Skip to content

A media fixation

Saturday, April 1, 2017

I’ve mentioned before that we get three newspapers: the Boston Globe, the New York Times, and the New London Day. So I’m in somewhat of a position to perceive patterns, an example of which appears on the front page of the Globe this morning. Beneath an article about yet another Trump disaster is an article about how Trump’s backers remain steadfast. We have been inundated, at least since Trump announced his candidacy, with articles sourced from the meth soaked natural habitats of under educated, talk radio listening, Fox viewing, ultra racists, in which we are given the views of assorted Trump backers. (Clinton backers were virtually ignored during the campaign, and Sanders was virtually a non-person during the primaries) It’s not just the Globe. The Times does it too, and I’ve looked around the web enough to know that they are not unique. The Day doesn’t have the staff to cover the Trump voter beat, as they are too busy pumping up the career of the execrable Heather Somers.

The Globe appears to have reporters exclusively assigned to the Trump voter beat, as this morning’s article is written by a Globe Staffer who made a trip to a mountaintop in Tennessee to bag some Trumpers. Of course, as always, he headed right for the local diner (apparently, other than Bill Griffith, diner patrons are all Trump voters), where he scouted out a faithful Trumper, to give her the chance to flaunt her stupidity. Women are preferred. My guess is that’s because it is even more unbelievable that a woman could support Trump than a man.

It is difficult to tell precisely what the subtext of these articles is supposed to be. Are we to marvel at the fact that there are so many stupid people in this country, who still prefer to blame their woes on those worse off than themselves, rather than the billionaires like Trump who have rigged the economy, and who remain eager to destroy the government benefits upon which they rely, in the Fox induced belief that only those people will be harmed? Or are we to understand these people, and sympathize with the fact that they feel left behind by the economy their votes have helped create? Perhaps we are to reflect on the fact that there must be something deeply wrong with an educational system that turns out so many people who are unable to think logically or rationally. Or, is this the media’s way of trying to prove that it is not (shudder) liberal?

This is not a new phenomenon really. At least since the emergence of the Koch engineered tea party, we have been subjected to countless articles in the press explaining and excusing the bigotry and stupidity of these people.

Meanwhile you may search media archives in vain for similar articles about Obama supporters during his presidency. In fact, you can practically search in vain for articles about Trump opponents today. Such articles are not non-existent, given the Resistance, but they don’t appear with anything like the clockwork regularity of these pieces, nor does the media send reporters gallivanting around the country seeking us out. Hint: we actually go to diners too, but you can also find us in libraries, bookstores, museums, coffee houses, and universities. We’re everywhere, really. In fact, we’re the people who actually subscribe to and read fact based newspapers, so you have an easy way to find us. Right now we’re 65% of the country, and we’re perfectly willing to talk to reporters. Also, we make sense, believe in facts, and do not spend our days watching Fox, which you might find to be a refreshing change.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

One more thing you couldn’t make up

Monday, March 27, 2017

I thought I had written briefly about this before, but apparently not. When I first read the allegation that Trump handed a written invoice to Angela Merkel for NATO protection I couldn’t believe it. And I’m not saying that in the usual Trumpian sense of I do believe it because this is Donald Trump, but in a sane world I wouldn’t believe it. I actually couldn’t believe that even Donald Trump would do something so stupid.

My initial thought was that we’d know it was true by the German response. The White House, of course, denied it, but that means nothing. I didn’t think the Germans would confirm it. My own thought was that they would confirm it by pointedly not denying it. I’m not sure there has yet been any official German response but it is nonethless beginning to look like it’s true.

We need a new word. “Absurd” simply doesn’t do the job, and I don’t think there’s another that comes close to fitting the bill. Note, however, that this hyper-absurdity has drawn little notice in the mainstream. That may be because the absurdities are coming so fast and furious that you can’t keep up.

Filed in The Donald | | Comments (0)

Still plenty the matter with Kansas

Sunday, March 26, 2017

Sam Brownback, as most people know, has turned Kansas into the poster child for Republican governance. He, along with a likeminded Republican legislature, has implemented all the Koch brothers policies to the fullest, and has practically destroyed the state in the process. You might say he is giving the country a preview of what we can expect in the coming years.

