Enough about you, let’s talk about me

Apr 4th, 2018 11:53 am | By

But to get the full flavor of Trump’s rudeness and mind-blindness you have to watch the video. He starts in a disciplined way, reading the speech with brief interjections of his own, and then after three minutes says thank you everybody, thank you (meaning, normally, “and good bye”)…and then lurching into a rant about China and “the trade deficit” and Mexico! and borders, with brief interjections where he looks directly at his guests and addresses them, as in “you wouldn’t understand this, you have great borders.” It’s obviously grotesquely inappropriate and protocol-violating – it’s a state visit occasion and he simply wrenches it into a diatribe on subjects that are of no interest to his state guests. This is before he even gets any prompts from the journalists, he simply plunges into a rant – starting with “I have to say this” – no, he really doesn’t.

It rivals his shove of Duško Marković in rudeness.



Lunchtime with Donny

Apr 4th, 2018 11:25 am | By

The Post gives us a bit of slapstick from yesterday, when Trump threw a lunch party for the presidents of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and spent most of it telling reporters how grumpy he is about

a

long

list

of

things.

President Trump spent nearly three minutes at a luncheon this week welcoming the presidents of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — whose difficult-to-pronounce names he never uttered publicly — and saying he should be given “credit” for pressuring countries like theirs to give more money to NATO.

As he concluded, White House staffers started to shepherd a small group of journalists out of the room — but Trump was far from done sharing his complaints. As reporters shouted out questions about the plunging stock market and the brewing trade war with China, Trump quickly engaged.

Chi-nah – it’s great, he loves it, he loves Xi, but.

Then he explained about the but.

Over the next 15 minutes, White House staffers would try at least a half dozen more times to move reporters out of the room, only to have the president stop them with another gripe or plea for credit. Sometimes, the lead television camera would inch backward toward the door, as Trump grew smaller on the screen, just to be pushed back into place as the president leaped at another chance to defend himself and his presidency.

“Wait, where are you going, I have more to say!”

Trump’s venting in recent days has seemed excessive, even for him. His grievances have come in torrents, littered with inaccuracies he continues to state as facts. The pattern continued Wednesday morning, as he tweeted about the trade fight with China and “very weak” border security laws.

Saying the same crude simplistic things he’s said before, over and over and over and over and over.

Totally normal, folks! No cause for alarm! Relax and enjoy the ride.

It started Saturday morning as he lashed out on Twitter at the “Fake Washington Post,” the “Failing New York Times” and the governor of California while being driven to one of his golf courses in Florida.

It continued Sunday – Mexico! Immigrants! Caravans! The border! Democrats! Liberals!

He kept going Monday morning, as he tweeted about the Postal Service rates paid by Amazon — which was founded by Jeffrey P. Bezos, who also owns The Washington Post — and about his own “Department of ‘Justice.’” Minutes later, at the White House Easter Egg Roll, Trump stood between his stoic wife and a bespectacled Easter Bunny — whose face was frozen in an open-mouthed stare — and bragged to a crowd of children about increasing military spending to $700 billion, one of the few bright points for him in the Republican spending bill.

We’ll always have the photos.

Chip Somodevilla/Bloomberg

The person in the bunny suit went very very still while Trump was telling the children about the military spending.

That night on Twitter, Trump called the country’s immigration laws “an Obama joke” and accused Democrats of needlessly delaying his nominations. The next morning, he falsely accused CNN of requiring its employees to proclaim they are “totally anti-Trump” and labeled CNN chief Jeff Zucker as “little” while misspelling his name. He bragged that his approval rating “is higher than Cheatin’ Obama at the same time” in his tenure; the White House has yet to explain what that nickname meant. He again lashed out at Amazon and accused federal postal workers of not having a clue.

Trump repeated many of those same points Tuesday afternoon as his guests waited for him to finish so they could eat lunch.

He mentioned the “caravan” 10 times, called NAFTA “a cash cow” for Mexico and took swipes at both Obama and “crooked Hillary Clinton.” He announced that he plans to send members of the military to the southern border, an apparent surprise to many Pentagon officials.

