Friday, July 14, 2017

Trump Got Played. And Isn't A Player


Tomorrow's newspaper column:
Opinions may vary. Mine is that Putin played Trump like a balalaika. Example: agreeing to work with Russia to create an “impenetrable cybersecurity unit” is like inviting Mexican drug cartels to build his border wall. (After bipartisan derision, Trump pretended he knew all along it couldn’t happen. Riiight.) 
Worse was denouncing, on foreign soil, our intelligence agencies and free press while claiming “no one knows” who hacked the election. Which never occurred. But is Obama’s fault. Even Trump’s UN ambassador said “everybody knows” it was Russia. (Keep your résumé up to date, Nikki.) Backfilling, she defended Ivanka’s place-taking for daddy, saying she’s part of a “public service family.” I may not understand the term.  
Every involved US intelligence agency and every member of Congressional intelligence committees, Republican and Democrat, agrees that Russia alone was behind the hacking. Virtually all acknowledge its purpose was to help Trump win, and that it was on orders from Putin. Still to be determined is to what extent Trump’s team was in on it, although Don Jr. is stumbling toward implicating everyone, making a tougher sell for Foxolimjonesians insisting it’s fake news. (If there weren’t still people who claim Trump never lies and was an honorable businessman, it’d be an impossible sell.) Besides, who wouldn’t believe denials from a man who ordered hacking and one who benefitted?  
This much is clear: under Trump, there’ll be no consequences for Russian election interference, let alone unequivocal acknowledgement. Time to “move forward,” the men agreed. Because a malign invasion by a foreign adversary is no big deal. Not to Trump, not to his loyalists. Unless the aim had been different. 
It was a lopsided engagement: A novice Secretary of State and a gullible president, neither with diplomatic experience, alone in a room with a seasoned kompromat political operative and a former KGB agent around whom people seem predisposed to become dead, with or without poison or bullets in their systems. Usually there are official note-takers at such meetings. That there were none is a thought-provoking decision, leaving only he-said/he-said versions of the extent to which hacking was discussed and claims of innocence accepted. One assumes, though, that the two known spies among the four will have made records of some sort. To be stashed with the other stuff.  
In fairness (for this columnist is nothing if not fair), a ceasefire in a portion of Syria was implemented, and if it lasts that’s a good thing. Then Rex Tillerson said US and Russian objectives in Syria are “exactly the same” and that maybe the Russians have “the right approach and we’ve got the wrong approach.” Wow.  
Admittedly, US foreign “policy” has been changing at the speed of Twitter; but it’s long been stated that “we” want Assad gone, while Russia continues to prop him up and abet his crimes. We’re left to wonder why he said it, and what Trumpists would have said, had it been John Kerry. With that and Trump’s “fuggedaboudit” attitude toward election interference, Putin got what he wanted, likely including giveaways about which we may never hear. If cooperation with Russia, with its major military and minor economy, is desirable, having easily manipulated amateurs on our side and professional malefactors on theirs bodes worrisome.  
For those who’d dismiss this as left-wing blather, read what the editor of The Weekly Standard, about as right-wing as there is this side of Breitbart, had to say. True conservatives still exist, even as they’re powerless in their own party.  
In terms of economic impact, meeting Putin was a sideshow. The G-20 summit, at and before which Trump handed leadership of the free world to Germany and economic supremacy to China, was the main event. By its end, centuries of respect for the US had all but evaporated. Trumpites who think our past leadership was only about giving money away are unconcerned. But Europe, China, and Japan had forged their own agreements by the time Trump got there; and with the US alone in rejecting the Paris Accords, such self-inflicted isolation will be disastrous, and not just in trade and energy production. In a connected, dangerous world, reputation is currency and incompetence has far-ranging consequences.  
“Make America Great Again.” Turns out it contains a homophone.
[Image source]

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Making Sense Of It



Simply repeating the facts makes it seem like a failed movie script. Junior must be dumber than his dad. And here I'd thought Eric was the stupid one.

