Younger Demographics and Our Political Future

        Florida Democrat Maxwell Frost, 

      the First Z-Gen elected to Congress

Roughly 30% of the US population is under 24, and that same percentage applies to those over 55. The difference: the older group is dying off while the younger group is moving on as new younger voters rise below them. As the planet passes the 8 billion population mark, slated to rise to 8.5 billion by 2030, as climate change reconfigures where food and water will be sufficient, demands on natural resources and living space will trigger migration, conflict and starvation. As 50% of the greenhouse emissions are generated by the richest 10%, the rising pressure to fund the environmental damage in third world countries generated by first world consumers will only increase. Most of the rest of the world is younger and hungrier than is the United States, particularly in developing countries.

While world wars and regional conflicts far from our shores have embroiled the US at varying levels of involvement, we have also gone through our periods of pressured isolationism – most recently under Donald Trump – turning our back on world from which we truly can no longer be separated. We face shortages of sophisticated microchips that, so far, we just do not manufacture. Rare earths for our high-manufacturing sector, particularly car batteries, has only limited supply here… forcing us to buy “there.” While we have generated self-sufficiency in oil and natural gas, that fact only relates to supply, not price. Again, global demand sets the value, and Oklahoma and Texas billionaires slorp up the profits, never for a moment thinking that they should supply Americans with deep local discounts.

This is the world that faces rising American generations. Older workers are staying in the job market longer, exerting a downward pressure on opportunities and advancement and upward pressures on housing and consumer goods. Where does “God” fit in all this? Younger Americans increasingly define themselves as “spiritual” or simply do not actively participate in routine attendance of religious services – generating a consistent pattern of disaffiliation over the years.

A September 13th Pew report tells us that accelerating attitudinal changes vis-à-vis religion will redefine America and its recent tilt towards greater religiosity in political decision making: “Since the 1990s, large numbers of Americans have left Christianity to join the growing ranks of U.S. adults who describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or ‘nothing in particular.’ This accelerating trend is reshaping the U.S. religious landscape, leading many people to wonder what the future of religion in America might look like…

“The Center estimates that in 2020, about 64% of Americans, including children, were Christian. People who are religiously unaffiliated, sometimes called religious ‘nones,’ accounted for 30% of the U.S. population. Adherents of all other religions – including Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists – totaled about 6%... Depending on whether religious switching continues at recent rates, speeds up or stops entirely, the projections show Christians of all ages shrinking from 64% to between a little more than half (54%) and just above one-third (35%) of all Americans by 2070. Over that same period, ‘nones’ would rise from the current 30% to somewhere between 34% and 52% of the U.S. population.”

Confusingly, an October Pew Research report tells us that overall, 45% of all Americans believe we should accept ourselves as a Christian nation, …. but “they hold differing opinions about what that phrase means, and two-thirds of U.S. adults say churches should keep out of politics.” These numbers are fashioning the new Republican Party. And while a predominantly conservative rich minority continues to take advantage of the 2010 Supreme Court decision – in Citizen United vs FEC, which took the cap off campaign expenditures (as long as not directed by a declared candidate) – as extremists realigned themselves with such funders to finance their political ambitions, there is another political vector that is countering this effort: Education levels.

According to a recent analysis from the Atlantic, “61 percent of non-college-educated white voters cast their ballots for Republicans while just 45 percent of college-educated white voters did so. Meanwhile 53 percent of college-educated white voters cast their votes for Democrats compared with 37 percent of those without a degree.” Younger educated voters, particularly from colleges and universities with higher academic rankings, are more tolerant of gender, ethnic and gender diversity and deeply concerned with climate change. Their economic world is defined by unaffordable college tuition and those powerful student loan burdens that their parents never faced – the totality of college loan debt exceeds the aggregation of US credit card debt – and is further slammed by unaffordable housing that greets recent graduates. They are heavily pro-choice and generally disenchanted by both Republicans and Democrats.

Despite those tuition costs, these are younger demographics with better educations than ever before. The private educational research Annie E. Casey Foundation tells us: “Generation Zers are climbing a longer academic ladder. They are more likely to finish high school and pursue college compared to earlier generations, according to the Pew Research Center. Among young adults ages 18 to 21 who were ​‘no longer in high school in 2018, 57% were enrolled in a two- or four-year college.’ This same statistic was five percentage points lower — at 52% — for Millennials in 2003 and 14 percentage points lower — at 43% — for members of Generation X in 1987.

“The… Foundation’s KIDS COUNT Data Center reports a similar pro-education trend. As Gen Zers made their way through the school system from 2000 to 2019, the share of 16- to 19-year-olds who were not high school students or high school graduates dropped from 11% to just 4%. At the same time, the share of 18- to 24-year-olds who were college students or college graduates jumped from 36% to 49% over these two decades.” Indeed, 59% of millennials have at least some college education, and the younger rising generations will exceed that number.

Interestingly, despite claims that younger voters are disenchanted with elections, 27% of those who cast ballots in the recent midterms were precisely these younger voters. As I have noted before, the turnout and affiliation of these younger demographics defy pollsters at every turn. They tend not to answer calls from numbers they do not recognize, they are beginning to pull away from established social media (like Meta/Facebook and Twitter) where they can easily be tracked and are highly resistant to texts (they don’t use email much) requesting their opinions. So, polls are increasingly inaccurate and less reliable in predicting probably election results… as long as these younger voters participate in elections. But they will define our political future!

I’m Peter Dekom, and the real fear of “they shall not replace us” is an untenable rejection of what is happening without even looking at immigration patterns!

Does TikTok Really Equal Teenage Candy Laced with Razor Blades?

 

The feds – including the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee – are investigating TikTok as a national security threat, a direct user data pipeline to the company’s owners (ByteDance) in the People’s Republic of China. Hence the Chinese government. The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) is drilling down on how the Website has become a search engine for vulnerable teens, especially young girls struggling with their body image and feeling the brunt of peer denigration and judgement. TikTok offers de facto lessons on how just plain young teen and tween girls (theoretically, the minimum user age is 13) just don’t measure up to a variety of bizarre standards… and what they can do about it. From “how-to” lessons on anorexia and self-punishment by self-inflicted cuts and harm… to suicide. Various states have taken to banning the service itself, but enforcement is all but impossible at that level.

