Supreme Court's game is so obvious

This seems so obvious to me it hardly bears saying. There must be at least four members of the Supreme Court who insisted on granting certiorari to the ridiculous Trump immunity appeal. One can surmise that at least one more, and probably not Roberts, insisted on slow rolling the hearing just a bit, and will probably also force a delay of the publication of the decision until just before the Summer recess. The reason for this is obvious. They are tilting the scale just a bit in favor of Insurrectionist/Adjudicated rapist Donald Trump, for purely political reasons. They seek to, and will probably succeed at, preventing the DC election interference case from going to trial before the election. 

The credibility of the Supreme Court as an independent branch of government whose purpose is to enforce and support the rule of law is now in tatters, possibly irreparably so. 

A safe bet, I'd say

Like lots of folks, I don't bet, or at least not more than $1. But I'd bet that, for sure, that Tr**p has already begged Elon Musk to lend him the money to post a supersedeas bond in New York for ½ billion bucks. But here's my prediction: Musk has already said no and there may be rumors but nothing overt will be said.

Work more, worry less

No sane person is unconcerned about the possible election (again) of the adjudicated sexual assaulter and would-be authoritarian dictator (Tr**p; expletive deleted). But watch this. This isn't even Hopium Chronicles' Simon Rosenberg. It's respected financial reporter and Trump debunker David Cay Johnston. Listen to what he says (early in video) about the South Carolina Primary. Summary: 40% of American likely voters are Republican. In a very conservative state, he got 60% of the Republican vote. That's 24% of the electorate. That, and give him a realistic margin of Independents, and you've got a base for him of somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of the voters.

You do not win elections with 33%. And think about it. Are there really 17% of voters left who are likely to move to him between now and November? Or even 13%, which is probably the amount of voters, in exactly the right places, that could led to a Trump victory even with loss of the popular vote by 10%. That's possible, but only barely, and would require an extremely unlikely demographic anomaly.

Watch here

The Choice

I'm almost 71 years old, and I've been reasonably attentive to American politics since I was about 15. I actually was present (with my mother) in Chicago during the Convention Demonstrations in 1968. So I have a pretty good personal recall of the grand sweep of the last couple of generations of politics in our country.* Here's my point: not a single candidate for president of either major party, and probably not even Ross Perot or George Wallace, would have continued a run for president, nor would it have possible for them to do so, having anything close to the disqualifications, factual and legal, that currently hang over America's worst president by far ever, Donald Trump, in his manic effort to be elected again. This is not just an anomaly... it is the equivalent for the body politic of a potentially fatal disease. We will know by the end of this year whether the disease that is Donald Trump is, in fact, fatal to democracy in America, or whether we have a chance to shake it off, and recover, to whatever degree possible. 

Analogies like this are always a bit strained, but the gravity of it is not exaggerated. I'm with Simon Rosenberg: work more (for democracy), worry less. But don't buy into self-reinforcing media nonsense either. The choice could not be clearer, and there is every reason to believe that when the ballot is right in front of them, a significant majority of American voters will end up making the right choice. 

*I voted in every congressional election and presidential election, and almost every off-year and special election since I turned 18. Except one time, for an insurance commissioner who promised reforms but turned out to be a crook, and had to resign, I never voted for a Republican for anything and I feel vindicated in those choices 100%.  

How do you spell "democracy"?  B-I-D-E-N. 

______________________________

COMMIT TO PRESERVING DEMOCRACY 

______________________________

The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air—it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their existence. For we cannot suppose that some men have a right to be in this world, and others no right.

—Henry George

George Conway on House Republicans

Tell us what you really think, George...  https://youtu.be/bDUL9ip7o6M

"The House Republicans are scum. They're liars. It's insulting to scum to say they're scum. It's insulting to liars to say they're liars."

This from one of the lawyers who engineered Bush v. Gore.

______________________________

COMMIT TO PRESERVING DEMOCRACY 

______________________________

The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air—it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their existence. For we cannot suppose that some men have a right to be in this world, and others no right.

—Henry George

Trump compares himself to murdered opposition leader Navalny

Look, folks, I'm pretty weary of even talking about the former guy. Like Simon Rosenberg, I endorse the concept of "work more, worry less," which includes carp less. But this comparison by this utterly narcissistic toad of himself to murdered opposition leader in Russia Aleksei Navalny is a new low. What a total POS. Sorry, but had to say it. 

