This is a fairly basic (and general) algebra problem involving powers and multiplication of like factors.
Problem: Which digits n (0 - 9) have a power x (greater than one) that is a sequence if the digit n?
nx = n n n . . . n (x > 1)
Wednesday, October 29, 2025
Climate Study Addition Of "57 Superhot" Days A Year Bears Further Analysis (Also Chat GPT's Input)
A recent (Oct. 18) Denver Post article proclaimed ‘The World is on a path to add 57 superhot days a year’. This scenario- based on a climate study cited - assumes countries fulfill their promises (from the 2015 Paris Agreement) to curb CO2 emissions so that by the year 2100 the planet warms by only 2.6 C (4.7 F) above pre-industrial times. In that case “57 superhot days would be added to what the Earth gets now”.
This according to the computer simulations released by the climate
scientists belonging to The World Weather Attribution (WWA) and U.S. – based Climate
Central. (The AP report noting the study is yet to be peer-reviewed "but uses established techniques for climate attribution".). As the Post account from the AP also noted (quoting the study authors):
“Superhot days are defined for each location as days that are warmer than comparable dates between 1991 and 2020”
This makes sense given the past ten years, from 2015 to 2024, have been the hottest on record, with 2024 being the warmest year overall, according to scientific and weather organizations. Indeed, "since 2015 the world has added 11 superhot days on average."
The report also doesn't say exactly how many people will be adversely affected, but Climate Central VP for Science Kristina Dahl (a report co-author) warns:
"There will be pain and suffering because of climate change. But if you look at this difference - between 4C of warming and 2.6C of warming - that is encouraging"
She was referring to thc two scenarios, 2.6 C (4.7F) of warming and 4C (7.2 f) warming, the latter taken to be the path the world was on before the Paris Agreement. In other words, the study's authors have assumed our planet is and will remain on the less disastrous climate path. However, others disagree and we note - from the article:
"The 2015 Paris Agreement has made strides against climate change but its too little and too slow".
A take with which I concur. Further, lamebrained voters in the US of A put Trump back in power again even knowing he would set us back with his yen for fossil fuels. See e.g.
Given this, I firmly believe the worst IPCC scenario, not even referenced in the study, needs consideration.
This is the IPCC SSP5-8.5 scenario projecting an increase of 5.7 C (10.3 F) by the end of the century).
To find an estimate of the superhot days that would be added per year, say for the above SSP5-8.5 scenario, I tasked Chat GPT with the computations while using the basic data from the climate report. Below are the results found:
If global warming follows the high-emissions SSP5-8.5 pathway (about 5.7 °C by 2100 relative to pre-industrial), a simple extrapolation of the Climate Central / WWA results implies roughly ~180–195 extra “superhot” days per year on average worldwide by the end of the century — a best central estimate of about ≈188 extra superhot days per year (added to what we get today).
How I got that (step-by-step, with the report’s numbers)
The joint report gives two key points (all relative to today’s
climate):
- At 2.6
°C global warming → +57 extra hot
days / year (on average). Contentful
- At 4.0
°C global warming → +114 extra
hot days / year (on average). Contentful
You asked about SSP5-8.5 ≈ 5.7 °C (IPCC AR6 gives a
5–95% SSP5-8.5 range up to ~5.7 °C for 2081–2100). IPCC
Two reasonable ways to extrapolate from the report’s numbers:
Method A — linear extrapolation using the (2.6 → 57) and
(4.0 → 114) points
1. Difference
in extra hot days: 114 − 57 = 57 days.
2. Temperature
difference between those points: 4.0 − 2.6 = 1.4 °C.
3. Slope ≈
57 ÷ 1.4 = 40.7142857… extra hot days per °C.
4. From 4.0
°C up to 5.7 °C is +1.7 °C, so add 1.7 × 40.7142857 ≈ 69.21 days to 114 → ≈183
extra days.
Method B — use the report’s baseline “today”
(present ≈ 1.3 °C) and the 2.6 point
1. Present ≈
1.3 °C (report’s stated present warming). Contentful
2. Increase
from present to 2.6 °C = 2.6 − 1.3 = 1.3 °C, which corresponds to +57
days → slope ≈ 57 ÷ 1.3 = 43.8461538
days/°C.