In other words he carried on like a lunatic.

He went on and on. He talked about the joys of “getting along with Russia” in front of the presidents of the three Baltic nations, to which Russia is a threat.

The president continued to refer to himself in the third person: “The three presidents just told me that NATO is taking in a tremendous amount of money because of Donald Trump. That would have never happened. So NATO is much stronger.”

Trump instructed one of his guests, Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite, to praise him on camera, just as he said she had done privately in the Oval Office. She obliged, saying changes to NATO would not be possible without the United States and that its “vital voice and vital leadership” are important.

Trump pressed her: “And has Donald Trump made a difference on NATO?”

Those in the room laughed, as she confirmed he has made a difference. As she continued to speak, Trump cut her off.

“And, again, NATO has taken in billions of dollars more because of me, because I said, ‘You’re delinquent, you’re not paying,’ to many of the countries,” Trump said. “Is that right? Many of the countries weren’t paying.”

Oh, god. He might as well have worn the easter bunny costume.

For a fifth time, White House staffers tried to end this impromptu news conference, but then the president responded to a question about the Baltic states. They tried a sixth time, but the president could not resist another query: “Is it Amazon or The Washington Post, sir? What’s Amazon done that bugs you, sir?”

On the seventh try, reporters began to inch out of the room — and Trump responded to a final question about Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, who is accused of bypassing the White House to give his aides massive raises, among other irregularities.

“I hope he’s going to be great,” Trump said, even though his aides have said Pruitt’s job is in jeopardy.

“Time to go, guys,” a White House staffer said, finally herding the reporters out of the room. Another coaxed: “Please move along. Please move along. Please move along now.”

“Thank you, everybody,” Trump shouted after them. “Thank you.”

Related image

 



Complaining at random

Apr 3rd, 2018 5:29 pm | By

A little vignette of what it’s like to play at Being the Government with Trump in the room – a slice from a longer piece about ogod ogod it’s chaos he’s so nuts he blows off everything anyone suggests to him ogod ogod.

And now, the little vignette:

Aides often become frustrated with the President’s short attention span. One official described Trump as frequently meandering from the topic at hand in meetings, particularly if he believes the positions being aired by his advisers differ from his own point of view. He’ll stall sessions with non-sequiturs, complaining at random about Amazon’s tax status or proclaiming that he’s only visited Russia once, for the Miss Universe pageant in 2013.

We all know that guy, right? It can be a relative, it can be an acquaintance, it can be a guy who corners you at a party – but we all know that guy. We know that guy who is numbingly voluble yet has nothing to say. We know that guy who obsesses weirdly over three or four outrages and never makes any progress.

It sounds Alzheimersy and it may be, but it may be just one of those empty-headed but nevertheless opinionated and talkative dudes who are always busy explaining something to somebody somewhere.



The authority

Apr 3rd, 2018 4:27 pm | By

In Mueller news – he does have the authority to investigate the things he’s investigating.

Paul Manafort’s legal strategy for evading the charges filed against him by special counsel Robert Mueller was fairly straightforward. His attorneys argued, among other things, that many of the charges Manafort faces — which include fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy — are largely outside the scope of Mueller’s authority. After all, Mueller was appointed to investigate collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign during the 2016 race. What does Manafort’s allegedly having laundered money by buying real estate in Brooklyn have to do with any of that?

Trump fans have been saying that, noisily all along. Problem: it’s not true.

Late Monday night, Mueller’s team answered, in the form of a 53-page response to Manafort’s motion to dismiss the charges. Not only did Mueller explain why he had the authority to prosecute Manafort for alleged financial crimes, but, in a footnote, he explained why he also has the authority to investigate any attempts to obstruct his probe — including, presumably, by the president of the United States.

Short version: Rosenstein said so back in May when Mueller was appointed.

When he was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May (after Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s recusal from any investigations involving the 2016 presidential campaign), Rosenstein issued a public outline of the scope of Mueller’s authority. We’ve walked through this before; it includes three main things:

  • “Any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.”
  • “Any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”
  • “Any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).”

That section of the Code of Federal Regulations — 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) — allows Mueller to investigate “federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation,” including lying to authorities.

