Archives For author

This is a fascinating article about an “academic” organization with shallow roots but a prestigious name. It was created in 2022. It confers awards on award-worthy recipients and on fringe academics. Its purpose seems to be to add luster to the latter.

Take the recent Trump nominee to lead the National Institutes of Health:

On October 24, an organization called the American Academy of Sciences and Letters (AASL) honored Stanford University Professor and health economist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya with its Robert J. Zimmer Medal for Intellectual Freedom. 

Announcing the award, the group praised the professor for “resolutely” resisting “enormous pressure to compromise his scientific findings” and risking “his own personal and professional self-interest, repeatedly, without hesitation, to take a stand for the public’s right to unrestricted scientific discussion and debate.” A few days later, The New York Post picked up the story, running it with the headline, “Scientist who battled for COVID common sense over media and government censors wins top award.” 

“Few in the media seemed eager to attend a ceremony last week in Washington, D.C., where the prestigious American Academy of Sciences and Letters was awarding its top intellectual freedom award,” the article began. “The problem may have been the recipient: Stanford Professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.”

It is true that Bhattacharya is a controversial figure for his contrarian stance on the COVID-19 pandemic. He first burst onto the national scene in 2020 as the co-author of an inaccurate and bias-prone, but influential, seroprevalence study that significantly underestimated the dangers of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Later, he was one of three authors of The Great Barrington Declaration, awidely rebuked document that outlined the failed pandemic herd immunity strategy embraced by the Trump administration. Since then, the professor has been a go-to expert for Republican politicians and right-wing groups working to politicize public health and government efforts to control COVID. He has taken to claiming that he was censored by the federal government for his views and even unsuccessfully sued the Biden administration over his claims.

Bhattacharya has also cultivated alliances with anti-vaxxers. Last month, a health policy symposium he organized at Stanford came under fire for featuring a number of them along with minimizers and lab leak enthusiasts. He spoke at the Robert Kennedy Jr. campaign’s vice presidential announcement, has been proposedby RFK Jr. for a leadership role in CDC, and is currently listed on Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again website as a potential pick for director of the National Institutes of Health.

But Bhattacharya’s reputation is not the only explanation for the lack of media attention given to the award ceremony, which took place in the vaunted Library of Congress. Another is the fact that the AASL is largely unknown. The group only emerged in 2022, fueled by the private family foundation of an investment fund CEO. A closer look at AASL and its origins and activities provides a disturbing window into how wealthy business interests are working to reshape academia in support of their agenda.

You should read the rest of the article. Can money buy prestige? Read on.

AASL borrows prestige by honoring well-known figures in the arts, sciences, and letters, then confers prestige on rightwing academics who have been scorned by the mainstream.

One of the sure signs of an authoritarian regime is a passion to censor unwanted information, research, ideas, and history. The Trump administration is busy deleting scientific research at the Centers for Disease Control. Any studies that include data about LGBT+ people, women, or others whose existence is anathema to Trump and his Merry Band of Bigots is being purged. During the first Trump term, research about climate change was given the heave-ho, and scientists rushed to archive their work. Again, climate change is being buried in the archives of the EPA. Now the new Enemy of the State is DEI.

The Washington Post wrote about the censorship at the CDC here:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removed or edited references to transgender people, gender identity and equity from its website Friday, racing to meet a late-afternoon deadline imposed by the federal Office of Personnel Management.

Whole pages about HIV testing for transgender people, guidelines for use of HIV medication and information on supporting LGBTQ+ youth health were no longer available late Friday.
The material removed or edited includes extensive sets of data collected and used by researchers around the world, according to two employees who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation. The data’s removal will have implications for researchers who have relied for decades on the comprehensive material collected by the vaunted public health agency.

One example of a set of data taken down was a survey by the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, conducted every two years to assess the health behaviors of high school students. The landing page for data about the survey was dark Friday afternoon and read: “The page you’re looking for was not found…”

Agency staff members were given a list of about 20 words and phrases to be used as a “guide,” according to a screenshot shared by one employee. The words include: gender, transgender, pregnant person, pregnant people, LGBT, transsexual, nonbinary, assigned male at birth, biologically male, biologically female, he/she/they/them. All references to DEI and inclusion are also to be removed.

The new regime is moving fast to obliterate inconvenient science writes TCinLA at his Substack blog, which is called “That’s Another Fine Mess.”

There is a scene toward the end of Act Two in “Rollerball” (the first release, starring James Caan, the one worth watching) in which “Jonathan E” is allowed to go to Geneva, where the computer that runs the world is housed, to ask questions of it. He finds that the computer is systematically “losing” history and data. The Librarian tells him that “He’s already lost the entire Twelfth Century.” Jonathan E realizes that there will never be a way to rebel against the corporate overlords who run the world in which he lives, because the people will never know any other alternative.

Or as George Orwell put it in “1984″: “Who controls the past, controls the future; who controls the present, controls the past.” In that novel – which it seems some people are adapting now as a user’s manual – the information Big Brother’s government didn’t want people to access ended up in “the memory hole.”

As bad as we thought things would be with the second coming of Cletus J. Dumbass’s Maladministration, the reality is far worse. We are only at day 12 of this maladministration, and the assault on historical knowledge and information is well underway.

The Theocrats who created Project 2025 know what Orwell knew, what the screenwriter of Rollerball knew, what those who study authoritarian movements know: if people do not have access to information, they have no way to separate lies from truth. They can then be ruled without fear of revolt.

