Author: A.T.

Of “Antisemitism” and Antisemitism, Timothy Snyder writes:

---

Fascism places emotion over reason. Words are to become just tools to achieve the vision of the Leader. In our post-truth world, this takes the very special form of the inversion of meaning: fascists call other people “fascists” and antisemites call other people “antisemites.” This is taking place right now, in the United States, before our eyes, at the highest levels of our government.

An example from abroad might help us to see what is happening. The notion that all of Russia’s enemies are the “fascists” has become more entrenched as the Russian state has become fascist.  Russian authorities ludicrously justified their full-scale invasion of Ukraine as a struggle against antisemitism. They claimed, absurdly, that it would amount to “denazification” if they overthrew the democratically-elected president of Ukraine, who is of Jewish origin. This is fascism in the name of “fighting fascism.” Antisemitism in the name of “fighting antisemitism.”

. . . The Trump team recently engaged in an action of highly public Jew-baiting inside the Oval Office. Elon Musk performs the Hitler salute and claims that people whom he does not like are “Soros puppets”; in other words, Musk endorses the theory of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Musk has enabled antisemitism by the way he has chosen to run Twitter. He trivializes the Holocaust by making jokes about Himmler and Goebbels or by blaming public sector workers for the Holocaust. JD Vance visited Europe in February to endorse the German far right. The secretary of defense is a Christian reconstructionist who associates with a very well-known promoter of antisemitic ideas. Under the new leadership of the FBI, the American far right, the center of American violent terrorism, will receive much less attention. Antisemitic incidents increased during Trump’s previous term, during which Trump characterized participants at a neo-Nazi gathering (“Jews will not replace us,” Charlottesville) as “very fine people.” Trump says that Jews who do not vote for him are not loyal Americans. He refers to people and institutions with whom he disagrees as “globalist,” which is a code for “Jewish” that every antisemite understands. His supporters antisemitically attack Jewish judges who rule in ways that Trump does not like, including in the case of Mahmoud Khalil.

---

Worth reading in full.

Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, has written Antisemitism in America: A Warning, out tomorrow.  He discusses it in this New York Times interview.  The last 8 or 9 minutes explain his choice not to give Trump/Musk the legally unchallengeable power they hoped for by shutting down the government.

Fareed Zakaria — a Sunday morning must — argues that Trump’s war on colleges undermines a crucial competitive edge.

We’re handing technological leadership to China.

Why are we doing this to ourselves?

Timothy Snyder’s piece explains why Columbia was the first to be hit.

To our Irish friends, including the Obamas . . . Happy St. Patrick’s Day!

Murph L. “Thought he had done the wrong thing. But you convinced me!”

→ It was really Chuck who convinced you; I just relayed his message.  Please help amplify it!

Harold Z.:  “I disagree. The public-polled perception of the Democrats is one of embarrassing weakness.  Holding back their votes would have ultimately caused the GOP to include various guard rails etc. and showed the American people Dems are fighting for them.  This is a very sad, historical moment.”

→ Maybe (and thanks for your feedback) but it’s not clear to me the Trump team would have been in any hurry to relinquish the extra power a shutdown would have given them.  Or to take the spotlight off our side for refusing to re-open the government.

Michael K.:  “This one stumped me.  Why did he do it?  I wish I had a nickel for every person who has said ‘Chuck Schumer is dead to me.’  The only good thing I can say about it is that he’s bringing unity to the Democratic Party…in opposition to him. If it’s the right thing to do, why didn’t it get 40+ Dem Senators supporting it? They make the House Dems, who almost all stood strong, look like idiots.”

→ If Schumer had sought to make it unanimous, it would’ve sent the message that we think it’s a good bill.  Instead, the message he sent with this bare-minimum approval, was: “We hate the bill and we hate what you’re doing. But shutting down the government would give you yet more power and hurt the American people even worse.  We’re doing this — but only kicking and screaming.”

And as I argued yesterday, the House sent the right message also: “It’s a horrible bill.”  They could vote for a shutdown without shutting anything down — so did.  Hats off to Hakeem Jeffries for his leadership.

Our Senators were the ones who had to choose the less awful of two terrible options, and did, even though they knew it would expose them to the real anger they are now receiving.  To me, that is a profile in courage.  Hats off to Chuck Schumer.

I think that by speaking out on lots of TV and writing that op-ed, Senator Schumer’s hope was that people like you and me, Michael, will amplify his message.  That’s kind of our job today.