Friday, July 7, 2017

Old (As In "Old") Friends



My next newspaper column. A certain amount of esoterica, since only readers of the local paper will know Larry. We did this once before and readers liked it. They miss him; especially the ones that hate my stuff.
Well, here we are again, Sid. A flaming “liberal” and a gun-toting, NRA Life Member, “conservative,” together again in The Herald because editor Jon Bauer saw our recent conversation on Facebook. And, yes, not only do I read you in The Herald, but I also follow your Facebook posts and your blog.

I also enjoy sitting down with you for coffee. You see, as friends, I both want, and like, to hear your views in order to check my own thinking. The fact that we may differ doesn’t matter because I know that we can still civilly listen to each other, take the time to digest what’s said and, then, respond knowing that the thoughts presented will not be treated with disdain or, worse, contempt and vitriol.

As you know, I don’t “do” politics because of the polarization that now dominates this arena. These days, it seems that the instant many people detect positions that are at odds with theirs, they lump you into the “enemy” camp and start lobbing verbal bombs. No longer is there a “neutral ground” upon which to meet and simply explore ideas and beliefs. And we, as a society, are definitely the worse for that.

I’ll add that there are other reasons I count you as a friend. We’re both granddads who are fully involved in the “spoiling” role that that title requires of us. You like cars. You served and were wounded in Viet Nam. Too, you enjoy the summer sausage I make from the deer I “slaughter” annually.

Still, despite differing views, we can sit, talk, and joke with each other. Makes you wonder who it is that wants this country polarized and, more importantly, why. I think we could identify the “who” were we to “Follow the money.” The “why” by “Divide and conquer.”

You’re right, Larry. The fact is that as human-Americans, dads, grandpas, indulgers in a sip once in a while, we, like everyone else, have much more in common than what divides us. We’re old enough to remember when even political discussions could be had among friends, which might be why we still manage. I long for those days, and, despite my inability to resist putting it too strongly in my writing, it’s fundamental to why I keep at it: to point out the craziness that’s replaced reasonableness. I acknowledge it’s sort of self-defeating to yell and scream about how we’ve come to yell and scream at each other (present company excepted), but it’s hard not to.

I’d say it started with Newt Gingrich when he adopted his scorched earth policy as Speaker, and hit its lowest point when Rs got together, literally on the day of Obama’s inauguration, to plan how to block everything he did, no matter how good it might be for America. The days of comity are long gone, but the blame isn’t equal. Plus, I don’t think there’s even been an attack on science and expertise like we’re now seeing. It makes me crazy. And frightened. So I shout it out.

I don’t mean to let any felines out of bagatory confinement here, Larry, but you’re the kind of conservative I grew up around: thoughtful, skeptical, curious, not inclined to suffer fools, or vote for them. I’d like to think those are traits we have in common, as neither political party has exclusive claim to them.

And you’re right, of course: while “the people” fight among themselves and fail to listen to each other, thinking our opinions matter, those who keep us at each other’s throats are piling up the cash.

Sid, I’m not a “registered” anything, thus who started this “scorched earth” hell doesn’t matter to me. Each side has often behaved hypocritically and even despicably in the years since I first started voting. I just want an end to it all. Too, my beliefs don’t shoehorn into any party and can be best summarized as “I’ll only support a candidate whose loyalty, first and foremost, is to the country and not to a certain party.” This past election, Jim Webb received my write-in vote for President as did James Mattis for VP. Thus, I think both parties would view me as an unwanted pain in the butt.

Probably. Not me, though. In fact, I think if they’d let us, we could solve it all. But let’s get to the important stuff: that deer sausage you make. It’s darn fine sausage. You and I have gone to the shooting range together. I think I impressed you with a shot or two. I’d enjoy a hunt, too, up to a point. I’d not be the one to pull the trigger, but I’d help you carry the load back to your truck. Not gonna kill. Happy to eat.

Sid, your shooting did, in fact, impress the hell out of me. But, then again, my rifle was in the hands of a surgeon and, that, as they say, puts an end to that discussion.

Okay, then: as grandfathers of adorable kids who happen to have preexisting conditions, maybe I can suck you further into quasi-politics: think universal single-payer healthcare ought to be back in the mix?