Information at the Centers for Disease Control is disappearing as you read this. The agency has already removed all scientific data from public view.

On Thursday night, word began to spread through the scientific community that researchers should go to the CDC website and download their data immediately, because such data was about to disappear from the website, or be altered to comply with Maladministration II’s ongoing plan to remove from federal agencies any mention of gender, DEI, or accessibility. Scientists were up throughout the night, working to download information they needed for their continued work on such crucial issues as tracking viral outbreaks. (Remember back in 2020, at the outbreak of the pandemic, when Cletus said he wished they would stop testing people and reporting the results because “It doesn’t look so good for me”?)

Already, the data from the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System has disappeared. The data from the Agency for Toxic Substances and the Disease Registry’s Social Vulnerability Index and the Environmental Justice Index are gone. The landing page for HIV data has vanished. The AtlasPlus tool, which holds 20 years of CDC surveillance data on HIV, hepatitis, sexually transmitted infections, and tuberculosis, is no longer available. The new “leaders” at the CDC have directed employees to scrub any mention of “gender” from the data it shares at the website, replacing it with “sex.”

The purge’s full scope is still unclear. The Atlantic obtained a document that revealed the government – as of Thursday evening – planned to target and replace several “suggested keywords” – including “pregnant people,” “transgender,” “binary,” “non-binary,” “gender,” “assigned at birth,” “cisgender,” “queer,” “gender identity,” “gender minority,” and “anything with pronouns” These terms represent demographic variables researchers collect when tracking the ebb and flow of diseases and health conditions across populations. If they are reworded, or even removed entirely from data sets to comply with the Executive Order issued the night of Enshittification Day, researchers and health-care providers will have a much harder time figuring out how diseases affect specific communities.

The legislative “explicit purpose” of CDC data is to guide researchers to places and people who most need attention. It is hard to understand how this decision benefits health, but it does benefit an ideological decision to delete the entire topic of transgender.

When questioned about this today, an HHS spokesperson said that “all changes to the HHS website and HHS division websites are in accordance with President Trump’s January 20 Executive Orders” on gender and DEI.

The government understands these changes could have scientific implications since the document directing a review of CDC content suggests some work could be altered without “changing the meaning or scientific integrity of the content;” any such changes should be considered “routine.” Changing other content, would require review by an expert since any alterations would risk scientific integrity.

However, the document does not specify how data would be sorted into the two categories, or who would make such decisions.

The fear among researchers is that entire data sets could be taken down, reappearing with demographic variables removed or altered to conform with the DEI restrictions, losing entire sections of data. Since the Executive Order defines sex as binary, this means transgender people and nonbinary people could be erased. Such data could include facts such as gay men have higher rates of STIs, but lower rates of obesity and that transgender women have higher rates of HIV, but lower rates of prostate cancer, or how various demographic subsets of Americans are most at risk from conditions including adolescent depression, STIs, and sex-specific cancers

At this time, groups of researchers are rushing to archive the CDC website in full.
An example of what is at stake: Mpox – popularly known as “Monkey Pox” – affects people differently, with men who have sex with men being the primary group likely to be infected with the disease. Possessing that knowledge allowed medical authorities to more efficiently allocate resources, including vaccines, bringing the epidemic under control before it affected Americans more widely.

Scrubbing data such as this would change how the government allocates funds for long-standing threats to public health; this will widen health-equity gaps, or reverse progress in combating such diseases. The rates of STIs have recently started to plateau in the U.S., after decades of steady increase. Altering data that focus interventions on transgender populations, or men who have sex with men, would undo those gains. If there is no data to prove a health issue is concentrated in a particular community, that gives the government justification to cut funding.
Since much of the data on the CDC website comes from states, once it becomes known this data-scrubbing is happening, some states (blue states) may become reluctant to share information with the federal government while other states (red states) might not collect that important information at all. This would make what information the government does have unreliable, creating a skewed picture of reality.

It is shocking to realize how Project 2025 amounts to a war against modern society. Those reading this who are older than 75 can remember what life was like without the polio vaccine, without the measles and mumps vaccines. I escaped polio, but I came down with both measles and mumps before age 5, and I can still remember how difficult dealing with those was. The only thing I can compare those events to was coming down with COVID two years ago, which I survived only because I immediately obtained Paclovid for early treatment. Knowing to do that was because information about the disease and its effect on older people was made public by the CDC. Without that information, I and a lot of other older people who came down with COVID then would literally not be here now.

Maladministration II has to be seen as the all-out attack on modern society that it is. It has to be opposed by all means available. These Enemies of America are a minority. Every poll shows that significant majorities – over 66% – of Americans oppose every single action Project 2025 plans to take in this assault.

I admit that in my wildest nightmares of this coming to pass, I didn’t think of such things as an all-out attack on modern science, as is happening now. But this clearly demonstrates the nature of the threat we face. They are The Enemy. In all things, in all ways.

Winston Churchill warned his people in a speech given on June 18, 1940 that they were threatened by “a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.” We actually face that situation now.

The one fortunate thing is that, so far, the enemy has proven themselves largely incompetent to carry out successfully their plans to destroy modern civilization. That doesn’t make them less dangerous, but we can resist them.

We have to.

During the campaign, Trump told Sean Hannity that he would be a dictator on Day 1. He understated his goal, as we now know. He intends to be a dictator after Day 1. He wants to take complete control of the federal government.

He wants to destroy the civil service, place his loyalists in every policy making position, politicize the Justice Department, and eliminate all dissenting voices.

