I've never sat in a court room to hear a case tried, but on TV there is frequently a moment like this: A man is accused of murder, and the prosecution has video of the guy slicing through his victim's neck with a chain saw. The defense argues the tape can't be shown to the jury because it's prejudicial.
In other words, it makes the defendant look too guilty.
And often as not, the judge kicks the tape out: The prosecution's best evidence is lost before the trial even begins—for dramatic effect, of course.
But that's show biz. I don't know how stuff like this goes down in real life.
On a related note, I read where Newt Gingrich predicts a big surprise in the coming elections: Republicans handing the Democrats massive defeats. Perhaps because the opposition has gotten too jaded by Trump's low approval ratings.
In my last post I speculated whether or not the President is aware he lies as much as he does, wondering if he's too stupid to be in high office, or—if unaware he's lying—a full-on (and dangerous) case of loony-tunes.
Inspired by Gingrich's forecast, it occurred to me there is a third, and very troubling, possibility:
Trump may be lying on purpose—lying outrageously, in fact—just to draw fire from the media. Bizarre? Consider how like catnip to them his lies have become.
Trump speaks, and network fact-checkers go into overdrive to deconstruct his statement. Trump's spokeswoman rewrites his words so she can offer an explanation. Trump declares the media packed with fake news, and the cycle repeats.
Sure, it makes Trump look bad (to late night comics, at least) but what if it's not all good news for Trump's critics?
Check it out:
Their databases bursting with massively redundant proof of Trump's lack of presidential ability, might not the Democrats get overconfident—like they were after the Billy Bush Weekend, when Trump seemed caught in an unexpected (and clearly fatal) trap of his own making.
(Rather like a video tape of murder by chain saw.)
And yet it made no difference: Trump chewed off his leg, grew another one, and loped to a stunning victory.
Here's what that new leg might look like next time:
As future elections loom, the electorate could become overwhelmed by a sense that Trump is being hounded by the press, harried and chewed up, attacked unmercifully, day after day. Clobbered so relentlessly, in fact, the man might begin to resemble a pitiable underdog, unfairly bullied by over-paid Libtard cynics.
In short, an American President in urgent need of rescue.
Undoubtedly this scenario would energize Trump's base (not that they'd need it).
But might it not also elicit a sympathetic response from others, a response big enough to keep the poor man in office?
(In a recent interview with the [failing] New York Times, Trump suggested media outlets are desperate to see him re-elected in 2020, just to maintain their ratings.)
Okay, I get that this lying-on-purpose scenario is far fetched. It's a con game of Machiavellian subtlety and scope. The big question: Does Trump possess that sort of talent?
Beats me, but if it turns out he does, maybe he should be president for life, the way some of his followers would like to see it.
Friday, December 29, 2017
Wednesday, December 27, 2017
THREE OUT OF FOUR
In an earlier post I mentioned that if President Trump wants us to believe he's going to be savaged by the new tax bill, he needs to whip out his returns and let us have a look.
Because his position seems suspect on the face of it. The legislation was called the "Tax Cut and Jobs" bill, and the "jobs" part of that meant rich folks and corporations were to be rewarded with huge tax cuts so they could use the money to build factories in this country and put American citizens to work.
Since the tax cuts were based on a percentage of income, only the wealthiest would be expected to break ground on new installations, which was why they got the biggest share.
All along we've been hearing from Trump how rich he is. Billions and billions, he says. So it simply made no sense for him to suggest a rich guy like him wouldn't benefit from the new bill. And in an online search, I found most sources agreeing with my assessment. Trump and his family will benefit bigly.
In the process of tooling around the Internet, I came across a site called PolitiFact, folks who rate Trump on his honesty. They list 482 claims made by Trump, going back to April 2011.
(I think you know where this is headed.)
PolitiFact assigned each statement to one of six categories: True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False, False, and Pants on Fire.
Giving Trump the benefit of half the items in the Half True category, the man scored in the Honest Zone 23.4% of the time. Less than one fourth.
Some time before his resignation, Richard Nixon went on TV to say (famously): The American people want to know if their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook.
(He was.)
I don't recall Trump being pressed to make a similar statement, though his catch phrase ("Believe me!") peppers his public pronouncements. And his ability to deny he said some of the sillier things he in fact did say (on tape or on camera or on Twitter) is legendary and no doubt an inspiration to fellow politicians.
("Deny, deny, deny!" is the slogan of their profession.)
Still, three out of four statements in the Crap Zone may be some sort of record.
Should a guy who knowingly lies that often be president? Or if a guy is unaware he lies that often, is he mentally well enough to be president?
Remember, Trump never says anything that isn't designed to help his cause, to make himself look good or some other guy look bad. His lies have a cynical purpose, and often they divide the country along political lines.
Or religious ones.
Currently the man is obsessed with repeating his new pledge: This is again a country where folks say "Merry Christmas." No more Happy Holidays or crap like that. No more namby-pamby political correctness.
And if non-Christians don't like it, they can hit the bricks.
Is that some sort of challenge? Yeah, it probably is. Trump clearly wants no more Muslims coming to this country. And the next step will be to rid ourselves of the ones who are already here. Maybe it starts with making them feel unwelcome.
America First, and America for Americans!
Trump wants to be the one to decide who can be called American.
After which he can deny he ever said it.
Because his position seems suspect on the face of it. The legislation was called the "Tax Cut and Jobs" bill, and the "jobs" part of that meant rich folks and corporations were to be rewarded with huge tax cuts so they could use the money to build factories in this country and put American citizens to work.
Since the tax cuts were based on a percentage of income, only the wealthiest would be expected to break ground on new installations, which was why they got the biggest share.
All along we've been hearing from Trump how rich he is. Billions and billions, he says. So it simply made no sense for him to suggest a rich guy like him wouldn't benefit from the new bill. And in an online search, I found most sources agreeing with my assessment. Trump and his family will benefit bigly.
In the process of tooling around the Internet, I came across a site called PolitiFact, folks who rate Trump on his honesty. They list 482 claims made by Trump, going back to April 2011.
(I think you know where this is headed.)
PolitiFact assigned each statement to one of six categories: True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False, False, and Pants on Fire.
Giving Trump the benefit of half the items in the Half True category, the man scored in the Honest Zone 23.4% of the time. Less than one fourth.
Some time before his resignation, Richard Nixon went on TV to say (famously): The American people want to know if their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook.
(He was.)
I don't recall Trump being pressed to make a similar statement, though his catch phrase ("Believe me!") peppers his public pronouncements. And his ability to deny he said some of the sillier things he in fact did say (on tape or on camera or on Twitter) is legendary and no doubt an inspiration to fellow politicians.
("Deny, deny, deny!" is the slogan of their profession.)
Still, three out of four statements in the Crap Zone may be some sort of record.
Should a guy who knowingly lies that often be president? Or if a guy is unaware he lies that often, is he mentally well enough to be president?
Remember, Trump never says anything that isn't designed to help his cause, to make himself look good or some other guy look bad. His lies have a cynical purpose, and often they divide the country along political lines.
Or religious ones.
Currently the man is obsessed with repeating his new pledge: This is again a country where folks say "Merry Christmas." No more Happy Holidays or crap like that. No more namby-pamby political correctness.
And if non-Christians don't like it, they can hit the bricks.
Is that some sort of challenge? Yeah, it probably is. Trump clearly wants no more Muslims coming to this country. And the next step will be to rid ourselves of the ones who are already here. Maybe it starts with making them feel unwelcome.
America First, and America for Americans!
Trump wants to be the one to decide who can be called American.
After which he can deny he ever said it.
Wednesday, December 20, 2017
CHUGGING ALONG
The other day President Trump made the point to news folk haunting the White House that Special Counsel Mueller's investigation had proven there was no collusion between the Russians and...well, anybody. In fact, sources have suggested Trump expects a letter from Mueller in the next few weeks informing him the investigation is over and no collusion was found.
While he's waiting for that wonderful letter, Trump would do well to ponder his error in logic: A lack of proof (so far) is not the same thing as proof the item doesn't exist.
If a secret is well hidden—or not energetically searched for—it might remain undiscovered indefinitely. One good reason for that: The more damaging a secret is, the deeper you might expect it to be buried.
And in this case, the Russia Thing is not just the Russia Thing.
Mueller is also looking into obstruction of justice (for firing Comey), the unreported financial dealings of Trump and his Rat Pack, and any other improprieties, no doubt to include folks profiting from the presidency both directly and indirectly—not to mention the inevitable cover-ups.
It's all nothing but a witch hunt dancing 'round a festering kernel of fake news, Trump has stated (more or less). Absolutely nothing to any of it, he says. A full-on hoax foisted on the country by the America-hating Democrats!
Problem is, that's hard to believe, given some of the charges already handed out, and the guilty pleas tendered. I doubt we've seen the end of this stuff, considering guilty pleas usually include cooperating with the investigation, which should provide new leads.
Still, Trump is nothing if not confident he and (most) of his boys will come out of this untouched—or at least not badly mauled. Remember, it's his habit to declare victory after every contest. Winning!
Record gains in the stock market are seen by Trump (and his pal Putin) as entirely the result of the president's economic policies. Winning!
Sure, Roy Moore lost the US Senate race in Alabama (though Moore himself seems not to be convinced), but remember, Trump started out backing a different Republican (who lost the primary), so his first choice for senator didn't lose the special election. That's almost like winning!
And Trump will now finally get to sign a bill out of congress before Christmas. If Americans are against tax cuts for the wealthy nearly two to one, so what? Count it!
A side note: After passage of the bill, congressional Republicans heaped extravagant praise on Trump, saying they couldn't have done it without his magnificent leadership. Makes me wonder if this is a trap. When the middle class gets a good long look at what this bill does to them—and what it does for rich folks like Trump—will they turn on the President, crying for vengeance? Could Republican congress-critters fuel their mid-term campaigns on this rage? I can almost hear their screams: "He lied to us!"
I guess we'll see.
Trump has said this bill will be bad for him, financially. "Believe me," he said (which is his way of sealing the deal). Okay, sir, there's a good way to prove you're not lying your dick off: Release your tax returns!
Let independent auditors have at them, see whether or not Trump will make off like a bandit or slink off to the poor house.
Meanwhile, Trump strides the world like a colossus. I'm sure he thinks his 32% approval rating is a misprint of some sort. Or more fake news.
It may seem his grip on reality is slippery, but it got him this far, didn't it?
In a results-oriented world, it doesn't matter that much what you think—or how you form your thoughts in a genetically-defective brain—we humans just keep chugging along. Declaring victory whether or not events warrant.
Hey, it's a way of life.
While he's waiting for that wonderful letter, Trump would do well to ponder his error in logic: A lack of proof (so far) is not the same thing as proof the item doesn't exist.
If a secret is well hidden—or not energetically searched for—it might remain undiscovered indefinitely. One good reason for that: The more damaging a secret is, the deeper you might expect it to be buried.
And in this case, the Russia Thing is not just the Russia Thing.
Mueller is also looking into obstruction of justice (for firing Comey), the unreported financial dealings of Trump and his Rat Pack, and any other improprieties, no doubt to include folks profiting from the presidency both directly and indirectly—not to mention the inevitable cover-ups.
It's all nothing but a witch hunt dancing 'round a festering kernel of fake news, Trump has stated (more or less). Absolutely nothing to any of it, he says. A full-on hoax foisted on the country by the America-hating Democrats!
Problem is, that's hard to believe, given some of the charges already handed out, and the guilty pleas tendered. I doubt we've seen the end of this stuff, considering guilty pleas usually include cooperating with the investigation, which should provide new leads.
Still, Trump is nothing if not confident he and (most) of his boys will come out of this untouched—or at least not badly mauled. Remember, it's his habit to declare victory after every contest. Winning!
Record gains in the stock market are seen by Trump (and his pal Putin) as entirely the result of the president's economic policies. Winning!
Sure, Roy Moore lost the US Senate race in Alabama (though Moore himself seems not to be convinced), but remember, Trump started out backing a different Republican (who lost the primary), so his first choice for senator didn't lose the special election. That's almost like winning!
And Trump will now finally get to sign a bill out of congress before Christmas. If Americans are against tax cuts for the wealthy nearly two to one, so what? Count it!
A side note: After passage of the bill, congressional Republicans heaped extravagant praise on Trump, saying they couldn't have done it without his magnificent leadership. Makes me wonder if this is a trap. When the middle class gets a good long look at what this bill does to them—and what it does for rich folks like Trump—will they turn on the President, crying for vengeance? Could Republican congress-critters fuel their mid-term campaigns on this rage? I can almost hear their screams: "He lied to us!"
I guess we'll see.
Trump has said this bill will be bad for him, financially. "Believe me," he said (which is his way of sealing the deal). Okay, sir, there's a good way to prove you're not lying your dick off: Release your tax returns!
Let independent auditors have at them, see whether or not Trump will make off like a bandit or slink off to the poor house.
Meanwhile, Trump strides the world like a colossus. I'm sure he thinks his 32% approval rating is a misprint of some sort. Or more fake news.
It may seem his grip on reality is slippery, but it got him this far, didn't it?
In a results-oriented world, it doesn't matter that much what you think—or how you form your thoughts in a genetically-defective brain—we humans just keep chugging along. Declaring victory whether or not events warrant.
Hey, it's a way of life.
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
A THISTLEDOWN RESPONSE
The women who accused Donald Trump of sexual misconduct are back in the news, prompting the White House to issue the following statement: "These false claims, totally disputed in most cases by eyewitness accounts, were addressed at length during last year's campaign, and the American people voiced their judgment by delivering a decisive victory. The timing and absurdity of these claims speaks volumes. And the publicity tour that has begun only further confirms the political motives behind them." [Politico, via Newser]
Let's put on our hazardous duty gloves and unpack this thing.
False claims: This says it all, but it's just their position. Yes, Trump vehemently denied the claims, called the women liars, and promised to sue them after the election. Still waiting for that action.
Disputed by eyewitness accounts: Bud Abbott never sees the candle move, but Lou Costello is the poor bastard paying attention. Witnesses rarely see the really good stuff, but that doesn't mean the good stuff isn't real. Especially when going for the good stuff can get you into trouble. All this means is that Trump is more cautious than you would expect an a-hole like him to be.
Addressed at length: Not really. Trump sounded his one-note denial repeatedly, but "at length" implies a thorough investigation. We certainly didn't get that. Maybe a special counsel is needed.
The American people voiced their judgment: Surely there were other issues on the table during the 2016 election. For all we know, the majority of Trump voters thought him guilty of groping a bunch of women, but just didn't care. (They hated Hillary more.)
Decisive victory: Hardly. "Decisive" suggest an overwhelming victory. Trump didn't even get the most votes cast by the American people. His victory was only "decisive" in the sense it decided who is president today. Trump's approval rating is a lot closer to being decisive in the sense the White House means, but in the other direction.
Timing: The timing of the first disclosure, which came near the end of the campaign, was entirely dictated by the release of the Billy Bush tape. It was in response to Trump's denial. The current timing comes from the "Me Too" movement following revelations about Harvey Weinstein. The timing is likely also related to the Roy Moore accusations, and as I've pointed out before, just because a statement is politically motivated doesn't mean it's false.
Absurdity: Trump possesses both hands and mouth and is capable of acting in the way the women said. He is also presumed to have that magnificent penis to motivate him.
Speaks volumes: A bogus implication that is more about the writer's agenda than about the truth of the statements of others. The timing only "speaks volumes" if the accusations are false.
Political motives: Politics can generate both positive and negative actions, and the judgment of which category a particular event falls into depends on whose bull is being gored. Trump's tax-cut bill is pure "reward the rich for putting me in office" politics, masquerading as a Christmas present for the middle class. As a result, the majority of Americans are against it.
Similarly, the White House statement is a bit of fluff masquerading as an iron-clad, case-closed rebuttal. I wonder if we'll ever get anything more substantial.
Let's put on our hazardous duty gloves and unpack this thing.
False claims: This says it all, but it's just their position. Yes, Trump vehemently denied the claims, called the women liars, and promised to sue them after the election. Still waiting for that action.
Disputed by eyewitness accounts: Bud Abbott never sees the candle move, but Lou Costello is the poor bastard paying attention. Witnesses rarely see the really good stuff, but that doesn't mean the good stuff isn't real. Especially when going for the good stuff can get you into trouble. All this means is that Trump is more cautious than you would expect an a-hole like him to be.
Addressed at length: Not really. Trump sounded his one-note denial repeatedly, but "at length" implies a thorough investigation. We certainly didn't get that. Maybe a special counsel is needed.
The American people voiced their judgment: Surely there were other issues on the table during the 2016 election. For all we know, the majority of Trump voters thought him guilty of groping a bunch of women, but just didn't care. (They hated Hillary more.)
Decisive victory: Hardly. "Decisive" suggest an overwhelming victory. Trump didn't even get the most votes cast by the American people. His victory was only "decisive" in the sense it decided who is president today. Trump's approval rating is a lot closer to being decisive in the sense the White House means, but in the other direction.
Timing: The timing of the first disclosure, which came near the end of the campaign, was entirely dictated by the release of the Billy Bush tape. It was in response to Trump's denial. The current timing comes from the "Me Too" movement following revelations about Harvey Weinstein. The timing is likely also related to the Roy Moore accusations, and as I've pointed out before, just because a statement is politically motivated doesn't mean it's false.
Absurdity: Trump possesses both hands and mouth and is capable of acting in the way the women said. He is also presumed to have that magnificent penis to motivate him.
