We begin today with Steven Lee Myers and Sheera Frenkel of The New York Times reporting that Republicans are targeting academic researchers that study disinformation.

The effort has encumbered its targets with expansive requests for information and, in some cases, subpoenas — demanding notes, emails and other information related to social media companies and the government dating back to 2015. Complying has consumed time and resources and already affected the groups’ ability to do research and raise money, according to several people involved.

They and others warned that the campaign undermined the fight against disinformation in American society when the problem is, by most accounts, on the rise — and when another presidential election is around the corner. Many of those behind the Republican effort had also joined former President Donald J. Trump in falsely challenging the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. [...]

Targets include Stanford, Clemson and New York Universities and the University of Washington; the Atlantic Council, the German Marshall Fund and the National Conference on Citizenship, all nonpartisan, nongovernmental organizations in Washington; the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco; and Graphika, a company that researches disinformation online.

Paul Wallis of Digital Journal writes about what the targeting of disinformation specialists says about the GOP.

Should someone point out that this was the same election that appointed the current Congress to office, and their own votes might also be invalid? You’d have to be able to read and write to understand that. [...]

Anti-vax propaganda isn’t disinformation because someone getting paid to promote anti-vax says so. The people voted with their jabs, but this very dead horse is still being flogged. [...]

The First Amendment specifically allows a free press. Therefore the GOP is allowed to publish any drivel it likes. In practice, everyone is allowed to call it whatever they want under the First Amendment. So the attacks on the researchers, which can’t achieve anything anyway, must be a great move. This is at least in theory an attack on the First Amendment rights of the researchers.  

Attacking disinformation research is also a clear admission that the Republicans depend on disinformation campaigns to get attention, let alone votes. The GOP and facts haven’t been on speaking terms for years. Disinformation is the only option.

Former world chess champion Garry Kasparov wrote a small tweetstorm about podcaster Joe Rogan’s challenge to debate Peter Hotez about vaccines.

Emily Flitter of The New York Times reports on the ways in which local political officials and the wealthy seek revenge on small-town newspapers.

In most of the country, state and local laws require public announcements — about town meetings, elections, land sales and dozens of other routine occurrences — to be published in old-fashioned, print-and-ink newspapers, as well as online, so that citizens are aware of matters of public note. The payments for publishing these notices are among the steadiest sources of revenue left for local papers.

Sometimes, though, public officials revoke the contracts in an effort to punish their hometown newspapers for aggressive coverage of local politics.

Such retaliation is not new, but it appears to be occurring more frequently now, when terms like “fake news” have become part of the popular lexicon.

In recent years, newspapers in Colorado, North Carolina, New Jersey and California, as well as New York, have been stripped of their contracts for public notices after publishing articles critical of their local governments. Some states, like Florida, are going even further, revoking the requirement that such notices have to appear in newspapers.

Flux publisher Matthew Sheffield rotes a long tweet storm about Confederate Christianty.

Mr. Sheffield’s long tweetstorm can be read here.

Mr. Sheffield’s tweetstorm led me to Rich Logis blistering June 6 column for Salon about how and why the mainstream media continually props up the GOP.

First, the press intellectualizes salvaging the GOP. Sure, there is a place for intellectual takes on the Republican Party, the conservative movement and our two-party system (which we've always had and always will). But a healthier two-party system will only arise after the GOP is mercy-killed. There are myriad opinions among progressives, liberals, moderates, independents, center-left and even center-right Americans as to what should be done with the GOP. It's nearly impossible to get 10 to concur, much less 100-plus million. This endless "what to do?" cycle probably partly explains why centrist and left-of-center media is so concerned with the "who will save the GOP?" question. [...]

I immersed myself in the MAGA/Trump cult from 2015 to 2022, and congregated with Republican primary voters on a near-daily basis. I was a right-wing pundit. And I now wish I could have all 221 million seconds back. I sincerely adhered to many of the mythologies most GOP base voters adhere to, centered on  gays, sex and marriage; male Caucasian paranoia; Christian theocracy; the evil of Barack Obama; racial and ethnic animus; the sacredness of guns and the demonic nature of COVID vaccines.

I am not convinced that most GOP politicians actually believe the trauma-based conspiracies and mythologies they peddle, but they know that the party's base voters are addicted to them. This dependency on fighting imaginary phantasms — which are  responsible for eroding our "values" and "culture" by making America browner, less Christian, more constitutionally equal and ever less heterosexual — is what unites GOP base voters. The trauma shapes the right's identity politics, brought to them, oftentimes, by affluent Ivy League-educated Republican leaders.

