A Fork In The Road Of US And World History

This is one of those historic moments when the world will pull back from the bring of disaster or go crashing into a new world of callous destruction.  The US AID (Agency for International Development) from Thailand in the late 1960s isn't too dramatic for the choice we face right now.  On the left side it says "Communism,"  in the middle it says "or" and on the right side it says "Freedom." Our choice now is Authoritarian vs. Democracy.  

Despite its many flaws, the US Democracy has been one of the better examples of how humans can work together to build a society based on law and aspirations of peace, of freedom, and of comfort.  The reality has favored some more than others - in terms of freedom, justice, and economic and social security.  And it has had serious negative impacts on the environment.  

But we're at a critical fork in the road.  To the right, we crash into the despotic world ruled by Trump and those who pull his strings, like Putin and his meddling into our election as he has meddled in the Brexit vote, Hungary, France, Italy, and, of course, Ukraine.  He's a force of evil turning the world toward chaos that he thinks he can better thrive in.  

If we go the Trump route, it's not Trump so much I'm worried about.  But it's his backers - from Putin, to the Christian Nationalist mob, and the wealthy cabal on the far right who have been plotting for decades and have already successfully captured the Supreme Court.  

The left fork would give us the first woman president, who is also part East Indian and part Black.  And she's incredibly capable as her career and short campaign has demonstrated.  

There should not even be any doubt that Kamala Harris should win this election.  That there is reflects serious failures in our system.  Failures in the education system that has produced tens of millions of voters who would choose a candidate with hundreds of flaws and misbehaviors any one of which would have destroyed any other presidential candidate.  

Failures in our system that have allowed foreign propaganda to be broadcast through outlets like Fox News and all sorts of internet sites to sow seeds of distrust in our system and in the idea of Truth itself.

Failures in our justice system that allow a convicted felon, who is ineligible to vote in most states, to be a candidate for the presidency.  Who would be ineligible to join our military to be its Commander in Chief.  

Fairlure in our electoral system that disregards the popular vote for an arcane system that focuses all the attention on seven purple states.  

A Harris administration will face many serious problems (including the disgruntled cult members), but it would work on them rationally and in good faith.   And that a Trump administration would exacerbate.  

Often such turning points aren't realized until after they happen - Pearl Harbor, 9/11, the election of FDR, for example.  

But we know today.  We've known a long time that this election is a choice between two very different futures.  One continues to move us toward greater equality, and one hopes, more equal economic prosperity, and continued fights to minimize CO2 emissions and the worst ravages of climate change.  

The other unleashes nasty brutish anger and hate on our country and the world.  

And even if Harris wins the election decisively, we know the depraved one will fight to overturn the election.  

Fortunately, this time round we know his past behaviors and are better prepared.  The public is more aware because, except for his cult members, we've seen how he operated after the last election.  Our government is better prepared for the same reason.  And more importantly, Joe Biden is still president and in control of the military and the national guard and other resources that might be needed.  

My logical brain tells me that it will be a Harris victory.  Reason says that the world has changed in ways that disfavor Trump.

Clinton beat Trump by nearly 3 million votes.   

Biden beat Trump by over 7 million votes.  

Since the 2020 election, we've learned so much more about Trump's evil ways.

He was impeached for the second time.

He created a plot to challenge Biden's victory

He instigated the January 6 insurrection of the Capitol

He stole boxes and boxes full of classified documents and stored some of them in a bathroom in Mar-A-Lago. And shared them, well, we don't know for sure with whom.

He's become a convicted felon and rapist.

He has several serious indictments and trials still waiting for him

The Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade

His public appearances have shown him to be more and more deranged

He's presided over a Nazi rally in New York City

Many of the 'very fine people' he selected to serve in his administration have publicly warned us what a disastrous president he was.  

I can go on and on, but the point is that we know so many more terrible things about him.  Even if his cult stays loyal, there have to be other Republicans and Independents who voted for him last time who either won't vote for Trump, and many who will vote for Harris.  And young people who now are eligible to vote, but weren't four years ago.

We know that the Dobbs decision has galvanized women, especially in light of the Republican states who have passed draconian anti-abortion laws that are killing women who have had miscarriages and other problems with pregnancy.  And we're hearing about many women forced to give birth to their rapists' children.  

Conservative states like Kansas and Ohio have put the right to abortions in their constitutions through ballot measures, by-passing their legislatures.  

The numbers of early voters shows Democrats returning their ballots more than Republicans, shows women outvoting men, shows young voters voting at higher than past levels.  So everything points to a Harris victory.  

But nothing is certain until the votes are counted and whatever gimmicks Trump pulls if he loses are blocked.  

This is one of those huge moments in history where human destiny hangs in the balance.  