So, in light of the events of the past few days, this is really interesting:

Jonathan Shorman: Medicaid Expansion Moves Forward in Kansas: “Kansas state lawmakers advanced a Medicaid expansion proposal on Thursday…

…The Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee passed the expansion proposal, House Bill 2044, on a voice vote. The bill now heads to the Senate floor. The committee chairwoman, Sen. Vicki Schmidt, R-Topeka, expects the Senate to debate the bill…. More than 150,000 people could potentially receive health coverage under Medicaid expansion in Kansas. Expansion would help close the so-called “doughnut hole”–where individuals make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to receive government subsidies to buy insurance…. Sen. Laura Kelly, D-Topeka, said lawmakers have no idea how the debate in Congress will turn out. The Kansas Senate has the votes to pass expansion, she said.

via Brad Delong

While Brownback’s former colleagues were busily trying to destroy Obamacare, Brownback himself has managed to do so much harm in Kansas that likeminded Republicans are buying into the Medicaid expansion that their compatriots in Washington are trying to destroy.

Somewhat encouraging, except the people of Kansas, who should now know better, continue to vote Republican. Not entirely their fault, of course, given Democratic incompetence, but still, the state must be well stocked with dead brain cells.

Filed in Dysfunction, Republicans | | Comments (0)

Duly noted 

Saturday, March 25, 2017

While we’re ll celebrating recent events, and pondering the distinct possibility that the Russian connection may yet bring Trimp down, we must not forget all the other impeachable offenses the small handed one is committing. This one is via Laurence Tribe, who is more assiduously keeping count than am I.

Mr. Trump’s 2013 lease with the General Services Administration stipulates that no elected official “shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom.” Legal experts say the president is clearly in violation of that clause and the government should either terminate the lease or force Mr. Trump to transfer it to somebody else. On Thursday, however, an agency contracting official, Kevin Terry, declared that the president was not in violation because he had agreed not to receive any profits from the hotel until after he leaves office.

Mr. Terry engages in legal gymnastics that no lawyer could credibly defend. It should not matter when Mr. Trump accepts the profits from the hotel; he benefits even if he waits until after he leaves the White House to pocket them. Mr. Terry argues that as long as Mr. Trump’s profits are reinvested in the hotel, rather than deposited in his bank account, there is no violation. But by reinvesting the profits, Mr. Trump is increasing the value of the hotel and its ability to earn more money in the future. He has a 60-year lease on the building, and not pocketing profits for a few years is hardly a sacrifice.

via The New York Times

When I first heard about this rationale, I was boggled in the extreme. It would be interesting to know the backstory. Did Terry come up with this bullshit on his own, or was it put in front of him with the suggestion that he would be far better off if he signed.

Anyway, that’s one more for the list.

Filed in Impeachable | | Comments (0)

Franken for President?

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Assuming we have an election in 2020, which may be an unwarranted assumption, the Democrats could do worse than Al Franken as their nominee. This is great:

via Crooks and Liars

For those unfamiliar with the case they’re discussing: It involved a truck driver who sued his employer for firing him. His trailer broke down and was unsafe. The cab was still functioning. He called his employer, who told him to stick with the truck. He made the aware that it was below zero weather and he would likely freeze to death. They insisted he stay with the truck. He did until it became clear that he would, in fact, soon freeze to death, at which point he detached his cab and left for safety. Gorsuch was a minority of one in a conservative court that said his firing was lawful.

Two things I love about this video. Franken asks the obvious question: “What would you have done”, and Gorsuch squirms. Second, I really love Franken’s comment that as a former comedian he knows absurdity when he sees it. Law school grads will be immediately reminded of Justice Potter Stewart’s claim that although he couldn’t define obscenity, he knew it when he saw it.

We need more like Franken.

