Category: Politics

How’s your National Data Center Day of Protest going?

by philg

Today in Evanston, Illinois: “Say No to AI Data Centers”.

A lot of retailers display this sign, but my favorite is GadgetWorks, whose smartphone and game console customers are in no way dependent on data centers:

The Guardian says that the dream would be to find a data center that is used by ICE and involved in demanding IDs from voters:

Speaking of ID, although everyone in Evanston seems to agree that requiring ID to vote is unreasonable, the city requires ID of those who wish to visit the local (Lake Michigan) beach:

Full post, including comments

New York Times summarizes Lindsey Graham’s 71-year life as “Trump ally” while reminding us that the true American heroes aren’t, strictly speaking, American

by philg

Today’s New York Times…

A Mexican national whom we are informed was shot at random by ICE (they were looking for an undocument migrant and shot the unfortunate Mr. Lorenzo Salgado Araujo for no reason and, as it happened, Mr. Araujo was also an undocumented migrant (what are the odds in a country where we’re informed that only a tiny percentage of residents are undocumented migrants?)):

Lindsey Graham, whose entire life can be reduced to, simply, “Trump Ally”:

Democrat connections on Facebook are filling up their feeds with glee regarding Senator Graham’s death. Some examples:

“I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.”
— Clarence Darrow, “The Story of My Life”, 1932

According to Dante, Lindsay’s final destination would be Antenora.

X users who previously expressed support for the Gazans and hatred of Israel are also happy. Example from someone affiliated with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee:

The mere existence of an American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee seems like something that evolved during Lindsey Graham’s adulthood (until Hart-Celler in 1965, Arabs generally weren’t eligible to immigrate to the U.S.). Let’s look at what else has changed since Lindsey Graham was born in 1955.

Lindsey Graham served in the USAF for 33 years, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, unusually, did not become disabled by his work at a desk. VA Benefits cost $4.5 billion in 1955. Adjusted for inflation, that’s about 55 billion 2026 mini-dollars. That’s during a period where nearly 100% of American men were veterans of three brutal wars (WWI, WWII, and Korean). The population was smaller because we hadn’t discovered the miracle of open borders and, thus, the U.S. was home to only about 22 million living veterans in 1955. Today, VA benefits, not including military pensions earned via length of service, cost about $440 billion. There are only about 16 million living veterans and a high enough percentage of them are classified as “disabled”, thus forcing taxpayers to pay out more than $200 billion in disability compensation, e.g., to Graham Platner in Maine. The average American who actually pays any significant federal income tax will work approximately 2-3 hours per week to fund payments and services to veterans, despite the fact that it is tough to think of any war that we’ve won since Korea. ChatGPT: “real federal spending per veteran has risen by substantially more than a factor of eight”.

(Note that we will soon be spending more on disability payments to veterans than the Chinese spend on their entire active-duty military. The majority of disabled veterans were never in combat so we can’t blame our enemies becoming tougher for this epidemic of disability. A majority of veterans who left the U.S. military during the Biden-Harris administration were classified as disabled. There are some tough-to-quantify costs of these disability ratings. Veterans who receive TDIU (Total Disability based on Individual Unemployability) can’t work without risking the loss of the taxpayer cash. Veterans who are rated 100 percent disabled, such as Graham Platner, pay no property tax on a primary residence in Florida (imagine if this fearless fighter were to move into Ron DeSantis terrirtory!).)

Lindsey Graham started out wanted to give nearly every undocumented migrant in the U.S. “amnesty” and a passport. The percentage of immigrants in the U.S. has risen from about 5 percent when Lindsey Graham was born to at least 15 percent today (Pew). If we were to look at “immigrants plus children of recent immigrants” the growth would be much more dramatic due to the U.S. having closed its borders in 1924. If we corrected Pew’s numbers with the 2X likely population of undocumented migrants that Yale found, the percentage of the U.S. population that was foreign-born would likely be around 20 percent (and maybe 30 percent for immigrants plus children of recent immigrants since immigrants have higher fertility than the native-born Americans whom they are definitely not “replacing”).