Speaks volumes: A bogus implication that is more about the writer's agenda than about the truth of the statements of others. The timing only "speaks volumes" if the accusations are false.
Political motives: Politics can generate both positive and negative actions, and the judgment of which category a particular event falls into depends on whose bull is being gored. Trump's tax-cut bill is pure "reward the rich for putting me in office" politics, masquerading as a Christmas present for the middle class. As a result, the majority of Americans are against it.
Similarly, the White House statement is a bit of fluff masquerading as an iron-clad, case-closed rebuttal. I wonder if we'll ever get anything more substantial.
Sunday, December 10, 2017
STATING THE OBVIOUS
In declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel, Donald Trump said he was just acknowledging the obvious—everybody knew this was the case but nobody before him (he implied) had had the courage to say it out loud.
Now the place is erupting in violence—the obvious response of the Palestinians to Trump's words. The President implied we'd have to work through the violence on our way to a new path to peace in the region.
The thing is, stating the obvious is often not the most diplomatic way forward. It's often necessary to ignore the obvious to make any progress.
Sometimes "conventional wisdom" stands in the way. It this case, willful ignorance may be employed. Even actual ignorance will work—as when an entrepreneur forges ahead to success without realizing "everybody says" what he's trying to do is impossible.
Federal Express's hub technique was roundly criticized, but it seems to work.
And sometimes the "obvious" is simply wrong.
In a recent rally, aimed at buoying the campaign of Republican Roy Moore, President Trump attacked one of the candidate's accusers by noting she had modified the note Moore had written in her yearbook.
Trump implied that any change (she had added the date and other identifying information to the note) made the whole thing false—obviously faked. And discrediting one of Moore's accusers obviously discredits them all—otherwise why bother?
Similarly, as many of Moore's defenders have pointed out, it's been nearly 40 years since the alleged events took place. Why haven't any of these women come forward before? The obvious answer is that they're all lying now.
It's like finding a photograph of a little girl standing beside her father and smiling for the camera. This is obvious proof the man was not molesting her during this period.
When the Norfolk Four confessed to raping and murdering a young woman, clearly they were all guilty. So they were convicted. Jurors know it's impossible a man would confess to a crime he didn't commit. Obvious.
But the fact was, every confession had been coerced by the same detective—one after the other—when DNA failed to implicate each confessed rapist, one after the other.
President Trump frequently states there was no collusion with Russia involving him or his people during the 2016 campaign. What makes his position obvious is that there have been no charges of collusion brought by the FBI.
Sometimes the obvious takes a little time to develop.
Now the place is erupting in violence—the obvious response of the Palestinians to Trump's words. The President implied we'd have to work through the violence on our way to a new path to peace in the region.
The thing is, stating the obvious is often not the most diplomatic way forward. It's often necessary to ignore the obvious to make any progress.
Sometimes "conventional wisdom" stands in the way. It this case, willful ignorance may be employed. Even actual ignorance will work—as when an entrepreneur forges ahead to success without realizing "everybody says" what he's trying to do is impossible.
Federal Express's hub technique was roundly criticized, but it seems to work.
And sometimes the "obvious" is simply wrong.
In a recent rally, aimed at buoying the campaign of Republican Roy Moore, President Trump attacked one of the candidate's accusers by noting she had modified the note Moore had written in her yearbook.
Trump implied that any change (she had added the date and other identifying information to the note) made the whole thing false—obviously faked. And discrediting one of Moore's accusers obviously discredits them all—otherwise why bother?
Similarly, as many of Moore's defenders have pointed out, it's been nearly 40 years since the alleged events took place. Why haven't any of these women come forward before? The obvious answer is that they're all lying now.
It's like finding a photograph of a little girl standing beside her father and smiling for the camera. This is obvious proof the man was not molesting her during this period.
When the Norfolk Four confessed to raping and murdering a young woman, clearly they were all guilty. So they were convicted. Jurors know it's impossible a man would confess to a crime he didn't commit. Obvious.
But the fact was, every confession had been coerced by the same detective—one after the other—when DNA failed to implicate each confessed rapist, one after the other.
President Trump frequently states there was no collusion with Russia involving him or his people during the 2016 campaign. What makes his position obvious is that there have been no charges of collusion brought by the FBI.
Sometimes the obvious takes a little time to develop.
Friday, December 1, 2017
TOTALLY
President Trump stood outside the White House defending Republican senatorial candidate Roy Moore, the man accused of molesting young girls when he was in his early thirties. "He denies the allegations," Trump said.
"What's more," Trump added, interrupting a reporter's follow-up, "he totally denies them."
I'm glad he cleared that up, because now it would be impossible for Moore to be guilty of anything. The word "totally" puts that possibility to bed for good.
It's like when O.J. Simpson pleaded to murder charges: "Absolutely, one hundred percent not guilty," which is clearly way better than a simple "not guilty."
(And it worked out fine for him.)
We often feel a need to go out on a limb to make our points. Ordinary language fails to express our emphatic reality.
Like they say in action movies: "This shit just got real!"
(Might've been Bad Boys.)
According to Trump, the new tax-cut bill is going to bite his financial butt hard. "Believe me!" he can't help saying. "Believe me" appears to be a tell he's got for when he lies.
(If you really want to back up your statement, it's simple: Release your taxes!)
Pumping up language is a widespread process used by humans to augment reality. It's like we don't have time to pay attention to words that haven't been properly hyped. The least nudge on a crowded street has to be described as a "vicious attack" or it won't be believed. ("Vicious attack" is another of Trump's favorite phrases.)
Our view of reality is not just slippery, it's encrusted with superlatives.
Which is a problem, because we can't solve the very real problems of the world without being able to see the world with precision. And seeing the world as it is will never be possible as long as we're unable to describe what we see without substituting hyperbole for everyday expression.
If you keep raising the bar, nobody will be able to see the damned thing, let alone get over it.
"What's more," Trump added, interrupting a reporter's follow-up, "he totally denies them."
I'm glad he cleared that up, because now it would be impossible for Moore to be guilty of anything. The word "totally" puts that possibility to bed for good.
It's like when O.J. Simpson pleaded to murder charges: "Absolutely, one hundred percent not guilty," which is clearly way better than a simple "not guilty."
(And it worked out fine for him.)
We often feel a need to go out on a limb to make our points. Ordinary language fails to express our emphatic reality.
Like they say in action movies: "This shit just got real!"
(Might've been Bad Boys.)
According to Trump, the new tax-cut bill is going to bite his financial butt hard. "Believe me!" he can't help saying. "Believe me" appears to be a tell he's got for when he lies.
(If you really want to back up your statement, it's simple: Release your taxes!)
Pumping up language is a widespread process used by humans to augment reality. It's like we don't have time to pay attention to words that haven't been properly hyped. The least nudge on a crowded street has to be described as a "vicious attack" or it won't be believed. ("Vicious attack" is another of Trump's favorite phrases.)
Our view of reality is not just slippery, it's encrusted with superlatives.
Which is a problem, because we can't solve the very real problems of the world without being able to see the world with precision. And seeing the world as it is will never be possible as long as we're unable to describe what we see without substituting hyperbole for everyday expression.
If you keep raising the bar, nobody will be able to see the damned thing, let alone get over it.
Monday, November 20, 2017
AL FRANKEN, PART 2
I recently attempted to come to Senator Franken's aid by pointing out the photograph of him leering at the camera while pretend-grabbing a woman's breasts was clearly meant to be a (stupid, adolescent) joke and that no actual contact was made.
I stand by that assessment.
But now we have a report from a woman who says Franken latched onto her butt for three or four seconds during a photo op at the Minnesota State Fair. Franken says he takes a lot of such photos and doesn't remember this particular one.
He's missing the point. We're not asking him to remember the photograph. We're asking him to address the butt-squeezing aspect of the incident. Perhaps he could say something like: "I never grab people's butts without written permission."
If the "photo with the butt-grab" doesn't ring a bell, I think we can only conclude grabbing butts is so common an activity for the man that in the end it's all a blur.
He says, "I feel badly [she] came away from our interaction feeling disrespected."
The take-home message: When Senator Al Franken grabs your butt he does so with the deepest possible respect.
I stand by that assessment.
But now we have a report from a woman who says Franken latched onto her butt for three or four seconds during a photo op at the Minnesota State Fair. Franken says he takes a lot of such photos and doesn't remember this particular one.
He's missing the point. We're not asking him to remember the photograph. We're asking him to address the butt-squeezing aspect of the incident. Perhaps he could say something like: "I never grab people's butts without written permission."
If the "photo with the butt-grab" doesn't ring a bell, I think we can only conclude grabbing butts is so common an activity for the man that in the end it's all a blur.
He says, "I feel badly [she] came away from our interaction feeling disrespected."
The take-home message: When Senator Al Franken grabs your butt he does so with the deepest possible respect.
Sunday, November 19, 2017
SCHADENFREUDE
Donald Trump whispers an opinion that women accusing Republican senatorial candidate Roy Moore of sexual misconduct are telling the truth. He then Tweet-shouts about Democratic senator Al Franken(stein).
The difference, of course, is obvious.
Trump is gleeful to get a chance to rail against Franken's perceived faults. The man's on the other side, a detractor, a political opponent, a member of the demonic Democratic party, those misguided folks who hate America and desire nothing more than to drive the country into the mire.
It's the infamous photograph!
Franken is seen grinning for the camera, his hands boob-flexed and poised above the flack-jacket of a sleeping woman. Trump demands to see the rest of the photographs. Does he seriously think there are more pix of this pretended sleep assault?
I think his schadenfreude-powered mind has become greedy.
Either that or he's projecting what he would have done, what he may well have done in the past, in his encounters with women of lesser power.
Like Trump, Roy Moore repeatedly denies these accusations. He points out it can't be a coincidence all this stuff is coming out just before the election. He concludes it's politically motivated.
Of course part of it is politically motivated, but that doesn't mean it's not true.
Another part is brought forth by the publicity generated by the first revelations—new women getting the courage to come forward. And of course part of it is the tenor of the times. We're in the middle of a sexual harassment flak.
It's like the UFO flaks of the past: a rash of sightings hits the news, followed by lots more.
Undoubtedly, some of the follow-on reports were caused by hysteria—folks suddenly aware of every-day phenomena they used to ignore. And some of it was fake—folks just wanting to be part of the story.
(There's very close to zero chance any of those reports were ever true. And that goes for all those people—maybe millions of them—who claim to have been yanked out of bed, hauled up through the ceiling of their room, and had their butt explored by big-headed space aliens.)
Similarly, some of the current flurry of reports of sexual misconduct are likely to be mistakes, or misremembered encounters, or cases of over sensitivity. Some are also bound to be outright lies designed to get revenge for other unhappy events.
(That Kevin Spacey would accept responsibility for acts he cannot recall suggests a pattern of black-out drunk activity that borders on the career-suicidal. Talk about a ticking time bomb!)
Fortunately for Franken's accuser, she has photographic proof of at least part of what she's complaining about. She says it shows Franken groping her. It almost certainly does not. I suspect it's just what is looks like: a joke, a pretend-grope. It doesn't appear his fingers are in actual contact with the material.
But is it stupid? You bet! Is it adolescent? Decidedly! Is it senatorial? I don't know, maybe. Some of them boys be rascals. Should Franken be embarrassed? Absolutely! Should the woman feel violated? Not as much as she appears to be. I think the properly measured response from her should have been: "Oh, grow up!"
She goes on to describe a rehearsal for a USO skit about a man forcing himself on a woman. And in the rehearsal, she says Franken forced himself on her. Wet kiss, darting tongue, and so forth. Hard to see how this legitimately applies to a rehearsal. Or to the skit itself, for that matter. Actors are supposed to act out, not actually perform, the events depicted on the stage.
Franken says he remembers the rehearsal differently.
And of course Donald Trump sees it all very differently, in his overheated mind's eye.
Schadenfreude (happiness over the failure of others) carries with it the implication of relief. This time it was the other guy who got caught, not me.
I understand one of Trump's accusers is getting ready to sue him for slander for calling her a liar during the campaign. This might get interesting.
The difference, of course, is obvious.
Trump is gleeful to get a chance to rail against Franken's perceived faults. The man's on the other side, a detractor, a political opponent, a member of the demonic Democratic party, those misguided folks who hate America and desire nothing more than to drive the country into the mire.
It's the infamous photograph!
Franken is seen grinning for the camera, his hands boob-flexed and poised above the flack-jacket of a sleeping woman. Trump demands to see the rest of the photographs. Does he seriously think there are more pix of this pretended sleep assault?
I think his schadenfreude-powered mind has become greedy.
Either that or he's projecting what he would have done, what he may well have done in the past, in his encounters with women of lesser power.
Like Trump, Roy Moore repeatedly denies these accusations. He points out it can't be a coincidence all this stuff is coming out just before the election. He concludes it's politically motivated.
Of course part of it is politically motivated, but that doesn't mean it's not true.
Another part is brought forth by the publicity generated by the first revelations—new women getting the courage to come forward. And of course part of it is the tenor of the times. We're in the middle of a sexual harassment flak.
It's like the UFO flaks of the past: a rash of sightings hits the news, followed by lots more.
Undoubtedly, some of the follow-on reports were caused by hysteria—folks suddenly aware of every-day phenomena they used to ignore. And some of it was fake—folks just wanting to be part of the story.
(There's very close to zero chance any of those reports were ever true. And that goes for all those people—maybe millions of them—who claim to have been yanked out of bed, hauled up through the ceiling of their room, and had their butt explored by big-headed space aliens.)
Similarly, some of the current flurry of reports of sexual misconduct are likely to be mistakes, or misremembered encounters, or cases of over sensitivity. Some are also bound to be outright lies designed to get revenge for other unhappy events.
(That Kevin Spacey would accept responsibility for acts he cannot recall suggests a pattern of black-out drunk activity that borders on the career-suicidal. Talk about a ticking time bomb!)
Fortunately for Franken's accuser, she has photographic proof of at least part of what she's complaining about. She says it shows Franken groping her. It almost certainly does not. I suspect it's just what is looks like: a joke, a pretend-grope. It doesn't appear his fingers are in actual contact with the material.
But is it stupid? You bet! Is it adolescent? Decidedly! Is it senatorial? I don't know, maybe. Some of them boys be rascals. Should Franken be embarrassed? Absolutely! Should the woman feel violated? Not as much as she appears to be. I think the properly measured response from her should have been: "Oh, grow up!"
She goes on to describe a rehearsal for a USO skit about a man forcing himself on a woman. And in the rehearsal, she says Franken forced himself on her. Wet kiss, darting tongue, and so forth. Hard to see how this legitimately applies to a rehearsal. Or to the skit itself, for that matter. Actors are supposed to act out, not actually perform, the events depicted on the stage.
Franken says he remembers the rehearsal differently.
And of course Donald Trump sees it all very differently, in his overheated mind's eye.
Schadenfreude (happiness over the failure of others) carries with it the implication of relief. This time it was the other guy who got caught, not me.
I understand one of Trump's accusers is getting ready to sue him for slander for calling her a liar during the campaign. This might get interesting.
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
THE UNASKED QUESTION
It's never the right time, of course. Folks are grieving, and so forth. But later, when things lighten up, the question simply doesn't present itself.
So it's got to be now.
Following the mass shooting in that church in Texas, folks naturally want to know why the gunman did it. But that's not the question I'm talking about. Folks want to know why such super-destructive weapons are so readily available, but that's not the question I have in mind, either.
My question is specifically about shootings in churches, and nobody ever asks it (at least, not out loud):
How could God allow this to happen in his house?
After such terrible events, folks are naturally brought closer together, usually in church. Folks pray for guidance. They take comfort in the Lord—but at no time are they allowed to question his plan.
"The Lord works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform."
So sit down and shut up; put your hands together and pray for forgiveness.
That's right, forgiveness.
And I don't mean the ability to forgive God for letting this happen. You need to beg God to forgive you for whatever it was you did to bring this horrific event down upon your community.
It's a given: You must have done something wrong.
Self-righteous folks (like Alabama judge Roy Moore, currently in the news for other reasons) even claim the attacks on 9/11 were God's angry reaction to American sins, like allowing sodomy to exist in our society.
It makes sense, right? After all, God once killed virtually every living creature on the planet—including countless millions of innocent animals—because he disapproved of man's sinful ways.
It's right there in the Bible, a book written by God in his spare time and designed to frighten little children before they have to go back to school on Monday morning.
(It's a tribute to humanity's innate goofiness that we can get any pleasure out of anything, considering the crap-storm awaiting us.)
My point is not that you should blame God for being such a dick (though it ought to be no surprise bad stuff happens around a supernatural being you're supposed to fear).
I just wonder why more people don't come to the somewhat obvious conclusion that God simply does not exist.
Remember, by denying God you won't be standing up to the Big Guy, you'd merely be questioning one of society's more heavily-reinforced traditions.
Religion is a house of cards—without the actual cards: It's an imaginary house of cards.
It's the emperor's new clothes—without the emperor. Or anyone to observe him or his theoretical lack of clothes.
There is, as the saying goes, no there there.
Q: How can such an airy load of fluff come down so heavily on humanity's fragile noggin?
A: Because we let it.
Humans are built this way: You can teach a child anything, including the opposite of anything, and he'll believe you. Later, when the kid's all growed up, he still believes whatever outrageous crap he's been told.
Why? Because the human brain—which is responsible for constructing an image of the world—edits our view of the world to include stuff that proves everything in our head to be true. We just know, okay?
(How can you doubt your own brain?)
