This and that for your Sunday reading.

– Paul Crider discusses how the Trump regime is setting up the U.S. for explosive internal violence – while planning to blame its victims in order to impose martial law. Ned Resnikoff observes that the devaluation of human life in the name of demanding obeisance to the exercise of arbitrary power is far from new – though some forms of privilege are no longer protecting people who once perceived themselves as immune. Jonathan Chait calls out the Republican dogma that the January 6 rioters were entitled to take over democratic institutions and defy police with as much violence and force as they wanted, while anybody not devoted to usurping power on Donald Trump’s behalf is subject to summary murder for failing to defer to state actors. And Garrett Graff writes about the emotional weight imposed by Trumpism.

– Meanwhile, Jason Stanley highlights the need to recognize the threat posed by an aggressive expansionist U.S. rather than assuming we can operate based on business as usual. And John Woodside’s report on the Trump cheerleading by Scotiabank’s CEO should make clear that the corporate class is not on our side.  

– Lucy Dean Stockton and Helen Santoro note that the FDA’s elimination of warnings against excessive alcohol consumption reflects just the latest example of the Trump regime letting destructive corporate interests dictate policy. But Cory Doctorow discusses how the connection between Trump and the U.S.’ exploitative tech giants may actually offer a needed opportunity to disenshittify our economy. And Scharon Harding reports on the rare positive example of Bose making some of its systems open-source to allow consumers to continue using them after they’re no longer directly supported.  

– Marc Lee points out the absurdity of treating the U.S.’ coup in Venezuela as an excuse to push new oil pipelines in Canada. 

– Finally, Tom Sandborn writes that a rare example of a conviction against an employer for negligently causing a worker’s death serves only to highlight how few consequences businesses face for endangering their own employees.