Not in any way related to this enrichment via immigration, the cost of an existing single-family house (i.e., not one in some exurb) relative to median income, is now 2-3X what it was in 1955, relative to median male worker’s earnings, depending on how one adjusts for square footage.

Graham was, like all members of Congress, responsible for setting federal spending levels. Federal debt was about 65 percent of GDP in 1955, not too long after massive borrowing to fund WWII. Today it is 125 percent of GDP. Federal spending has grown from 16.5 percent of GDP to about 23 percent (don’t forget state and local as well!). ChatGPT: “The decline in military spending since 1955 was more than fully absorbed by the growth of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans’ benefits, other transfers, and interest on the debt.”

Loosely related…

Full post, including comments

Could Graham Platner get $1 billion from MacKenzie Scott Bezos and friends in exchange for dropping out of the Maine Senate race?

by philg

100 percent of Maine’s progressive females have apparently had sex with 100 percent-disabled (according to our government experts) Graham Platner. At least one of these females now says that Platner raped her, but the rape wasn’t as bad as continued representation in the U.S. Senate by Susan Collins, nominally Republican (Politico):

“One of the reasons I didn’t come forward sooner was, the huge moral conflict that I had between supporting his politics, but not supporting him as a person,” she said. “I just want the truth out there. I just want people to have a whole scope of who he is as a person.”

After some discouraging poll results regarding the November general election, it seems that the only way to protect democracy is for the person who won 72% of the primary vote (NBC) to be replaced by someone selected by a handful of elite Democrats (how will they find any who haven’t had sex with Mr. Platner?).

Platner could make $millions simply by betting on himself to stay in the race and then… staying in the race. Here’s Polymarket, for example:

Rules for one of the above options:

This market will resolve to “Yes” if Graham Platner withdraws from or officially announces his withdrawal from the 2026 Maine Senate election, or announces the suspension of his 2026 Senate campaign, by July 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”.

What if Platner wants to be a billionaire rather than a multimillionaire? He could agree to withdraw from the race in exchange for $1 billion from progressive Democrat multi-billionaires, such as divorce plaintiff MacKenzie Scott Bezos.

(Maybe a deal with be done in secret and we won’t find out about until after the election when Platner hangs swastika flags from his new beach houses in Bar Harbor, Palm Beach, and other strongholds for Democrat elites?)

Update: Herr Platner actually did quit, but we have no idea if he is now sitting on $0, $10 million, $20 million, $250 million, or $1 billion from MacKenzie Scott Bezos. He leaves us with an exhortation to “Free Palestine”.

Just after “Free Palestine” is “Up the Hearts,” which ChatGPT says is a reference to a Portland-based soccer team that plays in a “third tier U.S. league”:

Besides the noble Palestinians, who is sorry to see Graham Platner, and all of his tattoos, go? The same people who couldn’t resist having sex with him: progressive females in Maine. “Why Some Women in Maine Are Mourning the End of Graham Platner’s Campaign” (NYT) depicts a 40-year-old who appears to be on track for the standard Maine “more tattoos than teeth” look:

Although she believes the woman, Jenny Racicot, who said Mr. Platner had raped her, she also believes, with just as much conviction, that politicians in Washington are corrupt. …. How else could it be that, after years of promises, she still could not afford medical checkups? With a deductible north of $10,000, she said she had to weigh whether a mammogram was worth the $450 price tag.

… As recently as late June, a slight majority of women — 52 percent — said they supported Mr. Platner, according to a New York Times/Portland Press Herald/Siena poll.

(Other than “corruption”, how could health care in the U.S. have become unaffordable? Econ 101 says that a great way to do it would be by legally importing at least 70 million patients, plus an unknown number of undocumented patients, into a country with a health care system designed for 200 million people.)

Regarding the $450 screening mammogram for a 40-year-old, that’s an American idea. The technocrats in the progressives’ dream society of the UK Caliphate say to start at 50-53. https://www.nhs.uk/tests-and-treatments/breast-screening-mammogram/who-breast-screening-is-for/ (50 seems to be the standard recommended age in most of Europe, including in France, Germany, Switzerland, the Islamic Republic of Ireland, the Islamic Once Again Republic of Spain, Norway, Sweden, etc.)

