convicted Felon’s personal Stellvertreter, in the more appropriate German, has made deliberate cruelty the focus of his work, though ensuring maximum profits for the corporations that run the detention facilities is also a strong driving motivation for the regime—though much of that speaks to the regime’s general corruption, not merely its evil intent. His sick racist Christmas tirade is just another symptom of his moral depravity.

Also in the rogues gallery would be the head of the Department of Defence who has (allegedly) violated international law and (allegedly) committed war crimes. Beyond that, his open racism, misogynistic sexism, and homophobic über-bigotry make him incredibly gross—at the very least. But it’s his (alleged) crimes against humanity that could cause him the most problems after the regime ends.

Similarly, the Secretary of State has been shockingly disgusting. Was the guy the Felon used to call “Little” always so sick and twisted, or did joining the regime give him permission to stop pretending he was ever anything other than sick and twisted? Maybe one day a Truth and Reconciliation Commission can find out.

Although generally notable mostly for incompetence, the “Attorney General”, so-called, is in the gallery because she’s been tripping over herself to eagerly do whatever her Felonious Lord and Master demands, no matter how illegal or unconstitutional it is. She better hope someone gives her a pardon.

Finally, among the denizens of the cabinet/politburo is the weird and flaky guy in charge of health. Were he merely a crackpot shouting on the Internet, he could be safely ignored. Instead, his actions will result in the deaths of tens of thousands of people before everything he’s done can be reversed when sanity finally returns.

The next group in the rogues gallery are sort of second-string players, though still central to the regime’s fascistic dreams. First, there’s the Shady VP who lately has been desperately trying to convince the Republicans that he alone can be the successor to their God-King. What places him in this gallery, apart from his aggressively boorish behaviour, is that he’s now trying to convince the cult that white supremacism has a place in their cult, the very thing that’s causing deep divisions precisely because so many cultists are saying, “Nah, bro, that’s too racist even for me”.

Special mention, too, goes to the two Roger specifically mentioned, starting with Maga Mike, the worst House Speaker in my lifetime, and that includes his fellow Republican who was convicted of historic sexual abuse of young people. For a man who’s so arrogantly smug all the time, he never seems to know anything whenever he’s asked about the latest crimes or excesses committed by the regime—though perhaps he gets that from his God-King, because he, too, always lies that he doesn’t “know anything about that”. Worse, for someone who constantly parades his supposed religious beliefs, often seemingly performatively, he has done more to not just reject the message of the Jesus he claims to follow, he actually chooses to do the exact opposite. There are rumours that his slavish devotion to the God-King is because the regime has something on him, but it the real explanation is probably just he’s this awful because it’s his nature.

John Roberts gets here, too, but only as an associate member of the rogues gallery, and that, in turn, is only because three of his fellow Republicans are far, FAR worse. Mostly, he’ll go down in history as being singularly responsible for destroying all public respect for the Court, something he seems to actually care about. If he really does, maybe he’ll do better, and reject the authoritarianism of the regime, even if that means he’s in the minority in a ruling.

The one who tops them all is, of course, the Rogue in Chief: Conman, grifter, utterly devoid of any compassion, morality, or ethics, he’s overseeing a deliberate campaign to destroy freedom, democracy, and human rights, all so he can get ever more huge piles of money for himself that he’ll never live long enough to spend. If the rot starts at the top, if the most important organised crime figure is the boss, then he has to have a tier in the rogues gallery all to himself.

Thanks to Roger for participating! Hopefully my response doesn’t make him regret doing so—though it does demonstrate why I almost never talk about politics anymore. Still, it was cathartic.

I don’t know whether I’ll do an “Ask Arthur” series next year or not. I suppose it’ll depend on how well 2026 goes. Thankfully, that decision is nearly a year from now.

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-25”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously in the 2025 series:

”Doing the annual inquisition AAAgain?” – The first post in this year’s series.

”Ask Arthur 2025, Part 1: Popping bubbles?”

I do also see good news…

There was good news this week, and, even better for me, it was something I correctly predicted. These days, it’s probablty a good idea for us all to take the wins when we get them.

This week, the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal incuding a request to overturn the Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that legalised same-gender marriage throughout the USA. This is exactly what I expected to happen. In fact, a couple days or so before the decision to decline the petition was announced, I said this in a Facebook comment to a friend:

As you can probably guess, I’m following this closely, but I doubt this case will succeed. The plaintiff and her case are both deeply flawed and problematic, and the Court has already lost most of its credibility in the eyes of the public because of their idiotic decisions, like the Dobbs case, inventing presidential “immunity” out of nothing, and constantly ruling to help the Republicans’ God-King and others in their party, especially through the slimy Shadow Docket. They won’t want to make yet another idiotic decision that would help Democrats in 2026, and they may be betting that if they lay low now, maybe real elections won’t happen after 2026, and they can then let their christfascism run free. At the very least, with so much disgust with the court right now, they’re most likely to wait for a better case, one with a plaintiff that can be more successfully marketed as a “victim”.

All up, it’s more likely they’ll decline to take the case, without comment, and bide their time.

I elaborated on this in a follow-up comment:

I don’t know if [marriage equality opponents] can get four votes to proceed—not impossible, but unlikely. Barrett has said people’s lives depend on the ruling standing, which, historically, has been a big reason for the Court to avoid overturning a ruling, and even Alito—a stinging critic of Obergefell—has said that, too. Roberts is the one MOST worried about how awfully most Americans see the Court. That leaves only Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch to possibly vote to hear the case. But, whatever happens, we’ll probably never know who wanted to hear the case and who didn’t, though we can be sure that at least Thomas will vote to proceed. The other two could well see what a sham this particular case is and wait for a stronger one to use to destroy the human rights of married same-gender couples and LGBTQ+ people in general.

That second comment has the one thing I may have been wrong about: “We can be sure that at least Thomas will vote to proceed”. He may well have wanted to do so, for all we know, but the petition was rejected without dissent, so if Thomas did argue in favour of it, he didn’t officially register that opposition. That aside, it’s probably a good idea to elaborate on what I said. First, the issue wasn’t that Davis personally refused to allow a same-gender couple to legally marry after the Obergefell ruling, it’s that she forbade anyone in the office with complying with the law, and that’s where she crossed the line. She was found personally responsible for denying a gay couple’s right to marry, and that was later increased to $360,000. The original appeal was trying to get her out of having to pay the judgement, but her appeal said the issue was her supposed “religious liberty [sic]” to discriminate against gay couples, and that’s the main angle her petition to the Supreme Court took, and their justification for why the Court should reverse itself.

The professional anti-LGBTQ+ industry pushes supposed religious "liberty” in opposing anything pro-LGBTQ+ in part because those activists know that the far-right Republicans in various courts, including the Supreme Court, will usually back anything that claims to be upholding/promoting religious “liberty”.

Despite many of the Republican Supreme Court judges far-right views on religious “liberty”, they all nevertheless knew that because the case was originally about damages the plaintiff was charged by Kentucky courts, and was basically rebranded as being about religious “liberty”. So, its claim to actually be about religious “liberty” was dubious. This means that even if the far-right Republican majority really does want to overturn Obergefell, this case wasn’t the right case to do that because it would destroy way too much of what little legitimacy the court still has in the public’s eyes, and fall or dubious reasons. However, the professional anti-LGBTQ industry is nothing if not persistent, so if a case comes along that’s “cleaner”, one that doesn’t have a problematic plaintiff or origin, it could give the most hard-right justices an opportunity they may want—but not for at least a couple years.

