The concern is not hypothetical

Jul 20th, 2017 1:16 pm | By

There’s also Deutsche Bank.

Most banks steer clear of Trump; Deutsche Bank is the big exception.

Regulators are reviewing hundreds of millions of dollars in loans made to Mr. Trump’s businesses through Deutsche Bank’s private wealth management unit, The New York Times reported, citing three people briefed on the review. The regulators are examining whether the loans might expose the banks to heightened risks.

New York regulators have paid particular attention to personal guarantees Mr. Trump made to obtain the loans.

There is no formal investigation of the bank, and personal guarantees are often required for big loans from wealth managers. The regulators are focused on whether these guarantees could create problems for Deutsche Bank should Mr. Trump fail to pay his debts, leaving it with a choice of suing him or risking being seen to have cut him a special deal. The concern is not hypothetical: Mr. Trump sued the bank to delay paying back an earlier loan.

You’d think that would make them want to terminate the relationship, wouldn’t you.

Separately, Deutsche Bank has been in contact with federal investigators, and it is likely eventually to have to provide information on the Trump accounts to the special counsel in the Russia inquiry, Robert S. Mueller III.

I’m sure he’ll find that everything is on the up and up.



He didn’t go to Russia that night

Jul 20th, 2017 12:20 pm | By

Linda Qiu points out some of Trump’s lies and buffoonish errors in his interview with the “failing” Times. My favorite is the last item, to do with Napoleon and Paris.

Mr. Trump may have been confusing Napoleon Bonaparte with his nephew, Louis Napoleon or Napoleon III, when he claimed that Napoleon “designed Paris.” In 1853, about 30 years after the first Napoleon died, Napoleon III appointed Georges-Eugène Haussman to carry out his reconstruction project, envisioned to accommodate rapid population growth and to discourage future revolutions, according to the Museum of the City.

“His one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death,” Mr. Trump continued.

Quite right! He was with some French floozie that night so they all froze to death so that was the end of his brilliant plan to conquer Russia in an evening.

While he identified the correct Napoleon, his version of the 18th century conqueror’s failed attempt to invade Russia is garbled. Napoleon’s 1812 campaign into Russia lasted about six months, not, as Mr. Trump suggested, one night. And the French emperor did take Moscow in September, before withdrawing a month later as food supplies began to dwindle. Of nearly half a million men under his command, about 6,000 returned home from a combination of battle, disease and the weather.

Well yeah okay but Trump’s version is much funnier.



He shoulda told him

Jul 20th, 2017 11:31 am | By

Oof, he’s landed us with a whole new plateful of headlines.

He sat down for a cozy chat yesterday with the “failing” “fake news” New York Times. He said he was very very mad at Jeff Sessions for recusing himself, and that he never would have given him the job if he’d known he was going to recuse himself for cryin out loud. He seems to think Sessions knew all along that he’d be recusing himself, that it was a plan, like planning to go to Hawaii on vacation next year.

In a remarkable public break with one of his earliest political supporters, Mr. Trump complained that Mr. Sessions’s decision ultimately led to the appointment of a special counsel that should not have happened. “Sessions should have never recused himself, and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job and I would have picked somebody else,” Mr. Trump said.

It was very unfair to him, Trump said mournfully.

In a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times, the president also accused James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director he fired in May, of trying to leverage a dossier of compromising material to keep his job. Mr. Trump criticized both the acting F.B.I. director who has been filling in since Mr. Comey’s dismissal and the deputy attorney general who recommended it. And he took on Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel now leading the investigation into Russian meddling in last year’s election.

See, it wasn’t like this on The Apprentice. On The Apprentice Trump was the Top Dog and that was the end of it – there weren’t all these people getting in his way and investigating him and recusing themselves. The presidency should be like that too. It should be The Donnie Show, on which Donnie gets whatever he demands, and everyone jumps when he says jump, and there are frequent opportunities for everyone to gather round and say how awesome Donnie is. That’s how a presidency should be. Except when it’s Obama of course, but that’s a whole other thing.

Instead there’s all this annoying policy and procedure, all these rules and constraints, all these people cluttering up Donnie’s photo ops. It’s such a crappy third-rate loser kind of presidency when it should have been so golden and awesome.

Asked if Mr. Mueller’s investigation would cross a red line if it expanded to look at his family’s finances beyond any relationship to Russia, Mr. Trump said, “I would say yes.” He would not say what he would do about it. “I think that’s a violation. Look, this is about Russia.”

It should be up to Don to decide what gets investigated. Not this underling guy Mueller. Don is president and they’re not. Nobody else is. Everybody should be doing what Don tells them to do, but they just won’t.

