So you’ve got a new prime minister, who is a continuation of your last one. Sorry.

In an opinion piece in the Sunday Telegraph, Truss described Britain as stuck with low productivity, high taxes, overregulation and an inability to do big things. “We will break with the same old tax and spend approach by focusing on growth and investment,” she said. She complained of the “heaviest tax burden in 70 years.” She said it was outrageous that there had not been a new water reservoir or nuclear power plant built in a quarter-century.

The disconnect of her words was noted by her critics, who pointed out that Truss didn’t mention that her party has been in power for the past 12 years — and that she has served in the cabinet since 2012 — so these problems were the doings of the Conservatives.

Opposition Labour Party leader Keir Starmer tweeted: “I’d like to congratulate our next Prime Minister Liz Truss as she prepares for office. But after 12 years of the Tories all we have to show for it is low wages, high prices, and a Tory cost of living crisis. Only Labour can deliver the fresh start our country needs.”

I’ll congratulate you sincerely once you get rid of these damned Tories, just asa we have to get rid of these damned Republicans.

I’d been wondering why Trump had all those secret documents at his Florida hideout — it made no sense. Did he have some nefarious scheme to sell government info to foreign agents? Was he going to blackmail people? I should have known, though, that it would be something so simple, since he’s a simpleton.

As president and in the months after he left office, he was known to show off correspondence that he had received from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un — which he had termed “love letters” — to guests at his club, people in his orbit have said. (It was these letters that originally sparked the dispute that eventually led to the FBI search, after officials at the National Archives and Records Administration noticed the famous correspondence was not among the presidential records they received from Trump’s White House and requested they and other missing documents be returned. After negotiations, Trump in January returned 15 boxes, including the letters, but kept dozens of other boxes of documents in Florida.)

They were petty little trophies he used to show off to the dupes who were his guests. This is the guy who put up fake magazine covers on the walls to ‘impress’ people. He is a walking illustration of Hanlon’s Razor.

That’s all I see, nothing but bad people on a map.

Now we just have to figure out a way to make them vanish off this map. Taxation, maybe? Sounds good to me.

I know their names — Adam Brown, Chris Kemp, Christine Peterson, Gaia Dempsey, Metaculus and Robin Hanson — but I don’t understand why anyone would listen to them babble about subjects they can’t possibly know anything about. So I started listening to this video of a panel about The Far Future & Space Tech Tree: Space & Longtermism, only to have to frequently yell, “how do you know that?” at the screen. None of it made any sense. They’re building castles in the sky on weird presuppositions.

The first guy is Robin Hanson, certifiable whack job, babbling about the risk to his vision of the far future. He’s worried that we’re going to get a world government that is too centralized and too darned successful at making people happy, and that means we’ll lose interest in taking risks, so we won’t expand to fill the galaxy out of fear of encountering big bad aliens.

Think about that. 1) There’s no evidence that a government is taking over the world, and 2) he has no grounds for psychoanalyzing trends over millions of years (yeah, he’s extrapolating over a span that’s probably longer than our species will exist), and 3) he doesn’t like the idea that humans might develop contentment and stability. That would be bad.

It’s nice in a theoretical, principled sense that the professoriate allows people to lounge about and daydream about humanity’s fantasy future, but sometimes you feel like there ought to be at least a token grounding in, you know, evidence of some kind. How could this happen? Hanson is at George Mason University, a place that has been bought lock, stock, and barrel by extremist capitalists of the very far right. The Kochs basically own the place, and it’s become a locus of power for the Federalist Society. You know, the wellspring of the very worst sort of judicial influence.

Documents obtained by alumni and students through the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) over the past year and one half reveal that George Mason University’s public law school has been taken over by the conservative Washington DC based Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy. Since April 2016, the Federalist Society has been influencing faculty and student placement, recommending and establishing legal programs, redirecting large amounts of scholarship revenues to support the Law School’s most-politicized centers for the “Study of the Administrative State” and “Liberty and Law,” and even reorienting the Law School’s judicial law clerk program to place “conservative” law students associated with the Federalist Society as clerks to the nation’s judges.

Two years ago, on March 31, 2016, George Mason University announced that as a result of a $20 million donation from an anonymous donor and $10 million donation from the Charles Koch Foundation, it was changing the name of the Law School to the Antonin Scalia Law School. This generated intense controversy about renaming a publicly-funded state law school after one of the most ideological and polarizing Supreme Court Justice in history. Accompanying that controversy were concerns about inappropriate influence by an anonymous donor and the Charles Koch brothers who have long exerted control over George Mason and its affiliated Mercatus Center and Institute for Human Studies. Less known outside of legal circles is that Justice Scalia was the founding faculty advisor to the Federalist Society in 1982 and its highest-profile member and frequent speaker for the next 34 years, with four speeches at Federalist Society events in 2015 alone.

And that, in turn, reflects a distortion of our political economy by the existence of the obscenely wealthy, the billionaires who can use all their money to promote their personal, idiosyncratic beliefs and bloated egos.

One man has donated $1.6 billion to a nonprofit group controlled by a conservative activist who has crusaded, with startling success, to transform the country’s politics. The only reason the public knows about it? An insider tip-off to the New York Times.
The Times reported this week that electronics mogul Barre Seid last year gave 100 percent of the shares of surge protector and data-center equipment manufacturer Tripp Lite to a group called Marble Freedom Trust. The group is led by Leonard Leo — who has helped bankroll right-wing advocacy on abortion rights, voting and climate change, among other things. His chief focus for a time was reshaping the judiciary as executive vice president of the Federalist Society, including by advising Republican presidents on Supreme Court nominees. The tale of how his group got such a lavish gift underscores the sad state of this country’s campaign finance system.

That kind of money means they don’t have to touch down on reality ever, and it shows. They are not very smart people, they only know how to manipulate the system and maximize profits from their inherited wealth, and that allows them to distort the perception of reality to their advantage.

My only question is…why are really rich people drawn to longtermism? It makes no sense. It’s bad science. Maybe there’s some germ of wish fulfillment there — they imagine living forever and becoming Spaceman Spiff, and going off and dominating the universe in the same way they currently dominate the United States and UK. They want to imagine a world where rich idiots get free rein, like they Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. And the best way to get that is to put buffoons like Hanson in positions of intellectual influence.

The happy lady at the right is Kim Crockett, a Minnesotan who is running for the office of Secretary of State. I don’t want to rush into any accusations here, but she might be a bit racist. I’ll let you be the judge, and just present the facts.

• She’s a Republican. I know, I know, but let’s assess the preponderance of the evidence.
• She’s an election-denier who says the 2020 presidential election was “rigged”.
• She was dismayed at all the Somalis immigrating to Minnesota. “I think of America, the great assimilator, as a rubber band, but with this — we’re at the breaking point,” she was quoted as saying. “These aren’t people coming from Norway, let’s put it that way. These people are very visible.” See? She’s not anti-immigrant. It’s fine if they’re coming from Norway.
• Now she is concerned about who should be allowed to vote in our elections. “So, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that indeed you can help an unlimited number of people vote if they are disabled or can’t read or speak English, which raises the question: Should they be voting? We can talk about that another time.”

Oh, wait. I think maybe “racist” is an inadequate word to cover the breadth of her bigotry. Never mind.

And she’s running for Secretary of State, the office that oversees our elections! Fortunately, her opponent is a competent DFL guy, Steve Simon, who is going to run right over her in November.

I’ll have you know I took out student loans for college — it was mid-1970s levels of tuition, but it was still debt — and I also had to work my way through for four years, plus summers spent doing stoop labor to build up some savings. And then I paid it all off with the sweat of my brow, diligently making those quarterly payments, and eventually working my way out from under the burden. It was an obligation! I was loaned that money on specific terms, and I signed a contract!

And now Joe Biden is wiping out $10,000-20,000 of debt per college student with a snap of his fingers? They can just forget about it?

Good. It should be more, but this is a great start.

I don’t have good memories of all the labor I put in just to get the education I wanted. I was going to school to learn biology, not to pick weeds or put in long hours cleaning glassware or scrubbing cat poop out of an animal facility, and really, the job I was training for was not one that would ever pay a big salary, so deferring repayments until I was wealthy was never going to happen. So yeah, give those young folks a break, especially since tuition costs have skyrocketed since my day.

I have no patience for the flurry of outraged Republicans demanding that everyone must suffer as they did (as if they did — I predict that the ones who squawk the loudest are the children of privilege who had Mummy & Daddy pay for everything, and buy them a new car and European vacations on top of that). College ought to be free to everyone. It’s the only way we’re going to educate ourselves out of the mess we find ourselves in.

---

Additionally…

Preemptively posting this. pic.twitter.com/3xSCANnBGg

— Anthony Michael Kreis (@AnthonyMKreis) August 24, 2022

Those poor losers! You should give more money to some bankers to atone for their suffering.

Conservatives seem to think it’s grossly unfair that Nearly half of college students wouldn’t “dorm across the aisle”. Look! Republican students are more willing to share a room with a Democrat.

This being Axios, no one thinks to wonder why. Have they considered the possibility that so many far right Republicans have proven themselves to be violent and bigoted? As a college freshman, I had a roommate who was racist and thoroughly unpleasant…am I supposed to have signed up for another semester with him? I don’t think so.

And likewise, what’s with this expectation that we ought to tolerate a Republican as a marriage partner?

46% said they would probably/definitely not room with someone who supported the opposing presidential candidate in 2020 (62% of Dems, 28% of GOP).

53% said they would probably/definitely not go on a date with someone who supported the other side in 2020.
63% said they would probably/definitely not marry someone who supported the other 2020 candidate.

Madness. You should look for compatibility in a partner, and there’s nothing wrong with that. And yet, conservatives are outraged that progressives won’t have sex with them — preferably via the straitjacket of “enforced monogamy” — as if intimacy is supposed to be delivered on demand to anyone who asks for it. The fact that liberal men would rather poke Ann Coulter with a stick, or that liberal women are creeped out by Ben Shapiro, is a sign that liberals are really the intolerant ones. Amanda Marcotte understands what’s really going on.

On the right, there was a lot of trumpeting how this supposedly proves the left are the ones who are “really” intolerant. Radio talker Matt Murphy whined that liberals “don’t believe in our republic cannot abide people who think differently than them.” As if not getting to have sex with or go to parties with liberals is exactly the same as having your basic rights as a citizen stripped from you. “This doesn’t bode well,” complained GOP lawyer and ABC commentator Sarah Isgur, who previously defended the Trump administration’s policy of separating families at the U.S.-Mexico border as a former spokesperson in the Justice Department.

“My most fascinating friendships have always come from ‘the other side,'” MSNBC host Joe Scarborough tweeted, noting that, as a Republican, he “always benefitted” from those conversations. As many people pointed out in response, however, that a Republican like Scarborough gained from friendships with people like “John Lewis, Elijah Cummings, Ron Dellums, and Maxine Waters” doesn’t mean the reverse is true. And that is most likely what this polling is picking up.

I think most liberals would consider a relationship to be a mutual partnership, where both gain reciprocally, rather than something where one side benefits. You enter into it by mutual agreement, not because you are ordered to do so.

Don’t blame the liberals. This is all on the conservatives, who have all been racing to be extreme authoritarian assholes with a sense of entitlement to your room, your life, and your sex, who no one wants to fuck.

This is a brilliant strategy: engage a red-hat-wearing Trump worshipper as a peer, talk about the class issues that they claim to be concerned about, and lead them down the path to solutions. Next thing you know, they’re agreeing that the big banks need to be broken up, the work place should be collectivized, and they’re all for seizing the means of production.

Proof that when you talk about issues from a laymen's perspective, people will agree with you even IF they claim to be conservative because it's a class issue. Many of us should take a lesson from this! Thanks to @SLCSocialist for showing me this! pic.twitter.com/QSg06FGYQb

— Jaybefaunt🏳️‍🌈 (@Jaybefaunt) August 21, 2022

You do have to avoid some of the buzzwords — the target would probably recoil if you whispered the word “socialism”, and for many of them, you’d have to hide the black folk, at first — but it’s an approach that might get them thinking, anyway. That’s a good first goal, to just get the wheels turning despite being crusted with Republican snot and semen.