It’s also worth noting that despite his many (many, many…) failings, the Felon in Chief has never expressed a desire to overturn marriage equality, but he did talk endlessly about overturning Roe v. Wade, appointed Supreme Court justices certain to do that, and then took personal credit for it when they did overturn Roe. The fact that he hasn’t said anything about ending marriage equality suggests he's not interested in it, and that would make it harder—though not impossible—for his vassals in the Republican Party to make that an actual priority, as opposed to just another attack line.

Some folks may point out that the Felon has repeatedly attacked trans people, his vassals have then followed suit, and all have taken concrete action to attack trans people. History shows us that it could merely be their opening act, and an attack on marriage equality is inevitable. Maybe so—but today is not that day, and right now the important thing is to focus on threats on freedom and liberty that are already underway.

Also, it's important to celebrate when there's good news, and the bottom line is that the Supreme Court declining to accept the case without dissent is definitely good news.

The betrayal

Eight Democratic US Senators—well, seven Democrats and one “Independent”—just underscored why Americans have so little trust in the Democratic Party, and they also managed to undo all of the progress the party has made in recent months. Worse, they did it and got absolutely nothing in return. Calling this treachery is far too kind.

Here’s the list of the Gang of Eight Senators:

Dick Durbin (age 80), Illinois, who is not seeking reelection next year. John Fetterman (age 56), Pennsylvania, term expires 2028. Maggie Hassan (age 67), New Hampshire, term expires 2028. Tim Kaine (age 67), Virginia, term expires 2030. Angus King (age 81), “Independent” from Maine, term expires 2030. Catherine Cortez Masto (age 61), Nevada, term expires 2028. Jacky Rosen (age 68), Nevada, term expires 2030. Jeanne Shaheen (age 78), New Hampshire, not seeking reelection next year.

Here’s the thing: NONE of those folks will face the voters next year, and cynics are already suggesting that’s why they were the “negotiators”: They could provide cover for vulnerable Democrats in the 2028 elections, while also allowing the much-disliked leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, to vote “no” on the deal while still getting what he wanted, namely, an end to the shutdown.

A different view I saw was that this was a bigger game. First, the House will have to come back into session, that means that Arizona’s US Representative-elect, Adelita Grijalva, will have to be sworn-in—finally—and she will be the 218th signature on the Discharge Petition to release the Epstein Files so everyone will know exactly what the convicted felon did to be named so much in the files, which certainly appears to be the reason Republicans are trying so hard to prevent the files ever being released. Also, the story goes, there will be a special election in a Republican district in Tennessee that may narrow the odds of succeeding in forcing the release of the Epstein Files. By re-opening now, they can act on the files.

The people pushing that theory also point out that Republicans will now be forced to go on the record in support of raising ACA healthcare premiums, and they’ll have to go through this again in January. Yeah, well, no, not really.

The Gang of Eight got a promise that the Senate will vote in December on extending ACA subsidies, but Republican promises are worthless. Even so, let’s humour them and pretend they really will hold the vote in the Senate—so what? Maga Mike Johnson, the antichristian Speaker of the House, has already made clear the subsidies will never be taken up by the House, so no House Republicans will be on the record. And there’s still no guarantee there will be a vote in the Senate, either. The Gang’s other excuses reasons were about things that the courts are already resolving—and there’s no guarantee that the regime will obey any court orders, nor that they’ll actually honour any deals on those issues.

Thanks to the Gang of Eight, early next year ACA healthcare premiums will go up two, three, four—even seven or eight—times. Yes, Americans will be furious about that, but will they really blame only Republicans, or the 8 Senators who caved to Republicans? Or, will they blame all Democrats? It could well become a “both parties are useless liars” thing, driving down voter turnout next year, also helping Republicans.

Even if there’s some sort of hidden strategy here, how on earth could they convince voters of that, when it would look like they were just making excuses for caving? And, also, what about all the Democrats who did the right thing and held the line and voted no? They will be tarred with the same brush as the Gang of Eight. This is especially bad because voters responded strongly to Democrats actually fighting the regime—finally!—and it’s one of the main reasons why last week Democrats had the best election night in YEARS, only to have the Gang of Eight throw it all away.

There’s nothing that can be done about this now that the eight caved, but pressure must begin to convince the six who aren’t already retiring next year to retire at the next election. If they don’t retire, they must be primaried and fired by the voters. They betrayed all the hard work and sacrifices of their colleagues and in both Congress and the states, and also ordinary people who felt energised and engaged, and there have to be consequences for their betrayal of the American people.

The one thing we know for certain is that things will get much, much worse for the USA and its people. Republicans are now smugly certain that they can do whatever they want, and Democrats won’t do anything but, taking a cue from Chuck Schumer, send a strongly worded letter.

The USA deserves much better from Democrats, and for a time, they got that. The Gang of Eight wrecked it all.

Trendsetting declarations?

This is becoming a trend: Voters in countries in the Commonwealth are rejecting the USA’s titular president and his hard-right authoritarian politics. Will this spread? We can certainly hope so.

This past Saturday, Australians went to the polls in parliamentary elections, and the delivered a resounding defeat to the countries MAGA-aligned conservatives. Just as Canada recently did, the Australian conservative leader also lost his own seat in Parliament. Well done, Australia, well done.

Australia’s re-elected government is under the Australian Labor Party (ALP) headed by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (his surname is pronounced “all-ban-EE-zee”). The leader of The Coalition was Peter Dutton who tried to use the US Republicans' culture war antics, along with a bizarre focus on expanding nuclear energy (critics suggested it was to promote uranium mining in Australia, and also to distract from conservatives’ fixation on coal, which is also mined in Australia).

The Albanese government wasn’t overwhelmingly popular late last year, then in January everything changed as the US regime bedded in. In the last couple weeks before the election, it looked like the ALP would be re-elected, but the polls were quite close, and it looked like maybe the best Albanese could hope for was to form a minority government (this happens when no party has an absolute majority in Parliament and is able to form government with the support of minor parties). In the end, the ALP increased its majority.

The conservative Liberal Party (which is in coalition with the largely rural National Party, and together they’re usually called “The Coalition”) was the target because of their rhetoric aping the US regime’s leader, leading to the ALP branding him “DOGE-y Dutton”. He wasn’t the only MAGA-aligned Australian, of course. The AP News article linked to above noted:

Trumpet of Patriots, a minor party inspired by Trump policies with an advertising budget funded by mining magnate Clive Palmer that eclipsed the major parties, attracted only 2% of the vote.

Once again, mining rears its head (many of Australia’s ultra rich are connected to mining). At any rate, it’s always pleasing to see oligarchs waste some of their obscene wealth in a failed campaign to buy an election, much as Elon failed to buy a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat. Seeing the oligarchs fail utterly is always satisfying to the those of us who love and embrace democracy.1

New Zealand’s next general election is next year, and we have two very different minor parties aligned with the US Republican regime: One is led by an octogenarian who apes the Republican leader’s culture war bullshit. His party is introducing a bill to declare there are only two genders, after campaigning in the election to require restaurants, bars, etc., to verify that the gender of patrons using matched the toilets the toilets they planned to use. How, precisely, business were to do that was never stated, leading to mockery about them requiring genital inspections.

