One final note on the ERA, from Associate White House Counsel, Ainsley Hayes:

(Via Aaron Sorkin.)

A helpful explainer^[1] from Emily Amick on the history of the ERA, and the legal issues that suggest President Biden’s recent assertion is legally meaningless, in large part due to the amendment’s ratification deadline—plus an interesting take:

Legally, I think it’s pretty clear the congressional ratification deadline is law, and therefore needs to be extended in order to ratify the ERA. There is a political argument here to push for ratification, and even to steamroll Biden into doing this to force Trump’s hand-picked Supreme Court to overturn it (under Trump’s watch). This could create a galvanizing moment for further political organizing.

The problem is that this isn’t who Joe Biden is. He isn’t someone who will do something contravening Supreme Court precedent, and I don’t think this is the issue he is going to evolve for.

She wrote this in December, 2024 and later added a postscript:

The more I’ve thought about this the more I’ve realized what a terrible strategic move this idea was. If Biden were to force the Archivist to publish the ERA, it would have gotten litigated and gone to the majority-conservative Supreme Court. They would undoubtedly overturn the decision, and in doing so would likely make arguments similar to those we saw in the 2020 Trump OLC memo. They would give us a binding decision that Congress can’t fix the ratification deadline. The actual result of this would be to make it nearly impossible to ever get the ERA as an actual part of the Constitution. This strategic mess is emblematic of the leadership we’ve seen from feminist organizations who oversaw the fall of Roe, legally, politically and optically flawed.

I don’t think President Biden was “steamrolled” into this, and clearly he’s “evolved” at least a little bit on the matter. While he hasn’t pushed the Archivist to ratify, I agree with Amick’s assessment that Biden’s decision was meant to create a “galvanizing moment,” but I don’t agree that it was a strategic blunder.

Time will tell, but I’m glad President Biden is doing something to nudge along a 50-plus-year amendment.

Biden Calls Equal Rights Amendment ‘the Law of the Land’ and ‘Part of Our Constitution,’ Daring Conservatives to Say Otherwise

President Joe Biden, in a White House statement:

On January 27, 2020, the Commonwealth of Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. The American Bar Association (ABA) has recognized that the Equal Rights Amendment has cleared all necessary hurdles to be formally added to the Constitution as the 28th Amendment. I agree with the ABA and with leading legal constitutional scholars that the Equal Rights Amendment has become part of our Constitution.

The New York Times, in a multi-bylined article notes:

Under the Constitution, however, the president has no direct role in approving amendments and his statement has no legal force by itself. The archivist of the United States, a Biden appointee, has refused to formally publish the amendment on the grounds that it has not met the requirements to become part of the Constitution.

President Biden did this knowing there’d be court and congressional battles, and is effectively daring them to argue that women aren’t equal under the law, rather than cowering behind “there’s no law that says they are, so who can tell?” Such battles could force many national and state leaders to go on the record and might prove quite distracting to the incoming regime.

To which I say: Fantastic! Do more! President Biden should throw more progressive-but-controversial acts behind him as he strides out of the Oval Office, like caltrops strewn in front of a speeding car.

Anna Betts, reporting for The Guardian:

American flags at the US Capitol will fly at full-staff for President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration in Washington DC on Monday, despite a White House order for flags to remain at half-staff for 30 days after the death of former president Jimmy Carter last month.

The House speaker, Mike Johnson, first announced the change on Tuesday. In a post on social media he wrote: “On January 20th, the flags at the Capitol will fly at full-staff to celebrate our country coming together behind the inauguration of our 47th President, Donald Trump.” He added: “The flags will be lowered back to half-staff the following day to continue honoring President Jimmy Carter.”

How does the Speaker of the House get to decide what happens to flags on the Capitol? Isn’t that federal property, under the control of (still) President Joe Biden?

This, of course, follows Donald Trump’s childish griping about the flags being flown at half-staff during his inauguration, calling Democrats “giddy” about it. As I noted previously, no one is giddy, it’s the law. But apparently no one has to follow the law anymore if it makes them feel insecure.

It’s not just Trump and his Johnson worried about being at half-staff. Robert Jimison at the New York Times reports:

Republican governors in Alabama, Iowa, Nebraska and Florida also announced that flags in their states would be raised on Monday and returned to half-staff the next day.