Matters that may arise directly from the investigation. Manafort’s matter done ariz.

But the response memo also reveals that Rosenstein issued a confidential memo in August detailing areas that Mueller had the authority to investigate. Among those were specific allegations involving “crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych.” Those payments are at the heart of the indictments filed against Manafort. The allegation is that he laundered the money he received and didn’t properly report its receipt or his advocacy for Ukraine.

And there’s more. Mueller’s got permission piled on permission. Trump fans can’t scream it out of existence.



Big things

Apr 3rd, 2018 11:06 am | By

Now he wants to get the military involved in his war on immigrants.

President Trump said on Tuesday that he planned to order the military to guard parts of the southern border until he can build a wall and tighten immigration restrictions, proposing a remarkable escalation of his efforts to crack down on migrants entering the country illegally.

Mr. Trump, who has been stewing publicly for days about what he characterizes as lax immigration laws and the potential for an influx of Central American migrants to stream into the United States, said he had been discussing with Jim Mattis, the secretary of defense, about resorting to military deployments.

“We have very bad laws for our border, and we are going to be doing some things — I’ve been speaking with General Mattis — we’re going to be doing things militarily,” Mr. Trump said at the White House, seated beside the defense secretary at a meeting with visiting leaders of Baltic nations. “Until we can have a wall and proper security, we’re going to be guarding our border with the military. That’s a big step. We really haven’t done that before, or certainly not very much before.”

We’re going to do some things. Big things. Big things we will do. That’s a big step for a big boy. We haven’t done that before. I know that because I just said it. Now let’s all go and militarily.



Patently

Apr 3rd, 2018 10:33 am | By

It’s entirely completely and utterly coincidental that Scott Pruitt got a sweet deal on a condo from a lobbyist and it just so happened that at the very same time the lobbyists client got a sweet deal from the EPA. There is NO CONNECTION WHATEVER and it’s very rude to say otherwise. People have such awful corrupt minds, you know? Seeing a connection where there is none.

The Environmental Protection Agency signed off last March on a Canadian energy company’s pipeline-expansion plan at the same time that the E.P.A. chief, Scott Pruitt, was renting a condominium linked to the energy company’s powerful Washington lobbying firm.

Both the E.P.A. and the lobbying firm dispute that there was any connection between the agency’s action and the condo rental, for which Mr. Pruitt was paying $50 a night.

“Any attempt to draw that link is patently false,” Liz Bowman, a spokeswoman for Mr. Pruitt, said in a written statement.

Patently, PATENTLY. It’s crystal clear and totally obvious that there is no link. How? It just is, god damn it!

The March 2017 action by the E.P.A. on the pipeline project — in the form of a letter telling the State Department that the E.P.A. had no serious environmental objections — meant that the project, an expansion of the Alberta Clipper line, had cleared a significant hurdle. The expansion, a project of Enbridge Inc., a Calgary-based energy company, would allow hundreds of thousands more barrels of oil a day to flow through this pipeline to the United States from Canadian tar sands.

The signoff by the E.P.A. came even though the agency, at the end of the Obama administration, had moved to fine Enbridge $61 million in connection with a 2010 pipeline episode that sent hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan and other waterways. The fine was the second-largest in the history of the Clean Water Act, behind the penalty imposed after the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Now to be fair, it is true, and even patently true, that it’s wholly consistent with Trumpist ideology that the Trump EPA would say “sure go right ahead with your expanded pipeline!” even though the company had already sent hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil into Michigan rivers and waterways. It is true that Trump and his gang make a point of not giving a flying fuck about things like polluted rivers when there’s a buck to be made. It is true that Pruitt’s EPA probably would have approved that project even if Pruitt had spent his DC nights on a bench in Lafayette Park. But the fact remains that there are rules against accepting favors from people who are in a position to need and request a favor in return.



It’s in the contract

Apr 3rd, 2018 10:14 am | By

Learn something new every day. Today-I-learned that Sinclair has employment contracts that say employees have to pay Sinclair MUCH MONEY if they quit or are fired. That sounds illegal to me, but apparently it’s not.

https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/980811757726810112

If you can’t read the screenshot – it basically just says “employees have to pay Sinclair MUCH MONEY if they quit or are fired” in more legalese and detail.