Both the Justice department and the FBI are supposed to be insulated from politics. Trump hated that. He’s putting them under the control of close allies. Every career prosecutor at the Department of Justice who worked in the Trump investigations has been ousted. The FBI has been purged.

His plan to eliminate the civil service, called Schedule F, has been rolled out.

He fired a dozen Departments’ Inspectors General. These are the nonpartisan officials who scrutinize each Department and guard against waste, fraud, and abuse. Will he replace them with MAGA flunkies?

To be sure, Trump is the puppet, not the mastermind. Others are pulling the strings. Musk, Vance, Stephen Miller (the architect of his plan to deport 11 million immigrants). The billionaire Peter Thiel pulls Vance’s strings.

Trump’s failed effort to stop-payment on almost every federal program may have been Vance’s idea. Vance is closely aligned with the radical libertarian guru Curtis Yarwin, who believes that democracy is a failure and that what is needed is a dictator who will eliminate most of the government.

The offer sent to two million civil servants asking them to resign in exchange for a payout likely came from Musk, who downsized Twitter by offering a mass buyout. Some Twitter retirees are still suing to get the buyout. No money is available now and unlikely to be appropriated to pay those who accept the offer to give up their civil service jobs.

The loss of top civil servants in every agency will undermine their effectiveness. These are the people with institutional memory; they know the agency far better than their political bosses. They serve, no matter which party is in power. And they are leaving in droves, pushed out by the new bosses.

Just when you think it can’t get worse, another Executive Order rolls out. Trump boastfully signs with his Sharpie. Does he know what’s he’s signing? Does it matter? Day by day, Trump demonstrates that he has “absolute immunity.” Day by day, he brings another part of the government under his control. And the Republicans in Congress not only acquiesce, they praise him for abrogating their powers.

Trump is a puppet, and cowed, pusillanimous Republicans in Congress are his lapdogs.

Day by day, the foundation of a Trump dictatorship are put into place. When he jokes about running for a third term, is he joking?

We have never seen a president like Trump. He never misses an opportunity to grift. He got $16 million from ABC News because George Stephanopoulos said he raped E. Jean Carroll (the judge in the case agreed). Never went to trial. He got $25 million from Zuckerberg because he was locked out of Facebook after the January 6 insurrection. Name he wants a payoff from CBS because he claims that “60 Minutes” edited its interview with Kamala Harris to show her in a favorable light.

Now Trump’s head of the FCC has told CBS to hand over the raw footage so he can decide whether “60 Minutes” was unfair to Trump. Gee, I wonder what he will decide?

How was Trump injured by Harris’s interview?

Not at all. He’s president and now he can turn the powers of the federal government to coerce media and other institutions to cower, and if necessary, pay tribute.

The Los Angeles Times reported:

CBS and its “60 Minutes” have long stood as shining beacons of broadcast news.

The Sunday night newsmagazine, with its ubiquitous ticking clock, earned a reputation for not backing down from a fight. For a half-century, the show established the standard for TV investigative reporting with its no-holds-barred questioning of U.S. presidents and others in power. 

But a different clock is ticking. 

President Trump’s new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, this week demanded CBS turn over the full, unedited transcript of its “60 Minutes” interview in October with former Vice President Kamala Harris, including film footage from the different camera angles. 

That interview provoked the ire of Trump, who filed a lawsuit against CBS alleging the network was engaged in deceptive editing practices. 

“We are working to comply with that inquiry as we are legally compelled to do,” CBS said Friday in a statement.

The latest development comes as Paramount Global lawyers engage in preliminary talks to settle the lawsuit Trump filed in October over his objection to edits to the “60 Minutes” interview. Trump alleged the network “deceptively” edited the interview to present Harris more favorably in the closing weeks of the election. 

Lawyers for Trump and Paramount on Friday asked a Texas judge to extend a key deadline in the court case to give the two sides additional time to try to hammer out a truce.

The FCC inquiry raises the stakes in the dispute, which has stoked fears that Trump and his team are using levers of power to chill unflattering news coverage. Paramount’s controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone, has been agitating for her team to settle Trump’s lawsuit to facilitate her family’s sale of Paramount to David Ellison’s Skydance Media, according to people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment. 

Paramount needs the approval of the FCC for the Skydance deal to advance. 

The company’s seeming willingness to placate Trump has roiled journalists, including within CBS News. First Amendment experts initially interpreted Trump’s “60 Minutes” lawsuit as a political stunt. They said settling the case with Trump would deliver a crushing blow to CBS News’ legacy. 

“This is an act of pure cowardice for short-term gain that corrupts every journalistic value imaginable,” said USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism Gabriel Kahn.

“It is a sad day,” 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams wrote Friday in an email to The Times. “It’s heart-breaking that CBS —say it again, CBS — seems ready to pay big bucks for its own editing decisions.”

The storied news division has maintained “60 Minutes” as the gold standard in television journalism for more than five decades. People inside the company, who were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said they fear the move will not only tarnish the “60 Minutes” brand but also set a dangerous precedent that could encourage the Trump administration and others to weaken journalism institutions.

“You think in the next four years we’re not going to say something that’s going to get him riled up again and he’ll do this again?” said one veteran journalist in the division.

Anger over a possible settlement runs so deep that CBS News could experience an exodus of journalists and even executives if the company caves to Trump’s demands, some said. 

George Cheeks, co-chief executive of Paramount Global, has been made aware of the news division’s concerns over how a settlement would be perceived in the industry and its broader impact on press freedom. Paramount Global board members also have received pleas from inside the news division to fight the Trump lawsuit, sources said.

