The downside of electing an imbecile

Dec 12th, 2016 8:46 am | By

There’s just nothing quite as exhilarating as having a complete novice and intentional ignoramus elected president so that he can amble around provoking war with tiny weak little countries like China.

President-elect Donald J. Trump, defending his recent phone call with Taiwan’s president, asserted in an interview broadcast on Sunday that the United States was not bound by the One China policy, the 44-year diplomatic understanding that underpins America’s relationship with its biggest rival.

Mr. Trump, speaking on Fox News, said he understood the principle of a single China that includes Taiwan, but declared, “I don’t know why we have to be bound by a One China policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade.”

He doesn’t know, which is not surprising since he doesn’t know anything, but then his way of dealing with his lack of knowledge leaves a lot to be desired. Musing about it on Fox News in wording that sounds exactly like a threat is not ideal.

A spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry said on Monday that the government had “serious concern” about Mr. Trump’s remarks, renewing a debate that erupted nine days ago when he took a congratulatory phone call from President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan.

At first, Mr. Trump played down the implications of the call, saying he was just being polite. Later, his aides said he was well aware of the diplomatic repercussions of speaking to Taiwan’s leader. Lobbyists for Taiwan, including the law firm of former Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, spent months laying the groundwork for the call.

Wouldn’t it be funny if paid lobbyists for Taiwan, Bob Dole among them, triggered a war between China and the US? No, it wouldn’t.

An editorial on Monday in The Global Times, a Chinese state-run tabloid, said that Mr. Trump was “like a child in his ignorance of foreign policy.”

“The One China policy cannot be bought and sold,” the editorial said. “Trump, it seems, only understands business and believes that everything has a price.”

Mr. Trump, however, did not appear worried about inflaming Beijing. He repeated in the Fox News interview many of the criticisms he has made about China, emphasizing what he said was its unwillingness to help curb the nuclear ambitions of its neighbor North Korea — an issue that foreign policy experts believe could confront Mr. Trump as the first geopolitical crisis of his presidency.

The president-elect said he would not tolerate having the Chinese government dictate whether he could take a call from the president of Taiwan. He reiterated that he had not placed the call, and described it as “a very short call saying, ‘Congratulations, sir, on the victory.’”

Of course he didn’t, and of course he did. That’s Trump all over – he thinks he’s infallible, and he thinks knowledge is irrelevant to (his) decision-making.

China scholar Steven Goldstein says in the Washington Post that Trump’s blowharding will risk war with China.

In other words, the One China policy isn’t a big deal — it’s a bargaining issue, like many other issues. So is Trump right?

No. The big deal is this: The relationship between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan is an ambiguous one, where the People’s Republic claims Taiwan as part of its national territory but is prepared for the present to let Taiwan continue in existence, while Taiwan also has an interest in not clarifying its relationship with the People’s Republic too precisely. Both the PRC and the United States adhere to the notion of One China, but they mean very different things by it. Undermining the status quo could lead to full-scale military conflict between the United States and China over an island that both see as vital to their national interests and whose unique status they have managed well up to this point.

He gives a very useful explanation of the current situation, the different understandings of Taiwan, and the careful, tricky balance that’s been working since Nixon. The US has more of a relationship with Taiwan than China would like, and less than Taiwan would like. It’s one of those “nobody breathe” things.

While the U.S. position is driven by a variety of political interests, China’s position is driven by a desire for national unity that China’s leadership has defined as existential and nonnegotiable. This means that the U.S. approach flouts essential elements of the Chinese position. Moreover, not only is Washington maintaining a relationship that contravenes China’s One China policy, but it has apparently put itself in a position of setting the conditions for the resolution of the conflict. The reason this has not led to overt hostilities is because all sides have behaved with restraint to maintain a very fragile peace. They know full well how sensitive these differences are.

Enter a conceited, ignorant blowhard who thinks he knows everything.

This is why Trump’s suggestion that One China is another bargaining chip, which the United States can play or not play as it likes, is both misleading and risky. On the one hand, it apparently misses the subtle, but extremely significant, differences between the American “one China policy” and the Chinese “one China principle.” On the other, it endangers the central tenet of American policy in the area — the maintenance of the status quo. The Trump transition team has already referred to Tsai Ing-wen as “President of Taiwan.” This publicly undermines the only aspect of the One China issue where the United States and China actually agree — that Taiwan is not a state, while starkly exposing the reality of the quasi state-to-state relationship that the American One China policy obscures. By using Taiwan’s status as a negotiating ploy, Trump is doubling down on this dangerous strategy. China’s vital national interests are in conflict with U.S. policy, and stable relations are fragile, because all the parties are unhappy with the present situation. If the incoming administration persists in its apparent careless indifference, it runs the risk of grossly destabilizing U.S.-China relations, and even risks war.

Oh well. At least Wyoming and Montana weren’t silenced by all those pesky millions of people in California and New York.



A mosquito in charge of the blood supply

Dec 11th, 2016 4:18 pm | By

What kind of person do you want running the Food and Drug Administration? A scientist who has a good understanding of food and drug safety and a commitment to ensure both for the citizenry.

Oops! Joke’s on you! Trump wants the other kind – the kind who thinks the citizenry should take care of itself and not expect some government bureaucrat to do it, god damn it.

