How America Ends

via The Atlantic Dec 2019 Ed.

Story by Yoni Appelbaum

Democracy depends on the consent of the losers. For most of the 20th century, parties and candidates in the United States have competed in elections with the understanding that electoral defeats are neither permanent nor intolerable. The losers could accept the result, adjust their ideas and coalitions, and move on to fight in the next election. Ideas and policies would be contested, sometimes viciously, but however heated the rhetoric got, defeat was not generally equated with political annihilation. The stakes could feel high, but rarely existential. In recent years, however, beginning before the election of Donald Trump and accelerating since, that has changed.

“Our radical Democrat opponents are driven by hatred, prejudice, and rage,” Trump told the crowd at his reelection kickoff event in Orlando in June. “They want to destroy you and they want to destroy our country as we know it.” This is the core of the president’s pitch to his supporters: He is all that stands between them and the abyss.

In October, with the specter of impeachment looming, he fumed on Twitter, “What is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the People, their VOTE, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of the United States of America!” For good measure, he also quoted a supporter’s dark prediction that impeachment “will cause a Civil War like a fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.”

Trump’s apocalyptic rhetoric matches the tenor of the times. The body politic is more fractious than at any time in recent memory. Over the past 25 years, both red and blue areas have become more deeply hued, with Democrats clustering in cities and suburbs and Republicans filling in rural areas and exurbs. In Congress, where the two caucuses once overlapped ideologically, the dividing aisle has turned into a chasm.

As partisans have drifted apart geographically and ideologically, they’ve become more hostile toward each other. In 1960, less than 5 percent of Democrats and Republicans said they’d be unhappy if their children married someone from the other party; today, 35 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of Democrats would be, according to a recent Public Religion Research Institute/Atlantic poll—far higher than the percentages that object to marriages crossing the boundaries of race and religion. As hostility rises, Americans’ trust in political institutions, and in one another, is declining. A study released by the Pew Research Center in July found that only about half of respondents believed their fellow citizens would accept election results no matter who won. At the fringes, distrust has become centrifugal: Right-wing activists in Texas and left-wing activists in California have revived talk of secession.

Recent research by political scientists at Vanderbilt University and other institutions has found both Republicans and Democrats distressingly willing to dehumanize members of the opposite party. “Partisans are willing to explicitly state that members of the opposing party are like animals, that they lack essential human traits,” the researchers found. The president encourages and exploits such fears. This is a dangerous line to cross. As the researchers write, “Dehumanization may loosen the moral restraints that would normally prevent us from harming another human being.” Continue reading How America Ends

Billionaires…bah humbug

Paul Krugman

November 12, 2019

An activist dressed as ‘Monopoly Man’ listening to testimony by Mark Zuckerberg on Capitol Hill.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Author Headshot

By Paul Krugman

Opinion Columnist

My column today was devoted to debunking the idea that Democrats need a billionaire savior, so it was largely about the political delusions of the super-wealthy. I didn’t have much space to talk about the somewhat different question of how some people get that wealthy. So today’s newsletter tries to fill in some of the gaps.

In Economics 101, we teach the “marginal productivity” theory of income distribution: workers are paid what their activities add to the economy. That is, a worker whose work raises the total value of output $60,000 over the course of a year will get paid $60,000. Why? Competition. Employers would compete to hire such workers if they were paid less than $60K, replace them with other, comparable workers if they were paid more than $60K.

And some workers surely do have special talents that make them worth considerably more — in a pecuniary, not a moral sense — than the average. But how do we explain why some people make many times this amount, say $60 million? Are they really a thousand times as productive as the average worker? That’s extremely doubtful.

In fact, the most plausible stories about how individuals get very rich are also stories in which their compensation greatly exceeds the benefits they generate for the economy.

