The post JD Vance Pressed on Jan. 6 Compensation for Convicted Rioters During White House Briefing appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

Many Muslim Americans are fearful following a shooting at the Islamic Center of San Diego that left three worshipers dead. Investigators reportedly found hate speech and anti-Islamic writing inside the vehicle of the suspected shooters, who killed themselves soon after the attack.

The director of the Islamic Center, Taha Hassane, condemned the attack while also encouraging individuals to respond with tolerance and love. “All of us are responsible for spreading the culture of tolerance, the culture of love,” he said, while lamenting the conditions that had led to such violence.

The attack comes just one week before the celebration of Eid al-Adha, an annual festival celebrating the Prophet Abraham’s – Ibrahim in Arabic – willingness to sacrifice his son in obedience to God, and the conclusion of the annual Hajj – the pilgrimage to Mecca, one of the five pillars of Islam.

It also comes on the heels of ongoing tensions in the Middle East and increasing political rhetoric in the United States. Republicans in Congress held hearings during the week of May 13, 2026 titled “Sharia-Free America.” This reflects a long-standing anti-Muslim trope that portrays Muslims as invaders who want to impose sharia – Islamic religious law – on all Americans. Many Muslim Americans are concerned because the rise of anti-Muslim bigotry among politicians has been mostly met with silence.

Muslim Americans have been warning that the increased rhetoric targeting Islam and Muslims endangers their community. As a scholar who studies Islamophobia and its impact on Muslim Americans, I have observed how the war with Iran intensified anti-Muslim sentiment online. A study by the Center for the Study of Organized Hate found that in the first six days of the conflict, the average number of Islamophobic posts on X jumped from an average of 2,000 posts daily to 6,000.

Research consistently shows that negative portrayals of Muslims shape public attitudes toward them and can lead to increased discrimination, psychological harm and hate crimes like the shooting in San Diego.

Increase in Islamophobia

Islamophobia in the United States tends to surge during global conflicts, political campaigns and terrorist attacks. Human Rights First, an organization that works to promote human rights in the U.S. and abroad, documented surges in Islamophobia in 2015 following the Syrian refugee crisis, when a large number of people were displaced. That same year the 2015 attacks in Paris and shooting in San Bernardino, California, intensified public anxiety about terrorism. A surge in crimes against Muslims followed.

Islamophobic rhetoric in the U.S., in which Muslims were often framed as a security threat, intensified during Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and continued into his first presidency. Burton Speakman, a scholar of digital media, and I found an increasing acceptance of such rhetoric among the political right in social media posts from 2016-19.

Social media posts and comments showed an increasing use of dehumanizing language toward Muslims. In a study I conducted in 2020, a majority of 830 Muslim Americans reported encountering the most Islamophobic content on Facebook, followed by Twitter and Instagram. This shift was also reflected in the language and coverage of Islam in right-wing media, which often portrayed Muslims as invaders wanting to impose sharia and as a drain on social welfare.

Mainstream media can also amplify negative depictions of Muslims by often discussing Islam within the context of terrorism and portraying Muslims more negatively than other racial, ethnic or religious minority groups.

Hate crimes tend to increase alongside Islamophobic rhetoric. During 2016, a period with high rates of Islamophobic rhetoric, there were 307 reported incidents – the highest recorded number since immediately following 9/11. The numbers dropped in 2017 but were followed by an increase in 2024 with the start of the Israel-Hamas war. That year, 288 anti-Muslim hate crimes were reported.

A 2025 poll found that 63% of American Muslims reported experiencing religious discrimination, with many reporting at least one such incident every year since 2016.

Mental health of Muslim Americans

The cumulative effects of Islamophobia have an impact an American Muslims’ mental health and access to care.

Numerous studies since 9/11 link the high rates of discrimination experienced by the Muslim American
community to higher rates of depression. Experiences of discrimination also lead some Muslim Americans to believe they are not viewed as being American.

Thirty-one percent of participants in my 2020 study described the impact of social media on their mental health. Many said they avoided displaying their Muslim identity in social media posts, supporting a Muslim political candidate on social media, or even sharing religious content or videos. Some just withdrew – 27% deactivated or deleted their social media accounts.

In addition, many Muslims reported feeling discouraged from seeking both physical and psychological treatment from non-Muslim providers. This leads Muslim Americans to significantly underutilize available services compared to other ethnic and religious minority groups.

A 2015 study found that nearly one-third of Muslim Americans reported experiencing discrimination in health care settings, which has an impact on their trust in providers. The majority reported rude treatment by providers, insensitivity regarding modesty requirements, or having their pain disregarded. One participant in that study said: “Going into a surgery, health care providers didn’t recognize the importance of me keeping my hijab on and wanting most of my body covered.”

In my 2023 study, a number of participants described personal experiences with mental health professionals who seemed not to see them as individuals beyond their religious affiliation. One participant described a provider as being “quick to attribute problems” to religion or culture. “I worry about them stereotyping and end up feeling as if I’m on the defense,” this participant said.

My most recent study, conducted in 2024, which is currently under review, asked 325 Muslim Americans who had used any psychological services about their health-seeking behavior: 56% said they were worried about provider bias; 57% were worried about being misunderstood.

Following Trump’s travel ban targeting several Muslim countries in 2017, a study conducted by researchers at the Yale School of Public Health found that many Muslim Americans skipped their primary care appointments. At the same time, their visits to the emergency room went up.

Addressing the challenges

In response, a number of initiatives have emerged at the local and national levels.

One approach involves increasing mental health literacy within Muslim communities and creating networks of mental health professionals working with Muslim clients.

For example, mental health professionals and community leaders are working to increase mental health literacy both digitally and through in-person education. Muslim community members learn about symptoms of mental health disorders through training, such as Mental Health First Aid. Online directories of Muslim mental health providers have also been created.

Another approach involves training mental health professionals. A team at Stanford University has created a six-part training module that provides therapists with knowledge of religious norms and an opportunity to reflect on their own possible biases.

Finally, Muslim researchers and providers have begun to develop therapies and resources that integrate Muslim beliefs and spiritual approaches with treatment. These include psychotherapy that is inspired by the Quran, the teachings of the prophet and spiritual practices such as self-reflection, prayer and mindfulness.

A vulnerable community

The war with Iran has fueled an increase in anti-Muslim rhetoric that has increasingly spilled into political discourse. In February 2026, for example, U.S. Rep. Randy Fine of Florida posted on X that “the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.” In another post he wrote, “We need more Islamophobia, not less.” Similarly, U.S. Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas called for stopping the entry of “Muslims immigrating to America.”

The shooting at the Islamic Center of San Diego has deepened fear of harassment and violence among an already vulnerable community.

Muslim Americans can often feel powerless in the face of such hostility. Greater public awareness, stronger advocacy and efforts to address the mental health impacts of anti-Muslim hatred are critical for a community that already feels vulnerable.

This is an updated version of an article first published on April 17, 2026.

Anisah Bagasra, Associate Professor of Psychology, Kennesaw State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post San Diego mosque shooting reflects how online rhetoric, media depictions and political discourse contribute to increased Islamophobia appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

Stephen Colbert’s final episode as host of “The Late Show” on May 21, 2026, won’t mark the end of his career.

But as a scholar of political satire, I think it offers a chance to reflect on the lasting impact of his comedy, which has spanned his work as a correspondent on “The Daily Show,” his conservative pundit persona on “The Colbert Report” and his reinvention on “The Late Show.”

The best satirists do more than entertain. They influence public discourse and leave lasting marks on political life. This group includes towering writers such as Benjamin Franklin and Mark Twain, alongside performers like Lenny Bruce and George Carlin.

In my view, Stephen Colbert has earned a spot in the top tier. Here are five reasons why.

1. He didn’t just satirize the news – he informed the public

Most satirists offer wry commentary about political events.

Colbert often did something more ambitious: He helped audiences understand them.

Critics have long dismissed political comedy as superficial entertainment, but Colbert’s satire frequently offered valuable information to the public.