The other hard-rightwing minor party is led by a much younger man who wants to implement the same far-right fascistic agenda being advocated by those working behind the scenes of the USA’s current regime, in part because that particular minor party leader was part of an international organisation promoting neoliberal (sometimes call neoconservative) policies, such as, promoting the interests of corporations and the ultra rich, against poor and working people, and in favour of using the power of the state to control behaviour they don’t approve of (though in this case, not religiously based). They also want to privatise pretty much all government functions, in much the same way the USA’s “Doge” is trying to give core US government functions to corporations. That guy is about to become Deputy Prime Minister under the coalition agreement the three parties entered into to form government,

It’s around a year and a half-ish until New Zealand's next General Election, and there’s no way to know what shape politics here or in the US will be in. Will New Zealand join its fellow Commonwealth nations and reject the divisive and negative politics of the USA? No idea at this point, but you can be sure I’ll be talking about it—next year. Right now, I am proud to celebrate with both Australia and Canada.

Necessary change is coming

Today, US Senator Dick Durnin (D-Illinois), who is also the Democratic Whip in the US Senate, announced he won’t seek re-election next year. I think Senator Durbin has made the right choice. He said, “in my heart I know it’s time to pass the torch,” and I think he’s right. I voted for Senator Durbin all five times, but he’s right: It’s time for a new generation to take the lead.

To be transparent, of course I’ll vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is—assuming I’m still allowed to vote next year (the Republicans’ “SAVE Act”, as written, will probably end up taking away my right to vote). Even so, in my past, I did once vote for a Republican for Senator from Illinois, Charles H. Percy, way back in 1978, the first Federal election I was old enough to vote in. By 1984, I’d been pushed out of the Republican Party by Reagan’s takeover and the party’s lurch to the Right (which is ironic these days because Reaganism would be called “socialism” or “Marxism” by today’s Republicans). So, in 1984, I voted for Senator Paul Simon, and Simon, in turn, was succeeded by Durbin. I talked more about Senator Percy in a 2011 post when he died. And one of the things I praised in that post was that “he pushed for repatriation of the Panama Canal back to Panama”, which underscores how awful the modern US Republican Party has become—and why there’s no why, no how, I coule ever even imagine voting for a Republican for any office.

Senator Durbin did a LOT of good over his career, something many others will point out in great detail. But: He also earned outrage form the Democratic base for his vote for the Continuing Resolution that funded the current White House regime’s criminal acts, something that Senate Minotry Leader, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also was widely criticised for. He, however, has not announced his retirement (his current term as Senator expires in 2028, when he’ll be 77).

So, what happens now? There will, of course, be a scramble among Democratic politicians in Illinois to rise to the top of the heap of potential successors. The Chicago Sun-Time has reported on the leading contenders, most of whom I don’t know anything about [Tip o’ the Hat to Roger Green for the link]. However, in general I’m not keen on any US Representative running for Senate (or any other office) if that would turn the seat into a competitive election. I firmly believe that no incumbent Democratic US Representative should run for another office if doing so could risk losing the seat to Republicans. Saving the republic and preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution is far more important than any politician’s personal ambitions. IMHO.

There’s a lot of pressure on Democratic politicians in Congress to either stand up or stand down. Senator Dick Durbin has chosen the latter, and I completely support his decision and acknowledge the courage it must’ve taken to step aside from a job he clearly loves. Sometimes the most difficult decision is the best one.

The photo above is a cropped version of Senator Durbin's official portrait from 2020, which is in the Public Domain. It's available from Wikimedia Commons.

Ask Arthur 2024, Part 3: Racism and change

With one more post in this year’s “Ask Arthur” series, I decided to talk about the remaining “heavy” topic today rather than end the series with it, for no particular reason other than it felt right.

So, today’s question is from Roger Green, who asked:

From your vantage point, how has race and racism changed in the United States compared to, say, when you were living in the United States? Was Obama's presidency helpful or harmful in addressing racism; likewise, black lives matter, affirmative action, DEI. What has moved the needle in terms of race in America and in which direction? While you're at it, you could talk about race in New Zealand, which is a different animal, I know.

This topic is one of the most fraught because the opinions have become so polarised, and, for many it’s become a kind of moral litmus test. In my opinion, and from what I’ve seen and experienced personally, the folks on the Left seem to approach the topic from lived experience or based on their values (or both). In contrast, those on the Right seem to come, more often than not, from a place of fear and/or ignorance—which doesn’t mean they’re stupid, just that they’re uninformed, and, sadly, too often by choice.

I watched race and racism in the USA improved steadily, culminating in the election of President Obama. The rise of the “tea party,” however, led to a rise in openly racist rhetoric, leading up to and getting stronger after the 2010 Midterm Elections. To me, it’s been all downhill from there, and the situation is worse now than it was before I left the USA.

President Obama’s election in 2008 broke a barrier, one that can’t be rebuilt. Now, the idea of a black man being president is no longer weird, because it’s already happened. In that sense only, President Obama’s election in 2008 was very helpful. However, he also played down the historic nature of his election and administration, so it didn’t have the legacy-building it could have had. That, however, wasn’t the reason the USA started slipping backward: That was the deliberate work of the Rightwing.

The USA’s Rightwing spent a lot of time and effort spreading propaganda that was built on deliberate lies and disinformation, like, for example, when they said the Affordable Care Act would lead to “death panels”. Many Republican leaders, elected or not, used dog-whistle rhetoric to imply that President Obama and his supporters were "less than” in many ways, though often unspecified. Again, this took flight with the rise of the teabaggers, something I wrote about a lot at the time.

Affirmative Action was a useful policy for reducing systemic barriers to black people (in particular) breaking getting a chance in education and employment, but it was created in a different time when politicians saw the value in lifting up those who had been deliberately excluded from so much of society. Its success reinforced opposition from traditional conservatives, and created resentment among white people who felt that if someone else succeeded, it inevitably meant they (the white people) would have to fail. That was absurd, but telling disgruntled people that their feelings are absurd and not based in reality doesn’t make the disgruntled folks change their minds, it makes them more firmly disgruntled and very angry, something that inevitably leads to reactionary politics and turning back the clock. So, Affirmative Action started out as a positive, but because the resentment of white folks was never properly addressed, it became a flashpoint for everyone who was certain (though almost always wrong) that they’d been deprived of something by “a minority” person. Its downfall was predictable.

The Black Lives Matter movement was, like President Obama, the victim of unrestrained and often unhinged Rightwing rhetoric. By the time that BLM emerged, the Rightwing propaganda system was fully developed and operational, and when combined with legacy media failing to report fairly or accurately, that meant it was possible for people to never hear facts or reality in reporting on BLM, and that meant it was easily scapegoated by white folks who blamed it as an example of why they weren’t rich and CEO of a major corporation (or whatever).

This same fate befell DEI and even Critical Race Theory.