In a word, “Yep.” (Try to pick yourself up from the floor.) In any discussion of tough problems, every possible solution should be on the table. Too, that “Yep” only comes with an iron-clad agreement that whatever mish-mashed, hodge-podged, load of doggerel comes from those we call “our representatives,” they themselves will be subject to whatever fresh new hell they inflict upon us.
Agreed. And it applies to lots of other stuff they produce that affects others but not them. Of course, among other things, they’d have to grow uteri or know what hunger feels like. (Ha. I said that without space for you to respond). Thanks, Larry. Next round of coffee is on me.

Thursday, July 6, 2017

Could They Actually?



If Republicans do as some, including Trump, are threatening -- namely repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act before they have a replacement -- it will reveal them to be the uncaring, hypocritical, nasty people we (those paying attention) know they are. It'd mean that in their haste to reward their owners with massive tax breaks, they're perfectly happy to leave millions of Americans without coverage and with no way to know what will happen to them.

One hopes they're not that stupid and awful. We know they're perfectly capable of it. We know they don't care about anyone but the wealthy -- the white, testiculated sort in particular. But were they to do it, I'd think even Trumpists would recoil. Not all of them, of course. Not the ones unaffected, for sure; and probably lots who'd be affected but wouldn't understand or, because Jesus sent Trump, wouldn't care. But enough to make it thinkable that the government might be handed back to Democrats.

That, of course, implies Democrats could get their message-shit together in ways they haven't in a long, long time.

[Image source]

Monday, July 3, 2017

Everything New Is Old Again


Thanks to Charles P. Pierce, who got it elsewhere, we can see that whereas Trump is surely the worst, he's not the first. This appeared in The Atlantic Monthly in 1866, after Andrew Johnson's ascendancy to the presidency after Lincoln's assassination:
The President of the United States has so singular a combination of defects for the office of a constitutional magistrate, that he could have obtained the opportunity to misrule the nation only by a visitation of Providence.  
Insincere as well as stubborn, cunning as well as unreasonable, vain as well as ill-tempered, greedy of popularity as well as arbitrary in disposition, veering in his mind as well as fixed in his will, he unites in his character the seemingly opposite qualities of demagogue and autocrat, and converts the Presidential chair into a stump or a throne, according as the impulse seizes him to cajole or to command. 
Doubtless much of the evil developed in him is due to his misfortune in having been lifted by events to a position which he lacked the elevation and breadth of intelligence adequately to fill. He was cursed with the possession of a power and authority which no man of narrow mind, bitter prejudices, and inordinate self-estimation can exercise without depraving himself as well as injuring the nation.  
Egotistic to the point of mental disease, he resented the direct and manly opposition of statesmen to his opinions and moods as a personal affront, and descended to the last degree of littleness in a political leader, — that of betraying his party, in order to gratify his spite. He of course became the prey of intriguers and sycophants, — of persons who understand the art of managing minds which are at once arbitrary and weak, by allowing them to retain unity of will amid the most palpable inconsistencies of opinion, so that inconstancy to principle shall not weaken force of purpose, nor the emphasis be at all abated with which they may bless to-day what yesterday they cursed. 
Thus the abhorrer of traitors has now become their tool. Thus the denouncer of Copperheads has now sunk into dependence on their support. Thus the imposer of conditions of reconstruction has now become the fore- most friend of the unconditioned return of the Rebel States. Thus the furious Union Republican, whose harangues against his political opponents almost scared his political friends by their violence, has now become the shameless betrayer of the people who trusted him. And in all these changes of base he has appeared supremely conscious, in his own mind, of playing an independent, a consistent, and especially a conscientious part...
[Image source]

Friday, June 30, 2017

Thank You, Sir. May We Have Another?


