The many ironies in Trump’s whining about news reports on Melania Trump’s long absence from public view…

President Trump engaged in characteristic hyperbole when he tweeted Wednesday that the media “reported everything from near death, to facelift, to left the W.H. (and me) for N.Y. or Virginia, to abuse” — as if reputable journalists had presented various conspiracy theories as fact.

Moreover, the president ignored or failed to see the multiple ironies in his grievance.

For starters, the president’s tweets amount to a complaint about conspiracy theories from the man who spent years promoting the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and who touted the “amazing” reputation of Infowars founder Alex Jones, a 9/11 “truther” who has suggested the 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Conn., was a “false flag.” Trump’s standing to police rumor and conjecture is diminished, to say the least.

“Irony” isn’t the right word for that, actually. It needs a much harsher word. What is the word for treating people like shit yourself but also pitching a huge fit when other people are mildly critical or questioning toward you? What’s the name of that cognitive distortion that thinks “I can abuse people as much as I like but people may not so much as look askance at me”? That bloated regard for the self and hostile contempt for everyone else? Is there a name for it?

Then there is President Trump’s rich objection to the notion that the first lady could have had a facelift; he hurled the same charge at MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski last year. Brzezinski and co-host Joe Scarborough tweeted reminders on Wednesday.

I can’t even imagine. https://t.co/WrwlEc37OH

— Mika Brzezinski (@morningmika) June 6, 2018

I don’t know of an exact word for it, but I do know it’s not as benign as mere “irony.”

Sean Illing at Vox talks to feminist philosopher Kate Manne about what’s really so great about Jordan Peterson anyway?

Sean Illing

Peterson has this recurring interest in identifying social hierarchies, which resonates with people who think they’re in danger of losing their privileged position or are resentful about having lost it. This is something you really home in on in your review of his book.

Kate Manne

Yeah. I mean, it’s striking. There’s an interesting moment in the book where Peterson talks about resentment as a “revelatory” emotion that can mean one of two things. One, you feel it because you’re immature, in which case you just need to buck up. Two, you feel resentment because you really are being oppressed or taken advantage of somehow. Your resentment shows you that something needs to change or that you need to assert yourself in relation to other people.

But there is clearly a third possibility. People often feel resentful because they appear, based on historically entrenched social norms, to be getting a bad bargain, when what’s actually happening is that others are getting a somewhat fairer deal. When you’re accustomed to unjust privilege, equality feels like oppression, as the saying goes.

In that third case, some sort of regret- or dislike-based emotion may be reasonable, while resentment is not. If there’s some oversight at the picnic such that I get an extra brownie and someone else gets no brownie, I may feel passionate sorrow as I hand the extra brownie over for transfer, but I really have no business feeling resentment. I have a feeling humans in general aren’t very good at separating those two things.

Sean Illing

I know that Peterson received some criticism recently for endorsing, or appearing to endorse, “enforced monogamy.” To be fair, this is a very particular anthropological term that doesn’t imply that the government is literally forcing people into monogamous relationships, but instead refers to social policies that incentivize monogamy.

What does he actually say about this in the book?

Kate Manne

He said that subsequently, in a New York Times piece, I believe, in response to the point that school shooters are often sexually, romantically, and socially frustrated young men. This suggestion is classic, straight-up misogyny, according to my definition of it.

Peterson has since waffled about what he meant, but I’m mostly interested in how the proposal would naturally be understood by ordinary readers, which leaves little room for charitable interpretation or plausible deniability in this case.

Peterson is very close-mouthed about the prevalence of domestic violence, marital rape, and intimate partner homicide in the context of the idea of enforced monogamy. So if you’re trying to prevent male violence, enforcing heterosexual monogamy seems a remarkably poor way to go about it — as well as obviously infringing on women’s entitlement to orient themselves toward whatever and whomever they wish (other women, multiple partners, and their own projects and ambitions). Monogamous relationships are just one potentially valid option among many, all of which have risks and rewards, costs and benefits.

And given the current state of patriarchal views of women, they probably shouldn’t be enforced, even via social policies.

Now here’s a wild and crazy idea:

EPA must produce the opposing body of science Administrator Scott Pruitt has relied upon to claim that humans are not the primary drivers of global warming, a federal judge has ruled.

Whaaaaaaaaaaat? Produce actual reasons for making a claim? Produce actual evidence and argument and statistics? That’s unAmerican!

The EPA boss has so far resisted attempts to show the science backing up his claims. His critics say such evidence doesn’t exist, even as Pruitt has called for greater science transparency at the agency.