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision transformed campaign finance law, tilting political influence toward wealthy people and corporations. As host of the “Colbert Report,” the comedian responded by creating an ongoing series of “Colbert Super PAC” segments. Working with former Federal Election Commission Chair Trevor Potter, Colbert was able to translate the opaque mechanics of campaign finance law into accessible civic education.

It’s hard to fully track the impact of this approach. But a 2007 Pew Research Center study did find that audiences for satirical news programs such as “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” scored high on political knowledge measures, outperforming audiences who only consumed political news from traditional outlets.

That urge to use satire as a vehicle for civic education continued after Colbert became host of “The Late Show” in 2015.

With debates raging over the border wall proposed by the first Trump administration, Colbert brought experts on to the program to break down the engineering, financial and logistical realities of building one that spanned the entirety of the U.S.-Mexico border. Yes, the absurdity of the physics and finances elicited laughs. But Colbert also helped viewers understand why Trump’s promises were implausible.

2. He gave Americans a new political vocabulary

When the world is absurd, the satirist uses ironic wit to make sense of it.

Colbert excelled at distilling the spin and duplicity of politics into memorable soundbites.

On the first episode of “The Colbert Report” in 2005, he introduced the word “truthiness” to describe the tendency to prefer what “feels true” over what the evidence supports. It incisively gave a name to a deceptive political tactic, one that the Bush administration had repeatedly used, from “Mission Accomplished,” to “weapons of mass destruction” and “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

“Truthiness” took on a life of its own. Merriam-Webster named it Word of the Year in 2006.

Colbert continued this rhetorical work on “The Late Show.” For example, in February 2017, after Donald Trump escalated his attacks on the press by labeling major news outlets “the enemy of the American people,” the comedian shifted from parody to diagnosis. He foregrounded the phrase’s authoritarian history, insisting that the rhetoric signaled a meaningful escalation in attacks on First Amendment rights, rather than a passing controversy.

In other words: There was nothing to laugh about here.

3. He blurred the line between satire and direct action

Media scholars have increasingly noted how political comedians now function as hybrid figures who blur journalism, entertainment and civic engagement. According to communications scholar Joseph Faina, Colbert may be one of the clearest examples of that shift.

Colbert’s satirical presidential campaign in South Carolina in 2007 mocked the theater of American electoral politics. He actually attempted to enter the race through official channels, only to be blocked by the South Carolina Democratic Party. But even in his failure to appear on the ballot, he was able to show how party control and media spectacle, not just voter choice, structure the field of viable candidates.

In 2010, he held a rally with Jon Stewart on the National Mall before a crowd of over 200,000 people. Assuming his conservative pundit persona, Colbert blended irony and sincerity, mocking the self-seriousness, sensationalism and outrage-driven news cycles of cable news through his competing calls for “sanity” and “fear.” But the event was also designed to motivate voter turnout in the midterm elections.

That interventionist impulse continued on “The Late Show.” During the 2020 election cycle, for example, Colbert encouraged voting through segments like “Better Know a Ballot.” A riff on his previous “Better Know a District” from “The Colbert Report,” the “Better Know a Ballot” series was designed to educate viewers about ballot access, voting procedures and the practical elements of democratic participation.

4. He measurably influenced political behavior

Claims about comedians changing politics can easily become exaggerated. But Colbert’s influence has empirical support.

Research by political communication scholars Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan Morris found that exposure to political satire can increase viewers’ sense of what’s known as “political efficacy” – the belief that they can understand and engage with politics. Other studies suggest satirical news audiences are often more politically active than they’re assumed to be.

Colbert is repeatedly cited in these studies as one of the prime examples of a satirist who makes an impact.

Take, for instance, the so-called “Colbert bump,” where candidates who appear on his programs experience boosts in fundraising, visibility and media coverage. Political scientist James H. Fowler found that Democratic candidates who appeared on “The Colbert Report” experienced a 44% increase in campaign donations within 30 days of their appearance.

A similar effect could be seen on “The Late Show.”

After Colbert interviewed Texas state Rep. James Talarico, a U.S. Senate candidate, in February 2026, CBS canceled the segment, claiming – perhaps disingenuously – that the network could be punished for not adhering to the FCC’s “equal time” rule, which requires broadcast stations to offer comparable airtime to opposing candidates.

A taped version of the interview was nonetheless posted to YouTube, where it racked up over 9 million views, helping fuel Talarico’s US$27 million first-quarter fundraising haul, the largest amount ever raised by a U.S. Senate candidate in the first quarter of an election year.

5. He redefined American patriotism

To rank Colbert among America’s most important satirists requires one additional consideration: his role in redefining not only what America stands for, but what it means to be patriotic.

Many satirists lean toward cynicism, portraying politics as hopelessly corrupt and public life as fundamentally absurd. Not Colbert.

As linguist Geoffrey Nunberg argued in his 2006 book, “Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show,” conservatives had claimed a monopoly on patriotism as the 20th century drew to a close. At the same time, many of them promoted what’s known as “blind patriotism,” in which any criticism of the U.S. is cast as evidence of insufficient national loyalty.

Colbert’s satire directly challenged that framework.

To expose that performative patriotism, Colbert’s persona on “The Colbert Report” wrapped itself in exaggerated patriotic imagery: flags, bombast, overconfidence and chest-thumping nationalism.

But the joke was never America itself. The target was a performance of patriotism that treated dissent as disloyalty, emotional certainty as evidence and partisan identity as civic virtue.

As I argue in my 2011 book, “Colbert’s America,” Colbert’s satire consistently distinguished between nationalism and democratic patriotism. The former demands unquestioning loyalty. The latter demands accountability. For example, through segments like “Threat-Down” on “The Colbert Report,” he satirized the way nationalism often depends on exaggerating fictive dangers and denouncing symbolic, external enemies.

In that sense, Colbert belongs in a distinctly American satirical tradition that stretches back to Benjamin Franklin. The great American satirists have used humor not to reject the national project, but to expose the gap between its ideals and its realities. They reshape how citizens understand power and civic responsibility.

For nearly three decades, Stephen Colbert has done exactly that.

Sophia A. McClennen, Professor of International Affairs and Comparative Literature, Penn State

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post 5 reasons Stephen Colbert is one of the most important satirists in American history appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

Is Donald Trump the most corrupt President in U.S. history? There is some debate about that but one thing is certain: he is among the most corrupt chief executives the United States has ever had. The Daily Beast columnist David Rothkopf calls it Trump’s golden age of corruption. More accurately, it has been Trump’s golden age of grift and corruption and at this point it seems like there is little stopping him from continuing.
Rothkopf writes:

When it comes to corruption, Donald Trump is Michelangelo and da Vinci plus Bach and Mozart combined. He is a genius. He is creative in ways that make past generations of American grifters, robber barons, and mafia bosses seem like pikers.

Day in and day out, he has been robbing our country blind, in plain sight, and in ways no one else would dare to attempt.

Indeed, it is fair to suggest that if you took every other corrupt figure who stole from our public coffers from the first days of the republic until now and multiplied their larceny times that of every Gambino family capo di tutti capi, they still would not match the billions Trump has absconded with.

Monday’s news that somehow Trump and his family had reached a “deal” with the U.S. Department of Justice that follows his commands like a dutiful beagle to take $1.776 billion in tax dollars out of the U.S. Treasury and give it to his supporters and friends and co-conspirators and indeed, perhaps—because we do not have any information to the contrary—to his family and himself, is only his most recent achievement in criming, though certainly one of the most stunning.

With this bold stroke, Trump may well use taxpayer dollars—your money and mine, precious dollars from government accounts too depleted to allow us to pay for the care of our most needy citizens—to pay off members of the mob of thugs that attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

That’s right, Trump may well have found a way, with the help of Todd Blanche and other DOJ officials—who all ought to swiftly be disbarred—to arrange what almost certainly is the first taxpayer-funded domestic coup attempt in the history of the United States. (In the interest of fairness, we need to acknowledge that we have conducted many taxpayer-underwritten foreign coup attempts throughout our history.)

And:

The move is eye-wateringly audacious. Had Trump walked into Fort Knox with a shopping cart and walked out with it filled with gold bullion, the theft would not be more obvious or outrageous.

