Tag Archives: President Donald Trump

H.R. McMaster is New NSA

Going from Flynn to McMaster feels like going from Beetle Bailey to Jack Ryan. But I don’t know much about him.

He is, importantly, full of degrees and the author of Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam, based on his PhD thesis.

How do we do from a marginal Putin stooge/Russian asset/whateverthefuck to a highly qualified and possibly super ethical choice in one fell swoop? How does someone like McMaster accept an appointment like this if there isn’t something wrong with him?

I do have a hypothesis to explain part of this: Trump’s first choices for everything, including all those that Trump’s fellow Republicans approved so gleefully, were mostly Bannon choices. That would make sense given Bannon’s stated goal of wanting to destroy the state. For the few such appointments that either self destructed or that somehow managed to not get confirmed by the Sycophants who call themselves Senators, the second choice is, simply, not Bannon’s.

Just a suggestion. If you have a better explanation, let’s hear it.

Republican Fast Food Pusher Andrew The Putz Puzder Not In Labor

As the Republican led US Senate has voted to confirm (or deny) the party leader’s cabinet picks, they’ve done a poor job, approving, for example, people who have acted in direct opposition to the areas of government they are expected to serve, or in some cases, being abjectly incompetent. The Republicans in the Senate were not vetting the nominees. Some of the Democrats were, but even there, we saw failures of conscious.

The Senators need to be reminded that the critical choices made by the Trump administration tend to be poor ones. Look, for example, at the first NSA choice. General Flynn was caught engaged in acts that were at least unethical and annoying, if not downright illegal and, worst case scenario, treasonous. Why would we expect the Trump administration to had better choices to the Senate for their approval?

"This would have been really bad." Former fictional Secretary of Labor, Leo McGarry.
“This would have been really bad.” Former fictional Secretary of Lbor, Leo McGarry.
I’m pretty sure the Republicans in Congress have no clue what “advice and consent” means or what the Constitution says, or history says, about this.

The total number of Senators voting for each of Republican President Trump’s nominees is less than usual, with many, sometimes most, Democrats voting against the various and often very unqualified nominees. The Democrats who did vote for these individuals will be held to account over coming years, especially those who voted for Tillerson, and others who may ultimately be linked to currently developing scandals.

But now we have an interesting development. One of the most awful choices ever put forth for a high cabinet post ever, in any government by any president — equal to in level of insult and injury to the Betsy DeVos nomination which Congress narrowly approved — was Andrew Puzder as labor secretary.

The public outcry about putting this particular fox in charge of that particular hen house should not have exceeded the outcry against Tillerson or the others, but the general public and, certainly, Trump’s Republican Congress, appear not to understand too much about what happens in government and why it is important. But an attack by Oprah, armed with withering truth, seems to have mattered. Outrage over Puzder’s misconduct in business and personal life, some of which could be an embarrassment even to the Trump administration and to Republicans generally, was too much.

Moments ago, Puzder made a move we wish so heartily that Republican Donald Trump’s father had done years ago: he withdrew just in the nick of time.


By the way, have you read Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few by former actual good Secretary of Labor Robert Reich?

America was once celebrated for and defined by its large and prosperous middle class. Now, this middle class is shrinking, a new oligarchy is rising, and the country faces its greatest wealth disparity in eighty years. Why is the economic system that made America strong suddenly failing us, and how can it be fixed?

Screen Shot 2017-02-15 at 4.05.55 PMLeading political economist and bestselling author Robert B. Reich presents a paradigm-shifting, clear-eyed examination of a political and economic status quo that no longer serves the people, exposing one of the most pernicious obstructions to progress today: the enduring myth of the “free market” when, behind the curtain, it is the powerful alliances between Washington and Wall Street that control the invisible hand. Laying to rest the specious dichotomy between a free market and “big government,” Reich shows that the truly critical choice ahead is between a market organized for broad-based prosperity and one designed to deliver ever more gains to the top. Visionary and acute, Saving Capitalism illuminates the path toward restoring America’s fundamental promise of opportunity and advancement.

Where does the Trump Presidency stand a fortnight and a half in?

The most recent polling indicates that Donald Trump has a 43% approval and 53% disapproval rating. So he is not exactly loved by the American people, which is odd because he seems so lovable. And, he has told us that the American people love him. And his victory in the November election was unbelievably big league. But, that’s how it is, according the scientific polling.

Approval and favorability are apparently slightly different, but the pattern holds. The same polling tells us that the American people have a 45% favorable attitude about the president, which would be tremendous for any product in a market economy. But for a president it is not so good, as a majority of Americans, 52%, look at the president with an unfavorable eye.

But what about some of the specific, Trump Brand signature issues? How’s he doing, and what do people think?

Building The Wall

The wall is still not built, but Trump still intends to build it. But, the promise was that Trump would “make Mexico pay for it.” The president has now learned that you can’t do that, and it is in fact not going to happen. And, the wall is still not built yet.

According to this recent poll, 56% of Americans oppose building the all, 37% are in favor of it, if Americans are paying for it.

The Muslim Ban

Trump promised to ban Muslims from the United States, and to practice extreme vetting. One of the main reasons he got elected was because of this promise. How’s that going?

A Trump Tower in Turkey, a Muslim country not banned.
A Trump Tower in Turkey, a Muslim country not banned.
Trump’s idea of “extreme vetting” seems to be “don’t let anyone in who is trying to get in legally.” Which, of course, leaves the death squads that are streaming across our borders leave to come, but leaves people like graduate students, professors, folks who went overseas to visit their grandmothers, etc. in the lurch.

Also, the ban on Muslims only banned some Muslims, from certain countries, so Muslims from countries where Trump does business are unaffected. So there may be an ethical issue there.

As you know, a key Federal court ruled unanimously to uphold a lower court decision to stay the ban because it negatively affects people and states. No higher court ruling has come down about the Second Amendment violation but that may happen later. There are more law suits against this ban than hairs on a dog, so we can expect a lot more news in this regard.

Meanwhile, the recent pol shows that 49% of Americans are opposed to the ban, with 45% in favor of it.

