"politically fraught with peril"

Sen. Lisa Murkowski said that it may be legal for state courts to disqualify former President Donald Trump from running in the 2024 election, but that doing so would be “politically fraught with peril.” https://t.co/1eLC8XvjAX

— Anchorage Daily News (@adndotcom) December 23, 2023

So imagine, Arnold Schwarzenegger decides to run for President and he's getting good polling results.  But someone sues to keep him off the ballot because he wasn't a natural born United States citizen.  

The Constitution says clearly:

"Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Would Sen. Murkowski or any of the others talking about "fraught with political peril" say we shouldn't enforce the Constitution because it would be "fraught with political peril" to do so? 

Well that's exactly what is happening with Murkowski and others who want to keep Trump's name on the Colorado ballot.   As President, he, at the very least, gave aid and comforted those trying to overthrow the election of Joe Biden by storming Congress and stopping the ratification of the election. (And we don't even know who all he showed or sold secret documents to yet.)

Fourteenth Amendment  Equal Protection and Other Rights

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Trump's denials are no different from the denials of any accused criminal who tries to twist words and find legal loopholes to avoid the legal consequences of their actions.  

Does he really have to be tried for insurrection?  We all watched it live.  We watched the Jan 6 committee reviews of video tape and listened to witnesses, many who were Trump appointees who were with him in the White House on January 6.  

We've heard the tape of Trump demanding of the Georgia officials: 

"All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have," Trump says, according to audio of the call. "There's nothing wrong with saying, you know, that you've recalculated."

He's a known liar and he knew he lost Georgia and was demanding the Georgia officials overturn the election by finding him the votes he needed.  

So what is this "political peril" everyone is so worried about?

First, I'd ask, when did we start inserting political consequences into court proceedings?  Yes, it's happened, but it isn't supposed to.  It's the rule of law, not the rule of the mob that courts are supposed to uphold.  

Second, what crystal ball does Murkowski have that tells her there will be political peril?  No one knows what will happen in the future.  So this is just conjecture of what might happen.  Sure, there are lots of Trump supporters who likely would be very angry.  

Propagandists on the Right will tell Trump's supporters that this was an illegal prevention of Trump's right to run for office.  Is that a reason to ignore the Constitution?  Absolutely not.  This is a phantom peril.  Of his most rabid supporters who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 

"Approximately 723 federal defendants have had their cases adjudicated and received sentences for their criminal activity on Jan. 6. Approximately 454 have been sentenced to periods of incarceration. Approximately 151 defendants have been sentenced to a period of home detention, including approximately 28 who also were sentenced to a period of incarceration."  

"Approximately 714 individuals have pleaded guilty to a variety of federal charges, many of whom faced or will face incarceration at sentencing."

(DOJ, December 2023)

I'm not saying Trump supporters won't make lots of noise, maybe do damage, and generally try to reenact another January 6.  They have already made death threats against the  judges on the Colorado Supreme Court.  Trump isn't calling on his backers to stand down.  But we have police.  We have the National Guard.  We have the military if we have to put down another insurrection.

Third, if Trump is on the ballot and loses again, we are just as likely to face political peril then as now, maybe more so.  If they successfully bully the courts into ignoring the Constitution now, Trump supporters will be even more emboldened to try to prevent a peaceful transition again.  

Surely it's a better option to uphold the Constitution now and  remove Trump from the ballot now and let his various court cases play out. Let's face this speculated political peril now rather than later.     

Fourth, if the court ignores the plain language of the US Constitution and allows Trump to be placed on the Colorado ballot (and in other states if Colorado is successful in this), then we are already in political peril, we've already stumbled out of democracy and the rule of law.  The fact that we are even debating this says we are already one or more steps into the fascist dictatorship Trump has already said he would head.  

Fifth, Gerald Ford, after he became president when Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace, also feared political peril if Nixon were prosecuted.  So he pardoned Nixon.  While I think that decision was wrong - and set up a precedent for Trump to grasp at - it didn't violate the law or the Constitution.  The president has the power to pardon.  But when pardoning Nixon 

"Ford announced that he had pardoned Richard Nixon for all crimes he committed or "may have committed" while president" (Washington Post 2006)

which tells us he fully believed that an ex-president can be tried for acts committed while president - something Trump has said couldn't be done.   

Sixth, Murkowski and others have said that the people should have the final say by voting.  But no matter how much people would want to vote for Schwartzeneger or Trump, the two are constitutionally ineligible to be president.  We don't vote on whether to ignore the Constitution.  

"Political Peril" here is the bogey man the Right (and some on the Left) are using to justify ignoring the clear language of the Constitution.  Remember, this fight is for the man who spent years spreading the lies about Obama being born in Kenya and not being a natural born US citizen.  

Trump's whole strategy is to cause distrust of every US institution and then to say that "I alone can fix it."   The idea of "political peril" is part and parcel of his game plan.  Democracies don't make exceptions for bullies who threaten violence if they don't get their way.  

That is exactly what is happening here.  Arnold Schwarzenegger is NOT a natural born US citizen and is not qualified to run for president. 

Donald Trump supported an insurrection to overthrow the vote of the people and maintain his position as president even though he lost the popular and electoral college votes.  And he isn't qualified to run for president.  

Let's face whatever peril lies ahead now instead of next November when that peril might reappear if US voters vote for Biden over Trump once again.  Let's stop that peril now rather than let the Trump machine work to more effectively falsify the election results than they did in 2020.  

A Special Christmas Present: Steve Silberman Essay on Bill Evans Trio Playing Nardis

A Spout today linked me to an amazing essay by Steve Silberman: "Broken Time “NARDIS” AND THE CURIOUS HISTORY OF A JAZZ OBSESSION" on Bill Evans and Miles Davis' Nardis in The Believer.

I'm a casual jazz fan. Sort of like I'm a casual birder.  I go out of my way to observe birds, but I don't obsess.  I don't keep a life list.  And I'm more an unquestioning appreciator of jazz, but not someone who could tell you why I like it or the technical things the musicians are doing that captures my attention.  Nancy Wilson probably is the person to blame.  

Of course, I've heard the name Bill Evans.  Usually a when a KJAZZ announcer says something like, "and Bill Evans on the piano."  That usually happens after the piece was played.  

Anyhoo, this essay kept me in bed reading this morning. (Yes, I know.  It's not a good idea to look at my phone in bed, but so what?)  

So just listen to the Bill Evans Trio as you read the article.  This is the first recording in 1961 with  Scott LaFaro and Paul Motian.

