Do President Donald Trump’s “clownishness” and “lack of ideology” make him less dangerous? A columnist at The Guardian says no.

“Trump’s seeming lack of vision or ideology are misread as attributes that make him somehow less dangerous than the authoritarians of the past who have become the template for what evil looks like,” writes Nesrine Malik. But, “Trump’s presidency is what evil looks like.”

She points to images she remembers from “movies not seen since childhood,” or art and literature, tied together by “kitschy evil.”

She writes that those images seem to be standing in for horrific current events: “the bodies pulled from the rubble in Gaza, a school full of young pupils blown apart in Iran. The more than 1 million people in southern Lebanon expelled en masse from their homes.”

Malik calls it “bewildering” how the “casualness” of the cruelty “has been allowed to pass,” as Donald Trump, who “defies attempts to make his actions cohere with any particular strategy … hovers above the circus of death and chaos.”

Trump and his threats, like those where he threatened “entire civilizations,” are “reshaping the world, but without him even having orchestrated some master plan.”

READ MORE: ‘I’m in Charge!’: Trump Declares ‘I’m Winning a War’ in Series of Wild Rants

Trump “does not adhere to the style or affect of the fascist model,” she argues, “he doesn’t hold rallies, wear uniforms or make fiery speeches from balconies to flag-waving throngs. He hasn’t (entirely yet) overturned the constitution and dismantled democracy.”

“He is an addled comic figure, a man whose very soul is bared in his angry outbursts on social media or in rambling speeches without self-awareness or self-consciousness. He talks about the war on Iran flanked by a gigantic Easter bunny, posts an image of himself as Jesus. He ‘always chickens out‘.”

And yet, Malik asks, “isn’t this what evil is? A projection on to the world not of overbearing and large intent, but smallness and fear?”

Evil creeps up on you, she writes, “because it’s hard for the human brain to encounter evil in ludicrous form, and still recognize it as such.”

“That’s why you ask how such crimes were allowed to happen in the past,” she says.

Composed of “frivolity and nonchalance and fragility, as well as relentlessness and insatiability and brutality,”  evil “rarely arrives with the intent and identifying hallmarks of a villain. It arrives in the form of broken people, whose power lies in their unquenchable desire to make themselves whole no matter the consequences.”

READ MORE: Why a Democratic Senate Takeover Has Become a ‘Real Possibility’: NYT

Image via Reuters 

From children’s books to multi-million-dollar memoirs, several Supreme Court justices are cashing in on their celebrity.

Justices are limited to accepting a maximum of $30,000 in outside income, but royalties and advances for books are exempt. And the payoff for “political celebrities” can be big, The Washington Post reports. Some justices have received million-dollar book advances.

Children’s books, which are easier to write, can net justices “big paydays” — tens of thousands of dollars, or more. They appear to be a particular favorite for several justices, although there tends to be more big money for non-children’s books.

Justice Neil Gorsuch has written an illustrated children’s storybook about America’s Founding Fathers, timed to coincide with the nation’s 250th birthday, according to the Post, titled “Heroes of 1776: The Story of the Declaration of Independence.”

“I just wanted to share with children some stories about the courage and sacrifice of the heroes behind 1776, who gave us our Constitution and our liberties,” he told Fox News in November, pointing to “so many ordinary people who did extraordinary things.”

Justices have “name recognition, particularly among people who share their ideological values,” the Post notes, which “creates built-in audiences that publishers see as a safe bet.”

READ MORE: Trump Axes Catholic Charities Funding for Migrant Kids Amid Pope Feud: Report

Justice Sonia Sotomayor earned $870,000 from 2017 to 2024 for publishing three children’s books and one for young adults.

“In September,” according to the Post, “Sotomayor released her most recent children’s book, ‘Just Shine! How to Be a Better You’ — a tribute to her mother, with an audiobook version narrated by the Cuban American singer Gloria Estefan.”

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who retired in 2006, was the first justice to publish a children’s book, “Chico,” a picture book published in 2005 about her childhood pony.

But the bigger money is not in children’s books.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett reportedly received $2 million for “Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution,” which came out in September.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson received a nearly $3 million advance for her autobiography, “Lovely One,” published two years after her confirmation to the Supreme Court. There is now a young adult version.

She also received a Grammy nomination for the audiobook version. Justice Jackson attended the awards ceremony, despite not having won, causing some controversy.

Part of her job, she said, during an appearance on the talk show “The View,” is “public outreach and education.”

“When the justices are on recess — which is what we are doing right now — we really have an opportunity to go out into the community in various different ways,” she said in February, responding to right-wing criticism of her decision to attend the ceremony.

“How much Gorsuch received in advance for his children’s book, or how much Jackson received for the young-adult version of her autobiography, is unknown,” the Post noted.

But it was Justice Clarence Thomas who “broke the mold” when he released his autobiography in 2007, Gabe Roth, executive director of the ethics watchdog group Fix the Court, told the Post. Justice Thomas, the Post noted, “received a $1.5 million advance, which at the time was the most for a sitting member of the court.”

READ MORE: Why a Democratic Senate Takeover Has Become a ‘Real Possibility’: NYT

Images: Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons 

There’s little question the House of Representatives is in play, but up until now, experts weren’t as optimistic about Democratic control of the Senate. That’s changing — with the possibility of Democrats taking the Senate now a “real possibility.”

“In today’s polarized era, Democrats would need everything to break their way” to take control of the upper chamber, The New York Times reports. “So far, everything is breaking the Democrats’ way.”

A multitude of variables are lining up in Democrats’ favor for a congressional “Democratic tsunami,” the Times says.

President Donald Trump’s popularity is at his second-term all-time low. Inflation is up, some experts are warning about unemployment, and consumer sentiment just hit a historic low. Trump’s coalition, some critics say, is in danger, his war in Iran, despite his protestations, does not appear to be going well, and some voters are worried a protracted military incursion may be a possibility.

Democrats appear to have done the groundwork necessary to retake control of the Senate.

READ MORE: Conservative Christian Broadcaster Slams Franklin Graham’s ‘Embarrassing’ Defense of Trump

Citing “strong candidate recruitment” as a top reason Democrats could retake the Senate, the Times reports that “Democrats are tied or ahead in four Republican-held seats, polls show.” Democrats only need to hold on to their current number of seats and flip four more to win the majority.

The Times points to several candidates who could help create a blue Senate: James Talarico in Texas, Roy Cooper in North Carolina, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Mary Peltola in Alaska, and Graham Platner in Maine.

“A blue wave is not guaranteed, of course, and Democrats would not be assured to flip two reliably Republican states even if it were. But a feasible path for the party to win the Senate is coming into focus.”

The Times notes that in four GOP-controlled Senate races, Democrats are tied or ahead in the polls. In Maine and North Carolina, the likely Democratic nominees are ahead. In Ohio and Alaska, Democrats have recruited strong candidates, and there are “signs” Republicans could be in danger in both Iowa and Texas.

“Even if Mr. Trump successfully negotiates a quick end to the war in Iran, it will be hard for his standing to improve much by November,” the Times acknowledges. “His ratings have been in steady decline for about a year, and the war has only added to the weight of persistent inflation. If the conflict isn’t resolved quickly, the risks are enormous: Historically, quagmire abroad and rising prices at home are the ingredients of a failed presidency.”

Democrats have an “enormous advantage” among voters who turn out in the midterm elections. In short, if “a blue wave materializes, Democrats have a chance to ride it to Senate control.”

READ MORE: Trump Axes Catholic Charities Funding for Migrant Kids Amid Pope Feud: Report

Image via Reuters