While the interview touched on an array of issues, including health care, foreign affairs and politics, the investigation dominated the conversation. He said that as far as he knew, he was not under investigation himself, despite reports that Mr. Mueller is looking at whether the president obstructed justice by firing Mr. Comey.

“I don’t think we’re under investigation,” he said. “I’m not under investigation. For what? I didn’t do anything wrong.”

His self-knowledge is as impressive as ever.

Mr. Trump left little doubt during the interview that the Russia investigation remained a sore point. His pique at Mr. Sessions, in particular, seemed fresh even months after the attorney general’s recusal. Mr. Sessions was the first senator to endorse Mr. Trump’s candidacy and was rewarded with a key cabinet slot, but has been more distant from the president lately.

“Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself, which frankly I think is very unfair to the president,” he added. “How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but I’m not going to take you.’ It’s extremely unfair — and that’s a mild word — to the president.”

Because that’s all that matters – the president: the glorious sanctified all-important president. That’s the criterion for everything: is this good or bad for the president, from the point of view of the president.

He also said Comey informed him about the Russian dossier – the golden shower one – in order to blackmail Trump into letting him keep his job. Projection much? That sounds like something Trump would do, a thousand times over; it doesn’t sound like something Comey would do.

Mr. Trump rebutted Mr. Comey’s claim that in a one-on-one meeting in the Oval Office on Feb. 14, the president asked him to end the investigation into his former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn. Mr. Comey testified before Congress that Mr. Trump kicked the vice president, attorney general and several other senior administration officials out of the room before having the discussion with Mr. Comey.

“I don’t remember even talking to him about any of this stuff,” Mr. Trump said. “He said I asked people to go. Look, you look at his testimony. His testimony is loaded up with lies, O.K.?”

Oh, well then. That’s definitive.

He expressed no second thoughts about firing Mr. Comey, saying, “I did a great thing for the American people.”

Oh right, he did it for us. He’s very noble that way.

He also kvetched about Mueller, and he also kvetched about Rosenstein.

The president also expressed discontent with Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, a former federal prosecutor from Baltimore. When Mr. Sessions recused himself, the president said he was irritated to learn where his deputy was from. “There are very few Republicans in Baltimore, if any,” he said of the predominantly Democratic city.

So now Baltimore is code for “Jew” too?

In his first description of his dinnertime conversation with Mr. Putin at the Group of 20 summit meeting in Hamburg, Germany, Mr. Trump played down its significance. He said his wife, Melania, was seated next to Mr. Putin at the other end of a table filled with world leaders.

“The meal was going toward dessert,” he said. “I went down just to say hello to Melania, and while I was there I said hello to Putin. Really, pleasantries more than anything else. It was not a long conversation, but it was, you know, could be 15 minutes. Just talked about things. Actually, it was very interesting, we talked about adoption.”

He noted the adoption issue came up in the June 2016 meeting between his son and Russian visitors. “I actually talked about Russian adoption with him,” he said, meaning Mr. Putin. “Which is interesting because it was a part of the conversation that Don had in that meeting.”

But the president repeated that he did not know about his son’s meeting at the time and added that he did not need the Russians to provide damaging information about Mrs. Clinton.

“There wasn’t much I could say about Hillary Clinton that was worse than what I was already saying,” he said. “Unless somebody said that she shot somebody in the back, there wasn’t much I could add to my repertoire.”

True, but not in the sense he means. It’s true because he told so many hyperbolic lies about her, not because she’s actually committed every crime short of shooting someone in the back.



Joining the chorus of hatreds

Jul 19th, 2017 4:04 pm | By

George Monbiot wrote a thing about Julien Benda in 2013.

In 1927 the French philosopher Julien Benda published a piercing attack on the intellectuals of his day. They should, he argued in La Trahison des Clercs (the treason of the scholars), act as a check on popular passions(1). Civilisation, he claimed, is possible only if intellectuals stand in opposition to the demands of political “realism” by upholding universal principles. “Thanks to the scholars,” Benda maintained, “humanity did evil for two thousand years, but honoured good.” Europe might have been lying in the gutter, but it was looking at the stars.

But those ideals, he argued, had been lost. Europe was now lying in the gutter, looking in the gutter. The “immense majority” of intellectuals, artists and clergy had joined “the chorus of hatreds”: nationalism, racism, the worship of power and war. In doing so, they justified and magnified political passions. Across Europe, scholars on both the left and the right had become “ready to support in their own countries the most flagrant injustices”, to abandon universal principles in favour of national exceptionalism and to proclaim “the supreme morality of violence”.

In 1927. Things got a whole lot worse after that, then worse again, and again, until they finally came to an exhausted depleted halt.

Intellectuals need to stay out of those choruses of hatred.