“Deadly by Design” is a 48-page CCDH report (released December 15th) that outlines the extensive TikTok reach and the unmistakable toxic dangers of this Website, upping ByteDance’s current valuation to a staggering $300 billion. Clint Rainey, writing for the December 15th FastCompany.com, summarizes the highlights of that report:

“Today, two-thirds of American teenagers are on TikTok, for an average of 80 minutes per day. CCDH says standard accounts were exposed to more pro-eating disorder or self-harm content every 3.5 minutes—that is, 23 daily exposures for the average TikToker. Vulnerable accounts were shown 12 times more harmful content, however. While standard accounts saw a total of six pro-suicide videos (or 1.5 apiece, spread over 30 minutes), the vulnerable accounts were bombarded with another every 97 seconds…

“Every 39 seconds, TikTok served the harmful content to the ‘standard’ fake accounts created as controls [in an online test by the CCDH]. But the group also created ‘vulnerable fake accounts—ones that indicated a desire to lose weight. CCDH says this group was exposed to harmful content every 27 seconds… [S]peaking to press, CCDH chief executive Imran Ahmed called TikTok’s recommendations ‘the social media equivalent of razor blades in candy—a beautiful package, but absolutely lethal content presented within minutes to users.’…

“CCDH’s definition of ‘harmful content’—versus pro-ED or pro-self-harm—could admittedly make the group some enemies. It lumped educational and recovery material in with negative content. Its researchers say that in many cases they couldn’t determine the intent of videos, but the group’s bigger argument is that even positive content can cause distress, and there’s no way to predict this effect on individuals: That is why trigger warnings were invented.

“Like all of the major social platforms, TikTok—which last year hit one billion monthly active users, the largest proportion of whom haven’t reached drinking age—has enacted policies for years that are supposed to eliminate harmful content. User guidelines ban pro-ED and pro-self-harm content, a policy enforced by a tag-team of AI and human moderators. Nevertheless, activists still accuse TikTok of doing too little to halt its proliferation. Recently, the company has stepped up efforts in response. Searches for glaring hashtags (#eatingdisorder, #anorexia, #proana, #thinspo) now redirect to a National Eating Disorder Association helpline. Teenagers reportedly merit ‘higher default standards for user privacy and safety,’ and policies have focused on them; they aren’t supposed to see ads for fasting or weight-loss cures anymore, for instance.” Good luck with that. Reality is obviously quite different.

There are so many legal pitfalls, restrictions and quicksand surrounding Web-based platforms that disseminate third party content. Section 230 of the federal Communications and Decency Act is at the center of the quagmire. It creates a “safe harbor” for purported neutral platforms from liability for such third-party content, while still allowing filtering content for copyright infringements, criminal activity, incitement to violence, clearly dangerous or hateful postings and harms to individual users, particularly children.

While both the GOP and the Democrats want to amend Section 230, they approach this from polar opposite positions. Republicans want to protect children, but otherwise they favor Elon Musk’s “say almost anything” approach to Twitter, in which even obvious dis- or misinformation is permitted. Including statements that vaccines are dangerous, even the wildly successful mRNA inoculations, QAnon theories, the “Big Steal” and replacement theories, positions that stir up the base and justify right-wing militias to take action. Democrats want these platforms to be held responsible for monitoring and removing dangerous dis- and misinformation.

While Europe, where many of these Websites are equally popular, is clamping down on these abusive uses of social media, sites in the United States hide behind the First Amendment, unwilling to accept that the harm they are causing very much mirrors an unjustified cry of “fire” in a crowded theater. As sited in Congressional testimony, controversy and catering to those most like to be addicted to toxic messaging creates Web traffic, which makes site that much more valuable to advertisers trying to reach hordes of targeted viewers. Money.

I’m Peter Dekom, and it seems to be a rule that where there is a place to hide under US law, money always seems to trump what is right.

The Truly Jagged Little Pill

 

 Abortion is now banned in these states. WAPO Map

The Truly Jagged Little Pill

Is the “Culture War” is Really a Religious War

There are way too many right-wing activists in state legislatures with an aversion to the checks and balances inherent in three independent governing bodies: executive (governor and underlying state agencies), legislature and state courts. The Brennen Center report (December 2022) reviewed “bills considered this year [that showed] legislators in at least 25 states introduced at least 74 bills that would have politicized or undermined the independence of state courts. Of these bills, at least five were signed into law across three states (Iowa, Oklahoma, and Wyoming)… An additional 22 bills advanced in a significant way, either passing favorably out of a committee or subcommittee, receiving a hearing, or passing through one house of the legislature.

“In 2022, legislators in at least 25 states considered at least 74 bills targeting state courts, 5 of which have become law in 3 states.

• Thirty-nine bills in 16 states would have either enabled the override of court decisions or prohibited state officials, including judges, from enforcing particular laws or court decisions. Four such bills were enacted.
• Eight bills in five states would have put pressure or restrictions on judicial decision-making or reduced judicial branch resources in response to decisions that displeased the legislature. No such bills were enacted.
• One bill in one state would have changed the judges or courts that hear high-profile cases against the government. No such bill was enacted.
• Seventeen bills in nine states would have injected more politics into how judges are selected. One such bill was enacted.
• Two bills in one state would have shortened judicial term lengths, subjecting judges to more frequent political pressures. No such bills were enacted.
• Seven bills in seven states would have allowed more guns in courthouses, even if courts themselves wanted to prohibit weapons. No such bills were enacted.”

One issue stands out, lurking everywhere. Nothing annoys antiabortion activists more than women finding loopholes or workarounds to regain control over their own bodies, the overwhelming sentiment of Americans across the land, to effect abortions. Of particular annoyance are those who order “abortion inducing” pills from providers in other states. The above map from the Washington Post shows where state laws have ended a right to abortion, and it is pretty obvious where one can order those jagged little pills by mail.

Given the overwhelming public sentiments against the reversal of Roe v Wade (in Dobbs vs Women’s Heath), a lot of law enforcement officers and district attorneys have been loath to press an all-out effort to arrest those engaged in the transmission of these pills, both in states that ban abortions and those from which those pills are sent. Like the most conservative parts of Texas. Writing for the Post (December 14th), Caroline Kitchener writes: “The largest antiabortion organization in Texas has created a team of advocates assigned to investigate citizens who might be distributing abortion pills illegally.

“Students for Life of America, a leading national antiabortion group, is making plans to systematically test the water Erin Brockovich-style in several large U.S. cities, searching for contaminants they say result from medication abortion… And Republican lawmakers in Texas are preparing to introduce legislation that would require internet providers to block abortion pill websites in the same way they can censor child pornography.

“Nearly six months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, triggering abortion bans in more than a dozen states, many antiabortion advocates fear that the growing availability of illegal abortion pills has undercut their landmark victory. Now they are grasping for new ways to crack down on those breaking the law.

“Antiabortion advocates had hoped the June decision would significantly decrease the number of abortions in the United States. But abortion rights activists have ramped up efforts to funnel abortion pills — a two-step regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol that is widely regarded as safe — into states with strict new bans, working with rapidly expanding international suppliers as well as U.S.-based distributors to meet demand.

