Ask Arthur 2024, Part 4: Miscellaneous and me

It’s absolutely no surprise that several of the questions in this year’s “Ask Arthur” series have dealt with serious, even dark, topics. So, I decided to end the series with lighter topics, because I can. On New Year’s Eve I just don’t feel like dwelling on the dark stuff.

Today’s questions are all from Roger Green. First up:

What TV services do you currently have (streaming, network)? How many are free?

New Zealand has two main broadcast companies. First, and largest overall, is New Zealand government-owned Television New Zealand (TVNZ). It has three broadcast channels: TV1, TV2, and Duke. They also have a streaming service, TVNZ+, that I’ll talk more about soon.

The other main broadcaster is Warner Bros. Discovery New Zealand (WBD), the local operation of the global US corporation. They have TV3, HGTV, Bravo, Eden, and Rush.

All broadcast television is done through a service called Freeview, a digital free-to-air broadcast service. There are two versions; One uses satellite, which transmits standard definition programming using the same satellite as pay-TV operator Sky Television. The other version—the one I use—is HD over UHF.

There’s already talk about shutting off the ground-based transmitters in the 2030s, but this wouldn’t necessarily change anything but the delivery: Satellite transmission could remain, and there could be a version streaming over the Internet. In fact, the rapid growth of streaming services is precisely why the industry is in discussions to shut down the ground-based transmitters.

And that brings me to streaming services.

I use TVNZ+ a lot. It began as a way for me to watch TVNZ broadcasts that I’d missed, and since then my use has expanded to include TV series like Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, for example (NZ doesn’t have Paramount+, though Australia apparently does). They also have a good collection of TV series that haven’t been shown in New Zealand, movies, and all sorts of other programming. TVNZ+ is a free ad-supported service, with one minute ad breaks at the start and then roughly every half hour afterward.

Similarly, WBD has a free streaming service called ThreeNOW that includes much of the programming from the company’s broadcast channels, and, I presume other programming not broadcast. I don’t actually know what’s on it because I never use the service, though it’s not because of what’s on it or not on it, it’s just that I find that the amount of programming I could watch on all the various services greatly exceeds my time (and patience) to watch it.

I have one streaming service I pay for—Disney+—though I don’t watch that anywhere near as much as a I should (since I pay for it)—and I probably would if the amount of programming I might watch didn’t greatly exceed my time (and patience) to watch it (a recurring theme).

I used to subscribe to UK streaming service History Hit, a documentary channel, but I changed credit cards and couldn’t figure out how to update my details, which was probably just as well: At the time I engaged in austerity measures and started cancelling all “unnecessary” subscriptions. Still, if I wasn’t overwhelmed with options of things to watch, maybe I’d have kept it?

Having said all that, the streaming service I watch more than any other—by far—is YouTube, and I have the free version and all its many (many) ads. I’ve thought about paying so I don’t have to watch all the bloody ads, but so far I’m not willing to add any paid services, particularly when I feel I’m overwhelmed by all the options of things to watch (I said it was a recurring theme…). At any rate, what I like about YouTube is that the videos are usually short—a half hour or less (in my case, usually much less), and that suits my way-too-short attention span nicely.

Next up, Roger also asked:

Do you think doing quizzes would increase the output of your blog? Also are we going to get more podcasts in 2025 from Arthur? Will we hear 2political next year?

Well, yes, actually. In fact, a month os so ago I started putting aside quiz-like memes and meme-like Facebook posts from friends that I thought I’d alter and answer here, mainly as a springboard for further discussion. They might suit a weekend best, and since I like word play like alliteration, I’m thinking I may call them, I don’t know, something like “Saturday Stealing”. Dunno.

There will definitely be more AmeriNZ podcasts in 2025, maybe even on a regular schedule again. Because it’s always been about whatever’s on my mind when I sit down to record, it’s not something I can easily plan ahead. Maybe that’s part of why I still do it. Still, I never stop tinkering with it, so there will probably be some of that, too.

As for 2Political, Jason and I talked vaguely about resurrecting it, though not in any kid of depth or detail. The website is gone because I allowed is end when the contract ran out. It had somehow become borked (possibly from a hack or maybe the unintended consequence of a plugin update—I have no idea what happened. Whatever it was that went wrong, even I couldn’t access the site any more, and by then we hadn’t posted anything for a couple years, anyway, so it was best to let it go. However, I still own the domain so if we choose to revive it, it’s just be a case of setting up a new home for it.

