Biden Advocates for Impeaching Biden

Joe Biden in 2007: "I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 years, as a ranking member. I teach separation of powers and constitutes law. This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I'm going to deliver to the whole United States Senate, pointing out the President has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war against the country of 70 million people, unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him. The house obviously has to do that, but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing--and I don't say it lightly. I don't say it lightly. I say it because they should understand that what they were threatening, what they were saying, what was adding up to be, what looked like to the rest of the world what we're about to do would be the most disastrous thing that could be done at this moment in our history that I can think of."

Continue ReadingBiden Advocates for Impeaching Biden

Coleman Hughes Misfires on Tulsi Gabbard as DNI

I very much admire Coleman Hughes. He bravely stood up to the race-hucksters over the past five years and advocated for the type of color-blindness embraced by almost all classical liberals. But on CNN he naively stepped into an area in which he is not well informed: National Security. Almost everything he says in opposition to Tulsi Gabbard is incorrect and it wouldn't have taken much time to get informed before going live. Very disappointing, but this illustrates something ubiquitous. Everyone I know (even myself) who gets a lot right sometimes falls off the rails. The causes are many: tribalism, hubris, fatigue and failing to be self-critical. It happens to all of us, some of the time and free speech is the best approach we know to limit these missteps. So here is Glenn Greenwald speaking freely about Coleman's embarrassing moment on CNN:

Glenn Greenwald:

There was a panel discussion about why Tulsi Gabbard is this great evil, and the opposition to her was led by Coleman Hughes, who--I don't really understand when he became an expert on foreign policy. He became known speaking, I think, quite insightfully, about things like race and class and the intersection of them. I've been on his show before. He's been on mine.

Suddenly, though, he's now a great expert in the Middle East, he's a vehement supporter of Israel--as much as Barry Weiss or Sam Harris or people like that are. And here he is on CNN, maligning Tulsi Gabbard, who knows 10 million times more about foreign policy in her toenail than Coleman Hughes has in his entire arsenal of knowledge. But here he is expressing why she's such a terrible choice as DNI [Director of National Intelligence].

Coleman Hughes:

It's a very confounding. Look, call me crazy, but I think the Director of National Intelligence should be a person who, A) trusts US intelligence, and B) likes US intelligence. What do we know about Tulsi Gabbard? We know that when Assad gassed civilians in 2017 and our intelligence agencies determined that and Trump decided to strike those facilities, Gabbard doubted that. She doubted the findings of our own intelligence and she went to go visit Assad. And we know that she defends Julian Assange, who released classified informations that imperiled the people we were working with in Afghanistan and the Taliban went out there and were able to kill them one by one. And so, you know, this is exactly the opposite of the person you would want leading national intelligence.

Glenn Greenwald:

He's saying that the only kinds of people you want to lead the intelligence agencies are people who A) trust what they tell you and B) like how they operate. How can any sentient human being who knows anything about the last 25 years of American history, --and even if you want to go back much further--and it's the same thing. But just going back to the last 25 years since the war in Iraq and the run up to it, going all the way through things like Syria and Libya and Russiagate and the Hunter Biden laptop, and all the different ways that these intelligence agencies have interfered in our politics, improperly and based on lies--It's not disqualifying to distrust the intelligence agencies or to dislike how they operate and want to change it. What's disqualifying is to trust the intelligence agencies. How mindless must somebody be to say, "Yeah, I really trust the CIA. I think their pronouncements are all correct."

Oh, the audacity of her to question anything that the CIA was saying about the war in Syria, when the CIA was leading, one of those dirty wars that they love to fight at a billion dollars a year that Obama unleashed them to fight in order to remove Bashar Al Assad from power and replace [him with] someone else they wanted. Oh no, questioning the intelligence agencies. Tulsi Gabbard questioned what they said, doubted some of their pronouncements, and now she's somehow ineligible to lead them, because she doesn't have blind, mindless faith in them.

This is conventional wisdom in Washington. Coleman doesn't know anything about the topics of which he's opining, including what he said about WikiLeaks. And the idea that WikiLeaks is supposed to be considered some sort of nefarious group that nobody can defend when they've done more than anybody to bring transparency to our government, including the lies they told about the wars in which Tulsi Gabbard fought and the corruption of our allies, and all the lies that we've been told as the public about what our government was doing.

The idea that defending Julian Assange for bringing transparency is somehow disqualifying? I'm sure he would say the same thing about Edward Snowden, who Tulsi Gabbard also supports, is just mind-blowingly dumb. But this we showed you this because it's so reflective of how Washington thinks. Coleman Hughes--what he does when he doesn't know what he's talking about, is--he just picks up on conventional wisdom and the world in which he resides with Bari Weiss and those kind of people, he just repeats what that world thinks without an even an inch of knowledge. But it's nonetheless worth seeing, because that is the opposition to Tulsi Gabbard: "Oh, she's not a fan of the CIA. She's not a fan of the NSA. She doesn't think the intelligence agencies like Homeland Security have been doing a good job, have been honest with the American people. This is what Donald Trump ran on. He didn't run on appointing the kind of people that Coleman Hughes thinks should be appointed: people who think the intelligence communities are so trustworthy in whatever they're doing.