That helps explain why they can’t just say “No” when Sinclair tells them to read lying canned bullshit on camera.



Expel and replace

Apr 3rd, 2018 9:35 am | By

Remember how last week, to the surprise of all, Trump joined the UK and other allies in expelling Russian diplomats?

He was just kidding. Russia can totally send new ones to replace the expellees.

Julian Borger is the Guardian’s world affairs editor.

Julian Borger in the Guardian yesterday:

The White House has confirmed that Donald Trump has raised with Vladimir Putin the possibility of a White House summit in the “not-too-distant” future.

The news of a White House invitation, first revealed by the Kremlin, came as the state department confirmed that Russia would be able to replace the diplomats the US expelled last week in response to the nerve agent attack in the UK. Both developments cast doubt on the effectiveness of what the US presented last week as a strong gesture of solidarity with the British government for the attack on the Russian ex-spy living in Salisbury, Sergei Skrypal and his daughter Yulia.

That’s a nice way of putting it. A blunt way of putting it would be that Trump was bullshitting us all last week.

A Putin aide, Yuri Ushakov, told Russian news agencies that Trump made the offer when he called Putin to congratulate him on his election win – a call that caused controversy because Trump’s critics argued that congratulations were inappropriate for elections that few saw as being free and fair, and because of Russian aggression in Ukraine and Syria as well as Moscow’s interference in western elections.

Oh that.

Asked about the invitation, the White House spokeswoman, Sarah Sanders, issued a statement saying: “As the President himself confirmed on 20 March, hours after his last call with President Putin, the two had discussed a bilateral meeting in the ‘not-too-distant future’ at a number of potential venues, including the White House. We have nothing further to add at this time.”

In other words: shut up, peasants. Question not our motives.



The gang on the annual picnic

Apr 3rd, 2018 9:21 am | By

Taslima asks a pointed question.

I have to say, I’m a little grossed out by all those shameless naked hands poking out. They’re obviously doing it on purpose – carefully pushing their naked nude unclad hands out front so that we can’t not see them. The sluts.



A year and a half of nightmare

Apr 2nd, 2018 5:39 pm | By

Oh, damn, this is heartbreaking and infuriating. Jill McCabe on why she decided to accept the urging to run for state office, and how badly that turned out for them.

I am an emergency room pediatrician and an accidental politician — someone who never thought much about politics until I was recruited to run for state office after making a statement about the importance of expanding Medicaid. That decision — plus some twisted reporting and presidential tweets — ended up costing my husband, Andrew, his job and our family a significant portion of his pension my husband had worked hard for over 21 years of federal service. For the past year and a half of this nightmare, I have not been free to speak out about what happened. Now that Andrew has been fired, I am.

They met as sophomores at Duke. He’s always been a Republican; she’s voted for people in both parties.

As we have raised our children, I tried to vote more regularly and pay more attention to the issues that affect our community. And with my work in a hospital emergency room in Virginia, I saw the impact of how government decisions hurt my patients, especially when the state decided not to accept the federal government’s funding to expand Medicaid.

I was providing care in the most expensive setting — the emergency room — and only once a patient’s condition became more serious, because he or she had no other options. In addition, our state’s decision was increasing the cost of health care for everyone, ultimately raising prices, premiums and taxes, while thousands of patients suffered. The whole thing just made no sense.

In 2014 when some pols came through her hospital a reporter asked her how Medicaid expansion would affect her patients, and apparently as a result people later suggested she run for state Senate.

A few days later, I got another call: Clark Mercer, chief of staff to then-Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam, asking me to at least speak to Ralph, who is a pediatric neurologist. I was moved by Ralph’s story about how he had used his medical background to advocate for the needs of the children he serves.

So unlike the corruption and self-interest of some people I can think of.