Continue reading Billionaires…bah humbug

A Nation Coming Apart

The 45th president of the United States is uniquely unfit for office and poses a multifaceted threat to our country’s democratic institutions. Yet he might not represent the most severe challenge facing our country. The structural failures in our democratic system that allowed a grifter into the White House in the first place—this might be our gravest challenge. Or perhaps it is the tribalization of our politics, brought about by pathological levels of inequality, technological and demographic upheaval, and the tenacious persistence of racism. Or maybe it is that we as a people no longer seem to know who we are or what our common purpose is.

Last year, Cullen Murphy, our editor at large, and I began a conversation with Danielle Allen, the author of a matchless book on the meaning and promise of America, Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality, about the causes of this dispiriting moment. Allen, who is the James Bryant Conant University Professor and the director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University, told me that our system of self-governance has been in crisis for a long time, since well before the dark night of Trumpism. Disenfranchisement and self-disenfranchisement; the radically uneven distribution of wealth and opportunity; institutions so dysfunctional that it would be irrational for citizens to invest in them; the rise of the technocracy—all of these threaten to place the American experiment in permanent eclipse.

“We have to think urgently about representation,” she told me. “The most important invention of the 18th century that allowed us to run a democracy at scale was representative government—the election of representatives to a legislature empowered by the people. We have to talk about this. We have to talk about technocracy, how it has driven massive sociopolitical change” without answering to the people who are experiencing those changes.Out of our conversations, and others like it, emerged the idea for the special issue you are now reading, what we have called “How to Stop a Civil War.” We don’t believe that conditions in the United States today resemble those of 1850s America. But we worry that the ties that bind us are fraying at alarming speed—we are becoming contemptuous of each other in ways that are both dire and possibly irreversible. Continue reading A Nation Coming Apart

On Bloomberg…”Not so fast”

Michael Bloomberg’s twelve-year reign as New York City mayor is not ending well. 

Danny Katch tells us why.


Michael Bloomberg’s twelve-year reign as New York City mayor is not ending well.

A summer that began with a federal judge ruling that the NYPD’s “stop-and-frisk” policing strategy was racially biased has ended with Bill de Blasio, the city’s elected Public Advocate, surging to victory in the Democratic mayoral primary on the strength of his anti-Bloomberg slogan that New York has become a “tale of two cities.” De Blasio will be the single Democratic candidate and is expected to trounce Republican Joe Lhota in the general election.

De Blasio’s surge in the polls punctured the aura of invincibility surrounding the billionaire mayor, who has fallen from kingmaker to lame duck—and now down to laughingstock after giving an interview to New York Magazine in which he accuses de Blasio of “racism” for featuring his interracial family in a campaign ad. Bloomberg claimed that low-income New Yorkers aren’t really poor because the subways have air conditioning, and that he wants “all the Russian billionaires to move here.”

Bloomberg’s stumble across the finish line is gratifying for many of us on the left, but it shouldn’t blind us to the fact that his term in office has been a smashing success for rich people, both financially and ideologically.

Bloomberg ran New York City during a decade in which income inequality dramatically increased, and yet somehow this man with a nasal voice, poor public speaking skills, and the emotional register of a debit card managed to sell a majority of the city on his businessman’s vision of urban government.

Specifically, Bloomberg has scored two ideological wins: First, that the philosophy of enriching the already rich so their wealth will “trickle down” is the only realistic path for cities if they want to avoid becoming the next Detroit; and second, that a business model of urban government not only benefits the wealthy but also produces better performance in city services—especially schools and policing.

New Yorkers have grown wary of these promises, which created an underground pool of dissatisfaction that de Blasio tapped into more than his Democratic rivals. But it remains to be seen how many New Yorkers have come to reject not just Michael Bloomberg but the Bloomberg model, particularly when the likely next mayor’s vague promises and modest reforms prove insufficient to lead the city in a different direction.

