Skip to content

Pity the Onion

If you frequent the same type of internet sites as me, you have no doubt seen many posts that remark that this or that is “not the Onion”, but is in fact real. It makes you feel a bit sorry for the actual Onion, whose proprietors must be working overtime to come up with things that arethe Onion, and are somewhat more offbeat than everyday reality.

The latest example I stumbled upon was this post at Daily Kos, which notes that the following actual quote from the very stable genius is not the product of any imagination at the Onion, though it is precisely, practically to the letter, what one would expect to read there:

Trump: They have great beaches. You see that whenever they’re exploding their cannons into the ocean. I said, ‘Boy, look at that view. Wouldn’t that make a great condo? You could have the best hotels in the world right there. Think of it from a real estate perspective. You have South Korea, you have China and they own the land in the middle. How bad is that, right? It’s great.

Warning: This is not a cartoon. It was not lifted from the Onion. This is reality.

The Injustice Department recently argued that the emoluments clause is only triggered by a direct quid for quo bribe, an ahistorical reading if ever there was one. The above quote, which apparently really is real, shows that the genius is already thinking about how he can cash in on his friendship with yet another dictator. Will Trump Tower Pyongyang be built while he’s president, or will he wait until he leaves office?

But this raises another question about the genius. The previous undisputed champion White House criminal was, to give him his due, quite crafty. Of course you don’t have to be terribly crafty to realize that you oughtn’t to come right out and admit that you have engaged in, or intend to engage in, impeachable behavior. I have seen speculation that there is some method behind the genius’s madness, and the quote above, along with so many of his tweets, raises the question of whether this could be so. Usually, the argument is that he says and does these things in a calculated effort to distract from some other bit of criminality, but why would one distract from one crime by admitting to another?

I think that for the most part statements such as the above are byproducts of his mental illness. The truly scary thing about it is that while no one in their right mind would behave like he does, he has been the catalyst for the creation of a political order that, at a minimum, tolerates this behavior, and, particularly in the alt-world of Fox and Russian bots, rewards it. There is not a single Republican who calls him out for this behavior (“I’m sad about this” tweets don’t count) and the Democrats have utterly failed to develop a narrative that highlights and effectively attacks his mendacity, criminality, and authoritarianism.

As a side note, my current book is Robert Dallek’s biography of FDR. Dallek notes that throughout FDR’s presidency the Republicans attacked him as a potential dictator, and though FDR, in fact, stayed pretty firmly within constitutional bounds and norms, the attacks were often politically effective. The Democrats should certainly concentrate their fire on issues like health care (particularly given the recent gift of Session’s refusal to defend the pre-existing conditions provision of Obamacare), but that shouldn’t stop them from developing a line of attack that makes the point that Trump’s criminality and authoritarianism, and the criminality and corruption of his cabinet, are hurting everyone. Think back to Republican’s smears of Democrats like Max Cleland, tying him to Osama bin Laden. It worked. It would be no smear to say that Trump’s best pals are the worlds worst dictators, at the same time that he can’t get along with a Canadian.

Anyway, back to my main point. I think Trump’s tendency to say and do things that we would ordinarily expect to read about only in the Onion(or maybe Mad), are byproducts of his mental illness. But then, Hitler’s actions were probably byproducts of his. If our system can’t effectively deal with a mad president, then we are in serious trouble.

UPDATE: I saw this after the above was written. More proofof some sort of mental problem: Trump tells the truth about his intention to lie when Kim doesn’t live up to the promises he never actually made:

In a press conference on day two in Singapore, Trump told the media that he trusts Kim will begin to dismantle his nuclear weapons program as well as its testing site.

But if the president is wrong, he may never admit it.

“I may be wrong. I may stand before you in six months and say, ‘Hey, I was wrong,’” Trump told reporters. “I don’t know if I’ll ever admit that, but I’ll find some kind of an excuse.”

Also not from the Onion.

Who could have predicted this?

A while back I wrote some posts inspired by a history of the Gilded Age, my main point being that we’re reliving that era now in many respects. I don’t think I mentioned that during that age the South, particularly, came up with various ways to criminalize being black. It was one of many ways that blacks were, among other things, disenfranchised, since the Southern states passed laws disenfranchising people convicted of crimes. It’s a practice that continues today. It was also a way to keep many black men in a legal state of bondage.

The North was by no means innocent of this sort of thing, though the process was a tad subtler up here, and it also continues today.

The latest twist has a Philip K. Dickish quality to it.. A company called Predpol is selling software to police departments that predicts where crimes are likely to take place. It uses the garbage in-garbage out approach. The likelihood of a crime being committed in a given area is a function of the past crimes committed in that area, which is itself a function of the past focus by police on said area. As the linked article reports, corporate boardrooms are not included in the data, and we all know they are high crime areas. So, since past arrests have been heavily influenced by racist policing, minority areas show up as likely areas for future crimes to be committed, so police concentrate their policing there, which leads to ever more arrests in minority areas. The likelihood of a black person being arrested for a relatively trivial offense becomes far greater than the likelihood that a white person will be arrested for committing the same trivial offense. Of course, no one could have predicted such a thing would happen.