As a consequence, adult humans already know everything (as far as they know), which is why it's so hard to teach them anything. The stupider we get, the more we think we know.
Why would the brain act this way? I think it's because it gives us confidence to believe in our ability to understand how things work. And confidence is a useful survival tool.
Speaking of tools, we invented gods to explain the mysterious operation of the universe, and to gain some sort of control over what seem like random events.
Pray to god, get a prize.
Sometimes you have to pray awfully hard to get spring to follow winter, but it's a life-and-death situation. If somebody in your tribe isn't praying with sufficient vigor, you might have to kill him—if only to protect the others.
It's a decision that falls to the shaman to make. (Better not get on the bad side of that guy.) Holy men spend a lot of time learning to figure out what God wants. You can't doubt their abilities without putting everybody at risk.
For many of us today, respect of holy authority still holds sway. Appealing to that authority in times of calamity is natural and prudent, because there is a lot at stake.
Better not to ask questions, right? You don't want to threaten the whole house of cards.
Here's the thing. Every religion comes with two documents: the four-color brochure that shows God flying over the heads of grinning people, the Almighty performing aerial acrobatics for his crowd of admirers; and a vast, encyclopedia-sized collection of carefully crafted apologies designed to explain why the brochure is actually true despite everything you see in the world around you.
(There's a whole sub-section entitled, "Why Bad Things Happen To Good People." Somehow, I don't find it convincing.)
Religion is a rickety, artificial contraption that's just bound to fall apart some day.
Just not today, apparently.
So it's got to be now.
Following the mass shooting in that church in Texas, folks naturally want to know why the gunman did it. But that's not the question I'm talking about. Folks want to know why such super-destructive weapons are so readily available, but that's not the question I have in mind, either.
My question is specifically about shootings in churches, and nobody ever asks it (at least, not out loud):
How could God allow this to happen in his house?
After such terrible events, folks are naturally brought closer together, usually in church. Folks pray for guidance. They take comfort in the Lord—but at no time are they allowed to question his plan.
"The Lord works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform."
So sit down and shut up; put your hands together and pray for forgiveness.
That's right, forgiveness.
And I don't mean the ability to forgive God for letting this happen. You need to beg God to forgive you for whatever it was you did to bring this horrific event down upon your community.
It's a given: You must have done something wrong.
Self-righteous folks (like Alabama judge Roy Moore, currently in the news for other reasons) even claim the attacks on 9/11 were God's angry reaction to American sins, like allowing sodomy to exist in our society.
It makes sense, right? After all, God once killed virtually every living creature on the planet—including countless millions of innocent animals—because he disapproved of man's sinful ways.
It's right there in the Bible, a book written by God in his spare time and designed to frighten little children before they have to go back to school on Monday morning.
(It's a tribute to humanity's innate goofiness that we can get any pleasure out of anything, considering the crap-storm awaiting us.)
My point is not that you should blame God for being such a dick (though it ought to be no surprise bad stuff happens around a supernatural being you're supposed to fear).
I just wonder why more people don't come to the somewhat obvious conclusion that God simply does not exist.
Remember, by denying God you won't be standing up to the Big Guy, you'd merely be questioning one of society's more heavily-reinforced traditions.
Religion is a house of cards—without the actual cards: It's an imaginary house of cards.
It's the emperor's new clothes—without the emperor. Or anyone to observe him or his theoretical lack of clothes.
There is, as the saying goes, no there there.
Q: How can such an airy load of fluff come down so heavily on humanity's fragile noggin?
A: Because we let it.
Humans are built this way: You can teach a child anything, including the opposite of anything, and he'll believe you. Later, when the kid's all growed up, he still believes whatever outrageous crap he's been told.
Why? Because the human brain—which is responsible for constructing an image of the world—edits our view of the world to include stuff that proves everything in our head to be true. We just know, okay?
(How can you doubt your own brain?)
As a consequence, adult humans already know everything (as far as they know), which is why it's so hard to teach them anything. The stupider we get, the more we think we know.
Why would the brain act this way? I think it's because it gives us confidence to believe in our ability to understand how things work. And confidence is a useful survival tool.
Speaking of tools, we invented gods to explain the mysterious operation of the universe, and to gain some sort of control over what seem like random events.
Pray to god, get a prize.
Sometimes you have to pray awfully hard to get spring to follow winter, but it's a life-and-death situation. If somebody in your tribe isn't praying with sufficient vigor, you might have to kill him—if only to protect the others.
It's a decision that falls to the shaman to make. (Better not get on the bad side of that guy.) Holy men spend a lot of time learning to figure out what God wants. You can't doubt their abilities without putting everybody at risk.
For many of us today, respect of holy authority still holds sway. Appealing to that authority in times of calamity is natural and prudent, because there is a lot at stake.
Better not to ask questions, right? You don't want to threaten the whole house of cards.
Here's the thing. Every religion comes with two documents: the four-color brochure that shows God flying over the heads of grinning people, the Almighty performing aerial acrobatics for his crowd of admirers; and a vast, encyclopedia-sized collection of carefully crafted apologies designed to explain why the brochure is actually true despite everything you see in the world around you.
(There's a whole sub-section entitled, "Why Bad Things Happen To Good People." Somehow, I don't find it convincing.)
Religion is a rickety, artificial contraption that's just bound to fall apart some day.
Just not today, apparently.
Sunday, November 12, 2017
DONALD TRUMP - AMERICAN HERO
Nobody knows how the Trump presidency is going to end: impeachment and resignation; limp through one term and expire; go out in a burst of glory after two tempestuous terms; alien abduction culminating in a fatal anal probe.
But one possible ending was avoided last week, when fog prevented Trump's visit to the DMZ between North and South Korea.
Imagine if he'd insisted on going, and the Blackhawk had gone down, killing all on board. The man would have been hailed as a hero, and much of the current political carping would be forgotten, lost in the fog of time.
What had he just been saying about believing Putin about the Russia Thing? Gone.
(Actually, Trump seems recently to have walked back his position taking Putin's word over the assessment of US intelligence agencies. My guess, he'll stumble back the other way before long.)
What of his avowed destruction of the Obama legacy? Gone, mostly. Though many in his party will want to keep up the good work, just to honor the man (Trump, not Obama).
What of his unsubstantiated claims of having been wiretapped in Trump Tower? Forgotten.
Did he really win the popular vote in 2016? No one will ever know.
All the lies about Hillary and others? Forgiven, surely.
(Politics is a contact sport, after all.)
Was the man a white-supremacist thug at heart? The debate will continue, but soft-pedaled for the foreseeable future.
Rivers of Fake News will dry up and be forgotten by all but a few rabid fans.
All that Trump was or could have been will be enshrined in hearsay and innuendo and partisan mumbo-jumbo—like Chernobyl under a blanket of concrete.
The man might end up largely rehabilitated, remembered almost fondly by most.
Yes, he could have had all that, had the chopper dropped off the radar and augured in.
Or it could have gone so terribly wrong: the Blackhawk belly-flopping down in North Korea, the President captured alive, held for years of starvation, torture, and beatings.
What a catastrophe!
We know what Trump thinks of heroes who get captured.
But one possible ending was avoided last week, when fog prevented Trump's visit to the DMZ between North and South Korea.
Imagine if he'd insisted on going, and the Blackhawk had gone down, killing all on board. The man would have been hailed as a hero, and much of the current political carping would be forgotten, lost in the fog of time.
What had he just been saying about believing Putin about the Russia Thing? Gone.
(Actually, Trump seems recently to have walked back his position taking Putin's word over the assessment of US intelligence agencies. My guess, he'll stumble back the other way before long.)
What of his avowed destruction of the Obama legacy? Gone, mostly. Though many in his party will want to keep up the good work, just to honor the man (Trump, not Obama).
What of his unsubstantiated claims of having been wiretapped in Trump Tower? Forgotten.
Did he really win the popular vote in 2016? No one will ever know.
All the lies about Hillary and others? Forgiven, surely.
(Politics is a contact sport, after all.)
Was the man a white-supremacist thug at heart? The debate will continue, but soft-pedaled for the foreseeable future.
Rivers of Fake News will dry up and be forgotten by all but a few rabid fans.
All that Trump was or could have been will be enshrined in hearsay and innuendo and partisan mumbo-jumbo—like Chernobyl under a blanket of concrete.
The man might end up largely rehabilitated, remembered almost fondly by most.
Yes, he could have had all that, had the chopper dropped off the radar and augured in.
Or it could have gone so terribly wrong: the Blackhawk belly-flopping down in North Korea, the President captured alive, held for years of starvation, torture, and beatings.
What a catastrophe!
We know what Trump thinks of heroes who get captured.
Saturday, November 11, 2017
TRUMP GETS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE RUSSIA THING
As reported by Newser, President Trump had only the briefest of meetings with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin in Vietnam. The Russian leader took the opportunity to again deny there was any interference in the American election.
Trump, of course, believed him.
He already knows the whole Russia Thing is a chunk of politically motivated Fake News promulgated by the Democrats, those incompetent idiots looking for an excuse to explain their poor performance in the 2016 election.
And this is solid knowledge, folks, backed up by every syllable of nonsense in Trump's golden dome, knowledge possibly put there by God himself. (You never know, right?)
Trump calls the intelligence community a pack of "political hacks." He's much more likely to believe Putin, who—presumably—is nothing like a political hack and would never lie to Trump.
Humans tend to believe the evidence that proves the junk in their heads to be true. Even more powerful is the evidence that reinforces a person's own self image.
Trump is a winner, and he knows it. Nothing can be allowed to interfere with that assessment. He won the election on his own, bigly, with no outside forces in play. If out of a thousand voices, 999 suggest doubt, Trump will believe the one voice that says otherwise, thereby proving him right.
Perfectly normal.
I'm pretty sure an ex-KGB colonel knows how to work Trump. All he has to do is tell the man exactly what he wants—what he needs—to hear.
Putin then sweetened the deal by complaining his aides screwed up his itinerary, making it impossible for him to spend the amount of quality time he craved to have with Trump. (The Donald knows everybody is desperate to spend time with him.) Putin told reporters those responsible for this scheduling mistake would be punished.
Because it was that important he meet with the American president.
Seriously, if Trump's head gets any bigger, he won't be able to fit through the boarding hatch on Air force One. They'll have to ship him home by freighter.
Trump, of course, believed him.
He already knows the whole Russia Thing is a chunk of politically motivated Fake News promulgated by the Democrats, those incompetent idiots looking for an excuse to explain their poor performance in the 2016 election.
And this is solid knowledge, folks, backed up by every syllable of nonsense in Trump's golden dome, knowledge possibly put there by God himself. (You never know, right?)
Trump calls the intelligence community a pack of "political hacks." He's much more likely to believe Putin, who—presumably—is nothing like a political hack and would never lie to Trump.
Humans tend to believe the evidence that proves the junk in their heads to be true. Even more powerful is the evidence that reinforces a person's own self image.
Trump is a winner, and he knows it. Nothing can be allowed to interfere with that assessment. He won the election on his own, bigly, with no outside forces in play. If out of a thousand voices, 999 suggest doubt, Trump will believe the one voice that says otherwise, thereby proving him right.
Perfectly normal.
I'm pretty sure an ex-KGB colonel knows how to work Trump. All he has to do is tell the man exactly what he wants—what he needs—to hear.
Putin then sweetened the deal by complaining his aides screwed up his itinerary, making it impossible for him to spend the amount of quality time he craved to have with Trump. (The Donald knows everybody is desperate to spend time with him.) Putin told reporters those responsible for this scheduling mistake would be punished.
Because it was that important he meet with the American president.
Seriously, if Trump's head gets any bigger, he won't be able to fit through the boarding hatch on Air force One. They'll have to ship him home by freighter.
Wednesday, November 1, 2017
TWEETING MAKES IT TRUE
Shortly after the truck vs cyclists attack in NYC, President Trump tweeted about the incident, calling the man "sick and deranged." Combining this comment with his previous (and well-known) anti-Muslim sentiments may have exactly the wrong effect.
Clearly he thinks such attacks are perpetrated by Muslims for religious reasons—which is why he wants the US to accept no immigrants or visitors from Muslim countries. (He knows they're just too dangerous.) But labeling an Islamic attacker deranged could easily be construed as saying Islam itself is—by definition—deranged.
Such a statement might be considered radicalizing in nature.
Now Trump wants to cancel the visa program used by the NYC perpetrator seven years ago, apparently on the theory the man has been a threat from day one.
What is perfectly clear is that Trump will in no way hold himself responsible for this attack or for radicalizing the individual that did it. He absolutely rejects the idea that his strenuously-sought Muslim travel ban might be seen as an irritant to Muslim immigrants already in this country.
(Or born in this country, like the man who shot up the Pulse nightclub in Orlando.)
If Trump is determined to safeguard America from any and all attacks by Muslims, then he needs to go the whole hog: round up all Muslims already in this country and deport them. This process will have to be done in a lightning-fast move, since any hint of what's in store will likely radicalize moderate Muslims or push fence-sitters into immediate action.
Whatever happens next will be the fault of many individuals, but certainly not Trump. The man can do no ill to the country he loves, and to prove that statement he will say so on Twitter.
No one could ever hope for more than that.
Clearly he thinks such attacks are perpetrated by Muslims for religious reasons—which is why he wants the US to accept no immigrants or visitors from Muslim countries. (He knows they're just too dangerous.) But labeling an Islamic attacker deranged could easily be construed as saying Islam itself is—by definition—deranged.
Such a statement might be considered radicalizing in nature.
Now Trump wants to cancel the visa program used by the NYC perpetrator seven years ago, apparently on the theory the man has been a threat from day one.
What is perfectly clear is that Trump will in no way hold himself responsible for this attack or for radicalizing the individual that did it. He absolutely rejects the idea that his strenuously-sought Muslim travel ban might be seen as an irritant to Muslim immigrants already in this country.
(Or born in this country, like the man who shot up the Pulse nightclub in Orlando.)
If Trump is determined to safeguard America from any and all attacks by Muslims, then he needs to go the whole hog: round up all Muslims already in this country and deport them. This process will have to be done in a lightning-fast move, since any hint of what's in store will likely radicalize moderate Muslims or push fence-sitters into immediate action.
Whatever happens next will be the fault of many individuals, but certainly not Trump. The man can do no ill to the country he loves, and to prove that statement he will say so on Twitter.
No one could ever hope for more than that.
Monday, October 30, 2017
SQUIRMING IN THE BASKET
Now that Paul Manafort has been charged with felonies (stemming from actions that took place before the man was associated with Trump), the President is again free to denounce it all as politics as usual from the "Dems." And call for more investigations into "crooked Hillary."
What he's forgetting is that the charges against Manafort might result in charges against himself or his associates (or kin). See, Manafort might make a deal for leniency, which might be exactly what Mueller is counting on.
Earlier, another Trump worker (former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos) pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about the time line surrounding a meeting with Russian nationals in an attempt to get dirt on Hillary. It's also possible that man will have more to say when it comes time for sentencing.
Trump has always maintained there was no collusion with the Russians, and until very recently he was able to point to a lack of indictments as proof the whole scheme was an attempt to excuse a Democratic loss in the election. (He has said so many, many times.)
But a lack of results cannot be relied on to prove there will never be any results. I've heard this investigation might take years.
I think we can expect that even after the man has been impeached and convicted (by Republicans), Donald Trump will continue to offer alternate facts to prove himself guiltless. It's his pattern: excuse, excuse, excuse, then take the hit and declare victory.
He can't be wrong, as far as he knows. He'd be inhuman to act differently.
His supporters feel the same. They know he's the greatest president this country has ever had. Every report knocking the man can be denounced as fake news. If convicted by fellow Republicans, it can only be because those bastards are treasonous villains.
(Some Trump supporters threaten civil war if anyone tries to impeach their favorite president.)
Early on, Trump claimed he could murder somebody on Fifth Avenue and lose no support. He was probably thinking he was just that good. More likely, his supporters are just that corrupt. (The infamous "Basket of Deplorables," as Hillary called them.)
The squirmy fact is, everybody knows what they know. When push comes to shove, expect automatic gunfire. It's who we are.
What he's forgetting is that the charges against Manafort might result in charges against himself or his associates (or kin). See, Manafort might make a deal for leniency, which might be exactly what Mueller is counting on.
Earlier, another Trump worker (former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos) pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about the time line surrounding a meeting with Russian nationals in an attempt to get dirt on Hillary. It's also possible that man will have more to say when it comes time for sentencing.
Trump has always maintained there was no collusion with the Russians, and until very recently he was able to point to a lack of indictments as proof the whole scheme was an attempt to excuse a Democratic loss in the election. (He has said so many, many times.)
But a lack of results cannot be relied on to prove there will never be any results. I've heard this investigation might take years.
I think we can expect that even after the man has been impeached and convicted (by Republicans), Donald Trump will continue to offer alternate facts to prove himself guiltless. It's his pattern: excuse, excuse, excuse, then take the hit and declare victory.
He can't be wrong, as far as he knows. He'd be inhuman to act differently.
His supporters feel the same. They know he's the greatest president this country has ever had. Every report knocking the man can be denounced as fake news. If convicted by fellow Republicans, it can only be because those bastards are treasonous villains.
(Some Trump supporters threaten civil war if anyone tries to impeach their favorite president.)
Early on, Trump claimed he could murder somebody on Fifth Avenue and lose no support. He was probably thinking he was just that good. More likely, his supporters are just that corrupt. (The infamous "Basket of Deplorables," as Hillary called them.)
The squirmy fact is, everybody knows what they know. When push comes to shove, expect automatic gunfire. It's who we are.