I started to become more interested, thinking, “Here’s a way I can really try to help people on a bigger scale than what I do every day.” While I was considering the possibility, Andrew and I went to Richmond to meet with various politicians, including then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe. The subject of Hillary Clinton never came up — the story about her emails had not even broken when I was first approached by Northam. All the governor asked of me was that I support Medicaid expansion.

But she was concerned about her husband’s job, and told him she wouldn’t do it if he thought it would be any kind of problem.

(Do I think that’s fair, consistent with feminism, etc? Sure.)

He consulted with the ethics experts at the FBI and committed to follow their advice. We tried to go even beyond what the rules required — Andrew kept himself separate from my campaign. When the kids and I went door-knocking, he did not participate; he wouldn’t even drive us. He could have attended one of my fundraisers but never did. One day he put on a campaign T-shirt so we could take a family picture and share it with my proud parents. You may have seen it — it seems to have taken on a weird life of its own — but that was it, just a family picture at a swim meet.

Meanwhile, my campaign received funding from the state Democratic Party and the governor’s PAC — on par with what other candidates in competitive races on both sides of the aisle received. All those contributions were publicly reported. And of course, again, Clinton’s emails never came up — if they had, I would have found that alarming, immediately reported it and likely pulled out of the campaign. I know enough from being married to Andrew for 20 years to know what is right and what is wrong.

She lost the race. It was disappointing, but she was glad to get back to normal life.

But then in October 2016 a reporter called her asking about contributions to her campaign and whether there had been any influence on her husband’s decisions at the FBI.

This could not be further from the truth. In fact, it makes no sense. Andrew’s involvement in the Clinton investigation came not only after the contributions were made to my campaign but also after the race was over. Since that news report, there have been thousands more, repeating the false allegation that there was some connection between my campaign and my husband’s role at the FBI.

After the 2016 election, I thought for a while that it was all over — at least now that President-elect Trump won, he would stop coming after us. How naive that was. After then-FBI Director James B. Comey was fired, we knew that Andrew could be the next target of the president’s wrath.

And then sure enough Trump started tweeting his lies about both of them.

To have my personal reputation and integrity and those of my family attacked this way is beyond horrible. It feels awful every day. It keeps me up nights. I made the decision to run for office because I was trying to help people. Instead, it turned into something that was used to attack our family, my husband’s career and the entire FBI.

Nothing can prepare you for what happens when your life is turned upside down by current events. Nothing prepares you for conversations you have to have with your teenage children. Nothing prepares you for the news crews staking out your house, your back yard, your place of business. Nothing prepares you for the fear you feel every time you receive a package from a stranger.

I have spent countless hours trying to understand how the president and so many others can share such destructive lies about me. Ultimately I believe it somehow never occurred to them that I could be a serious, independent-minded physician who wanted to run for office for legitimate reasons. They rapidly jumped to the conclusion that I must be corrupt, as part of what I believe to be an effort to vilify us to suit their needs.

I don’t think it’s as respectable as that. I think it’s simply that Trump wanted to harm Andrew McCabe in any way he could, and that’s the way he came up with. He never cared about whether it was true or not; he never does. He just got pissed off, and acted accordingly. That’s what he is.

Throughout this experience, my work has been a sanctuary. I walk into the hospital, and everybody there knows me as a professional. The patients know me as a doctor and not a news story. It is not easy, but I have to put all of our challenges aside to focus on the patients and families I treat.

While I have no intention of running for office again, I believe in what my campaign stood for, and I still hope we can see our way to Medicaid expansion in Virginia. The patients who inspired me to run continue to come to the ER every day, and they need our help.

That’s the woman Donald Trump called a “loser” in a phone call to Andrew McCabe.



Up steps the latest victim

Apr 2nd, 2018 3:37 pm | By

Suzanne Moore has a lot of sympathy for Niall Ferguson and other endangered guys like him.

Up steps the latest victim, poor Niall Ferguson, author, history professor and lover of empire, who wrote in the Sunday Times that he had to endure a “disproportionately vitriolic response” for organising a conference that featured only white male historians. How he has suffered, I can only imagine.

Jordan Peterson, another minor academic, became major simply by outlining how wrong we are to talk of the various ways in which western culture has been deemed oppressive to women. Excuse me, but didn’t Camille Paglia do that 20 years ago?