More interestingly, though, the vast majority of Americans, a whopping 66%, think Trump’s ban was poorly executed (27% thought everything went just fine). A majority of Americans recognized the “Muslim Ban” as an effort to ban Muslims. (Trump’s people claim it never was, even when it was called a “Muslim Ban.”) A strong majority (65% over 22%) do not think Muslims should be banned. In a sense, the courts are helping Trump out here, by shutting down this whole operation so we can move past what has turned out to be one of the most self damaging political nosedives witnessed in American history.

By the way, a strong majority of Americans trust Judges over Donald Trump to make the right decisions for the United States.

Repealing and Replacing Obamacare

Trump promised to repeal and replace Obamacare. Most observers were under the impression that Trump and Congress, between them, had no idea what to replace Obamacare with. Boy, were they ever right! Congress made a couple of initial procedural moves that will allow them to later undo Obamacare, ran in to major opposition, forgot to have any ideas about reforming Obamacare, and then stopped.

"The White House response is that he's not going to release his tax returns. We litigated this all through the election. People didn't care.  They voted for him, and let me make this very clear: Most Americans are -- are very focused on what their tax returns will look like while President Trump is in office, not what his look like."
“The White House response is that he’s not going to release his tax returns. We litigated this all through the election. People didn’t care. They voted for him, and let me make this very clear: Most Americans are — are very focused on what their tax returns will look like while President Trump is in office, not what his look like.”
The White House has been mostly silent on the issue. Polls show that a strong plurality of American support Obamacare (far more than those who oppose, with 47%-39% supporting-opposing). A YUGE majority of Americans, 65%, do not want Congress to repeal Obamacare and, rather, keep what works in the plan.

Keeping his Tax Returns Secret

Trump never did release his tax returns. He promised to release them after an “audit” was over. But soon after the election, spokes-minuteman Kellyanne Conway, announced a new policy: since Trump won, it must be true that nobody cares about his tax returns, or why would the majority of Americans have voted for him?

There are two problems with this “logic.” First, a majority of Americans voted for Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump. Second, at present, an overwhelming majority of Americans want Trump to release his tax returns. (58% say yes, 31% say no.)

Keeping his business ties ethical

LOL.

Screen Shot 2017-02-10 at 1.13.12 PMAt his first press conference, Donald Trump showed us piles of folders containing all of the plans to unlink him from his businesses. A lawyer explained how all the ethical rules would be followed. We were also told that all the ethical rules did not apply to the President anyway, and that nothing would really be done.

The folders, we learned later, were as empty as his earlier promises to disassociate his business and his activities as president. Indeed, just yesterday, Kellyanne Conway went on Fox News, representing the White House, and urged listeners to buy Trump’s daughter’s products. Perhaps, technically, though I don’t know, Trump himself has no direct ties to this business. But it is his daughter’s business so legal and ethical constraints apply. Conway should not have made the statement she made.

Had she been a Democrat, the calls for her being fired would never end. But since she is a Republican, there was a minor outcry. But, the event was a clear enough case of unethical behavior that even the FOX news people sensed something was wrong:

The moment three FOX news anchors realize that Kellyanne Conway stepped over the line, legally and ethically.
The moment three FOX news anchors realize that Kellyanne Conway stepped over the line, legally and ethically.

By the way, 62% of Americans think Trump should fully divest himself from his businesses.

The Investigation of Voter Fraud

In his never ending but always unsuccessfull effort to not be the Biggest Loser, Trump issued the blatant lie that millions of people, mainly Illegal Immigrants, voted illegally in the last election, and that this is why he actually lost the vote. As you know, great efforts were made to recount the votes in several states, and this showed no problems. Also, the Secretaries of State across the country declared that there was no measurable problem with the voting. The White House has been relatively silent about this issue lately, perhaps because they sensed that the country was against them on this. Indeed, it seems that about 55% of Americans think there was no illegal voting by millions of people in the last election.

Be Presidential

During the election, Trump told us that he’ll be big league presidential. I assume this means, among other things, being, or at least, seeming, credible.

How’s that going?

Well, the poll I’ve been referring to all along (see below) pits the New York Times against Trump in credibility, which is appropriate because Trump has been engaging in an aggressive Twitter war against the Paper of Record. The result? 52% of Americans think the NYT is more credible than Trump, 37% think the opposite.

Saturday Night Live, the fictional, comedy, all the stuff is made up TV show of fame, doesn’t do quite as well as the New York Times. A mere 48% of Americans put SNL above Trump in credibility, with 43% saying the opposite. So, while it may be stranger than fiction, it seems that Trump is less credible than fiction in the minds of a plurality of Americans.

People are about evenly divided on whether or not Trump should be impeached, with about 46% saying each “yes” and “no.” That is a lot of people who want to see his presidency ended immediately. But, one might expect a higher percentage of people saying “Impeach” than indicated here, given all the above information.

Rachel Maddow has a theory as to why more people don’t, at the moment, want to see Trump thrown out of office. I’ll let her tell you. Watch the whole video, but the key moment starts about 4 minutes.

I hope you watched that whole thing to see how Trump supporters seem to not know about, or care about, the Constitution.


Neil Gorsuch: to the right of Scalia?

Neil Gorsuch is a significant and meaningful choice for SCOTUS. The image above is not fake, it really is his Harvard Law yearbook photo. If he was a Democratic pick, that one image would end him. Since he is a Republican pick, democrats have a Big Tent instead of a spine, and Republicans have no ethical floor to avoid crashing into, he will be confirmed.

Judge Neil Gorsuch speaks, after US President Donald Trump nominated him for the Supreme Court, at the White House in Washington, DC, on January 31, 2017. President Donald Trump on nominated federal appellate judge Neil Gorsuch as his Supreme Court nominee, tilting the balance of the court back in the conservatives' favor. / AFP / Brendan SMIALOWSKI        (Photo credit should read BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)
Judge Neil Gorsuch speaks, after US President Donald Trump nominated him for the Supreme Court, at the White House in Washington, DC, on January 31, 2017.
President Donald Trump on nominated federal appellate judge Neil Gorsuch as his Supreme Court nominee, tilting the balance of the court back in the conservatives’ favor. / AFP / Brendan SMIALOWSKI (Photo credit should read BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)
He is a very conservative judge, probably more conservative than anyone who has been on the court in recent memory or possibly ever.