Sunday, October 15, 2017
RESPECT
Donald Trump's position is that America must be respected by all its citizens. Not just respect for the country, but for all its patriotic symbols, including its flag and national song. The President knows there is no alleged aberration of justice that could possibly rise to the level where this respect can legitimately be withheld.
Sure, the country was founded on theft, genocide, and slavery, but all that unpleasantness is behind us. Everything is honky-dory now.
So, come on, guys. Drag your sorry ass upright for the National Anthem!
Next week the administration's going to start handing out loyalty oaths for us all to sign. Also, you'll have to kiss the flag at the DMV to get your car registered. And swear allegiance at the grocery store to buy a loaf of bread.
The week after that, members of the so-called mainstream media will be rounded up and sent to concentration camps. Broadcast licenses will be revoked.
(Those bastards are only putting out Fake News, anyway.)
In a month, all country-based loyalty tests will be replaced by new ones where you can declare your undying love and allegiance to Donald J. Trump, personally.
Don't worry, it'll be fine. Trump's supporters are already looking into the possibility of changing the Constitution so the man can serve more than two terms.
They'd also like to change the laws of nature so Trump can remain in office till the end of time—or at least until there's nothing left of him but a brain in a bucket.
He is, as they declare, the Greatest President this country has ever known. (Or ever will know, apparently.)
Maybe they can arrange for the nation itself to disappear off the face of the earth when Trump's last corporeal vestige gives in to the ravages of time.
At which time it'll be special Kool-Aid for everybody!
(Remember to dose your children before you drink it yourself. You don't want them left behind when the rest of us get beamed to that spaceship behind the comet.)
Seriously, black guys. So what if they make you stand up for the anthem. During the Vietnam war they enjoyed sending your ass to die in a foreign country.
See, things are getting better!
Sure, the country was founded on theft, genocide, and slavery, but all that unpleasantness is behind us. Everything is honky-dory now.
So, come on, guys. Drag your sorry ass upright for the National Anthem!
Next week the administration's going to start handing out loyalty oaths for us all to sign. Also, you'll have to kiss the flag at the DMV to get your car registered. And swear allegiance at the grocery store to buy a loaf of bread.
The week after that, members of the so-called mainstream media will be rounded up and sent to concentration camps. Broadcast licenses will be revoked.
(Those bastards are only putting out Fake News, anyway.)
In a month, all country-based loyalty tests will be replaced by new ones where you can declare your undying love and allegiance to Donald J. Trump, personally.
Don't worry, it'll be fine. Trump's supporters are already looking into the possibility of changing the Constitution so the man can serve more than two terms.
They'd also like to change the laws of nature so Trump can remain in office till the end of time—or at least until there's nothing left of him but a brain in a bucket.
He is, as they declare, the Greatest President this country has ever known. (Or ever will know, apparently.)
Maybe they can arrange for the nation itself to disappear off the face of the earth when Trump's last corporeal vestige gives in to the ravages of time.
At which time it'll be special Kool-Aid for everybody!
(Remember to dose your children before you drink it yourself. You don't want them left behind when the rest of us get beamed to that spaceship behind the comet.)
Seriously, black guys. So what if they make you stand up for the anthem. During the Vietnam war they enjoyed sending your ass to die in a foreign country.
See, things are getting better!
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
THE NRA IS A RATCHET
After every mass shooting, two things happen. The shelves of gun stores resemble those of a supermarket when a hurricane is coming. And half the nation clamors for more restrictive gun laws—pointlessly.
But here's something you might not believe: Gun laws actually do change following a mass shooting. They get looser. On the local level, guns get easier to pack just about everywhere.
In the first few days after Vegas, the NRA seemed to signal they'd be willing to allow restrictions on bump stocks (attachments that make semi-automatic guns fire about as fast as an M-16 on full auto). They've since come to their senses and backed off that position.
The NRA's argument is always the same: Any restriction on gun ownership is just the first step on the road that leads to total confiscation of all guns—a clear violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
Neither part of that last sentence is true.
We have numerous restrictions on who can buy a firearm and how soon the customer can take possession of it. Tightening those restrictions is no calamity to anyone lucid enough to figure out how to join the NRA.
As for the Second Amendment, supporters seem to be unable to read the first half of that one-sentence law, so they ignore it. All that nonsense about a "well-regulated militia" makes their heads spin.
(Apparently the Supreme Court agrees with them.)
The NRA's position is all or nothing. You'd expect their members to be long-haired freaks, convinced every haircut results in a beheading.
This form of thinking operates like a ratchet. There can be movement in only one direction. No restrictions on gun ownership are tolerated; only a loosening is possible. And that's what they've been getting.
The other side fears the opposite: Everybody will be armed to the teeth at all times. And their nightmare is coming true.
How come? Because your average congress-critter fears the long arm of the NRA more than they fear a bunch of unorganized voters. The NRA has the money to saturate a local media market with so much negative advertising an uncooperative candidate hasn't got a chance. (At least, that's what the NRA wants them to think.)
It doesn't matter that the majority of Americans want more restrictions on gun ownership. The NRA knows better.
So what's going to happen in the future? Easy. More mass shootings, followed by gun law debates, followed by a loosening in gun laws, followed by more mass shootings.
It's who we are, folks.
Remember: The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.
The problem with that: Everybody thinks he's a good guy.
But here's something you might not believe: Gun laws actually do change following a mass shooting. They get looser. On the local level, guns get easier to pack just about everywhere.
In the first few days after Vegas, the NRA seemed to signal they'd be willing to allow restrictions on bump stocks (attachments that make semi-automatic guns fire about as fast as an M-16 on full auto). They've since come to their senses and backed off that position.
The NRA's argument is always the same: Any restriction on gun ownership is just the first step on the road that leads to total confiscation of all guns—a clear violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
Neither part of that last sentence is true.
We have numerous restrictions on who can buy a firearm and how soon the customer can take possession of it. Tightening those restrictions is no calamity to anyone lucid enough to figure out how to join the NRA.
As for the Second Amendment, supporters seem to be unable to read the first half of that one-sentence law, so they ignore it. All that nonsense about a "well-regulated militia" makes their heads spin.
(Apparently the Supreme Court agrees with them.)
The NRA's position is all or nothing. You'd expect their members to be long-haired freaks, convinced every haircut results in a beheading.
This form of thinking operates like a ratchet. There can be movement in only one direction. No restrictions on gun ownership are tolerated; only a loosening is possible. And that's what they've been getting.
The other side fears the opposite: Everybody will be armed to the teeth at all times. And their nightmare is coming true.
How come? Because your average congress-critter fears the long arm of the NRA more than they fear a bunch of unorganized voters. The NRA has the money to saturate a local media market with so much negative advertising an uncooperative candidate hasn't got a chance. (At least, that's what the NRA wants them to think.)
It doesn't matter that the majority of Americans want more restrictions on gun ownership. The NRA knows better.
So what's going to happen in the future? Easy. More mass shootings, followed by gun law debates, followed by a loosening in gun laws, followed by more mass shootings.
It's who we are, folks.
Remember: The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.
The problem with that: Everybody thinks he's a good guy.
Wednesday, October 4, 2017
GOOD COP, IDIOT COP
Donald Trump has been very busy lately, imposing his view of reality on the world: the NFL take-a-knee thing, the Puerto Rico disaster (including his hard to disagree with definition of an island), the excellence of his new tax reform proposal (an economic bloodbath for him personally [you have to believe him—but it would be interesting to get proof in the way of his tax returns]).
But slipping in with his Twitter feud with the mayor San Juan was a little item that sends chills through the blood: Trump informed his Secretary of State that negotiating with "Little Rocket Man" was a waste of time.
Trump has apparently concluded it's not possible for diplomacy to stop a nuclear exchange with North Korea. Which suggests he's already made up his mind in favor of the military option. It's just a question of time.
Mostly, when he says "we'll see," it means a decision has been made and he's being careful not to tip his hand before the axe falls. (Ask Tom Price, who escaped the axe by cutting his own throat.)
(Trump's refusal to say what he's going to do goes back to his criticism of Obama for signaling that a move against Mosul was coming soon. As if it was possible to sneak up on Mosul.)
The only other reasonable interpretation is that Trump is playing bad cop to Rex Tillerson's good cop. Kim Jong-un is expected to react by cleaving to the Secretary of State in hopes of avoiding "total destruction."
All along in these exchanges (including at the UN), Trump has played up the military option. He's always been the bad guy, throwing out derision and personal insults. Tillerson has always suggested talks might be a way to resolve things.
Kim's stated goal is to possess a nuclear force capable of destroying the US. He wants parity with America, designed to prevent a first strike by offering Mutually Assured Destruction. His emphasis on mobile launch vehicles is a part of this, making it harder for us to knock out his nuclear arms with one blow. (Without them all he can do is blast away at our allies, South Korea and Japan. Sucks to be them.)
The United States puts up with the MAD scenario with a number of other countries. North Korea just wants to be part of the fun.
It doesn't look like Trump wants Kim to get that chance.
A high-ranking North Korean official has stated Trump made a fatal error, and that a state of war now exists between the two countries. That may also be a ploy, calculated to make America more willing to talk.
It's called "brinksmanship." Stand toe-to-toe with the enemy and wiggle your junk at him, see if you can scare the guy into putting his wiener away.
Succeed or fail, it's an unseemly display.
Human beings corrupt the process by having the illusion we can divine the true motives of an adversary. We know what they're really thinking, even if they don't.
Trump, for instance, knows NFL players who take a knee during the national anthem are not protesting any sort of racial inequality. It's purely a way to disrespect the flag and the country. He has looked into their hearts and seen the truth: Race has nothing to do with it.
Trump reacts accordingly. And so do his core followers, burning football jerseys and so forth.
Now the question: What does Trump see in the heart of Kim Jong-un?
And how many people is he willing to sacrifice for that excellent knowledge?
But slipping in with his Twitter feud with the mayor San Juan was a little item that sends chills through the blood: Trump informed his Secretary of State that negotiating with "Little Rocket Man" was a waste of time.
Trump has apparently concluded it's not possible for diplomacy to stop a nuclear exchange with North Korea. Which suggests he's already made up his mind in favor of the military option. It's just a question of time.
Mostly, when he says "we'll see," it means a decision has been made and he's being careful not to tip his hand before the axe falls. (Ask Tom Price, who escaped the axe by cutting his own throat.)
(Trump's refusal to say what he's going to do goes back to his criticism of Obama for signaling that a move against Mosul was coming soon. As if it was possible to sneak up on Mosul.)
The only other reasonable interpretation is that Trump is playing bad cop to Rex Tillerson's good cop. Kim Jong-un is expected to react by cleaving to the Secretary of State in hopes of avoiding "total destruction."
All along in these exchanges (including at the UN), Trump has played up the military option. He's always been the bad guy, throwing out derision and personal insults. Tillerson has always suggested talks might be a way to resolve things.
Kim's stated goal is to possess a nuclear force capable of destroying the US. He wants parity with America, designed to prevent a first strike by offering Mutually Assured Destruction. His emphasis on mobile launch vehicles is a part of this, making it harder for us to knock out his nuclear arms with one blow. (Without them all he can do is blast away at our allies, South Korea and Japan. Sucks to be them.)
The United States puts up with the MAD scenario with a number of other countries. North Korea just wants to be part of the fun.
It doesn't look like Trump wants Kim to get that chance.
A high-ranking North Korean official has stated Trump made a fatal error, and that a state of war now exists between the two countries. That may also be a ploy, calculated to make America more willing to talk.
It's called "brinksmanship." Stand toe-to-toe with the enemy and wiggle your junk at him, see if you can scare the guy into putting his wiener away.
Succeed or fail, it's an unseemly display.
Human beings corrupt the process by having the illusion we can divine the true motives of an adversary. We know what they're really thinking, even if they don't.
Trump, for instance, knows NFL players who take a knee during the national anthem are not protesting any sort of racial inequality. It's purely a way to disrespect the flag and the country. He has looked into their hearts and seen the truth: Race has nothing to do with it.
Trump reacts accordingly. And so do his core followers, burning football jerseys and so forth.
Now the question: What does Trump see in the heart of Kim Jong-un?
And how many people is he willing to sacrifice for that excellent knowledge?
Saturday, September 23, 2017
DEATH TO OBAMACARE
President Trump has nothing but contempt for Republican senators, on account of their inexplicable failure to repeal and replace Obamacare. He points out how for years now they have been promising to pass legislation the instant they can hand the bill to a Republican president for his signature.
Trump says he's been standing by with pen in hand, itching to sign, but those rascals can't seem to get the job done. The President is stumped by this failure. He has to wonder: Have those guys been lying all this time? Large numbers of Republicans campaigned on the promise to put a bullet through the heart of Obamacare. Don't they fear their constituents? They're all going to get un-elected!
But folks like John McCain say they don't want to rush into a one-sided agreement. They want to involve the Democrats in this deal.
So here's what I propose:
Get together a coalition of Republicans and Democrats to retool Obamacare and fix the problems with it. (This is what the majority of Americans want to happen.)
Begin the bill with these words: "The Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare) is hereby repealed, to be replace by the following measures."
Then drop in a big-ass slab of amended Obamacare.
Call it the American Health Care Act, or some such thing, and you're done: Obamacare is officially repealed and replaced. Suck it, Barack!
Republican Congress-critters can wave this piece of paper (or more likely, a massive paperbound book thousands of pages long) in the faces of their critics back home. "I said I'd do it and I done it! Obamacare is no more! Break out the champagne!"
Detractors may point out there's a heck of a lot of Obamacare underpinning this new legislation. So what? "It's a healthcare bill, okay? You have to expect some overlap in the details! If we're going to dump Obamacare, we can't very well replace it with an aardvark smoking a cigar. We need to replace it with more healthcare stuff!"
Hey, it might just work.
Trump says he's been standing by with pen in hand, itching to sign, but those rascals can't seem to get the job done. The President is stumped by this failure. He has to wonder: Have those guys been lying all this time? Large numbers of Republicans campaigned on the promise to put a bullet through the heart of Obamacare. Don't they fear their constituents? They're all going to get un-elected!
But folks like John McCain say they don't want to rush into a one-sided agreement. They want to involve the Democrats in this deal.
So here's what I propose:
Get together a coalition of Republicans and Democrats to retool Obamacare and fix the problems with it. (This is what the majority of Americans want to happen.)
Begin the bill with these words: "The Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare) is hereby repealed, to be replace by the following measures."
Then drop in a big-ass slab of amended Obamacare.
Call it the American Health Care Act, or some such thing, and you're done: Obamacare is officially repealed and replaced. Suck it, Barack!
Republican Congress-critters can wave this piece of paper (or more likely, a massive paperbound book thousands of pages long) in the faces of their critics back home. "I said I'd do it and I done it! Obamacare is no more! Break out the champagne!"
Detractors may point out there's a heck of a lot of Obamacare underpinning this new legislation. So what? "It's a healthcare bill, okay? You have to expect some overlap in the details! If we're going to dump Obamacare, we can't very well replace it with an aardvark smoking a cigar. We need to replace it with more healthcare stuff!"
Hey, it might just work.
Tuesday, September 12, 2017
DRIVEN TO LOVE GOD
I'm not built right, and now I know the reason why.
In his book, The Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren insists that God conceived a plan for my life long before he created the world. In fact, God slapped the universe together just so I'd have a place to stand while I performed my holy duties.
I won't keep you in suspense (you're in this, too): God created human beings so we could love him. The big fellow needs a crap-load of love, see? So he whipped up a bunch of folk to do him the honor of making a fuss over him.
But something must have gone wrong in my case. I'm just not that much into him.
And that has to be God's fault, right? He must've jacked it, been too sparing with the pixie dust or something, because—believe it or not—I don't want to adulate the guy.
(Worse, I think the case for his existence has been criminally exaggerated.)
But according to Pastor Warren—and he gets his evidence right out of the Bible, the only source of information you'll ever need—the fix is in. We have to love God, just as he intended. We can't NOT love God.
You may have heard this: The modern description of hell involves no caverns of fire or pitchfork-wielding imps. Hell is simply the absence of God. Which means going to hell can only be the crushing blow it's designed to be if all we want out of life is to cozy up to God and count the ways we love the guy.
(Adoring God 24-7 [or however time is kept in heaven] is the only activity on the schedule. Folks in hell are apparently free to do whatever they want.)
Rick Warren says we should demonstrate our overpowering love for God with every thought and action of our lives. Forget asking, "What would Jesus do?" Ask: "How can I make the Big Guy smile?"
God gazes lovingly at you as you sleep—like parents with their children, except he's in the room all night long, every night, staring at you with a big goofy grin on his giant face. I tell you, it's worse than Shirley MacLaine's loving assault on Debra Winger in that movie.
The Purpose Driven Life has got to be one of the most depressing books I've ever attempted to read. If the Bible is to be believed, we're nothing but love slaves, caught in an out-of-control Stockholm Syndrome.
God holds us captive—and demands we love him as much as he loves us.
Warren seems to have no problem with this sickening concept. And the fact his book is a bestseller suggests a lot of people are eager to come on board.
Riding the back cover, notable Christian authors slather on the praise:
"Make sure you're not missing the point of your life—read this book!" says Billy Graham and Franklin Graham.
"Give this book to everyone you care about," says Lee Strobel (author of The Case for Christ).
"A masterpiece of wise counsel," says Max Lucado (author of Traveling Light).
"Rick Warren's new, groundbreaking manifesto will set millions of people free to live the lives God intended," says Bruce Wilkinson (author of The Prayer of Jabez).