President-elect Donald Trump is weighing naming as Food and Drug Administration commissioner a staunch libertarian who has called for eliminating the agency’s mandate to determine whether new medicines are effective before approving them for sale.

Sure. Just throw them out there and see what happens.

“Let people start using them, at their own risk,” the candidate, Jim O’Neill, said in a 2014 speech to a biotech group.

O’Neill has also called for paying organ donors and setting up libertarian societies at sea—and has said he was surprised to discover that FDA regulators actually enjoy science and like working to fight disease.

A source close to the Trump transition team told STAT that Peter Thiel, the billionaire Trump donor who is helping shape the new administration, is pushing for the FDA appointment for O’Neill, his managing director at Mithril Capital Management.

Oh well, it’s only food and medicine.



Let her count the ways

Dec 11th, 2016 3:51 pm | By

The opening of this video seems to me to reflect a rather crude understanding of “intersectionality.” Kat Blaque of Everyday Feminism talks to Riley Jay Dennis, also of Everyday Feminism, on the subject.

I stopped at 52 seconds and didn’t watch any more, so I don’t know what else they said, but the first 52 seconds are…underbaked.

Kat Blaque: In what ways do you [inaudible] yourself intersectional?

Riley Jay Dennis: I’m trans and non-binary, and a woman, an atheist, and polyamorous.

Kat Blaque: Wow, nice!

It’s as if it’s a contest – how many boxes can you tick? But that was never the point, was it? It was never supposed to be a competition, surely. Imagine:

Person 1: In what ways do you see yourself as intersectional?

Person 2: I’m poor and disabled, an undocumented immigrant, a high school dropout, and a woman.

Would person 1 say “Wow, nice!”? No, so why did Kat Blaque say it to Riley Jay Dennis? Why does she seem to see it as a win to have a lot of points?

I don’t know.



A chandelier over a toilet

Dec 11th, 2016 3:19 pm | By

Patton Oswalt yesterday:

This fucking election. Fucking Trump.

These newest revelations, that Russia hacked the election. Piles of evidence, teetering up to the sky. That Russia ALSO hacked the RNC and are holding them over a barrel because of what they know. Which would be hilarious if it wasn’t so frightening.

And the boiling chaos that’s resulting from it. I’ve got conservative friends actually DEFENDING Russia on this. I’ve got progressive friends gloating that we’ve finally had done to us what we’ve done to other countries. That Hillary somehow deserves this. That WE somehow deserve this. That infuriating cliche about, “It’s actually GOOD ifTrump destroys everything it’ll start a revolution BLAH BLAH BLAH FUCKING BLAH…”

And in the middle of it all is Trump — bloated, grinning, oblivious, wearing his cheap baseball cap and ruining people’s lives with his Twitter. While all around him — smarter, better, exhausted people scramble around, trying to sweep up a china shop he keeps stumbling through, laughing the whole time at these stupid nerds picking up the broken pieces on the ground. Losers. Weak.

Trump doesn’t spread evil. He doesn’t even spread chaos. Evil and chaos are beyond his abilities.

He spreads MEDIOCRITY. And anyone who gets near him gets dragged into the same sloppy, tossed-off, first-draft shitscape he lives in.

Except this time, it’s the entire country who got too close to him. We’re about to become, as a nation, as garish and pathetic as one of his hotel suites. Balsa wood under gold spray paint. A chandelier over a toilet. Knock-off Haviland and Parlon china on which to serve a Big Mac. And the people MAKING the Big Macs getting screwed, stripped and exploited while the predators high-five on their private jets.

In nine days the electors make their choice. Let’s hope they choose to save us from our grope-y, racist uncle who just won $50,000 playing scratch-offs.



Ne N’yu-Dzhersi

Dec 11th, 2016 12:00 pm | By

Via Gnu Atheism:



The simmering distrust

Dec 11th, 2016 11:48 am | By

Furthermore, the relationship between Donnie from Queens and the intelligence professionals is tanking. That could be a problem.

The simmering distrust between Donald Trump and U.S. intelligence agencies escalated into open antagonism Saturday after the president-elect mocked a CIA report that Russian operatives had intervened in the U.S. presidential election to help him win.

The growing tensions set up a potential showdown between Trump and the nation’s top intelligence officials during what some of those officials describe as the most complex threat environment in decades.

Trump’s reaction will probably deepen an existing rift between Trump and the agencies and raised questions about how the government’s 16 spying agencies will function in his administration on matters such as counterterrorism and cyberwarfare. On Friday, members of Trump’s transition team dismissed the CIA’s assessments about Iraq’s stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

“Given his proclivity for revenge combined with his notorious thin skin, this threatens to result in a lasting relationship of distrust and ill will between the president and the intelligence community,” said Paul Pillar, former deputy director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center.

Oh well. It’s not as if we need accurate intelligence on who is stockpiling what kinds of weapons.

U.S. intelligence officials described mounting concern and confusion about how to proceed in an administration so openly hostile to their function and role. “I don’t know what the end game is here,” a senior U.S. intelligence official said. “After Jan. 20,” the official said, referring to Inauguration Day, “we’re in uncharted territory.”