This pick seems to say a lot about how the Trump administration seems to be operating. (See: The Norms of Society and Presidential Executive Orders.)

Gorsuch is a Geroge W. Bush appointee (10th circuit, May 2006). He is famously the son of Anne Gorsuch-Buford, who was EPA Administrator under Reagan, forced to resign after being shown ineffective in actually protecting the environment.

Gorsuch produced an op-ed in the ridiculously conservative National Review, in 2005 (NR 2/7/05), criticizing liberals, in which he wrote,

“But rather than use the judiciary for extraordinary cases, von Drehle recognizes that American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education. This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there’s little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose.”

He has been very active in the Federalist Society, a libertarian and conservative group of lawyers and judges.

Gorsuch has fairly direct ties to the Anschutz Foundation. He wa a member of the Walden Group (a company) which was registered to Cannon Harvey of Colorado, and the Harveys (Cannon and Lyndia) were or are friends of Gorsuch according to a 2008 financial disclosure report. Harvey was an officer and member of the board of directors of Anschutz, and Anschutz funds directly and indirectly anti-science organization ssuch as the Heritage Foundation, extremely conservative groups like the Goldwater Institute, supports Right to Work (think Wisconsin), and has seemingly funded anti-LGBTQ efforts. According the Huffington Post (1/5/17),

“The 77-year-old entrepreneur, who is the chairman of the Anschutz Corporation, is listed as a key ‘enemy of equality’ in an infographic produced by the Washington, D.C.-based LGBTQ advocacy group Freedom for All Americans. The infographic indicates that Anschutz has donated thousands of dollars to the Family Research Council, the Alliance Defending Freedom and the National Christian Foundation, all of which have been staunch opponents in the fight for LGBTQ equality, through the Anschutz Family Foundation.”

This has been disputed by the Anschutz Foundation CEO. At the very least, esposure of this possible connection may have caused Anschutz to withdraw support form anti-LGBTQ groups. This has little do do with Gorsuch per se, but as background, we can see that he hangs with, and supports, the most conservative groups and folk. That together with his anti-Liberal screen regarding judicial legislating places him firmly at the borked end of the judicial spectrum, at least.

Here is some background (from a backgrounder compiled by a group of experts) on his positions in various important areas, provided in a white paper by :

Gorsush on The Environment

In an August 2016 concurring opinion to a case involving residency for undocumented immigrants, Gorsuch wrote a “blistering” 23-page critique of the Chevron Doctrine, which he believes gives far too much power to administrative agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Chevron Doctrine allows judges to defer to administrative agencies’ interpretation when the law as written by Congress is “silent or ambiguous.” The doctrine arose from the 1984 Supreme Court decision Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council and is frequently cited in litigation regarding environmental regulations. In his work on the 10th Circuit, Gorsuch has upheld environmental regulations in at least two instances. In 2015, as part of a three-judge panel, Gorsuch upheld Colorado’s renewable energy standard in a lawsuit filed by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute. He argued that no in or out of state fossil fuel producers would be disproportionately disadvantaged or advantaged by the standard since “all fossil fuel producers in the area served by the grid will be hurt equally and all renewable energy producers in the area will be helped equally.” Gorsuch further argued that whether the mandate raised energy prices was unimportant since Colorado voters had approved the standards with ‘overwhelming support” and were “apparently happy to bear” potential increases in electricity prices.

** ADVANCE FOR WEEKEND EDITIONS MAY 10-11 ** A raw materials storage pond lies in front of the USMagnesium production facility Tuesday, April 22, 2003 in Tooele, Utah. Magnesium is brewed from mineral-rich water baked for years in solar ponds. The smelter on the remote Great Salt Lake western shore ranked No. 1 on a government list of industrial air polluters for five years, a branding its executives disputed but found hard to counter. They're also fighting federal allegations of stealing minerals -- skimming concentrated brines from public lands inundated by an overflowing Great Salt Lake.  (AP Photo/Steve C. Wilson)
** ADVANCE FOR WEEKEND EDITIONS MAY 10-11 ** A raw materials storage pond lies in front of the USMagnesium production facility Tuesday, April 22, 2003 in Tooele, Utah. Magnesium is brewed from mineral-rich water baked for years in solar ponds. The smelter on the remote Great Salt Lake western shore ranked No. 1 on a government list of industrial air polluters for five years, a branding its executives disputed but found hard to counter. They’re also fighting federal allegations of stealing minerals — skimming concentrated brines from public lands inundated by an overflowing Great Salt Lake. (AP Photo/Steve C. Wilson)
In 2010, Gorsuch ruled against a U.S. District Judge that had exempted a Utah magnesium plant from hazardous waste disposal as outlined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Gorsuch argued that since the EPA had never issued a definitive interpretation, the agency could reinterpret an ambiguous regulation without public notice and comment. In 2016, Gorsuch and another 10th Circuit Judge denied the Obama Administration’s request to fast-track a reconsideration of a fracking rule decision, but also denied an industry request to throw out the administration’s appeal all together.

Gorsush on Public Lands

In 2009, the state of Wyoming asked the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to essentially block a National Park Service proposal to limit the number of snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park. A U.S. District Court judge had previously set the snowmobile cap at 720 per day, but the NPS wanted to decrease the number to 318. Gorsuch was skeptical that the 10th Circuit had authority to stop the agencies’ rule and ultimately ruled in favor of the Park Service. In 2011, Gorsuch ruled that the U.S. Forest Service was not violating the law by charging visitors to access Mount Evans, a popular hiking site in Denver, CO. However, Gorsuch did suggest that the “[fee] might well be susceptible to a winning challenge as applied to certain visitors, perhaps even the plaintiffs themselves.”

yeild-1-580x249In a 2014 decision, Gorsuch ruled that Entek Energy could legally cross private land to make use of an oil and gas well nearby. The suit was initiated by the surface rights owner, Stull Ranches, which was concerned about the effect of the drilling operations on the grouse. Gorsuch suggested that he could “certainly understand [Stull Ranches] point of view” but suggested that its efforts “would be better directed to legislators than courts.”

