Let's Filter Through What's Come Out About The DC Crash

So far, I think the best single source on the Washington, DC collision of a regional jet and an Army helicopter is the YouTube updates by longtime pilot Juan Browne on his blancolirio channel. I linked his first one in yesterday's post. Embedded above is an update from yesterday afternoon. I'll refer to several other sources that tend to confirm or expand his views in this post as well.

It's worth noting that American Airlines CEO Robert Isom iossued a preliminary statement at a press conference yesterday,

“At this time, we don’t know why the military aircraft came into the path of the PSA aircraft,” Isom said at a Thursday morning press conference.

Isom said in a staff note Thursday that the National Transportation Safety Board would be the “sole source of truth going forward, and accuracy is of the utmost importance.”

PSA Airlines is an American Airlines subsidiary and one of its regional carriers. American Eagle is how American Airlines brands its regional flights.

This corporate position is non-controversial -- every indication is that the PSA flight was on an approved path to land at Runway 33, while the helicopter ran into it after telling the controller that it saw the flight and would avoid it. The highly respected "Miracle on the Hudson" pilot Sully Sullenberger told ABC News yesterday morning at 0:51,

What seems apparent from the Air Traffic Control communications is that the airplanes were able to see each other, at least one was able to see the other, and the air traffic controller was able to relieve himself of the requirement to have him separate the airplanes, and the pilots would have to separate from each other visually by identifying the other airecraft and stgayng a safe distance away.

In other words, there seems to be general agreement that for whatever reason, the Army helicopter was responsible for the collision. One credible explanation for why this happened is given by another experienced pilot YouTuber below. He notes that there were two regional flights in line to land right after each other, the PSA flight, JTA 5342, and an American flight, 3130, which was second in line. He explains at 2:11:

This is not the final word on it, but I think what happened was, it was at night, there's several airplanes lined up, there is that Blue Streak [JTA] 5342, which is the CRJ that they ran into, right behind them just a few miles is American 3130. Everybody has their lights on as they're coming in, I believe the helicopter looked at the American 3130 and said, "I've got the traffic in sight," and they never saw the airplane, the CRJ, that was right next to them. That's my conjecture on what happens.

Juan Browne in the video embedded at the top of this post goes into more detail on the overall problem. At 2:59:

The problem is going beak to beak at night, the lights of the RJ tend to blend in with the city lights behind you. even tbhough the RJ is a little bit above the helicopter. Another problem when you're going head to head with each other if there's no lateral movement in the windscreen, that light is very hard to detect. Now eventually, the RJ has to make the left hand turn to land on Runway 33, and this puts the helicopter onto the right side of the RJ. Now very late into this transition, the tower controller here at the airport asks the helicopter, "Do you have the RJ jet in sight?" to which the helicopter responds, "Yes, we have the RJ in sight, request visual separation." That hands off the responsibility of the separation of these two aircraft to that of the helicopter pilot. The ATC then asks the helicpter pilot to pass behind the RJ, to which the helicopoter loilot responds, "affirmative", but instead, he runs right into the RJ.

Browne then goes into the separate question of night vision goggles and other subjects, but at 8:53, he returns to the question of American 3130, the flight landing behind the collision RJ:

There's another aircraft behind the RJ that was involved in the collision, another American Airlines jet 3130 . . . . this second aircraft behind the RJ may have been the aircraft the helicopter mistakenly picked up on, or it could have been one of the aircraft that were taking off. It's more likely than not that the crew of the helicopter picked up on the wrong target to see and avoid.

Browne mentions in passing another question that's raised by the radar data leading up to the collision: the maximum altitude for helicopters in this area is 200 feet above the Potomac. However, the helicopter collided with the RJ at the RJ's authorized altitude of 400 feet. The data shows that the helicopter rose from its authorized 200 feet -- which, if it had stayed at that altitude, would have avoided any collision -- to hit the RJ at 400 feet over a period of seconds just before the collision.

Although Browne notes this, he doesn't say anything else about it in this video, but it may be a very important additional data point. So far, I haven't seen any other commnentator mention it. A Fox News report does mention it here. Trump also commented earlier today:

President Trump took to his Truth Social platform Friday morning with a "not really too complicated" potential reason for the tragic DC plane-helicopter crash: The Army chopper was flying too high.

"The Blackhawk [sic] helicopter was flying too high, by a lot," he wrote. "It was far above the 200 foot limit. That’s not really too complicated to understand, is it???"

There are several other possible contributing factors, including understaffing at the Reagan National control tower and the generally crowded airspace over Washington, so that there had been a close call with another helicopter the previous day:

Another plane heading to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport almost crashed into a helicopter on Tuesday night, the night before an American Airlines flight collided with a military helicopter and plunged into the Potomac River.

Republic Airways Flight 4514 was forced to abort its first landing attempt at the airport on Tuesday after Air Traffic Control warned that a helicopter was in its vicinity. The Embraer E-175 executed a go-around maneuver, and safely landed a few minutes later, CNN reported.

Nevertheless, understaffing and crowded airspace over Washington were conditions that had existed for years before the accident, while the information that's coming out suggests that the helicopter crew made critical errors that other crews seem not to have made, over the same period of years. This would also apply to the question of night vision goggles -- even if they had some effect on visibilty, crews had been able to compensate for them over the same period of years. This suggests that questions of individual judgment, competence, and training are in play.

Regular viewers of the Smithsonian Channel series Air Disasters know that investigations often go into the personnel and training records of the crews involved in accidents, and inadequate training and performance do sometimes factor in as causes. The problem that needs to be ruled out is whether the chain of command should have been aware that the crew involved, based on available records and other information, was not qualified to fly that mission.

This Will Be A Real Test

NOW — Transportation Sec. Sean Duffy:

“Whether it was air traffic control, whether it was military aircraft, helicopters or the American flight, everything was standard in the lead up to the crash … Something happened here.” pic.twitter.com/ojRVAf34ZO

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) January 30, 2025

A YouTube commentator that I trust on aviation matters, Juan Browne on the blancolirio channel, a working airline pilot with both military and civilian experience, has a good video with graphics. At 0:50, he says,

. . . the [Regional Jet] flies the approach to this Runway, 1, the long runway, and then sidesteps around here to a left dogleg entry to Runway 33, the relatively short runway at about 5200 feet long here at Washington DC, a very demanding approach. This crew is focused on this approach. This midair collision occurred just below 400 feet above the ground. The National Guard helicopter, believed to be eithet as UH60 or VH60, was presumably operating out of Joint Base Bolling. . . . They have this procedure where they can dart across the Potomac River right across the final approach for these airlines, this is an approved procedure.

He then narrates over the video of the collision, in which the helicopter approaches the regional jet from its left and crashes into its right side. He continues,

Now let's review the ATC data. Let'sf first check this out from ADSB Exchange, where the two aircraft came together. So here you can see the regional jet doing the sidestep maneuver to Runway 33, so kind of a left dogleg base entry, this is all done visually to Runway 33, and the helicopter coming out of Bolling and crossing right into its path. . . . The tower at DCA sayhs, "Pat 25 [the helicopter], do you have the RJ in sight?" Now I believe the helicopters are operating on a separate frequency from the CRJ, so I don't believe the CRJ hears the helicopters, but all this is being controlled by the tower there at DCA, so the tower says, "Pat 25 [the helicopter], do you have the CRJ in sight?" Pat 25 responds, "Have the CRJ in sight, request visual separation," standard procedure, and then the tower clears Pat 25 to pass behind the CRJ. For whatever reason, the helicopter did not see and avoid the CRJ and ran right into him.

. . . Looking at the track log, the CRJ was on a perfectly stabilized approach. In other words, the CRJ was exactly where he was supposed to be, doing exactly what he was supposed to be doing.

WUSA9 has an intefrview with Doug Feith, a retired NTSB investigator and a regular on the Air Disasters program on the Smithsonian Channel. At 6:20, he says

The question that I would ask as an investigator, of the military, is, "What are your procedures, especially in an environment where we have high density traffic flow? You're mixing civilian and military operations in this corridor." I grew up here, in Maryland, so I'm very familiar with the area, I've lived there for most of my life, I've seen these operations, I've flown down the Potomac River. It is busy, and you're constantly listening for other aircraft on frequency to see where they are and where they're going, just because it's all about this term that we use in aviation called "situational awareness". I want to know who's in my environment. The question is, was there that kind of communication, interaction bdetween military and civilian, and then of course, where were the controllers?

What we're starting to hear from experienced observers is that there was a procedure that the military helicopter, on a training mission, was supposed to follow, and it had instructions from the tower controller to avoid and pass behind the regional jet, which it didn't follow.

Air accident investigations of the type Mr Feith led typically take years. He decries a culture of instant gratification in the interview, but the new Trump administration is setting expectations for a culture of accountability. In the military, situations like this develop in an environment, and the chain of command is held responsible for the environment. A reasonable conclusion from the circumstances we've learned so far is that there was a trainee pilot on the helicopter who apparently shouldn't have been there, and 64 civilians were killed as a result.

Secretary Hegseths initial message to the Department of Defense said, in the context of rebuilding the military,

All of this will be done with a focus on lethality, meritocracy, accountability, standards, and readiness.

We're going to have to see how this plays out, and fairly soon. Among other things, dereliction of duty is a crime in the military. Somebody allowed this situation to develop.

Greenland? Manifest Destiny!

I ran across this video by a UK YouTuber that gives an entertaining perspective on Trump;s current effort to buy Greenland. The key takeaway is that acquiring Greenland has been a US strategic objective since 1867, when Secretary of State William H Seward attempted to purchase it from Denmark along with his purchase of Alaska from Russia. (He also wanted to buy Canada from the UK.) According to Wikipedia,

Since the 19th century, the United States has considered, and made, several attempts to purchase the island of Greenland from Denmark, as it did with the Danish West Indies in 1917. Internal discussions within the United States government about acquiring Greenland notably occurred in 1867, 1910, 1946, 1955, 2019 and 2025 and acquisition has been advocated by American secretaries of state William H. Seward and James F. Byrnes, privately by vice president Nelson Rockefeller, and publicly by president Donald Trump, among others. After World War II, the United States secretly offered to buy Greenland; public discussion of purchasing the island occurred during Trump's first term in 2019 and again after Trump's 2024 reelection as part of his Greater United States policy.

This largely unrecognized history tends to undermine the current accepted view that "Manifest Destiny" was a doctrine limited to the 19th and early 20th century and controversial at that. For instance, at Britannica:

Manifest Destiny, in U.S. history, the supposed inevitability of the continued territorial expansion of the boundaries of the United States westward to the Pacific and beyond. Before the American Civil War (1861–65), the idea of Manifest Destiny was used to validate continental acquisitions in the Oregon Country, Texas, New Mexico, and California. The purchase of Alaska after the Civil War briefly revived the concept of Manifest Destiny, but it most evidently became a renewed force in U.S. foreign policy in the 1890s, when the country went to war with Spain, annexed Hawaii, and laid plans for an isthmian canal across Central America.

. . . Some found the opinion intriguing, but others were simply irritated. The Whig Party sought to discredit Manifest Destiny as belligerent as well as pompous, beginning with Massachusetts Rep. Robert Winthrop’s using the term to mock Pres. James K. Polk’s policy toward Oregon.

Britannica then argues that the runup to the Civil War and its aftermath led to the end of a first phase of Manifest Destiny, which resumed only as the influence of Alfred Thayer Mahan's theory of sea power refocused US interests on the Pacific, which led to the annexation of Hawaii as a US Territory in 1898, as well as the acquisitions of the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico as territories after the Spanish-American War. But Britannica concludes that it's a phenomenon that came and went:

Those who promoted it might have done so from venal or virtuous motives, and those who opposed it were seemingly vindicated by the Civil War in their grim warnings about the steep costs of a spreading imperium, but the events of American expansionism were a tale more than twice-told in the course of history.

William H Seward, as noted above, bought Alaska from Russia in 1867 and was nearly able to acquire both Greenland and much of the Danish West Indies from Denmark soon afterward:

Finding Denmark considerably more amenable to selling than the current president, Seward was wheeling and dealing with his counterparts in Copenhagen. He came to terms very similar to the Alaskan bottom line (the enormous, erstwhile Russian colony had cost the U.S. $7.2 million): $7.5 million for much of the Danish West Indies, only to have Congress scuttle the treaty.

It was around this time that Seward also began to openly covet Greenland. As with their Caribbean holdings, the Danes appeared primed to sell their northern island possessions, as well. Seward put the power of the State Department to work at once, commissioning scientists and political partisans to produce a report on the virtues of Greenland.

. . . Congress refused to consider buying Denmark’s West Indies (later purchased and renamed the U.S. Virgin Islands), let alone take seriously Seward’s pitch for Greenland.

According to History.com, the US continued to be interested in the Virgin Islands:

Negotiations started up again in the 1890s but fizzled with the onset of the Spanish-American War in 1898.

. . . The U.S. was a larger imperial power now, with a greater interest in expanding. It had also set its sights on building the Panama Canal, and this made it even more interested in purchasing St. Thomas, St. John and St. Croix in order to secure the future canal’s route. Again, another secretary of state (this time John Hay) negotiated a treaty with Denmark. The Senate ratified the treaty in 1902, but this time, the Danish parliament rejected it.

In 1915, the fear of German takeover motivated the U.S. to make another try for the islands. Especially after the sinking of the Lusitania, President Woodrow Wilson and Secretary of State Robert Lansing feared that Germany might annex Denmark and launch more attacks from the Danish West Indies. Danish leaders resisted ceding the islands and their majority-black inhabitants to the racially-segregated United States.

Angry at this, Lansing insinuated that if Denmark didn’t sell the U.S. the islands, it just might go and seize them to prevent Germany for getting to them. It was a bullying tactic, and it worked.

Eager to prevent a U.S. military attack (Denmark was currently a neutral party in World War I), Denmark negotiated a treaty with the U.S. that President Wilson signed on January 16, 1917. On March 31, 1917, Denmark formally transferred governance over the islands to the U.S., and the U.S. reciprocated by paying Denmark $25 million in gold coin.

The US has in fact continued with expansionist spurts via initiatives from presidents of both parties, from a variety of motives, and often concluding the deals with actual military action, as in the Mexican and Spanish-American Wars, or the threat of it, as with Denmark. The idea of acquiring Greenland is nothing new, but it looks as though Trump is now determined to follow through.

US Bishops Respond To Vance's Criticism

Catholic Charities shocking video instructing Illegals on how to avoid ICE.

You tax dollars fund this sh*t. They receive millions in Government grants. pic.twitter.com/LtG0OLGYwr

— Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) January 27, 2025

Via Catholic News Agency:

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) on Sunday argued that its long-standing refugee program is a “work of mercy” after Vice President JD Vance criticized the bishops’ positions on immigration issues.'

. . . The USCCB on Sunday argued that its own work with refugees is part of a “long history” of Catholic advocacy for vulnerable migrants.