Continue reading On Bloomberg…”Not so fast”

Considering Social Change

Howard Zinn And The Co-option Of Social Change
by Michael Barker


(Swans – November 16, 2009)   The writings of widely regarded historian Howard Zinn have influenced the education of thousands of progressive social activists, and two of his seminal books are A People’s History of the United States: 1482 – Present (1980), and his The Politics of History (1990). Both of these books provide a welcome corrective to the much vaunted Pulitzer-Prize-narratives of social change, and demonstrate the palpable fear that economic and political elites have of the public, especially when they organize to promote popular rather than elite interests. Owing to their natural fear of justice, elites have always acted to co-opt and defuse the disruptive power of popular dissent to maintain their own tenuous and unwarranted positions of privilege; a history of deceit and manipulation that is amply illustrated in Zinn’s books. By reviewing Zinn’s work on these co-optive repertoires of power, this article seeks to understand how modern-day elites maintain their domination in spite of a massive array of organizations that ostensibly exist to represent the public’s interests. Continue reading Considering Social Change

A poem for the modern age


“If you can keep your head when all about you
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
    But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
    Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
    And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
    If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
    And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
    And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
    And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
    And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
    To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
    Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
    Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
    If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
    With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
    And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

How do we reconcile the concerns regarding free speech, fake news, and Facebook?

A consideration of the nexus between the components
 by Richard @ Flexible Reality – Nov. 3rd, 2019
How difficult would it be to implement a program on FB to assign a value to each post with something like the “Seller Feedback” rating used on Amazon and eBay?
Most folks acknowledge the basic validity of FACTCHECK.ORG. ( the Annenberg Project…and can be encouraged to agree that NPR, CSM, and NYT are generally mostly factual while FOX NEWS is certainly not…so if an algorithm, somewhat like a spell checker, just evaluates the posting for basic grammar, presence/absence of logical flaws, and then searches an online db of related data, combined with a user component along the lines of “likes” and “shares”, then a ROUGH value could be assigned to any post which could be displayed to the side of a post, whether the original article, or any following comments as an aid to viewers. Continue reading How do we reconcile the concerns regarding free speech, fake news, and Facebook?

Impeachment considered

Voice of Americans regarding impeachment



Voted Support 

Today at 10:34 AM


I have heard attempts to dismiss this latest presidential scandal as third-party hearsay. I have heard objections to the Impeachment inquiry on the basis of not liking the opaque process. And now this morning, I read a Fox News story that attempted to equate the Trump administration’s Ukraine policy to that of trying to get out of foreign wars. I’m not buying any of that bullshit. It’s abundantly clear that the executive branch attempted to use military aid to Ukraine as a lever to gain a re-election campaign advantage. Trump put our national security, and the security of an ally at risk for the sake of a talking point. His end-run around his own State Department is both shocking and sickening. It’s indefensible and I expect my representatives to say so publicly and to support this impeachment process.


Voted Support 

Today at 11:22 AM


Based on “the call”, his hiring of Guiliani to subvert standard diplomacy in Ukraine, his ill-considered betrayal of the Kurds, his constant violations of the emoluments clause, his abusive and demeaning actions regarding immigrants, the Press, and anyone who does not kiss his donkey is more than sufficient to vote for impeachment and removal from office!

e’s Trump Impeachment Coverage
141,388 actions taken this week


Voted Oppose 

Today at 3:35 AM


Trump won the election. He has every right to replace an ambassador for any reason or no reason. The President sets foreign policy, and has every right to have conversations with leaders of other countries. Asking Ukraine to find out if the rumoured allegations of wrong-doing were true or not is NOT illegal OR immoral. Americans deserve to know. President Trump has done an AMAZING job of negotiating with other countries and getting USA back on top financially. Dems were scared he was going to get us into a war with N Korea. Not only did he NOT get us into a war, he managed to create a civil relationship with N Korea. Same with China. He is extremely smart and strategic; “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer”. We need to let him do his job. Dems need to stop this ridiculous impeachment hoax, stop wasting their time and America’s money, and start working WITH the president to take care of their constituents. Protect citizens safety and health, which President Trump has already been doing in spite of the constant attacks against him from the left. Continue reading Impeachment considered

