He includes a term that I love: “stupidification.” You’ll hear it.
More From Trae
He includes a term that I love: “stupidification.” You’ll hear it.
He includes a term that I love: “stupidification.” You’ll hear it.

This cartoon was drawn for the Fredericksburg Advance.
Lately, it seems that Democrats cannot win, even when they win.
The Supreme Court has struck down the Voting Rights Act, ruling that race cannot be a factor in drawing congressional districts, which has now set off southern red states to redraw all their districts to guarantee that their entire congressional delegation will be lily white.
And Republicans, who hate fair elections anyway, have redrawn their congressional districts mid-decade in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, and now in Florida, without putting it to a vote by the people, and can gain as many as 14 seats. But in Virginia, where the people did vote on it, four conservative justices have ruled it unconstitutional and thrown out the entire election. (snip-MORE)

Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported about the possibility that Iran could be using “mine-carrying dolphins” to attack U.S. warships. Seriously.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who does not want to acknowledge any strength of the Iranian military, said at one of his He-Man press briefings last week after being asked about kamikaze dolphins, “I cannot confirm or deny whether we have kamikaze dolphins, but I can confirm they don’t.”
We cannot confirm or deny whether Hegseth was joking or if he was serious because Republicans do not have a sense of humor. An example to prove this would be Greg Gutfeld. (snip-MORE)

Donald Trump declassified 162 files and identified flying objects last week. And it landed with a thud.
The files, hosted on a defense department website, include dozens of testimonials from civilians, federal agents, diplomats, and astronauts who reported seeing UFOs. There are also new videos, but they are like the ones that we’ve seen over the past few decades, grainy, squiggly, and usually creating more questions than answers.
It’s almost like it doesn’t matter what they release, as skeptics will see it as proof that there’s nothing out there, while true believers will claim it’s proof that we are being visited, while also claiming that the government is still withholding information.
Personally, I do believe there is life out there, but I don’t believe we are being visited. I also believe that the government is withholding information. For example, they’re withholding information on the Epstein files. And regarding these UFO files, I think the government may be embarrassed by how little it knows. (snip-MORE)
sigh

also sigh
When we last discussed Alabama, we talked about the fact that it took the state about a nanosecond after Callais to run to the Supreme Court for permission to redraw its maps—to get the “benefit” of Callais—ahead of the midterm elections.
Today, the Supreme Court ruled. There had been speculation that they might delay until after the midterm primary, which is scheduled for Tuesday, May 19, one week from tomorrow. But the Court jumped right into the fray, despite its constant protests that it does not interfere in elections or make political decisions.

The Court has sent the case back to the panel that considered it previously for a decision “consistent with Callais.” Essentially, that’s a direction to permit Alabama to abandon the court-ordered map that created a second Black opportunity district and leave the state free to revert to the older map that the Court had previously ruled discriminated against Black voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act. That’s the map we looked at the other night, that sends long spines out of Alabama’s Black Belt into Birmingham, Montgomery, and north of Mobile to pack Black voters into a single district.
Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented. I haven’t seen the dissent yet, but it’s noted on the docket. I’d expect it to be pretty vigorous and to focus on the panel’s finding that the Alabama Legislature engaged in intentional discrimination against Black voters. The Court split along pure party lines. Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh, who three years ago ruled in favor of Black voters, abandoned that principled position.