Or if you don't think you have time for a long article, here are some excerpts while you listen:

"But things started going wrong even before Mitchell arrived at Reeves Sound Studios on East Forty-Fourth Street. First, his luggage went astray en route from Florida. Then there was a surprise waiting for him in the control room: Miles Davis, one of his musical heroes, who had taken the extraordinary step of composing a new melody as a gift to Cannonball. Mitchell was supposed to play Miles’s part.

That wasn’t going to be easy, because the tune, called “Nardis,” was anything but a standard workout on blues-based changes. The melody had a haunting, angular, exotic quality, like the “Gypsy jazz” that guitarist Django Reinhardt played with the Hot Club de France in the 1930s. And it didn’t exactly swing, but unfurled at its own pace, like liturgical music for some arcane ritual. For three takes, the band diligently tried to make it work, but Mitchell couldn’t wrap his head around it, particularly under Miles’s intimidating gaze. The producer of the session, legendary Riverside Records founder Orrin Keepnews, ended up scrapping the night’s performances entirely.

The next night was more productive. After capturing tight renditions of “Blue Funk” and “Minority,” the quintet took two more passes through “Nardis,” yielding a master take for release, plus a credible alternate. But the arrangement still sounded stiff, and the horns had a pinched, sour tone.

Only one man on the session, Miles would say later, played the tune “the way it was meant to be played.” It was the shy, unassuming piano player, who was just shy of twenty-eight years old. His name was Bill Evans."

. . . 

"By now I’ve heard so many different interpretations, in such a far-flung variety of settings, that a Platonic ideal of the melody resides in my mind untethered to any actual performance. It’s as if “Nardis” were always going on somewhere, with players dropping in and out of a musical conversation beyond space and time."

, , , 

"When Russell first mentioned Evans’s name, Miles asked, “Is he white?”

“Yeah,” Russell replied.

“Does he wear glasses?”

“Yeah.”

“I know that motherfucker,” Miles said. “I heard him at Birdland—he can play his ass off.” Indeed, the first time Evans played a beginner’s intermission set at the Village Vanguard—Max Gordon’s basement club, the Parnassus of jazz—the pianist was astonished to look up and see the legendary trumpeter standing there, listening intently."

. . .

"By the time he recorded the tracks on Kind of Blue, however, Evans had already decided to leave Miles’s band. After his baptism of fire on the road, he was physically, mentally, and spiritually exhausted, but he also felt more confident about pursuing his own vision. He had a specific goal in mind: achieving a level of communication in a piano trio that would enable all three players to make creative statements and respond to one another conversationally, without any of them being obliged to explicitly state the beat. This approach came to be known as “broken time,” because no player was locked into a traditional time-keeping role; instead the one was left to float, in an implied pulse shared by all the players. Evans compared broken time to the kind of typography in which the raised letters are visible only in the shadows they cast.

That kind of collective sympathy, akin to three-way telepathy, demanded major commitment from the trio, and required high levels of personal chemistry. Evans met the perfect fellow travelers in two young musicians named Scott LaFaro and Paul Motian."

 . . .

 "Evans was a polite junkie. For decades, he kept tabs on how much money he owed various friends, and he always endeavored to pay them back, even if his benefactor had long forgotten the debt. But among the people disturbed by his accelerating decline was the fearlessly outspoken LaFaro, who had no problem confronting the pianist in the bluntest terms. “You’re fucking up the music,” he would say. “Look in the mirror!”

It was in this combative atmosphere that Evans made his second attempt to commit “Nardis” to vinyl, at Bell Sound Studios, on February 2, 1961, under Keepnews’s watchful eye. Though Keepnews gamely tried to keep everyone’s spirits up, the whole session seemed jinxed, with Evans and LaFaro openly arguing about the pianist’s drug use and Evans suffering a splitting headache. By the time the ordeal was over, both the players and the producer assumed that the tapes would be quietly filed away and never released. “We had a very, very bad feeling,” Evans recalled. “We felt there was nothing happening.”

Listening back, however, everyone was shocked to discover how well the trio had played. Upon the album’s release, Explorations was hailed by critics for its bold, unsentimental reinvention of well-worn standards like “Sweet and Lovely” and “How Deep Is the Ocean,” the dynamism of the group’s interactions, and the sublime sensitivity of Evans’s phrasing and voicings. Humbled by the inadequacy of his own ability to judge how well the session had gone, Evans began to think of “the mind that thinks jazz” as something larger than the consciousness of any individual musician, as if the music organized itself at a higher order of awareness that wasn’t always discernible to the players. The rendition of “Nardis” that appears on the album, a refinement of the arrangement that the trio had been playing on the road, became the default canonical version in the absence of a Miles original—the basis for twenty years of Evans’s performances, and for hundreds of interpretations by others."

And here's Bill Evans live in Paris in 1979 playing a very different Nardis with his second trio members.  

"In 1979, the pianist formed a new trio with bassist Marc Johnson and drummer Joe LaBarbera. The presence of Johnson in particular—who was, in the words of former trio drummer Eliot Zigmund, “very young and open, and very, very respectful of Bill”—seemed to revitalize the pianist, and for the first time in years, he sounded like he was searching again. After buying a cassette recorder, he began taping and listening to his own performances, going all the way back to unreleased music he’d made with LaFaro and Motian. He was also paying close attention to the work of the young pianists he had generously mentored over the years. After listening to a solo recording by Warren Bernhardt called Floating, he told his girlfriend, Laurie Verchomin, that he had entered a state of bliss, hearing 'the music between the notes.'”

Note:  Someone in the household heard me listing to whole the 1979 album, responded, "It sounds like 'hold' music."  While parts are soft, slow, and soothing, this is definitely not hold music, but it would be nice if it were used that way.

 

Spices Keep You Healthy

At some point, after three years in Thailand, I was convinced that science had ignored the health benefits of capsaicin - the part that makes hot peppers so spicy.  Surely, I thought, this heat helped to preserve foods, in a different way than salt does.  

Today this 24 year old paper popped up on Twitter that confirms my assumption.  What I didn't recognize was that garlic and onions are even better at the killing and/or inhibiting the growth of microbes.  Though I did assume the high use of garlic in hot climates had some health benefits too.  

The authors write in the overview:

"We wondered if there are any predictable patterns of spice use and, if so, what factors might underlie them. In this article, we summarize the results of our inquiries. We found that spice use is decidedly nonrandom and that spices have several beneficial effects, the most important of which may be reducing foodborne illnesses and food poisoning."

Prediction 1. Spices should exhibit antibacterial and antifungal activity.

