Did Trump Just Take the First Steps Toward Civil War? & Backlash for NYT Essay Speculating on Taylor Swift’s Sexuality
25 Historians Explain Why Trump Constitutionally Can't Run, Missouri Republican Wants Duels in Legislature, Lechery on Reality TV, Sexism on Book Covers, Nature Astounds Again, Melanie Sings
What I’m Discussing Today:
Kareem’s Daily Quote: Popeye the Sailor lays down a lesson in embracing change rather than stubbornly refusing to evolve.
Trump Calls for ‘All Willing States’ to Deploy National Guard Troops to Texas: The man with no scruples would push toward a civil war if it made him money and gave him power.
US historians sign brief to support Colorado’s removal of Trump from the ballot: Twenty-five historians explain why the U.S. Constitution rejects his candidacy.
Missouri GOP Lawmaker Floats Rule Change to Bring Back Duels: Yes, you read that right.
New York Times faces backlash for essay speculating on Taylor Swift’s sexuality: When journalism sinks to exploitation, we all suffer the consequences.
Kareem’s Petty Media Gripes: Reality lechery is as unacceptable from women as it is from men and book covers reveal gender discrepancy.
What I’m Watching: Television: Love on the Spectrum and Dance Life are two docuseries you will want to binge for their emotional intensity and insights into humanity.
Kareem’s Video Break: Today, you will be amazed by this strange creature. You’ll see it but still won’t believe it.
Melanie Sings “Brand New Key”: Folk-pop singer-songwriter Melanie passed away last week. This song celebrates her light-hearted side.
Kareem’s Daily Quote
I yam what I yam and that's all what I yam.
Popeye the Sailor
There’s a lot of profound wisdom to be learned from cartoon characters. My previous philosophical mentors were Linus from Peanuts (“I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.”) and Pogo (“We have met the enemy and he is us.”). Today, we examine the spinach-guzzling sage Popeye.
There’s danger in that quote. It’s tempting to interpret it as a smug and defiant manifesto of irrational stubbornness, like Buck Owens when he said, “I am who I am, I am what I am, I do what I do and I ain't never gonna do it any different. I don't care who likes it and who don't.” It’s odd to me that people making this kind of claim think that they are coming off as strong and purposeful when in reality they’re revealing themselves to be closed-minded and afraid of change. It’s an admission of weakness, intellect, and character to announce you’ll never change, no matter what happens or what evidence you’re shown.
“I yam what I yam and that's all what I yam” doesn’t have to be about the sad life of being intractable. It can also be a meditation on how what “I yam” is always in flux. The old saying, “You can never step in the same river twice” is about how we have to accept changes around us as well as changes within ourselves. The river is constantly moving—like life around us—and our bodies and minds are always changing. Our bodies change on a cellular level so that every cell has been replaced again and again. It’s like this metaphysical riddle: If you buy an ax but six months later replace the handle, then six months after that replace the ax head, is it the same ax you bought? Plus, our minds are constantly taking in new information, whether consciously or unconsciously, and that affects the brain, which is the core of who we yam.
You know how uncomfortable a grown adult gets when their parent waxes on about how they used to change their diaper. That’s because they are no longer that person and have no connection to that memory. I have a whole catalog of cringe-worthy memories of things I did or said that I wish I hadn’t. I’m glad I’m no longer those guys.
I’m not the same guy who scored all those points in the NBA. Not the same guy who attended the Cleveland Summit. Not the same guy who played for Coach Wooden. I occupy the same space that he did, but I’m a different man. Those experiences helped make me who I am today, but tomorrow I’ll be a different man.
I yam what I yam, not what I was.
Did Trump Just Take the First Steps Toward Civil War?
We need to understand that there are two Donald Trumps. The first is just a man—a not-very-impressive man who embodies all the worst characteristics of humanity. He is a walking manifestation of the Seven Deadly Sins (pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony, sloth). No need to catalog his crimes and misdeeds, they have been on display for years. Without his name and wealth, he is the kind of person no community would want to have. He is the rough beast slouching toward D.C. to be born. Again.
The second Donald Trump is a symbol to his true-believer followers (not the hucksters in business and politics looking to turn a profit). To them, he’s not a man but a fantasy character from a movie or comic book. They don’t see a rapist, a fraudster, or a destroyer—they see themselves. He is a cardboard cutout at a carnival or comic-con with a hole where patrons can stick their heads for a photo of their face on the fantasy figure. They like that he’s not too bright, because that sets the bar low enough that anybody could make policy, no knowledge or critical thinking required. They can then fantasize about themselves in his place. They like that he challenges those in power, even when he personally put them in power because he fights against authority—even though he craves to be that authority and would crush his follower’s rights in minutes. That is why no matter what atrocities Trump commits, they won’t register. His followers’ superpower is that they are invulnerable to facts, logic, or evidence.