Gorsush on Education

In 2013, Gorsuch ruled that a Colorado school district had to pay tuition for a special-needs student to attend a private, out-of-state school as directed by the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA requires public schools to provide specialized education at the school or compensate parents for tuition at a school that can meet their child’s needs. Gorsuch stated, “The defendant school district failed to provide Elizabeth with a free and appropriate public education. Her private placement was essential to ensure she received a meaningful educational benefit, and her private placement was primarily oriented toward enabling her to obtain an education.” Prior to 2014, Gorsuch was on the Board of Directors at the Boulder Country Day School, a private Pre-K-8 school in Boulder, Colorado. Gorsuch was an adjunct professor at the University of Colorado Law School as recently as 2014.

A half-dozen protestors holds signs outside Hobby Lobby in Duluth on Wednesday morning, July 2, 2014 to protest the company’s winning of its appeal to not comply with the Affordable Health Care’s contraception mandate. Bob King / rking@duluthnews.com
A half-dozen protestors holds signs outside Hobby Lobby in Duluth on Wednesday morning, July 2, 2014 to protest the company’s winning of its appeal to not comply with the Affordable Health Care’s contraception mandate. Bob King / rking@duluthnews.com

Gorsush on Reproductive Freedom, Religion, and Civil Rights

Gorsuch sided with Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor in their cases challenging the contraceptive mandate of the affordable care act. In his book about assisted suicide, Gorsuch wrote “In Roe, the Court explained that, had it found the fetus to be a ‘person’ for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, it could not have created a right to abortion because no constitutional basis exists for preferring the mother’s liberty interests over the child’s life.” SCOTUS Blog noted that Gorsuch “would be a natural successor to Scalia in adopting a pro-religion conception of the Establishment Clause” of the US Constitution. Although Gorsuch has not decided cases directly related to LGBTQ issues, he specifically mentioned gay marriage in a National Review opinion piece about using courts to advance civil rights. Gorsuch wrote “American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.”

Gorsuch on Criminal Law

Gorsuch is expected to follow Scalia’s interpretation of criminal laws to the advantage of criminal defendants, and in his handling of death penalty cases. SCOTUS Blog reported that a Gorsuch appointment would be “very unlikely to make the court any more solicitous of the claims of capital defendants.” Additionally, SCOTUS Blog observed that “Gorsuch, just like Scalia, is sometimes willing to read criminal laws more narrowly in a way that disfavors the prosecution – especially when the Second Amendment or another constitutional protection is involved.”

Why it could be worse

This is a two edged sword, and I don’t have much to offer you to make you feel better.

1) Gorsuch would replace a very conservative judge. So replacing a very conservative judge with a very conservative judge is not as bad as replacing a liberal judge with a very conservative judge.

2) Because of #1, Democrats will fight less hard to stop this appointment. What Democrats should do is to respond to what the the Republicans did last time there was a SCOTUS appointment. Don’t let this appointment go through. Let’s wait until we have a president and a strong Senate majority from the same party at the same time to appoint any more judges. Then, let’s hope that doesn’t become Trump and a huge Republican majority in the Senate!

I refer you back to the quote at the top of the post. That was August, 1967, when Kissinger said that. (Gorsuch was at Harvard Law much later, contemporary with me and Barack Obama. But I was across the street in the University Museums, not studying law!)

Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to look up what was going on that month, the month Kissinger said that, as well as the same month in the year of Gorsuch’s graduation from Harvard Law. Turns out to be pretty interesting. Here it is from Wikipedia:

1967


hist_usa_20_1967_civil_rights_race_riots_pic_newark_riots_1967August 1 – Race riots in the United States spread to Washington, D.C.
August 9 – Vietnam War – Operation Cochise: United States Marines begin a new operation in the Que Son Valley.
August 21 – The People’s Republic of China announces that it has shot down United States planes violating its airspace.
August 23 – Jimi Hendrix’s debut album Are You Experienced is released in the United States.
August 25 – American Nazi Party leader George Lincoln Rockwell is assassinated in Arlington, Virginia.
August 30 – Thurgood Marshall is confirmed as the first African American Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

1991 (selected)

Boris_Yeltsin_22_August_1991-1August 6 – Tim Berners-Lee announces the World Wide Web project and software on the alt.hypertext newsgroup. The first website, “info.cern.ch” is created.
August 7 – Shapour Bakhtiar, former prime minister of Iran, is assassinated.
August 8 – The Warsaw radio mast, the tallest construction ever built at the time, collapses.
August 13 – The Super Nintendo Entertainment System (or “Super Nintendo”) is released in the United States.
August 19+ – Dissolution of the Soviet Union:
August 25 – Serbian aggression (Yugoslav People’s Army and Chetniks) starts
August 25 – Student Linus Torvalds posts messages to Usenet newsgroup about the new operating system kernel he has been developing.
August 29 – Boris Yeltsin bans and dissolves the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

August, 2017:

504443770_b0f7743d87_z

Tillerson Embarassment

Those of us concerned with climate change are especially concerned with the nomination of former Exxon chief Rex Tillerson to be Secretary of State. Well, Rex Tillerson was just confirmed by the US Senate.

Donald Trump is the least liked president ever for this point in a term. And, Rex Tillerson is now the least liked Secretary of State, with a 56-43 vote approving his appointment.

Most of the time a SOC gets close to 100% confirming votes. This is, in fact, true of most cabinet positions most of the time. Once you know a certain nominee is going to win, you just join in, for the purposes of unity etc. etc.

The Norms of Society and Presidential Executive Orders UPDATE

A brief update: This morning, Senate Republicans set aside the rules that say that both parties must be present, with at least one member, for a committee vote to advance a Presidential nominee for a cabinet appointment.