He has a master’s degree, IN SCIENCE

Jul 19th, 2017 11:38 am | By

*goes to visit Goop site*

Gee that looks familiar. It looks like Ivanka. They should team up – Gwyneth and Ivanka, GI for short. Government Issue or GastroIntestinal, whatever.

There are photos of very thin very clean very blond very pale ladies all over, along with photos of the shoes and tops and bags they might like to buy purchase.

There’s a piece on the Illuminati, and another on Ancient Civilizations. There’s an ad for magical fruit juice.

There’s a “detox” section.

Within that section, there’s a section for Detox Shops. Of course there is.

There’s also a very sciency page where a guy called Bruce Lourie answers all the questions about is detox really not bullshit at all are you sure?

Bruce holds a B.Sc. in Geology and a Master’s in Environmental Studies.

Close enough!



How it’s done

Jul 19th, 2017 11:19 am | By

Ars Technica calls the Goop attempt to bully Jen Gunter “a perfectly crafted reference guide for how to sell snake oil.”

In case you’re unfamiliar—or just need an empowering refresher—Goop is a site directed mostly toward affluent women that peddles pricey products and overuses the word “empower” while dabbling in many forms of pseudoscience and quackery—everything from homeopathy to magic crystals and garden-variety dietary-supplement nonsense.

And it’s flourishing. It’s making big bucks. It’s even going into publishing.

This year, the Goop group teamed up with Condé Nast to begin publishing a quarterly print magazine as well as digital content. (Condé Nast also owns Ars, by the way.)

It’s Prince Charles all over again – using fame to market high-priced bullshit as “healthy” and “healing” – from detox socks to jade eggs up the twat.

People who know more about the subject than Paltrow does have been writing about why her claims are wrong so finally they took a deep breath and murmured some incantations and issued a Statement.

As the Internet collectively grabbed popcorn, Paltrow herself tweeted the post, writing, “When they go low, we go high.”

But Goop didn’t go high. Going high would be providing data to back health claims and dubious products. Going high would be denouncing bad products and consulting with evidence-based doctors on effective remedies—or at least discussing potential harms of unproven ones. Even adding clear warnings on products and practices that lack evidence on effectiveness and safety would be inching upward. In general, going high would be clearly putting the health and well-being of customers ahead of profits.

Instead, the Goop team went low—basically not changing position. It defended its evidence-free and sometimes potentially harmful products while personally attacking one specific medical blogger, Dr. Jen Gunter, an Ob/Gyn who has knocked back many of Goop’s products and claims.

I first became aware of Jen Gunter when I was writing about the death of Savita Halappanavar; she wrote a beautifully clear explanation of what happens in an incomplete miscarriage of that kind and thus how horrific Galway University Hospital’s refusal to complete Halappanavar’s was. She’s terrific, and it’s revolting that Paltrow is using movie star celebrity to attack and insult her. (Paltrow didn’t write the statement but it’s her company, she’s responsible.)

Ars Technica describes some of Goop’s expensive bullshit and reckless advice – the jade egg, the vaginal steam cleaning, the “medicine bag,” the “energy healing” stickers, the line of luxury dietary supplements and vitamins, a mere $90 for a month’s supply.

Then it goes through the marketing steps revealed in the Statement.

In its latest post, the Goop team wanders through all the steps. I’ve brought them out and reordered them here for a more coherent interpretation.

Step 1. Assure the customer that you are there for them and can care for them—especially when no one else is or can, including the heartless, mainstream medical community. As Goop puts it:

Our primary place is in addressing people, women in particular, who are tired of feeling less-than-great, who are looking for solutions—these women are not hypochondriacs, and they should not be dismissed or marginalized.

Ya!! Right on! Iz feminism!

2. Explain that you just have more answers than those stuffy evidence-based doctors because you look at things from a fresh, holistic perspective.

Western and Eastern modalities doncha know.

3. Say you don’t know everything; ass covered. 4. Say but at the same time you are The Best, with degrees and all. 5. You are not crazy!!

6. At this point, note that you are the victim of Meany McCriticFaces, who don’t know what they’re talking about and are just trying to sell stuff and promote their own brands, unlike you, who have the customers’ backs (see step 1).

There are third parties who critique Goop to leverage that interest and bring attention to themselves. Encouraging discussion of new ideas is certainly one of our goals, but indiscriminate attacks that question the motivation and integrity of the doctors who contribute to the site is not.

7. Twist the facts to suggest that any critics of you are actually critics of the customer. You’re in this together!

Some of the coverage that Goop receives suggests that women are lemmings, ready to jump off a cliff whenever one of our doctors discusses checking for EBV, or Candida, or low levels of vitamin D—or, heaven forbid, take a walk barefoot. As women, we chafe at the idea that we are not intelligent enough to read something and take what serves us, and leave what does not. We simply want information; we want autonomy over our health.