“It’s a literal kowtow … a sign of obeisance toward a new overlord — a.k.a. the Trump family — which is exactly the relationship that media owners in Belarus, Hungary and Russia have with the regimes there,” Kahn said. “This is essentially a crack in the foundations of our free press.” 

Cheeks spent months trying to navigate choppy waters amid Redstone’s increasing unhappiness with CBS News and “60 Minutes” over its coverage of the war in Gaza. 

Redstone has not publicly expressed an opinion on the Trump settlement talks. A spokesperson for the mogul declined to comment. 

People close to the lawsuit describe the settlement talks as preliminary. Some executives privately suggested that settling the lawsuit was the price of doing business in Trump’s second administration. These people viewed a settlement as an efficient means to keep CBS out of court and expedite the completion of the Skydance deal.

Paramount and Skydance Media also declined to comment.

CBS News executives were already discussing releasing a full transcript of the interview with Kamala Harris before the FCC inquiry. But they saw that as a dangerous precedent because raw transcripts of edited interviews are typically only released to address issues related to possible defamation. Trump’s lawsuit is not a defamation case.

Simon Rosenberg is a leader of the resistance to Trumpism. He blogs at Substack, where his blog is called Hopium. He wrote today:

Morning/Afternoon all. If Donald Trump has a superpower it has been the evasion of responsibility for the bad things he’s done in his life. Yesterday he blamed Biden, Obama, Pete Buttigieg, DEI for the 67 dead in the Potomac. Deflect, blame others, rinse, repeat. So let’s be clear about a few things today: 

Trump Is Trying To Break The US Government And Owns All The Troubles That Come From It – Trump’s savage attack on the day to day operations of our government will result in many, many bad things to happen. The 67 dead in the Potomac are an example. He has gutted the leadership of our government’s aviation security and has waged a war against rank and file employees of the government including air traffic controllers. When things fail like they did this week outside of Reagan National Airport we must hold the President to account. He is literally trying to break things now and when they break there is one person to blame and it sure isn’t Mr or Mrs DEI. 

It is possible those outside of DC don’t understand the scale and scope of the purges happening at senior levels of every department and agency right now. Incredible knowledge, expertise and operational capacity are being lost. The entire National Security Council career staff, for example, was just sent home last week. They are disabling the ability of the US government to carry out its daily responsibilities. 

Trump’s Economic Agenda Is Causing Prices To Rise For Everyone. Tariffs Will Raise Them Even Further – As we discussed with Rob Shapiro earlier this week the President’s proposed economic policies will raise prices for everyone, re-ignite inflation, raise taxes on middle class Americans, cut benefit programs that will cause costs to rise on a wide variety of services including health care and provide extraordinary tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations. As Rob explained to us the tariffs Trump may implement tomorrow are a national sales tax on an incredible array of goods including food, oil and gas, wood and other construction products. Prices on all these things will rise significantly, immediately, perhaps as early as tomorrow, and further fuel inflation. 

Trump’s inflationary agenda is already re-igniting inflation. From Reuters this morning, Key US inflation measure posts largest monthly gain since April

U.S. inflation increased by the most in eight months in December amid a surge in consumer spending, suggesting the Federal Reserve would probably be in no hurry to resume cutting interest rates soon.

Other data on Friday showed labor costs rose in the fourth quarter as wages edged up. Price pressures picked up in the fourth quarter, stalling the progress in lowering inflation.

We all need to be very clear that Trump has no plan to lower prices and costs. Regardless of his rhetoric his plan actually seeks to raise prices and costs, not lower them, and here we are – inflation and costs are rising for every American, already. 

Mass Deportation Will Raise Prices For Americans, Disrupt Our Businesses and Slow Growth – As we discussed with David Leopold last week Trump’s mass deportation plan is going to remove millions of workers from our labor force at a time of historically low employment. This will cause our companies to lose long-time productive employees; make it far harder for all companies to hire and grow; prices will rise for food, health care, day care, restaurants, hotels and many, many other items; families and communities will be shattered. All of this contribute to re-igniting inflation, ensuring the Fed does not lower interest rates, keeping mortgages and borrowing costs for all companies and Americans at elevated levels, slowing growth and worsening the cost of living crisis in America. It will also have this effect, via Hopium community member Catherine G: 

My daughter-in-law is a prosecutor. Victims of crime and witnesses are now not showing up for court dates and/or preparation because they are afraid ICE will seize them at the court house. That means cases can’t be prosecuted and that means criminals stay free to commit more crimes. Party of law and order my sweet Aunt Annie.

The savage treatment of the migrants we are sending back, the bullying of countries to accept them, the levying of tariffs on our closest allies, the threat or actual seizure of land from sovereign nations/allies will turn America into a rogue nation, a pariah state, and make us a far less safe and successful nation. 

Life Saving Aid Programs, Medical Research, Clinical Trials, Public Health Programs Are Still Turned Off – It’s possible that the most dangerous actions Trump has taken so far involve a wide array of programs whose funding remains stolen/frozen. Here is a new NYTimes story today that suggests the cut off of foreign aid programs could result in millions of people dying around the world in the coming months, How The World Is Reeling From Trump’s Aid Freeze

In famine-stricken Sudan, soup kitchens that feed hundreds of thousands of civilians trapped in a war zone have shut down.

In Thailand, war refugees with life-threatening diseases have been turned away by hospitals and carted off on makeshift stretchers.