Now, a court case may compel him to produce research that attempts to contradict the mountain of peer-reviewed studies collected by the world’s top science agencies over decades that show humans are warming the planet at an unprecedented pace through the burning of fossil fuels.

Now look here, it’s Pruitt’s opinion, his sincere and honest opinion, and it’s lèse-majesté for a judge to say he has to back it up.

Not long after he took over as EPA administrator, Pruitt appeared on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” where he was asked about carbon dioxide and climate change. He said, “I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”

The next day, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER, filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking the studies Pruitt used to make his claims. Specifically, the group requested “EPA documents that support the conclusion that human activity is not the largest factor driving global climate change.”

On Friday, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Beryl Howell, ordered the agency to comply.

But Pruitt said he doesn’t agree. He’s the boss of that agency so that’s all that counts. Being a boss means you get to disagree with any claim you don’t like, no questions asked.

“Particularly troubling is the apparent premise of this agency challenge to the FOIA request, namely: that the evidentiary basis for a policy or factual statement by an agency head, including about the scientific factors contributing to climate change, is inherently unknowable.”

Wellll I think by “inherently unknowable” they mean “nonexistent because it’s just what he thinks because it’s what suits him.”

Climate scientists have established that the planet is warming at an unprecedented pace because of humanity’s consumption of fossil fuels. Pruitt and other Trump administration officials have questioned those findings but have never produced any research backing up their assertions.

Because, of course, it has nothing to do with research; it’s about power. That’s all. “I have the power now so I get to contradict your science because I want to.”

Well, you see, it’s not about free speech, at least not according to Trump.

The White House press secretary today said the president doesn't consider the protected free speech of NFL players against police brutality to be free speech. Which is a totally accurate reflection of how he sees it and a pretty remarkable statement.

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) June 5, 2018

Yep, she said that.

“The president doesn’t think that this is an issue simply of free speech,” Sanders responded when reporters questioned why the White House supported the Supreme Court’s decision to protect the rights of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple but not those of NFL players kneeling during the anthem.

“He thinks it’s about respecting the men and women of our military, it’s respecting our national anthem, and it’s about standing out of pride for that,” Sanders continued.

Involuntarily. On command. No dissent or refusal permitted.

Besides which, why is standing for a song at a football game in particular about respecting the men and women of our military and respecting our national anthem? Why is that and that alone a situation in which one is commanded by the president of the US to show highly symbolic “respect” for the military and the song being sung? Not lacrosse games, not picnics, not Halloween, not shopping, not sailing, not shoveling snow off the roof – just football games. What’s the connection? Is it the violence? Is that it? Is Trump thinking football is actually a branch of the military, because of all the players who end up disabled from playing it?

Trump’s Spite the Eagles party was a dud.

Donald Trump’s “celebration of America” at the White House, hastily put together on Tuesday in the absence of Super Bowl winners the Philadelphia Eagles, proved that rare thing in the Trump era: an anti-climax.

“I was surprised from the ordeal to get here that it was only a 12-minute shindig,” said Emma Wittstruck Call, 30, who did not vote for the president. “I thought it would be longer.”

Trump handed more ammunition to critics who compare him to a tinpot dictator wrapping himself in the flag and appealing to cheap patriotism. He did not mention the Eagles or attempt to heal divisions.

The event on the south lawn had been intended to follow the tradition of US presidents welcoming the national football champions to the White House. But on Monday night Trump disinvited the Eagles after learning that fewer than 10 players planned to attend, reopening his feud with American athletes over protests during the national anthem.

So there were some flags, and Trump said words for four minutes, and then the US marine band and the US army chorus played “God Bless America” so that we could see mandatory patriotism and mandatory godbothering combined in one crap song.

At the daily White House briefing on Tuesday afternoon, Sanders seemed to attempt again to cast the NFL team in a bad light with its followers, saying “the Eagles are the ones that changed their commitment at the last minute … and the president thinks that the fans deserve better than that.”

“Certainly,” she added, “we would hope that all of the people of Pennsylvania would share the Potus’s commitment to the national anthem and pride that we have in the country.”

No. We’re not required to demonstrate pride in the country, especially when it’s under the thumb of an ignorant sadistic crook. We’re even less required to share “commitment” to any particular song, even if people do label it “the national anthem.” It’s just a song. It’s just a symbol. It’s just advertising. We don’t have to share it or be committed to it or bend the knee to it or anything else. It’s none of Sarah Sanders’s or Donald Trump’s business whether or not we show deference to a song. Sanders shouldn’t be spending official time trying to shame us into it.

More shame and disgust.