My next newspaper column:
Surely no one believes the thirteen white male Republican senators who scrabbled together their version of Trumpcare, in secret, thought even for a moment about doing the most good for the most Americans. Could anyone who sees the result think they discussed its impact on the people who’ve benefitted most from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? On older Americans whose premiums will skyrocket? The chronically ill, the working poor. If it was considered, it must have been only to dismiss it. Such callousness can’t be unintentional. 
Trump promised lower premiums, lower deductibles, better coverage. Not in the bill, of course, because without “Medicare for All” it’s impossible. (If he didn’t know that, why not? If voters believed him, why?) He promised he’d raise taxes on people like himself and lower them on everyone else. He won’t. In fact, whereas the worst effects on average citizens in the Senate wealthcare bill don’t kick in till after the next election, its tax giveaways to their paymasters are retroactive. If it fails, McConnell warns his party, we’d have to work with Democrats. That says it all. 
Whether or not it passes, this version of Trumpcare underscores today’s Republican party values: in every way, on every day, transferring wealth and services from the poor and middle classes to the wealthy, while blaming the former for any misfortunes they’ve suffered or will in the future. Why do they do those things, so brazenly, confident they can get away with it? One answer is found in Trump’s latest “festoon me with your love as I speak of my wonderfulness” rally: because they can.
“I have to be a little careful,” he told the enraptured Iowans, “Because they’ll say, “He lied.”” Cheers for the man and jeers for the media which followed were rewarded with lie upon Trumpic lie. Like his oldie-but-goodie claim about American tax rates, debunked with facts so obvious you’d think by now they’d have plowed through the cornfields and into the Fox-encrusted cranii of his listeners. You’d be wrong. 
Capping it off to pandemonious cheers, he said it was high time for a law preventing immigrants from receiving government benefits for five years after arrival. We can be sure the audience had no idea such a law has been on the books since the Clinton presidency, but what of Trump? Is he that ill-informed? He’s president, after all; by law if not by majority acclamation. Or is he that cynical? Are his lies and apparent ignorance uncontrollable or deliberate? Either way, his supporters don’t care, so what does it matter? 
This -- beside the obvious need to trust a president on dealings with enemies and friends alike -- is how it matters: because those thirteen Republican senators know the president is an unrepentant liar who nevertheless retains support among the vast majority of their party, they feel empowered to lie with impunity. So far, there’s no evidence of blowback. And because of brilliant propagandizing and rock-solid gerrymandering, they know their seats at the table are almost perfectly safe. They’re free to carry out the wishes of their wealthy benefactors, knowing they’ll not be called on it. 
Those wishes are simple and few: more money in the form of tax breaks, more money for their businesses, and less for anyone not in their brackets: tax, social, or otherwise. Trumpcare delivers. (The Koch brothers and some of their paid-for congressfolk think it’s not brutal enough; but, hey, it’s a start. What it fails to deliver now will be more than covered in their as-yet unrevealed tax “reform.” Count on it.)  
Presidential lies and legislative gifts to wealthy donors at the expense of regular citizens won’t stop unless their voters demand it; but evidence suggests those people prefer being lied to. Since his electoral college victory, Trump has done so, on average, more than twice a day. Challenged to prove it by his faithful, I’ve directed them to sources where hundreds are catalogued. Without reading it, they reject the documentation, solidifying their commitment to remaining uninformed. 
Evidently the pleasure of jeering reporters and denigrating people unlike themselves makes up for what’s being taken away from them. Their leaders know this and appear quite happy to oblige.
[Image source]

Taking It Down, Piece By Piece


So, in the face of clear evidence of Russia, a global adversary, trying to discredit our electoral system and attempting to hack actual voting machines, Trump's DHS refuses to investigate the extent to which they were successful. Gee. I wonder why. Homeland security, my ass.

Meanwhile, in the face of no evidence of significant illegal voting by Americans, Trump's team of special investigators into that non-existent issue is asking for the voting records of all fifty states, including names, last four of the SSID, party affiliation, and voting history. Gee. I wonder why. Free and fair elections, my other ass.

Given the apocalyptic response from the right over the all-but-insignificant efforts of one IRS office to follow the law by screening applicants for tax-exempt status, what would that side do if it were Obama asking for those records?

We're far past the point of unbelievable, truly unbelievable, past even fucking unbelievable. This, along with constant attacks on the press as "fake news," is deliberate sabotage of the only means we have to stave off totalitarianism: voting, and a free press. With pitifully few exceptions, people on the right, patriots all, lovers of America as it once was, stand silent. Or cheering it on. Democracy, their ass.