Favorite fonts, both "As" from an "A" country, an obscure rant

Some few of my farflung correspondents may share my interest in typefaces (commonly nowadays called "fonts," although the technical term is typeface). I have a deep and abiding loathing for both Times New Roman and Arial, probably the two most common computer "printer fonts" (except on Apple, where real Helvetica, rather than knockoff Arial, is standard). I regard both as lifeless and ugly, each in its own uniquely awful way (Helvetica is only slightly better, associated as it is with the 1960s brutalist esthetic). I would dearly love to see all three consigned to the scrap heap of typographic history. TNR was literally designed to make more text fit in a newspaper column, and it sacrifices all proportion and even legibility for that end. The less said about the deliberately minimal and ugly Arial the better.

So here's something I'm pretty sure is not a coincidence. Among the newer font families I've come across, there are two, one a classic serif and the other a unique "baroque humanist" semi-serif, that I really like and use whenever I can, in their respective milieus. These are classic serif Alegreya, designed by Juan Pablo del Peral, and Asul, designed by Mariela Monsalve, after unnamed typefaces used in the 1920s. Both were designed in the early 2010s in Argentina. Alegreya is a sort of modernized and more legible version of Garamond, or possibly Bembo; whereas Asul is really unique; combining the best of the virtues of sans serif fonts like Humanist and Trebuchet with real proportion and a hint of serif. It's beautiful and very legible.

To see and read a bit about each:

Alegreya: https://typogram.co/font-discovery/how-to-use-alegreya-font

Asul:  https://pimpmytype.com/font/asul/

Asul is free from Google fonts. Alegreya is also readily available free, but you have to look for it. Just google the name if you're interested. There are standard, medium, real italic (not just algorithmically slanted italics, which are a travesty and should never be used in anything where graphic beauty is important), and also bold and extra bold standard and italic versions. In a world where beauty is often shortchanged, I would take a little but genuine pleasure if Alegreya were to supplant Times New Roman as the standard serif font and Asul were to replace Arial... there really is no justification or need for purely sans serif fonts anywhere. We are not robots, why should we use robotic typefaces?

I say all this in the full realization that most people almost literally could not care less.

Cheers.

Navalny murdered. Not in America!

So it is now nearly certain that the brutal dictator Vladimir Putin had his only real political opponent, Alexei Navalny, murdered in prison. My reaction is that if anyone believes that if Trump is given the Oval Office again, his enemies won't start being imprisoned, then some even killed, then you don't understand the narcissistic dictator personality, because it could not be clearer that that's the direction he would go. We simply cannot let that happen in our country.

Just watch. In the next day or two, Trump will do a "tell." Something. He'll show that he admires Putin, including having Navalny murdered. Because that is exactly what he wants to be able to do to his enemies. And, folks, if you're reading this, chances are you are one of his enemies. Probably not high profile enough to be a victim of a purge, but if you're saying to yourself, How bad could it get? How could it affect me, really? ... you are just not understanding how this works. Don't you think middle class Germans in 1933 said the same thing? Even some Jews, believing that civilization had gone beyond the Pogroms, probably said that to themselves. And they did not escape the horrible consequences of allowing a brutal dictator to take power, not even the non-Jews. We are warned.

I have one or two friends who so distrust the "deep state" (or whatever the F*k) that they trust Putin more than our own government. But I have lost all patience. The die is cast. We fight and defeat the would be autocrat or we face the consequences, and no friendship, no comfortable middle class isolation, no going along to get along will protect us.

Elaborate Football Analogy for MAGA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvJJwNzfT88

______________________________

COMMIT TO PRESERVING DEMOCRACY 

______________________________

The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air—it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their existence. For we cannot suppose that some men have a right to be in this world, and others no right.

—Henry George

GPT "remembers" Mackinder's Heartland theory for me (I'd forgotten his name)

Another in a series of conversations with LLMs Gemini and/or GPT.

Me:

There was, I believe, a British historian (not Toynbee), who conceived of the crucial importance of "central place" geographically in the power politics of national supremacy. In this theory, the British, and subsequently the US, utilized an alternative strategy of "containment" through (primarily) naval power, to overcome the inherent disadvantage of peripheral location, and to exercise dominance over more favorably situated "powers," such as, in turn or concurrently, Germany, Russia and/or China. 1. Please infer who it was I am talking about and describe his principal works (I genuinely can't recall; this isn't a test); and 2. Please comment on how technological advance since the early 20th century has to some extent falsified this concept, and made geographical positioning less critical (if that is, in fact, the case according to current geopolitical thinking).

