New Alabama senator fulfills promise of diversity: African-American Chief of Staff . . . . and more

Doug Jones, the Democrat who defeated Roy Moore for senator from Alabama with major turn-out support from African-Americans, has kept his promise of having an office staff that will "reflect the state of Alabama."

Jones announced the appointment of an African-American man as his chief of staff.  Dana Gresham, an Alabama native, has extensive Washington experience, having been chief of staff to former Alabama congressman Arthur Davis.  He later served as assistant secretary for governmental affairs in the Department of Transportation.

What a different view of Alabama Sen. Jones will bring to Washington than his opponent would have brought.

================

And then there's this:

                                photo by Alex Wong, Getty Images

The young man standing next to Doug Jones at his Senate swearing-in is his son Carson, who is openly gay.  A zookeeper in Colorado, he has already made quite a splash in the gay-friendly news media for his good looks.

The irony here is that his father not only had to defeat a notorious homophobe in the odious Roy Moore, but he was given the oath of office by another one, Vice President Mike Pence, who as governor of Indiana stated his strong opposition to same-sex marriage.  He made the whopper mistake of signing an anti-LGBTQ bill that had a massive backlash from business and convention circles in Indianapolis.   The legislature quickly passed revised legislation and Pence signed that.

So Doug Jones begins his Senate career, having defeated a racist and homophobic opponent and having overcome the conservative political climate in Alabama.   Now let's see what he can do to raise the consciousness of the Vice President.

I can't refrain from adding this:    Carson, by all accounts, is a productive good citizen, well-liked and successful.  That's Doug Jones' son.   The pious Moores also have a son, who has been arrested nine times, including on drug charges and other crimes.   I'm just saying . . . .

Ralph

Moore's "Jew lawyer" supported Jones

Remember in the closing days of the Roy Moore campaign for senator from Alabama, when Moore's wife spoke at a rally to counter charges that she and her husband were anti-Semitic?    Her infamous, intended coup de grace:  "We have very close friends that are Jewish. . . .  One of our lawyers [pausing to lean in to the microphone] is a JEW!!!"

It seems that Ms. Moore was probably referring to Birmingham attorney Richard Jaffe, who represented the Moore's son in a 2016 case involving drug charges.

In an interview with the Washington Examiner, Jaffe said that he has been friends with Doug Moore for over 30 years, and "there could not be a more passionate supporter of Doug than me."   Jones also said that he has both raised and donated money to Jones' campaign.

So Ms. Moore may be correct in the fact that "one of our lawyers" is Jewish;  but her hints of a greater affinity with Mr. Jaffe now ring as hollow as did Roy Moore's whole campaign.

Thank you, voters of Alabama, for making a wise decision in your choice of senator.

Ralph

UPDATE:  Last night, after I had already set this to post, I saw an update on MSNBC that I must share.    After attorney Jaffe revealed his support for Doug Jones, the Moores had a comeback.   Oh, no.   Jaffe was not the "Jew lawyer" Ms. Moore meant.  It's Martin Wishnatsky.   The only "problem" here is that Wishnatsky told reporters that, yes, he was raised as a Jew, had a Bar Mitzvah, etc.;  but that he had since converted to Christianity.   He's now an Evangelical Protestant.

Ah, so.   The Moores just can't seem to get a break.   You can't count on your Jew lawyers to stay Jews, it seems.  What a farce.   That's what happens when you try to cover up something;  you just make it worse.

Trump dissolves voter fraud commission

In what has to be considered a victory for those who care about voting rights, President Trump has disbanded the infamous voter fraud commission that he established last May, ostensibly to expose the "millions of illegal voters" he claimed had cost him the popular vote.

Co-chaired by the notorious "voter fraud zealot," Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the group immediately sparked controversy when many of the states refused to share data from voter lists because of privacy rights and concern for how the data might be misused.   Several lawsuits were filed against the commission, one by a Democratic member of the commission himself.

The White House said it was disbanding so as to avoid having to spend time and  taxpayer money on all the lawsuits that have followed against the commission.  I'd suggest the real reason is that voting rights organizations were on to their game -- trying to find a few irregularities in voting to use to justify stricter voter registration and voter ID laws that suppress the vote in minority communities.