Plus the Republican governors of Texas, North Dakota, Idaho, and Tennessee, according to Iris Seaton at the Asheville Citizen Times.

These “leaders” have no respect for the flag or the laws of this country. They’ve pledged fealty to one man, patriotism or common decency be damned.

In Trump’s social media whining, he also wrote:

[…] the Flag may, for the first time ever during an Inauguration of a future President, be at half mast.

He’s wrong, of course. From the January 21, 1973 edition of the New York Times, in which R. W. Apple Jr. wrote about the second inauguration of Richard Nixon:

The President spoke from temporary portico erected adjacent to the Capitol, with the United States Marine Band, in scarlet tunics, arrayed before him. All flags on the Capitol were still at half‐staff in memory of former President Harry S. Truman, who died last Dec. 26.

Even Nixon had more integrity and empathy.

Harry Litman disputes, in an article for The New Republic, the very common criticism (including my own) that Merrick Garland slow-walked the Trump investigation:

The charge of foot-dragging has become a meme. Elie Honig, writing in New York magazine, was particularly cocksure: "The debate about whether Garland took too long to charge the Trump cases—or to appoint a Special Counsel to get the job done—is over. Exhibit A: there's not going to be a federal trial before the 2024 election. End of story."

But the charge is a bum rap.

The record demonstrates that Garland made investigating Trump a top priority, even as he also focused on restoring integrity to the Justice Department. The investigation was extraordinarily complicated and slowed by unusual and unpredictable obstacles, including the Supreme Court's lawless immunity ruling. Moreover, events entirely outside of Garland's control ensured that Trump would not have been held accountable before the election. Finally, Garland's efforts, among others, made Trump's criminality more than clear to the voters, but they nevertheless were content to reelect a felon and serial sexual offender.

The storyline that Garland let moss grow on the investigation—some say until Jack Smith came aboard, others until the work of the January 6 committee embarrassed the department—doesn’t gibe with even the publicly available evidence, which likely will be supplemented over time with details that we still don’t know.

Litman outlines a compelling rebuttal, suggesting Garland may deserve more credit for pursuing this case than I (and others) have given him.

He concludes:

It’s understandable that some of the frustration over Trump’s escape from justice has been displaced onto Garland. We put our hope in him to bring Trump down, and it didn’t happen. It’s easy to make him a scapegoat. But once you factor in all the other reasons for delay, it never was in the cards to bring Trump to justice before Election Day. And that was notwithstanding an overall diligent focus on the prospect from Garland’s first days in office.

Perhaps instead we should focus our ire on those who allowed Trump to remain a politically viable candidate after January 6, 2021, like Mitch McConnell and the 42 other Senators who voted to acquit Trump in his second impeachment trial.

David Smith, writing for The Guardian:

Donald Trump would have been convicted of crimes over his failed attempt to cling to power in 2020 but for his victory in last year’s US presidential election, according to the special counsel who investigated him.

Special Counsel Jack Smith concludes Volume 1 of his just-released 174-page Special Counsel Report thusly:

The Department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind. Indeed, but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.

While every prosecutor is expected to claim “we would have won,” the depth and scope of the report suggests an extremely solid case—unsurprising, considering we all watched the events it charges unfold live as they happened.

But Donald Trump did exactly what he set out to do: Delay, delay, delay, and hope to convince a plurality of Americans to grant him a get-out-of-jail-free card. And while I can’t say definitively, I think it’s reasonable to suggest that had Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed a special prosecutor a year earlier—or perhaps had President Biden nominated someone else for AG—Trump would have likely been convicted of his attacks on democracy, or at least found himself severely weakened politically, well before the election, and we would not be in the nightmare position we now find ourselves of having a convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, and clearly criminal politician as president.

The American people were denied justice, and democracy might be Donald Trump’s next victim.

Jamison Foser over at Finding Gravity brings the receipts in a great takedown of the aforelinked Washington Post’s all-but-useless capsule approvals of Trump’s nominees, highlighting their five worst endorsements. I only wish he'd done all of them.