Oh, and the kicker? Despite Alabama’s win, which meant the Court found that the maps the state legislature had drawn illegally discriminated against Black voters, the state went through an additional election cycle using those maps. Alabama had argued that any changes, sought in February ahead of a June primary, came too close to the election and violated the Purcell principle.
Purcell is the recently created Supreme Court doctrine that says federal courts can’t make changes to state election laws or procedures “too close” to an election, whatever too close means. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court just made the mother of all changes in Alabama one week before the primary.
The rationale for the principle is that it prevents voter confusion and avoids logistical chaos for election officials. Since the Court dropped its decision, I’ve spoken with candidates, election officials, and voters in Alabama. To say Alabama is in disarray is not an overstatement.
It’s not even clear whether the primary will be held on schedule next week at this point. Jerome Dees, at the Southern Poverty Law Center, told me that, “HB1 didn’t give a clear cutoff date for when it would be ‘too close’ to the election, which means whether Alabama will hold a primary on schedule next week is up in the air.” There has been some suggestion that Governor Kay Ivey and Secretary of State Wes Allen are canvassing local election officials to see if they can make the turnaround happen within a week, but new districts throw everything from candidate qualifying to physical ballots into question. Alabama could invalidate votes cast next week and hold a special election later this year in the affected districts.
Earlier today, the Court scheduled for conference later this week three cases involving whether individual voters can sue to enforce the Voting Rights Act. One was Milligan.

The other cases involve Native voters in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe and a case out of Mississippi brought by the NAACP.
The Brennan Center explained the significance last year: “For decades, Congress, the courts, the DOJ, and private litigants have agreed that Section 2 of the VRA can be enforced by individual voters and groups. Historically, a majority of Section 2 cases have been brought by private parties, and DOJ attorneys have explained that the department relies on private lawsuits because it does not have the resources to bring all of these types of cases even if it wanted to.”
If the Court rules that private parties cannot sue to enforce the Voting Rights Act, that leaves only the Justice Department—in other words, this Justice Department—which is not inclined to protect historically disenfranchised voters by filing lawsuits. That would truly eviscerate the last shreds of the Voting Rights Act, while DOJ continues to pursue fantastical theories of voter fraud instead of protecting voting rights. It can still get worse.
It is a sad, difficult day for democracy, with the Court as a willing participant.
(snip-subscription stuff)
We’re in this together,
Joyce


Anytime Donald Trump is accused of being a pedophile, his base runs to the rescue as if they were personally slapped in the face. Currently, there are over 80 comments on this cartoon on my Facebook page, with the bulk of them being MAGAts demanding “verifiable” evidence that Trump is a pedophile. Of course, the same people who are demanding “verifiable” evidence are posting memes with fake quotes about Joe Biden and his daughter.
But how is this for verifiable evidence? Donald Trump went on the Howard Stern show in 2005 and bragged about walking into dressing rooms for teenage contestants in his beauty pageants. He bragged about it as if he had just won Michigan.
Here’s a small portion of that conversation: (snip-MORE; go read it!)
The Times of London reports:
A week before the US went to war with Iran, Pete Hegseth, the war secretary, invited the head of his church to lead prayers at the Pentagon. From his pulpit in Idaho, Doug Wilson, a 72-year-old ultraconservative pastor, preaches that homosexuality is a sin, women who dress immodestly are “sluts”, and Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is the “silliest thing in the world”.
Despite Hegseth’s evangelising, Wilson says the Trump administration is far from morally pure. He says the president is “not someone I would call a godly Christian man”, and disagrees with Trump’s appointment of a gay man, Scott Bessent, as his Treasury secretary because homosexuality is not just a sin, it is “a bad one”.
Of all his gripes, however, Wilson is most indignant about the 1960s sexual revolution, a moral catastrophe that he condemns frequently in his blog posts, sermons and books. He thinks women should dress modestly. But what is modest dress? “Not what they’re doing now,” he says. “I could pick on yoga pants.” He continues: “Men know what they think of hookers, which is not very much. When you’re just giving it away to every slob on the bus who wants to look, you’re degrading the currency.”
Does that mean Wilson and his followers sympathise with the dress codes enforced by Shia clerics in Iran? “No, because wrapping them up in a bedsheet is another way of degrading them. It is possible to be modest and attractive — attractive without attracting. Bundling them up the way really conservative Muslims do is a different kind of degradation. Like you’re not a person. But for a woman to dress like a slut is a different kind of degradation. Both kinds of degradation play off of each other.”
Read the full article. It’s quite the deep dive.
Wilson appeared here last month when he called for criminalizing homosexuality and outlawing all LGBTQ events.
In March, Wilson declared that under his Christian nationalist theocracy, all non-Protestant public events – such a Catholic parades that venerate the Virgin Mary – would be banned.
Also in March, a separate pastor at Hegseth’s church prayed for God to kill Senate candidate James Talarico.