3. Increase
from present to 5.7 °C = 5.7 − 1.3 = 4.4 °C, so 4.4 × 43.8461538 ≈ 192.92
extra days.
The two extrapolations give ≈183 and ≈193 extra
hot days; averaging (and allowing a sensible uncertainty band for nonlinearity
and model spread) yields a central estimate ≈188 extra hot days with a
plausible range of ~180–195 (I round conservatively to ~180–200
to reflect additional uncertainties).
Important caveats & context
- The
Climate Central / WWA report provides robust, multi-model averaged results
for 2.6 °C and 4.0 °C scenarios but does not report a
5.7 °C case explicitly — my answer is an extrapolation. The underlying
relationship is roughly linear between the two reported points, which is
why linear extrapolation is a reasonable first approximation, but it may not
capture non-linear physical or regional effects at very high warming. Contentful
- The
numbers are global averages across countries. Individual countries
(especially small island or tropical nations) can see much larger
increases (the report shows many places would receive well over 100 extra
hot days under 2.6 °C and far more at 4 °C). So local outcomes can be very
different from the global mean. Contentful
- “Superhot
days” here = days hotter than the 90th percentile of comparable dates in
1991–2020 (the report’s definition). The human impacts (health, labor,
mortality) scale with intensity, duration, vulnerability and adaptation —
so the raw added-days number understates complexity of real harms. Contentful
- SSP5-8.5
itself is a high-end emissions pathway; IPCC AR6 reports a wide model
range for that pathway (multi-model range up to about 5.7 °C by
2081–2100). Use of SSP5-8.5 implies very large additional warming and thus
very large increases in extreme heat days. IPCC
Bottom line
If the world follows a very high-emissions SSP5-8.5 path (≈5.7 °C by 2100), a conservative extrapolation of the Climate Central / WWA analysis points to on the order of ~180–200 extra superhot days per year on average globally (central estimate ≈ 188 extra days relative to today). That would turn large parts of the calendar into “superhot” conditions for many populations — a dramatic and dangerous shift.
The results here from the A.I. are stunning, but pretty well in line with what I already expected, from analyses I've done based on the net heating rate (due to CO2 concentration) of 2.7 W/ m2 per year.
See Also:
by Karl Grossman | July 31, 2025 - 5:00am | permalink
“Trump’s EPA to repeal core of greenhouse gas rules,” was the Reuters headline this week as Lee Zeldin, chosen by Donald Trump to be administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, announced what Reuters said “will rescind the long-standing finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health, as well as tailpipe emission standards for vehicles, removing the legal foundation of greenhouse gas regulations across industries.”
“Zeldin announced the agency’s plan to rescind the ‘endangerment finding’ at a truck factory in Indiana, alongside Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and called it the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history,” reported Reuters.
The move was anticipated.
And:
And:
And:
Smoke-filled Air, Ochre Skies Provide Preview Of Life At Cusp Of Runaway Greenhouse Effect
And:
New UN Report Issues "Code Red" For Humanity On Climate - Is It Hyperbole?
And:
Bjorn Lomberg - Climate Change Clown Has No Clue Concerning Adaptation To A Rapidly Warming World
And:
Monday, October 27, 2025
SNAP Cuts Await 42m Americans - But 'Ultra-Affluent' Can Afford $11 Tap Water At Upscale Restaurants
The Trump administration as per an article appearing in today's Denver Post (p. A4) proclaimed that food assistance will cease to go out from Nov. 1st, raising the stakes for families nationwide. The new notice comes out after the Trump admin stated it "would not tap $5 billion in contingency funds to keep benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program (SNAP) flowing into November."
That program helps 1 in 8 Americans buy groceries.
According to the USDA notice: "Bottom line: the well has run dry."
But evidently not for the "ultra affluent" segment of the populace, rolling in so much money they can afford to splurge $11 to $13 a bottle for filtered tap water at upscale restaurants.
In my August 7 post, I cited an eyebrow-raising WSJ piece: One Rolex for Every House: The Luxury Shoppers Who Buy in Multiples, in which we learned:
'When some ultra-affluent clients buy designer handbags, cashmere sweaters and $620 jeans, they don’t walk out with just one item. They get one for each of their houses."