Ya!! Right on! Iz feminism!



Looka my thumb

Jul 19th, 2017 9:44 am | By

Honestly. Just look at that.

Photo published for Dearth of a Salesman: Trump Failed to Persuade on GOP Health Bill



Donnie and Vlad

Jul 18th, 2017 5:34 pm | By

Trump had a second, secret conversation with Putin at the G20 meeting.

The hourlong conversation in Hamburg, Germany, took place at a private dinner among world leaders at a concert hall on the banks of the Elbe River during the Group of 20 economic summit meeting, with only a Kremlin interpreter present to listen to the exchange. It followed a formal meeting between the two presidents that lasted more than two hours earlier in the day, and included their foreign ministers for a fraught discussion about Moscow’s attempts to interfere in the 2016 American elections.

Only a Kremlin interpreter – so it’s like when Trump had the private meeting with Kislyak and Lavrov in the Oval Office…only more so, because this is Putin, and there was no one else there except the Kremlin interpreter.

This guy. I swear.

But the intimate dinner conversation, of which there is no official United States government record, because no American official other than the president was involved, is the latest to raise eyebrows. Foreign leaders who witnessed it later commented privately on the oddity of an American president flaunting such a close rapport with his Russian counterpart.

“Pretty much everyone at the dinner thought this was really weird, that here is the president of the United States, who clearly wants to display that he has a better relationship personally with President Putin than any of us, or simply doesn’t care,” said Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, a New York-based research and consulting firm, who said he heard directly from attendees. “They were flummoxed, they were confused and they were startled.”

I wonder what he gave away. Did he tell Putin to help himself to the Baltics? Say the US really doesn’t care what he does to his own people? Offer him a few spare nukes?

In a statement, a White House official on Tuesday described the meeting as routine and brief, and explained the lack of an American translator by noting that the president was accompanied by a Japanese interpreter who did not speak Russian. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that any insinuation that the White House has tried to hide the encounter was false.

A second White House official confirmed that the meeting had occurred but did not offer any details, and insisted on anonymity because the discussion was private.

Private?? What do they mean private? He doesn’t get to go having “private” secret just-him meetings with Putin. They’re not lovers, they’re heads of rival states.

Russia specialists said such an encounter — even on an informal basis at a social event — raised red flags because of its length, which suggests a substantive exchange, and the fact that there was no American interpreter, note taker or national security or foreign policy aide present.

“We’re all going to be wondering what was said, and that’s where it’s unfortunate that there was no U.S. interpreter, because there is no independent American account of what happened,” Stephen Pifer, a former ambassador to Ukraine who also specializes Russia and nuclear arms control.

“If I was in the Kremlin, my recommendation to Putin would be, ‘See if you can get this guy alone,’ and that’s what it sounds like he was able to do,” added Mr. Pifer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Because Trump is that stupid…or treasonous.



But it’s empowering and healing

Jul 18th, 2017 10:52 am | By

Goop fights back, aka A Word from Our Doctors responding to evidence-based criticisms of the woo peddled by Paltrow and the goop team.

As goop has grown, so has the attention we receive. We consistently find ourselves to be of interest to many—and for that, we are grateful—but we also find that there are third parties who critique goop to leverage that interest and bring attention to themselves. Encouraging discussion of new ideas is certainly one of our goals, but indiscriminate attacks that question the motivation and integrity of the doctors who contribute to the site is not.* This is the first in a series of posts revisiting these topics and offering our contributing M.D.’s a chance to articulate theirs, in a respectful and substantive manner.

We always welcome conversation. That’s at the core of what we’re trying to do. What we don’t welcome is the idea that questions are not okay. Being dismissive—of discourse, of questions from patients, of practices that women might find empowering or healing, of daring to poke at a long-held belief—seems like the most dangerous practice of all. Where would we be if we all still believed in female hysteria instead of orgasm equality? That smoking didn’t cause lung cancer? If every nutritionist today saw the original food pyramid as gospel?

Uh huh, and they laughed when Beethoven sat down at the piano, but that doesn’t mean that all people who sit down at the piano are geniuses as long as somebody laughed. Some innovators are dismissed at the start; it does not follow that all innovators are right.

Plus describing evidence-based medicine as “a long-held belief” in contrast to the rational innovations of goop is not altogether honest. They’re framing EBM as the Ancient Superstion and woo as the Brave New Rational Discovery.

And then lumping together “empowering” and “healing” is a cheat. Anyone can find anything “empowering,” because that word doesn’t mean much and is infinitely adaptable, but “healing” is another matter. Sometimes healing can just mean feeling better, and psychology can play a big part in that, and some kinds of woo can be useful. In general, though, healing is a matter of technical knowledge, such as how to reduce inflammation or how to deal with bacterial infections or a bunch of other things that take several years to learn to professional standard.