Pillar added: “Everything Trump has indicated with regard to his character and tendencies for vindictiveness might be worse” than former president Richard Nixon, who also had a dysfunctional relationship with the intelligence community.

He’s almost certain to be worse. He has Nixon’s flaws along with a lot of flaws of his own. He’s more nakedly aggressive, more entitled, more conceited, more used to getting his own way and trampling on everyone else – more ignorant, more stupid, more unwilling to learn anything.

Intelligence agencies are tracking Russia’s military interventions in Syria and Ukraine, Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal, North Korea’s nuclear weapons testing and China’s maritime challenges in Asia and theft of trade secrets. The CIA is operating a covert program to arm and train moderate rebels in Syria to overcome the brutal rule of President Bashar al-Assad, even as Trump has praised Russia’s approach to backing Assad.

Since his electoral triumph last month, Trump has attended only a limited number of intelligence briefings, and he appointed as his national security adviser retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, who was forced out of his job as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency by Obama administration officials.

Mavericks! They’re all a buncha mavericks, fixing the intelligence agencies by getting all mavericky up in there.

Or, to put it another way, this isn’t going to go well.



Let Mikey do it

Dec 11th, 2016 11:11 am | By

More on Trump the smart person who doesn’t need to read intelligence briefings, from the Atlantic.

Trump complained that his briefings are repetitive, and insisted he’s receiving the information he needs, even he takes the briefings only once a week. “I get it when I need it,” Trump told Chris Wallace. “First of all, these are very good people that are giving me the briefings. And I say, ‘If something should change from this point, immediately call me. I’m available on one-minute’s notice.’”

Trump also pointed out that Vice-President-elect Mike Pence receives the daily briefings he declines, although he did not explain why Pence—like every recent president—finds value in receiving the daily assessments while he does not. “And I’m being briefed also,” he told Wallace. “But if they’re going to come in and tell me the exact same thing that they tell me—you know, it doesn’t change, necessarily. Now, there will be times where it might change. I mean, there will be some very fluid situations. I’ll be there not every day, but more than that. But I don’t need to be told, Chris, the same thing every day, every morning, same words. ‘Sir, nothing has changed. Let’s go over it again.’ I don’t need that.”

Allow me to gloss that. He doesn’t want to. It’s boring. It’s boring and it’s also kind of scary – what’s he gotten himself into? But it’s ok because Pence is there to do the actual work, so whew. And it’s boring boring boring, so let Pence do it. The Donald is busy working up the crowds and tweeting insults at union guys and teenage girls.

Trump is the first person elected president without having held prior military or public office. Intelligence officials have stressed that, given his lack of prior experience, the daily briefings may be particular important in ensuring that he is fully up to speed by the time he takes the oath of office.

No, see, he doesn’t need to be, because there’s Pence. That was always the deal, see. He does the fun stuff and Pence does the hard work. That was the deal.



The Times on Trump’s insistent lying

Dec 11th, 2016 10:46 am | By

The Times editorial board has a think piece on what to do about Trump’s relentless lying. They use that word a lot. As I mentioned a week or two ago, newspapers don’t do that lightly – they don’t do it at all unless they’re very sure they can back it up. This piece treats Trump’s lying as not even in doubt.

Mind you, they start with an odd claim.

Donald Trump understood at least one thing better than almost everybody watching the 2016 election: The breakdown of a shared public reality built upon widely accepted facts represented not a hazard, but an opportunity.

The institutions that once generated and reaffirmed that shared reality — including the church, the government, the news media, the universities and labor unions — are in various stages of turmoil or even collapse.

Including the church? First of all, what church? There is no singular “the church” here. But much more to the point, what do churches and other religious institutions have to do with a shared public reality built upon widely accepted facts? Nothing. Churches & co are about myths, or stories, or fictions, or lies. They’re also about rituals and community and the like, but they rest on a shared story.

But that’s a side issue.

The rise of social media has been great in many ways. In a media environment with endless inputs and outlets, citizens can inform and entertain one another, organize more easily and hold their leaders accountable. But it also turns out that when everyone can customize his or her own information bubble, it’s easier for demagogues to deploy made-up facts to suit the story they want to tell.

That’s what Mr. Trump has done. For him, facts aren’t the point; trust is. Like any autocrat, he wins his followers’ trust — let’s call it a blind trust — by lying so often and so brazenly that millions of people give up on trying to distinguish truth from falsehood. Whether the lie is about millions of noncitizens voting illegally, or the crime rate, or President Obama’s citizenship, it doesn’t matter: In a confusing world of competing, shouted “truths,” the simplest solution is to trust in your leader. As Mr. Trump is fond of saying, “I alone can fix it.”

If the solution is trust…then why trust a nasty bully like Trump? It’s not as if he’s good at putting on a convincing performance of trustworthiness. He performs anger and belligerence. That’s what seems to draw people, not trust.

He is not just indifferent to facts; he can be hostile to any effort to assert them. On Tuesday, Chuck Jones, a union boss at Carrier Corporation, toldThe Washington Post that Mr. Trump was wrong when he claimed to have saved 1,100 of the company’s jobs from moving to Mexico — the real number will be closer to 730. Rather than admit error, the president-elect instead attacked Mr. Jones, a private citizen, on Twitter, saying he had done a “terrible job representing workers.”

