The term "shell shock" was initially used to describe what is now known as post-traumatic stress disorder (P.T.S.D.). It was created in World War I, to describe how the soldiers engaged in trench warfare felt from being continually bombarded by artillery fire and the sometimes long-lasting mental effects such an experience caused in them. Later, "shell-shocked" morphed into a more hyperbolic use, describing more generically being severely (and negatively) surprised by something. This week, it gained a new and ironically-literal meaning, as the Department of Justice charged James Comey with threatening to assassinate the president because he took a photo of some seashells he saw while walking on the beach. The shells were arranged to spell out "86 47" and what was truly shocking about the whole thing was not the implied message (which most sane people would translate as: "Get rid of the 47th president, Donald Trump") but instead the jaw-dropping ridiculousness of someone being criminally charged over posting a photo of seashells. It wasn't just James Comey who was shell-shocked at that, since it is such a blatant abuse of power and will no doubt get laughed out of court (hopefully sooner rather than later).

Speaking of being shell-shocked, the average nationwide price of a gallon of gasoline has now risen almost 50 cents in the space of two weeks. On April 19th, the price was at $3.97 per gallon, but today (as of this writing, it could go higher later today) that has risen to $4.44 -- an increase of 47 cents. The price of gas is now higher than it has been in four years. Back in 2022, the price spiked due to Russia invading Ukraine during Joe Biden's presidency, and it went all the way up to just over $5.00 a gallon. If Trump and Iran don't come to some sort of agreement soon, though, the price could top that mark again by the end of this month.

Even just using the benchmark of "since the war began," the price of gasoline has now risen $1.50 for American consumers -- all due to Trump's war of choice. We prefer using an earlier benchmark, since gas prices were down to $2.75 as the calendar year started, which would make the increase a whopping $1.69 per gallon. But whichever baseline you choose, people out there are hurting, every time they fill up their cars at the pumps. And they're angry about it.

There was apparently a meeting at the White House this week with some oil company executives and traders, as the administration desperately tries to forestall the skyrocketing gas prices. This achieved precisely nothing -- the price continued to shoot upwards all week long at an alarming rate. After all, why should the oil companies care? They are making money hand over fist as the windfall profits from the war continue:

For oil and gas companies, it has been a profitable war.

The energy shock caused by the conflict in Iran, missile attacks on oil and gas facilities in the Persian Gulf and, most crucially, the halt on shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz have produced a spectacular bonanza as energy prices have soared.

The British oil giant BP, citing an "exceptional" performance, more than doubled its profits in the first three months of this year over last. TotalEnergies, based in Paris, raised its dividends and doubled its share buybacks after announcing $5.4 billion in net profits for the first quarter.

There doesn't seem to be any end in sight. Economists and experts are now gloomily predicting that the price of gas will stay above $3.00 per gallon all year long. In related news, inflation shot upwards to hit 3.5 percent, which affects not just gas prices but everything.

As a direct result, Donald Trump's approval numbers are now in the toilet. A Reuters/Ipsos poll just released put Trump at just 34 percent approval. This is due in part to some MAGA supporters getting fed up with Trump's antics and deciding they had made a big mistake in voting for him.

Also at 34 percent approval in the polls is how many Americans still support Trump's war. Trump remains delusional (as always) about how much support he truly has, but the reality is that his polling on inflation is so dismal (he is a shocking 49 points underwater) that it is now worse than not just Joe Biden's rating on the issue but also Jimmy Carter's. That's pretty astonishing!

As mentioned, there doesn't seem to be any end in sight, folks. Trump and the leaders of Iran are deadlocked in a pissing contest, with both sides convinced that they hold all the cards. It's really more accurate to call it a game of "chicken" on a geopolitical scale, since both sides are convinced the other will blink first due to the severe economic pain being inflicted upon their respective countries. Trump seems to be preparing for a months-long blockade of Iran's ports, while Iran is content to sit back and let the pressure grow on Trump from the sky-high gas prices.

There's even a new snack-based acronym making the rounds among financial types. The meme has moved on from "Trump Always Chickens Out" (TACO) to Not A Chance Hormuz Opens (NACHO). Maybe Wall Street is just getting in the mood for Cinco de Mayo?

Last weekend, the talks between Iran and the U.S. collapsed, as first Iran snubbed us, then we snubbed them in reply. Iran then made an offer to open the Strait of Hormuz if America lifted its blockade of Iranian ports, with all other issues (most importantly, the nuclear one) to be determined later. Trump reportedly rejected it, so Iran floated another offer today (with no details immediately reported as to what it contains).

Meanwhile, Iran is absolutely kicking our butt in the propaganda department, with hilarious (and often Lego-based) A.I. videos they post online, all of which are designed to be as humiliating as possible to Trump.

It bears remembering in all of this (once again) that Trump created this whole mess -- and not just by bombing Iran. If Trump hadn't torn up the nuclear deal Barack Obama had negotiated, then Iran never would have been able to highly enrich almost a half-ton of uranium in the first place. So this is all on Trump, no matter which way you look at it.

And nobody should look to Congress to rein Trump in. Today is the official deadline under the War Powers Act for Trump to get permission from Congress to keep American troops deployed in a war, but Trump is choosing to ignore it (he now claims that the "clock has stopped" because of the ceasefire). The media keeps reporting that Republicans in Congress are getting increasingly annoyed by the war (since they know it is going to make winning the midterms almost impossible if it drags on), but so far they have not pressured Trump to change course at all (through their own political cowardice).

In other political news, the partial shutdown of the federal government got a lot more partial this week, as House Republicans finally decided to accept the offer the Senate made, so they passed the Senate bill which will reopen everything at the Department of Homeland Security except ICE and other immigration agencies. This was the longest shutdown (partial or not) in American history.

In the same week the Department of Justice beclowned themselves by prosecuting seashells, there actually was an assassination attempt made on Trump and his entire cabinet, at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. A lone wolf tried to breach the security of the event and made it past the checkpoint, but apparently tripped and fell, which allowed the Secret Service to pile on top of him and arrest him before he made it to the room the dinner was happening in.

The would-be assassin had a manifesto of sorts, which you can read in full if you like, and Trump was questioned about it on 60 Minutes the day after the attempt was made. Which led to Norah O'Donnell neatly trapping Trump:

But when [Norah] O'Donnell, during an interview recorded at the White House on Sunday, quoted from the accused gunman Cole Allen's apparent manifesto -- "I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes," she read -- Trump, who'd been relatively subdued in his responses, flashed a familiar anger.

"I was waiting for you to read that because I knew you would, because you're horrible people. Horrible people," Trump said. "Yeah, he did write that. I'm not a rapist. I didn't rape anybody."

O'Donnell interjected, "Oh, do you think he was referring to you?"

But the president blew past her question, declaring, "I'm not a pedophile."

Trump bristled at what he seemed to deem an insinuation about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, who was not mentioned by name in the manifesto or by O'Donnell. "You read that crap from some sick person," the president said. "I got associated with stuff that has nothing to do with me. I was totally exonerated."

You just gotta love that innocent-sounding: "Oh, do you think he was referring to you?"

Trump vented some anger at the media and network television by demanding that ABC fire Jimmy Kimmel once again, for a joke he had made days before the dinner even happened. The punchline of the joke was that Melania had the glow of "an expectant widow," which the White House claimed was Kimmel somehow urging someone to assassinate Trump. But, as Kimmel pointed out this week, the White House press secretary herself said, just before the evening started, "It will be funny. It will be entertaining. There will be some shots fired tonight in the room," which seems even worse, when taken after the fact of the assassination attempt. By week's end, the F.C.C. was threatening to yank the broadcast licenses of the ABC stations actually owned by Disney, showing once again Trump's thirst for vengeance against his perceived enemies. Kimmel should be grateful he wasn't indicted on threatening an assassination, maybe, since that's where James Comey found himself this week (for a photo of seashells).

What else? The Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act once again, to exactly no one's surprise. This could lead to further redistricting attempts before this year's primaries happen, and will definitely lead to some redistricting attempts before the 2028 cycle. Black voters across the entire South will now be just as disenfranchised as they were under Jim Crow, which is precisely what the Supreme Court intended with its ruling.

Other political stuff happened this week, but this is already long enough so we're just going to skip right over most of it. King Charles and Queen (Consort) Camilla visited America this week, which give rise to a few charming moments. Charles gave a speech before Congress where he reminded Republicans that a bedrock foundation of democratic government was the checks put on the executive. But the best moment Charles had was when he offered a wry comment at the White House:

On this occasion, I cannot help noticing the readjustments to the East Wing, Mr. President. And I'm sorry to say that we British, of course, made our own small attempt at real estate redevelopment of the White House in 1814.

That was the year (during the War of 1812) that British troops set fire to the White House, of course.

But we always like to end on a cheerful note (when possible) and there was one part of the royals' visit that we felt didn't get enough coverage by the media -- a touching and very classy gesture from the Queen. So here is the feel-good story of the week, to close on:

The Queen's solo engagement [at the New York Public Library] also reflected a lesser known, but shared literary heritage that has captivated readers on both sides of the Atlantic for the last century thanks to a friendly bear who loves honey: Winnie the Pooh.