“In 1980, the bishops of the United States began partnering with the federal government to carry out this service when Congress created the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP),” the bishops said in the statement, which did not mention Vance.

“Every person resettled through USRAP is vetted and approved for the program by the federal government while outside of the United States,” they said.

“In our agreements with the government, the USCCB receives funds to do this work; however, these funds are not sufficient to cover the entire cost of these programs.”

“Nonetheless, this remains a work of mercy and ministry of the Church,” the bishops said.

The USCCB statement didn't directly mention Vance. However, in his exchange with Margaret Brennan, Vance said, in reference to USRAP, via the link,

“In fact, we know that there are cases of people who allegedly were properly vetted and then were literally planning terrorist attacks in our country,” Vance argued. “So clearly, not all of these foreign nationals have been properly vetted.”

In part, this may come down to which program is which and who's paying for what. There continue to be questions about whether programs that come through Catholic Charities are consistent with federal policies if the money going to Catholic Charities for the particular programs is federal, a problem that I raised in yesterday's post with regard to Springfield, OH. But today I saw an equivalent problem in Milwaukee:

Catholic Charities Milwaukee is outrageously advising illegal aliens on refusing to comply with ICE, demanding rights they do not have, lying about U.S. laws, requesting help from foreign officials in undermining immigration law enforcement, and more.

The infamous video in question begins with a woman, Barb Graham, introducing herself as “an attorney at Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee in the Refugee and Immigration Services Program.” She claims to be helping illegal aliens to understand their “rights” if ICE comes to arrest them. “All people living in the United States, including people who are undocumented, have certain rights under the United States Constitution,” she asserts.

This is simply false. Illegal aliens do not have constitutional rights, because they are not citizens. . . . Foreign nationals who violate our laws to be in the United States do not have constitutional rights. And illegal aliens who are dangerous criminals certainly do not have constitutional rights that prevent them from being deported.

. . . Again, foreign nationals who have committed crimes — and, as Homan has emphasized, every illegal has committed a crime by being here in America — do not have constitutional rights, and ICE can indeed arrest illegal aliens without judicial warrants. The Trump administration needs to investigate Catholic Charities Milwaukee for its illegal and outrageous actions. After all, obstructing an ICE arrest is a federal crime.

Again, a key technical factor here is whether the federal money going to Catholic Charities is being spent according to the federal guidelines. Encouraging people to violate the law is probably not within the guidelines, and misinforming people about their rights under the law is probably not, either.

I notice just this morning that the Trump administration has temporarily suspended all federal grants and loans pendiong review:

This strategic pause, orchestrated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is designed to facilitate a comprehensive review of federal financial assistance programs, ensuring that taxpayer dollars are utilized efficiently and in accordance with the administration’s objectives.

. . . While the suspension is comprehensive, it does not affect Social Security, Medicare, or other programs that provide direct assistance to individuals.

Federal agencies have been instructed to identify and review all financial assistance programs and report back to the OMB by February 10, detailing any programs subject to the pause and identifying any legally mandated actions or deadlines.

The federal money that goes to the Catholic Church, which amounts to a little over $100 million a year, may be small enough that it escapes initial scrutiny, especially since the primary target of the pause is grants connected with DEI, gender ideology, and the Green New Deal. But there's an additional problem of programs that simply give the Church a bad look.

After a raid on Tren de Aragua apartments in San Antonio, Catholic Charities had to clarify its role:

We first broke the story this weekend with an exclusive pre-dawn video when almost 300 apartments were hit near the San Antonio International Airport.

Catholic Charities officials in San Antonio clarified their role in assisting migrants today.

Antonio Fernandez explained that Catholic Charities has a contract with the Office of Refugee Resettlement or ORR to manage the funds they have for migrants specifically from warn-torn countries. Catholic Charities then helps those in the ORR program with basic needs.“We provide housing for refugees from Ukraine, Afghanistan, and other nations,” he said. “However, those who arrive through the southern border without proper legal status do not qualify for our housing assistance.”

The Milwaukee video has also brought unwanted attention to Catholic Charities from politicians besides Vance:

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) called for Catholic Charities USA to be defunded in a post on X in which he flagged DOGE, President Trump’s newly minted Department of Government Efficiency.

In a follow-up statement to The Post, Burchett took aim at the charitable group for playing politics on the immigrant crisis.

“These nongovernmental organizations and Catholic charities have pushed a mind-blowing number of illegals into our country over the past four years. It’s happening on both sides of the border. They’re using your tax dollars, and they’re not doing anybody any favors,” he said.

He added: “Our priority should be finding the 300,000-plus kids these NGOs and Catholic charities lost, not giving legal advice to people who broke the law and are inside the US illegally.”

I keep harping on crisis management here. The US bishops need to recognize that they're facing a potential crisis that could reach the level of the child sexual abuse crisis of the early 2000s that brought the careers of several US cardinals to an ignominious end. If there's a public perception that the bishops aren't with the program of restricting illegal immigration -- a public duty entirely consistent with the Catechism and other teachings of the Church -- the bishops will be responsible for another serious blow to their prestige.

For now, it looks like at least some spokespeople for Catholic Charities are following the right course, as in San Antonio, of transparancy in explaining the actual programs, showing that they're in conformance with the law, and doing anything possible to eliminate the impression that they're sheltering or assisting lawbreakers.

Vice President Vance, a good Catholic, has taken what looks like a productive approach in urging the bishops to be "good partners" in this effort. They'll help themselves most by consistently explaining how their assistance programs conform to the law and further the overall social goals expressed in the Church's teachings -- especially when they honestly explain what those goals entail.

“I Think The U.S. Conference Of Catholic Bishops Has, Frankly, Not Been A Good Partner . . ."

I found a surprisingly even-handed story on Vice President Vance's exchange with Margaret Brennan on yesterday's Face the Nation that covered, in part, the USCCB's condemnation of Trump's immigration-related executive orders, at America magazine. The full interview is embedded above. The America piece reports,

In Vance’s first interview since becoming vice president, host Margaret Brennan noted that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops “condemned” Trump’s immigration-related executive orders, and asked Vance, “Do you personally support the idea of conducting a raid or enforcement action in a church service, at a school?”

“Of course, if you have a person who is convicted of a violent crime, whether they’re an illegal immigrant or a non-illegal immigrant, you have to go and get that person to protect the public safety. That’s not unique to immigration,” he said.

“But let me just address this particular issue,” he continued. “Because as a practicing Catholic, I was actually heartbroken by that statement. And I think that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops needs to actually look in the mirror a little bit and recognize that when they receive over $100 million to help resettle illegal immigrants, are they worried about humanitarian concerns? Or are they actually worried about their bottom line? We’re going to enforce immigration law. We’re going to protect the American people.”

the America piece then clarifies the Catholic Church's role in administering immigration aid, or at least its legally circumscribed role:

The USCCB is one of 10 national resettlement agencies that receive federal funding and partner with local organizations to assist refugee populations that qualify for federal assistance. Those populations include people resettled via the U.S. refugee admissions program, certain groups of vulnerable noncitizen children, and certain other groups such as victims of human trafficking and torture.

. . . Brennan asked Vance whether he thought the USCCB is “actively hiding criminals from law enforcement?” Vance did not answer the question directly, but said the USCCB has “not been a good partner in commonsense immigration enforcement that the American people voted for.”

OSV News reached out to the USCCB for comment and is awaiting a response.