“Now many conservatives are complaining that the abortion bans are not being sufficiently enforced, even though much of the illegal activity is happening in plain sight, as abortion rights advocates seek to reach women in need. Leaders interviewed on both sides of the debate had not heard of any examples of people charged for violating abortion bans since Roe fell, a crime punishable by at least several years in prison across much of the South and Midwest.

“‘Everyone who is trafficking these pills should be in jail for trafficking,’ said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, who has started to speak with Republican governors about the prevalence of illegal abortion pill networks. ‘It hasn’t happened, but that doesn’t mean it won’t.’… Abortion bans include penalties only for people involved in facilitating illegal abortions, not for the pregnant women themselves.

“The push on the right for enforcement reflects the extent to which both sides of the abortion battle are recalibrating after a tumultuous year that has challenged many long-held assumptions about the politics of the issue — and left the state of abortion access in the United States hard to assess. Interviews with more than 30 of the most influential advocacy group leaders, policymakers and litigators on the abortion issue found that far from settling the decades-old abortion question, the fall of Roe has triggered a major new phase of combat set to play out over the next few years in courtrooms, state capitals and the next presidential election.”

Will older men who overpopulate the state legislatures and overzealous antiabortionist women garner the support of red state lawmakers and enforcement officers to deal in this interstate quagmire? Will the US Supreme Court allow red states to reach into blue states supplying those pills? Does US Postal Service, as a federal agency, have an exemption? When it was put to a vote in mostly red state Kansas, antiabortionists lost. Are those states going to sustain a coat-hanger- desperate workaround that is one of the reasons Roe made sense in 1973?

I’m Peter Dekom, and zealous extremists continue to insist that everyone must share their values… and that courts lack the power to change their autocratic mandates.

A Nation of Immigrants that Hates Them

  

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Emma Lazarus in 1883 inscribed on a bronze plaque placed inside the Statue of Liberty

“The President believes that America can simultaneously be a lawful, economically dynamic, and welcoming society. We must address the problem of illegal immigration and deliver a system that is secure, productive, orderly, and fair. The President calls on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform that will secure our borders, enhance interior and worksite enforcement, create a temporary worker program, resolve – without animosity and without amnesty – the status of illegal immigrants already here, and promote assimilation into our society. All elements of this problem must be addressed together – or none of them will be solved.” 

2007 Opening of Proposal to Congress for Immigration Reform by President George W. Bush

Crop failures in Europe occurred just as transatlantic transportation modernized. Immigration was wide open for land that needed laborers and workers to build the nation. But when Irish and Italian immigrants landed, most unskilled, they were fiercely opposed by anti-Catholic mobs. For the Africans that preceded them, theirs was not a journey of choice, and their entry into mainstream society continues to be challenged well over a century and a half later. After the Civil War, America needed building, expansion and growth to fill a vast and rich nation on the road to becoming the greatest superpower on earth. Was the nation ready for them? Perhaps, it if the immigrants were White. But the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 underscored America’s required racial preferences. That law changed over half century later.

The last significant US immigration reform came in 1986, during the Reagan administration: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act altered U.S. immigration law by making it illegal to hire illegal immigrants knowingly and establishing financial and other penalties for companies that employed illegal immigrants. The act also legalized most undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the country prior to January 1, 1982.” Wikipedia. In over three and half decades, nothing. Through Republican and Democratic administrations. Nothing. Not even a bill from a Republican President from a border state. Texan George W Bush’s efforts noted above were rejected by his own party. DACA reform. Never happened.

As immigration issues have been perhaps the leading continuous challenge to Congressional policymakers in Washington, as protestors from both parties have demanded changes, as conservative state governors have attempted to usurp the exclusive constitutional jurisdiction granted to the federal government over immigration and as dozens of bills have crashed and burned en route to congressional floor votes… nothing. Elected on a strong “rapists and murders” platform that included building an expensive wall, Donald Trump failed to deliver his promised solution to the immigration crisis. Joe Biden, not deviating significantly on the treatment of asylum seekers, faced international law: asylum seekers have rights. Evangelicals are even willing to put the New Testament aside to oppose these desperate people.

“Not only does the US have an international legal obligation to do so, based on the requirement of complying with the object and purpose of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and implementing legal obligations in good faith, it has an obligation to do so under its own domestic law… The duty not to return a person to a state where they may face torture or other serious harms is absolute under the UN’s Convention Against Torture. The US has signed and ratified this convention.” TheConversation.com, January 27, 2017.

The problem is that honoring that obligation has become intensely unpopular, on both sides of the aisle. Words like “invasion” and “attack” are countered with “humanitarianism” and “common decency.” But as autocracy rises, global conflict escalates and climate change decimates agriculture and access to potable water, we know the pressures on migration will only increase. Our nation is paralyzed in finding a solution; the underlying hypocrisy only intensifies.

“That stalemate manifested itself again in the closing days of the current congressional session, as a bipartisan group of senators conceded that they could not get enough support to move ahead with a limited package of immigration reforms. In the new Congress, with Republicans taking control of the House, the prospects for passage of any immigration legislation will dim further.

“House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), seeking to bolster support among conservatives, has threatened to start impeachment proceedings against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas, whose department includes the nation’s immigration enforcement agencies. But McCarthy has not proposed legislation to solve the system’s problems.

“Attitudes toward immigrants were among the strongest predictors of who voted for former President Trump in 2016 and 2020. That started early: In the 2016 Republican primaries, voters who favored making immigration more difficult were significantly more likely to support Trump than his GOP rivals… General election voters who switched from supporting President Obama in 2012 to Trump four years later — a small but crucial group whose votes helped deliver Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to Trump in 2016 — were especially likely to favor tougher immigration rules , according to a detailed analysis by the nonpartisan Voter Study Group.

“The L.A. Times/YouGov poll, released in mid-December, underscores how that divide continues to shape U.S. policy and politics… Roughly 3 in 10 adult Americans believe that immigration makes the country worse off, the poll found. A slightly larger group, 35%, believes immigration makes the country better off, and the remaining third say they don’t know or don’t think immigration makes much difference… The group that says immigration makes the U.S. worse off overwhelmingly backed Trump. Among those who voted in 2020, 77% went for Trump, and 21% for Joe Biden. Those who say immigration makes the country better off were similarly one-sided in their support for Biden. (Those who said they don’t know what impact immigration has or don’t think it makes much difference were notable for their disengagement — almost half said they didn’t vote in 2020.)

“Economic concerns are not necessarily the big driver of opposition to immigration. Asked if unauthorized immigrants take jobs Americans want, those who say immigration makes the country worse off split almost evenly: 43% said yes, 39% said no, and 18% weren’t sure. A large majority, 60%, of those who say immigration makes the country better say unauthorized immigrants take jobs other Americans don’t want… Instead of a debate driven primarily by economic concerns, feelings about immigration are tied closely to the issues of identity and culture that have driven partisanship in the Trump era.” David Lauter, writing for the December 26th Los Angeles Times. We need new rules… but we have no one to make them. Executive orders are swiftly challenged in court. Only Congress can act. It won’t.

