Charlotte's Web Thoughts

[This blog will always be free to read, but it’s also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: [email protected].]

Yesterday, GOP Congresswoman Nancy Mace introduced a resolution to the House rules package that would require all people to use only restrooms corresponding with their sex assigned at birth, essentially intended as a ban on trans women from using women's restrooms in the U.S. Capitol.

This is being done as Sarah McBride of Delaware is set to become the first openly-trans Member of Congress.

It remains very unclear how this rule would be enforced, and when Rep. Mace was asked that exact question last night, she refused to offer anything in the way of a direct answer.

What I find most interesting about all this is that trans women have been using women's restrooms in the Capitol and the House and Senate office buildings and the White House and the Pentagon for many years now, including during all four years of the Trump Administration.

Under Donald Trump's leadership, trans women were permitted to use women's restrooms in federal buildings in D.C. and there was never any issue.

I have attended hundreds of political events in D.C. over the years and used the restroom at many of them, including in all the buildings listed above.

I have washed my hands countless times at the sink next to conservative and Republican women and even had pleasant and brief conversations with many of them.

There’s never been an issue. Because the whole point of going to the restroom is to do your business in a private stall and then wash your hands and maybe touch up your make-up and, on occasion, with friends, there might be conversations at the sink.

That’s it. I’m sorry there’s no mystery here. It’s pretty straightforward and banal.

In fact, the only time I need to worry about using a public restroom is when I travel outside of D.C., always double-checking to see if there are non-discrimination protections in airports during a layover.

If there aren’t, I need to locate a single-occupancy restroom and/or carefully plan what I eat and drink during that leg of the trip.

In the four years that Rep. Nancy Mace has been in Congress, she's known that trans women use women's restrooms in federal buildings in D.C. and it's never been an issue for her. Not once. In all this time.

Until the first trans woman was elected to Congress. Then it suddenly became an issue.

Doesn't it seem like this is an incredibly cynical and cruel attempt on the part of Congresswoman Mace to manufacture outrage and divide people over something that hasn't been a problem?

Congresswoman-elect Sarah McBride offered an astute and admirable response:

Every day Americans go to work with people who have life journeys different than their own and engage with them respectfully, I hope members of Congress can muster that same kindness.

This is a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing. We should be focused on bringing down the cost of housing, health care, and child care, not manufacturing culture wars.

Delawareans sent me here to make the American dream more affordable and accessible and that’s what I’m focused on.

I’m glad at least one elected official in this story has the character and discipline to keep focused on the needs of her constituents. She sees petty and cruel distractions for what they are: small and sad.

But I do feel bad for Congresswoman Mace, who is so desperate for attention that she resorts to policing how others pee and being obsessed with their genitals.

I shall genuinely pray for her growth.

Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

[This blog will always be free to read, but it’s also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: [email protected].]

Another day in this election, another weird claim about trans people.

On Wednesday, J.D. Vance sat down for a long interview with Joe Rogan, doing his usual schtick of making a litany of absurd claims, among them that high school students are “becoming trans” to secure an advantage in the notoriously competitive Ivy League admission process, explaining it this way:

“If you are a middle-class or upper-middle-class white parent and the only thing that you care about is whether your child goes into Harvard or Yale, like, obviously, that pathway has become a lot harder for a lot of upper-middle-class kids.”

Sigh… okay, so, let’s all take a breath and put on our thinking caps.

For any trans person or someone who has a trans loved one, the first question that comes to mind is: how on earth would this be worth it?

Because even in the most progressive areas of the country, trans youth and their families still face intense cultural obstacles. Even where non-discrimination laws exist for trans people, anti-trans sentiment doesn’t simply disappear.

Any trans person can tell you that even in places where 99% of folks have no issues with trans people, all it takes is one transphobic person to cause trouble.

And they do! Let’s be clear about that: anti-trans harassment and discrimination happen everywhere in the United States. Simply residing in a progressive place doesn’t insulate trans people from bigotry.

Last month, Jo Yurcaba of NBC News reported on the CDC’s 2023 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, data gathered last year but published about three weeks ago.

In regards to trans high school students, the data is predictably horrifying. About a quarter of trans and questioning students surveyed had attempted suicide in the past year, 40 percent reported being bullied, and about 70 percent reported persistent sadness or hopelessness.

Bottom line: it really ain’t great to be a trans youth in the current climate.

So, even if a non-trans high school student were presenting as “trans” to obtain a mythological advantage (more on that in a sec), they would quickly find out that transphobia still very much exists.

I just can’t see how it would be worth it. It doesn’t make sense.

Okay, so, what if a non-trans student didn’t publicly come out as "trans” but lied on their college application about being trans in order to gain that mythological advantage?

That’s a hell of a roll of the dice, isn’t it?

A family would basically be betting that their college applicant could keep their false representation a secret, limited only to the admissions committee, risking all the consequences that would come with any future revelation that they lied on their application.

That doesn’t make sense, either.

But here’s the kicker to all this: trans youth are woefully underrepresented at Ivy League universities and clearly don’t have an admissions advantage when applying.

That CDC national survey also reported that about 3.3 percent of high school students identify as transgender.

Harvard’s entering freshmen class this year has 0.7 percent trans students, a fifth of the national average.

UPenn’s entering class is 1.0 percent.

Princeton’s entering class is 1.4 percent.

Dartmouth’s entering class is 1.6 percent.

