Could the New York Times be making it harder for Biden to withdraw by pushing so hard?

Look at the headlines on the NYT website today:

 That top article is way, way less convincing than the headline would lead you to believe - you can read it all here.

I do want to point out, though, that my talk about the concern that his face and movement is reminding people of Parkinson's is more widespread than I realised:

Kevin C. O’Connor, the White House physician, said as recently as February that despite minor ailments like sleep apnea and peripheral neuropathy in his feet, the president was “fit for duty.” He said tests had turned up “no findings which would be consistent with” Parkinson’s disease. The White House has declined to make Dr. O’Connor available for questions and did not respond to detailed health questions from The New York Times earlier this year.

Responding to questions from The New York Times, Mr. Bates, the White House spokesman, said Tuesday that Dr. O’Connor had found no reason to re-evaluate Mr. Biden for Parkinson’s disease and that he showed no signs of Parkinson’s and had never taken Levodopa or other drugs for that condition.

I also hasten to repeat:  even if he had early signs of Parkinsons (without tremor) that would not mean that MAGA idiots have been right about him suffering dementia for years.   They are still offensive malevolent idiots for running that Goebbels propaganda.  

Anyway, my post's headline makes, I think, a point I haven't seen anyone else run - if you want to push a leader out who likes the job, you might achieve it better by not shouting at him, but by appearing less emotionally involved.

I'm pretty close to cancelling my NYT sub - I enjoy the writers at the WAPO more anyway.

 

Remarkable stupidity and malevolence

This line from MAGA idiots was pretty common yesterday:

 

It's actually jawdropping how the Christofascist MAGA crowd have self gas-lite themselves into believing it's the Democrat side that wants a violent fascist State, when their own leader is the one calling for the immediate rounding up of millions of people and televised show trials worthy of the Cultural Revolution:

Former President Donald J. Trump over the weekend escalated his vows to prosecute his political opponents, circulating posts on his social media website invoking “televised military tribunals” and calling for the jailing of President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Senators Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer and former Vice President Mike Pence, among other high-profile politicians.

Mr. Trump, using his account on Truth Social on Sunday, promoted two posts from other users of the site that called for the jailing of his perceived political enemies.

One post that he circulated on Sunday singled out Liz Cheney, the former Wyoming congresswoman who is a Republican critic of Mr. Trump’s, and called for her to be prosecuted by a type of military court reserved for enemy combatants and war criminals.

“Elizabeth Lynne Cheney is guilty of treason,” the post said. “Retruth if you want televised military tribunals.”

Anyway, back to the point of "assassinating his political opponents - don't be ridiculous".   Yet as Philip Bump explains in a good article in the Washington Post entitled The perfectly valid hypothetical Presidential murder scenario:

“When [the president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” she wrote. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.”

Sotomayor didn’t invent this particular scenario, mind you. During oral arguments in the case, she asked an attorney representing the former president if a chief executive “decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him,” whether that was an official act that deserved immunity. The attorney said that it “could well be an official act.” It was Justice Samuel Alito who, a bit later in the conversation, introduced the idea that the theoretical assassins would be members of Seal Team 6.

So, that it could be an "official act" of a President, and attract immunity, was a concession made by Trump's own lawyer - but let's ignore that, hey MAGA??

The Bump article spends time talking about some of Obama's decisions, and the care taken to think about the legality.  As Bump says, Obama would probably have a lot less to be concerned about under this new rule:

Barr’s argument is that a president can’t simply deploy a SEAL team to go kill someone. But, of course, a president can do that. Barack Obama sent a SEAL team to kill Osama bin Laden in 2011.

Before doing so, a team of government attorneys got together to assess the legality of the move and to establish legal arguments that could be presented after the fact, should the action be questioned. The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday would have obviated some of that, because there would have been fewer possible legal questions stemming from the decision. After the successful operation, though, few such questions arose. 

Anwar al-Awlaki, had worked with al-Qaeda meant that he was a viable target under the terms of the authorization of force passed after the Sept. 11 attack, according to a government memo prepared before the strike. The killing kicked off a furious debate about the boundaries of presidential power.