To such men, any notion of inclusiveness, or of the dread “diversity”, becomes a threat. The very presence of women, except as tokens, is difficult and somehow invasive for such men. Never mind the debate over trans women in women-only spaces, the issue here is really one of any women at all in any space.

The brand of truth-telling these battle-scarred men are revered for situates men as both always naturally in control but as now having to fight for their position.

Or not so much having to fight for their position as having to fight not to hear it. They don’t want to hear it; they’re sick of it; they wish we would shut up already. They don’t hate women, ok? They like women just fine. They try to include some women, when they remember, and it always turns out the women have to polish the baby that day or something so they say no so what are the poor men supposed to do? Think of even more women to invite? That would be a superhuman effort, and no one can expect that – so enough already. We know; everybody knows; we do our best, when we think of it; now stop pointing out how absent-mindedly sexist we still are and let us get on with the conversation we’re having with these nice gentlemen here.

The call to victimhood of this “endangered” species is heard everywhere, from Nigel Farage to John Humphrys to Jeremy Clarkson to Piers Morgan. These men who dare to speak out are everywhere in public life, at the top of every organisation, having meetings about how to employ more women. They are forced into this by Europe, modernity or some godawful HR directive. They like to say they care about FGM or the massacre of the Rohingya, but see complaints about equal access or equal pay as white noise.

Or not so much white noise as excruciatingly irritating high-pitched complaining by ungrateful bitches who weren’t on the list of women they remembered to ask.



Make cars dirty again

Apr 2nd, 2018 3:08 pm | By

Trump and Pruitt are putting their shoulders to the wheel, or their feet to the floor, pushing us to create more and more and more pollution to make American great again.

The Trump administration openly threatened one of the cornerstones of California’s environmental protections Monday, saying that it may revoke the state’s ability under the Clean Air Act to impose stricter standards than the federal government sets for vehicle emissions.

The announcement came as the administration confirmed it is tearing up landmark fuel economy rules pushing automakers to manufacture cleaner burning cars and SUVs.

We want dirtier burning cars, god damn it. Dirt is good. It’s like cowboys n shit.

Pruitt’s announcement said that the administration will abandon the federal goal of having vehicles average 55 miles per gallon by 2025. That target will be replaced with a weaker fuel economy standard that the administration will settle on at a later date.

The action sets up the administration for a confrontation with California and a dozen other states that use the state’s emissions standards. Under the Clean Air Act, California is the only state that can independently adopt its own emissions standards, but other states can then adopt them. Several of the states that have done so have vowed to defy the administrations’ effort to weaken mileage standards.

Dianne Feinstein points out that the regulations are working: consumers are getting more efficient cars and saving money on fuel.

But automakers complain they are confronting a market in which gas prices are low and consumers are more interested in purchasing SUVs and pickups than the fuel-efficient passenger vehicles the federal mandates favor.

More interested because automakers advertise them like crazy, and because now that there are so many of them, smaller cars are automatically less safe since they’re so vulnerable to the gas-sucking behemoths. None of this was inevitable, it was a marketing decision – the profit on the gas-suckers is much higher.

Industry officials and analysts note that electric cars and hybrids account for just 3% of vehicle sales in the United States, even as they are taking off in other countries. Environmentalists blame the companies, saying they are putting too much of their marketing and product development energy into SUVs.

It’s what makes America great: selling useless or harmful shit for the big bucks without giving a thought to bad consequences.



Pig and cover

Apr 2nd, 2018 11:28 am | By

Ah maybe now we know why Trump was in such a Mood this morning.

He won’t be framing that and hanging it on the walls of his golf resorts.



Pale

Apr 2nd, 2018 11:23 am | By

Class photo time again: Trump with the spring class of White House interns:

That’s nearly 100 people; I think I found four who are not white.

Also, how weird is it that all the women have the Trump-women look? The long hair worn down over the shoulders in front in the manner of Princess Ivanka – every single female person in the photo is wearing her hair that way. As a female person who had long hair in her youth I can tell you that’s not a natural or default way to wear long hair; the natural thing is to pull it all back out of the way and just leave it there. It’s weird to drape some of it over your front as if it were fabric. But then long hair gets to be a nuisance in the end, just another way “feminine” presentation is designed to hobble women via inconvenience.