On the bright side, some police departments have either rejected the software or stopped using it, in the latter case because concerned groups shone a light on the practice. On the dark side, some police departments are using the software without even telling their local governmental bodies they are doing so.

Just another example of how racism is firmly embedded in our institutions, often in ways that we can’t see or appreciate.

By the way, I highly recommend the Motherboard site, where I saw the linked article. Computer related news with a decided liberal bias, just like facts.

Friday Night Music, Who are (most of) these people

Being as I’m getting on in years, and my memory’s failing, it is entirely possible I’ve put this video up before, but it’s well worth watching again. I know I should be able to identify most of these people, but I confess that I can’t get beyond Brian, Sir Elton, and Stevie.

Back to real blogging soon.

Deafening silence from the Democrats

So, this happened on TV:

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) on Sunday defended investigations (or lack thereof) into Donald Trump by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

During an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, McCarthy repeatedly dodged questions about lies Trump attorney Jay Sekulow told in an attempt to clear the president of wrongdoing with regard to a meeting with Russians at Trump Tower.

“Take the name Donald Trump out of this, put the name Hillary Clinton in,” the CNN host suggested. “If a Democratic president started pardoning his political allies, you’d go bonkers. And we’re hearing crickets from Republicans now. What happened to checks and balances?”

Dana Bash makes a good, if obvious, point. Here’s another good and obvious point that no one ever seems to make: While we can be sure that we’d hear no end of Republican complaints if Hillary had done such a thing (and they’d be right in that one instance!) where are the Democratic complaints? Why aren’t we hearing a chorus of denunciations from the Democrats? It’s true that they are almost never invited on the Sunday shows, but that’s because they haven’t accused the networks of bias as the Republicans did, which has left the networks free to practice actual bias against them. But even given their relative lack of access, there’s no excuse for the Democrats’ failure to engage in coordinated condemnation of the very idea of a self pardon, or, for that matter, the clear indications coming from Trump that he’ll pardon his criminal associates if they stand firm and don’t talk.

And I’m not saying they should be running solely on Trump’s criminality. They should be running on bread and butter Democratic issues, something they are also not doing. That doesn’t mean they should be ignoring the crimes.

Credit where due: I guess this guy didn’t get the message.

Friday Night Music

Not the usual this Friday night. Nothing from the 60’s.

Quite a few years ago my son and I went to see *Me and My Girl* at the Weston Theater in Vermont. We enjoyed it immensely. In my humble opinion the showstopper song is The Lambeth Walk.

I listened to the Broadway soundtrack a few days ago and it occured to me that this song is far more timely, inasmuch as it seems to make the same point as that perennial favorite of all right thinking individuals, Monty Python’s Always Look on the Bright Side of Life. At times like this, when our Republic seems doomed to go the way of that of the Romans, without even the benefit of a guy of Caesar’s stature to do the wrecking, it is helpful to keep things in perspective. We should all continue to look on the bright side, because, as, the little lady sings, “after all is done and said, pretty soon we’ll all be dead”. If that doesn’t put things in perspective, what could?

There are a lot of versions of this song on you tube, not including, unfortunately, a live version from the Broadway show starring Robert Linsday. This is the best one I could find. There’s one by a 10 year old girl; not too bad, but even I have qualms about a 10 year old singing those lines.

As a bonus, here’s The Lambeth Walk, and it is the Broadway version. A bit of the backstory. Lindsay plays a Cockney guy from London who is plucked from obscurity and made a Lord because he’s the rightful heir to a title. It takes a bit for him to adjust to his new role, and in this scene he’s giving the upper crust a lesson in how things are on the other side of the river.

Happy Birthday to a neologism

Little notice. Today is the first birthday of “covfefe”; still awaiting a definition.

A quick rant

In typical fashion, the genius responded to the Roseannecontroversy by complainingabout how horribly he is treated by the media. You know, what with some of them actually reporting the truth about him, even though they still can’t bring themselves to use the word “lie” when talking about his lies.

One thing the media is not doing, is pointing out something that is so obvious and so telling about the present moment, and is pretty compelling evidence of a sort of right wing bias that infects the entire media.

Imagine if you will, that Obama had, just once, said something similar to what Trump tweeted today. Trump’s tweet will go pretty much unremarked; had Obama done it, it would have been news fodder for weeks. 

I know this is not a new observation, but it’s important that we not lose sight of the fact that Trump is getting a pass that no president before him, even including Republicans, has gotten. It’s an unfortunate fact that the institutional Democrats make no effort to come up with a coordinated message to make this and other points in a way that will get them out in the national conversation. The Republicans are adept at injecting all kinds of bullshit into that conversation; the Democrats remain quiescent.

Book Report

I just finished Stephen Greenblatt’s latest book, Tyrant, Shakespeare on Politics. I’ve read a number of his books, but this one was by far the most enjoyable. Greenblatt never mentions the very stable genius, even in the Acknowledgments, where he recalls the book’s genesis when “not so very long ago…I sat in a verdant garden in Sardinia and expressed my growing apprehensions about the possible outcome of an upcoming election.” Like so much else in the book the reference to the genius is clear but unspoken.

The book is an examination of Shakespeare’s treatment of tyrants, the main example being everyone’s favorite, Richard III, as well as runners up Macbeth, King Lear, Julius Caeser, Leontes (from A Winter’s Tale, one of the more obscure plays) and Coriolanus. He draws implicit parallels between all of them and the genius. Sometimes, they’re a bit strained, but often on the mark, and sometimes pretty funny, like this remark about Coriolanus’s decision to turn traitor against Rome by leading an enemy army against it:

The plot twist is worth dwelling upon. It is as if the leader of a political party long identified with hatred of Russia — forever saber-rattling and accusing the rival politicians of treason — should secretly make his way to Moscow and offer his services to the Kremlin.

In these uncertain times, it’s nice to have reason to hope, and Greenblatt’s ultimate conclusion is hopeful:

But Shakespeare believed that the tyrants and their minions would ultimately fail, brought down by their own viciousness and by a popular spirit of humanity that cold be suppressed but never completely extinguished. The best chance for the recovery of collective decency lay, he thought, in the political action of ordinary citizens.

The professor doth project too much, methinks, but that’s okay, the book is a fun read and I highly recommend it. Here’s hoping we ordinary citizens pull it off this time.

The Gilded Age, a coda

I said I’d written my last post on this subject, but that was yesterday, and I just came across this.

A week ago I subscribed to Foreign Affairs, since I got a deal for $20.00 a year. The most recent issue asks the question: Can Democracy be Saved? Here’s the opening paragraph from the first article, by Walter Russell Mead, entitled The Big Shift:

As Americans struggle to make sense of a series of uncomfortable economic changes and disturbing political developments, a worrying picture emerges: of ineffective politicians, frequent scandals, racial backsliding, polarized and irresponsible news media, populists spouting quack economic remedies, growing suspicion of elites and experts, frightening outbreaks of violence, major job losses, high-profile terrorist attacks, anti-immigrant agitation, declining social mobility, giant corporations dominating the economy, rising inequality, and the appearance of a new class of super-empowered billionaires in finance and technology-heavy industries.

That, of course, is a description of American life in the 35 years after the Civil War. The years between the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, in 1865, and that of President William McKinley, in 1901, were among the least inspiring in the history of U.S. politics. As Reconstruction proved unsuccessful and a series of devastating depressions and panics roiled the economy, Washington failed miserably to rise to the challenges of the day. 

He goes on to make the case that maybe we can survive this time around, as we ultimately somewhat overcame (after wrecking the lives of millions of people in the process) the disasters of the Gilded Age. Bear in mind that it took us a hundred years to even make a start on living up to the promise of equality embodied in the Reconstruction Amendments. Anyway, worth reading. We should learn from history, even though it seems almost a certainty that the best outcome we can hope for is that we are doomed to repeat it.

Defining our terms

Maggie Haberman is getting a bit of blowback in the twittersphere for her failure to call a lie a lie. You can pick up on the conversation here:

http://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1000755597283905537

Her point, if you can call it that, is that if Trump chooses to believe something he spews, it is not necessarily a lie. It seems to me that we can agree on a common sense definition: A lie is a statement of fact that is known to be untrue by the speaker or is uttered with reckless disregard for the truth. If I have no evidentiary foundation for a fact that I assert as true, then I am lying, even if I fervently believe that the fact asserted should be true, or so far as I am concerned it is true, because it is convenient for me to believe it.

If, for instance, I were to say that the crowd at my swearing in ceremony when I became a lawyer was the biggest such crowd in history, I would be lying, even though, having never seen any such crowds before or since, I could argue that, for all I knew, my statement was true. Nonetheless, by the above definition, it would be a lie, and rightly so. Haberman argues that Trump should get a pass if he utters a statement that he may believe, without a shred of evidence, to be true, or that he should get such a pass if he simply can’t tell truth from fiction. In other words, if you’re a pathological liar, you aren’t necessarily lying, you’re just being pathological.

It hardly needs saying that this sort of logic is of the sort that preserves the media tilt toward the right, for, as someone else pointed out, Haberman was not shy about calling Clinton a liar in circumstances far less compelling than those in which she gives Trump a pass.