The emphasis in the WSJ piece being on the sheer quantity of what these elites could buy. Also noting these are households earning $250,000 or more, and buoyed by strong stock-market gains, mansions and rental properties that have shot up in value in recent years, and a rebound in business dealmaking.
But we've also since learned (WSJ, Oct. 20, 'Eateries Pitch Water As Fine Dining', p. A1) what these ''ultra-affluent' can afford when they go out to fine dining venues most of us can only imagine enjoying.
These affluent elites can now also choose their favorite beverage from a "water menu", - say when they frequent 'Gwen's' in NYC, e.g.
Nope, you cannot make this shit up. These folks actually look forward to paying up big bucks to enjoy filtered tap water from the special menu. As we learn:
"Gwen's water menu, a detailed book with lengthy descriptions of each water's origin and flavor profile - includes water bottles from as far away as Australia and Armenia. Most cost between $11 and $13. It also offers tap water at $0."
But alas, most patrons are not interested in the free stuff. Way too DÉCLASSÉ. As we read on:
"Martin Riese, the water sommelier behind Gwen's menu, said the restaurant makes as much as $100,000 a year from water sales."
And from one contented patron, ( Magdalena Kalley) quoted in the piece, and: "wondering what might pair well with the $175 steak she planned to order",
before settling on the $13 glass of Armenian water:
"It was fascinating to see that the water with the lighter mineral content paired nicely with our appetizers."
Must be nice to be so flush with moola, Magdalena, but did it really taste that good? Never mind millions now face the prospect of food stamps terminating and scratching for enough food at food banks. And who'd be happy for just ten bucks to spend on a large Mac and cheese box with some Spam.
Not everyone is cool with the high-priced water menu, with one patron (Jessica Hammerman) saying "It's hard not to laugh at."
The scheme is really based on sophisticated marketing by Riese and another Sommelier, Michael Mascha who've "been working for decades to make the filtered tap water the stuff of fine taste."
In Riese's words:
"No one thinks it's strange if you served different types of vodka in a bar. So why should it be any different for our filtered tap water."
Uh, let's see: Because Vodka has to go through an explicit (and expensive) production process which ends up with actual alcohol! It isn't simply pumped out from a tap!
Oh, and here's the kicker :
"Riese instructs servers to treat the water like a fine wine. No ice or lemon allowed. Nothing that could dull the delicate flavor profile."
Please! But mere days before food stamps are cut off for 42 million, this is the bifurcated economic reality that now exists in Trump's America. It also shows the lack of proportion in consumer choice when one part of the spectrum has too much of the wealth.
It's one thing to buy water because one is traveling in the middle of an arid region - e.g. Nevada desert- and it's the only type on offer at the only convenience store. It's another to buy $13 filtered tap water at a restaurant because you think it enhances the taste of your steak. But really, clever marketing has convinced you that you're lower class if you don't buy it to have with your high-class meal.
See Also:
Why WE Have to Pay and the Rich Get Off Scott-Free
And:
The Wealthiest One Percent Get Even More Ridiculous!
And:
by Harvey Wasserman | October 26, 2025 - 4:35am | permalink
by "Thomas Paine"
President Donald Trump has announced that a massive new homeless shelter and soup kitchen will replace the East Wing of the White House, which he has demolished.
“This 90,000 square foot structure which I am building without any process or approval from the American people or Congress will stand as human history’s greatest single monument to kindness and charity.
“This kingly project will certainly win me the Nobel Prize, whose proceeds I will donate toward the expense of housing and feeding hundreds of humans suffering under the weight of the billionaire bonanza that is my regime.”
Trump explains that “throughout history, great men like myself have devoted ourselves to empathy, compassion, kindness and charity.