And this chart shows that 

Prediction 2. Use of spices should be greatest in hot climates, where unrefrigerated foods spoil especially quickly.

They looked at cookbooks from 36 countries to see what spices were used, how many recipes included spices, how many spices per recipe, and which spices.  The used a climate atlas to rate the climate in each of the 36 countries. 

Prediction 3. A greater proportion of bacteria should be inhibited by recipes from hot climates than from cool climates.  

". . . the mean fraction of recipes that called for each one of the highly inhibitory spices used in those countries increased significantly (Figure 8a). However, this correlation did not hold for less inhibitory spices (Figure 8b). There was also a positive relationship between the fraction of bacterial species inhibited by each spice and the fraction of countries that used that spice, indicating widespread use of the spices that are most effective against bacteria."

There are a number of other things they looked into (ie. cost of spices, lemon/lime juice increases anti-microbial power of spices).  

So one question I have relates to the fact that our bodies rely on microbes to keep us healthy.  My awareness of this came well after 1999 (when the spice article was published) and I'm not sure how well it was known in 1999 or by the authors.  Do spices harm the gut biome?  

The article is written in clear language that should be easy for most people to understand most parts.  It also has pictures of spices as well as straightforward charts.  

Darwinian Gastronomy: Why We Use Spices: Spices taste good because they are good for us 

Paul W. Sherman,   Jennifer Billing  Author Notes  BioScience, Volume 49, Issue 6, June 1999, Pages 453–463, https://doi.org/10.2307/1313553   Published: 01 June 1999

They use' microbe' in some places and 'bacteria' in other places.  Since I wasn't completely sure about what each term meant, I found this American Society for Microbiology page "What Counts As A Microbe?"

Clouds! (It's Been Rainy In LA)

 I was out in the car yesterday when it started raining so hard I had the windshield wipers to the fastest speed and I still had trouble seeing through the wet on the windshield.  

Sun did make cameo appearances throughout the day.  

Today it was sunny when I got up - though there were lots of exciting clouds, ranging from white to almost black.  

This iris opened since yesterday and the sun seemed like a good opportunity to get on my bike  for a ride along the beach.  

This is the last block on Rose Ave as you get to the beach in Venice.  The border between Los Angeles (Venice is a neighborhood in LA) and Santa Monica is about a block to the north (to the right in the picture).

Parts - not many - of the bike trail had a couple of inches of water and some sand.  

Headed north, Santa Monica pier is up ahead. 

There are a few wooden walkways from the bike trail to near the water.  I wanted some pictures from near the water.  Above I'm looking north.

Below I'm looking west. 

And below I'm looking south back toward the pier.  This is NOT a black and white photo.

It was at this point, as I was picking my bike up out of the sand, that a life guard in a truck came over to me and said that NOAA reported there was a thunderstorm due in the next half hour and to clear the beach.  (There weren't that many people out anyway, only a few down by the water.)

At this point I felt the first rain drops.  The temperature was in the low to mid 60s F and felt warmer when the sun was on me.  

As I rode back, the palm trees along the palisade in downtown Santa Monica were nicely silhouetted.  

And below I'm approaching the Santa Monica pier from the north.  I hadn't seen the ferris wheel turning when I passed by the first time and it certainly wasn't moving now.  Nor did I see any action on the roller coaster.  

It never rained too hard, despite the ominous clouds.  Some blue and some hint of sun if not actual sun were always visible.  

On the way home I stopped at the 99 Cents store.  But most of the shelves were empty. The cashier said January 5 would be their last day.  They did have produce.  Two avocados, an artichoke, and some broccoli cost me $2.  

When I got near home, it wasn't raining, but there was water gushing down the hill to the flat area.  It had rained very hard while I was gone, but not where I was.  Later my granddaughter took this picture when it rained heavily again and you can see some of the rain coming down, though the picture doesn't capture how hard it was raining.  

The rain seems to have fallen here and there over short periods of time as clouds moved through.  The following list shows rainfall in inches as of 7am Thursday for the five days prior.  There's a lot of variation and this doesn't count what fell yesterday and today.  

Oxnard 6.13

Porter Ranch 4.82

Culver City 3.43

Westlake Village 3.31

Downtown LA 1.98

Bel Air 3.27

Long Beach 1.24

Van Nuys 4.30

Santa Monica 1.80

Northridge 4.54

Whittier 1.51

Pasadena 1.61

Castaic 2.53

I found different numbers when I googled Los Angeles annual rainfall. (Some variation is surely due to location.)  But the range was between 12 and 14 inches!

This is all a reminder that the earth itself is doing fine.  The changes brought on by climate change, the loss of species, are irrelevant to Nature.  The landforms and oceans will survive and evolve without us.  

The coming climate catastrophes are only catastrophes in the eyes of humans.  I'm not sure what the animal and plant species that are being threatened know or feel.  The earth has experienced many changes over its billions of years.  Our hominid ancestors only appeared around seven million years ago.  And individual human lives are like flashes of lightening (which I never did see today) in comparison.   

So go out into nature and learn.  

More Waste In Packaging

 Waste in packaging is another thing that has become normalized.  Unless it's egregious, we just wade our way through it, without even thinking about it.

I felt this one qualified as egregious.

The pills came in these three plastic bottles inside the box behind.

Each plastic bottle had 14 - FOURTEEN - pills!

When I put them all into one bottle they reached up to the blue line. (That was supposed to be an arrow pointing down to the blue line.)

That's about 1/5 of the bottle.  There were three bottles, so only 1/15 of the bottles' volume was actually needed for the pills.  That's not counting the box the three bottles were packaged in.

So the contents needed about 7% of the packaging (again, not counting the box this was all in.)  So about 93% of the packaging was unnecessary.  

OK, I get that stores don't want to sell things so small that it's easy for a shopper to put something into a pocket or purse without paying.  There have to be more creative solutions to stopping shoplifting.  If humans can figure out how to get to the moon, they can figure out how to not pollute the earth with excessive packaging.  

I'd also note a story in the LA Times Sunday.  Mike Hiltzik wrote a follow up to the big story earlier this year that stores were losing $45 billion to organized crime shoplifting.  

Politicians and the media both repeated the fabricated number without question.  And law enforcement agencies love it because such stories help them get ever increasing budgets to fight crime.  But for them crime means the guy who shoplifts $30 worth of groceries, not companies that steal billions from their employees and customers.

Why do I add all these other issues to a simple story about badly packaged pills?  Cause everything has a context.  Telling stories without the larger context is just relating miscellaneous anecdotes.  There's a lot more context for this pill story, but I'm just adding a little here so that readers at least think about the larger context and maybe even add more themselves.  