[Soon after I arrived in Thailand in 1967 as Peace Corps teacher in rural Thailand, I was taken out one night to a village by an AID employee.  A village not unlike the one on the right of the poster.  He hung a sheet up across the road and showed movies about the danger of communism.  I suspect, in hindsight, I was being tested and I failed dismally - to my credit, I'd like to think.  AID (CIA?) never approached me again, to my knowledge.  But I did end up with this poster.]

Farrago Follow Up - What Will Trump Do?

The previous post, Farrago, meandered into the power struggles in the US and the assault on science in favor of fantastic explanations of things.  [I prefer 'fantastic explanations' to 'conspiracy theories' because there are in fact conspiracies and people who pursue real conspiracies - like the Federalist Societies 40 year plan to pack the Supreme Court with justices who would rule their way - aren't always 'crackpots.'] 

Reader Jacob left a lengthy comment which you can see there.    Rather than answer it there, I've decided to answer it in a new post.  

Well, since I know many of you won't go back to see what he wrote, I've decided to put it here again.

"Jakob in IrelandSunday, October 6, 2024 at 5:07:00 AM AKDT

Hi Steve. Just a thought from across the pond...

When you started your enquiry last year asking HOW we got to this point (of finding more & more people believing the unproven in so many things around us) you more often than not explained the difference boiling down to university education levels. 

I felt, and still do, that you do have the view of someone from the world of questions, of successfully negotiating the discipline of the academic reasoning & rewards. I also acknowledge that you (graciously) agreed that talent isn't limited to intellectual gifts, but also those of the 'multiple intelligences' view of human ability & talents.

So with all that, we plunged (as so many did then) into just HOW we could be at this political junction of PRO and CON re what we thought to be ‘dictator-in-waiting’ Donald Trump. We didn't succeed in pinning the tail-on-that-donkey, did we?

So today, I’m wiping my slate clean: I’m with many, if not most here, asking this question: Does Mr Trump plan to win regardless his methods to achieve it?

Given these past years of many quick checks and deep dives with so-many streams of thought & analysis, I have honed my own little thought for this presidential election in America, if anyone wishes to consider it. Mr Trump’s preparation is laid, his goal easy to know. He only awaits the day in which his blow will be struck.

Mr. Trump’s seizure of the presidency (at precious cost to a Republic) can be affirmed by his Supreme Court and a Congress with too-narrow mandate to intervene in a politically effective way. But most importantly, far too many Americans have ‘drunk the Kool-Aid’.

I am nearly 18 years from living in the USA now; I am also a person born to its promise & culture, to its history & dreams. I moved countries to know other histories, other ways of seeing law, culture & dreams. I can admit my shock to see so many Americans willing to surrender rule-of-law to a man of autocratic instincts, hoping his constitutional betrayal will deliver their aspirations. I have told European friends (here) that Americans have bedrock faith in their Constitution and its rule-of-law standards. It will win out.

Now I suspect I held a child’s faith: Too many Americans are faith-weary. So many flock to a ‘strong man’ promising his so-sweet nothing, “I’ll take back control for you.”

I am sorry to say that I am relieved to live where I do, where so very many here are asking, “What is happening to the USA?”"

Here's my response.  

Jacob,  

Lots of questions rolled up into the reply.  And lots of answers too.  

First, your comment “you more often than not explained the difference boiling down to university education levels.”  I suspect that reflects more what you hear than what I’ve said over the years.  I have indeed argued that good education does train students to think logically and critically (among other things.)  That could start happening in elementary school and be honed further in middle and high school in a good school with good teachers.  At good schools the attentive students graduate with varying levels of those skills.  And I've acknowledged that a rigorous logical, left brain, education is the best way to start all kids.  But I would add that all kids should be given the space to work on something that interests them, and a good school would then use their areas of interest, to cultivate logical reasoning in a context that makes sense to each kid.  

As students go deeper into those topics at the university level, they can improve on those skills.  Statistics that show college educated voters tend (note ‘tend’) to lean more Democratic than people with fewer years of education.  

“The last few election cycles have been marked by an increasing divergence in outcomes based on education levels, with Democrats making serious gains with college-educated voters while Republicans win far greater shares of non-college educated white voters.” from Politico  

But you don’t have to get those skills only in school.  People who are different in some significant way from the ‘average’ - different religion, ethnicity, sexual identity, etc. - often grow up in at least two different worlds: 1) their family and group world and 2) the larger white world that has traditionally ruled the US.  And for those with non-conforming gender identity, they can be in a different reality from their family.  

The dissonance between how these citizens who experience one reality at home and a different reality at school often gives them a leg up on seeing the big picture, on seeing there isn't just one reality.  

And there are lots of others who get the dissonance even if they don’t go to college.  And there are many college graduates who got by without learning how to think critically.  Or who can, but have blind spots where they can’t apply those skills.  Or they apply them in a twisted way.  Like logically justifying white nationalism or misogyny based on odd facts and premises.    

Getting back on track

Hoping people would come to their political senses when they were given the facts was not something I held out much hope for, though it’s my natural flex.  I used to tell students writing reports for actual administrators that emotions always trump reason if there’s a conflict between the two.  So they needed to know their clients’ values so they could write their reports not so it made sense only to the student, but also to the client.  

I did hold out hope that enough US voters would choose the Democratic candidate over Trump.  That isn’t unreasonable since that happened in 2016 and 2020.  Though the way the electoral college works, that’s not enough.  Harris has to win big so the GOP can’t fight with any credibility over crumbs in swing states.  And can’t plausibly argue that Trump won.  Of course there will always be those who deny reality as the 2020 election has shown.

Now to your first question, which you essentially answered yourself affirmatively.  

"Does Mr Trump plan to win regardless his methods to achieve it?"

I agree that he does plan to challenge the election no matter what.  All the talk of rigging elections is meant to get people ready for such a challenge. The bigger the margin of victory the harder that will be.  The many lawyers and others who have been fighting Trump’s original challenges in 2020 are well versed in his strategy and paying close attention to new ones.  

And this time round, Biden is in charge of the military and national guard and other levers of power that will be much better prepared than in 2021 post election.  

And the people he has working for him are skilled administrators - as we can see in the preparations for Helene and the coordinated efforts after the storm hit, getting inflation down, implementing the Infrastructure bill, etc.  

Will Trump supporters, those who believe all his lies, come out with weapons and raise hell?  Possible.  Even likely in some places.  

One other point I’d like to make concerning reason and non-reason.  It’s clearer and clearer that Putin and Iran and North Korea have all been using the internet to stir up conflict in the US (not to mention in UK and France and other parts of the world.).  We know about it explicitly in 2016.  It's been noted in every election since.  It’s likely they were at it earlier during the time they were grooming Trump as an asset.  They played a role in Brexit.   They’re at it over Gaza and Israel.  Taking down democracies strengthens their message to their own people that democracy is inherently unstable and bad.  It also makes their aggression much easier.  

Playing on people’s fears - of immigrants, of crime, of economic disaster - is always going to capture a certain number of people.  Trump’s non-stop lies, amplified by Fox, and main stream media,  is a well planned strategy to make it impossible to tell truth from fiction.  Everything Trump says is projection of his own actions onto his opponents.  With AI and hard to spot fake video, the ability to tell truth from lies gets harder.  All traditional authorities are challenged - scientists, universities, doctors, teachers, anyone who ‘can prove’ something with more than sweeping declarations of how things are, are targets.  The Right’s attack on public education is part of that package.  They want to get public money funneled to private schools that they can control.  

It’s ironic that until Reagan began attacking government, it was usually the Left that challenged government and the Right that defended it.  

Trump has good reason to fight for power, even after he loses.  If there is a Harris administration he will be on trial still and very likely sentenced to prison. At which point I wouldn’t be surprised if he fled to Cuba or another Russian ally.  Or Saudi Arabia.  

When he’s gone this isn’t over.  Our authoritarian enemies will continue to do what they can to weaken the West.  The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society will continue to fight for the power of the rich white elite to control the country.  

Fortunately their perfect candidate is also a huge liability.  Republicans’ eagerness to exercise their post Roe power at the state level has alerted and alarmed sensible voters.  And their demands for abject loyalty has resulted in less than stellar candidates in down ballot races - like North Carolina’s Mark Robinson, candidate for Governor.  

We’ll know in a month how the election goes, and then we’ll have to wait and see how the post election goes.  

You may well have made a good decision when you established yourselves in Northern Ireland.  But if the US goes down, no one is safe.   

Time To Try The Granola. Why People Should Stop Buying The Republican Brand

Suppose you're still buying the same brand of cereal your mom bought for you.  

But after years of loyalty, you've noticed that it no longer tastes or crunches the same, the boxes are smaller, they're only 2/3 full, and they cost way more.  The ingredients list lots of chemicals now.  Your stomach feels queasy after eating a bowl.  But at the store, your brain is wired to put  that brand in your cart.  .  

A friend says she's stopped buying that brand and now eats Brand Y granola.  "Granola," you reply, "that's hippie food."  

It's time to review your old prejudices and find out that granola is much better than that old brand you cling to without satisfaction.  

I suspect a lot of Republicans keep voting R because it's how they were raised.  Voting Democratic is like eating granola, even though they know that the R brand isn't what it used to be.  Plus they keep hearing  how evil the D brand is.  

But they've met Democrats, people at work, school, the gym.  They seem like ok people, on the surface anyway.  Some are even married, have kids, work, own homes, pay their bills on time, watch football and baseball, even hunt, and other 'normal' things. They don't appear to be the evil terrible people R politicians and media say they are.  

Republicans, your brand is no longer what it once was.  I know it's part of your identity.  But like any brand that has deteriorated over the years, it's time to let go.  

It's no longer the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower.  Or even Nixon, Reagan, or the Bushes.  

Your brain is telling you it's time, but this is all you've known since you were a kid.  It's so hard to make a change, but it's time to face the reality that the R brand isn't the brand your parents raised you on.  It's now a toxic scam.  Time to try the granola.  

Brian Taylor Cohen Interviews Heather Cox Richardson - Watch This!

This is an important interview by Brian Taylor Cohen, one of the brightest and most articulate commentators (I want to say on the air, and he does appear on cable news, but he's also a powerful presence on the internet via Twitter, YouTube, and other platforms) and Heather Cox Richardson, an important US historian who uses history to inform current events.  

A couple of points they make that jumped out at me. 

1. Taking Over World Money Supply. She talks about how Trump is 78 years old and not in great health, and could leave Vance in charge.  Vance is Thiel's pawn.  Peter Thiel is a 'tech bro' interested in crypto currency and this could lead to taking control over the world money supply.  

2. Whenever there is a new technology, and she lists mining, cotton, diamonds, copper, oil as examples, there are no regulations at first and a few people get very rich and powerful to the detriment of everyone else.

(#1 and #2 are intertwined starting around 5:45 to about 7:40)

3.  Trump's succeeded because his actions are so outrageous that people can't conceive he's being real.   They want to take away abortion, get rid of medicare, etc. people don't believe it.  They're planning that.  We need to take it seriously. (about 8:30 min)

4.  The Big Lie. If your roommate steals $20 you can get mad at him.  But if he schemes to take over your family's bank account, retirement funds, your family's  house, it's beyond comprehension.  Don't have emotional groundwork to get mad because it's too outrageous to imagine.  That's what Trump has done.  Of course the Supreme Court wouldn't give the President to commit crimes in office, but they did.(about 10:50)

5. History- Turning on a Dime - History taught me that American society can turn on a dime.  I've been waiting and it didn't happen.  But since Biden pulled out of race, the US has turned on a dime.  (about 17 min)

There's a lot in between that links each of the points together worth listening to.  

This video has two very bright people dissecting what's happening and where we seem to be going.  

At the end they push two of their books probably worth reading:

Richardson:  Democracy Awakening coming out in paperback in October

Cohen:  Shameless  How Republicans used long term plans to change the US, which we can see most clearly with the Supreme Court.  

Let's Get Real About Replacing Biden

I talked to someone who is strongly anti-Trump the other day and he was also adamant about replacing Biden as the Democratic candidate.  

My gut says this is exactly what the Trump camp (including Putin and other foreign disrupters, Federalist Society, Heritage Society, etc.) would like to see.  

By focusing on one speck in Biden's career and presidency, Trump's team has gotten the attention off Trump's conviction, looming court cases, damning mentions in the newly released Epstein court documents, history of fraud and bankruptcies) and is moving the spotlight back to Biden's age and competence.  Really?!!!  And causing infighting among Democrats.  

But I want to emphasize that all this is happening - not in isolation - but in a dynamic system of vested interests, laws, organizations, individuals, agencies, money.  And this is not limited to the US. Players from around the world are involved.  

To capture some of that I've created a grossly simplified graphic of some of the factors that are in play.  

Replacing Biden would set up the Democrats for a series new crises down the line.  Once it happened, they'd then have to choose a replacement.  The natural candidate is Vice President Kamala Harris.  But people will say that a Black, South Asian/American, woman would destroy Democratic chances.  Others will say, not picking her would cause the most consistent supporters of Democrats - Black Americans - to sit out the election. One of the most articulate people in Biden's cabinet is Pete Buttigieg, but the naysayers will say a gay candidate would lose the Independents.  [None of these alarms is necessarily true.]

Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation is already planning court challenges to putting any replacement on state ballots.  If successful in a couple of blue and purple states, Trump would win.  

There will be new scrutiny on the new candidate (and eventually vice presidential candidate).  It used to be the opposition would need to find some past scandal, but nowadays they just make it up.  Biden's worst scandals - his age, his son - have already been disclosed.

Are Putin bots and FSB (the main successor of the KGB) agents working hard to elect Trump by throwing Democrats into disarray?  You better believe it.  They played a role in various European elections   including Brexit.   

No one should be surprised at attempts to impact foreign elections.  This is standard operating procedure for the big powers intelligence agencies.   The CIA did (probably still is) that regularly.  

Putin's original career was in the KGB.  He's fully aware of this and how to do it.  And he's been playing this game a long time.  

It's true, though.  Biden looked and sounded terrible.  I've seen a Spout that said the CNN lighting and sound technicians did Biden no favors, but I haven't seen any evidence.  

And at 81 he has to be slowing down somewhat.  The presidency has aged every president faster.  But Biden has half a century of experience in Washington - as Senator, as Vice President, and as President.  He has relationships with many, many members of Congress and world leaders and his experience has led to wisdom about how to get things done, as shown by his astounding record of accomplishments.  with a slim margin of votes in Congress.

What if he works just four hours a day?  He would still be putting in more work than Trump apparently did while president.  

While the president is the figure head of the administration, we are actually electing a team.  Biden has put together a powerful team.  

The Brookings Institute created a graph to represent the turnovers in the Trump's "A Team" and cabinet" compared to past presidents.  They did the same for the Biden administration.  

This election is about Democracy versus Fascism.  A slowing Biden would still be a better president than a vigorous Trump.  And we have one debate - a speck in time - that raises questions about whether Biden is getting too old, versus 3+ years of competent performance and post debate appearances that show a man with his full mental capabilities.  This man, who has overcome a stutter as a kid, has never been a great public speaker.  But he knows the issues and his claims are based on facts.  

It's a terrible indictment of - I'm not sure what, probably a little of everything - US education, capitalist values of greed, including corporate news media, political manipulation (gerrymandering, voter suppression), racism, sexism, religion, that Trump is even a contender.  That the media and Republicans are calling for him to step down.  

Biden has an array of great debaters in his party who can get out there and campaign for him if he needs to shorten his daily schedule.  

My friend who told me the other day that Biden should resign, said that if Biden runs and wins, he'll come and tell me he was wrong.  

But he didn't say what he'd do if Biden steps down and his replacement loses.  Because I think losing in that scenario that is the more likely outcome.  Because changing candidates mid campaign will lead to lots of dissension, disruption, and lost momentum. 

Of course I could be wrong.  Biden could quickly slide into dementia.  Or a dynamic Kamala Harris could ride to victory.  Anything could happen in the months ahead.  But right now, as I see it, keeping Biden is the wisest path to not only stopping Trump, but to turning this country around and reversing much of the damage the first Trump administration has cause. 

This is going to be one of the nastiest elections ever, with misinformation drowning out truth, and devious schemes to disenfranchise voters and throw elections.  Double and triple check any claims made by anybody.  The LIE machine has been put on high.

AI Scraping My Blog?

My Stat-Counter account has been showing this frequent Hong Kong visitor:

Total Sessions usually records how many times the computer has visited, but it says only 1, even though there are five total hits on this one page (of 20 hits) on the Stat Counter report.  It's been showing up frequently for weeks now.

I know, I said five, but they are scattered.  The one on top is one.  Here are three more and there was one more.  

I've had this sort of thing before, but it's been awhile.  In the past, the assumption was they were scraping content.  Now, I'm wondering if it isn't an AI bot gathering stuff for training.  If so, what should I do and how?  From Duda.

"How to Block AI Crawlers from Crawling your Site

Some site owners are choosing to block AI crawlers, such as ChatGPT and Bard from crawling their site in order to prevent it from learning from or using their website content. You can block these AI user-agents in a similar manner as you would block Google crawlers; by replacing the default robots.txt file with a new file that specifies disallow rules for specific AI user-agents."

When I first started blogging, I spent a lot of time learning about (and blogging about) technical aspects of blogging - how to:find out if anyone is reading the blog; to embed photos and videos; how to change the format; how to add an email address; etc.  

Now AI is raising other issues.  Such as how to block AI crawlers from using your site to train its bots.  

This is not what I want to spend my time on.  First the internet is telling me I have to block each crawler separately by adding code to the robot.txt file.  

Should You Block AI Tools From Accessing Your Website?

Unfortunately, there’s no simple way to block all AI bots from accessing your website, and manually blocking each individual bot is almost impossible. Even if you keep up with the latest AI bots roaming the web, there’s no guarantee they’ll all adhere to the commands in your robots.txt file. 

 From Google Search Central:

"You can control which files crawlers may access on your site with a robots.txt file.

A robots.txt file lives at the root of your site. So, for site www.example.com, the robots.txt file lives at www.example.com/robots.txt. robots.txt is a plain text file that follows the Robots Exclusion Standard. A robots.txt file consists of one or more rules. Each rule blocks or allows access for all or a specific crawler to a specified file path on the domain or subdomain where the robots.txt file is hosted. Unless you specify otherwise in your robots.txt file, all files are implicitly allowed for crawling."

That means I have to find the robots.text file and add stuff and hope I do it just right so I don't screw something else up.  But this site also warns:

"If you use a site hosting service, such as Wix or Blogger [That's me], you might not need to (or be able to) edit your robots.txt file directly. Instead, your provider might expose a search settings page or some other mechanism to tell search engines whether or not to crawl your page."

Of course I don't want to block search engines for browsers or only subscribers will ever see my posts.  

So I'm asking myself, is this worth the time it's going to take to figure this out.  Well, someone else asked that too.

"The real question here is whether the results are worth the effort, and the short answer is (almost certainly) no."

Here's another one saying the same thing:

"At the end of the day blocking ChatGPT and other generative AI crawlers is really a matter of choice. Depending on your website’s purpose and/or your business model it may make sense to. But in my opinion the vast majority of sites have nothing to fear from allowing AI crawlers to crawl their site."