In other words, Mr. Trump’s is a different kind of lying, though it has been coming for some time.

Sure; it’s a different kind of lying because he’s a different kind of guy. He’s exceptional in so many ways – ignorance, pugnacity, rudeness, cruelty, corruption, greed – it’s no surprise that he’s exceptionally dishonest and proud of it, too.



He’s like a smart person

Dec 11th, 2016 9:53 am | By

Today in Trump:

President-elect Donald J. Trump said in an interview broadcast on Sunday that he did not believe American intelligence assessments that Russia had intervened to help his candidacy, casting blame for the reports on Democrats, who he said were embarrassed about losing to him.

“I think it’s ridiculous. I think it’s just another excuse,” Mr. Trump said in the interview, on “Fox News Sunday.” “I don’t believe it.”

Except the intelligence people who made the assessments are civil servants, not political appointments.

He also indicated that as president, he would not take the daily intelligence briefing that President Obama and his predecessors have received. Mr. Trump, who has received the briefing sparingly as president-elect, said that it was often repetitive and that he would take it “when I need it.” He said his vice president, Mike Pence, would receive the daily briefing.

“You know, I’m, like, a smart person,” he said. “I don’t have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years.”

Thus demonstrating that he’s not “a smart person.” A genuinely smart person would never say that on national tv on such a subject in such a situation. A genuinely smart person would not refuse to read intelligence briefings, and would not boast of doing so on national tv.

Also, he’s not going to be there for eight years.

He added that he had instructed the officials who give the briefing: “‘If something should change from this point, immediately call me. I’m available on a one-minute’s notice.’”

Oh, how big of him. Of course he’s available on short notice: that’s his job! The level of stupidity is hard to believe.

Mr. Trump’s seeming dismissal of the importance of that daily interaction with intelligence agencies, as well as his claims of politically tainted intelligence reports on Russia, widened a remarkable breach between a president-elect and the agencies he will have to rely on to carry out priorities like fighting terrorism and deterring cyberattacks.

No doubt he’s thinking of it as just more of what he’s used to – he’s The Honcho and everyone else is an undifferentiated mass of underlings, whom he can fire the instant they irritate him.



Evidence of enormous vitriol

Dec 10th, 2016 4:52 pm | By

Jack Halberstam on intersectionality at Reed College.

In 1999, just six years after the rape and murder of a young gender variant person, Brandon Teena, and two friends in a small town in Nebraska, Kim Peirce released her first film, a dramatic account of the incident. The film, Boys Don’t Cry, which took years to research, write, fund, cast and shoot, was released to superb reviews and went on to garner awards and praise for the lead actor, Hilary Swank, and the young director, Kim Peirce, not to mention the film’s production team led by Christine Vachon. The film was hard hitting, visually innovative and marked a massive breakthrough in the representation of gender variant bodies. While there were certainly debates about decisions that Peirce made within the film’s narrative arc (the omission of the murder of an African American friend, Philip DeVine, at the same time that Brandon was killed), Boys Don’t Cry was received by audiences at the time as a magnificent film honoring the life of a gender queer youth and bringing a sense of the jeopardy of gender variant experiences to the screen. It was also seen as a sensitive depiction of life in small town USA. Kim Peirce spoke widely about the film in public venues and explained her relationship to the subject matter of gender variance, working class life and gender based violence.

In recent screenings of the film, some accompanied by Peirce as a speaker, others just programmed as part of a class or a film series, younger audiences have taken offence to the film and have accused the filmmaker of making money off the representation of violence against trans people. This at least was the charge made against Kim Peirce when she showed up to speak alongside a special screening of the film at Reed College in Oregon, just days after the Presidential election. Unbeknownst to the organizers, student protestors had removed posters from all around campus that advertised the screening and lecture and they formed a protest group and arrived early to the cinema on the night of the screening to hang up posters.

They removed posters that let people know about the screening and lecture, so they deprived Peirce of a potential audience and they deprived the potential audience of the screening and lecture. I remember Boys Don’t Cry as a very powerful movie, and certainly not one that was hostile to trans people.

These posters voiced a range of responses to the film including: “You don’t fucking get it!” and “Fuck Your Transphobia!” as well as “Trans Lives Do Not Equal $$” and to cap it all, the sign hung on the podium read: “Fuck this cis white bitch”!! The protestors waited until after the film had screened at Peirce’s request and then entered the auditorium while shouting “Fuck your respectability politics” and yelling over her commentary until Peirce left the room. After establishing some ground rules for a discussion, Peirce came back into the room but the conversation again got out of hand and finally a student yelled at Peirce: “Fuck you scared bitch.” At which point the protestors filed out and Peirce left campus.

Fuck this cis white bitch??? Because she made a sympathetic indie movie about a young trans man 17 years ago? That seems…hostile.

This is an astonishing set of events to reckon with for those of us who remember the events surrounding Brandon Teena’s murder, the debates in the months that followed about Brandon Teena’s identity and, later, the reception of the film. Early transgender activism was spurred into action by the murder of Brandon Teena and many activists showed up at the trial of his killers. There were lots of debates at the time about whether Brandon was “butch” or “transgender” but queer and transgender audiences were mostly satisfied with the depiction of Brandon Teena in Boys Don’t Cry. The film appealed to many audiences, queer and straight, and it continues to play around the world.