.  

The Battle Of Algiers Offers Insights Into Israel-Gaza War

 I haven't posted about the Israel-Gaza* war for a variety of reasons, the key ones being the unreliability of the many accusations flung back and forth, the very complication of the issues including all the action going on behind the scenes that we don't know anything about.  

I've come up with a list of about a dozen issues that I see as important for anyone trying to understand what is happening and why.  Surely there are more.  And they all have threads that wind into the other issues. 

Guerilla Warfare 

One of the issues is the nature of guerrilla warfare.  Having been alive as the Vietnam War (or the American War as the Vietnamese call it), Afghanistan - first Russia and then US - I've learned a little bit about guerrilla warfare.  We see it when a militarily weak group of people feel badly mistreated and take on their overwhelmingly powerful perceived oppressors.   

Here's Wikipedia's summary:

"The main strategy and tactics of guerrilla warfare tend to involve the use of a small attacking, mobile force against a large, unwieldy force. The guerrilla force is largely or entirely organized in small units that are dependent on the support of the local population. Tactically, the guerrilla army makes the repetitive attacks far from the opponent's center of gravity with a view to keeping its own casualties to a minimum and imposing a constant debilitating strain on the enemy. This may provoke the enemy into a brutal, excessively destructive response which will both anger their own supporters and increase support for the guerrillas, ultimately compelling the enemy to withdraw. One of the most famous examples of this was during the Irish War of Independence. Michael Collins, a leader of the Irish Republican Army, often used this tactic to take out squads of British soldiers, mainly in Munster, especially Cork."

In this case, Hamas are clearly the guerrillas against the overwhelming military strength of Israel.   

Wikipedia in a separate article offers a history of guerrilla warfare back to 6th Century BC China.

For me, the nature of guerrilla warfare got much clearer when I saw the movie The Battle Of Algiers, sometime in the 1970s.  

I'd strongly recommend watching this film for anyone who wants to understand what is happening now in Israel and Gaza.  

The Internet Archive has posted the film and has links to embed it in blogs and other websites.  I have never before posted a full movie like this and it feels a bit wrong.  You can also watch it at the Internet Archive.  

Aside from showing guerrilla warfare from the point of view of the guerrillas, it's a classic example of cinéma vérité.  It's just a really well made movie.  

Without understanding the underlying reasons a group uses guerrilla warfare tactics, it's hard to understand a war in which guerrilla forces fight against a much more dominant culture.  

History shows us many examples where overpowering military advantage eventually loses to an organized, but much, much weaker resistance movement.  But there are also examples of that weaker unit being crushed.  My sense here, though, is that the ruthlessness of Israel's response will create millions of more resisters among the Palestinians. 

Astute readers will have figured out that I've once again avoided the topic of Israel and Gaza.  Yes, and no.  It's much to complex a topic to deal with in one post.  I'll refine my list of key issues and then post the list.  Then I'll cover as many of the issues as I have the stomach for in other posts - some on just one issue, others may combine a few.  

In the meantime, I'd challenge readers to come up with their own lists of the key issues.  Then you'll be able to compare your lists with mine and, I hope, improve my list in the comments.  

Make some popcorn and enjoy the movie.  

*I've labeled this Israeli-Gaza war, but one could also say Israeli-Palestinian war.  

Can Your Physician Use Telehealth To Treat You When You're Out Of State?

 I was out-of-state when my doctor's office called to set up a telehealth appointment for me.  The date they wanted was when I was going to be back in Alaska.  I thought, wow, this is great.  If I'm out-of-state, I can still have an appointment with my doctor if needed.  

But they said, "No, you have to be in Alaska."  

For me, that makes no sense.  If I need a doctor when I'm not in Alaska, I'd rather see my doctor than a one I don't know.  [Of course if there's a need for physical contact or tests, it's not going to work as well.]  

So when I had my appointment, I asked, "Why can't we do this if I'm out-of-state?"

The nurse, the doctor, and the doctor's supervisor (this is through Providence) weren't exactly sure.  They'd been advised that it had to be Alaska only.  Licensing seemed to be a possible reason, but they weren't sure.  And they couldn't cite any documents I could see for myself.

Whether this was a state law, regulation, Providence policy or something else, they didn't know.  

So I decided I would try to track this down.  Here's what I've found out so far.

• During COVID emergency health declarations waived some interstate telehealth barriers, and much of what first pops up in searches are pandemic era webpages, some of which have dates on them.  
• A big issue IS the need to be licensed in the state where the patient is located
• Another issue has to do with payment for patients on the state medicaid or other health programs
• Some states allow out-of-state doctors to have telehealth appointments in their states, but the rules aren't easy to figure out for individual doctors.  There are various conditions one has to meet, and one has to be sure the source of information reflects the current law, that no changes have been made

Interactive at the site which appears
to be updated frequently

CCHP (The Center for Connected Health Policy) has some of the best information I've found so far.  Their Out Of State Providers page has a map that links to the policies for every state.  And they seem to keep it up to date.  One was updated this month.

For instance, here's what it says for Arizona:

"Arizona

Last updated 11/07/2023

A provider who is not licensed within the State of Arizona may provide Telehealth services to an AHCCCS member located in the state if the provider is an AHCCCS registered provider and complies with all requirements listed within A.R.S. § 36-3606.

SOURCE: AZ Medical Policy for AHCCCS Covered Services. Telehealth and Telemedicine Ch 300, (320-I pg. 2), Approved 8/29/23. (Accessed Nov. 2023)."

AHCCCS refers to Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System. The link isn't really that complicated, but if I were a physician, I'd want an attorney to read it.  

From HHS:

"Some states have temporary practice laws to support existing provider-patient relationships and minimize gaps in care. These laws allow a provider to practice for a limited amount of time, usually less than 30 days, in another state if their patient is temporarily visiting that state for business, a family visit, or other reasons."

This includes what I would be after - treating one of their regular patients who happens to be temporarily out of state. 

What states clearly or not so clearlyseem to allow out of state doctors not licensed in the patient's state to provide telehealth services to patients located in their state?  Go to the CCHP map page to get details for each state.