The method of each killing was beside the point. It was the determination that the person could be killed that mattered. If a president made a national security argument for the removal of an opponent, the method theoretically wouldn’t matter for immunity purposes any more than the means of getting a problematic attorney general out of the way would. Barr scoffs at the hypothetical since using a SEAL team “doesn’t make it a carrying out of his authority.” But the issue is that the killing could theoretically be brought into the scope of authority, rendering the method, again, beside the point.

 I also noted a clip of some expert on CNN talking about how in the 1970's, following the revelations of Nixon and Vietnam and internal wiretapping etc, there was a real push back against the "Imperial Presidency".   It turns out (well, I guess not a surprise) that it is conservative judges who think it's all fine and dandy to re-instate it.    

But because MAGA support a dumb fascist and are outraged his is being legitimately prosecuted for one attempted overthrow of an election, it's the Democrats who are the "real" fascists.

It's a sickness and inversion caused by the poisonous well of Right wing media and social media - it's an utter disgrace that the Murdoch family participates in it.

 

Some tweets on the current depressing state of the State

The nuttiest thing about the Supreme Court and presidential immunity?

I haven't had much time to read too much about the judgement yet, but I have a couple of initial gut reactions:

 a.   In one respect, it feels a bit like what was a de facto immunity is now a legal immunity.   I mean, haven't we all felt that some things done in the international arena by Presidents past would be criminal if done by anyone else?   Assassinate a foreign leader - or attempt to do so?  

b.   The difference is, though, while we have become used to the idea that there is a very broad scope of what can be "actions in the interest of national self defence", we have never thought the same about internal actions against perceived internal enemies.  It's the difference between, say, how Putin deals with critics and rivals, and how American Presidents respond.

c.    OK, so we put it down to a rubbery concept of "official actions" of a President:

d.  And here is the craziest part of the decision:  

So:

Future Deranged President:    "Attorney General, can't I just get the CIA or FBI, or that sheriff's group who love me, to take out a few of those key politicians who clearly don't have the interest of America at heart, like I do?    I mean, if you're not loyal to me, you're obviously a danger to this great country."   

Attorney General:   "No, Mr President, we're sure no court is going to read 'official act' that broadly".

Future Deranged President:   "What would you know, I'm getting on the phone to FBI Director Bannon".

Later in court:

        Judge:  "No, you can't introduce evidence of the advice the President got - seeking                                             advice is an 'official act'"

A semi-plausibe Biden theory that I doubt is true

As I mentioned in comments on my post on Saturday, even before last week's debate recent examples of Biden's facial expressions, and possibly his gait, have put me in mind of people I have met with Parkinson's Disease.   (Sadly, I also have an older sister who has it, diagnosed a few years ago now, although it is currently so well controlled that it would not be immediately noticeable to people who have just met her.)   

When I Googled it, I saw that some professor in England had turned up in the Daily Mail after the debate speculating about Parkinson's too.   And Googling today, there is brief mention of it in a piece in the New Yorker talking about the facial expressions.  [Update:  I just noticed a Washington Post article on anxiety and later Parkinson's - and a couple of people in comments question whether Biden's debate performance looked like early signs of the disease.]

So - while I am cautious about reading too much into mere facial expressions caught on video, especially on someone just tired or not feeling well - it's not just me.   

The list of other Parkinson's symptoms include some others which you could easily think are showing up in Biden:

    Muscle stiffness, where muscle remains contracted for a long time
    Slowness of movement
    Impaired balance and coordination, sometimes leading to falls

    Depression and other emotional changes
    Difficulty swallowing, chewing, and speaking
    Urinary problems or constipation
    Skin problems

There are quite a few reasons for doubting this is likely, though:

a.  most cases of Parkinsons will involve a tremor as an early sign.  But Googling today, I see that around 30% of sufferers may never get a tremor at all.   Of course, if Biden had a tremor, it would be impossible to hide from everyone, including the public.   

b. As I mentioned in comments, there seems to be no reason to question the bona fides of Biden's doctor's reports (unlike the very disreputable and extremely partisan Ronny Jackson chosen by Trump), and the recent reports on Biden make it clear that they have checked out his stiff gait, and put it down to arthritis in his spine.   Also, given that there are medications that can help, it would be very surprising for a doctor not to notice symptoms of Parkinson's and not recommend medications.