That's right, boys and girls, get yourself free so you can join the army of God's love-addled drudges. Fall in line with the holy truth. Literally nothing could be more important. As far as you're allowed to know.
Like they say, a man never stands so tall as when he gets on his knees to provide God with a happy ending.
In his book, The Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren insists that God conceived a plan for my life long before he created the world. In fact, God slapped the universe together just so I'd have a place to stand while I performed my holy duties.
I won't keep you in suspense (you're in this, too): God created human beings so we could love him. The big fellow needs a crap-load of love, see? So he whipped up a bunch of folk to do him the honor of making a fuss over him.
But something must have gone wrong in my case. I'm just not that much into him.
And that has to be God's fault, right? He must've jacked it, been too sparing with the pixie dust or something, because—believe it or not—I don't want to adulate the guy.
(Worse, I think the case for his existence has been criminally exaggerated.)
But according to Pastor Warren—and he gets his evidence right out of the Bible, the only source of information you'll ever need—the fix is in. We have to love God, just as he intended. We can't NOT love God.
You may have heard this: The modern description of hell involves no caverns of fire or pitchfork-wielding imps. Hell is simply the absence of God. Which means going to hell can only be the crushing blow it's designed to be if all we want out of life is to cozy up to God and count the ways we love the guy.
(Adoring God 24-7 [or however time is kept in heaven] is the only activity on the schedule. Folks in hell are apparently free to do whatever they want.)
Rick Warren says we should demonstrate our overpowering love for God with every thought and action of our lives. Forget asking, "What would Jesus do?" Ask: "How can I make the Big Guy smile?"
God gazes lovingly at you as you sleep—like parents with their children, except he's in the room all night long, every night, staring at you with a big goofy grin on his giant face. I tell you, it's worse than Shirley MacLaine's loving assault on Debra Winger in that movie.
The Purpose Driven Life has got to be one of the most depressing books I've ever attempted to read. If the Bible is to be believed, we're nothing but love slaves, caught in an out-of-control Stockholm Syndrome.
God holds us captive—and demands we love him as much as he loves us.
Warren seems to have no problem with this sickening concept. And the fact his book is a bestseller suggests a lot of people are eager to come on board.
Riding the back cover, notable Christian authors slather on the praise:
"Make sure you're not missing the point of your life—read this book!" says Billy Graham and Franklin Graham.
"Give this book to everyone you care about," says Lee Strobel (author of The Case for Christ).
"A masterpiece of wise counsel," says Max Lucado (author of Traveling Light).
"Rick Warren's new, groundbreaking manifesto will set millions of people free to live the lives God intended," says Bruce Wilkinson (author of The Prayer of Jabez).
That's right, boys and girls, get yourself free so you can join the army of God's love-addled drudges. Fall in line with the holy truth. Literally nothing could be more important. As far as you're allowed to know.
Like they say, a man never stands so tall as when he gets on his knees to provide God with a happy ending.
Wednesday, August 23, 2017
CALLING THE VICTORY
A few more thoughts on Trump's announcement Monday:
Donald Trump could withdraw American troops from Afghanistan tomorrow, thus ending this country's longest running war. But would that be enough to insure a second term as President? Probably not.
So he's staying in.
If he can see his way to declaring victory in about three years, he'll have a much easier path to a second term: The man who WON America's longest war.
There's a ring to that, undeniably.
And here's all he has to do: Pick the right moment to declare victory and withdraw the troops.
What does victory look like? Whatever he wants it to look like. It's his choice.
What will it look like? Probably this: The Taliban reaches a deal to share power with the current government. Together they thank us for our help and respectfully request that we leave. Trump declares victory and off we go.
Two years later the Taliban consolidates power and the country goes back to what it was before 9/11. Almost certainly.
Or we could leave now; same deal in two years.
The difference: Lingering in country, we'll add a few hundred pounds of American blood to the soil of Afghanistan. Maybe the next crop of opium poppies will be that much more potent.
For the locals it'll mean a nicely mounting body count of dead "terrorists," along with the innocents killed as collateral damage.
(America defines "terrorist" as anyone who actively opposes us anywhere in the world, including inside their own country.)
By killing the guy in Afghanistan, will that prevent him from coming to American to kill us here? Absolutely!
But by killing the man at home, defending his own country from invaders, might we inspire others to come to America to kill us? Not at all unlikely.
That's the downside (along with increased traffic at Dover Air Force base, where American casualties are carried off cargo planes in flag-draped aluminum coffins).
The upside? We get another four years of Donald Trump's Presidency.
For some, that's a pretty good deal. (Donald Trump, for instance.)
Question: Is the man who wrote The Art of the Deal really that cynical?
But wait, you might be saying, he's giving us a victory in Afghanistan! A victory that both vindicates and validates all American deaths so far!
Nonsense. There can be no actual victory for America in that country. Remember, we're fighting against God in Afghanistan. You can't beat God. By definition.
Whatever we do in that region—short of expunging the very concept of Islam forever—the dent in the ocean that we make will fill back in. And fast.
The best we can hope for is death, destruction, and four more years of Donald Trump. That's what this deal is all about. Some would say it's a bargain.
Are you one of them?
Donald Trump could withdraw American troops from Afghanistan tomorrow, thus ending this country's longest running war. But would that be enough to insure a second term as President? Probably not.
So he's staying in.
If he can see his way to declaring victory in about three years, he'll have a much easier path to a second term: The man who WON America's longest war.
There's a ring to that, undeniably.
And here's all he has to do: Pick the right moment to declare victory and withdraw the troops.
What does victory look like? Whatever he wants it to look like. It's his choice.
What will it look like? Probably this: The Taliban reaches a deal to share power with the current government. Together they thank us for our help and respectfully request that we leave. Trump declares victory and off we go.
Two years later the Taliban consolidates power and the country goes back to what it was before 9/11. Almost certainly.
Or we could leave now; same deal in two years.
The difference: Lingering in country, we'll add a few hundred pounds of American blood to the soil of Afghanistan. Maybe the next crop of opium poppies will be that much more potent.
For the locals it'll mean a nicely mounting body count of dead "terrorists," along with the innocents killed as collateral damage.
(America defines "terrorist" as anyone who actively opposes us anywhere in the world, including inside their own country.)
By killing the guy in Afghanistan, will that prevent him from coming to American to kill us here? Absolutely!
But by killing the man at home, defending his own country from invaders, might we inspire others to come to America to kill us? Not at all unlikely.
That's the downside (along with increased traffic at Dover Air Force base, where American casualties are carried off cargo planes in flag-draped aluminum coffins).
The upside? We get another four years of Donald Trump's Presidency.
For some, that's a pretty good deal. (Donald Trump, for instance.)
Question: Is the man who wrote The Art of the Deal really that cynical?
But wait, you might be saying, he's giving us a victory in Afghanistan! A victory that both vindicates and validates all American deaths so far!
Nonsense. There can be no actual victory for America in that country. Remember, we're fighting against God in Afghanistan. You can't beat God. By definition.
Whatever we do in that region—short of expunging the very concept of Islam forever—the dent in the ocean that we make will fill back in. And fast.
The best we can hope for is death, destruction, and four more years of Donald Trump. That's what this deal is all about. Some would say it's a bargain.
Are you one of them?
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
AFGHANISTAN BANANA STAND
President Trump has set out new guidelines for the US military in Afghanistan. For the first time, apparently, America is in it to win it.
Make no mistake: We're going to win the war.
This is what the new and improved America is all about: Winning!
(Accept no substitutes.)
America's longest war is headed for a happy ending.
We know all this because the President said so. And that's that. I mean, the man never lies, right? And he's never wrong about stuff. Everything he says is golden.
The troops are to be given all the hardware and personnel they need to get the job done. Furthermore, the commanders in the field will be in charge, for once. Whatever they want to do, BAM! It's done!
But we're not going to dictate to the Afghani government. This is their country and their war (sort of). We're not going to try to remake the place in our image. If those guys want to include the Taliban in the government, who are we to object? (If they can find any Taliban alive after we get through with them. Ha ha!)
We're in Afghanistan to kill terrorists, and when we've killed them all, we'll leave. No timetables. The orders are simple: Kill 'em all, then bail.
Oh, maybe we'll leave when the government of Afghanistan decides they've had enough American help. It's none of our business, right? If those guys make a private deal with the Taliban to end the war, so be it.
We'll declare victory and skedaddle.
It's the new America: We break down the door of your country, kill all the terrorists in there, and hit the road. Rinse and repeat.
(And don't bother leaving a key under the mat. Turns out we enjoy busting things up. Besides, we're on a mission. MAGA!)
Trump often criticized Obama for announcing the schedule of American troop withdrawal, said it gave the Taliban a chance to lie back and wait us out.
Fact is, that's always possible, and Trump's plan won't prevent it. If the Taliban disappeared into the mountains (or into the Afghani government), we'd pretty much have to take off, sooner or later: No more enemy to neutralize, right?
After we leave, they can come back—or break any deals they have with the government.
Remember, this is their country. (They used to run it.) And they have the high moral ground: These are deeply religious men. They can only do the right thing, because they're acting under direct orders from Allah.
Probably the only possible long-term solution to the Taliban would be to field an equally God-addled contingent of Islamic freedom fighters to wipe them out.
Then swallow a cat to chase the rat, and so on.
I got a feeling it could get pretty messy in there...
Make no mistake: We're going to win the war.
This is what the new and improved America is all about: Winning!
(Accept no substitutes.)
America's longest war is headed for a happy ending.
We know all this because the President said so. And that's that. I mean, the man never lies, right? And he's never wrong about stuff. Everything he says is golden.
The troops are to be given all the hardware and personnel they need to get the job done. Furthermore, the commanders in the field will be in charge, for once. Whatever they want to do, BAM! It's done!
But we're not going to dictate to the Afghani government. This is their country and their war (sort of). We're not going to try to remake the place in our image. If those guys want to include the Taliban in the government, who are we to object? (If they can find any Taliban alive after we get through with them. Ha ha!)
We're in Afghanistan to kill terrorists, and when we've killed them all, we'll leave. No timetables. The orders are simple: Kill 'em all, then bail.
Oh, maybe we'll leave when the government of Afghanistan decides they've had enough American help. It's none of our business, right? If those guys make a private deal with the Taliban to end the war, so be it.
We'll declare victory and skedaddle.
It's the new America: We break down the door of your country, kill all the terrorists in there, and hit the road. Rinse and repeat.
(And don't bother leaving a key under the mat. Turns out we enjoy busting things up. Besides, we're on a mission. MAGA!)
Trump often criticized Obama for announcing the schedule of American troop withdrawal, said it gave the Taliban a chance to lie back and wait us out.
Fact is, that's always possible, and Trump's plan won't prevent it. If the Taliban disappeared into the mountains (or into the Afghani government), we'd pretty much have to take off, sooner or later: No more enemy to neutralize, right?
After we leave, they can come back—or break any deals they have with the government.
Remember, this is their country. (They used to run it.) And they have the high moral ground: These are deeply religious men. They can only do the right thing, because they're acting under direct orders from Allah.
Probably the only possible long-term solution to the Taliban would be to field an equally God-addled contingent of Islamic freedom fighters to wipe them out.
Then swallow a cat to chase the rat, and so on.
I got a feeling it could get pretty messy in there...
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
TRUMP'S MOUTH IS WIDE OPEN AGAIN
A lot of the criticism President Trump is facing these days comes from his slowness to condemn neo-Nazis and White Supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia. He corrected this omission on Monday, then kind of took it all back on Tuesday, at a press conference in front of Trump Tower in New York City.
About the only folks defending him now are the KKK and fellow bigots. And Vice President Mike Pence.
It's difficult to tell if Trump really wants to earn the praise of neo-Nazis (though he'd be delighted to take their votes come 2020). What he seems to be doing is not so much championing their cause, as coming to the defense of his own words—his Saturday statement. The "many sides" statement.
Trump has a history of reacting to criticism by doubling down, by not just repeating what he originally said, but by amplifying it.
It's like he can't stand to be wrong. Or to be seen as wrong.
Trump's position is that he is a perfect being, and as such, all of his statements are perfect and beyond reproach. He can't back down because he's never wrong.
As far as he knows.
This is a quintessentially human attitude. Everybody knows the crap in their heads is good stuff, beyond criticism. We know this because everything we see in the world backs us up. We know we're right. End of story.
(Lucky for us, the human brain edits the world we see, drawing attention to those events and conditions that tend to support the nonsense in our pitiful noggins. When nothing out there can be used to prove us right, stuff is made up. Perfectly natural process from a naturally perfect creature.)
Trump's assertion is this: His Saturday statement was correct, and if you don't think so it's because you're not thinking things through properly.
As Trump remembers it, he condemned the violence—on many sides, many sides.
Note, he's talking about the violence itself, not the political or philosophical positions of any of the people involved. Just the violence.
The way he sees it, the alt-left attacked the alt-right, and blame must therefore be shared. (He did not offer a way to split the tab.)
On Monday Trump stated that bigotry is evil. Apparently, violent protest against evil is also evil, and must be equally condemned. Also, it seems only the alt-left can have an opinion about racism. Folks in the middle are excluded from the debate.
Trump is lucky the alt-right folks came armed and ready to mix it up. If they'd marched peacefully—like black folk alongside Martin Luther King—and absorbed the punishment without fighting back, Trump might just have had to bless their martyred hearts. And make holy icons of their bloody shirts.
(It's happened before. Check out the rise of Adolf Hitler.)
By making a point of condemning the violence on both sides, Trump can stand behind his words on Saturday, triumphant in his accuracy and presidential fairness.
And revel in the little picture.
Like Captain Queeg upbraiding an officer for letting a man go with his shirt tail out, blasting away at the fellow about military decorum and proper behavior—all while his ship steams in a circle toward failure. The Captain refuses all interruption from those who can see the problem, because he knows he's doing the right thing.
Trump defends his little words, lest they be found wanting and reflect badly on him.
Let the citizens of the nation wallow in the Big Picture.
About the only folks defending him now are the KKK and fellow bigots. And Vice President Mike Pence.
It's difficult to tell if Trump really wants to earn the praise of neo-Nazis (though he'd be delighted to take their votes come 2020). What he seems to be doing is not so much championing their cause, as coming to the defense of his own words—his Saturday statement. The "many sides" statement.
Trump has a history of reacting to criticism by doubling down, by not just repeating what he originally said, but by amplifying it.
It's like he can't stand to be wrong. Or to be seen as wrong.
Trump's position is that he is a perfect being, and as such, all of his statements are perfect and beyond reproach. He can't back down because he's never wrong.
As far as he knows.
This is a quintessentially human attitude. Everybody knows the crap in their heads is good stuff, beyond criticism. We know this because everything we see in the world backs us up. We know we're right. End of story.
(Lucky for us, the human brain edits the world we see, drawing attention to those events and conditions that tend to support the nonsense in our pitiful noggins. When nothing out there can be used to prove us right, stuff is made up. Perfectly natural process from a naturally perfect creature.)
Trump's assertion is this: His Saturday statement was correct, and if you don't think so it's because you're not thinking things through properly.
As Trump remembers it, he condemned the violence—on many sides, many sides.
Note, he's talking about the violence itself, not the political or philosophical positions of any of the people involved. Just the violence.
The way he sees it, the alt-left attacked the alt-right, and blame must therefore be shared. (He did not offer a way to split the tab.)
On Monday Trump stated that bigotry is evil. Apparently, violent protest against evil is also evil, and must be equally condemned. Also, it seems only the alt-left can have an opinion about racism. Folks in the middle are excluded from the debate.
Trump is lucky the alt-right folks came armed and ready to mix it up. If they'd marched peacefully—like black folk alongside Martin Luther King—and absorbed the punishment without fighting back, Trump might just have had to bless their martyred hearts. And make holy icons of their bloody shirts.
(It's happened before. Check out the rise of Adolf Hitler.)
By making a point of condemning the violence on both sides, Trump can stand behind his words on Saturday, triumphant in his accuracy and presidential fairness.
And revel in the little picture.
Like Captain Queeg upbraiding an officer for letting a man go with his shirt tail out, blasting away at the fellow about military decorum and proper behavior—all while his ship steams in a circle toward failure. The Captain refuses all interruption from those who can see the problem, because he knows he's doing the right thing.
Trump defends his little words, lest they be found wanting and reflect badly on him.
Let the citizens of the nation wallow in the Big Picture.
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN - DECODED
I don't understand everything, not even with a long time to ponder. Take Trump's campaign slogan, for instance. It clearly implies America used to be great, but wasn't great right now. Though it could be great again by taking the right actions.
Hence the question: When was America last great?
At first I thought Trump might mean the early part of the Twentieth Century. We'd defeated Spain the the Spanish-American War, but hadn't yet become policeman to the world. (Even the Great War couldn't make that stick.) American industrialists were gobbling up great swaths of the landscape, and unionists were being mowed down by State Militias and whatnot. Minorities were kept in their places. And there was no pesky income tax to interfere with the accumulation of vast wealth.
The glory days of the nation—at least, as seen by the likes of Donald Trump.
So, was that the time Trump wanted to recapture?
Let's put my answer on hold for a moment and talk about what happened over the weekend. The gathering of the alt-right in Charlottesville, Virginia, met with counter protests, and a woman was run down by a car driven by a neo-Nazi.
President Trump condemned this horrific event, but laid the blame on violence and bigotry from "many sides, many sides." He was criticized for not naming the bad guys, for leaving it so vague. (Should the people who counter hatred also be called haters?)