When Spirit Airlines shut down on Saturday, it left thousands of customers and employees stranded. Customers finding themselves without a flight couldn’t even complain at the ticket counter, as there were no employees there. So basically, the quality of Spirit’s customer service didn’t change because of the bankruptcy.
Spirit, a budget airline whose business model forced other airlines to change the way they did business, had a reputation as the worst airline. If you ever purchased a flight on Spirit and told a friend, their reply was probably, “I’m so sorry.”
I did fly on Spirit once from Washington to Atlanta, which, fortunately, is a very short flight. But yeah, it was cheap. The seats don’t recline, and they feel very cheap, as though they might break underneath you.
Spirit had been in financial trouble since at least the pandemic, and there are several reasons why it went out of business so suddenly. Many blame a court that would not allow them to merge with JetBlue, but Spirit itself cites the “megaspike” in fuel prices caused by Donald Trump’s chosen war with Iran. There was also an attempt by the government to bail Spirit out, but since Donald Trump is not the best negotiator in the world, those talks collapsed. Maybe Trump should have brought in his negotiating dream team of Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. (snip-MORE)

For months, anytime Donald Trump’s planned ballroom, which he destroyed the East Wing, was criticized, a MAGAt would come along and point out that it was only being paid for by donors and Donald Trump himself. Now that we know that is no longer true, where are those guys?
Of course, it’s not new that what Trump was telling us was a lie. We always knew it was a lie. Remember the lie that Mexico was going to pay for the border wall? Trump began his 2016 campaign on that lie, along with telling us that Mexico was sending us rapists and murderers.
When a promise by Donald Trump falls apart, and it is undisputed that it is a lie, we’re supposed to forget about it. We’re supposed to forget that Donald Trump promised that he would be “too busy” to play golf if he won the presidency. We are supposed to forget that he would eventually release his taxes. We are supposed to forget that he was going to give us a brand new healthcare plan in two weeks, way back in 2016. We are supposed to forget that Donald Trump was going to lower the price of gasoline. We are supposed to forget that promise about no new wars. We are supposed to forget that Donald Trump was going to make housing more affordable. We are supposed to forget that Donald Trump was going to drain the swamp. We are supposed to forget that Donald Trump was going to lower the price of groceries. We are supposed to forget that he was going to release the Epstein files. We are supposed to forget that he was going to end the Russia/Ukraine war in his first 24 hours back in office. And we are supposed to forget that Mexico was going to pay for his racist border wall. (snip-MORE)
I have appointments throughout today, so I’ve set up a few things to read. This one is interesting in that it ties several things together to show us how not only our government but our companies are selling us into thinking we might actually get some fair treatment. It piqued my interest because of the strike last week; it seems “brands” are trying to work against being seen as part of those needing to understand what we the people don’t like how things are and that we expect change. Resist-
Red Lobster wants your attention. You can tell, because their current ads deploy not one but two separate announcers. There’s the expository guy. He’s a little pushy but at least he sticks to the facts. And then there’s the loud guy. He’s got a deep voice. He sounds like he’s broadcasting live from the submerged city of Atlantis. He says it with feeling, and also reverb.
“Because you’ve been asking… a lot… and we made it happen.”
So claims the not-from-Atlantis announcer. But what’s he talking about? We have been asking for many things. To be able to afford homes, for example, or not to have war crimes committed in our names, or to have our planet still exist twenty years from now.
Oh, this is about shrimp. Endless shrimp. It’s back, or so I’m told, in multiple forms. Every time the less pushy guy shares one of the currently available shrimp offerings, his partner pipes up with a complementary point straight from the bottom of the sea.
“Walt’s favorite shrimp.”
“ ENDLESS!”
“Garlic shrimp scampi”
“ENDLESS”
“Shrimp linguini alfredo”
“ENDLESS?”
“And all new marry me shrimp”
“ALL ENDLESS!”