Articles of Impeachment

What might the Articles of Impeachment Include


a) soliciting and accepting “a thing of value” from a foreign entity for use in a US Election

b) obstruction of justice by attempting to prevent testimony by Federal civil servants to a lawful subpoena related to an impeachment inquiry

c) in his professional capacity as President to receive monies for the granting or withholding of considerations for personal gain

d) coercing individuals to provide false testimony in Congressional depositions

e) incitements to disobedience and riot against lawful authority

f) engaging in personal and political vendettas against numerous individuals who disagree with him, including inducements to violence against said individuals

g) failure to uphold the dignity of high office with constant lying and abusive language in the public sphere

h) enticements to public officials to engage in criminal activity

i) submitting false affirmations, documents, and statements to judicial, administrative, and legislative entities

j) providing “a thing of value” to a foreign country solely for personal gain in opposition to the best interest of America

k) corrupt use of removal authority with Comey and Yovanovitch

The Ultimate Conspiracy Theory

by Richard @ Flexible Reality – OCt 26th, 2019

Ok, let’s play devil’s advocate…by -=believing=- the impeachment inquiry is a “false flag” operation. If so, then these elements MUST apply.

a) the phone call between Pres trump and Zelensky either didn’t happen, it was incorrectly reported, or it was something different than what everyone, including the White House acknowledged it was.

b) withholding the military aid from Ukraine was not a quid pro quo for an investigation into the Bidens, and that the findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 Election was inaccurate, and that Guiliani and cohorts, under the expressed authority and guidance of the President did not try to pressure Ukrainian officials as a condition of receiving the military assistance.

c) that the findings of all US Intelligence agencies regarding Russian interference were incorrect, and that Ukrainian persons were the actual perpetrators

d) that the Mueller special prosecutor findings were inaccurate

e) that the House and Senate Intelligence Committee consensus opinions which concluded that it was Russian which was directly responsible for the 2016 Election intrusion at the express direction of Vladimir Putin was invalid for some unspecified reason. Continue reading The Ultimate Conspiracy Theory

The perfidy of William Barr

Osio Report

8 hrs

President Trump’s appointed Attorney General, William Barr, who has taken it upon himself to become Trump’s defense attorney has apparently decided that to help his client best, he must prosecute the likes of Special Counsel Mueller and all the investigators who worked with him in the Russian probe. He will probably also have to prosecute the members of the Senate Republican committee who participated in the probe regarding the Russian interference in the 2016 election finding and issuing a report that indeed Russia and Russia alone did interfere for the benefit of Trump against Clinton. Continue reading The perfidy of William Barr

Impeachment Update: Oct 22nd 2019

What happened today….

New York Times – Impeachment Report
October 22, 2019
By Noah Weiland


Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, told impeachment investigators that President Trump held up security aid and withheld a White House meeting with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, until Mr. Zelensky agreed to publicly announce that he would investigate Mr. Trump’s political rivals.

Mr. Taylor told lawmakers that Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, said “everything,” including the military aid, was dependent on such an announcement. “He said that President Trump wanted President Zelensky ‘in a public box’ by making a public statement about ordering such investigations.”

Mr. Taylor, who referred to detailed notes he took throughout the summer, told investigators about a budget official who said during a secure National Security Council call in July that she had been instructed not to approve the $391 million security assistance package for Ukraine, and that “the directive had come from the president.” Continue reading Impeachment Update: Oct 22nd 2019

A conversation with a friend, who’s 91

A conversation that centers me…
Rich, are you still there – hope so. I am now 91 years young!
Living in WW senior home, Atlanta – Take care. Dick Gore 10/22/2019
On Thursday, August 28, 2008, 5:39:30 PM EDT, Richard Gore <> wrote:
You are right on. Would encourage you to share with newspapers, etc, along with other voices in the “wilderness”.
I said we are headed for the 30’s – correction, should have said towards the way of Roman Empire who destroyed itself attempting to exploit the world. The French and English finally gave up economic domination, but we are still at it.
Only politician I heard during the primaries to quote something long forgotten was independent Ron Paul when he said “U.S has 700 military bases in 130 countries around the world and spends $700 billion annually for “protection” against possible “threats” from any other countries many of whom we once supplied military weapons” – i.e., Iran, etc. Remember “Iran Contra?” Hadn’t heard that since Ralph Nader years ago before he lost his marbles. President “Ike” warned of dangers from the military industrial complex. With congress’ blessing, Joe Macarthy started the commie witch hunt shortly after WWII and thereafter the cold war kicked in. Both events kept the military industrial expenditures going without challenge. We have tons of money for Blackwater no-bid contracts but not enough for teflon vests for GI’s or soap to wash the mildew walls at the Veterans’ hospital. Continue reading A conversation with a friend, who’s 91

