Archives for the month of: November, 2024

https://www.denverpost.com/2024/11/14/jared-polis-rfk-jr-trump-hhs-endorsement-tweet/

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis holds up a copy of Project 2025 as he speaks during the Democratic National Convention Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2024, in Chicago. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis holds up a copy of Project 2025 as he speaks during the Democratic National Convention Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2024, in Chicago. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis on Thursday cheered anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination to lead the nation’s top public health agency, highlighting the controversial nominee’s stances on “big pharma” and “corporate ag.”

Polis, a Democrat, faced quick pushback on social media after he said he was “excited” by President-elect Donald Trump’s selection, and he posted againan hour later to clarify his thoughts. A spokesman for the governor then further walked back Polis’ support for Kennedy in a statement to The Denver Post.

Trump, a Republican, nominated Kennedy to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In the presidential race, Kennedy initially had sought the Democratic nomination, then ran as an independent. A member of the dynastic Kennedy family, he later abandoned his presidential campaign and backed Trump.

Kennedy has pushed a number of public health conspiracies, most prominently around vaccines, and has advocated for other positions that are generally out of the mainstream, such as more availability of unpasteurized milk. He has said he wants to remove fluoride from the American water supply, and when he ran for president, he said he wanted to pause research into pharmaceuticals and infectious diseases for at least eight years.

He has falsely suggested that COVID-19 was “ethnically targeted” to “attack” certain groups and that mass shootings have been caused by prescription drugs, among other debunked conspiracy theories.

Kennedy has adopted some mainstream health positions, such as limiting ultra-processed foods and the use of pesticides in growing crops. Polis, citing specific quotes by Kennedy, focused on those latter views in his first post Thursday afternoon on the social platform X.

“‘In some categories, there are entire departments, like the nutrition department at the (Food and Drug Administration) that are — that have to go, that are not doing their job, they’re not protecting our kids,” Polis quoted Kennedy as saying, then added himself: “YES! The entire nutrition regime is dominated by big corporate ag rather than human health and they do more harm than good.”

Polis — who’d previously criticized Kennedy’s anti-vaccine stances this summer — acknowledged those positions in his posts Thursday but urged his 136,000 X followers to hold off on mocking or disagreeing with Kennedy.

He said Kennedy had “helped us defeat vaccine mandates in Colorado in 2019.” He was referring to a defeated legislative measure that would have made it harder for parents to opt out of vaccine mandates for public schools.

Polis wrote that he hoped Kennedy would make vaccines a matter of choice, not about bans or requirements.

Polis’ comments drew swift backlash. Outgoing state Rep. David Ortiz, a Littleton Democrat, called the governor’s endorsement “pathetic pandering.” Rep. Javier Mabrey, a Denver Democrat, quipped on X: “Yikes.” Shad Murib, the chair of the Colorado Democratic Party, tweeted “Welp” shortly after Polis’ comments, and he subsequently criticized Kennedy’s conspiratorial history in a Thursday evening statement from the party.

Sen. Kyle Mullica, a Thornton Democrat and emergency room nurse, was blunter.

“This is just complete bullshit,” he said in an interview, and then repeated that point for emphasis. 

Mullica rejected Polis’ suggestion that state officials had sought vaccine mandates in the past. He said legislators worked to improve immunization rates through medical exemption reform and through education. Polis previously supported parents’ ability to opt out of vaccinations — drawing support from anti-vaccine advocates — despite the state’s poor rankings for pediatric immunization.

“The biggest thing is — look, science matters, man,” Mullica continued. “And with all the disinformation and misinformation that’s being put out by people like RFK Jr. and the internet, we need leaders who can stand up, follow the science, understand it and (make) sure we are making decisions based on evidence and science.”

Asked why Polis endorsed Kennedy in light of his often-conspiratorial stances, a spokesman for the governor responded by referring to a subsequent Polis social media post. The spokesman, Eric Maruyama, then issued a statement distancing the governor from the controversial figure he had just backed.

Maruyama wrote that Polis “does not endorse actions that would lead to measles outbreaks and opposes unscientific propaganda.”

“Governor Polis has not changed his view as a whole on RFK Jr. or on the Governor’s previously stated concerns regarding some of  RFK Jr’s positions,” Maruyama wrote. “While opposed to RFK’s positions on a host of issues, including vaccines and banning fluoridation, (Polis) would appreciate seeing action on pesticides and efforts to lower prescription drug costs and if Trump is going to nominate someone like him then let them also take on soda, processed food, pesticides and heavy metals contamination.”

In this post, Heather Cox Richardson demonstrates why she has over one million paid subscribers. She brilliantly weaves together events of the day to show the pattern on the rug. The economy is humming along with new jobs created by Biden. Meanwhile Trump plans massive cuts to Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. Trump’s goal: to destroy the foundations of the American government. We were warned.

She writes:

On Friday, Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo locked in a $6.6 billion deal with the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company for it to invest $65 billion in three state-of-the-art fabrication plants in Arizona. This will bring thousands of jobs to the state. The money comes from the CHIPS and Science Act, about which Trump told podcaster Joe Rogan on October 25: “That CHIPS deal is so bad.” House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said he would work to repeal the law, although he backed off that statement when Republicans noted the jobs the law has brought to their states. 

Also on Friday, a Trump-appointed federal judge struck down a Biden administration rule that would have made 4 million workers eligible for overtime pay. The rule raised the salary level below which an employer has to pay overtime from $35,568 to $43,888 this year and up to $58,656 in 2025. The decision by Texas judge Sean D. Jordan kills the measure nationally.

On Sunday, speaking from the Amazon rainforest in Brazil, President Joe Biden said that it would not be possible to reverse America’s “clean energy revolution,” which has now provided jobs across the country, primarily in Republican-dominated states. Biden noted that the U.S. would spend $11 billion on financing international responses to climate change in 2024, an increase of six times from when he began his term. 

But President-elect Trump has called climate change a hoax and has vowed to claw back money from the Inflation Reduction Act appropriated to mitigate it, and to turn the U.S. back to fossil fuels. What Trump will have a harder time disrupting, according to Nicolás Rivero of the Washington Post, is the new efficiency standards the Biden administration put in place for appliances. He can, though, refuse to advance those standards.

Meanwhile Trump and his team are announcing a complete reworking of the American government. They claim a mandate, although as final vote tallies are coming in, it turns out that Trump did not win 50% of the vote, and CNN statistician Harry Enten notes that his margin comes in at 44th out of the 51 elections that have been held since 1824. He also had very short coattails—four Democrats won in states Trump carried—and the Republicans have the smallest House majority since there have been 50 states, despite the help their numbers have had from the extreme gerrymandering in states like North Carolina. 

More Americans voted for someone other than Trump than voted for him.

Although Trump ran on lowering the cost of consumer goods, Trump and his sidekick Elon Musk, along with pharmaceutical entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, have vowed to slash the U.S. government, apparently taking their cue from Argentina’s self-described anarcho-capitalist president Javier Milei, who was the first foreign leader to visit Trump after the election. Milei’s “shock therapy” to his country threw the nation into a deep recession, just as Musk says his plans will create “hardship” for Americans before enabling the country to rebuild with security. 

Ramaswamy today posted on social media, “A reasonable formula to fix the U.S. government: Milei-style cuts, on steroids.” He has suggested that cuts are easier than people think. The Washington Post’s Philip Bump noted that on a podcast in September, Ramaswamy said as an example: “If your Social Security number ends in an odd number, you’re out. If it ends in an even number, you’re in. There’s a 50 percent cut right there. Of those who remain, if your Social Security number starts in an even number, you’re in, and if it starts with an odd number, you’re out. Boom. That’s a 75 percent reduction done.”

But, as Bump notes, this reveals Ramaswamy’s lack of understanding of how the government actually works. Social Security numbers aren’t random; the first digit refers to where the number was obtained. So this seemingly random system would target certain areas of the country. 

Today, both Jacob Bogage, Jeff Stein, and Dan Diamond of the Washington Post and Robert Tait of The Guardian reported that Trump’s economic advisors are talking with Republicans in Congress about cuts to Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) formerly known as food stamps, and other welfare programs, in order to cover the enormous costs of extending tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Medicaid is the nation’s health insurance for low-income Americans and long-term care. It covers more than 90 million Americans, one in five of us. Rural populations, which tend to vote Republican, use supplemental nutrition programs more than urban dwellers do. 

The Washington Post reporters note that Republicans deny that they are trying to reduce benefits for the poor. They are, they say, trying to reduce wasteful and unnecessary spending. “We know there’s tremendous waste,” said House Budget Committee chairman Jodey Arrington (R-TX). “What we don’t seem to have in the hour of action, like when we have the trifecta and unified Republican leadership, is the political courage to do it for the love of country. [Trump] does.”

Those cuts will likely not sit well with the Republicans whose constituents think Trump promised there would be no cuts to the programs on which they depend.

Trump’s planned nominations of unqualified extremists have also run into trouble. Senate Republicans are so far refusing to abandon their constitutional powers in order to act as a rubber stamp to enable Trump’s worst instincts. Former representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL), a Trump bomb thrower, was unqualified to be the nation’s attorney general in any case, but as more information comes out about his alleged participation in drug fueled orgies, including the news that a woman allegedly told the House Ethics Committee that she saw him engage in sex with a minor, those problems have gotten worse. 

