- Phillips argues that more have died from covid-19 than from this kind of violence so the lack of a plan from the current administration is the critical issue. Here's why that doesn't fly. First the connection between the left and one very graphic death is a very short straight line, ultimately provable. By contrast, the link between Trump's inaction and the covid-19 deaths is much harder case to make. While many of us believe it to be the case, Trump and his surrogates will argue that the steps they took were important in limiting the number of deaths to "only" 180 thousand and, hypothetically without Trump's actions it would have been much worse. Biden's only counter is an equally un-provable hypothetical that with other actions the death toll might have been much lower. So that's effectively a draw.
- Next she claims that the violence is happening now and therefore Trump's administration must own it (in part because they have stoked the flames). But Trump will argue that it's not a nation-wide problem and that there is a correlation between Democratic states and cities, left wing activists and polices and the violence. The fact that there is an unobserved variable (poverty and inequality) that drives all three will be lost on most people.
- Finally she points out that Biden condemned the violence a long while ago. That will only help Trump make his point; if Biden can't control his radical base, what does that portend for the country if he's elected?
Monday, August 31, 2020
The 5-Minute Fix is indeed a trip
Amber Phillips wrote in the Washington Post's "The 5-Minute Fix" today that the shooting of a Trump supporter in Portland, OR actually plays into Biden's hands. Sadly, that's symptomatic of left-wing wishful thinking.
Saturday, August 29, 2020
Fantasy worlds
"Rttenhouse appears to have been living in a fantasy world where police and car dealerships are more endangered than unarmed Black men in traffic stops, and where he was a warrior and self-defender, rather than a youngster who foolishly enrolled himself in a midwestern version of the Children’s Crusade. I can only imagine his fear when he saw the crowd coming for him—and the crowd’s fear, when it saw that a near-child was wildly firing a rifle better suited to a person with judgment and good training. I do not expect that the jury will be forgiving".
So writes Graeme Wood, staff writer at the Atlantic, in his last paragraph (August 28th).
But it's not clear to me that Wood isn't living in fantasy world too. Recall George Zimmerman and the self defense legal strategy. I fully expect a jury will acquit Rittenhouse, assuming charges are even brought.
Wood himself provides the basis for Rittenhouse's defense - that he was in fear for his life. Certainly by the time he was being chased and fell to the ground he could make that claim quite legitimately; given the circumstances I could imagine those chasing him could easily beaten him without mercy and even killed him. So the last two killings clearly fit the category of self-defense; and, if as has been alleged, he was attacked by a protester leading to his first shooting, then it likely applies there too.
That he came, at least in the eyes of the protesters, spoiling for a fight (as I imagine the prosecution will argue) and therefore put himself intentionally into harm's way does not, in my view, sufficiently weaken the self-defense argument. In both instances, although he was armed, he does not appear to have been the aggressor; and that is going to be critical.
So writes Graeme Wood, staff writer at the Atlantic, in his last paragraph (August 28th).
But it's not clear to me that Wood isn't living in fantasy world too. Recall George Zimmerman and the self defense legal strategy. I fully expect a jury will acquit Rittenhouse, assuming charges are even brought.
Wood himself provides the basis for Rittenhouse's defense - that he was in fear for his life. Certainly by the time he was being chased and fell to the ground he could make that claim quite legitimately; given the circumstances I could imagine those chasing him could easily beaten him without mercy and even killed him. So the last two killings clearly fit the category of self-defense; and, if as has been alleged, he was attacked by a protester leading to his first shooting, then it likely applies there too.
That he came, at least in the eyes of the protesters, spoiling for a fight (as I imagine the prosecution will argue) and therefore put himself intentionally into harm's way does not, in my view, sufficiently weaken the self-defense argument. In both instances, although he was armed, he does not appear to have been the aggressor; and that is going to be critical.
Despite all odds
Biden and Harris were comfortably ahead in the polls coming out of the DNC. But the latest CNN poll shows their lead slipping away there is now distinct possibility they could screw it up and hand another four years to Trump. Two things have changed.
First, another Black man, Jacob Blake, was shot; seven times; in the back. While it's not year completely clear what were the circumstances leading up to the shooting, it doesn't look good. Shooting someone in the back makes it difficult to argue imminent threat, particularly when the officer doing the shooting was allegedly holding Blake by the shirt when he shot him. What followed, unsurprisingly, were demonstrations; and also, given the number of times Black men have been shot with seemingly little or no justification (Rayshard Books for example), anger turned to violence.
But then things took an even uglier turn; ginned up by Trump's divisive race-baiting rhetoric (and that of his sycophantic entourage in the GOP), a 17-year-old traveled fifteen miles and across state lines with a long gun and shot one of the protesters; he flees the scene, is pursued by some of the protesters, falls to the ground, turns and shoots two more people. Then he walks calmly past the police with his hands raised, still carrying his rifle, hardly the stance of someone who does not believe they have done anything wrong, and the police simply ignore him. Imagine how they would have treated a Black man carrying a gun...
And to top it all, the police are captured on camera offering refreshments to a paramilitary group of armed white men.
So why does this matter? First, to many it provides stark evidence of bias in policing; it adds another body to the pile of Black men shot when, with a less confrontational approach, he might not have been. And it is evidence of the toxic effect of Trump's bile-filled race-baiting in inciting and escalating racial tensions.
But as importantly, the escalation to the point of armed confrontation between paramilitary types and the BLM protesters is bringing the country to the brink of what I have called a cold civil war. And that increases the need to get the situation under control as many begin to worry that if left unchecked the country will come apart at the seams. The question is what action? Trump's answer is 'unleash the dogs of war'; use the most oppressive and militaristic response to quash the violence, no matter the cost in lives or the fabric of society; and the toll will be great. It will set back race relations at least two generations. And it will cost lives, shot or incarcerated.
If that's not the answer, what is? Well that's where Biden and Harris need to be stepping up. But as yet they haven't and that may cost them dearly at the ballot box in November. What is desperately needed now is a strong but empathetic intervention. Biden and Harris need to make it clear, and not just with slightly lame public statements, is that while they understand the protesters' anger and are sympathetic to their issues they cannot use violence; because that's exactly what Trump wants then to do. They need to assure the protesters that when elected, they are committed helping change the status quo. And they have to do it in a way that makes every news program for a day to more. Failing to do that will leave the impression that they have no answers, and consequently that they aren't to be trusted with the keys to the White House.
The second thing that puts the Biden Harris campaign at risk is that Trump has upped his game. He's either realized that without changing his behavior he will lose or someone has finally managed to knock that idea into his head. So today he will pretend to play President and visit the victims of the latest climate-crisis-induced weather disaster in Texas (a battle-ground sate of course).
The last time he visited a disaster area was Paradise, California where he talked about raking the leaves and forgot the name of the town he was in. And before that it was Puerto Rico where he merrily tossed out rolls of paper towels as if he was at a ball game. So with six weeks to go he's trying again to give the impression that he has empathy. But it might work. Most people don't pay much attention until they are confronted with the choice as they will be in a few weeks, and together, the escalating racial violence and Trump's change in tactics could swing the election his way.
So Joe, Kamala; the time for letting Trump dig himself into a deeper hole is over. Now it's time to act decisively, loudly and clearly.
First, another Black man, Jacob Blake, was shot; seven times; in the back. While it's not year completely clear what were the circumstances leading up to the shooting, it doesn't look good. Shooting someone in the back makes it difficult to argue imminent threat, particularly when the officer doing the shooting was allegedly holding Blake by the shirt when he shot him. What followed, unsurprisingly, were demonstrations; and also, given the number of times Black men have been shot with seemingly little or no justification (Rayshard Books for example), anger turned to violence.
But then things took an even uglier turn; ginned up by Trump's divisive race-baiting rhetoric (and that of his sycophantic entourage in the GOP), a 17-year-old traveled fifteen miles and across state lines with a long gun and shot one of the protesters; he flees the scene, is pursued by some of the protesters, falls to the ground, turns and shoots two more people. Then he walks calmly past the police with his hands raised, still carrying his rifle, hardly the stance of someone who does not believe they have done anything wrong, and the police simply ignore him. Imagine how they would have treated a Black man carrying a gun...
And to top it all, the police are captured on camera offering refreshments to a paramilitary group of armed white men.
So why does this matter? First, to many it provides stark evidence of bias in policing; it adds another body to the pile of Black men shot when, with a less confrontational approach, he might not have been. And it is evidence of the toxic effect of Trump's bile-filled race-baiting in inciting and escalating racial tensions.
But as importantly, the escalation to the point of armed confrontation between paramilitary types and the BLM protesters is bringing the country to the brink of what I have called a cold civil war. And that increases the need to get the situation under control as many begin to worry that if left unchecked the country will come apart at the seams. The question is what action? Trump's answer is 'unleash the dogs of war'; use the most oppressive and militaristic response to quash the violence, no matter the cost in lives or the fabric of society; and the toll will be great. It will set back race relations at least two generations. And it will cost lives, shot or incarcerated.
If that's not the answer, what is? Well that's where Biden and Harris need to be stepping up. But as yet they haven't and that may cost them dearly at the ballot box in November. What is desperately needed now is a strong but empathetic intervention. Biden and Harris need to make it clear, and not just with slightly lame public statements, is that while they understand the protesters' anger and are sympathetic to their issues they cannot use violence; because that's exactly what Trump wants then to do. They need to assure the protesters that when elected, they are committed helping change the status quo. And they have to do it in a way that makes every news program for a day to more. Failing to do that will leave the impression that they have no answers, and consequently that they aren't to be trusted with the keys to the White House.
The second thing that puts the Biden Harris campaign at risk is that Trump has upped his game. He's either realized that without changing his behavior he will lose or someone has finally managed to knock that idea into his head. So today he will pretend to play President and visit the victims of the latest climate-crisis-induced weather disaster in Texas (a battle-ground sate of course).
The last time he visited a disaster area was Paradise, California where he talked about raking the leaves and forgot the name of the town he was in. And before that it was Puerto Rico where he merrily tossed out rolls of paper towels as if he was at a ball game. So with six weeks to go he's trying again to give the impression that he has empathy. But it might work. Most people don't pay much attention until they are confronted with the choice as they will be in a few weeks, and together, the escalating racial violence and Trump's change in tactics could swing the election his way.