Those of us who still see reality must be ever-vigilant about the greatest threat we’ve ever faced: destruction from within.
Trump Calls for ‘All Willing States’ to Deploy National Guard Troops to Texas (Daily Beast)
SUMMARY: Amid Texas’ spat with the federal government over razor wire along the U.S.-Mexico border, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is calling on “all willing States to deploy their [national] guards to Texas to prevent the entry of Illegals, and to remove them back across the Border.” Trump’s comments on Truth Social Thursday came a day after the Supreme Court ruled against Texas’ Republican governor and attorney general by allowing border patrol agents to remove the wire. Trump added that he would “work hand in hand” with Abbott, who has defended his controversial immigration policies by saying that “the only thing that we’re not doing is we’re not shooting people who come across the border, because of course the Biden administration would charge us with murder.”
MY TAKE: This is not a drill: Donald Trump has become the most destructive force to American democracy. To support him after all that’s happened, after all he’s said and done, is to denounce America and everything it stands for. That’s not hyperbole or liberal posturing. It’s merely acknowledging the facts.
First, he loses the election and goes on a campaign to convince Americans that the elections are rigged, despite no evidence to support this accusation, despite people in his party dismissing the claim. At the same time, his party is hard at work rigging elections through gerrymandering and passing laws to hinder voters who are Black, students, and the poor. This is how you destroy American democracy.
Second, he loses two court cases decided by two different juries, is proven to be a sexual predator, and is forced to pay fines that total almost $100 million. He faces indictments and charges in other court cases involving fraud (which one judge already declared he was guilty of) and other crimes. He huffs out of the courtroom complaining, “This is not America.” Well, it’s not the America that exempts the rich from the law as he is used to. His constant unfounded attacks on America’s judicial system weakens our trust in it.
Finally, Trump stacked the U.S. Supreme Court with three of his hand-picked Justices, tipping it toward hard-right conservatism. He was the Court’s biggest booster—until they decided against his position. Now, he wants to send troops from other states.
But let’s look at the man he’s aligning himself with. Gov. Abbott said that “the only thing that we’re not doing is we’re not shooting people who come across the border, because of course the Biden administration would charge us with murder.” Yes, executing unarmed people—especially mothers, fathers, and children escaping poverty or political persecution—should result in charging everyone involved with murder, including Abbott. America’s insistence that we don’t kill people without due process is what separates us from dictators. Abbott doesn’t like that.
In a joint statement, 25 Republican governors expressed support for “Texas’ constitutional right to self-defense.” Not surprisingly, most of these states were the same ones that seceded from the U.S. because they just couldn’t live without slavery. Their lack of morals or patriotism hasn’t changed: “We get our way, no matter what the law says, or we strong-arm everyone else into conceding.”
Every politician who lines up behind Trump because they’re anxious to keep their jobs rather than defend America, as they took an oath to do, should be punished by their constituents by removing them from office. Stop worrying about keeping your guns “to defend liberty”—if you truly want to protect the country from its enemies, arm yourself with a ballot.
RELATED: US historians sign brief to support Colorado’s removal of Trump from ballot (The Guardian)
SUMMARY: Twenty-five historians of the civil war and Reconstruction filed a US supreme court brief in support of the attempt by Colorado to remove Donald Trump from the ballot under the 14th amendment, which bars insurrectionists from running for office.
“For historians,” the group wrote, “contemporary evidence from the decision-makers who sponsored, backed, and voted for the 14th amendment [ratified in 1868] is most probative. Analysis of this evidence demonstrates that decision-makers crafted section three to cover the president and to create an enduring check on insurrection, requiring no additional action from Congress.”
MY TAKE: No, I don’t think Trump is powerful enough to instigate an actual civil war. But his actions do promote the kind of social and political atmosphere that promotes undermining the institutions that are the foundation of American democracy.
He’s a billionaire who inherited wealth and used it to exploit the economic and judicial systems to never have to pay for his crimes. His supporters are other robber barons, wannabe robber barons, and ironically, the people he plundered who aren’t insightful enough to recognize they’ve been conned. He’s like a pirate who takes over a ship, throws the occupants overboard, and then asks them to throw whatever money they have in their pockets back up to him. And they do!