For now, I want to agree with this advice.  But then I start thinking that this was written by an AI firm that wants to steal your content.   

And I don't even know if that Hong Kong visitor is scraping material for some AI enterprise.  Maybe it's just stealing content.  

Like your car, your house, your garden, your teeth, everything needs some maintenance to keep it functioning.  Clearly my phone and computer do, and this blog does as well, though I've avoided that for some time on the blog.  

I'm now officially putting myself on notice to pay more attention to AI.  

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.

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.  

How Long Should It Take To Build Or Repair Public Works?

 [A note.  I thought I posted this this morning.  But when I came back, it was not there.  Not even the draft.  That hasn't happened in a long time.  I'm pretty sure I hit publish.  I know for sure I had a complete draft.  I wasn't ready to rewrite it, so I took a walk, hoping it would mysteriously show up.  It hasn't.  Maybe this second attempt will be better than the first.  I had a bunch of links.  Maybe you don't need them.  But I don't like to post half-assed either.  Let's see what happens.  I'm going to save this much.  Shut blogger down.  Turn it back on, then see if the missing post was hiding somewhere and decided to stop messing with me.]

[Note 2:  I shut down all the Blogspot windows and then opened one back up and there was my old post.  Glad I didn't start writing it all over.  I highly recommend taking walks.] 

[Note 3:  I see the problem now.  I wrote this as a "Page" which is what Blogger calls 'tabs'.  So it didn't show up as a Post, but rather as a Tab, which doesn't show up on the main page. You can find the current tabs up on top, below the orange header.]

An article in yesterday's Los Angeles Times reports that a damaged part of a critical freeway (The 10, or the Santa Monica Freeway as I knew it when it was first built) would be completed by Tuesday instead of the original five week estimate.  

"Publicly, state officials stood by that timeline for most of this week, saying the freeway was likely to reopen in December. But behind the scenes, according to a Caltrans engineer familiar with the project, crews were scrambling to hit a more ambitious target and have the overpass ready for Thanksgiving travel.

The work paid off, and on Thursday, Newsom confirmed what the Caltrans crews had been working toward: All lanes in both directions will be open to traffic by Tuesday “at the latest,” he announced, though repair work will be ongoing."

The damage was caused by a large fire under the bridge a week ago Saturday.  If the Tuesday date pans out, then will be 10 days from damage to repair.  

Earlier this year a major bridge in Philadelphia collapsed.  The initial repair time estimates were "weeks or months."

"Workers are beginning to rebuild the collapsed section of Interstate 95 outside Philadelphia. Construction is expected to take weeks or months, and have ramifications up and down the East Coast."

In the end it took just 12 days. 

"Six lanes reopened to motorists at noon on Friday, 12 days after a bridge collapsed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro announced."

In the case of LA, the quick reopening was credited to  the bridge structure not being as severely damaged as expected.  An unnamed engineer told the LA Times political pressure was also involved::

“'Go faster. The political heat is on.'

There has been 'a dead-heat, crazy push to get this bridge open by Monday or Tuesday,'”

I've been wondering, in recent years, why things like road construction in Anchorage seem to take forever. 

•  Is it because the work can only be done in the summer so contractors take on lots of projects and work on one project for a while, then another, then back to the first ones?  
• Are they just stretching out the work for more pay?  That seems unlikely because the pay should be settled in the contract with bonuses for being early and penalties for being late.  
• Is the Municipality or the State Department of Transportation just not writing good contracts? 
• And why do the same roads seem to need to be redone over and over again? 
• I know there's an unhealthy relationship between the State DOT and the construction industry [a major engineering company has the contract to do public engagement and while the presentations to the public are first class, their financial interests have to bias them toward building every project and I've several projects where the public was overwhelmingly opposed but the state ignored the public]

I don't know the answers to these questions.  I know there are lots of complaints about driving around construction, but I don't know that anyone has undertaken a study to find out why things take so long.  

But these two highway projects that were completed much faster than originally scheduled  (in LA I'm assuming the Tuesday deadline will be met) reminded me of a visit to the Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front National Historical Park in Richmond, California some years ago.  

They built ships there for World War II and I recalled they were built in phenomenal speed.  So I looked it up again today.  

 "The Liberty ship Robert E. Peary was assembled in less than five days as a part of a competition among shipyards. By 1944, the yard routinely needed only a bit more than two weeks to assemble a Liberty ship.^[3]"  (From Wikipedia) 

A whole ship built in five days!!!!!

That's a model we should have before us at all times.  But also remember the conditions:

• That five day record was part of a competition among shipyards, so competition (in this case I don't think there were rewards other than psychic rewards) played a factor.
• There was the collective will to win a war.
• And women did much if not most of the work  (Need I say more?)