EJ Montini of the Arizona Republic points out that it was the Democratic governor Katie Hobbs that vetoed “nanny state” legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Arizona legislature.

For generations Republicans have railed against Democrats for trying to create a “nanny state,” the kind of place where the government, not individuals, controls just about every aspect of our lives.

But here’s the thing.

It’s a lie.

If anything, just the opposite is true.

And no place proves it better than Arizona, where the Republican-controlled Legislature passed bill after bill that would have replaced free choice with government mandates. And the only thing that prevented it from happening was Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs’ 100-plus vetoes of “nanny state” legislation.

William Melhado of Texas Tribune reports that Texas state Senator Angela Paxton will attend the impeachment trial of her husband, suspended Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

After weeks of speculation, state Sen. Angela Paxton announced late Monday that she will attend the impeachment trial of her husband, suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton, the McKinney Republican said in a statement issued late Monday.

“Each time I was elected, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this great state, and Texas law compels each member of the Senate to attend when the Senate meets as a court of impeachment, Sen. Paxton’s announcement stated. “As a member of the Senate, I hold these obligations sacred and I will carry out my duties, not because it is easy, but because the Constitution demands it and because my constituents deserve it.”

Ken Paxton faces 20 articles of impeachment as a result of a months-long investigation by the House General Investigating Committee. Those articles that included accusations of bribery, retaliating against whistleblowers and obstruction of justice. As a result, the suspended attorney general will face a trial in the Senate by Aug. 28 where the upper chamber’s 31 members will act as jurors in the decision to remove one of the state’s top elected Republicans from office.

Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux of FiveThirtyEight analyzes data on the number of abortions that have been performed since the Dobbs decision.

New estimates provided exclusively to FiveThirtyEight by #WeCount — a national research project led by the Society of Family Planning, a nonprofit that supports research on abortion and contraception — indicate that there were 24,290 fewer legal abortions between July 2022 and March 2023, compared to a pre-Dobbs baseline.1 These people might have remained pregnant or obtained an abortion outside the legal system, which would not be captured in #WeCount’s data.

But the overall decline in abortions is just one part of the story. #WeCount’s estimates, which were collected by contacting every abortion clinic in the country multiple times over a period of twelve months, shows the Dobbs ruling has created intense turmoil for tens of thousands of Americans across the country. There were an estimated 93,575 fewer legal abortions in states that banned or severely restricted abortion for at least one week in the nine-month period after Dobbs.2 The number of legal abortions in states where abortion remained mostly available did rise by 69,285 in the same period, signaling that many people did travel and successfully obtain an abortion within the U.S. health care system. “But a significant number of people are trapped and can’t get out of places like Texas,” said Caitlin Myers, a professor of economics at Middlebury College who studies abortion policy and reviewed the #WeCount data at FiveThirtyEight’s request. “And for the people who are traveling, we’re talking about enormous distances. Some people are likely getting delayed into the second trimester.” With more bans on the horizon in big states like Florida — and abortion clinics and funds struggling to keep up in other states — abortion access seems likely to erode further in the second year after Dobbs.

Finally today, Nels Abbey of Guardian reminds Britons that they were warned about former prime minister Boris Johnson.

Had Britain “heard” the screams of caution from Black people about the racism and, therefore, unsuitability for office of Boris Johnson, there is a good chance Britain would not be “feeling” the pain and shame of demise we are right now.

In the story of race in Britain, Johnson may be as deserving of his own special chapter as Enoch Powell. And a fascinatingly complex chapter it would be. It is hard to conceive of anyone who has seemingly done more to decimate antiracism movements and relegitimise racism in Britain (for his own political gain) but simultaneously just as hard to name anyone who did more for high-level political diversity – once seen as a vital measure of racial progress. Powell gave a speech; Johnson gave power and the respectability of diversity to racism. [...]

Indeed, a cursory study of his time as editor of the Spectator suggests an apparent disdain for, obsession with and envy or fear of Black people in particular. He did not write but he published at least one patently, eye-wateringly racist pseudoscientific article suggesting Black people had low IQs. Another piece published under his editorship described Jamaican immigrants (ie descendants of Africans enslaved by Britain) as “ludicrously self-satisfied, macho, lupine-gaited, gold-chained-and-front-toothed predators of the slums, with the bodies of giants and the mind of a pea”. Another dismissed the idea of disaffected Black youth as politically correct cover for “black thugs, sons of black thugs and grandsons of black thugs”. The piece contained the bigotry bat-signal “boy, oh boy, was Enoch – God rest his soul – ever right!”

Far from making him a pariah, his early catalogue of racist waffle, written by or apparently sanctioned by him, helped to propel Johnson to success.