Last January, we published a Q&A with Shiva Rose about her jade egg practice, which has helped her (and legions of other women who wrote to us in response) feel more in touch with her sexuality, and more empowered.

There. Like that. What the fuck is that even supposed to mean? And what does it have to do with medicine?

A San Francisco-based OB-GYN/blogger posted a mocking response on her site, which has the tagline: “Wielding the Lasso of Truth.” (We also love Wonder Woman, though we’re pretty sure she’s into women taking ownership of female sexual pleasure.)

There was a tremendous amount of press pick-up on the doctor’s post, which was partially based on her own strangely confident assertion that putting a crystal in your vagina for pelvic-floor strengthening exercises would put you in danger of getting Toxic Shock Syndrome—even though there is no study/case/report which links the two—and also stating with 100 percent certainty that conventional tampons laden with glyphosate (classified by the WHO as probably carcinogenic) are no cause for concern. Since her first post, she has been taking advantage of the attention and issuing attacks to build her personal platform—ridiculing the women who might read our site in the process.

And that’s just garbage – the doctor they’re talking about so slyly is Jen Gunter, and she was well known long before that post, and she doesn’t do this to “build her personal platform” – she does it to warn people about dangerous nonsense.

Gwyneth Paltrow should be ashamed of this.

*Note the contradiction.

Updating to add Jen Gunter’s response.



Ding ding ding

Jul 18th, 2017 10:02 am | By

This time it’s a fire truck. A made in America fire truck. Boop boop.

Image result for trump fire truck



Investigating

Jul 18th, 2017 9:50 am | By

Oh no, it’s the end of the world, a woman went out in public wearing clothes.

The authorities in Saudi Arabia are investigating a young woman who posted a video of herself wearing a miniskirt and crop-top in public.

The woman, a model called “Khulood”, shared the clip of her walking around a historic fort in Ushayqir.

https://twitter.com/50BM_/status/886614068768976897

No wonder the authorities are investigating.

On Monday, the Okaz newspaper reported that officials in Ushayqir had called on the provincial governor and police to take action against the woman.

The religious police, the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, meanwhile wrote on Twitter that it had been made aware of the video and was in contact with the relevant authorities.

Trump’s dear friends.



Saucy

Jul 18th, 2017 8:46 am | By

Ah yes, of course. Naturally if a woman is cast to play the Doctor in Doctor Who, it is necessary to report that she has at some point been naked in front of a camera. That’s the important thing. GETCHER TITS OUT.

The Sun and Mail Online have been accused of being “reductive and irresponsible” after publishing nude photographs of Jodie Whittaker in articles covering the announcement that she is the new star of Doctor Who.

Reporting the BBC’s announcement on Sunday that Whittaker would be the first female Doctor, both publications ran articles about Whittaker appearing naked or topless in previous acting work, illustrating the stories with stills.

Stills of TITS. Because TITS. Because look, if you’re going to get a woman involved, then you have to let us ogle her TITS. It’s only fair.

The Sun published the photographs under the headline “Dalektable” – a reference to the Daleks, an enemy of the Doctor. The article covered pages four and five of the newspaper and described Whittaker’s “saucy screen past”. Mail Online’s article was headlined “Doctor Nude!” and also featured naked and topless photos of previous male Doctors, including Christopher Eccleston, David Tennant and Matt Smith.

TITS. Tits tits TITS. Naked booty bum tits naked sex naked tits phwoar.



Whatever short-term political damage this might cause

Jul 18th, 2017 8:32 am | By

The Wall Street Journal has stern advice for Don and Fam: spill everything.

Mr. Trump seems to realize he has a problem because the White House has announced the hiring of white-collar Washington lawyer Ty Cobb to manage its Russia defense. He’ll presumably supersede the White House counsel, whom Mr. Trump ignores, and New York outside counsel Marc Kasowitz, who is out of his political depth.

Mr. Cobb has an opening to change the Trump strategy to one with the best chance of saving his Presidency: radical transparency. Release everything to the public ahead of the inevitable leaks. Mr. Cobb and his team should tell every Trump family member, campaign operative and White House aide to disclose every detail that might be relevant to the Russian investigations.

That means every meeting with any Russian or any American with Russian business ties. Every phone call or email. And every Trump business relationship with Russians going back years. This should include every relevant part of Mr. Trump’s tax returns, which the President will resist but Mr. Mueller is sure to seek anyway.