I’m Peter Dekom, and if you think it’s bad now, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

The Push-Pull of Forests: Fire Hazard vs Decarbonization

The only climate realities we can predict for sure: 1. green, chlorophyll-rich leaves are the nature’s most efficient decarbonizing engines and 2. as climate change continues to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, larger swaths of forestland will go up in smoke, adding more carbon to the atmosphere and devastating anything in or near them.

According to the United Nations, “The escalating climate crisis and land-use change are driving a global increase in extreme wildfires, with a 14% increase predicted by 2030 and a 30% increase by 2050, according to a UN report involving more than 50 international researchers.” Guardian UK, February 23rd. Even “cleaning” dry brush and dead trees from forest land does not guarantee that the targeted greenbelts will survive the wildfire threat. Hot and drier times also challenge forests to remain heathy. What to do?

Heavily populated New Jersey still has vast forests in state-controlled parks and refuges. Beautiful, rolling acres of magnificent pines, especially in the south-central part of the state. New Jersey officials are about to cull the herd, so to speak. Eliminating all but the biggest pines in a state reserve. “Created by an act of Congress in 1978, the Pinelands district occupies 22% of New Jersey’s land area, is home to 135 rare plant and animal species, and is the largest body of open space on the mid-Atlantic seaboard between Richmond, Va., and Boston. It also includes an aquifer that is the source of 17 trillion gallons of drinking water.

“‘It is unacceptable to be cutting down trees in a climate emergency, and cutting 2.4 million small trees will severely reduce the future ability to store carbon,’ said Bill Wolfe, a former department official who runs an environmental blog.

“New Jersey environmental officials say that the plan to kill trees in a section of Bass River State Forest is designed to better protect against catastrophic wildfires, and that it will mostly affect small, scrawny trees — not the towering giants for which the Pinelands National Refuge is known and loved.

“But the project, adopted Oct. 14 by the New Jersey Pinelands Commission and set to begin in April, has split environmentalists. Some say it is a reasonable and necessary response to the dangers of wildfires, while others say it is an unconscionable waste of trees that would no longer be able to store carbon as climate change imperils the globe.

“Foes are also upset about the possible use of herbicides to prevent invasive species regeneration, noting that the Pinelands sit atop an aquifer that contains some of the purest drinking water in the country… And some of them fear the plan could be a back door to logging the protected woodlands under the guise of fire protection, despite the state’s denials… ‘In order to save the forest, they have to cut down the forest,’ said Jeff Tittel, the retired former director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, calling the plan ‘shameful’ and ‘Orwellian.’

“Pinelands Commissioner Mark Lohbauer voted against the plan, calling it ill-advised on many levels. He says it could harm rare snakes, and adds that he has researched forestry tactics from Western states and believes that tree-thinning is ineffective in preventing large wildfires… ‘We are in an era of climate change; it’s incumbent on us to do our utmost to preserve these trees that are sequestering carbon,’ he said. ‘If we don’t have an absolutely essential reason for cutting down trees, we shouldn’t do it.’” Wayne Parry, writing for the November 27th Associated Press.

We’ve lambasted Brazil’s former but recent President Jair Bolsonaro for prioritizing (or looking the other way) cutting down rain forests to make way for more farmland and mine sites, harvesting lumber in the meantime. The acreage there is vastly larger than what is happening here, but species and indigenous peoples are losing their territory; Amazonia is now pumping more carbon (from burning) that it used to remove.

New Jersey is hardly the hotbed of wildfires, but it does represent state officials concerned that it does not become the “next.” “The plan involves about 1,300 acres, a miniscule percentage of the 1.1-million-acre Pinelands preserve, which enjoys federal and state protection, and has been named a unique biosphere by the United Nations.

“Most of the trees to be killed are 2 inches or less in diameter, the state said. Dense undergrowth of these smaller trees can act as ‘ladder fuel, carrying fire from the forest floor up to the treetops, where flames can spread rapidly and wind can intensify to whip up blazes, the state Department of Environmental Protection said in a statement.

“A Pinelands commissioner calculated that 2.4 million trees would be removed by using data from the state’s application, multiplying the percentage of tree density reduction by the amount of land affected… The department would not say whether it believes that number is accurate, nor would it offer a number of its own. But it did say ‘the total number of trees thinned could be significant.’

“‘This is like liquid gasoline in the Pinelands,’ said Todd Wyckoff, chief of the New Jersey Forest Service, as he touched a scrawny pine tree of the type that will most often be cut during the project. ‘I see a forest at risk from fire. I look at this as restoring the forest to more of what it should be.’” AP. But deep within this analysis in one giant question: can our vast forests even survive as temperatures rise to a new permanent high? Is this a fight we cannot win until we seriously address reducing, then eliminating carbon emissions in their entirety... everywhere?

I’m Peter Dekom, but all these minor efforts are shortcuts that cannot possibly solve the big picture damage being caused that that will be caused by failing sufficiently to address climate change in a massive global effort.

60 Times a Second – Too Hot to Handle?

 

60 Times a Second – Too Hot to Handle?

A Net Energy Gain Process

It’s been the Holy Grail of energy futurists since the early 1900s, but it has eluded scientists for a very long time. We’re still not that close to a viable energy-generating capacity, but there have been some optimistic signs recently. It’s called “cold fusion,” because the field where the energy is created cools down instantly after the fusion takes place. Theoretically, you could put your hand into that environment – after the reactions have ceased – without burning your hand. But it requires an instant, if infinitesimal, level of exceptionally focused heat, even more heat than what was need to create the stars.

According to Futurism.com: “Cold fusion is supposed to be ‘the energy of the future.’ It is a method of energy production that physicists have been bouncing about since the early 1900s, and it is said that, if it ever comes to fruition, this process will have three times as much energy output as it draws. Indeed, some claim that it would be an ‘inexhaustible source of energy,’ as it relies on the most abundant element in the known universe—hydrogen

“Fortunately, in its most basic sense, understanding how it works is rather simple. Ultimately, fusion (or ‘hot fusion’) is the process that gives life to stars. Under immense pressure and temperatures that reach millions of degrees, elements fuse together, creating heavier elements. As this happens, an immense amount of energy is released.” But it’s not as if you can put hydrogen in a container and subject it to enough heat to cause that fusion. The heat is so intense that there isn’t even a container that can hold the hydrogen (or any particle) during this process, so even if you can generate enough heat, the process would destroy the processor.