In Ukraine, residents on the frontline of the war with Russia may be going without firewood in the middle of winter.

Some of the world’s most vulnerable populations are already feeling President Trump’s sudden cutoff of billions of dollars in American aid that helps fend off starvation, treats diseases and provides shelter for the displaced.

n a matter of days, Mr. Trump’s order to freeze nearly all U.S. foreign aid has intensified humanitarian crises and raised profound questions about America’s reliability and global standing.

“Everyone is freaking out,” Atif Mukhtar of the Emergency Response Rooms, a local volunteer group in the besieged Sudanese capital, Khartoum, said of the aid freeze.

Soon after announcing the cut off, the Trump administration abruptly switched gears. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said this weekthat “life-saving humanitarian assistance” could continue, offering a respite for what he called “core” efforts to provide food, medicine, shelter and other emergency needs.

But he stressed that the reprieve was “temporary in nature,” with limited exceptions. Beyond that, hundreds of senior officials and workers who help distribute American aid had already been fired or put on leave, and many aid efforts remain paralyzed around the world.

Most of the soup kitchens in Khartoum, the battle-torn capital of Sudan, have shut down. Until last week, the United States was the largest source of money for the volunteer-run kitchens that fed 816,000 people there.

“For most people, it’s the only meal they get,” said Hajooj Kuka, a spokesman for the Emergency Response Rooms, describing Khartoum as a city “on the edge of starvation.”

After the American money was frozen last week, some of the aid groups that channel those funds to the food kitchens said they were unsure if they were allowed to continue. Others cut off the money completely. Now, 434 of the 634 volunteer kitchens in the capital have shut down, Mr. Kuka said.

“And more are going out of service every day,” he added.

Many of the aid workers, doctors and people in need who rely on American aid are now reckoning with their relationship with the United States and the message the Trump administration is sending: America is focusing on itself.

Most of the soup kitchens that feed 816,000 people in Khartoum have shut down. Patients were told to leave a U.S.-funded refugee hospital on the Myanmar border. Organizations that provide maternal care, vaccinations and firewood were forced to suspend operations.

“It feels like one easy decision by the U.S. president is quietly killing so many lives,” said Saw Nah Pha, a tuberculosis patient who said he was told to leave a U.S.-funded hospital in the Mae La refugee camp, the largest refugee camp on the Thai-Myanmar border.

Across the US a freeze/theft of government funding has crippled medical research, clinical trials and other basic public health care systems.

One by one, the lords of the media are kissing Trump’s ring. ABC paid him $15 million because George Stephanopoulos interviewed Trump and said that Trump had been convicted of rape by a New York jury. Trump said it was false and he was defamed. ABC could have fought the suit, but instead it paid Trump $15 million plus $1 million for his Inauguration.

Mark Zuckerberg was sued by Trump for suspending his Facebook account after the insurrection four years ago. After Trump was re-elected, Zuckerberg settled for $25 million.

Trump sued “60 Minutes,” claiming that its interview with Kamala Harris had been edited in a way that helped her campaign. Shari Redstone, who owns the company that owns CBS, is in talks with Trump to settle.

Oliver Darcy, media critic, wrote:

The journalists at CBS News are livid at Paramount Global boss Shari Redstone over the company’s move to engage in settlement talks with Donald Trump

Paramount, which is trying to complete a merger with David Ellison’s Skydance Media, is now in active discussions with the Trump team to strike a settlement that would put an end to an absurd lawsuit the then-candidate filed against the news network, as first reported by The New York Times Thursday evening. Trump filed the lawsuit in October over a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris, preposterously alleging that the newsmagazine program engaged in “deceitful” editing that disadvantaged him in the race. 

Most legal experts swiftly dismissed Trump’s lawsuit as nothing more than a naked attempt to bully the news network. That is still the overwhelming position of the legal community. As the well-respected First Amendment attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr. told me Thursday evening, “There is absolutely no reason, from a legal perspective, for CBS to settle — this is a ridiculous case.”

Maybe she won’t pay off Trump, but if she did, it would be humiliating for “60 Minutes,” which almost always edits interviews. Since he won the elections, Trump can’t show any damages.

But now you can understand why Trump loves to sue. He’s filed thousands of lawsuits in his life. He’s making millions by suing, all the while getting the major media to grovel before him and watch their step with their coverage of him.

Benjamin Cremer is a Wesleyan minister in Idaho. He posted an important commentary, making the Christian case for separation of church and state.

I believe in the separation of church and state as a Christian, not because I’m against Christianity, but because I know the history of Christianity.

It is because I have studied all about the tremendous harm that is caused whenever the church crawls into bed with the empire. The crusades, inquisitions, genocides, slavery, and subjugation of women, and persecution of people who don’t believe the way “the church” demands, all done in the name of “preserving our Christian faith.”

Whenever a government mandates Christianity, it ceases to be a matter of faith pursued by human freewill and therefore it ceases to have anything to do with Jesus and just becomes another tool to oppress people that are seen as “outsiders” by those in power.

I believe in the separation of church and state because of the teachings of Jesus. One of them being, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

So if I wouldn’t want another religious group mandating my civic life, legislating their scriptures to be read in our public schools to my children or posting the commands from their god on public spaces, then I wouldn’t want that done with my religion either to people from other religious and nonreligious backgrounds.

I believe in the separation of church and state because there are numerous Christian sects within our country alone, let alone within the entire world. Each sect has their own unique theology and interpretation of the Bible. So which Christian sect gets to dictate the kind of Christianity that is mandated?