Yet Trump—and here is what is certainly part of his genius—has orchestrated a chorus of acceptance, support, and enabling from many of America’s most powerful leaders.

The hijacking of the DOJ to serve his personal interests would not have been possible without the six right-wing activist members of the Supreme Court, three of whom he appointed personally. The GOP “leadership” in Congress has remained supine, while the Republican Party nationwide has stood up and sought to be counted as his accomplices in this extraordinary heist.

The latest breaking news: the top Treasury Department lawyer has resigned after creation of the “anti-weaponization fund.”

The top lawyer at the Treasury Department stepped down on Monday in the wake of the creation of a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” that could soon make payments to President Trump’s political allies, according to three people familiar with the move.

Brian Morrissey, the Treasury’s general counsel, resigned from the position seven months after he was confirmed to it by the Senate and just hours after the Trump administration announced the fund on Monday.

Mr. Morrissey did not respond to requests for comment. A Treasury spokesman said, “Mr. Morrissey has served the United States Treasury with both honor and integrity. We wish him all the best in his next endeavors.” In his resignation letter, Mr. Morrissey said he was grateful to have worked for Mr. Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, according to two people familiar with the letter.

The Justice Department created the fund to disburse payments to people who claim that the Biden administration improperly targeted them — a population that includes supporters of Mr. Trump and former members of his staff. Among them are people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The Treasury Department is responsible for depositing $1.776 billion into an account that will be controlled by a group of people selected by the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, according to the terms of the fund released on Monday. That money will come from the Judgment Fund, an uncapped pot of funding that is available for the federal government to pay settlement claims without needing congressional approval.

Trump’s presidency is not the only one that has been seen as corrupt. Richard Nixon had Watergate. Warden Harding had Teapot Dome. Ulysses S. Grant’s administration was widely described as corrupt, although Grant himself was considered honest. The definition of corruption varies in different eras.

But there’s no question that when historians write about Trump and his administration and his administration will be high on the corruption list.

Imagine living in a country where Epstein’s victims get ignored while January 6 rioters line up for payouts.

A functioning society compensates victims. A broken one rewards insurrectionists.

Thats how f**ked up this administration is.

— Brad (@BraddrofliT) May 19, 2026

How authoritarian corruption works https://t.co/uCtcvVQBQN

— Ruth Ben-Ghiat (@ruthbenghiat) May 19, 2026

Former FBI Director James Comey says he wants to know if he could apply to the Justice Department's $1.7 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund."

"If it's for people who have been targeted for reasons other than the normal standards of the Department of Justice, I'm ready to get in… pic.twitter.com/CyotOQyXq9

— PBS News (@NewsHour) May 18, 2026

The families of the Capitol Police officers who were beaten or killed as a result of the riot did not receive a cent but the people who assaulted them are about to be millionaires.

— Covie (@covie_93) May 19, 2026

Federal Judge Kathleen Williams ordered Trump to explain how a sitting President can sue a government he runs. Trump panicked and settled the lawsuit for $1.7B before she could rule. Now, Democrats are demanding she step in. The full story: https://t.co/3qwJKayRGW pic.twitter.com/rbkkO3CgC3

— Scott Dworkin (@funder) May 18, 2026

Just today his boss robbed taxpayers for a $1.7 billion slush fund so he can pay off his political allies and friends. https://t.co/5GTXxiq4wC

— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) May 18, 2026

trump gets $400 million to upgrade his plane, $1 billion for a ballroom, $155 million for golf trips so far, $13 million to upgrade the reflecting pool and made $4 billion so far.

His supporters get $1.7 billion for being criminals.

You get high gas, grocery and electricity…

— Covie (@covie_93) May 18, 2026

Outrageous!

Donald Trump is openly paying off his criminal friends and supporters with YOUR MONEY!

What the hell is happening in our country?! https://t.co/LhAB0L2y2y

— Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) May 18, 2026

Today Trump "negotiated" with his private criminal defense lawyer—a man he made AG for this corrupt purpose—the theft of $1.8B in taxpayer money so that it could be given to far-right terrorists in open rebellion against America.

It's the most corrupt act by a POTUS in history.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) May 18, 2026

Every taxpayer needs to read this DoJ produced document that signs off on this unprecedented “settlement.” Just stunning how the political appointees at DoJ conspired with Trump to create this $1.7B slush fund which literally can be used to pay anyone Trump desires.…

— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) May 18, 2026

The corruption in broad daylight is astounding. He’s not only going to pardon J6ers, he’s going to pay them with our money, too. And use American independence as the branding! https://t.co/ejWrPfn3MD

— Jessica Tarlov (@JessicaTarlov) May 18, 2026

President Trump's $1.776 billion settlement with the IRS is one of the single most corrupt acts in American history.

They moved fast to avoid the scrutiny of the judicial process, and very likely violated the Constitution. This is an outrage.

— Citizens for Ethics (@CREWcrew) May 18, 2026

$1.7 billion is about to be paid out of the pockets of US taxpayers to J6 criminals who beat cops and Trump’s other dirty henchmen. Trump set up a slush fund to reward these scumbags with your money and Republicans in Congress won’t say a word about this disgusting corruption.

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) May 18, 2026

This is a THEFT far worse than Watergate. There is no other word for it. They are stealing $1.78 BILLION dollars to pay Trump‘s allies, despite knowing that these people are not legally entitled to any money and be laughed out of court if they filed a lawsuit for money damages. https://t.co/9tKgsdxKMn

— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@ReichlinMelnick) May 18, 2026

There is no way the republicans would be anything less that outraged if Obama had taken almost $2 billion of taxpayer dollars and given it to people he pardoned for trying to steal an election. Every republican in congress who doesn’t speak up and prevent this is complicit pic.twitter.com/rv4Hj7QwUp

— Adam Kinzinger (Slava Ukraini) ???? (@AdamKinzinger) May 18, 2026

BREAKING: It's against the law for Trump to sue himself–& then settle for a huge sum

The court has the power to put a stop to these shenanigans & should do so@mattplatkin & @DDAction_ are proud to rep over 90 members of Congress in filing a brief fighting back

— Norm Eisen (@NormEisen) May 18, 2026

It’s pretty obvious that Trump pardoned the Jan 6 insurrectionists, and now wants to pay to them off for one reason: so they’ll do it again if and when he asks.

— Amy Siskind ?????? (@Amy_Siskind) May 17, 2026

The post DONALD TRUMP’S GOLDEN AGE OF GRIFT AND CORRUPTION appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

Kars 4 Kids, the New Jersey non-profit that seeks to get people to donate their cars and get a tax deduction, has been banned from running its earthworm jingle-laced ads in California. An Orange County judge has found the ads misleading.

As someone who was plagued with being unable to get the repetitive jingle out of my mind for years, this has been of special interest to me. On the ruling:

Kars4Kids, the charity known for its repetitive jingle that sticks like glue in a listener’s brain, must stop broadcasting its ads in California, a judge ruled.

Judge Gassia Apkarian of the Superior Court of California, in Orange County, found that Kars4Kids’s ads violated the state’s laws against false advertising and unfair competition.

For years, the charity has broadcast TV and radio ads featuring children singing a jingle with the organization’s phone number and urging listeners to “donate your car today.”

But evidence presented at a civil trial showed that “children, especially needy or underprivileged children,” were not the exclusive recipients of the proceeds of the donated cars, Judge Apkarian wrote in her decision on May 8.

Instead, Kars4Kids primarily funds a New Jersey-based Jewish organization, Oorah, which provides programs, including an adult matchmaking service, trips to Israel for teens and summer camps in New York, the judge wrote. The only program in California that Kars4Kids sponsored was a promotional giveaway of Kars4Kids-branded backpacks, she found.

Judge Apkarian said that Kars4Kids had 30 days to stop broadcasting its ads in California.

If Kars4Kids resumes advertising, she wrote, its ads must contain “an express, audible disclosure of its religious affiliation and the geographic location of its primary beneficiaries and the age of the beneficiaries, specifying whether they aim for children or families, or both.”

Kars4Kids, a nonprofit based in Lakewood, N.J., said it planned to seek a stay of the ruling and would seek to have it reversed on appeal.