And:
Friday, October 24, 2025
Practical Astronomy Focus: Angular Measurements In Astronomy
One of the first tasks of any budding astronomer is to first master the layout of the night sky and that includes the angular distances or separations between objects. Critical in this process is knowing what the altitude of an astronomical object means - in relation to one's location- as well as how to find it. We dealt with this in terms of altitude (or the 'height' of celestial objects above their horizon) one of or early 'Discovering the Stars' columns in the Barbados Sunday Advocate:
Next, the angular distances to other nearby objects - whether stars, planets or more exotic fare, e.g. nebulae. It is useless to use a linear measure such as meters, feet or inches because these have no meaning when referred to the sky, or celestial objects in it and distances between them. So we use degrees. Just a glance at the graphic in the article above- and blown up version below- shows the sense of this, given the sky presents a spherical extent.
To that end, we realized we also had to deal with the angular separations of objects in general. Hence to tackle the system used to measure celestial separations and relationships. The article clip showing the basic horizon system is shown below extracted from our article:
This shows an observer at the center of his horizon determining the altitude and azimuth of a star, S in it. A lateral view is also possible to use to more easily see angular relations, i.e. in declination diagrams which I covered in an earlier ( August 1st ) post
For example, if the altitude of the star S is 45o then the zenith distance z, would be found from:
z = 90o - A = 90o - 45o = 45o
In order to measure such an angular distance it is necessary to build a suitable instrument. One such is called a cross staff, designed specifically to measure angles in the sky. This ancient instrument was probably first used as long ago as 400 B.C. by the Chaldeans to make basic angular observations and computations. E,g.
One such ancient measurement was to obtain the zenith distance z of the pole star, and thereby to obtain latitude φ. Thus, if z = (90 - φ) then: φ = 90 - z . The device is relatively simple to construct, as indicated in the link below for any who might be interested:
http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Scrostaf.htm
But before one can use it one must become familiar with the system of angular measure. Say that one wishes to get the distance between the Moon and Saturn such as depicted in the star map (from my Cybersky planetarium program) below:
But given degrees are only one unit, and many objects (e.g. double stars) are much nearer, say fractions of a degree, one must be able to use smaller measures too.
As for the cross staff shown in the image above, that is mainly used to measure degrees. For a basic cross staff one can generally measure from 15 degrees to 60 degrees with a fair amount of accuracy. For simple estimates of angular measures up to 15 degrees, and as low as one degree angular measure, the stars in the Big Dipper provide a useful aid, e.g.
Consider the angular width of the full Moon, and we seek smaller angular units based upon it. An arcminute is 1/30 the width of the full Moon. Hence, we conclude that 1 deg = 60 arcmin. The arcminute is further divided into 60 arcseconds, which is typically used to measure the distance between components of a binary star, e.g.
Where the separation is in seconds of arc or arcsec. Conveniently, astronomers have learned that if the semi-major axis of the true relative orbit (the one displayed if the system were seen face-on) has an angular distance of a" (seconds of arc) then the semi-major axis in astronomical units would be:
a = (a" x d)
It should come as no surprise that planetary widths - given they are tiny - would also be registered in arcseconds or ". Thus, the giant planet Jupiter can be seen up to 50" in diameter. Mars will reach 24" in 2018 at a close opposition. Neptune is 2" and Uranus is 4". (Pluto's angular width is barely 0.1"). To fix ideas, to magnify Pluto's disk to one arcminute width (i.e. 1/30 of the full Moon's diameter) would require a magnification of:
1 arcmin/ 0.1 arcsec = 60 arcsec/ 0.1 arcsec = 600 x
For completeness another angular measure used is the radian.
For example the Sun has an angular radius of a = 959.63 "
But this must be in radians before one can compute the solar constant, for example.
One radian (1 rd) can first be converted into arcsec as follows, given there are 3600 arcsec per degree.:
1 rd = 57.3 degrees = 57.3 deg/rad x (3600"/ deg)= 206 280 "
Then: a (rd) = 959.63"/ 206 280"/ rad = 0.00465 rad
Suggested Problems:
1) Two observers using cross staffs obtain zenith distances from their respective locations of z = 45 degrees, and z = 35 degrees. How far apart in latitude are their locations?
2) Consider the system Epsilon Ursae Majoris which semi-major axis subtends an angle of 2½" and for which the parallax of the system is 0."127. Find the semi-major axis in astronomical units. (Hint: p" = 1/d)
3) What telescope magnification would be required to observe the planet Uranus as a disk 2 arcminutes in diameter?
