Good morning. It is October 16. It is a cold, sunny morning in New York City, and this is your Indignity Morning Podcast. I'm your host. Tom Scocca, taking a look at the day and the news. 

It's a huge news cycle for official racism, also for official lawlessness, but we have to pick somewhere to start the rightmost news column on the front of this morning's New York Times is a report from the Supreme Court. "JUSTICES MAY BAN RACE AS A FACTOR IN DISTRICT MAPS / CASE ON VOTING RIGHTS / Nation’s Political Balance Could Shift if Court Guts 1965 Law," even the New York Times headline writers are treating the court's agenda as a matter of gutting the Voting Rights Act, and next to that, the headline is "Trump Weighs Transforming Refugee Policy / White People Would Be Given Preference." Here again, the bigotry is so blatant that the headline writers couldn't even sustain neutral euphemism long enough to get through the subhead. The court story begins "The Supreme Court appeared Poised on Wednesday to weaken a key provision of a landmark civil rights law by sharply limiting the ability of lawmakers to use race as a factor in drawing voting maps. If the justices determine that lawmakers cannot consider race when drawing districts, the consequences for the country's political balance could be sweeping. The decision could end the practice endorsed by the court for decades of crafting congressional districts with the purpose of helping minority voters elect the candidates of their choice Republican state legislatures," the story continues, "could use the ruling to eliminate around a dozen democratic held House districts across the south, according to a New York Times analysis." 

The trouble with this way of writing about the case is that the Republican majority on the Supreme Court is by no means looking at limiting the ability of lawmakers to use race in drawing maps, what the project is, is to enable legislators in areas where party political affiliation closely tracks racial identity, to prevent the party that black people vote for from winning any representation at all. Consistent with the jurisprudence of Chief Justice John Roberts, the single cause to which he has most ardently devoted his life as a lawyer and judge, the aim is to make it impossible to point out the racist effects of these actions. The simple observation that eliminating seats for Democrats deprives black voters of their chosen representation, is, in the John Roberts model, an illegitimate complaint.

On the jump page for that story, page A12 The Times includes a piece by its stats guy Nate Cohn, analyzing how a hyper partisan gerrymander of the South, uninhibited by the Voting Rights Act, could weaken Democrats position in the house, suggesting that if there's a lopsided gerrymandering tit for tat between California and a batch of Republican controlled states, the result would be the Democrats would need to win the national vote by somewhere between 4.4 and 6.1 points overall, to have that translate into a house majority. A helpful map illustration alongside it shows how under aggressive gerrymandering, the South could be transformed from a red region with large blue chunks in it to an almost entirely red region with a few little blue dots. As always, land is not people, and those little blue dots include things like Atlanta. But in addition to the seat by seat potential for disenfranchisement it records, it also shows what a wipeout of black rural voters would look like. 

The story about refugee policy, is less deferential to the pretext for racist action, because there really aren't any. "The Trump administration," the Times writes "is considering a radical overhaul of the US refugee system that would slash the program to its bare bones, while giving preference to English speakers, white South Africans and Europeans who oppose migration, according to documents obtained by the New York Times, the proposals, some of which already have gone into effect, would transform a decades old program aimed at helping the world's most desperate people into one that conforms to Mr. Trump's vision of immigration, which is to help mostly white people who say they are being persecuted, while keeping the vast majority of other people out." The story then says "the proposed changes would put new emphasis on whether applicants would be able to assimilate into the United States, directing them to take classes on 'American. History and values' and 'respect for cultural norms.' The proposals also advise Mr. Trump to prioritize Europeans who have been targeted for peaceful expression of views online, such as opposition to mass migration or support for populist political parties." That, the Times continues "appeared to be a reference to the European far right political party, Alternative for Germany, whose leaders have trivialized the Holocaust, revived Nazi slogans and denigrated foreigners. Vice President J D Vance has criticized Germany for trying to suppress the views of the group, which is known as the AFD." 

But that is not even the Nazis story about JD Vance in the newspaper. For that, you have to go to the bottom of page A18, where the Times is slowly warming up to a scoop by Politico. "Republicans are facing fallout from texts containing racist and homophobic content over seven months in 2900 pages of messages sent over telegram elected Republicans and the leaders of local groups for young party activists in New York, Vermont, Arizona and Kansas, routinely used racist and homophobic language and glibly invoked Hitler and the Holocaust. The texts, reported on Tuesday by Politico were part of a 'restore yr war room' chat of about a dozen Gen Z and Millennial Republicans, some with jobs in elected officials, offices or in government posts. The exchanges mixed politics with personal matters laced throughout with offensive language that was shocking for its volume and group think. Peter Giunta, Chief of Staff to Mike Riley, a New York Assemblyman, posted, 'I love Hitler,' and wrote, 'If your pilot is a she and she looks 10 shades darker than someone from Sicily, just end it there scream the No, no word' at another point, according to Politico Mr. Giunto, was asked if he was watching an NBA game, and he responded, 'I'd go to the zoo if I wanted to watch monkey play ball.' in a June message, he wrote that 'everyone that votes no is going to the gas chamber.' As Greg goes on to report the texts which the New York Times has not seen have created a firestorm, putting Republican leaders on the defensive. Many state officials have condemned the texts which occurred between January and August, and some who participated in the chats have lost their jobs or have been called on to resign, but some top Republican leaders, including President Trump, have not weighed in, and others have played down the messages. Vice President J D Vance compared them to 'anything said in a college group chat,' even though many came from local party officials and not college students." 

The definition of "young Republican" at work here extends all the way up to age 40, which is the age that JD Vance was when he was sworn in as vice president. He's now had his 41st birthday, but given the number of outright Nazis that he follows and banters with on publicly visible social media, who knows what group chats he's in behind the scenes.

In other news about bigots who don't believe non white people or women should be flying airplanes, down at the bottom of page 15, the headline is "US says it revoked visas of people who criticized Kirk. The reaction to online comments raises free speech questions." Doesn't raise the questions, it's the executive branch overtly exercising viewpoint discrimination and punishing people for their First Amendment expression. "The United States," the Times writes, "revoked the visas of at least six foreign citizens whom it accused of celebrating the assassination of the right wing activist Charlie Kirk, the State Department said in a series of social media posts on Tuesday. Since Mr. Kirk was fatally shot last month, US, officials have said they were searching for foreigners who had made public comments cheering or joking about his death, called on the public to help identify them and warned they would be barred from the United States." That bridges the racism with the lawlessness, which brings us back to page one, below the fold, because how can it all fit in? 

"U.S. Authorizes Covert Action In Venezuela to Pressure Maduro." Not satisfied with murdering people on the high seas, Donald Trump is now trying to get things going on the ground. "The Trump administration," the Times writes, "has secretly authorized the CIA to conduct covert action in Venezuela, according to US officials, stepping up a campaign against Nicolas Maduro, the country's authoritarian leader. The authorization is the latest step in the Trump administration's intensifying pressure campaign against Venezuela. For weeks, the US military has been targeting boats off the Venezuelan coast it says are transporting drugs, killing 27 people. American officials have been clear, privately, that the end goal is to drive Mr. Maduro from power, Mr. Trump," the story continues "acknowledged on Wednesday, that he had authorized the covert action and said the United States was considering strikes on Venezuelan territory. 'We are certainly looking at land now, because we've got the sea very well under control,' the President told reporters hours after the New York Times reported the secret authorization." 

As usual, the factual basis for all this exists only within the confines of the President's skull, and unfortunately, within reach of his voice. "On Wednesday," the Times writes "Mr. Trump said he had made the authorization because Venezuela had emptied their prisons into the United States of America." Once again, this seems to be rooted in some combination of Donald Trump's inability to understand that the word "asylum" has meanings other than "insane asylum," and his understanding of the Mariel Boatlift as depicted in the opening section of the 1983 Brian De Palma movie "Scarface." Or as the Times writes, "the president, appeared to be referring to claims by his administration that members of the Tren de Aragua prison gang had been sent into the United States to commit crimes. In March, Mr. Trump proclaimed that the gang, which was founded in a Venezuelan prison, was a terrorist organization that was conducting irregular warfare against the United States under the orders of the Maduro government. An intelligence community assessment in February contradicted that claim, detailing why spy agencies did not think the gang was under the Maduro government's control, though the FBI partly dissented." 

Tucked between that story and the two lead stories on the page is a little referral to breaking news that the Times had to get into the paper. "Judge Blocks Layoffs. A federal judge temporarily halted mass federal layoffs by the Trump administration during the government shutdown. Page A16." On that page, the Times writes "in a sharp and lengthy rebuke, Judge Susan Illston of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, raised deep unease about the actions of the White House just days after the government began to lay off about 4000 workers across eight federal agencies. The early evidence, according to judge Illston, suggested that the White House Budget Office had 'taken advantage of the lapse in government spending and government functioning to assume that all bets are off, that the laws don't apply to them anymore, and that they can impose the structures that they like.' The judge also pointed to comments by Mr. Trump, who has frequently threatened to harm Democrats during the shutdown, and the words of and policy memos issued by, his top aides, which judge Illston presented as a sign of the politics that infuses what is going on. 'There are laws which govern how we can do the things we do,' she said."

Down at the bottom of that page, undeterred by the judge's analysis, probably, to be fair, written before it, the story is "Trump expands his authority to repurpose unspent funds. President Trump, on Wednesday," the Times writes, "signed a memorandum significantly expanding his administration's authority to repurpose unspent federal funds to pay members of the military during the government shutdown, escalating his challenge to the authority of Congress on spending matters. Mr. Trump's memorandum gives Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, wide authority to repurpose funds, even though no such permission has been granted by Congress." If no such permission has been granted by Congress, which is constitutionally in charge of spending, then Donald Trump is not expanding his authority to redirect money. He is announcing his intention to try to illegally redirect money. That's a difference that probably belongs in the headline.

On the next page, there's an update on where things stand with Adelita Grijalva, who would be a Democratic member of Congress after having won a special election last month, "but," the Times writes "speaker Mike Johnson is still refusing to seat her while he keeps the house out of session during the government shutdown. So on Wednesday morning," the Times writes, "a group of Arizona lawmakers gathered in front of the Capitol and accused Mr. Johnson of protecting pedophiles and taking an unprecedented political action in refusing to perform the simple ministerial duty of swearing in an elected member of Congress. 'This delay is not procedural. It is intentional,' said Ms Grijalva, who is poised to provide the final signature needed to force a floor vote on whether to demand that the Trump administration release the Epstein files. Mr. Johnson," the Times writes, "has insisted that he cannot and will not seat Ms. Grijalva, while the house is out of session. There is no such rule for swearing in a duly elected member of Congress, the House can continue to operate even in the event of a government shutdown, and lawmakers may be sworn in even when the chamber is not meeting for legislative business. Mr. Johnson himself," the Times writes, "swore in two Florida Republicans who won their seats in special elections earlier this year while the house was in a recess. He said he would not do so for Ms Grijalva because she was elected while the house was out of session, a distinction that has no bearing on the legitimacy of her election." The Epstein files makes for a nice hook, and it may, in fact, be the immediate reason why Johnson is doing this in the hopes of avoiding angering Donald Trump, but it also seems like a pretty grim dress rehearsal to have the Speaker of the House procedurally tinkering with the composition of the chamber by making personal decisions about who gets sworn in or not. 

And next to that, there's another update on the Alaska floods. On top of yesterday's news that the area was missing weather balloon coverage, thanks to DOGE cuts, the Times writes, "five months before catastrophic floods swept through the Alaska Native village of Kipnuk on Sunday, tearing many houses off their foundations, the Trump administration canceled a $20 million grant intended to protect the community from such extreme flooding. The grant from the Environmental Protection Agency was designed to help stabilize the riverbank on which Kipnook is built, protecting it from the twin threats of erosion and flooding. But in May, the EPA revoked the grant which was issued at the end of the Biden administration, saying it was no longer consistent with the agency's priorities. Lee Zeldin, the EPA Administrator, boasted on social media that he was eliminating 'wasteful DEI and environmental justice grants,' referring to Diversity Equity and Inclusion initiatives and programs to help communities facing a disproportionate level of environmental threats." 

That is the news. Thank you for listening. The indignity morning podcast is edited by Joe MACLEOD. The theme song is composed and performed by Mack Socca-Ho. Wear a nice warm jacket out there, maybe a scarf, and if nothing unexpected gets in the way, we will talk again tomorrow.