Tuesday, February 07, 2017

Fear of a Brown Planet



“If you look back just a few years ago, any one of these attacks would have been ubiquitous in every news outlet, and now they’re happening so often — at a rate of more than once every two weeks, according to the list we sent around — that networks are not devoting to each of them the same level of coverage they once did,” [White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters] said.

According to the Global Terrorism Index 2015:

Terrorism remains highly concentrated with most of the activity occurring in just five countries — Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria. These countries accounted for 78 per cent of the lives lost in 2014. Although highly concentrated, terrorism is spreading to more countries, with the number of countries experiencing more than 500 deaths increasing from five to 11, a 120 per cent increase from the previous year. The six new countries with over 500 deaths are Somalia, Ukraine, Yemen, Central African Republic, South Sudan and Cameroon.

And:

The majority of deaths from terrorism do not occur in the West. Excluding September 11, only 0.5 per cent of all deaths have occurred in Western countries in the last 15 years. The West is designated as the countries where ISIL has advocated for attacks. They include the United States, Canada, Australia, and European countries.

If not Europe and America, then where?

The majority of deaths from terrorism in 2014 occurred in three countries, Syria, Iraq and Nigeria.

Why 2014?  Because 2014 was "the worst year for terrorism."

2015 saw the total number of deaths decrease by ten per cent, the first decline since 2010. The number of countries recording a death from terrorism also decreased by one.
It could be, then, that coverage of terrorists acts has decreased for a simple reason.

So what about 2015?

The 2016 GTI report reinforces the fact terrorism is a highly concentrated form of violence, mostly committed in a small number of countries and by a small number of groups. The five countries su ering the highest impact from terrorism as measured by the GTI; Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria, accounted for 72 per cent of all deaths from terrorism in 2015. Similarly, only four groups were responsible for 74 per cent of all these deaths; ISIL, Boko Haram, the Taliban and al-Qa’ida.

And since the context of this conversation is what forms of violence get covered, and what forms should get covered:

While terrorism as a form of violence has a major psychological impact on the societies it touches, there are other forms of violence which are more devastating. Major armed conflicts resulted in more deaths in 2015 as well as the wholesale destruction of economies. The global homicide rate is 15 times the death rate from terrorism.

Here is the list of terrorist attacks released by the White House in support of Trump's statement before the military personnel of Fort MacDill:

TIMELINE: September, 2014 - December, 2016

NUMBER OF ATTACKS: 78


MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA

September, 2014

TARGET: Two police officers wounded in knife attack

ATTACKER: Abdul Numan Haider


TIZI OUZOU, ALGERIA

September, 2014

TARGET: One French citizen beheaded

ATTACKER: Jund al-Khilafah in Algeria


QUEBEC, CANADA

October, 2014

TARGET: One soldier killed and one wounded in vehicle attack

ATTACKER: Martin Couture-Rouleau


OTTAWA, CANADA

October, 2014

TARGET: One soldier killed at war memorial; two wounded in shootings at Parliament building

ATTACKER: Michael Zehaf-Bibeau


NEW YORK CITY, NY, USA

October, 2014

TARGET: Two police officers wounded in knife attack

ATTACKER: US person


RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA

November, 2014

TARGET: One Danish citizen wounded in shooting

ATTACKERS: Three Saudi Arabia-based ISIL members


ABU DHABI, UAE

DATE: December 2014

TARGET: One American killed in knife attack

ATTACKER: Dalal al-Hashimi


SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA

December, 2014

TARGET: Two Australians killed in hostage taking and shooting

ATTACKER: Man Haron Monis


TOURS, FRANCE

December, 2014

TARGET: Three police officers wounded in knife attack

ATTACKER: Bertrand Nzohabonayo


PARIS, FRANCE

January, 2015

TARGET: One police officer and four hostages killed in shooting at a kosher supermarket

ATTACKER: Amedy Coulibaly


TRIPOLI, LIBYA

January, 2015

TARGET: Ten killed, including one US citizen, and five wounded in bombing and shooting at a hotel frequented by westerners

ATTACKERS: As many as five ISIL-Libya members


RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA

January, 2015

TARGET: Two US citizens wounded in shooting

ATTACKER: Saudi Arabia-based ISIL supporter


NICE, FRANCE

February, 2015

TARGET: Two French soldiers wounded in knife attack outside a Jewish community center

ATTACKER: Moussa Coulibaly


COPENHAGEN, DENMARK

February, 2015

TARGET: One civilian killed in shooting at a free-speech rally and one security guard killed outside the city’s main synagogue

ATTACKER: Omar Abdel Hamid el-Hussein


TUNIS, TUNISIA

March, 2015

TARGET: 21 tourists killed, including 16 westerners, and 55 wounded in shooting at the Bardo Museum


ATTACKERS: Two ISIL-aligned extremists


KARACHI, PAKISTAN

April, 2015

TARGET: One US citizen wounded in knife attack

ATTACKERS: Pakistan-based ISIL supporters


PARIS, FRANCE

April, 2015

TARGET: Catholic churches targeted; one civilian killed in shooting, possibly during an attempted carjacking

ATTACKER: Sid Ahmed Ghlam


ZVORNIK, BOSNIA

April, 2015

TARGET: One police officer killed and two wounded in shooting

ATTACKER: Nerdin Ibric


GARLAND, TX, USA

May, 2015

TARGET: One security guard wounded in shooting at the Prophet Muhammad cartoon event

ATTACKERS: Two US persons


BOSTON, MA, USA

June, 2015

TARGET: No casualties; one police officer attacked with knife

ATTACKER: US person


EL GORA (AL JURAH), EGYPT

June, 2015

TARGET: No casualties; camp used by Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) troops attacked in shooting and bombing attack

ATTACKERS: Unknown number of ISIL-Sinai members


LUXOR, EGYPT

June, 2015

TARGET: One police officer killed by suicide bomb near the Temple of Karnak

ATTACKER: Unidentified


SOUSSE, TUNISIA

June, 2015

TARGET: 38 killed and 39 wounded in shooting at a beach frequented by westerners

ATTACKERS: Seifeddine Rezgui and another unidentified attacker


LYON, FRANCE

June, 2015

TARGET: One civilian killed in beheading and explosion at a chemical plant

ATTACKER: Yasin Salhi


CAIRO, EGYPT

July, 2015

TARGET: One killed and nine wounded in VBIED attack at Italian Consulate

ATTACKER: Unidentified ISIL operatives


CAIRO, EGYPT

July, 2015

TARGET: One Croatian national kidnapped; beheaded on August 12 at an unknown location

ATTACKER: Unidentified ISIL-Sinai operative


PARIS, FRANCE

August, 2015

TARGET: Two civilians and one US soldier wounded with firearms and knife on a passenger train

ATTACKER: Ayoub el-Khazzani


EL GORA, EGYPT

September, 2015

TARGET: Four US and two MFO troops wounded in IED attack

ATTACKER: Unidentified


DHAKA, BANGLADESH

September, 2015

TARGET: One Italian civilian killed in shooting

ATTACKER: Unidentified


COPENHAGEN, DENMARK

September, 2015

TARGET: One police officer wounded in knife attack

ATTAKER: Palestinian national


EL GORA, EGYPT

October, 2015

TARGET: No casualties; airfield used by MFO attacked with rockets

ATTAKER: Unidentified ISIL-Sinai operatives


PARRAMATTA, AUSTRALIA

October, 2015

TARGET: One police officer killed in shooting

ATTAKER: Farhad Jabar


RANGPUR, BANGLADESH

October, 2015

TARGET: One Japanese civilian killed in shooting

ATTAKER: Unidentified


HASANAH, EGYPT

October, 2015

TARGET: 224 killed in downing of a Russian airliner

ATTAKER: Unidentified ISIL-Sinai operatives


MERCED, CA, US

November, 2015

TARGET: Four wounded in knife attack on a college campus

ATTAKER: US person

 PARIS, FRANCE

November, 2015

TARGET: At least 129 killed and approximately 400 wounded in series of shootings and IED attacks

ATTAKERS: Brahim Abdelslam, Saleh Abdeslam, Ismail Mostefai, Bilal Hadfi, Samy Amimour, Chakib Ahrouh, Foued Mohamed Aggad, and Abdelhamid Abaaoud


DINAJPUR, BANGLADESH

November, 2015

TARGET: One Italian citizen wounded in shooting

ATTAKER: Unidentified

 RAJLOVAC, BOSNIA

December, 2015

TARGET: Two Bosnian soldiers killed in shooting

ATTAKER: Enes Omeragic

 SAN BERNADINO, CA, US

December, 2015

TARGET: 14 killed and 21 wounded in coordinated firearms attack

ATTAKERS: Two US persons


LONDON, ENGLAND, UK

December, 2015

TARGET: Three wounded in knife attack at an underground rail station

ATTAKER: Muhyadin Mire


DERBENT, RUSSIA

December, 2015

TARGET: One killed and 11 wounded in shooting at UN World Heritage site

ATTAKER: Unidentified ISIL-Caucasus operative

CAIRO, EGYPT

January, 2016

TARGET: Two wounded in drive-by shooting outside a hotel frequented by tourists

ATTAKERS: Unidentified ISIL operatives


PARIS, FRANCE

January, 2016

TARGET: No casualties; attacker killed after attempted knife attack on Paris police station

ATTAKER: Tarek Belgacem


PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

January, 2016

TARGET: One police officer wounded in shooting

ATTAKER: US person


HURGHADA, EGYPT

January, 2016

TARGET: One German and one Danish national wounded in knife attack at a tourist resort

ATTAKER: Unidentified

MARSEILLES, FRANCE

January, 2016

TARGET: One Jewish teacher wounded in machete attack

ATTAKER: 15 year-old Ethnic Kurd from Turkey

ISTANBUL, TURKEY

January, 2016

TARGET: 12 German tourists killed and 15 wounded in suicide bombing

ATTAKER: Nabil Fadli

JAKARTA, INDONESIA

January, 2016

TARGET: Four civilians killed and more than 20 wounded in coordinated bombing and firearms attacks near a police station and a Starbucks

ATTAKERS: Dian Joni Kurnaiadi, Muhammad Ali, Arif Sunakim, and Ahmad Muhazan bin Saron

COLUMBUS, OH, US

February, 2016

TARGET: Four civilians wounded in machete attack at a restaurant

ATTAKER: US person

HANOVER, GERMANY

February, 2016

TARGET: One police officer wounded in knife attack

ATTAKER: Safia Schmitter

ISTANBUL, TURKEY

March, 2016

TARGET: Four killed and 36 wounded in suicide bombing in the tourist district

ATTAKER: Mehmet Ozturk

BRUSSELS, BELGIUM

March, 2016

TARGET: At least 31 killed and 270 wounded in coordinated bombings at Zaventem Airport and on a subway train

ATTAKERS: Khalid el-Bakraoui, Ibrahim el-Bakraoui, Najim Laachraoui, Mohammed Abrini, and Osama Krayem

ESSEN, GERMANY

April, 2016

TARGET: Three wounded in bombing at Sikh temple

ATTAKERS: Three identified minors

ORLANDO, FL, US

June, 2016

TARGET: 49 killed and 53 wounded in shooting at a nightclub

ATTAKER: US person

MAGNANVILLE, FRANCE

June, 2016

TARGET: One police officer and one civilian killed in knife attack

ATTAKER: Larossi Abballa

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN

June, 2016

TARGET: 14 killed in suicide attack on a bus carrying Canadian Embassy guards

ATTAKER: ISIL-Khorasan operative

ISTANBUL, TURKEY

June, 2016

TARGET: 45 killed and approximately 240 wounded at Ataturk International Airport

ATTACKERS: Rakhim Bulgarov, Vadim Osmanov, and an unidentified ISIL operative

DHAKA, BANGLADESH

July, 2016

TARGET: 22 killed, including one American and 50 wounded after hours-long siege using machetes and firearms at holy Artisan Bakery

ATTACKERS: Nibras Islam, Rohan Imtiaz, Meer Saameh Mubasheer, Khairul Islam Paye, and Shafiqul Islam Uzzal

NICE, FRANCE

July, 2016

TARGET: 84 civilians killed and 308 wounded by an individual who drove a truck into a crowd

ATTACKER: Mohamed Bouhlel

WURZBURG, GERMANY

July, 2016

TARGET: Four civilians wounded in axe attack on a train

ATTACKER: Riaz Khan Ahmadzai

ANSBACH, GERMANY

July, 2016

TARGET: At least 15 wounded in suicide bombing at a music festival

ATTACKER: Mohammad Daleel

NORMANDY, FRANCE

July, 2016

TARGET: One priest killed in knife attack

ATTACKERS: Adel Kermiche and Abdel Malik Nabil Petitjean

CHALEROI, BELGIUM

August, 2016

TARGET: Two police officers wounded in machete attack

ATTACKER: Khaled Babouri

QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA

August, 2016

TARGET: Two killed and one wounded in knife attack at a hostel frequented by Westerners

ATTACKER: Smail Ayad

COPENHAGEN, DENMAKR

September, 2016

TARGET: Two police officers and a civilian wounded in shooting

ATTACKER: Mesa Hodzic

PARIS, FRANCE

September, 2016

TARGET: One police officer wounded in raid after VBIED failed to detonate at Notre Dame Cathedral

ATTACKERS: Sarah Hervouet, Ines Madani, and Amel Sakaou

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA

September, 2016

TARGET: One civilian wounded in knife attack

ATTACKER: Ihsas Khan

ST. CLOUD, MN, US

September, 2016

TARGET: 10 wounded in knife attack in a mall

ATTACKER: Dahir Ahmed Adan

NEW YORK, NY; SEASIDE PARK AND ELIZABETH, NJ, US

September, 2016

TARGET: 31 wounded in bombing in New York City; several explosive devices found in New York and New Jersey; one exploded without casualty at race in New Jersey; one police officer wounded in shootout

ATTACKER: Ahmad Khan Rahami

BRUSSELS, BELGIUM

October, 2016

TARGET: Two police officers wounded in stabbing

ATTACKER: Belgian national

KUWAIT CITY, KUWAIT

TARGET: No casualties; vehicle carrying three US soldiers hit by a truck

ATTACKER: Ibrahim Sulayman

MALMO, SWEDEN

October, 2016

TARGET: No casualties; mosque and community center attacked with Molotov cocktail

ATTACKER: Syrian national

HAMBURG, GERMANY

October, 2016

TARGET: One killed in knife attack

ATTACKER: Unknown

MANILA, PHILIPPINES

November, 2016

TARGET: No casualties; failed IED attempt near US Embassy

ATTACKERS: Philippine nationals aligned with the Maute group

COLUMBUS, OH, US

November, 2016

TARGET: 14 wounded by individuals who drove a vehicle into a group of pedestrians and attacked them with a knife

ATTACKER: US person

N'DJAMENA, CHAD

November, 2016

TARGET: No casualties; attacker arrested after opening fire at entrance of US Embassy

ATTACKER: Chadian national

KARAK, JORDAN

December, 2016

TARGET: 10 killed and 28 wounded in shooting at a tourist site

ATTACKERS: Several gunmen

BERLIN, GERMANY

December, 2016

TARGET: 12 killed and 48 wounded by individual who drove truck into a crowded market

ATTACKER: Anis Amri

Aside from the fact the White House can't seem to spell the word "attacker" correctly until mid-way through 2016 in that list, the interesting part is how many attacks in the U.S. are attributed to "US Person."  None of the U.S. attacks are attributed to "immigrants" or "refugees."

A brief analysis of the list: of the 78 incidents listed, 10 occurred on American soil, only two of which involved fatalities (14 at one, 49 at the other).  None involved refugees or immigrants.  Reason enough, I suppose, to throw the country's immigration system into chaos.

Of the rest, those which were not widely reported, if at all, were not widely reported in the U.S.  Then again, the U.S. news tends to be concerned with domestic stories first, stories involving Americans abroad second, and international stories last.  If you want international news, follow the BBC World Service or Al Jazeera.  But that isn't really a sign of a conspiracy, or even of a lack of interest in news stories involving killings.

Unless, of course, you are a conspiracy addled President.  Which is still a much greater problem than what is, and is not, reported on repeatedly in the U.S. press.

Interesting thing about that list:  if you go back to the Oklahoma City bombing, there have been 32 attacks in 20 years by white extremists (members of the Aryan Brotherhood, etc.).  If you limit that list to just 2014-2016, you get this list:

April 13, 2014. Frazier Glenn Miller, a 73-year-old with a long history of KKK activity, kills three people in the area of a Jewish community center and Jewish retirement community in Overland Park, Kansas.

June 8, 2014. Jerad and Amanda Miller kill two police officers in a random attack at a pizza restaurant in Las Vegas, then kill a customer at a Walmart. The Millers had spent time on Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy's property during protests related to Bundy's dispute with the federal government.

September 12, 2014: Eric Frein allegedly shoots and kills a Pennslyvania state trooper; he's caught 48 days later after hiding from authorities in "survivalist" fashion in a rural area.
June 17, 2015. Dylann Roof murders nine people at a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina.

July 24, 2015: John Russell Houser, a 59-year-old man with a history of expressing extremist and anti-feminist beliefs, kills two women at a screening of the Amy Schumer comedy Trainwreck in Lafayette, Louisiana.

Nov. 27, 2015: A 57-year-old religious fanatic named Robert Lewis Dear shoots and kills three people, including a police officer, at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs.
None of those attacks (or "attaks") appear on the White House list.  I guess we heard too much about them.  Or maybe that's why they want to change the name of the Department of Homeland Security's program "Countering Violent Extremism" to "Countering Radical Islamic Extremism."  Because, after all, white people aren't afraid of white people.
Posted by at No comments:

Draining the Swamp


Nobody in Austin has any idea who this "state senator" is.  But we know who the POTUS is:

"He was making a point about how much he opposed that kind of philosophy," the sheriff said. "I appreciated what the president said. I can assure you that he is on our side."

Which side is "ours"?

Posted by at No comments:

Under the streetlight


As a palate cleanser I was reading this review of one of Carl Sagan's books, provided via Thought Criminal.  This is a typically cogent and telling passage:

There can be no observations without an immense apparatus of preexisting theory. Before sense experiences become “observations” we need a theoretical question, and what counts as a relevant observation depends upon a theoretical frame into which it is to be placed. Repeatable observations that do not fit into an existing frame have a way of disappearing from view, and the experiments that produced them are not revisited. In the 1930s well-established and respectable geneticists described “dauer-modifications,” environmentally induced changes in organisms that were passed on to offspring and only slowly disappeared in succeeding generations. As the science of genetics hardened, with its definitive rejection of any possibility of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, observations of dauer-modifications were sent to the scrapheap where they still lie, jumbled together with other decommissioned facts.

In this Age of Trump there are countless articles trying to explain why people vote for conservative politicians and accept absurd conspiracy theories.  All of these articles depend, explicitly or implicitly, on an "us v. them" dichotomy:  they are not like us because they are bad, we are good; they can't think correctly, we can; etc., etc.  But, as any "serious student of epistemology" can point out (which means a philosophy scholar, mind):  "There can be no observations without an immense apparatus of preexisting theory."

Or, as Godel put it, there is no formal system that cannot produce a question it cannot answer.  Which means only that all such formal systems are incomplete, and all theories are set aside, or even abandoned, as they reach their limits.  And some facts become "decommissioned facts," because they no longer suit any current theory.  Does that mean those facts were wrong, are wrong?  Or are they just irrelevant?

But irrelevant to what?  To where the keys are, of course.  The drunk who lost his keys looked for them under the lamp, because the light was so much better there; not because that was where he lost his keys.

I have "observed" phenomena which are not supposed to have happened, according to the wisdom of the Carl Sagans of the world.  My mother, according to her own report and that of my late father, sat up in bed one night, waking her husband to tell him something had happened to her twin sister, something terrible.  A few hours later (in the days before cell phones), she got a call from her sister.  It seems they'd rolled their car on a country road a few hours earlier.  It took them a while to crawl out, walk down the road to a house, and use a telephone.  Is this a relevant observation of a phenomenon?  Not one science currently accepts, so it is explained as coincidence (mathematics), or illusory (my mother is lying about her experience), or simply inexplicable (it is meaningless).  Without a preexisting theory, this story isn't even a fact; it's simply nothing.

My own experience has convinced me of the reality of God.  Is this something I can prove by scientific methods?  No.  No more can I prove I love my wife; perhaps even to her, at times.  Yet I do; I've never stopped doing so, in the 40+ years I've known her.  Can I prove this?  Who asks me to?  It fits no scientific theory (except some reductio models not worth mentioning).  Yet I declare it true.  Of course, that declaration is important only to my wife; perhaps my daughter, perhaps my friends; but not to the greater world.  So I am free to say it, and never required to make a fact of it.  I say the same about my experiences of the God of Abraham, but none of those experiences would satisfy the video-game standards of modern media, where gods and monsters appear as Greek nightmares or vaguely Roman Catholic concepts (very vaguely; and all of those pre-existing theories, too).  Nor would my experience satisfy any pre-existing theory, and science as currently understood won't allow my experience to start one.

Well, unless I can mash my experience into psychology in some form or fashion; but then we're back to pre-existing theories again.  Even to say my experience is of the God of Abraham is to fit it to a pre-existing theory, of course; or at least a discourse with a vocabulary that allows me to discuss what I know (if you don't know your own experiences, what do you know?).  So we never escape the epistemological issue; even if defenders of science want to insist "science" exists above and beyond philosophy; which is to say, above and beyond human wisdom.

But human wisdom says it is very unwise to be so arrogant.

As Lewontin puts it, in the paragraph following the one quoted above:

The standard form of a scientific paper begins with a theoretical question, which is then followed by the description of an experimental technique designed to gather observations pertinent to the question. Only then are the observations themselves described. Finally there is a discussion section in which a great deal of energy is often expended rationalizing the failure of the observations to accord entirely with a theory we really like, and in which proposals are made for other experiments that might give more satisfactory results. Sagan’s suggestion that only demonologists engage in “special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble,” is certainly not one that accords with my reading of the scientific literature. Nor is this a problem unique to biology. The attempts of physicists to explain why their measurements of the effects of relativity did not agree with Einstein’s quantitative prediction is a case no doubt well known to Sagan.

As Kuhn put the matter, in a way that always sounds rather like Yeats' theory of the gyres to me, science proceeds along the path of a theory (say, Newtonian physics) until evidence amasses that "breaks" that theory because the theory can't explain the evidence, and the evidence won't go away (I simplify greatly, let the reader understand), and then we get a new theory:  Einsteinian mechanics.  Well, until quantum mechanics comes along, and the two rest uneasily side by side until one displaces (almost) the other.  And so on.  Lewontin is pointing out that rupture between theories should really occur earlier, if "truth" were the domain of science; but only occurs at all because the new theory accounts for so much of the evidence now deemed compelling simply because it fits the new theory; not because it is a progression towards a Platonic ideal at all.  A great many "decommissioned facts" get left behind because they really aren't relevant to the theory.

But is the theory, truth?  "What is truth?"  Pilate's question still hangs over all.  Am I over reading Lewontin?  It doesn't appear he would think so:

As to assertions without adequate evidence, the literature of science is filled with them, especially the literature of popular science writing. Carl Sagan’s list of the “best contemporary science-popularizers” includes E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, and Richard Dawkins, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market. Wilson’s Sociobiology and On Human Nature rest on the surface of a quaking marsh of unsupported claims about the genetic determination of everything from altruism to xenophobia. Dawkins’s vulgarizations of Darwinism speak of nothing in evolution but an inexorable ascendancy of genes that are selectively superior, while the entire body of technical advance in experimental and theoretical evolutionary genetics of the last fifty years has moved in the direction of emphasizing non-selective forces in evolution. Thomas, in various essays, propagandized for the success of modern scientific medicine in eliminating death from disease, while the unchallenged statistical compilations on mortality show that in Europe and North America infectious diseases, including tuberculosis and diphtheria, had ceased to be major causes of mortality by the first decades of the twentieth century, and that at age seventy the expected further lifetime for a white male has gone up only two years since 1950. Even The Demon-Haunted World itself sometimes takes suspect claims as true when they serve a rhetorical purpose as, for example, statistics on child abuse, or a story about the evolution of a child’s fear of the dark.

It would be useful to stop here and point out the worm in the rose of evolutionary theory:  "social Darwinism," as Thought Criminal has pointed out, is not an aberrant form of Darwin's theory, but the theory ab initio.  Darwin himself was an enthusiast of the idea of inferior races (to white Europeans, of course) being hobbled by evolutionary forces, because "survival of the fittest" meant not whatever species were around at the time of observation were obviously "fit" to "survive," but that evolution moved toward perfection (another Platonic idea).  Are humans really more fit to survive than dinosaurs?  Considering how many millions of years they occupied the planet, and by comparison what a relatively short time we have been here, on what basis does one make the judgment?  And did the dinosaurs all really live and die just to lead to us?  And how does "survival of the fittest" work when conditions change so radically (ice ages; meteor strikes; global warming and industrial pollution) species can no longer thrive?   Evolution is proven by being the last species standing?  By that standard the ruling species on the planet is the cockroach.

And I can't leave this paragraph out, if only for the reference to the Orthodox study house in Brooklyn:

Third, it is said that there is no place for an argument from authority in science. The community of science is constantly self-critical, as evidenced by the experience of university colloquia “in which the speaker has hardly gotten 30 seconds into the talk before there are devastating questions and comments from the audience.” If Sagan really wants to hear serious disputation about the nature of the universe, he should leave the academic precincts in Ithaca and spend a few minutes in an Orthodox study house in Brooklyn. It is certainly true that within each narrowly defined scientific field there is a constant challenge to new technical claims and to old wisdom. In what my wife calls the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral Syndrome, young scientists on the make will challenge a graybeard, and this adversarial atmosphere for the most part serves the truth. But when scientists transgress the bounds of their own specialty they have no choice but to accept the claims of authority, even though they do not know how solid the grounds of those claims may be. Who am I to believe about quantum physics if not Steven Weinberg, or about the solar system if not Carl Sagan? What worries me is that they may believe what Dawkins and Wilson tell them about evolution.

Or the last part of this one:

What seems absurd depends on one’s prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity “in deep trouble.” Two’s company, but three’s a crowd. 
But this is where the iron bites:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. 
What the supporters of Donald Trump accept are absurdities:  that government functions by the fiat of one man; that conspiracy theories explain everything except the weather; that "alternative facts" are a sound explanation of the contrary of whatever you are told is true.  They have a prior commitment to a theory I don't subscribe to.  And the theory they accept is absolute:  they cannot allow competing explanations, even ideas, to have a foot in the door.  That is where they are dangerous, but only slightly more dangerous than the Carl Sagans of the world.  The difference is that Trump is in office, and he is governing they way they would.  Sagan, as Lewontin points out, had access to billions of dollars in tax money to pursue his theories, and yet he, too, was deeply concerned with the people who disagreed with him, who didn't see the world the way he did, who had alternative theories, perhaps even alternative facts.*  Part of the risk of this new age is that we harden our opinions into pure opposition, that we settle for our beliefs as truth, simply because the "other side" can't possibly be right.

Lewontin provides an excellent example of how science still depends on the appeal to authority to make its claims:

On the one hand science is urged on us as a model of rational deduction from publicly verifiable facts, freed from the tyranny of unreasoning authority. On the other hand, given the immense extent, inherent complexity, and counterintuitive nature of scientific knowledge, it is impossible for anyone, including non-specialist scientists, to retrace the intellectual paths that lead to scientific conclusions about nature. In the end we must trust the experts and they, in turn, exploit their authority as experts and their rhetorical skills to secure our attention and our belief in things that we do not really understand. Anyone who has ever served as an expert witness in a judicial proceeding knows that the court may spend an inordinate time “qualifying” the expert, who, once qualified, gives testimony that is not meant to be a persuasive argument, but an assertion unchallengeable by anyone except another expert. And, indeed, what else are the courts to do? If the judge, attorneys, and jury could reason out the technical issues from fundamentals, there would be no need of experts
Expert witnesses are those allowed to state opinions in court; all other witnesses can only testify to the facts they have of their personal knowledge.  Experts can say that, in their opinion, the death of the driver was caused by a faulty weld in the car seat itself; or the design of the product lead to the injury; or whatever opinion is within their professional knowledge to form.  Expert witnesses are the authority in the courtroom on that subject; and they can only be countered with another authority.  It can be like watching two elephants fight; the grass of commonsense thought often gets trampled.

Lewontin ends his article quoting the Gospel of John, that "the truth shall set you free."  Not so, he says; it is the possession of the power to discover the truth that is liberating.  But John wasn't to simple as that, because his is also the only gospel that records Pilate's famous question.

That power is never so easily granted, or even obtained.

*if you don't think there are, validly, alternative facts, attend a trial one day and listen to various witnesses describe the same traffic accident.  You'll soon figure out why the legal system calls the jury the "finder of facts."  It is a legal fiction that the jury determines the truth; what they actually determine are the facts the court rests its decision on.  There are many alternatives but the courts must settle for one, and appointing a "finder of facts" is the way it is done.  You may appeal the legal ruling of the court, even the admission or denial of facts into the courtroom; but you can never challenge the facts of the case, once they are "found."  Before that finding, however, there are always alternative facts; and lawyers to argue for them.  No, it's not what Kellyeann Conway meant, but there again, we strain at gnats and swallow camels if we aren't careful.
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, February 06, 2017

"....beside the open door."



The first Chinese Super Bowl was a good game of football (even though the wrong team lost); but the commercials were uniformly terrible.

Except for this one.  Interestingly, if it stirred the controversy of the Adolphus Busch ad, I didn't hear about it.  This one, however, features distinctly Mestizo actors, v. a man portraying a 19th century German, who wasn't African, Irish, Polish, or any other class of person recognized by American history has having been despised as "not from around here."  Still, that one stirred howls of outrage from xenophobes who proved hating immigrants for no reason is as American as cherry pie.

This one is a powerful statement, at least from an American company's point of view.  It's not exactly up to Emma Lazarus' standards, but it's more honest than the Budweiser ad.
Posted by at No comments:

Three Weeks

Nixon only gibbered at the paintings, and only in private; and he had the excuse of being drunk.

And of being in his second term.

Posted by at 1 comment:

Sunday, February 05, 2017

The Times They Are A Changin'.....



Huffington Post tells me we are starting the third week of protests across the nation against Donald Trump's presidency.

More than 500 people showed up at the Texas Senate, a group as presently composed that would make Steve Bannon's dream team look like leftists, to testify against a proposed bill that would punish "sanctuary cities" in Texas.

The stories of individuals affected by the Muslim ban Trump tried to enact (as of this writing the appeal of the TRO has been denied by the appellate panel) continue to be reported.

Town hall meetings are not being disrupted by "anarchist elements" (shades of the 1920's!), but because of those elements in the White House (the desire for chaos in order to obtain control is anarchistic, if nothing else).

The witnesses testifying against the anti-sanctuary bill in Texas were inspired by Trump's executive order, and prove the fatal error in government by fiat instead of by legislative action.  No one in Texas campaigned on a platform of punishing sanctuary cities, and there's no real support for the extreme agenda of the governor and the lieutenant governor in the Texas House (almost the reverse of the national Congress, where the true believers are in the House).

Most people don't realize that what happens on the floor of the House or the Senate is the least part legislating, despite the best efforts of "Schoolhouse Rock."  You may remember the ditty about how a bill becomes law, but mostly what you remember that it's a long, complicated process.  And that process starts with fact-finding.  That's why committees hold hearings, the kind of hearing 500 people in Texas attended and tried to speak to.  Fact-finding is a bedrock principle of democracy, even though no one on the Sunday talk shows this morning will talk about that. It is vastly more important than the "peaceful transfer of power" bleated about every 4 to 8 years, as if the military and the executive branch would blindly follow a President who refused to vacate the office at the end of his term.  That wouldn't happen because the people:  the soldiers, the officers, the agency employees and agency heads, simply wouldn't allow it.  We don't transfer power to a President every time the Administration changes; we recognize a new person is now responsible.

There is a huge difference.

A difference as large as the difference between governing by legislation, and governing by fiat.  Fact-finding is the basis of the legislative procedure.  To be sure, it doesn't not prevent corruption and injustice from being written into law; but it does put the process on as democratic a footing as possible, short of reverting to the direct democracy of Athens, where the gathering of the citizens is the government, and all decisions (including the one to execute Socrates) are final.  We can't, and don't, have that form of democracy, so we muddle through with the one we do.  And one way to assure that form is respected, and laws are passed that do the least harm possible, at least in theory, is via fact-finding.  It's via a legislative history that includes deliberation, argument, presentation of conflicting opinions and a panoply of facts, and especially examination of the consequences of any law.

None of that has been done by the Trump Administration in the last two weeks.  And the results are clear:  the American people are rejecting it.

This is the rejection of rule by decree.  This is the rejection of a monarch who decides what is best for us, in spite of us.  This is the rejection of authoritarianism.  No, it isn't leading to a revolution that tosses out the bad guys at the end of 60 minutes, or 2 hours.  No, it isn't uniting the country unanimously against Darth Vader and his horde of minions.  No, there won't even be a titanic battle in which the bad guy is vanquished forever and the only problem is cleaning up the mess afterwards.  (Let must just say it is interesting how much more realistic on that score the Marvel "Avengers" movies have become, as the consequences of decision in one movie carry over into the next.)  No, we won't return to the "good old days" when LBJ Democrats ran the country and JFK Democrats inspired a younger generation to join the Peace Corps, and everybody held hands as Dr. King told us he had a dream.

But the Trump Administration is finding it can't go forward, either.  Or backward, to some vision of America that never existed except in the fever dreams of Steve Bannon.  It is finding it must build consensus, or it can't build a governing philosophy.  But Trump and Bannon aren't interested in consensus, they are only interested in chaos, a chaos they hope to exploit.


Posted by at No comments:

"With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility"

That was a long, long time ago....

I don't even necessarily disagree with Trump:
Trump: I do respect him, but I respect a lot of people. That doesn’t mean I’m going to get along with him. He’s a leader of his country. I say it’s better to get along with Russia than not. And if Russia helps us in the fight against ISIS, which is a major fight — and Islamic terrorism all over the world — that’s a good thing.

O’Reilly: But he’s a killer though. Putin’s a killer.

Trump: There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think? Our country’s so innocent?
Who I disagree with, is the President.

It is tempting, as a pastor, to stand in a pulpit and rain fire and brimstone down on your congregation. When I was having trouble with my congregation (a two-way street, I assure you), a friend of long standing in the ministry (and longer standing as a friend) sent me a tape of a pastoral rant where the preacher denounces, in detail and high umbrage, every member of his congregation.  I laughed until I cried, because it was so true, because it was so much what I wanted to do.

But he and I knew we couldn't; no pastor can.  The pulpit is a place of privilege, and it is not owned by the pastor.  It is controlled by her or him, but not owned.  It is owned, in the Protestant tradition, by the congregation.  Yes, that's fundamentally different in the Catholic tradition, but the restraint still applies:  you can't be a shepherd to your flock by telling them in no uncertain terms that they are wolves in sheep's clothing.  Wolves they may be; but wolves attack when provoked.  And provoking them doesn't turn them away from being wolves.

That's the least lesson about it; the greater lesson is that your position of privilege is one of responsibility, not unleashed authority.  As a lay member I can stand up in a congregational meeting (disrupting worship services would be a grave mistake) and denounce the congregation in unequivocal terms.  I can go before the governing council of the church and name names and curse families, if I choose.  I might even get away with it; I've known church members who do.

But as the pastor, the leader of the congregation, the person chosen to shepherd them?  I don't have the privilege of speaking my mind.  In that role I have great responsibility, and that gives me great power; but I can't use that power to flail at others.  The more I do so, the more I reveal how small I am, how unfit I am for the privilege of leadership.  If I think my congregation is corrupt and full of sin, it is my responsibility to correct it, to guide it, to cleanse it.  It is not my job to say:  "What, you think you're so innocent?"  Because they are never so evil as to relieve me of my responsibility to them.  If I think they are, I have one choice:  resign.  If I don't, then I accept them as they are, and I accept my responsibility toward them.

Donald Trump private citizen can tweet opinions like that until his fingers bleed.  Donald Trump POTUS dare not ever say such a thing.  For the simple reason that he is in charge, now.  For the simple reason that, when you point a finger, three more are pointing back at you.  He wants to be innocent of the charge of being a killer himself, yet what decisions will he make in the next four years that lead, directly, to the deaths of others?  He wants to defend his position by pointing to the hypocrisy of others:  but those "others" are him, now.  He is the President.  He is in charge.  He is responsible.  First he said our government was populated with Nazis; now he says it is populated with assassins.

The buck stops with him, whether he likes it or not.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Saturday, February 04, 2017

Unpresidented

It's called "rule of law".  Maybe you should get some of the lawyers in the DOJ to explain it to you?  

When did the POTUS become the Fearmonger-in-Chief?  Who elected that?

The rule of law?  It goes something like this:

The work of the court is not to create policy or judge the Wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches. That is the work of the legislative and executive branches and of the citizens of this country who ultimately exercise democratic control over those branches. The work of the Judiciary, and this court, is limited to ensuring that the actions taken by the other two branches comport with our country’s laws, and more importantly, our Constitution. …

[T]he court is mindful of the considerable impact its order may have on the parties before it, the executive branch of our government, and the country’s citizens and residents. The court concludes that the circumstances brought before it today are such that it must intervene to fulfill its constitutional role in our tripart government.


“The President's attack on Judge James Robart, a Bush appointee who passed with 99 votes, shows a disdain for an independent judiciary that doesn't always bend to his wishes and a continued lack of respect for the Constitution, making it more important that the Supreme Court serve as an independent check on the administration," Schumer said in a Saturday statement.

“With each action testing the Constitution, and each personal attack on a judge, President Trump raises the bar even higher for Judge Gorsuch's nomination to serve on the Supreme Court. His ability to be an independent check will be front and center throughout the confirmation process," the minority leader added.
Which, by the way, raises this interesting question:


Hmmmm.....
Will that be before, or after, the Super Bowl?

Again there's that pesky problem of the "rule of law":

“You’re here arguing on behalf of someone who says we have to protect the U.S. from these individuals coming from these countries,” [Judge] Robart said, “and there’s no support for that.” 

Lawyers call that the "rational basis test."  Fail it, and you pretty much can't issue a governmental edict.


Can we start with you?

Nothin' but good times ahead!

Update:  at 6:48 p.m. Twitter time:


The boy can't help himself.  Who, then, is going to help us?  At some point somebody else in the DOJ has to refuse to represent this clown's opinions in a court of law.

And yes, that's 9 tweets on the subject, and it isn't Sunday yet.
Posted by at 3 comments:

Friday, February 03, 2017

"It's not my fault!"



That's Kellyanne Conway correcting her statement on "Hardball" about the "Bowling Green Massacre."  Except she didn't pull that one out of thin air; as Joshua Keating at Slate points out, "Bowling Green" has roots that go back to Breitbart (the link is in Slate, I won't put one here).  That's bad enough, but then again, we've already come to accept Ms. Conway's "alternative facts" as an option that will spill out of her mouth.

Let's not forget, however, she is part of the Trump Administration; and "alternative facts" are becoming a commonplace there:

There's a great deal more information in a series of tweets, but the bottom line is:  there was no operation ready to go, waiting for the new POTUS to approve.  Trump, according to reports, heard about this over dinner and approved of the raid, which was taken as a command to carry it out.  But there was no preparation, no investigation, no discussion.






Which explains why the Defense Dept. turned on the White House when this raid ended in the death of one Navy Seal, the loss of a military aircraft, and the deaths of several non-combatants (i.e., innocent civilians).

If Colin Kahl's account is correct, this is a lie:

The US officials said the extremists' base had been identified as a target before the Obama administration left office on January 20, but President Barack Obama held off approving a raid ahead of his departure.

A White House official said the operation was thoroughly vetted by the previous administration and the previous defense secretary had signed off on it in January. The raid was delayed for operational reasons, the White House official said.
It's also a shameless attempt at CYA.  Considering the number of lies that have tumbled out of the White House (from even the POTUS himself), why should the official account be given more credence than this tweeted rebuttal?  In fact, why should anything this White House says be taken as true?

And if everything the White House says is untrustworthy, even basic facts.....

That was a long time ago....

Posted by at No comments:

A patch of ice, and all that


We used to just call 'em "outside agitators"

Yesterday on BBC World Service their correspondent went to Arizona to find a GOP official, ANY GOP official (office holder, party apparatchik, anybody) who would speak words of support for Donald Trump.

*crickets*

That's all he got.  Not only would people not speak to him (in the capitol, anywhere in public), a few on tape refused to so much as give their names, a response, he pointed out, usually encountered in countries where the wrong word in public can lead to death.

The first person he got to speak to him, an ordinary citizen, identified as a Democrat, and wanted to give Trump the benefit of the doubt.  One or two other people would go on record, but barely (first names only) to say something supporting about Trump; all were private citizens.

And then this, from Josh Marshall:

Republican Senator Jim Risch of Idaho has been receiving so many anti-Trump visitors at his Boise office (as well as calls) that he's closed the office to visitors and asked anyone who would like to visit the office to make an appointment in advance.

There seems to be a similar situation in Coeur d-Alene.

Josh has the link.

For all the hand-wringing you can find on the 'net, that Trump is "winning" this or "winning that," reality is not a TV show, and story lines are not resolved in 3 acts and an epilogue.  Two weeks in and Trump has generated so much anger it is threatening the people who should be supporting him in Congress.  It's no accident John McCain had to publicly reassure the Australian Ambassador of U.S. support.  The distinctive feature of government, be it a democracy or a dictatorship, is that is must provide stability and order; else, what's a government for?  People prefer order:  even in the chaos of New Orleans just after Katrina passed, people sought order, not anarchy.  Even in Syria, the pursuit is for order, not for a constant war of all against all.

Trump wants to sew chaos, the better to raise a new order from the ashes.  He is like the trolls I read in comments here and there, who want to destroy the nation in order to save it, because from the ashes will rise a nation committed to their ideals.  As if their ideals are the only ones possible out of chaos and utter destruction.  For that scenario, look to Syria; or Yemen.

The difference here is, Trump is not a military leader of an insurgency, and he is not a dictator.  He has voters who still express support for him, but they are a rump faction and the majority of the country disagrees.  Trump may successfully sew chaos for a time, but that is not a winning political strategy in the long term; and four years can be a very long term indeed.  And the more Trump insists this is about him, and about Muslims, the more rapidly his decline will proceed.  Anger over the "Muslim ban" has not abated, and skepticism about "illegal voters" has already forced Trump to walk away from that baseless claim.

Trump is not "winning," he's just sowing the most dragon's teeth he can.  The chaos that results should redound on him.

"Look, I'm headed home to Oregon," said Senator Ron Wyden. "I've had five town meetings when there was more snow in Oregon than any day since 1937. We had very big crowds with people really speaking out. Political change doesn't start in Washington, D.C. and trickle down. It starts from the bottom up, as people become aware of the facts.

"What's understood now, and it will increase, is they were told certain things in the campaign. Like with Obamacare. They were told there was going to be a repeal of Obamacare and a replacement. What we've really seen is repeal-and-run. They just wanted to repeal this program, get an ideological trophy, but they knew that just doing that would cause an enormous number of problems going forward. Looking for ideological trophies was not what the public was told during the campaign."

Steve Inskeep talked to people in the Allegheny Mountains of Pennsylvania who expect Trump to bring jobs back.  Those jobs are gone, never to return.  Automation ate the ones that the decline in coal consumption didn't, and neither course is going to be reversed.  Should we, as a nation, care more about those people?  Yes.  But the beginning of that care is to stop drinking the snake oil of "The Market" which will solve all our ills; or of a little man with a loud mouth who takes credit for the tides coming in and going out.

Trump is winning ideological trophies, small ones at best.  If the analysis is correct and the minority who elected Trump still expect him to produce jobs, those trophies won't be worth much in very short order.  It's up to the people to tell that to Congress, until it's a message they can't ignore.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, February 02, 2017

"This is the hand, the hand that takes...."



In Ray Bradbury's famous butterfly-induced timeline-change story "A Sound of Thunder," when the time travelers return to the now-fascist present words are misspelled and language is used differently. Basically, people have become dipshits because of this ideology.

And from what is happening, it definitely appears to be some kind of transmissible stupidity virus that also suppresses conscience.

If history is any guide, the only antidote that's ever worked has been force. Let's hope force of law is sufficient.
"Cause when love is gone,
There's always justice.
And when justice is gone,
there's always force.
And when force is gone,
There's always Mom.
Hi, Mom!"

It's just the way my mind works.  Because, yeah, Bradbury's future seems closer and closer every day.
Posted by at No comments:

Ariel Poems: "A Song for Simeon"


Lord, the Roman hyacinths are blooming in bowls and
The winter sun creeps by the snow hills;
The stubborn season has made stand.
My life is light, waiting for the death wind,
Like a feather on the back of my hand.
Dust in sunlight and memory in corners
Wait for the wind that chills towards the dead land.

Grant us thy peace.
I have walked many years in this city,
Kept faith and fast, provided for the poor,
Have given and taken honour and ease.
There went never any rejected from my door.
Who shall remember my house, where shall live my children’s children
When the time of sorrow is come?
They will take to the goat’s path, and the fox’s home,
Fleeing from foreign faces and the foreign swords.

Before the time of cords and scourges and lamentation
Grant us thy peace.
Before the stations of the mountain of desolation,
Before the certain hour of maternal sorrow,
Now at this birth season of decease,
Let the Infant, the still unspeaking and unspoken Word,
Grant Israel’s consolation
To one who has eighty years and no to-morrow.

According to thy word.
They shall praise Thee and suffer in every generation
With glory and derision,
Light upon light, mounting the saints’ stair.
Not for me the martyrdom, the ecstasy of thought and prayer,
Not for me the ultimate vision.
Grant me thy peace.
(And a sword shall pierce thy heart,
Thine also).
I am tired with my own life and the lives of those after me,
I am dying in my own death and the deaths of those after me.
Let thy servant depart,
Having seen thy salvation.

--T.S. Eliot

Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, February 01, 2017

As NTodd said....


This is not really a surprise:

The Trump administration wants to revamp and rename a U.S. government program designed to counter all violent ideologies so that it focuses solely on Islamist extremism, five people briefed on the matter told Reuters.

The program, "Countering Violent Extremism," or CVE, would be changed to "Countering Islamic Extremism" or "Countering Radical Islamic Extremism," the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.
Notice, in the chart, how many Americans are killed annually by "Far right-wing terrorists, especially v. "Islamic jihadist immigrants."

This, however, I simply count as asserted but not proven:

 President Donald Trump threatened in a phone call with his Mexican counterpart to send U.S. troops to stop "bad hombres down there" unless the Mexican military does more to control them itself, according to an excerpt of a transcript of the conversation obtained by The Associated Press.
The excerpt of the call did not make clear who exactly Trump considered "bad hombres," — drug cartels, immigrants, or both — or the tone and context of the remark, made in a Friday morning phone call between the leaders. It also did not contain Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto's response.

Still, the excerpt offers a rare and striking look at how the new president is conducting diplomacy behind closed doors. Trump's remark suggest he is using the same tough and blunt talk with world leaders that he used to rally crowds on the campaign trail.

A White House spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.

The phone call between the leaders was intended to patch things up between the new president and his ally. The two have had a series of public spats over Trump's determination to have Mexico pay for the planned border wall, something Mexico steadfastly refuses to agree to.
Unproven because of this, for one thing:

A person with access to the official transcript of the phone call provided only that portion of the conversation to The Associated Press. The person gave it on condition of anonymity because the administration did not make the details of the call public.

The Mexican website Aristegui Noticias on Tuesday published a similar account of the phone call, based on the reporting of journalist Dolia Estevez. The report described Trump as humiliating Pena Nieto in a confrontational conversation.

Mexico's foreign relations department denied that account, saying it "is based on absolute falsehoods." 
That website may well have a reason to want to describe Pena Nieto as "humiliated."  The entire transcript is not available, which is another thing.  This is an administration that lied, most recently, about how many people were "inconvenienced" by the "travel ban" (which ISN'T a travel ban!  Not anymore, anyway).  All evidence is that Trump talks tough in public, and is a mouse in private.  During the primaries he spoke to Pena Nieto in Mexico City without mentioning or insisting that Mexico pay for the "wall," hen returned to the states to chunder about the "wall."  He was also going to pin drug companies to the mat, and then decided the problem was not drug companies and the market, but Medicaid.

So Trump "is using the same tough and blunt talk with world leaders that he used to rally crowds on the campaign trail"?  Sure he is.....

And even the White House won't talk about it?  Smells like bullshit to me.

"Pancho Villa Has Done An Amazing Job That Is Being Recognized More And More, I Notice."

On a brighter note:

U.S. District Judge Andre Birotte Jr. issued an order that “enjoined and restrained” the government from enforcing Trump’s order issued Friday. The ruling was sought by attorneys representing 28 plaintiffs from Yemen who have been held in transit in Djibouti since Trump signed his order Friday. His ruling, however, went beyond the named plaintiffs to include protections for “any other person from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen with a valid immigrant visa,” a group estimated to include 90,000 people.

90,000 people, not 109.  Heh.
Posted by at No comments:

Honoring Black History Month, Take Two


Is this even English?

A reporter asked Spicer at the daily briefing what exactly Trump was referring to by way of Douglass' contributions.

"I think he wants to highlight the contributions that he has made," Spicer responded. "And I think through a lot of the actions and statements that he's going to make, I think the contributions of Frederick Douglass will become more and more."
I hate to think Trump's syntax is contagious.  Tommy Lee Jones told Will Smith that in some parts of the galaxy human thought is so primitive it is considered a disease.  It was a great line, but is Trump catching?

Because now I AM worried.....

I mean, compare and contrast:

Transcript of President Donald Trump’s remarks on Black History Month

Well the election, it came out really well. Next time we'll triple the number or quadruple it. We want to get it over 51, right. At least 51.

Well, this is Black History Month, so this is our little breakfast, our little get-together. And just a few notes. During this month, we honor the tremendous history of the African-Americans throughout our country. Throughout the world, if you really think about it, right. And their story is one of unimaginable sacrifice, hard work, and faith in America. I've gotten a real glimpse during the campaign; I'd go around with Ben to a lot of places that I wasn't so familiar with. They're incredible people. And I want to thank Ben Carson, who's going to be heading up HUD, and it's a big job, and it's a job that's not only housing, it's mind and spirit, right? And you understand that. Nobody's going to be better than Ben.

Last month we celebrated the life of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. whose incredible example is unique in American history. You read all about Dr. Martin Luther King a week ago when somebody said I took the statue out of my office. And it turned out that that was fake news. The statue is cherished. It's one of the favorite things — and we have some good ones. We have Lincoln, and we have Jefferson, and we have Dr. Martin Luther King. And we have other. But they said the statue, the bust, of Dr. Martin Luther King was taken out of the office. And it was never even touched. So I think it was a disgrace, but that's the way the press is. It's very unfortunate.

I am very proud now that we have a museum, National Mall, where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things, Frederick Doug — Douglass is an example of somebody who's done an amazing job that is being recognized more and more, I notice. Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and millions more black Americans who made Americans what it is today. Big impact. I'm proud to honor this heritage and will be honoring it more and more.

Folks at the table, in almost all cases, have been great friends and supporters. And Darrell, I met Darrell when he was defending me on television. And the people that were on the other side of the argument didn't have a chance, right. And Paris has done an amazing job in a very hostile CNN community; he's all by himself. Seven people and Paris. I'll take Paris over the seven. But I don't watch CNN, so I don't get to see you as much. I don't like watching fake news. But Fox has treated me very nice, wherever Fox is, thank you. We're going to need better schools, and we need 'em soon. We need more jobs, we need better wages, a lot better wages. We're going to work very hard on the inner city. Ben's going to be doing that, big league, that's one of his big things that we're going to be looking at. We need safer communities and we're going to do that with law enforcement. We're going to make it safe. We're going to make it much better than it is right now. Right now it's terrible.

I saw you talking about it the other night, Paris, on something else that was really — you did a fantastic job the other night on a very unrelated show. I'm ready to do my part, and I will say this, we're going to work together. This is a great group, this is a group that's been so special to me, you really helped me a lot. If you remember, I wasn't going to do well with the African-American community, and after they heard me speaking and talking about the inner city and lots of other things, we ended up getting, I won't go into details, but we ended up getting substantially more than other candidates who had run in the past years. And now we're going to take that to new levels. I want to thank my television star over here — Omarosa's actually a very nice person. Nobody knows that. I don't want to destroy her reputation. She is a very good person and she's been helpful right from the beginning with the campaign and I appreciate it, I really do. Very special. So I want to thank everybody for being here.

If this stuff can be spread, what's the antidote?  (And no, I have absolutely no idea what that first paragraph means.  The media en masse seems to be ignoring it as some kind of brain droppings, or a mental fart we're all too polite to notice.  Hoo-boy!)
Posted by at 6 comments:

Are the trains even running on time?



So, who wrote the executive order on immigration?

When Donald Trump's administration put together its controversial executive order on immigration, it was Steve Bannon – the populist firebrand fast emerging as the president's right-hand man – pushing a hard line.

Senior officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) interpreted the order to mean that lawful permanent residents - green card holders – who hailed from the seven Muslim-majority countries targeted in the immigration order would not face additional screening when they entered the country.

But they were quickly overruled by Bannon, who is Trump’s chief strategist and oversaw the drafting of the executive order along with White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller, a close ally of Bannon's, the officials said.

"They were in charge of this operation," one senior DHS official said, adding that the experts were "almost immediately overruled by the White House, which means by Bannon and Miller."

But, of course, that order wasn't about religion, was it?

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
Nice country you have here; be a shame if anything was to happen to it.....
Posted by at No comments:

Honoring Black History Month

No; but you wouldn't be surprised if it was true, would you?

Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States:

"Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who has done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice," Trump said, perhaps unable to articulate Douglass' historically recognized role as an abolitionist leader and the first black citizen to hold a high rank in the U.S. government.

He went on to name Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks as examples of "black Americans who made America what it is today."

"A big impact," Trump said. "I'm proud to honor this heritage. I will be honoring it more and more."
And let's not leave out his golden oldie:

"We're going to work very hard in the inner city. Ben [Carson] will be doing that, one of his big things. We need safer communities. We're going to do that with law enforcement. We're going to make it safe. We're going to make it much better than it is right now. Right now it's terrible."

He works in words the way toddlers work in mud.  It's a heritage he will be honoring more and more.

Twitter apparently likes me again, so two tweets related to what Trump said:



And:

Everything is all about him.
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

So, that happened.....


The cartoons before the election about Trump emblazoning his name on the front of the White House and painting the columns gold were funny.

This is not.

The report was that Trump brought two candidates for his nomination to the Supreme Court to a reception in the White House, flew them in with their wives.  There were earlier reports that Trump was determined to keep his choice a secret until he announced it; and bringing two candidates was obviously part of that ploy.

So imagine being the guy flown to D.C. by the President just to be told you were the cover story to keep the choice a secret until the big reveal.  Imagine even going to D.C. knowing the other candidate was coming, too.  Or did they know?  Because frankly, if it was me, I'd have told the President "Thanks, but no thanks."  If you aren't the choice, why do you want to be the cat's paw?

It's disgusting and degrading and demeaning.  It is also pure Trump:  it's all about him, and we are all just pasteboard figures in his megalomania theater.

You need no more proof of that than the fact that Trump had to assemble White House staff to applaud him when he entered the room.  It isn't enough you are the President and everyone stands when you enter (yes, I've watched "The West Wing.").  You need applause, too.

What happens when Trump takes a shit?  Does he get a gold star?

I'm serious.  What kind of insecure, needy, narcissistic person needs people to applaud him whenever he is on camera to encourage him to speak to the nation?  He called this circus.  It's an unprecedented act to call for a prime-time TV spot so you can make a 5 minute announcement (which he stretched to 15).  And you can't do it without an audience and paid applause?

The worst part, the most disrespectful part, was parading both candidates into the White House in front of Congressional leaders.  I was truly surprised he didn't bring them both before the cameras before choosing one and sending the other home in shame.  But the need for applause, for approval, for approbation in something as simple as a cursory announcement of a Presidential prerogative:  this man as President of the United States is truly frightening.
Posted by at 3 comments:

In Response to Sen. John Neely Kennedy


Via Wounded Bird:

Sen. John Kennedy said the United States has the "right to control its border," adding that it would be "stupid to let people who want to hurt us into our country."

"We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws," Kennedy said. "I support the following rule: If you want to come to America, you have to be rigorously vetted to make sure you are not a terrorist, regardless of your religion or country of origin."
Yes, it is stupid to let lightning, toddlers, lawnmowers, buses, beds, and other Americans with guns into our country.

When are we going to put a stop to this carnage?
Posted by at 2 comments:

Give Trump a Chance


Before executing a major policy, experienced and effective political operations lay the necessary groundwork to ensure that when they do have to fight, they will do so on the most favorable ground. First, they engage in extensive behind-the-scenes consultation to understand the landscape, with an eye toward learning about the array of potential consequences. They then investigate the political, legal, and practical obstacles to implementation, and figure out which tweaks can neutralize opponents and sidestep judicial challenges. They start narrow to deprive opponents of sympathetic plaintiffs and only broaden the policy later, when the high-profile battle is won. Then when the opposition is disorganized and demoralized, and its fear-mongering discredited, you come back for more.

Or you don't....

Gen. Talib al Kenani commands the elite American-trained counter terrorist forces that have been leading the fight against ISIS for two years.

“I’m a four star general, and I’m banned from entering the U.S.?” he said.

His family was relocated to the U.S. for their safety, and he’d had plans to see them next week, until he was told not to bother.

“I have been fighting terrorism for 13 years and winning,” he said. “Now my kids are now asking if I’m a terrorist?”

“There are many American troops here in Iraq,” he said. “After this ban how are we supposed to deal with each other?”

“This ban needs to be reviewed,” Kenani said. “We thought we were partners with our American friends, and now we realize that we’re just considered terrorists.”

Should we give Trump a chance?, NPR's 1A asked this morning.  To do what, shoot the country in the other foot?
Posted by at 1 comment:

The Tinpot Dictator Strides onto the Balcony


Slate described it perfectly:

The firing of Yates represents a spectacular example of Trump lashing out at a person who has dared to assert a moral vision that conflicts with his squalid and fearful worldview. The move looks all the more gratuitous and petty given that Yates was imminently on her way out the door anyway: As a holdover from the Obama administration, she took the job of acting attorney general on an interim basis while Trump’s pick for the permanent position, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, went through the Senate confirmation process.

But then Trump gave me more reason than ever to support any Democratic Senator who refuses to vote for Jeff Sessions:

The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.
Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.

It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.

Tonight, President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat [sic] senators for strictly political reasons

“I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed. I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected,” said Dana Boente, Acting Attorney General.
'Betrayed'?  Really?  Et tu, Brute? L'etat, c'est moi?  Who does this guy think he is?

Ms. Yates may be "weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration (which this executive order has nothing to do with), but she's strong on professional ethics, a concept that would die of thirst crossing the desert of the President's thought process.

Calling for "tougher vetting" is one thing; creating chaos with a directive that scares even David Frum for its authoritarianism is another.

And Jeff Sessions is "being wrongly held up by Democrat [sic. dog whistle!  Drink!] senators for strictly political reasons"?  These guys really don't know where they are, do they?

And Dana Boente, I've never heard of you before, but forever after may history know you as Robert Bork, Jr.

Oh, let's just pile on, shall we?

[SEN. JEFF SESSIONS, R-AL]: You have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things you just need to say “no” about. Do you think the Attorney General has the responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that’s improper? A lot of people have defended the [Loretta] Lynch nomination, for example, by saying, “Well [Obama] appoints somebody who’s going to execute his views. What’s wrong with that?” But if the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General say no?

[SALLY] YATES: Senator, I believe the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president.
But when the POTUS is a Republican?

As I say, she is right.  Eloquent, too:

On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.

My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.

Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.

Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.

Compare and contrast with the statement coming out of the White House.   And Dana Boente is still Robert Bork's water boy.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)