The Washington Post Editorial Board weighed in over the weekend on Donald Trump’s cabinet picks:

We would not have picked any of his choices for our hypothetical Cabinet. But, as we have argued for decades, that is not the standard we — or U.S. senators — should apply when evaluating potential executive nominees for Senate confirmation. The president-elect won the election. He deserves deference in building his team, and the Americans who elected him deserve an operational government, absent disqualifying deficiencies in competence, temperament or philosophy.

By that standard, all but two of Trump’s planned Cabinet nominees seem confirmable — as well as all but two of his picks for Cabinet-rank jobs that require confirmation.

These are little more than thumbs-up or thumbs-down for each, with a sentence or two capsule review (at best; some have no commentary at all).

For example, for Doug Burgum, nominee for Secretary of the Interior:

The outgoing North Dakota governor and Stanford MBA built a successful software company that he sold to Microsoft.

I’m unclear how this is relevant experience for running the Department of the Interior—unless, perhaps, there’s a plan to sell federal land to Microsoft.

Or for Sean P. Duffy, nominee for Transportation:

The former reality TV star is also a former congressman from Wisconsin. He’ll still need to study.

That’s it. Remember, the Post Editorial Board’s criteria for approval is they’re “absent disqualifying deficiencies in competence, temperament or philosophy.” I guess “reality TV star” is the new mark of competence in the coming Trump regime.

This is especially deep brown-nosing following the Post’s cowardly refusal to endorse a presidential candidate this election cycle. The editorial board should be ashamed of itself.

Mike Allen and Sara Fischer for Axios:

Mark Zuckerberg's Meta is terminating major DEI programs, effective immediately — including for hiring, training and picking suppliers, according to a new employee memo obtained by Axios. […]

From the memo itself (reportedly written by Janelle Gale, vice president of Human Resources):

The legal and policy landscape surrounding diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the United States is changing. The Supreme Court of the United States has recently made decisions signaling a shift in how courts will approach DEI. It reaffirms longstanding principles that discrimination should not be tolerated or promoted on the basis of inherent characteristics. The term "DEI" has also become charged, in part because it is understood by some as a practice that suggests preferential treatment of some groups over others.

Every word of this is utter bullshit. It falsely equates “DEI” with “discrimination”, when DEI programs are about providing opportunity and ensuring equality. It uses a deeply conservative, far-right Supreme Court to buttress the company’s (and by that I mean Mark Zuckerberg’s) own believes about the value of these programs. You could win good money betting these folks also think Dred Scott v. Sanford and Plessy v. Ferguson were decided correctly.

Meta (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Threads, Meta Quest, Ray Ban Meta Glasses) is just the latest in a long list of companies which never really believed in these programs. As I wrote back in July when Microsoft announced their DEI dissolution,

It was always just lip service. Companies never really bought into the progressive ideals. They just wanted to shut up Black folk.

Last month, Costco strongly defended its DEI practices. They’re the only large company I’ve seen take a (semi-) public stance in favor of inclusion and diversity. Even Apple, which I (still) believe takes DEI seriously, has been quiet (while they seem to be hiring for I&D roles, they’ve quietly ended Apple Entrepreneur Camp). Will Apple ever make a public statement about the importance of inclusion and diversity?

These companies are merely using the Supreme Court and “changing landscapes” as convenient cover. The programs are being rolled back because the class of people most affected by a push for equality are those who’ve benefited from a lack of it. Once again, when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

In December I speculated about the eventual fate of Judge Erin Gall:

My unsupported-by-any-facts guess is that by avoiding a hearing she expects to lose, she preserves some standing with the Courts, and perhaps allows for a very lucrative pension she might otherwise be ineligible for if the appeal failed. There might even be a job offer that’s contingent on her being merely “a retired judge” rather than “a fired judge.”

(Is it too much to suggest such an offer would be with the incoming administration?)

I was wrong about the “incoming administration” part, but, per Mike Goodwin and Patrick Tine of the Times-Union:

Erin P. Gall, the state Supreme Court Justice who initially fought removal from the bench after a July 2022 incident in which she threatened to shoot a group of Black teenagers, has landed a job as an attorney working for Herkimer County.

The disclosure of her new position as an assistant county attorney is included in a filing from the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, which declined to sign onto Gall’s bid to end her appeal of the commission’s recommendation that she should be removed from her $232,600-a-year post.