But look, the man was in a tough position. Trump has already begun his 2020 reelection bid, and quite frankly, the alt-right represents a nice chunk of his peeps. For good reason, he didn't want to alienate those folks. They helped put him in the White House, and he would certainly like to count on them again. (If only guys like David Duke, former Grand Poobah of the KKK, would shut the hell up about supporting him!)
Two days later, Trump was hounded into saying the magic words: KKK, neo-Nazis, White Supremacists. (Someone may have written all this down for him.)
Recall how during the campaign he got this bug up his butt about how Hillary failed to use the term "radical Islamic terrorists." It was like a version of the Birther Movement applied to Hillary—the woman wasn't kosher, somehow. Anyway, it made sense to Trump, and he leaned on it pretty hard.
"If you can't name the evil you're fighting, you can win against it."
Something like that.
(Was he suggesting she was hoping to get the radical Islamic vote?)
Although he "joked" about Obama being a founder of ISIS, I don't recall Trump getting on the man for calling the group ISIL. Could've gone either way, though.
Back to Make America Great Again.
I think I finally got what it means: A return to those excellent days before the election of Barack Obama.
Which is why Trump seems obsessed with erasing everything Obama accomplished: Dreamers, gays and transgender folks in the military, environmental protections, a push for higher taxes on the wealthy, healthcare for most Americans.
Trump wants to undo all of that, along with NAFTA and the Iranian nuclear deal.
He wants to set the clock back eight years or so, before there was a Black Man in the White House. And I think the majority of his supporters decoded his message and voted to put white men back in charge of this country, the way God intended.
(In the Antebellum South, the Bible was quoted to justify the enslavement of blacks.)
A lot of Obama's work could be turned around with the stroke of a pen.
(To be accurate, many, many strokes of Trump's pen—I never saw a guy with a relatively short name take so long to scratch it on a piece of paper. And then hold it up for all to see: Donald J. Pneumoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis Trump.)
Getting Congress to cooperate in eviscerating Obama's legacy is proving more difficult. One of the biggest problems comes from adding the words "and replace" to the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. The Republicans can't figure out how to do that. And why should they? All they really wanted to do was get rid of it altogether.
If Trump yearns to be the anti-Obama, it may not even be a racist thing (though it likely is for a large number of his followers). Remember how Trump reacted (or failed to react) to Obama's jokes about him at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner a few years ago? Some think this is the main reason Trump tried so hard to become president.
Too bad he couldn't have run against Obama. If he could have defeated the man directly, and not just the guy's surrogate, maybe Trump wouldn't have to be so ruthless in the destruction of Obama's accomplishments. (Doesn't matter; he would have lost.)
But if the Donald had defeated Obama head to head, what would Trump's presidency be about?
Another question: Should a man with such a fragile ego be President of the United States of America?
Hence the question: When was America last great?
At first I thought Trump might mean the early part of the Twentieth Century. We'd defeated Spain the the Spanish-American War, but hadn't yet become policeman to the world. (Even the Great War couldn't make that stick.) American industrialists were gobbling up great swaths of the landscape, and unionists were being mowed down by State Militias and whatnot. Minorities were kept in their places. And there was no pesky income tax to interfere with the accumulation of vast wealth.
The glory days of the nation—at least, as seen by the likes of Donald Trump.
So, was that the time Trump wanted to recapture?
Let's put my answer on hold for a moment and talk about what happened over the weekend. The gathering of the alt-right in Charlottesville, Virginia, met with counter protests, and a woman was run down by a car driven by a neo-Nazi.
President Trump condemned this horrific event, but laid the blame on violence and bigotry from "many sides, many sides." He was criticized for not naming the bad guys, for leaving it so vague. (Should the people who counter hatred also be called haters?)
But look, the man was in a tough position. Trump has already begun his 2020 reelection bid, and quite frankly, the alt-right represents a nice chunk of his peeps. For good reason, he didn't want to alienate those folks. They helped put him in the White House, and he would certainly like to count on them again. (If only guys like David Duke, former Grand Poobah of the KKK, would shut the hell up about supporting him!)
Two days later, Trump was hounded into saying the magic words: KKK, neo-Nazis, White Supremacists. (Someone may have written all this down for him.)
Recall how during the campaign he got this bug up his butt about how Hillary failed to use the term "radical Islamic terrorists." It was like a version of the Birther Movement applied to Hillary—the woman wasn't kosher, somehow. Anyway, it made sense to Trump, and he leaned on it pretty hard.
"If you can't name the evil you're fighting, you can win against it."
Something like that.
(Was he suggesting she was hoping to get the radical Islamic vote?)
Although he "joked" about Obama being a founder of ISIS, I don't recall Trump getting on the man for calling the group ISIL. Could've gone either way, though.
Back to Make America Great Again.
I think I finally got what it means: A return to those excellent days before the election of Barack Obama.
Which is why Trump seems obsessed with erasing everything Obama accomplished: Dreamers, gays and transgender folks in the military, environmental protections, a push for higher taxes on the wealthy, healthcare for most Americans.
Trump wants to undo all of that, along with NAFTA and the Iranian nuclear deal.
He wants to set the clock back eight years or so, before there was a Black Man in the White House. And I think the majority of his supporters decoded his message and voted to put white men back in charge of this country, the way God intended.
(In the Antebellum South, the Bible was quoted to justify the enslavement of blacks.)
A lot of Obama's work could be turned around with the stroke of a pen.
(To be accurate, many, many strokes of Trump's pen—I never saw a guy with a relatively short name take so long to scratch it on a piece of paper. And then hold it up for all to see: Donald J. Pneumoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis Trump.)
Getting Congress to cooperate in eviscerating Obama's legacy is proving more difficult. One of the biggest problems comes from adding the words "and replace" to the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. The Republicans can't figure out how to do that. And why should they? All they really wanted to do was get rid of it altogether.
If Trump yearns to be the anti-Obama, it may not even be a racist thing (though it likely is for a large number of his followers). Remember how Trump reacted (or failed to react) to Obama's jokes about him at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner a few years ago? Some think this is the main reason Trump tried so hard to become president.
Too bad he couldn't have run against Obama. If he could have defeated the man directly, and not just the guy's surrogate, maybe Trump wouldn't have to be so ruthless in the destruction of Obama's accomplishments. (Doesn't matter; he would have lost.)
But if the Donald had defeated Obama head to head, what would Trump's presidency be about?
Another question: Should a man with such a fragile ego be President of the United States of America?
Thursday, August 10, 2017
DEAR KIM JONG-UN
First of all, I want to congratulate you for getting President Trump to haul out his wiener and wave it around at the dinner table in front of grandma and everybody, and for getting him to say what he did about fire and brimstone and so forth. Nice job.
As you know, your whole political career depends on making everybody believe North Korea is just seconds away from annihilation in a deluge of US nukes. If your people ever realized what a fabrication that was—our guy would call it Fake News—they'd climb right up your a-hole and hollow you out with hungry, hungry teeth.
They all sacrifice so much so you can develop the weapons to hold back this ravening chunk of nonsense.
To amend Winston Churchill, dictators don't just ride tigers, fearing to dismount. They have to keep the tiger distracted by shaking the bushes and causing odd noises to erupt from the jungle—strange clanking and whistling sounds that could be anything. Under the circumstances, mere tigers may be forgiven if they forget for a moment there's some idiot riding around on their backs.
Now, as I understand it, you plan to fire four brand-new ICBMs at the island of Guam, where the US bases numerous strategic bombers, causing the missiles to splash harmlessly into the ocean twenty or thirty miles off shore. Just to convince the US you have that capability.
Bad idea, dude.
You may have a lot of confidence in the ability of your techs and their exotic hardware, but you guys haven't fired off that many examples of the long-range stuff. What if you miscalculate? What if one of your missiles goes long and hits the island?
That would be bad, because forty minutes later, North Korea would cease to exist. And two weeks after that, there wouldn't be a North Korean alive anywhere on the planet.
All that risk, and for no gain at all.
We already believe your missiles can hit any city in the Western two-thirds of the continental US. And we know you have nuclear warheads. It's just a matter of time before you put 'em together and nuke us. Maybe a year or two. (Or less; sooner, in fact, than anyone is willing to believe right now.)
So don't push it, okay? Don't do anything. It'll drive our president crazy!
First, he'll think he's won. Then he'll begin to worry you're doing something nasty in secret. Maybe teamed up with Barack Obama. (Trump already knows that man is one sick sum-bitch.)
Your whole strategy is to make the US a viable enemy—without doing anything to actually provoke us. Forcing us to act would be fatal for you, your regime, and many, many of your people.
Here's why. You pose a serious threat to South Korea and Japan. That means the US can't take military measures without getting our friends hurt in retaliation.
Unless we go all-in, right from the get-go.
Only a massive nuclear strike could prevent you from carrying out revenge against your fellow Koreans and the Japanese. Decapitation might not be enough. We'd have to hit everything and take it all out. We'd have to hit you so hard your people wouldn't be able to find a stone they could throw at South Korea in anger.
I've heard it said that once you get the ability to deliver an unacceptable blow to the US, you'll agree to talks. (I think you're pretty much there, right now.) And in those talks, you'll give up your nuclear capability in exchange for what you really want.
If that's true, the question is: What do you really want?
What you've got right now is a 1984-style World of Perpetual War, which is plenty exciting and everything. What could possibly replace it that would be better for keeping your people under your thumb?
Maybe pull some sort of bizarre switcheroo, threaten us into giving in to your radical New Korean Order, where North and South Korea reunite in a democratic paradise that lives in peace with all the world.
You could force us to let that happen! Then happily give up your nukes and most of your conventional armament. Possible? Maybe.
But what if it turns out President Trump needs you to pose a threat to the US, as a distraction from problems at home? The Russia Thing, for instance. Or the lack of Repeal-and-Replace.
That would be weird.
Maybe you should just lie low for a while, and keep your big mouth shut. Our guy's crazy, you know. Might be wise not to set him off.
As you know, your whole political career depends on making everybody believe North Korea is just seconds away from annihilation in a deluge of US nukes. If your people ever realized what a fabrication that was—our guy would call it Fake News—they'd climb right up your a-hole and hollow you out with hungry, hungry teeth.
They all sacrifice so much so you can develop the weapons to hold back this ravening chunk of nonsense.
To amend Winston Churchill, dictators don't just ride tigers, fearing to dismount. They have to keep the tiger distracted by shaking the bushes and causing odd noises to erupt from the jungle—strange clanking and whistling sounds that could be anything. Under the circumstances, mere tigers may be forgiven if they forget for a moment there's some idiot riding around on their backs.
Now, as I understand it, you plan to fire four brand-new ICBMs at the island of Guam, where the US bases numerous strategic bombers, causing the missiles to splash harmlessly into the ocean twenty or thirty miles off shore. Just to convince the US you have that capability.
Bad idea, dude.
You may have a lot of confidence in the ability of your techs and their exotic hardware, but you guys haven't fired off that many examples of the long-range stuff. What if you miscalculate? What if one of your missiles goes long and hits the island?
That would be bad, because forty minutes later, North Korea would cease to exist. And two weeks after that, there wouldn't be a North Korean alive anywhere on the planet.
All that risk, and for no gain at all.
We already believe your missiles can hit any city in the Western two-thirds of the continental US. And we know you have nuclear warheads. It's just a matter of time before you put 'em together and nuke us. Maybe a year or two. (Or less; sooner, in fact, than anyone is willing to believe right now.)
So don't push it, okay? Don't do anything. It'll drive our president crazy!
First, he'll think he's won. Then he'll begin to worry you're doing something nasty in secret. Maybe teamed up with Barack Obama. (Trump already knows that man is one sick sum-bitch.)
Your whole strategy is to make the US a viable enemy—without doing anything to actually provoke us. Forcing us to act would be fatal for you, your regime, and many, many of your people.
Here's why. You pose a serious threat to South Korea and Japan. That means the US can't take military measures without getting our friends hurt in retaliation.
Unless we go all-in, right from the get-go.
Only a massive nuclear strike could prevent you from carrying out revenge against your fellow Koreans and the Japanese. Decapitation might not be enough. We'd have to hit everything and take it all out. We'd have to hit you so hard your people wouldn't be able to find a stone they could throw at South Korea in anger.
I've heard it said that once you get the ability to deliver an unacceptable blow to the US, you'll agree to talks. (I think you're pretty much there, right now.) And in those talks, you'll give up your nuclear capability in exchange for what you really want.
If that's true, the question is: What do you really want?
What you've got right now is a 1984-style World of Perpetual War, which is plenty exciting and everything. What could possibly replace it that would be better for keeping your people under your thumb?
Maybe pull some sort of bizarre switcheroo, threaten us into giving in to your radical New Korean Order, where North and South Korea reunite in a democratic paradise that lives in peace with all the world.
You could force us to let that happen! Then happily give up your nukes and most of your conventional armament. Possible? Maybe.
But what if it turns out President Trump needs you to pose a threat to the US, as a distraction from problems at home? The Russia Thing, for instance. Or the lack of Repeal-and-Replace.
That would be weird.
Maybe you should just lie low for a while, and keep your big mouth shut. Our guy's crazy, you know. Might be wise not to set him off.
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
TRUMP'S THREE PART AGENDA
Aside from his avowed goal to renegotiate every deal ever made by anybody anywhere, President Donald Trump has three main items on his legislative agenda: 1) repeal (and replace) Obamacare; 2) pass tax reform to the benefit of Rich America; 3) fix the infrastructure of the nation.
Part One is well bogged down.
Republicans are at a massive disadvantage. They hate Obamacare, for various reasons (to include the fact often repeated that America has rejected Obamacare), but all they really want to do is repeal it. If "replace" hadn't somehow become attached to the deal, the whole process would have operated much smoother.
Unfortunately, a lot of noise has been generated by the American people, something to the effect that Obamacare ought to be fixed, not repealed, and this disruption of the natural order has made even so simple a thing as "repeal" stall out on the details.
The problem is, folks have gotten a taste of healthcare and want to hold onto it.
This is Obama's legacy, not the healthcare plan that bears his name. From now on, some sort of healthcare will be demanded by the people of this country.
("The horror, the horror!" say Republicans.)
So, on to Part Two.
Trump wants to give a massive tax break to rich Americans and American corporations. The idea is that those worthies will take that money and build countless factories, putting to work all those folks disrupted by the inevitable flow of events in the universe.
Well, you may well give those people the money, but since Trump doesn't plan to link that money to any action, good or evil, nothing will come of this but a specious loyalty to the party that engineered the tax break.
And that loyalty is already pretty much secured by everything that has happened so far. Who are those guys going to vote for, Democrats? Get real!
(As for factories, the rich know exactly where to build those things. And it ain't America.)
Part Three on the agenda is the repair of the infrastructure: the roads, bridges, tunnels, and (perhaps) government buildings of this country.
Technically, repairing the infrastructure should carry with it no more debate than the concept of healing an environment endangered by Global Warming. But, as we've seen from Trump, the obvious doesn't always penetrate the inner sanctum.
Also, doing this fix will require giant heaps of money—money Trump would dearly love to drop at the feet of the military.
But it must be done, or we'll be buried beneath the burden of rusted iron. It could get so bad we'd have to leave the planet to WALL-E and his sentimental ilk.
It's a hard sell, nevertheless.
So here's a plan to tackle all three parts of the agenda with one simple concept: Soak the Money!
That's right. Don't soak the rich. Soak their money. Those guys have lots of it!
We live in a capitalist economy, boys and girls. And one of the most endearing features of such a system is this: You can send your surplus money out there in the world and it comes back with friends—more money.
Money for free, pretty much.
The money your money makes should be taxed at a very high rate. Then use that windfall to pay for healthcare and infrastructure repair.
And when I say healthcare, I don't mean healthcare insurance. I mean actual healthcare.
We have lots of hospitals and doctors and nurses and medical equipment in this bountiful land. If you're feeling poorly—or have been injured—you should be able to take advantage of all that stuff. And let the government figure out how to pay for it.
And how should the government pay for it? Soak the money, is what I say.
(Don't worry. Rich folks will still be rich. They just won't be getting richer at quite the staggering rate they are now.)
Instead of pariahs, rich folk will be our helpless benefactors. Look at that anemic smile! They must feel so proud to be able to help all those diseased creatures rising zombie-like from the nooks and crannies of this country, shuffling into those gleaming hospitals, the great unwashed oozing with their doomsday infections.
Fun fact: If more people had fast and easy access to healthcare, we might not be facing the end of antibiotics—and possibly the end of civilization as we know it.
Is that worth anything to anybody?
Part One is well bogged down.
Republicans are at a massive disadvantage. They hate Obamacare, for various reasons (to include the fact often repeated that America has rejected Obamacare), but all they really want to do is repeal it. If "replace" hadn't somehow become attached to the deal, the whole process would have operated much smoother.
Unfortunately, a lot of noise has been generated by the American people, something to the effect that Obamacare ought to be fixed, not repealed, and this disruption of the natural order has made even so simple a thing as "repeal" stall out on the details.
The problem is, folks have gotten a taste of healthcare and want to hold onto it.
This is Obama's legacy, not the healthcare plan that bears his name. From now on, some sort of healthcare will be demanded by the people of this country.
("The horror, the horror!" say Republicans.)
So, on to Part Two.
Trump wants to give a massive tax break to rich Americans and American corporations. The idea is that those worthies will take that money and build countless factories, putting to work all those folks disrupted by the inevitable flow of events in the universe.
