Skip to content

Random thoughts on Comey day

Thursday, June 8, 2017

We live in trying times for part time bloggers. I have been staring at my keyboard, trying in vain to come up with a word to describe what I have seen today, which is really just a clear cut example of what we’ve seen from Republicans for years. The word “hypocrisy” doesn’t quite cut it. It merely gives the faintest hint of what was on display today. The term “intellectual dishonesty” is even weaker tea for the cousin of hypocrisy that was also on display. Where is Shakespeare when you need him?

One must wonder if there is anyone stupid enough, even the simpletons that attend Trump rallies, who actually buy the argument that your boss isn’t telling you what to do when he says he “hopes” you will do something. Is there anyone whose native language in English, and has the slightest knowledge of the Trump personality, who thinks that when Trump told Comey that “I want your loyalty” he was actually asking Comey to be loyal to the country?

What we saw on display from the Republican senators and Trump allies was hypocrisy incarnate, and intellectual dishonesty of staggering proportions.

There is a silver lining in every cloud. It is always possible that the media will, after today, lose its previously unshaken faith in the “maverick” John McCain, who proved himself both craven and senile. As I watched his questioning my jaw dropped. There’s no point in parsing it; it made no sense. Comey obviously tumbled to the fact that McCain is a confused old man whose mind had seen far better days, though even those days were never all that great. Now, I can feel for the guy. I’m a geezer too, though newly minted. Who knows, at some point, I too may be spouting nonsense. Okay, so maybe I’ve been spouting nonsense for years, but not that kind of nonsense, though it is a bit chilling to think that McCain is only 14 years older than me, and that I may be drooling like him in that number of years. Oh, and while I’m on McCain, he never was a maverick, and while he sometimes (like the loathsome Susan Collins) talks the talk, he never walks the walk. Not when it matters, at least.

I understand that there were those within the punditry who were shocked that Comey felt the need to memorialize his conversation with Trump because given “the nature of the person. I was honestly concerned he might lie ”. It’s not that they dispute his point, it’s that you’re not supposed to say out loud that Trump is a liar; you’re supposed to sugarcoat it. Need one now point out that Trump’s lawyer is currently lying on his behalf, and we can expect some lying tweets early tomorrow morning, unless Trump is so tired that he once again unknowingly gives away the game.

We are truly living in a poorly written novel.

Well, I told you they were random thoughts. At least I put them down in diagramable sentences, which is more than the popular vote loser can do.

Filed in The Donald | | Comments (0)

You really, really couldn’t make this up

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

If this is true, then there is truly no one in charge:

Because Trump is now completely uncontrollable by his staff, he has now scrapped plans for a “war room” to spout the requisite propaganda rebutting the FBI director’s own charges against him and instead will be responding himself, live, on Twitter.

Washington Post reporter Robert Costa told MSNBC on Tuesday that the president would directly respond to Comey on Twitter as the testimony is underway.

“I was just talking to some White House officials this morning and their view is that the president himself wants to be the messenger, his own warrior, his own lawyer, his own spokesman,” Costa explained. “Some outside people, some surrogates will be available.”

“But the president is expected to be tweeting on Thursday in response to Comey, not to stay quiet during the testimony,” he added. “Because he himself wants to be the one driving the process.”

The odds that the sitting president will tweet something indictable are, and this is probably the first time in history this sentence has ever been used, nontrivial.

via Daily Kos

No wonder he couldn’t find a competent lawyer. Are there no grown ups at the White House that can take his phone away?

Filed in The Donald | | Comments (0)

Someday I’ll tell you I told you so

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

I believe I’ve made this observation before, but I want to repeat myself, so when it happens, like Trump I can say “I told you so”. What brought this to mind was the editorial in this morning’s Boston Globe, which, in the course of dissing Trump’s twitter mania, made oblique reference to an extremely troubling aspect of the mind of Trump:

One interesting question is why Trump dropped the pretense about the ban. Is this merely a case of a president who can’t keep his story straight? Did Trump decide he wanted to strike a resonant chord with his base, legal consequences be damned? Or has he made a more complex calculation that tweeting now will let him say “I told you so” if the Supreme Court doesn’t reinstate his order and a terrorist attack somehow involving one of those Muslim nations then occurs in the United States? The profound cynicism shown by this administration about governing makes nearly anything possible.

via The Boston Globe

If a president were to intentionally embark upon a course of conduct designed to induce a terrorist act, he or she could hardly improve on Trump’s behavior over the course of the last few months. It is safe to conclude that Trump wants a terrorist attack. Moreover, I think we can safely conclude that some of those around him, such as Steve Bannon, would welcome such an attack too. After all, a few American lives (so long as they themselves are spared) is a small price to pay for the opportunity to increase the fear level here at home. What an opportunity to destroy the remnants of our civil liberties and our republican (mind that small “r”) form of government. Remember how Bush seized the opportunity afforded by 9/11 to grab power and run roughshod over our liberties? Multiply that by 10, and you come close to what you’d get from Trump. No doubt they would count on the reaction being like it was after 9/11: total support for the president.

Ah, but there might be the rub. It would be ever so helpful if the Democrats would help inoculate the body politic against fascism by claiming loud and long right now that Trump wants a terror attack here. But obviously they would never do such a thing, unless Trump is quite explicit in a pre-attack tweet. Far be it from the Democrats to be so impolite, not to mention speak with one voice. But there is still a shred of hope. When the attack comes, Trump will make George W look like Lincoln. The first thing he’ll do is crow about how right he was to want a travel ban, etc. Remember his self congratulatory tweet after the Orlando shooting? If he’s obnoxious enough, and given his already low popularity, he may not be able to parlay the attack into a safe, secure fascistic dictatorship.

A terror incident would suit Trump’s purposes as much, if not more than, it would suit the purposes of the terrorists. At bottom, they are not enemies, they are allies. Each gets something they want out of terrorism.

Caveat: It need hardly be said that when I use the word “terrorism” I refer only to actions taken by dark skinned persons of the Muslim faith. When white men do these things it is because they are screwed up disturbed loners. In such cases, the proper response is to urge all Americans to carry guns at all times, because then nothing could possibly go wrong.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Our Liberties Threatened, The Donald | | Comments (0)

That’s the way you do it

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

I’ve got my doubts about France’s new president, Macron, but I must say I like this:

Standing next to Putin, Macron told Xenia Fedorova, the head of the Kremlin-financed channel RT France, that her reporters had been denied access to his campaign headquarters before the vote because they had been acting not as journalists but as propagandists.

France 24 provided English subtitles of Macron’s complete reply, but even without them, many viewers of the exchange were struck by Putin’s visible discomfort when the French president described Russia Today and Sputnik — which are both financed directly by the Kremlin — as, essentially, Potemkin news organizations.

“When news outlets spread defamatory untruths, they are no longer journalists. They are influence operations,” Macron said, as Putin shifted uneasily from side to side. “Russia Today and Sputnik were influence operations during this campaign, which on several occasions told lies about me personally and my campaign.”

Macron added that he considered the blatant rumor-mongering by the two outlets — which included promoting false claims that he had a gay lover and an off-shore bank account — to have been part of an attempt to interfere in France’s democratic process.

“I will never give in to that,” Macron said. “Never.”

Instead of reporting on his campaign, Macron said, the two Kremlin-funded outlets aimed at readers outside Russia had simply published “serious falsehoods” and “lying propaganda.”

via The Intercept

Far be it from me to suggest that any of our right wing news outlets are financed by the Russians. Why should they bother, when we have licensed homegrown propagandists to do it for them. Perhaps its time that the Democrats take a page from Macron’s book, and start incessantly calling out Fox News for what it is: a propaganda network in which those on the tube and behind the camera are “acting not as journalists but as propagandists”.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Redistribution, Republican style

Sunday, May 28, 2017

Dean Baker sets the record straight about the Republican’s alleged aversion to redistribution:

Matt O’Brien’s Wonkblog piece might have misled readers on Republicans views on the role of government. O’Brien argued that the reason that the Republicans have such a hard time designing a workable health care plan is:

“Republicans are philosophically opposed to redistribution, but health care is all about redistribution.”

This is completely untrue. Republicans push policies all the time that redistribute income upward. They are strong supporters of longer and stronger patent and copyright protection that make ordinary people pay more more for everything from prescription drugs and medical equipment to software and video games. They routinely support measures that limit competition in the financial industry (for example, trying to ban state run retirement plans) that will put more money in the pockets of the financial industry. And they support Federal Reserve Board policy that prevents people from getting jobs and pay increases, thereby redistributing income to employers and higher paid workers.

via Beat the Press

Dean often cites these examples of redistribution to the rich. He should think about adding the Republican support for privatization of public schools, which, in the end, is simply another scheme to funnel tax dollars into the hand of the rich. The fact that the end result will be a nation of poorly educated working class stiffs is a feature, and not a bug, from the Republican point of view.

Filed in Economics | | Comments (0)

Subtle passes for Trump

Saturday, May 27, 2017

Donald Trump has often claimed that our NATO allies are not paying what the owe. Normally, the way he phrases what he says, he leaves the impression that they owe the money to the United States. I’ve often wondered what he is talking about, and have searched in vain for explanations in the newspaper articles that cover those speeches. The reporters neither take issue with his statements nor endorse it, but of course, by failing to enlighten their readers, they leave the impression that there is some truth in what Trump is saying. This, of course, would appear to be highly unlikely if you’re a seasoned Trump watcher, since pretty much everything that falls out of his mouth is a lie. A good example here in today’s Boston Globe, in which the reporter gamefully tries to make the case that Trump has been somewhat “presidential” on his trip, judging of course by the new Trump scale. (It might be nice to adopt a “what would we be saying if Obama had done this” frame of reference.)

Here’s what the Globe reported:

Trump’s rhetoric on NATO, a favorite punching bag during the campaign, was probably modified the least during the trip. In Brussels Thursday, he sternly lectured assembled alliance leaders.

“NATO members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations,” Trump said, as many of them stood uncomfortably listening. The speech included a cutting remark about the gleaming building where he was giving his address.

“I never asked once what the new NATO headquarters cost. I refuse to do that. But it is beautiful,” Trump said, of the building that cost $1.2 billion. His intent was plainly to contrast its splendor to the alliance’s parsimony on defense.

European observers had hoped for a more concrete commitment to the mutual defense clause at the center of the treaty — that an attack on one member state is an attack on all. Trump’s staff tried to assuage allies.

Which leaves the reader pondering. Is Trump right? If so, doesn’t he have a point? But if he’s wrong, precisely what is going on here?

Well, as one would expect, Trump has no point, as Josh Marshal points out:

There are two funding issues with NATO. A few years ago, NATO decided to require all member states to spend 2% of GDP on defense spending. The great majority of member states currently spend less than 2%. The ones who do meet that number are the US and a handful of states mainly on NATO’s eastern periphery. But they have until 2024 to reach that goal. So even on the terms of the agreement itself, they’re not behind.

But the key point is that these are not payments owed to the US. They are spending on each country’s own military. There are lots of reasons for that, not least of which is keeping the alliance a real alliance and not one superpower military along with other armies which are either so small or have such low readiness that they don’t add to the force the US can bring to bear on its own.

The relevant point is that that this is a relatively new agreement, which most of the key states are increasing spending to meet – though some faster than others. They’re not behind schedule. They have until 2024.

Separately there are direct contributions from each member state to NATO’s joint operations, costs of the specifically NATO activities etc. – a bit under $1.5 billion. The US pays by far the largest share of that. But that’s because the contributions are based on a formula that broadly tracks national wealth. The US pays 22%, Germany pays 14.6%, France 10.6%, Britain 9.84%. So it’s judged on the basis of ability to pay.

…

In any case, these are pretty piddling amounts in the big picture: the US direct cash contribution to NATO is 2 or 3 hundred million dollars a year. Trump himself should hit that number with Mar-a-Lago visits soon.

via Talking Points Memo

Would it be so hard for the print media to put a condensed version of this into their stories to, you know…, make sure their readers know the facts? We often hear people bemoaning the ignorance of the American people (e.g., most Americans think a huge percentage of our budget goes into foreign aid), but why is that ignorance surprising when those to whom we look to provide context rarely do so?

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

A bit of history

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Who was the best president in the time since I was born? I’ve often thought about that question. I put Harry Truman to the side, as I can’t recall anything about him. All the Republicans can be set to the side as well.

Despite the Vietnam War and its disastrous aftermath, I keep coming back to Lyndon Johnson. After Kennedy was assassinated, like lots of kids my age, I practically worshipped him, but I’m convinced now that had he lived, we may never have gotten Medicare, Medicaid, the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act. Maybe Johnson only got those things because Kennedy’s death put some wind in his sails, but in any event, I don’t think Kennedy could have done it, and it remains a fact that Johnson did.

The man was not without his flaws, but the fact that he, a Southerner, fully embraced the civil rights movement was remarkable. And today I learned something even more remarkable about him. My wife is currently reading a piece of historical fiction, and came upon this factoid, which I confirmed on line:

Most students of the Arab-Israeli conflict can identify Johnson as the president during the 1967 war. But few know about LBJ’s actions to rescue hundreds of endangered Jews during the Holocaust – actions that could have thrown him out of Congress and into jail. Indeed, the title of “Righteous Gentile” is certainly appropriate in the case of the Texan, whose centennial year is being commemorated this year.

…

Historians have revealed that Johnson, while serving as a young congressman in 1938 and 1939, arranged for visas to be supplied to Jews in Warsaw, and oversaw the apparently illegal immigration of hundreds of Jews through the port of Galveston, Texas.

…

FIVE DAYS after taking office in 1937, LBJ broke with the “Dixiecrats” and supported an immigration bill that would naturalize illegal aliens, mostly Jews from Lithuania and Poland. In 1938, Johnson was told of a young Austrian Jewish musician who was about to be deported from the United States. With an element of subterfuge, LBJ sent him to the US Consulate in Havana to obtain a residency permit. Erich Leinsdorf, the world famous musician and conductor, credited LBJ for saving his life.

That same year, LBJ warned a Jewish friend, Jim Novy, that European Jews faced annihilation. “Get as many Jewish people as possible out [of Germany and Poland],” were Johnson’s instructions. Somehow, Johnson provided him with a pile of signed immigration papers that were used to get 42 Jews out of Warsaw.

But that wasn’t enough. According to historian James M. Smallwood, Congressman Johnson used legal and sometimes illegal methods to smuggle “hundreds of Jews into Texas, using Galveston as the entry port. Enough money could buy false passports and fake visas in Cuba, Mexico and other Latin American countries…. Johnson smuggled boatloads and planeloads of Jews into Texas. He hid them in the Texas National Youth Administration… Johnson saved at least four or five hundred Jews, possibly more.”

via Lyndon Johnson-A Righteous Gentile

I never would have suspected such a thing. I don’t know if this is covered in Robert Caro’s biography, but it appears to be well documented. Anyway, it certainly raises him up in my estimation. I think we can rest assured that we won’t discover facts like this about the person currently residing in the White House.

Filed in History | | Comments (0)

An idea whose time has long since come

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

I read about this several years ago, and unless my aging mind is letting me down, I wrote a post or two about it, at or around the time when the bankers destroyed the economy:

Across the country, community activists, mayors, city council members, and more are waking up to the power and the promise of public banks. Such banks are established and controlled by cities or states, rather than private interests. They collect deposits from government entities—from school districts, from city tax receipts, from state infrastructure funds—and use that money to issue loans and support public priorities.

They are led by independent professionals but accountable to elected officials. Public banks are a way, supporters say, to build local wealth and resist the market’s predatory predilections. They are a way to end municipal reliance on Wall Street institutions, with their high fees, their scandal-ridden track records, and their vile investments in private prisons and pipelines. They are a way, at long last, to manage money in the public interest.

via Daily Kos, quoting the Nation

Basic banking is a lot like insurance. The basic rules are well known. The government does insurance far better, at lesser cost, than the private sector. The only innovations that takes place in either sector are methods for soaking more money from the customer while providing less service. In the case of insurance companies, it’s ever more clever ways of refusing to provide coverage. In the case of banks, it’s ever more multiplying ways of extracting excessive fees for what should be basic services. I’m old enough to remember the olden days before ATMs and debit cards. Back then, you went into a bank to cash a check: cost zero. If a merchant took your check the cost to the merchant of depositing your check and getting your money was zero. Now, if you use an ATM, there is no teller for the bank to pay, yet the bankers have combined to, in most instances, extract a fee from you for accessing your money. Their costs have gone down, but their fees have gone up. When you use a debit card you are paying a hidden tax of several percent to your bank, which extracts it from the merchant, who, of course, passes it on to you. My (soon to be former) bank just started charging me $10.00 a month to maintain my checking account, while it pays me as close to 0% on my savings as it can get. It is passing strange that I am paying my bank to borrow my money, for that, when all is said and done, is what banks do: borrow their depositor’s money.

This isn’t a new idea. I believe one of the red states (Nebraska or one of the Dakotas) has a state bank chartered long before the state turned red. People once were able to do their banking at the post office; a system that worked well. 

Unfortunately, I can predict the future on this one. If the movement grows, the state legislatures, particularly in the gerrymandered red states, will step in and forbid towns and cities from forming banks. It’s the same pattern that we saw when municipalities tried creating reasonably priced internet providers or public wireless. Can’t have that sort of thing, when your overriding concern is funneling money into the pockets of the rich.

Still, there’s always hope.

Filed in Economics | | Comments (0)

This is Alec Baldwin, isn’t it?

Monday, May 22, 2017

Filed in The Donald | | Comments (1)

He’s no Nixon

Saturday, May 20, 2017

I got out a bit of a kick out of this article (My First Big Boy Trip), at Slate. Trump is quite like a spoiled child. It got me to thinking.

Back during Nixon’s downfall I was a law student, living at home in Hartford. On many an evening I would trek to a friend’s house a few blocks away. We would get stoned and almost inevitably talk about Nixon. He was an endlessly fascinating character. We weren’t the only ones, I’m sure, who spent endless hours trying to plumb his depths. There are no depths there when it comes to Trump.

The Trump phenomenon poses a far greater threat to the Republic than Nixon ever did, but Trump himself holds no fascination. Assuming the republic survives, it will be hard for anyone to make a movie about him without turning it into a dark comedy. Both Anthony Hopkins and Rip Torn, among others, brilliantly portrayed the complicated Nixon. It’s hard to believe anyone could improve, or would want to try to improve, on Alec Baldwin when it comes to Trump. There’s nothing Shakespearean about him, as there was about Nixon. Nixon seemed to struggle Macbeth-like, with his demons. Trump lashes out like a spoiled child.

I guess it’s true that history repeats itself, once as Greek tragedy, and once as farce.

Filed in The Donald | | Comments (0)