The supposed new job pays $52,000 a year (for two days a week) and is state pension eligible.

Quite the step down, but it still gives her the ability to retire on New York State’s taxpayers’ dime, and she’s still involved in deciding people’s legal fates.

Though, “I’m a f___ing Assistant County Attorney! That’s how Assistant County Attorney Gall rolls!” doesn’t quite hit the same.

Brooke Nelson Alexander, writing for Reader’s Digest, in 2023:

Per federal law, all government buildings, public schools, offices and military bases must lower their flags to half-staff for 30 days when a U.S. president or former president dies.

It is not, in fact, something one gets “giddy” about. It’s the law.

An incredible, must-read story from Joshua Kaplan at Pro Publica about “John Williams,” who spent years infiltrating right-wing militias:

Posing as an ideological compatriot, Williams had penetrated the top ranks of two of the most prominent right-wing militias in the country. He’d slept in the home of the man who claims to be the new head of the Oath Keepers, rifling through his files in the middle of the night. He’d devised elaborate ruses to gather evidence of militias’ ties to high-ranking law enforcement officials. He’d uncovered secret operations like the surveillance of a young journalist, then improvised ways to sabotage the militants’ schemes. In one group, his ploys were so successful that he became the militia’s top commander in the state of Utah.

Now he was a fugitive. He drove south toward a desert four hours from the city, where he could disappear.

The entire piece is wild, but the parts I found most disturbing describe how close members of the militias are to the U.S. military and to law enforcement. For example:

[David] Coates was an elder statesman of sorts in the Oath Keepers, a 73-year-old Vietnam veteran with a Hulk Hogan mustache. There’d been a break-in at the Utah attorney general’s office, he reported to the group, and for some unspoken reason, the Oath Keepers seemed to think this was of direct relevance to them. Coates promised to find out more about the burglary: “The Sheriff should have some answers” to “my inquiries today or tomorrow.”

That last line would come to obsess Williams. He sent a long, made-up note about his own experiences collaborating with law enforcement officials. “I’m curious, how responsive is the Sheriff to your inquiries? Or do you have a source you work with?”

“The Sheriff has become a personal friend who hosted my FBI interview,” Coates responded. “He opens a lot of doors.” Coates had been in D.C. on Jan. 6, he’d told Williams. It’d make sense if that had piqued the FBI’s interest.

To Williams, it hinted at a more menacing scenario — at secret ties between those who threaten the rule of the law and those duty-bound to enforce it.

We are sixteen days away from a regime that supports—and is supported by—right-wing militias, members of which are either in law enforcement and the military, or are “personal friends” with those who are.

We are in dangerous times.

(Via @funnymonkey b/w/o @mmalc.)

George Lakoff and Gil Duran at FrameLab offer “Advice for defeating the authoritarian threat.” All are great; three stood out for me:

Avoid brain rot and lies. Social media is overrun with clickbait traps that profit from outrage and misdirection. Block these and seek out legitimate information sources grounded in truth and reality. Subscribe to trusted media outlets so journalism survives – we’ll need it more than ever. Always do a basic fact-check before sharing memes, texts, or stories. Never spread false stories or conspiracy theories, even if you wish they were true, even if you think they’re funny. Once we can no longer discern fact from falsehood (or we no longer care), the authoritarians win. Don’t be on the wrong side of the information war!

I’ve seen a lot of very compelling social media posts that I very much wanted to be true and to share. My natural skepticism would kick in and lead me to do some digging, only to find it was misleading, a conspiracy, or an outright hoax. I’m always happy I don’t accidentally spread misinformation, but it’s getting harder, and we all need to be more vigilant.

Don’t help Trump. Some of Trump's opponents are obsessed with focusing on him personally; thus, they unwittingly amplify and boost his propaganda. By focusing solely on Trump – his ridiculous statements, mannerisms, and antics – Trump's opponents make him a larger-than-life figure. They also reinforce his messages by constantly repeating them and thus marketing them. In short, they help Trump. We can’t completely ignore his quirks and lies, but the constant boosting of his every utterance appears to have worked in his favor so far. See: 2024 election results.