The duo isn’t wrong. Endless shrimp is back. While the previous iteration didn’t technically bankrupt the chain (the real culprit was private equity and real estate chicanery) it was, by all accounts, an absolute mess. American consumers, who rightfully identified that they were getting ripped off in every facet of their lives, leapt at the opportunity to get one over at least one big business.
Back when Endless Shrimp was a permanent feature, shrimp hoarders would occupy tables for hours at a time, not leaving until they beat the house. The real victim of this behavior was, of course, the chain’s underpaid servers (if you walk into a restaurant with “me against these suckers” mindset, you’re less likely to view your waiter as a fellow victim of capitalism and you’re definitely not going to tip well). For the C-Suite, though, the larger concern wasn’t the dignity of their employees. It was a jumbo-sized hole in their bottom line.
It’s like The Boss once sang. Endless shrimp dies baby, that’s a fact. But maybe the endless shrimp that dies, some days comes back. Put your make-up on, do your hair up pretty, and meet me tonight at the only Red Lobster still open in your city.
I’m not all that interested in the relative success or failure of chain restaurant promotions, but I do care about the various ways corporations try to win our affection (meaningful cultural signifiers, or so I’d argue). And contra the two announcer voices, the most interesting thing about Red Lobster’s promotion isn’t the shellfish, either of the Walt’s Favorite or Marry Me varieties. It’s what’s whispered rather than shouted.
You see, the biggest difference between the current iteration of Endless Shrimp and its unprofitable predecessor is that now Red Lobster wants you to know that you (the shrimp-loving consumer) and they (the company) are in this together.
If you want the full story, I highly recommend this piece by Luke Winkie in Slate, but here’s the truncated version. There are varieties of shrimp on the Red Lobster menu that aren’t officially part of the promotion. They’re on the menu, but excluded from the benevolent blanket of endlessness. But if a customer were to ask for unlimited quantities of a non-official item (for example, Crispy Dragon Shrimp, a food item that I’m assured contains no actual dragon), the server is to welcome them into a cool secret. Their official, handbook-mandated line? “These items aren’t on the menu for this promotion, but I would be happy to make an exception for you.”
It’s like they say, “the exception is the rule.” Except literally, and by mandate. Servers are required by corporate policy to act like you and they are cheating the system, in hopes that when you remember the night you rode the dragon (shrimp), you remember it not as a conspiracy-of-one, but a sneaky secret between you and your best friend (Red Lobster restaurants, a subsidiary of the Thai Union Seafood Company).
This is not a new psychological trick. It’s a classic low stakes confidence game. The most effective way to a mark is to convince them that they are, in fact, in on the con themselves. It’s the same move that car salesmen use when they leave the room to “talk to their manager” before returning with a report that “he didn’t want me to give you this deal, but…”
It’s still striking, though, to see the strategy laid out in grandiose internal strategy documents. A beleaguered but iconic American brand name, flailing for its survival, hedges its survival on two bets. First, that you are tired, angry and aware that you’re on the wrong side of a rigged game (correct). And second, that, by offering you a facsimile of camaraderie and a very real pile of seafood, that they can win your loyalty (huh).
“[This is] about more than just shrimp,” the document proclaims. An absolute work of art, that sentence.
“[It’s] about creating an experience that says, ‘We listen to you.”
“When guests see Endless Shrimp back on the menu, they feel heard and valued.”
I have never addressed a sit-down chain’s internal strategy document, but I’m sure I speak for all of us when I say, tears in my eyes: Red Lobster, thank you. THIS is what democracy looks like.
As Eli Zeger argued in his 2020 essay about companies that talk like snarky teens on social media, this particular iteration of the “brand as friend” canard is the product of the marriage of late stage capitalism (and its reliance on the selling of “ideas” rather than goods and services) and the post-Citizen United codification of corporate personhood. Red Lobster isn’t a restaruant anymore. It’s your rule-breaking, shrimp loving, newly empathetic pal. It sees you. In fact, it is the only one who see you. It gets that you’re broke, but more so that you’re alone. It’s no longer offering you cheap shrimp (the price tag for the promotion has risen markedly since its last iteration). It’s promising you something more important– belonging, connection, a port in the storm of alienation and precarity we’re all weathering.