“We believe this decision is deeply flawed, ignores the facts and misapplies the law,” the organization said in a statement. “It’s well known that we are a Jewish organization and our website makes it abundantly clear.”

Kars4Kids added that it helps “thousands of kids with youth development, mentoring and educational programs, including hundreds in the state of California, contrary to the judge’s complete mischaracterization of our work and of the testimony at trial.”

If you’ve been living on Mars and didn’t hear the jingle, Dental Floss published an article about it.:

It can happen suddenly and without warning. Driving in your vehicle, a commercial break comes on. In addition to the standard pleas to use a specific laundry detergent or contemplate debt consolidation, the voice of a preadolescent, out-of-tune child materializes. Your grip on the steering wheel gets tighter. The child begins to warble:

1-877-Kars-4-Kids, K-A-R-S Kars for Kids, 1-EIGHT-SEVEN-SEVEN-Kars-4-Kids, Donate Your Car Today …
An adult breaks in to repeat the lyrics. The two begin to sing in unison:

In roughly a minute, it’s over. You go on with your day. But the song’s repetitive melody sticks to your brain like sap. You hear it when preparing dinner. While brushing your teeth. As you put your head on the pillow. When it’s finally worked its way out of your brain and you’ve started to forget, it reappears.

The song is engineered to be obnoxious. And its producers wouldn’t have it any other way.

Since 1999, an untold number of Americans have found themselves reduced to mewling heaps of distress following exposure to the Kars4Kids jingle. The 501(c) nonprofit organization based in Lakewood, New Jersey, spends up to $17 million annually making sure this earwig of a commercial is played across the country. While the purpose is not expressly to annoy you, the fact that the song is irritating is what makes it memorable. And successful. And more than a little controversial.

Kars4Kids began in 1995 as a way to capitalize on the trend of automotive owners donating their unwanted cars in exchange for a tax deduction. Owners who donate their vehicles are able to get an IRS write-off—though typically for only a percentage of the current value—if they declare it a charitable donation. Kars4Kids arranges for the vehicle to be towed away and sold at auction, with proceeds going to afterschool and summer programs for students.

According to the organization, business was slow until one of their volunteers had an idea to craft a commercial song. The melody was purchased from a singer and songwriter named Country Yossi, and Kars4Kids enlisted a child to perform it at an in-house recording session. It debuted in the New York market in 1999, and spread like the plague to the West Coast by 2005 and nationally by 2007.

Aside from Yossi, however, the company has repeatedly declined to identify anyone else involved with creating the song. The reason? Death threats. The tune has apparently enraged people to the point of contemplating murder. Speaking to SanFranciscoGate.com in 2016, music cognition expert Elizabeth Hellmuth Margulis said that the combination of repetitive structure and the overly simplistic message was engineered to grate the listener’s nerves.

It certainly grated on my nerves. I listen to a lot of radio while traveling and couldn’t brain-delete the tune for years. I’d hum it all day and catch myself. I’d go on long walks and runs fruitlessly hoping to expunge it. So in 2020 I decided to do a video in my non-writing incarnation as a ventriloquist about how no matter what I did I couldn’t exorcise the demon melody.

Here it is. I almost deleted this from my social media due to this story, some technical flaws etc. But here it is. I do all voices. Watch it till the very end.

The post JUDGE ORDERS KARS 4 KIDS EARWORM JINGLE ADS BANNED FROM CALIFORNIA AIRWAVES (ORIGINAL VIDEO) appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

by Jane Knox

My interest in self-improvement has deep roots that go all the way back to the early 1970’s. I attended the new seminars being offered in New York City by Werner Erhard, the founder of EST, (which stands for Erhard Seminars Training). This morning I happened to remember a core idea I still practice that I acquired in my EST training days. Sometimes EST ideas are so much a part of me they’ve become automatic.

I still find great benefit from the principles I learned in EST. For instance, the idea of choosing life the way it is. This idea recognizes that we experience things that we don’t like. For instance, I recently injured my toe and bruised my foot. This is a fact I cannot change. My EST training reminds me, I can choose it, even if I don’t like it.

What does this mean? Well, it can be a freeing feeling at times to choose something that has negatively shown up. If I think of my injured foot as something I choose, this takes the onus off the negativity. And the most interesting thing happened when I did this. My foot stopped hurting! It looks terrible, but the pain disappeared.

Another unchosen thing for me was yesterday’s gloomy rain and cold. Miserable weather. But, I wondered, what if I choose this weather? After all, the rain is welcome because I want to see April flowers. I choose April flowers in bloom.

My beloved brother’s death a year ago offers another opportunity for choice. I was very fond of him and we had such a good relationship. I was feeling down. And then I remembered the power of choosing life the way it is. Suddenly, I was flooded with all the nice memories I have of him. I felt a sense of joy about his wonderful qualities and his willingness to use his talents to help me whenever I was in need. For instance, I can admire the unique door of the mailbox he made for me as I use it every day.

Of all the workshops I’ve done over time, I have incorporated some of the EST beliefs on a deep level. EST workshops have not been around for many years. Eventually, the workshops became The Forum, and now they have evolved into Landmark which is still functioning.

If you can’t change a negative situation––
choose it the way it is.

The initial EST workshop I attended was held in New York City. It lasted over a couple of weekends. I traveled from my home in Connecticut and attended the event by myself. I got a hotel room to stay over. Additionally, there were several seminars held during the evening and I soon met some other people and we traveled in to the city as a group.

EST wasn’t always fun, but it was challenging. I was there in the early days when EST followed a strict format creating an intentionally intense group experience. We had to agree to the rule requiring us to stay in the room until we were told we could take a break. Sometimes I found that difficult. This was all part of the design of the learning experience. If you arrived late, they wouldn’t let you in, no matter how good your excuse was. I was never late—I wasn’t about to be late. Over the years there have been critics of EST’s model. Looking back, I’m pleased to have gone through the program the way it was. If I had the opportunity to go back and do EST again, I wouldn’t change a thing.

My experience with EST opened my mind to more exploration of my personal empowerment journey.

Republished from The Ageless Goddess blog.

The post When Change Isn’t an Option, Choice Is appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

Last week, The Guardian unleashed a tsunami of consternation with its analysis of a scientific perspective from Nature Sustainability about predicted climate change impacts on the city of New Orleans. The headline summed the assessment as New Orleans being past the “point of no return,” and stated that its “relocation must start now.” In other words, if climate change magically ended today, the authors’ assessment is that city would still become an island in the Gulf of Mexico.

The authors called for policy makers to begin thinking about and planning for a “managed retreat” north of Lake Pontchartrain. They detailed the costs of new containment infrastructure and explained how those investments would ultimately fail. Money would be better spent preparing a relocation plan, they argue.

Co-author Jesse Keenan of Tulane University spoke with NPR. He said, “New Orleans has a matter of generations to prepare for a transition north to the mainland and away from the coast.” And in a Tulane University news release, he frames the work thusly: “Transition planning is not only key to maintaining continuity, but it offers significant economic opportunities, from land-building strategies to renewable energy and new housing development.”

The Guardian’s framing, however, was not nuanced. “Now” rather than “within a few generations” is a sledgehammer. Climate change skeptics and New Orleans residentspredictably cried “foul!” You probably would, too, if that headline had named your home.

Nor did The Guardian allude to other cities in the country that are at risk of flooding or drought from ongoing climate change: Denver, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, Phoenix and Tampa-St. Petersburg … a non-exhaustive list.

I understand why the perspective in Nature Sustainability focused on this one city. After all, “Louisiana contains the most exposed coastal zone in the world.” But why did The Guardian reporter make the assessment so emphatically? Oliver Milman, who lives in New York City, is a British journalist and the environment correspondent at The Guardian.

Milman, who describes himself as ‘awkwardly British,’ may have brought to this story something most American environmental journalists lack: a baseline expectation, formed by growing up in a country with a century-long flood management plan, of what governments are supposed to do when the water is rising. London, you see, has the Thames Estuary 2100, a comprehensive strategy to deal with flood risk. It has defined decision points (2035, 2040, 2070) designed to keep the plan relevant.

