Watch President Biden’s Detroit rally tonight. Biden spoke for about 30-40 minutes, and he was outstanding. He touted the economic record of his administration, and he described his agenda for his first 100 days in his second administration.

He also described the dangerous agenda of Trump’s Project 2025. He said “Trump is a loser!”

Number #1 on his agenda would be signing legislation to make Roe v. Wade the law of the land. He promised to promote good union jobs. He pledged to protect healthcare, Medicare, and Social Security. He said he would revive the Child Tax Credit, which cut child poverty in half before Republicans blocked its renewal. There was more.

He made clear that his goal was to strengthen the middle class.

President Biden was vigorous, passionate, and articulate. The crowd was fired up.

Biden is in it to win it.

Governor Ron DeSantis vetoed all arts funding for ALL Florida because of two performing groups that he considers “sexualized.” Six hundred groups lost $32 million in state funding, in some cases jeopardizing their survival.

The two groups that offended the prudish DeSantis offered to give up state funding so DeSantis could restore funding to the others.

Leaders of two performing arts festivals said Thursday that they would gladly give up their grants if Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis restores the $32 million in state funding he nixed for more than 600 Florida arts groups, explaining the reason for his veto as being because the two theatrical events were “a sexual festival.” 

Leaders of The Orlando Fringe and Tampa Fringe described the governor’s description as inaccurate on Thursday at a news conference, but they said it was important for the state’s arts groups to be funded because they play critical roles in their communities. The Orlando festival had been slated to get $70,500, and the Tampa festival was in line to receive $7,500 before the veto.

Jennifer Rubin was originally hired by The Washington Post to write the conservative point of view on its opinion pages. A journalist and a lawyer, Rubin found Trump to be intolerable, and she no longer writes from the right.

In this column, she commends the effort to investigate Justice Clarence Thomas and explains why:

Fed up with the justice’s stonewalling, egregious violation of judicial ethics, inaccurate legal filings and gross money grubbing from right-wing billionaires with business before the Supreme Court, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland this week demanding a special counsel be appointed “to investigate possible violations of federal ethics and tax laws by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Clarence Thomas.” Well, it’s about time someone took Thomas’s inexcusable conduct seriously. (Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s introduction of articles of impeachment in a Republican-controlled House, meanwhile, which followed on Wednesday, is a showy gesture but a nonstarter.)


The letter details “repeated and willful omissions of gifts and income from Justice Thomas’s financial disclosure reports required by the Ethics in Government Act.” And as the senators point out, investigations have been raised against other government officials for far less serious allegations.


This is not a complaint about failure to recuse, as reprehensible as it might be for Thomas to sit on cases concerning the insurrection in which his wife played a limited role, or about bribery; thanks to this court, such prosecutions are practically impossible. Instead, the letter concerns bread-and-butter allegations of false statements signed under oath and tax violations.


The list of issues is gobsmacking. For example: forgiveness of the principal on a $267,000 loan that was never reported as income. (“Documents obtained by the Senate Finance Committee indicate that no principal was ever repaid on the loan and that Justice Thomas only made interest payments on the loan prior to all payments ceasing on the loan. Forgiven or discharged debt is taxable income, and the Ethics in Government Act requires justices to disclose any ‘income from discharge of indebtedness.’”) This was never included on Thomas’s financial disclosure reports. Thomas has refused to say whether he accounted for the loan forgiveness on his income taxes.

Then there are the gifts — lots of gifts. The senators cite “undisclosed gifts from other wealthy donors … including private jet travel from Paul Anthony Novelly; private jet travel and country club membership from the late Wayne Huizenga; and private jet travel, luxury sports tickets, and lodging at a ranch from David Sokol.” The senator include an appendix detailing these lavish gratuities. The senators write, “Justice Thomas has claimed that some omissions were ‘inadvertent,’ and he has

amended some past reports accordingly. However, Justice Thomas has not disclosed all of the gifts that have been uncovered, and there may well be more.” Therefore, they charge: “His long history of omissions indicates a pattern of willfulness meriting investigation under the Ethics in Government Act.”


