Biden strengthens NATO.

July 11, 2023

          After the personal intervention of President Biden, Turkey has dropped its opposition to the admission of Sweden to NATO. Sweden will thus join Finland as the second nation to join NATO after Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. See NYTimes, Turkey Clears the Way for Sweden’s Entry to NATO on the Eve of Summit. (Accessible to all.) Per the Times, Turkey dropped its opposition to Sweden’s admission to NATO,

“Follow[ing] intense pressure on Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, particularly from President Biden, who called the Turkish leader while on his way to Europe on Sunday.

“Mr. Biden, just hours after landing in Lithuania ahead of the opening of the summit Tuesday morning, celebrated the moment, saying in a statement that he was “ready to work with President Erdogan and Turkey on enhancing defense and deterrence in the Euro-Atlantic area.”

      The development is a major diplomatic win for America, NATO, and President Biden. At a time of increasing tensions in NATO, keeping Turkey from becoming a permanent obstacle to NATO expansion is a good sign for the future of the alliance. Turkey is the second largest military in NATO (as measured by active duty personnel). At the same time, Turkey’s leader, Recep Erdogan, has a decided “anti-Western” lean, which is shared by 65% of Turkey’s adult population. See The Economist, Is Turkey more trouble to NATO than it is worth? (Accessible to all.)

          Biden’s statement that the US would “enhance” Turkey’s ability to defend NATO’s interest means that the US will sell Turkey the F-16 fighters that it has been requesting. Biden’s last-minute deal with Erdogan again demonstrates Biden’s negotiating skills—which were on display in the debt ceiling negotiations in May. Biden’s deal with Erdogan was consummated while Biden was in the air en route to the NATO summit in Lithuania—a classic negotiating ploy. (“We need to reach a deal before I land, otherwise the offer is off the table.”)

          Whatever happens at the summit in Lithuania, NATO will emerge as a stronger and more unified defensive organization—in no small part because of Joe Biden’s leadership. If we want to continue to support NATO, we must defeat Trump and all of his wannabe clones—who see America’s engagement on the global stage as a distraction from domestic culture wars.

Judges gone wild(er).

          Last week, I wrote about federal judge Terry Doughty, who issued an injunction prohibiting the executive branch of the government from contacting social media companies. The DOJ is appealing the ruling and asked Judge Doughty to temporarily suspend the effectiveness of his ruling pending the appeal. On Monday, Judge Doughty refused to stay his ruling, saying (in part) that the plaintiff right-wing advocacy organizations would clearly win on appeal—a ludicrous position.

          The DOJ will now ask the 5th Circuit to stay Judge Doughty’s decision pending appeal. If the 5th Circuit does not issue a stay, the DOJ will seek relief in the Supreme Court. The situation is escalating quickly—and getting the Supreme Court on record to restrain the lawless Judge Doughty (and the reactionary 5th Circuit) may be a necessary step. See Talking Points Memo, DOJ Immediately Tries Again After Trump Judge Denies Request To Pause His Social Media Contact Ban.

          In another concerning decision, a 3-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender people under eighteen. The decision is not only at odds with every other federal decision regarding such bans, but it invokes a rationale that could result in wholesale discrimination against LGBTQ people. The relevant analysis is set forth in Ian Millhiser’s article in Vox, A monumental LGBTQ rights case is barreling toward the Supreme Court, in L.W. v. Skrmetti.

          In short, federal courts have generally held that bans on medical treatment for transgender people violates federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex. But the 6th Circuit panel ruled that because the Tennessee law applied to everyone under 18-years old, it did not discriminate on the basis of sex. That reasoning is both ludicrous and dangerous. Indeed, it repeats the rationale used by conservatives to oppose inter-racial marriage and same-sex marriage.

          As explained by Millhiser,

“It should be noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected similar efforts to uphold discriminatory laws by reading them as more general bans that apply evenly to everyone. In Loving v. Virginia (1967), for example, the justices rejected the argument that a ban on interracial marriage is nondiscriminatory so long as it forbids everyone equally from marrying a person of a different race. And in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Court also rejected the argument that bans on same-sex marriage are nondiscriminatory so long as everyone has an equal right to marry a person of the opposite gender.”