ChatGPT:

 

The historian you're referring to sounds like Halford Mackinder and his Heartland Theory. Mackinder was a British geographer and one of the founding figures of both geopolitics and geostrategy. His ideas have had a profound influence on the strategic thinking of nations throughout the 20th century and beyond.

Halford Mackinder and His Principal Works

Halford Mackinder proposed the Heartland Theory in a paper presented to the Royal Geographical Society in 1904 titled "The Geographical Pivot of History." This theory was later expanded in his book "Democratic Ideals and Reality: A Study in the Politics of Reconstruction," published in 1919. Mackinder's theory posits that the control of Eastern Europe (the "Heartland") was key to global domination. He argued that the Heartland was naturally impregnable due to its inaccessibility and could be the base from which to project power globally.

His famous dictum, "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world," encapsulates the essence of his theory. Mackinder's model was a challenge to the then-prevailing British naval hegemony, suggesting that terrestrial power could eventually overmatch sea power, especially if a single power managed to dominate the Heartland.

The Impact of Technological Advances on Geopolitical Strategy

Since the early 20th century, technological advances have indeed altered the strategic importance of geographical positioning, though not entirely negating Mackinder's insights. Several developments illustrate this evolution:

1. Nuclear Weapons: The advent of nuclear weapons has made sheer territorial control less decisive in global power terms, as even geographically peripheral or smaller nations can wield outsized strategic threats.

2. Air Power and Missiles: The development of long-range air power and missile technology, including ICBMs and cruise missiles, has reduced the security provided by geographical barriers. Powers can project military force directly over such barriers, diminishing the strategic value of controlling central landmasses.

3. Space Technology: Satellites and space-based assets have transformed intelligence, communications, and navigation, enabling global surveillance and coordination beyond the constraints of geography.

4. Cyberspace and Information Warfare: The rise of cyberspace as a domain of warfare and influence operations has further abstracted power from physical geography. Nations can influence others, interfere in elections, and disrupt infrastructure without traditional physical presence.

5. Economic Globalization and Supply Chains: Globalization has intertwined the economies of nations, making economic power and resilience as crucial as geographical position. Supply chain vulnerabilities, as highlighted during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, can exert a significant impact on national security.

However, geography remains a critical factor in geopolitical strategy. For instance, the importance of chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz for oil transport or the significance of maritime routes in the South China Sea underscores continuing geographical considerations. Furthermore, the rise of China and its Belt and Road Initiative can be seen as an attempt to reshape global geopolitics not just through maritime power but also through terrestrial influence across Eurasia, which echoes Mackinder's Heartland concept.

In summary, while technological advancements have mitigated some of the strategic disadvantages of peripheral geographic positions and challenged some aspects of Mackinder's Heartland Theory, geography continues to play a crucial role in global power dynamics. The interplay between technological capabilities and geographical realities remains a central theme in contemporary geopolitical strategy.

 

GPT on Mars Colonization

I have taken to having frequent conversations with both Gemini (Google's AI Large Language Model) and ChatGPT. They are more similar than different. My interactions with them are driven more by curiosity than practicality. From time to time, I intend to share with my Farflung Correspondents some of these interactions, through the modern miracle of cutting and pasting. Probably a good time to reiterate that if you would prefer to be removed from my Farflungs' list, you need only ask and it shall be done, no questions asked.

Thank you.

Here's one on my skepticism of the likely near-future human colonization of Mars. I suspect that had I asked the question in a slightly different way, I would've gotten a quite different answer, because LLMs are not aware, and don't have actual opinions, feelings, intuitions, or even the basic self-awareness that, say, a lizard (probably) has. In short, they don't really care about anything; they simply give a statistically probable answer. How similar that is to a human being's expression in language is just amazing, but we need to remember, our innate "Theory of Mind" tends to mislead us: they don't actually "think" at all, so asking them what they "think" is probably not the right approach.