Unless there really isn’t a container at all. So, scientists have tried all kinds of processes, from much lower fusion temperatures (failure to date) to suspending the particles to be super-heated by using a magnetic field. Easier said than done, even with the most sophisticated computer-controlled targeting. Generally, the process of such hydrogen fusion creates helium and neutrons – which are lighter in mass than the parts from which they were originally made. Writing for the December 12th CNN.com, Ella Nilsen and René Marsh explain a major breakthrough in US and UK research that may someday lead to commercial cold fusion:

“For the first time ever, US scientists at the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California successfully produced a nuclear fusion reaction resulting in a net energy gain… In a huge donut-shaped machine called a tokamak [left above] outfitted with giant magnets, scientists working near Oxford were able to generate a record-breaking amount of sustained energy. Even so, it only lasted 5 seconds.

“The heat sustained by the process of fusing the atoms together holds the key to helping produce energy… The missing mass then converts to an enormous amount of energy. The neutrons, which are able to escape the plasma, then hit a “blanket” lining the walls of the tokamak, and their kinetic energy transfers as heat. This heat can then be used to warm water, create steam and power turbines to generate power… The machine that generates the reaction has to undergo serious heat. The plasma needs to reach at least 150 million degrees Celsius, 10 times hotter than the core of the sun.”

Indeed, the next steps are to make that process into a continuous flow – target particle in, fusion, new matter released, target particle in, new matter released… constantly, a series instant fusion moments in that on-off magnetic field. “The big challenge of harnessing fusion energy is sustaining it long enough so that it can power electric grids and heating systems around the globe…

“A UK fusion scientist told CNN that the result of the US breakthrough is promising, but also shows more work needs to happen to make fusion able to generate electricity on a commercial scale… ‘They have worked on the design and the makeup of the target and the shape of the energy pulse to get much better results,’ Tony Roulstone, from the University of Cambridge’s Department of Engineering, told CNN.

”‘The opposing argument is that this result is miles away from actual energy gain required for the production of electricity. Therefore, we can say (it) is a success of the science but a long way from providing useful energy.’” CNN.com. The benefits are obvious. Smaller localized generators, perhaps even neighborhood based, without the kinds of massive protective shields used in nuclear power generators today. There are no dangerous radioactive emissions. Someday.

As the war in Ukraine illustrates, as climate change-generated natural disasters profoundly prove, finding a path to alternative energy has become an existential challenge to life on Earth. Green energy – hydroelectric, geothermal, tide-power, solar and wind – will only take us so far. There is a huge demand for safe, inexhaustible and smaller generating footprints… to take this planet where it needs to be. Maybe… and that is a “maybe,” cold fusion might get us there.

I’m Peter Dekom, and not only do we need to find new ways to generate electrical power, those paths need to be affordable, sustainable, safe…. and soon!

Olympic Venues Are Running Hot and Cold

 

For those too stubborn to accept the mega-disasters that are occurring with greater frequency by reason of uncontained climate change, maybe they will be more swayed by little inconveniences. “Concern over warmer temperatures and vanishing snow in some of the world’s winter playgrounds has put the selection of a host city for the 2030 Winter Olympics on hold… The International Olympic Committee said this week it no longer plans to target host selection during its 2023 meeting…

“The winter host commission gave the Olympic committee's executive board a presentation [on December 6th], prompting a ‘wider discussion on climate change’ and sustainable winter sport. One proposal floated would require future Winter Olympic hosts to prove their average minimum temperatures in February over 10 years were below freezing at potential snow competition venues.

“The revised schedule will allow the committee to ‘respond swiftly and effectively to ever-changing global circumstances, for the benefit of the athletes, all Olympic Games participants and the whole sports movement,’ said commission chairman Octavian Morariu, Rugby Europe president.” Dinah Voyles Pulver reporting for the December 9th USA Today. It’s a problem, along with venues now too hot for athletic competition for the Summer Games, that weaves into our lives in small but disturbing ways.

Once host to the Winter Olympics, Tahoe (California) has faced late and underwhelming snowfall (see above photo) in recent years, just one relatively small economic slam from climate change over the last few years. But for too many in the United States, the rising temperatures, the disappearance of sea ice and eroding coastlines – the realities of climate change – are imposing a far greater cost. For example, indigenous peoples are losing their homes, towns and livelihoods. “The native inhabitants are also in peril – there are 31 Alaskan towns and cities at imminent risk from the melting ice and coastal erosion. Many will have to relocate or somehow adapt.” Guardian UK (12/16/19). Some coastal Alaskan villages have already disappeared; others are in transition into nothing. Relocation is expensive… and jobs are disappearing too. See my November 19th And Still, They Won’t Move blog for one such struggle.

Indeed, some states have more fragile ecosystems or are more sensitive to temperature changes. And it’s not as if all global temperature changes are rising in lockstep. Some will get much warmer… or colder and wetter… before others. Our two most recent states, Alaska and Hawaii are prime examples. The bitter reality faced by indigenous people in Alaska is a reflection of such higher temperature rises: “The coldest U.S. state in terms of annual mean temperature, Alaska is also America’s fastest-warming one. Since 1970, the average temperature in Alaska has risen a disconcerting 4.22°F, unleashing an array of hazards that have upended daily life.

“On Monday [12/5], the northernmost city in Alaska, Utqiagvik, smashed its all-time winter high temperature record by an astonishing 6°F, when it hit 40°F, despite the fact that it lies 300 miles north of the Arctic Circle… ‘Every new day brings with it new evidence of climate change in Alaskan communities — warmer, record-breaking temperatures have resulted in thawing permafrost, thinning sea ice, and increasing wildfires,’ the Alaska Department of Commerce states on its website. ‘These changes have resulted in a reduction of subsistence harvests, an increase in flooding and erosion, concerns about water and food safety and major impacts to infrastructure: including damage to buildings, roads and airports.’” David Knowles, for the December 10th Yahoo!News.

Hawaii’s challenge is sea rise and coastal erosion. Lava flows? Well, they’re used to that and almost always, only on the big island. “Like island nations that climate change threatens to wipe off the map, the threats facing the seven Hawaiian islands where people live start with sea level rise. Given that nearly half of the state’s land area is within 5 miles of the ocean, exacerbated by the fact that much of the land there is sinking, rising seas should factor highly in any decision about selecting a place to live to be safe from global warming.

“‘The sea level around Hilo Bay [on the Big Island] has risen by 10 inches in 1950, and now, it’s rising faster, at about 1 inch every 4 years,’ the state says on its climate change portal. ‘This increases the frequency and reach of coastal floods, which affect our communities. 2017 was a record flood year for Honolulu (37 flood days, when historically, the average has been around 4 days). These floods were fully attributed to climate change/sea level rise. Today, Hawai’i has 66,000 people regularly at risk from coastal flooding. In Kailua for example, 50% of the population is locked in below expected flood zones.’