Red Lobster’s friendship?
“Endless”
Or that’s the idea at least. Apparently, the promotion hasn’t been as lucrative as the company had hoped, at least so far. It’s not 2016 anymore. We’re seeking something more these days. Bread and roses? Perhaps, but definitely not just shrimp.
But Red Lobster isn’t alone, in surveying a landscape of mass alienation (economic, relational, spiritual) and seeing a business opportunity. Advertising agencies are publishing unironic blogs chillingly titled “the loneliness crisis: how brands can step up?” Silicon Valley’s greatest minds heard that you wanted community and responded with sycophantic AI chatbots. Apparently, our tech overlords’ understanding of human relationships is a robot who agrees with you all the time, including when you muse about harming yourself. Even the outright scammers get it. Gone are the days of far flung princes offering you a financial windfall. As you may have experienced personally, the hot new con is… pretending to be an acquaintance and inviting you to a party.
This is a step beyond the classic commodification funnel, as documented in nineties leftist classics like No Logo and The Conquest of Cool. The brands are no longer promising a great deal, or even hipness. What’s on offer now is the dream of a welcoming community, one deep enough to solve for the isolation that the companies themselves helped create.
That’s very depressing, of course, both the reminder that our economy has always been built on the exploitation of vulnerability, and the reality that there’s just so much more vulnerability to be exploited at this particular moment.
But there’s another truth, not a counterpoint, but a complement. How fortunate, for those of us who actually want to connect with other human beings, rather than just make a quick buck off of them. We already have what every corporation in the world wishes they had– the fact that, when we offer a space by our side, to either a stranger or a friend, we actually mean it. We’re not trying to trick you into springing for a Main Deck Margarita Flight to go along with your shrimp. We’re not trying to mine your data or add you to a marketing funnel or load you up with debt and junk. We just think this world would be more navigable together rather than apart.
And as an organizing opportunity? From union drives to neighbor-to-neighbor activism to the precious few political campaigns that care more about building community than personal brand building? My goodness. Why do you keep hearing about neighborism these days, and not just from true believers like me? Because more people are admitting every day how hungry they are for connection, and then taking the risk of making an offering.
The terrible news right now is that the hucksters are going to keep selling us a flim flam simulacra of belonging. Yes, the consultants, but also (I fear) the politicians. I strongly suspect the 2028 Democratic primary to feature a million text messages about “neighbors” and “community” penned by a well-heeled K-Street consultants. But the good news is that we aren’t that dumb. We know the brands aren’t our friends. We’ve lived through the great social media con together. We know what the lie looks like, and now we’d much prefer the deeply imperfect, thoroughly messy alternative.
They’ll offer us endless shrimp. And we’ll say no thank you. We’d prefer each other, please. Even if that’s not on the secret menu. (snip-end notes, the Boss, and general other stuff on the page)
People and companies really need to quit calling regular real people and starting out asking “Is this [your name, or another name, even]?” before identifying who is making the call. I’ve always hated that, and I even remember a time when a person working to be certified as an office manager (a pre-cursor to the paralegal cert) would lose valuable points on the exam if they called someone and began the call before stating their name and organization.
I do hope no one here does that so sorry-not sorry, but I’m fairly certain that most of us receive these calls. I also feel that more people agree with me than don’t, so I’m taking the risk of ranting about it here. It is at the very least inappropriate to call someone and start out with, “Hello, is this [you]?” If you’re not up to no good, ID yourself first, then ask for who you’re calling.
Thank you. That is all.