Then there are the gifts specifically from Leonard Leo — the right-wing legal impresario and former vice president of the Federalist Society who has helped pick Supreme Court justices and contrived to bring cases before the court to advance his dark money groups agenda, according to Whitehouse. The senators explain:
Last year, the Washington Post reported that Leo directed payments of at least $25,000 to a consulting firm run by Justice Thomas’s spouse, with Leo specifying that the documents related to the payments should make “[n]o mention” of Mrs. Thomas. The furtive nature of the payments raises further questions about how many such payments were orchestrated, whether legitimate services were actually rendered, and whether such payments required additional reporting by Justice Thomas. We have not yet adequately been able to investigate the extent to which any or all these undisclosed gifts were part of a coordinated gifts program to reward recipient justices.


In sum, the senators raise allegations of willfully false statements on government disclosure forms and income tax and gift tax violations. At this stage, these are allegations only. But surely there is a basis for further inquiry, the senators argue. After detailing other investigations into less egregious conduct, the senators argue that only a special counsel can properly investigate. (“Since no litigant appears before the Supreme Court more frequently than the United States government, represented by the Department of Justice, the Department may understandably hesitate to offend a member of that Court.”)

The senators are not the only ones to have advanced these arguments. In April 2023, the anti-corruption group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Garland after Pro Publica broke news of lavish gifts Thomas received from another billionaire, Harlan Crow.


In that letter, CREW and several ethics experts wrote: “If true, Justice Thomas’ acceptance and failure to report these gifts and sales transactions on his annual mandatory financial disclosure statements not only undermines trust in his ability to impartially and fairly administer his duties as a member of the Court, but also threatens to corrode public confidence in the Supreme Court as an institution.” CREW’s president, Noah Bookbinder, tells me CREW never received a response.


One of the ethics experts who signed that letter, Richard Painter, tells me, “The attorney general may or may not decide to appoint a special counsel. I believe it is justified in this case.” If Garland does not appoint a special counsel or undertake any investigation, the Supreme Court justices, like the president in the new scheme of government concocted by this court, will conclude they operate in a world of criminal immunity, secure in the knowledge a partisan Senate will never remove them from the bench.
“Justice Thomas’s serious and frequent misconduct, including consistent failure to report lavish gifts from a wealthy benefactor with strong interests in the Supreme Court’s work and repeated failure to recuse from cases in which he had a clear conflict of interest, requires thorough investigation and genuine accountability,” Bookbinder tells me.

The Thomas scandal is what comes from refusing to adopt a mandatory ethics code for the Supreme Court and investing its justices with lifetime security. That leaves the rule of law dependent on the justices’ own good graces to remain ethical. That has obviously proven insufficient.


And so Whitehouse and Wyden, with no alternative, ask for the Justice Department to do its job. “The request is foundational to the rule of law,” constitutional scholar Dennis Aftergut tells me. “While many won’t expect Garland to pick it up before the election, if democracy survives November, the senators have written the bottom line for what must happen if we are to get corruption out of the court.”


Unfortunately, if felon and former president Donald Trump is elected, one can be sure no investigation will be undertaken. It therefore behooves Garland to move quickly, lest — again — justice delayed becomes justice denied.

Many stories have appeared in the past few months about the lavish gifts bestowed on Justice Clarence Thomas by his billionaire “friends.” The press focused on his failure to disclose those gifts. To me, the more compelling question is why Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges with life tenure are allowed to accept any gift with a value in excess of $25. A Christmas card? Sure. More than that, no. When I worked in the U.S. Department of Education as Assistant Secretary of Education, the federal ethics rules were strong and clear: federal officials could not accept any gifts. You could not allow anyone to buy you lunch. Period. Why shouldn’t the same standard apply to federal judges?

Jay Kuo writes on his blog The Status Kuo about a move by two Democratic Senators to seek accountability for Thomas. Kuo is a graduate of Stanford and earned his law degree at Berkeley.

He writes:

We’ve all felt the frustration. A series of bombshell reports revealed last year that Justice Clarence Thomas has been bought and paid for many times over the last two decades. He accepted gifts from his billionaire friends who, directly or indirectly, had business before the Court. He flouted every ethical duty and law requiring him to report these gifts, and he apparently even failed to report significant income he received in the form of a large forgiven loan.

The Senate has been stonewalled in its efforts to investigate Thomas, not only by Republican senators closing ranks to protect him, but also by Thomas’s billionaire allies such as Leonard Leo, who has so far refused to cooperate with investigators. Leo likely knows he can run out the clock by forcing Democrats to file suit in federal civil court, where his judicial allies are well placed to protect him in any event.