“A 2018 study by researchers at the University of Hawaii found that 34% of the state’s shorelines are already vulnerable to waves and storms made more intense by climate change. To date, coastal erosion has eaten away 13 miles of beaches in the state, and has left 70% of the existing beaches in a precarious state, according to Hawaii’s climate change portal.” Yahoo!News.

Both Hawaii and Alaska are feeling the sting of permanent change from climate change earlier and more intensively than most Americans. But those mega-tropical storms, tornadoes, wildfires and searing heatwaves may appear to be just one-offs to the rest of us… but the underlying permanent changes should prepare us for the continued increase in frequency and intensity in those “natural” disasters. Trillions of dollars and lives lost tat we apparently are insufficiently concerned about to mount an appropriate effort to stop and even reverse the unending flow of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

I’m Peter Dekom, and while nature does not really care what we do – she started with nothing a long time ago – humanity must… or slowly wither and die along with everything around us.

Tesla Shareholders, Meet the Real Elon Musk… and Real Competition

 

“This whole narrative about Tesla being a leader in everything they do is waning… Tesla shares tend to work best when you can create a feverish narrative about something coming. It is unclear what is to be excited about it in the new year.”

Jeffrey Osborne of Cowen & Co.

“From a brand perspective, Elon Musk is Tesla and Tesla is Elon Musk… The more Elon uses Twitter

in a political manner, the more he is potentially tarnishing the Tesla brand.”

Robert Schein, chief investment officer at Blanke Schein Wealth Management, which owns Tesla shares.

The minor setbacks to Tesla’s manufacturing goals result from delays in getting new gigafactories online in Austin, Texas and Berlin, Germany (pictured above). The slack in demand in China, site of Tesla’s largest factory, has resulted in a 20% reduction in output goals. And sure, Wall Street has rocked up and down (mostly down) across the board as global instability and a nascent Fed-driven recession have become prime market movers. It’s not exactly sad to see that Tesla’s main shareholder, Elon Musk, is no longer the richest man in the world, but according to some stock analysts, the worse may be yet to come.

I know, I know… I’m dancing around the obvious. But you have to start with hard numbers, representing an economic reality that is well below average Wall Street declines. And yes, Fed rate hikes have impacted all industries that use short-term debt as part of their core businesses, but…. “The stock was never for the faint of heart, given its volatility and the mercurial style of its chief executive, Elon Musk. Still, the magnitude of this year’s rout is staggering: It has lost more than 60% through Wednesday’s close [12/21], on pace for a record annual decline, and erasing about $626 billion of shareholder value.

“Two years to the day after Tesla joined the Standard & Poor’s 500 index, investors are confronting a new reality. Competition from established major automakers is intensifying, threatening Tesla’s dominant market share. Analysts also see little in the pipeline to reignite the sort of rabid demand for the shares seen in 2020. Meanwhile, the stock is about 40% below the level at which it joined the benchmark…

“Analysts have been scrambling to reassess their outlook given the stock’s free fall, more modest earnings expectations and the overall reset in valuations of growth companies: Wall Street’s average price target for Tesla has now sunk to the lowest level in more than a year.

“The stock fell 8.1% on Tuesday [12/20] to $137.80, its weakest since November 2020, after Evercore ISI and Mizuho Securities became the latest to slash projections. On Wednesday [12/21] before closing at $137.57, it briefly fell below $136.03, the level where the shares were trading in November 2020 when S&P Dow Jones Indices announced that the stock would be included in the S&P 500 index.

“Given the stock’s dive, the average analyst target of about $259 — which is a far cry from the record close of $409.97 the shares touched in November last year — implies a roughly 90% gain over the next 12 months from Tuesday’s close, suggesting there may be room for that gap to narrow.” Esha Dey writing for Bloomberg on the Los Angeles Times, December 23rd. Projections for Tesla’s futuristic all electric truck have gone from rosy internal numbers to downright major skepticism from outside analysts.

Even as nations are responding to reconfiguring energy policies away from fossil fuels, an expected mega-boost for electric vehicle sales, Tesla’s brilliant battery control systems are now ubiquitous. Others are also improving that technology. And carmakers all over the world are introducing new, often more affordable all-electric models, with range increasing by the day. While there is still a severe shortage of the needed level three charging stations, that big rollout has begun. And so many competitors, particularly German, Korean and American, have overcome those “fit and finish” complaints that have plagued Tesla models, particularly the early releases. Ask anyone who has attended any of the recent autos shows… the selection is awesome.

While gross revenues to Tesla are expected to grow just based on the new manufacturing capacity, the waiting period for a new Tesla has fallen from weeks or months to a day or two. Profitability? Not so much. “Tesla shares have been among the weakest, partly because of worries that a downturn could crimp demand for costly electric vehicles. Only Meta Platforms has posted a steeper decline among the 10 NYSE FANG+ index members, which include Facebook, Amazon, Netflix Inc. and Google.

“Musk’s purchase of Twitter made matters worse as concern grew that his preoccupation with the social media platform was reducing his focus on Tesla. He also sold off a chunk of his shares to help finance the deal… Yet when it comes to valuation, Tesla is still the fourth-most expensive stock on the NYSE FANG+ index, trading at a multiple of 33 times estimated 2022 earnings.” Dey.

Some wags have suggested that Musk’s severe jerk into right-wing politics might help marketing in red oil and gas states where sales lag the blue big city numbers. But even with the opening of a Texas plant, as gas prices have fallen again, the lure of a climate-change agenda remains exceptionally low in GOP communities. Driving an electric car is so “Democrat.”

“No development has managed to buoy the shares for long in 2022, including the decision to split the stock and dangling the possibility of a share buyback. Musk’s Twitter poll about stepping down as CEO of that company also failed to stem the slide. And his subsequent confirmation Tuesday [12/20] that he will indeed resign from the position hasn’t sparked any major relief rally.

“It’s a time of reckoning for Tesla investors, many of whom see Musk’s ability to drive the company to success as forming the foundation for its potential. That partly explains why in a year when Tesla’s earnings are expected to grow more than 80% and revenue to expand nearly 55%, the dive in the shares has been so deep.” Dey. Disney dabbled in state politics in Orlando. The CEO who made those moves is gone now. While Musk owns too much Tesla to be ousted, the brand has been seriously tainted by his Twitter antics, particularly his treatment of his employees. And the competition marching in is formidable.

I’m Peter Dekom, and while Steve Jobs knew when to take the stage to boost his company’s sales, Elon Musk apparently believes Tesla cannot be hurt by his own stagecraft.

Are You Paying Attention, Taliban? - Girls Do Better in School than Boys

 

What are little boys made of

Snips and snails & puppy dogs tails

What are young girls made of

Sugar and spice and all things nice

While girls are often those deprived of any formal education whatsoever in poorer nations with biases and proscriptions against female education, when they are accorded equal educational opportunities, they tend to perform better than their male counterparts across the board. The November 23rd The Economist observes: “The gulf is widest in reading: in almost all countries that collect sufficient data girls are better readers than boys at ten years old. Boys also lag in international science tests and have mostly given up a long-standing advantage in maths. Globally, colleges and universities now enroll just 88 men for every 100 women. These trends have long been starkest in rich countries, but are increasingly visible in poor ones, too—perhaps because the hurdles that long held schoolgirls back are gradually being knocked down. Why do boys do badly in school?”

We are watching a litany of Democratic nations that have elected women heads of state, from England and India to New Zealand and Germany. While the United States has elected state governors in increasing numbers, so far the highest office in the land remains “female free.” And while Fortune 500 CEO have a few women in their ranks, women have only carved a small opening in that glass ceiling. STEM professions are still woefully slanted towards males, but we know that is changing fast. However, if we examine educational patterns in the United States, by average statistics, women should be running almost everything!

Each gender faces its own childhood challenges. Peer pressure is still quite different. Boys get physically bullied more; girls face a “looks/body” issue in adolescent years. Is it that girls/women appreciate school more or have to work harder to make an academic impression? Is it that in primary and secondary education, there are a lot more women teacher than men?

The Economist continues in its analysis: “How schools are run matters, too. Boys often lack studious role models there—male teachers are in the minority in most rich countries. A shortage of male teachers is a particular problem in places with lots of single-sex schools, such as the Middle East. Boys there are often taught by male migrants from poorer countries, who do not easily earn pupils’ respect. Boys also report higher rates of bullying at school than girls, and are more likely to say that it involves being punched or kicked. And they are more often beaten by teachers: in Zimbabwe and Singapore, for example, staff are forbidden from hitting girls but are allowed by law to wallop boys. Fear of violence increases the risk that boys will skip school or give it up early.

“Some observers think differences in the rates at which boys and girls develop in adolescence contribute to the problem. In his book ‘Of Boys And Men,’ Richard Reeves of the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, cites research suggesting that parts of the brain associated with impulse control, forward-thinking and regulating emotions mature later in boys. Mr Reeves argues that boys would benefit from starting and ending their schooling a year later than girls, so that they are better prepared to succeed in early secondary school.

“The costs of boys’ struggles are huge. They are more likely to repeat years of school, which is expensive and often counterproductive, because it increases the risk of pupils dropping out. Researchers in Australia estimate that the cohort of boys who ditch school early each year costs the country A$25.9bn ($17.2bn) over the boys’ lifetimes (for young women it is A$10bn). That is through both lost earnings and knock-on effects—for instance, boys who drop out of school are more likely to commit crimes. Countries with lots of uneducated men are also more likely to breed gangs and suffer from unrest. A study of the civil war in Sierra Leone in the 1990s found that boys and young men who had received no schooling were nine times more likely to become combatants than those who had completed primary school.

“Many girls still face barriers to good schooling, especially in poor countries. Destitute parents will commonly pay for their sons to get lessons before their daughters. And girls are often required to leave school if they become pregnant or are forced into marriage. These evils are recognised by donors and are becoming priorities for governments. But concerted efforts to improve outcomes for boys are uncommon, even where their needs are dire. A recent report from UNESCO, a UN body, identified 19 countries where schoolboys are doing especially badly. Only four had come up with policies to turn things around.” And have you ever noticed that violent gangs and major criminal syndicates, even those who commit violent crimes, are seldom women or controlled by women? But there are F-35 and F-16 women fighter pilots. Hmmmm.

I’m Peter Dekom, and men, you better look over your shoulders at the better-educated women coming to take your jobs; they just may “replace you”!

Plutocracy or Just Government by Bullies?

In a showdown between those championing representational democracy and those seeking targeted and tailored control of government to a designated few, at least here in the United States, guess who’s winning? In legislative governance, we have a House GOP caucus that has declared its intent to use control of committees and the flow of pending legislation to stop any social or immigration legislation that the Dems might suggest, regardless of the merits. They are even hell-bent on reversing recent legislation as well.

Judicially, the US Supreme Court – in Harper vs Moore – is considering just how far state legislatures can act to limit who can vote… and whether they literally have power to change election results they do not like free from judicial review. For those who are trying to rein the seeming monolithic power of companies like Google, Apple, Amazon and Meta, they faced a tsunami of money from those companies to stop an obvious “best for 99% of Americans” expansion of federal antitrust legislation… that really put the kibosh on bills even reaching a vote.

The commonality of these barriers to governance is not just the big money imperative of a plutocracy; it is the desire of a minority to control the country and marginalize anyone who might oppose them. Backers of that MAGA body that includes so many White Christian Nationalists are hardly just an assemblage of rich taxpayers trying to avoid writing big checks to the government.

These are the armed “boots on the ground” grassroots populists who dominate the GOP today. “Moderate Republican” is not only an oxymoron; it has its own derisive label within the body of elected GOP representatives and leaders: RINO – Republican in Name Only. Big corporations simply want it their way: virtually no regulation or limits, low taxes and no accountability even in civil tort actions. And they do not care which party hands them that delicious plate!

It's no secret that the Freedom Caucus of ultra-right-wing House Republicans intends to leverage passage of any appropriation/debt ceiling bill to reverse Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, to reduce Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid benefits, to stop climate change infrastructure construction and to defund federal regulatory agencies. And with Kevin McCarthy’s (R/CA) obsession to become House Speaker hinging on a very narrow GOP majority, he is ready to do anything that Caucus wants, even if that results in total congressional gridlock for policies most Americans oppose. “Thirteen Republican representatives and representatives-elect on Monday [12/19] sent a letter calling for any legislative priorities backed by a GOP senator who supports the $1.7 trillion year-end spending bill to be thwarted in the 118th Congress.

“House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who is trying to lock down enough votes to be elected Speaker, endorsed the letter on Tuesday [12/20]… The letter’s signatories included five who have said or strongly indicated they will not vote for McCarthy for Speaker: Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Matt Rosendale (Mont.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Ralph Norman (S.C.) and Bob Good (Va.).

“‘Further, we are obliged to inform you that if any omnibus passes in the remaining days of this Congress, we will oppose and whip opposition to any legislative priority of those senators who vote for this bill – including the Republican leader,’ the letter said. ‘We will oppose any rule, any consent request, suspension voice vote, or roll call vote of any such Senate bill, and will otherwise do everything in our power to thwart even the smallest legislative and policy efforts of those senators.’” The Hill, December 22nd. The legislation in question includes a bi-partisan omnibus $1.7 billion federal appropriations bill for fiscal 2023.

Even a number of GOP Senators find this lockstep, self-imposed gridlock counter-productive and a position that could hurt the GOP in the 2024 elections. “Leading Senate Republicans didn’t appear to take the threat from the 13 lawmakers seriously…: ‘That doesn’t sound like a recipe for working together in the best interest of the country, so I think this is just words spoken during the heat of passion,’ Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), an ally of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is an ‘aye’ vote for the omnibus. ‘Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail.’” The Hill.

Meanwhile, another piece of bi-partisan Senate legislation – co-sponsored by Amy Klobuchar (D/MN) and Charles Grassley (R/IA) – bit the dust under the crush of corporate pressure. “The American Innovation and Choice Online Act would have prevented the tech giants from using their platforms to disadvantage competitors, and the Open App Markets Act would have pared back Apple’s and Google’s control over app stores… The opposition campaign exploited contrasting concerns of the two parties. To Democrats, tech lobbyists argued that the bills would harm marginalized groups and reduce online privacy. To Republicans, they focused on free speech and free markets.” Bloomberg, December 22nd. The bills never made it to floor votes.

Our antitrust laws were designed well over a century ago, focusing on direct market manipulation (like “price fixing”) and mega-mergers. They were not designed to control organically-evolved monoliths and have recently “bought off” Congress with campaign contributions and lobbying under a mantra of “stop hurting out tech job-creators.” That consumers are denied choice and often have to pay through the nose are irrelevant. So, we have to rely on vastly more modern antitrust laws that have evolved as these tech giants have grown… in the European Union, which has been brutal to these brand-name American behemoths. “The companies have been forced to make significant changes in Europe to comply with similar European Union laws set to take effect in the coming years. U.S. advocates believe that will happen here too — but it will take time.” Bloomberg. Yeah, maybe. We seem powerless to stop these small but loud voices from crushing most of us.

I’m Peter Dekom, and it’s time we either change our ways or delete the notion that our Constitution and body of laws represent “a government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

Tiptoeing Through the Truelips – Indicting the Obvious

 

“The central cause of Jan. 6 was one man, former President Donald Trump, who many others followed… None of the events of Jan. 6 would have happened without him.” 

December 19th release from the 1/6/21 committee.

“The entire nation knows who is responsible for that day.”

GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) about the December 19th January 6th Committee criminal referral to the DOJ

“These folks don’t get it that when they come after me, people who love freedom rally around me. It strengthens me. What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger." 

Donald Trump post after above referral.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the January 6th Committee’s referral was the relatively muted reaction from leaders of Trump’s own party. They all suspected the very high probability of that criminal referral, but their response to the fully warranted search of Mar-a-Lago was vastly louder and more vituperative. Even as Trump-appointed federal judges handed the ex-president one legal disappointment after another, Trump continued to be that one-note-johnny on a stolen election that was beginning to wear thin on all but his most rabid followers. Holdout and failed Arizona gubernatorial candidate, Kari Lake, looked increasingly pathetic as she attempted to snatch a retroactive victory using Trumpian election denial as her “little engine that couldn’t.”

Ron DeSantis, whose policies are even more extreme Trump’s, continued his strategy of not reacting to Donald Trump at any level. He must have tried really hard to repress a broad grin… and secretly be cheering for a DOJ indictment of Trump and his closest allies. No matter Trump’s assumed control of that essential GOP base, the former President’s grip on the party was slip-sliding away. If anything, that muted GOP reaction may have signaled both an end to Trump’s candidacy but likely a strong suggestion to the ever-cautious AG Merrick Garland that indicting Trump was not going to provoke most elected Republicans into continued support for their flailing and failed leader.

As the December 20th The Morning from the New York Times pointed out: “The committee’s findings have already damaged Trump politically. But a pressing question remains: Will Trump face legal repercussions beyond a sternly worded congressional report?

“The answer lies with prosecutors. Justice Department prosecutors, in particular, have been investigating many of the same issues as the congressional committee. Their inquiry is now led by a special counsel, whose team recently issued subpoenas to officials in states where Trump tried to reverse electoral results.

“Criminal referrals, like the ones the Jan. 6 committee approved, are not legally binding. The Justice Department could simply drop the committee’s recommendation in the wastebasket and move on. But lawmakers on Capitol Hill are betting on a different outcome: that by publicly delineating evidence and legal arguments against Trump, they will increase public pressure on prosecutors to act.” The tsunami of evidence was overwhelming and exceptionally well-documented, even as key Trump associates refused to honor subpoenas for their testimony. The recorded statements from Trump himself and his most immediate advisors were in and of themselves stunning evidence. But there was so much more. Hardly the baseless “highly partisan” smear campaign Trump and his MAGA followers tried to sell to the rest of the nation. And definitely not what Trump described as “a partisan attempt to sideline me and the Republican Party.” He more than sidelined himself. And… but wait, there’s more.

“Already weakened, Trump is also bracing for the potential release of his tax returns, which he has worked for years to keep out of the public eye. The House Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday was scheduled to consider the release of six years of Trump’s taxes, as well as those related to his businesses, although it wasn’t immediately clear when any documents might be available to the public.

“Trump’s greatest liability heading into the next presidential election may have little to do with his legal challenges, however. Republicans are increasingly worried about his ability to win… The GOP's concerns about Trump's electability intensified after the November midterm elections, when Trump's hand-picked candidates in several high-profile contests were defeated. The setbacks followed deeper Republican losses in the two previous national elections under Trump's leadership.” Steve Peoples, writing for the December 20th Associated Press. Prepare for MAGA without Trump, until that message too wears thin.

Yet the decreasingly likelihood of Trump’s heretofore uncanny ability to survive stinging and scathing attack has massive ramifications for Joe Biden’s campaign assumptions – that age would not be an issue with two elders battling it out of the 2024 race and that Trump’s egregious behavior would make him the easiest presidential opponent to defeat. Biden would be in his 80s during his entire “next term” if elected, forced to debate a younger, more vigorous foe in front of unflattering television cameras. And exactly how do Trump die-hards keep their political chances alive, when increasingly supporting Trump is viewed as a losing effort?

While the majority of younger voters are drawn by issues near and dear to their hearts – dealing with unaffordable student loans, their future reality stuck with the increasing harshness from climate change, wanting to control their own bodies free from state mandates and restrictions, struggling to understand why school shootings with A-15-like military grade weapons continue to occur, believing that anti-CRT/culture wars are a personal slam to their values of diversity and tolerance, etc., etc. – they are increasingly alienated from the two limited political parties that are charged to represent them. A really old man running against a younger opposition candidate might bring them to create a Democratic groundswell… but that reality just might keep them from the polls altogether.

I’m Peter Dekom, and it seems that Joe Biden will have to face the same question that Dems have applied against the Republicans who placed their partisan desire to get elected above their sworn constitutional duties: my political ambitions or what’s best for my nation?