Brown and Cornell have neither publicly-available, official statistics nor student surveys on trans students matriculating this year.

The entering classes of Yale and Columbia are tied for the highest rate of trans students among the Ivies: two percent, nearly half the national average of high school trans students.

Most of these college stats were gathered from student surveys conducted by campus newspapers. I was unable to find any evidence that these institutions factor in an aspiring matriculant’s gender identity when considering their application.

Maybe a top university outside the Ivies does?

Stanford has no publicly available data on this, so I called their admissions office, and after explaining my inquiry, a polite but understandably incredulous staffer told me:

“We don’t collect that information during the admissions process.”

They directly confirmed that trans applicants have no advantage.

Not wanting to waste anyone else’s time on this—or mine—I left it there. It’s abundantly clear that being transgender offers no clear advantage when applying to our nation’s top universities.

But I also have to ask: why shouldn’t being transgender make an aspiring applicant stand out a bit?

Being trans is a rare life experience which has constantly been at the center of American public life over the past several years and certainly shows no signs of going away in the national discourse.

If a college education is meant to include developing social skills for their future place in the workforce and learning from other students of widely different backgrounds, doesn’t it seem reasonable that all college students, regardless of gender identity, benefit from having trans classmates?

I feel the same way about conservative students. Having young people of varying political backgrounds and viewpoints in good faith conversation with each other is a necessary thing for civic engagement and professional development, and it should be encouraged.

It reminds me of a heartwarming conversation I read recently between two friends who met each other as law school students, one of them a trans progressive and the other a non-trans conservative.

The conservative had a written a memoir in which he described his trans friend in a manner that he realized might not accurately reflect their identity. He wrote the friend an email apologizing for the error.

The trans friend wrote him back with a kind reply, offering grace and understanding and good faith.

The two signed off their respective emails with love, reflective of a long friendship that was built on trust, despite their divergent political views.

The conservative in this story is J.D. Vance, and his trans friend—whom he would later betray by selling out to to horrific anti-trans views—is Sofia Nelson.

So, maybe this expectation of sociocultural exchange doesn’t guarantee good outcomes, especially when one of the parties throws away their value system for fame and power.

It’s almost as though J.D. Vance knows what he’s saying about trans people is flat-out wrong and hateful and counterproductive, and he’s decided that betraying people he claims to love—let alone an entire vulnerable community—is worth it.

And that does beg the conclusion: if this is how he’s used his Ivy League degree, it probably makes sense he imagines anyone else would lie to get one.

Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

[This blog will always be free to read, but it’s also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: [email protected].]

I love baseball. It’s my favorite sport to watch. I’ve enjoyed the World Series every year for as long as I can remember.

Some of you aren’t into baseball. Some of you find it incredibly boring, which is completely understandable. America’s national pastime isn’t for everyone. There are long stretches during which, on its face, there’s no obvious excitement on the field.

If you love baseball, every moment is interesting because the intricacies are quite fun to watch. The dueling between pitcher and batter—the competing strategies—alone is fascinating.

Anyway, this year is particularly fascinating because of the storylines.

The Los Angeles Dodgers and the New York Yankees are facing off in the World Series for the 12th time in the history of their storied rivalry, which stretches back to when the Dodgers were still in Brooklyn.

Playing for the Dodgers are Shohei Ohtani, widely considered the best ballplayer since the days of Josh Gibson and Babe Ruth (some think he’s the greatest ever) and the phenomenal Mookie Betts and the electrifying Freddie Freeman.Playing for the Yankees are Aaron Judge, one of the greatest hitters in the game, and Giancarlo Stanton (also one of the greatest hitters in the game) and Juan Soto (also one of the greatest hitters in the game).

Two of the most iconic franchises in baseball representing the two biggest media markets in the country, with numerous likely-future-Hall-of-Famers on the field, a jaw-dropping 34 World Series titles between them (though the Dodgers have a mere seven of those), and it’s all very, very fun for baseball fans.

So, it’s not surprising that 16.28 million viewers saw last night’s Game 4 (the winner goes to best-of-7 for you non-baseball folks), the highest single game viewership for the World Series since 2019, contributing to the highest average World Series viewership for a series since 2017.

And, of course, I’m watching. It’s delicious. It’s a beautiful drip of serotonin in a year of political and existential morass when I could use the distraction from all that’s awful.

But then the commercials come, and during just about every break, it’s the same campaign ad: a disembodied, angry voice essentially tells 16 million viewers that trans people are the cause of their problems, that “Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you.”

It’s the same ad aired during NFL games and NCAA football games and other sporting events, and if you’re a trans person who loves sports like I do—and I really love sports—it profoundly sucks to be bombarded with this hateful rhetoric, day after day, for many weeks now.

Transphobia is so open and commonplace these days that it’s easy to become somewhat desensitized to it. There’s the campaign rhetoric. There are political articles. There are talking heads. There are bans. There are court cases. There’s street harassment. There’s online harassment. There are death threats.

There’s the overwhelming sense that millions of people in the United States truly wish that the trans community would simply disappear, by any means possible.

That much is obvious.

But what doesn’t get nearly enough attention these days—and I firmly believe this as strongly as anything—is that the vast majority of the country does not support transphobia.

I know that’s hard for some folks to accept. It’s a close election, and if the polls are to be believed (and I am quite skeptical of polls), nearly half of likely voters support a presidential ticket that is stridently anti-trans. Ergo, I am supposed to accept that half the country hates the existence of the trans community.

