Main page    Feb. 05


Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

New polls:  
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

---

Genocide Joe? Meet Ethnic Cleansing Don

Everyone reading this knows that there was a small but vocal segment of the voting population—mostly progressives and Muslim-Americans—who held Joe Biden responsible for committing "genocide" in Gaza, and who voted for Donald Trump because Trump would somehow be "better" for those folks. This was a dubious proposition, to say the least. And in case there were any doubts, Trump dispelled them yesterday.

There is, at this point, a well-known axiom about Trump: "Take him seriously, not literally." And so, when he's issued forth with his talk about redeveloping Gaza into a luxury resort, the message we took from that was "Trump clearly places little value on the people of Gaza, and cares little for their humanity." We did not take him literally. Turns out, that was a mistake. Trump held a press conference with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday and, referring to Gaza several times as a "demolition site," he said the following things:

"[The United States will] own [Gaza]. We're going to take over that piece, develop it and create thousands and thousands of jobs, and it will be something the entire Middle East can be proud of."

"I envision the world people living there, the world's people. You'll make that into an international unbelievable place. I think the potential in the Gaza strip is unbelievable, [it could be] the riviera of the Middle East."

"The whole thing is a mess. I don't think people should be going back to Gaza. I think that Gaza has been very unlucky for them. They've lived like hell; they've lived like you're living in hell. Gaza is not a place for people to be living. The only reason they want to go back, and I believe this strongly, is they have no alternative. What's the alternative? Go where? If they had an alternative, they'd much rather not go back to Gaza and live in a beautiful alternative that's safe."

"[The Palestinians will] be resettled in areas where they can live a beautiful life... [Egypt and Jordan] say they're not going to accept [the Palestinians]. I say they will, but I think other countries will accept also."

We think it is important for readers to see Trump's actual words. Quite a few publications, when writing up this story, had headlines like the one in The New York Times: "Trump Proposes U.S. Takeover of Gaza and Says All Palestinians Should Leave." From where we sit, this seems like sanewashing. He did not "propose" the idea, he said he's going to do it. He went FAR beyond "propose," in our view.

We can see no reason to think Trump isn't serious about this. He's been talking like this for months; this isn't one of his "idle thoughts" that he drops an hour later. And this is not a phony trade war; there are no "concessions" he might secure from the Palestinians or anyone else that would allow him to declare "victory" later this week and back down. He, and his base, dislike Muslims, and cheer any expansion of Israeli territory or power. Also, Trump is clearly thinking about "legacy," and he clearly thinks that changes to the world map are the way to secure his place in history. He didn't say it yesterday, but it's entirely plausible that he's thinking that the "redevelopment project" would be named something like "the Trump Riviera." Finally, on top of all of this, he's a real estate developer, and surely sees opportunities to line his pockets (or, maybe those of Jared Kushner) here. In short, moving forward with this proposal checks a lot of boxes for him: political win, place in the history books, profit. He's certainly going to take a shot at it.

That, then, raises the next question: Can he actually do it? It looks depressingly plausible to us. As we have written many times, presidents have a pretty free hand when it comes to deploying the U.S. military. The War Powers Act of 1973 allows deployment for up to 90 days, solely on presidential authority. And it's easy enough to extend this through trickery (troops leave the area for 1 hour, thus restarting the clock on the 90 days), or just by pretending the 90-day limit does not exist. Alternatively, Trump could keep U.S. personnel out of the picture completely; it would almost certainly be enough for him to just tell Netanyahu: "You have approval to clear Gaza; the U.S. will not intervene."

Is there anyone who might put a stop to Trump's machinations? Sure... maybe. Congress could do it if they passed a resolution updating the War Powers Act, or otherwise forbidding Trump from taking action in Gaza, and then backed that up with a promise of impeachment and conviction if their directives are not honored. But such forceful action to rein Trump in is not likely forthcoming from THIS Congress (and see below for more).

Alternatively, the international community could get involved. The problem here, as events in Europe in 1938-39 demonstrated so plainly, is that once a nation or a leader is no longer responding to diplomatic pressure, then the only options left are "war" or "look the other way." We do not think that, say, the U.K. or France will be able to persuade Trump to think better of his plans, even if they threaten sanctions or other punitive measures. And we certainly don't think they are willing to declare war against the United States. And if these suppositions are correct, then that pretty much leaves them with "look the other way."

As Trump's remarks yesterday make clear, the question of where nearly 2 million people might be moved to is a tricky one, and could throw a wrench into the works. However, he's clearly willing to twist the arms of Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Jordanian king Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein until they break. And if they do not yield, Trump will have no qualms about dumping the Palestinians in some other place. It was announced this week that the administration has made a deal with El Salvador; the U.S. will pay some currently unknown amount of money, and El Salvador will take any people the U.S. dumps on them, up to and including violent criminals. Is there any reason to think Trump would not pursue the same arrangement with some cash-strapped country in the vicinity of Gaza?

The upshot is that, based on the evidence currently available, it looks to us like it is considerably more likely than not that Trump is going to move forward with this. Or, at least, that he's going to try. And while the "Genocide Joe" label is definitely open to debate, for multiple reasons, what Trump is proposing is the textbook definition of ethnic cleansing. Here, for example, is the E.U.'s official definition of that term: "Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group, which is contrary to international law."

Assuming Trump does try it, he may end up receiving a nasty surprise courtesy of the one source of resistance that actually looks viable to us: The Palestinians. If the administration allows Israel to do the dirty work, it will become an international scandal, and there will be mass blowback in the United States. If Trump sends U.S. troops to handle it, the risks are even greater. Recent history has shown that guerrilla insurgencies are rather tougher to contain than it seems (e.g., Vietnam). And imagine the headlines when and if American soldiers die at the hands of Palestinian resistance. "American soldiers die in service of Trump real estate project." That will be a bad look, to say the least.

Anyone who cares about civilians in Gaza, or about American soldiers who might be deployed, or about peace in general, should be hoping that someone can sit Trump down, help him to understand the enormous risks entailed, and convince him to back off this crazy—and, to be blunt, evil—plan. But the President is so single-minded, and so simple-minded, we are not optimistic. (Z)

Today's Crazypants Roundup

Week 3 is underway, and the Trump administration is still pumping out vast mountains of... stuff, let's say. So much that we are having trouble keeping up. Every single thing below could very well be its own item, but in hopes of trying to stay caught up, we're going to have to do this round-up-style. Here's a rundown of some of the whackadoodle stuff that's happened, courtesy of Donald Trump & Co., in the past several days:

• You're Fired, Part I: The administration's efforts to get federal employees to quit voluntarily is not going very well, it would seem. The goal was to get somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 folks to exit, stage right. Thus far, only 20,000 people have accepted the "buyout" offer. That is rather less than 100,000 (much less 200,000) and, on top of that, you have to figure that some sizable chunk of that 20,000 was about to quit anyhow, with or without White House "encouragement." In hopes of trying to get the number up, the administration did at least two things yesterday. First, it circulated a memo warning that layoffs are "likely" if not enough people quit, and that they would begin immediately after the February 6 buyout deadline. Second, it announced that "buyouts" would now be offered to all CIA employees. Previously, the various national security agencies were excluded from the staff-reduction efforts, on the theory that they are too valuable. But not anymore, it seems.
  
  
• You're Fired, Part II: Left with no real options, the FBI yesterday bowed to the White House's demand that the Bureau compile and submit, to the Department of Justice, a list of every one of the roughly 5,000 employees who worked on January 6 cases.
  
  It is unbelievable that a president could be such a small person that he would try to wreak vengeance like this. These 5,000 folks, with only very rare exceptions, were doing what they were told to do by their superiors. And many of them are not agents; they are secretaries and file clerks and the like. That said, Trump is as small a man as anyone who has ever occupied the Oval Office. Further, he is all-in on his belief that the 1/6 insurrection was legitimate, and that the resulting prosecutions were a conspiracy targeted at him and his loyal followers. Further, if he's determined to fire a bunch of federal employees, then targeting 5,000 of them who are also his "enemies" is a two-fer.
  
  Trump has not actually fired anyone yet, but a group of FBI employees has nonetheless filed a lawsuit in which they seek certification for a class action complaint. So, this could get very messy and very expensive. And this is just one agency; there are going to be lawsuits in every other agency and department, too. During Trump v1.0, there were trackers following how many lies he told. This time around, we might like to see a tracker counting every lawsuit he's triggered. We are sure the number is already above a hundred, and that by the end of this year, it will be above a thousand. Trump is now going to flood the legal zone until it capsizes.
  
  
• Fawning Obeisance, Part I: Donald Trump and his loyal commissioners on the FCC have been applying enormous pressure to CBS, over the Kamala Harris interview that has the President so angry. Why he can't just move on, given that he won and she lost? That is a good question, but also a rhetorical one. We know full well why he can't move on; as we note above, he's a very small person (and equipped with a very thin skin).
  
  Anyhow, as part of legal actions that have been undertaken by conservative groups and by Trump himself, CBS agreed last week to hand over a transcript of the full interview with Harris. The contention made by Trump and his acolytes is that the presentation of the interview on 60 Minutes was edited in such a way as to give a false impression of Harris, and so amounts to illegal false advertising.
  
  As we wrote last week, CBS' corporate parent is inclined to settle the suits because they don't want a pending merger to be scotched by the Trump-loyal Department of Justice. However, we erred in writing that the suit is for $10 million. It's actually for $10 BILLION. Who knows what amount Trump might take to drop the matter? Who knows what Trump and/or his acolytes will do with the Harris transcript?
  
  
• Fawning Obeisance, Part II: Yesterday, it was announced that Trump will attend this Sunday's Super Bowl in New Orleans. He will become the first sitting president to do so. That may sound surprising, but really it's not. To insert a president into that kind of very large, very boisterous crowd creates major nightmares for the Secret Service, while also imposing a cost on spectators who are likely in the midst of a very expensive, "bucket list" kind of experience. So, most presidents have decided that discretion is the better part of valor, and taken a pass. But Trump is not most presidents.
  
  That he is attending is not the "fawning obeisance" element of the story, however. For that, we have to explain, for those who do not know, that after the murder of George Floyd, the NFL started putting messages on the far edge of the endzones. The most common of those is "END RACISM," which has been a part of the field for each of the last three Super Bowls. Here's what it looked like last year:
  
  
  
  Is there a bit of irony in pairing "END RACISM" with a team name that appropriates Native American culture? Mayyyyybe.
  
  Anyhow, entirely by coincidence we are sure, a couple of hours after Trump said he'd attend the game, the NFL announced that they are going to rotate out "END RACISM" and replace it with something else. The league says this has nothing to do with placating the anti-DEI Trump, and that it is because they want something "positive" and "uplifting" in the wake of the terrorist attack on the city last month. That means that even if you take the NFL at its word, they have just revealed that they do not consider ending racism to be positive or uplifting.
  
  Incidentally, Trump will be a guest of New Orleans Saints owner Gayle Benson. She is a devout Catholic. She is also deeply enmeshed in a scandal right now wherein she, and other team executives, assisted the Archdiocese of New Orleans in trying to cover up child sex abuse. Think, for a moment, what Fox would do with that if it was Joe Biden or Kamala Harris who was attending the game as Benson's guest. Now think about how many microseconds of coverage Fox will give the story, with Trump the one who is attending.
  
  
• Sovereign Wealth Fund: On Monday, Trump issued an executive order ostensibly creating a sovereign wealth fund for the United States. If the plan comes to pass, then this would create a pool of money the U.S. would invest in various business ventures.
  
  This proposal is... questionable, in a number of ways. First, the money that goes into sovereign wealth funds comes from budget surpluses. A country that sells billions of dollars in oil each year, and that provides limited social services to its citizenry, might have such a surplus. The United States does not run a surplus. Second, even if this proposal made sense from a policy standpoint, Trump cannot create a sovereign wealth fund by fiat. Remember, Congress has the power of the purse. At least, that's what it says in OUR copy of the Constitution.
  
  We intended to write this news up yesterday, but then it got late, so we held it. Had we completed that piece, we were going to scratch our heads and write that we didn't know how this idea had gotten into Trump's head, and that we guessed he was just copying the authoritarians he so admires, like Mohammed bin Salman. However, given that we now know he really does want to "develop" Gaza (see above), it's a little clearer where the sovereign wealth fund XO is coming from.
  
  
• Trump Pretends to Care about Antisemitism: Another executive order that flew under the radar was this one, entitled "ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO COMBAT ANTI-SEMITISM." That may seem like a broad, and useful, goal. However, if you read the text, you will learn that other than require a bunch of federal departments to submit reports, the only thing the XO does is declare that protesters on college campuses who are: (1) pro-Palestine and (2) are on student visas, will be arrested and deported, while their visas are canceled.
  