Anyway. Classy diversity there, Trumpies.



A remarkably dim view of Trump’s intellect

Apr 2nd, 2018 10:53 am | By

Aaron Blake at the Post points out the undeniable fact that people who work for Trump know full well how thick he is.

Lost in the debate over whether President Trump should talk to Robert Mueller is this: The arguments against him doing it often betray a remarkably dim view of Trump’s intellect.

They do, of course. How could they not? Trump makes it blindingly obvious every time he opens his mouth or punches the buttons on his phone that he has no filter, aka is too stupid and heedless to discipline himself even in a situation of legal peril. That’s a remarkable fact, for sure, and with any luck it will soon cause him to perjure himself in his chat with Mueller.

Chris Christie on the TV News made it a matter of marketing skills versus talking to prosecutors skills.

He should never walk into that room with Robert Mueller. Because in the end, one of the things that makes the president who he is, is that he’s a salesman. And salesmen, at times, tend to be hyperbolic. Right, and this president certainly has tended to do that.

That’s okay when you’re on the campaign hustle. That’s okay when you’re working on Congress. It is not okay when you’re sitting talking to federal agents because, you know, 18 USC 1001 is false statements to federal agents. That’s a crime. That can send you to jail.

What’s left implicit is that Trump is too stupid to code-switch from real estate hack to president being questioned about illegal actions.

Christie on Sunday basically came out and said what everyone is saying behind closed doors. In the debate over whether Trump is a habitual fabulist or just a strategic one, Christie seems to be coming down on the side of the former. He seems to confirm that Trump doesn’t really know what the truth is.

Which is odd when you remember how readily and often he accuses other people of lying.



Let the eggs roll where they will

Apr 2nd, 2018 9:46 am | By

What happens when you let your attention wander for a minute and you elect a toddler to be chief executive of a country with a huge nuclear arsenal:

When Donald Trump was elected president, it quickly became obvious that the traditional national-security briefing a person in his position receives daily would be well beyond his zone of proximal development. The briefings were slimmed down in length, chopped up into easy-to-digest bullet points, and decorated with lots of graphs and pictures. Alas, the Washington Post reports, even the kiddie version of the presidential brief has proven too challenging. Now, Trump gets his briefing verbally.

Michael Wolf is very clear on this in Fire and Fury: Trump won’t read and he won’t listen either.

Trump, the Post reports, “has opted to rely on an oral briefing of select intelligence issues” because reading the brief — which every president has been able to do since its existence began — “is not Trump’s preferred ‘style of learning,’ according to a person with knowledge of the situation.”

Also, Trump does not receive his verbal briefing daily, but instead “about every two to three days on average in recent months, typically around 11 a.m.” That’s when “executive time” ends and Trump has to turn off Fox News to listen to officials for a while, before he gets more screen time later in the day.

So every 3 days or so someone tries to tell Trump a few things, but it’s futile because Trump doesn’t listen. He talks about whatever pops into his head, while the briefers try to use the few minutes left to tell him things, but he doesn’t listen.

Today’s burst of tweets is exceptionally scattershot-plus-obsessive:

An hour later:

Another hour later:

An hour later again:

Scare quotes on the Department of Justice, that’s part of the executive branch, and part of his cabinet.

Then a couple of hours after all that:

Have a productive week.



Leo Igwe on humanism for Africa

Apr 1st, 2018 5:29 pm | By

Here is Leo Igwe’s talk at a TED conference.

As a humanist, Leo Igwe doesn’t believe in divine intervention — but he does believe in the power of human beings to alleviate suffering, cure disease, preserve the planet and turn situations of poverty into prosperity. In this bold talk, Igwe shares how humanism can free Africans from damaging superstitions and give them the power to rebuild the continent.

This talk was presented at an official TED conference, and was featured by our editors on the home page.



The oppression of the white man

Apr 1st, 2018 5:17 pm | By

Niall Ferguson feels put upon.