But I don’t accept that. I don’t think it’s true because I’ve had numerous conversations with conservatives—some of them Trump supporters—who don’t have anything against trans people specifically.

Some probably think I shouldn’t say that because if someone is supporting an anti-trans candidate, does it really matter if their support isn’t because of any transphobia on their part?

Totally fair question. I think it does matter. Although anecdotal, the conversations I’ve had with these folks signal, at minimum, a lot of hope for transphobia becoming less prevalent over time in the near future.

But that’s not why I’m talking about this ad. Because it’s honestly not an issue that I believe will be effective in this election despite the GOP’s firm belief that most Americans care about this more than other central topics.

Because I believe most Americans, regardless of political beliefs, will not be voting based on their personal feelings toward trans people. They just won’t. Republican leadership have woefully miscalculated the effectiveness of disgusting bigotry as an electoral motivator.

It’ll drive out a lot of the GOP’s base, sure, but it’s not the kinda thing that resonates with most Americans.

If anything, I believe that most Americans are repulsed and incredulous that considerable space is being given to this issue, in the final stretch of the election, that could far more effectively address the actual struggles of working class families.

It’s why I’m glad that Vice President Harris and Gov. Walz are laser-focused on the struggles facing all working class families. It’s why I’m glad their messaging is about uniting the country and saving democracy and lifting people up. The contrast is powerful and most importantly: it will win the election.

Regardless, the ads do work in quite a visceral way: for those who already hate trans people, it’s further enabling their bigotry. It’s further encouraging the blatant and searing dehumanization of trans people among a segment of the population who are already inclined to consider us sub-human.

The ads are building an obvious permission structure for virulently anti-trans people to treat us like we are unworthy of protection against violence and discrimination.

I’m a grown adult, and as much as it sucks to see this unapologetic hatred every day, I know I’m gonna be alright.

I’m in an area of the country with solid protections against discrimination. I have access to health care. I’m doing okay financially. I have a good support system. I’m very fortunate and privileged in all these ways.

But what about those trans people living in areas of the country without non-discrimination protections?

What about trans folks without health care? What about trans people who are unemployed and unhoused and encountering other forms of discrimination, like racism and xenophobia, that compound the violent bigotry they experience? What about trans youth and their families?

What about trans people who are especially vulnerable? Even if most of the country doesn’t want to see them hurt, is that enough to protect them from the significantly smaller portion of the country that does want harm to come to them?

It is not enough. It, alone, will never be enough. I know this. It’s gonna take a hell of a lot more than that to achieve progress. It will take patience and grace and authenticity and confidence and assertiveness for many years. It will take a lot of teamwork for a long time coming. That’s just the truth.

But I can’t just stop watching baseball. I refuse to stop watching baseball.

I love my country. I love being an American. I have always believed our nation has the potential to achieve a greatness that is only limited by our imagination and most importantly: our sense of unity. I’m glad Vice President Harris embodies that.

I’m watching baseball tonight because it gives me joy, just as it does to the many millions of other Americans who are watching.

We are all watching a bunch of exceptional athletes work together and experience some of the best moments of life together and encourage each other—just like a family should—toward their common, sole purpose of getting home safely.

And I think that’s far too important to let the smallness and pettiness and ugliness of some very sad people get in the way of my joy.

They will say what hateful things they say and openly speak of what hateful things they desire and they will spin their wheels in such desperation for however long they’ll spin them.

But they don’t get to take baseball from me. Not a chance.

I’m at home here.

Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

[This blog will always be free to read, but it’s also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: [email protected].]

Dear Mr. Bezos:

We’ve read the explanation you published this evening for your decision to kill The Washington Post’s presidential endorsement.

We don't believe you. At all.

We don't think this is about encouraging news neutrality or building trust or fighting disinformation or competing against indie media.

You know why?

Because you did it 11 days before the election, after your editorial board came to a conclusion and drafted an endorsement, after your senior brass gave a green light internally.

If this were somehow about principle, you could have nixed the endorsement before the general election began.

Hell, you could have done it the day Pres. Biden stepped aside as an understandable moment for a reset.

But you didn't.

You claim major newspaper endorsements largely don't matter in a presidential election.

And honestly, I'm inclined to somewhat agree. I think their influence is overrated.

Unless it's an outlet endorsing their perceived ideological opposite (ex: NYT or WaPo for Trump, WSJ or New York Post for Harris), it doesn't matter a whole lot.

Although it's quite curious you claim to believe WaPo's presidential endorsements are too impotent to matter in elections, yet too powerful over public attitudes to be allowed to continue.

That doesn't make sense.

But it's also missing the point.

People aren't angry at you because we think Vice President Harris will somehow lose based on WaPo not endorsing her.

We're furious because you, one of the richest people in the world, bought one of the leading newspapers in our country--a storied bulwark against censorship and corrupt governing--and abused that power to kill the autonomy of the staff of that newspaper.

You have subverted the free press right before a presidential election in which one of the candidates is aggressively totalitarian in outlook, and you now pretend to be surprised at the shock and outrage.

We do not trust you.

We now find it very difficult to trust your newspaper despite the many excellent journalists who work there.

And we believe you either ultimately care only about your own greed OR you are dangerously incompetent regarding the importance of a free press.

Maybe both.

In any case, I’m glad I cancelled my subscription, and there's no way in hell I'm paying for The Washington Post while you still own it.

Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

[This blog will always be free to read, but it’s also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: [email protected].]

Yesterday, just before noon, The Washington Post, through CEO William Lewis, announced it would not endorse a candidate in the 2024 presidential election, the first time the nation’s third-largest daily newspaper by circulation hasn’t done so in nearly four decades.

The announcement was shocking for two immediate reasons.

The most grave—and, frankly, terrifying—reason is that the United States is obviously at threat of sliding into a horrific dictatorship from which it’s difficult to see how we’d ever recover.

Donald Trump and J.D. Vance have made it abundantly clear that they aspire to devolve our nation into the world’s most powerful authoritarian regime. One need look no further than the chilling plans outlined in Project 2025.

But there are many other warning signs, too. A small sampling:

There’s Trump openly praising Hitler’s generals, according to his former chief-of-staff John Kelly (himself a retired four-star Marine Corps general), just the latest marker of fascist narcissism in Trump’s very long and documented history of being obsessed with dictators.

There’s Trump repeatedly pledging to carry out the largest deportation of undocumented migrants in American history, a sweat-lipped plan made in blustering tones that somehow manages to exceed its inherent cruelty with an inexplicable failure to understand basic economics.

(Not only is it logistically impossible to deport our nation’s 11 million undocumented migrants, not only would it cost taxpayers an estimated quarter trillion to do so, but the American economy would completely collapse from the loss in labor force.)

There’s Trump’s flagrant disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law: an indictment that resulted in a guilty verdict on 34 felony counts (his sentencing for that is on Nov. 26th), three other pending indictments on 52 more felony counts, two impeachments, being found liable for defamation of a woman he raped, etc.

Oh, and, of course, there’s Trump’s frequent statements to serve past the constitutional limit of two terms as president (I’m sure he’s just kidding), and the extremist conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruling last year that Trump is essentially a king beyond accountability for official acts in office.

That’s all an abbreviated version of why Donald Trump is obviously unfit.

The second reason is The Washington Post’s abdication of journalistic integrity under the ownership of Jeff Bezos, a development that is especially chilling for a publication that has long prided itself on being the vanguard for American democracy and free speech.

The storied newspaper has won 76 Pulitzer Prizes over its history—second only to The New York Times—one of which was for the investigative reporting by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein that eventually led to the resignation of Richard Nixon. Another was for the reporting on the Jan. 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The Washington Post has long been synonymous with the essential role of the free press in a healthy, functioning democracy in the same manner we associate Babe Ruth with baseball or July Fourth with fireworks or Dolly Parton with a clean soul.

And so, it was with great confusion and incredulity that I read Mr. Lewis’ painfully shameless attempt to justify the decision. He sure did try to put on a powdered wig and insist that the bowl of s**t he wanted to feed to the American public was actually chicken soup for the American soul.

Most curiously, in writing about The Washington Post’s history of largely declining to endorse presidential candidates prior to 1976, he stated that year’s endorsement for then-Gov. Jimmy Carter was made “for understandable reasons at the time…”

Did you catch that? He’s obliquely referencing Watergate, the scandal that brought down Nixon with reporting by the paper — Nixon, who, by any measurable standard, comes across like Lincoln when compared to Trump.

Mr. Lewis, for some odd reason, thought it persuasive to essentially say: “Look, we don’t regret endorsing Carter because Nixon was terrible, but also: Trump is not nearly terrible enough to justify continuing this dangerous practice of presidential endorsements.”

Furthermore, aside from the dollar store cheap imitation of logic, he failed to mention in his desperate, sorry excuse for rationalizing that The Washington Post, for the past several weeks, had been drafting an approved endorsement for Vice President Harris.

He failed to mention that the endorsement was still on track a week ago, and there was no indication that it would be halted for any reason, let alone on the rather cringe-inducing reasoning he put forward in his announcement.

He failed to mention that Trump met today with corporate leaders of aerospace company Blue Origin—also owned by Bezos—which is, at best, godawful timing or a pretty clear signal of Bezos’ reasoning in killing the endorsement. Maybe both.

Probably both.

If none of this makes sense, you’re far from alone. It completely failed to persuade the staff and alums of The Washington Post.

Conservative columnist and editor-at-large Robert Kagan immediately resigned in protest.

Sixteen other Washington Post columnists—Perry Bacon Jr., Matt Bai, Max Boot, E.J. Dionne Jr., Lee Hockstader, David Ignatius, Heather Long, Ruth Marcus, Dana Milbank, Alexandra Petri, Catherine Rampell, Eugene Robinson, Jennifer Rubin, Karen Tumulty, and Erik Wemple—published this statement on the paper’s website:

The Washington Post’s decision not to make an endorsement in the presidential campaign is a terrible mistake. It represents an abandonment of the fundamental editorial convictions of the newspaper that we love. This is a moment for the institution to be making clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law and international alliances, and the threat that Donald Trump poses to them — the precise points The Post made in endorsing Trump’s opponents in 2016 and 2020. There is no contradiction between The Post’s important role as an independent newspaper and its practice of making political endorsements, both as a matter of guidance to readers and as a statement of core beliefs. That has never been more true than in the current campaign. An independent newspaper might someday choose to back away from making presidential endorsements. But this isn’t the right moment, when one candidate is advocating positions that directly threaten freedom of the press and the values of the Constitution.

Mr. Woodward and Mr. Bernstein issued this statement:

We respect the traditional independence of the editorial page, but this decision 12 days out from the 2024 presidential election ignores the Washington Post’s own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy. Under Jeff Bezos’s ownership, the Washington Post’s news operation has used its abundant resources to rigorously investigate the danger and damage a second Trump presidency could cause to the future of American democracy and that makes this decision even more surprising and disappointing, especially this late in the electoral process.

Retired WaPo executive editor Martin Baron, who led the paper from 2012 thru 2021, including the tumultuous years of Trump’s presidency, responded with a scathing statement:

“This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty. Donald Trump will see this as invitation to further intimidate owner Jeff Bezos (and others). Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”

The Washington Post Guild—the paper’s employee union—had this to say:

We are deeply concerned that The Washington Post—an American news institution in the nation’s capital—would make the decision to no longer endorse presidential candidates, especially a mere 11 days ahead of an immensely consequential election. The role of an Editorial Board is to do just this: to share opinion on the news impacting our society and culture and endorse candidates to help guide readers.

The message from our chief executive, Will Lewis—not from the Editorial Board itself—makes us concerned that management interfered with the work of our members in Editorial. According to our own reporters and Guild members, an endorsement for Harris was already drafted, and the decision to not publish was made by The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos. We are already seeing cancellations from once loyal readers. This decision undercuts the work of our members at a time when we should be building our readers’ trust, not losing it.

Washington Post editorial cartoonist Ann Telnaes published this jarring work on the paper’s website, titling it “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” referencing WaPo’s official slogan that was introduced in 2017, just a month after Trump took office.

As of 7:30pm yesterday, Semafor’s Max Tani reported that at least 2,000 subscriptions to the paper had been canceled in the previous 24 hours, the overwhelming bulk of those likely being in the seven-and-a-half hours following the announcement from Mr. Lewis.

Numerous public figures—including Stephen King, Mark Hamill, Jon Cryer, and former Congresswoman Marie Newman—publicly announced they were cancelling their own subscriptions.

Last night, I made the same decision. I had heard rumblings early in the morning from friends in media that WaPo was about to announce a non-endorsement, credible enough that I mentioned it during a 10am meeting with colleagues and they were understandably shocked.

I spent most of yesterday morning and afternoon, in the midst of a very busy schedule, privately agonizing over what I would do as a subscriber.

Over the years, I’ve published a number of op-eds in The Washington Post, pieces of which I’m quite proud in a paper I’ve put on a pedestal since I was a kid, and I’ve worked with numerous editors and reporters at the outlet whom I admire for their professionalism and public service.

It is not lost on me that cancelling a newspaper subscription will not hurt Jeff Bezos but will hurt those employed at the paper.

And yet, as much as my heart breaks for the staff of The Washington Post, who haven’t done anything to deserve this, I am still left with the simple truth that if Bezos is willing to kill an endorsement 11 days out, whether out of fear or ambition, what else is he willing to do with the paper?

There are numerous journalists at the outlet doing critical work, but how we do know anymore when Jeff Bezos is putting his thumb on the scale, backed up by a complicit CEO who blatantly lies about the paper’s direction?

There have to be consequences for an action this brazen and irresponsible and dangerous for our democracy. Something’s gotta give.

I respect the decisions of other subscribers, but I simply cannot stomach giving another dime in reward to a publication with such great influence that can be used to do such great harm moving forward.

It is my hope that there will be a time, after Vice President Harris is elected, after Trump is held accountable, after the craven capitalists of media have learned there’s not much to be made in the long run from these corrupt and shameless tactics, that The Washington Post will be restored to its former glory.

In the meantime, I will pay for my news elsewhere.

Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

[This blog will always be free to read, but it’s also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: [email protected].]

I’m writing this after traveling back from the future, specifically Nov. 12th.

It’s a long story, but I know a lady who knows a lady who has a friend with a DeLorean souped up with an off-market flux capacitor and the trip got made.

Anyway, we don’t have much time, so I’ll cut to the chase.

I got some good news and some bad news and some more good news.

Here’s the first good bit: Election Night went mostly okay, though not without a lot of stress.

By 1am on the East Coast, it was basically clear that Vice President Harris and Governor Walz were going to win the bulk of the swing states, all of them by pretty small margins.

Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada wound up in Harris-Walz column by fewer than 140,000 votes combined, about two-thirds of their total margin in 2020.

Arizona was called for Harris-Walz by the following evening with a razor thin 0.53 percent lead, just outside the threshold for an automatic recount. It’s generally accepted this will hold after absentee/mail-in ballots. Trump-Vance are challenging the results, of course.

Trump-Vance won Georgia by 0.61 percent, just outside the state’s recount request threshold. As in 2020, there are widespread reports of voting inaccessibility and voters standing in line for many hours, some of them turned away, some of them given inaccurate polling place information.

North Carolina was one of the biggest heartbreakers of the night. Harris-Walz wound up losing by just 8,000 votes, relatively small compared to Biden-Harris losing by 74,000 votes in 2020. This will probably hold, too.

But the biggest surprise for everyone from the past week in my timeline—and arguably the biggest heartbreak for Democrats—was Florida, where Harriz-Walz are currently on track to lose by a tantalizing 19,000 votes after the initial recount. Maybe the recount will flip it but most likely not.

Biden-Harris lost Florida by 371,686 votes in 2020. Even in losing, the 2024 margin is a remarkable achievement for Florida Democrats.

As it stands, Harris-Walz are currently at 268 electoral votes (including a surprisingly strong margin in NE-02) compared to Trump-Vance’s likely total of 251.

All that’s left now is Pennsylvania, far too close for comfort, where the margin is shockingly close: just 0.04 percent in favor of Harris-Walz, compared to 1.16 percent for Biden-Harris in 2020.

This, of course, triggered an automatic recount. PA Secretary of State Al Schmidt ordered it to begin today in accordance with state law. He’s a Republican who was appointed by Gov. Josh Shapiro last year, partly due to his refusal to cooperate with efforts by Trump to overturn the valid results of the 2020 election.

The political world is in a full state of rage and anxiety. Pundits are combing through the bizarre nature of Pennsylvania being this ridiculously close, far closer than anyone expected. Trump and Vance have vowed to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court, where, if accepted, they may prevail.

Many observers say the smart money is on Harris-Walz, that the lead of just a few thousand votes should hold, even with a recount, but at this margin, with the furor of Trump World screaming sabotage and this extremist Supreme Court, who the hell really knows?

So, that’s the bad news. The automatic recount could very well flip it to Trump-Vance, and even if it doesn’t, political violence, to some degree, is almost certainly guaranteed.

That’s why I’m here. I’ve traveled back in time with the second bit of good news: we now know this election is very winnable, and with two weeks until Election Day, there’s absolutely no reason why every adult who cares about this country shouldn’t be doing all they can to expand these margins.

Even if you take a few hours this weekend to call voters or knock on doors in these swing states—especially your family, friends, and neighbors—that could prove the difference in the states we lost in my timeline and cement our victories in the states we won.

Two more weeks. Just two more weeks to prevent the cruel anxiety and depression and despair we’ve all been feeling over the past seven days in my timeline, the gnawing regret in knowing that each of us could have probably done a little more and some of us could have done a lot more.

I traveled back in time to get y’all do a little more, so that you can rest easy on the morning of Nov. 6th, knowing you saved democracy from the brink.

Don’t know where or how to volunteer? I got you.

Go here: https://go.kamalaharris.com/

There are so many ways to get involved, and for some of them you don’t even have to leave the comfort of your own home. Take a few hours this week and help us out.

Alright, I promised to get this DeLorean back in one piece. It’s a pretty sweet ride but scary as hell.

Don’t let us down. Don’t let the future down.

Get involved. Your future self will thank you for doing so.

Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

[This blog will always be free to read, but it’s also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: [email protected]. And if this is too big of a commitment, I’m always thankful for a simple cup of coffee.]

Well, hot damn, today is my birthday. I'm now 38, which is old enough to know I'm still quite young and learning.

That's a blessing, but I don't need to give much thought to know what I want for my birthday.

I know exactly what I want, and it's straightforward.

Every year on my birthday, for the past decade, I've done a fundraiser for Running Start, an organization that trains young women in high school and college to run for elected office someday. It's a highly effective org and bipartisan.

This year, I've decided to focus exclusively on covering the travel and food costs for all 80 participants in the 5th Annual HBCU Women’s Leadership Summit, jointly organized by Running Start and Xceleader, being held next month here in Washington, D.C.

The Summit is bringing together young Black women leaders from 31 HBCUs (historically Black colleges and universities) for political training that will empower them to grow into our country's next generation of elected officials and other public service leaders.

Black women make up about seven percent of the U.S. population but only 5.4 percent of Congress and 3.2 percent of state executive offices. There is only one Black woman in the Senate (Sen. Laphonza Butler) and no Black woman has ever served as a governor.

So, Black women are drastically underrepresented in our country's political leadership, which is odd to me because 1) the contributions of Black women to our nation are outsized and essential and 2) I would not be where I am without the leadership and mentorship of Black women...

......from my 8th grade English teacher, Mrs. Mabry, who made me fall in love with writing, to the Black women officers under whom I served in the Army and invested in my leadership development, to Vice President Harris, who's consistently fought for my rights her entire career.

Early engagement and targeted training help overcome societal and cultural barriers, empowering Black women to run for office, excel in corporate environments, and lead with confidence.

Thus, it's only sensible to dedicate my annual birthday fundraiser for Running Start to this remarkable program that will train and empower the next generation of Black women leaders in the United States, especially in a year when we're about to elect a Black woman president.

So, for my birthday, my goal is to raise $24,000 today to cover all necessary travel and food costs for these participants, ensuring they have access to this program, regardless of cost.

Friends, I would be so honored and delighted and grateful if you would make a donation to this fundraiser, and, of course, I have further incentives:

Anyone donating at least $500 will get a one-on-one Zoom with me, and I'll treat an in-person lunch to anyone donating at least $1,000.

I have a damn good feeling we can hit this goal today, and you will forever have my gratitude.

So, please kindly donate here: https://runningstart.org/charlotte

Running Start is keeping track of all donations, and we'll be reaching out to all donors with thanks.

Please wish me a happy birthday by supporting this program!

Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

[This blog will always be free to read, but it’s also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: [email protected]. And if this is too big of a commitment, I’m always thankful for a simple cup of coffee.]

Are there things about AI that I find cool and interesting and hopeful?

Of course.

From medicine to education to national security, artificial intelligence has made once improbable strides seem possible, seemingly, to most of us, overnight.

It hasn’t been overnight. The technological advances we’re witnessing—and those on the horizon—are the culmination of decades of the labor of determined and brilliant people.

Yet it sure does feel like it landed here quickly, doesn’t it? And that makes it hard to keep up. We’re being inundated with stories about AI that seem to saturate the topic with a rate of complexity far outpacing our efforts to understand it.

As with every binary-coerced issue these days, the discourse around AI largely beckons us all into two camps: either you’re an AI optimist or an AI pessimist.

I am neither. I see a lot of promise, and I see a lot of challenges. So, I want to be clear that what I’m about to say isn’t a universal indictment of AI, nor should you let my commentary on this particular aspect of AI muddy the waters in every other aspect.

I am not a technologist or a scientist. I will be the first to admit that I have as much business discussing the finer details of tech policy and regulation as I do being behind the wheel at the Indy 500.

But I do know mass communications. More specifically (and tragically), I’m an expert on social media, and what I’ve been seeing, particularly over the past several weeks, has me very worried about how AI is accelerating disinformation online.

I have been especially concerned with a growing attitude among many progressives and Democrats that AI disinformation is a problem limited to conservatives, particularly Trump supporters.

There seems to be this perception among many that being progressive makes one immunized against being tricked by disinformation. We’re too smart for that. Too informed. Too moral.

But make no mistake: no matter your politics or beliefs or values, you will be tricked by AI. It’s gonna happen. It’s inevitable. I guarantee it.

I’ll give you an example. In recent weeks, I’ve seen this particular image circulating online in progressive and Democratic spaces:

Now, before all the yelling starts, I wanna be clear that this particular image is not what bothers me.

There are plenty of real photos online of insecure gun nuts bringing their firearms into spaces where it’s completely unnecessary. This isn’t about that. I am not saying this doesn’t happen. We know this happens.

The issue is how easily grown adults immediately perceived, without any second thoughts, that this image is real. And it’s not. It’s AI-generated.

It may not be obvious at first or second or third glance, but if you look closely, it ain’t that hard to confirm.

Some tells are more conspicuous than others.

This is not a foot:

This appears to be an arm that belongs to no one, unless the lady on the right is astonishingly flexible OR the lady on the left has an especially long and multi-angular forearm:

Less conspicuous is that cup on the counter. It bears a strong resemblance to the brand design of Chick-fil-A, but it’s not. You will not find this brand design in the real world on any fast food beverage because it doesn’t exist:

And for most folks, far less conspicuous are all the scribblings on the overhead menu and countertop computer screen that are meant to represent words but are, in fact, just creepy gibberish generated by AI.

Now, look, if you shared this image somewhere online, believing it’s real, I’m not here to shame you. This is not a lecture intended to make you feel foolish or clownish.

Because as I pointed out above, we’ve all seen real images similar to this one: complete dorkass losers carrying assault rifles to get a burger. It’s understandable why someone would see this image, immediately accept it, and then share it with the folks in their life.

What worries me is how easy it has become to generate a believable image that tricks people who think themselves to be so well-informed on disinformation that they refuse to admit they’ve been had when it’s pointed out, however gently and respectfully.

When this image started going viral, a friend of mine posted it on Facebook. I pointed out the above tells that it’s AI-generated, and one of his friends got very defensive. He said he’s a professional photographer, he knows real images versus fake ones, and I can’t argue with his expertise.

And he wasn’t alone. Every time I saw this image across social media, I would check out the comments, and the same defensive response could be observed: Democrats and progressives who were absolutely incensed they’d been tricked and could not accept, even with the obvious errors, that this is AI.

They knew, of course, that it was AI-generated after the inconsistencies were highlighted. They knew they had been tricked. But the shame of being tricked was so visceral—the realization that being on the left doesn’t mean they’re not vulnerable to disinformation—that they couldn’t admit it.

Because for them to admit they can be tricked by AI might mean they’re not savvier than some—not all but some—Trump supporters who have also been genuinely tricked by fake images and videos.

And also: it’s probably pretty scary to realize it’s this easy to be tricked.

Here’s why I’m saying all this: the best defense against AI-generated disinformation (and disinformation generally) is a good faith centering of personal humility. It’s an understanding that we’re all humans dealing with unprecedented technology and it’s easy to make mistakes.

There shouldn’t be any shame in acknowledging that our brains are wired in such a way that it’s not especially difficult for AI content to manipulate us. The shame should only come when our own pride prevents us from acknowledging our vulnerability to tech that is rewriting mass communications with every passing day.

You’re not a bad person or uncaring or “stupid” because you’re susceptible to AI disinformation. You’re just a human being in a changing world. And that’s okay.

It’s important to embrace this mindset because there are, unfortunately, no obvious fixes to what’s coming. Any clown can generate a believable AI image and share it online and simply call it “art” and it will more than likely be protected speech.

Today, it’s a fake image of gun nut caricatures that simply look like real images we’ve all seen of actual gun nuts in the real world. Tomorrow, it’s a fake image of something that hasn’t happened but looks real and plays to our biases and suddenly, without warning, disinformation becomes active harm.

Here’s my best advice: if you see an image going viral, before deciding to share it, take a few more moments to look closely for clues. Take the time to develop recognition of obvious and less-than-obvious tells that it’s AI-generated.

You don’t need a computer science degree or an expertise in photography to develop this skill. You just need adequate eyesight and humility and the willingness to engage in good faith.

If we’re all committed to that approach and offer each other more grace, it’ll be much harder for disinformation to spread.

Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

[This blog will always be free to read, but it’s also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: [email protected].]

Hurricane Milton is currently poised to slam into the western side of Florida in a matter of hours. It will be one of the strongest hurricanes to ever make landfall in the United States, putting the lives of many millions at risk.

President Biden had led an extraordinary operation by the federal government to prepare, as best it can, for the destruction and aftermath of Milton, less than two weeks after Helene tore through several states, devastating those regions.

And yet, we all know what’s about to occur in Florida will be far beyond any suffering the vast majority of us could imagine — and that it will occur in the United States again in the future. And again. And again.

A few years ago, I watched "Five Days at Memorial" on Apple TV, a miniseries about the days at Memorial Medical Center in New Orleans following Katrina, based on the book by Sheri Fink.

I immediately regretted watching it. Sometimes, I wish I hadn't. I don't think "brutal" comes close to adequately describing it.

I will never watch it again. Once was more than enough. Honestly, I’m not sure how I managed to finish it.

It's probably the single most haunting show I've ever seen — so painful to watch that I decided, at the time, that it may be wrong of me to tell others to watch it.

Since then, I've often thought it might be the most persuasive and compelling argument for addressing climate change.

Forgive me for saying this, but maybe melting glaciers and increasingly hot summer days and wet bulb temperature and Al Gore’s genuinely brilliant PowerPoint may not be enough to reach those who are too stubborn and too incurious to recognize that climate change is caused by human beings.

But what happens when the social framework breaks down, for any number of reasons, and innocent people are forced to navigate the consequences?

What happens when people are forced to realize that even the most powerful country on earth cannot possibly stop a hurricane and they may someday find themselves, suddenly and unexpectedly, starving and dehydrating in flooded rubble, with no hope of being saved?

Right now, we have a president who's dedicating himself to helping the victims of these hurricanes, but that may not always be true in the future. And at some point, catastrophes become far too large to be met with even all the resources at our disposal.

So, that show is what I think about when climate change comes up, and it's what I've been thinking about during these hurricanes.

As we pray for those in Florida and throughout these hurricane-ravaged states in the coming days—as we donate our money and our blood and our time—it might be wise to also reflect on how profoundly ill-prepared we are to manage the coming disasters that are difficult, if not impossible, to imagine in their horrific scope.

And if you do choose to watch that show, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

[This blog will always be free to read, but it’s also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: [email protected].]

The vice presidential debate between Gov. Tim Walz and Sen. J.D. Vance is tonight, and, perhaps unsurprisingly, network host CBS News has announced that moderators Margaret Brennan and Norah O’Donnell will not be fact-checking the candidates.

Instead, the network says, it will be up to the candidates to fact-check each other, and the moderators will “facilitate those opportunities” during candidate rebuttals.

And thus, being a CBS News vice presidential debate moderator seems like a pretty sweet gig.

You just sit there, read some debate rules you don't really have to enforce, ask a few questions that were approved by network execs, do absolutely no fact-checking (journalism), and get a paycheck.

Sweet.

In other words, instead of focusing on an informative policy discussion and laying out the Vice President’s vision for the country, Gov. Walz will be expected to do both that AND being the only person holding accountable Mr. Vance’s constant lying on national television.

Mr. Vance, as you’ll recall, has made relentless disinformation his primary strategy as Trump’s running mate.

Most notably, he’s pushed the repeatedly debunked and deeply racist claim that Haitian migrants are stealing and eating household pets, refusing to back down even when confronted with the fact that there is zero evidence to support this anti-immigrant propaganda.

In fact, a quick short story on that:

Anna Kilgore, a resident of Springfield, Ohio, filed a police report in late August that her cat, Miss Sassy, had gone missing. She suspected her Haitian neighbors had taken the cat.

The Trump campaign used the police report as the strongest evidence for their unfounded, racist claim about Haitian migrants.

A spokesperson for J.D. Vance provided the police report to The Wall Street Journal.

Two weeks ago, WSJ spoke with Ms. Kilgore, who admitted her cat had returned a few days later, found safe in her basement. Ms. Kilgore, a Trump supporter, said she had apologized to her Haitian neighbors.

Lovely.

Let's be clear about something: the only reason that CBS News is declining to fact check the vice presidential debate is because they're terrified of Trump and his supporters retaliating for being held accountable on the candidate and his running mate’s relentless lying and disinformation.

For a prepared moderator, fact-checking a debate should be easy. It really should. It's not complicated. If the candidate says something demonstrably wrong, you correct the record. Either the moderator is unprepared or the network is cowardly.

CBS News has no excuses.

But after ABC News fact-checked Trump in real time during the Sept. 10th presidential debate, the Trump campaigned whined about him being treated, like, you know, an adult who’s running for president. The Nepo-Baby-in-Chief and his supporters cried over being held accountable, and in response, CBS News got cold feet.

I wanna be clear that I do have high respect for tonight’s moderators, Ms. Brennan and Ms. O’Donnell. I think they’re both good journalists who challenge nonsense far more than most of their colleagues in broadcast news.

This isn’t about them. This is about their network. In a moment of great peril for American democracy, CBS News decided the worst sin that could be committed isn’t failing to inform the public—you know, journalism—but offending Donald Trump and his acolytes by ensuring the public is informed.

I’ll be watching (and live-tweeting) tonight’s debate, of course, and I sincerely hope that Ms. Brennan and Ms. O’Donnell—the latter of whom will soon end her tenure as anchor of CBS Evening News—decline to remain passive in the face of deeply harmful propaganda.

The American people are owed that.

Otherwise, what’s the point in having journalists?

Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.