Empty barrel yourself
It’s bizarre that Kelly refuses to apologize.
The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) is demanding an apology for Florida Representative Frederica Wilson after “reprehensible” and “blatant lies” were spewed about her from the White House podium.
White House Chief of Staff John Kelly falsely told reporters on October 19 that Wilson took credit for securing funding for an FBI facility, calling her an “empty barrel”—and did not retract his comments after a video from the building dedication revealed that Wilson did not do what Kelly said she did.
Kelly seems to have a very high opinion of his own honor, so wouldn’t you think he would see it as dishonorable to tell several lies about someone, have the lies clearly demonstrated to be lies, and refuse to withdraw them and apologize?
“General Kelly’s comments are reprehensible,” the CBC said in a statement. “Congresswoman Wilson’s integrity and credibility should not be challenged or undermined by such blatant lies. We, the women of the Congressional Black Caucus, proudly stand with Congresswoman Wilson and demand that General Kelly apologize to her without delay and take responsibility for his reckless and false statements.”
The CBC support follows Wilson’s own request for an apology. She accused Kelly of “character assassination” on Sunday for calling her an “empty barrel” after she revealed Trump’s insensitive comments to a gold star widow whose husband, Army Sgt. La David Johnson, died in an ambush in Niger, Africa.
“Not only does he owe me an apology, he owes an apology to the American people, because when he lied on me he lied to them, and I don’t think it’s fair,” Wilson told MSNBC. “He owes the American people an apology for lying on one of their congresswomen.”
It’s clearly not fair. He has the platform of the White House chief of staff, and he abused it to tell several damaging lies about Wilson. Decidedly not fair.
They degrade us all.
I’m slowly growing convinced that Donald Trump’s hair is a horcrux, corrupting everyone who spends too much time in his presence. It took less than 3 months to turn an ostensibly honorable military man with a long and laudable career (even if he held less than stellar views) into a gutless cretin.
Working directly for Trump ultimately has the effect of turning the ethical into the ethically compromised; it appears to be a simple matter of time before any such direct employee is turned into an habitual liar. The first step in this process is in looking at Trump, and agreeing to work for someone so visibly, shamelessly dishonest.
Holms, I suspect the ethical would not have gone to work for Trump in the first place. Maybe back in the past, when he was simply a real estate mogul or reality TV star, and his “quirks” (read: disgusting and corrupt habits) had not been made bare throughout the world. By the time he entered the White House, this was no longer possible; the only way to ethically go to work for Trump was to lie to yourself either (1) that he really wasn’t corrupt, that all this is “fake news”; or (2) that you are going to “change things from within” and make this morally bankrupt presidency into a beacon of hope for everyone.
It’s more that the Trump Administration converts people willing to do the slimiest things for the sake of the job into people who do them. No one willing to work there is of sterling character, but the professional need to violate all norms and expectations of decency just doesn’t exist so strongly anywhere else.
I have what may be an insight here. I’ve never in any way been connected with the military, but I heard this from a therapist who has worked extensively on military-funded research.
She told me once that she flew out to an airport near a military installation, and an enlisted man was sent to pick her up. They got confused about which terminal she was at. In the course of getting it sorted, she encountered a colonel who was sent to meet her. She (the therapist) casually remarked to her (the colonel), “I’ll have to apologize to him for sending him on such a wild goose chase.” She (the colonel) replied, “Never apologize down.”
In the military culture, a subordinate doesn’t even know what to do with an apology from a superior. They give orders — and promotions, and punishments — they don’t receive orders, or rebukes, or forgiveness. Subordinates apologize to superiors, always. When the superior screws up, their apology takes the form of dropping the subject without giving you any punishments or ass–chewing.
I’m wondering if this isn’t “general” Kelly’s mindset. He apologizes to the President; the President doesn’t apologize to him. Similarly, congress people apologize to the White House; the White House doesn’t apologize to… well… anyone.
AMA #6
Interesting insight. When you have a situation where someone in the military is interacting with a civilian, I guess what is revealing is how an individual military person/general interprets ‘never apologise down’ based on whom they consider to be inferior or superior outside of the clearcut military hierarchy.
I had the idea that the president and the military is/are at least supposed to pretend to serve the people.
Kelly must be such a special, four-star cornflake.
iknklst #3
I tend to think along similarish lines.