DEI is something that many people didn’t understand at all. Some may have had “cultural training” of some sort at work, which was intended to make sure workers weren’t insensitive to fellow workers or customers who were different from themselves, but it morphed into meaning a different version of affirmative action, leading to their claims that “unqualified” people were supposedly given preferential treatment over “qualified” people who were passed over because they weren’t part of a recognised minority, and that, in turn, led to it becoming an all-purpose epithet against anyone who wasn’t a white, cisgender, heterosexual male, such as, derisively calling someone a “DEI-hire”.

It’s certain that everyone spewing angry rhetoric about CRT has never had anything to do with it, since it was only ever part of graduate-level coursework in very particular fields. Many of the folks complaining the loudest barely completed high school, if that, and because they didn’t know what CRT was, they bought the Rightwing propaganda that it was about teaching 5 year old white kids to hate the fact they’re white—because so many of 5 year olds are doing graduate coursework at universities these days…

So, overall, race and racism have gone backward in recent years, and the main reason is that for far too many Republicans, nativism, white nationalism, christian nationalism, etc., have become defining characteristics of their politics, something that’s been driven by an extensive Rightwing propaganda media ecosystem and politicians eager to exploit it.

You didn’t ask about this, but one of the solutions, in my opinion, is to develop a strong alternative media ecosystem for the centre and the left, one that reports fairly and accurately, without resorting to the lazy “both-sides-ism” of the legacy media, nor the deliberate disinformation the Rightwing uses. If we can’t get back to facts-based and reality-based policy discussions, we won’t have a hope of moving things forward.

Pretty much everything I’ve said is also true for New Zealand, albeit with local flavour and issues specific to this country. The current Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, the leader of a rightwing populist party, campaigned using rhetoric lifted directly from the USA’s MAGAts. Just like their Dear Leader, Winnie (as he’s “affectionately” known) railed against transgender people (such as, he wanted a law that would require restaurant and cafe owners to ensure the public toilets customers used matched their birth gender—though he never said how that was to be done, like, maybe a quick genital check?), and he said that every policy he didn’t like, no matter how sensible, was "woke"—including government programmes designed to help Māori. In a plot twist, Winston is Māori.

Similarly, the leader of a hard-right neoliberal party, and set to become Deputy Prime Minister in around six months, David Seymour, railed against “special treatment” for Māori, and wanted a national referendum on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, the nation’s founding document, to strip out everything he decided was “special treatment” for Māori in favour of one standard based on English law and customs. He, too, is Māori.

The current Prime Minister, the leader of the conservative National Party, has also railed again Māori, including demanding that all government agencies must use their English language name first and most prominently. This was in reaction to government departments using their Maori name first, as is the ordinary custom. For example, we used to have Te Whatu Ora – Health New Zealand, and now those two are reversed. Similarly, Waka Kotahi–NZ Transport Agency is also switched around. In both cases the English name is stylised at a much larger type size than the Māori one. It will surprise no one who knows anything about me that I continue to use the Māori names, and exclusively. 

In doing so, the PM was pandering to the older, mostly white base of his party who “don’t like all that marry [sic] stuff” (older white folks often incorrectly pronounce Māori as “marry”, and it often seems deliberate. During the campaign, the PM said that “no one” could remember the Māori names of government agencies and got them confused, which was an incredibly condescending thing to say: The English names of LOTS of government agencies have changed—sometimes multiple times—and yet the PM apparently thinks that people magically didn’t have any difficulty remembering the changed English names.

Those of us who oppose the current government call it the “Coalition of Chaos” (or CoC) for their general incompetence, the corruption of some ministers, their lies, and their ulterior motives for some of their initiatives. But nowhere is opposition stronger or louder than against the COC’s “war on Māori”, as the loudest critics put it. The haka in Parliament and the <i>massive</i> hikoi (march) to Parliament are probably the best-known overseas. The PM agreed to support Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill only to the First Reading, and then will oppose it at the second and third—something that Seymour has attacked, of course. With National and all the Opposition parties against it, the bill cannot pass, no matter what the mercurial Winston does (though he’s unlikely to support it, if for no other reason than that it’s Seymour’s central policy objective.

Having said all that, there’s a very important way in which New Zealand is very unlike the USA: We can change it at the next election in 2026 by making the CoC a one-term government. If the Centre-Left win the next election, they will undo the worst things the CoC has done to Māori, as well as poor and working people generally. NZ doesn’t have the kind of “establishment consensus” that too often keeps Democrats from making real progressive change when they have power—and, arguably, that’s part of why Democrats lost so badly in 2024. Both the Democrats in the USA and the Centre-Left in NZ have every opportunity to come roaring back in 2026 IF they back real concrete progress. If they do, the conservatives’ failures on race will likely be one of the reasons the Right will be shown the door.

Thanks to Roger for today’s question!

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-24”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously in the 2024 series:

”Let the annual inquisition begin for 2024” – The first post in this year’s series.
”Ask Arthur 2024, Part 1: Pardon?4”
”Ask Arthur 2024, Part 2: An Orange hue”

Jimmy Carter 1924-2024

President Carter's official portrait.

Today we all heard the sad, but totally expected, news that former President Jimmy Carter has died, aged 100. [See also: “Jimmy Carter, the 39th US president, has died at 100”, AP News].  While I never voted for President Carter, I nevertheless grew to respect him—so much so, that I wish I’d voted for him the one chance I had.

I’ve mentioned a few times that in 1976 I was too young to vote, so instead I volunteered to do some election work for President Gerald Ford, who died in 2006. There were many reasons for that, including the fact I grew up in a Republican home, but there was one thing more: I didn’t trust Carter’s religiousness.

In 1976, I was still very deeply closeted, but on some level I recognised that fundamentalist Christians were the greatest threat to my freedom, liberty, and human rights. I knew Carter was a Southern Baptist, and had helped to popularise the phrase “born again”, so I was suspicious. As it turned out, I was also very wrong about him and his beliefs.

The Carter Administration ended the ban on gay and lesbian people working for the US Foreign Service. In 1977, his presidential advisor, Midge Costanza, invited gay and lesbian activists to the White House for a meeting to discuss relevant federal policy—the first time any presidential administration had done that. In 2012, he spoke out in favour of gay people and, specifically, his support for our right to marry, something I talked about at the time.

All of this by itself demonstrates that Carter was nothing like I’d assumed in 1976, but there was far more evidence. In 2000, he left the Southern Baptist Convention after they decided to stop ordaining women as pastors. He also spent his post-politics life working for peace and justice, and by building homes for poor people through Habitat for Humanity. Put another way, he was putting his Christianity into action, something very few “evangelicals” ever do, possibly because they’re too busy ordering other people how to live their lives in ways that the “evangelicals” approve of. Jimmy Carter was never like that, and I was totally wrong about him in 1976.

After he left office, he went on to become what many people—including me—consider to be the most effective former president in US history. I remember back when Reagan finally left office I said that when Jimmy Carter left office, he volunteered to build houses for the poor, and when Reagan left office, he registered as a paid lobbyist for for a foreign government. That pretty much sums up the huge difference between the character of Jimmy Carter and his successor as president. Also, if President Carter had won re-election in 1980 I’m certain that the federal government’s handling of HIV/AIDS would have dramatically better and actually humane and just than it was under Reagan. I’m certain that there’s absolutely no way it would’ve taken President Carter FOUR YEARS to acknowledge HIV/AIDS, and it’s definite that it wouldn’t have taken him SIX YEARS to give an address on it, unlike President Carter’s awful successor.