That’s the best chance of saving his presidency? I’m not seeing it. If he released everything, that would probably end his presidency. The WSJ seems to be assuming he hasn’t actually done anything criminal or incompatible with being president, but that’s a huge and rather perverse assumption. I think the reason Trump is hiding as much as he can is because the truth would discredit him. The bits of truth that have been leaked have certainly done a lot to discredit him, and the full truth would do that more thoroughly. The likelihood of some miraculous Innocent Explanation is…slight.

Then release it all to the public. Whatever short-term political damage this might cause couldn’t be worse than the death by a thousand cuts of selective leaks, often out of context, from political opponents in Congress or the special counsel’s office. If there really is nothing to the Russia collusion allegations, transparency will prove it. Americans will give Mr. Trump credit for trusting their ability to make a fair judgment. Pre-emptive disclosure is the only chance to contain the political harm from future revelations.

But that’s true only if this release of all of it shows him to be not a liar, thief, fraud, cheat, and corrupt operator.

Mr. Trump somehow seems to believe that his outsize personality and social-media following make him larger than the Presidency. He’s wrong. He and his family seem oblivious to the brutal realities of Washington politics. Those realities will destroy Mr. Trump, his family and their business reputation unless they change their strategy toward the Russia probe. They don’t have much more time to do it.

But it’s not the brutal realities of Washington politics that caused Trump to be a fraud, cheat, thief, liar, bully, and sleaze – he did that himself years ago. I don’t see how admitting it all is going to save his presidency.



In order to fight an ongoing cast of ridiculous kitchen appliances

Jul 17th, 2017 5:07 pm | By

Jim Wright on the Doctor Who scandal.

So, the new Doctor is … <horrified gasp!> … a WOMAN

A woman.

Can you believe it?

The New Doctor can’t be … <horrified gasp> … a WOMAN!

No no no! The Doctor, a time traveling non human alien from a distance planet in a fictional universe who has regenerated, what? ten? eleven? times now from the dead into a different body in order to fight an ongoing cast of ridiculous kitchen appliances using really, really shitty special effects over, I dunno, 30 years or more, yeah THAT guy, has to be a white dude.

Has. To. Be. A. White. Dude.

Because that’s why you watch this dopey British science fiction show, right?

Sure, you watch it to see the same shit over and over — with British accents, which makes it totally cool despite the goofy story lines and discount special effects. Same shit, over and over. And over. And over. Same guy, just in different skin. Same villains. Same themes. Same episodes. Same shit. Exterminate! Exterminate!

It’s like Star Trek, same five characters, same five episodes, recycled over and over. And over. And over. It’s the plucky Captain, the robot/alien guy with no emotions, the comic relief guy with the funny accent, the ranty emotional guy, and The Knockers. Time travel saves the day. Logic saves the day. Emotion saves the day. The computer goes berserk! And the Ongoing Alien Menace! Repackaged, recycled, over and over. Oh look, it’s the time loop episode again, why doesn’t anybody believe Ranty Emotion Guy!

First the women came for the Ghost Busters, then Star Wars, then the Marvel Universe, now the Doctor is a chick.

Goddamn. WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO NOW? WE’RE IN SOME REAL PRETTY SHIT NOW, AREN’T WE! WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO NOW?

Because, yeah, wouldn’t want to TRY ANYTHING NEW IN OUR OUTER SPACE TIME TRAVELING ADVENTURE. Nope nope nope. Need a white dude. Just an old white British dude. Because that’s why we go time traveling in outer space, right? To see the same stuff we have RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW…



Made in America or China or Bangladesh

Jul 17th, 2017 5:04 pm | By

It’s Made in America Week at the White House.

Hahahahahaha I know. What about all those Made in China labels on Ivanka’s merchandise? I think we’re not supposed to ask.

President Donald Trump celebrated U.S.-made products on Monday, and in doing so he brought renewed attention to his own family’s production and sale of goods made overseas.

“We want to build, create and grow more products in our country using American labor, American goods, and American grit,” Trump said at a White House event touting products made in all 50 states, kicking off the administration’s “Made in America”-themed week.

“We are going to put that brand on our product because it means that it’s the best,” Trump added. He then signed an executive order aimed at better supporting American companies and protecting U.S. workers.

So if it’s the best why doesn’t Ivanka get her merchandise right here at home?

But White House aides have struggled to answer questions about the Trump Organization’s and Ivanka Trump’s decision to manufacture a number of products overseas in places like China and Mexico.

Ahead of the event, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said it would be “inappropriate” to comment on how the president’s actions could impact affect Trump’s or his daughter’s business, but indicated the administration is working to bring more manufacturing back to the United States.

Inappropriate? Says who? I think it would be highly appropriate. If I were there I would ask why Trump thinks it’s appropriate to talk hot air about Made in America when he and his gene-carriers go elsewhere to buy Stuff.