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

Interesting Question

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

A friend of mine raised an interesting question about all this Russia stuff. Apparently the FBI has been investigating Trump and his merry band of Russophiles since at least this past summer. What was it that led them to start the investigation in the first place? So far as I know, this question has been neither publicly asked nor answered. Inquiring minds should want to know.

Filed in Impeachable, The Donald | | Comments (0)

No, he doesn’t get it

Monday, March 20, 2017

I must take issue with this:

Democrats don’t seem to be united on how to deal with the nomination of Neil Gorsuch, which is “no way, no how.” Richard Blumenthal gets it:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said Sunday that he would filibuster Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch and “use every tool that we have” if Gorsuch fails to disavow litmus tests on abortion and guns, among other things.

     Gorsuch’s multi-day confirmation hearing is scheduled to begin at 11 a.m. ET on Monday.

Blumenthal, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, began by saying on MSNBC Sunday that Gorsuch would have to tell the committee that a ban on any religion is unconstitutional. Judges have said that religious bias motivated President Donald Trump’s recently blocked travel ban.

“Even if he can’t comment on the specific immigration case, he has to at least show that he respects the principle that the government can’t discriminate on the basis of religion; that a Muslim ban would violate the Constitution,” he said.

Blumenthal said he would hold Gorsuch to the same standard on Roe v. Wade, which set a precedent establishing abortion as a fundamental right, and gun control laws.

via Crooks and Liars

Sorry, if this is an accurate reflection of Blumenthal’s position, then he doesn’t get it.

Gorsuch has a record. He should be judged by that, not by anything he might say at the hearing. Blumenthal is a lawyer. He knows very well that Gorsuch could say that of course we cannot discriminate against Muslims, while leaving himself free to rule that Trump’s orders do not, in fact, discriminate against Muslims, for any of a variety of bullshitty legal reasons. I could write the decision for him if he wants.

Same goes for abortion. He can spout some gibberish that gives Blumenthal cover but still leaves himself wide open to rule to overturn Roe v. Wade. In any event, we know perfectly well that he would vote to overturn Roe, and that’s a fact. Nothing he says during that hearing can outweigh a lifetime record of reaction. If Blumenthal really “got it”, he would be on board with a filibuster with no ifs, ands or buts. And if that means the end of the filibuster, well, it’s no good having it in theory if you can’t use it.

What is wrong with Democrats? Can’t they see that after Merrick Garland, there must be payback? Even if Gorsuch were reasonable they should consider filibustering. But he’s not. He is anti-labor, anti-woman, anti-consumer, pro-corporate and securely in the pocket of the .01%. He’s worse than Scalia and likely to live a long time. No real Democrat would even consider allowing a vote to go forward if they could stop it.

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

Allow me to repeat myself

Sunday, March 19, 2017

Republicans speak (and usually lie) with one voice. Democrats don’t even harmonize. I have griped about this for years. One consequence is that Republican memes, no matter how ridiculous they may be when logic is applied, dominate the discourse.

Here’s yet another example I just chanced upon, as I scanned the Crooks and Liars posts in my RSS reader. Here and here two Republicans lie about Trumpcare, spouting exactly the same lie. In this case it’s the explicit and implicit lie that the Medicaid expansion is a welfare program, that participants in Medicaid expansion are lazy louts, and that “able bodied” people should not be allowed on Medicaid. They both also spout tripe about wanting to bring the free market to health care, which will surely solve all our problems.

All a load of bullshit, of course, but that doesn’t mean it is ineffective, particularly if there is no coordinated response, which there never is.

As a side note, Joy Reid does a good job of destroying the Georgian congressman in the video at the first link, but it left me wondering about something. She was ready with facts and figures but, at least in the part I watched (there’s only so much bullshit a sane person can stand), she never made an obvious point about the “free market” meme. That being, if the free market worked in the health care context, why would we have had to pass Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare in the first place. Shouldn’t we have been in a state of health care bliss back in 1964 when the free market was successfully inpoverishing the elderly and ripping off the rest of us? Of course, they were pikers back then compared to the vultures that run insurances companies today, but still…

Filed in Rants | | Comments (0)

Grammar lesson

Friday, March 17, 2017

Typing remains painful for me, but I feel I must pound my keyboard, nonetheless, in defense of the English language and its punctuation marks.