• Alaska
• Arizona
• Connecticut
• Georgia - "Physicians with licenses in other states may be licensed under the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact"  You can read more about this Compact here.  They also have a map that shows which states are in various steps in the process of joining the Compact.  
• Indiana - "Out-of-state providers can perform telehealth services without fulfilling the out-of-state prior authorization requirement if they have the subtype “Telemedicine” attached to their enrollment.  See Module for requirements."
• Kentucky - this one seems particularly liberal.
• Maryland
• Minnesota
• Oklahoma
• Oregon - Looks like a liberal policy
• South Dakota
• Vermont
• Washington
• Wisconsin

Most of the concern seems to be with the State reimbursing for services to Medicaid patients.  There are various conditions placed on out of state providers.  Note that I said 'appear to allow out of state" providers.  And there were some states that might allow out of state providers who are not licensed in the patient's state, but I couldn't really tell for sure.  

So, the problem doesn't seem to lie with the State of Alaska. 

The issue is 

• with other states - some do and some don't allow it, and those that do have different requirements
• with Providence for making a blanket policy rather than tailoring it to the states that allow for out of state doctors.  Providence should know which
• which states do not allow out of state doctors to have telehealth appointments with people in their states, 
• which states do allow it, and 
• what the requirements are for those that do
• with doctors who have licenses to practice in other states letting Providence know that

I would like to think this is simply policy that hasn't caught up with technology changes and not simply stodgy hospital administrators not wanting to change or lazily using the law as an excuse

But I also understand that collecting all the necessary data and keeping it up to date is somewhat of a challenge.  But I was able to do this in less that four hours, so someone in the Prov administration should also be able to do it.  Especially since Providence serves Alaska, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, and Washington.

AIFF 2023: The Winners Announced Saturday Night

 I got the names of the winners at the Awards Event.  Well, the ones I could hear clearly.  I tried to get the names of the ones I missed but they seemed to want to post them on the Festival website before I did, so I let it go.  

 Later, I'll compare them to my favorites, but I'm back at the airport headed south to meet family in LA.  Overall I think the choices are reasonable.  There are some I never got to see.  More than normal, especially for  a festival that had fewer films than normal.  And there were no opportunities to see a film again if you missed it when it was shown.  

They will show 'the best of the fest' Sunday, Dec. 16 at the Alaska Experience Theater.  They said it would be an all day showing of films and they'll put up the list sometime this week.  

There were lots of shorts, but the number of feature documentaries and narrative films seemed thin.  I think this is reflected in the fact that there was only one winner in the Narrative Features category.  And the one comment I will make now, is that Ariel: Back To Buenos Aires which was an excellent film - the story was important and well told, the actors were terrific, and the cinematography was strong.  There were no gratuitous shots of Buenos Aires, they all added to the story.  It should have gotten an award.  I'm not quibbling about Farewell Mr Haffmann.  It was an excellent film and I could easily argue it was the best.  But Ariel was also an excellent film that got shortchanged in my opinion.  

Festival Directors Ida Myklebost and John Gamache
at the Awards Ceremony

Here are the winners as posted on the AIFF Facebook page:

THE WINNERS

of the 23rd edition of the Anchorage International Film Festival are...

...drumroll...

...:

AUDIENCE AWARDS

---Documentary Feature---

WINNER: "Dusty & Stones" by Jesse Rudoy

2nd place: "The Body Politic" by Gabriel Francis Paz Goodenough

3rd place: "Ranger" by Austin Peck

---Narrative Feature---

WINNER: "Farewell, Mr. Haffmann" by Fred Cavayé

---Made in Alaska---

WINNER: "One with the Whale" by Peter Chelkowski & Jim Wickens

2nd place: "A Piece of Myself" by Vivienne Ayres, Nidhi Kumar & Audrey Shuppert

3rd Place: "Nourishing The Kenai" by Emrys Eller

---Short Animated---

WINNER: "Mano" by Brittany Biggs

2nd place: "Witchfairy" by Cedric Igodt & David Van de Weyer

3rd Place: "love bubbles" by Marcel Hobi

---Short Documentary---

WINNER: "Seeds of Change" by Maximilian Armstrong

2nd place: "This Is Where I Learned Not To Sleep" by Anne de Mare & Kirsten Kelly

3rd Place: "The Winterkeeper" by Laurence Topham & David Levene

---Short Narrative---

3rd Place: "Barely Breathing" by Derek Evans & Neal Reddy

2nd place: "Infraction" by Timothy Blackwood

WINNER: "The Bond" by Jahmil Eady

JURY AWARDS

---Documentary Feature---

WINNER: "Wild Life – The Lance Mackey Story" by Finn-Erik Rognan

2nd place: "Dusty & Stones" by Jesse Rudoy

3rd Place: "Karen Carpenter: Starving For Perfection" by Randy Martin

---Narrative Feature---

WINNER: "Farewell, Mr. Haffmann" by Fred Cavayé

---Made in Alaska---

WINNER: "A Piece of Myself" by Vivienne Ayres, Nidhi Kumar & Audrey Shuppert

2nd place: "One With The Whale" by Peter Chelkowski & Jim Wickens

3rd Place: "School of Fish" by Colin Arisman & Oliver Sutro

---Short Animated---

WINNER: "Little Hurts" by Deborah Solomon

2nd place: "Mano" by Brittany Biggs

3rd Place: "Awakening: The First Day" by Jos Diaz Contreras & Santiago Carrasquilla

---Short Documentary---

WINNER: "This Is Where I Learned Not To Sleep" by Anne de Mare & Kirsten Kelly

2nd place: "Funny Not Funny" by Ben Feldman & Marc D'Agostino

3rd Place: "The Winterkeeper" by Laurence Topham & David Levene

---Short Narrative---

WINNER: "The Stupid Boy" by Phil Dunn

2nd place: "The Old Young Crow" by Liam LoPinto

3rd Place: "Limite" by George Nicholas

SCREENPLAY AWARDS

---Short Screenplay---

WINNER: "Pending" by Jennifer Rapaport

2nd place: "Wildflower" by Peter Salisbury

3rd Place: "Devil’s Instrument" by Frederik Ehrhardt

---Feature Screenplay---

WINNER: "Gramps" by John Stimpson, Geoffrey Taylor and Rapaport

2nd place: "Wreckage" by Colin Scott

3rd Place: "The Most Marvelous Man in the World" by Colin Scott and Kris Burton

CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL

It was a good festival and I'll post a few more posts.  One, as I said, comparing my favorites to the winners.  Another to share my thoughts about the festival itself overall.  

AIFF: Sunday Offers Impressive Crime/Prison Lessons

 I missed the noon movie Sunday.  I just needed a little more time to recuperate. 

Saturday morning had a great set of Alaska themed or made films.  I was very pleased that we are past the days when Alaska films were any Alaskan project where someone writes a story and goes out (usually) into the woods and experiments with how their cameras and mics work.  