There is no such comprehensive plan for any US city or for the United States as a whole. New Orleans upgrades levees after a disaster like Hurricane Katrina; Phoenix hopes water conservation will win the day; and Miami raises individual streets to protect against sunny-day high tides. Miami is further hamstrung by climate change denier Gov. Ron DeSantis, who banned the term “climate change” from state energy policy legislation in 2024.

London’s plan exists within a very different political culture, however, one where governing means planning for what is coming, not debating whether it is real. In the United States, we are still having the second argument.

Critics claim, for example, that Louisiana’s problem isn’t climate change but extraction: groundwater for potable water and, of course, oil and natural gas. Why shouldn’t oil companies have to pay their share to keep New Orleans safe from flooding, that argument goes. Certainly reparations may be part of a solution, but extraction effects (what economists call externalities) do not negate the overwhelming flooding problem.

In the United States, coastal cities and Colorado River states are at risk, for example, but they aren’t the only ones. Coastal cities of all sizes are at the mercy of sea level rise.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming each draws water from the Colorado River to provide sustenance for 40 million people and 5 million acres of farmland. The seven states can’t agree on how to divvy up the ever-shrinking river.

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that this was “the worst year for snowpack in Colorado and Utah on record.” As a result, reservoirs are at record lows. For example, the snow pack “runoff reaching Lake Powell, the nation’s second largest reservoir, is expected to be just 13% of average, the lowest on record.” The Lake is at about 24% of capacity, barely enough for hydropower.

Because the seven states are at an impasse, the federal government is stepping in. Reactive, in other words. Reuters reported today that the feds are proposing “a new water-sharing ?plan for the drought-stricken Colorado River that could cut up to 40% of current ?supplies to Arizona, California and Nevada.” Note that the current 1922 Colorado River Compact ?gives “California the highest priority for water use.”

The United States is a very big country. Yet drought and flood conditions are usually treated as local or regional stories, not national ones. This fragmentation leads to locally focused discussions about managed retreat, which are fraught with emotion. But the national tax base is often deemed the source for improvements.

Without a national plan, the loudest Congressional delegation gets the prize. The most vulnerable communities get the flood or the drought.

We desperately need a national plan to address these issues. Proactive planning is always less expensive than disaster cleanup, both in absolute dollar terms and lives.

News organizations need to contextualize stories like the New Orleans feature (and avoid click bait headlines). People in Phoenix need to understand how their water problems are the flip side of those in Miami, for example. One plagued by drought, one by floods. The role of the Fourth Estate is to connect dots and frame these stories as the national crisis that it is.

The Guardian will have done us a favor if this story about New Orleans stimulates an honest conversation about the challenges facing our cities this century. The conversations will not be easy; grief at loss, even future loss, is real.

First published at Substack.

The post America’s climate change crisis and the case for a national plan appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

There seemingly isn’t a day when Defense secretary Pete Hegseth isn’t pitchforked into the headlines.

Hegseth used to be a weekend co-host on Fox News. Previous presidents assembled cabinets from governors, generals, and business leaders. Donald Trump seems to have assembled his by scanning the Fox News green room.

Trump put three Fox News personalities into his cabinet. He appointed a large number of former Fox News personalities and contributors to senior posts. News analysis identified 18 to 23 former Fox News employees or contributors in administration roles, making Fox News his government’s unofficial talent pool.

John F. Kennedy picked the best and the brightest. Donald Trump picked the most loyal and loudest.

Hegseth seems to come from central casting. He carries himself like Ted Baxter, the vain, arrogant, narcissistic, and dim-witted TV anchorman on “The Mary Tyler Moore Show.” When he talks, he has the same high-energy, nasal quality of Burt Ward playing Robin on the 1960’s Batman show.

He’s one of the most polarizing chiefs in modern times — a former weekend TV personality who brought cable news’ culture-war style into one of the world’s most consequential institutions. His principal qualification was being an on-the-air Trump supporter. Critics say he brought the Fox formula directly into the government: attack the media, demonize foes, and proclaim every disagreement as part of a civilizational battle.

His tenure at the Pentagon has been marked by a steady stream of chest thumping claims that often wilt under scrutiny.

He has portrayed the Iran war as a decisive triumph, declared “regime change” where none occurred, and brushed aside concerns about ballooning costs and diminishing weapons stockpiles. Fact checkers, military experts and bipartisan members of Congress accused him of painting a fantasy version of events — one designed more for Fox News viewers than citizens who expect candor from their Defense secretary.

When reporters raise these issues, the thin-skinned Hegseth follows Trump’s lead and yells at or denounces them. The way Trump and Hegseth verbally abuse reporters, they should start a lunch meat company: Boors Head.

Hegseth’s Pentagon introduced unusually restrictive rules for reporters and was mocked after reports that photographers were limited because “unflattering” images of Hegseth were published. He irked many by making controversial remarks about women in the military, saying military standards shouldn’t be weakened and expressing skepticism about women in combat.

He has an ongoing feud with Democratic Senator Mark Kelly, a former Navy combat pilot and NASA astronaut. His credentials make Hegseth’s attacks on his patriotism especially striking. Hegseth accuses Kelly of improperly disclosing classified information Hegseth himself had provided in public testimony. Kelly responded to Hegseth that he was merely repeating information Hegseth himself had publicly provided.

Meanwhile, controversy swirls around Hegseth mixing religion and policy. He sponsored regular Christian prayer services inside the Pentagon and invited pastors associated with Christian nationalist ideas. Critics say he is suggesting American wars are part of a divine mission. A poll found that nearly seven in ten Americans disapproved of Hegseth’s prayer invoking “overwhelming violence.”

Pope Leo XIV certainly wasn’t pleased. In his Palm Sunday homily at St. Peter’s Square, the Pope drew from the Book of Isaiah and said: “This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war.” He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them, saying: “Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood.”’

Once upon a time, Defense secretaries were chosen because they had commanded armies, managed vast institutions, or spent years grappling with geopolitical realities. Pet Hegseth got the job after proving he could command a television studio.

The result is a Pentagon run by a man who seems to think every policy dispute is a cable-news segment, every critic is an enemy, and every war may be one prayer meeting away from becoming a crusade.

Copyright 2026 Joe Gandelman, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

The post Pete Hegseth: The Fox News Defense secretary appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

In recent months, some prominent conservatives and erstwhile allies of President Donald Trump – former U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and journalist Megyn Kelly, for example – have voiced their displeasure with him on several issues. They range from Trump’s handling of the Iran war and the economy to the release of information concerning his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Most notably, political commentator Tucker Carlson, once one of Trump’s most stalwart loyalists, expressed remorse for his previous support for the president, declaring in April 2026, “It’s not enough to say, well, I changed my mind – or like, oh, this is bad, I’m out.” Carlson said he will be “tormented” by his support for Trump “for a long time” and that he is “sorry for misleading people.”

Growing unease with the Trump administration among these former allies comes amid some of the worst polling of Trump’s career. According to data compiled by pollster G. Elliott Morris, Trump’s popularity has been steadily declining over the past year. Americans are seriously questioning his handling of key issues, such as inflation, immigration, jobs and foreign affairs.

But beyond former prominent Trump allies, are there other Trump supporters having second thoughts about their votes in the 2024 presidential election? To answer this question, we conducted a nationally representative poll of 1,000 U.S. adults who were recruited from an online panel maintained by YouGov, a survey research firm.

We asked self-identified Trump voters about their votes in the 2024 election. Our results suggest that a growing number of them – especially moderates, African Americans and young people – are experiencing voter’s remorse.

Support for Trump remains strong

To be clear, our survey shows that most Trump voters remain in the president’s camp.

We found that 84% of 2024 Trump voters say they would vote for Trump if given the chance to vote again in the 2024 election. That’s down 2 percentage points since we previously asked this question in July 2025.

Over 90% of members of Trump’s core base of voters – including 93% of self-identified Republican Trump voters, 95% of self-identified conservative Trump voters and 92% of Trump voters over age 55 – said they would vote for Trump as they did in 2024 if given a second chance.