In other words, as outlined below, our system is based not only on enforceable laws but also on rules that only work if everyone involves agrees to not be the bully on the playground who ignores the rules. The Republicans are the bully on the playground.

The system requires honest actor playing by agreed on rules. So, without the honest actor, you get this. This fits perfectly with Trump’s overall approach.

Democracy is not threatened by this sort of thing. Democracy was tossed out the window a while back when this sort of thing became possible, and normal. Whatever we see now that looks like democracy is vestigial.

Original Post:

The title of this post is based closely on the title of a statement posted by my friend Stephan Lewandowsky, representing the Psychonomic Society.

The post is the official statement by this scientific society responding to President Trump’s recent activities, and it begins,

Last Friday was Holocaust Memorial Day, which falls on the day of the liberation of the Auschwitz Death Camp by Soviet troops in 1945. U.S. President Trump marked the occasion with a statement, although it omitted any specific mention of the 6 million Jews who perished in the Holocaust.

On the same day, Trump also signed an executive order that banned citizens of 7 mainly Islamic countries from entering the United States.

This order—at least initially—also applied to legal permanent residents of the U.S. (“Green card” holders), thus barring them from re-entry to their country of residence after a visit abroad, as well as to dual nationals if one of their citizenships is from one of those 7 countries.

I’m going to use this as a starting point to discuss the most important thing you need to know about the situation in the United States right now.

You know most resources are limited. We can cook along ignoring this for long periods of time, ignoring a particular resource’s limitations, until one day something goes awry and that particular resource suddenly matters more and of it, we have less. So a competitive framework develops and then things happen.

It is the business of the rich and powerful to manipulate the world around them in such a way that when such a limitation occurs, they profit. Candidate Trump mentioned this a while back. A housing crisis is a good thing for a real estate developer. This is not because it is inherently good; a housing crisis can put a real estate developer out of business. But the developer who is positioned to exploit such a crisis, or any kind of economic or resource crisis, is in a good position when thing go badly for everyone else.

One of the long term goals of many powerful entities is to maintain working classes, or other lower classes of servitude, in order to have cheap labor and a market. This has been done in many ways, in many places, at many times. Much of our social history is about this. Many wars have been fought over this, and many social, cultural, and economic revolutions have occurred because of this.

And every now and then, a holocaust happens because of this. This is, in part, because of what I’ll term as Mischa’s Law. Mischa Penn is a friend and colleague who has studied race and racism across all its manifestations as represented in literature, but focusing on the Nazi Holocaust and the holocaust of Native Americans. Mishca’s Law is hard to understand, difficult to believe, enrages many when they hear it, and is often set aside as lunatic raving. Unless, of course, you take Mischa’s class on race and racism, get a few weeks into it, know enough about it. Then, he gives you the thing, the thing I call “Mischa’s Law” (he doesn’t call it that) and you go, “Oh, wait, of course, that’s totally true.” And then you get really depressed for a while, hate Mischa for a while, hate his class. Then, later, ten years later, a life time after you’ve taken the class, and you’ve graduated and moved on to other things, Misha’s Law is the only thing you remember from all the classes you took at the U, and you still know it is true.

The fundamentals are always in place for Mischa’s Law to take effect. Competition, limited resources, different social classes or groups, a limited number of individuals in power, etc. But we, in America, have lived in a society where checks and balances kept one ideology (including, sadly, my own!) from taking over for very long, and there is a certain amount of redistribution of wealth and power.

But over recent years, the rich and powerful have convinced the working class that the main way we distribute wealth, through taxes, is a bad thing, so that’s mostly over. Social welfare has become a dirty word. The rich are richer, the powerful more powerful, and those with little power now have almost no power at all. But we still had a governmental system of checks and balances, so that was good.

But then the system of checks and balances got broken. In fact, the entire system of government got broken. Did you notice this? What happened is, about half the elected officials in government stopped doing the number one thing they were supposed to do, and this ruined everything.

What was that one thing? This: play by the rules.

Playing by the rules requires both knowing the rules and then making an honest attempt to respect them. Not knowing the rules is widespread in our society. I’m sure the elected officials know the rules they are breaking, but increasingly, I think, the average person who votes for them has no clue what the rules are or how important it is that they be observed.

Imagine the following situation. You go to baseball games regularly, to see your team play. Let’s make this slightly more realistic and assume this is a Little League team.

One day a big scary kid who is a bully gets up to bat. The pitcher winds up, throws the ball. Strike one. It happens again. Strike two. One more time. Strike three.

But instead of leaving the batter’s box, the big bully kid says, “I’m not out, pitch it again.” The following several moments involve a bit of embarrassment, the coaches come out, some kids are yelling at the bully, one parent hits another parent, and finally, it settles down, but the game is ruined and everyone goes home.

Next game, same thing happens, but this time nobody wants a scene, so they let the pitcher pitch the ball until the bully hits a single. Then the game continues. But the next game, there are a few bullies, not just one, demanding that the rules be ignored for them, and some other players decide to ignore other rules as well, and pretty soon, there is nothing like baseball happening.

You see what happened here? I’m going to guess that you don’t quite see the key point yet. The reason you leave the plate and go back to the dugout when you get three strikes is NOT because of the properties of matter, gravity, magnetic attraction, the unstoppable flow of water or a strong wind. You are not blown, washed, pulled, pushed, or dropped by any force back into the dugout when you get three strikes. You go back into the dugout because you got three strikes, the rules say you are out, right?

No. Still not right. You go back into the dugout because you got three strikes, the rules say you are out, AND THEN YOU FOLLOW THE RULES.

The Republican party, about half the elected officials, have unilaterally decided, in state houses across the country and in the Federal government, to stop following the rules.

A few years ago, in the Minnesota State House, a Republican representative made the clear and bold statement that he represented only the voters in his district who voted for him, and not the other citizens. He was resoundingly condemned for doing this, and he backed off and stopped talking like that. But over time, in state houses across the country, and in congressional districts, this increasingly became the norm, for Republicans. The rule is, of course, that once elected you represent all the people of your district. But more and more Republicans decided that this rule did not apply to them. They only represent those who voted for them. Now, this is normal in the Republican Party, and the first Republican President to be elected after this change said during his first news conference after his election, prior to his inaugural, that blue states would suffer and red states would benefit from his presidency.

