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.

Weekend Diversion: 1986, Part 1

A new year, and a new series of Weekend Diversion posts! This week is the first post in this year’s “Weekend Diversion: 1986”, though this was technically the second Number One song of 1986 because the last Number One song of 1985, Lionel Richie’s “Say You, Say Me” (the subject of last year’s Part 26) was also Number One for the first two weeks of 1986 (four weeks altogether).

On January 18, 1986, the first new Number One song of the year was “That's What Friends Are For” (video up top) by "Dionne and Friends”, which was led by Dionne Warwick, alongside Elton John, Gladys Knight, and Stevie Wonder. It was a charity single to raise funds for the American Foundation for AIDS Research, and raised more than US$3 million for the organisation. The song was included on Warwick’s 1985 album, Friends

Like most Number One songs, this was one I heard on the radio quite a lot at the time. I thought it was pleasant enough as a song, and I could tell it was written by Burt Bacharach and Carole Bayer Sager, two of the most talented and prolific songwriters, especially in the 1970s and 1980s. They were also married at the time this song was a hit.

I thought I bought the single of the song, but if I did I no longer have it, though I certainly got it on a compilation album at some point. In 1986, I was working for modest wages, and spent my free doing LGBT+ activism, so I never had big piles of cash. Yet I knew men who had AIDS, so I may have bought the single as a small way of contributing.

However, AmfAR, which the American Foundation for AIDS Research became known as, was often seen as a way for celebrities and other rich people to “do something” without doing very much. It also felt to many folks like it was trying to “straightwash” the issue, especially at a time when people living with AIDS needed support that was hard to get or pay for.

As was so often the case with me in those days, I had a different perspective. First, I felt that raising money for AIDS research was valuable in itself, especially because the US Government of that time couldn’t possibly have cared less about AIDS or the people living with it. If a bunch of celebrities helped make it easier for “Middle America” to not hate gay people in general, or people living with AIDS in particlar, quite as much as they had before, that in itself was a moral good. Eventually, the tide did turn, as it usually does, and things became somewhat easier, especially once Reagan was out of the White House. Maybe this song helped at least a little bit? In my opinion, the attention the celebrities brought—especially Elton John’s massive fundraising—helped society to become more human and humane.

Still, I did like the song well enough, and that’s really the point of all pop music.

“That's What Friends Are For” reached Number One in Australia, Number One in Canada (Platinum), 3 in New Zealand (Gold), 16 in the UK (Silver), and Number One on the USA’s Billboard “Hot 100” as well as their “Adult Contemporary”, and “Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs” charts. The song was also Gold in the USA.

The album Friends reached 29 in Australia, 16 in Canada (Gold), and 12 on the USA’s Billboard “Top Pop Albums” chart, as well as 9 on their “Top Black Albums” chart. It was also 14 on the Cashbox “US Top 100 Albums” and Number 4 on their “US Top 75 Black Contemporary Albums” charts. It was certified Gold in the USA. The album didn’t chart in New Zealand or the UK.

This series will return February 15 with another new Number One from 1986.

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.

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.

Dipping into snack knowledge

Everyone knows things that we don’t know everything about. This could relate to anything, of course, and a lot of the time it can be annoying when we suddenly realise we don’t know details we think we should. Even about a customary food item.

On Wednesday of last week, one of my errands was to pick up some things from the Woolworths supermarket near The Base, something I mentioned in a post a couple days later. As I was making my way through the shop, I noticed the display in the photo above. I shared the photo on my personal Facebook once I got home and sarcastically wrote, “Does this Woolworths have enough Kiwi Onion Dip ingredients to last until Christmas? [Of course not!] 😁”.

This was essentially a joke for my fellow Kiwis because we all know how “Kiwi Onion Dip” is often a staple at family gatherings, especially at Christmas. And, we also know that supermarkets often run out before Christmas. Obviously my American friends and whānau weren’t in on the joke, though they had little trouble with my joking comment, “I love how some customer left a random bag of chips on the display, like a real-life 'serving suggestion' photo.”

This issue was, as so often happens, cultural differences, but the discussions in the comments over the following couple days ended up leading me to educate myself about something I thought I knew well: Kiwi Onion Dip.

The dip was created by Rosemary Dempsey sometime in the 1950s or 60s in Nestle’s Test Kitchen in New Zealand. They wanted to combine Nestle products to boost sales, and both of the main ingredients were just those sorts of products. The OG recipe is on Nestle’s Maggi website, but it’s only got three ingredients: One 250ml can of Nestle Reduced Cream combined with one packet of Maggi Onion Soup mix, and one tablespoon of lemon juice. Mix thoroughly and put in the fridge to set (even the night before the party).

My variation on the dip is to use white vinegar (around one teaspoon) because it has no real flavour of its own, but still helps reduce the fatty feel like the lemon juice does. I got the idea from the Maggi soup packet itself, which suggests using lemon juice or vinegar. I also add a bit of garlic powder (just because) and a little bit of sugar because the dip, particularly when combined with potato chips, can be very salty, and the sugar helps that a bit.

That sets the stage, but the discussion also included mentions of Americans’ French Onion Dip, and exactly how fatty the reduced cream is.

The dip Americans call French Onion Dip, and basically uses dehydrated French onion soup mix (where the name comes from) mixed with sour cream. Developed by Lipton, it was original known as “Lipton California Dip”. The two main ingredients, though, are a creamy refrigerated dairy product combined with the dry soup mix, which is what makes it so similar to Kiwi Onion Dip. But that’s really all the similarity there is.

Sour cream is a chilled dairy product, while reduced cream is a manufactured product that can be kept at room temperature (what the supermarket industry calls “shelf stable”, though that name isn’t really used in New Zealand). The two soup mixes are quite different, too.

Because of the differences in the ingredients, French Onion Dip and Kiwi Onion Dip don’t taste very similar, which is probably no surprise. I can attest to that having made both dips in their respective homelands.

As we discussed these dips more, I began to wonder about fat content, so I looked it up: Reduced cream (sometimes apparently called “light cream” in the USA) has the same amount of fat by weight (around 21%) as sour cream sold in New Zealand. However, reduced cream has around 38% less fat than actual thickened cream (overseas, actual thickened cream is called heavy cream or heavy whipping cream). Butter in New Zealand is around 81% fat, give or take, by weight.

The nutritional profiles of the two dry soup mixes will vary depending on what soup mix is used, but it’s probably safe to assume they’re high in sodium (the New Zealand versions are). But, then, “chip and dip” is supposed to be a treat, not a main part of anyone’s diet.

The Nestle brand of reduced cream is made in Mexico (a fact I’d forgotten), and so is the Woolworths own-brand version. The Woolworths version is slightly higher in fat than the Nestle version, and the two name-brand sour creams made in New Zealand have a similarly slight difference in fat content. Maggi’s Onion Soup mix is “proudly blended in New Zealand from local and imported ingredients”. Whenever I see that sort of statement on a supermarket product, I always assume that the product is mainly overseas ingredients, with perhaps only the packaging made in New Zealand. It’s hard not to be cynical about corporations these days.

There are some name-brand refrigerated onion dips in New Zealand, but none of them are similar to either the American dip or the New Zealand one. There’s an imported refrigerated “French onion” dip made in Australia, which is at a higher price point than most NZ-made refrigerated dips.

At this point, I realised that my dip into snack food isn’t over quite yet.

Nestle’s Maggi brand includes a “French Onion Soup” mix, and the back of the packet uses the same instructions for making it into dip as for our traditional Kiwi Onion Dip. However, I’m curious how that soup mix combined with sour cream would taste, so this summer I intend to make some to find out. Will it be like what I used to make when I lived in the USA? Or, will it be a bowl of yuck? Stay tuned.

Right now, though, you’ll have to excuse me. For some reason, I’m quite hungry.

Important Note: The names of brands/products/companies listed in this post are all registered trademarks, and are used here for purposes of description and clarity. No company or entity provided any support or payment for this blog post, and all products were purchased by me at normal consumer prices. So, the opinions I expressed are my own genuinely held opinions, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of manufacturers, retailers, or any known human being, alive or dead, real or corporate. Just so we’re clear.

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.

Our mission is unchanged

I don’t know why, but I hardly ever talk about politics of any sort on this blog. Time was, a large percentage of my most-viewed posts were about politics, US politics in particular. It’s not that I stopped caring, and I certainly never ran out of topics, it’s just that I wasn’t in to it, for a lot of reasons. I suppose. Maybe it’s time I changed that a bit.

Today, the bigger picture has grabbed my attention.

I should say, first, that I admire and respect President Joe Biden for his decision to wityhdraw from the race. It can’t have been an easy thing to do, but he was definitely putting the country first. All of which is something I cannot imagine the Republican nominee ever doing.

Amid all the breathless news stories today, though, what strikes me is the one thing that political pundits and journalists have never been able to grasp: For most Americans in both 2020 and 2024, the issue was never who the Democratic nominee for president was, even if they supported them all along. Instead, it was only ever about who the other party’s nominee was. To be clear, President Biden had firm supporters in 2020 and 2024, and Vice President Kamala Harris will this year, too, but after the disaster of 2016, American voters understand one thing clearly: In November, the person who wins the presidential election will be either the Democrat or the Republican, and the choice this year could not possibly be more stark, serious, or consequential.

I will absolutely vote for the Democratic nominee—guaranteed—and there was never any doubt about that: I’ve never voted for a Republican nominee for president, and there was no way in this universe or any other that I would’ve voted for this year’s Republican nominee, either. Absolutely NOTHING has changed except the name at the top of the ticket. I fully expect Democrats to rally around Vice President Harris, and I’ll absolutely vote for her.

As so many others have pointed out, elections aren’t a marriage, they’re a bus. I’m not looking for “The One”, I’m looking for how to get closest to where I want to go, and then board the bus that will do that. If the bus isn’t going close enough, I don’t just hmph and stomp off into the driving rain and hail, I do what I must: I take the bus that will get us all closest to the destination—and then keep pushing for better bus service.

This year in particular I will make absolutely sure my vote for the Democratic presidential nominee, whoever that ends up being, is counted, and even if it ends up being that the only reason I do so is to help keep the Republican candidate out of the White House. Democracy, the US Constitution, personal freedom, and liberty, are all on the ballot this year, and the only way to preserve, protect, and defend them is vote Democratic in numbers too big to rig, and too real to steal. Let’s win this!

This began life as a post I made on my personal Facebook earlier this afternoon—which is kind of ironic, since I talk about politics there far, FAR less than I do here. I guess I had to start some place. This version is somewhat revised from the original.

Today was a very good day

Today was a very good day, and for a lot of reasons. There were things I influenced, and things I didn’t, but in the end, it was all good. Except the very start, maybe.

Around 5am this morning, someone in my house, we’ll call him “Leo”, decided he needed to go outside. Fortunately for him, I needed go inside, as it were, so this time he didn’t hear my customary low grumbling as I got out of bed to let him out.

I planned to go get Leo a new bag of food today, and since Animates, where I get his food, is near New World, I decided to pop in there first to pick up the stuff I forgot when I went to Woolies on Monday (even though I always have a list, I also always forget to put some stuff on it). I thought the traffic might be bad, and the shops busy, because it’s the Friday before a three-day holiday weekend, but they were all fine.

I knew Animates would have specials for the holiday weekend, and I got some tinned food as a treat for Leo as well as his flea and tick treatment, all on special. I always get a discount on his dry food due to the chain’s loyalty discounts. All up, I saved around $25, which ain’t nothing.

When I left Animates, the traffic was starting to build, and that was shortly after 2pm. I was extremely glad that I didn’t wait any longer to head out.

In the end, I had a great day today. I got a lot of chores done around the house today, as well as my successful outing, and then there was another thing that happened overseas that made me happy, too. It was a very good day.

Ask Arthur 2023, Part 5: Something about me

Here we are already: This is the final post in this year’s “Ask Arthur” series. Today's questions are about me, more than my opinions. Quite frankly, I’m surprised no one has asked some of these before, but there you go.