Wednesday, October 22, 2025
Demolition Of The PEOPLE's HOUSE Has Given Us A Concrete Metaphor For Trump's Destruction of Our Democracy
An image of destruction symbolizing what Trump has done to our democracy.
"What must Al Gore make of the unsanctioned, ahistoric,
abominable destruction of the East Wing by Donald Trump? It’s the most
remarkable metaphor we’ve ever seen in the nation’s capital. It’s not complex
or arcane. It’s simple and visceral. It slams you in the face — metaphorically
speaking.
“He’s saying, ‘I can do whatever the hell I want and you can’t stop me!’” said David Axelrod, who worked in the Obama White House." - Maureen Dowd, NY Times, ‘Burning Down The House’
"When we consider the demolition of the East Wing of the White House, the AI video of the ordure bombing of Americans exercising their First Amendment right to assemble and seek redress of grievances, the actions tantamount to declaring war on Chicago, Portland, the D of C and other cities, the wholesale elimination of entire cadres of competence in our government (including our military and scientific research establishments and the wipeout of FEMA and Medicaid programs (among other things) it is clear that the question is not "Why does Trump hate us so much?"
The question is, "Why does Trump loathe himself so much that he treats the nation that elected him as President in such a horrifically destructive way?" - NY times comment
Trump is wrecking the White House the same way he is wrecking democracy… Trump is a destructive parasite living in the White House for free and he doesn’t intend to leave…- WaPo comment
I think it's mostly the Supreme Court's fault for this lunatic wrecking our house. They delivered a bogus ruling about Trump being above
the law, and shutting down his trial for stealing classified material. What's
to stop him from tearing down the White House itself? Apparently nothing. This
is Ceaușescu-level megalomania. -
As far as I can see there is NOTHING in this project for ordinary Americans, it is simply a monument to himself and his power over the rest of us. I'm sure we will all be in our graves before getting an invitation to waltz the night away in this travesty of ego. Some of Trump's power grabs may be legally confusing for the layperson, this one is simple, insulting and in your face. If this one flies without non-partisan disgust we will know we may be too far down the rabbit hole to ever crawl back out.- NY times comment
This is what happens when an ignorant and vindictive charlatan is put in control of our government. He doesn't care about the history that happened in the East Wing ...but most alarming, he doesn't care if any of us are angry about it or that he lied about what he's doing there. -WaPo comment
Sometimes a graphic physical image, say embodied in a photo, can become a symbol of what's transpiring in a government, a nation. In this case, Trump's wanton wrecking ball to the White House - the People's House, not his - is emblematic of what this felon swine is doing to our democracy. And why the Saturday No King's rallies were so on target.
I mean, good grief, with the demolition of much of the East Wing, we the People are now seeing first hand in real time what the Trump roaches have in store for our democracy. Indeed, what these fecal slime have already wrought - as encapsulated in the NY Times comment at top. Did the fungal maggot Trump even consider that he needed permission to take a wrecking ball to the People's House? Of course not, because the swine firmly is convinced it's HIS house!
As Chris Hayes noted in his lead segment last night on ALL In, this reveals the level of contempt the tyrant inhabiting the White House has for the people as well as for their architectural heritage. What will he wreck next? The Washington Monument? After all, as Hayes noted, he already believes there is no one who will stop him - from doing anything he wants. The 6 pets of his on the Supreme Court? Dream on. The balless wonders in Congress? Yeah, right.
But there are those who care, though they lack any power to stop this lunatic from advancing in his destructive ways - from going after political opponents, to now extorting - or trying to - $230 million from taxpayers. To pay for his rightful prosecutions which he claims he was a "victim of".
One of those speaking out is Martha Joynt Kumar, a political scientist and professor emeritus at Towson University in Maryland. As she said yesterday - to a WaPo columnist:
“They’re wrecking it. And these are changes that can’t be undone. They’re destroying that history forever."
She's right. I told Janice yesterday that the next Dem president needs to redo all the havoc wrought by first ripping down the Traitor's planned "grand ball room." Then rebuilding the East Wing as it was before this architectural atrocity. But of course that will not be done, it's wishful thinking. The cost alone would be prohibitive, and no Democratic president would impose a further cost on the people to accomplish it.