Well, you may well give those people the money, but since Trump doesn't plan to link that money to any action, good or evil, nothing will come of this but a specious loyalty to the party that engineered the tax break.
And that loyalty is already pretty much secured by everything that has happened so far. Who are those guys going to vote for, Democrats? Get real!
(As for factories, the rich know exactly where to build those things. And it ain't America.)
Part Three on the agenda is the repair of the infrastructure: the roads, bridges, tunnels, and (perhaps) government buildings of this country.
Technically, repairing the infrastructure should carry with it no more debate than the concept of healing an environment endangered by Global Warming. But, as we've seen from Trump, the obvious doesn't always penetrate the inner sanctum.
Also, doing this fix will require giant heaps of money—money Trump would dearly love to drop at the feet of the military.
But it must be done, or we'll be buried beneath the burden of rusted iron. It could get so bad we'd have to leave the planet to WALL-E and his sentimental ilk.
It's a hard sell, nevertheless.
So here's a plan to tackle all three parts of the agenda with one simple concept: Soak the Money!
That's right. Don't soak the rich. Soak their money. Those guys have lots of it!
We live in a capitalist economy, boys and girls. And one of the most endearing features of such a system is this: You can send your surplus money out there in the world and it comes back with friends—more money.
Money for free, pretty much.
The money your money makes should be taxed at a very high rate. Then use that windfall to pay for healthcare and infrastructure repair.
And when I say healthcare, I don't mean healthcare insurance. I mean actual healthcare.
We have lots of hospitals and doctors and nurses and medical equipment in this bountiful land. If you're feeling poorly—or have been injured—you should be able to take advantage of all that stuff. And let the government figure out how to pay for it.
And how should the government pay for it? Soak the money, is what I say.
(Don't worry. Rich folks will still be rich. They just won't be getting richer at quite the staggering rate they are now.)
Instead of pariahs, rich folk will be our helpless benefactors. Look at that anemic smile! They must feel so proud to be able to help all those diseased creatures rising zombie-like from the nooks and crannies of this country, shuffling into those gleaming hospitals, the great unwashed oozing with their doomsday infections.
Fun fact: If more people had fast and easy access to healthcare, we might not be facing the end of antibiotics—and possibly the end of civilization as we know it.
Is that worth anything to anybody?
Friday, July 28, 2017
THE WHEELS ON TRUMP'S BUS GO ROUND AND ROUND
In an apparent effort to distract from the fact the Republican-led Senate cannot pass any version of the long-sought-after repeal-and-replace legislation, Donald Trump has abruptly thrown transgender folk under the bus.
Not that his largely homophobic base will give a crap.
I was frankly amazed at all those mewing tones coming from Trump at the Republican Convention, where the man all but transformed himself into a simulacrum of a human being on the subject of the LGBTQ community. (He seemed to hit the "Q" a little hard each time he recited the letters, which he did repeatedly, his golden promises to make.)
Is this some sort of master plan? Did Trump sidle up to other fringe groups so he can fire them down range in an emergency? Like when the bear is gaining on him and he needs to jettison some tasty morsel to keep those big sharp teeth out of his hindquarters?
As for the Republicans, they have but one reasonable path: to help the Democrats twiddle and twang Obamacare into some sort of viable shape. Failing to repeal-and-replace, some Republicans will fall under the wheels of their own political rhetoric—though they may recover some momentum by appearing to come to the aid of those Republican governors who can't see giving up Obamacare at this point, especially not when it might be fixed.
Trump will hate it like poison, of course, but I suspect he'll make a forceful statement that will make it seem like tweaking Obamacare was his plan all along. The idea that some folks wanted to repeal the law of the land will be made to sound ridiculous.
(Recall his words confirming Barack Obama was born in this country after all. PERIOD. As if Trump were not the beast hounding the man on the subject.)
Of course, the Republican failures in Congress are not the only creatures nipping at Trump's rump. There's the Russia Thing.
His own son admits slavering at the mouth over the possibility a high-ranking, government-backed Russian lawyer could deliver dirt on Hillary. That the woman could not come through does not mitigate his crime.
(If a bunch of guys get together and pool their money to hire a hit-man, the fact the fellow missed his shot, or simply grabbed their moolah and scrammed out of there, doesn't lessen their crimes that much. It's still felonies all around, for conspiracy to murder.)
The fact that lots of politicians would have taken that meeting (as Trump proposed) doesn't transform their crimes into May flowers. Those guys tried to collude, as best they could.
Trump's attack on Jeff Sessions continues. The thing he's upset about—that his Attorney Genera recused himself from the Russia investigation—is very old news, but suddenly Trump can't stop referring to it. Clearly the President wanted an AG who will protect him from unwanted investigations.
Lately, Trump has been criticizing Sessions for not prosecuting Hillary Clinton for her email server crimes. Trump has been quiet about this stuff since getting elected, but the subject is back and starting to heat up.
I think what is happening is that Trump has found the presidency not to his liking. Nobody is doing what he wants doing. There's no loyalty anywhere.
He's brought in a junkyard dog, Anthony Scaramucci, to run the communications department—a designated leak killer. (Nixon's boys called themselves "plumbers.") This guy's job is shake things up, and he's working it. Says he's loyal to the President despite negative things he's said about Trump in the past.
Trump keeps doing the sort of stuff he can do without Congress: Executive Orders.
He seems determined to dismantle the entire Obama administration, one chunk at a time. If the signature item (Obamacare) is beyond his reach, the man will do everything else he can. During the campaign, Trump called Obama the stupidest President this country has ever had, so all his accomplishments are fair game.
For a while Trump seemed mollified by his meeting with Obama in the White House before the inauguration. But all that ended when Trump found out the sick son-of-a-bitch wiretapped him in Trump Tower. It's an act of treachery that cannot go unavenged!
Trump revisits the glory of the campaign trail as often as he can, recently acting so bizarrely at a Boy Scout Jamboree the leaders had to issue an apology to the kids.
The man is coming unglued with the frustration of not getting treated the way he imagined he would as President. Deference and loyalty is what he expected, eager young men leaping into action to do his holy bidding.
Instead, if Trump can't scrape away on a piece of paper to make something happen, nothing gets done at all. This is not what he signed up for!
So the wheels on the bus go round and round, nicely greased by the guts of the fallen. (The standard mystery: Did the guy fall, or was he pushed?)
Trump now has his eye on special counsel Robert Mueller, ringmaster of the Russia Circus, despite warnings from Congressional Republicans.
Is there another bloodbath coming?
Trump needs to know: When you stab a man in the back—or in the front, Scaramucci-style—an unexpected obstacle may causes the knife to stall momentarily. The murdering hand slips forward, onto the blade, and the stabber is himself deeply cut.
Trump needs to know that wound can get infected, sometimes fatally.
(By the way, RIP Anthony Scaramucci.)
Not that his largely homophobic base will give a crap.
I was frankly amazed at all those mewing tones coming from Trump at the Republican Convention, where the man all but transformed himself into a simulacrum of a human being on the subject of the LGBTQ community. (He seemed to hit the "Q" a little hard each time he recited the letters, which he did repeatedly, his golden promises to make.)
Is this some sort of master plan? Did Trump sidle up to other fringe groups so he can fire them down range in an emergency? Like when the bear is gaining on him and he needs to jettison some tasty morsel to keep those big sharp teeth out of his hindquarters?
As for the Republicans, they have but one reasonable path: to help the Democrats twiddle and twang Obamacare into some sort of viable shape. Failing to repeal-and-replace, some Republicans will fall under the wheels of their own political rhetoric—though they may recover some momentum by appearing to come to the aid of those Republican governors who can't see giving up Obamacare at this point, especially not when it might be fixed.
Trump will hate it like poison, of course, but I suspect he'll make a forceful statement that will make it seem like tweaking Obamacare was his plan all along. The idea that some folks wanted to repeal the law of the land will be made to sound ridiculous.
(Recall his words confirming Barack Obama was born in this country after all. PERIOD. As if Trump were not the beast hounding the man on the subject.)
Of course, the Republican failures in Congress are not the only creatures nipping at Trump's rump. There's the Russia Thing.
His own son admits slavering at the mouth over the possibility a high-ranking, government-backed Russian lawyer could deliver dirt on Hillary. That the woman could not come through does not mitigate his crime.
(If a bunch of guys get together and pool their money to hire a hit-man, the fact the fellow missed his shot, or simply grabbed their moolah and scrammed out of there, doesn't lessen their crimes that much. It's still felonies all around, for conspiracy to murder.)
The fact that lots of politicians would have taken that meeting (as Trump proposed) doesn't transform their crimes into May flowers. Those guys tried to collude, as best they could.
Trump's attack on Jeff Sessions continues. The thing he's upset about—that his Attorney Genera recused himself from the Russia investigation—is very old news, but suddenly Trump can't stop referring to it. Clearly the President wanted an AG who will protect him from unwanted investigations.
Lately, Trump has been criticizing Sessions for not prosecuting Hillary Clinton for her email server crimes. Trump has been quiet about this stuff since getting elected, but the subject is back and starting to heat up.
I think what is happening is that Trump has found the presidency not to his liking. Nobody is doing what he wants doing. There's no loyalty anywhere.
He's brought in a junkyard dog, Anthony Scaramucci, to run the communications department—a designated leak killer. (Nixon's boys called themselves "plumbers.") This guy's job is shake things up, and he's working it. Says he's loyal to the President despite negative things he's said about Trump in the past.
Trump keeps doing the sort of stuff he can do without Congress: Executive Orders.
He seems determined to dismantle the entire Obama administration, one chunk at a time. If the signature item (Obamacare) is beyond his reach, the man will do everything else he can. During the campaign, Trump called Obama the stupidest President this country has ever had, so all his accomplishments are fair game.
For a while Trump seemed mollified by his meeting with Obama in the White House before the inauguration. But all that ended when Trump found out the sick son-of-a-bitch wiretapped him in Trump Tower. It's an act of treachery that cannot go unavenged!
Trump revisits the glory of the campaign trail as often as he can, recently acting so bizarrely at a Boy Scout Jamboree the leaders had to issue an apology to the kids.
The man is coming unglued with the frustration of not getting treated the way he imagined he would as President. Deference and loyalty is what he expected, eager young men leaping into action to do his holy bidding.
Instead, if Trump can't scrape away on a piece of paper to make something happen, nothing gets done at all. This is not what he signed up for!
So the wheels on the bus go round and round, nicely greased by the guts of the fallen. (The standard mystery: Did the guy fall, or was he pushed?)
Trump now has his eye on special counsel Robert Mueller, ringmaster of the Russia Circus, despite warnings from Congressional Republicans.
Is there another bloodbath coming?
Trump needs to know: When you stab a man in the back—or in the front, Scaramucci-style—an unexpected obstacle may causes the knife to stall momentarily. The murdering hand slips forward, onto the blade, and the stabber is himself deeply cut.
Trump needs to know that wound can get infected, sometimes fatally.
(By the way, RIP Anthony Scaramucci.)
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
PART TWO, PART TWO
A while back, in a post called PART TWO, I talked about how the police make arrests—and how ignoring the request to turn around and put your hands behind your back can lead to some very rough treatment.
At that time, I had some advice for handling the police. Now I have some advice for the police—and for the law: Back off!
Some background: You may have noticed on several network newscasts a story about high-speed pursuits in the city of Los Angeles. A grand jury there concluded the cops need to back off and let some of those guys keep on driving.
It made me wonder if a similar attitude might work in the case of folks who don't wish, for whatever reason, to be taken into custody.
Obviously, you can't apply this to guys with guns and bad intentions.
But a lot of the time, it may be possible to skip Part Two and just let the individual wander off. Wander off, that is, with a special penalty applied.
Recall on the news a month or so ago, video of a fellow standing in the open door of his car with his hands up. The cop hauled off and punched him in the face. Brutal behavior, no doubt, but as a startup to Part Two, not that unreasonable. The cop simply had no reliable technology for physically placing the man under arrest.
But suppose the police could offer the fellow an alternative:
"All right, look. I get that you're refusing to submit to arrest. I told you to turn around and put your hands behind your back, and you were like, no way, man. Okay, I get it. But make no mistake, you're still under arrest—you're just not in custody, that's all. You've decided to go another way. Okay, fine, but listen up. You can walk away, right now. And it's not a trick. I won't try to grab you. Just walk away. But you need to know there will be consequences for this action. A warrant will be issued, and at some point you will be grabbed up and taken into custody. After that, if you're convicted, whatever fine is imposed, whatever jail sentence is named, you'll be on the hook for three times that amount. A thousand dollar fine will be three thousand. Six months in jail will be a year and a half. And so forth. You'll also lose the right to bring a civil suit against the city or the police department. But it's entirely your choice. If all this sounds good to you, fine. Go for it. But on foot, okay? Because we'll be impounding your vehicle."
See, it's like getting a traffic violation in a construction zone, where fines are tripled. Who knows, informed of the serious consequences, maybe some folks would reconsider their initial decision to defy the arresting officer.
Others will hit the road, defiant. Maybe they think they can avoid the police for the rest of their days. Or maybe they're convinced no jury would convict them of the crime the police allege.
(And maybe they're right about that. A lot of folks beaten by the cops during an arrest end up with the charges dropped—though that might be a public relations thing.)
Either way, nobody goes to the hospital. Or to the morgue.
What do you think, worth a try?
At that time, I had some advice for handling the police. Now I have some advice for the police—and for the law: Back off!
Some background: You may have noticed on several network newscasts a story about high-speed pursuits in the city of Los Angeles. A grand jury there concluded the cops need to back off and let some of those guys keep on driving.
It made me wonder if a similar attitude might work in the case of folks who don't wish, for whatever reason, to be taken into custody.
Obviously, you can't apply this to guys with guns and bad intentions.
But a lot of the time, it may be possible to skip Part Two and just let the individual wander off. Wander off, that is, with a special penalty applied.
Recall on the news a month or so ago, video of a fellow standing in the open door of his car with his hands up. The cop hauled off and punched him in the face. Brutal behavior, no doubt, but as a startup to Part Two, not that unreasonable. The cop simply had no reliable technology for physically placing the man under arrest.
But suppose the police could offer the fellow an alternative:
"All right, look. I get that you're refusing to submit to arrest. I told you to turn around and put your hands behind your back, and you were like, no way, man. Okay, I get it. But make no mistake, you're still under arrest—you're just not in custody, that's all. You've decided to go another way. Okay, fine, but listen up. You can walk away, right now. And it's not a trick. I won't try to grab you. Just walk away. But you need to know there will be consequences for this action. A warrant will be issued, and at some point you will be grabbed up and taken into custody. After that, if you're convicted, whatever fine is imposed, whatever jail sentence is named, you'll be on the hook for three times that amount. A thousand dollar fine will be three thousand. Six months in jail will be a year and a half. And so forth. You'll also lose the right to bring a civil suit against the city or the police department. But it's entirely your choice. If all this sounds good to you, fine. Go for it. But on foot, okay? Because we'll be impounding your vehicle."
See, it's like getting a traffic violation in a construction zone, where fines are tripled. Who knows, informed of the serious consequences, maybe some folks would reconsider their initial decision to defy the arresting officer.
Others will hit the road, defiant. Maybe they think they can avoid the police for the rest of their days. Or maybe they're convinced no jury would convict them of the crime the police allege.
(And maybe they're right about that. A lot of folks beaten by the cops during an arrest end up with the charges dropped—though that might be a public relations thing.)
Either way, nobody goes to the hospital. Or to the morgue.
What do you think, worth a try?
Friday, July 7, 2017
MR. TRUMP'S LOST CAR KEYS
Donald Trump is fond of pointing out there is no evidence of any collusion between himself, his campaign people, or his transition team and the mysterious folks running the Russian hacking thing.
Fact is, he only admits there is a Russian hacking thing for the purposes of yelling at President Obama for not stopping it way back during the 2016 campaign.
Trump apparently insisted repeatedly that then FBI Director James Comey make a public announcement that evidence of collusion is lacking.
But the real answer is still pretty obvious: The investigations are ongoing, and nobody knows what will turn up or when that might happen.
Say you're looking for your car keys. That's a thing, right? When you're looking for your keys, you might have to go at it for awhile. Out here in the real world, one tends to search until something turns up.
What you don't do is check a couple of likely places, conclude there are no car keys—that there never were any car keys—and call an Uber.
In Trump's world, on the other hand, no one has to search for anything. The man knows ahead of time there are no car keys. In fact, the very concept of keys—or of some device that can be placed in operation with keys—is in his opinion ridiculous and illusory. #FakeNews!
Check it out: No car keys. No cars. No method of transportation. No concept of moving from one place to another. No evidence of any other place but right here or of any other time but right now.
I tell you, the guy's some kind of Zen master!
He knows there's no evidence of collusion because he knows what he knows. How can your own brain lie to you about something so important?
A thing is what it is, and what it is is what you want it to be. By definition.
That's top of the line Human Knowledge, folks, the sort of thinking that gets you through your life.
Trump meets with Putin today at the G20 in Germany, and the word is the President will probably not bring up the hacking thing. Trump's latest statement suggests he thinks Russia might be involved, but a lot of other countries or people might also be involved.
As he keeps putting it: Nobody knows.
He's probably still thinking of that 400-pound man lying in bed with a laptop, causing trouble between pizza deliveries—a guy who never has to worry about the location of his car keys. He's got nowhere he needs to be.
Fact is, he only admits there is a Russian hacking thing for the purposes of yelling at President Obama for not stopping it way back during the 2016 campaign.