I’ve been guilty of dunking on The Other Side by sharing news or memes that make them look doltish or disorganized, but I recognized I was part of their propaganda machine. For the coming Mump Regime, I’m defaulting to a new policy: Media oxygen deprivation. I won’t ignore them, but I won’t blindly boost them either. Let their ideas suffocate in the right-wing echo chambers while the rest of us focus on democratic efforts to govern.

Demand accountability. Authoritarians thrive on impunity. It’s critical to hold leaders, corporations, and institutions accountable. Insist on accountability. Write letters, sign petitions, and participate in boycotts when necessary. Demand transparency and fairness at every level. Corruption and injustice wither under the light of scrutiny.

You’ll be forgiven for wondering if this could possibly still be true today. Trump, the GOP, the Supreme Court, state legislatures—all have repeatedly escaped accountability. Many simply ask themselves what the consequences of their actions will be, or, as Dave Rahardja succinctly put it, “Or Else What.” For most, the answer is “nothing.” This must change.

The rest of Lakoff and Duran’s advice is just as compelling, cogent, and actionable.

Jay Kuo pens a thorough (and thoroughly entertaining) summary of last week’s in-fighting:

Right wing populism has always had an uneasy relationship with the tech bro billionaire class, which is often responsible for who gets good jobs and who doesn’t in the U.S.

Over Christmas, that uneasy tension erupted into an online bloodbath as the face-eating leopards pounced. Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who are the co-chairs of Trump’s newly designated Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), came out publicly in favor of H-1B visas for highly skilled, foreign workers.

Musk said the quiet part out loud, arguing that the number of "super talented engineers" who were also "super motivated" was far too low, implying that Americans lacked both talent and motivation.

Hmmm. Folks on the right didn’t like that so much.

I cackled throughout.

The Guardian:

Broadly unpopular then, Carter went on to become not just the longest-lived president but also to have one of the most distinguished post-presidential careers. He was awarded the Nobel peace prize for “decades of untiring effort” for human rights and peacemaking. His humanitarian work was conducted under the Atlanta-based Carter Center, which he founded in the early 1980s, with Rosalynn.

Jimmy Carter was the first president I was aware of, thanks to my grandmother, who thought him a kind man. I knew him best for his commitment to Habitat for Humanity. In the handful of instances I’ve seen him speak, he always seemed to have a twinkle in his eye. It certainly seemed to me like he enjoyed being a former president far more than being president. And it positively tickled me when he declared his intention to live long enough to vote for Kamala Harris—and then did so.

President Biden has ordered U.S. flags to be flown at half-staff for the next 30 days and declared January 9, 2025 a National Day of Mourning. I’m grateful President Carter will be honored in a state funeral led by a president respectful of both the office and the man.

Elsewhere:

• The New York Times

A welcome yet deeply unsatisfying coda^[1] to an appalling story I linked to back in August, from Brian Lee at New York Law Journal:

A New York judge who's serving a suspension with pay for threatening to shoot Black teens, and had urged police to do so, for crashing a high school graduation party her family attended, will no longer appeal for her reinstatement, the Law Journal has learned.

State Supreme Court Justice Erin Gall of Oneida County said through a motion filed by her attorney that she’s no longer opposing the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s recommendation for the state’s top court to remove her.

The Commission, Lee writes,

[…] had unanimously voted to recommend Gall's removal for a “racially offensive, profane, prolonged public diatribe” [….]

Instead of appealing, she’s resigning:

“I have resigned from my position and have no intention to remain on the bench even if I were to succeed before the Court of Appeals,” the motion read.

I presume she’s resigning before she’s fired for cause—she would be prevented from ever being a judge again if she lost her appeal.

My unsupported-by-any-facts guess is that by avoiding a hearing she expects to lose, she preserves some standing with the Courts, and perhaps allows for a very lucrative pension she might otherwise be ineligible for if the appeal failed. There might even be a job offer that’s contingent on her being merely “a retired judge” rather than “a fired judge.”

(Is it too much to suggest such an offer would be with the incoming administration?)

Her official reason, though, is fear for her family:

In her motion she said that her “story has [been] carried by not only local but national news and social media. The attention incited numerous physical threats upon my family, requiring 24-hour law enforcement protection. In particular, my two sons received numerous death threats. The fear has been immeasurable and terrifying. I do not believe that I can move forward with arguing this appeal for fear that my family will be put in danger once again.”

Also:

Gall asked the Court of Appeals to give her a lifeline by rendering "no specific findings other than removal to help lessen any potential harm to my family due to social media and national news exposure.”

While I don’t doubt the threats upon her and her family, I do find it rich that she’s effectively pleading for mercy so she and her family aren’t ravaged on Bluesky and YouTube.

I found this bit especially exasperating:

“I certainly do not think it fair to characterize my reactions as racially motivated and to stigmatize me with that finding based on the facts in the case,” she added.

I’ve said it many times: Racists aren’t concerned about being racist, just being called racist.

NPR Politics Podcast, in the show notes for the August 30, 2024 episode:

In this episode we incorrectly say the veterans’ organization Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) called Donald Trump’s remarks related to a confrontation at Arlington National Cemetery “asinine.” In fact, the VFW described Trump’s previous remarks in which he described the Presidential Medal of Freedom as superior to the Congressional Medal of Honor as asinine.

Glad they cleared that up.

Arelis R. Hernández, writing at The Washington Post:

[Mary Ann] Obregón was one of four Latina women, three of whom were in their 70s and 80s, who said they were intimidated by the morning visits from armed investigators while they were still in their pajamas. Lidia Martinez, an 87-year-old retired educator, and Inelda Rodriguez, 73, a Dilley City Council member, were forced to turn over their phones and laptops.

“It was horrible, gestapo-style,” said Martinez, who added that investigators spent three hours searching her drawers and garage during the raid. “I thought we lived in a free country, not Russia.”

This is absolutely vile, in every conceivable way. It’s voter intimidation at its most glaring.

Coincidentally, I’m sure, Texas has seemingly moved to “Leans Republican” from “Likely Republican” according to 270toWin.

Hernández, again: 

State investigators tied to state Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office executed search warrants last week at homes across three counties, as part of what Paxton said was a two-year investigation of alleged fraud and vote harvesting.

The Republican officeholder said in a statement that his office had “sufficient evidence” to confiscate cellphones, laptops and documents. Paxton’s office targeted a Democratic legislative candidate in a swing district important to state Republicans, her political consultant, campaign workers, a local mayor and a city council member in raids on their small-town homes.

Paxton—impeached but acquitted by his fellow Texas Republicans—is considered a possibility for U.S. Attorney General in a second Trump administration. This is part of an ongoing audition for that job, and an indication of how the Justice Department will likely operate if Trump wins.

There’s this small moment, right at the end of last night’s Democratic National Convention, which tells me so much about Kamala Harris. A little kid comes over to say hi to her and her husband, Doug.

Her husband gives the kid a solid, perfectly acceptable handshake, treating them as an adult.

Kamala stoops down to the kid’s level and makes direct eye contact, treating them as an equal. She even has a few words for the kid, then gives a little pinch of the chin.

It’s a subtle moment. Beautiful, empathetic, and, I’m guessing, instinctive. She clearly loves being around kids. Maybe this is why Gen-Z loves her.

Eighteen years of Downfall parodies have led to this. Every line is a political evisceration. It’s absolutely savage, because it’s easy to imagine a conversation uncomfortably close to this happening in Trump camp.

(Via sundaedivine.)

Madiba K. Dennie, writing in Balls and Strikes:

In July 2022, a high school graduation party in upstate New York turned into a melee. Police officers arrived on the scene after receiving reports of multiple fights. Then, a partygoer walked right up to the cops and introduced herself. “I’m Erin Gall,” she said. “I’m a Supreme Court judge.”

Dennie’s story from a few days ago focuses, rightly, on the abusive and abhorrent behavior of the judge, and that, based on her conduct, she should lose her job.

She pressured the officers to arrest four Black teenagers, saying she “might have to call the chief of police” if the cops didn’t comply. She insulted the Black kids’ intelligence, saying that they “don’t look like they’re that smart” and were “not going to business school, that’s for sure.”….

She also threatened to shoot the teens, claiming that she was allowed to do so to trespassers. “I’ll shoot them on the property,” Gall said. (It is important to note here that the property was not even hers.)

New York State doesn’t have a “stand your ground” law. In fact, it has a “duty to retreat” law, except when an attacker is in your home, or in cases of robbery, burglary, kidnapping, and sexual assault. None of which applied here. Not only does she seem to be racist and biased, it appears she’s not even a competent judge.

The full complaint against Gall is absolutely jaw dropping and well worth reading; it goes into full detail on the depth of her rage and privilege that evening.

She absolutely deserves to lose her judgeship, and any cases which ever came before her involving police or Black people should probably be reviewed, if not tossed outright.

Yes, her behavior is that appalling.

But can we take a moment to acknowledge the responding officers?

Dennie writes,

The cops, who I assume are the most self-aware police officers in the tri-state area, resisted Gall’s directives.

I think she massively undersells this. When cops show up, they often escalate an already tense situation, often with deadly results.

Not these cops. These officers were calm, polite, helpful. They shut down the racist, violent rhetoric coming from the judge and her family and friends. They were solicitous toward the young Black men who were the focus of her diatribes. They wished everyone safe rides home, and it sounded like they meant it.

They were everything we’re told police officers are supposed to be.

Early in the video, as he clears everyone out, an officer approaches two of the young Black men who were part of the altercations. The officer immediately expresses concern that one of the guys may be hurt, reaching out to touch the guy’s shoulder and face. He asks if he needs medical attention, suggests the injury may need stitches, and calls someone over to help. He then asks what happened; the second young man moves closer, and starts to explain, with an opening caveat:

Officer, officer, I don’t want you think I’m touching you or nothing—

He does this with his hands raised, arms bent at the elbow, palms out. The gesture is unmistakable: I’m harmless, no need to fear me. Hands up, don’t shoot.

The officer responds immediately:

Nah, nah, you’re alright.

Immediate de-escalation.

Toward the end of the evening, as the last people are leaving, there’s this exchange between a young Black woman in her car, and the officer:

Woman: Have a good night, officer. Thank you for being respectful.

Officer: It’s the only way.

Attendee: Definitely.

You can hear the appreciation, verging on relief, in her voice as she drives off.

Imagine if all police were this self-aware.

Pretty good introductory video (community, Nebraska, military service, teacher, football coach, common good…), but it’s this Instagram video with his daughter, Hope, that I find is absolutely endearing.

I noted earlier, of VP Harris’s VP selection:

The pick was announced on Instagram first, a full ten minutes before it was released on X/Twitter. This is good. Politicians (and others) need to deemphasize Musk’s awful site when breaking news.

Jason Sattler, AKA LOLGOP, guest posting on framelab:

Go “Twitter Last.” Campaigns from Harris for President on down should clarify that they will post to Twitter only after updating other platforms. Steering the media away from Twitter helps democracy. Announcing you will make news elsewhere will send reporters and users to these other platforms, as will every announcement the media makes that says, “As the campaign noted on BlueSky…” etc. Political strategist Murshed Zaheed calls this going “Twitter Last.” A huge announcement – like naming a vice presidential nominee – would be a great time to try this strategy.

This has been on my mind since President Biden announced his decision to step down as the nominee, and to endorse VP Harris, on X/Twitter. I’m glad to see Harris “took” the advice.

Sattler summarizes the problem with using X/Twitter:

There has never been a threat to democracy quite like Elon Musk. Now is a great time to stop helping him.

Announcing on X/Twitter, or even just using it, gives power to a platform and a person very much biased against democracy. As Sattler explains, the issue is Musk himself:

The Tesla CEO emerged as the most prominent supporter of Donald Trump who isn’t on the Supreme Court (or isn’t Vladimir Putin). And no one has taken Kamala Harris’s exuberant rise worse than Elon. Possibly not even Trump.

Musk’s weaponization of Twitter in the information war worsens daily, using tactics pioneered by Trump.

So why do politicians, pundits, and journalists remain—and break news—on X/Twitter? Inertia, says Sattler:

Let’s be honest. For many people, Twitter is the “sunk-cost social network” for those who don’t want to learn a new platform or give up the following or news feed they may have spent more than a decade building.

He notes:

Unfortunately, despite its dwindling audience, Twitter remains a hub for many of the nation’s top journalists, celebrities, and influencers. Their credibility heightens Musk’s unprecedented perch in society. He’s a mogul as powerful as Rupert Murdoch with a voice louder than any cable news pundit.

