Michael Gerson was President George W. Bush's speechwriter and is now an op-ed columnist for the Washington Post. He wrote this.
"It is no longer possible to safely ignore the leaked cries for help coming from within the administration. They reveal a president raging against enemies, obsessed by slights, deeply uninformed and incurious, unable to focus, and subject to destructive whims."
This was, I presume, written after General Kelly, the Chief of Staff, held a press conference today to deny rumors that he was about to resign or being fired. He said the following about his job:
"It is the hardest job I've ever had. It's also the most important job I've ever had. It's not the best job I've ever had," and then explained that, as he has said many times before, being a marine sergeant was the best job he's ever had. He is now a retired four-star general.
President Trump later told the press, as he praised Gen. Kelly: "He said it's the best job he's ever had." He said this to the same people who had heard for themselves what Kelly had said in the press meeting. Trump doesn't seem to know that people know that he is lying.
The question is: Is this just another of Trump's lies? Or does it represent how he automatically distorts what he hears into what he wants to hear, and doesn't even know that he does it? Kelly clearly said: "It's not the best job I've ever had."
Either way, Trump has zero credibility -- and both our allies and our enemies know it. Only he seems not to know it.
Max Boot, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, said on MSNBC Thursday night: "The #1 threat to our security . . . is the Commander in Chief. The man in the Oval Office is the greatest threat that we face."
Ralph
Saturday, October 14, 2017
Maybe it's time to stop "containing" Trump and just get him out office.
Much has been said in the past week about relying on "the generals'" and Sec. Tillerson's efforts to "contain" the president from going completely off the rails.
Maybe it's time to consider, rather than containing him, that we just get rid of him. I'm afraid he will break everything, if we wait too long.
Look at all he's broken just this week -- or at least tried to break. The Affordable Care Act, the Iran Nuclear Agreement, the rescue mission in Puerto Rico, the nuclear disarmament treaty, the fragile stand-off with North Korea.
Meanwhile, he's condoning his EPA Director's slashing most regulations designed to save our planet. His "voter fraud" tzar is finding ever more ways to suppress minority voting. His Attorney General is gutting civil rights, voting rights, racial justice, prison reform -- and that's all before breakfast. And, if Trump could, he would have taken control of the first amendment right to free speech and would have revoked broadcast licenses for CNN and MSNBC, the networks that dare to tell the truth about him. And now he's going to address a convention of the rabidly anti-LGBT Family Research Council.
His decision to gut the ACA and stop subsidy payments is opposed by a super-majority of Americans. According to a Kaiser Research poll, 71% think he should be doing everything he can to make the ACA work, while only 21% agree with the sabotage strategy. That's more than a third less than his base of supporters.
And he thinks these people will blame Democrats? No, Trump now owns any failure of Obamacare.
Ralph
Maybe it's time to consider, rather than containing him, that we just get rid of him. I'm afraid he will break everything, if we wait too long.
Look at all he's broken just this week -- or at least tried to break. The Affordable Care Act, the Iran Nuclear Agreement, the rescue mission in Puerto Rico, the nuclear disarmament treaty, the fragile stand-off with North Korea.
Meanwhile, he's condoning his EPA Director's slashing most regulations designed to save our planet. His "voter fraud" tzar is finding ever more ways to suppress minority voting. His Attorney General is gutting civil rights, voting rights, racial justice, prison reform -- and that's all before breakfast. And, if Trump could, he would have taken control of the first amendment right to free speech and would have revoked broadcast licenses for CNN and MSNBC, the networks that dare to tell the truth about him. And now he's going to address a convention of the rabidly anti-LGBT Family Research Council.
His decision to gut the ACA and stop subsidy payments is opposed by a super-majority of Americans. According to a Kaiser Research poll, 71% think he should be doing everything he can to make the ACA work, while only 21% agree with the sabotage strategy. That's more than a third less than his base of supporters.
And he thinks these people will blame Democrats? No, Trump now owns any failure of Obamacare.
Ralph
Friday, October 13, 2017
President Trump now in a dangerous phase: unhinged and vindictive
Over the past few days, insiders have followed Sen. Bob Corker's frank lead in speaking candidly about his concerns about the president's fitness (White House has become "an adult day-care" facility) and about the danger of his tweets "leading us into World War III."
While most senators don't speak with equal candor as can Sen. Corker, who is not running for reelection, it is widely acknowledged that many say the same things in private.
In addition, leaks are coming from multiple inside sources, speaking about the president's rages and tantrums and, as Corker also says, viewing the trio of Sec. of State Tillerson, Sec. of Defense Maddis, and Chief of Staff Kelly as working together to contain the president's impulses and to keep our nation from sinking into chaos.
But here is what's not being contained: Trump has been, and continues, to be on a mission to undo every single thing that Barack Obama accomplished. It's as though Trump's campaign to convince people Obama was not a native-born citizen, and therefore not a legitimate president, has been taken up again in the form of trying to erase every trace of this successful and admired president.
So now we have a president who not only is seen as dangerous in possibly starting a nuclear war with North Korea and unleashing Iran's quest for its own bomb. We also have an increasingly unhinged and vindictive president working daily to undermine and tear down our progressive gains here at home. Consider these:
1. Any Obama policy that can be undone, he's going after it with executive orders to undo environmental regulations, reduce spending for any safety-net assistance, and ease any regulatory burdens on businesses and banks. Oil in flowing in the Dakota Access pipeline. More immigrants are being arrested. He has reversed the military's willing implementation of Obama's directive on transgender troops, even though military leaders are opposed to that reversal. He encourages his cabinet secretaries to reverse policies on national parks, oil drilling in the Arctic, fuel economy regulations, energy policies ("we're bringing back coal"). And so much more.