Jimmy Carter wasn’t the USA’s best president—I doubt anyone would seriously claim he was—but, apart from the Rightwing, not many folks would say he was the worst, either, not with so many other presidents having the “worst” rankings sewn up. Personally, I think he was good man who perhaps wasn’t suited to the presidency, though he tried his best. Regardless, all of that is overshadowed by what he did over the nearly four-and-a-half decades since he left the White House.

I still wish I’d voted for him in 1980, and maybe even volunteered for him in 1976, but all any of us can do at any time is to try to do our best, as far as we’re able. Jimmy Carter did that, and I’m profoundly grateful he did.

Ask Arthur 2024, Part 2: An Orange hue

It’s no surprise that several questions this year deal with US politics, including some specifically about the regime due to take power on January 20. Today I thought I’d take on questions related to the Orange One.

The first question is from Roger Green, who asked:

How would you explain to someone that your disappointment at djt not being held liable for his crimes and alleged crimes is not from a personal vendetta against him, but by the sense that the rule of law has been totally scuttled?

The question kind of assumes that I know hoards of people who wouldn’t understand that, and I don’t. Whether Americans or Kiwis, people I talk with (online or in real life) all think he should have been held accountable for all his crimes, not just the political ones, but his various business-related crimes, too. Those people just assume that the rule of law has failed if someone like the Orange One has almost never has to face criminal trial (his 34 state felony convictions in New York notwithstanding), and they would never assume that someone had a personal grudge against him.

For a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of the Orange One, there’s probably nothing I could possibly say that would help them understand or to convince them that it’s not just “radical communist leftist thug” hatred of the Orange One. However, a study has shown that AI has promise in helping conspiracy theory believers come to their senses, so maybe that approach could work for people bathing daily in MAGA koolaid.

In between those two extremes are a lot of people who aren’t true believers nor particularly sceptical of MAGA, either. Some of them may be too young to really remember the Orange One’s 2017-21 Reign of Error, or, more likely, they’re just not tuned into politics enough to pay much attention, and might be persuadable. If so it’d be because of what Roger was saying: The rule of law matters.

There’s one thing more, though: I’ve never once heard any of the Orange One’s fiercest opponents say that he should be arrested for non-existent crimes, something the Orange One says about his “enemies” pretty much every day. His fiercest opponents have never suggested that he should be thrown in prison without trial, but that, too, is something the Orange One says about his “enemies” pretty much every day. It’s really true that every one of their accusations is a confession, and that the ones who hold personal vendettas are all on the MAGA side.

So, for a person willing to listen in good faith, I’d probably say something along the lines of what Roger said in his question and begin simply saying that the disappointment is based on “the sense that the rule of law has been totally scuttled”. If they brought up the “personal vendetta” thing, I’d probably have to point out, as I have here, that the side with the vendetta is not those who oppose the Orange One.

Next, Roger asked:

Orange says he will impose 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico on Day 1. Why is this an inane idea?

I’d call rather call it insane than inane, but I know that the Orange One has absolutely no idea what tariffs even are, and doesn’t understand at all how they actually work. For the benefit of anyone reading this who doesn’t know, tariffs are paid by the importer, and NOT by the country the goods are coming from, as the Orange One keeps stubbornly insisting, even after world-renowned economists debunked him. The cost of those tariffs are ultimately always passed on to consumers, meaning prices consumers pay always rise whenever tariffs on imports are imposed.

The specific problem with the Orange One’s particular tariff threats against Canada and Mexico is that nearly everything US consumers buy—cars, fresh fruit and vegetables, oil, building materials, and so much more—comes in whole or in part from those two countries. If the Orange One follows through on his threat, ordinary Americans will see prices for nearly everything they buy jump by at least 25%—or, more realistically, maybe a lot more than that because corporations will take advantage of the opportunity to raise prices by more than the tariff amount in order to increase profits, just like many did after Covid.

I’ve noticed that the Orange One hasn’t been threatening Mexico as much since Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum stood up to him; maybe Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should do the same. I wouldn’t be surprised if China doesn’t get tariffs imposed, though, because the actual incoming president, Elon Musk, depends on China for manufacturing his products, among other things.

Next, Roger asked about the Orange One’s nominees:

I heard Chris Christie on George Stephanopoulos' Sunday morning talk show suggest that the Democrats should challenge only one of the orange man's nominees for the Cabinet on the theory that if they go after three or more they won't be able to affect any of them. I happen to think this is BS but I was wondering what you thought.

I’ve heard a lot of Democrats and folks on the Left say something similar. For example, Brian Tyler Cohen has said many times that if everything feels like a 5-alarm fire, nothing feels like a 5-alarm fire. The central thing for both is one of tactics: Some of the Orange One’s choices are far worse than others, and the Republican majority in the US Senate is far too comfortable with doing whatever their party’s Dear Leader wants—except for being willing to approve Matt Gaetz because he was so awful that not even sycophantic Republicans could back him. So, since many or most of the Orange One’s nominees will be approved, the argument goes that the focus should be on stopping the worst of them, such as Kash Patel for FBI and Tulsi Gabbard for director of National Intelligence.

However, there’s an obvious flaw in that strategy: Rightwing media’s propaganda would spin that strategy as personal vendetta (vendetta is clearly a central theme in MAGA-land…), against the nominees because they’re close to the Orange One (or whatever). So, maybe a better strategy is to release whatever publicly available data exists on the nominees, and have Democrats go on Leftwing alternative media to spread awareness, as well as asking direct, pointed questions in confirmation hearings.

Pete Hegseth is apparently pretty much an all around awful person, but it’s unlikely he could damage the country as much as Patel and Gabbard. Pam Bondi as Attorney General would also be awful, but in addition to being hyper-partisan and unalterably loyal to the Orange One, she’s also VERY ambitious and no doubt views the job as positioning her to run for higher office, even president. So, she’d be more likely to lead the Orange One on, but avoid doing anything blatantly illegal or unconstitutional. So, going after too many awful but not catastrophic nominees could risk getting the worst confirmed. I wouldn’t want to be in Senators’ shoes!

Finally today, my friend Sherry asks:

Everyone knows we are doomed and bound for terrible change here in the U.S. How can I fight Trump on his road to autocracy and an oligarchy? He is immune to any law, and he and his minions will do whatever they want.

Even though I’m on the other side of the world, I feel the same fear and trepidation. I’ll say first that it’s important to remember how incompetent and stupid the Orange One is: Those natural traits are what saved the USA in 2017-21. A lot of what happens in the upcoming regime will depend on which of his gang members get confirmed by the Senate, but the essence of who the Orange One is hasn’t changed.

The second thing to keep in mind is that the Orange One’s entire political method is”kayfabe”, the pro wrestling term meaning “the portrayal of staged events within the industry as ‘real’ or ‘true’.” As a member of the WWE Hall of Fame because of his long business association with them, and apparently being a genuine fan, everything the Orange One says is kayfabe. This is what his fans were getting at when they said they took him seriously, but not literally. His entire political career is built on what he learned from pro wrestling.