German politicians have called for Donald Trump’s envoy in Berlin to be expelled from the country after he said in an interview that he wanted to “empower” conservative forces throughout Europe.

Ambassador Richard Grenell, who has been in office for less than a month, has caused irritation in Berlin with a series of perceived breaches of diplomatic etiquette.

On Monday, the former Fox News contributor further strayed beyond his ambassadorial remit by requesting a short meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu at Berlin’s airport following the Israeli prime minister’s meeting with Angela Merkel.

…

In Germany, Grenell’s series of unorthodox moves is drawing mounting criticism. Sahra Wagenknecht, the co-chair of leftwing party Die Linke, called for the envoy to be recalled to the US.

“If people like US ambassador Richard Grenell believe they can dictate like a lord of the manor who rules in Europe and who doesn’t, they can no longer remain in Germany as a diplomat,” Wagenknecht told Die Welt.

He’s not there to empower conservative forces. That’s not what ambassadors are supposed to do.

Martin Schulz, the former leader of the Social Democratic party, told German news agency dpa that he thought Grenell’s position as US ambassador was untenable in the long term.

“What this man is doing is unheard of in international diplomacy,” said the former leader of the European parliament, who failed to unseat Angela Merkel at federal elections in Germany last year.

Schulz said Grenell had acted like the representative of a political movement rather than a country, and punned that next week’s meeting with the Austrian leader Kurz, which means “short” in German, would lead to a shortening of the US envoy’s stint in Berlin.

In the Breitbart interview, Grenell said: “I absolutely want to empower other conservatives throughout Europe, other leaders.

“I think there is a groundswell of conservative policies that are taking hold because of the failed policies of the left.”

Nah it’s because the right has no shame about lying.

Frivolous lawsuit department:

A former Navy sailor who is one of five people to receive a pardon from President Donald Trump is planning to file a lawsuit against Obama administration officials, alleging that he was subject to unequal protection of the law.

Specifically, Kristian Saucier, who served a year in federal prison for taking photos of classified sections of the submarine on which he worked, argues that the same officials who meted out punishment to him for his actions chose to be lenient with Hillary Clinton in her use of a private email server and handling of classified information.

MO-OM IT’S NOT FAIR Jeffy stole two cookies and you punished me for burning the house down, IT’S NOT FAIR.

His lawyer, Ronald Daigle, told Fox News on Monday that the lawsuit, which he expects to file soon in Manhattan, will name the U.S. Department of Justice, former FBI Director James Comey and former President Barack Obama as defendants, among others.

“They interpreted the law in my case to say it was criminal,” Saucier told Fox News, referring to prosecuting authorities in his case, “but they didn’t prosecute Hillary Clinton. Hillary is still walking free.”

I spy fertile territory here. Just point out Person X who is still walking free after [your random example here] while you got locked up for doing exactly the same thing apart from a few small differences like action, place, outcome, motivation, etc. Score!

“We’ll highlight the differences in the way Hillary Clinton was prosecuted and how my client was prosecuted,” Daigle said. “We’re seeking to cast a light on this to show that there’s a two-tier justice system and we want it to be corrected.”

While campaigning, and after taking office, Trump frequently voiced support for Saucier, who in March became the second person he pardoned.

Trump often compared the Obama administration’s handling of Saucier’s case with that of Clinton.

Well in that case no doubt they will win big $$$$$.

There may be a snag.

Trump took to Twitter on Monday to claim his “absolute right” to grant himself a presidential pardon, though he said it would be unnecessary as he has “done nothing wrong.” He cited “numerous legal scholars” to back his claim.

However, as Bloomberg reporter Steven Dennis pointed out, that wasn’t the case at the end of former President Richard Nixon’s time in office. “Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the president cannot pardon himself,” the Department of Justice declared in 1974. The DOJ spelled it out just four days before Nixon resigned, explaining that the president’s pardoning power “does not extend to the president himself.”

Of course Trump would just come back with the claim that he IS the Department of Justice, so he can just overwrite whatever some Bureaucrat Swamp Creature Deep Stater wrote back in 1974 when Trump was using his own hair.

At least some people are noticing.

The President openly declares he is above the law. This statement alone would have led to calls for impeachment in a previous era. https://t.co/dawuWli1t2

— Ryan Lizza (@RyanLizza) June 4, 2018

Republicans in Congress: This is dictator-like talk and your silence is absolutely deafening. Time to put the interests of the country above party. https://t.co/QRuiixyvCV

— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) June 4, 2018

She’s our Rep by the way, Seattle’s own.

https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/1003629106917986306