I also haven’t (definitely) ruled my reviving my forgotten child, my YouTube Channel, so there may be something about that in the new year, too. Or not. Part of the reason so much is in a fluid state is that I’m unsure about my AmeriNZ branding. I’ve spend more than two decades building it (which is a strong argument for keeping it), but after the US elections, I began to seriously question whether I wanted to create a different brand, one perhaps more appropriate for my current stage of life and the many changed realities that involves. We’ll see.

Speaking of blogging, Roger asked:

Are are you going to pose any questions to Roger when he does his Ask Roger Anything in December? (You can think about your question now; you don't even have to wait until then to offer it.)

Yes. In fact, I already did, though I was a bit late to the party because it’s such a busy time of the year (that’s the particular truth I decided to cling to).

I was amused by Roger saying on that post, “Running a daily blog involves talking to oneself, so having you talk to him is much more enjoyable and far less schizophrenic.” The humour for me wasn’t because of the necessary pondering whether writing about oneself in the third person might be an indication of schizophrenia, but, rather, because what he said is so very true. Although, it’s not like Arthur would know, of course, because he hasn’t run a daily blog in several years.

Thanks to Roger for today’s questions—and thanks to him and Sherry for all the questions in this year’s series. Thanks, too, to everyone who’s read even part of this year’s series. I hope 2025 creates plenty of opportunities for everything good—including new questions at the end of the year.

Thanks again!

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”
”Ask Arthur 2024, Part 3: Racism and change”

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”

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.

Let the annual inquisition begin for 2024

Another year is drawing to a close, so that must means it’s time for another go at my end of year series of “Ask Arthur” blog posts. The series has been about giving readers the chance to ask questions about—well pretty much anything, apparently. As I put it in the 2022 series’s introduction post:

The “Ask Arthur” series of posts is a chance for people to ask me nearly anything, and I try to answer whatever I’m asked. I’ve never had a question about a topic that was “off limits”, however, I’ve always said that if I couldn’t answer a question for any reason, I’d say so. It turned out that I've never had a question that I wouldn’t answer. It also turned out that I haven’t yet met a topic I don’t have an opinion on. Who’d have guessed that?

Last year I answered my own question: “Yes, who could or would have guessed that there doesn’t seem to be any topic on which I don’t have an opinion?” In fairness, having opinions is pretty much a top requirement for any blogger, otherwise there wouldn’t be much point. Still, it seems to help if I mention the kinds of things people typically ask me. In past years, I’ve been sent questions about me, my personal history, about life in New Zealand (mine or in general), or perhaps more specifically about being an expat. Questions about my opinion on topics or events in the news, including politics, have also featured in the past. The possibilities really do seem to be endless.

Still, I’m sure that there will come a time when there won’t be any questions. Written blogs aren’t anywhere near as popular as they were in the early years of my own blogging, and my commitment to the work has wavered (and, yes, I’m good at stating the bloody obvious). What this really means is that I’m quite relaxed about whether I get any questions or not. Everything changes, and nothing lasts forever, after all,

However, there may well be questions this year. To ask one, 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, although, why not pick a nom du question?). You can also ask questions on the AmeriNZ Facebook page, however, please keep in mind that all Facebook Pages are public, just like this blog, and anyone can read what you wrote. If you want to avoid being public, the best solution is to email me, or you can also send me a private message through the AmeriNZ Facebook Page.

Finally, being the gracious thief blogger that I am, I always note that this idea is stolen from inspired by Roger Green’s “Ask Roger Anything” (“ARA”) posts. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of thievery flattery.

So, over to you: Ask your question whatever way works best for you, and I’ll do my best to answer. And if you don’t want to ask anything, don't worry: We’re still good.

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

Previously:

What do you want to know? (December 2012)
Ask Arthur (July 2013)
Ask Arthur – Again (December 2013)
Ask Arthur Again, again (December 2014)
Ask Arthur yet again (July 2015)
It’s that time again (December 2015)
It’s ‘Ask Arthur’ time again (December 2016)
Let the 2017 asking begin (November 2017)
Let the 2018 asking begin (November 2018)
There was no “Ask Arthur” series in 2019.
Sure, why not ask again? (December 2020)
Yes, ask again (November 2021)
AAA 2022: A decade-long inquisition (November 2022)
Let the annual inquisition begin (November 2023)