Will this conclave of historians make a difference? Probably not. Trump and the GOP have worked hard to convince their followers that experts are idiots, logic is for losers, and science is whimsical nonsense.
This Week in Dumbed-Down Politics
Missouri GOP Lawmaker Floats Rule Change to Bring Back Duels (Daily Beast)
SUMMARY: Bitter divisions between Republicans in the Missouri Senate culminated in a proposed rule change that would allow senators to settle their differences by challenging each other to a duel.
Missouri’s Senate Democrats posted details of the suggested amendment on X on Wednesday. “If a senator’s honor is impugned by another senator to the point that it is beyond repair and in order for the offended senator to gain satisfaction, such senator may rectify the perceived insult to the senator’s honor by challenging the offending senator to a duel,” the proposal read.
A written challenge would be sent to the offending senator by the offended lawmaker’s “second,” the proposal added. Both parties would then agree to the terms of the duel “including choice of weapons.” “The duel shall take place in the well of the senate at the hour of high noon on the date agreed to by the parties to the duel.”
The proposal was drafted by state Sen. Nick Schroer, a Republican in the Missouri Freedom Caucus. The group’s members have been at odds with the Senate’s GOP leadership in recent weeks and have used procedural tactics to put the brakes on routine work.
MY TAKE: When I read an article like this, I try to imagine the faces of the people who voted for a person so clearly venal and lacking in basic intelligence. Is there any sign of hope or satisfaction in their expression as they cast their vote for someone with no ability to help their community? Is it the expression of someone thrilled to have saved money by hiring a gardener instead of a surgeon to remove the tumor from their stomach like pulling a stubborn weed?
It’s not that I take the proposal seriously—no one expects this to become law. It’s a publicity stunt by someone who prefers acting tough to being smart.
“Senator Schroer is deeply committed to restoring a sense of honor in the Missouri Senate,” Schroer’s chief of staff, James Murphy, told Newsweek in a statement. “While the idea of a duel may have been suggested in a metaphorical sense, the core message is about fostering respect and reminding members that the words used in a debate may have real consequences.”
This proposal is the opposite of a “sense of honor.” Even as a publicity stunt, it wastes time and resources of the legislature for Schroer’s personal political gain, behavior which is dishonorable. I’m unclear how the duel is “metaphorical.” Nor do I understand how this proposal will foster respect because respect isn’t born from fear. The statement warns that “the words used in a debate may have real consequences.” If the proposal is a merely metaphor, then what would those consequences be? There’s an implied threat, but of what and from whom?
Based on the fuzzy thinking and inarticulate meandering of that statement alone, Schroer should be recalled.
I wish I could just chuckle at the absurdity, but then I remember that Missouri has a lot of people in need of leadership (“CNBC ranks Missouri one of worst states to live and work”). Yet, this is who they elected.
Here’s the honorable “duel” I challenge them to legislate: The two disagreeing parties face each other with their opinions and all the proof that supports their opinions. A panel of experts in critical thinking will judge their presentations. The loser agrees to immediately resign from their position and never seek public office again.
New York Times faces backlash for essay speculating on Taylor Swift’s sexuality (The Guardian)
SUMMARY: The New York Times is under fire for publishing a piece speculating on Taylor Swift’s sexuality.
In a 5,000-word opinion piece titled Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do, editor Anna Marks listed references to the LGBTQ+ community overt or perceived in Swift’s music and theorized that the singer was sending coded messages that she was secretly a member of the community.
The piece has drawn backlash from Times readers as well as “associates” of Swift, according to CNN.
MY TAKE: The author has every legal right to speculate about an important pop culture figure. This isn’t about their right, but the wisdom and the responsibility. Is Taylor Swift secretly sending coded lyrics to tell us she’s part of the LGBTQ+ community? Of course, this question brings up other questions:
Why doesn’t Swift just directly say so? The only reason not to would be a fear of backlash from her fans. However, Swift is already successful enough that such an admission would probably have little effect on her career.
Is she waiting for the right time for the big reveal? Swift is pretty outspoken and doesn’t seem like someone afraid to reveal who she is. Certainly, she’s not so childish as to send coded messages in her lyrics.
Is it any of our business? Nope.
Even if Swift were indeed a member of the LGBTQ+ community, if she hadn’t announced it yet, she would have good reasons for staying quiet. The journalist “outing” her is willing to risk personal and professional harm to Swift in exchange for some momentary notoriety.