Full post, including comments

How’s Katie Wilson doing running Seattle?

by philg

New York City (the “Mamdani Caliphate”) is not the only American city with a Socialist mayor. Katie Wilson has been running Seattle ($9 billion/year budget) for six months now. How’s socialist governance working out? It will be ironic if she does a better job than her liberal Democrat predecessors! During our recent visit (links below), we learned that property crime, e.g., car break-ins, is rampant even in upper-middle-class neighborhoods, and that the places where drug addicts get into fights are just a few blocks from the tourist hotspots (which, of course, we were not allowed to stray from under a directive from Senior Management).

(Note that American-style socialism is the opposite of classic Lenin-Marx society, in which every able-bodied adult had to work. In what Americans call “socialism” nobody is required to work because money can be transferred from the working to the nonworking via taxation. Instead of seizing the NVIDIA’s means of production (over in Taiwan?), the NVIDIA receptionist is taxed to pay a family to relax in its 4th generation on welfare. The U.S. system is properly characterized as transferism, not socialism.)

She should have been given a lift by the Millionaires’ Tax, signed a few months ago, which funds all of these great things:

But apparently not, because it seems that the pre-“socialist” tax rate structure isn’t sufficient to fund the socialist dream. “New taxes on the table as Mayor Wilson looks to balance budget deficit” (Fox 13, 6/22/2026):

Seattle’s projected budget deficit has grown to approximately $488 million over the next three years due to inflation and lower-than-expected property and sales tax revenues. To balance the budget, Mayor Wilson is exploring both spending cuts and new revenue options—such as a local capital gains tax or an expansion of the “JumpStart” payroll tax—noting that “nothing is off the table” ahead of her September budget proposal. The budget deficit has grown about $100 million more than initial projections, now standing around $488 million over the next three years. She could ask for spending cuts, but Wilson indicated that cuts alone will not be her strategy. Taxes are also on the table, including a capital gains tax. Right now, there is a statewide capital gains tax, but not a local one.

(Consistent with American innumeracy, the professional journalists don’t tell us what the city’s total budget is and, therefore, the readers has no way of understanding whether a $488 million deficit is a lot or a little. The city proper has a population of about 800,000 and about 380,000 households. So the deficit could be closed if each household contributed $1,300. There are an estimated 21,000 undocumented migrants in Seattle. Yale says that, in fact, we cannot estimate this population accurately and the real number is likely around 2X whatever we’re told by the media. Anyway, those noble enrichers presumably aren’t going to pay (nor should they, since they built Seattle in the first place). ChatGPT estimates roughly 55,000 households on what used to be called “welfare” so they’re not going to pay. Maybe 200,000 households (“the chumps”) would bear the burden? Each one needs to cough up closer to $2,500 if we assume the tax base doesn’t further deteriorate.)

Katie Wilson herself seems to be working on creating larger concentrations of those who are completely dependent on taxpayers:

The mayor’s package of legislation will take Seattle several big steps closer to opening 1,000 new units of shelter and emergency housing this year by treating this emergency like an actual emergency. … Even the most successful shelters that do the best work and have the best relationships in their communities are currently limited to serve only 100 people. … The mayor’s proposal would increase this limit to 150 people per site on an interim basis, provide support to address any potential public safety impacts, and additionally allow one location in each district to serve up to 250 people in cases where it makes sense.

Among her official news items, I couldn’t find anything about initiatives to attract productive business. The closest thing that I found was a proposed one-year moratorium on data centers, which later passed.

Starbucks decided to spend more than $100 million to move a lot of corporate functions to Nashville, where 2,000 people will work (US News). Right now, about 3,000 people work at Starbucks HQ in Seattle, but perhaps the number will be roughly equal to the Nashville cohort eventually because some employees are moving. (The best-known former employee already moved out: Starbucks billionaire advocates for higher tax rates and moves to Florida)

Amazon has been moving east, away from any taxes Katie Porter might try to collect, such as the city payroll tax that started in 2021 (passed during coronapanic when it might have been illegal for anyone to come into the city and work!), and toward Microsoft’s traditional stomping ground. (March 2026 article: “Amazon is abandoning offices near its headquarters in downtown Seattle.”)