The first group of questions today is from AustininSeattle, and, as I did with Roger’s questions the other day, I decided to number them for clarity:

1. Are you currently working or are you retired?
2. If you're retired, are you financially comfortable? Is your house paid off? How does the pension in New Zealand work? Do you also receive the US Social Security money?
3. How often do you go back to the US to visit your relatives (siblings, cousins, nephews, and nieces)? Do you see yourself returning back to the US since it's your home country and you have relatives?
4. Are you planning to find a new partner after Nigel? If so, have you dated anyone?

1. “Are you currently working or are you retired?” Technically, neither—and both. The job I had for 16 years ended just before New Zealand went under the first Covid lockdown, which was pure coincidence. The publication I worked on part-time was sold, and the new owners were going to do all the work in house. I’m not opposed to getting a new job—I think about it all the time, actually—but I have no idea what I’d do at my age and with my skils, which were niche to begin with, no longer in demand.

However, I’m considered “employed” for tax reasons because I still own our house on Auckland’s North Shore, and that’s a rental. The income from that has to be reported to both countries (as I understand it, it’s kind of analogous to self-employment income in the USA). Fortunately, we’re not talking big money—basically enough to pay the loans and maintenance—so I only pay income tax to New Zealand.

This actually nicely segues to the next question:

2. “If you're retired, are you financially comfortable? Is your house paid off? How does the pension in New Zealand work? Do you also receive the US Social Security money?”

I’ll take the last part first: As a US citizen living overseas, I qualify for Social Security, though not Medicare (not that I need Medicare, of course). However, as a New Zealander who has lived and worked here for more than ten years, I also qualify for New Zealand Superannuation (government retirement benefit, usually called "Super"). Because New Zealand and the USA have a treaty dealing with this, New Zealand deducts the US Social Security payment from my New Zealand Superannuation, though I still get the same amount net as any other New Zealander, it’s just that some of it comes from the USA (it would be similar for a New Zealander living in the USA, and in a situation similar to mine, and who retired in the USA). There’s one other thing about this: NZ Super begins at age 65 (next month for me), but I don’t qualify for my full Social Security entitlement until I’m 66 and 10 months, which would be November 2025. I’m required by New Zealand to apply for Social Security at 65 or else I can’t collect NZ Super.

I’m in the process for applying for both right now, and I’ll talk about that when it’s done. The important thing to know is that applying for the NZ pension is incredibly easy, and applying for Social Security from overseas absolutely is not.

As for the rest, I own the house I live in freehold (without a mortgage), which helps keep my monthly outgoings as small as possible. The rental property has loans that the rent pays. I don't have a frame of reference for what financially comfortable would mean, for me or someone else, but I know that I'm in far better shape that far too many people, working people, even. But whether the gold of my golden years turn out to be  lead that's painted gold is something I can't yet answer. In any case, I don't intend to stop working, in one sense or another, and regardless if it's for pay or not, until I'm no longer able, and that could affect my answer.

3. “How often do you go back to the US to visit your relatives (siblings, cousins, nephews, and nieces)? Do you see yourself returning back to the US since it's your home country and you have relatives?”

Since I moved to New Zealand 28 years ago, I’ve been back three times: In 1997 and 1999 (both times with Nigel, and his cousin joined us for the ‘99 trip). I went back alone from late December 2007 to early January 2008 to tidy up some loose ends. That’s it. Nigel and I planned several different times to go back, but life got in the way, and time passed. We talked loosely about going to Hawaii for our 25th anniversary together, but, of course, he didn’t live that long. I have no plans to visit in the foreseeable future.

By “returning” to the USA, I assume you mean to live, and no, that’s impossible. First, I left the USA 28 years ago, after living there for the first 36 years of my life—half of which was when I was legally a child. So, I’ve lived more of my adult life in New Zealand than I did in the USA (28 v. 18), and that means that in a very real sense, the country I left doesn’t exist anymore: Many of the people I knew—friends and colleagues alike—have died or scattered across the country. The places I knew so very well when I lived there—Chicago and Illinois—have changed dramatically since I left, so much so that neighbourhoods I could’ve walked blindfolded are totally unfamiliar to me now. In fact, if I was to move to the USA now, it’d be like moving to a foreign country, because so much has changed. Heck, I often see Americans talking about something going on in pop culture, and I have NO idea what they’re talking about.

On top of that, I’m used to national healthcare, not an insurance-driven system, and having to pay for health insurance—even with Medicare—would mean I’d have to live a very, very modest life. Here in New Zealand, I have a bit more flexibility. Having said all that, I wouldn’t mind going back for a visit before I get really old, but that possibility no doubt depends on what happens in the 2024 US elections, though it’s kind of moot at the moment, anyway: My US passport expired several years ago, and I don’t have anyone to look after Leo while I was on a long trip. All of which means I have completely accepted the fact that it’s possible I may never get back the USA again.

4. “Are you planning to find a new partner after Nigel? If so, have you dated anyone?”

I could be glib and say “no and no”, but, while true, that’s not the whole story. I have no plans to ever have another partner, and I’ve never considered dating. The reality is, and I know I’ve talked about this somewhere, I have absolutely NO idea how to be a single gay man in 2023/24. When I was last single, the Internet had barely begun, and guys mostly met in bars, through friends, in social groups, or they sought someone through newspaper classifieds. In many places, most of those things don’t happen anymore.

Around the time of the first Covid lockdown, or thereabouts, anyway, I thought about how nice it would be to have some gay friends to just hang out with. Apple promoted an App (maybe for Pride) that, it said, was for gay people to find friends and chat. I downloaded it, but realised pretty quickly it was actually a hook-up app (it wasn’t one of the well-known ones, which is why I tried it). Then I got an email from the company that talked about their App having “the hottest gay singles”, and I immediately closed my account and deleted the App. That was the absolute last thing I wanted.

My current mindset may not be forever—I understand all too well the extreme importance of never saying “never”—but it would have to be extraordinary circumstances for anything to change my mind for the foreseeable future. Still, that’s not actually a “no”, but more of a “probably not” or maybe, more vaguely, “possibly one day, maybe.” Time will tell, I guess, even though right now I think it’s highly improbable.

Next up, and staying on the same overall theme, is one from Roger Green, and it requires some background. Earlier this month, I published a post, ”A venture out”, in which I talked about some errands I ran that day. In it I mentioned that at one shop I went to I was helped by a nice-looking young man with “a North American accent”, and, I added, “I didn’t ask where he was from; didn’t want him to think I was flirting”. After saying I could use it for this series, Roger commented:

I'm not quite sure: 1) Why is asking about where someone is from would be considered flirting, and 2) why a perceived flirtation would be problematic.”

I was mostly joking, however, humour is often a way of expressing truth, so: I don’t actually think he’d have thought that merely asking him where he was from was me flirting (that’s the part I wasn’t serious about). However, I never want guys to think I’m flirting, and that needs some explanation.

I came of age at a time when flirting with a guy could lead to a violent reaction, and while that’s far less true than it’s been in many, many decades, the possibility is still seared into my brain—I think that’s probably just a generational thing. The bigger issue is that I’m shy and an introvert by nature, and I don’t want to impose on people, or, in this case, to impose myself, even when I think the guy is good looking. I know that flirting isn’t the same as trying to pick someone up—except when I was younger, when it pretty much was. These days, as I was saying above, I have no interest in picking anyone up, so in my behavioural brain, still frozen in 1995, I think there’s no point in flirting when there would be no follow-through. Plus, being shy and all.

So, no, I don’t think he’d have thought I was flirting if I asked where he was from, and if I had been flirting, it would have been innocent and not a problem. Having said all that, I’m almost always extremely nice and polite to all shopworkers, even those who aren’t attractive men. And if an attractive man wants to respond to my niceness by flirting with me, well, who am I to complain? Unfortunately, this has hardly ever happened, though.

Thanks to AustininSeattle and Roger Green for today’s questions, and for closing out this series! Personally, I think most of today’s questions could use more discussion, but possibly in posts of their own—or next year’s series?

Thanks to everyone for playing along with this year’s series!

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-23”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:

”Let the annual inquisition begin” – The first post in this year’s series.
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 1: Get here from there”
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 2: Measuring and measured”
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 3: US political stuff”
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 4: Saying no and being okay”