First sentence of his Times (the London one) piece explaining why he feels put upon:

It is not very fashionable to be a man these days, especially a white one.

Really? In what sense? Have men lost all their power, their privilege, their advantage over women?

Of fucking course not. What he means is that many of us have noticed the advantage and are trying to make things less unbalanced in the direction of always calling a man. He feels aggrieved because we’re no longer just taking it for granted that men should dominate everything and women should be an afterthought at best.

Last month I organised a small, invitation-only conference of historians who I knew shared my interest in trying to apply historical knowledge to contemporary policy problems. Five of the people I invited to give papers were women, but none was able to attend. I should have tried harder to find other female speakers, no doubt. But my failure to do so elicited a disproportionately vitriolic response.

Who gets to decide what is “proportionate” in these situations? Eh? Who gets to decide how annoyed we’re allowed to be when Michael Shermer says “it’s more of a guy thing” or Sam Harris talks about “that estrogen vibe” or conference after conference after conference somehow forgets to invite any women, or remembers to invite a couple but then is left in a condition of helpless bewilderment when those two say no, and can’t manage to figure out how to find more women to invite until some say yes? Who? Niall Ferguson? Why should he get to decide? He’s not a member of the class that’s been forgotten all this time, so why is it up to him to say how much and how crossly we can talk about it?

Under a headline that included the words “Too white and too male”, The New York Times published photographs of all the speakers as if to shame them for having participated. Around a dozen academics took to social media to call the conference a “StanfordSausageFest”.

Well obviously much more shocking and outrageous than the mere fact that women and non-white people were shut out of his conference. Oh no, the Times ran a story about it!

Now let’s be clear. As I recently and rather vehemently explained to the novelist Will Self, I was raised to believe in the equal rights of all people, regardless of sex, race, creed or any other difference. That the human past was characterised by discrimination of many kinds is not news to me. But does it really constitute progress if the proponents of diversity resort to the behaviour that was previously the preserve of sexists and racists? Publishing the names and mugshots of conference speakers is the kind of thing anti-semites once did to condemn the “over-representation” of Jewish people in academia. Terms such as “SausageFest” belong not in civil academic discourse but in the pages of male-chauvinist comics such as Viz.

Oh well if he vehemently explained it to the novelist Will Self, there’s no more to be said, is there. He knows. We don’t need to tell him; he’s aware. He’s not aware of how ludicrous he sounds pretending to think publishing photos of the invited men in the Times is akin to what anti-semites used to do, but he totally is aware the human past was characterised by discrimination of many kinds. Isn’t that enough?!! What kind of fanatic would expect him to act on the awareness? It’s political correctness run mad.

What we see here is the sexism of the anti-sexists; the racism of the anti-racists.

Oh, clever, no one has ever said that before!

There’s more, but it’s no better than the rest.



Bots stand with Laura

Apr 1st, 2018 4:41 pm | By

Russian bots are springing to the defense of Fox bully Laura Ingraham, according to Business Insider.

As companies yank their ads from Fox News commentator Laura Ingraham’s show in droves, she continues to draw support from one key Twitter demographic: Russian bots.

The advertiser exodus comes after Ingraham insulted Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg’s grades on Twitter. The Fox News host announced Saturday that she would be taking a “pre-planned vacation” amid the controversy.

“Controversy” is too dignified for it. She’s a grown-ass adult who didn’t just see a bunch of her friends shot to death and felt entitled to bully a teenager who did. That’s not a controversy, it’s just hateful mindless shitty bullying in the style of Donald Trump.

On Saturday evening, #istandwithlaura was the top trending hashtag among Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence operations, according to Hamilton 68, a website launched last year that tracks Russian propaganda campaigns in near-real time.

Per the site’s data, the frequency with which the accounts tweeted the hashtag jumped by 2800% on Friday and Saturday.

“This is why we can’t have nice things” is not a joke any more. It’s the literal flat-footed truth.



Will you look at that

Apr 1st, 2018 4:13 pm | By

Photo of the day. Or week, or year.

https://twitter.com/AlexisCoe/status/980456131188453376