So Joe, Kamala; the time for letting Trump dig himself into a deeper hole is over. Now it's time to act decisively, loudly and clearly.
Friday, August 28, 2020
The Troubles, and cold civil war
Some trajectories are predictable; the current state of race relations isn't. We have many police forces; and many of them have cultures that are tacitly racist. When a police office kills a black man, whether or not they are held to account (which in many instances they appear not to be), it stokes anger and distrust in the Black community. Eventually that erupts into violent protest, mainly causing property damage. Then along come some armed white paramilitary types who shoot some of the demonstrators; their actions are publicly endorsed by the police. Trust declines and anger builds in the Black (and Ally) community: and the cycle continues to escalate. There is no end in sight to break this spiral of violence. Certainly nothing from this administration will help; and mostly it will inflame. On this trajectory there is no good outcome.
If unchecked, this will create nothing short of a "cold civil war"in which both left and right, social justice campaigners and white supremacists increasingly face of in the streets with increasing violence, escalating use of firearms, and a police force that either withdraws or sides with the right and white supremacists. Neither side will don uniforms and organize like the two sides and the Civil War, but will more resemble terrorist cells, loosely linked, self organizing but guided by ideology and hate. As the Troubles showed, it is a state of affairs that could last for years or decades. And even when peace is officially declared, the anger and resentment will linger for generations.
The damage to society could be far greater than was suffered in Northern Ireland for the simple reason that for most people, whether they were a Prod or a Mic wasn't immediately obvious. That allowed for some semblance of non-partisan interaction between the two sides. When the side you are on is seemingly signaled by the color of your skin, that avenue for normal exchange is closed off.
Another four years of Trump-ism will set this in motion irrevocably. We are close to the brink and once crossed the cold civil war will be a blight on the nation for generations. That in large measure is what is at stake in the upcoming election.
If unchecked, this will create nothing short of a "cold civil war"in which both left and right, social justice campaigners and white supremacists increasingly face of in the streets with increasing violence, escalating use of firearms, and a police force that either withdraws or sides with the right and white supremacists. Neither side will don uniforms and organize like the two sides and the Civil War, but will more resemble terrorist cells, loosely linked, self organizing but guided by ideology and hate. As the Troubles showed, it is a state of affairs that could last for years or decades. And even when peace is officially declared, the anger and resentment will linger for generations.
The damage to society could be far greater than was suffered in Northern Ireland for the simple reason that for most people, whether they were a Prod or a Mic wasn't immediately obvious. That allowed for some semblance of non-partisan interaction between the two sides. When the side you are on is seemingly signaled by the color of your skin, that avenue for normal exchange is closed off.
Another four years of Trump-ism will set this in motion irrevocably. We are close to the brink and once crossed the cold civil war will be a blight on the nation for generations. That in large measure is what is at stake in the upcoming election.
Saturday, August 22, 2020
Behind the curtains
Miles Taylor, a former Department of Homeland Security official, described to Anderson Cooper some of the more bizarre aspects of what when on at DHS behind the scenes.
For example, Trump would often call DHS and ask them to implement something he'd heard Fox' Lou Dobbs mention on his late night show.
Another was the vote to separate immigrant children, whether they had entered legally or not, from their families as a deterrent. When DHS explained they were not ready (presumably in hind sight both because of the questionable legality and the logistical issues of keeping track of family ties), Trump simply asked his cabinet to "take a vote".
Or when Trump suggested "busing and dumping" immigrants into sanctuary cities, and Taylor had told Chief of Staff John Kelly that this was certainly an illegal use of federal funds, Trump announced that "they were looking into it".
This last example is particularly telling; it exemplifies Trump's disdain for the law, and the fact that he does not think it applies him. He knows from experience that if he persists he would probably find a way to circumvent it.
Wednesday, August 19, 2020
Flashback
Hearing Obama deliver his speech to the Democratic National Congress today brought back memories of better times; his voice was soothing, reassuring, trustworthy.
A Mitt Romney or a John McCain I could have disagreed with but not been disgusted, repulsed, and horrified by. But Trump has been a nightmare of unimaginable proportions. Yes, most Democrats knew it would be bad, but I doubt any really understood just how bad.
As Obama noted, he hoped that he might " show some interest in taking the job seriously; that he might come to feel the weight of the office and discover some reverence for the democracy that had been placed in his care".
Hilary Clinton, the morning after her defeat, said "We owe Donald Trump an open mind and the chance to lead".
But what covid-19 has revealed beyond a shadow of a doubt is just how much damage an incompetent, lazy, entitled, self-indulgent, selfish and ignorant person in the most powerful job in the world can do.
I am hoping, praying even, that come January 20th, I will find the same reassurance in Jo Biden's voice and in Kamala Harris'.
A Mitt Romney or a John McCain I could have disagreed with but not been disgusted, repulsed, and horrified by. But Trump has been a nightmare of unimaginable proportions. Yes, most Democrats knew it would be bad, but I doubt any really understood just how bad.
As Obama noted, he hoped that he might " show some interest in taking the job seriously; that he might come to feel the weight of the office and discover some reverence for the democracy that had been placed in his care".
Hilary Clinton, the morning after her defeat, said "We owe Donald Trump an open mind and the chance to lead".
But what covid-19 has revealed beyond a shadow of a doubt is just how much damage an incompetent, lazy, entitled, self-indulgent, selfish and ignorant person in the most powerful job in the world can do.
I am hoping, praying even, that come January 20th, I will find the same reassurance in Jo Biden's voice and in Kamala Harris'.
Incontrovertible
"The evidence before this court is incontrovertible" Roger Waters, 1979
"The case against Donald Trump is open and shut" Kamala Harrris, 2020
"Donald Trump hasn't grown into the job because he can't. And the consequences of that failure are severe. 170,000 Americans dead." Barack Obama, 2020
For over four years, Trump has trampled on the norms of the presidency, and of common decency. The Democrats and the media, and basically anyone who engages in rational, fact based debate, have struggled to find a response.
Barack Obama, like his predecessors in the White House, has refrained from criticizing his successor. As things evolved, he has made statement obliquely critical of Trump but without mentioning him by name.
But tonight he had evidently concluded that Trump's disdain for protocol and tradition needed to be met in kind. So he abandoned the norm that past presidents don't criticize current incumbents; the gloves came off. As he said at the outset "It's not a normal time".
His critique was direct and searing; no more subtle digs. This was a full frontal assault. He called Trump out by name, a stunning break with tradition as shocking in its way as Trumps egregious behavior, yet a violation of norms that he and many Americans feel is necessitated by the gravity of the threat Trump poses to the country's standing in the world, and more fundamentally, the foundations of its democracy.
Here are a couple of extracts from his speech.
"I did hope, for the sake of our country, that Donald Trump might show some interest in taking the job seriously; that he might come to feel the weight of the office and discover some reverence for the democracy that had been placed in his care".
"But he never did. For close to four years now, he has shown no interest in putting in the work; no interest in finding common ground; no interest in using the awesome power of his office to help anyone but himself and his friends; no interest in treating the presidency as anything but one more reality show that he can use to get the attention he craves".
"Donald Trump hasn't grown into the job; because he can't. And the consequences of that failure are severe. 170,000 Americans dead".
The contrast, too, was striking. Trump appears to have two modes: "on teleprompter/Quaaludes" or angry bluster with ludicrous hyperbolae ([shouting] "he wants to hurt religion, hurt God"). Obama delivered his critique with sadness, almost resignation, before his passionate call to action.
He pointed out that many of the civil rights that have been won over the years had come a great personal cost to those who fought for them, and so taking the time to vote would be the least we could all do to preserve what previous generations had accomplished.
As with Harris' speech when Biden announced his VP pick, this was one for the history books.
Tuesday, August 18, 2020
"Trump has quit on America"
In his remarks to the Democratic National Convention, Chuck Schumer said "Trump has quit on America".
That's incorrect on its face.
It presupposes he was at some point working for America, to improve America.
But he never was; he was only ever in it for himself; and he still is.
That's incorrect on its face.
It presupposes he was at some point working for America, to improve America.
But he never was; he was only ever in it for himself; and he still is.
Out of control
Absent adherence to social distancing and mask wearing, we will not be able to test, trace and isolate a large enough proportion of infected people and the virus will propagate exponentially.
Thursday, August 13, 2020
Hurrible
Trump has described Harris' interrogation of Kavanaugh as "hurrible" and Harris as "nasty"
So what does the OED say about "nasty"?
"Of a person (also occasionally, a piece of writing): ill-tempered, spiteful, unkind (to someone), an unpleasant, contemptible, or cruel person.
"Morally corrupt; indecent, obscene, lewd".
What's interesting about Trump's word choice here is how well it fits him.
He is by all accounts (and there have been many) ill-tempered. His public conduct is frequently spiteful. He treats people who he perceives as not loyal or no longer loyal to him unkindly. And his rhetoric is manifestly cruel. Trying to have taxpayer money spent on his properties for his personal enrichment, bargaining military aid for political favors speak to his instinctively corrupt approach to everything he touches. His "relationship" with women, "grabbing them by the pussy", having sex a porn star (he's married by the way - three times already), all fit 'indecent, obscene, lewd'.
It's been noted before in this blog that this looks like projection.
As for Harris' comportment, she has been firm but calm, never indulging in name-calling but staying laser focused on the facts and the case at hand. That's not nasty; that's competence.
So what does the OED say about "nasty"?
"Of a person (also occasionally, a piece of writing): ill-tempered, spiteful, unkind (to someone), an unpleasant, contemptible, or cruel person.
"Morally corrupt; indecent, obscene, lewd".
What's interesting about Trump's word choice here is how well it fits him.
He is by all accounts (and there have been many) ill-tempered. His public conduct is frequently spiteful. He treats people who he perceives as not loyal or no longer loyal to him unkindly. And his rhetoric is manifestly cruel. Trying to have taxpayer money spent on his properties for his personal enrichment, bargaining military aid for political favors speak to his instinctively corrupt approach to everything he touches. His "relationship" with women, "grabbing them by the pussy", having sex a porn star (he's married by the way - three times already), all fit 'indecent, obscene, lewd'.
It's been noted before in this blog that this looks like projection.