Put those two things together, and it means he’s unpredictable, and talks a lot of shit, but the danger he poses will mainly be to his personal “enemies” and to the wallets of ordinary people who will suffer from his fetish for tariffs (see above). However, as I also talked about above, the level of danger will depend on which of his many awful cabinet nominees actually get confirmed.

Something to remember is that direct lobbying of members of Congress works: When incoming president Elon Musk ordered Republicans in the House to vote against a continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown, his followers on Twitter flooded the Capital with messages demanding Republican Congressmen vote it down—and they did. If enough Americans contact their representatives and tell them to oppose the latest batshit crazy thing the Orange One or his boss Elon demand, they’ll do it. Most Democrats in Congress will do that automatically, of course, but many Republicans are pretty susceptible to pressure (unless they’re full-on MAGA), especially from the folks who live in their districts.

Next, never “obey in advance”, that is, we mustn’t do what we think the autocrat will demand before he demands it. I’ve seen people talking about deleting their social media accounts, or just their posts, so the incoming regime can’t use it against them. Apart from the fact that it’s stupid (everything’s archived, even on Facebook, for a long time), it means voluntarily giving up one’s freedom, willingly, and without even being asked. This isn’t easy precisely because people are frightened of what could happen if they state their opposition to whatever the regime has just proposed.

Another very important thing is to seek out independent media on the Centre and Left. The legacy media utterly failed to take seriously the danger the Orange One posed to democracy and the rule of law. There are numerous media organisations to follow, depending on your interests and issues of concern, but here are some I highly recommend: ProPublica is an award-winning nonprofit independent news organisation that specialises in investigative journalism. They’re non-partisan, but being on the side of the people and justice means the Right doesn’t like them. Another good choice is Democracy Docket, a legal organisation that specialises in fighting for democracy and voting rights. They talk at length about litigation on those issues. Then there’s The Bulwark, a centre/centre right pro-democracy media outlet that was built by never-trumpers, including present and former Republicans, along with some Democrats. For a perspective more to the left, there’s Meidas Touch. For a more or less centrist team, there’s Crooked Media, which was founded mainly by former senior staffers of President Obama. All of these organisations have YouTube Channels (and I subscribe to them all), but for the hardest-working progressive on YouTube, it’d have to be Brian Tyler Cohen, who I mentioned above. His content is direct: He doesn’t dance around the issues, including getting sweary sometimes (I identify with that, LOL), and he has interesting guests.

The independent progressive and pro-democracy media will help keep you informed about important issues that the legacy media doesn’t even talk about. There are plenty more than the ones I’ve listed, of course, so my advice is to try different ones and see what resonates with you.

Finally, and tying this all together, be careful about taking the regime too seriously. While they’re absolutely a threat to democracy, not everything they say is actually real (kayfabe again). Sometimes folks in the regime or Rightwingers in Congress or the legacy media will say outrageous things in the hope it was cause an over-reaction from the Left. This is why focusing on a few issues is important, as is one thing more: Occasionally turning off the news and social media from a little while will be very important to preserve our mental health.

And remember: It was because of the disaster that the Orange One oversaw in 2017-2018 that Democrats won so many seats in Congress in the 2018 elections, why President Biden won in 2020, and why the supposed “Red Wave” of 2022 because more of a pink puddle as Democrats outperformed everywhere, beating the predictions and even history. The moral of the story is that the Orange One’s incompetence and stupidity, combined with what an awful person he his, will inevitably cause a reaction and a rejection of him and Republicans more broadly.

All of which is to say: There’s always reason to hope, even when things seem bleakest. The MAGAts want us to feel discouraged, deflated, defeated, and powerless. Don't give them what they want!

Thanks to Roger and Sherry for today’s questions!

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-24”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously in the 2024 series:

”Let the annual inquisition begin for 2024” – The first post in this year’s series.

”Ask Arthur 2024, Part 1: Pardon?” 

Ask Arthur 2024, Part 1: Pardon?

Today I begin answering questions in the 2024 “Ask Arthur” series. In past years I started with the first question asked, and then continued more or less in order, sometimes grouping questions with similar subjects/themes together. This year, however, one of the later questions is more time-sensitive than the others, so I’ll begin with that one.

Before I begin, though, anyone can still ask new questions: Leave a comment on this post, or see the other options down below, at the end of this post. I’ll call time on new questions in a later post in the series, but I’ll finish this “Ask Arthur” series by December 31.

So: This year’s first question, as is usually the case, is from my pal Roger Green, who asked:

Hunter Biden pardoned by his dad. Orange said, "What about the J6 hostages?" which is silly because orange can do it himself. Thoughts? And also, who else should Joe pardon?

I Can’t think of anything I care about less than President Biden pardoning his son. I wasn’t the least bit surprised that the Right were—or, more likely pretended to be—freaking out about it. I don’t recall a single one of them whining after 45 pardoned his son-in-law’s dad—or any of the other criminals (or his own co-conspirators) that he pardoned. So, their reaction was largely performative, as it so often is. Some of them were even unintentionally hilarious, like the far-right guy who made an “error-filled” movie about illegal immigration who publicly complained about the pardon—despite getting one from 45. Glass houses, and all that.

What I find extremely tiresome, though, is the hand-wringing and rending of garments from those on the Left, including some I like and respect. One legal commentator went to great lengths to condemn President Biden, declared he’d lied about not pardoning Hunter, that his reputation and legacy was destroyed, and he kept droning on about how the pardon violates norms—even though he’s previously noted how the Orange One has already shattered norms and precedent and will do FAR worse once he’s enthroned in January. A prominent political YouTuber I’ve watched for years declared that “of course Biden shouldn’t have lied”, however, he’s also consistently pointed out the old norms are gone, and the incoming guy will do whatever he wants, whether it’s legal or not, and without regard for the Constitution. 

I have NO idea whether or not President Biden “lied” when he said several times that wouldn’t give Hunter a pardon—and neither does anyone else, Right or Left. However, there’s strong evidence supporting the assertion that he didn’t lie. In his statement on the pardon, President Biden said:

No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son – and that is wrong. There has been an effort to break Hunter – who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me – and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.

Indeed, “no reasonable person” (emphasis added), which obviously excludes the Republican politicians whining so loudly about the pardon. If President Biden had not pardoned Hunter, the supplicants the Orange One installs at the FBI and as Attorney General would almost certainly launch phoney “investigations” into Hunter Biden, followed by corrupt indictments (indeed, even after the pardon Republican politicians in Congress declared they’d continue with their own phoney “investigations”, anyway, because, well, politics…). A pardon was the ONLY way to protect Hunter from politically-motivated harassment and persecution. I think Joe Biden did the right thing, and I fully support it.

This brings up the question of “pre-emptive pardons” for folks who haven’t committed any crimes, but who the Orange One considers to be his personal enemies because they dared to hold him to account for his many crimes. He absolutely intends to keep his promise of revenge, a promise he repeated many, many, many times over the past couple years. So, should President Biden protect those the Orange One wants to destroy? I think that depends on the individual.

Many of the folks in question are high-profile politicians who can raise donations to help pay for their legal defence against the partisan attacks from Orange One’s minions and their phoney investigations and fraudulent “indictments” (assuming they can convince grand juries to indict with absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any crimes having been committed). If they do manage to somehow “indict”, there are laws against malicious or corrupt prosecutions, and it’s not inconceivable that they could end up with an unbroken record of hundreds of losses in court—unless they get the right MAGAt judge, and, if so, we can guess what the far-right Republican Supreme Court might then do.