There has been no opportunity to impeach Thomas, of course, with the House currently in Republican hands. And pressure upon Chief Justice Roberts to address collapsing confidence in the Supreme Court has resulted only in a set of unenforceable ethical guidelines and a refusal by the Chief Justice to even meet with Democratic Senate leaders…

Early last week, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland requesting a special counsel to investigate possible violations of law by Justice Thomas. We only learned of the letter on Tuesday of this week after the senators went public with their request. 

The upshot of this request is that Thomas is now on notice. Not only his lack of ethics as a justice but his actual criminality is on the table and could receive a much closer look. It opens a front against the Supreme Court’s conservative majority that did not exist before, and the stakes are now much higher.

In today’s piece, as a refresher I’ll walk through some of the many ways in which Justice Thomas has apparently violated federal ethical and tax laws by accepting gifts and failing to disclose them. I’ll then focus on what the two senators are asking for and why some billionaires might be a bit antsy. Finally, I’ll discuss the political ramifications of the special counsel request and Attorney General Garland’s response. 

A justice on the take

It’s been over 15 months since ProPublica dropped the first bombshell story of Justice Clarence Thomas’s deep corruption: luxury vacations, super yacht cruises, private jets and exclusive resorts, all paid for by his pal with the Dickensian, villainous name of Harlan Crow. 

Contrary to federal disclosure laws, Thomas reported none of this.

ProPublica followed up shortly thereafter with damning accounts of how Crow also held the pursestrings of Thomas’s extended family. Crow’s company, it turns out, had purchased the home of Thomas’s mother, and she still resides there rent free. Crow ordered and paid for expensive improvements on the house—a carport, roof repair, new fence and gate. And he assumed the property’s tax bill, which the Thomases used to have to pay.

Thomas disclosed none of this.

Then another bombshell. ProPublica reported in August of last year that Thomas had more than one sugar daddy. Four other wealthy men, whom Thomas met after becoming a Supreme Court justice, had showered lavish gifts upon him for years, including:

  • 38+ destination vacations
  • 26 private jet flights
  • 12 VIP passes to pro and college sporting events
  • 2 stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica
  • 1 standing invite to an uber-exclusive golf club

And that’s just what could be uncovered from public records and their investigation. As I wrote at the time,

According to ethics experts who spoke to ProPublica, for items like costly tickets to sporting events, there is simply no way to characterize that other than as a gift with a clear dollar value, often in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. The same goes for luxury vacations that took place at hotel resorts rather than at people’s homes. 

Then we learned that Thomas’s corruption went even further than fancy, millionaire lifestyle gifts or perks for his family. According to a report by the New York Times, which was later confirmed through a Senate investigation, a wealthy friend of Thomas, who had loaned him the money to buy his dream RV, forgave the quarter million dollar plus loan on it. As those familiar with tax law know, a forgiven loan is taxable income unless somehow exempted, but Thomas apparently never reported it either. 

Months of efforts to get the Justice and his billionaire friends to cooperate with Senate investigators resulted only in a revised financial declaration by Thomas, which still appears to omit several gifts. Many other things remain unexplained, including any credible reason for failing to disclose the gifts and any explanation of the unreported taxable event of the loan forgiveness on his RV.

Lisa Haver is a former Philadelphia teacher. She is co-founder and coordinator of the Alliance for Philadelphia Public Schools. She warns about the absurdity of defunding the state’s public schools while expanding vouchers to subsidize students currently in private and religious schools. This article appeared in the Philadelphia Hall Monitor.

Lisa Haver writes:

Musician and entrepreneur Jay-Z last month joined the ranks of out-of-town billionaires lobbying to expand voucher programs in Pennsylvania. Representatives from his Roc Nation came to Philadelphia to push for passage of PASS (Pennsylvania Award for Student Success), legislation that would divert more tax dollars from the state’s education budget to private schools. Roc Nation representatives repeated claims by voucher supporters, including Governor Josh Shapiro and suburban billionaire Jeffrey Yass, that PASS would give the students an alternative to the city’s “failing schools.” Jay-Z’s spokespersons told reporters that after seeing students “struggling in the public education system, within the lowest performing schools, we wanted to do something to help the community.” 

Not being from around here, Jay-Z and his representatives, apparently, are not up on the history of underfunding and privatization in the city and the state and the many schemes over the years that have failed to deliver on promises for a better education and stronger communities.  They seemed unaware of how vehemently Philadelphians oppose the idea of diverting even more money from underfunded public schools to affluent private schools.

The proposed expanded voucher legislation allows for even less accountability than the state’s existing programs. Since their passage in 2001, the Education Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) and the Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit (OSTC) have sent over $2 billion in taxpayer funds to private schools. Education Voters PA estimates that 78% of EITC and OSTC funds go to religious schools that do not have to be accredited or adhere to the same curriculum standards that public schools do. This means public money going to schools that teach creationism or that slavery wasn’t really that bad and to schools that can and do discriminate against LGBTQ students and those with special needs. School choice has always meant the schools’ choice. And a feature, not a bug, of EITC and OTSC is the absence of data. Ed Voters PA points out that Act 46, passed in 2005, “explicitly prohibits the state from collecting data about voucher programs or students” who participate in them. 

There is already conflicting information about how PASS would work, who would be eligible, and the size of the scholarships, which range from $2500 to $15,000 depending on grade and level of need. But even the maximum allowance wouldn’t cover the tuition of the exclusive private schools whose tuition ranges from $25,000 to almost $50,000. The reality is that most of the voucher money goes to families with students already in private schools, not to students transferring from public schools.  

Republican legislators and pro-school choice lobbyists maintain that distributing public funds to privately managed schools with a minimum of public oversight will help the city’s children get a better education. Where have we heard that before? 

In 1997, the state legislature passed the Pennsylvania Charter Law. Privatizing public schools, they assured us, would rescue the children trapped in failing public schools. The reality? Yearly assessments–using the framework formulated by charter operators themselves–show that Philadelphia charters rarely outperform district schools in academics. The district has spent millions in years-long legal proceedings to close substandard schools. Other charters have closed due to financial malfeasance of the schools administrators, or in the recent case of Math Science Civics, the whims of the charter CEO. The state charter law allows substandard charters to operate for years while they appeal non-renewal actions. 

Parents who had hoped to find better schools in charters are returning to their neighborhood schools, with over half of the city’s charters now under-enrolled. Since the passage of No Child Left Behind, which enabled the privatization of public schools, students have been subjected to learn-to-the-test scripted curricula, with test prep classes replacing interesting and challenging electives. Their schools have been branded as failures, and many of their neighborhoods have lost the schools that served as community anchors.

Does Jay-Z really believe that the children of Philadelphia will win in a “hunger games” approach to education? 

Last year, school districts in Pennsylvania won a significant victory when the Commonwealth Court ruled that the state must provide, as mandated in the state constitution,  a “thorough and efficient system of public education to serve the needs of the Commonwealth.” Jay-Z should join the parents, students, educators and community members urging the state legislature to pass a budget that will fund smaller class size, school libraries, and healthy school buildings–in every school in every Philadelphia neighborhood.  

I watched Biden’s press conference and aside from one big gaffe—when he referred to “Vice President Trump” instead of Harris, in response to the very first question—I thought he did a great job of answering the questions. His command of foreign issues was masterful. He was well-informed, relaxed, and sharp.

He is old but so is Trump. I would love to see a press conference where Trump is asked questions about policy, as Biden was. I wonder if Trump would reveal his complete ignorance if asked to address policy problems in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.

Bombast is no substitute for experience and knowledge.

When Trump speaks to the press, he demeans them, intimidates them, and plays them like a fiddle.

Tonight’s informed responses by Biden persuaded me that he is strong, wise, confident, and devoted to making the U.S. a better place.

I have no idea whether he will stay or go, based on the relentless assault on him.

As long as he stays in, I’m with him.

How naive some citizens of Arkansas were! They thought they could get a referendum on the state ballot to change the state’s draconian abortion ban which allows no exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the woman.

They gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot but the Secretary of State, no doubt acting with Governor Sarah Huckabee Sansers’ support, found reasons to throw the referendum proposal out. No democracy for Arkansas!

Axios reported:

Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston on Wednesday rejected petitions for a proposed amendment to make abortion legal in the state again under certain circumstances.

Why it matters: The proposed amendment would allow abortion through the first 18 weeks of pregnancy, and also in cases of rape, incest, fatal fetal anomaly or to save the pregnant person’s life.

State of play: In a letter to Arkansans for Limited Government, which is spearheading the effort, Thurston said the group failed to submit a statement identifying all paid canvassers by name.

  • He said it also didn’t provide a statement confirming it had provided each canvasser with proper documentation and training about the state’s law before they started gathering signatures.

“By contrast, other sponsors of initiative petitions complied with this requirement. Therefore I must reject your submission,” Thurston wrote.

Between the lines: “Even if your failure to comply with [the law] did not require me to reject your submission outright, it would certainly mean that signatures gathered by paid canvassers in your submission could not be counted for any reason,” the letter reads.

  • Thurston claims 14,143 of the 101,525 submitted signatures were collected by paid canvassers.
  • The remaining 87,382 signatures collected by volunteers fall short of the required 90,704 for a proposed constitutional amendment.

What they’re saying: “At multiple junctures — including on July 5 inside of the Capitol Building — we discussed signature submission requirements with the Secretary of State’s staff,” Arkansans for Limited Government (AFLG) said in a statement emailed late Wednesday.

  • The secretary of state’s office supplied the organization with all paperwork to submit the petitions, AFLG said, adding that the group had no reason to suspect it was incomplete.

AFLG says it supplied a list of paid canvassers to the state, and that’s known because it was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request to the Secretary of State’s office and “released by our opposition in an attempt to intimidate our supporters.”

  • More than 101,000 Arkansans participated in this heroic act of direct democracy and stood up to loudly proclaim their support for access to healthcare. They deserve better than a state government that seeks to silence them.”

The other side: “Today the far left pro-abortion crowd in Arkansas showed they are both immoral and incompetent,” Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders posted on X.

What we’re watching: It’s unclear what legal recourse Arkansans for Limited Government can take; however its statement concluded: “We will fight this ridiculous disqualification attempt with everything we have. We will not back down.”

Peter Greene wrote in Forbes about a bill just introduced in the House of Representatives to ban federal funding of for-profit charters. He explains how some ostensibly non-profit charters are actually managed by for-profits. Will Congress have the gumption to stop profiteering in charter world? Expect fierce opposition from the charter lobby. Bottom line: charter schools claim to be “public schools.” Public schools do not operate for profit.

He begins:

In almost every corner of the U.S., charter schools are non-profit. And yet, there are numerous ways to run a non-profit for profit.

In two reports (Chartered for Profit and Chartered for Profit II), the Network for Public Education showed numerous examples of the most common techniques. Some charters lease their buildings back from related businesses. In one New York case, a chartering organization leased a space from the diocese, then leased that space to its own charter school for over ten times the amount it was paying.

There are “sweeps” contracts, where a non-profit charter hires a for-profit management organization to handle everything, in return for nearly every dollar the charter takes in. As one EMO contract cited in the report states, it receives “as renumeration for its services an amount equal to the total revenue received” by the school “from all revenue sources.”

In many cases, a non-profit charter school simply serves as a pass through for money headed to a for-profit business.

Why be concerned? Because every dollar spent on students is a dollar that the company doesn’t get to keep. Every dollar that makes it into the classroom doesn’t make it into the company’s pocket. When profit-making businesses provide human services, there is a conflict of interest between the company and its customers.

Don’t public school districts use for-profit contractors? They do, particularly for big ticket items such as for preparation and bus service. But those contracts are overseen and approved by elected school board members who are responsible for looking after the interests of the students, not the vendors. Nor do public schools contract with vendors to conduct the main business of the school.

To address the issue of charter schools operated for a profit, United States Representative Rosa DeLauro (CT-03) and Representative Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01) this month introduced the Championing Honest and Responsible Transparency in Education Reform (CHARTER) Act. Said DeLauro,

The CHARTER Act would ensure that for-profit education management organizations can no longer jump through loopholes that have given them access to funding that has always been intended for nonprofit entities. Educating our children should be for their enrichment and future prosperity – not to maximize the profits of their owners and investors.

The bill adds to the definition of a charter school given in Section 4310 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In addition to the other qualifiers already in the federal definition of a charter school, the bill would add that a charter school

does not enter into a contract with a for-profit entity, or have a charter management organization or other nonprofit entity enter into such a contract on behalf of such school, under which the for-profit entity operates, oversees, manages, or otherwise carries out the administration of such school, which may include curriculum development, budget management, and faculty management (such as hiring, terminating, or supervising school-level staff);

The bill also specifies that a charter school may contract for food, payroll, facilities maintenance, transportation services, classroom supplies or other ancillary services.

The bill then goes on to require the amended definition be used for ESEA and IDEA, thereby blocking charters that don’t meet the amended definition from receiving any federal funds.

The issue of charters operated for profit has been addressed before, when the Biden administration tightened rules governing the Charter School Program grants handed out by the federal government. Those changes required charters to be more transparent about where the money was going, and the grantee had to offer assurances that a for-profit CMO “does not exercise full or substantial control” over the school.

If the CHARTER Act gains traction in Congress, it will continue this trend of seeking greater assurance that federal dollars sent to charter schools will find their way to the classroom, and not some for-profit company’s bank account.

Leslie Postal of the Orlando Sentinel reports that Florida’s Department of Education has warned textbook authors to delete references to climate change, although some apparently are getting through. This is especially egregious since Florida is one of the states most threatened by climate change.

She writes:

Textbook authors were told last month that some references to “climate change” must be removed from science books before they could be accepted for use in Florida’s public schools, according to two of those authors.

A high school biology book also had to add citations to back up statements that “human activity” caused climate change and cut a “political statement” urging governments to take action to stop climate change, said Ken Miller, the co-author of that textbook and a professor emeritus of biology at Brown University.

Both Miller and a second author who asked not to be identified told the Orlando Sentinel they learned of the state-directed changes from their publishers, who received phone calls in June from state officials.

Miller, also president of the board of the National Center for Science Education, said the phrase “climate change” was not removed from his high school biology text, which he assumed happened because climate change is mentioned in Florida’s academic standards for biology courses. [Note: The state standards for science were adopted in 2008, before DeSantis was elected Governor.]

But according to his publisher, a 90-page section on climate change was removed from its high school chemistry textbook and the phrase was removed from middle school science books, he said.

The other author said he was told Florida wanted publishers to remove “extraneous information” not listed in state standards. “They asked to take out phrases such as climate change,” he added.

The actions seemed to echo Florida’s previous rejection of math and social studies textbooks that state officials claimed include passages of “indoctrination” and “ideological rhetoric.” And they fall in line with the views of many GOP leaders, who question both the existence of climate change and the contributions of human activities to the problem, despite a broad scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is transforming the earth’s environment.

In May, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill that stripped the phrase “climate change” from much of Florida law, reversing 16 years of state policy and, critics said, undermining Florida’s support of renewable and clean energy…

But there are no textbooks for high school environmental science classes on the approved list, though three companies submitted bids to supply books for that class, according to documents on the department’s website. Course material for that subject typically includes significant discussion of climate change.

“How do you write an environmental science book to appease people who are opposed to climate change?” asked a school district science supervisor, who is involved in science textbook adoption for her district. She asked not to be identified for fear of job repercussions.

She and other educators, the textbook authors and science advocates said the state’s actions will rob students of a deeper understanding of global warming even as it impacts their state and communities through longer and hotter heat waves, more ferocious storms and sea level rise.

Florida had already earned a D — and was among the five lowest-ranked states in the country — in a 2020 study that graded the states on how their public school science standards addressed climate change, said Glenn Branch, deputy director of the center for science education, which was a partner in the study.

Is there a grade lower than F? F-?

Robert Hubbell writes a blog about the travails of politics. I have excerpted a small portion of his post. Please open the link to read in full.

Hubbell writes:

The 2024 election is not merely a choice between Biden and Trump. It is a choice between democracy and tyranny, liberty and subjugation, dignity and debasement, safety and mayhem, global stability and chaos, climate crisis mitigation or acceleration, retirement security and insecurity, justice and vengeance, science and ignorance, decency and depravity. If we cannot convince voters that the choice comes down to those polar opposites, it does not matter who the candidate is.

I support Joe Biden because he is a great president, a good and decent man, and a skilled politician who achieved great things with bare majorities in the House and Senate. His performance in the debate does not define him. I believe Joe Biden is the best candidate to defeat Trump. If he is forced out by a media-driven frenzy and a cabal of unnamed insiders and pundits, it will be the greatest miscalculation and tragedy in American politics in a century.

I am not giving up and I won’t be pressured into apologizing for Joe Biden’s imperfections in a world where every politician is imperfect. Shadowboxing with unnamed party insiders and pundits is a waste of time. We have real work to do. Let’s get to it!