c.  Biden's continued bicycle riding can, I assume, be taken as a sign that he maintains good balance.  On the other hand, I see now that cycling is seen as a good exercise for someone with early Parkinson's.

d.  If it was clear to Biden, his family, and doctors that he had early Parkinsons, but it was being kept a secret, it would count as a pretty major scandal, and I very much doubt that his much vilified (by MAGA nuts) wife Jill could be so addicted to being adjacent to power that she would encourage the family to keep it secret.    As to why it would be a scandal - it wouldn't mean that he must have any significant cognitive impairment yet (and some people get by for years functioning well - see Michael J Fox); but it would still be a concern to hide in a candidate a condition that can bring on depression and other issues.   (Going back to my sister's example, it now seems that an early sign was the occasional feelings of dread that would come out of no where.   Not a good thing for someone with the nuclear codes to have.)

Anyway, given that Biden has been the subject of a thoroughly disreputable and dishonest propaganda campaign for years about his mental state, run with the power of deceptive editing of videos and promulgated by RW media figures with the ethics of Goebbels, I feel bad about pointing out anything that could be read as a concession that maybe there is a problem.   

For the reasons outlined above, I strongly doubt that this is a case of early Parkinson's, but would suggest that it would help him if his doctors could make a statement that they have checked him for it and ruled it out too. 

It's also useful to recall that the Right Wing has propagandised itself into ridiculous overblown health claims before for political reasons - they had Hillary Clinton on her deathbed for fainting once, yet she's still here, as vigorous as ever.

Some letters to the New York Times

To paraphrase the great Mark Twain, your report of President Biden’s cognitive demise is greatly exaggerated. Not to mention premature.

The president is probably one of the worst extemporaneous public speakers to hold his office. Age has made his lack of skill in this area worse, but that does not mean it has impaired his intellectual capacity.

To the extent that your rationale for urging him to step aside is that Donald Trump must be beaten, your call seems still more unwarranted. There is no alternative Democratic candidate whom polls show convincingly beating the presumptive Republican nominee.

If President Biden remains the candidate and loses, The Times can say I told you so. But others will say that the most viable Democratic alternative to Mr. Trump was materially hobbled by an ill-considered rush to judgment.

 And:

So let me get this straight. A presidential candidate who is a convicted felon gives a debate performance that is often incoherent, consists primarily of obvious lies, and includes a refusal to unconditionally commit to accepting the results of the presidential election, and your editorial is filled with histrionic calls to remove the other guy who’s run the country ably and ethically for almost four years because he had an off night on the stage?

You really should have consulted with your theater critics, who can school you in the many ways the run of the show ultimately matters more than the blips in previews. Your failure to focus your outrage on Donald Trump’s truly bizarre and bewildering statements in favor of such an overwrought and shortsighted response to Mr. Biden lets the real danger to our democracy off the hook.

 And:

Those who live in a retirement complex with dozens of retired scholars, administrators and researchers in their late 80s and 90s as I do are not panicked about President Biden’s “performance” on Thursday night. Stuttering and losing one’s train of thought are hardly signs of incompetence. They are signs of loss of verbal dexterity. Period.

Younger people who are brash and opinionated and bloviate find slow word-finding horrifying. However, there is nothing more horrifying to me than impulsively judging a statesman after one bad performance.

This is the most competent and experienced leader our country has had in decades. Look at this in perspective and stop fear-mongering.

Here's the link to the whole letters column, which is pretty short, really, given how many letters they must have got on this issue.

The micro world, and wind

There were two videos on Youtube that impressed me on the weekend.

The first has a clickbait-y title - it's not a debunking of wind power, but rather an explanation of how they work (something I never fully understood - and there are two different ways they get the slow moving blades to generate useful electricity), and a discussion of the grid stability issue.   But it is, basically, an optimist take that the problems can be solved:

 

The other video is the first I have seen by a guy who just likes science, and decided to teach himself video graphics well enough to make entertaining but educational content.  This one, on the scale of the micro world, contains a very surprising detail towards the end that makes it all worth watching: