thedissonance.bsky.social
Independent writer and researcher, blogging on politics, history, and the law at The Dissonance on Substack. https://thedissonance.substack.com
By the way, I don't know what to make of my profile pic either. Self portrait from 45 yrs ago.
175 posts
1,635 followers
3,348 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Glad you asked! Ideologically-radicalized oligarchs have overwhelmed our democracy. The best way to deal with them is through wealth taxes that become confiscatory at a certain level. Neither party will do this, so a new political movement is needed. Yes , we know: to oligarchs, this means war.
comment in response to
post
Getting interestinger and interestinger. Let’s see if any further evidence surfaces. It’s hard to imagine this has all been kept secret until now, but why ruin the speculative fun with bad attitude like that.
comment in response to
post
Thank you!
comment in response to
post
thank you. would be better said that our constitutional order was designed to carefully limit the ability of democratically-empowered majorities to influence government policy. And the absence of robust democratic mechanisms opens the door to those who simply buy influence. part of our history.
comment in response to
post
Yes. People joining these organizations are self-selected rule-followers and obeyers. It takes a lot to radicalize them to the point of action, and usually they radicalize in the wrong direction.
comment in response to
post
Add Gaza Strip and Ukraine to that list.
Just watch our beers while we try to deal with this shit.
comment in response to
post
Ideologically-radicalized oligarchs have overwhelmed our democracy. The best way to deal with them is through wealth taxes that become confiscatory beyond a certain level. Neither party will contemplate this, so a new political movement is required. But don’t forget, to oligarchs, this means war.
comment in response to
post
But isn’t it true that forcing congresspeople to lay off staff makes them even more dependent upon special interest lobbyists and ideologically-motivated think tanks? If we want independent legislators, shouldn’t we provide adequate staff support?
comment in response to
post
Deal is bullshit. But Europeans, now is your time to step up in a big way. Sorry, we here in US have some internal stuff to sort out for a while.
comment in response to
post
Trump’s brand has always been, “white male privilege; minorities and women need not apply”
comment in response to
post
You need a gut check. You should be feeling sick to your stomach. Simple rule: don’t join dictators in carving up weaker nations.
comment in response to
post
"The Trump administration seems to have some notion of the conduct of foreign affairs as being a set of deals, chiefly with America’s enemies, while administering kicks to America’s friends and allies. As a vision it is, in some reasonable sense of the word,evil." www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...
comment in response to
post
I cannot consider as my own any government that would ally itself with Putin or Putin's Russia, and I disavow any acts taken by Trump or his pathetic lackeys in the name of America.
comment in response to
post
Trump, per usual blazes new paths of shame. His motives seem to be no more than his infatuation with Putin, his desire to humiliate and disrupt our (once) European allies, to assist in the subjugation of a valiant people, and to mock any notion that the US has any larger role in the world.
comment in response to
post
A better comparison might be the pact between Hitler and Stalin a year later agreeing to carve up Poland and the Baltic states. But even that, heinous though it was, could be seen as calculated moves by dictators bent on dominating their neighbors.
comment in response to
post
Comparisons have been drawn between Trump's approach to Ukraine and Chamberlain's acquiescence to Hitler's seizure of part of Czechoslovakia in 1938. This, I think does Chamberlain a disservice, as his desperate motive was to avoid wider war.
comment in response to
post
Whether this is true of conservatism in the broad sense or not, it is certainly true of trump and maga
comment in response to
post
I will add, though, that I don't think anything in these books or any other I have read would quite anticipate the musk/trump phenomenon. We are on unmapped terrain.
comment in response to
post
Well, people with over a billion dollars in personal wealth won't like confiscatory levels of taxation. that is true. In fact, short of violence, there is really only one thing these people fear: democratically empowered majorities taking their wealth. I say, you brought it on yourselves.
comment in response to
post
Congratulations. Have long considered you one of the greatest American investigative journalists and authors. The Dark Side and Dark Money are really top notch. We will need you and your colleagues now more than ever.
comment in response to
post
Agree. But what? one major political objective should be a wealth tax that kicks in at say, 100 mil and becomes nearly confiscatory above a billion. I’m not anti-capitalist, anti-rich- person, anti-corp per se, but multi billionaires pose a threat to democracy. Proven time and again.
comment in response to
post
No, had to look it up just now. But i have had an internal thread about the dao of bugs running in my head for years
comment in response to
post
I also wonder if the goal should be to restore Humpty Dumpty. I felt the const order was already incredibly brittle, undemocratic, and incapable of delivering on some pretty basic stuff. Should we be laying plans for something new?
comment in response to
post
Thanks. I don’t share even your tepid confidence that the SC will draw a line in the sand. No way of knowing, but I would guess SC will duck rather than risk confrontation with an administration clearly spoiling for a fight. Time will tell. Hope you are correct.
comment in response to
post
Agree. it is anti-constitutional in the broad sense of what a constitution should mean in a political system. but post-immunity decision, I’m not sure he’s wrong in a practical sense, at least as to his own acts in a wide set of scenarios.
comment in response to
post
I have never been able to. Their brilliance is of a kind that just plain passes some people by.
comment in response to
post
From Brooklyn, don’t forget.
comment in response to
post
The party is in crisis and floundering. Whatever the package of “cultural” issues being lumped under the heading “woke” is, I think a party with a clear agenda and competent blocking and tackling would probably have overcome the maga attacks.
comment in response to
post
Of course, when somebody like musk says we’re weaklings if we tolerate criminals, the only response is to say, you’re absolutely correct. And then work to see that his end is just.
comment in response to
post
Go Canada!
Go Mexico!
Go Europe!
Go, go, go Ukraine
Go to HELL, trump.
comment in response to
post
It gives them tremendous leverage over federal employees and critics inside and outside of govt. beyond that, crippling the IRS’s ability to audit the richest Americans, if that’s where this leads, has been a high priority of republicans for decades.
comment in response to
post
Not disagreeing with you; history has many lessons, not always consistent. doesn’t it also suggest that the big players may see an opportunity in fascism to deal with internal enemies and movements they do not like?
comment in response to
post
The article is written to suggest he wants to use tax data to investigate federal employees (eg those he says have assets of 10s of millions). One can see how this data will give doge an incredible weapon over any fed employee or outside critic.
comment in response to
post
Good idea. It would have been nice if they’d used the time between the election and Jan 20 to prepare for what was obviously coming.
comment in response to
post
agree. it was a shock to read. really very, very distressing. even surprising, and I have a very low opinion of the Court, both as an institution and as this current set of justices, so me being surprised is saying something.
comment in response to
post
you're onto something. I've done plenty of work for the dems, but like you, no partisan loyalist. Very tired of choosing them because they're not the insane party. give me an affirmative agenda (and there is no dearth of good ideas and urgent problems) and I will be out there.
comment in response to
post
easy there! was a good letter, though. hopefully won't be the apex of that AUSA's career, but if it is, not bad at all.
comment in response to
post
agree.
not that it changes the truth of what you say, but this is probably Trump's view of the SC's holding in the immunity case. As long as he's acting within his constitutional authority, he's immune from criminal prosecution. Not the same, but same practical effect.
comment in response to
post
I agree, it is obvious, even, I would imagine, to Democratic Party leadership. but they are neither populists nor progressives. They sit atop an institution whose brand is "new deal" while their substance is "Neo liberal." I'm not holding out great hope that they will go in this direction.