As for Harris' comportment, she has been firm but calm, never indulging in name-calling but staying laser focused on the facts and the case at hand. That's not nasty; that's competence.
Wednesday, August 12, 2020
A Sigh of Relief
It was beautifully crafted, truly I think, a speech for the ages. Linking her working relationship to Beau Biden back to his father was elegantly done and created a vicarious link between herself and the former Veep. It also creates a neat way for her to talk about Joe Biden, the tragedy of his loss, his fortitude and his commitment to his children; in short his character.
The next artful segue was the transition from Joe, to Jill Biden, to her family and her favorite title "Mamala". That put here squarely into the suburban mum's demographic. And then a smooth transition from herself as a parent to her parents, touching on her parents status as immigrants, her Black and Asian heritage, and her upbringing amidst the protest movement of the 1960s.
Then a stunning turn of phrase, when she recounted her first court appearance for the prosecution: "Kamala Harris, for the people". She turned an almost throw-away phrase that as a Law and Order (the TV series) fan one hears almost every episode, into something deeply meaningful that also insulates her from the criticism she will likely get from the left about her role as San Francisco's DA and then California's AG.
Next, she brought the flow neatly back to Trump and Pence with "let me tell you. as somebody who has presented my fair share of arguments in court, the case against Donald Trump and Mike Pence is open and shut". Then she then laid out the argument, in withering clarity, beginning with the facts, the number of deaths, tempered with a human angle to the tragedy of so many people dying in isolation from their families. Drawing a parallel to Ebola, she painted a clear contrast between Trump and Pence and Obama and Biden, providing evidence for her assertion that "it didn't have to be this way", which otherwise might have been seen as an untestable hypothesis. She laid out how poorly the US had handled the crisis compared to other countries, highlighting Trump's failure to lead and connecting the consequences of his lack of action to the difficulties of many Americans.
Without a pause she was able to make the case on the economy too; noting that Obama and Biden has presided over a sustained period of job growth and economic resurgence after the financial crisis, she noted that "like everything else he inherited, he ran it straight into the ground". In one line she painted Trump as a spoiled rich kid who squandered the life his father had bequeathed him. While perhaps a tad hyperbolic, it was beautifully done. And invoking John Lewis and voting rights, just before the election, was also smart given the GOP's efforts to disenfranchise Democratic voters, to make voting more difficult for the less well off.
She came across as passionate, and a somewhat awed by the responsibility that had been handed to her. It was a wonderfully crafted speech.
For me, this is what intelligent leadership looks like, and I couldn't be happier. After almost four years of daily "surely it can't get any worse?" and then it does, I begin to recognize the country I so admired when Barack Obama was elected. Kamala's America, Barack Obama's America, that's the country I wanted to live in.
Business acumen and the art of a deal
So much for Trump's self-proclaimed business acumen; just more puffery.
He hasn't been able to get a good deal with China, or any deal with North Korea or Iran.
He has been wasting tax dollars on covid-19 testing whenever they come back too late to be of any value in tracing and containing the infection. He could easily have specified a target turnaround time after which the private labs wouldn't get paid, but apparently a deal of that kind - one with contingency - that was too complicated.
And he has been unable to get any deal with Democrats over the latest round of economic safety net and for covid-19.
He hasn't been able to get a good deal with China, or any deal with North Korea or Iran.
He has been wasting tax dollars on covid-19 testing whenever they come back too late to be of any value in tracing and containing the infection. He could easily have specified a target turnaround time after which the private labs wouldn't get paid, but apparently a deal of that kind - one with contingency - that was too complicated.
And he has been unable to get any deal with Democrats over the latest round of economic safety net and for covid-19.
Tuesday, August 11, 2020
The 2024 Ticket
While it may be slightly premature, I have been wondering who Harris might pick as her running mate in 2024. (The assumption is that she and Bide oust Trump in November).
Assuming Rice accepts State, which isn't a done deal, she could be in the running. But Harris might pick someone on the left; Stacey Abrams certainly brings the fire that would allow Harris to remain a little above the fray, more "presidential". If she needed a left learning policy wonk, then would Elizabeth Warren be a good choice. A two woman ticket would be something.
Another possibility is Pete Buttigieg; Mayor Pete will be 42 which while young is no longer too young. Perhaps it's about time we had a gay candidate.
There are many unknowns; there are people who haven't hit the headlines that might be in the running. Many thought Gavin Newsom had presidential ambitions, but his route to that job looks difficult at the moment.
Assuming Rice accepts State, which isn't a done deal, she could be in the running. But Harris might pick someone on the left; Stacey Abrams certainly brings the fire that would allow Harris to remain a little above the fray, more "presidential". If she needed a left learning policy wonk, then would Elizabeth Warren be a good choice. A two woman ticket would be something.
Another possibility is Pete Buttigieg; Mayor Pete will be 42 which while young is no longer too young. Perhaps it's about time we had a gay candidate.
There are many unknowns; there are people who haven't hit the headlines that might be in the running. Many thought Gavin Newsom had presidential ambitions, but his route to that job looks difficult at the moment.
Monday, August 10, 2020
Projection
The Trump campaign is trying to make the case that Biden is an empty vessel that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party will use to get their agenda implemented. That's ironic coming from a Republican Party campaign that thought it could use Trump the as an empty vessel to promote its own agenda. And in a still more ironic twist, Trump ended up turning the tables on the GOP, using it to further his own selfish interests. Using one’s own failings as the framing of other's action is what psychologists term "projection".
Rice or Harris?
Both are highly intelligent, capable and accomplished. From a political perspective both are demographically good picks. But my choice would be Harris.
She is has a slightly sharper tongue when needed. Rice is more careful and guarded in her speech. Biden needs someone who will give Trump no quarter, but do so pithily so that it registers with his marginal voters. Rice's greater circumspection, while laudable, wouldn't hit home with the non-college educated crowd.
Harris has run successfully for elected office and since she is likely to be the Democratic nominee in 2024, that gives her an advantage over Rice.
Rice's unfortunate entanglement with the alt-right / Tea Party Benghazi obsession is a problem this cycle and next. Although she now seems to understand that Hilary may have set her up to take the fall, that bell can't be un-rung.
On the same theme, while for Obama supporters her position in his administration is a positive, those aren't the voters the Dems need to get on board; those they do need to persuade may not view her time in Obama's administration as a positive.
Rice would indeed make a fine president very much in Obama's mold; calm, deliberative, cautious, intelligent. But those qualities may not be what the county needs to purge the vile, ugly stain Trump has left on the White House.
She is has a slightly sharper tongue when needed. Rice is more careful and guarded in her speech. Biden needs someone who will give Trump no quarter, but do so pithily so that it registers with his marginal voters. Rice's greater circumspection, while laudable, wouldn't hit home with the non-college educated crowd.
Harris has run successfully for elected office and since she is likely to be the Democratic nominee in 2024, that gives her an advantage over Rice.
Rice's unfortunate entanglement with the alt-right / Tea Party Benghazi obsession is a problem this cycle and next. Although she now seems to understand that Hilary may have set her up to take the fall, that bell can't be un-rung.
On the same theme, while for Obama supporters her position in his administration is a positive, those aren't the voters the Dems need to get on board; those they do need to persuade may not view her time in Obama's administration as a positive.
Rice would indeed make a fine president very much in Obama's mold; calm, deliberative, cautious, intelligent. But those qualities may not be what the county needs to purge the vile, ugly stain Trump has left on the White House.
A businessman in the White House
One of the arguments many on the right used to support Trump's campaign was that he was a successful businessman and that his business skills would mean he would finally be able to get something done in Washington.
To begin, let's review what has been done.
So what does this suggest? It means either that business skills are not well suited to getting things done in the Washington. Or it means that Trump had no business skills in the first place. (Or it could mean both). There seems to be ample evidence that the second is the bigger factor. Here are some things successful managers don't do.
Hiring people based on loyalty rather then ability.
To begin, let's review what has been done.
- Tax breaks have benefited the shareholding class and inflated the national debt by $1t
- No deal with China on IP and only a face saving one on ag products
- NAFTA II was already in the works under Obama so no real contribution there
- Nothing on health care
- No Middle East peace (and moving the embassy has made it less likely)
- No deal with North Korea on its nuclear program
- No progress on Iraq, other than withdrawing from the JCPOA and Iraq restarting enrichment
- Weakening relationships with Europe
- One of the worst records on covid-19 of any industrialized country
- No serious effort to prevent election interference
- Conservative justices
So what does this suggest? It means either that business skills are not well suited to getting things done in the Washington. Or it means that Trump had no business skills in the first place. (Or it could mean both). There seems to be ample evidence that the second is the bigger factor. Here are some things successful managers don't do.
Hiring people based on loyalty rather then ability.
- Family (Ivanka, Kushner...)
- Donors and sycophants with inappropriate skill sets (e.g., DeJoy, Sondeland, Gorka... )
- Fucci, CDC, etc
- Mask wearing ("not a good look")
- The China deal
- Meetings with Kim Jong Un, Putin
- Resumption of covid-19 task force briefings "because it had good ratings"
Friday, August 7, 2020
"It will go away"
Imagine this for a moment.
After 911, George W. Bush organizes campaign rallies, goes off to play golf, and of the threat from Al Qaeda says repeatedly "It will go away" (and then blames the governors for not handling the problem).
Or after Pearl Harbor, FDR had said "It will go away, you know it is going away, and it will go away, and we're going to have a great victory".
Or after the 2008 Financial Crisis, Obama had said "It will go away, hopefully at the end of the month, and if not, hopefully, it will be soon after that".
Would we consider that leadership in a time of national crisis? I think not.
After 911, George W. Bush organizes campaign rallies, goes off to play golf, and of the threat from Al Qaeda says repeatedly "It will go away" (and then blames the governors for not handling the problem).
Or after Pearl Harbor, FDR had said "It will go away, you know it is going away, and it will go away, and we're going to have a great victory".
Or after the 2008 Financial Crisis, Obama had said "It will go away, hopefully at the end of the month, and if not, hopefully, it will be soon after that".
Would we consider that leadership in a time of national crisis? I think not.
Panic stations
"He's following the radical left agenda.
Take away your guns, destroy your Second Amendment.
No religion, no anything, hurt the Bible, hurt God.
He's against God, he's against guns, he's against energy, our kind of energy".
That was an unusually deranged rant, even by Trump's standards.
Full blown panic may be setting in.
One can only hope that the more extreme he gets–as I have little doubt he will–the fewer voters he will keep in the middle.
Thursday, August 6, 2020
"It will go away"
That's what Donald Trump has been saying since covid-19 first appeared on our shores. Here are some clips CNN found (the list is unlikely to be complete).
He's right in the sense that eventually, when everyone has either gotten sick or vaccinated, it may go away.
But since the vaccine is unlikely to be here in less than five to six months, and (thankfully) we're not going to get to herd immunity before then, the relevant question is not if it will go away but how long it will take and, more importantly, how many more people will die before the vaccine is widely deployed.
It is both astounding and pitiful to see a grown man in such complete denial, and so publicly. Of course he might understand the gravity of the situation and simply not care, but I choose a slightly more charitable interpretation.
His failure to deal with the pandemic effectively has finally and very publicly exposed his lack of managerial acumen, that he is in fact just a charlatan playing a role for which he is unqualified.
But given his self-perception as the "stable genius", having to admit to himself he had been completely wrong and that he really isn't up to the job, would create a cognitive dissonance so profound, so psychologically debilitating, that his mind simply cannot permit that to penetrate his consciousness.
In a way that's good news for the country since it also suggests he will not change course in his bid for re-election. On his current trajectory current polling suggests he is unlikely to stay in the White House for a second term and sticking to his guns will mean staying on that course.
It will also be interesting, if he is defeated in November, to see how he fares afterwards. A public rebuke of such magnitude should be psychologically crushing; but I doubt it will. He will simply cling to the narrative that he was unfairly treated, that he actually won, and that voter fraud was the only reason he lost. So perhaps all his talk of voter fraud that has so many of us worried that he will not go quietly into the night, is not simply about challenging a possible loss in November, but creating the basis for a narrative that he can live with psychologically if he does lose.
* updated, August 7
| February 28 | "It's going to disappear, one day, it's like a miracle, it will disappear". |
| March 10 | "It will go away, just stay calm, it will go away". |
| March 30 | "It will go away, you know it is going away, and it will go away, and we're going to have a great victory". |
| March 31 | "It will go away, hopefully at the end of the month, and if not, hopefully, it will be soon after that". |
| April 28 | "I think what happens is, it's going to go away; this is going to go away". |
| May 8 | "I feel about vaccines they way I feel about tests; this is going to go without a vaccine". |
| June 16 | "I always say, even without it [a vaccine], it goes away". |
| July 1 | "I think that at some point that's going to just disappear, I hope". |
| July 19 | "You know I said, it's going to disappear, I'll say it again, it's going to disappear". |
| July 21 | "The virus will disappear, you know, it will disappear". |
| July 22 | "You know I say, it's going to disappear, and they say 'oh that's terrible', well it's true, I mean it's going to disappear". |
| August 5 | "It's going away, no, it will go away, things go away, absolutely, no question in my mind, it will go away. Hopefully sooner rather than later". |
| * August 6 | "My view is the schools should open. This thing's going away, it will go away, like things go away. And my view is that schools should be open." |
He's right in the sense that eventually, when everyone has either gotten sick or vaccinated, it may go away.
But since the vaccine is unlikely to be here in less than five to six months, and (thankfully) we're not going to get to herd immunity before then, the relevant question is not if it will go away but how long it will take and, more importantly, how many more people will die before the vaccine is widely deployed.
It is both astounding and pitiful to see a grown man in such complete denial, and so publicly. Of course he might understand the gravity of the situation and simply not care, but I choose a slightly more charitable interpretation.
His failure to deal with the pandemic effectively has finally and very publicly exposed his lack of managerial acumen, that he is in fact just a charlatan playing a role for which he is unqualified.
But given his self-perception as the "stable genius", having to admit to himself he had been completely wrong and that he really isn't up to the job, would create a cognitive dissonance so profound, so psychologically debilitating, that his mind simply cannot permit that to penetrate his consciousness.
In a way that's good news for the country since it also suggests he will not change course in his bid for re-election. On his current trajectory current polling suggests he is unlikely to stay in the White House for a second term and sticking to his guns will mean staying on that course.
It will also be interesting, if he is defeated in November, to see how he fares afterwards. A public rebuke of such magnitude should be psychologically crushing; but I doubt it will. He will simply cling to the narrative that he was unfairly treated, that he actually won, and that voter fraud was the only reason he lost. So perhaps all his talk of voter fraud that has so many of us worried that he will not go quietly into the night, is not simply about challenging a possible loss in November, but creating the basis for a narrative that he can live with psychologically if he does lose.
* updated, August 7
The thick blue cloud
Over 20 percent of Minneapolis police officers applying for permanent disability mostly related to PTSD Fox reported this morning. Early retirement requests have also spiked, and not only in Minneapolis.
According to Fox, many of these filing, who were also veterans, claimed that dealing with the protests has been more traumatic than fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Normally one might expect Fox to go ape-shit over any claim that a job was more difficult or heroic that serving in the military in a forward position, but that's Fox' situational ethics for you). While the applications have not yet been processed, it looks suspiciously like another more permanent kind of "blue flu".
While that only highlights the disconnect between law enforcement and the rest of society and that the police seem to consider themselves the oppressed rather than the oppressors, it raises a troubling practical question when thinking about police restructuring.
If police forces are down-sized or the "rotten apples" let go to be replaced with more community-minded people or other services created to take over the more touchy-feely parts of the job, there will be unintended consequences. Of particular concern is what those who leave full time employment in the police then do, not in terms of employment but their activities more broadly.
These will likely be individuals whose views align with the alt-right. They will have weapons training, many of them apparently also ex-military. They will be angry and motivated and ripe for recruitment into right wing paramilitary organizations or domestic terrorist groups. That has the potential to turn ugly in very short order. Groups of well armed thugs, with intimate knowledge of police tactics and procedures pose a significant threat to law and order and to society. Not that reform shouldn't be undertaken, but something to take into consideration.
According to Fox, many of these filing, who were also veterans, claimed that dealing with the protests has been more traumatic than fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Normally one might expect Fox to go ape-shit over any claim that a job was more difficult or heroic that serving in the military in a forward position, but that's Fox' situational ethics for you). While the applications have not yet been processed, it looks suspiciously like another more permanent kind of "blue flu".
While that only highlights the disconnect between law enforcement and the rest of society and that the police seem to consider themselves the oppressed rather than the oppressors, it raises a troubling practical question when thinking about police restructuring.
If police forces are down-sized or the "rotten apples" let go to be replaced with more community-minded people or other services created to take over the more touchy-feely parts of the job, there will be unintended consequences. Of particular concern is what those who leave full time employment in the police then do, not in terms of employment but their activities more broadly.
These will likely be individuals whose views align with the alt-right. They will have weapons training, many of them apparently also ex-military. They will be angry and motivated and ripe for recruitment into right wing paramilitary organizations or domestic terrorist groups. That has the potential to turn ugly in very short order. Groups of well armed thugs, with intimate knowledge of police tactics and procedures pose a significant threat to law and order and to society. Not that reform shouldn't be undertaken, but something to take into consideration.
Tuesday, August 4, 2020
Another about-face
For weeks, Donald Trump has been spreading a conspiracy theory that mail-in ballots are insecure and subject to massive voter fraud. He's even sued Nevada for offering mail-in ballots to all its voters. Despite the fact the commission he established after his election to look into voting irregularities found none and that no one (aside from conspiracy theorists like Kris Kobach who headed the effort) thinks there is any significant problem with voting by mail, he has continued relentlessly to hammer this false narrative. He's also been hard at work to cripple the USPS so that his fear-mongering might actually in the end appear to have been right with long delays in vote counting arising from his defending of the postal service.
His motives, however, seemed clear; he wanted to suppress voting in predominantly Democratic neighborhoods where voting in person was likely to be especially hard, and to be able to challenge the election results if he loses in November by claiming that Biden only won because of fraudulent voting.
And then without batting an eyelid, today he tweets his support for vote-by-mail. If this head-spinning change of course seems astonishing (as it should), I suggest it comes down simply to this. Recent polling may have suggested that his message that voting by mail was a problem may have created a larger voter suppression effect for the GOP and his voters. In particular, Florida has an elderly population and is critical to his reelection. So without his Florida voters turning out, which they might fear to do, given the covid situation, his opposition to mail-in ballots was hurting him. So, about-face, quick march in the other direction.
What's really astonishing about this story is that he doesn't think people will remember that only 24 hours ago he was saying (as he had been for weeks) exactly the opposite.
His motives, however, seemed clear; he wanted to suppress voting in predominantly Democratic neighborhoods where voting in person was likely to be especially hard, and to be able to challenge the election results if he loses in November by claiming that Biden only won because of fraudulent voting.
And then without batting an eyelid, today he tweets his support for vote-by-mail. If this head-spinning change of course seems astonishing (as it should), I suggest it comes down simply to this. Recent polling may have suggested that his message that voting by mail was a problem may have created a larger voter suppression effect for the GOP and his voters. In particular, Florida has an elderly population and is critical to his reelection. So without his Florida voters turning out, which they might fear to do, given the covid situation, his opposition to mail-in ballots was hurting him. So, about-face, quick march in the other direction.
What's really astonishing about this story is that he doesn't think people will remember that only 24 hours ago he was saying (as he had been for weeks) exactly the opposite.
Monday, August 3, 2020
Hopeless
Let unpack that a little, as it seems a fairly bold claim. Since there is no vaccine, to achieve herd immunity, depending how contagious an infection is, 70% to 90% of a population needs to have contracted the disease[1]. Since this is a highly contagious virus, we should probably use the higher number, but for the moment let's use the middle figure, 80%.
Sweden's population in 2019 was about 10 million, so 8 million people would have had to have contracted the disease for Sweden to have herd immunity as the congressman suggested. The congressman also maintained that the number of reported cases was not a good metric and that he relied on mortality as a reliable indicator. So let's do that.
The covid-19 mortality rate is widely believed to be about 0.6%, although Johns Hopkins data[2] suggests the rate may be much higher, around 2%. Worldwide the death rate of confirmed covid-19 cases is 3.8% (if we exclude the UK which clearly has't got it's act together either, the morality among confirmed cases is still 3.6%).