Legal analyst Marcy Wheeler notes that the lawyers representing the witnesses for the committee are pushing for the release of the ethics committee’s report at least in part out of concern that if he becomes attorney general, Gaetz will retaliate against them. 

According to Vanity Fair’s Gabriel Sherman, fear of the MAGA Republican colleagues who are already trying to bully them into becoming Trump loyalists is infecting congress members, too. When asked if Gaetz was qualified for the attorney general post, Representative Mike Simpson (R-ID) answered: “Are you sh*tting me, that you just asked that question? No. But hell, you’ll print that and now I’m going to be investigated.”

The many fringe medical ideas of Trump’s pick for secretary of health and human services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., earned him the right-wing New York Post editorial board’s denigration as “nuts on a lot of fronts.” The board called his views “a head-scratching spaghetti of what we can only call warped conspiracy theories, and not just on vaccines.” Kennedy is a well-known opponent of vaccines—he called Covid-19 vaccines a “crime against humanity”—and has called for the National Institutes of Health to “take a break” of about eight years from studying infectious diseases, insisting that they should focus on chronic diseases instead.

Writing in the New York Times yesterday, Peter Baker noted that Trump “has rolled a giant grenade into the middle of the nation’s capital and watched with mischievous glee to see who runs away and who throws themselves on it.” Mischievous glee is one way to put it; another is that he is trying to destroy the foundations of the American government.

Baker notes that none of Trump’s selections would have been anything but laughable in the pre-Trump era when, for example, Democratic cabinet nominations were sunk for a failure to pay employment taxes for a nanny, or for a donor-provided car. Nor would a president-elect in the past have presumed to tap three of his own defense lawyers for top positions in the Department of Justice, effectively guaranteeing that he will be protected from scrutiny. 

A former deputy White House press secretary during Trump’s first term, Sarah Matthews, said Trump is “drunk on power right now because he feels like he was given a mandate by winning the popular vote.”

Today Trump confirmed that he intends to bypass normal legal constraints on his actions by declaring a national emergency on his first day in office in order to launch his mass deportation of undocumented migrants. While the Congressional Budget Office estimates this mass deportation will cost at least $88 billion a year, another cost that is rarely mentioned is that according to Bloomberg, undocumented immigrants currently pay about $100 billion a year in taxes. Losing that income, too, will likely have to be made up with cuts from elsewhere. 

Finally, today, CNBC’s economic analyst Carl Quintanilla noted today that average gasoline prices are expected to fall below $3.00 a gallon before the Thanksgiving holiday. 

John Horgan is a widely published science writer. In this article, he expresses his sorrow that Scientific American bowed to pressure to oust its outstanding Chief Editor Laura Helmuth. Right wingers love to attack Democrats for “censorship,” but it is Republicans who forced Helmuth’s ouster and Republicans who ban books.

He wrote:

Well before Scientific American’s editor vented her despair over the election, social injustice warriors were bashing the magazine for its political views. Critics include anti-woke bros Jordan Peterson, Charles “The Bell Curve” MurrayPinker wannabe Michael ShermerDawkins wannabe Jerry Coyne and the right-leaning Wall Street Journal and City Journal.

On election night, Sci Am editor Laura Helmuth called Trump voters “racist and sexist” and “fucking fascists” on the social media platform BlueSky, a haven for Twitter/X refugees. Yeah, she lost her cool, but Helmuth’s labels apply to Trump if not to all who voted for him. 

Although Helmuth apologized for her remarks, Elon Musk (perhaps miffed that Scientific American recently knocked him) and others called for her head. Yesterday Helmuth announced she was stepping down.

Trump spews insults and wins the election. Helmuth loses her job. Critics of cancel culture cheered Helmuth’s cancellation. I’m guessing we’ll see more of this sickening double standard in coming months and years.

I’m writing this column, first, to express my admiration for Helmuth. She is not only a fearless, intrepid editor, who is passionate about science (she has a Ph.D. in cognitive neuroscience). She is also—and I’ve heard this from her colleagues and experienced it first-hand–a kind, considerate person. That’s a heroic feat in this mean-spirited age.

I’d also like to address the complaint that Helmuth’s approach to science was too political and partisan. Yes, under Helmuth, Scientific American has had a clear progressive outlook, ordinarily associated with the Democratic party. The magazine endorsed Joe Biden four years ago, shortly after Helmuth took over, and Kamala Harris this year.

Sci Am presented scientific analyses of and took stands on racism, reproductive rights, trans rights, climate change, gun violence and covid vaccines. Critics deplored the magazine’s “transformation into another progressive mouthpiece,” as The Wall Street Journal put it. Biologist Jerry Coyne says a science magazine should remain “neutral on issues of politics, morals, and ideology.”