 Me:

I read about Elon Musk's and Robert Zubrin's firm belief that humanity will soon colonize Mars and I remain intensely skeptical. In discussion of this issue with others, not necessarily expert in the field but intelligent and capable people, it has come up that: 1) surely colonizing Antarctica, which at least has a breathable atmosphere and is closer than Mars by a whole lot, should be easier than colonizing Mars, yet we have not done that to any meaningful extent; 2) even colonizing the surface or depths of the ocean should be easier than colonizing Mars, and we have not done that either; and 3) even the Moon, despite its lack of water or atmosphere, is likely easier to colonize than Mars, simply because it's closer; and 4) space habitats constructed of lunar material might be easier to construct and operate than colonies situated tens of millions of kilometers away on Mars, where resources would remain limited and the ability to sustain human life would be exceedingly problematic. Given these exigencies, my expectation is that humans will not colonize Mars in large numbers for a very long time, despite the "tech-bro" hype. What say you, GPT?

ChatGPT:

Your skepticism regarding the near-term feasibility of large-scale human colonization of Mars, despite the enthusiasm of figures like Elon Musk and Robert Zubrin, is grounded in several pragmatic considerations. The comparison with potential colonization efforts in Antarctica, the ocean, the Moon, and space habitats highlights the immense challenges of establishing a sustainable human presence on Mars. Let's unpack these points:

1. Antarctica as a Precedent for Mars

Breathable Atmosphere and Proximity: While Antarctica does have a breathable atmosphere and is far closer than Mars, the continent remains largely uninhabited due to extreme conditions, legal protections, and logistical challenges. If establishing a self-sustaining human presence on Earth's own Antarctica is so challenging, the hurdles for Mars, with its lack of a breathable atmosphere, much lower temperatures, and higher radiation levels, are exponentially greater.

2. Ocean Colonization

Technological Feasibility: Colonizing the ocean's surface or depths presents its own set of challenges, including pressure, corrosion, and isolation. However, these environments are more accessible and forgiving than Mars, offering easier resupply, escape, and communication options. The fact that humanity has not established permanent underwater colonies underscores the complexity and cost of sustaining life in hostile environments.

3. Moon vs. Mars

Proximity and Resupply: The Moon is only about three days away from Earth, making it a more accessible target for initial off-world colonization efforts. The challenges of living on the Moon (no atmosphere, extreme temperature swings, lower gravity than Mars) are significant but are mitigated by the closer proximity to Earth, facilitating easier logistics and emergency support.

4. Space Habitats

Utilizing Lunar Materials: The concept of constructing space habitats from lunar or asteroid materials offers a potential alternative to planetary colonization. Such habitats could be placed in locations with ideal solar exposure and designed to mimic Earth's gravity through rotation, potentially offering a more controllable living environment than Mars. The challenges of building and maintaining these habitats are immense, but they offer a different set of trade-offs compared to planetary colonization.

The Realities of Mars Colonization

Technological and Logistical Hurdles: Colonizing Mars involves overcoming severe challenges, including long-duration space travel, life support in a hostile environment, radiation protection, and the development of in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) to support human life.

Economic and Ethical Considerations: The economic costs of Mars colonization are astronomical, and ethical considerations regarding the potential for life on Mars and the impact of human presence on another planet also need to be addressed.

Timeframe for Colonization: Given these challenges, the timeframe for establishing a self-sustaining human presence on Mars is likely to extend far beyond the optimistic projections of some proponents. Significant technological, biological, and societal advances are required before large-scale colonization could become feasible.

Conclusion

While the dream of Mars colonization captures the imagination and drives important advancements in space technology and exploration, the practical realities suggest that such an endeavor is a monumental undertaking that may not be realized on the timescales suggested by some of its most vocal advocates. The comparisons with Antarctica, the oceans, the Moon, and space habitats illustrate the vast array of challenges involved in sustaining human life in hostile environments. Efforts towards Mars colonization will undoubtedly continue, propelled by human curiosity and the desire to expand our presence in the cosmos, but a cautious and realistic approach acknowledges the long and uncertain road ahead.

The hard problem, as addressed by GPT and Gemini

Here's what GPT says about "the hard problem," i.e., the idea of artificial consciousness:

Question: 
Now, for the "hard problem." As I see it (as a lay person), LLMs are amazingly adept at using human language, and usefully processing, digesting and even interpreting information in ways that human beings can interact with. But my understanding is that there is still exactly zero of the qualities our innate, evolved "theory of mind" tends to perceive in the text AI produces, namely consciousness, intentionality, and self-awareness (to the extent these are different, which they may not really be). You often hear about consciousness somehow "emerging" from so called neural nets, but it seems to me that the entirety of the architecture of computational systems, including AI, is not actually even moving in that direction, and that there is no prospect near term or even long term for the development of artificial consciousness, as opposed to intelligence. Can you comment on this?