2. Another example of Trump's obsession with erasing anything connected with Obama -- but this one deserves its own separate paragraph. Just yesterday, he signed an executive order that will further unsettle the insurance markets for the Affordable Care Act. This will allow insurers to offer cheap, relatively useless policies across state lines through group associations. These won't have to meet the same minimum coverage requirements, so they can be sold as cheap policies. Healthy young people will sign up for these, leaving only the sickest to use the exchange-regulated policies. That, of course, will drive up premium prices. It's a tactic to try to destroy Obamacare, pure and simple -- not to help people.
3. Republican Sen. Bob Sasse has just questioned Trump's increasingly pointed attacks on the media as a failure to defend the Constitution's guarantee of free speech. This relates to Trump's tweeted threat to take away NBC's broadcast license because of unfavorable coverage of him. The president does not have that power over FCC licensing, fortunately. But the attack on a free press -- and not for the first time -- is deeply unsettling.
4. In a public speech, Trump praised the man (Jeffrey Lord) who was fired by CNN after he had tweeted a Nazi salute. Trump called him "the great Jeffrey Lord." Also, it's pretty well established that Trump is the one who sent VP Pence flying cross country on Sunday afternoon, just so he could walk out of the football game when players knelt during the national anthem. An expensive stunt, adding a cross-country Air Force Two round trip for a two minute programmed stunt, proved by the fact that they told the press bus not to park but just to stand by ready to go.
5. Trump goes out of his way to undermine any diplomatic efforts of his Secretary of State to deescalate tensions with North Korea. While Tillerson was still in China working on a back channel with the North Koreans, and tweeted out that fact, Trump retaliated by tweeting that Tillerson was "wasting his time" talking because "it won't work." Then added, "We'll do what we have to do." Since then he has rattled the sabers even more by coyly announcing that "this is the calm before the storm," and then refusing to say what he meant. This was followed up by having two Air Force bombers fly across the Korean peninsula.
6. Even the Chinese are fed up, putting out a statement asking Trump to tone down his rhetoric.
7. On the other side of the world, Trump is also playing fast and loose with another potential nuclear conflagration by vowing to pull out of the Iran deal -- which even some Republicans who opposed it at the time now want to keep -- because it is working. But Trump insists that Iran is not living up to it (experts all say they are). One report out yesterday says that the Trump advisers have worked out a plan with Congress whereby Trump will refuse to recertify Iran's cooperation (which he has to do every 90 days); but he will also not recommend that Congress put sanctions back on Iran, thus punting the final decision: as long as Congress does not renew sanctions, it is likely not to kill it. That allows Trump to stick to his refusal without blowing things up, leaving it to Congress to save us and our place in world leadership.
Why is Trump so opposed to certifying Iran's conforming to the agreement? Vali Nasr, dean of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, says it's more for domestic than international reasons. "He doesn't want to certify that any piece of the Obama strategy is working."
But, think about it. This is what we have come to? Having to appease the Commander-in-Chief by such subterfuge and obfuscation? He would blow up such a delicate and almost impossibly achieved agreement rather than give Obama any credit! Apparently.
And this hasn't even touched on the disaster that is Trump's position on aid to Puerto Rico. It is shameful, unAmerican, and inhumane. There are inhabited areas of the island that rescue efforts have still not been able to get to in the three weeks since the hurricane hit. Roads are impassable, and apparently there are not enough local helicopters to meet the needs -- and Trump keeps insisting that it's up to local governments to distribute the relief supplies. And heaping praise on himself for "what a fantastic job I have done. So much work!"
Yet 40% of the population still does not have safe drinking water. They're beginning to have deaths from bacteria one tends to get from drinking water from contaminated streams. They're drinking stream water because that's all they have in some areas. It is unimaginable that this would be accepted in Houston or Florida. Yes, Puerto Rico's situation was much worse before the hurricane hit. But this is a U.S. territory, and they are American citizens.
And yet Trump unabashedly claims that his relief efforts have been amazing and that progress is wonderful. And now he's turning even more negative, tweeting out that "our FEMA people and military troops can't stay in Puerto Rico forever."
My contempt for this president overfloweth.
Ralph
While most senators don't speak with equal candor as can Sen. Corker, who is not running for reelection, it is widely acknowledged that many say the same things in private.
In addition, leaks are coming from multiple inside sources, speaking about the president's rages and tantrums and, as Corker also says, viewing the trio of Sec. of State Tillerson, Sec. of Defense Maddis, and Chief of Staff Kelly as working together to contain the president's impulses and to keep our nation from sinking into chaos.
But here is what's not being contained: Trump has been, and continues, to be on a mission to undo every single thing that Barack Obama accomplished. It's as though Trump's campaign to convince people Obama was not a native-born citizen, and therefore not a legitimate president, has been taken up again in the form of trying to erase every trace of this successful and admired president.
So now we have a president who not only is seen as dangerous in possibly starting a nuclear war with North Korea and unleashing Iran's quest for its own bomb. We also have an increasingly unhinged and vindictive president working daily to undermine and tear down our progressive gains here at home. Consider these:
1. Any Obama policy that can be undone, he's going after it with executive orders to undo environmental regulations, reduce spending for any safety-net assistance, and ease any regulatory burdens on businesses and banks. Oil in flowing in the Dakota Access pipeline. More immigrants are being arrested. He has reversed the military's willing implementation of Obama's directive on transgender troops, even though military leaders are opposed to that reversal. He encourages his cabinet secretaries to reverse policies on national parks, oil drilling in the Arctic, fuel economy regulations, energy policies ("we're bringing back coal"). And so much more.