Let's start with this figure; 3.6% of 8 million is about 290 thousand deaths. But Sweden has reported only 5,743 deaths, significantly lower.
If we use the 3.6% mortality rate to impute the number of cases, that gives 160 thousand or 1.5% of the population - nowhere near the 80% needed for herd immunity. If we use the lower mortality rate of 2%, that would imply an infection density of about 2.8%. And if we use the 0.6% figure, we get just 9.3%.
Only if we assume that covid-19 is about 30% less lethal than the flu do we get to a number that approaches the 80% herd immunity number. By the way, Sweden also reports only 80 thousand cases, not 8 million.
So Congressman Tom McClintock's claim that Sweden has achieved herd immunity seems fanciful at best and illustrates why one should listen to well informed experts rather than ill-informed (or less charitably, malevolent) politicians.
[1] https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/achieving-herd-immunity-with-covid19.html
[2] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
TikTok, Donald
Here's a much simpler explanation; revenge.
TikTok users were instrumental in over-booking Trump's last campaign rally (and the only one he's likely be able to hold, absent some particularly reckless decisions on his part) before the election. So instead of a packed stadium we had images of rows and rows of empty seats.
He was made to look foolish; which in his world is the most egregious sin imaginable. So he's out for his pound of flesh. I think that's a far more Occam's razor-ish explanation than Wired's.
Sunday, August 2, 2020
A new world order
The first two decades of the 21st century has seen a marked shift in the old century's world order. Russian belligerence has risen, authoritarianism has resurfaced in Eastern Europe, putting stress on the EU, compounded by Britain's departure. And then there is China's rise. As its economic power grew so did its influence, and outward expression of self-confidence.
Almost 200 years after James Monroe articulate what has become the Monroe Doctrine, China is embarking on a similar policy, driving out U.S. influence (what it see as interference) in its back yard. It is shaping a new world order.
Two things are accelerating that process. The first is Donald Trump, directly. He has helped China in two ways; first his abandoning of allies has weakened any collective response to China's newfound assertiveness. Second, by underestimating Xi's political and negotiating skills, not to mention his ability to outlast Trump, and by overestimating his own, he has provided China with a strategic opportunity which has used that to extend its influence globally. Already playing a long game, China has exploited the vacuum created by Trump's unwillingness and inability to play a role on the world stage.
The second is covid-19; America's botched handling of the crisis has further damaged the U.S.' reputation, and in particular highlighted many of the weaknesses of its model of democratic government, not to mention is values. And much of that again can be laid squarely on Trump's ignorance, incompetence, and lack of seriousness in his approach to his job.
The 21st century will be a have different world order; and Trump's tenure will have a lot to do with how much diminished America's role in that order will be.
Almost 200 years after James Monroe articulate what has become the Monroe Doctrine, China is embarking on a similar policy, driving out U.S. influence (what it see as interference) in its back yard. It is shaping a new world order.
Two things are accelerating that process. The first is Donald Trump, directly. He has helped China in two ways; first his abandoning of allies has weakened any collective response to China's newfound assertiveness. Second, by underestimating Xi's political and negotiating skills, not to mention his ability to outlast Trump, and by overestimating his own, he has provided China with a strategic opportunity which has used that to extend its influence globally. Already playing a long game, China has exploited the vacuum created by Trump's unwillingness and inability to play a role on the world stage.
The second is covid-19; America's botched handling of the crisis has further damaged the U.S.' reputation, and in particular highlighted many of the weaknesses of its model of democratic government, not to mention is values. And much of that again can be laid squarely on Trump's ignorance, incompetence, and lack of seriousness in his approach to his job.
The 21st century will be a have different world order; and Trump's tenure will have a lot to do with how much diminished America's role in that order will be.
Thursday, July 30, 2020
Foundation's End
Some 45 years after reading the original Foundation trilogy, I have now fished the other four books in the series.
The four books, two prequels and two sequels, came 30 years after the original trilogy and were very different in style. The original books comprised a series of fairly short episodes, each largely self contained though linked to the central theme of the Foundation, the collapsing empire and the Second Foundation. They were infused with politics and power, not to mention some memorable epigrams from Salvor Hardin; my favorite is still "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent".
Asimov's style changed completely in the 'quels. They are longer to begin with; and there is a single story in each in place of the small self-contained episodes of the original trilogy (hereafter just the "trilogy"). While he draws nicely on his robot stories, weaving them into both the pre- and se-quels, they are ultimately less satisfying.
The ideas are sparser, and that's not just because the books are longer. The big ideas, psycho-history in Foundation, the Mule in Foundation and Empire and the Second Foundation in its eponymous volume seem conspicuously absent. Gaia was not an original Asimov conception. And they lack the suspense that permeated the trilogy.
My final thought for the evening, is that Asimov couldn't decide whether to bring the series to an end. Having woven the threads to bring the protagonists of the last volume face to face with R. Daneel Olivaw where he could easily have left things, he chose instead to hint, in the very last sentence, of a malevolent alien intelligence from another galaxy.
To my mind that was gratuitous; all the the pieces had been seemingly carefully orchestrated into the final "ah-ha" moment, providing a relatively satisfying clicking together of the last piece of the puzzle, yet he seems somehow to have balked at the last minute. Perhaps he got cold feet about bringing the series to a close, indeed bringing both streams of work to a close. We will likely never know.
But while the cliff-hanger ending (literally) to the Italian job ("Hang on a minute, lads. I've got a great idea."), this seemed contrived and out of place. A slightly sad way to end to one of the most important contributions to the science fiction genre.
The four books, two prequels and two sequels, came 30 years after the original trilogy and were very different in style. The original books comprised a series of fairly short episodes, each largely self contained though linked to the central theme of the Foundation, the collapsing empire and the Second Foundation. They were infused with politics and power, not to mention some memorable epigrams from Salvor Hardin; my favorite is still "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent".
Asimov's style changed completely in the 'quels. They are longer to begin with; and there is a single story in each in place of the small self-contained episodes of the original trilogy (hereafter just the "trilogy"). While he draws nicely on his robot stories, weaving them into both the pre- and se-quels, they are ultimately less satisfying.
The ideas are sparser, and that's not just because the books are longer. The big ideas, psycho-history in Foundation, the Mule in Foundation and Empire and the Second Foundation in its eponymous volume seem conspicuously absent. Gaia was not an original Asimov conception. And they lack the suspense that permeated the trilogy.
My final thought for the evening, is that Asimov couldn't decide whether to bring the series to an end. Having woven the threads to bring the protagonists of the last volume face to face with R. Daneel Olivaw where he could easily have left things, he chose instead to hint, in the very last sentence, of a malevolent alien intelligence from another galaxy.
To my mind that was gratuitous; all the the pieces had been seemingly carefully orchestrated into the final "ah-ha" moment, providing a relatively satisfying clicking together of the last piece of the puzzle, yet he seems somehow to have balked at the last minute. Perhaps he got cold feet about bringing the series to a close, indeed bringing both streams of work to a close. We will likely never know.
But while the cliff-hanger ending (literally) to the Italian job ("Hang on a minute, lads. I've got a great idea."), this seemed contrived and out of place. A slightly sad way to end to one of the most important contributions to the science fiction genre.
Postpone the election!
Second, it gives him more time for a vaccine to appear that he will then claim credit for.
"So I said to Faucci, 'why not see of we could use crisper to cut the virus in half, that would kill it, right, if you cut in down the middle, like with a knife, into two pieces, that's was crisper does, right', and nobody knew that until I told them, at least that's what people are telling me, and Faucci said he'd look into that, I don't know why nobody likes me, my poll numbers should be better than Faucci's 'cos I came up with the vaccine, only the fake news media is saying it was science".
Let's also remember that delaying elections and disputing their legitimacy is precisely what autocrats do to cling on to power.
"Stunning" 3rd quarter predicted
The Trump administration is predicting a huge rise in GDP for the 3rd quarter. Two notes of caution are in order. First, take an extreme example if the economy shrinks from $20t to $13.3t, a reduction of 33% and then grows by 50% it may look like we're way better off but in fact were back to exactly where we were: $20t.
Put another way, if the economy contracts 9.5% and then expands 9.5%, GDP will be about 1% lower than it was before decrease. But no doubt Trump will claim that the rise is thanks to his stable genius.
And we should forget that none of this is going to happen if people can't go back to work because the pandemic isn't under control or the jobs they had before covid have disappeared.
Put another way, if the economy contracts 9.5% and then expands 9.5%, GDP will be about 1% lower than it was before decrease. But no doubt Trump will claim that the rise is thanks to his stable genius.
And we should forget that none of this is going to happen if people can't go back to work because the pandemic isn't under control or the jobs they had before covid have disappeared.
DACA
One constitutional crisis after another; Trump continues to break new ground when it comes to pushing past the boundaries. Sending DHS "troops" without invitation from the States was last week's violation. This week's is the DHS thumbing its nose at the SCOTUS decision that it must reinstate DACA. Yes it's part of a pattern, but this is perhaps the most serious to date by far. Prior efforts to violate the law were rebuffed by the courts and Trump backed down. But this time he's simply doubling down, ignoring SCOTUS' decision.
There is no higher democratic authority to determine what is or is not lawful. That he is ignoring it indicates we have left the domain of democracy and are on the precipice of authoritarianism. So, where do we go when an administration ignores the ultimate rule of law. We are living in perilous times.
The question is "what now"?
There is no higher democratic authority to determine what is or is not lawful. That he is ignoring it indicates we have left the domain of democracy and are on the precipice of authoritarianism. So, where do we go when an administration ignores the ultimate rule of law. We are living in perilous times.
The question is "what now"?
Partisan differences on tech - are really the same issue
The Trump acolytes complain that they're being targeted by social media companies. Dems are worried that social media not doing enough to deal with disinformation (lies) hate speech. These are not different issues. The tweets that are being targeted are disinformation (lies) hate speech; and they're almost always posted by the Trump acolytes.
Tuesday, July 28, 2020
"One question still dogs Trump: Why not try harder to solve the coronavirus crisis?"
That headline was in a lengthy piece in today's Washington Post. But the answer seems quite simple. Trump knows that he has failed up to this point, and that it is unlikely, even if he were to apply himself the problem, that he could turn it around. So if he does engage now, his efforts would almost certainly be seen as having failed. And that he cannot tolerate.