  This XO is "solving" a problem that does not currently exist, and is doing so in an ineffective way. As we expected would be the case, the campus protests largely fizzled out when the 2023-24 school year ended. While they could return, they have not done so yet, and they might not, given that most schools have taken rather aggressive steps to prevent a repeat. Meanwhile, the people driving the protests were, almost exclusively, U.S. citizens. Many of them were not actually students, but that's not the issue this XO addresses.
  
  Put another way, this is another very clear case of Trump trying to get a "two-fer" (or, really, a "three-fer," or maybe a "four-fer"). Under the guise of "I'm fighting antisemitism," he also gets to strike out at Muslims, immigrants, and those evil, liberal, pinko universities. This is another item we intended to write up yesterday and, if we had, that last observation would have concluded our assessment. But given the Gaza redevelopment plan, it becomes clearer why Trump would want to position his administration to crack down on, and so to capitalize on, any new protests that might unfold.
  
  
• Trump Pretends to Care about the California Fires: Over the weekend, Trump "solved" California's wildfire problems. How did he do it? He ordered the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to release multiple billions of gallons of water from a couple of reservoirs in the Golden State. When Trump sent out this braggy message, the total release was 2.2 billion gallons:
  
  
  
  By the end of the weekend, the total was supposed to reach 5 billion gallons.
  
  There are, as you might guess, some problems with Trump's claims. First, none of that water is going to reach Los Angeles. Heck, it's not even going to flow in Los Angeles' direction. It's going to end up in Tulare Lake, which is almost as close to Las Vegas as it is to L.A. Second, the water isn't going to do anything, sitting there in Tulare Lake, except evaporate. It's certainly not going to stop any current wildfires, or prevent any future ones. Third, the water is held in the reservoirs because it is needed... during the growing season. Rain-wise, it's been a light year for California, and it is very unlikely the billions of gallons of reserve water will be replenished before the state enters the rain-is-very-rare season (basically, at the end of March). So, if that water is needed in May or June, it probably won't be available.
  
  Even by the standards of someone as inscrutable as The Donald, this one's a real head-scratcher. Was he just looking for another "win"? Or is he so thoroughly invested in his cockamamie theory of California ecology that he simply had to take it to its logical conclusion? Or maybe he knows that the absence of that water will hurt Californians and the California economy in 6 months, and that was the real point? These all seem possible to us. Was he throwing a bone at Big Ag? Who knows?
  
  
• Trump Breaks Wind: Donald Trump hates new and renewable energy sources, presumably because he sees them as being in competition with the petroleum and coal interests who help fund his campaigns. He has a particular, longstanding animus about wind energy. And whatever the reasons for that might be, they aren't solely political. He has been railing against windmills and wind farms since the 1990s, long before he was a politician for sale to the highest corporate bidder.
  
  The Biden administration, of course, was very wind-friendly. And so, a number of states, most of them blue, began work on ambitious wind-energy projects. Those projects require considerable time to execute, such that the Biden-inspired wind farms are largely ready to start building, but haven't been built yet. The new administration has just made clear that no further federal funding is forthcoming and that, in addition, various federal permits may well be canceled. And so, most of the wind projects are effectively dead in the water, at least until 2029.
  
  
• Randy Homosexual: Maybe we have related this story before, but we don't think we did. If our memory is in error, sorry. Anyhow, about 15 years ago, there was a Christian-based website that had paid for a subscription to the Associated Press' stories, and that had a bot that auto-posted AP news and sports stories to the site. However, before the stories were posted, they were run through a filter that replaced certain terms with more "Christian-friendly" language. As a result, game wraps for Patriots games were "auto-corrected" in a manner that was, shall we say, sub-optimal. That is because the team, at that time, had a cornerback named Randall Gay. And this website ended up the butt of national jokes when its bot auto-changed a headline so that it read: "Randy Homosexual Reaches End Zone."
  