Trump is exceedingly similar to one of my former PhD supervisors. In character, but also such characteristics as speech cadence. Watching the debates reminded me of his interactions with me. I won’t go into further detail, except to say, I spent I think 4 – 5 years tied to this individual, including the last 18 months tactfully advocating for myself to get away from the supervision arrangement without massive damage to my hoped for career (it happened anyway). Even though everyone, including all the senior people, knew what he was like and were perfectly happy to keep feeding him a stream of bright young unsuspecting students. The outcomes were really, really horrendous and tragic for many. I did my best to protect and warn people once I did know. Of course that turned out super well for me /s.
The point I actually want to make: I learned alot about humans during this time. One of those things was that people like this fellow can only wreak the massive destruction that they do, with lots and lots of aiding and abetting by minions of varying levels of seniority, and much looking the other way by even more senior people who are in a position to curtail the various vicious and unethical behaviours.
It would take too long to describe here everything that I observed about why this happens. But the takeaway for me is that the people who stay and continue to prop up the sociopath with their reputation for supposed integrity or compassion or being a decent person or whatever, actually don’t possess those characteristics of you look at how they treat junior people on a day to day basis.
It’s not so much that they become corrupted, it’s that their essential corrupt approach has a chance to be rewarded and to therefore become more evident to junior bystanders at close quarters. Their integrity is more in branding than in truth, and they use their brand to prop up a sociopath who rewards them in various corrupt ways, including the power to exploit more junior people to fill the gap where their intellectual and technical competence ought to be.
People who decline to engage in this process, or who try to deal fairly with juniors or to warn them, do not flourish in this type of ecosystem*, to say the least.
*Although their intellectual property might – just under someone else’s name.
AMA @ 6 – that is interesting.
Congress isn’t down from the White House though. Trump seems to think it is, but I keep seeing various senators and representatives as well as legal experts and the like, saying over and over on cable news that that’s wrongitty-wrong, that the three branches are parallel, not one above the other, and Trump owes Congress every bit as much deference as it owes him.
You know what else it sounds like? The aristocracy of old. (They can’t get away with it now.) Americans marrying into the English aristocracy had to be taught that the nobs never thanked a servant for some routine service like handing them their tea or whatever, because there was so much handing of things that the thank yous would never end.
Horrible way to live. I can’t stand ordering people about; I can’t stand not saying thank you; and I can’t stand the never apologize mindset.
Ophelia @11,
If I recall correctly (and I think this was part of a behind-the-scenes documentary about Downton Abbey, but it was an interview with one of their historical experts), wherever possible, the aristocrats were not even supposed to acknowledge the existence of the help, and vice versa. To the point where the maid scrubbing the floor was supposed to face the corner if one of the family walked by.
Funny thing — when I was typing the preceding paragraph, I first wrote “you” in place of the aristocrats. Because of course I’m mentally placing all of us here in that role rather than that of the servants. I confess that I have a weakness for stuff like Downton Abbey or Agatha Christie novels or Jeeves & Wooster, but only because I imagine myself as one of the idle rich going off to the country for a weekend or whatever, not as one of the servants having to work themselves to death. Well, except maybe Jeeves.
Ophelia, @11 – I think the only way a person could do that without minding (unless they were a sociopath) is to assume that the “inferiors” are actually not as fully human as they are. And, of course, there’s the old who does God love the best if he gives all the best to these folks – prosperity gospel and all that. It seems like the aristocracy, who often seem to be more a burden on society than a boon to it, think that they have an intrinsic value that sets them above others. I hate that, too. A simple thank you or please can go a long way to making another person feel human in a degrading or demeaning job.
As a taxi driver, I treated all my customers with politeness, as equals; regardless of age or whether they were supremely wealthy, and/or titled, or poor. Some very few people didn’t like that. Meh. Most appreciated it. After all, we are all born naked and bloody and vulnerable; whatever advantages might be bestowed upon us, or which we believe that we earn for ourselves, are built upon a foundation of work done by others. I’ll happily stop on a ride to chat with road workers enjoying a break, and thank them for the job they are doing. I thank the cleaning staff at the hospital for making my life safer. I chat with the porter taking me to and from the radiology department and thank him or her for the smooth ride. I thank nurses and doctors for keeping me alive and as comfortable as possible. “Thank you!” costs nothing, and treating people as equals is how we should always behave. One can appreciate expertise without giving obeisance to the expert.
Screechy @ 12 – yes I’ve read & seen/heard that too, via more than one source – for instance from a memoir or collection of memoirs by former servants saying what it was like. The requirement to turn to face the wall if one had the bad luck to cross paths with one of The Family was a real thing. The green baize door was a real thing; the separate staircases were a real thing. The butler and footmen were meant to be visible (but of course not audible), but everyone else was meant to blend with the wallpaper as much as possible.
But that’s at the extreme, and there were always people who broke the rules.