The job will now be passed on to the Department of Homeland Security (Kobach claims he will still head it), which dashes my hope that it would just get buried and forgotten.

What we need is congressional attention to voting rights and judicial attention to systemic violations and suppression, not trying to find the virtually non-existent case of actual voter impersonation.  Everybody needs to pause and consider:   What are we seeking here?   If it is not the fair and unfettered right for all eligible citizens  to vote, then it should be abandoned.

Ralph           

Inside the Trump White House -- tell-all book about to be published

The Guardian has obtained an advance copy of Michael Wolff''s  Fire and Fury:  Inside the Trump White House.  As reported by David Smith, it's a doozy.

The book's author, Michael Wolff, is a "prominent media critic" and biographer of Rupert Murdoch, who had previously done interviews for the Hollywood Reporter with both Donald Trump and Steve Bannon.   To research the book, Wolff -- as characterized by an NPR commenter -- "practically took up residence in the White House for a year -- where he did more than 200 interviews "with the president, his inner circle and players in and around the administration."   Smith further comments that Wolff "lifts the lid on a White House lurching from crisis to crisis amid internecine warfare, with even some of Trump's closest allies expressing contempt for him."

Bannon's opinions stand out  -- at least in Smith's report -- to the point it almost seems like a hit job commissioned by Bannon.  But for what it's worth, here are some of Smith's choices to comment on in his review.

"Steve Bannon has described the Trump Tower meeting between the president’s son and a group of Russians during the 2016 election campaign as 'treasonous' and 'unpatriotic' . . . . warned that the investigation into alleged collusion with the Kremlin will focus on money laundering and predicted: 'They’re going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV' . . . .  Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic . . . and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”

Bannon went on to crtiticize Trump's decision to fire Comey and suggests "White House hopes for a quick end to the Mueller investigation are gravely misplaced. . . .  You realise where this is going, . . .  This is all about money laundering.  Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to f--ing Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner . . .  It’s as plain as a hair on your face."

Bannon "insists that he knows no Russians, will not be a witness, will not hire a lawyer and will not appear on national television answering questions."   Although selections chosen to be highlighted in this report by Smith seem to focus mainly on Steve Bannon's opinions, the book -- to be published next week -- does not spare Donald Trump.  Wolff writes that "Thomas Barrack, Jr., a billionaire who is one of the president's oldest associates, allegedly told a friend [about Trump]:  'He's not only crazy, he's stupid.'"

I acknowledge that Smith's take on the book seems like selective sniping from a particular point of view, rather than a balanced view of what may be the real truth of an embattled administration.    But The Guardian is too serious a journalistic enterprise to publish a totally biased hit piece.  So I'll reserve judgment.

Bannon may actually be describing the situation as it is, which begs the question:   Why would he want to have a part in this?    The answer may very well be that Bannon has his own agenda to try to change the world and thought that Donald Trump could be useful to him.   That fits with the impression Bannon always put forth, that it was really he who was the mastermind.  Now it seems that there was more baggage there than even Steve Bannon anticipated or could handle.

Whatever . . . I suspect that the guilty pleasure of reading about troubles in Trumpdom is going to be an irresistible read.

Ralph

PS:   Although The Guardian report of the book did not mention this Bannon claim, it is the most sensational one being trumpeted by other media outlets.   Bannon makes the unsubstantiated claim that, in his opinion, "The chance that Don Jr. did not walk these [Russians] up to his father's office of the 26th floor is zero," ("Fire and Fury." p. 255).   This is quoted in a tweet from NBC reporter Peter Alexander.

PPS, Later in the day:  This is getting full play in the media.   Apparently there is a book excerpt in New York magazine, and Trump has issued a fiery rebuttal, saying that when Bannon left his job at the White House, he lost his mind.  Trump also denies that Bannon had anything to do with his winning the election;  he also blames him for Roy Moore's loss in Alabama.   And . . . and . . . 

What do I think?   If anyone, other than Trump, has the ability to destroy Trump with the base that elected him, it's Steve Bannon.   And he has the Breitbart platform and the Mercer money.   And Bannon probably knows way too much for comfort.   Trump has reason to worry.

