Opinion

A few weeks ago, at a rally in Nevada, Trump told his followers that boat manufacturers are now required to use electric engines. He claimed that someone at a boat company in South Carolina told him, “It’s a problem, sir. They want us to make all-electric boats.” (There is no such requirement.)

Trump then said the South Carolinian warned him “the boat is so heavy it can’t float. Also, it can’t go fast because of the weight.”

Many war stories end with hunger wreaking havoc on significant portions of a population. In Christian theology, the Biblical “four horses of the apocalypse,” believed by many in early modern Europe to presage the end of the world, symbolized invasion, armed conflict, and famine followed by death. They suggest the degree to which people have long recognized how violence causes starvation. Armed conflict disrupts food supplies as warring factions divert resources to arms production and their militaries while destroying the kinds of infrastructure that enable societies to feed themselves. Governments, too, sometimes use starvation as a weapon of war. (Sound familiar? I’m not going to point fingers here because most of us can undoubtedly recall recent examples.)

This article originally appeared on TomDispatch.

Like many South Dakotans, I was intrigued by Gov. Kristi Noem’s chances for being selected as Donald Trump’s running mate, and I paid attention to the release of her book, “No Going Back.” When her promotional appearances turned into the book tour from hell, it was hard to look away.

During an interview with Stuart Varney on Fox Business, Noem spent most of the interview defending her decision to include the story about shooting her dog, Cricket. At one point in the interview, Noem asked Varney if he had read the book. Like so many of the politicians he has interviewed over the years, Varney ignored the question and went on to something else.

The only time I recall Democrats being in more chaos and upheaval than now was in 1968. That, not incidentally, was when they held their last open convention. If Joe Biden were to drop out, should Dems have another open convention to sort everything out?

At least Bill Maher thinks so. This, from his op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times:

If Joe Biden wants to recuperate his lagging campaign and demonstrate his presidential strength, he should immediately seize upon the opportunity just presented to him by the six wingnuts on the Supreme Court in their ruling in Trump v. United States (the most appropriately named case this term). He should begin by unilaterally (or unitarily as the theory goes) defining what constitute “official acts” of the President. As the power now vested in him by this decision this should be well within his purview and should be conceived as broadly and deeply as possible.

Of course, one of his first such “official” acts should be to issue an arrest warrant for his insurrectionist predecessor for trying to overthrow the U.S. government and the constitution. Under his new authority, he should be able to waive any trial (or associated delays and appeals) and summarily jail the now convicted felon, forthwith. And, it should be crystal clear that he would be able to deal appropriately with any of the MAGA crowd that attempts to rise up in response to this action. National Guard anyone?