By the same token, his reluctance to engage directly in the spring, choosing rather to claim it was a States' problem, was likely for much the same reason: he knew he really wasn't guaranteed a win and so he didn't want to play. And while in his prior jobs that strategy might have worked, this a field of play he can't simply walk away from. It's really not just someone else's problem.
By the same token, his reluctance to engage directly in the spring, choosing rather to claim it was a States' problem, was likely for much the same reason: he knew he really wasn't guaranteed a win and so he didn't want to play. And while in his prior jobs that strategy might have worked, this a field of play he can't simply walk away from. It's really not just someone else's problem.
Wednesday, July 22, 2020
Person man woman camera TV
On his favorite TV soap box this evening, Trump waxed lyrical about how well he'd done on a cognitive impairment test. His performance was unusually disturbing even by Trumpian standards.
First, boasting about how well he'd done is a bit like bragging that you passed a covid-91 test. That's good but nothing to brag about. He almost certainly lied about "his perfect score" but again that's par for the course, just as was his likely exaggeration about the reaction of those who administered the test. The whole episode was quite comic, and a little pathetic. One might feel pity were he not such a raging narcissistic sociopath.
But the real questions that need to be asked are, first why did he take the test at all, second did he volunteer or was he advised to take it, and finally how many previous presidents have been asked (or volunteered) to take such a test.
If, as I suspect it is, it is extremely rare for a sitting president to take such a test, then if he volunteered to take it, this is simply evidence of his ignorance as to its intended purpose. And if it was suggested to him by his staff, what were they seeing that made them worried that he was cognitively impaired.
Granted we've seen plenty, but the little things that reasonable people might construe as warning signs of dementia, slurring of speech, inability to focus, loss of sophisticated vocabulary, all are things his inner circle would likely overlook. So for one of them to persuade him to take the test (assuming someone didn't take it for him) they must have seen something they considered sufficiently serious to risk getting fired for disloyalty. Now that's alarming.
First, boasting about how well he'd done is a bit like bragging that you passed a covid-91 test. That's good but nothing to brag about. He almost certainly lied about "his perfect score" but again that's par for the course, just as was his likely exaggeration about the reaction of those who administered the test. The whole episode was quite comic, and a little pathetic. One might feel pity were he not such a raging narcissistic sociopath.
But the real questions that need to be asked are, first why did he take the test at all, second did he volunteer or was he advised to take it, and finally how many previous presidents have been asked (or volunteered) to take such a test.
If, as I suspect it is, it is extremely rare for a sitting president to take such a test, then if he volunteered to take it, this is simply evidence of his ignorance as to its intended purpose. And if it was suggested to him by his staff, what were they seeing that made them worried that he was cognitively impaired.
Granted we've seen plenty, but the little things that reasonable people might construe as warning signs of dementia, slurring of speech, inability to focus, loss of sophisticated vocabulary, all are things his inner circle would likely overlook. So for one of them to persuade him to take the test (assuming someone didn't take it for him) they must have seen something they considered sufficiently serious to risk getting fired for disloyalty. Now that's alarming.
Tuesday, July 21, 2020
A ploy, but not without costs
Trump's threat to send federal law enforcement, "Trump's Troops" as Oregon's governor Kate Brown aptly described them, can best be seen as an electoral ploy. They are certainly not helping the situation, indeed their presence is inflammatory. Unfortunately, that's exactly the point. Trump wants to provoke scenes of violence between his troops and protesters to have footage and an emotive issue for the upcoming election. He's already running the campaign ads, and Fox screens little else.
Having military forces act at the behest of a country's leader is generally associated with authoritarian despots; Rodrigo Duterte, Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan are all leaders Trump seems to regards as role models, people whose unchecked power he appears to envy.
Of course that's not the only similarity in behavior between Trump and your typical dictator. Undermining confidence in the press, intervening in the administration of justice, surrounding himself with trusted fools rather than independent-thinking experts, fawning over the military, and pushing a xenophobic nationalist agenda are also characteristic behaviors. And before we boject that we are a democracy, not a dictatorship, it's worth remembering that not all despots are un-elected.
America isn't quite the Philippines, yet, but what the last three and a half yours have shown is just how easy it is for a president to trample the norms that were once the hallmark of a well reasonably well ordered society and come surprisingly close.
Having military forces act at the behest of a country's leader is generally associated with authoritarian despots; Rodrigo Duterte, Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan are all leaders Trump seems to regards as role models, people whose unchecked power he appears to envy.
Of course that's not the only similarity in behavior between Trump and your typical dictator. Undermining confidence in the press, intervening in the administration of justice, surrounding himself with trusted fools rather than independent-thinking experts, fawning over the military, and pushing a xenophobic nationalist agenda are also characteristic behaviors. And before we boject that we are a democracy, not a dictatorship, it's worth remembering that not all despots are un-elected.
America isn't quite the Philippines, yet, but what the last three and a half yours have shown is just how easy it is for a president to trample the norms that were once the hallmark of a well reasonably well ordered society and come surprisingly close.
Friday, July 17, 2020
Four risks
First, foreign interference. Clearly Russia and China, not to mention the DPRK, all want another Trump term. The first two have well developed cyber operations and Russia has already shown its hand four years ago. All see how easy it has been to manipulate Trump. North Korea still has its nukes and has gotten lots of air time on the international stage. Russia has proven completely immune from push back from Trump over: 2016 election interference; the poisoning of a dissident in the UK; propping up Bashar al Assad in Syria. China has had little to worry about as it clamps down on free speech, conducts what seems like ethnic cleansing of the Uyghurs, and strips Hong Kong of its special status granted in its treaty granting independence from Britain. And those are just the actors we know about.
Then there is voter suppression, whether in the form of a lack of polling places in strategic areas and the purging of voter rolls orchestrated by red state governors, a lack of mail-in ballots, not to mention the likelihood of the results being disputed, perhaps in court, if on November 4th the results are close but it looks like Trump might not have won. And there is always the potential for a random third party candidate, Kanye West for example, to come in as a spoiler, siphon of some of the African American vote and hand Trump the victory.
Third is the potential for errors in polling. Although pollsters are confident they right this time, there are reasons to give at least a little credence to the Fox/Trump axis of evil which is asserting that the polls don't reflect his actual level of support among voters. They claim, interestingly, that lots of people will vote for him but are embarrassed to admit that to pollsters. It that's the case, it suggests they know what they would be doing (voting Trump back in) is wrong but will do it anyway. Either that or they are being super strategic, lulling Biden's people into a false sense of security: unlikely I admit. But a comfortable lead for Biden might induce complacency, reduce his turnout and let Trump sneak back in.
Finally, and despite what most commentators are now saying, it is possible that things might change dramatically before November and Trump's sagging campaign might recover. One thing that would mean all bets are off would be the availability of a vaccine. Even if it's not widely deployed, having a vile for Trump to hold up for the cameras would put many concerned American's fears to rest and he could trumpet this as all his doing (the result of his Ward Speed Operation). Then he'd have something very real, very relevant and tangible to sell and that almost certainly would tighten the race.
So let's not count any chickens before their vaccinated.
Then there is voter suppression, whether in the form of a lack of polling places in strategic areas and the purging of voter rolls orchestrated by red state governors, a lack of mail-in ballots, not to mention the likelihood of the results being disputed, perhaps in court, if on November 4th the results are close but it looks like Trump might not have won. And there is always the potential for a random third party candidate, Kanye West for example, to come in as a spoiler, siphon of some of the African American vote and hand Trump the victory.
Third is the potential for errors in polling. Although pollsters are confident they right this time, there are reasons to give at least a little credence to the Fox/Trump axis of evil which is asserting that the polls don't reflect his actual level of support among voters. They claim, interestingly, that lots of people will vote for him but are embarrassed to admit that to pollsters. It that's the case, it suggests they know what they would be doing (voting Trump back in) is wrong but will do it anyway. Either that or they are being super strategic, lulling Biden's people into a false sense of security: unlikely I admit. But a comfortable lead for Biden might induce complacency, reduce his turnout and let Trump sneak back in.
Finally, and despite what most commentators are now saying, it is possible that things might change dramatically before November and Trump's sagging campaign might recover. One thing that would mean all bets are off would be the availability of a vaccine. Even if it's not widely deployed, having a vile for Trump to hold up for the cameras would put many concerned American's fears to rest and he could trumpet this as all his doing (the result of his Ward Speed Operation). Then he'd have something very real, very relevant and tangible to sell and that almost certainly would tighten the race.
So let's not count any chickens before their vaccinated.
Spot the villain
But we (by which I mean Trump's administration) dropped the ball. That's not completely fair, of course. They really never picked it up in the first place. Happy talk about "it will magically disappear when it gets warm", "can we look into that?" about disinfectant, well, all of that utter piffle meant that there was no concerted federally led effort.
Testing was and is seen as shining light on the fact Trump managed to mishandle the situation letting it turn into a truly monumental disaster, both medically and economically. According to his niece, he lacks any empathy and so all he cares about is a metric by which he will be judged. And if we tests less we appear to have fewer cases. But having fewer cases doesn't mean more people aren't getting sick. It just means we don't know who and where they are so we have no way of controlling the spread.
And because we still don't have testing at scale, results are coming back in 7 days, which is comparable to the incubation period of the virus. So people may well realize they are sick before their test results come back. In the mean time they have been merrily passing the virus on.
And of course, as has been well documented, for a variety of reasons it will hit poor communities and communities of color hardest.
But Trump doesn't give a damn; he just wants to create the impression that things are going well so that he can win re-election. Still more people will die needlessly.
So, which one of these two fine gentlemen is the sociopath?
(Trick question: they both are, but only one is real).
Wednesday, July 15, 2020
Blue flu
I heard something deeply disturbing from a friend
yesterday. Some friends of his from his childhood days who are in
law enforcement told him that there has been a recent surge in
handgun sales; mainly women (and I'm assuming white women), who
apparently are "really frightened" (his words).
My immediate supposition is that these are people who watch Fox and who have been fed a diet of anti-Black vitriol (wrapped up as defending law and order and our heritage!) and incessant reporting of every violent incident committed by a person of color anywhere in the nation. (Fox needs to be shut down but they hide behind the First Amendment to peddle their brand of thinly disguised hate speech).
But I digress; so their fear, he said is in some sense real because, and I'm quoting as best as I can recall, "the police as simply not going to respond [to 911 calls] because of the potential liability".
This is outrageous. It is symptomatic of the sense of victim-hood of those like Trump, who have been in positions of power an privilege and are now fearful that they are finally about to be reined in. It has nothing to do with "liability" - qualified immunity hasn't been dismantled yet - so is likely just another case of the "blue flu", a way for the police to flex their power. In a sense, it's extortion: "leave us alone or we won't keep you safe" is the implied threat. And it's more invidious and less honest that going on strike - but then this isn't a bargaining situation, so what would they be striking for?
If that's the road we are on, there is no alternative to but dismantle police departments and replace them with a service that is committed to the welfare of the communities they are supposed to serve. More training is largely ineffective when it is working against the deeply embedded culture of bias and violence that so many police departments seem to suffer from.
My immediate supposition is that these are people who watch Fox and who have been fed a diet of anti-Black vitriol (wrapped up as defending law and order and our heritage!) and incessant reporting of every violent incident committed by a person of color anywhere in the nation. (Fox needs to be shut down but they hide behind the First Amendment to peddle their brand of thinly disguised hate speech).
But I digress; so their fear, he said is in some sense real because, and I'm quoting as best as I can recall, "the police as simply not going to respond [to 911 calls] because of the potential liability".
This is outrageous. It is symptomatic of the sense of victim-hood of those like Trump, who have been in positions of power an privilege and are now fearful that they are finally about to be reined in. It has nothing to do with "liability" - qualified immunity hasn't been dismantled yet - so is likely just another case of the "blue flu", a way for the police to flex their power. In a sense, it's extortion: "leave us alone or we won't keep you safe" is the implied threat. And it's more invidious and less honest that going on strike - but then this isn't a bargaining situation, so what would they be striking for?
If that's the road we are on, there is no alternative to but dismantle police departments and replace them with a service that is committed to the welfare of the communities they are supposed to serve. More training is largely ineffective when it is working against the deeply embedded culture of bias and violence that so many police departments seem to suffer from.
Stuck in the middle
P.S., Susan Collins, after his acquittal in the Senate, said: "I hope the President learned his lesson". Senator; on what planet were you living the three years prior? And now do you think he's learned his lesson. Indeed has he learned anything? Ever? Not much, apparently, according to his niece.
Monday, July 13, 2020
Testing and Tracing
Tracing is of no use without timely data; which comes, at least in theory, from testing. So even if tests are not just "available" but carried out, they are of little use unless the results arrive before carried become symptomatic. Once they are ill they will likely not be circulating and if they are hospitalized they will be tested on-site anyway.
And so suggesting that some testing sites offer 15 minute turnaround, when those sites are hospitals is another pointless distraction. If you're tested in hospital chances are you are there because you're sick and have had the virus for some time. Tracing at that point is too late and would involve too many people.
So are we there yet on testing? Absolutely not.
Sunday, July 12, 2020
Stone's commutation
Trump's decision to commute Roger Stone's sentence has stuck many as unnecessarily risky in the run up to the election. It appears to send a message of cronyism, of looking after one’s own even if they are guilty (and this is not a pardon so Trump seems to either acknowledge Stone's guilt or considered a pardon a bridge too far). And while his "deplorables" won't care, it will give many of his less committed supporter pause. So why, when most around him were advising against, did he make such a bone-headed decision? In fact it may be quite rational, calculating even, and signals two inter-related things.
First that he realizes his chances of being elected are now slim and since he's already lost many of the "non-deplorables" who helped put him in office, his commuting of Stone's sentence won't really matter much. He has said "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," so he likely believes that for his die hard supported this matters not an iota.
And second, if he's not re-elected there are plenty of shady dealings from his past that the Southern District of New York has been looking into since he came to prominence that, if things go badly, could have serious consequence for him. Since he can't run out the clock on the statute of limitations by exerting executive privilege and presidential immunity if he's turfed out of the White House, Roger Stone, had he been he locked up, might have been "persuaded" to dish dirt on Trump in exchange for a shortening of his sentence. By commuting his sentence the risk that Stone rolls on him goes away.
First that he realizes his chances of being elected are now slim and since he's already lost many of the "non-deplorables" who helped put him in office, his commuting of Stone's sentence won't really matter much. He has said "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," so he likely believes that for his die hard supported this matters not an iota.
And second, if he's not re-elected there are plenty of shady dealings from his past that the Southern District of New York has been looking into since he came to prominence that, if things go badly, could have serious consequence for him. Since he can't run out the clock on the statute of limitations by exerting executive privilege and presidential immunity if he's turfed out of the White House, Roger Stone, had he been he locked up, might have been "persuaded" to dish dirt on Trump in exchange for a shortening of his sentence. By commuting his sentence the risk that Stone rolls on him goes away.
The last gasp of the Deep State?
There can be little doubt, except in the minds of Trump's most deluded supporters that he has botched his handling of the covid-19 pandemic. His hoping it will "magically" go away, his abdication of responsibility to the States, his failure to listen to experts, and his refusal to model important behavior, together have led to a resurgence in cases that is uniquely American. What has become clear is that he is a no more than a huckster, an con-artist, devoid of substance (not to mention ethics or a conscience), incapable of dealing with complexity; in other words inept, incapable and unfit for his office. In organizational terms he would be an example of the Peter Principle (except that governments aren't hierarchies elections aren't won on merit). But the bottom line is that when push came to shove, when he was faced with a real external threat and not just a political problem that he could bully or gas-light his way out of, he has failed: very visibly, and with horrendous consequences.
So Biden, or let's face it anyone less venal and marginally smarter than Trump and that's probably 99% of the population, would have likely beaten him in November. That's not to take anything away from Joe Biden (who though experienced and competent I find a little dull an uninspiring) but to draw attention to the fact that the election is a referendum on Trump's administration. So Biden ought to be looking at an easy win. But that conclusion might be premature. The election is still four months away and a lot can change before November.
What could help Trump turn round his flagging campaign and his declining poll numbers? His best play might be to say that he's still the most gifted manager of all time, a genius among geniuses, but that he was undermined by people in the deep state who intentionally sabotaged his utterly brilliant covid-19 response. Had they simply done what he suggested (which will retroactively be adjusted as needed) we'd all be sitting in the sun drinking margaritas and enjoying the 4 weeks paid vacation he would have granted had he not been betrayed by people who were supposed to be working for him. Or something along those lines.
So Biden, or let's face it anyone less venal and marginally smarter than Trump and that's probably 99% of the population, would have likely beaten him in November. That's not to take anything away from Joe Biden (who though experienced and competent I find a little dull an uninspiring) but to draw attention to the fact that the election is a referendum on Trump's administration. So Biden ought to be looking at an easy win. But that conclusion might be premature. The election is still four months away and a lot can change before November.
What could help Trump turn round his flagging campaign and his declining poll numbers? His best play might be to say that he's still the most gifted manager of all time, a genius among geniuses, but that he was undermined by people in the deep state who intentionally sabotaged his utterly brilliant covid-19 response. Had they simply done what he suggested (which will retroactively be adjusted as needed) we'd all be sitting in the sun drinking margaritas and enjoying the 4 weeks paid vacation he would have granted had he not been betrayed by people who were supposed to be working for him. Or something along those lines.
Sunday, July 5, 2020
Four things covid-19 related
We got here through a series of miss-steps and missed opportunities. First, we did not act soon enough. Had there been a focused, coordinated effort at containment early on, with rapid tracing and isolation, we might have crushed the curve while it was still small; now it's a monster.
Second, was the problem of "mixed messaging". That's simply GOP spin to placate Trump as the messaging wasn't mixed at all. Fauci was clear from the outset about the need to wear masks. Trump was equally clear, just on the wrong side of the issue, and remains he there six months into the crisis. Masks are essential to slowing the spread. Fauci told us this, science told us this but Trump thought he knew better. But the result was that one message went to Trump supporters, amplified by the GOP and red state governors, and a completely different message went to those who have inherited the legacy of the enlightenment.
Third, Trump failed to mobilize any coordinated fact-based response, choosing to abdicate responsibility to the governors, some of whom acted, many of whom (those in red states) who didn't. And because covid-19 doesn't have a party affiliation, it wasn't simply a blue state problem as many red states, like Texas and Florida, are belatedly discovering.
Fourth we squandered the time the eventual lock-down afforded us and failed to make the investment in resources needed to make reopening safe. We don't have enough contact tracers or have sufficiently clear guidelines for how reopening should take place.
And finally, many states (the red ones again) reopened to early, leading to a resurgence in transmission. And because people in states that did have lock-downs saw others taking a less onerous approach, the incentive to stick to the guidelines or ordinances was undermined. That, combined with the eroding trust in critical institutions (like science) and the libertarian streak that is part of "American Exceptionalism", not to mention, in many cases, a refusal by law enforcement to enforce state and county ordinances (so much for our law and order society when the police get to pick and chose which ordinances they implement), resulted in widespread disregard for measures that would have slowed covid-19's progress. As people cheated on their diet of social distancing and mask-wearing, the infection continued to spread largely unabated.
Understanding the metrics makes a big difference. Happy talk from Trump is, of course, getting in the way. He boasts that deaths are going down and claims credit for having gotten the pandemic under control. That's nonsense. First, death rates lag infections by two to three weeks so the recent spike in infections will soon manifest as a rise in mortality. Second, infections are being seen in higher proportion in the young and less vulnerable, so while the number of deaths may not rise as quickly, the infection is still circulating ever more widely in the community. Third, if the mortality rate is falling because of an improved understanding of the way covid-19 acts and more effective medical interventions, there is no policy that Trump's administration is remotely associated with that in any way connects to better treatment. His only claim to fame with regard to the practice of medicine is to have recommended the drinking of disinfectant. And one can't forget his ridiculous claim that more testing leads to more cases. Infection density is not a function of testing; only our understanding of where cases are.
While we're talking about metrics, the June job numbers came in over expectations. Two points; first, much of the data was collected before the recent spike and subsequent re-imposition of lock-downs and similar restrictions to combat spread, so unemployment will go back up again in July.