The accounts given of these recent protests at Reed College give evidence of enormous vitriol, much of it blatantly misogynist (the repeated use of the word “bitch” for example) directed at a queer, butch film maker and they leave us with an enormous number of questions to face about representational dynamics, clashes between different historical paradigms of queer and transgender life and the expression of queer anger that, instead of being directed at murderous enemies in the mainstream of American political life, has been turned onto independent film makers within the queer and LGBT communities.

Is this how intersectionalism should work? I don’t think so.



A big stake

Dec 10th, 2016 12:53 pm | By

Today in Trump News –

Yesterday’s fascist rally in Michigan:

Again: this isn’t what presidents-elect do. They work hard to get up to speed on the job, they read intelligence briefings, they learn as much as they can. They don’t bounce around the country working up their fans.

Another thing presidents-elect and presidents don’t do: produce tv shows. The NY Times reports that Donnie from Queens will be executive producer of The Apprentice starting in January (funnily enough, the same month he takes over that other job).

President-elect Donald J. Trump is entering office with financial entanglements that are exotic and far-flung: a condominium project in Manila, a luxury furniture maker in Istanbul, golf courses in Scotland and Ireland, and a hotel in Azerbaijan.

But starting next month, Mr. Trump’s most visible business interest will be beamed directly into millions of American living rooms: “The Celebrity Apprentice” is back, and the president-elect is coming with it.

Just weeks before Inauguration Day, Mr. Trump will resume his role as an executive producer of the NBC reality show, an unlikely side project for a commander in chief, and one that is poised to bring him hundreds of thousands of dollars in income.

“Unlikely” is putting it gently. Wholly inappropriate would be a start.

“I think it’s weird,” said Newt Gingrich, a close campaign ally of Mr. Trump, holding back chuckles during a Fox News interview. “Donald J. Trump is going to be the executive producer of a thing called the American government. He is going to have this huge TV show called ‘Leading the World.’”

Added Mr. Gingrich: “I think he’s still going through some transition things here, where it hasn’t quite sunk in.”

Hmmm no. That level of not quite sinking in has to be called what it is: mind-numbingly stupid.

On Twitter though, Trump explained that he has nothing to do with The Apprentice, nothing at all, apart from a couple of tiny insignificant details.

He has nothing to do with it other than having a big stake in it. Oh well then, that’s different.



Meanwhile in a basement in New Jersey

Dec 10th, 2016 11:59 am | By

It’s disconcerting for the Republicans to have Trump jeering at the intelligence agencies.

Though Mr. Trump has wasted no time in antagonizing the agencies, to carry out priorities like combating terrorism and deterring cyberattacks he will have to rely on them for the sort of espionage activities and analysis that they spend more than $70 billion a year to perform.

At this point in a transition, a president-elect is usually delving into intelligence he has never before seen and learning about C.I.A. and National Security Agency abilities. But Mr. Trump, who has taken intelligence briefings only sporadically, is questioning not only analytic conclusions, but also their underlying facts.

“To have the president-elect of the United States simply reject the fact-based narrative that the intelligence community puts together because it conflicts with his a priori assumptions — wow,” said Michael V. Hayden, who was the director of the N.S.A. and later the C.I.A. under President George W. Bush.

Wow, yes, but it’s what he’s done all along. He’s a liar and a denialist. He makes up his own facts, and disparages other people’s evidence-based fact claims. That’s Trump epistemology in a nutshell.

Mr. Trump’s team lashed out at the agencies after The Washington Post reported that the C.I.A. believed that Russia had intervened to undercut Mrs. Clinton and lift Mr. Trump, and The New York Times reported that Russia had broken into Republican National Committee computer networks just as they had broken into Democratic ones, but had released documents only on the Democrats.

What to do? Blow smoke.

Mr. Trump casts the issue as an unknowable mystery. “It could be Russia,” he recently told Time magazine. “And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.”

That’s what he said in that debate – it was some guy in a basement. Jersey, basement – it’s all the same thing.

Even one of Mr. Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters, Representative Devin Nunes, a California Republican, said on Friday that he had no doubt about Russia’s culpability. His complaint was with the intelligence agencies, which he said had “repeatedly” failed “to anticipate Putin’s hostile actions,” and with the Obama administration’s lack of a punitive response.

Mr. Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said that the intelligence agencies had “ignored pleas by numerous Intelligence Committee members to take more forceful action against the Kremlin’s aggression.” He added that the Obama administration had “suddenly awoken to the threat.”

Like many Republicans, Mr. Nunes is threading a needle. His statement puts him in opposition to the position taken by Mr. Trump and his incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who has traveled to Russia as a private citizen for RT, the state-controlled news operation, and attended a dinner with Mr. Putin.

Now that that pesky communism is dead, they like Russian authoritarianism. I bet they wish they had some Cossacks too.



The arrogant young woman

Dec 10th, 2016 11:22 am | By

Trump didn’t just start bullying individuals via Twitter yesterday. Oh no. More than a year ago, for instance, he went on Twitter to attack a college student for daring to ask him a question at a political forum.