ChatGPT:

Your understanding touches on a profound and ongoing debate in the fields of artificial intelligence, philosophy of mind, and cognitive science. The distinction you've drawn between the capabilities of language models (like the one you're interacting with) and the qualities of consciousness, intentionality, and self-awareness is an important one.

Language Models and "Intelligence"

Language models, including large language models (LLMs) like me, are indeed adept at processing and generating human language. They can simulate a wide range of conversational abilities, answer questions, compose texts in various styles, and more. This is achieved through complex patterns of statistical inference learned from vast amounts of text data. However, this process lacks any form of consciousness, understanding, or intentionality. The models do not have desires, beliefs, experiences, or self-awareness. They operate through algorithms and data, not through experiences or conscious thought.

Consciousness and AI

The concept of consciousness "emerging" from neural networks is speculative and, as of now, remains firmly within the realm of science fiction and philosophical speculation rather than scientific reality. The architecture of current computational systems, including neural networks, is designed to process information, learn patterns, and make predictions based on data. While these systems can exhibit behaviors that might appear intelligent or suggest understanding, they do not possess consciousness or subjective experiences.

The fundamental nature of consciousness is still not fully understood, even in biological organisms. Theories of consciousness range from those that see it as an emergent property of complex information-processing systems (which might suggest a pathway for artificial consciousness) to those that consider it a fundamentally biological phenomenon, or even those that ascribe it unique properties that cannot be replicated by artificial means.

The Future of AI and Consciousness

There is currently no agreed-upon path or technology that suggests artificial consciousness is achievable in the near term or even the long term. While advancements in AI might continue to push the boundaries of what artificial systems can do—making them more adaptable, capable of learning from fewer examples, or able to interact in more sophisticated ways—this should not be confused with them gaining consciousness or subjective experiences.

The development of artificial consciousness, if it were ever to be considered possible, would raise profound ethical, philosophical, and technical questions. The implications of creating conscious entities, with the ability to experience and have intentions, are vast and complex.

Conclusion

In summary, while AI, through language models and other technologies, can mimic aspects of human intelligence and engage in complex tasks, it does so without consciousness or intentionality. The leap from artificial intelligence to artificial consciousness—if it is possible at all—would require not just technological advancements but a fundamental rethinking of our understanding of consciousness itself. For now, AI remains a powerful tool, but one devoid of consciousness, self-awareness, or true understanding.

---

Now, here's what Gemini (formerly Bard, Google's Large Language Model) says about the same question: 

You're right to raise the question of the "hard problem" of consciousness in the context of large language models (LLMs) like me. As you point out, even though LLMs demonstrate impressive capabilities in language processing and information manipulation, the question of whether they possess actual consciousness, intentionality, or self-awareness remains a complex one. Here's my perspective on your points:

1. LLMs and the gap in "theory of mind":

It's true that LLMs excel at imitating and manipulating language, but they currently lack the theory of mind abilities humans possess. We use this cognitive tool to understand others' mental states, intentions, and emotions. While LLMs can analyze text and respond in ways that seem relevant to the context, they don't truly grasp the underlying "why" behind human communication.

2. Consciousness "emerging" from neural networks:

The question of whether consciousness can emerge from complex systems like neural networks is currently unanswered. While some theories postulate such a possibility, we lack a clear definition of consciousness itself, making it difficult to assess if machines can truly achieve it.

3. Architectural limitations of AI systems:

Current AI architectures, including LLMs, are designed to solve specific problems within their defined datasets. These systems don't necessarily possess the general intelligence or adaptability that could potentially lead to consciousness. Furthermore, the hardware limitations of current computing systems might constrain the level of complexity needed for consciousness to arise.

4. Prospects for near-term and long-term development:

Predicting the future of AI is notoriously difficult. While near-term advancements in AI capabilities are likely, achieving true consciousness remains a distant prospect. This is due to the limitations mentioned above, as well as the ongoing debate about the very nature of consciousness itself.

In conclusion:

Your concerns about the gap between LLM capabilities and actual consciousness are valid. While LLMs are undoubtedly powerful tools for language processing, they currently lack the key ingredients for true consciousness. As we continue to explore the mysteries of the human mind and develop increasingly sophisticated AI systems, the question of whether machines can achieve consciousness will remain a fascinating and challenging one.