The Washington Post reported last week that Ivanka Trump relies “exclusively on foreign factories” to manufacture her products. A spokeswoman for her told reporters Sunday she would get back to them about whether the week’s theme would encourage the first daughter to move her clothing line to the United States.

Yeah they’ll get back to them in ten or twenty years, they promise.



“That’s politics!”

Jul 17th, 2017 11:55 am | By

Maggie Haberman reports that Trump is again confiding in us about just how sleazy and morally empty he really is.

“Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don jr attended in order to get info on an opponent,” Mr. Trump posted on his Twitter account just after 10 a.m. “That’s politics!”

Of course. That’s what sleazy morally empty people do – they say everybody does it, they say you would do it in a heartbeat if you had the chance, they say everybody is as sleazy and morally empty as they are. It’s a lie – a sleazy and morally empty lie. Donald Trump is a moral vacuum, but that does not mean that everyone else is. Even in the US, where that brand of “character” is cheered on, it’s not universal.

The president has insisted he learned of the meeting only a few days before The Times article. His aides helped write his son’s initial statement describing the meeting as they flew back with the president from the Group of 20 summit meeting in Europe.

His son’s initial statement that was a lie and had to be revised as soon as the Times reported again.

The US government is a moral sewer at present. All we can do for now is try to keep track.



Justice denied

Jul 17th, 2017 10:55 am | By

A few of Ann Coulter’s many many furious outraged tweets at an airline that changed her reserved aisle seat to a window seat:

There’s one that says “.@Delta didn’t give my extra room seat to an air marshall or tall person. Here’s the woman given my PRE-BOOKED seat:” with a photo of a row of people looking up at her. It’s not very nice to photograph fellow passengers and then tweet the photo to thousands of people. That’s why I’m not including the one with the photo.

Etc etc etc in the same vein, tweet after tweet after tweet.

So the woman who was assigned to the aisle seat had actual literal dachshund legs? Really?

Oh yes, an airline inconveniencing Ann Coulter is the real fascism.

I guess there’s a sort of logic in hard-right people being this self-obsessed and Me First Always. They cultivate a showy callousness toward people damaged or abandoned by systems, and showy callousness tends to become more real and more pervasive over time. You start by sneering at workers and immigrants, and you end by thinking you yourself are the only person in the world who really matters.



An advocate for mistreated passengers

Jul 17th, 2017 10:15 am | By

Both funny and disgusting, like so much about the US these days – Ann Coulter goes on a Twitter Justice Denied campaign because Delta Airlines robbed her of her chosen seat. HER CHOSEN SEAT I tell you.

Shortly after landing in West Palm Beach, Fla., on Saturday, she launched a full scale Twitter assault against Delta Air Lines — which had apparently bumped her from an aisle seat to a window seat in the same row.

It wasn’t the most obvious moral outrage. There were no lost teeth or passengers dragged by the wrists down the aisle. In fact, the whole dispute concerned a $30 seat upgrade, according to Delta, which has promised to refund Coulter for her inconvenience.

That hasn’t stopped her war. Digressing from her usual commentary on liberals and immigrants, Coulter kept tweeting about the incident all weekend, eventually comparing Delta to dictators and claiming the booking process cost $10,000 of her time.

Ten grand; golly. I’ve booked seats. You go to the airline’s site, you find the right page, you look at the available seats, you decide which one you want, you type in the number and click, you click on confirm. It takes maybe five minutes if you’re really slow? Probably more like two or three, but let’s be generous and allow her five. So she makes $2000 a minute? She makes $2k a minute on the clock, that she doesn’t make while doing other things? So that has to be separate from her royalties on all those best-sellers, because obviously those still roll in whether she’s futzing around on Delta’s booking page or not. So who pays her $2k a minute, for what?

Some time after her flight from New York landed Friday, Coulter began to publicly expose the indignities she had documented on board.

“Why are you taking me out of the extra room seat I specifically booked, Delta?” she wrote beneath a photo of a flight attendant staring at her with some evident concern.

Coulter had, she wrote, been “kicked out of a CAREFULLY PRE-BOOKED seat to a less desirable seat” before takeoff. A flight attendant had “snatch[ed] my ticket out of my hand,” explaining only that an “emergency” necessitated the change, she said.

So where’d they put her? Middle seat in the last row?

No. Window seat as opposed to aisle seat in the same row, the exit row.

Coulter, who did not reply to questions from The Washington Post, has not disputed Delta’s account of her seating arrangements.

But she has continued to complain that she was “ordered” to move, retweeted a fan who called her treatment “abuse,” and compared the flight crew to Nurse Ratchet and Stasi police.

Ah yes, the Stasi. Being moved from an aisle seat to a window seat is very like the Stasi.