What??!! As Coyne knows, science, historically, has never been “neutral.” Powerful groups on the right and left have employed science to promote their interests and propagate lethal ideologies, from eugenics to Marxism. Science journalists can either challenge abuses of science or look the other way.

I became a staff writer at Scientific American in 1986, when Jonathan Piel was editor. The magazine bashed the Reagan administration’s plan to build a space-based shield against nuclear weapons. I wrote articles linking behavioral genetics to eugenics and evolutionary psychology to social Darwinism. I got letters that began: “Dear Unscientific Unamerican.” My point: the magazine has never been “neutral,” it has always had a political edge.

Under Piel, as well as successors John Rennie, Mariette DiChristina and Helmuth, the magazine published plenty of articles with no political ramifications. But if you just stick to uncontroversial science, and you decline to take a position on topics like climate change or reproductive rights, you aren’t “neutral.” You are just looking the other way. 

Robert Kennedy, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Health, has linked vaccines to autism, and he has conjectured that the covid virus was engineered to attack Caucasians and African Americans and spare “Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.” Trump says some Mexican immigrants have “bad genes” that make them killers, and as recently as 2022 he called climate change a “hoax.”

Meanwhile, Trump is vowing to cut federal aid to schools “pushing critical race theory, transgender insanity, and other inappropriate racial, sexual or political content.” And The Guardian reports that Trump is filing lawsuits against The New York Times and other media “that have been critical of him.”

Using your power to silence your opposition sounds pretty fascist to me. Will the next editor of Scientific American have the guts to challenge Trump and his minions? Will anyone?

NPR reported on the resignation of Laura Helmuth, the editor of Scientific American, in the wake of her comments about Trump on social media after the election. Who knew that Trump supporters were such snowflakes? Trump constantly sneers at and insults people and he got elected President. She expressed her reaction to his election and was forced out.

Before coming to Scientific American, Helmuth was previously the health and science editor for The Washington Post. She was also the President of the National Association of Science Writers.

NPR wrote:

Laura Helmuth, the chief editor of Scientific American magazine, announced her resignation on Friday after comments she made disparaging supporters of President-elect Donald Trump gained attention in conservative circles.

In a post on the social media platform Bluesky, Helmuth wrote, “I’ve decided to leave Scientific American after an exciting 4.5 years as editor in chief. She added, “I’m going to take some time to think about what comes next (and go birdwatching).”

In subsequent messages on Bluesky, which were later deleted, Helmuth referred to some of Trump’s supporters as “the meanest, dumbest, most bigoted” individuals celebrating his election night victory over Vice President Harris.

She also expressed regret to younger voters, stating that her generation is “so full of f****** fascists.”

Helmuth later apologized for her remarks, writing: “These posts, which I have deleted, do not reflect my beliefs; they were a mistaken expression of shock and confusion about the election results.”

Helmuth’s comments and resignation come in the wake of a highly contentious election season, during which media organizations and their reporters struggled with how to address Trump and his allies concerning conspiracy theories, their plans to consolidate power to the White House, and threats to their perceived enemies.

For only the second time in its nearly 180 years, Scientific American endorsed a presidential candidate, backing Kamala Harris while describing Trump as a threat to public safety who “rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”

In an emailed statement to NPR, Kimberly Lau, president of Scientific American, confirmed Helmuth’s resignation, stating, “Laura Helmuth has decided to move on from her position as editor in chief. We thank Laura for her four years leading Scientific American, during which time the magazine won major science communication awards and established a reimagined digital newsroom. We wish her well in the future.”

Helmuth is a courageous editor. Her departure is a loss to freedom of thought and expression, as well as to science.

If you are on BlueSky, check out her posts. Especially her list of the outstanding articles published on her watch.

Our reader “Democracy” explains why Trump chose Peter Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense. Trump has said that he wants the military to participate in rounding up, detaining, and expelling millions of immigrants. Hegseth won’t object. Trump has said he wants the military to crack down on protests or gatherings he doesn’t like. Hegseth won’t object. Hegseth also would block any prosecution of military members who are alleged to have committed war crimes.

“Democracy” writes:

What Elon Musk and others want to do in “cutting” government is to eliminate certain federal agencies, like the department of education, and to gut others, like Interior and the EPA, and to deplete the federal civil service while stocking it with Trump loyalists, competent or not.

What he’s doing with Defense appears to be a first step in weaponizing the US military, turning it into a Trump “army” to be used as he sees fit. As any sensible person knows, he IS unfit for office. That’s a genuine recipe for bad things to come.

Here’s how the Associated Press reported Trump’s selection of Pete Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense:

“Trump passed on a number of established national security heavy-hitters and chose an Army National Guard captain well known in conservative circles as a co-host of Fox News Channel’s ‘Fox & Friends Weekend.’…He has made it clear on his show and in interviews that, like Trump, he is opposed to ‘woke’ programs that promote equity and inclusion. He also has questioned the role of women in combat and advocated pardoning service members charged with war crimes.”

On a conservative podcast, Hegseth said this:

“‘First of all, you’ve got to fire the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Any general, any admiral, whatever,’ who was involved in diversity, equity and inclusion programs or ‘woke shit has “got to go.’”

“Woke” as in being committed to democratic values and principles. “Woke” as in equality, and “liberty and justice for all.” “Woke” as in abiding by US and international law as defined in 18 USC 2441: War crimes.

As the Associated Press also reported,

“…women have successfully passed the military’s grueling tests to become Green Berets and Army Rangers, and the Naval Special Warfare’s test to serve as a combatant-craft crewman — the boat operators who transport Navy SEALs and conduct their own classified missions at sea.”

The Washington Post said this, in part, about the Hegseth pick:

“The breakneck speed of the Hegseth nomination also underscores the value Trump places on TV personalities who have used their platform to promote his agenda.”

Elon Musk. Kristi Noem. Pete Hegseth. All cause for deep concern. Is the next appointment going to be the Brainworm Boy at HHS? The McDonald’s Hamburglar at USDA?

But seriously, given who Hegseth is and what Trump has said, there’s a reason to fear. From CNN:

“There is not much the Pentagon can do to pre-emptively shield the force from a potential abuse of power by a commander in chief. Defense Department lawyers can and do make recommendations to military leaders on the legality of orders, but there is no real legal safeguard that would prevent Trump from deploying American soldiers to police US streets…it is also possible that forces could be sent into American cities if asked to help with the mass deportation plan Trump mentioned repeatedly on the trail.”

And this:

“The president’s powers are especially broad if he chooses to invoke the Insurrection Act, which states that under certain limited circumstances involved in the defense of constitutional rights, a president can deploy troops domestically unilaterally.”

AND this:

“In a video posted last year, Trump said if elected he would ‘immediately re-issue my 2020 Executive Order restoring the President’s authority to remove rogue bureaucrats…we will clean out all of the corrupt actors in our National Security and Intelligence apparatus, and there are plenty of them.’”

The plan is to make the defense and intelligence bureaucracies Trump subsidiaries, along with the Department of Justice. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand why, and what he’ll do with that kind of “deep state” power.

Retired Oklahoma City teacher John Thompson wrote in The Oklahoman about the early days of the teacher-bashing movement. At its center he found a journalist-entrepreneur named Steve Brill, who wrote a slashing attack on teachers, tenure, and teacher unions in The New Yorker. Even in Oklahoma, Brill’s article was big news, because it identified the scapegoat that legislators wanted: teachers. Brill subsequently wrote a book celebrating charter schools, called Class Warfare. In that book, he falsely claimed that I had been bribed by teachers’ unions to become pro-union and pro-public school. So, as you might imagine, he is not a friend of mine.

John Thompson wrote:

In 2010, I attended an Oklahoma legislative committee meeting where most lawmakers were reading a New Yorker article, Steve Brill’s “The Rubber Room.”  It was full of attacks on teachers. Legislators found his narrative persuasive, and it contributed to the passage of the most destructive education bill I ever witnessed.

I then reached out to Brill, trying to share the social and cognitive science that explained why he was using invalid and unreliable data in support of a blame game that would undermine teaching and learning.

So, I was curious about what he now believes. After all, the subtitle for a recent interview with him was:

New York repealed measures that made it easier to fire ineffective teachers. The veteran journalist wonders if they ever mattered.

But, Brill, a non-educator, still sticks with an anti-teacher ideology, propagated by “astro-turf think tanks” that rejected the scientific method when trying to use venture capitalism procedures for transforming traditional public schools. Even after those reward-and-punish policies demonstrably failed, Brill says, “in public education, I think there’s a pretty good argument that the people abusing and undermining the system are actually the teachers.” 

“The Rubber Room” presented little evidence that teachers were to blame. His sources focused on “the twentieth of one percent of all New York City teachers” who had been removed from the classroom, but not fired. He believed the PR from corporate reformers like The New Teacher Project (TNTP) and the New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein who thought “tenure is ridiculous.” 

Although value-added models (VAMs) were the foundation for holding teachers accountable for test score growth, Brill only used the term “value-added” once, and he didn’t bother to address that statistical model’s flawed methodology for evaluating individual teachers. (Some of those models even held teachers accountable for outcomes of students they never met!)

Brill merely wrote that the “value-added scores” was “a phrase that sends chills down the spine of most teachers’ union officials.”

Brill didn’t understand why it was impossible to recruit top teachers to highest-poverty schools using evaluation metrics that were biased against inner city teachers. Neither did he understand why these data-driven evaluations would prioritize “jukin the stats” and drill-and-kill instruction that would undermine holistic and meaningful teaching and learning. Brill certainly didn’t understand that teachers and unions also fought against VAMs in order to protect their students from teach-to-the-test malpractice which they would incentivize.

Brill was also dismissive of peer review, which the teachers union supported, and which was a constructive and efficient method of removing ineffective teachers from the classroom. (In my experience, union leaders invested a great deal of political capital in removing ineffective teachers; it was administrators that would lose their nerve and not exit those teachers.)  

Brill drew upon the anti-union TNTP, which spread inaccurate information on the Toledo Plan, where districts and unions worked together to efficiently remove ineffective teachers. The TNTP claimed that the Toledo peer review program only removed .7% of probationary teachers over a five-year period.  In fact, 12.9% of teachers in the plan were removed from the classroom in 2009. The percentages of 2008 probationary teachers removed from the classroom in Syracuse (9.7%), Rochester (7%), Montgomery County (10.5%), and Minneapolis (37%) were far greater than outcomes that VAMs produced.

And that brings us to today’s attacks on education. After a history of failure, corporate reformers have moved away from teacher evaluation systems that rely on test score growth, even though they still tend to blame teachers and unions. But state schools Superintendent Ryan Walters now represents today’s version of disempowering teachers.

Walters pushed for and succeeded in getting the Oklahoma State Board of Education to revoke the license of Norman High School’s Summer Boismier, who “covered her bookshelves with red paper, [with] the words ‘books the state doesn’t want you to read,’ and a QR code to the Brooklyn Public Library, which offers any student free access to banned books.” 

She has asked an Oklahoma County judge to review and reverse the revocation order, saying it was unlawful, frivilous and without a legitimate cause.

Also, Edmond’s Regan Killackey is fighting against Walters’ effort to revoke his teaching license for a photo showing him playing with his kids at a Halloween supply store in September 2019. His daughter was wearing a mask of Donald Trump and his son held up a plastic sword, and Killackey had a grimaced look on his face.

If teachers lose their due process rights, who will be able to resist Walters’ civics curriculum committee which includes the Heritage Foundation’s Kevin Roberts, a key sponsor of Project 2025?

Trump knows that there is a strong possibility that some of his nominees for his Cabinet are so unqualified that they may not be approved by the Republican majority of the Senate. The Senate typically advises and gives its consent to high-level appointments. But Trump is trying to exercise a relatively obscure provision of the Constitution to bypass the Senate.

Since we know that Trump never read the Constitution, it’s certain that one of his creative lawyers planted the idea.

Trump’s selection of Matt Gaetz, who faces allegations of sex-trafficking minors and drug abuse, as Attorney General, produced shock and disbelief among some Republicans. So has Tulsi Gabbard, whom Trump would elevate to the highest position in the American intelligence community. So has Robert Kennedy Jr., the anti-vaccine advocate, to head the Department of Health and Human Services. Medical and scientific experts are appalled. So has Trump’s choice of Pete Hegseth, FOX talk show host, to lead the department of Defense.

But Trump could give them “recess appointments” and have no scrutiny or review by Senators. And avoid the risk that some or all might be rejected.

We know that Trump doesn’t care about norms, traditions or laws that constrain his power. If the Senate abandoned its role to please Trump, he would be empowered to trample the rule of law at every turn. That is most definitely a threat to our democracy.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune says “all options are on the table,” and has neither accepted or refuted the scheme.

Edward Whelan, a prominent conservative lawyer, criticized Trump’s devious route in this op-ed in The Washington Post.

He wrote:

President-elect Donald Trump is threatening to turn the Constitution’s appointment process for Cabinet officers on its head. If what I’m hearing through the conservative legal grapevine is correct, he might resort to a cockamamie scheme that would require House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) to play a critical role. Johnson can and should immediately put an end to this scheme.

The Senate’s power to approve or reject a president’s nominees for Cabinet positions is a fundamental feature of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances. As Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers, that power “would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters,” including those “who had no other merit than that … of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of [the president’s] pleasure.” Almost as if Hamilton were describing Matt Gaetz, Trump’s pick for attorney general.

To be sure, the Constitution also provides a backup provision that allows the president to make recess appointments — “to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.” But as Hamilton put it, this “auxiliary method of appointment” is “nothing more than a supplement” to the “general mode of appointing officers of the United States” and is to used “in cases to which the general method was inadequate.”