I refer to the Trumper’s defense of his wiretapping lie, an example of the reporting thereon here:

“I think there’s no question that the Obama administration, that there were actions about surveillance and other activities that occurred in the 2016 election,” Spicer said. “The President used the word wiretaps in quotes to mean, broadly, surveillance and other activities.”

So far as I know, no one has asked Mr. Spicer for another example of the use of quotation marks to imply that the words contained within those marks are not to be taken literally, but are meant to be interpreted in a broader sense. That is, in fact, the exact opposite of their commonly accepted use. One uses quotation marks as a means of precisely reproducing what someone else has said.

I use quotation marks a lot, both in this blog, and in legal briefs, and it has always been my understanding, an understanding that is absolutely correct, that the words within quotation marks are the exact words used by a source, whether named or unnamed. Trump’s use of quotation marks, if one follows the universal understanding, means that he intended to convey to his mindless followers that someone with knowledge had used the very words he was using to describe what Obama was doing. It usually implies, additionally, that the writer (in this case, Trump) believes the source is to be trusted, though with Trump we can be certain that the opposite is true.

Recently people have started using “air quotes” when they speak. We’ve all seen it. Someone pauses, puts two fingers of each hand in the air, and brings them down as they utter the air quoted words. The use of air quotes implies two things: that the speaker is using the same terminology as the person they are quoting, and that the speaker is metaphorically rolling their eyes and calling bullshit on the quoted person. You can probably use air quotes in a piece of writing, but you have to telegraph your meaning, and in any event, it’s obvious that Trump was not calling bullshit on his source, although if he had any sense he would have known that the stuff he read was, in fact, bullshit.

There is one other use of quotation marks, which I utilized in the previous paragraph when I put quotation marks around “air quotes”. Quotation marks are also used to indicate that a word or phrase is being referred to in its capacity as a word or phrase. If Trump were using his quotation marks in that sense, his current defense still makes no sense.

This is today’s grammar lesson.

You’re welcome.

UPDATE: I am currently reading Steven Pinker’s The Sense of Style and I came across this passage on quotation marks. I think I’m fairly consistent:

Quotation marks have a number of legitimate uses, such as reproducing someone else’s words (She said, “Fiddlesticks!”), mentioning a word as a word rather than using it to convey its meaning (The New York Times uses “millenniums,” not “millennia”), and signaling that the writer does not accept the meaning of a word as it is being used by others in this context (They executed their sister to preserve the family’s “honor”).

I don’t think Pinker would go along with the Donald’s understanding, whoever he might grope to define it, of the use of quotation marks.

Filed in Language, Orwellian, The Donald | | Comments (0)

Earth to Trump voters: tough shit

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Are these people stupid, or just Fox viewers. Probably both. One of several Trump voters now facing reality:

Los Angeles Times: Kathy Watson- A 55 year old former small business owner who credits Obamacare with saving her life, said that when she voted for Trump she dismissed his pledge to scrap the ACA as bluster

After struggling for years without insurance, the 55-year-old former small-business owner — who has battled diabetes, high blood pressure and two cancers — credits Obamacare with saving her life. Watson also voted for Donald Trump, believing the businessman would bring change. She dismissed his campaign pledges to scrap the Affordable Care Act as bluster. Now, as she watches the new president push to kill the law that provided her with a critical lifeline, Watson finds herself among many Trump supporters who must reconcile their votes with worries about the future of their healthcare.

via Hullabaloo

She believed all his lies, but the one thing he was telling the truth about, she didn’t believe. Anyone with brains could see that if a Republican captured the White House, Obamacare would be under attack. My heart ain’t bleeding for her or any of the rest of the Fox watching idiots profiled in the linked article. They voted to lose their healthcare. They should be happy, cause after all, he’s keeping his promises.

Filed in Crazies, Health Care, Rants | | Comments (0)