In October 2015, then-18-year-old Lauren Batchelder asked Trump a question at a political forum in New Hampshire. “So, maybe I’m wrong, maybe you can prove me wrong, but I don’t think you’re a friend to women,” she said. Trump defended himself, and Batchelder took the mic again, asking if she’d get equal pay and access to abortion with Trump as president. Trump answered: “You’re going to make the same if you do as good of a job, and I happen to be pro-life, okay?”

Batchelder thought that was the end of it, but when she woke up the next day, she realized that the current president-elect had sent out a series of tweets about her. “The arrogant young woman who questioned me in such a nasty fashion at No Labels yesterday was a Jeb staffer!” he tweeted. (Batchelder is not, and has never been, a staffer for Jeb Bush, though she did volunteer for his campaign.) His followers replied with screenshots of Batchelder and posted her phone number and other personal information online.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/653897939933364224

He’s every bit the Twitter bully that any fan of Breitbart is, but multiplied by several million because of who he is. Bullying is exploiting some form of advantage to attack and dominate people. Bullying is the opposite of a fair competition. It’s shocking and revolting that Trump has zero inhibitions about exploiting his enormous advantages to attack and dominate, and threaten, harm, intimidate, and silence ordinary citizens.

Within hours, her phone began to ring, and her email inbox and Facebook account filled with threatening messages. “I didn’t really know what anyone was going to do,” Batchelder, now 19, told the Washington Post. “He was only going to tweet about it and that was it, but I didn’t really know what his supporters were going to do, and that to me was the scariest part.”

She said the abuse has continued, prompting one Trump supporter to send her a Facebook message five days before the election that read, “Wishing I could fucking punch you in the face. id then proceed to stomp your head on the curb and urinate in your bloodied mouth and i know where you live, so watch your fucking back punk.”

Batchelder’s case illustrates what happens when Trump, who has more than 17 million Twitter followers, goes after a private citizen online.

It illustrates what happens when he does that before he’s the President-elect. It’s not getting better now that he is.



Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear

Dec 10th, 2016 10:26 am | By

So, yeah, apparently it is the case that we have this rampaging idiot monster preparing to destroy everything because Putin put his elbow on the scale.

American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.

They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.

In the months before the election, it was largely documents from Democratic Party systems that were leaked to the public. Intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russians gave the Democrats’ documents to WikiLeaks.

I remember that. I remember it vividly. Especially after the “grab them by the pussy” video came out – it looked as if that had cooked his goose to charcoal, then along came WikiLeaks, drip drip drip.

Mr. Trump’s transition office issued a statement Friday evening reflecting the deep divisions that emerged between his campaign and the intelligence agencies over Russian meddling in the election. “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” the statement said. “The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again.’”

The election didn’t end “a long time ago.” November 8 is not “a long time ago.” It wasn’t one of the biggest EC victories in history. It’s not “time to move on” if Russia interfered with the election. What Trump is doing is not going to make America great, again or for the first time or at all.

One senior government official, who had been briefed on an F.B.I. investigation into the matter, said that while there were attempts to penetrate the Republican committee’s systems, they were not successful.

But the intelligence agencies’ conclusions that the hacking efforts were successful, which have been presented to President Obama and other senior officials, add a complex wrinkle to the question of what the Kremlin’s evolving objectives were in intervening in the American presidential election.

What could the objectives possibly have been? To weaken a rival power, obviously. To make a rival power a laughingstock to the world. To render the US basically irrelevant for at least four years.

It is unclear how many files were stolen from the Republican committee; in some cases, investigators never get a clear picture. It is also far from clear that Russia’s original intent was to support Mr. Trump, and many intelligence officials — and former officials in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — believe that the primary motive of the Russians was to simply disrupt the campaign and undercut confidence in the integrity of the vote.

The Russians were as surprised as everyone else at Mr. Trump’s victory, intelligence officials said. Had Mrs. Clinton won, they believe, emails stolen from the Democratic committee and from senior members of her campaign could have been used to undercut her legitimacy. The intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Russia tried to help Mr. Trump was first reported by The Washington Post.

I suppose we could view it as the revenge of Mossadegh and Allende and quite a few others.

Intelligence officials and private cybersecurity companies believe that the Democratic National Committee was hacked by two different Russian cyberunits. One, called “Cozy Bear” or “A.P.T. 29” by some Western security experts, is believed to have spent months inside the D.N.C. computer network, as well as other government and political institutions, but never made public any of the documents it took. (A.P.T. stands for “Advanced Persistent Threat,” which usually describes a sophisticated state-sponsored cyberintruder.)

The other, the G.R.U.-controlled unit known as “Fancy Bear,” or “A.P.T. 28,” is believed to have created two outlets on the internet, Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks, to make Democratic documents public. Many of the documents were also provided to WikiLeaks, which released them over many weeks before the Nov. 8 election.

Make America great again.



Listen up, Donnie

Dec 9th, 2016 5:56 pm | By

John Glenn didn’t agree with Trump on the flag:

 



The pile of rubble grows

Dec 9th, 2016 5:30 pm | By

News in Trump from the Times:

Rex W. Tillerson, the president and chief executive of Exxon Mobil, is the leading candidate to be Mr. Trump’s secretary of state, according to a person with direct knowledge of the search process.