That elation didn't survive Sunday's Alaska Shorts Program.  There were good ones mostly.  And that's all I'll say.  

The afternoon Documentary Feature - The Body Politic - was a riveting look at Baltimore mayor Brandon Scott.   We see Scott elected into office as a young Black man who saw his first shooting at 10, and vowed that the basic approach of mass arresting of Black men had to be replaced.  The alternative was to give people options in life other than crime and prison.    He comes into office after 327 (maybe it was 37) people had been murdered in the previous year, vowing to cut murders by 15%.  But pro-active reaching out to folks is a long term strategy and takes a while to work.  He monitored every murder as they outpaced his target.  The Republican governor, who controlled prisons, parole, and critical social services, refused to meet with Scott and said he needed to beef up the police to stop the crime.

The discussion afterward included director Gabriel Francis Paz Goodenough, film subject Erricka Bridgeford, and another film maker whose name and role I didn't quite catch.  Ida, the director of the festival is on the right.  Ericka is in the middle.  

You can read more about the film from a Baltimore paper and read an interview with the director here.

The next shorts program began with another excellent film - The Bond - which was short and packed a powerful punch as we see an incarcerated woman having her baby, shackled, and then having the baby taken from her.  The filming, the story, the acting were all just right.  

The last program were three films related to prison and domestic violence.  

Infraction told the true story of an inmate who the judge had, at some point concluded was innocent, but was still locked up.

Seeds of Change told the story of a farmer who takes on the project of setting up a farm adjacent to a prison and then utilizing prisoners to work on the farm.  The fresh food is served in the prison.  The film shows the effect of the farm work on the prisoners who worked there and the effects of having fresh food prepared well on the prisoners. 

Where I Learned Not to Sleep  - The camera follows two retired police who grew up with domestic violence, doing training programs for police on how to approach domestic violence situations.  

The whole afternoon and evening illustrated the need to treat citizens, abused women,  and prisoners with dignity and respect to break the cycle of violence and criminality.  

There's much more to say, but this at least gives you a sense of what I got out of the festival on Sunday.  

AIFF: Great Alaskan Shorts/Amazing Narrative "Ariel: Back To Buenos Aires"

 The Alaska Shorts at noon was a great four film program.  All the films were technically well made and all told important stories.  I thought I'd given up on staying up late to post about the festival, but I feel compelled.  

All of these were worth watching and you can learn more about them all here.

 I'm going to focus on True Colors -  Film maker Brad Hillwig said he wanted to do a film about Anchorage having the most diverse schools in the country.  He focused on Bartlett High School,  its diversity, how the school works to make that diversity part of the curriculum, and highlighted two of the outstanding students - a Filipino/Pacific Islander football player and the daughter of an African, Muslim immigrant.  It was an inspiring film in lots of ways.   One of the students - Oumi - was there which was exciting too.  

There were film makers representing all the films there  

The afternoon and evening films at the Museum were also good to outstanding.   Below is Tora Johanna Turøy again, talking festival director Ida Myklebost after her film was shown at the museum.

Ariel: Back To Buenos Aires was amazing.  It was beautifully filmed - with the tango scenes and the Buenos Aires street scenes not just adding color but meaningfully adding to the story.  A few times the camera goes around and around the subjects in a way that is beautiful and heightens the emotional pitch of the scenes.  

The content is powerful!  A sister and brother in their 30s, fly to Argentina where they were born.  The older sister, on the plane, tells her brother she suspects he was adopted because she doesn't remember her mom being pregnant with him.  Anyone who know the history of Argentina will quickly figure out where this is leading.  

A powerful film, made even more powerful by the cinematography and editing so good you don't even think about it.

I'm sure this will be one of the top films at the festival and they will show the award winning films again the week after the festival.  Be sure to see it!!

Citizen Sleuth was also interesting.  A film maker making a film about a Crime podcaster.  We see a sincere podcaster digging deep into a car accident death that she suspects was murder. 

AIFF2023: Saturday Dec. 2: Lots of Shorts, Trip to Argentina

 SATURDAY - December 2, 2023  - Anchorage International Film Festival

BEAR TOOTH  - NOON

4  Shorts - Made in Alaska - view list here.

BEAR TOOTH - 3pm

Documentary Narrative:  Citizen Sleuth

SlashFilm says:

"'Citizen Sleuth' is a darkly funny, engaging, and thrilling documentary about a true crime podcast that has all the fascinating twists and turns of true crime, while flipping the script and focusing on the voice behind the podcast. The documentary chronicles not a tragic death, but the rise and fall of a podcast dedicated to it, and the complicated ways its host became trapped in her own narrative."

This is 82 minutes, so there should be plenty of time to get to the Museum for the rest of the films starting at 5pm.

ANCHORAGE MUSEUM - 5pm

7 Shorts - "Love Me" Program   See the list here.

ANCHORAGE MUSEUM - 7pm  *This program has a warning:  18 and over only.

6 Shorts - "Do We Still Need Feminism" Program  See the list here.

ANCHORAGE MUSEUM - 9pm  

Feature Narrative - Ariel Back To Buenos Aires 

From the film's website: 

"ARIEL BACK TO BUENOS AIRES follows the tumultuous siblings Davie and Diana Vega as they return to Argentina, country of their birth and learn to dance tango. They uncover secrets about their family history that call into question everything they hold to be true, but that free Davie from his existential misery. A story of how the past holds us in its embrace – only by engaging with it can we find freedom. A lacerating love letter to the city of Buenos Aires."

The website says it is also streaming on Apple TV.  It's won a number of awards at film festivals this year.  

 

US Political Accountability Is Badly Broken

[There are so many forces and issues intertwined.  Every day there are new shocking reports to support one thing or another that I argue here.  This is several drafts along and so I'm just going to post it.  Yes, we are in crisis and I'll probably be writing more about the nature of the crisis.  Here the focus in on the lack of accountability.]

The reports of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' benefits from wealthy benefactors who have interests in the outcome of Supreme Court cases has already told us things weren't working.  

The fact that people who participated in the January 6 insurrection are still in their Congressional seats and voting like other members of Congress, also tells us this.

The fact that most Republicans in Congress voted against Trump's impeachments, and continue to support him publicly and take no action on corrupt Republican Senators and Members of Congress, tells us that accountability is broken. 

The report on Rep. George Santos says it once again, loud and clear.  Our accountability of elected officials and Supreme Court justices is broken.  From the Table of Contents of the report released last week:: 

"III. FINDINGS........................................................................................................ 10

A. OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 10

B. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW, HOUSE RULES, AND OTHER

APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT ......................................................................... 13

 1. 2. 3.