Trump apparently insisted repeatedly that then FBI Director James Comey make a public announcement that evidence of collusion is lacking.
But the real answer is still pretty obvious: The investigations are ongoing, and nobody knows what will turn up or when that might happen.
Say you're looking for your car keys. That's a thing, right? When you're looking for your keys, you might have to go at it for awhile. Out here in the real world, one tends to search until something turns up.
What you don't do is check a couple of likely places, conclude there are no car keys—that there never were any car keys—and call an Uber.
In Trump's world, on the other hand, no one has to search for anything. The man knows ahead of time there are no car keys. In fact, the very concept of keys—or of some device that can be placed in operation with keys—is in his opinion ridiculous and illusory. #FakeNews!
Check it out: No car keys. No cars. No method of transportation. No concept of moving from one place to another. No evidence of any other place but right here or of any other time but right now.
I tell you, the guy's some kind of Zen master!
He knows there's no evidence of collusion because he knows what he knows. How can your own brain lie to you about something so important?
A thing is what it is, and what it is is what you want it to be. By definition.
That's top of the line Human Knowledge, folks, the sort of thinking that gets you through your life.
Trump meets with Putin today at the G20 in Germany, and the word is the President will probably not bring up the hacking thing. Trump's latest statement suggests he thinks Russia might be involved, but a lot of other countries or people might also be involved.
As he keeps putting it: Nobody knows.
He's probably still thinking of that 400-pound man lying in bed with a laptop, causing trouble between pizza deliveries—a guy who never has to worry about the location of his car keys. He's got nowhere he needs to be.
Friday, June 30, 2017
TRUMP'S MUSLIM BAN, REDUX
The Supreme Court has allowed a partial version of Trump's Muslim Ban to go into effect, with the idea the Court will decide whether or not it's constitutional at a later time.
When it will be too late.
The ban is only supposed to be in effect for 90 days. It'll be over before SCOTUS can even begin to consider it.
(Unless Trump calls for an extension.)
Dissenters on the court wanted the entire ban to go into effect right away, saying the country is in jeopardy without it. That's odd, because the whole idea was to get time to invent Extreme Vetting, which is the actual thing that is supposed to safeguard the country.
Getting his Muslim Ban going is a victory for Trump, but a black mark for his administration. If those guys had been on the ball, they would've come up with Extreme Vetting before Trump ever took office—they certainly had plenty of time. They should have implemented the new procedures right after the inauguration, in place of the promised temporary ban.
This time, protests at airports over the ban have been weak. Folks are tired of the subject. One supporter said there was psychological boost just from doing something.
(That's the sort of thing you say when you feel helpless.)
Anyway, now the Trump folks are really in the cross hairs. They have to deliver a program that keeps the country safe. Extreme Vetting had better turn out to be Perfect Vetting, or it will be considered a failure.
But that means nothing bad can ever happen. If any immigrant commits even the slightest offense, the very concept of vetting will be discredited. At that point, only total bans can be considered effective. No one will be allowed into the country for any reason at any time.
Anyone already in the country who commits any offense, however minor, will be tossed out. Or executed on the spot.
Trump Law, baby.
(Sharia Law will have to go back to the drawing board if it wants to reclaim the spot of top dog for brutal social systems.)
Criticism of Trump Law will be dealt with in the appropriate manner.
Which brings us to Trump's celebrated method of handling all criticism: He launches a personal, ad hominem attack on his critic.
Case in point, his response to a couple of morning television critters. (Bleeding from a facelift? Really?)
Folks coming to the President's aid say it is in his nature to fight back with overwhelming force when attacked. You mess with him, that man will eff you up but good! (That "nature" has a name: a-hole.)
Donald Trump is apparently convinced a personal attack is a valid refutation of any criticism. No need to get into details.
(Back in the days of the USSR, critics often found themselves committed to insane asylums—because you had to be crazy to criticize the Soviet Union.)
The President mentioned the low ratings of the TV personalities in question. That's a mistake for a guy living in the Glass House.
Nobody with approval ratings as low as Trump's should bring up the low ratings of anybody else.
When it will be too late.
The ban is only supposed to be in effect for 90 days. It'll be over before SCOTUS can even begin to consider it.
(Unless Trump calls for an extension.)
Dissenters on the court wanted the entire ban to go into effect right away, saying the country is in jeopardy without it. That's odd, because the whole idea was to get time to invent Extreme Vetting, which is the actual thing that is supposed to safeguard the country.
Getting his Muslim Ban going is a victory for Trump, but a black mark for his administration. If those guys had been on the ball, they would've come up with Extreme Vetting before Trump ever took office—they certainly had plenty of time. They should have implemented the new procedures right after the inauguration, in place of the promised temporary ban.
This time, protests at airports over the ban have been weak. Folks are tired of the subject. One supporter said there was psychological boost just from doing something.
(That's the sort of thing you say when you feel helpless.)
Anyway, now the Trump folks are really in the cross hairs. They have to deliver a program that keeps the country safe. Extreme Vetting had better turn out to be Perfect Vetting, or it will be considered a failure.
But that means nothing bad can ever happen. If any immigrant commits even the slightest offense, the very concept of vetting will be discredited. At that point, only total bans can be considered effective. No one will be allowed into the country for any reason at any time.
Anyone already in the country who commits any offense, however minor, will be tossed out. Or executed on the spot.
Trump Law, baby.
(Sharia Law will have to go back to the drawing board if it wants to reclaim the spot of top dog for brutal social systems.)
Criticism of Trump Law will be dealt with in the appropriate manner.
Which brings us to Trump's celebrated method of handling all criticism: He launches a personal, ad hominem attack on his critic.
Case in point, his response to a couple of morning television critters. (Bleeding from a facelift? Really?)
Folks coming to the President's aid say it is in his nature to fight back with overwhelming force when attacked. You mess with him, that man will eff you up but good! (That "nature" has a name: a-hole.)
Donald Trump is apparently convinced a personal attack is a valid refutation of any criticism. No need to get into details.
(Back in the days of the USSR, critics often found themselves committed to insane asylums—because you had to be crazy to criticize the Soviet Union.)
The President mentioned the low ratings of the TV personalities in question. That's a mistake for a guy living in the Glass House.
Nobody with approval ratings as low as Trump's should bring up the low ratings of anybody else.
Saturday, June 24, 2017
AMERICAN HEALTHCARE - THE REBOOT
All the Republicans ever wanted to do was repeal Obamacare. Because they know it's an abomination and the American people have rejected it utterly.
They knew this from the very beginning, when the Web page crashed because so many people wanted to sign up. Clearly, America wanted nothing to do with Obamacare!
"Repeal Obamacare!" was their slogan.
Then something weird happened. Donald Trump blustered and lied his way past all the other Republican candidates and became the nominee for President. And he said, "Repeal and replace Obamacare!"
"Replace?" asked the Republicans. "Really? WTF! We have to replace it now?"
Which means they're in it, big time.
Donald Trump celebrated the House version, but later called it "mean."
The Senate Republicans (or at least a small gang of them) toiled in darkness to produce a version of healthcare they might be able to vote for.
But no, that looks unlikely. Too mean, some say. Not mean enough, others say.
The Republicans have the majority in both houses, but can't pass a reasonable bill because they don't have enough votes—even with the nuclear option in operation (where they need but 50%).
All this, because their hearts aren't really in it.
Repeal, sure (maybe). But not replace. Not now, not ever!
Healthcare is Communism and they know it.
Only rich people should have access to healthcare. We know they're worthy of it because God made them rich. It's so obvious!
And in the wake of the turmoil, health care insurers are dropping out of the exchanges, leaving folks in the lurch.
Just like Trump said, Obamacare is falling apart! And it's his job to make sure it fails utterly. For the good of the country. Even if there's nothing to replace it.
Obamacare gave people the false hope they could survive in America. What a cruel joke! Sick Americans need to hurry up and die so healthy citizens can make the country great again.
What proper American needs to go to a stinkin' doctor? That's just weakness!
Compassion is for fools!
Knowing all this, how can we move forward? It may be that Republicans will simply have to give up their dream of repealing Obamacare and enlist the Democrats in the process of fixing the current program so it works better.
But that's political suicide!
Doesn't matter. If the squabble goes on long enough, the Republicans may lose so many House seats in 2018 the Democrats will regain control—with a mandate to fix Obamacare and push it through the Senate.
And still, American healthcare will be on shaky ground.
The problem is, the system is not about health care, it's about healthcare insurance, which is like making a deal with the devil.
People need health care, and insurance may not be the best way to give it to them.
When folks in Congress feel poorly, the go to the hospital—and it's taken care of.
When folks in the military get sick or injured, they go to the base hospital. For free.
(Okay, not free. They pay for it with their service. It comes with the low pay.)
During WWII, workers in defense plants went to company hospitals.
(After the war, the Kaiser defense plants spun off their hospitals as hospitals.)
If poor folks have no place to go, they let things fester until a trip to the emergency room is necessary (though not necessarily sufficient). That's a very expensive way to do things.
Not to mention inefficient and inhumane.
This country needs to suck it up and provide actual health care. Sure it'll cost a little more. But here's a bonus: We might think twice about starting new wars.
They knew this from the very beginning, when the Web page crashed because so many people wanted to sign up. Clearly, America wanted nothing to do with Obamacare!
"Repeal Obamacare!" was their slogan.
Then something weird happened. Donald Trump blustered and lied his way past all the other Republican candidates and became the nominee for President. And he said, "Repeal and replace Obamacare!"
"Replace?" asked the Republicans. "Really? WTF! We have to replace it now?"
Which means they're in it, big time.
Donald Trump celebrated the House version, but later called it "mean."
The Senate Republicans (or at least a small gang of them) toiled in darkness to produce a version of healthcare they might be able to vote for.
But no, that looks unlikely. Too mean, some say. Not mean enough, others say.
The Republicans have the majority in both houses, but can't pass a reasonable bill because they don't have enough votes—even with the nuclear option in operation (where they need but 50%).
All this, because their hearts aren't really in it.
Repeal, sure (maybe). But not replace. Not now, not ever!
Healthcare is Communism and they know it.
Only rich people should have access to healthcare. We know they're worthy of it because God made them rich. It's so obvious!
And in the wake of the turmoil, health care insurers are dropping out of the exchanges, leaving folks in the lurch.
Just like Trump said, Obamacare is falling apart! And it's his job to make sure it fails utterly. For the good of the country. Even if there's nothing to replace it.
Obamacare gave people the false hope they could survive in America. What a cruel joke! Sick Americans need to hurry up and die so healthy citizens can make the country great again.
What proper American needs to go to a stinkin' doctor? That's just weakness!
Compassion is for fools!
Knowing all this, how can we move forward? It may be that Republicans will simply have to give up their dream of repealing Obamacare and enlist the Democrats in the process of fixing the current program so it works better.
But that's political suicide!
Doesn't matter. If the squabble goes on long enough, the Republicans may lose so many House seats in 2018 the Democrats will regain control—with a mandate to fix Obamacare and push it through the Senate.
And still, American healthcare will be on shaky ground.
The problem is, the system is not about health care, it's about healthcare insurance, which is like making a deal with the devil.
People need health care, and insurance may not be the best way to give it to them.
When folks in Congress feel poorly, the go to the hospital—and it's taken care of.
When folks in the military get sick or injured, they go to the base hospital. For free.
(Okay, not free. They pay for it with their service. It comes with the low pay.)
During WWII, workers in defense plants went to company hospitals.
(After the war, the Kaiser defense plants spun off their hospitals as hospitals.)
If poor folks have no place to go, they let things fester until a trip to the emergency room is necessary (though not necessarily sufficient). That's a very expensive way to do things.
Not to mention inefficient and inhumane.
This country needs to suck it up and provide actual health care. Sure it'll cost a little more. But here's a bonus: We might think twice about starting new wars.
Monday, June 19, 2017
IRONY IS HARD
Over the weekend, a member of Donald Trump's legal team made it clear the President was not under investigation by the FBI or anybody else. He knows this because he's in the loop and nobody has informed him of any investigation—a logical position he presumes airtight.
(And good luck with that.)
His statement directly contradicts a recent Tweet from Trump, where the President points out this ironic situation: He's being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the same man (Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein) who told him to fire the guy.
The problem is that unless Trump is in a different loop than his legal counsel, the man is not being investigated for firing Comey—at least, not at this time.
But times change, and maybe Trump has just returned from a brief excursion to the very near future, where the investigation is all the rage.
But that wouldn't explain the mistake in the second half of his would-be ironic Tweet: Rod Rosenstein didn't tell Trump to fire Comey.
(Can anybody really tell Trump to do anything?)
In fact, Trump apparently asked the Deputy AG to write a letter giving a plausible reason for firing Comey. (His bungling of the Hillary email affair, for instance.) And for a short time Trump did indeed refer to that letter, implying it informed his decision.
But it wasn't long before Trump got in front of cameras and made it clear he was going to fire Comey come hell or high water and he didn't need no stinkin' excuses from the stinkin' Department of Justice to do it!
The real reason—that damned Russia thing, of course!
Trump wanted relief from the pressure of that endless investigation. And he got some relief, or at least that's what he reportedly told some Russian officials he met in the Oval Office.
(At that time he also mentioned Comey was a "nut-job." )
In his TV interview Trump pointed out Comey was a "showboat" and that the FBI was in disarray because of the man's ineffective leadership. But even that was a smokescreen.
It was the Russia thing, pure and simple! The made-up chunk of nonsense, the hoax, the #FakeNews that continues to haunt his Presidency.
(But don't worry, folks. The Russia thing will never stop Trump from making America great again, no matter how hard the Democrats try to derail him. He promises!)
Trump had to fudge the facts to get his epic story of presidential irony to work, and that is fatal for good irony.
(Trump's lawyer claims Trump got the false notion he was under investigation from a newspaper article that relied on a bunch of unnamed sources—exactly the sort of #FakeNews Trump is primed to reject on the spot. But this time he took it seriously. Is he losing his grip?)
Fictional irony had better be damn entertaining to make up for the fact it's not real. Any failure to do that is laid at the door of the author, who should know better.
But even had it been based on reality, Trump's Tweet would not have risen above the level of whiny paranoia—a kind of "woe is me" lament.
("I tell ya, I can't get no respect!")
Being investigated is not a disaster. Trump needs to raise the stakes.
Something like this:
Shakespearian: "I planted a bomb in the trunk of a car, then made my getaway in the same damn car!"
Hitlerian: "I'm on trial for murdering the Jews, and my lawyer's an idiot!"
(Okay, that's a bit anti-Semitic. No reason why a Jew couldn't be a lousy lawyer.)
Or this:
"I got elected to make America great again, but the bastards hounded me out of office—then claimed resigning was the only thing I could have done to make American great again! Sick!"
I know, I know: Too on-the-nose.
(And good luck with that.)
His statement directly contradicts a recent Tweet from Trump, where the President points out this ironic situation: He's being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the same man (Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein) who told him to fire the guy.
The problem is that unless Trump is in a different loop than his legal counsel, the man is not being investigated for firing Comey—at least, not at this time.
But times change, and maybe Trump has just returned from a brief excursion to the very near future, where the investigation is all the rage.
But that wouldn't explain the mistake in the second half of his would-be ironic Tweet: Rod Rosenstein didn't tell Trump to fire Comey.
(Can anybody really tell Trump to do anything?)
In fact, Trump apparently asked the Deputy AG to write a letter giving a plausible reason for firing Comey. (His bungling of the Hillary email affair, for instance.) And for a short time Trump did indeed refer to that letter, implying it informed his decision.
But it wasn't long before Trump got in front of cameras and made it clear he was going to fire Comey come hell or high water and he didn't need no stinkin' excuses from the stinkin' Department of Justice to do it!
The real reason—that damned Russia thing, of course!
Trump wanted relief from the pressure of that endless investigation. And he got some relief, or at least that's what he reportedly told some Russian officials he met in the Oval Office.
(At that time he also mentioned Comey was a "nut-job." )
In his TV interview Trump pointed out Comey was a "showboat" and that the FBI was in disarray because of the man's ineffective leadership. But even that was a smokescreen.
It was the Russia thing, pure and simple! The made-up chunk of nonsense, the hoax, the #FakeNews that continues to haunt his Presidency.
(But don't worry, folks. The Russia thing will never stop Trump from making America great again, no matter how hard the Democrats try to derail him. He promises!)
Trump had to fudge the facts to get his epic story of presidential irony to work, and that is fatal for good irony.
(Trump's lawyer claims Trump got the false notion he was under investigation from a newspaper article that relied on a bunch of unnamed sources—exactly the sort of #FakeNews Trump is primed to reject on the spot. But this time he took it seriously. Is he losing his grip?)
Fictional irony had better be damn entertaining to make up for the fact it's not real. Any failure to do that is laid at the door of the author, who should know better.
But even had it been based on reality, Trump's Tweet would not have risen above the level of whiny paranoia—a kind of "woe is me" lament.
("I tell ya, I can't get no respect!")
Being investigated is not a disaster. Trump needs to raise the stakes.
Something like this:
Shakespearian: "I planted a bomb in the trunk of a car, then made my getaway in the same damn car!"
Hitlerian: "I'm on trial for murdering the Jews, and my lawyer's an idiot!"
(Okay, that's a bit anti-Semitic. No reason why a Jew couldn't be a lousy lawyer.)
Or this:
"I got elected to make America great again, but the bastards hounded me out of office—then claimed resigning was the only thing I could have done to make American great again! Sick!"
I know, I know: Too on-the-nose.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)