Related:

Full post, including comments

With birthright citizenship upheld, will Democrats now say that Supreme Court orders should be followed?

by philg

A lot of Democrat officials have said that the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings are illegitimate and should not be followed, e.g., the recent ruling that allows temporarily protected Haitians to be sent home after 16 years in the U.S. Example from a Democrat thought leader: “it’s not something we will ever accept”.

The representative for the High-IQ (TM) crowd in Maskachusetts said, a few weeks ago, that the Court is “corrupt” (Ayanna Pressley has been characterizing the Court with this epithet for some years, according to an X search):

We know a guy in Boston who married a Honduran lady. His wife’s pregnant relatives would come to visit a few months before any baby was due. They’d show up alone at a high-end Boston hospital, e.g., Beth Israel, give birth, tell the staff “I’m undocumented”, and go home with a U.S. citizen and without ever seeing a bill from the hospital (costs covered by taxpayers). Except for three haters, the Supreme Court today agreed (Trump v. Barbara; what did Barbara do that was so bad?) that this should continue. Does that mean the Democrats who previously complained that the Court was illegitimate will now say that it is legitimate?

(Maybe there are four haters on the Court, actually. Brett Kavanaugh, the convicted rapist/murderer of Prof. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Ph.D., said that Congress could limit birthright citizenship by statute, but that El Presidente couldn’t do it via executive order. I guess that means Amy Coney Barrett was the deciding vote in favor of virtue, love, kindness, etc. Finally, given that 100% of the females on the Court voted one way and 80% of the males voted another, maybe this suggests a question for Alan Turing’s original male-female Turing Test (“imitation game”). Ask the person of unknown sex (there were just two back then) “A migrant walks across the U.S. border and pushes out a baby. Do you give the baby four generations of taxpayer-funded welfare or take the position that it is the parents’ responsibility to take care of their children and descedants?”)

Full post, including comments

Why we can’t simply limit oil and gas exports to 2025 levels

by philg

For the past couple of months I’ve been wondering here why U.S. consumers are paying more for gasoline than in 2025 (albeit still less than in 2022) if the Trump administration could simply limit exports of oil and gas to 2025 levels with a simple “it’s a war” explanation. This question is answered, to some extent, in “The World Can’t Get Enough U.S. Energy, Keeping Prices High for Americans” (WSJ, yesterday):

The Trump administration is trying to tamp down rising prices, including by waiving restrictions on trade between U.S. ports and releasing oil from strategic stockpiles. Trump said last week he supports suspending the federal gasoline tax. Gasoline prices nationally averaged $4.51 a gallon on Sunday and could keep climbing into Memorial Day weekend, the starting gun to the busy summer driving season.

The administration has said it wouldn’t impose a ban on energy exports. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on CNBC last week that the U.S.’s economic future depends on selling its energy abroad and that this was a top item on the Trump agenda.

“We can’t be a major energy exporter to the world if we decide sometimes to stop exporting our energy,” he said.

In other words, the Trump administration is allowing Democrats, previously climate change alarmists who wanted fossil fuel prices to be higher, to harp on lower-than-2022-but-higher-than-2025 gasoline prices, possibly resulting in dramatic losses of Congressional seats in November 2026, in order to preserve the U.S.’s long-term market position.

What’s the scale?

The ports of New York, Philadelphia and Albany, N.Y., exported 174,000 barrels a day of gasoline, diesel and other petroleum products last month, according to Kpler. That is 10 times the volumes they shipped over the same period last year. Halfway through May, the pace of exports is even higher, well over 200,000 barrels a day—the highest monthly pace on Kpler’s records since 2017.

These barrels so far this month are predominantly heading to Europe, including France, Belgium, the Netherlands and the U.K., Kpler’s Smith said. Analysts say that is a sign that a shortage of refined products has spread from Asia to Europe.

The U.S. exported 2.7 million barrels of U.S. diesel, gasoline and other refined products to Australia in March, according to Kpler. Before the war broke out, exports there had been sporadic. An additional 1.8 million barrels headed to Australia in April.