Just another day in the collapse of trumpworld: Oct 16, 2019

The Northern Hemisphere circa 1491

Big Oil knows what it’s doing

Oil Strike

Posted: 11 Oct 2019 03:52 AM PDT

The oil companies have successfully transferred blame for their actions to us. It is time to fight back.

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 10th October 2019


Let’s stop calling this the Sixth Great Extinction. Let’s start calling it what it is: the First Great Extermination. A recent essay by the environmental historian Justin McBrien argues that describing the current eradication of living systems (including human societies) as an extinction event makes this catastrophe sound like a passive accident.

While we are all participants in the First Great Extermination, our responsibility is not evenly shared. The impacts of most of the world’s people are minimal. Even middle-class people in the rich world, whose effects are significant, are guided by a system of thought and action shaped in large part by corporations.

The Guardian’s new Polluters series reveals that just 20 fossil fuel companies, some owned by states, some by shareholders, have produced 35% of the carbon dioxide and methane released by human activities since 1965. This was the year in which the president of the American Petroleum Institute told his members that the carbon dioxide they produced could cause “marked changes in climate” by the year 2000. They knew what they were doing.

Even as their own scientists warned that the continued extraction of fossil fuels could cause “catastrophic” consequences, the oil companies poured billions of dollars into thwarting government action. They funded think tanks and paid retired scientists and fake grassroots organisations to pour doubt and scorn on climate science. They sponsored politicians, particularly in the US Congress, to block international attempts to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. They invested heavily in greenwashing their public image. Continue reading Big Oil knows what it’s doing

Our Brezhnev Moment

Neoliberalism has stalled, so the fanatics in government are using Brexit to revive it.

Our Brezhnev Moment

Posted: 17 Sep 2019 05:09 AM PDT

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 11th Sepetmber 2019


At first sight, it’s incomprehensible. Why risk everything for a no-deal Brexit? Breaking up their own party, losing their parliamentary majority, dismantling the United Kingdom, trashing the economy, triggering shortages of food and medicine: how could any objective, for the Conservative and Unionist Party, be worth these costs? What good does it do them?

Yes, some people will benefit. To judge by recent donations to the Conservative party, some very rich people approve of Boris Johnson’s policies. A no deal Brexit might favour hedge funds that thrive on uncertainty, financiers seeking to short the pound, vulture capitalists hoping to mop up cheap property if markets collapse. But the winners are likely to be greatly outnumbered by the losers, among whom are many powerful commercial interests.

We make a mistake when we assume that money is the main motivation. Our unreformed, corrupt and corrupting political funding system ensures it is an important factor. But what counts above all else is ideology, as ideology successfully pursued is the means to power. You cannot exercise true power over other people unless you can shape the way they think, and shape their behaviour on the basis of that thought. The long-term interests of ideology differ from the short-term interests of politics. Continue reading Our Brezhnev Moment

Parents – don’t let your babies grow up to be soldiers

by Lori Gallagher Witt

Yesterday at 3:13 PM

“I’ve debated for a long time about posting this, and after some of the things I’ve read this past week, it’s time.

To be clear, I have nothing but respect for people who serve. Whether your reason for joining the military is to serve your country, to gain access to the GI bill, to escape a bad situation, or any other reason — respect. I’m also only speaking out the US military, as I don’t know enough about other countries’ forces to comment one way or the other.