This is reminiscent of the “Paul is dead” conspiracy that started in 1966 but became especially popular by 1969. Based on lyrics, sounds in their songs, and album cover art, fans determined Paul McCartney had been killed in a 1966 car crash and was replaced by a lookalike with the help of MI5. There was even a TV special examining the “evidence” hosted by famous attorney F. Lee Bailey. The show was a blot on his reputation, much as the article on Swift is on the journalist’s reputation.
I’m all for a close reading of lyrics to understand the universal meanings, insights, and themes of the artist, not to spread idle gossip to promote one’s writing career.
Kareem’s Video Break
Today’s video falls under the category of jaw-dropping Nature. I’ve watched it multiple times and each time I’m still amazed.
Kareem’s Petty Media Gripes
The Real Housewives of Sleaze
There’s a disturbing trend in reality shows where middle-aged women openly make aggressive sexual comments to young men in their company, whether staff members or guests. The point isn’t whether or not the young men enjoy the attention but that the older, richer women are in a position of power over the young men, and it’s exploitative to press that advantage, the same as if it were a high-level executive pursuing their secretary. Yes, men have been famous for this kind of creepy behavior for years, but the intention was to eradicate it, not expand it to include women. If these same scenes were a bunch of gray-haired men in their fifties sitting around, drinking booze, tossing sleazy sexual innuendos at young women serving them, there would rightfully be outrage. Plus, yuck! No, it’s not just good-natured fun because it endorses public lechery that insults and embarrasses the objects of their lust whose economic needs force them to endure it. If we don’t want men being sleazy and sexist then we can’t promote it from anyone.
Book Covers of Celebrity Autobiographies
I was in the bookstore the other day gazing at the wall of celebrity autobiographies when I noticed something peculiar: The cover photos of the men were usually full-face shots with semi-serious expressions, while the photos of the women were more sexual/sensual. Not always, but typically a lot more. Compare for yourself:
Yes, I understand that “sexy” sells, but it should be disturbing to us as a society that sexy for women means lots of make-up, cleavage, and tight clothes, while sexy for men is just their face. The man’s main appeal is looking thoughtful and intelligent. It enforces the idea that a woman’s main value is her looks, especially as they appeal to men. As long as our culture rationalizes and normalizes this different emphasis, inequality will persist.
What I’m Watching: Television Docuseries
Dance Life (Prime)
There will be many times while watching this series when your mouth will drop open and you will say, “They didn’t just do that!” The series explores the lives of students at a top Australian dance school as they finish their final year and try to transition into careers as professional dancers. The sheer physical athleticism is stunning, but you’ll also get caught up in their personal struggles to find out who they are aside from being dancers. The level of skill is high, but so are the stakes and emotions. Riveting and rewarding.
Love on the Spectrum, Season 2 (Netflix)
This show will teach you a lot about the meaning of love, not just the romantic love that each of these young people are seeking, but also about the love of their families and friends who support them. The episodes are both cringy and touching as we see people in their twenties going on dates for the first time, overcoming their deep anxiety to find someone who they might love and who might love them in return. About 75% of people with autism also are afflicted with some level of intellectual disability which makes this pursuit of romantic love all the more difficult yet meaningful. You will experience a full range of emotions watching this, but you will come out feeling compassion for others and humility for yourself.
Kareem’s Jukebox Playlist
Melanie: “Brand New Key”
Folk-pop singer Melanie died last week at the age of 76. Last year, I featured a video of Melanie’s powerful anthem to peace, “Lay Down (Candles in the Rain).” I think it’s appropriate that today we also remember her lighter side with this homage to her carefree youth. Sure, the sexual innuendo is there, but it’s more playful than lascivious. Melanie said this about the song:
[The song], "Brand New Key,'“ I wrote in about fifteen minutes one night. I thought it was cute; a kind of old thirties tune. I guess a key and a lock have always been Freudian symbols, and pretty obvious ones at that. There was no deep serious expression behind the song, but people read things into it. They made up incredible stories as to what the lyrics said and what the song meant. In some places, it was even banned from the radio.
The song was her most successful, hitting the No. 1 spot on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1971. It’s so catchy that you’ll find yourself humming it long after the video is done. You’ll also find that you somehow feel happier.
Watched the video break over morning coffee in Rotorua NZ. Visited the Lady Knox geyser where our crew found a stick insect! Coincidence? I think not.
Here in Texas we have our Agricultural Commissioner challenging a State Senator with fisticuffs. They are both Republican office holders over 70. Bless their hearts