C.

1. 2. 3.

Campaign Finance Violations............................................................................ 13 Willful and Knowing Financial Disclosure Violations ...................................... 37 Lack of Diligence and Candor During the ISC Investigation............................ 48

OTHER ALLEGATIONS REVIEWED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE..................................... 51 

Sexual Misconduct Allegation ............................................................................ 51 Conflict of Interest Violations ............................................................................ 52 Additional Allegations Charged by the Department of Justice.......................... 54"

You can read the complete report here. 

WHAT DO I MEAN BY BROKEN?

One could argue that the release of this report on Santos, and his subsequent announcement that he will not be running for reelection, shows that there is accountability.  

The problem is that we have known of evidence of widespread wrongdoing by Santos since shortly after he was elected.  Nevertheless, he's been allowed to serve as a Member of Congress, influencing US public policy through his committee work, public announcements, and votes all this time.  And unless the House votes to expel him, he'll continue doing that until his successor is sworn in.  

In most any other job, if employees are found to have lied on their applications or resumes, have been found to have violated organizational rules, or state or federal laws, they can be fired immediately.  At the very least they can be put on suspension and not allowed to continue using their position for personal gain or to otherwise work against the interests of the organization.  It's trickier to remove an elected official because one can argue 'they were elected by the people in their district." But we still have procedures to do it.  Republicans just won't do it for one of their own.  

Accountability Too Slow

Santos shouldn't have lasted this long.  Trump is using all the courts' protections for the innocent to delay his trials as long as possible.  Just the other day Judge Cannon is allowing delays that mean the classified documents case won't be decided before the 2024 election.  This clearly should be an expedited trial.  The consequences of stealing secret documents, showing them to unauthorized eyes, and probably selling them to enemy nations should be high priority and fast tracked.  

Supreme Court justices continue to rule on cases that have horrendous consequences for democracy.  Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has outlined four types of cases on which the conservative  Justices consistently vote together to help large corporation get their way:  [The link includes his time at the Amy Coney Barrett hearings.  This court background discussion begins around minute 21 on the video.]

1. unlimited dark money; 
2. knock down the civil jury trial down; 
3. weaken regulatory agencies  
4. voter suppression and gerrymandering  on that weaken government powers to regulate, voting rights, women's rights, etc. even though it's now clear that there is no accountability for clearly corrupt judges, and we're moving very slowly if at all to correcting that.  

In other presentations I've heard him include anti-labor cases.  The point is that these are all decisions that significantly weaken opposition to large corporations.  And there are further conflicts of interest due to Justices owning stock that is affected by their rulings on cases before them.  

Corrupted Officials

Republicans in the US Senate refused to impeach Trump despite overwhelming evidence of wrong doing.  They've allowed January 6 co-conspirators to remain in Congress.  

• the lust for power and fear of losing it - Republicans are afraid to buck the party because they fear  loss of GOP funds and the Republican voters in the next primary. They won't hold their colleagues accountable because they fear losing their majority in the House.  They support a Supreme Court that looks the other way in the face of gerrymandering that keeps many Republicans in power.
• the lust for the prestige of being in Congress - Maybe they don't care that much for power, but rather they enjoy the prestige and privileges that come with being a Member of Congress.  The same issues arise as for the lust for power.
• the lust for money for campaigns and personal benefit - Money for campaigns is intertwined with lust for power and prestige.  But Members of Congress also get hefty salaries, travel, health insurance, and retirements.  Additionally there are other opportunities to get richer than they already are.  Staying loyal to their corrupt party seems to be the safest way to hold onto these benefits.  
• mental slowness - I first labeled this 'utter stupidity' but that seemed too simplified.  

• short term thinking - as Republicans reveled in the ending of Roe, they didn't see the backlash that was coming.  And while they feel the need to cater to rabid Trump cultists to win the primary, they fail to see how their actions (and inactions) mean greater risks of losing in the general elections.  And even if they are in a highly gerrymandered district and will win, they are likely to lose the majority in the House.
• sheltered thinking - their beliefs and prejudices are reinforced by the people they spend their time with.  They see people who don't agree with them as caricatures  of evil rather than as rational human beings with different, but reasonable world views
• lack of empathy for others - whether they are sociopaths or have other afflictions that allow them no sense of understanding of other people's issues and problems
• inability to break from outdated (if ever even accurate) explanations of how the world works - things like individual responsibility even in a society that favors some over the many; religious and racial stereotypes; belief in the correlation between work and worthiness even as automation makes much work unnecessary and wealthy people need not work at all; belief that money and power will solve all their problems; 
• lack of analytic abilities - they can't understand the complexities of modern life and are stuck on simplistic and black and white explanations

Additionally, Republicans in the Senate allow Senator Tuberman to block appointments of military officers and others to delay the appointment of judges and high government officials.  For various reasons - 

Blocking military appointments only hurts our military readiness and can only help our military adversaries.  Blocking judicial and senior civil service positions, some argue, fits in with the Project 2025 [see below] blueprint, by keeping these positions vacant making it easier for Trump, in a second presidency, to fill them with his loyalists.  

The Republicans in Congress allow (and in many cases support) all the dragging out of these delays.  They refuse to work with Democrats to speed up the accountability of the egregiously guilty.  

HOW ARE THINGS DIFFERENT TODAY THAT MAKES THIS MORE OF A PROBLEM?

In the past, the idea of Democracy was never at stake.  Notice I said 'idea of Democracy.'  For non-whites and non-Christians democracy in the US has been spotty to non-existent.  Voting rights didn't exist for Blacks in the South and their courts were made up of all white juries. US citizens of Japanese descent were locked into camps during WW II and their property taken over by whites.  Immigrants have always been vilified.  Native Americans were displaced and massacred.   

But for white politicians, the idea of Democracy was pretty sacred.  The US was touted as the bastion of democracy in a world of dictators.  

Today, that's not the case.  To say that the election is about Democracy vs. Authoritarianism (whether that be Fascist, White Christian, or whatever democratic antonym is probably not that crucial)  simply is NOT an exaggeration.

You think people like me are alarmist?  Even long time Right Wing Anchorage Times and then Anchorage Daily News columnist Paul Jenkins says democracy is at stake.

"Trump is a danger to US democracy. How can so many good people still support him?"

Just take a look at Project 2025.  (The link is to Wikipedia which is written in a calm, pseudo-objective tone. If democracy and fascism are both equally moral and viable option, that might be ok.  But they aren't.  If you don't read it carefully, you might not see the real danger.  Sentences like:

"Project 2025 seeks to place the entire Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of the Department of Justice, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission and other agencies.[4]"

For people who don't have a deep understanding of how our government works, that sentence might not be alarming.  But trust me, it is the path to an all powerful president.    