It appears that the Trump team is working on a scheme to allow Trump to recess-appoint his Cabinet officers. This scheme would exploit an obscure and never-before-used provision of the Constitution (part of Article II, Section 3) stating that “in Case of Disagreement” between the houses of Congress, “with Respect to the Time of Adjournment,” the president “may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper.”

Under this scheme, it appears that the House would adopt a concurrent resolution that provided for the adjournment of both the House and the Senate. If the Senate didn’t adopt the resolution, Trump would purport to adjourn both houses for at least 10 days (and perhaps much longer). He would then use the resulting intrasession recess to appoint Gaetz and other Cabinet nominees.

Ten years ago, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia labeled the president’s recess-appointment power an “anachronism” because “modern forms of communication and transportation” make the Senate always available to consider nominations. Along with three of his colleagues, Scalia also argued that the president’s power to make recess appointments is limited to intersession recesses and does not apply to the intrasession recess that the Trump scheme would concoct. The justice, who died in 2016, would be aghast at the notion that a president could create an intrasession recess for the purpose of bypassing the Senate approval process for nominations.

Mike Johnson should not be complicit in eviscerating the Senate’s advice-and-consent role. He should promptly make clear that the House will abide by its usual schedule of recesses and will not attempt to engineer a recess of the Senate.

Edward Whelan is a distinguished senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the Antonin Scalia chair in constitutional studies.

Miranda Yaver, a professor of public health policy at the university of Pittsburgh, writes about Trump’s disastrous choice to run the National Institutes of Health.

She writes:

I first got interested in health policy because of Ronald Reagan, but not in the way you might think. 

Growing up in the San Francisco Bay Area with a mom who worked at the United Way, I was well aware of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. I knew people who were HIV positive. So when HBO released the film adaptation of And the Band Played On, I was riveted. Enraged. Filled with righteous indignation. 

To be honest, it hasn’t really worn off. 

Randy Shilts wrote in his prologue to And the Band Played On (which I reread amid the COVID-19 pandemic) the following:

“The bitter truth was that AIDS did not just happen to America – it was allowed to happen by an array of institutions, all of which failed to perform their appropriate tasks to safeguard the public health. This failure of the system leaves a legacy of unnecessary suffering that will haunt the Western world for decades to come…. The story of these first five years of AIDS in America is a drama of national failure, played out against a backdrop of needless death. People died while Reagan administration officials ignored pleas from government scientists and did not allocate adequate funding for AIDS research until the epidemic had already spread throughout the country… People died while public health authorities and the political leaders who guided them refused to take the tough measures necessary to curb the epidemic’s spread, opting for political expediency over the public health.”

So was also the case for the COVID-19 pandemic, which was unleashed upon the world at a time in which the United States’ public health bureaucracy was hotly politicized, chronically underfunded, and constrained by anti-science forces at the head of the Trump Administration. 

And rather than learning from the mistakes of this pandemic, the most dangerous among them are being rewarded with high-level posts from which to spew anti-scientific drivel, which can come with real life-or-death consequences. 

I’m not talking about R.F.K. Jr… this time. Right now, I’m talking about Jay Bhattacharya, who according to Dan Diamond of The Washington Post is likely poised to be the new head of the National Institute of Health (NIH), having been listed by RFK Jr. as a top contender for the position, which falls under the broader umbrella of HHS. 

It has admittedly been an interesting experience to watch the nominations unfold, having written a doctoral dissertation on the problems that arise when agencies are headed by people who oppose the agencies’ core missions, and when Congress and others are ill-equipped or disinclined to hold those agencies accountable. You know, hypothetically. 

So, who is Jay Bhattacharya? Needless to say, he has been a critic of the NIH while being celebrated by noted public health opponent, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. His other cheerleaders include Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and Joe Rogan – you know the voices of reason in public health. 

His opposition within the public health community is not about partisanship, but rather the anti-science stances that he embraced over the course of the deadly pandemic, and which have been widely perceived among experts as having prioritized the business community over health outcomes. While I joined with experts in public health and medicine through the organization Brief-19 to disseminate evidence-based analyses of the public health and policy implications of what we were learning from day to day about the pandemic, Bhattacharya downplayed the threat of the virus, instead emphasizing less government control and more reliance on individual choices to self-protect. 

Rugged individualism and self-reliance. Now where have we heard that before? 

To be sure, I have had many quibbles with Ayn Rand and her followers over the years. Some of it is political. Some of it isn’t. 

The reality is that rugged self-reliance just simply doesn’t work in the public health setting. Public health can and indeed must be rather paternalistic, because by definition it’s focused not on individual health, but collective health outcomes and system performance. Choosing not to get vaccinated is bad for you, but it’s really bad for your community. Choosing not to mask or socially distance during a pandemic undercuts not only your and your family’s safety, but it compromises scientifically-grounded public interventions aimed at flattening the curve. This requires that we care not just about “me me me,” but to think more broadly. That isn‘t always easy for Americans. But given that we know that the next pandemic isn’t a matter of “if” but rather “when,” it’s vital that our institutions of public health be staffed with grown-ups who believe in science and understand that effective public health interventions should be prioritized over individual convenience. And they absolutely need to be staffed with people who know better than to elevate pseudoscience and grifters – whether in hedge funds, on podcasts, or widely discredited academics relying on a degree to lend credence to anti-scientific and/or anti-democratic theories. 

Indeed, a prominent supporter of Bhattacharya was his Stanford colleague Scott Atlas, who went against the scientific community in encouraging lower-risk people to become infected with COVID-19 as a means to promote herd immunity, and who urged the reopening of schools even as we knew that there would be risks of increased transmission in those settings. And Bhattacharya contributed to The Great Barrington Declaration, which urged that younger Americans return to work and build immunity against the COVID virus. 

All of this was in the interest of creating a false dichotomy between helping the economy and promoting public health. But the reality is that while people of both parties want a robust business sector, containing a deadly virus is an important precursor. What is the value of having a business open if would-be patrons are sick or dying? What is the value of forcing a business open if staff immediately become exposed and sick? 

Investments in public health pay off. We see this in the insurance setting, which is where most of my own research and teaching are situated. Of course, covering people costs money. But what is the result? People are able to access needed care. They are able to manage chronic and acute medical conditions. They are able to not only survive but thrive. And in light of that, they can be productive in the American economy, while health care providers are relieved of the economic burdens of uncompensated care. 

These are not burdens. They are investments. 

America just emerged – far from unscathed – from a major, deadly pandemic the likes of which we had not seen since the 1918 Spanish flu. And we deserve public health leaders who learned the right lessons from it. Instead, Bhattacharya’s impulse amid the COVID pandemic was to see the core problem as the stifling of dissent (which is to say, prioritizing public health expertise over the legitimization of quackery).

These are not the only reasons why Bhattacharya would be a problematic selection to head NIH. While he boasts impressive academic credentials, he has never before overseen a large bureaucratic organization, while the National Institute of Health has nearly 20,000 staff. To be sure, RFK Jr. and others within Trump’s orbit see it as an advantage to lack government experience, largely because of a deeper distrust of the government apparatus and hostility to government interventions (even those which could honestly be termed “pro-life”). But governmental and managerial competence is vital, and when this is put on the back burner in the domain of public health, there are life-or-death consequences. 

Bhattacharya has ideas for how the NIH should operate, and it doesn’t look good, essentially coming down to its decentralization as well as deprioritizing the expertise of long-serving bureaucrats. This disregard for agency expertise fits well within the Trump Administration’s broader opinions on the administrative state (or what’s left of it after Loper Bright), seeking to clamp down on civil servants who are perceived as being politically disloyal. Prof. Don Moynihan has written extensively on these issues in Schedule F positions, and you should read it.

If we are lucky, as with the first Administration, the degree of incompetence will exceed the high degrees of malevolence, thus stymying the most dangerous policy proposals that have been floated. But we should not have to root for public health incompetence when our lives – not to mention our research funding on a broad array of public health and health policy subjects – depend on the strength of this agency. 

Jay Bhattacharya would deeply damage our efforts to study public health problems facing the country and the world and would signal even further entrenchment of conspiratorial perspectives and political expediency where we most need to follow the science. Tom Nichols wrote a book called The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters. As with my own work on bureaucratic noncompliance amid misaligned agency objectives, I fear that this will be all too relevant in the coming months and years.

Reuters reports that Muslim leaders in Michigan who endorsed Trump are having buyers’ remorse. Thus far, his cabinet selections are pro-Israel; none is pro-Muslim or pro-Palestinian.

Trump got a campaign donation of $100 million from Dr. Miriam Adelson, Israeli-born wife of the billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson. She is passionate about Israel.

Secretary of State-designate Rubio is pro-Israel.

Trump’s choice for Ambassador to Israel is Christian evangelical Mike Huckabee, who is more Zionist than Netanyahu. Huckabee is a fervent believer in annexation and an opponent of a two-state solution. He has said that there are no Palestinians.

Why would American Muslims endorse a man who tried to ban Muslims in his first term?

James Talarico is a Texas legislator who is studying to be a minister.

He gave this speech recently in response to the claims of Christian nationalists. It has received more than 500,000 views.

The clip is from Instagram. I hope you can open it.

I loved it. I hope you do too. You don’t have to be religious to applaud his message.

If you want to be inspired more by this remarkable man, watch this. James Talarico explains that there is nothing Christian about Christian nationalism.