I wonder if the Trump administration’s policy makes sense even for those who have a long-term perspective. If Democrats can take control of Congress maybe they will obstruct the U.S. fossil fuel industry in some other ways, e.g., with a long-dreamt-of carbon tax.

Separately, why isn’t there a lot more production in response to the higher price? The current price of oil is about 15% lower than it was in 2022 (chart below), but still much higher than it was in 2025:

Maybe it is because the market is predicting a sag down to $89/barrel by October 2026 and a further sag to $75/barrel by October 2027?

The lower chart is curious. Investors have changed their opinion of the likely cost of oil in October 2027, up from about $60 to $75. Are they expecting that we’ll still be at war? That inflation will go back to the raging 2022 levels?

Full post, including comments

How were race-based congressional districts supposed to work in our open-borders age?

by philg

The Supreme Court recently ruled against a race-based congressional district in Louisiana. It was developed under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) in order to give Black voters a chance to elect a candidate of their choice. 1965 was the same year that we opened our borders via Hart-Celler. I’m curious to know how the laws were ever supposed to work together. It seems that the VRA envisioned a majority-minority split between just two groups: white and Black. After Hart-Celler, though, a state could easily have the following:

  • a white minority (under 50%)
  • an Asian-American minority (we’re informed that all varieties of Asians, including Indians and Samoans, can be lumped together under AANHPI, Asian American and Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islander) that wants to elect a fellow Asian-American, such as the noble Ted Lieu (proof that not everyone from Taiwan believes in a government that spends only 18% of GDP, including state/local)
  • a Black minority that wants to elect someone like Kamala Harris
  • a Hispanic minority that wants to elect someone Hispanic
  • an Arab minority that wants to elect a fellow Muslim Arab (BBC: “This month, the Midwestern city of 28,000 has reached a milestone. Hamtramck has elected an all-Muslim City Council and a Muslim mayor, becoming the first in the US to have a Muslim-American government. Once faced with discrimination, Muslim residents have become integral to this multicultural city, and now make up more than half its population.”)

If the VRA isn’t specifically limited to one racial group, which it doesn’t seem to be, who decides which of the above minorities will get its own district and which will see its votes diluted and its dreams denied?

Loosely related, in the Department of Diversity is Our Strength:

Full post, including comments

Instead of free public transit, how about congestion rebate public transit?

by philg

Happy Earth Day to those who used to celebrate before they moved on to Queers for Palestine, etc.! And what better way to celebrate Earth Day than to get on a clean soot-spewing diesel-powered bus? “It’s where America’s poor and very poor can meet,” a friend pointed out.

Ayatollah Mamdani wants to bring free bus service to the Manhattan Caliphate, though it seems as if the dream is deferred (“Zohran Mamdani backs down on cornerstone campaign promise of free NYC buses” (NY Post)). A Republican in the NYC woodpile objects because “free busses will inevitably turn into rolling homeless shelters and drug dens, and become miserable and dangerous for the people who actually need to utilize them”:

(Wokipedia on the horrors of this Deplorable harpy: “Paladino has openly expressed Islamophobic and homophobic views. She has also opposed pro-Palestinian protests during the Gaza War, squatter houses, Drag Queen Story Hour, congestion pricing, and COVID-19 vaccine mandates.”)

As someone who loves Zohran and hates sitting in traffic jams, I’m a believer that public transit should be free and, actually, negatively priced during peak traffic congestion. On the other hand, maybe Vickie Paladino is right that “free” in a filthy city such as New York doesn’t attract the best people.

How about if people pay the usual fare when boarding, but via a smartphone app become eligible for a monthly rebate that is paid via Zelle. The unhoused New Yorkers and drug-dealing New Yorkers whom Paladino doesn’t want to encounter aren’t likely to have bank accounts and, therefore, aren’t likely to be able to get rebates via Zelle.

The rebate would vary by the ride and time of day and be linked to congestion on the roads. Someone who rode the bus during rush hour (that’s 8 am to 8 pm in NYC?) would get a rebate larger than whatever the fare is cranked up to. Someone who rode the bus at midnight wouldn’t get a rebate, which aligns pretty well with transit system costs because it is expensive per rider to maintain a schedule at night when ridership is low.