There's also another aspect that needs to be considered.  From the Rosie The Riveter Park site:

"Working conditions on the Home Front were difficult and dangerous. Between the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 and the D-Day Invasion of Europe in June of 1944, there were more Home Front industrial casualties than military casualties." (emphasis added) (from the National Park Service)

And there were some unanticipated benefits as well:  

"This high number of industrial casualties would lead to improved workplace safety and regulations, as well as better access to affordable health care. 

Another challenge faced by working women on the Home Front was childcare, as mothers comprised a significant portion of the work force. This led to the establishment of child development centers and the professional field of early childhood development."

Given the state of child care in the US today, I'd say these were short lived benefits, since after the war, when soldiers returned home, the women lost their jobs and were expected to go back to being housewives.  

I'd also note than when I wrote about Rosie the Riveter National Historical Park ten years ago, Bill Butler pointed out in the comments that the ships weren't meant to last long and they had lots and lots of workers putting together modular ships.  

I do hope though that we start getting reporters looking into the title question - how long should public projects take?  Why do they take so long?  When and how can they be sped up if necessary?  

And it's not just public projects.  Alaska Communications (ACS) started putting fiber optic into my neighborhood last June or July.  The door to door salesman said the new high speed internet would be ready in three to four weeks.  The confirmation email from ACS said 12-14 weeks.  Then at the end of summer,  a new email said something like, "Well, you know, construction doesn't always go as planned. This project won't be ready until next year." 

We saw signs of work - bright orange cables lying around - and sometimes we even saw workers digging trenches.  But it seemed like there was far more work to do than workers to do it.  Meanwhile ACS has my (and how many others') payment for the high speed internet we were supposed to be enjoying as of several months ago, but haven't gotten yet.  

 

New Speaker, Quick Show Of Bi-Partisanship, But Don't Hold Your Breath

 I try not to write about things getting saturation coverage if I don't think I have some insight no one else has shared.  Furthermore, I've been advised by people who care about me, not to put a target on my back by writing about Israel.  

But the House finally getting a speaker followed by an immediate, overwhelming bi-partisan vote to support Israel is too much to pass up.  [I began this Thursday evening.  Reviewing this draft on Friday, it's clear discussing Johnson AND Israel in one post, while an admirable goal since they are related, is beyond what I can expect any readers to endure.  So let's just focus in this post on Johnson's speech.] [Quotes are from the transcript at REV.com]

Johnson's speech

1.  The amount of time he spoke about religion and how he spoke about it is troubling, but given his background, not surprising.

"I want to thank my dedicated wife of almost 25 years, Kelly. She’s not here, we [is 'we' her preferred pronoun?] couldn’t get a flight in time. This happened sort of suddenly, but we’re going to celebrate soon. She spent the last couple of weeks on her knees in prayer to the Lord and she’s a little worn out, we all are."

Truly, I have no idea if he was being serious about her being literally on her knees in prayer for two weeks or he was just being metaphorical to make his point.  At the time of the speech, I took it literally.  Now I'm not so sure.  I suspect his fellow Baptists didn't even notice anything unusual in this phrasing.

Later in his speech he said, 

"I don’t believe there are any coincidences in a matter like this. I believe that scripture, the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raises up those in authority. He raised up each of you, all of us, and I believe that God has ordained and allowed each one of us to be brought here for this specific moment in this time."

Where to even start?  

A.  Given all the evil leaders the world has seen, this isn't much of a recommendation for God's choices.  But it would help explain why his wife might have been praying so fervently for two weeks - she was trying to get God to promote her husband.  

B.  And, of course, there's the oft pointed out contradiction between the professed beliefs of Christians and their support of the past president's thoroughly un-Christian behavior and life.  I know they would tell us "God works in mysterious ways" but that doesn't cut it for me.  Especially since those folks who display the most Christlike behavior - helping the poor, the outcasts, the strangers etc. -. are so roundly condemned by Evangelical Christians.  

A good portion of the rest of the speech also focused on God - how "In God We Trust" got engraved above the rostrum in the House chambers in 1964.  But that should be a reminder that before 1956, "E Pluribus Unum" was the unofficial motto of the US until "In God We Trust" was made the official motto, in the height of the McCarthy hearings and the demonization of the Communist Soviet Union.  These changes don't just happen on their own, but I couldn't quickly find much detail about who lobbied or who funded that lobbying, to make it happen.  But my point is that God wasn't that intimately part of our official national identity until about 150 years after the US' founding.  It wasn't with us from the beginning.  

2.  His apparent isolation from most United States citizens - isolated from other ideas about religion from his own and isolated from citizens who are not members of Congress. 

Sure, he's a member of Congress.  He talks to people who have different views from his, but despite that exposure, he seems either unaware that others might find his words jarring, or he simply believes he has an inside track on Truth and so he speaks what he thinks.  

Let's reintroduce his comment about his wife being on her knees for two weeks paying here.  

A.  While I understand there are probably millions of US citizens who might relate to this physical demonstration of one's belief in God's intervention in our daily lives, there are just as many of us, probably more,  for whom being on our knees praying for several weeks is not part of our life experience.   

I looked for specific data on this.  The Pew Trust has very detailed data on who prays daily, but it's too detailed for my purposes. I wanted something to compare religious believers who pray daily to others who never pray.  But going through the Pew charts,  I was a bit surprised to see that  Democrats pray daily almost as frequently (40%) as Republicans (42%).  That people who believe homosexuality should be accepted pray daily more (49%) than people who think it shouldn't (42%).  But I couldn't find methodology for that specific survey to find out how  'pray daily' was defined.  Was it left up to the respondents? Did it include a quick "Dear God, help me pass this test"?  Did it mean a daily prayer at dinner? A communal  ritual prayer in a synagogue, or at a Buddhist shrine, or five times a day facing Mecca, or in a church?  Or all of those things?  I couldn't find an answer.

B.  Another brief comment he made, that on the face of it, might seem benign or even a positive sign, was this: 

"I want to thank our children, Michael and Hannah and Abby and Jack and Will. All of our children sacrifice, all of them do and we know that and there’s not a lot of perks to being a member of Congress’ kid, right?"

I think thanking our children for the burdens we put on them is a very important thing to do regularly.  But when you have just become the head of one of the most powerful bodies of the US government (and thus the world)  and you're speaking to the nation, this is really an example of privilege and deafness to the rest of the population.  

"Not a lot of perks to being a member of Congress' kid."  I get it.  Their congressional parent is away a lot and always busy.  And if he were talking privately to other members of Congress, this would make sense.  But this was a speech to the world.

Lots of kids have parents who work long hours.  Have single parents.  Have no parents.  I imagine that Congress members' kids get a hell of a lot more perks than most kids get.  Especially in the current economy in the US where the divide between the very rich and everyone else has become so great.  Especially when conservatives are passing laws to require kids to bear the babies of their (often related) rapists. And when conservatives like Mike Johnson have tried to make being LGBTQ+ a crime.

That Johnson said this in a speech like this, tells me he doesn't understand how the vast majority of people in this country live. 

3.  On a more positive note, he also said this:  

"We stand at a very dangerous time, I’m stating the obvious. We all know that the world is in turmoil, but a strong America is good for the entire world. We are the beacon of freedom and we must preserve this grand experiment in self-governance. It still is. We’re only 247 years into this grand experiment. We don’t know how long it will last, but we do know that the founders told us to take good care of it."

At a time when many of us see the reelection of the former president as the end of US democracy, it's good to hear this.  But hearing it from the lips of an extreme conservative who voted against confirming Biden's election, and who has that ex-president's support, makes me question what he meant by this.  

A.  Does he define democracy the way I do?  He's a conservative Christian, former state legislature, from a state whose legislature was told to fix their gerrymandered voting districts and they refused.  It took the US Supreme Court to compel the changes. [And double checking this now, I see that all the Congressional chaos, plus the Israeli-Hamas war, has pushed to the background new developments in the Lousiana gerrymandering case -  that just last week the 5th Circuit has delayed this action further.

Does he have a different definition of democracy than I have?  Reports on his past statements tell us that belief in God is more important than the US Constitution. A Politico interview today reports: 

"Johnson has said that [David] Barton’s ideas and teachings have been extremely influential on him, and that is essentially rooting him in this longer tradition of Christian nationalism. Christian nationalism essentially posits the idea that America is founded on God’s laws, and that the Constitution is a reflection of God’s laws. Therefore, any interpretation of the Constitution must align with Christian nationalists’ understanding of God’s laws. Freedom for them means freedom to obey God’s law, not freedom to do what you want. So really, Christian supremacy and a particular type of conservative Christianity is at the heart of Johnson’s understanding of the Constitution and an understanding of our government."

B.  Is this all a well rehearsed performance to appear to be the polite new leader who will welcome all to work through our issues?  Or is it just a cover for a far right religious radical who is now the leader of the US House of Representatives?  

I'm inclined to think it is just a cover.  But while Johnson has managed to keep out of the spotlight up until now, all the world's spotlights are shining brightly on him.  And the internet means everything he's ever publicly said in the past will be blown up and examined in detail.  It's already begun.  

And if the Republicans had a rare show of unity Wednesday when they elected Johnson to be Speaker, is it going to last?  The rules that allowed one member to call for ousting the Speaker are still in place.   One objector with four other GOP supporters could overthrow Johnson the way Gaetz overthrew McCarthy.  But for the moment the GOP house thugs appear happy with Johnson.  

The Democrats will clearly make Johnson a poster boy when they campaign to put Democrats back in the majority of the House of Representatives.   

Overall his speech, was just under 20 minutes and you can watch and listen to it here.