Still, The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a nonprofit created by Congress to help preserve historic buildings, sent a letter Tuesday to administration officials, warning that the planned 90,000-square-foot ballroom “will overwhelm the White House itself,” which is about 55,000 square feet.
In other words, Dotard Bonespurs wants his egotistic eruption to occupy more space and be more imposing than the actual historical edifice.
Carol Quillen, National Trust’s CEO, citing two federal commissions that have traditionally reviewed White House additions, said:
"We respectfully urge the Administration and the National Park Service to pause demolition until plans for the proposed ballroom go through the legally required public review processes,”
But since the Trumper cockroaches infesting our government have no use for laws, or norms, that is a plaintive voice crying in the proverbial wilderness.
So we are stuck with Dotard's monstrosity, though it ought to be a constant reminder of the destruction he's wreaking all across the nation - including with his ICE thugs - and in the government itself. The latter including his lawless layoffs of federal workers, which Sen. Elizabeth Warren made clear he lacks the power to do.
But who's checking that unbridled, unconstitutional, lawless power? No one. Certainly not our neutered Reepo congress critters, who prefer to be Captain Bonespurs's pets, slaves, whores and lackeys. Even fawning over the pustule at cabinet meetings in a competition to see who can kiss his fat ass the longest. We are in a truly, sorry state, and don't look for help from the Supreme Court to stop him - not when six ardent, misguided theocrats sit on it.
See Also:
And:
by Bill Blum | October 28, 2025 - 5:58am | permalink» article continues...
Donald Trump’s demolition of the East Wing of the White House isn’t just an architectural abomination; it’s symbolic of the wrecking ball he’s taken to the Constitution. Driven by his unbounded megalomania and supported by the high-tech oligarchy and a Cabinet of fawning sycophants, the 79-year-old president has precipitated a constitutional crisis and set the nation on the road to authoritarianism and democratic collapse.
Since resuming his seat behind the Resolute Desk, Trump has issued more than 360 executive orders, presidential memoranda and presidential proclamations, effectively replacing the system of checks and balances and separation of powers that forms the backbone of the Constitution with strongman-style rule. Among his most notorious decrees are those that:
And:
Excerpt:
As Donald Trump stirs up more national outrage over his demolition of the White House‘s East Wing, one of his favorite dinner guests is brushing off the controversy.
On Friday’s episode of Real Time, Bill Maher gave a flippant response when guest panelist Michael Steele mourned “the destruction of a symbol of this government” after the Trump administration had the historic structure torn down to make way for his ballroom.
“You’re talking about the White House? Oh, it’s a building, Mike. It’s a building.”
Steele argued that Trump “tore it down without accountability,” explaining, “It’s a building, maybe to you, but to a lot of Americans, it’s not. And I’m gonna tell you, as a young kid growing up in D.C., when my daddy took me by that building, it meant something to me as a 10-year-old. It meant something to me to grow up in a town where everybody in this country came and protested, and cried and screamed and laughed. So, that building, for me, was my childhood.”
Panelist Kate Bedingfield argued that the destruction is an example of Trump’s behavior being “impulsive, reckless, driven by his own desire for self-agrandizement.”
“If this was the only thing he had done on that front, then I would give you, ‘it’s just a building,'” said Bedingfield. “But it’s not. It’s part of a manner of governing that’s tearing at some of the institutional foundations in this country, and that’s scary.”
And:
Excerpt:
A demolition job that began Monday with the disappearance of
the White House’s eastern entrance advanced Tuesday with the destruction of
much of the East Wing, according to a photograph obtained by The Washington
Post and two people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the
scene.
Photos of construction teams knocking down parts of the East Wing, first revealed by The Washington Post on Monday, shocked preservationists, raised questions about White House overreach and lack of transparency, and sparked complaints from Democrats that President Donald Trump was damaging “the People’s House” to pursue a personal priority.
And:
Excerpt:
Donald Trump’s plan to build a White House ballroom has
underscored an oft-overlooked aspect of presidential power: No one could stop
the president from tearing down much of the East Wing this week. The next stage
of the project is also likely to proceed with few restraints: The
key panel slated to review the president’s construction plans is now stocked
with Trump allies ready to approve them.
Photos of construction teams knocking down portions of the
East Wing, first revealed by The Washington Post on Monday, have
rattled city residents, historians and politicians, many of whom contended that
Trump was wrongly tearing apart “The People’s House” to build his long-desired
ballroom.
“It’s not his house. It’s your house. And he’s destroying
it,” Hillary Clinton, who battled Trump for the presidency in 2016, wrote on
social media.
Others contend that Trump’s shifting projections and
promises — such as pledging in July that the ballroom wouldn’t “interfere” with
the White House, and increasing his estimate of cost and how many people will
fit in the building — illustrate the need for more transparency. Conservative
commentator Byron York said Trump
“needs to tell the public now what he is doing with the East Wing of the White
House. And then tell the public why he didn’t tell them before he started doing
it.”
Rebecca Miller, executive director of the D.C. Preservation
League, a nonprofit that advocates for protecting historic sites in Washington,
said dozens of concerned citizens from the city and around the country have
called and emailed her to express outrage.
Miller said she has had to explain that the White House,
because of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, is exempt from the
required reviews that other federal agencies must undergo when seeking to alter
government property.
“Our hands are tied,” Miller said, adding that normally government officials discuss major projects with preservationists — but not this time. “It’s very frustrating that there’s nothing that the organization can do from a legal or advocacy perspective.”
And:
Excerpt:
President Trump is demanding that the Justice Department pay
him about $230 million in compensation for the federal investigations into him,
according to people familiar with the matter, who added that any settlement
might ultimately be approved by senior department officials who defended him or
those in his orbit.
The situation has no parallel in American history, as Mr.
Trump, a presidential candidate, was pursued by federal law enforcement and
eventually won the election, taking over the very government that must now
review his claims. It is also the starkest example yet of potential ethical
conflicts created by installing the president’s former lawyers atop the Justice
Department.
And:
by Robert Reich | October 23, 2025 - 5:58am | permalink
— from Robert Reich's Substack
Friends,
In the first Gilded Age, which ran from the 1890s through the 1920s, captains of American industry were dubbed “robber barons” for using their baronial wealth to bribe lawmakers, monopolize industry, and rob average Americans of the productivity of their labors.
Now, in a second Gilded Age, a new generation of robber barons is using their wealth to do the same — and to entrench their power.
The first Gilded Age was an era of conspicuous consumption. The second is an era of conspicuous influence.
The new robber barons are having their names etched into the pediments of the giant new ostentatious ballroom Trump is adding to the White House.
And:
by Lesley Abravanel | October 24, 2025 - 5:19am | permalink
After the viral optics of a demolished East Wing at the White House led the Trump administration to warn staff at the Treasury Department not to post any more pictures of it, CNN's Jim Sciutto reported on X that the Secret Service closed access to the park where journalists had been snapping photos.
"Look away! New: US Secret Service has closed access to the Ellipse park where journalists had been capturing live images of the East Wing demolition. CNN had a photojournalist capturing live images of the demolition at the time. Reuters was also ushered out of the park," Scuitto posted along with a video showing the demo.
General consensus to the park closure was, in the words of one snarky commenter, "'The most transparent administration in U.S. history' sure does love to hide what they’re doing from the public."
Another agreed, adding, "Most transparent administration in history! [S]ome exclusions apply."
And:
by Ailia Zehra | October 23, 2025 - 5:43am | permalink
President Donald Trump lashed out at a reporter Wednesday who asked for his response to critics saying he has not been transparent about the construction of a ballroom at the White House.
"I haven't been transparent? Really? I showed this to everybody that would listen. Third rate reporters didn't see it because they didn't look. You're a third rate reporter. Always have been," he said during a press conference alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at the Oval Office.
"We've been more transparent than anybody," he added, saying that the samples of the planned ballroom have "gotten great reviews."
Trump also indicated that the estimated cost of the ballroom has risen. He previously stated it would cost $250 million, but he now puts the price tag at "about $300 million."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)