  We were reminded of this because the White House has ordered the CDC to pause or retract all papers currently scheduled for publication, or under consideration for publication, in academic journals. The reason is that the administration wants the papers to be scrubbed of what it regards as "DEI" terms. Here is the list: "Gender, transgender, pregnant person, pregnant people, LGBT, transsexual, non-binary, nonbinary, assigned male at birth, assigned female at birth, biologically male, biologically female." Obviously, the focus is on trans people, who remain the bugaboo du jour. The silver lining, such as it is, is that scholars can still include a few Randy Homosexuals in their papers, at least for now.
  
  
• We Don't Need No... Edjucashyun: For the entirety of its existence, Republicans have been talking about getting rid of the Department of Education. It's an established enough GOP doctrine that even Rick Perry was able to remember it. Yesterday, in a terribly unsurprising development, news broke that Donald Trump is planning to make it happen, and that he will do so—of course—via executive order.
  
  This is example #139 of Trump infringing on the powers of Congress and daring them to do something about it. Since most Republicans on the Hill don't like the DoE, and the rest are scared stiff of challenging the Dear Leader, they are not likely to say "boo." If you would like to watch something amusing, see this brief clip (maybe 15 seconds, from 1:42 to 2:00 or so) of Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) twisting himself into weird knots as he expressed support for Trump's plans, just to get to a metaphor that is so clichéd the sidebar about his eating habits and his sex life was entirely unnecessary:
  
  
  
  Truth be told, even if Congress did want to do something, we are not sure there is all that much they could do. That is to say, if Trump fires every employee of the DoE, and then refuses to replace them, then the Department is effectively dead, even if it still exists on paper. Note, incidentally, that Secretary of Education-designate Linda McMahon has not had her confirmation hearings yet. The fact that her would-be department is on the chopping block should make those... interesting.

Obviously, this list does not include the crazypants stuff we've already written up, like Elon Musk's invasion of federal computer systems. And by tomorrow, there will surely be more. No wonder we can't keep up. (Z)

Path Is Clear for Trump Cabinet Picks

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) is a doctor, which means he studied human anatomy while he was in school (specifically, at Louisiana State University). However, he appears to have been out sick the day they covered the spine, because yesterday he rolled over, and announced his support for HHS-designate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Cassidy's behavior here is really and truly pathetic. For at least a week, two things have been crystal clear: (1) He really doesn't want to vote in favor of Kennedy and (2) He really doesn't want to be primaried from the right, since he might well lose (after all, the challenger would be backed by an endless supply of money courtesy of Elon Musk's PAC). The Senator tried desperately to secure something he could hang his hat on. Most obviously, he wanted an unequivocal statement from Kennedy that vaccines do not cause autism. Cassidy could not even get that, so yesterday he had to screw on a sh**-eating grin and tell reporters "The science is good. The science is credible. Vaccines save lives. They do not cause autism. There are multiple studies that show this." Because, as we all know, science is always what guides policy. Especially in this administration.

With the various mini-rebellions at an end, the Senate Finance Committee voted along party lines to advance Kennedy's nomination to the floor, while the Senate Intelligence Committee did the same with Tulsi Gabbard's nomination. At this point, if either was not confirmed, it would be a stunning development on par with the sinking of the Titanic, the collapse of the Soviet Union, or Luka Dončić being traded to the Lakers.

In the end, Senate Republicans are simply not willing to oppose Trump on something so high-profile as a cabinet pick. Several of the members who crumbled in the past few days—e.g., Susan Collins (R-ME), Cassidy—made reference to the "counsel" they had received from their former colleague, VP J.D. Vance. We suspect that counsel involved telling the senators that they had better fall in line if they know what's good for them. Perhaps there was even talk of broken legs.

You can be absolutely confident that considerably more than four Republicans know that Kennedy should not get within a country mile of any job that has to do with public health. They know that Gabbard cannot be trusted to be DNI. They knew that Pete Hegseth has no business running the Pentagon. But, they gave in, so as to save themselves, country be damned. One is reminded of what Benjamin Franklin said about the corrupting influence of power.

Might the Republican members stand up to Trump in the future? It's certainly possible, if it's something lower-profile, and/or if Trump pushes Congress beyond its limits. In particular, nobody wants to be on an island, and if members of both chambers are pushing back on something—a dynamic not possible with Cabinet appointments, since those only go before the Senate—that makes it a bit easier for people to stick their necks out. All of this said, there is currently no good reason to think that the Republicans in Congress WILL stand up to Trump. Indeed, the available evidence suggests they will not. Still, it's worth it to remember that things MIGHT unfold differently under slightly different circumstances. But it would have to be something the voters understand and care about. Cabinet appointments do not fall in this category. (Z)

There's No Business Like Show Business... Apparently

The last few Republican presidents, on their retirements, did the usual post-presidency things: a few paid speeches, service on corporate boards, taking up a new hobby or two, and so forth. The last few Democratic retirees, by contrast, have pursued careers at least partly rooted in the world of entertainment. It's a fun and potentially lucrative way to keep one's hand in the game, and to maintain some level of influence, we suppose.

While Bill Clinton dabbled a bit in working as an entertainer, it was Barack Obama who really went all-in on it. The 44th president has a development deal with Netflix, has signed two different podcast deals, and has produced several documentaries. He's even got a couple of Emmy awards, for narrating Working: What We Do All Day and Our Great National Parks.

Yesterday, Joe Biden announced that he will follow his predecessor's lead, and sign with Creative Artists Agency to represent him in booking speaking engagements and in other entertainment-related ventures. That's the same agency that represents the Obamas. It's also the same agency that represented Biden while he was out of office from 2017-21, so it's not exactly an unexpected pick. In any case, unlike, say, a George W. Bush, Biden is apparently not going to disappear into semi-obscurity. As we have noted before, we tend to think these kinds of presidents-as-highly-paid-celebrities arrangements are in bad taste, and are certainly a case of profiting off the presidency. But somehow, Biden and Obama both neglected to get us on the phone and to ask for our opinions before signing on the dotted line. We KNEW we should have signed up for call waiting.

The fellow whose post-presidential career is more to our tastes, of course, is Jimmy Carter. And while we are on the general subjects of "Carter" and "the entertainment industry," we might as well note that the now-deceased former president won a Grammy this weekend, for his narration of Last Sundays in Plains: A Centennial Celebration. The competition he beat out includes Barbra Streisand, Dolly Parton, George Clinton and The Beatles, which is a rather motley group of nominees. This was Carter's fourth win in the spoken word category (a record) out of 13 lifetime nominations. Anyhow, congratulations to the Peanut Farmer and his family. Oh, and don't feel too bad for The Beatles, because they won in a different category. So, congrats to them, too. (Z)

The Empire State Strikes Back?

Democrats in Congress are still charging up their kyber crystals, or something. While there are stirrings of some sort of organized opposition to Donald Trump's depredations against democracy, the blue teamers on the Hill aren't quite there yet, and have largely limited themselves to TV/radio appearances, lists of priorities, and strongly worded letters. These things are not going to do a whole lot, by themselves.

In the interim, Democrats in New York appear to have come up with something that will contribute to the cause, in some small way. One of New York's House seats is open (or, technically, soon will be), by virtue of Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) being appointed to serve as the United States' ambassador to the United Nations. Given Donald Trump's opinion of the U.N., and of international organizations in general, we're not so sure that's the promotion Stefanik thinks it is. But what do we know? After all, it worked out so well for Trump v1.0 U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley, right?

In any case, Stefanik's seat will soon be open. And Democrats in the New York state legislature have taken notice that they are the ones who get to make the rules about filling vacancies. And so, they are about to take up a measure that would enable Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) to leave the seat open for an extra month or two. Maybe the bill won't pass. Maybe, if it does pass, Hochul won't sign it. Maybe if it passes and gets signed, Hochul won't exercise her newfound authority, since she needs at least some votes from purplish upstate New York in order to be reelected. Still, if all works out for the New York Democrats, they'll be able to secure a small victory for their team. And these days, small victories are pretty much all that's available.

And that brings us to the broader purpose of this item. We've had a number of readers write in and suggest that we should add an additional weekly feature, highlighting people and groups who are fighting the good fight against authoritarianism. If we did it, the point would not be Democrats vs. Republicans, it would be pro-democracy vs. anti-democracy. That said, given where the two political parties currently stand, the entries in the series would end up with a Democrats vs. Republicans tinge, at least some of the time. In any case, we are primarily considering the idea because we think such stories might brighten some readers' days.

If you would like to weigh in on this idea, we have put together a brief (4-question) survey here. We very much appreciate your input. (Z)

Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones