Keeping the blues alive

Every Sunday, my friend Denise Oliver Velez publishes a post at Daily Kos celebrating Black music. This week's edition is dedicated to Taj Mahal on his 84th birthday. She included a video of his recording of "Statesboro Blues," so I was inspired to take a look at the history of that song.

It was written and recorded by Blind Willie McTell back in 1928.

Forty years later, it was recorded by Taj Mahal. Pay close attention to the slide guitar, which was played by Native American Jesse Ed Davis.

When Duane Allman first heard that recording he decided to learn how to play slide guitar and became one of the best in history. "Statesborro Blues" was the opening number for the Allman Brothers' famous live recording at Fillmore East in 1971. 

Here is Taj Mahal performing this number in 2014 at a concert honoring Gregg Allman. It features Jack Pearson on slide guitar and Chuck Leavell on keys. 

As a member of the Allman Brothers Band from 1999-2014, Derek Trucks played this tune countless times. It is also part of the repertoire of the Tedeschi Trucks Band (ie, it was the first number Trucks played a few months ago on Jerry Garcia's "Tiger" guitar that had just sold for $11.5 million). I'll post this video, even though it isn't the best quality, because joining them on stage is a young guitarist known as "Taz," (Brandon Niederauer), who was 13 years old at the time. 

Brandon NiederauerBrandon Niederauer

Taz is now 23 years old and doing his part to keep this 98 year-old blues tune alive.

As Trump's DOJ tries to prove discrimination against white people, they resort to ignorance and hypocrisy.

As I wrote a few months ago, this country is still working on eliminating systemic racism from health care. So I was intrigued by an op-ed from the editorial board at the right-wing site Washington Examiner titled: "Racism has no place in medicine."

To be honest, I wasn't surprised to find that the article focused on a finding by the Trump Justice Department that the UCLA medical school had discriminated against white and Asian applicants. A similar finding against Yale medical school was released on Thursday. So what we have are two more examples of how this administration is using the concept of "civil rights" to enforce white supremacy.

The intriguing thing about all of this is that now the shoe is on the other foot. Trump's DOJ must prove that these medical schools are discriminating against white applicants (let's be honest, Asians are merely thrown in as the so-called "good minority"). So in the midst of attempts by the Supreme Court to eliminate a results-based standard (disparate impact) and replace it with the need to prove intent, let's take a look at their arguments.

The word intent shows up all over DOJ's documents, demonstrating that they are very cognizant of this controversy. But how are they attempting to prove intent? In the case against UCLA, they point to a document circulated by the Director of Admissions that "outlines workarounds to achieve medical school 'diversity goals.'" Later in the document, they refer to these workarounds as "proxies" for race. 

It's important to keep in mind that the Supreme Court has never said that seeking the educational benefits of racial diversity is illegal. As a matter of fact, they called it a laudable goal. When it comes to "proxies," the Supreme Court has said that it is OK to use "race neutral" things like neighborhood, socioeconomics and other factors.

We can also compare that argument to the one used in Louisiana v. Callais where partisan gerrymandering was validated as "race neutral." Conservatives on the Supreme Court were fine with using partisanship as a proxy for race.

The data used by Trump's DOJ to prove discrimination is where things get really interesting. They looked at median grade-point averages and the standardized test scores of admitted students broken down by race. 

The median entrance exam score for admitted Black students at Yale’s medical school last year was 518 and for 517 for Hispanic students, according to the Justice Department. The median score was 524 for both White and Asian students. The highest possible score is 528.

The median grade point average in 2025 for admitted Black students was 3.88 and 3.91 for Hispanic students. For White students, it was 3.97 and for Asians 3.98.

First of all, the differences are minuscule. Secondly, these items were considered for admission along with all of the other "race neutral" factors, so it is impossible to prove that the differences demonstrate an intended racial preference. 

But most importantly, the scores of admitted students is a perfect example of a results-based (rather than intent-based) standard for proving discrimination. If we eliminate the use of disparate impact, Trump's DOJ has no case.

In the midst of all of this, there are some things we need to keep in mind. 

While one in five people in the U.S. population was Hispanic, they accounted for just 7% of the physician workforce. Similarly, 12% of the population was Black compared to 6% of the physician workforce.

Beyond equality of opportunity, there are serious health outcomes at stake.

Research suggests that patient and provider racial concordance [when providers and patients share the same racial or ethnic background] may be linked to increased visits for preventative care, greater treatment adherence, and lower emergency department use. One study found that greater representation of Black primary care physicians was associated with increased life expectancy and lower mortality among Black people.

When it comes to these findings by the DOJ, what we have is an administration wallowing in ignorance and hypocrisy in furtherance of white supremacy. You can color me "not shocked" on that one. 

Which Jim Crow voter suppression efforts have conservatives on the Supreme Court validated?

After passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, our court system needed a definition of what constituted discrimination. With the success of the Civil Rights Movement, polite society rejected open statements of white supremacy. It was no longer acceptable to do things like call someone the n-word (thus, the invention of "dog whistles"). But racism/sexism were still rampant in our culture. So how do you go about proving discrimination?

That question was eventually answered by something that came to be known as "disparate impact," which "occurs when a seemingly neutral policy or action causes a disproportionate and unjustified negative harm to a group, regardless of intent." That shift was monumental. No longer did someone need to prove that a defendant intended to discriminate. That occurred if the outcome of an action/policy disproportionately affected a protected class.

A friend of mine once gave me a perfect analogy for the importance of disparate impact: If you drop an anvil on my foot, your claim that you didn't intend to hurt me doesn't make the pain any less severe.

Conservatives like Chief Justice John Roberts have wanted to get rid of the disparate impact standard for decades. A little over a year ago, Donald Trump signed an executive order attempting to eliminate the federal government's use of disparate impact. Jeff Bezos's editorial board at the Washington Post published an opinion piece last December praising former Attorney General Pam Bondi for rescinding the use of disparate impact - calling the standard "woke."

The latest blow to disparate impact came from the recent Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which basically gutted the Voting Rights Act. Here's what Edward Foley wrote about the attempt to eliminate a "results" test and return to an "intent" test:

Callais purports to interpret VRA’s Section 2, but it destroys the central meaning of the section, converting it into the exact opposite of what Congress meant for it to do. The one thing that is unambiguous about Section 2 is that the 1982 amendment to the section’s text creates a “results” test for determining whether there is liability under the section, replacing the “intent” test that the Supreme Court had previously adopted for Section 2 claims. As the text states, no “standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed … which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race.” Yet Callais defiantly converts Section 2 back to an intent inquiry rather than a results analysis.

To demonstrate how dangerous this is, let's look at some of the Jim Crow voter suppression laws that these six conservatives on the Supreme Court would validate with this ruling. One could make a claim that in order to vote (or register to vote), citizens must pass literary tests,  pay a poll tax, and/or not be a former prisoner. Voter rolls could be purged with no ability to re-register until after the election. 

It is possible to make a case for all of those measures without suggesting that they are meant to discriminate. As a matter of fact, those arguments are already being made by some MAGA influencers. Applying them to everyone removes the appearance that they are intended to discriminate. But the result has always been to limit the voting power of black and poor citizens. 

When people suggest that these decisions by the six conservative members of the Supreme Court take us back to the Jim Crow era, it is NOT an exaggeration. That's exactly where we're headed.

We need to get honest about what money does (and doesn't) accomplish in elections

During an appearance on the Shawn Ryan Show, Cenk Uygur said something monumentally stupid. And of course, the right wing site RealClearPolitics immediately picked up on it. 

"By the time you get to the general election, it’s robot A versus robot B, and they’ve robbed you of all your choices," he said. "It’s actually the same way it works in China and Iran."

"The Chinese have a Politburo like the Soviets used to, and they vote within themselves — this very small group — and give you two options that both serve the Politburo, and then they have fake elections," he explained. "Iran does the same thing. The mullahs vote internally, give you two fake options that both serve the ayatollah and the mullahs, and then people have a fake election."

"Here in America, the donors select who is going to win the primaries by giving them all the money. Once you’ve got $5 million in a primary, good night, Irene."

"In fact, in America, the person with more money wins the election 95% of the time," he said.

There you have it. A guy who claims to be a liberal just compared U.S. elections to those in China and Iran. Holy cow!!!! Way to undermine our democracy Cenk. 

The issue of money in political campaigns is something that extreme leftists have been exploiting for years now. So let me take a moment to unpack it once again. 

According to current law, corporations cannot donate directly to a political campaign and individuals are limited to no more than $3,500. Where the big money comes into play is with donations to SuperPacs, because there are no limits. But campaign finance law also says that SuperPacs are not allowed to coordinate with campaigns (although that line in the sand is being muddied quite a bit). 

With that said, Uygur is mostly correct in suggesting that "the person with more money wins the election 95% of the time."  But in order to draw any conclusions about that it is important to know the source of the funds. 

As an example, we could look at the recent election of Zohran Mamdani. Due to the mayor's ability to raise small dollar donations, which are matched by the city's public campaign finance system, the Mamdani campaign was able raise significantly more money than Andrew Cuomo's campaign. 

Where big money donors came into play is that billionaires contributed $40 million to SuperPacs supporting Cuomo - giving him a big edge in the total amount raised. Nevertheless, Cuomo lost. 

I am reminded of the fact that Elon Musk gave over $20 million to his SuperPac in order to buy a seat on Wisconsin's Supreme Court. It didn't work. The effectiveness of that kind of money is a risk...one that a lot of billionaires seem willing to take.

It's also important to keep in mind that money donated directly to a campaign is not only WAY more effective, it is an important signal that the candidate on the receiving end has broad grassroots support. As Wesley Lowery put it: "A candidate who is compelling enough to get you to open your wallet should, in theory, also be able to get you to head to the ballot box for him or her." So a candidate who raises more money from those donors signals that they are likely to win. 

All of that is playing out in Michigan's Democratic Senate primary between Mallory McMorrow, Abdul El-Sayed, and Haley Stevens. According to the most recent FEC report, McMorrow is outraising her opponents. But even more importantly, over half of the donations to her campaign came from people who gave less than $200. For El-Sayed and Stevens it was 26% and 14% respectively. In other words, grassroots donors are breaking heavily for McMorrow. If that trend continues, she will likely win the primary. 

I'll say it once again: those who are suggesting that Democratic primaries are rigged, or that they resemble elections in China/Iran, are lying to you. In doing to, they are undermining our democracy every bit as much as Donald Trump. 

So get out and vote in the upcoming primaries - and donate when/where you can. 

I'll leave you with a piece of advice from Molly Ivins that has always guided my vote: "In the primaries vote with your heart. In the general, go with your head."

Democrats have a chance to demonstrate what democracy should look like

It's primary season for the 2024 midterm elections. Here's a helpful list of when those elections will take place over the coming months.

In almost every state, there are races (local, state, and/or national) where Democrats are running against Democrats. That presents an opportunity for the party to engage in what former President Obama called, "a better politics."

Imagine if we broke out of these tired old patterns. Imagine if we did something different. Understand, a better politics isn’t one where Democrats progressives abandon their agenda or Republicans centrists simply embrace mine. A better politics is one where we appeal to each other’s basic decency instead of our basest fears. A better politics is one where we debate without demonizing each other; where we talk issues and values, and principles and facts, rather than “gotcha” moments, or trivial gaffes, or fake controversies that have nothing to do with people’s daily lives...

If we’re going to have arguments, let’s have arguments, but let’s make them debates worthy... of this country.

In these days when our democratic republic is at risk, Democrats have an opportunity to show the country what our politics could look like. Candidates could "debate their ideas without demonizing each other; talk issues and values and principles and facts." I suspect that, with the constant demonization and dehumanization coming from the right, most voters would welcome a refreshing change. 

I've been thinking about that a lot after I decided that it was time to educate myself about a social media influencer named Hasan Piker. While I'd seen his name occasionally, I hadn't paid much attention and, like most Democrats didn't really know who he was.

Then a few weeks ago, a clip of Piker being interviewed by Jon Favreau showed up on my Facebook timeline. So I watched it. Favreau was questioning Piker's statement that he wouldn't vote for Gavin Newsom in a 2028 presidential race against J.D. Vance. As if that wasn't bad enough, Piker went on to suggest that the "Democratic Party" needs to find a "good candidate" that can appeal to him. 

What I would have asked Piker at that point is "who is the Democratic Party?" In the comments, I wrote, "If Gavin Newsom were the 2028 nominee, it would be because Democratic voters chose him in the primary." A lot of the responses claimed that the Democratic Party rigged primaries. Current candidate Graham Platner recently affirmed that idea in this conversation with a former Trump supporter (at the 2:50 minute mark).

I sat down with a Republican who voted for Trump three times.

We had a lot more in common than you would think. pic.twitter.com/ZUVtqk2CQQ

— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) May 4, 2026

Former Trump voter: "Bernie [Sanders] had the nomination and just got replaced."

Platner: "Agreed. Yep, the powers that be wouldn't let him have it so they did what they do."

Need I point out that there is no difference between that statement and Trump's big lie about the 2020 election being rigged? Both of them are not only lies. They are designed to undermine our confidence in elections - the basis of a democratic republic. 

One of the ways that productive debate is silenced is when a candidate is accused to taking a position simply because of corporate and/or PAC contributions. As an example, in the comment section of the Facebook post I referred to up above, I mentioned that I had contributed to Peggy Flanagan's campaign for Senate. I was told that she was simply a "corporate shill." Nevermind that she has been endorsed by Senators Tina Smith, Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey, Bernie Sanders, etc. because of her record as an independent and progressive politician. These folks simply throw around terms like that to shut down conversations/debates about issues. 

As an example of the way that is playing out in the 2026 primaries, Hasan Piker and the candidate he supports - Chris Rabb - in Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District primary, are accusing his opponents of being secretly funded by AIPAC and therefore in support of Israel's genocide in Gaza. Here's a good summary of why that is not true. 

As Democrats, candidates should have vigorous debates on the issues where they agree and disagree. Then we all go to the polls and vote for the person we think will do the best job of representing us. As we watch that process come under assault by Republicans, we have a chance to demonstrate what real democracy should look like. Let's not blow it! 

What the anti-Zionists miss about the war with Iran

Due to a report from April 7th in the New York Times, conventional wisdom has focused on the fact that Bibi Netanyahu is the one who talked Trump into attacking Iran. Anti-Zionists from both the extreme left and right have zeroed in on that reporting to make the case that Israel is to blame for the current state of affairs in the Middle East. Of course, they're not completely wrong about that. As former Secretary of State John Kerry recently said, Netanyahu made the same pitch to President's Bush, Obama, and Biden. However, the only one who ever bought it was Trump. 

But a month before that New York Times article was published, a headline in the Washington Post read: "Push from Saudis, Israel helped move Trump to attack Iran."

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman made multiple private phone calls to Trump over the past month advocating a U.S. attack...In his discussions with U.S. officials...the Saudi leader warned that Iran would come away stronger and more dangerous if the United States did not strike now...

Then in March, the New York Times published an article stating that "Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has been pushing President Trump to continue the war against Iran, arguing that the U.S.-Israeli military campaign presents a “historic opportunity” to remake the Middle East."

So Netanyahu isn't the only leader in the Middle East who's pushing this war against Iran. The reason that is important is because Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is one of the lead negotiators with Iran. He obviously has a vested interest in what Saudi Arabia wants out of this conflict as he seeks billions of additional dollars from that government. 

One of the only people talking about that is Senator John Ossoff.

Referring to the "Mar-a-Lago Mafia," Ossoff said that "Never before have we seen so little effort to hide so much corruption." And yet, an obsession with Israel has blinded a lot of people to the Kushner/Saudi Arabia side of this conflict. 

Global affairs are often a mixture of complex factors. This one is no different. Forces that led to the war with Iran include Netanyahu and Christian nationalists who want to bring on Armageddon. But a corrupt son-in-law seeking billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia's Mohammed bin Salman has to be included in the mix.  

Not-Breaking News: Trump Threatens Obama

Donald Trump went on a bit of a bender on social media last night - as is the case more often these days. This is one of the themes that emerged: 

President Donald Trump shared and reposted a series of messages via Truth Social after midnight on Friday (April 24), accusing former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton of treason, while appearing to once again suggest Obama should be arrested.

As an example, Trump reposted someone who wrote: "Hillary Clinton funded, approved, and created the Steele Dossier, Barack Obama called the shots, and Brennan's CIA did the dirty work. The evidence is clear, TREASON was committed, and now they must pay or they will do it again. Americans demand it."

It's been nine months since Trump threatened to arrest Obama. So it's worth asking what sparked this renewed interest in the former president. There are two possibilities - which aren't mutually exclusive.

First of all, the video of Obama and Mamdani visiting a child care center went viral. It reminded a lot of people what it was like to have a president who enjoyed the presence of children while lifting them up. We've all seen how Obama lives rent-free in Trump's head as the biggest irritant to his narcissistic ego. The more people remember how much they admire the former president, the more the current occupant of the White House is likely to lash out in anger.

Recent events in the Justice Department have also riled up the president and his MAGA base. Prosecutors in Miami have been attempting to pull together a case charging people in the Obama administration over their involvement in the so-called "Russia hoax." Last week, the lead federal prosecutor, Maria Medetis Long, who was overseeing the criminal investigation of John Brennan, was pulled off the case. Sources familiar with the matter said it was because she informed her superiors that there was not enough evidence to make the case.

The next day it was announced that Joe DiGenova would be in charge of leading the investigation. In case you've forgotten, DiGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing were deeply involved in Rudolph Giuliani's extortion racket that led to Trump's first impeachment. Part of their work involved feeding lies to John Solomon, who was then working as a "reporter" for The Hill. It shouldn't come as surprise that Solomon immediately jumped on the bandwagon by forecasting a "grand conspiracy case" against Obama administration officials. 

None of these conmen/women have ever had anything but lies - which they use to juice up a delusional president and his MAGA enablers. When they fail, they'll do what they've always done: blame the "deep state," corrupt judges, and/or the "radical left." 

The facts remain: Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 election to help Trump and the lot of them tried to extort Zelensky to fabricate dirt against Biden in the 2020 election. In the end, as Nancy Pelosi once said, "With Trump, all roads lead to Putin."

- The US leaving NATO
- Zelenskyy being humiliated in the Oval Office
- The US turning on Europe

Is it Donald Trump’s foreign policy or Vladimir Putin’s 'Christmas wishlist'? James O’Brien can’t tell. pic.twitter.com/anW8AYupSc

— LBC (@LBC) April 24, 2026

A question for Vance about morality

Given Viktor Orban's loss in Hungary and the failed negotiations with Iran, it's clear that J.D. Vance had a bad week. But as an avowed Catholic, he's also having to justify his boss's attack on the Pope. 

One of the things he said in that context stood out to me. During an interview with Bret Baier on Fox News, the vice president said that "it would be best for the Vatican to stick to matters of morality."

That struck me because conservative Christians have typically narrowed the definition of "morals" to rules about sexual behavior. I suspect that is how Vance was using the term in this context. 

But I'd challenge him to answer whether the Bible's 10 commandments address "matters of morality." If so, I'd like to talk about two of them: (1) you shall not kill, and (2) you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (ie, you shall not lie). 

In light of those, I'd ask the vice president whether his rhetoric/actions on immigration are "matters of morality." For example, is it moral to justify the murder of two American citizens by ICE officers? How about the  46 people who have died in ICE custody during this administration. Do their deaths raise a moral question?

Of course, Vance admitted that he lied about Haitian immigrants eating our cats and dogs. But pretty much every time he opens his mouth about immigration he lies - accusing immigrants of causing all of our problems with health care, housing, education, etc. According to the Bible, lying is a matter of morality. 

In the end, the Pope is doing exactly as Vance has suggested. He regularly calls out those who behave immorally when it comes to the way they treat immigrants. Even as a non-Catholic, I understand that's his job.

Right wing influencers try to convince MAGA that the glass is half full

Trump approval among 2024 voters from The Economist 

While the entire MAGA movement is motivated by fear, I have always been fascinated that - when it comes to electoral politics - Republicans have consistently promoted a message that "the glass is half full." For example, even as it is clear that they'll lose the 2026 midterms, right wing commentators regularly celebrate the fact that voters in blue states are migrating to red states, demonstrating that they're desperate to promote good news to the troops.

Recently I've seen two examples of this:

"Democrats 'lost the plot.' Now they're losing voters" by Ingrid Jacques, and

"5.4 Million People Have Migrated To Pro-Trump Counties Since 2020 As The Great Divorce Continues" by the Editorial Board at Issues and Insights.

The conclusion from the folks at Issues and Insights is simply absurd.

We keep hearing how unpopular Trump and his policies are....While that might be what people tell pollsters, their own actions – picking up and moving to a new county or a different state – speak much louder.

Millions of Americans would rather live among Trump supporters than those voting for the likes of Kamala Harris.

The reasons people move from one state to another are complex. But I doubt that anyone ever said that it was primarily because "I don't want to live among people who voted for Kamala Harris." 

It's also quite likely that these commentators are badly misinterpreting the data. Jacques points out that the "red states" people are moving to include Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Texas. Georgia is already a "purple state," while North Carolina and Texas have been (albeit slowly) moving in that direction. To give your some idea of how MAGA is doing in those states right now, Trump's job approval among 2024 voters is -5 points in Texas, -9 in North Carolina, and a whopping -17 in Georgia. 

The question I would have for these commentators is whether they've considered the possibility that perhaps the voters who are moving to those states are bringing their "blue values" with them.

Instead of analyzing data from states, the editors at Issues and Insights researched county data. Of the ten counties experiencing the largest influx, five of them are in Texas, and all of those are suburban counties in the metro areas of Dallas, Houston, or Austin. While cities have consistently been blue and rural areas red, over the last decade or so, suburban counties are increasingly moving from Republican to Democratic. It's at least worth wondering if that trend is being impacted by migrants from blue states.

I am reminded of a story a friend of mine told about her white parents moving from Minnesota to North Carolina for retirement. When her mother went in to get a driver's license, she registered to vote. The African American clerk asked whether she wanted to register as a Republican or Democrat. When the answer was the latter, the clerk put her hands together, looked up, and mouthed "thank you."

If you're a MAGA influencer watching people move from blue states to red states, you just might want to consider if the glass is half empty (and draining fast).

The lesson Trump is incapable of learning

On Easter morning the current President of the United States posted this on social media:

Trump followed that up by telling a Fox News correspondent that he'll "take Iranian oil if they are unwilling to make an agreement." By Tuesday morning. the president was posting that "a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again" if they don't agree to his demands.

Much of the discussion about this escalation has focused on how it demonstrates that Trump's mental health is decompensating. I agree. But he's doing so in a way that simply amplifies the mental health disorders that have been evident for decades.

Trump has always believed that the only way to exert power is via dominance over someone he perceives to be weak. In other words, the only tool in his toolbox is bullying. In that world, there's no such thing as negotiations. The only outcome is capitulation. 

I was reminded of this when I listened to a discussion on NPR about why the Witkoff/Kushner negotiations with Iran failed prior to Trump's decision to start this war. Much has been made of the fact that Witkoff/Kushner went into those negotiations without any expertise in nuclear power and might not have even understood the offer put on the table by Iran. 

But towards the end of the discussion someone mentioned that, going into the negotiations, the only outcome acceptable to the Trump administration was Iran's total capitulation. Given that wasn't going to happen, the talks were doomed from the start. War was inevitable. 

Now - much like Trump and his enablers were baffled by the fact that the people of Minnesota refused to back down - they seem confused about why Iran isn't capitulating to their demands in light of the threats the president is unleashing. They actually think that sh*t works. 

All of this reminds me of why the Obama administration was able to be successful in negotiating a nuclear agreement with Iran. It was a highly complex effort, but here are a few high points:

1. They were able to get not only our allies, but Russia and China to join the U.S. in applying sanctions to Iran.

2. The sanctions worked. In 2013, Iran came to the table to negotiate.

3. Negotiations weren't conducted bilaterally between the U.S. and Iran. They also included China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K., and the European Union.

4. Obama knew the importance of understanding our history with Iran, telling Thomas Friedman that, "part of the psychology of Iran is rooted in past experiences, the sense that their country was undermined, that the United States or the West meddled in first their democracy and then in supporting the Shah and then in supporting Iraq and Saddam during that extremely brutal war. So part of what I’ve told my team is we have to distinguish between the ideologically driven, offensive Iran and the defensive Iran that feels vulnerable and sometimes may be reacting because they perceive that as the only way that they can avoid repeats of the past."

Those were all critical elements to the success of negotiations, demonstrating what President Obama pointed out during his 2009 speech in Cairo.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes -- and, yes, religions -- subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared.

Unfortunately, that is a lesson that Donald Trump is incapable of learning. 

A question for Trump: Why are you celebrating the death of the man that supposedly exonerated you?

Shortly after the news broke that Robert Mueller had died, President Trump went on his social media platform to post the following: 

On Meet the Press, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was asked whether it was appropriate for a POTUS to celebrate the death of a Bronze Star recipient. He responded by saying, "Neither one of us can understand what's been done to the president and his family. We should have empathy for the president." The implication was, of course, that the president's celebration was excusable because the "innocent" person Mueller hurt was Donald Trump. 

I recognize that it's a fool's errand to assume we can make sense out of the continual lies being told by this president, but let's take a look at what Trump said when the Mueller report was released.

Trump declared victory and said that Mueller had completely exonerated him. That's the consistent message we've heard from both he and his enablers. If that were true, you'd expect the president to be honoring the patriot who cleared him of all wrongdoing in the so-called "Russia hoax." 

And yet, of all the grudges Trump holds against people who've crossed him, he appears to hold the biggest one against Robert Mueller - going so far as to publicly celebrate his death. 

Let's remind ourselves of what we actually learned from the Mueller report:

• Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump and damage Hillary Clinton.
• Several members of Trump's campaign had meetings/ties with Russian agents - indicating collusion with Moscow's attempt to interfere in the election, but not enough to prove a conspiracy.
• The Trump campaign engaged in ten documented incidents of obstruction of justice.

So which is it President Trump? Did Mueller totally exonerate you? Or did he provide evidence that you colluded with Russia and obstructed justice - which is why you are celebrating his death?

The abuse in women's sports that this MAGA anti-trans activist wants you to ignore

I hope that by now you've heard Alysa Liu's story. After winning two world championships by the time she was 14 years old, she quit figure skating because she had come to hate it. When she returned to the sport two years later, she had figured out that it wasn't the sport she hated, but the way it had been used to control her life. So she laid down some new ground rules. They boiled down to "I'm in charge now." And it wasn't all about what happened on the ice. She said, "No one's going to starve me, or tell me what I can and can't eat."

While it's clear that Alysa doesn't want to wallow in the past, she was literally told that she couldn't drink water. As she said during an interview with Rolling Stone, "They were like, ‘Oh water weight, you shouldn’t drink water. You should gargle it.'" That's crazy!

Huge kudos to Alysa for breaking out of that kind of abuse. But it brings up the reality of what seems to happen a lot in women's sports. 

Due to MAGA and their media outlets, you'd think that the most important topic in women's sports is the one about getting rid of trans women  - who they claim pose a threat. The leader of that charge is a young woman named Riley Gaines, who tied for 5th place in an NCAA swim meet against a trans woman. 

Riley started her campaign against trans athletes by suggesting that they shouldn't compete in women's sports. That's something we could have a discussion about. But it eventually moved into a claim that merely sharing a locker room with a trans woman amounted to sexual abuse. She even had the gall to compare her experience to the abuse suffered by Simone Biles at the hands of Larry Nassar.

Simone Biles when she had to endure a predatory man

Vs

Simone Biles when other girls have to endure predatory men pic.twitter.com/8p9D51seYr

— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) June 7, 2025

In defending that tweet, Riley said this about her experience with a trans woman in the locker room, "What me and my teammates had to go through was certainly sexual abuse.” 

What you might not know is that Riley's coach at the time was a man named Lars Jorgensen. He was initially suspended from coaching for "exceeding maximum practice hours for nearly three years, including not providing required weekly days off or required flex days off." But here's how Riley's teammates described a deeper issue.

Swimmers say Jorgensen mocked teammates’ weight and pressured them to lower their body fat percentage to extremes. “Lars is the biggest reason that an alarming number of the Women’s Swim Team suffers from Eating Disorders,” one former swimmer wrote to UK officials. “The damage from Lars’ words and remarks about female bodies last long beyond the four years of collegiate swimming.”

But it gets worse. Jorgensen is also facing civil suits by at least two former staff members who have accused him of rape. This was all happening while Riley Gaines was on Jorgensen's swim team. She obviously knew about his practice schedule and the way he treated her teammates. It's unclear whether, at the time, she knew about the sexual abuse. But she does now. 

Rather than speaking out against coaches who starve female athletes or rape them, Riley is still suggesting that protecting women in sports is all about denying trans women the right to compete. A cynical person might question whether she's a tool being used to distract us from the real abuse that's going on. 

The blind spot in David French's column about James Talarico

David French is one of those conservative evangelicals that I admire. While standing firm in his conservative positions, he's been consistently critical of MAGA Christian nationalists. That's why, when he wrote about James Talarico - the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Texas - I was interested in hearing what he had to say. 

After reading French's piece, I recommend it - even though I disagree with some of the things he said. I also see a giant hole in his reasoning. This is how he opens his argument:

Put simply, if the primary American divide is between right and left, then Talarico isn’t that interesting...

Yet if the primary American divide is between decent and indecent, then the equation changes. Talarico shines.

Or, to put it another way, Talarico is one of the few openly Christian politicians in the United States who acts like a Christian...

Here's what French means when he says that Talarico "acts like a Christian."

For example, when Talarico won his Senate primary, he said, “I am tired of being pitted against my neighbor. I’m tired of being told to hate my neighbor. It’s been more than 10 years of this kind of politics. Politics as blood sport, politics as trolling and owning, politics as total war. It tears families apart. It ends friendships, and it leaves us all feeling terrible all the time.”...   

One reason politics has been so exhausting — and even so frightening — is that we often know that opposing politicians don’t just disagree with us, but that they hate us. And if a politician hates us, then we know they won’t listen to us, they won’t care about us, and they may well actively try to harm us when they’re in office.  

This is what MAGA Christianity has become. In that world, cruelty in the name of Trumpism is no vice, and kindness in the name of progressivism is no virtue. 

I agree. "Politics as blood sport" is not only exhausting, it is both dangerous and unproductive. But French isn't looking very hard if he thinks that Talarico is one of the few openly Christian politicians who acts like a Christian. One that comes to mind is Senator Raphael Warnock - an actual minister.

But when reading French's column about Talarico, my mind immediately went to former President Barack Obama - who openly talked about being a "born again Christian." There was a theme that almost always ran through Obama's speeches. Here is what that sounded like during his 2016 State of the Union speech when the top contenders for the Republican presidential nomination were Ted Cruz and Donald Trump:

The future we want - opportunity and security for our families; a rising standard of living and a sustainable, peaceful planet for our kids - all that is within our reach. But it will only happen if we work together. It will only happen if we can have rational, constructive debates...

A better politics doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything. This is a big country, with different regions and attitudes and interests. That’s one of our strengths, too. Our Founders distributed power between states and branches of government, and expected us to argue, just as they did, over the size and shape of government, over commerce and foreign relations, over the meaning of liberty and the imperatives of security.

But democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It doesn’t work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, or that our political opponents are unpatriotic. Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise; or when even basic facts are contested, and we listen only to those who agree with us. Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get attention. Most of all, democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some narrow interest.

Obama went on to express his optimism about the future. But it wasn't based on politicians. He found it elsewhere and said, "I see you."

Voices that help us see ourselves not first and foremost as black or white or Asian or Latino, not as gay or straight, immigrant or native born; not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans first, bound by a common creed. Voices Dr. King believed would have the final word - voices of unarmed truth and unconditional love.

They’re out there, those voices. They don’t get a lot of attention, nor do they seek it, but they are busy doing the work this country needs doing.

I see them everywhere I travel in this incredible country of ours. I see you. I know you’re there. You’re the reason why I have such incredible confidence in our future. Because I see your quiet, sturdy citizenship all the time.

I have to admit that, when I read those words today, I wept. The tears are about my grief at where I thought this country was going back then compared to where we are today. But then I had to remind myself that, when it comes to the people Obama was talking about - they're still at it.

But back to French's column. The giant hole I saw is that he completely ignores one of the main themes of Obama's presidency. Perhaps that's because the MAGA era has taught him to look a little more deeply at what it means to be a Christian. But given the fact that he loosely compares Talarico to Jimmy Carter, it's hard not to question whether race has something to do with it. 

The truth is that French never bought into the fact that Obama is a Christian. Back in 2015, he wrote about those doubts. I have no way of knowing if French still agrees with that, but his portrayal of Talarico as somehow unique is telling. 

The Republican Party spent eight years demonizing President Obama. Now a lot of the never-Trumpers from the GOP are beginning to sound a lot like the former president. When they can embrace that, we'll know that they've confronted their blind spots - regardless of whether they're the result of racism or ideology.  

A mad and dangerous king

A lot of the discussion lately about Trump's unfitness for office has focused on the obvious signs of dementia and the discoloration on his hands/neck. But as he becomes increasingly more volatile, it is important to remember that, before any of these symptoms showed up, he met the criteria of someone with disturbing mental health issues. 

Due to the stigma associated with talking about mental health, a lot of people don't know how these illnesses are diagnosed. The standard format for doing so is to review whether their behavior meets certain criteria outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). So, for example, a person is diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) if they exhibit at least five of the following:

• Having a grandiose sense of self-importance, such as exaggerating achievements and talents, expecting to be recognized as superior even without commensurate achievements
• Preoccupation with fantasies of success, power, beauty, and idealization
• Belief in being "special" and that they can only be understood by or associated with other high-status people (or institutions)
• Demanding excessive admiration
• Sense of entitlement
• Exploitation behaviors
• Lack of empathy
• Envy towards others or belief that others are envious of them
• Arrogant, haughty behaviors and attitudes

After having observed Donald Trump on the national stage for over 10 years now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist (or psychiatrist) to conclude that the President of the United States exhibits all nine characteristics that are associated with NPD. When it comes to his increasingly volatile behavior, this explains a lot.

The president didn't bother to explain why he started a war with Iran, nor did he develop a plan for its implementation. That's pretty classic for someone exhibiting behaviors associated with Antisocial Personality Disorder (what we used to call sociopathy). In order to be diagnosed with that disorder, a person must exhibit at least three of the following:

• Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
• Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
• Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
• Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
• Reckless disregard for safety of self or others
• Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
• Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

One could argue that Trump's NPD keeps him from personally engaging in physical fights or showing a reckless disregard for his own safety. He merely has others do the violence for him. But otherwise, we have a president who regularly engages in criminal behaviors, lies compulsively, has been a con artist for his entire adult life, and never shows an ounce of remorse for the pain he has inflicted on others. But also notice that one of the behaviors associated with APD is impulsivity, or failure to plan ahead. For years it has been obvious that Trump shoots first and aims later. It is horrendous to see that one playing out now in his war with Iran.

In addition to dementia, two things are happening that escalate Trump's NPD and APD. The first, as Leah McElrath pointed out above, is that the president is facing his own mortality, which makes him more dangerous.

Josh Marshall did a great job of articulating the second contributor.

A couple months ago, I said that we were starting to see a pattern. As Trump grew less popular and less powerful at home, he would need to compensate to maintain his psychic equilibrium. He’d lean more and more into the presidency’s prerogative powers that are untrammeled and unrestrained regardless of what’s going on at home or how much support he has. He’ll be increasingly aggressive and violent in those realms of power and he’ll become more constrained and limited in others. In Trump’s world, there is dominating and there is being dominated. For him, the latter is a psychic death. So leaning hard into these prerogative powers where a president is, in effect, all powerful amounts to a kind of grand and bloody self-care...

To my mind, Trump is doing these things abroad precisely because he’s lost control of the situation at home.

I wish there was some magic wand we could wave to stop all of this. But unfortunately that moment passed on November 5, 2024 when too many people voted for this mad man. The important thing right now is to stop normalizing what's going on and name the fact that this president is a mad and dangerous king.

Who is MAGA?

Cracks are beginning to form in the MAGA coalition. That initially became evident with the Trump administration's mishandling of the Epstein files. Slightly below surface is the ongoing battle over anti-semitism being fueled by people like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Nick Fuentes.  

No that Trump has started a war with Iran, those cracks are beginning to widen. Many of MAGA's most powerful influencers are breaking ranks with the president in ways that are unprecedented, given the cult-like devotions they've shown in the past. In typical fashion, Fuentes has been the most explosive.

Fuentes calls the decision to start a war with Iran his "breaking point" and that he's "off the Trump train." He goes on to say that he won't vote in the 2026 midterms and if Rubio or Vance are on the ticket in 2028, he'll vote Democrat. Frankly, I'll believe it when I see it. But them's fighting words, for sure.

Fuentes, however, isn't the only one. MAGA influencers breaking ranks with Trump include Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Matt Walsh, Candace Owens, Sohrab Ahmari, and even gun-for-hire Eric Prince. Those are just a few that I've noticed. Perhaps there are others.

At this point, right wing cable news channels like Fox and NewsNation have maintained their allegiance to the president. It's the podcasters and the anti-interventionist faction that aren't happy with their leader's latest move. As has been noted, that latter group includes VP Vance's allies - putting him in an awkward position. 

Given that Carlson and Kelly reach the largest audiences, Rachel Bade reached out to the president to ask him for a response to their criticisms. 

“I think that MAGA is Trump — MAGA’s not the other two,” Trump said, referring to Kelly and Carlson. “MAGA wants to see our country thrive and be safe. And MAGA loves what I’m doing — every aspect of it."

Of course, that is his narcissism talking. But is it true? Could Trump maintain his dominance over conservatives if MAGA influencers turned their backs on him and quit propping up his lies? I have my doubts. 

No, Trump did not set a trap for Democrats with his false dilemma

During his State of the Union speech, President Trump offered something logicians call a "false dilemma," defined as "an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available." Here's what he said:

Tonight, I’m inviting every legislator to join with my administration in reaffirming a fundamental principle. If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support. The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.

Conservatives often use a false dilemma to make their point (ie, "America, love it or leave it" and "You're either with us or against us") because it reduces complex issues to simple either/or options and allows them to demonize those who disagree with them.

Because Democrats refused Trump's premise and remained seated, the White House and MAGA influencers claimed that the president set a trap and Democrats walked right into it. If dumbing down our politics is the goal, I suspect they have a point. But it is pretty easily refuted.

First of all, we need to ask a few questions about how the Trump administration is demonstrating that their first duty is to protect American citizens. What about Renee Good and Alex Pretti - American citizens that were murdered by ICE agents? How about the hundreds of American citizens who have been illegally detained by ICE? Just one example would be ChongLy "Scott" Thao.

ICE agents illegally broke into his house and dragged him outside in below zero temperatures in his underwear and slippers - only to release him hours later AFTER they reviewed his papers. 

Back in October 2025, ProPublica documented that more than 170 U.S. citizens had been detained by ICE. That number is much higher after the Metro Surge operation in Minnesota. 

So that's how the Trump administration demonstrates its duty to protect American citizens...murder them and/or lock them up.

Democrats want to ensure the safety of American citizens - especially when it comes to upholding the rights established by our Constitution. We also want a few things when it comes to the people Trump calls "illegal aliens?" I'd offer this list:

• Stop lying about immigrants being garbage and criminals 
• Provide due process and judicial warrants to enter private property (this is actually a protection for everyone - including U.S. citizens)
• Follow the law for those who are came here legally (ie, TPS, DACA, those with valid asylum claims, etc.)
• Stop racial profiling (another protection for everyone - including U.S. citizens)
• End arbitrary quotas for the number of people deported
• Stop rendition to prisons in other countries
• Stop lying about deporting the "worst of the worst" and actually make it a focus
• Affirm the constitutionality of birthright citizenship
• Allow a pathway to citizenship for those who have been contributing members of their community for years

As I've said before, Democrats have NEVER favored open borders via rhetoric or policy. We are in favor of protecting American citizens AND establishing a humane immigration system. There's nothing radical about that. The problem is that Trump and his MAGA enablers refuse to engage with us on these issues based on truth, the rule of law, and our Constitution.

Minnesota doesn't need lectures on accountability from the corrupt liars in the White House.

During his State of the Union speech, President Trump said this:

When it comes to the corruption that is plundering — really, it's plundering America. There's been no more stunning example than Minnesota, where members of the Somali community have pillaged an estimated $19 billion from the American taxpayer...

This is the kind of corruption that shreds the fabric of a nation, and we are working on it like you wouldn't believe. So, tonight, although it started four months ago, I am officially announcing the war on fraud to be led by our great Vice President, J.D. Vance. We'll get it done.

And if we're able to find enough of that fraud, we will actually have a balanced budget overnight. It'll go very quickly. That's the kind of money you're talking about.

As he does so often, the president pulled that $19 billion number out of thin air. The U.S. Attorney who had been responsible for prosecuting fraud in Minnesota (before he recently resigned) estimated $9 billion in potential fraud. But that number is also suspect. The Minnesota Star Tribune did the legwork and documented $218 million from court records so far. 

When it comes to balancing the budget via fraud, we'd all do well to remember that Elon Musk was going to cut federal spending by $2 trillion via the elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse. His DOGE efforts actually increased the deficit by $286 billion. 

But there's another problem with Trump's statement. The federal government spends about $600 billion on Medicaid per year (the program being targeted for fraud). The federal budget deficit is currently running at about $1.9 trillion per year. So even if the entire Medicaid program were eliminated, it wouldn't come close to balancing the budget. 

The real kicker is that the president (who was convicted on 34 counts of fraud) has appointed Vice President Vance as the so-called "fraud tzar" - the same guy that admittedly lied about immigrants eating our pets. 

It didn't take Vance long to get to work. On Wednesday, he announced that the Trump administration will pause $259 million in Medicaid payments to Minnesota. The vice president said that these payments would be paused "until the state government takes its obligations seriously to stop the fraud that's being perpetrated against the American taxpayer."

It's really rich being lectured about obligations from an administration that is the most corrupt in this country's history with a president who has pardoned dozens of people who committed billions of dollars worth of fraud. But there you have it.

In light of that, it might be helpful to take a moment to document what Minnesota has actually done to combat fraud. Bullet points should suffice.

• The Minnesota Department of Human Services has conducted more than 3,000 investigations since 2020 and referred more than 500 cases to law enforcement.
• 94 defendants have faced criminal charges for fraud since 2021.
• Tim O'Malley was appointed as head of program integrity across state government (ie, state "fraud tzar'). He is a judge, former superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, and former FBI agent.
• An outside firm was hired to audit payments to high-risk programs at the Department of Human Services and a specialized fraud-fighting law enforcement unit was created at the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. 
• Payments to providers in 14 Medicaid programs were paused while systems were audited.
• Housing Stabilization Services, which used Medicaid dollars to help people find and keep housing, was discontinued.
• The day before the president's State of the Union speech, Tim O'Malley released a nine-pillar overhaul on how Minnesota prevents, detects and responds to fraud.
• State Democratic leaders have proposed a dozen anti-fraud bills this session.
• As I write, Gov. Walz is introducing his own anti-fraud legislative package.

If you got through all of that - congratulations. Gov. Walz put it best, I think.

Detecting fraud is resource intensive and time consuming — especially when it comes to the federal Medicaid programs that have a complex interplay between private insurance companies and federal, state and county governments. Is it impossible? No. We have made significant progress. We have much more to do.

The one thing that isn't going to help is to get lectures on accountability from the corrupt liars in the White House.