After reading an excerpt from the book to a group of local schoolchildren, the Queen presented the library with a handcrafted, stuffed toy of the baby kangaroo known as "Roo," a character from English writer A.A. Milne's classic children's book Winnie the Pooh, which was first published in 1926. The author's son (and namesake for one of the main characters), Christopher Robin Milne, had a collection of stuffed animals that inspired Milne to write the series. The first of them was a teddy bear acquired from Harrods department store in 1921, which Christopher named "Winnie the Pooh."

One could say the rest was history, but not for the original collection of toys. The baby kangaroo toy was reportedly lost in an English apple orchard in the 1930s and has never been seen since. The five surviving toys -- Winnie the Pooh, Piglet, Tigger, Eeyore, and Kanga -- traveled from the United Kingdom to the United States in 1947. Milne's American publisher, E.P. Dutton, held onto them until they were donated to the New York Public Library, and they have been on permanent public display at the location on Bryant Park since 1987.

Roo, the new toy that Queen Camilla presented, was handcrafted by Merrythought, Great Britain's oldest surviving teddy bear manufacturer, which has been producing toys since 1930. Its design is based on a Roo toy made by Farnell, a brand acquired by Merrythought in 1996, which the original brand produced in the early 1920s and is believed to match the one belonging to Christopher Robin Milne.

Both our awards this week come from the same state.

A political bombshell dropped just yesterday (a shocking bombshell, perhaps?) in the state of Maine, as the sitting governor, Janet Mills officially dropped out of the race for a Senate seat.

This is a rare event for a couple of reasons, the first of which is that sitting governors don't often throw in the towel on a political campaign before the primaries even take place. It's also rare because (on paper, at least) Mills should have been a strong candidate, especially considering her main primary opponent was a complete unknown when he launched his own campaign.

Mills dropping out was a serious political blow to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who pressured Mills into running for the seat -- which is currently held by Senator Susan Collins. Schumer saw Mills as having the best chance to beat Collins, who has been weakened by her refusal to stand up to Donald Trump in any way that might be called "meaningful."

This all leaves Graham Platner with an easy path to winning the nomination, in next month's Democratic primary. Platner was already beating Mills in the polling by significant amounts (over 30 points, in some polling), for multiple reasons. The first is age -- Mills is 78 years old and would be 79 before she was sworn in (if she had won the race). Platner, on the other hand, is only 41 years old -- a major generational difference.

But the biggest difference between the two is character. Mills is seen (quite rightly) as a career politician who has indeed made a name for herself fighting back against Donald Trump but who also ran a rather lackluster campaign (from all accounts). Platner, by comparison, has taken the state by storm (or, at least, the Democratic voters in Maine). He has been tirelessly travelling around holding meetings and rallies, and his message has been resonating.

Platner is an unashamed progressive, which is why he has been endorsed by the likes of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. He talks about taking on the billionaires and the political system. He joined the Marines fresh out of high school and served three combat tours in Iraq. He is now an oyster farmer, and exudes "regular guy" vibes.

He also has some serious baggage, including a tattoo of a Nazi symbol and a whole bunch of seriously stupid online posts (some of which were extremely misogynistic). He has since had the tattoo altered to another design and says that his online rants were the result of P.T.S.D. (or shell shock, as it used to be called).

So far, not too many Maine voters seem to see any of it as disqualifying -- at least on the Democratic side, that is. How it will all play out in the general election is another question, especially since Collins has already lined up something like $40 million in advertising to point out Platner's flaws.

Democrats nationwide will be closely watching this race. So far, Platner is polling ahead of Collins by around seven points, but Collins has a track record of overcoming such odds (she's done so before). Are the voters of Maine so fed up with Collins (and her faux "independent Republican who pushes back on her party" schtick) that they'll vote her out of office? Is Platner so charismatic that he can overcome his past with a truly populist "I'll fight for the little guy" message? Stay tuned....

For now, at least, we have to acknowledge the monumental achievement of Platner in forcing Mills out of the race, with a month to go before the primary happens. That alone makes him deserving of the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Graham Platner is technically a private citizen right now, and it is our blanket policy not to link to campaign webpages, so you'll have to search his contact information out for yourself if you'd like to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

Our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week is none other than Maine Governor Janet Mills, but not for dropping out of her Senate race -- in fact, we applaud her for being able to read the tea leaves in the polls and realizing she had no chance of victory.

Instead, we are handing Mills this week's MDDOTW award for an action she recently took as governor. The state legislature had passed the first statewide ban on building large (20 megawatts or greater) data centers in the country. The ban was limited -- it would only run until November of next year -- but it would have been seen as a historic pushback against the Wild West nature of these data centers being built, seemingly everywhere in the country. But Janet Mills vetoed it.

Mills cited one data center project in her veto, while also trying to appear as if she agreed with the concept. The legislature later failed to override her veto, meaning that the ban will not go into effect. To her credit, Mills did then issue an executive order creating a "Maine Data Center Coordination Council," which was part of what the bill would have achieved. But the failure of the bill was a disappointment to many -- both within Maine and beyond.

Data centers have become a brand-new and very potent political issue, and at this point neither party seems to have decided what to do about them. Data centers use a huge amount of electricity and water, which has impacts on local communities (like higher prices). They emit noise, which is a serious issue when some city council decides to greenlight a data center right next to existing homes. But the biggest aspect of the political pushback is the secretive nature of how the industry has gotten local governments to approve their projects. The public isn't involved, and often doesn't learn of the new plans until after they have been approved. Massive tax breaks are often granted, and no provisions for the drain on the electric and water systems are put in place.

This breeds resentment, and this resentment is deeply felt and (astonishingly, these days) almost completely nonpartisan. It is an issue that rightwing Republican voters and lefty progressive Democrats both agree on. As such, it is an issue just waiting for one of the major political parties to tap into the growing anger out there among the electorate.

Democrats are trying to. Maine isn't the only state where data center bans have been proposed, it was merely the first state to get one through its legislature. But even though the ban was very limited (it wouldn't have even lasted until the end of next year), Janet Mills decided that Maine would not be going first.

For doing so -- and not for her admirable decision to throw in the towel on the Senate race -- Governor Janet Mills is our winner of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award this week.

[Contact Maine Governor Janet Mills on her official contact page, to let her know what you think of her actions.]

Volume 839 (5/1/26)

This week we're going to forego our usual talking points, and instead turn this segment over to the Congressional Progressive Caucus. This week, they released their own suggested agenda for Democrats to run on in the midterms -- a 10-point plan that is backed up by actual legislative proposals.

This will, of course, inevitably draw comparisons to Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America," but it deserves deeper scrutiny, we feel. Any list of priorities for Democrats is going to be at least somewhat controversial, as people argue for things that were left out or to omit things that were included, but on the whole it seems like a pretty good effort.

The caucus is calling it "The New Affordability Agenda," which ties in to the fascination over the term "affordability" Democrats are now exhibiting. To us, it seems like a combination of big-ticket items as well as those that are more what we'd call "small ball." So we thought we'd present the entire 10 points, since the mainstream media largely ignored the rollout this week.

We took the bullet points from the press release from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, although their webpage offers a much better version of the list, complete with much snappier (more "talking-points-friendly") titles for each item (such as: "CHILDCARE people can afford," "GAS people can afford," and "MONEY in people's pockets"). The more-complete list also explains each bullet point and lists the legislation that has been proposed that would accomplish each of them. This detailed list was too long to post here, however, so we went with the items from the press release (although we did reorder them to match the numbered list on the other page). So here is their new 10-point plan in full:

• Making prescription drugs cheaper by establishing a government program to sell generic drugs at a discount, cutting the price of a vial of insulin from $300 to $50;
• Making groceries cheaper by cracking down on big grocers who fix prices and on companies that abuse seed patents to make farming more expensive;
• Making housing cheaper by building millions of new homes, offering every first-time homeowner $20,000 in downpayment assistance, and expanding rental assistance;
• Making utilities cheaper by cracking down on for-profit utilities overcharging consumers, saving the average family $500 a year;
• Making childcare cheaper by guaranteeing no family pays more than 7% of its income – under $10 a day for most families;
• Making gas cheaper by charging big oil companies a tax on extra profits because of the war, then refunding that money to consumers. If oil stays at $100 a barrel, most families would get $324 back;
• Banning "Surveillance Pricing," where companies use personal data to raise prices with AI;
• Making time off cheaper by guaranteeing every worker two weeks of paid vacation time;
• Putting money in pockets by requiring companies to pay double wages for overtime, as opposed to the current time-and-a-half standard;
• Abolishing Super PACs so billionaires can't buy more policies that make stuff more expensive.

As we mentioned, you can quibble with some of these items as being not as relevant as other things, and you can also not love the position each one has on the list (personally, we would have led off with: "two weeks guaranteed vacation time," and "doubletime for overtime instead of time-and-a-half"... or perhaps the childcare one), but overall that's a pretty good list.

There has been a constant refrain in the media for a long time now that Democrats "don't have a positive agenda" and are instead just full-on anti-Trump all the time. Well, this presents Democrats with a ready-made agenda which taps into a whole lot of people's frustration out there and which could put an end to pundits' eternally questioning: "But what are Democrats offering instead? What do they stand for?"

Which is why we felt it deserved taking over our talking points for the week. But don't worry -- we promise, the regular format will return next week!

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground