Monday, September 21, 2020

It Sounded Better In The Original German


It's a fair question. 


And the answer:


A few decades ago, possibly when Trump apparently kept the collected speeches of Adolf Hitler by his bedside, he reportedly stated  “I’m proud to have that German blood. No doubt about it. Great stuff.” In May 2013, he wrote "Dr. John Trump, uncle, for many years at M.I.T., good genes, I get it!" and the next month assured someone who tweeted "your dad gives good brain?? Damn" that "it's called genes! In July of 2016 he would reiterate "Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes. OK, very smart."

 On December 3, 2015 he tweeted "I consider my health, stamina and strength one of my greatest assets. The world has watched me for many years and can so testify- great genes!"  In an interview with The New York Times in July, 2017 he praised his granddaughter, who "speaks fluent Chinese" for having "good, smart genes."

Trump’s recent remark in Minnesota echoes the observation in September, 2016 by a Trump biographer that the Trump family believes in the racehorse development theory,” that there are superior people and that if you put together the genes of a superior woman and a superior man, you get a superior offspring." In this, the most important aspect, Donald Trump has not changed in decades and will boast that the voters knew exactly what to expect when they gave him a second term. He is again pushing the envelope, now daring people to call him out for views popular in the Germany of the 1930s.  All he lacks is the mustache.


Saturday, September 19, 2020

Smart When He Has To Be


With the extraordinarily untimely death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, there will be encomiums to her personality and character, examination of the impact of her jurisprudence, and seemingly endless analysis of the political implications of her passing.

Those are critical considerations- but where can you go for a completely insignificant analogy between Justice Ginsburg's death and Andrew McCabe? Only here.

Three weeks ago, Linda Greenhouse wrote for The New York Times a piece recalling Bush v. Gore following the 2000 election and contemplating the scenarios in which the 2020 presidential election might end up in the courts. Among them is one in which the election must be decided by Congress, Speaker Pelosi and Mike Pence (as president of the Senate) bicker, violence in the streets ensues, the Presidential Succession Act seemingly makes Pelosi the President, and the Supreme Court must consider whether to act.

Or GOP-controlled state legislatures in tipping-point states, buoyed by Trump's claim of fraud, refuse to certify a Biden victory, might fight Democratic governors or secretaries of state who could try to block the other party's slate of electors.

A third possibility Greenhouse raises (as described by the Brennan Center) involves

a diverse collection of special statutory authorities that become available when the president or Congress declares a “national emergency.”

Presidential declarations of national emergency are governed by the National Emergencies Act, which went into effect in 1978. Under this law, the president has significant discretion to declare a national emergency; there are no statutory limitations, beyond the word “emergency” itself, on what type of event qualifies.

Although President Trump may be unaware of the details of these and other possible scenarios, he's not unaware that the federal courts may play a pivotal role in determining whom the next President will be. Therefore, whether Senate Majority Leader McConnell believes his goal of maintaining a Senate majority is enhanced by holding a vote for Ginsburg's replacement before or after the election, Donald Trump knows what he wants:

Without delay, says the man who understands the stakes in this election, the possibility of prosecution vs. further accumulation of wealth in the presidency and the likelihood he'd be able to structure a Putin-style autocracy and plutocracy.

That is several things, including evil, but it's not stupid. Similarly, on September 12 Mr. Trump tweeted

Was Andy McCabe ever forced to pay back the $700,000 illegally given to him and his wife, for his wife's political campaign, by Crooked Hillary Clinton while Hillary was under FBI investigation, and McCabe was the head of the FBI???"

As CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale noted at the time, this was truly impressive, albeit in a dishonest manner.  He explains:

McCabe himself did not receive any donations, and the donations were not illegal.... Clinton did not make any of the donations....

Andrew McCabe was not "head of the FBI" in 2015. Rather, he ran the bureau as acting director for nearly three months in 2017 -- long after the donations and his wife's defeat -- after Trump fired director James Comey.

As McCabe realized, these were four false claims in one sentence. That is hard to do unless  intentional.  It is truly impressive and, unless a claim is made to the contrary, appears to be the first time a powerful public figure has accomplished this.

President Trump is smart enough (also sufficiently self-centered and greedy) to know that he has to look out for No.1. And he can put together a marvelously inclusive string of self-serving lies in one sentence. He deserves some credit for that, even if there is no connection whatsoever between the late Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and national security professional Andrew McCabe.



 


Friday, September 18, 2020

Trivializing Hospitalized Parents


In an "analysis" on the CNN website, we read

Democratic South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn got right to the point when asked about Attorney General William Barr's comment on Wednesday that shutdowns to stem the spread of the novel coronavirus were the "greatest intrusion on civil liberties" in US history "other than slavery."

Speaking with CNN's John Berman on "New Day," the House majority whip distilled the absurdity at the heart of Barr's words.

"I think that that statement by Mr. Barr was the most ridiculous, tone-deaf, God-awful thing I've ever heard," Clyburn, the longtime Black leader from South Carolina, said on Thursday. "It is incredible, as chief law enforcement officer in this country, to equate human bondage to expert advice to save lives. Slavery was not about saving lives. It was about devaluing lives."

Give Clyburn a point for, almost uniquely employing the word "incredible" correctly, meaning "not credible," rather than simply amazing, tremendous, remarkable, startling, or the other ways in which "incredible" is commonly and improperly used.

Nonetheless, Barr did not equate lockdowns and slavery, instead claiming that the former is second only to the latter in infringing upon the freedom of Americans.

That itself, of course, is ridiculous given the slaughter of Indian tribal members, the Alien and Sedition Acts, segregation/apartheid, internment of Japanese-Americans, and probably other events of our national past.

But Clyburn is on the right track by slamming Barr for an inaccurate and offensive characterization of efforts to stop spread of the novel cornonavirus. This, however, is simply bad:

Now, that's equating two things- going to a football game and visiting parents in a hospital- which should not be equated.

If you are unable to visit a parent in the hospital, the loved one may die- without even having the opportunity to speak to you. Moreover, some experts argue that the likelihood of recovery is greater if the hospitalized individual sees and hears, especially in person, someone important to him or her.

That is life and death; it is not a football game.

That’s better than Donald Trump’s view that football is more important than life. Joe Biden may learn that watching an athletic event ≠ visiting a sick patient in the hospital.  As of now, he apparently (as Bill Clinton claimed to do), feels your pain- whatever it's for, life-threatening or trivial.




Thursday, September 17, 2020

Privatization Strikes Again


A whistleblower complaint filed this week with the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General alleges that high rates of hysterectomies — sometimes without what the complaint called “proper informed consent” — have been performed on women detained in a privately owned immigration jail in Georgia.

The complaint, filed by the human rights group Project South, quoted a detainee from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Irwin County Detention Center saying that five women who had the procedure between October and December 2019 had told her that they “reacted confused when explaining why they had one done.” Multiple women claimed that they did not have access to proper interpreters and that medical staff often did not speak Spanish.

The accounts in Project South’s complaint — which included that of the whistleblower Dawn Wooten, a licensed practical nurse at the facility — were consistent with accounts given in separate interviews conducted by The Intercept with three other current detainees at the facility, eight advocates for detainees at the prison, and a former Irwin employee, all of whom requested anonymity for fear of reprisals against themselves and their clients.

“Everybody he sees has a hysterectomy — just about everybody,” Wooten, who is being represented as a whistleblower by Project South and the Government Accountability Project, explained in the complaint. “I’ve had several inmates tell me that they’ve been to see the doctor, and they’ve had hysterectomies, and they don’t know why they went or why they’re going.”


 


If this story isn't bogus, there are three critical factors in this story: 1) the treatment of detainees;  2) the treatment of women; 3) the venue of the treatment.

The first two are horrific and most obvious. Less so is that these women are being detained at a private facility, which is a particularly noxious means to jail human beings. Incarceration should not be a profit-making enterprise.

Fortunately, there is at least a little hope offered in the "Protecting Communities By Reforming Our Criminal Justice System" portion of the Biden-Sanders task force recommendations. in which (page 10, here) we read

Private profit should not motivate the provision of vital public services, including in the criminal justice system. Democrats support ending the use of private prisons and private detention centers, and will take steps to eliminate profiteering from diversion programs, commercial bail, electronic monitoring, prison commissaries, and reentry and treatment programs.

The facility in Georgia is not operated by those two giants, but rather by LaSalle Corrections. There is no record of Vice-President Biden opposing President Obama's decision to open two "family detention centers," from which immigrants were deported, which are operated by GEO and CoreCivic.

However, those two companies have donated heavily to politicians, especially of the Republican variety, in the last two election cycles. By contrast, Joe Biden already has signaled that as President he will be unsympathetic to the private prison industry.

The lure of campaign donations may be too much for a President Biden to resist. Yet, we can expect pressure from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party to phase out arrangements with the industry. About Joe Biden, we cannot be sure.

But about Donald Trump, we can be sure because of his ideology, record, and corrupt dedication to squeezing money out of anyone and everyone. There would be more people immorally and illegally detained under abysmal conditions in private detention facilities. And that is no way, even without forced hysterectomies, to run either a criminal justice system or an immigration system.

 


Wednesday, September 16, 2020

Herd Mentality


It already had appeared that President Trump wanted Americans to die of Covid-19.  However, he must have decided suicide would be more profitable because he told George Stephanopoulos at Tuesday night's "town hall" in Philadelphia

Sure, with time it goes away. And you'll develop- you'll develop like a herd mentality. It's going to be- it's going to be herd-developed. That's going to happen. That will all happen. But with a vaccine I think it'll go away very quickly.




The President yearns for herd immunity, in which the virus can't easily leap across different populations. As The Washington Post's Phillip Bump explains, "there are two ways to achieve that immunity: deployment of an effective vaccine; or rampant, largely unchecked spread of the virus."

A week or so ago, we might have concluded that Trump expected an effective vaccine to be developed and widely administered within a few months. However, Bob Woodward then blew away the Trump as Dunce or Trump as Self-Deceiver theory when he reported that Trump on March 19 claimed "I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down because I don't want to create a panic."   

So President Trump probably knows a vaccine isn't just around the corner because, the day after Trump's town hall, Dr. Robert Redfield, the CDC director

told a Senate panel he expects vaccinations to begin in November or December, but in limited quantities with those most in need getting the first doses, such as health-care workers. He said it will take about "six to nine months" to get the entire American public vaccinated.

"If you're asking me when is it going to be generally available to the American public so we can begin to take advantage of vaccine to get back to our regular life, I think we're probably looking at third.... late second quarter, third quarter 2021,"he told the U.S. Senate Appropriations subcommittee on labor, health and human services, education, and related agencies.

Obviously, with the election less than two months away and Trump having retired the World's Greatest Liar trophy, the President will promise announcement of a vaccine soon after Election Day. But it's not coming quickly and Trump therefore is depending on the "unchecked spread of the virus."  That will be facilitated if the American people accept it willingly by developing a "herd mentality." Death may not be sufficient- it may have to be earnestly desired. Bloodlust must be satisfied somehow.




Tuesday, September 15, 2020

And Now, This


Sure, the President of the United States of America reportedly "thinks that anyone who does anything when there’s no direct personal gain to be had is a sucker. There’s no money in serving the nation.”  It only makes sense, then, that First Lieutenant John Kelly, Lieutenant commander John McCain, and Lieutenant George Herbert Walker Bush were losers to Donald J. Trump.

But not all soldiers are losers or suckers to President Trump.

And so it's increasingly difficult to refute the highly patriotic and ever cautious former FBI agent Peter Strzok, who last week stated

I believed at the time in 2016 and I continue to believe that Donald Trump is compromised by the Russians. And when I say that I mean that they hold leverage over him that makes him incapable of placing the national interest, the national security ahead of his own.



 

'  




Share |

Monday, September 14, 2020

Death Then, Death Now, Death To Come


Former Missouri senator may have a point: 

One reason we know that is because President Trump did not tell Bob Woodward that he wanted to avoid panic. Rather, on March 19 he had contended "I still like playing it down, because I don't want to create a panic."  Not "I don't want to create panic" or "hysteria" but I don't want to create a panic. Use of the phrase "a panic" traditionally has referred to the stock market.

Moreover, the time to avoid creating a panic is well over. Whatever panicking- and rising to the occasion would have been more likely- would have resulted, there can be no panic six months later. Panics occur when individuals first learn of a problem.

There are at least two other reasons we know that the President was concerned about hysteria. Clearly, his campaign is based, as it was four years ago, upon frightening people. That's why he has claimed "They want to indoctrinate our children, defund our police, abolish the suburbs, incite riots and leave every city at the mercy of the radical left." And then Democrats will put Cory Booker in charge because, well, Booker is black.

Additionally, though, it's because Chris Hayes only states the obvious:

That would be the rally Sunday inside Xtreme Manufacturing in Henderson, Nevada, a state in which the governor has restricted indoor gatherings to 50. on Sunday. Approximately 5600 people, most of them maskless, roaring approval of the President. This was held not despite the danger of spreading Covid-19 nor in reckless disregard of the peril.  Nevada governor Sisolak observed the President "taking reckless and selfish actions that are putting countless lives in danger here in Nevada." That was the point.

President Trump may or may not have been thinking of the stock market when he claimed concern about "a panic."  But a panic would have, if nothing else, resulted in fewer deaths than the ever-mounting toll Trump is responsible for. If you think what your core supporters believe is "bull_ _ _ _" and deceased veterans are mere "losers" or "suckers," their death is less a bug than a benefit.


The New Pledge of Allegiance

Last month, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez infamously stated "I have a local city councilman that has this saying 'Woke 1...