As a Protestant, I don’t want my civic life to be mandated by Catholics, nor would Catholics want their civic life mandated by Protestants. We’ve seen the horrors of that fight already in the conflicts since the Protestant reformation.

As a Christian in the Wesleyan tradition, I don’t want my civic life mandated by Calvinist Christians or Baptists or Fundamentalists. As I am sure they wouldn’t want their civic life dictated by Wesleyan Christians either. 

Just imagine if Amish Christianity was mandated over all civic life. How would you feel about a “Christian nation” that made sure you couldn’t use your car or any modern technology? Now apply that same logic to certain Christian sects dictating public education or the decisions people can make regarding their own healthcare.

History has shown us that mandating one form of Christianity through the government leads to oppressing all outsiders, which even includes faithful Christians from other traditions as well.

That is another part of Christian history we often forget. Before the United States was founded, many fled here from a “Christian nation,” which was Britain, which was mandating one form of Christianity over everyone else. Repeating that here would be to not only ignore the reasons why many people came here in the first place, but it would just show the world that we refuse to learn from our mistakes in the past and repent from them.

As an American and a believer in the 1st Amendment, I believe everyone should be free to live according to their own beliefs and not be mandated by the government to live according to a set of beliefs from a single religious group. Including my own. Only a government that is free from religious control can guarantee religious freedom for all.

This is why I believe in the separation of church and state and I am staunchly opposed to Christian Nationalism, which is both unAmerican and unChristian. Not only does it violate religious freedom, but Jesus called us to love our neighbors as ourselves, which I believe includes not shoving our religion down their throats and dictating their life decisions by mandate of law. That is simply not loving at all. 

This is why I believe it is a bankrupt Christianity that insists on legislating its beliefs over everyone else. It is a hypocritical Christianity that demands things like everyone be subjected to Bible readings and the Ten Commandments in our public schools, yet would claim to be “persecuted” if another religion did those exact same things.

I deeply believe that when we Christians arrive at the point of needing our beliefs mandated by the government, it is because we have ultimately concluded that the truth of the message we claim to have from Jesus no longer has the power to stand on its own merit, so we need the government to do it for us instead. It declares to the world that we don’t actually believe in the power of our beliefs at all. It declares to the world that the church has failed to be the church on its own, failing to rely on the power of God, and therefore needs the government to intervene.

Far too many people in our society have witnessed a kind of Christianity that insists its particular beliefs need to be legislated over others, yet opposes legislation that would help hungry students be fed in schools, bring increased wages for people working to take care of their families, paid family leave, affordable childcare, healthcare for all, teachers being paid well, curbing gun violence, funding the education system better and supporting it rather than vilifying it and constantly attacking it, or caring for our planet, and the list goes on and on.

Is this the kind of selfish and callous reputation we want as Christians? Where we see the government as a tool only to mandate our particular beliefs instead of seeing it as an opportunity to work together towards a society where all people are free, don’t have to struggle to just have their basic needs met, and can live flourishing lives? 

Is that the kind of legacy we want to leave behind? Are we really that fearful of other beliefs stamping out the gospel of Jesus that we have to resort to government mandates and using taxpayer dollars to legislate our beliefs? Isn’t that just functioning out of fear rather than faith?

I encourage anyone who is unsure about this topic to go study church history for themselves. You can begin with the Holy Roman Empire and the Doctrine of Discovery. Or even more recently the British Empire and Christian imperialism and colonialism. We have tried having nations run by a Christian sect far too many times before and we must learn from those examples or we will repeat them. 

I encourage all Christians to consider how we might be destroying the very gospel we claim to hold so dear by wanting it mandated over others rather than living it out ourselves. Because mandating our beliefs by force of law against people’s free will is one of the most effective ways of causing people to reject the God we claim to believe in with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength.

I believe in the separation of church and state because it not only allows the church to be the church and the state to be the state, but it also prevents the church from giving into the temptation to worship political power and allows it to faithfully embody the gospel of Jesus, including speaking truth to the powers of this world. The church simply can’t speak truth to the power of the state when it has become one with the power of the state.

Jesus rejected Satan’s temptation to control the kingdoms of this world and I believe we as his followers should too.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” -Jesus

Now I’d like to hear from you!

Remember, you can now view this and all previous newsletters as well as invite friends to join through this link: https://benjamin-cremer.ck.page/profile.

Governor Bill Lee was determined to get a universal voucher bill, regardless of which families get the money or what it costs the state. Since Republicans control the legislature, he got what he wanted. The plan will be phased in.

The legislature knows that most vouchers will subsidize private school tuition. They probably know that vouchers don’t raise academic achievement. They surely know that Tennessee students did well on the national test, NAEP, compared to most other states. And they know that paying the tuition of all the students who attend religious schools and private schools will be a heavy financial burden.

The only thing that is not clear is which billionaire or billionaires was behind the state Republicans’ readiness to sabotage their public schools.

None of that matters.

Marta A. Aldrich reported for Chalkbeat:

Tennessee lawmakers on Thursday approved Gov. Bill Lee’s universal private school voucher bill, creating a new track for educating K-12 students statewide.

The 54-44 vote in the House, where Democrats and some rural Republicans joined to oppose the program, came after four hours of debate, including dozens of failed attempts to add amendments aimed at strengthening accountability and protections for students with disabilities, among other things.

The Senate later voted 20-13 to pass Lee’s Education Freedom Act.

The Republican governor called the bill’s passage “a milestone in advancing education in Tennessee.” He is expected to quickly sign his signature education bill.