2. Another example of Trump's obsession with erasing anything connected with Obama -- but this one deserves its own separate paragraph. Just yesterday, he signed an executive order that will further unsettle the insurance markets for the Affordable Care Act. This will allow insurers to offer cheap, relatively useless policies across state lines through group associations. These won't have to meet the same minimum coverage requirements, so they can be sold as cheap policies. Healthy young people will sign up for these, leaving only the sickest to use the exchange-regulated policies. That, of course, will drive up premium prices. It's a tactic to try to destroy Obamacare, pure and simple -- not to help people.
3. Republican Sen. Bob Sasse has just questioned Trump's increasingly pointed attacks on the media as a failure to defend the Constitution's guarantee of free speech. This relates to Trump's tweeted threat to take away NBC's broadcast license because of unfavorable coverage of him. The president does not have that power over FCC licensing, fortunately. But the attack on a free press -- and not for the first time -- is deeply unsettling.
4. In a public speech, Trump praised the man (Jeffrey Lord) who was fired by CNN after he had tweeted a Nazi salute. Trump called him "the great Jeffrey Lord." Also, it's pretty well established that Trump is the one who sent VP Pence flying cross country on Sunday afternoon, just so he could walk out of the football game when players knelt during the national anthem. An expensive stunt, adding a cross-country Air Force Two round trip for a two minute programmed stunt, proved by the fact that they told the press bus not to park but just to stand by ready to go.
5. Trump goes out of his way to undermine any diplomatic efforts of his Secretary of State to deescalate tensions with North Korea. While Tillerson was still in China working on a back channel with the North Koreans, and tweeted out that fact, Trump retaliated by tweeting that Tillerson was "wasting his time" talking because "it won't work." Then added, "We'll do what we have to do." Since then he has rattled the sabers even more by coyly announcing that "this is the calm before the storm," and then refusing to say what he meant. This was followed up by having two Air Force bombers fly across the Korean peninsula.
6. Even the Chinese are fed up, putting out a statement asking Trump to tone down his rhetoric.
7. On the other side of the world, Trump is also playing fast and loose with another potential nuclear conflagration by vowing to pull out of the Iran deal -- which even some Republicans who opposed it at the time now want to keep -- because it is working. But Trump insists that Iran is not living up to it (experts all say they are). One report out yesterday says that the Trump advisers have worked out a plan with Congress whereby Trump will refuse to recertify Iran's cooperation (which he has to do every 90 days); but he will also not recommend that Congress put sanctions back on Iran, thus punting the final decision: as long as Congress does not renew sanctions, it is likely not to kill it. That allows Trump to stick to his refusal without blowing things up, leaving it to Congress to save us and our place in world leadership.
Why is Trump so opposed to certifying Iran's conforming to the agreement? Vali Nasr, dean of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, says it's more for domestic than international reasons. "He doesn't want to certify that any piece of the Obama strategy is working."
But, think about it. This is what we have come to? Having to appease the Commander-in-Chief by such subterfuge and obfuscation? He would blow up such a delicate and almost impossibly achieved agreement rather than give Obama any credit! Apparently.
And this hasn't even touched on the disaster that is Trump's position on aid to Puerto Rico. It is shameful, unAmerican, and inhumane. There are inhabited areas of the island that rescue efforts have still not been able to get to in the three weeks since the hurricane hit. Roads are impassable, and apparently there are not enough local helicopters to meet the needs -- and Trump keeps insisting that it's up to local governments to distribute the relief supplies. And heaping praise on himself for "what a fantastic job I have done. So much work!"
Yet 40% of the population still does not have safe drinking water. They're beginning to have deaths from bacteria one tends to get from drinking water from contaminated streams. They're drinking stream water because that's all they have in some areas. It is unimaginable that this would be accepted in Houston or Florida. Yes, Puerto Rico's situation was much worse before the hurricane hit. But this is a U.S. territory, and they are American citizens.
And yet Trump unabashedly claims that his relief efforts have been amazing and that progress is wonderful. And now he's turning even more negative, tweeting out that "our FEMA people and military troops can't stay in Puerto Rico forever."
My contempt for this president overfloweth.
Ralph
Thursday, October 12, 2017
Are there limits to accommodations required for persons with disabilities?
An article in Tuesday's AJC set me to thinking about the question of our society's requirement, put into law by the "Americans With Disabilities Act," that public accommodations furnish "auxiliary aids and services" to persons with certain kinds of disabilities.
We're familiar with the entrance ramps and elevators for people who can't do stairs, and the wider doors to allow wheelchair access. And then there are the interpreters at speaking events who stand off to the side "translating" the words into American Sign Language for the hard of hearing in the audience.
But how do you accommodate someone who is both deaf and blind? And how far is the venue required to go in trying to make their event possible for anyone who wants to experience it?
A federal appeals court decision has given a preliminary answer to that. A man who is both deaf and blind wanted to attend a showing of the film "Gone Girl," and he requested that the Pittsburgh Cinemark theater provide him with a "tactile interpreter."
Yes, that was new to me, too. Tactile interpretation, I learned, involves the use of sign language; but instead of a deaf person visually reading the hand signing, he uses touch to "read" it by placing his hands over the hands of an interpreter, who uses sign language to describe the movie's action, dialogue, and even the audience's reaction (such as laughter).
I imagine this is a pretty specialized ability. The ASL interpreters I've seen don't just move their hands; there's a lot of arms moving around, touching the face, etc. So it would have to be modified to use only the hands in a fairly small space. The point is that not every theater is going to have access to such a service.
And that raises the question: how far do public facilities have to go to accommodate people with disabilities? I'm very much in favor of trying to give everyone a chance to experience life as fully as they are able. But reality will impose some limits. And who pays for the extra accommodations when it's such a one-person kind of thing?
Well, it turns out that the theater turned down the request, saying they were not able to provide the tactile interpreter. So the Pennsylvania Disability Rights group sued on behalf of the man. The case went all the way to a federal appeals court, which has ruled that tactile interpretation is included under the Disabilities Act requirements to provide "auxiliary aids and services."
However, the court also ruled that the theater can still appeal the case under a claim of undue burden, an exception to the disability law that takes into account the cost to the theater and its ability to pay for it. The appeals court sent the case back to a lower federal court to consider this argument.
So that's where it stands. That seems sensible to me. The law recognizes the need for such assistance, but it also recognizes the practicalities and has a provision for making exceptions.
I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of the man who wanted to "see" the movie "Gone Girls." I myself have sometimes thought about the possibility of losing my hearing and never again being able to hear a Mahler symphony. I don't think even a tactile interpreter could convey the range of Mahler's music that makes it both so sublime and so shattering. Some things just can't be fixed. Thankfully, I can still hear.
Ralph
We're familiar with the entrance ramps and elevators for people who can't do stairs, and the wider doors to allow wheelchair access. And then there are the interpreters at speaking events who stand off to the side "translating" the words into American Sign Language for the hard of hearing in the audience.
But how do you accommodate someone who is both deaf and blind? And how far is the venue required to go in trying to make their event possible for anyone who wants to experience it?
A federal appeals court decision has given a preliminary answer to that. A man who is both deaf and blind wanted to attend a showing of the film "Gone Girl," and he requested that the Pittsburgh Cinemark theater provide him with a "tactile interpreter."
Yes, that was new to me, too. Tactile interpretation, I learned, involves the use of sign language; but instead of a deaf person visually reading the hand signing, he uses touch to "read" it by placing his hands over the hands of an interpreter, who uses sign language to describe the movie's action, dialogue, and even the audience's reaction (such as laughter).
I imagine this is a pretty specialized ability. The ASL interpreters I've seen don't just move their hands; there's a lot of arms moving around, touching the face, etc. So it would have to be modified to use only the hands in a fairly small space. The point is that not every theater is going to have access to such a service.
And that raises the question: how far do public facilities have to go to accommodate people with disabilities? I'm very much in favor of trying to give everyone a chance to experience life as fully as they are able. But reality will impose some limits. And who pays for the extra accommodations when it's such a one-person kind of thing?
Well, it turns out that the theater turned down the request, saying they were not able to provide the tactile interpreter. So the Pennsylvania Disability Rights group sued on behalf of the man. The case went all the way to a federal appeals court, which has ruled that tactile interpretation is included under the Disabilities Act requirements to provide "auxiliary aids and services."
However, the court also ruled that the theater can still appeal the case under a claim of undue burden, an exception to the disability law that takes into account the cost to the theater and its ability to pay for it. The appeals court sent the case back to a lower federal court to consider this argument.
So that's where it stands. That seems sensible to me. The law recognizes the need for such assistance, but it also recognizes the practicalities and has a provision for making exceptions.
I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of the man who wanted to "see" the movie "Gone Girls." I myself have sometimes thought about the possibility of losing my hearing and never again being able to hear a Mahler symphony. I don't think even a tactile interpreter could convey the range of Mahler's music that makes it both so sublime and so shattering. Some things just can't be fixed. Thankfully, I can still hear.
Ralph
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
Trump's authoritarian White House will not tolerate criticism
As Aaron Blake reminds us in a Washington Post article titled "The Trump
White House's Dangerously Authoritarian Response to Criticism," Trump makes it very clear that he is a counterpuncher: "You hit him; he hits back twice as hard. You bring a knife; he brings a bazooka."
This is relevant to the recent twitter exchange between him and Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Bob Corker (R-TN), in which Trump lied in saying that Corker had begged him for an endorsement and decided not to run for re-election when Trump said No. The truth is quite the opposite, according to Corker -- and, honestly, at this point, do you really believe Donald Trump about anything he says?
The truth, according to Corker, is that as recently as the evening before, Trump had called him to encourage him to reconsider his decision to retire and said that he would endorse him if he would run again. Trump then sent out the insulting tweet, calling Corker "gutless" for not running and lying about who asked whom, claiming that Corker "begged" him for an endorsement, but he (Trump) said No.
The difference here is that Corker, having decided to retire, is freed from the fear of having his political career ruined by the vindictive president. He returned the blunt exchange with a candid reference to the White House having become "an adult day-care center" and saying that "someone must have missed their shift" that morning. He also suggested that Trump's threats to foreign countries "could lead us into World War III."
But the upshot of this exchange is that Trump's handlers backed up Trump's demand that he be freely allowed to criticize, insult, tell lies about anyone else -- but no one should criticize Trump. Chief defender Kellyanne Conway went on "Fox and Friends" to call Corker's comments "incredibly irresponsible." And trotting out the tired defense that the president's "detractors . . . can't accept the election results."
She went further, saying that these detractors "speak about a president of the United States, the president of the United States, in ways that no president should be talked about." Steve Bannon picked up that line of argument, telling Sean Hannity: "It's totally unacceptable in a time of war. . . . We have American lives at risk every day."
Aaron Blake continues his analysis, saying: "The subtext of all this is: How dare you criticize the president? He is doing important things, and speaking out against him only undermines his efforts to "'Make America Great Again.'
"Whatever you think of Trump, that's a very authoritarian argument to make. It suggests dissent is unhelpful. It suggests it's even unpatriotic. And it's hardly the first time Conway and the White House have gone down this road."
Blake then quotes previous remarks by Conway about the "personal attacks about his physicalities about his fitness for office, he's called a goon, a thug, mentally ill, talking about dementia, armchair psychologists all over television every single day. . . . It doesn't help the American people to have a president covered in this light. I'm sorry, it's neither productive nor patriotic, The toxicity is over the top."
Back in February when the travel ban was the hot topic, senior adviser Stephen Miller said that the president's prerogatives on foreign policy were absolute. "The powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned."
Another example Blake gave of the authoritarianism of this White House was Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders declaring that an ESPN host's "calling Trump a white supremacist is a fireable offense." Now, mind you, this was an individual employed by a private broadcast company, not a government worker.
Baker says this kind of authoritarianism "totally misunderstands the media's role in a democracy. . . . [Further] What's obviously hypocritical here is that a lot of these criticisms pale in comparison to what Trump has registered about his opponents. He has questioned the war hero status of John McCain. He has attacked a Gold Star family. He has called his . . . Democratic opponent a criminal who should be jailed. And most importantly, he was one of the most vocal critics of the last sitting president, even suggesting he was a fraud whose presidency was illegitimate.
"All of that was okay, but suggesting President Trump is volatile and dangerous is not, apparently. The undermining of Barack Obama's legitimacy was apparently okay . . . . If Hillary Clinton had become president, we're to believe that Trump would stop calling her a criminal because she would then be the president? . . . .
"He's basically suggesting it's really never okay to criticize a president. Yet that's exactly what Trump did for eight years under Obama.
This is relevant to the recent twitter exchange between him and Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Bob Corker (R-TN), in which Trump lied in saying that Corker had begged him for an endorsement and decided not to run for re-election when Trump said No. The truth is quite the opposite, according to Corker -- and, honestly, at this point, do you really believe Donald Trump about anything he says?
The truth, according to Corker, is that as recently as the evening before, Trump had called him to encourage him to reconsider his decision to retire and said that he would endorse him if he would run again. Trump then sent out the insulting tweet, calling Corker "gutless" for not running and lying about who asked whom, claiming that Corker "begged" him for an endorsement, but he (Trump) said No.
The difference here is that Corker, having decided to retire, is freed from the fear of having his political career ruined by the vindictive president. He returned the blunt exchange with a candid reference to the White House having become "an adult day-care center" and saying that "someone must have missed their shift" that morning. He also suggested that Trump's threats to foreign countries "could lead us into World War III."
But the upshot of this exchange is that Trump's handlers backed up Trump's demand that he be freely allowed to criticize, insult, tell lies about anyone else -- but no one should criticize Trump. Chief defender Kellyanne Conway went on "Fox and Friends" to call Corker's comments "incredibly irresponsible." And trotting out the tired defense that the president's "detractors . . . can't accept the election results."
She went further, saying that these detractors "speak about a president of the United States, the president of the United States, in ways that no president should be talked about." Steve Bannon picked up that line of argument, telling Sean Hannity: "It's totally unacceptable in a time of war. . . . We have American lives at risk every day."
Aaron Blake continues his analysis, saying: "The subtext of all this is: How dare you criticize the president? He is doing important things, and speaking out against him only undermines his efforts to "'Make America Great Again.'
"Whatever you think of Trump, that's a very authoritarian argument to make. It suggests dissent is unhelpful. It suggests it's even unpatriotic. And it's hardly the first time Conway and the White House have gone down this road."
Blake then quotes previous remarks by Conway about the "personal attacks about his physicalities about his fitness for office, he's called a goon, a thug, mentally ill, talking about dementia, armchair psychologists all over television every single day. . . . It doesn't help the American people to have a president covered in this light. I'm sorry, it's neither productive nor patriotic, The toxicity is over the top."
Back in February when the travel ban was the hot topic, senior adviser Stephen Miller said that the president's prerogatives on foreign policy were absolute. "The powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned."
Another example Blake gave of the authoritarianism of this White House was Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders declaring that an ESPN host's "calling Trump a white supremacist is a fireable offense." Now, mind you, this was an individual employed by a private broadcast company, not a government worker.
Baker says this kind of authoritarianism "totally misunderstands the media's role in a democracy. . . . [Further] What's obviously hypocritical here is that a lot of these criticisms pale in comparison to what Trump has registered about his opponents. He has questioned the war hero status of John McCain. He has attacked a Gold Star family. He has called his . . . Democratic opponent a criminal who should be jailed. And most importantly, he was one of the most vocal critics of the last sitting president, even suggesting he was a fraud whose presidency was illegitimate.
"All of that was okay, but suggesting President Trump is volatile and dangerous is not, apparently. The undermining of Barack Obama's legitimacy was apparently okay . . . . If Hillary Clinton had become president, we're to believe that Trump would stop calling her a criminal because she would then be the president? . . . .
"He's basically suggesting it's really never okay to criticize a president. Yet that's exactly what Trump did for eight years under Obama.
"It's not only a double standard; it's a willful campaign to
suggest that even valid criticisms
are beyond the pale if they undermine Trump. The White House isn't
disputing the criticisms; it's suggesting they shouldn't even be tolerated and
aren't good for the country. That's a stunning posture for any White House to
take."
* * * * *
As authoritarian, anti-democratic, and pathetic as this sounds, I really want to laugh at the obvious confirmation that this protest represents. Yes, I think we should respect the Office of the President. But when the occupant of that office behaves like a petulant child -- who has the power of the nuclear codes -- then we have not only a right but a duty to be concerned.
What I hear is the desperate plight of the people surrounding Trump behind the closed doors who have to tolerate and try to appease the tantrums. They have an impossible task, and someday we will know what really went on as the tell-all books come out.
But for now, we have an increasingly dangerous and unstable president with incredible power. He is hell-bent on destroying anything and everything that Obama did; and, in doing so, he is tearing up the progress in our domestic agenda that was gradually making life better.