As Trump and his overflowing basket of deplorables systematically take America apart piece by piece, weakening us from within in ways no outside enemy could, it becomes perfectly and undeniably clear why Vladimir Putin did everything he could to get Trump into the White House. The only question is whether he chose Trump because he recognized his stupidity and easy manipulative potential, or because he literally turned him. Take you pick. It really doesn't matter. Out of curiosity, I'd like to know. Kinda like a last request.

I think it's pretty clear by now that if America is to be salvaged, it won't be with the help of anyone currently in the majority in Congress or the rightwing media; and if what's gone on already hasn't awakened Trump's supporters in red states, nothing will.

[Image source]

Friday, June 23, 2017

One Person's Tyranny.


My upcoming newspaper column:
One side will say there are too many guns, the other not enough. One side will suggest new limitations on dangerous people getting guns, the other will see a slippery slope. Each will accuse the other of being the singular cause of all violence. We’ll hear of Jared Loughner and of James T. Hodgkinson. Hatred of Donald Trump will be pronounced unprecedented; that of Barack Obama dismissed. Fundraising political pitches will be made, condemned, and repeated. 
After Gabby Giffords was shot, politicians promised to cool their rhetoric, but didn’t. Screamers of the airways made no such promises, and delivered. There are as many guns in the hands of the public as there are members of the public. New laws or no laws, it is who we’ve become and will be, always. 
Hateful words abound on fringe websites of both sides. There, people make horrible, disgusting, violence-invoking comments. But here’s the thing, and it’s the area in which something could conceivably change: the leaders of only one party produce and encourage violent talk and threats. Offensive or not to say it, it’s true. To repeat, for clarity: the leaders. Not you. 
Only one party, via major candidates, Congressional representatives, and mouthpieces in the media, has lauded “Second Amendment Remedies.” It’s at the center of only one party, not its extremes, where you’ll be reminded about Thomas Jefferson and the Tree of Liberty and the Blood of Patriots. At only one party convention did major figures say the other party’s nominee should be locked up. Or shot. The candidate of only one party urged supporters to beat up protesters, promised to pay their legal bills; only one presidential scion considers opponents “not even people.” 
The likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Alex Jones, spewing hate, paranoia, and rage, inhabit only one party. Not the other; not, at least, with huge audiences. Snark, maybe; hyperbole, even. But not existence-threatening warnings of deadly conspiracies (and lizard people), internment camps, or imposition of martial law. Nor, if such a person existed on the other side, would he be given White House press credentials. 
Only one president feted a man who called his predecessor a subhuman mongrel. Pastors associated with only one party call for all members of the other to be rounded up and imprisoned. Call a president the Anti-Christ. Call for murdering gays. Including the present, three-fourths of acts of political violence have been from groups associated with that party.   
Steve Scalise was gravely wounded, not long after promising to “continue fighting to protect every citizen’s right to keep and bear arms.” “Every,” he said, which includes James T. Hodgkinson with his history of arrests for domestic violence, legally carrying. (Listen, and wonder why he had access to such a weapon.) Rand Paul was at the ballpark, too. He’s informed us that the Second Amendment isn’t about shooting deer, but standing up to tyranny.  
If we’re to accept that the Second Amendment was written to provide the means for citizens to fight tyranny, maybe we need nationally ratified definitions of what the American version looks like and when it’s justified to shoot at it. Let’s settle upon acceptable parameters for government behavior needing lethal redress; and how, if at all, failed attempts should be penalized. It’s unlikely politicians and screamers suborning armed rebellion imagined liberals would take them up on it: they were thinking patriot militias, survivalists and Three Percenters. They didn’t like it when DHS named such groups a greater threat to the homeland than Islamic terrorists.  
And, aye, there’s the rub meeting the road. One person’s tyranny is another’s answered prayers. One’s is regulating carbon emissions, another’s is reversing those directives. One’s is executive orders protecting minorities and the environment, another’s is rescinding them. One’s is enabling access to healthcare, another’s isn’t. One person’s divisiveness is Trump demonizing immigrants and Muslims, another’s is Barack Obama saying Trayvon Martin could have been his son. Which assassins of tyrants by whose definition shall we call patriots? Who gets to choose? Everyone? It’s the westering spirit. 
Until we settle on the answer, how about the leaders, pastors, and airwave icons of that one party stop encouraging us to use our guns on one another? If nothing else, how about that much? 
[Image source]

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

From My Better Blog



For irrelevant reasons, I've recently re-read a series of posts I wrote several years ago on "Surgeonsblog," wherein I tried to describe, in as much detail as possible, what goes on in an operation. Some of it is pretty good stuff, and, based on comments, it was entertaining and informative. There was a time when I could be that way.

So, shamelessly, to those who have more time on their hands than they know what to do with, and who may not yet have discovered the pleasures of a surgery blog written for laypeople, I recommend reading it.

It starts here. You need to scroll past the comments at the end to get to "newer post" on which to click to get to the next one. There are nine of them; be warned. Also, being old, most of the links no longer work, but it doesn't matter all that much.

[Image source]

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Horns Of A Dilemma



In designating the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military, our founding fathers enshrined their firm belief that our generals and admirals must not be left to their own devices; that in a democracy, they must be under civilian control. The control of the people (theoretically), through their electoral choices.

I feel certain they didn't envision an uninformed idiot like Donald Trump in that role, though; not only uninformed but disinterested in and/or incapable of making the effort to learn.

So -- and here's the dilemma -- how should we feel about the fact that an uninformed idiot president has decided to hand over control of the military to its leaders? Troop levels in Afghanistan: up to them. Shooting down a Syrian fighter jet: was he in on that? What does he think -- did he "game" the possibility -- of Putin's announcement that they'll start shooting down our planes?

I don't doubt the generals, notwithstanding Trump's previous claim to the contrary, are smarter than Trump and know a hell of a lot more than he about fighting wars. But fighting wars, especially since we're now in several wars of choice, is, in the end, about politics and policy. Big picture. Strategy, not tactics. Complicated and comprehensive world-views. If presidents can't think like that, at least they should listen to people who can. And those are people at the State Department, among other places; not at -- certainly not exclusively at -- the Pentagon. The State Department is currently led by a man with no experience, and is woefully understaffed; either deliberately or due to incompetence in the Gold House.

The job of the military is to do what they're told to do, presumably by a president who has a clue. To provide him with recommendations about how to carry out his goals. They're not supposed to be the global perspective guys, the "best interest of the US" guys.

So should we be glad that Donald Trump, the most unqualified president ever, having the attention span of a charcoal briquet and the ability to learn of a flattened armadillo on I - 84, has given up his role? Or scared shitless?

CPP has some thoughts, too.

[Image source]

Monday, June 19, 2017

Prediction


Here's my prediction for tomorrow's Congressional election in Georgia: that R woman will win, beating the young neophyte D guy. And Democrats will spin it as a great victory because he will have lost by considerably less than Hillary did in that district.

And hopes of re-taking the House in '18 will dim ever so slightly more.

[Image source]

Friday, June 16, 2017

The Cabinet Of Doctor Trumpligari


Tomorrow's newspaper column:
Ben Carson said it was spontaneous, and Ben knows states of mind because he just explained that’s what poverty is, a state of mind. Which you can tell because homeless people should pretend they’re in a house then maybe they would be. I never thought of it how Ben said which I should of. And that was after he figured out what was on Egyptian minds who built pyramids for grain which come to think of it the people who stacked those rocks weren’t exactly rolling in dollars which brings it all together.

So anyhow, what we’re talking about here is the cabinet meeting Trump had which I’m sure you’ve seen video so I won’t.* Some say it’s like North Korea or Russia but not me because their video quality isn’t all that good plus when Donald started congratulating himself which he’s entitled to on signing so much legislation he stopped way sooner than Kim would have or Putin. By the way I’m not like some people who say signing executive orders isn’t the same as legislation which I don’t care if he hasn’t learned that part and Paul Ryan doesn’t either.

After Trump stopped telling us his excellency which he wouldn’t have needed to if the fake press hadn’t been spending so much time finding stuff out and spreading it around, he gave everyone in the room time to speak which is generous because that’s who he is. His charities and all and those big cardboard checks which you can’t cash but you can bet he sends real ones.

Boy those people didn’t hold back. One after one, and it gave me a thrill up my leg, they sung his praise like people singing praise of someone they felt like singing praise of but not told to. It was American as heck and I can’t figure out why other presidents haven’t had their cabinets and cabinettes do the same. Out it came, the praise did, everyone having the same idea spontaneously. Spontaneity like that just doesn’t happen. And there’s nothing wrong with it because there’s a reason.

For one thing, ever since Boris Putin stopped helping him with the election it seems like President The Donald is sort of losing friends outside the White House which finally has Melania and Barron in it which ought to make him feel better and they held hands for a minute so much he forgot to notice Barron. Besides, pats on the back are good unless there’s a knife which there isn’t because they all said how much they like him even though Republicans like James Comey and Robert Mueller are giving him grief but not ones in Congress which if they haven’t by now. And if a president can’t praise himself who can other than his hires and hirettes who did it right off the top of their heads.

So no it wasn’t creepy and he’s in charge and he doesn’t lie.

What’s creepy is all that fake news about Russia and even if it’s not fake what’s the big deal. It’s not like they tried to hack election machines in all fifty states and even if they did they only made it in thirty-nine* which, hey, it’s a free country. Besides when it was discovered Barack Hussein Obama got all hot and bothered and if that doesn’t tell you how the rest of us should feel about it nothing does because he also got all hot (it’s a pun) and bothered about global warming which only God can do. Also he called Russia about it on one of those red phones that Jared wants so why not.

Plus no one thinks Russia managed to change votes because there’s no evidence although some states don’t have paper trails and don’t want to like Georgia which is having a big close election so don’t be stupid. Good for Republicans in Congress for saying no when Obama tried to declare voting machines vital infrastructure so Homeland Security could help protect them which isn’t suspicious and if sharing your own private notes isn’t leaking it should be.

The only thing who calls this serious is the deep state which I never heard of before but it’s real.
_________________________________
*Okay, okay. 
[Image source]

Thursday, June 15, 2017

The Idiot In Action. Again.


The bullshitter in chief. Is there nothing he says that's not?
WASHINGTON -- While President Trump berates Qatar for sponsoring terrorism at the highest levels, he is simultaneously authorizing the country to purchase over $21 billion of U.S. weapons... 
On what basis would any halfway rational person take anything Trump says as truthful? Or serious? Or consistent? Or based on knowing WTF he's talking about?

Bad, Bad Karma



After eight years of promoting "Second Amendment remedies" by Republican governors and members of Congress and their media mouthpieces, and quoting Thomas Jefferson regarding "the tree of liberty" and "blood of patriots" by Tea Party ammosexuals, Republicans are now blaming Democrats for the sort of rhetoric that, they say, led to the shooting in D.C.

So someone took them up on those Second Amendment solutions. Someone who, given his history of violence, wouldn't have been granted a gun license if Democrats had their way. Someone who aimed his rifle to the right instead of the left, as opposed to what had been suggested during the Obama years. Who knew it'd be a "liberal?"

I hope Mr. Scalise will be okay. I've dealt with gunshot wounds like his; I infer the bullet entered his abdominal cavity through his pelvis, damaged his colon and tore through his iliac vein. That's a big one, and hard to control. I've seen people bleed to death from it. Sounds like he got good surgical care, but isn't out of the woods.

Probably not the time to mention his opposition to Obama's efforts at gun control.

Will anything change? I'm gonna say no. Fingers pointing in both directions before the smoke cleared from the field. I guess I'm among the pointers. Pointer-out, more like, I'd argue.

[Image source]

Thursday, June 8, 2017

(Redacted) (Redacted) (Redacted)! Also, Fuck!


My upcoming newspaper column:
There’s a housing development under construction. Comes a fast-approaching forest fire, certain to incinerate it. Recognizing impending catastrophe, local authorities order evacuation. How should we describe someone who countermanded the order, “to protect jobs” of the builders, or because packing up is too expensive? Sensible and forward-thinking, or clueless and incompetent? Or, maybe, a tool of big firehose?  
When I consider the arrogant mendacity of Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Accords, my acclaimed civility eludes me. To be printable, I’ll do a little self-censorship. 
Some say I’ve been unfair to Trump. (Redacted)!! I’ve been too (redacted) kind. Trump, his cabinet, and the fully Foxified can spew whatever (redacted) they want. It won’t change reality. Climate change is observable. Evidence is everywhere, and, as with good science, confirmation comes from multiple sources. By now, denial of the danger we face isn’t ignorance. It’s (redacted) evil. 
Not satisfied with the environmental carnage he’s already initiated, Trump, spouting nonsense, lumbers on. I wish I could understand what motivates him. I doubt even he does. Maybe his impulses are buried so deep in his (redacted) wounded psyche that it’s just a (redacted) morass of uncontrolled reflexes. But his pig-headed climate actions amount to premeditated internecion. Same with his (redacted) apologists. Too costly? To avert disaster? (Redacted!) 
We’ll always have flat-earthers and fakers; likewise, people with something to gain, financial or otherwise, by rejecting the evidence of climate change. They’re welcome to their (redacted), but they’re the last ones who should be making decisions for the rest of us. Not when our grandkids’ quality of life is at stake. Republican lawmakers claim climate science is “unsettled.” (Redacted)! Such people, unable to evaluate data or discern propaganda, or resist jobbery, deserve no place at the negotiating table. Not coincidentally, those (redacter-redacting) Trump-excusing legislators have received millions from the fossil fuel industry. Yes: evil.  
But what of their (redacted) supporters? What’s their excuse for bequeathing to their descendants an inhospitable planet? What need in their (redacted) brains calls them to dismiss the obvious? Conditioned tribalism? Greed? Participatory gullibility? I don’t (redacted) know. But it’s (redacted) disturbing. 
It’s not okay, by which I mean it’s (redacted) (redacted), willfully to ignore reality. If it’s normal for Republicans to cling to tax cut mythology, for example (Wait! What?), it’s (redacted) abnormal that science has become a partisan issue. Respect for facts is now predictable by political affiliation. 
Every (redacted) week we see letters regurgitating Foxolimjonesian (redacted): Hillary’s State Department misplaced billions of dollars; she gave twenty-percent of our uranium to Russia; illegal voting is rampant; climate change is merely a natural cycle. Will no amount of debunkage unwash their (redacted) brains? 
Among Trump’s (redacted) justifications for abandoning the accords was they’d made America a laughing stock. This he said while affirming that America no longer cares about science, brazenly lying about (or showing he has no idea) what the agreement entails, and making clear that we’ve relinquished our role as a world leader in anything but (redacted). Could there have been a more ironic argument? Even Vladimir Putin is all but laughing in Trump’s face. It’s not America the world finds comical, Mr. Trump. It’s you. And your superficial understanding of complex issues. And your (redacted) embarrassing, fact-free tweets.  
Why did he do it? Spite for Obama? Grievance over perceived slights? Whatever the reasons, his words prove it wasn’t based on thoughtful consideration. Or truth. With Trump, a lifelong bully, cheat, and seeker of revenge upon those who refuse to (redact) his (redacted), who can know? But there’s more than climate at risk from his tantrums.  
Within hours of Trump’s disgraceful performance, American governors, mayors, and industry leaders announced they’ll adhere to the Paris agreement, as did remaining Paris participants, who’ll work directly with states. The world has declared the president irrelevant! How’s that for “great”? Unchecked, Trump is (redacted) dangerous, even beyond his repressive attacks on Constitutional bulwarks against tyranny. 
Abandoning Paris is anti-truth. It’s anti-grandchildren. He assumes his supporters are (redacted) buffoons. Is he right? It’s time to stop (redacted)-footing around the (redacting) (redacted) that he is; time for his enablers to wake the (redact) up and stop excusing the inexcusable. 
On every level, what Trump did is unconscionable. (Redacted)!
[Image source]

Popular posts