“I’ve long believed we can have the best public schools & give parents a choice in their child’s education, regardless of income or zip code,” he said on social media.

Tennessee joins a dozen states that have adopted similar programs allowing families, regardless of their income, to use public tax dollars to pay for alternatives to public education for their children.

President Donald Trump this week signed an executive order that frees up federal funding and prioritizes spending on school choice programs.

Lee’s office did not immediately respond when asked if the federal order has implications, financial or otherwise, on Tennessee’s Education Freedom Act.

Also this week, results of a major national test show that Tennessee students held their ground in math and reading, in a year when average student test scores declined nationwide.

The new voucher program is scheduled to launch in the upcoming school year with 20,000 “scholarships” of $7,075 each to aid families toward the cost of a private education. Half of them will be for students whose family income is below a certain threshold — $173,000 for a family of four. Those income restrictions will be lifted during the program’s second year. The number of available vouchers can grow by 5,000 each year thereafter.

About 65% of the vouchers are expected to be awarded to students who already attend private schools, with 35% going to students switching out of public schools, according to the legislature’s own analysis of the proposal….

The packages will cost almost $1 billion this year in a state that has seen its revenues drop because of tax breaks for corporations and businesses enacted in 2024 under another initiative from the governor.

The Education Freedom Act itself will cost taxpayers at least $1.1 billion during its first five years, state analysts say, under a provision that allows the program to grow by 5,000 students annually.

In addition to providing some families with vouchers, the legislation will give one-time bonuses of $2,000 each to the state’s public school teachers; establish a public school infrastructure fund using tax revenues from the sports betting industry that currently contribute to college scholarships; and reimburse public school systems for any state funding lost if a student dis-enrolls to accept the new voucher.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel-Prize winning economist who wrote a regular column for The New York Times for 24 years. Recently he left the Times and now writes at Substack.

On Substack, he wrote about why he left. For many years, he wrote, the Times had edited his work very lightly. Recently, his editors had been heavy-handed.

Krugman wrote::

During my first 24 years at the Times, from 2000 to 2024, I faced very few editorial constraints on how and what I wrote. For most of that period my draft would go straight to a copy editor, who would sometimes suggest that I make some changes — for example, softening an assertion that arguably went beyond provable facts, or redrafting a passage the editor didn’t quite understand, and which readers probably wouldn’t either. But the editing was very light; over the years several copy editors jokingly complained that I wasn’t giving them anything to do, because I came in at length, with clean writing and with back-up for all factual assertions.


This light-touch editing prevailed even when I took positions that made Times leadership very nervous. My early and repeated criticisms of Bush’s push to invade Iraq led to several tense meetings with management. In those meetings, I was urged to tone it down. Yet the columns themselves were published as I wrote them. And in the end, I believe the Times — which eventually apologized for its role in promoting the war — was glad that I had taken an anti-invasion stand. I believe that it was my finest hour.


So I was dismayed to find out this past year, when the current Times editors and I began to discuss our differences, that current management and top editors appear to have been completely unaware of this important bit of the paper’s history and my role in it.


Two, previous Times management and editors had allowed me to engage in the higher-level economic debates of the time. The aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis led to a great flowering of economics blogs. Important, sophisticated debates about the causes of the crisis and the policy response were taking place more or less in real time. I was able to be an active part of those debates, because I had an economics blog of my own, under the Times umbrella but separate from the column. The blog, unedited, was both more technical — sometimes much more technical — and looser than the column.
Then, step by step, all the things that made writing at the Times worthwhile for me were taken away. The Times eliminated the blog at the end of 2017. Here’s my last substantive blog post, which gives a good idea of the kind of thing I was no longer able to do once it was eliminated.
For a while I tried to make up for the loss of the blog with threads on Twitter. But even before Elon Musk Nazified the site, tweet threads were an awkward, inferior substitute for blog posts. So in 2021 I opened a Substack account, as a place to put technical material I couldn’t publish in the Times. Times management became very upset. When I explained to them that I really, really needed an outlet where I could publish more analytical writing with charts etc., they agreed to allow me to have a Times newsletter (twice a week), where I could publish the kind of work I had previously posted on my blog.


In September 2024 my newsletter was suddenly suspended by the Times. The only reason I was given was “a problem of cadence”: according to the Times, I was writing too often. I don’t know why this was considered a problem, since my newsletter was never intended to be published as part of the regular paper. Moreover, it had proved to be popular with a number of readers.

Also in 2024, the editing of my regular columns went from light touch to extremely intrusive. I went from one level of editing to three, with an immediate editor and his superior both weighing in on the column, and sometimes doing substantial rewrites before it went to copy. These rewrites almost invariably involved toning down, introducing unnecessary qualifiers, and, as I saw it, false equivalence. I would rewrite the rewrites to restore the essence of my original argument. But as I told Charles Kaiser, I began to feel that I was putting more effort—especially emotional energy—into fixing editorial damage than I was into writing the original articles. And the end result of the back and forth often felt flat and colorless.


One more thing: I faced attempts from others to dictate what I could (and could not) write about, usually in the form, “You’ve already written about that,” as if it never takes more than one column to effectively cover a subject. If that had been the rule during my earlier tenure, I never would have been able to press the case for Obamacare, or against Social Security privatization, and—most alarmingly—against the Iraq invasion. Moreover, all Times opinion writers were banned from engaging in any kind of media criticism. Hardly the kind of rule that would allow an opinion writer to state, “we are being lied into war.”