Because of all that, and years of partisan harassment and prosecution, some of the folks in the Orange One’s crosshairs may prefer to accept a pardon. I fully understand why they might, and wouldn’t blame them if they do accept one. So far, though, Ive seen that some folks presumed to have targets on their back, like former US Representative Adam Kinzinger and newly-elected US Senator Adam Schiff, have said they don’t need or want a pre-emptive pardon. Will anyone else say they do want one? We know that a Republican House of Representatives “report” “calls for an FBI investigation into [former US Representative Liz] Cheney, accusing her of witness tampering by being in touch with star witness Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide.” The chairman of the committee, Barry Loudermilk (MAGA-Georgia), notoriously gave a tour of the Capital to two insurrectionists right before the January 6 attack, which, whatever Barry might say of it, nevertheless gave the insurrectionists valuable reconnaissance before their attack. Yet, curiously, Barry wasn’t “criminally investigated”.

All we know for sure is that when the Orange One is formally installed in power, he’ll do whatever he wants, rule of law be damned, and that will include pardoning his most obsequious allies—if they’re sufficiently fawning, grovelling, and submissive. Having said all that, I’m not sure he’ll pardon all the people convicted of the crimes they committed on or about January 6, 2021. The Orange One is incapable of censoring or muting himself, and in an interview recently he seemed to equivocate slightly on his earlier promise to pardon them all. Who knows? The guy has never shown that he understands, much less cares about, anything to do with the rule of law or the norms of behaviour for someone in the office he’ll, tragically, soon occupy, and he probably doesn’t understand the seriousness of the crimes so many of those people were convicted of. On the other hand, he wants to be worshipped, so that will probably decide his actions.

The reason that I moved this topic to the top of the list is that last week, some 10 days after Roger asked his question, President Biden pardoned 39 people and commuted the sentences of 1500 others, and there’s no reason to think there won’t be more. I wanted to avoid the Christmas rush. I also delayed publication a couple days so I could tone down my contempt for the Orange One and his party. This post is as dispassionate as I can be—which is precisely why I've avoided writing about US politics.

Thanks to Roger for today’s question!

It’s not too late to ask a question: Simply leave a comment on this post (anonymous comments are allowed). Or, you can email me your question (and you can even tell me to keep your name secret—though, why not pick a nom de question?). You can also ask questions on the AmeriNZ Facebook page, though keep in mind that all Facebook Pages are public, just like this blog. To avoid being public there, you can send me a private message through the AmeriNZ Facebook Page.

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-24”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously in the 2024 series:

”Let the annual inquisition begin fpr 2024” – The first post in this year’s series.

Preparing for the new blogging year

Maybe it’s a good sign, but I’ve already started planning and preparing for next year's blogging, something that begins less than a month from now. That planning process meant taking a look back, too, of course. None of this is even remotely new—one way or another it’s something I do every year. And yet, the fact I’m doing it after a difficult year gives me hope for the year to come.

One of the easiest ways to see that this has been a difficult year for me is to look at how much I produced for this blog and my podcast, and that can be summed up by the simple phrase, “very little”. November ended up in a three-way tie for my least productive months of 2024, but unlike the other two, I at least know what was behind the lack of output in November: The disastrous US election. I just didn’t feel like doing anything even remotely creative for at least the first two weeks after the disaster, and for the past week or so I’ve been busy in an entirely ordinary way.

My posts right before and after the US elections were both in my Weekend Diversion: 1984 series, but I wrote both of them right before they were published—I didn’t write them in advance, and, in fact, I think only one or two in the entire series were. It would be another week and a half before I’d post again, and that was the call for questions in this year’s Ask Arthur series, also written right before publication—around a week later than I wanted to publish it.

My last two posts in November were also delayed, though only by days. In fact, the only reason they got published at all was that I wanted to make sure that November wasn’t the least-productive month of the year. Motivation is motivation, I suppose.

So now it’s December and, including this post, so far I’ve managed an average of one post per day! That amuses me because when I thought about the rest of this year, I realised that I only needed 22 posts over 31 days to ensure that 2024 isn’t my worst-ever year for blogging. I know only too well how what in the past I would have always seen as an achievable target is now something that can easily evaporate. So… who knows?

Here’s what I do know: The Weekend Diversion: 1984 series has two more posts, so that takes the total needed down to 20. I’ve already published the first of three other posts I’d planned for this month, and if I publish the other two of the three, that leaves 17 posts needed. This year’s “Ask Arthur” series will take up some of those (I don’t know how many yet), and there are a whole bunch of unfinished posts I’ve been wanting to do this year, so I think I’m (possibly unrealistically) optimistic that over the next 29 days I can achieve that remaining goal of 17 posts I hadn’t specifically planned for.

All of which leads to an inevitable question: Why do I care at all? I’ve certainly asked myself that question a lot this year, especially when there were so often many days between posts. The first reason is that overall, I still enjoy it, despite everything, and because it’s my only writing outlet, something that matters to me (and I’ve noticed I’ve become a bit rusty due to lack of practice).

There’s another reason it matters to me, though, one that, once again, relates to the US election disaster. One of the main features of that disaster was how shockingly awful the legacy news media was in covering the campaign. That’s a big topic in itself, obviously, but I think it’s important that people who can should call out the inevitable bad and anti-democracy behaviour of the incoming regime. There was a time when my posts on politics were by far my most-read, and while I’m absolutely not suggesting I’m some sort of sage or oracle—or even any good at discussing politics—I nevertheless have a platform of sorts, and maybe it’s time for me to use it again to speak my truth. That may not be useful to anyone, anywhere, but if it helps even one person feel for one moment that they’re not alone in being alarmed by the incoming regime, then that’s enough.

There’s quite a lot I still want to talk about, and that’s the biggest reason of all that I care about my productivity (and, of course, pretty much all of this is also relevant to my audio podcast, too, something that’s been neglected even more than this blog). What all of this really means is that in 2025 this blog will probably be more like it used to be: Still about lots of things, but also different from what it has been in that I’ll again talk about political topics, too.

Much as I do try to think about what a reader might get out of my small efforts here, the fact is that it's what I think about this blog that matters the most. I think that if I keep that in mind, it’ll be a good place to begin building a new version of what I once loved so much about this whole project. Like I said at the end of my first-ever blog post: “So pour yourself a cuppa, relax, and let’s see where this leads.” Yeah, that—once again.

Will it be counted?

I’ve voted in the 2024 US federal elections, as I always do, but I don’t know for sure that my ballot will be counted. There are several different reasons for that, but all of them have the same cause: Republicans. The party that once liked to call itself “The Party of Lincoln” has now positioned itself as an enemy of democracy, and voters like me are in the party’s crosshairs.