Regretful Trump voters

But some groups of Trump voters are having second thoughts. The most regretful are those with whom Trump made significant gains in 2024. They include political independents, African Americans, younger people and those with more education.

Roughly 3 in 10 2024 Trump voters who identify as political moderates and African Americans said they would vote differently if the election were held again. And roughly a quarter of young and middle-aged Trump voters also suggested they would not vote for Trump if they could redo their 2024 vote.

Twenty percent of Trump supporters with postgraduate degrees expressed a reluctance to vote for Trump if given a second opportunity. Voters with some college experience and those making less than $40,000 annually reported the same sentiment in similar percentages.

Perhaps most politically perilous, 31% of independents who voted for Trump in 2024 would not vote for him again in an election do-over.

Cracks in the coalition

What is pushing Trump voters away from the president?

There is no single cause, but our results suggest that negative perceptions of Trump’s performance on high-profile issues are playing a big role. A substantial portion of Trump voters who give the president a negative grade on the economy (22%), the Epstein files (37%) and the Iran war (49%) say they would not vote for him in an election redo.

Our results suggest that cracks are forming in the Trump coalition and that they are concentrated among the groups that before 2024 were less likely to vote for the president.

Trump may take solace in the continued loyalty of his strongest supporters. But in a close election every vote counts, and lingering dissatisfaction could undermine Republicans’ ability to mobilize key swing voters.

As Republicans face the electorate in upcoming midterms, Trump and the GOP will have to work to reclaim the support of regretful voters. Failure to do so could cost Republicans Congress in 2026 and, ultimately, the presidency in 2028.

Tatishe Nteta, Provost Professor of Political Science, UMass Amherst; Adam Eichen, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science, UMass Amherst, and Jesse Rhodes, Associate Professor of Political Science, UMass Amherst

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Why a growing number of Trump supporters are experiencing voter’s remorse appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

Even in death, Michael Jackson stokes controversy.

Like millions of other people, I decided to see the recent film, “Michael.” Despite abrasively brutal reviews, the film has broken the record for the biggest opening in biopic history and garnered more than $400 million since its release. The film recounts Jackson’s life, from the inaugural pioneering days of the Jackson Five, terrorized by belt-wielding dad Joe, to his emergence as a stunningly original, globally adored solo act, culminating in the colossal Wembley Stadium concert in 1988.

I was a huge Michael Jackson fan. From the time I was a teenager, I rabidly purchased all of his albums. Even today as a late middle-aged man, I consider him on of the greatest entertainers to ever live. On the very evening of his passing on June 25, 2009, I received a call from one of my siblings asking me how I was feeling. She knew how much I admired the King of Pop.

Unfortunately, rather than focusing on Jackson’s positive accomplishments, such as donating millions of dollars to various charities and altruistic efforts, there are those — mostly detractors — who seem more content to ruminate on what they perceived as the negative aspects of Jackson’s life. “He was a self-hating Black man. “He was probably a pedophile.” “He was a drug addict.” “His marriages were a sham.”

The list goes on and on.

For all of his supposed reluctance to embrace his racial heritage, Jackson did not hesitate to confront the issue of race. Such cultural impositions were evident in such songs as “Black or White” and “Heal the World.” There are numerous examples of him shattering racial barriers, stealthily and brazenly promoting Black culture, and forcing his doubters to concede he suffered from vitiligo, a rare disorder that caused his skin to develop white patches.

The same can be said for many of Jackson’s non-Black critics, who often turn a blind eye to the pathological behavior of celebrities of their own ethnic group while denouncing Jackson as some freak of nature. While Jackson did settle out of court a lawsuit alleging child molestation, he did not admit to guilt. In his 2005 trial, he was acquitted of all charges by an all-white jury. Macaulay Culkin testified Jackson never abused him and later reaffirmed that publicly. Emmanuel Lewis defended Jackson repeatedly. Corey Feldman stated Jackson never acted inappropriately toward him personally, while also supporting alleged victims being heard.

Additionally, all throughout his illustrious career, there was no hard evidence Michael Jackson was a habitual user of drugs. It was because of his image as a drug-free celebrity (which was almost an oxymoron in Hollywood during the 1980s and mid-1990s) that he was invited to the White House in 1984 by then-president Ronald Reagan to receive an award and to serve as a spokesperson for former first lady Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” to drugs campaign.

Unlike many of his fans, many media critics and other personal detractors resented a pageantry of artistic accomplishments. They hungered and longed for scandal. They craved sordid allegations, tabloid drama, gut-wrenching courtroom tension, and fierce spectacle. But supporters from across the globe went to the theatre to embrace the music, the artist, the genius, the renaissance performer, and the ongoing legacy, coupled with the reminder that Michael Jackson remains one of the most distinctive celebrities in modern history.

Could Michael Jackson have handled some of his public relations better than he did? Certainly. Like a number of people, Michael Jackson was eccentric. However, being nonconformist is not a crime, nor does it mean he was all the retrograde things his opponents made him out to be.

The reality is a notable degree of criticism directed toward Jackson was due to racial hostility and resentment. Love him or hate him, there is no doubt he was one of the most talented entertainers the world has ever seen. As the Rev Al Sharpton commented at Jackson’s memorial service in 2009, “Thank you, Michael.”

I concur. May he continue to rest in peace.

Copyright 2026 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

The post In defense of Michael Jackson appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

Normally I’d rather boil my eyeballs than read a compendium of quotes from MAGA voters. The New York Times, in particular, likes to torture those of us who dwell in factual reality. Every few months there’s another “focus group” of a dozen or so randos, and whenever I try to parse what they’ve opined I am instantly struck with the sensation that I’ve been seat-buckled for a trip to Mars.

So with great trepidation I peeked at the paper’s latest offering, and…whoa, hang on…what do we have here:

Jose, 62, from Florida says, “I thought…he was going to turn the country around and he was going to be a stellar president. But it’s turned out to be a horror movie. I was so wrong with the vote for him.”

Franceska, 26, from Washington state: “I don’t think I’ve really seen much progress toward even moving toward what he said he was going to do.”

Michelle, 45, from Maryland says, “I feel foolish…all of the things that (anti-Trump family members) pointed out would happen have ended up happening And I looked dumb as hell believing in fairy tales.”

Pamela, 65, from Tennessee: “I’m embarrassed for our whole country that this is what we’re dealing with now.”

I really want to be nice to these people. And I will, later in this piece. It’s noteworthy that eight of the 11 participants voiced “regret” about voting for Trump, and 10 graded performance with a D or F. But first I need to vent. I know you’ll understand.

When Nancy, 55, from Arizona said she’d hoped that Trump, in his “second go-around,” would “have better advisers,” my first response was: Did you not notice how he treated sane advisers during his first go-around? In what universe did you think he’d have “better advisers” this time?

Then there’s John, 62, from Maryland, who graded Trump with an F, but nevertheless praised him for pulling us out of the World Health Organization and the Paris climate agreement, because, in John’s words, “that was accounting for a lot of our budget money.” Good grief. Our annual WHO dues were $111 million, a microscopic sum in a federal budget of $7.4 trillion; and our $1-billion initial commitment to the Paris deal is .0142857 percent of that budget. One can learn these facts with just a few keystrokes. I’ve assigned John a grade of F for critical thinking.

Best of all, however, is Amanda Robbins, a three-time Trump voter from Pennsylvania who has seen the light. She was not in the focus group; an NBC News reporter talked to her recently while she pumped gas at war-inflated prices. She called Trump “a worthless pile of s–” and, with respect to her 2024 vote, “That was my bad.”

She said it, not me.

It does us no good to double down on our anger, to dismiss these people with “we told ya so.” This is a time to take the win and welcome them in.

The latest national poll says 20 percent of Trump’s 2024 voters are pissed about the way he has mishandled inflation. 11 percent have bailed on him entirely, and this poll was conducted before Trump decided to stick taxpayers with a billion-dollar bill for his ballroom. In a nation where elections are so often decided by tight margins, those percentage shifts in sentiment are significant. They’re something to build on. Perhaps Democrats can even be prompted to rethink their messaging and broaden their appeal (which itself is a topic for another day).