          The Supreme Court could use an appeal from the ruling by the 6th Circuit regarding transgender medical care in Tennessee as an opportunity to reverse or limit the holding in Obergefell. Justice Thomas has said that the Court should reconsider its decision in Obergefell; we should take that threat seriously. The most effective, immediate way to ensure that the reactionary majority does not eliminate more liberties is to enlarge the Court.

The GOP Biden conspiracies.

          The fake whistleblowers trying to take down Joe Biden on the basis of unproven conspiracies are having a rough time of late. An IRS whistleblower who claimed that the DOJ stymied investigations into Hunter Biden was contradicted by a Trump-appointed US Attorney who was tasked with prosecuting Hunter. In a letter to Senator Lindsey Graham, the US Attorney (David Weiss) contradicted key claims by the whistleblower and again confirmed that he was given full autonomy in deciding whether, where, and when to investigate Hunter Biden. See The Hill, Hunter Biden prosecutor disputes GOP, IRS whistleblower claim.

          A second whistleblower claimed to know a guy whose friend’s cousin’s girlfriend had information about a bribe allegedly paid to Joe Biden by the Illuminati. That whistleblower’s credibility took a blow last week when he was indicted for working to advance the interests of China and Iran without registering as a foreign agent. See Mediate, Gal Luft Indicted For 'Working to Advance the Interests Of China'.

Per the indictment, the whistleblower

engaged in multiple, serious criminal schemes. He subverted foreign agent registration laws in the United States to seek to promote Chinese policies by acting through a former high-ranking U.S. Government official; he acted as a broker in deals for dangerous weapons and Iranian oil; and he told multiple lies about his crimes to law enforcement. 

          So, although it is possible that a whistleblower who cheated and lied in his business dealings and tried to deceive the FBI is telling the truth about Biden, it seems unlikely.

          One final note about President Biden. The NYTimes ran a story about a custody battle between Hunter Biden and a woman with whom Hunter had a daughter. The woman sued to establish paternity and obtain child support. Hunter and the woman reached an out-of-court settlement. Hunter Biden is not part of his daughter’s life and the settlement stipulated that she would not take Hunter Biden’s last name. President Biden has never met the daughter of Hunter Biden who was the subject of the paternity suit and custody battle.

          The gist of the NYTimes story is that President Biden has refused to accept Hunter Biden’s daughter into the Biden extended family. See NYTimes, Hunter Biden’s Daughter and a Tale of Two Families. See also, Maureen Dowd in NYTimes, Opinion | It’s Seven Grandkids, Mr. President. Maureen Dowd was criticizing a statement made by President Biden that “[I have] six grandchildren. And I’m crazy about them. And I speak to them every single day.” Dowd claims that Biden is “inauthentic” in his family values for failing to say “seven” grandchildren.”

          The right-wing is, of course, going nuts over the story. And a reader has already sent a note expressing disappointment in President Biden for not meeting a daughter of Hunter Biden that Hunter has never met—echoing Maureen Dowd’s judgmental op-ed.

          As I said to the reader, telling other people how to manage complicated family relations is tricky. Without knowing everything about the facts, it is easy to impose your personal family experience and relationships onto someone else’s family—where they might not fit. Here, Hunter Biden and the mother of the child were engaged in bitter litigation over custody and paternity until last Thursday when the case was settled in private discussions between Hunter and the girl’s mother.

          And it wasn’t just any bitter litigation. The mother was represented by a Trump campaign attorney (from 2020) whose expert witness posted on the internet private information stolen from Hunter Biden’s laptop as part of an effort to (wrongly) accuse Joe Biden of corruption. Taken charitably, those facts suggest that Trump (or his surrogates) have used the little girl’s paternity as a political weapon to harm President Biden.

          The situation is tragic for the girl—and shame on every single adult associated with or working with Trump to weaponize the custody and paternity dispute. Joe Biden will do the right thing over time—because he is a decent person. But criticizing him for not meeting a granddaughter in the four days since a bitter custody and paternity suit was settled is unfair to Biden.

          Finally, let’s acknowledge the searing double standard. There are obvious issues in Donald Trump's relations with his children and grandchildren that have been and remain “off limits” in the media. And yet every human tragedy suffered by Joe Biden is sensationalized and distorted in the most grotesque way possible—including the story about Hunter Biden’s daughter. Shame on the NYTimes and shame on Maureen Dowd for failing to have the human decency to empathize with Joe Biden as he tries to navigate a difficult family situation created by the lifelong addiction of his son.

Do “blue” states subsidize “red states”?

          Do “blue” states subsidize “red” states? Yes! See Washington Post, The states that pay the most in taxes and get the least benefits. You need to read deep into this lengthy article to get to the charts that finally answer the question of whether blue states subsidize red states with taxes paid vs. benefits received from the federal government.

          In short, eight blue states, (CA, NY, NJ, MA, CT, WA, NH, and CO) pay more in taxes to the federal government than they receive in federal benefits and, therefore, subsidize all other states. Every other state receives more federal money than they pay in taxes. But 9 of the 11 top recipients of federal benefits are red states (KY, W.VA, MS, AL, AK, LA, OK, AK, SC).

          Here’s the point: As you listen to Republicans whine about “out of control” federal spending, keep in mind that every one of those Republican politicians lives in a state that receives more from the federal government than they contribute. If Republicans want to cut federal spending, they should look to their home states to see what federal benefits they would be willing to forego to cut spending. Of course, they won’t do that because they are hypocrites!

House Republicans seek to prevent public companies for disclosing climate impacts and investments.

          Public companies are owned by shareholders—who vote annually on corporate governance and policies. Groups of activist shareholders (including large investment funds that hold blocks of stock in companies) have voted in favor of disclosures regarding climate impacts and investments by the companies in renewable energy. That is the very definition of capitalism in action in a free market—corporations responding to the wishes of their public shareholders.

          Republicans hate the whole idea of shareholders demanding disclosures about environmental issues and climate investments. So, being the hypocrites they are, House Republicans have begun efforts to prevent corporations from disclosing information about climate impacts and investments—which is, of course, the antithesis of capitalism and free markets. See Politico, House Republicans move to silence Wall Street in climate fight. Republicans call disclosures about the climate “woke capitalism”—extending the culture war to Wall Street.

          House Republicans recognize the hypocrisy of their anti-capitalism / free-market position and so are seeking to tread lightly. But they are fooling no one. Large investment firms that support such disclosures on the ground that they are good for business are resisting efforts by House Republicans to interfere in free markets and capitalism. The head of Black Rock said, “Stakeholder capitalism is not woke — it’s not political, it’s capitalism.”

          So, which groups are resisting disclosures regarding climate impacts and investments? You get one guess, and the answer begins with “the fossil fuel industry.” Incredibly, the American Petroleum Institute backs a bill that would require investment advisers to prioritize financial returns over environmental impacts.

          Let me repeat that breathtaking sentence: The American Petroleum Institute backs a bill that would require investment advisers to prioritize financial returns over environmental impacts.

          Fortunately, any bill proposed by the House GOP to limit disclosures regarding climate impacts and investments has no chance of passing in the Senate. But the risk that a future Congress controlled by the GOP could pass such a bill is another reason we must do everything in our power to ensure that Democrats take back the House and expand their control in the Senate.

Concluding Thoughts.

          I can always tell when a story resonates with readers because of the number of comments and emails that a particular story generates. I am always surprised by the strong positive feedback regarding stories about climate change. The most consistent suggestion I receive from readers is to discuss the climate more frequently. I am trying to do so, but you can help.

          As I have noted previously, covering the climate is challenging because climate change occurs in small increments and over long periods. So, help me to provide relevant, informative, and interesting stories about climate change that I can share with readers. Invitations to engagement and calls to action are also welcome.

          But there is one caveat: I won’t promote anything that says, “It’s too late; we are doomed; climate change is irreversible, and we are all going to die.” We should, of course, communicate the urgency and extremity of our crisis. But if we tell people that their efforts to change the outcome are futile, they might believe you—and that would be counter-productive. It is never too late to do things that will reduce greenhouse gases and prevent the warming of the oceans and atmosphere. Let’s focus on what we can do—starting with electing officials who prioritize reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.

          Talk to you tomorrow!