As Gene Robinson wrote, also for the Washington Post today: Trump has three years and three months left in office. "What do we do?" And he responds to his own question, saying that the Republican majority in the House is too fearful of the wrath of the GOP base to vote for impeachment. And the 25th amendment is unlikely to be invoked unless the president "literally starts howling at the moon and trying to launch nuclear missiles."
So what do we do? Robinson continues: "Our most likely course of action is containment. The generals who play nanny at the 'adult day care center' are already acting as the first line of defense. Corker and his colleagues in Congress must begin acting as the second."
He says that Congress has the "power of the purse" and could exercise more use of the power to "withhold consent." In the end, Robinson concludes that this "makes it imperative that Democrats win one or both chambers of Congress in 2018."
Ralph
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Here a gun, there a gun, everywhere a gun gun gun -- Old McDoNRA's goal
Journalist Mike Spies, who has extensively reported on the National Rifle Association, was interviewed on NPR's "Fresh Air" by Teri Gross on 10-05-17. Spies writes for The
Trace, an independent, nonprofit journalism organization dedicated to covering
issues related to guns in America.
Here are some of his observations and conclusions. Quotations are from the NPR interview.
1. The NRA's goal is to normalize the presence of guns in places we are not accustomed to seeing them -- so that eventually guns are perceived as a regular part of our daily existence. To this end, they have lately been pushing laws to allow gun carry in places that have traditionally been considered "sacred," i.e. off limits for guns. These include: bars, churches, day care centers, college campuses, government buildings.
2. They also are pushing "no permit" laws. This allows anyone to just go in and buy a gun, without a permit. There would be no restrictions: no background checks, no training, no licensing, no registration required.
3. The NRA has more clout in state races than they do on the federal level, especially with the preponderance of legislatures and governorships filled by Republicans. NRA grades each lawmaker, based on their voting records. Any Republican who does not get the coveted A- or above is at risk of having the NRA pick and support a primary opponent. So it's not so much that the NRA "buys" politicians to do their bidding (i.e. giving them lots of money, although they do some of that too). It's more that they will exert their clout and money to get them voted out of office. Hence the new term, "getting primaried."
4. Spies described the NRA lobbyist for Florida and why she is so powerful. Her name is Marion Hammer, and she has been there "for an exceptionally long period of time. . . . And because she's so enmeshed in the culture of the state and because Florida is a state that has a very high population of NRA members, she's able to function as an unelected legislator and often has more power than legislators do and is able to tell governors what to do and able to tell Republican lawmakers there what to do. . . . [She is a] legendarily vindictive person who plays . . . hardball politics."
Spies says that she is the one who drafted Florida's "stand your ground" law that figured in the Treyvon Martin-George Zimmerman case. Why is this law important? Spies says: "If you're going to give people the right to carry guns in public and you're telling them that they need the guns because they have to defend themselves, then stand your ground is a way of sort of codifying that message. . . . Everyone in the Florida legislature knows that every gun bill is drafted by an NRA lobbyist."
Spies also gave, as an example of her tactics and power, the case of the chairman of the legislative Judiciary Committee who had had an A+ rating from NRA. But, because he killed an NRA-backed bill that he thought was unnecessary and would also make prosecutors' jobs more difficult, Ms. Hammer was able to rob him of a judicial appointment he wanted and was considered the front runner for. She organized an email campaign of thousands of NRA members, who demanded that under no circumstances should the governor appoint this man to the judgeship. Despite his prior A+ rating from the NRA, most people thought he failed to get the appointment as a direct result of his action on that one bill and the NRA's vengeance.
5. Earlier this year, the NRA launched an insurance program called Carry Guard, underwritten by a major insurance carrier, that covers your legal fees and other legal expenses in the event you kill someone while claiming self-defense. Their marketing strategy is essentially "you live in an extremely dangerous society. You carry a gun. You shouldn't have to think twice about using your gun in a dangerous situation because you're worried that you're going to wind up going bankrupt after you do so. Get this insurance so you won't go bankrupt after you kill someone."
6. In trying to explain the appeal and the power of the NRA, Spies says: "The NRA is more than just a group that pushes gun rights. It is much closer to a religion or like a very particular way of life, and that's what it sells its members.
7. The NRA believes that "the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." The more guns, the better.
My question: this ignores the fact that a loaded gun is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. or in the hands of someone not in sane control of his actions (drunk, impassioned rage, a child, a mentally disturbed or suicidal person).
Statistics have long been available that show: when there is a gun in the house, a member of that household is more likely to be killed with it than any sort of intruder. Think about that in connection with the claim of needing a gun for protection. What this says is that your family is safer not having a gun in the house. This, of course, also includes suicides; but they are family members too, aren't they? Maybe even you, yourself some day.
And what about limits on the type of weapons? Does the NRA recognize any limits? Machine guns, mortar launchers, hand grenades, dynamite -- a nuclear bomb? Why put any limits?
But, if you accept some limits, why not at least ban the guns designed for nothing but to kill lots of people quickly? Like those used by the shooter in Las Vegas.
Ralph
Here are some of his observations and conclusions. Quotations are from the NPR interview.
1. The NRA's goal is to normalize the presence of guns in places we are not accustomed to seeing them -- so that eventually guns are perceived as a regular part of our daily existence. To this end, they have lately been pushing laws to allow gun carry in places that have traditionally been considered "sacred," i.e. off limits for guns. These include: bars, churches, day care centers, college campuses, government buildings.
2. They also are pushing "no permit" laws. This allows anyone to just go in and buy a gun, without a permit. There would be no restrictions: no background checks, no training, no licensing, no registration required.