We don’t know how long Coulter spent to “investigate” the seating layout on her plane. Nor can we pretend to know the objective value of Ann Coulter.

But there’s little doubt that she’s made a lucrative career in the book and cable news worlds — if one largely built around outrage.

Outraged by Bill Clinton. By the godless “Church of Liberalism.” Lately by immigrants, again and again and again.

And now – airline seat assignment practices!

While Coulter has yet to write a book about her flight, she had tweeted about it nearly 50 times by Sunday morning.

Some fans already consider her an advocate for mistreated passengers, and Coulter appears to have embraced that portrayal — threatening to interrogate Delta’s CEO on-air.

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free!



Maryam Mirzakhani

Jul 16th, 2017 4:38 pm | By

I saw this everywhere yesterday but didn’t blog it because I don’t know why because it was too sad I guess. Maryam Mirzakhani died at age 40.

Maryam Mirzakhani, an Iranian mathematician who was the only woman ever to win a Fields Medal, the most prestigious honor in mathematics, died on Saturday. She was 40.

The cause was breast cancer, said Stanford University, where she was a professor. The university did not say where she died.

Her death is “a big loss and shock to the mathematical community worldwide,” said Peter C. Sarnak, a mathematician at Princeton University and the Institute for Advanced Study.

The Fields Medal, established in 1936, is often described as the Nobel Prize of mathematics. But unlike the Nobels, the Fields are bestowed only on people aged 40 or younger, not just to honor their accomplishments but also to predict future mathematical triumphs. The Fields are awarded every four years, with up to four mathematicians chosen at a time.

“She was in the midst of doing fantastic work,” Dr. Sarnak said. “Not only did she solve many problems; in solving problems, she developed tools that are now the bread and butter of people working in the field.”

Dr. Mirzakhani was one of four Fields winners in 2014, at the International Congress of Mathematicians in South Korea. Until then, all 52 recipients had been men. She was also the only Iranian ever to win the award.

What a goddam waste.

Dr. Mirzakhani’s mathematics looked at the interplay of dynamics and geometry, in some ways a more complicated version of billiards, with balls bouncing from one side to another of a rectangular billiards table eternally.

A ball’s path can sometimes be a repeating pattern. A simple example is a ball that hits a side at a right angle. It would then bounce back and forth in a line forever, never moving to any other part of the table.

But if a ball bounced at an angle, its trajectory would be more intricate, often covering the entire table.

“You want to see the trajectory of the ball,” Dr. Mirzakhani explained in a video produced by the Simons Foundation and the International Mathematical Union to profile the 2014 Fields winners. “Would it cover all your billiard table? Can you find closed billiards paths? And interestingly enough, this is an open question in general.”

The Times has more.



We read these books all the time where women are in the kitchen

Jul 16th, 2017 12:42 pm | By

Being outspoken, honest, independent-minded is one thing; being a bitch, a nag, a fanatic is another. The Atlantic on a study of teenage girls:

A number of girls from different middle and high schools reported similar experiences. One girl, Rory, 13, told them, “I was trying out for basketball and I got up to sign the sheet and everyone was like, ‘Oh get back in the kitchen!’” Rory’s initial response was anger—but then it turned to acceptance. “Guys are like that, and you get over it. It doesn’t bother me, it’s stereotypical. We read these books all the time where women are in the kitchen,” she said. (Pomerantz and Raby used pseudonyms to protect the girls’ identities.)

Pomerantz and Raby have both written various books on girl culture and knew that girls’ lives didn’t just amount to the beautiful, perfectly crafted sound bites portrayed in the media. While the authors heard plenty of alpha-girl stories—a girl who was the only female player on a boys’ hockey team, a girl who worried about balancing her popularity and her academics, a girl who stayed up until 1 a.m. checking her schoolwork—the articles made it sound as if society had transitioned into a post-feminism climate. But while they expected to hear about uncomfortable dynamics between boys and girls, they weren’t necessarily anticipating overly sexist commands reminiscent of the 1950s. Both Pomerantz and Raby gasped when they heard the “Go make me a sandwich” comment.

A few girls surveyed pushed back against the sexist statements and were able to clearly delineate what is and isn’t a joke. But more of the girls were reluctant to call out boys for their sexist behavior. They didn’t want to appear bitchy or outspoken or unsexy. It would make them look like a feminist, and feminism was a potentially damaging label. It had too many implications: that you were a prude, that you couldn’t take a joke, that you were a “man-hater” or a “bitch.” It was much cooler to say nothing. To laugh it off.

That. It’s fine to be a rebel, an activist, a fist-waver…but you can’t make other people see you that way. They can decide to see you as a prude and a bitch instead. It’s never easy.