Freda S.: “Yes, I reluctantly agree even though I initially felt angry and betrayed by Schumer.  Check out Tim Walz in his first town hall in a red district, in Iowa — a great Dem strategy, spreading from Rep. Mark Pocan’s town hall in Wisconsin.”

→ I think “reluctantly” is exactly the right way to agree . . . and echoes Schumer’s own reluctance.  He didn’t vote for the bill with enthusiasm — but rather, as I say, kicking and screaming.

And thanks for those links.  The Walz line I most want to highlight:

---

The road to authoritarianism is littered with people telling you you’re overreacting. You’re not, you’re not. You’re not.

---

Mike McG.: “Imagine the Dems had voted down the CR and the government shut down, and then a week or two later the DOGE boys accidentally collapsed the Social Security payment system. Trump would have blamed it on the shutdown, thus on the Dems. We need to keep the focus on the disastrous actions of Trump and Musk.”

Carole S.: “Civics class was a long time ago, but if Trump doesn’t sign the bill, is that a pocket veto? Does he then create the shutdown he and Musk, et al, may actually be hoping for?”

→ Yikes!  Hadn’t thought of that!  But he’ll surely sign it [UPDATE: he just did] because at this stage, at least, he wants to pretend he doesn’t aim to rule America as Putin rules Russia, Kim rules North Korea, or Xi rules China.

Geoff M.: “I found Schumer’s argument surprisingly compelling. I say ‘surprisingly’ because my inclination was very much the opposite. In fact, on Thursday, I called the DC offices for each of my two senators and asked them in no uncertain terms to respect their oath of office and defend the Constitution by voting against the CR.  Then I read Schumer’s piece. Sad to say, I found nobody actually engaging with Schumer’s argument from a critical perspective. All the arguments I saw were just that Schumer was a coward or <fill in the blank with your preferred imprecation and name-calling>.”

Kathy McL.: “Sen. Schumer made the right decision.  Shutting down the government would give extraordinary legal power to Trump (and Musk).  Yes, both will continue to push illegal measures to take power, but the Dems can continue to fight those in court.”

Glenn P.: “It was A Hobson’s choice.  Regrettably, Schumer made the only decision he really could.”

The Continuing Resolution to keep the government open was horrible.

Leader Jeffries was right to rally virtually unanimous opposition from his members.  Doing so made a much-needed statement — without shutting anything down.

But Chuck Schumer — even knowing how horrible Trump and Musk are, how horrible the bill was, and the tremendous heat he’d take — made the right call.

Here was his reasoning:

Trump and Musk Would Love a Shutdown. We Must Not Give Them One.

It strikes me as sound.

Had we killed the bill:

> WE would have been blamed for shutting down the government.

> We would have taken attention away from the awful things Trump/Musk/Putin are doing every day — the story, instead, would have been how to get Democrats to reopen the National Parks, etc.

> And most importantly — read Senator Schumer’s op-ed — we would have been giving Trump significantly more power than he already has.

Why would we want to do that?

And think about it:  How would this end?  Why would Trump want to give up that power?  Why would he cave?  Because he cares about people?  Or medical research?  Or starving babies?  Clearly not.

Eventually, would we not have had to agree to re-opening a by-then far more irreparably crippled government?

I would love your thoughts.

Join Indivisible!

Spread DIS-disinformation!

Tom Friedman explains what’s happening.

You have to read it and decide what to do.

I’ve bought more puts.

The only solution I can see is for judges to continue to stay strong and for Republican Senators and Congresspersons to impeach the President and Vice President.

But that is not going to happen because, increasingly, we are becoming a nation ruled by fear rather than law.  Legislators afraid of angering Trump and his base (not least those MAGAs, now pardoned, who tried to kill Vice President Pence).  Business people afraid.  Media executives afraid.  Government bureaucrats afraid.  University presidents afraid.  Election officials afraid.

This is how it works in autocracies.

The people who overcome their fear often wind up in prison or, like Navalny and dozens if not hundreds of Russian journalists, dead.

Barring some extraordinary bravery on the part of Republicans, Putin has won.  The American-led democratic world order he has sought to destroy is unraveling.  Tiny Russia!  With an economy smaller than Texas!  But isn’t that how judo works?  I’ve long noted that Putin is a legitimate judo black belt, whereas Trump is a fake wrestling hall of famer.  See the difference?

Cry, the Beloved Country, about South Africa, was on my parents’ bookshelf when I was growing up.  The title has somehow always gripped me; never more than now.

Maybe judges will continue to stand firm — and not be overruled by Trump’s Supreme Court.  Maybe Republicans will risk their jobs — and their personal safety — to stop this horrible unravelling.  Maybe a tanking stock market, ever-growing civil outrage, and a military that remembers its oath is to the Constitution, not Trump, will save us.  God, I hope so!

Needless to say, nothing would make me happier than to see my puts expire worthless.

Amidst all this gloom — for which I apologize, but I think alarm is warranted — there are so many people to admire and applaud — beginning with Liz Cheney a while back.

Another is Sarah McBride, who, when introduced as “Mister McBride” Tuesday by Keith Self, the Texas Republican chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, calmly and without missing a beat responded, “thank you, Madam Chair.”  And her Democratic colleague, Bill Keating of Massachusetts, who rose immediately to her defense.  If you haven’t already seen it — watch!  It’s wonderful.  (Much more to say on the trans issue, but for a future post.)

A third, is profiled today in Vanity Fair:  How Elissa Slotkin, a Moderate Michigan Democrat, Is Fighting Trump Tooth and Nail.  The contrast between her patriotism and competence and, say, Tulsi Gabbard’s, is stark.  The section in the profile where newly elected Senator Slotkin (former CIA agent and so much more) questions her former House colleague Tulsi Gabbard (now, horrifyingly, Director of National Security), is worth buying a lifetime subscription to Vanity Fair — but it’s free to read.

A fourth is you, if you’re doing things — in the gentlest, most respectful way — to inspire others to “join the resistance” or, if they voted for Trump, to see they’ve been betrayed.

We will prevail!  I don’t quite see how — but we have to, and we will.

Watch Congressman John Larson crying “shame!” yesterday!

Join Indivisible!

Read Tom Friedman.

But first . . . a two-minute view from Canada.

And now . . .

I bought some puts last week (not nearly enough!) because Trump seems to be wrecking the economy . . . giving us stagflation that could prove very hard to work our way out from . . . and to have lost the confidence of the Free World and the good will of the Third World.  This is great for Putin — his wildest dream come true — but not for a stock market that, in the main, was selling at a very rich multiple of earnings on Inauguration Day.

So what to do with your money?

I fear it’s not too late to buy more puts on the various market indices; but — don’t.  Or at least think long and hard before you do.  First, you could easily lose 100% of the bet even if you’re right that the market has a lot further to fall — because the market might rebound or fall or stay flat before your puts expired worthless, even if it plunged the following day.  Second, even if you do “win,” your gain will be fully taxable.  (I bought most of mine inside a tax-deferred retirement account, where taxes are not an issue; the rest in a taxable account as a hedge, rather than sell highly appreciated stocks on which there’d also have been a high tax bill.)

And don’t be tempted by stocks just because they’ve dropped a lot.  I’m often a sucker for those — but by no means for all of them.

Most obviously a bad idea . . . TSLA. Though down to $224 from its $488 high 90 days ago, consider that as recently as June, it was $170.  Why is it worth more than that now that perhaps 90% of those who worry about climate change — Tesla’s best market — kind of hate him?  Why is the company worth more than 100 times its trailing 12-month earnings when next year’s earning could be much worse?  To drop to 20 times its trailing 12-month earnings, it would have to drop a further 80%.  (Ford, by way of context, pays a 7.5% dividend and sells around 7 times its trailing 12-month earnings.  I don’t know enough about Ford’s prospects to know whether to buy it, but it seems less wildly overpriced than TSLA.)

A few I do like here, all of which I’ve written about here more than once (use the search box to see):

CHRB

UNIT

OPRT

SQNS

HYMC

ANIX

PRKR

CHRB is limited to the $25 upside it promises to pay next year, plus the very nice dividend you get in the meantime.

My UNIT guru thinks it will be $12 after their merger and that the merged company will then be bought out at an even higher price by one of the giants, like Verizon or AT&T.

The next three. I think. have pretty solid underpinnings (as speculations go) and could easily triple in the next year or two.  (Or not!)

The last two are swing-for-the-fences speculations.

For better or worse, I have lots of all of them.

Franklin Foer: The Russian dictator has bent the world.  He’s gotten us to switch sides.  We are now the bad guys.  Republican legislators need to read that — and this:

Marc Elias: We can’t give in to fear.

---

. . . It is often said: When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. If that is true, then only weeks into Donald Trump’s four-year term, we are approaching tyranny.

It does not surprise me that people are worried. I expected many to be concerned. But I did not anticipate that so many leaders across industries and professions would allow fear to silence them.

Even worse than their silence in the face of Trump’s actions against our democracy is their silent complicity as they watch their peers be targeted, humiliated and punished.