Full post, including comments

Explanation of why Eric Swalwell had to be destroyed

by philg

If you’ve been wondering why multiple embarrassing stories about Eric Swalwell have been released in a seemingly coordinated fashion and why Democrats call for the accused-and-presumed-guilty rapist to drop out of the California governor’s race, but not to resign from Congress … “Top Three Candidates in the California Governor’s Race” (Governing, April 9, 2026 (one day before the anti-Swalwell tsunami arrived)):

if the election were held today, two Republicans would likely advance to the runoffs, shutting Democrats out

With nearly half of its voters registered as Democrats and only a quarter registered as Republicans, California is one of the bluest states in the union. The state has gone for Democrats in every presidential election since 1992. But Democrats are facing the prospect of being shut out of the governor’s office next year, even without a single charismatic Republican winning over left-leaning voters.

Recent polls show a large pack of Democratic candidates trailing two Republican candidates in the gubernatorial primary scheduled for June. Under California’s voting system, the top two vote-getters in the primary will proceed to a general election in November, no matter what party they’re from. If the primary were held today, according to the most recent polling, that would mean two Republican candidates, each pulling in just 14 percent of the primary vote, battling it out for the governor’s office in the fall. A lot could change before primary day, but the Democratic Party is increasingly nervous.

A lot did change! Instead of being celebrated for living Cesar Chavez‘s teachings, Swalwell was suddenly hit from all sides, like the noble peaceful Lebanese members of Hezbollah merely trying to defend their paradise of Christian-Muslim cooperation and tolerance from “the Zionist entity” (the Lebanese declared war on the Jews to their south in 1948 and don’t recognize a state of “Israel”).

Before I saw this Governing article, I was confused. Swalwell spent 85 percent of his time in Congress having sex with earnest perky 20-year-old progressives and then just wasted the remaining 15 percent?

For whom was the way cleared? Katie Porter, who pushes her biography “as a single mom of three kids”. It’s a selling point that she was unable to create harmony in a household of five people, including the biological father of her children (she sued him in 2013), because this experience will help her create harmony for 40 million Californians, a random assemblage of humans who, thanks to our asylum-based immigration system, don’t have a language, a religion, or a culture in common.

She says “California is in the grips of a decades-long housing crisis” and “I’ll push the federal government to invest in California’s housing challenges”. Despite California being richer than the average state and despite Californians preaching on the evils of inequality, in other words, comparatively poor taxpayers in Maine, Michigan, and New Mexico should be tapped to subsidize Californians’ desires to live in newer and more spacious accommodation.

Related… on the same weekend that he was exposed as a rapist, Swalwell was highlighted in the media for employing an undocumented migrant (normally a sign a virtue for Democrats):

Loosely related, from a Deplorable open-source software nerd:

Full post, including comments

Will the Iran situation persuade a few more Americans of the virtues of the 2nd Amendment?

by philg

The standard expression “You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out” could be adjusted for recent events in Iran, where a popular uprising doesn’t seem practical: “You can vote your way into Islamic Theocracy, but you have to shoot your way out”.

It seems that very few Iranians could shoot their way out even if motivated to do so. The Islamic Republic has a near-monopoly on gun ownership that is enforced by a Chicago or New York Democrat’s dream common sense gun control system:

The Islamic Republic purportedly has only about 20 percent support (poll), but could probably have stayed in power forever if not for its nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, Hezbollah, Houthi, and Hamas programs.

Could the divergence between what the Iranian people supposedly want (to the extent that can be measured accurately) and what the Iranian government does lead some Americans to reconsider their goals of eliminating private gun ownership in the U.S.?

(Note that I personally believe that Americans’ right to own guns will disappear within the next few decades, a casualty of our immigration system and the consequent creation of a society that is a random assemblage of humans without any common values. When shooting jihads such as Ndiaga Diagne‘s become weekly events, Americans will gladly surrender their rights in exchange for a perceived safety advantage, just as Americans meekly surrendered their First Amendment right to assemble during coronapanic.)

Full post, including comments