I agree with Jesse Lehrich, a former Hillary Clinton advisor who writes a newsletter about the future of the Democratic party. He reportedly says it’s “political malpractice” to dump on the MAGA voters who are dumping on Trump: “Yes, it is totally fair to be frustrated that the people voted for a guy that you think is a fascist…but it is a massive win every time someone reaches the point” of defection…Part of the toxicity of the (Democratic) brand is that we are condescending elites who think we are better than everyone else…But when I see a bunch of former MAGA people so disillusioned, I think to myself, “‘Wow, look at how big our coalition can be.’”

In Nazi-occupied France, disparate factions with little in common – conservative Gaullists and insurgent communists – found ways to work together toward a shared objective. In a national emergency, there’s no other choice. Kitty, the focus group’s Pennsylvanian, had the right idea: “At the end of the day…we need to stick together and make our country stronger.”

In that spirit, paraphrasing Victor Lazlo in Casablanca, I say to her, “Welcome to the fight. This time I know our side will win.”

–

Copyright 2026 Dick Polman, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Dick Polman, a veteran national political columnist based in Philadelphia and a Writer in Residence at the University of Pennsylvania, writes the Subject to Change newsletter. Email him at dickpolman7@gmail.com

Related Cartoons
Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review website as one of the nation’s top political scribes, and by ABC News’ online political tip sheet as “one of the finest political journalists of his generation, ” Dick Polman is the national political columnist at Philadlephia NPR affiliate WHYY, and has covered or chronicled every presidential campaign since 1988.

A Philadelphia resident, Dick roamed the country for most of his 22 years at The Philadelphia Inquirer. He has been blogging daily since 2006. He’s currently on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as “Writer in Residence.” He has been a frequent guest on C-SPAN, CNN, MSNBC, the BBC, and various NPR shows – most notably Philadelphia’s “Radio

The post MAGA dropouts are finally waking up to reality appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

The outrage was swift and severe when the U.S. Supreme Court, by an ideologically divided 6-3 vote, recently struck down Louisiana’s majority Black congressional district as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Critics lambasted the court for gutting the Voting Rights Act, the federal law that had until recently garnered strong bipartisan support and had ensured Black political representation in the South for more than half a century.

Many analysts see Jim Crow-era disenfranchisement of Black voters on the horizon.

Whether Louisiana v. Callais will wreak this kind of havoc remains to be seen, although some Southern states have already begun to redraw their legislative districts, aiming to ensure Republican control. Several Black legislators – all Democrats – are expected to lose their seats in the upcoming midterm elections. Democrats are threatening to retaliate with their own redistricting plans.

Because of a 2019 decision by the court, such political gerrymanders, where a legislative district is crafted to ensure partisan control, cannot be challenged under federal law. Both parties had taken full advantage of that ruling.

Prior to the Callais ruling, however, legislators had to be sure that when they sought partisan control of a district, they did not excessively dilute the voting power of minority residents. Multiple lawsuits had challenged political gerrymanders on exactly these grounds.

After Callais, that guardrail is gone. Indeed, lest they provoke the same type of litigation faced by Louisiana, state legislators must now ignore the race of voters altogether. From here on out, gerrymandering is fine, but only if it’s race-neutral.

This does not mean, however, that the race-blind mapmaking process envisioned by the Supreme Court majority will manifest. Based on our recently published research, it may, in fact, be just the opposite.

Race, we found, is – at least in the South – a more reliable predictor of how someone will vote than their party identification. And that makes race, we believe, a potentially irresistible lure for those designing congressional districts.

Race a more reliable predictor

We are both political scientists – one of us an expert on Congress and national elections and the other a constitutional law and Supreme Court scholar. In Southern states, race and political party overlap significantly, with the vast majority of Black voters favoring Democrats and most white voters favoring Republicans. And in our study, we document that in this region, mapmakers actually have an incentive to take race into account when conducting a political gerrymander.

Political gerrymandering is the process of drawing electoral districts to favor one party over another. In most states, the responsibility for drawing districts rests with the state legislature. Thus, the party that controls state legislatures very often controls elections – at both the state and congressional level.

The goal of partisan redistricting is to maximize the chance that candidates from that political party will win elections. Our study shows that using both the race and party of voters to redraw districts, rather than just party alone, better ensures partisan advantage.

The research we conducted was motivated by a claim made by Justice Samuel Alito in another recent racial gerrymandering case decided by the Supreme Court, Alexander vs. South Carolina NAACP. He argued in the court’s majority opinion that when drawing districts to favor one party, mapmakers would need to look only at voters’ party affiliation – their race would be irrelevant to ensuring partisan control.

It is a straightforward, seemingly sensible claim. It is also wrong.

Our study uses an original dataset of precinct-level election results in South Carolina from 2010 to 2020 to explore how well a precinct’s racial and partisan composition before redistricting predicts how it votes over the following decade.

What we found reveals a more complicated picture than Alito – and the subsequent Callais decision – presumes.

A precinct’s Democratic and Republican vote share prior to redistricting was the strongest predictor of future election results. But there are two problems with relying on only such partisan data when gerrymandering a district.

First, our analysis showed that roughly a quarter of a precinct’s voters in the next election did not follow what the partisan data predicted – a sizable amount, given the supposed ease of gerrymandering by party.

Second, precinct election results are surprisingly volatile. Our analysis shows that the effect of preredistricting partisanship varies with election cycles, national conditions, gradual changes in party coalitions and other factors. A precinct that leaned Republican in the election before redistricting may vote very differently in a midterm wave year when the president is unpopular, precisely the type of election coming in November.

By comparison, the analysis shows that voters’ race is a more reliable predictor than their party of how they will vote in the next election. Consequently, it seems that, at least in Southern states, legislators have a genuine, data-driven incentive to use racial data when drawing partisan districts.

Will race still affect political gerrymanders?

Consider this redistricting scenario: South Carolina’s Republican-led legislature wants to flip the state’s lone Democratic congressional seat – long held by prominent African American U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn – for the 2026 midterms. A simple approach is to identify those who voted for Donald Trump in 2024 and then just redraw the district to add enough of those voters to ensure Republican control.

The plan backfires, however. Not only does Clyburn hold his seat, but a neighboring district also elects a Democrat. What went wrong?

Simply put, the legislature failed to realize that past partisan returns are an imperfect predictor of future voting behavior.

A heavily Democratic area that is predominantly Black will vote Democratic far more consistently than a heavily Democratic area that is predominantly white. Two precincts that look identical on a partisan map can behave very differently at the ballot box. And a legislature that fails to take this into account has taken an unreliable route to partisan advantage.

If Republican legislators want to oust Democratic officials, the most reliable route is to oust from a district the minority Democratic voters who would have elected them.

This is not to suggest that legislators should use race in this way. It certainly smacks of racism and echoes the type of electoral machinations used during Jim Crow. But that analogy is not exactly on point. The approach we identified targets the power of Black voters not because they are Black, but because they are such reliable Democrats.

To many, that may be a difference that makes no difference. More litigation over gerrymanders is inevitable. If litigants can demonstrate that race was a “predominant” factor that “drove” redistricting, or that mapmakers purposefully attempted to diminish the power of Black voters because of their race, legal liability can still follow.

Voting rights advocates should be aware of the temptation legislators may have to let race affect their political gerrymanders.

Perhaps minority voters are as free from invidious discrimination as Alito’s majority opinion in the Callais case suggests. This does not mean, however, that those charged with ensuring all voters are fairly represented in American democracy will be colorblind. Our findings show that race could easily remain embedded in the political gerrymandering landscape, despite vehement claims to the contrary.

Claire B. Wofford, Associate Professor of Political Science, College of Charleston and Jordan Ragusa, Professor, Department of Political Science, College of Charleston

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Racial gerrymandering may be here to stay appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

Meetings between Chinese and American leaders are not exactly routine, but few are historically groundbreaking.

The exceptions include the very first visit by a sitting U.S. president to China, when Richard Nixon met with Chairman Mao Zedong in Beijing in February 1972 – at a time when America did not even formally recognize the People’s Republic of China. Deng Xiaoping’s visit to the U.S. in 1979 generated a similarly iconic moment when the reformist Chinese leader donned a Stetson at a Texas rodeo, a sign that he would be willing to engage with America in a way that Mao contemplated only near the end of his life.