US citizens living overseas indefinitely are entitled to vote in federal elections, just like US military personnel stationed overseas can. US citizens living overseas temporarily, like workers on a short-term assignment from their US employer, or those attending school overseas, would most likely apply for a standard absentee ballot. However, US citizens who are living overseas indefinitely (like me), register through a state-administered federal system, using the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) to register and get a ballot. The FPCA forms require a Social Security number, the number of one’s state Driver license or state ID. Many US citizens living overseas indefinitely won’t have a state driver license or ID card, so providing them isn’t mandatory (it’s probably there to establish ongoing state residency for folks that applies to). All applicants also provide the address where they were last registered to vote. The organisation “Vote from Abroad” has a good explanation of what a “US voting address” is on their website:

As a US citizen living abroad, your “voting address” is the street address of the last place you lived in the US. This general rule applies even if your family no longer owns the property, or you no longer have ties to the state, or you don't intend to return to that address or that state, or if it no longer exists as a residence. It also doesn't matter if you were ever registered to vote at that address.

If you are a US citizen who has never lived in the US, your “voting address” is the street address of the last place your US citizen parent (or spouse) lived in the US. If both of your parents are US citizens, you may use the last US address of either one.

The Republican presidential candidate has been whining constantly about mail-in voting of all kinds, and has repeatedly demanded it be ended (which won’t happen because it would harm Republicans, too), and lately his target has been to demand that no mail-in votes be counted after Election Day. He recently talked yet again (again) about suing to end mail-in voting [this was discussed by Democracy Docket’s Marc Elias and Brian Tyler Cohen on a recent episode of their “Democracy Watch” YouTube series].

This gets at MAGA Republicans’ first attempt to destroy voting by mail: Their hand-picked Postmaster General, who has done everything in his power to destroy postal delivery efficiency and timeliness, something Republicans want because it would mean that completed postal ballots may take too long to be delivered to the various states’ election authorities, just as MAGAts want.

Right now, many US states, including my native Illinois (which is, of course, the place of my own FPCA registration and voting) accept and count all postal ballots postmarked on or before Election Day that are received with a certain number of days after Election day. This long-standing programme has become a particular target of Republicans.

In Illinois, ballots—again, postmarked on or before Election Day—will be counted if they’re received within 14 days after Election Day. On May 25, 2022, a lawsuit, Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections was filed on behalf of three Republicans, including US Representative Mike Bost (R-IL12), who was one of 126 Republican US Representatives to sign an amicus brief in support of Texas v. Pennsylvania, the infamous and idiotic MAGA lawsuit filed with the US Supreme Court contesting the results of the 2020 presidential election in another state—one they don’t even fucking live in. It was surely one of the most utterly bizarre and offensive legal stunts MAGA Republican politicians pulled, apart from every other suit filed by the Republican loser’s team of misfits and ne’er do wells. Then, January 6, when so many of them tried to stop the certification of the election and install the Republican candidate as president, even though he lost the election, was lightyears worse—as was the violent insurrection the Republican candidate incited.

The Republicans’ Illinois lawsuit argued that federal law requires all US states to hold Election Day on the first Tuesday in November, but Illinois allowing mail-in ballots to be received and counted for up to two weeks after Election Day effectively extended Election Day and, because of that, they bizarrely claimed that votes on Election Day are “diluted by illegal ballots received in violation of the federal Election Day statutes.” Ballots from US Citizens exercising their Constitutional right to vote, Republicans claimed, somehow magically “diluted” other citizens’ votes, because—who know why?! It’s always best to not explore Republicans’ very weird fantasies. The case was dismissed by the District Court, not on merit, but because of a lack of jurisdiction. The Republicans appealed to the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals, but they upheld the District Court dismissal on August 21, 2024. This means the 14-days after Election Day deadline remains—for now.

Meanwhile, Republicans also targeted Mississippi’s law, which has a deadline of 5 business days after Election day for mail-in ballots to be received. On January 26, 2024, the Republican National Committee (RNC), along with local Republicans, filed a suit, Republican National Committee v. Wetzel, making the same arguments they made in the Illinois case, but they also claimed that the extended deadline for mail-in ballots to be received somehow magically violated their right to vote under the 14th Amendment, because, Republicans, or something. A summary judgement on July 28, 2024 reaffirmed the exisiting Mississippi deadline.

The Republicans then announced their intention to appeal to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, the most conservative—and arguably the most MAGA—in the entire country. We know the RNC did this precisely so that whichever way the court ruled, the loser—either the RNC or the Republican officials in Mississippi if they lost—could ultimately appeal the case to the Republican US Supreme Court, with the (probably) justified hope that the far-right Republican Majority will rule to help their shared party by outlawing the long-established precedent of counting mail-in ballots received before the state’s legislated deadline. In fact, the Republican-controlled Mississippi state legislature offered to repeal the law, but the RNC ordered them not to do that so they could get their Supreme Court to help them.

If the Republican Supreme Court does outlaw the counting of mail-in ballots received after Election Day, it, together with Republicans’ attempts to destroy the US Postal Service, will directly affect overseas voters like me. That’s because the attacks on the postal service mean it’s questionable whether a mail-in ballot sent from overseas has any chance of arriving by, let alone before, Election Day (no matter when it’s posted), so taking away the extra days many states permit may make it even more likely that the votes of overseas citizens won’t be counted—which is exactly what the Republican Party and its Dear Leader want.

There are a handful of other options for US citizens overseas long-term. Some states allow other means of submitting ballots, including sending them by fax or other electronic means (Republicans will definitely challenge those methods, too). Overseas citizens can drop off their ballots to a US diplomatic post, providing the envelope has the correct postage on it, and the staff will put the ballots in a “diplomatic pouch” to send to the USA, where they’ll be sent to the postal service. This method may cut a few days off the mailing time, however, it could mean a special trip. For example, NZ has two US diplomatic posts, the Embassy in Wellington, and the Consulate in Auckland, so I, too, might have to make a special trip (I’ve heard, though, that ballots can be couriered to a diplomatic post, though I haven’t personally verified that).

Another possible option might be to use a courier service to deliver the ballot, which Illinois law allows. However, it has special requirements, apparently around federal licensing, which usually means major companies. Of the ones I know are acceptable, the only one I know for sure is still operating in New Zealand is FedEx, but as far as I know their only facility in New Zealand is at Auckland International Airport, and there’s no option for collection from individuals. In the past, NZ Post had an arrangement with DHL, who were their US partner for document deliveries in the USA. I didn’t know that was no longer the case until 2020 when I went to send my ballot by courier, and the carrier was a company I’d never heard of. I know the ballot was delivered to Chicago, but I never got a confirmation email that it was counted, so I don’t know whether or not it was. On the other hand, maybe they stopped sending the emails after 2016.

So, regardless of what happens with the RNC’s court stunts, I have no idea whether my ballot will arrive in Chicago in time to be counted, or whether or not it will be counted if it does. This doesn’t matter in that Illinois is a solidly Democratic state, and Harris-Walz will carry Illinois—everyone knows that. There’s no US Senate election this year, so the only other federal office I got to vote for was US Representative, and the incumbent Democrat will win that race. My vote, then, technically isn’t needed—but it was never about that: It’s my duty to vote. It’s my values in action, and my commitment to democracy, neither of which would ever permit me to sit out this election—or to vote for anyone other than Harris-Walz. I hope most Americans are the same.

I also hope this isn’t the last election Americans will ever have, because if the Republicans win, it’s game over. Sorry I have no hopeful words, other than just one: Vote.