3. The NRA has more clout in state races than they do on the federal level, especially with the preponderance of legislatures and governorships filled by Republicans. NRA grades each lawmaker, based on their voting records. Any Republican who does not get the coveted A- or above is at risk of having the NRA pick and support a primary opponent. So it's not so much that the NRA "buys" politicians to do their bidding (i.e. giving them lots of money, although they do some of that too). It's more that they will exert their clout and money to get them voted out of office. Hence the new term, "getting primaried."
4. Spies described the NRA lobbyist for Florida and why she is so powerful. Her name is Marion Hammer, and she has been there "for an exceptionally long period of time. . . . And because she's so enmeshed in the culture of the state and because Florida is a state that has a very high population of NRA members, she's able to function as an unelected legislator and often has more power than legislators do and is able to tell governors what to do and able to tell Republican lawmakers there what to do. . . . [She is a] legendarily vindictive person who plays . . . hardball politics."
Spies says that she is the one who drafted Florida's "stand your ground" law that figured in the Treyvon Martin-George Zimmerman case. Why is this law important? Spies says: "If you're going to give people the right to carry guns in public and you're telling them that they need the guns because they have to defend themselves, then stand your ground is a way of sort of codifying that message. . . . Everyone in the Florida legislature knows that every gun bill is drafted by an NRA lobbyist."
Spies also gave, as an example of her tactics and power, the case of the chairman of the legislative Judiciary Committee who had had an A+ rating from NRA. But, because he killed an NRA-backed bill that he thought was unnecessary and would also make prosecutors' jobs more difficult, Ms. Hammer was able to rob him of a judicial appointment he wanted and was considered the front runner for. She organized an email campaign of thousands of NRA members, who demanded that under no circumstances should the governor appoint this man to the judgeship. Despite his prior A+ rating from the NRA, most people thought he failed to get the appointment as a direct result of his action on that one bill and the NRA's vengeance.
5. Earlier this year, the NRA launched an insurance program called Carry Guard, underwritten by a major insurance carrier, that covers your legal fees and other legal expenses in the event you kill someone while claiming self-defense. Their marketing strategy is essentially "you live in an extremely dangerous society. You carry a gun. You shouldn't have to think twice about using your gun in a dangerous situation because you're worried that you're going to wind up going bankrupt after you do so. Get this insurance so you won't go bankrupt after you kill someone."
6. In trying to explain the appeal and the power of the NRA, Spies says: "The NRA is more than just a group that pushes gun rights. It is much closer to a religion or like a very particular way of life, and that's what it sells its members.
7. The NRA believes that "the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." The more guns, the better.
My question: this ignores the fact that a loaded gun is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. or in the hands of someone not in sane control of his actions (drunk, impassioned rage, a child, a mentally disturbed or suicidal person).
Statistics have long been available that show: when there is a gun in the house, a member of that household is more likely to be killed with it than any sort of intruder. Think about that in connection with the claim of needing a gun for protection. What this says is that your family is safer not having a gun in the house. This, of course, also includes suicides; but they are family members too, aren't they? Maybe even you, yourself some day.
And what about limits on the type of weapons? Does the NRA recognize any limits? Machine guns, mortar launchers, hand grenades, dynamite -- a nuclear bomb? Why put any limits?
But, if you accept some limits, why not at least ban the guns designed for nothing but to kill lots of people quickly? Like those used by the shooter in Las Vegas.
Ralph
Monday, October 9, 2017
Pence joins Trump in political fake news about what NFL players are protesting
Vice President Mike Pence joined President Donald Trump in his "fake news" story about what the NFL players are protesting when they kneel during the pre-game playing of the national anthem.
Pence attended the Sunday game between the Indianapolis Colts and the San Francisco 49ers. As the national anthem began, several of the players silently and quietly knelt. Pence and his entourage walked out.
And shortly afterward Pence tweeted:
"I left today's Colts game because @POTUS and I will not dignify any event that disrespects our soldiers, our Flag, or our National Anthem."
Let's clarify the history here, because Trump and his enabler Pence have distorted the whole thing -- and it can only be for political purposes -- and therefore shameful and unpresidential.
Last season, the 49ths' Colin Kaepernick began an act of protest by kneeling during the pregame National Anthem and flag-raising. What Kaepernick was protesting, as he so clearly stated publicly in the media, was police brutality and racial injustice towards black Americans.
There was no uncertainty, no ambiguity in his message. It was loud and clear. President Trump may not have been the first to distort the protest, but he quickly picked it up and amplified it with his twitter and TV fake news, claiming that he was showing disrespect for our flag -- and later he expanded it to include the false claim that it was disrespect for our brave military.
The kneeling protest spread to other players, who either were kneeling in support of Kaepernick or for the same cause. This season it has expanded to not only players but to managers and many players who lock arms in solidarity.
Since when is kneeling a sign of disrespect, anyway? It is traditionally the very opposite: one kneels before a king or in prayer.
But Trump saw it as a way to help shore up his poll numbers by shaking the "patriotism" tambourine. He even tweeted insults, calling the players "sons of bitches." Trump upped the ante by asking Pence, in advance, to leave the game if any players knelt.
They did, and Pence walked out -- and sent the requisite tweet with the fake news that they were disrespecting "our soldiers, our flag, or our national anthem."
Wrong. It started as a protest of police brutality and racial injustice. That's what the protester said. Why does he not have ownership of what his protest was about? What right does the president have to say it's really something else? And then, I believe, the kneeling and locked-arms solidarity have now turned into a protest of Trump himself and of his distorting and politicizing the protest, thereby repeating the brutality and injustice.
Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) called it for what it is: a stunt to make a point. Pence was in Las Vegas, visiting families and victims of the shooting. He flew to Indianapolis for the game -- knowing the players would kneel and he would have to walk out -- and then he got back on his plane to fly to California.
So how was this not a political stunt -- and an expensive one at that, given the high cost for Air Force Two to fly from Las Vegas to Indianapolis and then back to California, instead of simply going from Las Vegas to California.
Ralph
[based in part on Igor Bobic's article on HuffPost]
Pence attended the Sunday game between the Indianapolis Colts and the San Francisco 49ers. As the national anthem began, several of the players silently and quietly knelt. Pence and his entourage walked out.
And shortly afterward Pence tweeted:
"I left today's Colts game because @POTUS and I will not dignify any event that disrespects our soldiers, our Flag, or our National Anthem."
Let's clarify the history here, because Trump and his enabler Pence have distorted the whole thing -- and it can only be for political purposes -- and therefore shameful and unpresidential.
Last season, the 49ths' Colin Kaepernick began an act of protest by kneeling during the pregame National Anthem and flag-raising. What Kaepernick was protesting, as he so clearly stated publicly in the media, was police brutality and racial injustice towards black Americans.
There was no uncertainty, no ambiguity in his message. It was loud and clear. President Trump may not have been the first to distort the protest, but he quickly picked it up and amplified it with his twitter and TV fake news, claiming that he was showing disrespect for our flag -- and later he expanded it to include the false claim that it was disrespect for our brave military.
The kneeling protest spread to other players, who either were kneeling in support of Kaepernick or for the same cause. This season it has expanded to not only players but to managers and many players who lock arms in solidarity.
Since when is kneeling a sign of disrespect, anyway? It is traditionally the very opposite: one kneels before a king or in prayer.
But Trump saw it as a way to help shore up his poll numbers by shaking the "patriotism" tambourine. He even tweeted insults, calling the players "sons of bitches." Trump upped the ante by asking Pence, in advance, to leave the game if any players knelt.
They did, and Pence walked out -- and sent the requisite tweet with the fake news that they were disrespecting "our soldiers, our flag, or our national anthem."
Wrong. It started as a protest of police brutality and racial injustice. That's what the protester said. Why does he not have ownership of what his protest was about? What right does the president have to say it's really something else? And then, I believe, the kneeling and locked-arms solidarity have now turned into a protest of Trump himself and of his distorting and politicizing the protest, thereby repeating the brutality and injustice.
Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) called it for what it is: a stunt to make a point. Pence was in Las Vegas, visiting families and victims of the shooting. He flew to Indianapolis for the game -- knowing the players would kneel and he would have to walk out -- and then he got back on his plane to fly to California.
So how was this not a political stunt -- and an expensive one at that, given the high cost for Air Force Two to fly from Las Vegas to Indianapolis and then back to California, instead of simply going from Las Vegas to California.
Ralph
[based in part on Igor Bobic's article on HuffPost]
Sunday, October 8, 2017
Odds and ends
1. There are about a million football players in high schools in the United States. Contact sports, including football, cause about 300,000 injuries, according to an article in the New York Times.
2. Every day, about seven and a half million commuters use the sprawling train network in Mumbai, India and its surrounding suburbs. Nearly 3,000 people die on the network every year. In a recent stampede on a narrow overpass bridge at a Mumbai station, at least 22 people died from suffocation or from being crushed to death, while at least 36 others were injured. (NYT)
3. Three scientists shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology for their work leading to the discovery and understanding of this fact:
Without going into too much technical detail, this depends on genes that encode a protein that accumulates in cells at night and then degrades during the day. This system also is responsive to light, which can also influence the 24 hour cycle.
This helps explain how jet lag works, because there is a misalignment between the person's lifestyle and the rhythm dictated by an inner timekeeper. Over time such a misalignment could contribute to risks for various diseases, according to the New York Times article about the prize.
Their work was done in fruit flies, and they had not expected to find that their discovery would include such a mechanism that operates in all living organisms. I'm still a little unclear about the significance, given that people who work on changing shifts do adjust over time to a changing wake-sleep pattern. But apparently it's seen as a major contribution to understanding something basic about our physiology. So, congratulations to the discoverers.
Ralph
2. Every day, about seven and a half million commuters use the sprawling train network in Mumbai, India and its surrounding suburbs. Nearly 3,000 people die on the network every year. In a recent stampede on a narrow overpass bridge at a Mumbai station, at least 22 people died from suffocation or from being crushed to death, while at least 36 others were injured. (NYT)
3. Three scientists shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology for their work leading to the discovery and understanding of this fact:
"All organisms, including humans, operate on 24-hour rhythms that control not only sleep and wakefulness but also physiology generally, including blood pressure and heart rate, alertness, body temperature and reaction time."Jeffrey C. Hall, Michael Rosbash, and Michael W. Young shared the prize. "Their work allowed them to 'peek inside our biological clock' and helps explain how plants, animals and humans adapt their biological rhythm so that it is synchronized with the Earth's revolution," the Nobel Committee said.
Without going into too much technical detail, this depends on genes that encode a protein that accumulates in cells at night and then degrades during the day. This system also is responsive to light, which can also influence the 24 hour cycle.
This helps explain how jet lag works, because there is a misalignment between the person's lifestyle and the rhythm dictated by an inner timekeeper. Over time such a misalignment could contribute to risks for various diseases, according to the New York Times article about the prize.
Their work was done in fruit flies, and they had not expected to find that their discovery would include such a mechanism that operates in all living organisms. I'm still a little unclear about the significance, given that people who work on changing shifts do adjust over time to a changing wake-sleep pattern. But apparently it's seen as a major contribution to understanding something basic about our physiology. So, congratulations to the discoverers.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