In January 2023, Dan Gillmore wrote that Journalists (And Others) Should Leave Twitter. Here’s How They Can Get Started; his advice for journalists holds for politicians too, and for anyone who wants to loosen the grip of Elon Musk on our global discourse.

It’s doesn’t really matter whether you join Mastodon, Bluesky, or Threads; pick one or two, and find your people. I’ve settled on Mastodon, but I have Bluesy and Threads accounts too. The more people who depart X/Twitter, the less mass remains to keep people there, and the better we’ll be long term.

Dan Pfeiffer, writing in The Message Box:

The political logic of the Walz pick is less obvious than with Shapiro and Kelly, the other two finalists. This is especially true with Shapiro, a very popular governor from the critical state of Pennsylvania. Harris likely has no path to the White House without Pennsylvania.

And:

In picking Walz, Kamala Harris looked at something broader than winning one state. She sought a running mate to help her in all seven battleground states. Winning Pennsylvania alone is not enough to get to the White House. Presidential politics is more chess than checkers, and choosing Walz is evidence that Kamala Harris is looking at the whole board.

Lest we forget, the queen is the most powerful piece in chess.

Kamala Harris, via her Instagram account:

I am proud to announce that I’ve asked @timwalz to be my running mate.

A great pick.

It wasn’t the expected choice, although it seemed more likely after calling MAGA folks “weird”, a word that’s stuck, is driving the other side bonkers, and shows he can be an “attack dog” without being “nasty”. I’m sure it raised his profile tremendously.

He seems as midwest as midwest can be, with a definite “everyone’s favorite uncle” vibe, which balances Harris’s “cool Cali auntie” chic. It helps, too, that he’s won in areas that have strong a Republican electorate who might have stayed home this cycle.

Walz also compares remarkably well against J.D. Vance. In some ways, it’s feels like “Actually Midwest” vs. “Hollywood’s image of Midwest.”

I can’t wait for the vice presidential debate.

(Worth noting: The pick was announced on Instagram first, a full ten minutes before it was released on X/Twitter. This is good. Politicians (and others) need to deemphasize Musk’s awful site when breaking news.)

From AWilderDoctor on X/Twitter. (I don’t like linking to X/Twitter, but this one was too good.)

The painting is Blue Monday, by the late Annie Lee.

It’s an evocative use of this painting as a Black, South Asian woman is asked to defend democracy, and tens of thousands of Black women from across the country wearily but resolutely rise with her.

(Via NAACP.)

I originally planned to post this over the weekend, as an example of the vice president’s ability to energize and engage a crowd. The audience loved her. They riffed together. Her energy, passion, and, yes, charisma shone through.

My headline was going to be More of Vice President Harris Speaking, Please.

That will no longer be an issue.

Dorothy Thompson, Harper’s Magazine:

It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi.…

I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis.…

Nazism has nothing to do with race and nationality. It appeals to a certain type of mind.

It is also, to an immense extent, the disease of a generation—the generation which was either young or unborn at the end of the last war.… It is the disease of the so-called “lost generation.”

This essay is shockingly relevant today, some 83 years after it was first published in 1941. Simply replace “Nazi” with “MAGA.” 

Actually, you might not even need to do that.

Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi…. But the frustrated and humiliated intellectual, the rich and scared speculator, the spoiled son, the labor tyrant, the fellow who has achieved success by smelling out the wind of success—they would all go Nazi in a crisis.

We’re seeing this play out in real time, as crypto bros, venture capitalists, and social media tyrants rush to support Donald Trump (especially in light of his VP pick, J.D. Vance, who worked in VC and was a protégé of Peter Thiel).

Bobby Allyn, at NPR:

[Marc] Andreessen, who has historically supported Democrats, said the “final straw” with his shift away from Biden was the president’s policy aimed at the super rich: a 25% tax on unrealized gains on households that are worth more than $100 million.

These cosplaying “masters of the universe” will cheerfully sell out this country before they share even a minuscule fraction more of their unimaginable wealth, happy to usher in an autocratic regime which allows them still more unchecked power, as they become even more absurdly wealthy.

They would be pathetic if they weren’t such an existential threat.