The USCCB is going to have to be very careful here, because Vance doesn't open his mouth unless he has receipts, and there are at least some bishops who must understand this. The America piece goes on,

While the funds the USCCB receives are limited to assistance for qualifying refugee populations, and therefore immigrants in the U.S. lawfully, Vance’s accusation that the funds are used to “resettle illegal immigrants” appears to mirror previous rhetoric he used. While campaigning, Vance indicated that he does not recognize the legal status of certain immigrant groups the Biden administration deemed eligible to receive temporary protected status, or TPS.

However, TPS recipients are not eligible for the federal funding received by the USCCB for refugee resettlement. Other immigrant populations not eligible for federal assistance received by the USCCB include migrants seeking asylum, humanitarian parolees, employment-based immigrants, family-based immigrants, DACA recipients, and people who are stateless.

But much of the controversy over the Haitian immigrants in Springfield, OH, who are in the country on TPS, centers on the assistance they're given by Catholic Charities:

A new Springfield facility that will provide services including help with immigration status applications, legal advocacy and case management, will open this year.

Located at 448 E. High St., it will be operated by Catholic Charities of Southwest Ohio, which has been providing aid in Springfield for about a year and a half, CEO Tony Stieritz said during a Haitian Coalition meeting Wednesday. He said he is expecting to be able to begin providing services within a month.

It might be possible for the USCCB to argue that the federal funding to Catholic Charities is carefully separated from the services to Springfield Haitians who aren't eligible, but even there, money is fungible, and legitimate aid to Program A, non-TPS, frees up extra money that can be spent on Program B, TPS, not eligible for aid. Beyond that, there are two additional problems.

One is that the Haitians, even if they aren't committing violent crimes, are driving with0out licenses, ignoring traffic laws, and driving without insurance, a problem that's generally acknowledged is hurting the community at large. The second section of CCC 2241 says,

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

Where is the Catholic Church in counseling these people to learn to drive, obtain licenses, and get insurance?

The other problem is that by in effect subsidizing the incomes of the Haitian immigrants, Catholic Charities enables the sweatshop employers who've brought them in to pay the Haitrians the lowest possible wages. In effect, the Catholic Church is complicit in exploiting sweatshop conditions.

Finally, the Haitians are causing additional problems by being slow to assimilate or learn English, which puts additional burdens on the local schools and other services. One accusation from Springfield citizens has been that Catholic Charities has been part of this problem.

This all leaves aside the issue Vance raises, that the bishops seem to be ignoring the widepread exploitation of vulnerable immigrants who can be trafficked in the current chaotic environment.

I suspect that Vance's use of the phrase "good partner" here is deliberate and carefully selected, and it could well come out in further dialogue. The bishops will need to be very careful moving forward.

A Different Kind Of Republican

The most succinct comment on Trump's first week was from Greg Gutfeld, who said Trump shows the difference between a "real president and a cardboard prop". Yesterday I called him a Republican president with industrialist, federalist, reconstructionist, even partly Catholic leanings, thinking in particular of Lincoln, Grant, McKinley, and Roosevelt. Although comparisons of Trump with Theodore Roosevelt are easy, before this past week, I thought more of Grant. Via Wikipedia,

In 1885, impoverished and dying of throat cancer, Grant wrote his memoirs, covering his life through the Civil War, which were posthumously published and became a major critical and financial success. At his death, Grant was the most popular American and was memorialized as a symbol of national unity. Due to the pseudohistorical and negationist mythology of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy spread by Confederate sympathizers around the turn of the 20th century, historical assessments and rankings of Grant's presidency suffered considerably before they began recovering in the 21st century. Grant's critics take a negative view of his economic mismanagement and the corruption within his administration, while his admirers emphasize his policy towards Native Americans, vigorous enforcement of civil and voting rights for African Americans, and securing North and South as a single nation within the Union.

I'm also interested in Trump's expansionism, reflected in his interest in acquiring Greenland and restoring control over the Panama Canal. McKinley and Roosevelt figure here. Again, Wikipedia:

The American annexation of Hawaii in 1898 was stimulated in part by fear that Japan would dominate or seize the Hawaiian Republic. Similarly, Germany was the alternative to American takeover of the Philippines in 1900, and Tokyo strongly preferred the U.S. to take over. As the U.S. became a naval world power, it needed to find a way to avoid a military confrontation in the Pacific with Japan.

In the 1890s, Roosevelt had been an ardent imperialist and vigorously defended the permanent acquisition of the Philippines in the 1900 campaign. After the local insurrection ended in 1902, Roosevelt wished to have a strong U.S. presence in the region as a symbol of democratic values, but he did not envision any new acquisitions.

. . . The Great White Fleet of American battleships visited Japan in 1908. Roosevelt intended to emphasize the superiority of the American fleet over the smaller Japanese navy, but instead of resentment, the visitors arrived to a joyous welcome. This goodwill facilitated the Root–Takahira Agreement of November 1908 which reaffirmed the status quo of Japanese control of Korea and American control of the Philippines

We're only starting to get a glimpse of what Trump 2.0 is going to be like. Ferdinand Lundberg, by the way, discounts Roosevelt's "malefactors of great wealth" remarks:

Presidents McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and Eisenhower were deep in the confidence of the finpols and, despite harsh words at times purely for public consumption, got along very well with them. Theodore Roosevelt demagogically referred to them as "malefactors of great wealth." But the finpols, always, despite harsh public language, managed to get their way, sooner or later. Corporate concentration for example, continues apace despite the hullabaloo of antitrust.

This is pretty clearly what's going on in the current rapprochement between Trump and the tech billionaires. Beyond that, there's not much else to say for now, other than it's easy to understand why the Bushes hate the guy.

Black Stoles? No, Tippets!

As I had hoped, a visitor set me straight on the question of the Anglican vestments at the National Cathedral post-inaugural prayer service:

I'm not sure that they are "black stoles" but, rather, "scarves." The stole as a liturgical vestment was discarded in the Church of England at the Reformation and did not return until the Oxford Movement, and that unofficially and indeed, arguably, illegally. Nor were the traditional Catholic liturgical colors for vestments preserved after the English Reformation; they, too, came back with the Oxford Movement. The same was the case in the Episcopal Church, although their restoration to use in some circles in PECUSA met with less violent and less prolonged opposition in the former, than it did in the Church of England (among Evangelicals especially). In both the CofE and PECUSA the wearing of such post-Reformation style of vestments tended to hang on in cathedrals and especially big public services of a political and ceremonious sort, and this seems to me what was happening at this event.

However, the common pre Oxford Movement liturgical dress of clergy who wished to follow the rules punctiliously were surplice, black scarf, and academic hood (if the clergyman had a degree), while bishops wore rochets (instead of surplices), chimeres, and also scarves. I expect that "the scarf" may have some historical relationship to "the stole," just as "the rochet" did to "the surplice," but I'm just speculating here.

This also clarifies the vestments worn by Bp Budde, the most visible being the red chimere with a black bishop's scarf:

Bp Budde also did not wear the post-Oxford Movement bishop's mitre in the Catholic style. My visitor continues,

The use of mitres by Anglican bishops is another example.  For more then two centuries after 1559 no Anglican bishop ever wore a mitre on his head.  Samuel Seabury of Connecticut (bishop 1784-1796) was the first one to do so, having his best beaver hat refashioned into a mitre when he returned to Connectucut from his episcopal consecration in Scotland in 1784, and no other american bishop followed his example until almost a century later. 