[Trump] ran on a campaign promise to uproot them, to fundamentally drain their swamp and to rebuild them into more ethical and trustworthy institutions, and Tulsi Gabbard represents that. The only people scared of her are the people who should be scared, the people who want to keep those institutions in place, despite all the lies they told and the corruption they've imposed, precisely because they're the ones who benefit most from it. But they don't want any one questioning, let alone changing, how Washington works.

Continue ReadingColeman Hughes Misfires on Tulsi Gabbard as DNI

About Trusting the Experts

We should be questioning everybody, including our tribes and our selves and then make our choices based solely on the best evidence, especially for things we are "sure" of. That is our duty as citizens. We need to dramatically remake our intensely propagandized world. Rich/powerful people are often the puppeteers of "experts" and corporate media for their own benefit, not ours. When we disagree with others, our first question should be "Where are you getting your information?" That explains differences of opinion most of the time. Consider also Robert F. Kennedy Jr.:

We live in a democracy. We don't have a priesthood here. We don't have high priests who are telling us, we're in charge of our own lives, and Americans need to do their own research. And, you know, listen, people say trust the experts. That became a mantra during COVID. I brought over 500 cases. and almost all of them involved in scientific controversy.

My job is to read science, to learn it, and to be able to read it critically. In every case I've ever brought, there's an expert on that side and an expert on this side. When I brought them, when we brought them on Santo case, there were three experts from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, and we had three experts from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, and they were saying exactly the opposite thing.

Oh, you know, saying trust the experts to me. Makes no sense at all. Trusting the experts is a function of religion and totalitarianism, it is not a function of democracy. In democracy, we question everybody.

Continue ReadingAbout Trusting the Experts

About Trump’s Election

I mostly agree with Eric Weinstein about Trump. Weinstein recently tweeted his position:

I will say it simply. @realDonaldTrump and @JDVance have the opportunity to change everything. Everything depends on @realDonaldTrump’s use of this historic opportunity. This could restore America. Or tank it.

To say it my way, this is the highest *variance* presidency of my lifetime. As bad as Kamala was (and you know my position) she was probably lower variance. Lower variance and much lower mean.

This is potentially amazing because the sky is the limit. Given the chance, I will help anyone to use this mandate to make it the best presidency it can possibly be. But you can’t ask me to close my eyes to the risks. I’m just not that guy. Never was and never will be. This is incredibly dangerous as we are seated at the high stakes table now.

I don’t understand Americans who want Trump to fail. I think he is a brilliant man which I have always said. But he is also incredibly divisive. I think he truly loves his country and wants the best for it. He is also very dangerous and unpredictable. And he NEEDS that unpredictability to survive. He is very strong. And perhaps he needs to be dangerous. I could be persuaded that this is necessary.

He learned last time that you need an sea of people to govern. He won’t make that mistake again.

Am I optimistic? Yes. Very. Am I deeply deeply worried? Absolutely. Very."

Again in my language: stop focusing on the mean. If I absolutely had to say what I am feeling, with a gun to my head I might say this is high mean, high variance, negative skew, high kurtosis.

As a weather report: this is a low confidence forecast of an amazing spring day with a bit more than a slight chance of apocalypse.

I know “But Bruh, Are you MAGA?” No. This is why we have more than one moment of a distribution and not a simple binary. MAGA is a broad coalition that seats some people who I view as “unworkable”. I can’t personally endorse a movement that tolerates that element in order to win. But I get along with plenty of MAGA People. And generally they get me. Most of them like me, understand me from podcasting, and don’t need me wearing a hat.

Lastly, you have no idea how desperately I want this to work. And it could be amazing. I think that is likely but with very weak conviction. As above.

Here to help, This is more or less what I predicted. Nothing has changed. And word to the wise: Mind the time *before* the inauguration. Don’t take your eye off the ball prematurely.

Continue ReadingAbout Trump’s Election

What People are Missing if They Aren’t reading X (Twitter)

It's wild out there in the lands of Politics and Culture. I've been doing some collecting and I'd like to offer some of the things that especially caught my attention recently.

Glenn Greenwald is on fire. Here he is once again pointing out DNC/Corporate Media Hypocrisy:

I've lost count of the people who have told me that they don't know what Robert F. Kennedy actually says and they don't want to find out. And then They claim that he is "anti-vax" and a "conspiracy theorist," as though saying that is a substitute for knowledge. Michael Shellenberger comments:

This really happened. How could EVERYONE in the corporate media forget?

The Ukraine war (which has killed 600,000 Ukrainians so far) must must must go on because . . . trust us . . . says Anthony Blinken, neocon in Joe Biden's cabinet and one of the architects of the Iraq War.

Tulsi Gabbard was really put on this list this year after she expressed a political position in support of Trump. Everything else here is absolutely true. Does this sound like America?

It's guaranteed won't hear these things about Matt Gaetz at your favorite corporate media outlets. Independent journalist Lee Fang will tell you:

If really you'd like to learn RFK, Jr's positions on important topics (and you should want to know them), here are some of his main points, succinctly set out and annotated:

Continue ReadingWhat People are Missing if They Aren’t reading X (Twitter)