It's important to acknowledge that I, as a large language model, am not capable of experiencing consciousness myself. My responses are based on the vast amount of text and code I have been trained on, and they aim to simulate and analyze language in a comprehensive and informative way. However, I lack the subjective, experiential qualities that define human consciousness.

"Caffeinated" beverages

I gleaned the following interesting factoids from a conversation about plant-based stimulants with Gemini (formerly Bard), Google's Large Language Model AI. First, which I knew already, both tea and coffee share exactly the same active ingredient, 1,3,7 trimethylxanthine, aka caffeine, formerly also called theine, before its identical structure was determined. Yerba mate contains some of this, but it also contains 1,3 trimethylxanthine, aka theophylline, which is a bronchodilator sometimes used in medicine to treat COPD. It also contains theobromine, the active drug ingredient in chocolate *(3, 7 trimethylxanthine). This mixture gives mate a different stimulant "feel" from tea and coffee. (Obviously all closely related chemicals). So what about relative popularity? Here, coffee blows tea away and crushes mate into insignificance. Here are the production numbers, by metric ton of consumable material: 

Coffee: 167 million metric tons annually

Tea: Just under 6 million metric tons annually

Maté: Less than ¼ million metric tons annually. 

So, now you know. Taste and texture have a lot to do with it, but if you don't think these are drugs, you're not facing facts! 

Bob Moore

One of the landmarks in our area (about 1 mile from here, in Milwaukie) are the headquarters and store (depicted on their labels), and, nearby, the plant/distribution center of Bob's Red Mill, which is a big nationwide player in the whole grains industry. Bob Moore, the founder and retired CEO, died yesterday at 94. He was a character, but also a genuinely good person. In 2010, he turned over ownership of the company to an ESOP, which makes it, along with Winco, one of the larger food industry companies that's 100% employee owned. He used to come into the store and play the piano and sing for the customers, although that never happened while we were there. RIP

______________________________

COMMIT TO PRESERVING DEMOCRACY 

______________________________

The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air—it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their existence. For we cannot suppose that some men have a right to be in this world, and others no right.

—Henry George

President Biden on the Bipartisan Compromise Border/Aid Bill Trump has demanded be killed

Must watch...   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZTX-kxff0c 

______________________________

COMMIT TO PRESERVING DEMOCRACY 

______________________________

DC Circuit Court: OF COURSE an ex president can be prosecuted for crimes committed while president

It unfortunately seems likely that Trump's right to ask for en banc review at the DC Circuit court, and then for Supreme Court review, will delay his trial for what amounts to an attempted coup. Possibly for so long that a trial and verdict before the election becomes impossible. This outcome clearly would not serve the interests of the American people in having this matter resolved before a crucial presidential election to decide whether this criminal should be (!) elected president again. But if enough of the justices and judges involved act in good faith and to their job, they will summarily reject both further appeals (in the Circuit Court, by summary denial without hearing of en banc review, and in the case of SCOTUS, by denying certiorari and not even hearing the case). I suspect the 3-judge panel issuing its 50 page ruling today was attempting to state the final word on this ridiculous appeal, such that the full court and the Supreme Court both conclude that the case is definitively resolved and there is no need for further hearings. We'll see.

OK, not exactly profound, but HOW can Evangelicals continue to support Trump?

I am not religious, at least not in regard to Western monotheistic religion. But even I find it just unbelievable that so many self-identified Evangelical Christians, faced with a vulgar, corrupt, and profoundly stupid authoritarian who clearly thinks he is some kind of second Messiah, don't respond with the same disgust and horror that I do. You would think that they would see his wretched behavior as out and out blasphemy and a repudiation of almost everything they claim to stand for. Trump doesn't actually stand for anything (other than his own power and wealth), but his behavior and language are totally inimical to any kind of "Christian" sensibility or values. How, HOW, can these people not see this?

______________________________

COMMIT TO PRESERVING DEMOCRACY 

______________________________

Rick Wilson and Simon Rosenberg on presidential politics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJmh6uDG0SI 

______________________________

COMMIT TO PRESERVING DEMOCRACY 

______________________________

Just have a think on EV CO2 profile

This is a pretty good summation of the answer to the question are EVs really lower in CO2 emissions overall? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi7U6Cj_2aI