Mr. Tillerson went to Trump Tower in New York on Tuesday to meet with Mr. Trump, who is said to be close to making a decision. Mr. Tillerson has been strongly recommended by a number of business leaders.

What does running an oil company have to do with being the country’s foreign minister?

And then there’s this questionnaire.

President-elect Trump’s transition team has circulated an unusual 74-point questionnaire that requests the names of all employees and contractors who have attended domestic or international climate change policy conferences, as well as emails associated with the conferences.

The questionnaire appears targeted at climate science research and clean energy programs.

What’s he going to do, take them out back and shoot them?

Energy Department employees, who shared the questionnaire with The New York Times and spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, described the questionnaire as unprecedented and worrying.

“These questions don’t just indicate an attack on civil servants here in Washington,” said an Energy Department employee. “They amount to a witch hunt in D.O.E.’s 17 national labs, where scientists have the independence to do their work — yet here are questions that are reminiscent of an inquisition rather than actual curiosity about how the labs work.”

The questionnaire asks for lists of employees involved in key climate change programs, including all those who have attended United Nations climate change conferences. It also asks for lists of employees involved in designing a metric known as the Social Cost of Carbon, a figure used by the Obama administration to measure the economic impact of carbon dioxide pollution, and to justify the economic cost of climate regulations.

It specifically asks which Energy Department programs are essential to meeting the goals of President Obama’s climate change agenda, which Mr. Trump has vowed to roll back.

We’re going to be living in the Burned-over District.

Giuliani has taken his name out of the secretary of state contest.

Some in Mr. Trump’s circle were concerned about the potential for a messy confirmation hearing over Mr. Giuliani’s tangle of foreign business ties and paid speeches.

Oh yeah? What a pity there is no confirmation hearing for Trump.

Cathy McMorris Rodgers is likely choice for interior secretary.

Ms. McMorris Rodgers, the highest-ranking woman in the House Republican leadership, is expected to be announced as Mr. Trump’s secretary of the interior as early as Friday, two people close to the transition efforts said. Ms. McMorris Rodgers comes from Washington, a state with large federal land reserves, and she was also critical of Mr. Trump at various points during the presidential campaign.

Peter Walker said this on Facebook:

Rodgers was the co-sponsor with Utah’s Rep. Nathan Chaffetz of legislation to sell off 3 million acres of public land to private interests, as well as a leading advocate for gas and oil development on public lands.

And, at his triumph of the will rally in Louisiana today, he went back to the “punish people who are rude to the flag” dream.

He also suggested that he would make broader cultural changes, arguing that desecrating the American flag should be outlawed or bring a penalty.

“I think it’s a disgrace, O.K.?” Mr. Trump said of burning or stamping on the United States flag. “I’m a big believer in free speech, but maybe we’re going to be putting something in” to address the issue, he said. “I think we’re going to have to do something about that.”

The Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that flag burning was a form of free speech protected under the First Amendment.

He still thinks he’s going to be a dictator.



Bubble shmubble

Dec 9th, 2016 4:52 pm | By

Ah the old latte-drinking elitists trope – it just won’t go away, will it. Kevin Baker at the New Republic hates it as much as I do.

The most irritating media trope to emerge in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s election is the idea that it was a rebuke to “condescending” liberals who live in our own “bubbles.” Steve Schmidt gave us a preview on MSNBC even before the race for the White House was decided. “The people who are for Trump are not embarrassed to be for Trump. This is a fiction of New York City,” the former Republican political consultant told us early on election night. “This is a fiction of the New York City, Acela Corridor imagination, who are embarrassed for these people. This is part of the condescension.”

Condescension my ass – if you’re not embarrassed to be for Trump you should be. Trump is a horrible human being in literally every way we know about – he may have been a loving, kind, understanding father, but if so it’s certainly a well kept secret. It’s not condescending to think people should be embarrassed to support Trump; it’s treating them like grown ups who have to own their choices.

J.D. Vance, author of the bestselling Hillbilly Elegy—about whom so much commentary has now been written that a foreigner would be forgiven for thinking that at least two-thirds of all Americans are hillbillies, and that the rest of us do nothing with our waking hours but, well, condescend to them—informed us in a New York Times op-ed that liberals might revere the military, but it’s Trump voters who actually join it.

Trump voters were people who vote Republican, for one thing. They were people who prefer Republican policies, which favor rich people and corporations. They were bible-huggers. They were, as a bloc, richer than the people who voted for Clinton.

But the reasoning, I suppose, that the people who voted for him primarily because he’s a sexist racist bully are the ones who were rebelling against the condescending bubble liberals. But how is it “condescending” to oppose sexism and racism and bullying? How is it not even more condescending to assume sexism and racism are immovable, inherited, an “identity”?

The whole idea that liberals live nowhere but in their own bubbles has become such a commonplace that it was turned into a (pretty funny) Saturday Night Live sketch. Yet at last count, well over 65 million Americans voted for Hillary Clinton, which would make for a helluva lot of bubbles across this country. But then, it’s always easier to invent figments like “the Acela Corridor imagination” to explain the people who don’t agree with you.