People sometimes come to me and ask for advice for themselves or for their high school-age child who is considering military service. Which branch should they choose? Should they enlist or become an officer? Do a four-year stint or go for a 20-year career?

And it’s hard to have those conversations because the answer I want to give is “Don’t do it.”

The suicide rate in the military is on the rise, and the powers that be keep wringing their hands and wondering why. Anyone who’s paying attention can clearly see why.

Toxic command climates. Multiple year-long combat tours. Financial stress (food stamps are not uncommon in military families). Separation from loved ones for months or years at a stretch (either to remote duty stations or on deployment). Long periods of severe sleep deprivation. Untreated addiction, mental illness, and PTSD. Untreated or maltreated injuries or illnesses. Sexual assault is taken even less seriously than it is in the civilian world. Domestic violence is rampant.

The military has resources available for all of these things, and channels that service members can use to report problems. On paper, the support network is strong and present.

On paper.

In practice, it’s a very, very different story. Continue reading Parents – don’t let your babies grow up to be soldiers

Atlanta Explained

This is for anyone who lives in Atlanta, Georgia, has ever lived in Atlanta, has ever visited Atlanta, ever plans to visit Atlanta, knows anyone who already lives in Atlanta, or knows anyone who has ever heard of Atlanta.

Atlanta is composed mostly of one-way streets. The only way to get out of downtown Atlanta is to turn around and start over when you reach Greenville, South Carolina.

It generally takes about an hour, to an hour and a half to get to Atlanta, from Atlanta.

There is no real Rapid-Transit or Mass-Transit system in Atlanta. There’s something called MARTA (Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority) that doesn’t cover all of Metro Atlanta, and that’s neither “Rapid” nor “Mass”. It’s more of an “Afterthought-last-chance-of-getting-someplace-Transit”

Carpooling rarely happens.

Atlantans love their cars as much as their privacy. There are High Occupancy Vehicle lanes that had to be converted to toll lanes because there weren’t enough 2 or more passenger cars to make it worthwhile.

People have been ticketed for having blow-up toys in the passenger seat and dolls in car seats just to try and fake carpooling.

All directions start with, “Go down Peachtree” and include the phrase, “When you see the Waffle House.” except for Cobb County, where all directions begin with, “Go to the Big Chicken” (Including GPS directions). Continue reading Atlanta Explained

In depth: Rachel Maddow

  • Rachel Maddow never set out to be a television news host. Friends thought she’d be a professor or an activist.
  • After studying at Stanford and Oxford, she got her start as a news announcer for a local Massachusetts radio station. She went on to be a radio host on Air America, before becoming a regular political commentator on MSNBC and CNN.
  • Since 2008, she’s hosted “The Rachel Maddow Show.” She’s the first openly gay host of a primetime news program in the US.
  • She’s a new type of host, forgoing confrontational attack-style interviews for deep-dive monologues on whatever news item she thinks is worth analyzing.
  • Here’s her life so far.

Rachel Maddow might be the most unlikely cable television host in the country.

Combining humor, empathy, and some serious research, Rachel Maddow was the first of a new kind of less angry political television host. She’s also the first openly gay host.

Maddow is known for being extremely intelligent — she earned a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford, and it’s obvious in her lengthy, well-researched monologues that she opens her show with every day. She’s also more civil than some of her peers. She’s chided Pat Buchanan for telling another commentator to “shut up,” and she refuses to act as a referee while guests fight, unlike on her competitor’s shows.

Maddow did not come straight to journalism. Friends thought she’d be a professor or an activist. But after deciding that she liked explaining things to people on a local radio station, it was only a matter of time. She went from that radio station to a bigger radio station, to television, to the face of MSNBC.

As Ben Wallace-Wells put it for Rolling Stone: “What Maddow is trying to build is a different channel for liberal anger, an outsider’s channel, one that steers the viewer’s attention away from the theater of politics and toward the exercise of power, which is to say toward policy.” Continue reading In depth: Rachel Maddow