The "cancel culture" lie
Those asking for monuments glorifying historical figures who were either directly involved in slavery or supporters of it to be taken down are not "cancelling" anything. The movement is advocating exactly the opposite; it is seeking the reinstatement of parts of America's history that the descendants of the perpetrators of slavery had previously expunged.
They are asking that the history, written by those who prefer that the sins of their ancestors be forgotten, either because they don't care or because it makes them uncomfortable, be corrected to reflect things that had been intentionally omitted. That has nothing to do with "cancelling culture"; it's called setting the record straight.
Another false equivalence
Here is why the comparison is bogus.
BLM protest
Trump Rally, Tulsa Oklahoma
BLM Protest
Trump Rally, Tulsa Oklahoma
Thursday, July 2, 2020
Pity the Fool
Everything to date has been "spinnable": Russian meddling in the 2016 election, "very fine people; on both sides" at Charlottesville; "I'm not a racist, I have black friends", the economy is all his doing [it's not], holding up aid to Ukraine for dirt on Joe Biden, deals with China on IP theft [there isn't one], with the DPRK on nukes [nothing there either], peace in the middle east; there's always a spin he (or Kayleigh MacNinny) can pull out of his kiester.
But as the polls seem to suggest, covid-19 is different. There's no spinning rising infection rates, over-run hospitals and a mounting death toll. The pandemic has exploded the myth of "the competent business manager" who can fix Washington. The curtain has been drawn back to reveal a cheap huckster in an expensive suit. His ability to fool everyone all of the time has run its course and reality has, finally, caught up with him.
Wednesday, July 1, 2020
Wait, WHAT?
"Tucker Carlson appears to be edging out Jared Kushner in the battle for President Trump's ear."
This was in today's Axios PM email. Can one imagine, pre-Trump, ever seeing anything quite so bizarre; that the president's son-in-law (nepotism) is being supplanted by venal television presenter.
More depressing still is the revelation that Trump's tepid and belated conversion to criminal justice reform was not a conversion out of conviction but born of political expedience, a decision he reportedly now regrets since he "probably won't win any more Black support because of it".
Remember the good old days when some were wondering whether Trump was a racist ("very fine people, on both sides"); well, to all those skeptics out there, you saw what he retweeted this weekend, so now you know!
And he won't "he won't do anything that could be seen as undercutting police". He probably thinks he's going to need all the protection from the police he can get when he's evicted from the White House, so don't do anything that would lead to a case of the blue flu when he needs them.
This was in today's Axios PM email. Can one imagine, pre-Trump, ever seeing anything quite so bizarre; that the president's son-in-law (nepotism) is being supplanted by venal television presenter.
More depressing still is the revelation that Trump's tepid and belated conversion to criminal justice reform was not a conversion out of conviction but born of political expedience, a decision he reportedly now regrets since he "probably won't win any more Black support because of it".
Remember the good old days when some were wondering whether Trump was a racist ("very fine people, on both sides"); well, to all those skeptics out there, you saw what he retweeted this weekend, so now you know!
And he won't "he won't do anything that could be seen as undercutting police". He probably thinks he's going to need all the protection from the police he can get when he's evicted from the White House, so don't do anything that would lead to a case of the blue flu when he needs them.
Integrity and trust
Many have lamented the decline in trust of institutions, and government in particular. Trust in government has been undermined when politician like Ronald Reagan assert that government is the problem, not the solution.
When political figures, for example, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, Lindsey Graham, and Mitch McConnell state that as a matter of principle the US Senate should not confirm a president's Supreme Court nominee "in an election year", or "after the primary season is under way", but "let the people decide" through the election of the net president; but then just four years letter they take exactly the opposite position, it is not surprising that the public sees this as astounding hypocrisy.
But there is more than just hypocrisy; it means that politicians and leaders cannot be taken at their word. It undermines trust and makes governing more difficult because "the government" and those who run it cannot be trusted.
That has consequences as the covid crisis has shown. Even if the GOP hadn't disparaged mask-wearing, a lack of trust in government makes it less likely that people will take actions that would result in crushing the virus. The result has been over two hundred thousand unnecessary deaths.
It also undermines the values that a well ordered society depends on. If integrity is not modeled by political leaders, we cannot expect people to value it either. That degrades our social intersections and makes life sadder and less rewarding in general.
Monday, June 29, 2020
Deserting a sinking ship
Politico reported that Mike Pence has shifted from defending Trump to complimenting the governors over their handling of the covid-19 crisis. Lindsey Graham is asking for a briefing as to what the President knew about Russia, the Taliban and alleged bounty payments.
One has to wonder, particular in Pense's case, whether Trump's tanking poll numbers are a factor in their apparent slight change of heart. If they are seeing the writing on the wall, they may be calculating that the time has come to abandon Trump's ship of state.
Trump's Titanic administration has plowed through one iceberg after another; but then it hit the tiny corona virus and has begun taking on water. As we approach the November watershed, we may well see more of Trump's GOP enablers and administration cronies stop bailing and start swimming away before they are taken down in the undertow as Trump's Titanic sinks under the weight of its most colossal screw-up yet.
One has to wonder, particular in Pense's case, whether Trump's tanking poll numbers are a factor in their apparent slight change of heart. If they are seeing the writing on the wall, they may be calculating that the time has come to abandon Trump's ship of state.
Trump's Titanic administration has plowed through one iceberg after another; but then it hit the tiny corona virus and has begun taking on water. As we approach the November watershed, we may well see more of Trump's GOP enablers and administration cronies stop bailing and start swimming away before they are taken down in the undertow as Trump's Titanic sinks under the weight of its most colossal screw-up yet.
Donny's choice
Covid-19's containment was never adequate, reopening was premature and poorly implemented, and the result has been the second wave; not in November but in July.
Much of the blame can be placed squarely at Trump's door; his early inaction, his continual downplaying of the risks, his premature happy talk, and his push to restart the economy. But most of all, and this is what will haunt him now, his refusal to wear a face mask.
The current reemergence of the virus has narrowed his choices to three. He can pretend covid-19 will disappear if he does nothing. Like a toddler who can't believe bad things should happen to him, if he ignores it someone (his daddy) will make the nasty flu go away. He can impose another lock-down. Or, he can begin wearing a mask (that's the only way he can undo the damage he did by politicizing mask wearing and get his army of deplorables to do the right thing).
All, from his point of view, are terrible alternatives, though the first is the only one that will be good for everyone else. Doing nothing will result either in a huge resurgence of infection and many more deaths; or it will make the governors who assume the mantle of responsibility look good and by contrast make him look ineffectual. A second lock-down would be hugely unpopular; without more safety net money, business will go broke, and people loose their homes, hardship will be intolerable for many. Even with financial mitigation, people are fed up with SIP. So the only choice left him is to model mask wearing. But that would mean admitting publicly that he was wrong. Obviously that's too bitter a pill for someone with his Dunning-Kruger sized ego to swallow.
Friday, June 19, 2020
SCOTUS and DACA
The Supreme Court ruled that the way in which the Trump administration ended the DACA program was illegal in a 5-4 decision on Monday. The ruling is narrow, speaking only to the process by which DACA was ended. As one attorney noted today, SCOTUS has in effect provided a road map for the administration to follow in terminating the program. Moreover, there is lack of clarity from USCIS as to whether it will accept new applications. In one interpretation of the decision, the program has been legally reinstated to its original so it should be accepting new applications; but it is operating under an administration that has made it clear it does not want the program to continue, so unless the agency believes it is on solid legal footing to reopen application it is unlikely to provide guidance on the issue.
Whether restarting the program is legal or not, a question that will almost certainly be the subject of legal challenges from both sides depending on how the USCIS proceeds, its senior officials may be wary upsetting Trump for fear of retaliation (sorry - "dismissal for cause"), particularly in an election year when Trump will doubtless want to make immigration an issue to roust his base to the polls.
So the question is what will the administration do - and when. It seems likely that USCIS will hold of an processing any new applications until the issue is settled in court. And it is also likely that Trump will have Homeland Security go through the process of terminating DACA in a way that satisfies Monday's Supreme Court ruling with all possible speed. With only five months to the election, Trump will be desperate to have at least one win in his pocket and terminating DACA is looking like his only real shot.
Whether restarting the program is legal or not, a question that will almost certainly be the subject of legal challenges from both sides depending on how the USCIS proceeds, its senior officials may be wary upsetting Trump for fear of retaliation (sorry - "dismissal for cause"), particularly in an election year when Trump will doubtless want to make immigration an issue to roust his base to the polls.
So the question is what will the administration do - and when. It seems likely that USCIS will hold of an processing any new applications until the issue is settled in court. And it is also likely that Trump will have Homeland Security go through the process of terminating DACA in a way that satisfies Monday's Supreme Court ruling with all possible speed. With only five months to the election, Trump will be desperate to have at least one win in his pocket and terminating DACA is looking like his only real shot.
Voluntary restructuring
In response to Rayshard Brook's killing, Atlanta's police department fired Garrett Rolfe, the policeman who shot Brooks. Rolfe has now been charged with murder in the killing.
Today, a number of Atlanta's policemen "called in sick". They should be fired.
Remember Reagan's response to the air traffic controllers' strike? He argued that their actions imperiled public safety and he fired them. If ever there was a textbook case of employees with a public safety mandate being derelict in their duty, these striking, sorry, "unewell" policemen are poster children.
What's more it reinforces the point that training and reform aren't going to change the deeply ingrained culture or racism that clearly exists in Atlanta's police department. Restructuring is absolutely essential.
Firing those who have shown they are clearly unwilling to change, who have in effect owned up to being the “bad apples” so many GOP apologists talk about, would be a great start at cleaning house.
Today, a number of Atlanta's policemen "called in sick". They should be fired.
Remember Reagan's response to the air traffic controllers' strike? He argued that their actions imperiled public safety and he fired them. If ever there was a textbook case of employees with a public safety mandate being derelict in their duty, these striking, sorry, "unewell" policemen are poster children.
What's more it reinforces the point that training and reform aren't going to change the deeply ingrained culture or racism that clearly exists in Atlanta's police department. Restructuring is absolutely essential.
Firing those who have shown they are clearly unwilling to change, who have in effect owned up to being the “bad apples” so many GOP apologists talk about, would be a great start at cleaning house.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)