But this raises what I think is an incongruity. The National Cathedral in Washington is a creature of the Gothic Revival movement in architecture. Via Wikipedia,

The Gothic Revival movement's roots are intertwined with philosophical movements associated with Catholicism and a re-awakening of high church or Anglo-Catholic belief concerned by the growth of religious nonconformism. The "Anglo-Catholic" tradition of religious belief and style became known for its intrinsic appeal in the third quarter of the 19th century.

The Oxford Movement was an ecclesiastical expression of this tendency. It was highly controversial in the UK, especially since the Church of England was and is a government institution. Interestingly, it became popular much more quickly in the US as the families of the late 19th century robber barons were quick to endow Gothic Revival churches and university buildings even if, like the Rockefellers, they weren't Episcopalian. The Wikipedia entry continues,

The rise of evangelicalism in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries saw in England a reaction in the high church movement which sought to emphasise the continuity between the established church and the pre-Reformation Catholic church. Architecture, in the form of the Gothic Revival, became one of the main weapons in the high church's armoury. The Gothic Revival was also paralleled and supported by "medievalism", which had its roots in antiquarian concerns with survivals and curiosities. As "industrialisation" progressed, a reaction against machine production and the appearance of factories also grew. Proponents of the picturesque such as Thomas Carlyle and Augustus Pugin took a critical view of industrial society and portrayed pre-industrial medieval society as a golden age. To Pugin, Gothic architecture was infused with the Christian values that had been supplanted by classicism and were being destroyed by industrialisation.

But especially in the US, the Gothic Revival was an expression of new, industrialized wealth. That it should be so enthusiastically adopted by the families grown rich from railroads, steel, mining, petroleum, and automobiles suggests a wish to distance themselves from such influences and associate more closely with medieval aristocracy -- nevertheless, the cornerstone of the National Cathedral was laid by Theodore Roosevelt, who represented a peak of aggressive Republican, reconstructionist, expansionist, industrialist federal power.

I'm told that the National Cathedral, in contrast, has always been low church in its alignment, that is, reflecting the post-Reformation, Protestant, Evangelical aspect of Anglicanism, even with its Gothic Revival architectural trappings -- and with an endowment funded by Northern industrialist families who otherwise favor the medievalist, Anglo-Catholic style.

It's hard to avoid thinking that in this case, Bp Budde is continuing a liturgical style that is trying to stand athwart history yelling "stop!" as Trump, a Republican president with industrialist, federalist, reconstructionist, even partly Catholic leanings, resumes office.

Black Stoles?

In Wednesday's post, I noted that the clergy presiding over the post-inaugural prayer service for Trump's second inauguration wore black stoles. This puzzled me, because I was an Episcopalian for over 30 years, and I've been a Roman Catholic for a dozen, and the liturgical colors for The Episcopal Church follow those of the Catholic Church. The current Catholic liturgical season is "Ordinary Time", for which the color is green. The Episcopal Church regards this season as an extended "Epiphany" that lasts until Ash Wednesday, but its liturgical color is also green.

Thus a priest or deacon presiding over a normal eucharist or prayer service at this time of the year would wear a green stole, not a black one, and black isn't normally listed as a liturgical color -- just red, white, purple, rose, or green.

According to Wikipedia, in Roman Catholic practice, which Episcopalians have followed since the Oxford Movement,

For the celebration of the Mass, the principal celebrant as well as concelebrants wear the stole over the alb but under the chasuble. Likewise, the deacon wears the stole over the alb but under the dalmatic. The stole is also worn over the surplice or alb for the distribution and reception of Holy Communion.

The priest or deacon who presides in paraliturgical celebrations, such as the Stations of the Cross, usually wears the stole over the surplice (or alb), and always under the cope.

As far as I understand this, backed up by a fast-forward review of the service on YouTube, this was an Episcopalian Morning Prayer service that did not include a eucharist. Thus the priests who presided over it were wearing surplices, not chasubles, with stoles worn over the surplice. But as we see in the photo above, the stoles were black, not green, as would be appropriate for the liturgical season. I was a little surprised that there was even such a thing as a black stole, but I found at stoles.com:

Mourning is symbolized by the color black. Contrary to popular opinion, black or purple uniforms may be dressed at funeral Masses.

Except that this wasn't a funeral mass; liturgically it was Morning Prayer. I briefly thought the clergy might have been displaying some sort of mourning over the inauguration of Trump, but then I looked for photos of prior post-inaugural services and found this one above left of the 2009 service for Obama (click on the image for a larger copy). Yup, black stoles, even for a liberal Democrat. However, the clergy representing other faiths on the dais are wearing either red stoles or no stoles.

I found this at a commercial vestment site:

The Importance of Black Vestments: Black is one of the most powerful, yet underrated, colors in Christian tradition. It’s not just about mourning—it’s about reflecting on the deeper mysteries of life, death, and redemption.

. . . Black makes a statement without needing to shout. It’s timeless, solemn, and speaks to the gravity of the moments it’s worn. It serves as a visual reminder of Christ’s sacrifice, the reality of our mortality, and the hope we find in resurrection.

. . . Fun fact: Did you know that during the Reformation, black became widely used as a liturgical color in some Protestant denominations? Reformers like John Calvin favored black vestments to emphasize simplicity, humility, and repentance, stripping away the more elaborate colors and fabrics of the Catholic Church.

So all I can tentatively conclude is that the black stoles here are an area where the Episcopalians are asserting their Protestantism despite otherwise affecting Catholic liturgical forms, and the black is intended to emphasize the solemnity of the occasion. It isn't meant to disrespect Trump, even though the context of Bp Budde's homily may have led some to believe it might have been.

I'll greatly appreciate corrections and clarifications via e-mail or in the comments -- this was a strange rabbit hole. I'll post any corrections or clarifications here.

Splitsville For Doug And Kamala?

Via the UK Daily Mail,

Kamala Harris was all smiles and affection for her 'beloved' second gentleman Doug Emhoff in the immediate aftermath of her crushing presidential election defeat.

But now that President Donald Trump has been sworn into office, for sore loser Harris, it is now all about the blame game, and her target has flipped to her 'dead weight' husband.

And as she weighs her political future – maybe a 2026 run for Governor of California or another try for the nation's top job two years later – she has to consider whether Emhoff is an asset or a liability.

. . . Despite their brave united front at the inauguration and at President Jimmy Carter's January 9 funeral, those close to the couple believe all is not 'hunky dory' between them.

And word is the husband of California girl Kamala has already signed up for a job with a Big Apple law firm which would require them to split their time between New York and Los Angeles.

The piece goes on to mention that Emhoff chose to forego his legal career to support Kamala's presidential aspirations:

Emhoff famously stepped away from his own prominent career as an attorney in California to fully support Harris' political ambitions in 2020 – becoming hell-bent on perfecting his image as a 'wife guy'.

But now that Kamala is out of power for the foreseeable future, Emhoff is going to have to find other ways to cash in. I looked at Emhoff's prior legal career in this post, where I relied heavily on an entry in Britannica. He graduated from USC Law School in 1990 and was presumably admitted to the California bar soon afterward.

Emhoff subsequently embarked on a career in entertainment law. He worked at the firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and later joined Bingham McCutchen. In the late 1990s he moved to Belin Rawlings & Badal. His clients there included Hollywood Video, a rental chain that he defended after Fox Entertainment Group accused it of underreporting sales and rentals.

In 2000 Emhoff cofounded the firm Whitwell Jacoby Emhoff.

. . . In 2006 Whitwell Jacoby Emhoff was acquired by Venable LLP, and Doug Emhoff became head of that firm’s Los Angeles branch and later manager of its West Coast operations.