Trump targeted the legacy media. Its owners paid for the privilege.

Trump targeted Mitch McConnell. His Republican Senate colleagues did nothing.

Trump targeted lawyers and law firms. The biggest, most prestigious firms looked away.

We were all taught about the immorality of silence in the face of evil. We all read Martin Niemöller’s poem:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

We all said never again. We promised we had learned the lesson of history. We would never be silent. We would be righteous.

We all read Martin Luther King Jr.’s words:

The greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Our generation will have to repent not only for the acts and words of the children of darkness but also for the fears and apathy of the children of light.

We told ourselves we would stand up against injustice wherever we saw it. We would do better than previous generations. We would be stronger. We would be braver.

Hannah Arendt, one of the 20th century’s greatest chroniclers of totalitarianism, described fear as an emotion indispensable for survival. It is precisely because fear is so deeply hardwired within us that we can demonstrate courage. She wrote: The courageous man is not one whose soul lacks this emotion or who can overcome it once and for all, but one who has decided that fear is not what he wants to show.

If I could speak to billionaires quivering in fear, I would ask: Is the risk of losing some money worth sacrificing your dignity?

If I could speak to media executives pandering to Trump, I would ask: Is the risk of losing access worth compromising your principles?

If I could speak to Republican politicians, I would ask: Is the risk of losing an election worth being remembered as a coward?

If I could speak to the heads of big law firms, I would ask: Is the risk of losing some clients worth betraying your oath to the rule of law?

To everyone nodding in agreement but refusing to take a stand, I say this: You are ignoring Martin Niemöller’s message. It is you that Martin Luther King Jr. was condemning.

Go ahead and stay silent. Let fear rule you. Watch injustice happen. Just don’t act like you did not know and accept that you are the latest in a long line of cowards who learned nothing from the past.

---

Join Indivisible!

Plant the seeds of DIS-disinformation.

Fareed Zakaria: Trump is helping Russia and China by upending the world order.

---

. . . The United States spent eight decades building an international system of rules, norms and values that has produced the longest period of great power peace and global prosperity in human history. Its alliances are the greatest force multiplier for its influence around the world.

The United States has been the greatest beneficiary of this system, even now, decades later, still setting the agenda and dominating the world economically, technologically and militarily.

As that world unravels, America’s privileged position [and the immense advantage we get from the dollar’s being the world’s reserve currency] will also decline, creating a more dangerous and impoverished world — and a more isolated, mistrusted and insecure America. . . .

---

So sad.

Entirely self-inflicted.

Must reading.

Elon’s Grok Chatbot Calculates Probability That Trump Is a Russian Asset 

---

Elon Musk’s supposedly “anti-woke” chatbot, Grok, keeps spewing outputs that are hilariously opposed to the billionaire’s views — including that newly-minted President Donald Trump is likely a Russian asset.

Responding to a prompt from Arizona Republic columnist EJ Montini, Musk’s “maximally truth-seeking” AI, which is built into X, said after an analysis that the probability of the president being in the pocket of Vladimir Putin is between 75 and 85 percent.  

. . . Grok said that although there is no “smoking gun [that] proves direct control,” there’s a good chance that Trump is a “useful idiot” for Putin — especially given that “Trump’s ego and debts make him unwittingly pliable.”

---

CRYPTO STRATEGIC RESERVE

Crypto investors within the Trump administration, like Trump and Musk themselves, are pushing the idea of a “strategic crypto reserve.”

It would be like our well-established, well thought-out “strategic oil reserve” . . .

. . . only completely stupid.

More like setting up a Strategic Beanie Baby Reserve.

Yes, it will make almost everything more expensive. But it will help Trump give millionaires and billionaires a tax cut, so it all evens out.

How great is that?

TRUMPCESSION

Seven weeks in, a recession looks more likely.

Consumer confidence is down more than at any time since 2021, “as inflation fears take hold.”  The Trump Tariff Tax will dampen consumer demand. Interest rates are staying high because of the now-expected higher inflation.  Massive government lay-offs and canceled government contracts slow growth . . . uncertainty breeds business caution . . . a drop in foreign tourism . . . a drop in foreign purchases of our goods . . . Maybe it will all be fine.  (Who can say for sure the Smoot-Hawley tariffs caused a global depression?)  But taken together, we just might be in for Trumpcession.  Or Trump Stagflation.

I’m the guy with the happy gene — I still have it — but he bankrupted six of his companies (well, four, but two of them twice) and added trillions more to the National Debt in his first term than Obama in his first term (which began with the massive deficit spending required to keep the world from sinking into depression brought on by the financial collapse) . . . let us hope America’s not the next thing his chaotic management will bankrupt.

BONUS: Starving Children Are Not Our Concern — We’re Christians

The children from whom we’ve suddenly cut off aid live in “shit-hole countries.”  What business is that of ours?  What have they ever done for us?  America First, baby.  Haven’t you read the Trump Bible?

Charity has its limits.*

*In the decade leading up to his foundation being shut down for mismanagement, it distributed $19 million.  “[Trump] admitted . . . to directing $100,000 in foundation money be used to settle legal claims over an 80-foot flagpole he had built at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, instead of paying the expense out of his own pocket.  In addition, the foundation paid $158,000 to resolve a lawsuit over a prize for a hole-in-one contest at a Trump-owned golf course . . .” (By contrast, Mike Bloomberg’s foundation gave away $3.7 billion last year alone.  And none of it, as far as I know, to buy a six-foot portrait of himself.)

“This speech is like that moment in Casablanca when they sing the Marseillaise!”

There are subtitles, of course.

In no particular order:

1. J.B. Pritzker.  Take 73 seconds to watch.

2. Mark Cuban.  His CostPlusDrugs saves consumers a fortune.  The “Shark Tank” star and Dallas Mavericks owner has ruled out running, but what a great president he would make.

3-4-5. Oprah Winfrey!  Taylor Swift!  Judith Faulkner!  Self-made but not self-ish.

6. Nick Hanauer, whose must-watch 6-minute TED talk and must-read Pitchforks article I’ve shared here a hundred times.

7. Warren Buffett, whose wisdom, humility, decency, business success, and integrity make him Trump’s polar opposite.  No king of debt or master of bankruptcy, he.

Did you know that Buffett’s dad was a super-conservative Nebraska Congressman?

“So why are you a Democrat?” I once asked.

“Well, if you’ve read John Rawls and considered his ‘veil of ignorance,’ how could you be anything else?” was the gist of his reply.  (Needless to say, I had not read John Rawls.)

John Rawls’ veil of ignorance:  You’re in the womb and somehow have the power to design the world you’re about to be born into.  The only thing is: you don’t know whether you’ll be born male or female; black or white; straight, gay, or trans; mentally gifted or challenged, great-looking or palatoschistic; with a killer immune system or immuno-compromised; to wealthy parents or a single drug-addicted mom . . . how would you order society?

Aristocracy?  Kleptocracy?  Communism?  Dictatorship?  Unregulated, Darwinian, monopolistic capitalism?  Voting rights only for white men of property?

If you would want universal health care and a living minimum wage . . .  the wealthy paying higher marginal tax rates than their secretaries . . . capitalism with lots of opportunity to get rich but regulated to assure consumer protection, investor protection, safe food, water, drugs, and workplaces, clean air and robust competition . . . an adequate social safety net, sensible gun safety regulation, and collective action to prevent “the tragedy of the commons” (as in, for example, climate change) . . . checks and balances that require compromise . . . respect for the rule of law and for long-established norms of civility . . . if you would want these things, then welcome to the Democratic Party.

I think MAGA Republicans want at least most of those things but have been skillfully misled.  That’s what demagogues do: skillful misdirection.  Look at Hugo Chavez. How did his demagoguery turn out for the once relatively prosperous, democratic Venezuelans?  Or, a lifetime earlier, how did demagoguery turn out for the Italians and the Germans?

Why are we suddenly on the side of the Russians and North Koreans?  Did MAGA-ns realize this is what they were voting for?  Chaos instead of competence?  Higher inflation and interest rates?  A Trumpcession and lower 401k balances?  Shutting down medical research in mid-experiment that might one day save their children’s lives?

I know a lot of good people who voted for Trump.

This is not what they voted for.

Many Republican senators feel the same way but are afraid for their personal safety.

Anne Applebaum: We have become the bad guys. “Trump and Vance Shattered Europe’s Illusions About America.”

---

If Reagan was a white-hatted cowboy, Trump and Vance are Mafia dons. The chorus of Republican political leaders defending them seems both sinister and surprising to Europeans too.

---

Worth reading in full: The Rise of the Brutal American.

Or this:  U.S. Joins Axis of Evil.

TODAY’S ACTION STEP

Check out Indivisible’s Musk or Us Recess Toolkit.  Share it widely.

CORRECTION

Yesterday I claimed Trump said he was the best president since George Washington.  Actually, he said Washington may have been #2.

Have a great weekend!