PPPS:   Maybe not, re the Mercer money.  A late report said that Rebekah Mercer, the daughter who actually owns a good stake in Breitbart News has threatened to cut off her support because of Bannon's tell-all about Trump.

Israel solidifies control of Jerusalem

As reported by Reuters, the Israeli Parliament passed an amendment that will make it harder to cede control over any part of Jerusalem in a possible peace deal with Palestine.   This comes on the heels of President Trump's acknowledgement of the city of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, with no mention of Palestine's interest and claim to East Jerusalem as its capital.

What the Israeli Parliament did was to raise the number of votes required to hand over any part of the city to "a foreign party" from 61 to 80 -- in a body of 120 members.

The fact is that Muslims, Jews, and Christians all three have claim to holy sites of their respective religions in Jerusalem, making it one of the most sensitive issues in the long-standing conflict over who claims the city.   It has long been anticipated that a two-state negotiated settlement between Israel and Palestine would give East Jerusalem to Palestinian control and West Jerusalem to Israeli control.

Trump's action, first, rules out the U.S. as a peace broker in any future talks.  Second, it raises serious questions whether those talks can resume under any broker, at least any time soon.

A spokesman for the Palestinian president said that the acts by Trump and the Parliament are "a declaration of war against the Palestinian people.   The vote clearly shows that the Israeli side has officially declared an end to the so-called political process."

Israel itself is divided on this move.   Although claims to the land have ancient history, in more recent years Israel captured East Jerusalem in the 1967 war and has claimed it ever since.  But Palestinians consider that it rightfully belongs to them.  The amendment passed with only 64 votes, just three more than necessary for a simple majority.   It had been pushed by the Jewish Home party, whose goal is that Israel will "keep control of all of Jerusalem forever."

However, a leader of the Israeli opposition, Isaac Herzog, said that Jewish Home was leading Israel "toward a terrible disaster."   And, in truth, Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party unanimously urged legislators to pass a resolution to effectively annex Israeli settlements built in the West Bank, which would be another severe blow to the Palestinians.

Netanyahu, himself facing criminal charges of corruption, may be trying to build political support by bolstering favor with the right-wing with this move.

It's a tragic mess -- a sad mixture of religious fervor and politics.   Jared Kushner obviously hasn't been able to "bring peace to the Middle East," as was promised.   And his father-in-law certainly has not helped in that process with his declaration about Jerusalem and his open support for Netanyahu and his increasingly rightward (anti-Palestinian) tilt.

Ralph

U.N. chief puts the world on "red alert;'" Kim "open to dialogue" . . . And Trump???

For his end of the year message to the world, the United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres had grim warnings:

"When I took office a year ago, I appealed for 2017 to be a year for peace.   Unfortunately, in fundamental ways, the world has gone in reverse. . . . Global anxieties over nuclear weapons are the highest since the Cold War, and climate change is moving faster than we are.  Inequalities are growing, and we see horrific violations of human rights.  Nationalism and xenophobia are on the rise."

In facing these challenges, Guterres said he was "not issuing an appeal" but a "red alert for our world."   Only by international unity and cooperation, he said, could we solve these many crises.

As further reported by HuffPost's Dominique Mosbergen, Guterres continued:
"I truly believe we can make our world more safe and secure.  We can settle conflicts, overcome hatred and defend shared values but we can only do that together.  I urge leaders everywhere to make this New Year's resolution:  Narrow the gaps.  Bridge the divides.  Rebuild trust by bringing people together around common goals.  Unity is the path.  Our future depends on it."

Hours after Guterres' speech, North Korea's Kim Jong Un gave his New Year's speech, in which he spoke of his nuclear capability:

"The entire United States is within range of our nucleasr weapons, and a nuclear button is always on my desk.   This is reality, not a threat," he said, adding that he was "open to dialogue" with South Korea and emphasizing that "these weapons will be used only if our security is threatened."

Of course, we don't know what is going on in back channels, but it does seem that Kim has put the ball in Trump's court.   It's up to him to stop the war rhetoric and move forward with diplomacy, which must abandon, I believe, Trump's belligerent demand that North Korea must give up its nuclear weapons before we will even sit down at the table to begin talks.

Kim is never going to do that voluntarily.  He has proved before that he will let his people starve before giving in to the West's demand to give up what he considers essential to his nation's survival.   He -- and the regime before him -- have so trained the people to accept their leader unquestioningly that it's unlikely they would rebel.

A major factor in Kim's motive is to be accepted and respected among world leaders.  He now has what he thinks is his ticket into that club -- nuclear weapons which can threaten the United States -- giving him and his country some greater sense of security.   I personally do not see the harm in beginning to talk -- now, without the precondition that he give those up, just as Sec. of State Tillerson recently suggested, before his boss contradicted him and forced him to adopt stronger language.

Trump needs to learn that this is not a real estate deal.  It involves millions of lives, untold costs in property and progress.  Let's take the path of peace.

But Guterres' message was not only about nuclear weapons and North Korea.  He included other global dangers:   climate change, growing inequalities, horrific human rights violations, and the effects of increasing nationalism and xenophobia.   The U.S. used to lead the world in addressing these issues.   Under Trump, have we abandoned that leadership?  I'm afraid the answer is yes.

Donald Trump was too busy with his lavish party at Mar-a-Lago for a serious response to the messages from Guteres and Kim Jong Un.  Perhaps his offhand "We'll see," to reporters' questions, was better than anything else he might have said."     So . . . "we'll see," which gives advisers some time to try to calm, contain, and shape his response.

I hope at least some of his advisers are floating to Trump the idea that coming to an agreement on containing North Korea's nuclear program -- rather than a military showdown -- might bring him personally more honor than belligerent rhetoric that sounds tough, but can really go nowhere, except unthinkable war.

A president Trump, peacefully bringing North Korea into the circle of nuclear powers, with all the obligatory inspections and controls?  Now that could make history in a good way.   It could even appeal enough to his narcissism that, if handled right, might enlist his cooperation.

Ralph

Governing by chaos and confusion

Happy New Year! fellow American citizens.

New York Times reporter Matt Flegenheimer writes about the news cycle being "accelerated to Trump speed" and the problem that brings both for news organizations as well as governing officials.  One ordinarily huge news story is promptly shoved off stage by the next.   It's almost impossible for observers to keep track, as major events -- tragic and otherwise -- whiz by.   Flegenheimer writes:

"One year out, this may be Mr. Trump's greatest trick:  His torrent of news-making has scrambled American's grasp of time and memory, producing a sort of sensory overload that can make even seismic events -- of his creation or otherwise -- disappear from the collective consciousness and public view."

Revered veteran journalist Tom Brokow said:  "Las Vegas and the church in Texas have fallen off the map -- two of the most heinous mass murders in recent American history. . .  It's astonishing.  It should be one of the defining stories not just of the year but of our time."

And yet, when you first read "Las Vegas and the church in Texas," did it take a moment to orient yourself to -- 'oh, yes, the mass shootings?'  It did me.  One can easily name dozens of what would, in the past, have been stories that stick in the mind.   Think of Trump's feuds with Gold Star families just over a year ago.   Seems like ancient history, doesn't it?   What about Trump's bad behavior at his first summit with European leaders?  And his feud with the (woman) mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico over insufficient hurricane relief efforts.   Still, a million American citizens are without electric power there, months later.   Who's thinking about that? -- outside Puerto Rico, of course.

This is not to blame Trump for everything that happens.   But his style of commanding that the spotlight be on him -- and his talent for doing something to ensure that it comes back to him, no matter what -- are disorienting to our collective daily agenda.

Flegenheimer suggests that this "has had far-reaching effects, shaping not only Mr. Trump's public image but also the ways in which lawmakers, journalists and others in his ecosystem are compelled to operate.

"It is not exactly that 'nothing matters', to borrow social media's favorite nihilistic buzz phrase of the Trump age.

"It is that nothing matters long enough to matter."

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy (CN) says that he sees his task, under Trump's presidency, as a "triage" mission, "newly overwhelming" every day.   He adds that it makes it harder to focus attention, when there "doesn't seem that there's much more than 24 hours' room for any story."

Many people are hoping that closing this first year will give us a chance to take a deep breath, get our bearings, and begin 2018 on a new footing -- less distracted and more adapted to the "Trump speed" news cycle.    Forget it, says Matt Negrin, a producer at The Daily Show.  "2018 is going to be 10 times worse."

And he may be right.   It's my sense that, as the pressure on Trump increases from the Mueller investigation -- and it will -- that his response will be even more chaos, more confusion.   Our hope can only be that it doesn't lead to more impulsive action.

Happy New Year!

Ralph

500 wealthiest people collectively gained another $1 trillion in 2017

According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, the rich are getting  much, much richer -- even before the tax cuts.

The Index reported that the world's 500 wealthiest people -- with Amazon's Jeff Bezos at the top of the list -- added over four times as much wealth as they gained last year.   Bezos himself ended up with $34.2 billion more, increasing his total to $100 billion net worth.

The collective wealth of the 500 on the Bloomberg Index is more than the gross domestic product of Japan or of Germany or of France and the U.K. combined.  Experts are predicting that 2018 will be even better for super-rich folks:  a real “boom time for billionaires," with individual wealth reaching an all time high.

These are the people who really really needed those tax cuts, huh?

Ralph

About that Trump interview with the NYT

It was rare for a reporter, like Michael Schmidt of the New York Times, to snag a 30 minute, sit-down interview with President Trump.   So it was certainly worth taking.

But here's the thing about any interview with our truth-challenged president.  You have to sort out what to believe and how to take the obvious falsehoods.   We know that a lot of Trump's lies simply stem from his narcissistic need to be seen as the best, to be most admired, to have the most accomplishments.

But Ezra Klein (Vox.com) suggests that at times its hard to tell whether Trump is lying or delusional.  Klein adds:   "The president of the United States is not well.   That is an uncomfortable thing to say, but it is an even worse thing to ignore."

For the moment, let's take the lying in the Times interview as just that:  lying.  Let's save for later the speculation about what it means:   political tactic?  not knowing fact from fiction?  breakdown in cognitive function?

Lying as a political tactic is getting a little old, isn't it?    The Washington Post has counted 24 false or misleading claims that Trump made in that 30 minute interview.   They range from Trump's claim that "It's been proven that there is no collusion," misquoting Sen. Diane Feinstein as having said "there is no collusion" with Russia.   In fact, Feinstein was responding to Jake Tapper's question on CNN as to whether she had "seen any evidence that this dirt [on Clinton] were ever given to the Trump campaign."    Her answer:  "Not yet."

Trump transforms "not yet" into:   'It's been proven that there is no collusion.'

Another false claim:  "I'm the one that saved coal.  I'm the one that created jobs.  You know West Virginia is doing fantastically now."   But, as the Post correctly states:  WV's increased domestic product is due to increased prices of both coal and natural gas, which fluctuate with the global markets -- and over which the president has virtually no control.   Fact checkers had previously given this lie a "Four Pinocchios" rating, but he keeps on saying it.

He also claims that, in the Alabama Republican primary, his endorsement brought Luther Strange's support "up 20 points."  Not true;   in fact, it made little difference.  Strange lost to Roy Moore by a margin  that was greater than the polls had suggested at the time of Trump's endorsement.

Another lie in the interview is Trump's claim that the "witch hunt" for collusion with Russia has strengthened his base.   That is factually untrue.   He has lost support -- and the decline is the steepest in the states that voted most strongly to elect him.  If that's not his base, what is?

A basic question is:   Does Trump know that he is lying?   Or does he actually believe what he is saying?    He has the capacity to select and distort a sentence to change the whole meaning of a paragraph.   But does he then believe that distortion?   Maybe.   Or maybe even he doesn't know. 

Ezra Klein, however, is raising a more serious question.  Is this a character flaw?   Or cognitive dysfunction?   Or . . ?  One of my colleagues, famous for his pithy explanations of complex mental functions, used to say that a hallmark of psychosis is the unshakable belief that your own thoughts are true.   [Note:  this was years ago, the colleague is no longer living, and this was not said in reference to Donald Trump.]

Trump may not dwell full time in that swamp, but he has a tendency to create his own reality -- and then to cling tenaciously to easily disproved facts.   The list grows longer with each new day.

My point, for now, is that Donald J. Trump is not fit to serve as president, regardless of what word we use to describe the status of his mental functioning. 

Ralph