Donald Trump may harbor hopes that his upcoming visit, slated for May 14-15, 2026, could have similar historical significance to those moments half a century ago. It will, after all, be the first face-to-face meeting of U.S. and Chinese leaders in Beijing since Trump’s own visit nearly a decade ago in 2017.

Yet the outcomes of this Trump summit with Xi Jinping are likely to be vague because the goals for both leaders are also only partially evident. The visit is being driven by trade imperatives, but there are other issues that threaten U.S.-China relations in the longer term.

It will be extremely hard for the two sides to address these more deep-rooted divides. Indeed, as an analyst of U.S.-China relations, I believe the world’s two largest economies will have an essentially competitive relationship for years to come, and areas of plausible cooperation – whether on climate change or AI regulation – are increasingly hard to find.

Taiwan: A change in US position?

One area that has been a source of contention for quite some time is Taiwan. Xi has made it clear that the unification of the island with the mainland cannot be left to “another generation” but has left it vague – up to now – as to how that goal will be achieved.

The summit has been preceded by lots of chatter about U.S. preparedness to honor its somewhat ambiguous promise to defend Taiwan in the event of an invasion – with Chinese analysts concluding that the war in Iran has severely weakened Washington’s capabilities on this front.

However, there are plenty of signs that Xi would rather find peaceful means to unite with Taiwan that avoid all-out war, particularly as the examples of Russia in Ukraine and the U.S. in Iran show that the outcomes of wars are not predictable.

Instead, China has seemingly concentrated its efforts on influencing the upcoming January 2028 Taiwan presidential election. The leader of the island’s major opposition Kuomintang party, Cheng Li-wun, recently visited the mainland and had a photo op with Xi – a sign that she thinks dealmaking with China might just be acceptable to the Taiwan electorate despite its deep distrust of Beijing.

To further fuel the narrative of a seemingly inevitable path toward unification, it would be helpful for Xi to have signals that the U.S. is no longer committed to defending Taiwan.

China will push for a change from the official position that the U.S. “does not support Taiwan independence” to “the U.S. opposes Taiwan independence.” The latter change sounds minor but would have great significance, as it would essentially be an acknowledgment that the U.S. recognizes unification, by some means, as a legitimate goal in its own right.

Trump has kept his own position ambiguous: He has noted more than once that Taiwan is very close to China and very far from the U.S., but he has also authorized major arms sales to the island that have infuriated Beijing.

Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party does not specifically endorse independence, as it knows that’s a red line for Beijing, but it would regard this change in American language as a serious blow to its position. It’s unlikely that the U.S. would make such a major concession during Trump’s visit – but that won’t stop Beijing from asking for it.

AI: The battle for global leadership

A more tentative but increasingly important area for discussion during the Xi-Trump summit is technology in general and AI in particular.

Just three years ago, the attitude of the U.S. government was summed up in the phrase of then national security adviser Jake Sullivan: “small yard, high fence.”

In other words, there would be only a few restricted areas of technology, but they would be fiercely guarded.

In 2026, things have changed. In some areas, tech restrictions have just become looser; the U.S. government now permits the sale to China of some high-specification, American-manufactured chips that were previously restricted. That policy was probably driven by the sense that China was developing its own domestic alternatives anyway and that the U.S. was losing market share.

Yet there is growing concern both in the U.S. and China that AI developments are moving too fast for governments – or companies – to know fully what the technology is capable of doing, let alone being able to regulate it.

China and the U.S. both desire to dominate AI and set the global norms and standards surrounding it. But they are also aware that AI has the potential to cause immense damage.

There has been loose discussion of whether any joint form of supervision or regulation of AI between the U.S. and China might be possible. And that could well form part of the discussions during the leaders’ summit.

But realistically, both sides see themselves in fierce competition, and the likelihood that either American or Chinese companies would restrain themselves may be fanciful.

The trade elephant in the room

The most substantial achievements of the summit, however, are likely to be in the least glamorous area: remedying the trade deficit.

Trump’s tariffs aim to make the United States’ global trade partners pay a higher price for entry to the American market, and China’s persistent and massive trade surplus has been a prime target for the U.S. president.

While there are many American products that China would like to buy, most of them are not products that the U.S. government is willing to let them have, including high-tech equipment that could be used for military purposes.

Instead, the key products are likely to be agricultural, including U.S. soybeans and beef. Look out for concessions from China that would benefit farmers in key Republican states, such as Iowa.

The current tariff dispute between the U.S. and China has frozen into a standoff: The U.S. has agreed to allow China’s goods into its immense market at manageable tariff rates, and China has – mostly – agreed to allow critical minerals and rare earths to flow to U.S. manufacturers.

That truce lasts until October, but the summit may see it extended.

Neither side is keen to restart the trade war that marked the summer of 2025, when Trump announced tariffs of over 100% on China and the U.S. was in danger of having key mineral supplies cut off as a result.

Summit to talk about? Perhaps not

So how consequential will the Trump-Xi summit be? Well, don’t expect another “Nixon meets Mao” moment.

The circumstances more than a half-century on are also remarkably different. Today’s China, unlike in 1972, has an economy and military second only to the U.S. and a central position in global organizations, from the United Nations to the World Trade Organization, particularly as the U.S. retreats from such institutions.

Both the U.S. and Chinese sides know that they can expect limited cooperation at best from their opponent.

But after a period, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, when communication between the countries atrophied, it’s still important that they are talking at all.

Rana Mitter, Professor of U.S.-Asia Relations, Harvard Kennedy School

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Trump-Xi summit will be no ‘Nixon in China’ moment — that they are talking is enough for now appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

DONATIONS RECEIVED SO FAR: $50 as of 5/12/26

Despite many blogs vanishing, The Moderate Voice is still around. Google News is carrying its posts as is the SmartNews app headquartered in Tokyo. To keep this going The Moderate Voice needs your help.

TMV has been blessed with many donations of all kinds over the years. But it has no big corporate donor, no big advertiser, and has never received a huge donation. It’s almost a miracle that it’s still around. Any donations you can give of any size (and spread the word if you know some folks who read the blog) are a huge help.

TMV was started in January 2003 on BlogSpot and quickly evolved into a group blog that was on several platforms before settling on Word Press. MANY blogs have died over the years due to social media, in particular Facebook and Twitter. We’ are still (stubbornly) here. During the golden age of blogging The Moderate Voice won awards as the best centrist political blog.

Use the GO FUND ME donation button on the right. Or if you wish to mail a check contact us and we’ll tell you where and how to make out a check to The Moderate Voice.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

The post THE MODERATE VOICE CAN USE YOUR DONATIONS (UPDATE 2) appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

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.

Virginia’s high court ruled 4-3 on Friday that a redistricting referendum voters approved for the state last month violated procedural rules. The decision shot down a new congressional map that could have netted Democrats an additional four seats in the U.S. House.

The state Supreme Court ruled that the General Assembly began its constitutional amendment process too late to be lawful. The majority wrote, “This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void.”

They did not rule against gerrymandering or the new map. They ruled against the timing. But you have to be especially stupid if you think Virginians didn’t know what they were voting on.

The state Supreme Court had previously allowed the April special election to go forward, while reserving the right to rule on the measure’s legality later on. Virginians narrowly voted in favor of the redistricting referendum by 3 points. It seems like the court wanted to wait and see who won before issuing a ruling.

Democrats spent over $62 million to win this election. The state spent $5 million to administer the election.

The original 6-5 Democratic-majority voting map will remain intact until the next redistricting period.

Republicans, who changed voting rules in every red state after Trump lost to President Joe Biden in 2020, are cackling over how the Virginia vote was unconstitutional.

Democrats were hoping to gain four more seats in Virginia, but now, Republicans could gain as many as 14 from redrawn maps across six states. Democrats need a net gain of at least three House seats in November to flip the House majority.

GO HERE TO READ THE REST.

Visit Clay Jones’ website and email him at Clayonez@gmail.com.

The post SPIKED ELECTION appeared first on The Moderate Voice.