This covers the period of his first marriage, to Kerstin Mackin in 1992, which ended in divorce in 2010 amid allegations of infedelity with their children's nanny in 2008. Following the divorce, there were allegations of sexual harassment against him in his position as Venable LLP's manager of West Coast operations, including playing favorites in case assignments with female attorneys who would flirt with him and holding all-male after-hours drinking parties.

May 2012 was also when a New York attorney who was dating him alleged that he slapped her while they waited in a valet parking line at a French film festival.

However, in 2013, he met Kamala on a blind date and married her in 2014. At that time, she was California Attorney General; she was elected US Senator from California in 2016. This appears to correspond with Emhoff's move to a new law firm. Britannica continues,

In 2017 he joined the global firm DLA Piper, where he represented such clients as big-box store Walmart, arms dealer Dolarian Capital, and pharmaceutical company Merck.

. . . In 2016 when Harris, a Democrat, ran for the U.S. Senate, Emhoff maintained a relatively low profile during the campaign. She ultimately won, and the couple moved to Washington, D.C. Emhoff took on a more public role during the 2020 presidential election, as Harris first ran for the party’s nomination before dropping out and then becoming Joe Biden’s running mate. Biden and Harris ultimately defeated the Republican ticket . . . . During the campaign Emhoff stopped practicing law, and he later began teaching at Georgetown University’s law school.

But it's hard to avoid thinking that being married, first to the California Attorney General, and then to a US Senator, was good for Emhoff's legal career. A partner in a law firm is valuable only insofar as he can bring in clients, and if Emhoff had the ear of a US Senator in particular, he'd bring in clients. Thus he'd be valuable to DLA Piper -- or so you'd think. So why did he stop practicing law just when he was on the verge of cashing in even more?

Exactly why isn't clear -- certainly it was never an obstacle to Hunter Biden's law practice that his father was either a US Senator or vice president. My suspicion all along has been that the firms that hired him soon enough discovered he wasn't all that valuable and edged him out, and that probably included DLA Piper. And the question for me continues to be how Emhoff can bring in major clients now if his only claim to fame is that he was house hubby to an ex-vice president and out of the law business entirely for four years.

According to, New York Magazine,

The couple has been seriously exploring the Manhattan apartment market so they can become a bit bicoastal. They have considered different kinds of uptown units — “Page Six” was recently tipped off to Emhoff’s tour of a big condo near Lincoln Center — and have been working through logistical questions, including security concerns. (Former vice-presidents get six months of Secret Service protection, but that can occasionally be extended depending on risk levels.)

A secondary East Coast base may be helpful for their travels. Harris is likely to give some paid speeches, and she’s already fielded inquiries about writing a book. Emhoff, a lawyer, has spoken about taking on clients again and maintaining a public profile so he can keep up his work combating antisemitism.

This looks like it's mostly smokescreen, and the Daily Mail interprets it as more likely an indication that they'll be living separate lives. And the mention of Emhoff keeping up his work combating anti-Semitism is off the wall -- neither Kamala nor his first wife was Jewish, his children weren't raised as Jews and don't identify as Jews, and Emhoff himself doesn't appear to be observant, other than for occasional staged campaign-related events with Kamala. It's hard to imagine any Jewish organization taking him seriously as a spokesperson.

And it does pretty much look like the days of Emhoff and Kamala celebrating Passover as a family are over. If anything positive comes out about either one of them, I'll have a really hard time believing it.

The National Cathedral, The Establishment Clause, And The Lady Bishop

The intgriguing thing about Episcopalian Bishop Marianne Budde's homily at yesterday's National Prayer Service is how many people it confused. Just for starters, DeVory Darkins, the YouTube commentator in the clip above, says at 2:35,

I didn't know you could be a bishop as a woman, I'm just being honest here, I'm not too familiar with the Catholic religion, I'm a Christian. . .

The commenters quickly explained that Bp Budde isn't Catholic, she's Episcopalian -- but nevertheless, aren't the Episcopalians hitchhiking once again on Catholic prestige here? She's vested in a strange mishmosh of a surplice-cum-black-stole that's at least reminiscent of Catholic tradition, and the service is conducted in a faux Catholic-style cathedral with faux medieval stonework and a rose window, which calls itself the National Cathedral. Wikipedia says,

The Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the City and Diocese of Washington, commonly known as Washington National Cathedral or National Cathedral, is a cathedral of the Episcopal Church. The cathedral is located in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States.

Its website says,

Washington National Cathedral holds a unique place at the intersection of sacred and civic life. As the Cathedral of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, we strive to serve God and our neighbors as agents of reconciliation, a trusted voice of moral leadership and a sacred space where the country gathers during moments of national significance.

Wikipedia goes on,

From its earliest days, the cathedral has been promoted as more than simply an Episcopal cathedral. Planners hoped it would play a role similar to Westminster Abbey. They wanted it to be a national shrine and a venue for great services. . . . Contrary to popular misconception, the government has not designated it as a national house of prayer.

You'd better bet it hasn't -- the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Declaring that there's a national house of prayer that's part of The Episcopal Church. or indeed, any national house of prayer at all, would directly contradict the Establishment Clause. In effect, there's some sort of gentlemen's agreement that the National Cathedral is a sorta-kinda venue for presidential funerals and inaugural prayer services, but not every presidential memorial service has been conducted there, and not every president has had an inaugural prayer service there.

It's all sorta-kinda, not quite national, not quite Catholic, just maybe seems that way. But very prestigious.

Actually, the National Cathedral at this point is an artifact, as is The Episcopal Church. Wikipedia says,"Construction started on September 29, 1907, with a ceremonial address by President Theodore Roosevelt and the laying of the cornerstone." This was a period where The Episcopal Church was at the peak of its prestige, with wealthy and influential families like the Vanderbilts, the Morgans, the Harrimans, the Mellons, the Astors, the Roosevelts, and the Peabodys prominent among their numbers.

This has been part of the confusion that's been tolerated all along that, at least for a time, worked to the benefit of the Establishment and the Episcopalians. If there was a certain amount of confusion whether a bishop was Catholic or Episcopalian, or for that matter a priest, so much the better. If it was felt that the country's official spirituality was Episcopalian, so much the better. And especially when the official teachings of most Christian denominations on matters like marriage and sexuality, or even the ordination of women, were mostly consistent, it didn't matter too much.

But in Trump's second inaugural ceremonies Monday and yesterday, we're beginning to see the schism. We may assume that Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Dr Franklin Graham were specifically invited by the Trump team to deliver the invocations before the oath of office. Cdl Dolan has had nice things to say about Trump in the recent past, and Dr Graham specifically endorsed him. And as I watched the ceremony Monday, I noted that Rome's Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith might have vetted each of their invocations for consistency.

They both preached on the subject of God as the source of wisdom. They urged our civic leadership to pray to God for wisdom, as figures from King Solomon to General Patton have done. There were no potential disputes over church governance, the number and nature of the sacraments, or the exclusive authority of scripture. Indeed, both were ordained and consecrated ministers of the gospel, and they were both male. The level of unanimity was simply remarkable. The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church might have been able to join them, at least several generations ago.

No longer. The following day, confusion reigned. There was a woman bishop who had nothing in particular to say about God, nor anything about prayer or wisdom, and nobody was quite sure what religion this was in any case. But most importantly, she spoke out for luxury beliefs:

In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now. There are gay, lesbian and transgender children, and Democratic and Republican and independent families, some who fear for their lives.

This is peculiar indeed. In the face of increasing recognition that measures like life-changing surgery or puberty blockers are inappropriate for treating gender uncertainty in minor children, the bishop appears to be advocating just these measures, suggesting that withholding castration or mastectomy from these children is somehow ungodly. The standard line here is, after all, that unless transgender kids get surgery, they'll commit suicide. This also neglects the entirely reasonable view that parents who virtue-signal over their children's gender identities are engaging in Munchausen syndrome by proxy, making a self-serving display of their luxury beliefs.

Her sympathy for the immigrants who pick crops and wash dishes is also tempered by the fact that the elite families who employ these immigrants as domestics often don't pay their social security -- indeed, they can't if they're illegal. The current illegal immigration status quo simply enables exploitation of the poor by the wealthy and entitled, among whom are Bp Budde's flock.

According to the link,

Trump did not appear to take Budde’s words to heart. Upon his return to the White House, Trump told a reporter that the service was “not too exciting.”

There's an easy solution to this problem: eliminate the confusion. Follow the Constitution and don't attend any more inaugural prayer services at the so-called Natiomal Cathedral. One option would be to begin to rotate the venues for such services -- the chapels at American University and George Washington University could be other choices, or the Roman Catholic Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception -- or an Evangelical facility in the area.

There'd be much less confusion in any of those venues and much more chance of hearing the gospel preached.

Is LA Mayor Bass A "Dead Woman Walking"?

According to Joel Kotkin, Los Angeles Mayor Karen

Bass “is a dead woman walking”, as a union organiser friend told me this week. The revelations of incompetence, poor planning, and awful communication, combined with the fact that the LA mayor was partying in Ghana when wildfires started in her city, have worked against her, and yesterday angry protestors gathered outside her home. Some charges made by Donald Trump and Elon Musk tying the disaster to DEI and climate policies are exaggerated. But Bass’s lack of interest in public safety mirrors the new progressive script which prioritises “social justice” over actual justice, racial quotas over merit, and climate alarmism over common sense.

I'm not so sure about this. The Eaton Fire, one of the two that dominated last week's news, was entirely outside the LA city limits. The Palisades Fire, though, was mainly within city limits, but the part within city limits was Pacific Palisades:

If you were meeting a talent manager for lunch but neither of you wanted to make it a big deal, you met in the Palisades. If you were in the checkout line at the Gelson’s supermarket on Sunset—gone now—you might, as I did years ago, bump into a network executive and find out that your show is about to be cancelled. The Palisades was the central nervous system for show business. It’s anyone’s guess where that will be now that the Palisades is a pile of ashes and embers.

The average annual household income in Pacific Palisades is $359,451, while the median household income sits at $198,550 per year. Residents aged 25 to 44 earn $220,770, while those between 45 and 64 years old have a median wage of $228,849. In comparison, the median household income of Beverly Hills is $116,771. The median household income of Bethesda is $185,546.

Pacific Palisades isn't just the 1%, it's the .01%. The people there don't think much about Karen Bass one way or another; she's elected by the rest of the city, the San Fernando Valley, South Central, San Pedro, East LA, Hollywood. In fact, it's likely that the people who lost their homes in Pacific Palisades won't even live there by the time Bass is up for reelection next year, while the people who voted for her in 2022 will still live in the rest of the city.

So I'm not as sanguine as Joel Kotkin. In fact, the political oucome of the fires is so far inchoate.

On Friday, a union representing more than 3,000 Los Angeles city firefighters gave its full-throated support for Fire Chief Kristin Crowley, who was reportedly called into Democrat Mayor Karen Bass’ office last week to be fired, though she ultimately kept her job.

Mayor Bass and Crowley have been at odds while the city of Los Angeles battles historic wildfires that have so far killed 25 people, and others remain missing. Additionally, Crowley was recently the subject of an anonymous letter from “retired and active LAFD chief officers” condemning her performance as chief, and specifically her decision to call out Mayor Bass on television.

United Firefighters of Los Angeles City Local 112 condemned the letter admonishing Crowley, which they said was signed by “disgruntled and anonymous individuals.” The union also thanked Crowley for being “willing to fight” for her staff and the agency’s budget, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Rick Caruso, who ran unsuccessfully against Bass in 2022, losing by a 10% margin, is thought to be a potential candidate to run against her in 2026 or possibly an earlier recall, but his positions so far are also incoherent:

Former L.A. Mayoral candidate Rick Caruso appeared on Real Time With Bill Maher on Friday to warn the city to be smart about rebuilding after the disastrous wildfires, and noted that Donald Trump was correct when he criticized officials for their lack of dead brush removal policies.

. . . Caruso agreed that Donald Trump issued the right warning about the lack of effective dead brush removal policies in California. The former Republican mayoral candidate also noted that power lines should be buried to prevent sparking wildfires.

On the other hand, in the same program, he apparently thought Trump shouldn't force these policies on the state:

Caruso was razor blunt when it came to threats from Congressional Republicans and President-elect Donald Trump that future federal aid to California for these recent wildfires and future wildfires might not be delivered with such an open hand anymore.

“This idea that the federal aid is going to come with conditions …it’s bullshit,” Caruso blurted out. “Bullshit!”

So which is it? If the state, county, or city won't follow prudent brush removal policies, how else can the federal government enforce them? It's hard to avoid a feeling that Caruso hasn't thought things through; serious opposition to Bass is going to need a more comprehensive agenda that goes beyond brush removal and advocates policies that benefit the rest of the city, which otherwise will see no benefit in electing a mayor who will just keep the wildfires out of the Palisades.

The only good sign here is that Trump is going to visit Los Angeles, apparently later this week:

President Donald Trump’s first official trip after returning to the White House will be to the Los Angeles areas that have been devastated by fires, according to a new report. The news was reported by NewsNation, which cited two unnamed sources for their reporting.

. . . Trump has laid the blame for the destruction on California Governor Gavin Newsom.

“One of the best and most beautiful parts of the United States of America is burning down to the ground,” Trump posted to Truth Social earlier this month. “It’s ashes, and Gavin Newscum should resign. This is all his fault!!!”

It seems to me that Trump has considerable leverage, partly in placing conditions on disaster aid, partly in insisting that the state apply consistent forest management practices on the enormous acreage of federal forest in the state, and partly in enforcing the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution over California environmental legislation.

In fact, I suspect that Trump will wind up enforcing the authority of the federal government in ways not seen since U S Grant and Reconstruction.

The Other California Fire

A second California fire that's been edged out of the news by the ones in the Los Angeles area is a fire at a battery storage facility at Moss Landing near Monterey on the Central Coast.

The site's battery energy storage facility is the largest commercial battery energy storage facility in the world. The energy storage facility stores excess daytime electrical energy for later use during periods of lower electricity production (usually at night.) Such excess energy is typically produced by renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.

. . . Utilities in California are required by a 2013 law to provide significant battery storage by 2024. The Moss Landing Power Plant site has since been chosen as California's primary location to provide battery based energy storage in order to better utilize renewable energy sources such as solar and wind on a grid-wide commercial scale. On June 29, 2018 Vistra Corp announced that it planned on building at the Moss Landing Power Station site, what became the world's largest commercial electric battery energy storage site.

The point of this is to overcome the disadvantage of solar and wind generated power, that it works only when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. A giant battery storage facility will store surplus power generated when the sun shines and the wind blows and return it to the grid when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. At least, that's the idea. But:

Power company Vistra​’s flagship grid battery project, housed in and around a historic power plant dating back to 1950, erupted into flames Thursday night [January 16] and prompted nearby residents to evacuate from Moss Landing, California.