The story is told in the Columbia Journalism Review, though not in the same detail, by Charles Kaiser. It is not behind a paywall.

Kaiser wrote (in part):

CJR emailed half a dozen Times columnists to ask if they had noticed any difference in the way their columns were edited last year. The three who responded—Maureen Dowd, Gail Collins, and Tom Friedman—all said they hadn’t noticed any change in editing. Friedman also said, “I have a terrific editor in Patrick Healy and have not experienced any change in the editing of my column since we started working together in 2020.”

Krugman said, “I don’t have a feud here. All I know is that I was in fact being treated very differently from the past.”

Krugman was particularly valuable to progressive readers because he was often a lone voice in the wilderness. That was especially true early in his columnist career when he strayed from his brief—to write about economics—in order to strenuously oppose the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. This was striking at a time when the news department allowed Judith Miller to lead the charge on the unproven allegation that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and most of Krugman’s colleagues—especially Friedman—were strongly in favor of the invasion.

Just six days before America invaded, Krugman wrote, “The original reasons given for making Iraq an immediate priority have collapsed. No evidence has ever surfaced of the supposed link with Al Qaeda, or of an active nuclear program. And the administration’s eagerness to believe that an Iraqi nuclear program does exist has led to a series of embarrassing debacles, capped by the case of the forged Niger papers, which supposedly supported that claim. At this point it is clear that deposing Saddam has become an obsession, detached from any real rationale.”

He served a similar function during the Biden administration, when the media in general and the White House correspondents of the Times in particular exhibited what Krugman called “a real negativity bias. You know, if the price of gas goes up to five dollars, that’s all over the pages. If it comes back down to three dollars, not a peep, right?”

Unlike most of his Times colleagues, Krugman believes Biden “actually was a very, very good president. The fact that Democrats, like every other incumbent party in the democratic world, lost the election should not allow us to overlook the fact that we got the best economic recovery in the world, that we made the first serious efforts to do something about climate change, and we have followed, actually, a quite aggressive foreign economic policy against China that was much more effective than anything Trump did or is likely to do. The Biden administration has basically been trying to cut Chinese advanced technology off at the knees.”

Times watchers are always wary of any sign that the newspaper might be doing anything to bow to its legions of right-wing critics. This is especially true when, as Oliver Darcy put it this week, “Trump has largely bent media and technology companies to his will.”

Kingsbury said it was ridiculous to suggest that the paper made Krugman’s life miserable last year because she wanted to stifle one of the newspaper’s strongest liberal voices on the eve of Trump’s return to the White House. 

“Obviously I do push back on the notion that Paul’s views are now missing from the page,” the opinion editor said. “You can come to our pages today and find either other columnists making the arguments he was making or guest essays, or newsletters, or podcasts,” she continued. “For nine months we pounded away at the idea of Trump coming back into office. We were the only major newspaper that endorsed in the presidential race and endorsed Kamala Harris. There’s no part of my report that didn’t routinely tell readers about the dangers and risks of electing Trump.”

All of that is true. But it is also the case that the greatest change that Kingsbury and Sulzberger have made has been the sharp shrinking of the institutional voice of the Times. The number of unsigned editorials has gone from three a day, when Kingsbury took over, to just one a week—even as she has increased the number of columnists by roughly 50 percent. The paper’s editorial voice should be reserved “for the most important arguments,” she said. “We break through more than we did when we editorialized on a daily basis.”

Many New Yorkers were distressed when the paper announced last fall that it would stop making endorsements in local races. More alarm bells went off last week when Semafor reported that the paper was considering abandoning all endorsements. Kingsbury told Semafor there was no plan to eliminate the editorial board, but she did not flatly deny the no-endorsement scenario. “We’re in the process of considering ways to modernize endorsements,” she said, “and while we’re excited about the ideas we’re discussing, there’s nothing substantive to say about it yet.”

Trump signed an Executive Order threatening to cut off federal funding from schools that “indoctrinate” students on issues related to race and gender. The order is titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling.”

Let’s start by acknowledging that this order is in direct violation of a law that was passed in 1970 to prevent the federal government from imposing any curriculum on the nation’s schools. This provision has been repeatedly renewed. Neither party wanted the other to impose its views on the schools, which is what Trump seeks to do.

The law says:

“No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, [or] administration…of any educational institution…or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials.” P.L. 103-33, General Education Provisions Act, Section 432.

What Trump ordered is illegal.

Trump is expressing the views of far-right extremist groups, like “Moms for Liberty,” who hate public schools for teaching honest accurate history about racism. They want teachers to say that there was racism long, long ago, but not any more. They vehemently oppose any discussion of systemic racism (they call such discussion “critical race theory,” which of course must never be mentioned).

Any discussion of the reality of racism is forbidden by this order.

Even more threatening to the extremists is what they call “radical gender ideology.” That would be any discussion that acknowledges that LGBT+ people exist. They believe that just talking about the existence of such people–widespread on television, movies, and the Internet–makes children turn gay or even transgender.

Trump’s executive order threatens to withhold federal funding from any school where yea gets “indoctrinate” their students to consider the existence of systemic racism or sexuality.

It is Trump’s hope that with the actions he take, non- binary people–that is, LGTB+–will cease to exist.

Trump’s friend Elon Musk posted yesterday a graphic showing that in the distant past, there were two genders; in the recent past there were “73 genders.” Starting in 2025, his post said, there will be only two genders. Musk is the father of a transgender daughter, who was originally named Xavier. With his gleeful tweet, he seems to be trying to erase his daughter.