Even NPR's (Here and Now) interview with a key author of Project 2025, while pushing back some, doesn't really give the sense of how this is a full blown attempt to overthrow Democracy.  While they talk about getting rid of 50,000 civil servants by making them 'at will' employees (who can be fired for no reason), they don't mention the long struggle to set up a merit system which hires people based on qualifications for the job rather than political allegiance and which protects civil servants against political firing by requiring their dismissal be based on just cause (such as not doing their job as required by law.)  Despite GOP rhetoric, staffing the government with educated and dedicated civil servants is a good thing if you want a government that runs well and provides the public the services they want and need.  But not if you want to use government to carry out your personal vendettas.

Project 2025 is a Heritage Foundation plan to give the next Republican president the power to obliterate the obstacles that would keep a Trump from controlling the US government as he sees fit.  It eliminates safeguards, it puts Trump's sycophants into power - the kind of people who told him the 2020 election was rigged and that he actually won.  It's a blueprint for taking down Democracy and setting up an authoritarian government.  It's written by the type of people spent 40 years plotting to pack the Supreme Court with Right wing extremists who ignored precedent to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Prior to the Trump presidency, we had lots of lines that politician's didn't cross.  They respected the many unwritten rules because, for most, they had a sense of decency and propriety.  For other because violating them would lead to censure or expelling.  But Trump and his supporters see those lines as challenges.  How many can they mow right over?

Trump violated every such rule that got in his way.  To the point that overthrowing Democracy and replacing the Constitution with the Bible seem to be reasonable to large numbers of people - including the current Speaker of the US House of Representatives.   

We've got January 6 enablers still serving in the Congress.  This would not have been accepted before Trump.  

The Heritage Foundation is behind Project 2025 - aligned surely with the Federalist Society that planned the takeover of the Supreme Court for forty years.  This is not just a band of crazies ready to attack at Trump's command.  Those crazies are are more sophisticated and more than willing to use Trump's cult as their attack dogs.  

The Supreme Court, restructured by Federalist Society judges that Trump dutifully appointed, has overturned long standing precedents - like Roe v Wade - even though each of the Trump nominees swore that such long standing precedents would be respected.  

• Political Violence Is One Of Those Lines

Nancy Pelosi's husband was attacked in her house in San Francisco by a Right Wing conspiracy consuming fanatic and the prospect of more political violence aimed at elected officials, judges, and election officials is on the rise.  

From AP via Anchorage Daily News Nov 19, 2023

The Trump types are using the slow and deliberate court processes to subvert justice.  We've never had an ex-president under multiple indictments who was also running for president again.  There's an urgency to these cases because they are running up against the election deadline.  The Trump team ignores the basic standards and pushes everything way past normal standards of conduct.  Because an ex-president is on trial and because the court's aren't used to this kind of a full court press, they continue to use constraint and deference as if we were in normal times.  We aren't.  I'm not asking judges to go around the law. I'm asking them to stand up to the bully defendants and not tolerate the flouting of their orders.  

SO, ARE YOU SAYING DEMOCRACY IS DOOMED?

If we don't take every action necessary to prevent Trump or any Republican from winning the 2024 election, Democracy as we know it is doomed.  

Senate and House Obstacles 

The US Senate is, in essence, gerrymandered by the Constitutional requirement that every state has two US Senators.  That wasn't a big deal in 1800 when state populations were comparatively (by today's standards) even.  But today state's like Alaska and Wyoming have fewer than one million people and get two Senators just like California with 39 million people.  And the smaller, more rural states tend to be redder.

"With the even split in the current Senate, the 50 Democratic senators represent 56.5% of the voters, while the 50 Republican senators represent just 43.5% of the voters. In 2018, the Democrats won nearly 18 million more votes for Senate than the Republicans, but the Republicans still gained two seats." (From the Brookings Institute)

In the House, the slim Republican majority is almost certainly the result of Republican gerrymandering of districts so that Democrats were either pushed into one or two districts or scattered into Republican majority districts.  

The US Supreme Court Leans Way Right

It used to be that Republican Supreme Court Justices used the Constitution as their guide for making decisions.  Today's Federalist Society judges use a pro-business ideology to find ways to twist the Constitution to favor the rich over the poor.  Individual rights - like abortion rights, voting rights - suffer.  How the Supreme Court will rule if the 2024 election is challenged by Trump does not give me hope.  

Another Insurrection, but larger

Trump persuaded lots of people to come to the Capitol on January 6 to try to stop the Congress from ratifying the election.  Many of them have been convicted of various crimes.  How many others are out there who are ready to make armed protests should Trump lose again?  

People support Trump for various reasons.  The US economy has shifted and good working class jobs no longer pay as well or are lifetime guarantees.  The array of GOP tax cuts for the rich over the years has created a an unbalanced division of wealth, with the top 10% controlling nearly 70% of US  wealth!

People's lives and prospects are not as good as they were.

With greater legal protections for women and people of color, there are more people competing for jobs.  Before the 1960s, white males were the only people competing for the better jobs.  The Republicans have convinced many of those white males, that the decline is because women and non-whites are taking over.  That's what the extreme abortion laws are about and the diatribes against immigration.  Arrows aimed straight at the emotional parts of the Trump cult members.  

IS THERE ANY HOPE?

Part of me takes hope from the elections, particularly those related for abortion, since the 2022 election.  The vast majority of voters do not support Trump.  It's possible the Trump team and the wealthy conservatives they are proxy for to simply collapse.  I hope that happens.  But I also don't want to be in shock the way we were after Clinton lost in 2016.  We need to be in shock now.  If we work harder than necessary to win, that's better than not trying hard enough and losing.

NPR reported that 80 million people DID NOT VOTE in 2020.  That's a lot of votes.  Convincing 10 million of them that Trump means the end of Democracy, would save Democracy, for now.  

But with all the lies and conspiracy theories, with mainstream media acting like the GOP is a normal party to be treated with respect, and with the many calls for violence, I'm convinced that the Trump campaign will do everything it can to obstruct voters, to subvert the election, and to repeat Jan 6 type insurrections, but with more discipline, if they lose again.  Trump's biggest incentive right now would appear to get back the power to pardon, starting with pardoning himself.  

So the votes have to be so strongly for the Democrat that there is no question about who won.  And that will take a lot of grassroots organizing to get non-voters educated and voting.