The cause of the fire is not known, but local authorities have reported that much of the building that housed the batteries was destroyed as of Friday morning. That makes this by far the most destructive of the four battery fires that have afflicted the small coastal town since it became a linchpin in California’s clean energy overhaul. And the dramatic conflagration complicates the energy-storage industry’s efforts to win community support for more large batteries, which are seen as crucial to cleaning up the electrical system.

Lithium batteries in particular have developed a reputation for catching fire. There have been previous fires at the Moss Landing facility; the one last week is only the most severe. However, lithium-ion batteries of the type used in large-scale storage facilities are difficult to extinguish:

A large Li-ion fire, such as in an EV, may need to burn out. Water with copper material can be used, but this may not be available and is costly for fire halls. Increasingly, experts advise using water even with large Li-ion fires. Water lowers combustion temperature but is not recommended for battery fires containing lithium-metal.

In fact, the local fire deparment at Moss Landing had experience with battery fires at the faciity and discovered that no amount of water would extinguish such a fire. Last week, they simply stood by and let the fire burn itself out after destroying the facility over a period of several days. Exactly how or when it can be returned to service is unclear, especially since the basic design of the facility may have been part of the problem.

Statements from utility officials in the wake of the fire have referred to it as a "wake-up call" for the industry, since it reflects basic questions of both safety and reliability for basttery storage facilities, and these in turn are integral to the reliability of renewable electric power sources. If the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine, electricity needs to be stored, but if the storage systems aren't safe or reliable, it throws the whole idea of renewable energy into question.

This is just one instance where the federal government may need to find an opportunity to inject common sense into California politics.

More Dribbles Out On Joe Biden's Decline

Speaker Mike Johnson reveals just how out of the loop and cognitively impaired Joe Biden was as President after meeting with Biden and discussing his LNG Executive Order:

“Biden was not lying to me. He genuinely did not know what he had signed.”

Scary.
pic.twitter.com/Clbytug8e3

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) January 18, 2025

All of a sudden, Speaker Mike Johnson and Democrat Leader Schumer are getting in line to say they knew all along that Joe wasn't running on all cylinders. This suggests to me that even more will be coming out as Trump's staff gains access to White House records, but it's nevertheless significant that the House Speaker and then-Senate Majority Leader were aware of serious problems with Joe's ability to perform his duties but nevertheless did nothing, at least partly because they currently have no constitutional ability to initiate any sort of action.

Sen Schumer is now trying to cover himself by claiming he met with Joe on July 13 of last year, just before the failed assassination attempt on Trump in Butler, PA, but after the problem had become clear to the whole country in the June 27 debate:

Schumer told Joe Biden that top Democrats in the House and Senate had lost faith in him and warned if he lost to Trump, Democrats would lose the Senate and wouldn’t take back the House.

“If you run and you lose to Trump, and we lose the Senate, and we don’t get back the House, that 50 years of amazing, beautiful work goes out the window,” Schumer said, according to The Times. “But worse — you go down in American history as one of the darkest figures.”

“If I were you,” Mr. Schumer said to Biden around 5 o’clock in the evening on July 13, “I wouldn’t run, and I’m urging you not to run.”

But it's transparently clear that the big confab with the top congressional Democrats came only in the wake of the June 27 debate and the episodes in Europe. The problem wasn't that Joe was losing it; the problem was that they could no longer cover it up. This is clear from Speaker Johnson's account of his experience the previous January, as quoted from the interview embedded at the top of this post:

They wouldn't let me meet with him, and his staff kept giving me excuses. This went on for like eight or nine weeks, "I'm sorry Mr. Speaker, he doesn't have time." What are you talking about? I'm second in line to the presidency, he has time. I need to talk to him. We had, I can't say the classified parts, but we had some big national concerns at the time that I was losing sleep over. Finally, I just went to the whole press corps and said the president is not being allowed to meet with the speaker so they start putting pressure on him.

Long story short, they finally relented, they invited me to the White House, I show up and I realize it's actually an ambush because it's not just me and the president. It's actually Kamala Harris, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem, the CIA Director, and everybody, and then so I walk into the Oval, and I say, "Ah, I know what this is. . ."

This is consistent with reports from the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal in prior weeks that Biden's inner circle worked to minimize his contacts with outsiders:

At least one Cabinet member stopped asking for calls with Biden "because it was clear that such requests wouldn’t be welcome," a source told the Wall Street Journal. Cabinet members with particularly infrequent access to Biden reportedly included Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.

Donors also noticed how staffers worked to mask signs of Biden's "decline," the Wall Street Journal reported.

Johnson continued in the interview,

We sit down, we're in the midst of it and I'm saying, "We don't need to have this conversation." The president reaches over, just like this, we were sitting right next to the fireplace in the Oval, and he says, "The Speaker and I just need a couple minutes together. We y'all just leave us alone?" And I looked up on the faces of some of staff standing around the wall, and they were like, "No, he did it."

He called it, he's the commander in chief, so everybody leaves, and he and I are standing awkwardly in the middle of the Oval Office right over the rug by that coffee table, and I said, "Mr. President, thanks for the moments, you know, this is very important, I've got some big national security things I need to talk to you about that I've heard, and I think you know, but first, real quickly, Mr. President, can I ask you a question?"

"I can't answer this for my constituents in Louisiana. Sir, why did you pause LNG exports? Liquified natural gas is in great demand by our allies, why would you do that? Cause you understand, we just talked about Ukraine, you understand you're fueling Putin's war machine?" And he looked at me, stunned, and he said, "I didn't do that." And I said, "Mr. President, yes you did, it was an executive order like three weeks ago." He said, "No, I didn't do that," he was arguing with me.

As best anyone could tell, Biden was told that what he was signing only authorized some sort of LNG study, not a pause in LNG exports:

I said, "No you're not sir, you paused it, I have the terminal, the export terminal in our state, I talked to those people this morning. This is doing massive damage to our economy, to our national security."

I thought, "We are in serious trouble." Who's running the country?" I don't know who put the paper in front of him, but he didn't know.

Given the circumstances, it would be perfectly reasonable for Speaker Johnson to conclude the country's in "serious trouble" -- but, er, given that, what did he do? And this was in late January 2024, five months before the June 27 debate that finally convinced Leader Schumer and Speaker Emerita Pelosi that they couldn't cover Joe's condition up any longer -- so they resorted to extraconstitutional means to push him out as a presidential candidate. Let's recall that Section 4 of the 25th Amendment provides:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

Let's recall that the House Speaker in the first half of 2024 was Mike Johnson; the President pro tempore of the Senate was Patty Murray. But they would have had a completely passive role in removing Biden under the 25th Amendment; the reponsibility was on the Vice President and a majority of the cabinet simply to notify Johnson and Murray of Biden's inability. But neither Johnson, Murray, Harris, nor anyone in the cabinet was involved in sidelining Joe, at least from the self-serving accounts we've had so far from Schumer and Pelosi.

So, exactly what happened? One part of the question hasn't been answered at all, which is who was actually running the country? Whose decision was it, for instance, to write an executive order pausing LNG exports but to tell Joe he was signing something else? Were any laws broken?

But then there's a whole set of additional questions. The 25th Amendment was written and ratified principally to solve the problem of how to replace a vice president who succeeds to the presidency and leaves the vice presidency vacant until the next presidential election. But its provisions for removing an incapacitated president are apparently not workable; the vice president and the cabinet clearly have too much interest in keeping an incapacitated president in office as long as possible. There need to be additional checks and balances.

This is just one more on a long list of items Trump and Congress will need to address in the new term.