Yes, Democrats make them up as well. Witness “basket of deplorables,” or “clinging to their guns and Bibles.” But we were the ones whose candidate ran on the slogan, “Stronger Together.” It wasn’t us who went to rallies in shirts that read, “Trump That Bitch,” or shouted, “Lock her up!” We were the ones who wanted to talk about how we could all move forward, not who we could demonize or deport. Our candidate was the one with the laundry list of practical, immediate ideas about how to help Americans knocked flat by the global economy, instead of some vague palaver about how one man alone could fix the modern world. So who, exactly, is living in the bubble?

Is it really so condescending that we should vote for the candidate who would keep in place the footholds and safety nets that helped us? Or does the real condescension come from the likes of those who would infantilize white working class voters, making out that they cannot help but vote against their own interests if they even suspect that someone, somewhere is looking down on them?

Yes, it does.



Feathers in amber

Dec 9th, 2016 4:13 pm | By

Now we get to look at a dinosaur’s tail with feathers.

It’s a tiny dinosaur, the size of a sparrow.

Researchers described the remarkable specimen in a new study, identifying it as the first evidence in amber from a nonavian theropod — a meat-eating and feathered dinosaur that doesn’t belong to the lineage that led to modern birds. The remarkable preservation provides a snapshot of dinosaur biology that can’t be retrieved from the fossil record, and offers a rare glimpse of feather structures in extinct dinosaurs, which could help scientists better understand how feathers evolved across the dinosaur family tree. [Photos: Amber Trap Nabs Feathered Dinosaur Tail]

dinosaur-amber2.jpg

Feathers!

The findings were published online Dec. 8 in the journal Current Biology.

Original article on Live Science.



Guest post: Etiquette for the server-diner relationship

Dec 9th, 2016 12:44 pm | By

Guest post by Josh Spokes.

As a former waiter of many years from greasy spoons to fine dining, my politics are entirely on the side of the serving class. Wait staff are regularly abused, and a tipping culture is merely cruelty and theft codified.

However, there are certain standards of service that wait staff at any type of restaurant should observe. They are not difficult, they are not demeaning, and when used correctly they make each party’s day nicer and more efficient. I find eating out so annoying anymore—and specifically because of wait staff—I avoid it. Here are the reasons.

1. We are in a customer-vendor relationship. You, “Justin,” are not my friend. That doesn’t mean we have an adversarial relationship, and it doesn’t mean I get to be rude to you. It means professional distance, which you need to learn.

2. Do not ask me “how are we doing?” That’s false and condescending folksiness. It’s like the infantilizing way doctors talk down to old people. A simple, “Good afternoon, how are you” works just fine.

3. When I ask for another cup of coffee (or mayo, or new cutlery, or anything at all), please say something other than “not a problem!” I know it’s not a problem. I understand that it is not an outrageous request, but standard. All you need to say is “Certainly” or “I’ll be back with that in a moment.”

The endless “not a problems” during table service . . eesh.

4. Stop hovering and conspicuously looking at my plate every time I put my fork down. Stop swooping in to pre-bus someone’s plate the minute they stop eating. It’s rude.

5. Do not ask me, “How is that tasting FOR you,” with that queer emphasis on the “for you” part that I’m hearing in almost every server’s voice. I’m not a kindergartener, and you don’t need to make sure Little Higgins likes his special Kids Menu treat [the fact that child menus are universal in the US is a symptom of another problem]. You’re also not my teacher.

6. Don’t ever ask a diner, “are you still working on that?” Seriously. Listen to yourself. See #5 reminding you that you’re serving adults, not pre-schoolers.



But if you could see him with his eyes

Dec 9th, 2016 12:19 pm | By

Goldman Sachs. Clinton’s $200k fees for chatting to them over dinner probably cost her a good few votes, and certainly gave Donnie from Queens useful talking points, but now…well now is now, and all is transformed.

President-elect Donald Trump is expected to name a top Goldman Sachs executive, Gary Cohn, to lead the National Economic Council, handing the Wall Street veteran significant sway over his administration’s economic policy.

The council includes the heads of various departments and agencies and works within the administration to coordinate economic policy. As director, Cohn would be in position to advise Trump as he attempts to fulfill some of his chief campaign promises, including lowering corporate taxes and rethinking U.S. trade policy.

And generally making life better for rich people and worse for poor people. Yay populism!

In Cohn, Trump would once again be picking a veteran of a New York investment bank that he repeatedly denounced during the campaign. During the campaign Trump argued that Goldman held “total control” over both Democrat Hillary Clinton and GOP rival Ted Cruz and he even released a television ad that flashed an image of Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein and warned of a “global power structure” that was robbing American workers.

That was the ad that was packed with anti-Semitic tropes; it flashed an image of Blankfein along with images of a lot of other Jews, because Jews. But now is now, and all is transformed.

But Trump has relied on several Goldman alums for key positions, so far. Steven Mnuchin, a 17-year veteran of the bank, is nominated to be the next Treasury secretary, and Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, worked on mergers and acquisition deals for Goldman Sachs. Hedge fund manger Anthony Scaramucci began his career at the New York bank and has emerged as one of Trump’s closest advisers on his presidential transition.

We loves the bankers, precious. We just doesn’t say so during the campaign.