I’ll give you another quick example. In one of Minnesota’s legislative chambers, the chair, who is from the leading party, has the right to silence any legislature who gets up to speak if the topic being discussed is not related to the matter at hand on the floor. So, the legislature is debating a proposed law about bicycles. The Democrats are in charge. A Republican gets up and insists on talking about his horoscope. The Democratic chair of the chamber says something like, “Your remarks are not relevant to the matter at hand, sit down and be quiet.” Good rule.

Last time the Republicans were in charge in that Minnesota chamber, they did this to every single Democrat who stood to say anything about anything, including and especially the matter at hand. The Republicans disregarded the actual rule (that the chair can silence a member who is off topic) and misused the power (that the chair can silence any member) to their benefit.

Tump is not following the rules, the Republicans in Congress are not acting like a “check” on Trump, and we have seen government officials in the Executive branch, apparently, ignoring court orders.

Trump’s executive orders over the last few days have been an overreach of power. For example, in its initial and badly executed form, his “extreme vetting” plan removed the rights of green card holders. Two different court orders neutered at least parts of this executive order temporarily, but it is reported that some officials, working for the Executive branches, ignored the court order. Since these are basically cops ignoring an order from a judge, and judges don’t have a police force, there isn’t much that can be done about that. Cops are supposed to follow the orders of judges. That’s the rule. The only way the rule works is if the rule is followed. There is no other force that makes the rule work.

Trump’s apparent abrogation of previous decisions on major pipeline projects was done without reference of any kind to the regulatory process that had already been completed. Regulations are acted on by the Executive branch, but they come from laws passed by Congress, and the whole judiciary is involved whenever someone has a case that there is something amiss. Trump’s executive orders and memoranda related to the pipeline ignore all the different branches of government, departments, process, and rules of governing.

It would appear that Trump had brought together the two major changes in rule observation that have developed over the last 20 years in this country. First, like the average citizen (of all political stripes) he is ignorant of how anything works. Second, like the bully that stands by the batter’s box, he shall not observe any rule that he does happen to find out about.

You see, for a United States President to become a dictator, he has to do only one thing: Stop following the rules. The US Court System, the Congress, and the Executive exist in a system of checks and balances, and that is supposed to keep everybody, well, in check. And balanced. But the Executive is the branch of government with multiple police and security forces, an Army, a Navy, an Air Force, Marines, and a Coast Guard. There is a rule that only the Coast Guard can carry out military-esque activities on US soil. But there is a mechanism for putting that rule aside. The President puts the rule aside. That’s it.

We live in a world of limited resources, and a pre-existing system of inequity, class, and ethnic categorization that allows the powerful to exploit and control most everyone else. We live in a country in which a single individual can take over the government by getting elected president then ignoring the rules, whether or not he formally declares himself in charge of everything. There is no mechanism to stop this from happening. There are all sorts of rules in place to stop it, such as the political parties putting up qualified candidates, the electors making sure they elect a qualified candidate, the Congress certifying the election of qualified candidates. But those things did not happen, and we now have a man who by all indications intends to dictate, not lead, dictate not rule, dictate not represent. There is no indication of any kind whatsoever that we do NOT have an incipient dictatorship as our form of government right now, and there are strong indications that this is where Trump is going.

And this is where Mischa’s Law becomes a thing.

“Racism, left unchecked, will eventually lead to holocaust.”

The checks, they have been neutralized.

A response to Trump’s gag order on scientists

From ClimateTruth.org, in response to Trump gag orders on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA):

“President Trump and his administration have ignored scientific reality, and now they’re trying to hide it.

“Merely five days into Donald Trump’s presidency, the administration is silencing the agencies tasked with protecting our environment, our health, and our food supply. This gag order sets a dangerous precedent and is sending a chilling message to civil servants throughout the country.

“We knew the Trump administration would go beyond President George W. Bush’s administration in attacking science and suppressing research, but we didn’t know it would happen so fast and so egregiously. Suppressing public servant scientists from communicating with the American public is a dangerous move that sets us on a path where policy decisions are divorced from reality.

“Scientists at the agencies should know that we have their backs. They have a right to speak freely and duty to share their research publicly. Even if the Trump administration doesn’t respect science, the American public does.”

By the way, not all elements in the Trump administration are walking in lockstep. Check out this rogue national park that, for a while, was speaking its mind.

Will Claims Of Voter Fraud Lead To Voter Suppression?

It is generally felt that Trump’s claims of voter fraud, especially, apparently, by illegal aliens — Or some kind of alien, not sure — could be a prelude, or excuse for some kind of widespread voter suppression campaign. In any event, these repeated claims were once thought of as an odd and embarassing bit of yammering by the President elect, but now they have become a keystone of the White House’s current activism, foregrounded by the hapless Sean Spicer, who appears to not believe the claims himself.

From NBC:

The White House doubled down on President Donald Trump’s widely debunked claim that millions of people voted illegally in the 2016 presidential election, costing Trump the popular vote.

“The President does believe that,” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters on Tuesday, just one day after pledging to tell the public “the facts as I know them.”…

When pressed for evidence, Spicer said “the president has believed that for a while based on studies and information he has.” Spicer also cited a 2008 Pew study that he said showed 14 percent of people who voted were not citizens.

Those figures appear to come from two different studies.

A 2012 Pew report found millions of invalid voter registrations due to people moving or dying.

But the author of that report, David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, tweeted back in late November that this isn’t voter fraud….

The second study was a highly criticized work by Old Dominion University professors who found 14 percent of non-citizens said saying they were registered to vote. The study was based on a sample of a few hundred respondents.

During the campaign season, one of the authors said the Trump campaign was exaggerating the study’s findings.

Check out this rather astounding bit of news reporting on CNN:

They’re coming for him.

Reading Around Trump Induced Depression

This is not a time to be distracted, to turn away from politics, to eschew activism. In fact, if you are an American Citizen, you have to look back at your life and recognize that you screwed up, in two ways. First, whatever time you spent agitating and activating and acting out, turns out, was not enough. You needed to spend something like 10% more time on that. Second, whatever decisions you made as to exactly what sort of activism you would do on a given day were likely flawed. Instead of yammering about Bernie after the primary you should have been going after Trump. At the beginning of the primary process, you should have gone with the insurgent, Bernie, instead of the tried and true, Hillary. Whatever. I’m not here to tell you what you did wrong exactly, because I’ll be damned if I know. But I know, and you know, that you did something wrong.

How do I know that? Because of this:

Donald Trump Inauguration

Schedule of Inaugural Events (Eastern Time)

January 20th, 2017

8:30 a.m. ET: Trumps attend service at St. John’s Church
9:40 a.m. ET: President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama welcome Trumps to White House
9:45 a.m. ET: Obamas host a coffee and tea reception for the Trumps.
10:30 a.m. ET: Trumps, Obamas leave White House for U.S. Capitol
11:30 a.m. ET: Swearing-in ceremony
12:30 p.m. ET: The Obamas depart by helicopter
12:54 p.m. ET: President’s Room signing ceremony
1:08 p.m. ET: Luncheon
2:35 p.m. ET: Review of the troops
3 p.m. ET: Inaugural Parade
7 p.m. ET and thereafter for four years: Inaugural Bawl

See? If this election had been a landslide, then our collective yammering, protesting, messaging, teaching, communication, etc. would be part of an insurgency, a hopeful revolution, a determined evolution, or something. But what actually happened is this: We were making progress, we were turning many things around, changing things for the better, then suddenly along came this big log tied to a rope suspended from on high and it plowed right through us. An enormous, ugly, political pendulum that we thought was going in one direction had turned, and plowed through us like a bowling ball through nine pins.

But only just barely.

A while back I had been conversing for weeks with a bunch of activists, serious activists, people with their hands on the activism levers of power, serious serious people. They had been so thrown off by the outcome of the Democratic Primary that they spent huge amounts of effort making sure that a totally insignificant document, the DNC Platform, included their pet projects, and thereafter following through on that, that they simply put nearly zero effort into working against Trump. Had these remarkable and important individuals not walked away from the process at he crucial moment, they would have been the deciding factor in this election and Trump would not have been elected president. That’s my story, and it is one of dozens around the country, many of you will identify them in your own lives if you look. People were distracted, misled, or simply wrong, about this or that aspect of the election. Collectively, all of this added up to a slim victory. But it matters not how slim that victory was, because the Republican Party is 100% in charge in the White House, in both houses of Congress, and in many state chambers and state houses around the country.

Climate scientists model future climate change using a number of different model configurations, but the initial input to those models are based on various scenarios of how quickly we change our energy policies and related behaviors. With a Trump presidency and a GOP Congress, that process just got easier, because the two or three more optimistic staring assumptions can be ignored for several years. Think of the computing time that will save!

That was a very long way of saying that you can not distract yourself from the task of saving civilization over the next few years.

How to survive a Trump presidency starting now

But, during that time, you can spend a bit of time doing something that will make you feel better, maybe energized, maybe even self educated in an area that gives perspective or some other help to your psyche.

I’ve been asking around, to see what people are doing, and here, I’ll put some of the book suggestions and other ideas people have made. I expect more suggestions to come in soon, and I’ll add them to the lists.

Watch the West Wing


One idea, often mentioned, is to watch The West Wing, as an example of a better time and place. If you do that (and I suspect for many this would be a re-watch) I suggest you consider listening to The West Wing Weekly Podcast, co-hosed by Joshua Malina ahd Hrishikesh Hirway. Josh is Will Bailey from the West Wing (he currently stars in Scandal, another excellently distracting White House related show!). The podcast tracks the West Wing episode by episode, with occasional variations in that pattern. One of the best things about it are the interviews with various individuals involved with the show. Also, over time, Malina and Hirway develop a working methodology of the West Wing, including terminology, morphological and categorial functions, etc. This gives the weekly review and discussion an interesting and evolving texture. Since they are currently well into Season Two, you can start now and listen to the podcasts on your own schedule. If you catch up to them, you’ll have to start waiting for Wednesdays, when the podcast is released.

Read interesting history

One thing I’ve decided to do is to read some interesting history. It turns out that a lot of other people are doing something similar. Here is a list of what people have suggested so far:

  • History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2008, Fourth Edition, 3-Volume Set (Facts on File Library of American History). This link is to a fairly expensive product, but note that it is several books. I’ll bet you can get the various volumes cheap and used, if you get them one at a time, or just go to the library.
  • The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Defender of the Realm, 1940-1965
  • Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
  • What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 (Oxford History of the United States)
  • Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President
  • How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci: Seven Steps to Genius Every Day
  • America in the King Years (3 Book Series)
  • Read interesting fiction

  • The Complete Wreck (A Series of Unfortunate Events, Books 1-13)
  • People of the Book: A Novel
  • Watch or listen to something interesting

  • Hamilton
  • Black Mirror – Series 1-2 and Special [DVD]
  • Roots
  • Hardcore History Podcast
  • Read current non fiction about how messed up everything is

  • Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right
  • Insane Clown President: Dispatches from the 2016 Circus
  • The War on Science: Who’s Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do About It
  • Sherlock: Series Four
  • The Plot to Hack America: How Putin’s Cyberspies and WikiLeaks Tried to Steal the 2016 Election
  • Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power
  • Invisible Armies: An Epic History of Guerrilla Warfare from Ancient Times to the Present
  • Drinking suggestions

  • Talisker Storm
  • The American Auto Industry Moves South: West Wing vs. Donald Trump

    The West Wing Version:

    Josh, Toby, Leo, and Donna are in Leo’s office. They have just gotten word that a major auto manufacturer plans to build a plant in Mexico, and will likely close a corresponding plant in Michigan. Josh is pacing, Leo is behind his desk, Donna is standing near the door, and Toby is sitting in a chair smoking an unlit cigar. All four had just come from a poker game with the President and others.

    Josh Leyman: Screw the auto industry. If they decide to move another plant to Mexico, we just slap a 35% tariff on them!

    Leo Mcgarry: That won’t go well, Josh, and you know it. A tariff like that would send the Mexican economy in to a spiral. That won’t help the regional economy in more ways than I can mention.

    Toby Ziegler [Voice raising noticeably at the end of the sentence]: “Not for nothin’, but the last time a leak from the White House even intimated that we might take retaliatory action against industry in Mexico, the Peso dropped like a slider in Yankee stadium!

    Josh Leyman [Frustrated]: So what are you saying, we just let them move their plant, move these jobs? We made promises to the Unions. I made promises to the union.

    Donna Moss: You made promises to me too, Josh. I don’t see you getting upset about that.

    Josh Leyman [Casually]: Yeah but that’s you, who cares.

    The President enters the room. Toby and Leo stand, but the president waves them down. Leo sits down but Toby remains standing. Donna back a foot or so towards the door. Josh put on his little boy face.

    President Bartlet: That’s right, we made promises. We made promises to the auto industry, and we made promises to the American people. As I recall, we’ve even kept some of them. But we also made a promise to be smart about all of this, about the choices we make. I chose to believe that the American People, in all their wisdom, despite Hamilton’s original incredulity about that, picked a boring Economics Nobel Laureate to run this place because they wanted us to be smart about some of this stuff at least some of the time!

    Joshua Leyman: That’s right, Sir. But what do we do?

    The President and Leo look meaningfully at each other. The President walks out of the room without another word. The rest of the staff turn to Leo, expectantly.

    Joshua Leyman [directed at Leo]: Well?

    [cue music]

    Leo McGarry: We do nuthin’ … Absolutely nuthin. If we say a word that makes us look like we’re even going to send our Great Aunt Tillie down to Mexico to complain about this, the Peso will be in the dumps, and nine automobile companies will scurry south of the border to set up plants in an economy so devalued they’ll be able to produce the same car they would produce here for 30,000 for the cost of a box of donut holes and a cup of coffee.

    Joshua Leyman [resigned voice, moving to head out of the room]: Yeah, I suppose the best thing to do is sometimes to do nothing.

    Donna Moss [coy look]: And you should be good at that, Josh.

    [fade to black, flentle music]

    Trump Version

    [Donald Trump is sitting on the toilet, paging through his facebook feed. He notices a news item about an American Auto company’s plans to close a plant in Michigan, and open a similar plant in Mexico.]

    Donald Trump [yelling]: Kellyanne get in here! Where is that Conway bitch?

    Kellyanne Conway [from outside bathroom door, off stage]: The bathroom door is locked, Mr. President Elect. What can I get for you?

    Donald Trump [yelling]: Tweet this: US Auto co moves to Mexico? I don’t think so! 35% Tariff! Make America Great Again!

    Kellyanne Conway: Yes sir, is that all sir?

    Donald Trump [yelling]: That’s all, go away.

    [ten minutes later]

    Donald Trump
    [yelling]: Kellyanne get in here! Where is tha…

    Kellyanne Conway: I’m right here sir, what can I do for you

    Donald Trump [yelling]: Tweet this! I’ll make American businesses play fair! Not like Crooked Hillary!

    Kellyann Conway: Thank you sir.

    [Next scene, two weeks later, Kellyanne Conway is outside by a news stand, purchasing a copy of the Washington Post. The camera zooms in on the headline.]

    WaPo Headline reads:

    “Mexican Economy Tanks. Entire North American Auto Industry Initiates Plans to Move to Mexico.

    ‘I sure hope Donald’s wall has a big door in it to let some of these cars into the US. If anybody wants to ever drive a new car, that is!’ quips GM CEO.


    THE END

    Sitting in Richard Nixon’s Chair

    Yes there are Nixon-Trump similarities. But in the end, probably not many. (A lot of Congresspersons boycotted his second inaugural, by the way). Also, for those who are not familiar with Watergate, I’ll tell you this: The medium to worst case scenario of Trump’s election, which would include Russian Hacking and possibly the Trump Dossier (but you don’t need the dossier in this scenario) is about 400% worse than Watergate. The Watergate scandal, after which we now name all scandals, was also about stealing an election. It is not as clear that the Plumbers stole the election for Nixon that it is clear that Putin stole the election for Trump. Either case is hard to be absolutely certain of, but Nixon trounced his opponent the year he had illegal help from his hired thugs, while Trump actually lost the election in the year he seems to have had help from Putin and Comey.

    Screen Shot 2017-01-17 at 4.44.00 PMBut that is not what I came here to speak with you about today. Rather, I’m just using the Bloggers Prerogative to reminisce about the time that I refused, as an 11 or 12 year old, in New York City, to sit in the chair sat in by Richard Nixon. We were watching Much Ado About Nothing from a box in Winter Garden, and this was, we were told by the usher, the very box Nixon had sat in during the previous performance. (We had seen him leave the theater. What a mess that made of local traffic!) Learning that, I asked which chair Nixon had sat in. The usher pointed to one of the chairs. I asked to have it removed. My hard core Democratic father concurred.

    I have no idea if the usher was just playing around with the kid, perhaps even thinking that we would be happy to share Richard Nixon’s butt kooties. And I’ll never know. But I choose to believe that I made a point.

    As are these folks:

    “We woke up on November 9 just gutted,” he said. “We were planning to get married in July and decided, ‘Let’s get married this weekend. Let’s be as married as we can be, as long as we can be, starting now.'” The couple opted to elope to Las Vegas.

    “As soon as we opened up the drapes [we saw] the front of Trump’s building and we’re like ‘Oh, no way,'” he said. “The letters across the top of the tower are just huge. It was a bitter irony that we were running away from him and he was right there.”

    Yes, people around the world are asking for rooms that do NOT overlook the giant “TRUMP” that Donald Trump likes to smear across his real estate projects. By the way, many, perhaps most, of these projects simply pay to use the name because it seems good for business. I wonder what those contracts look like, exactly?

    The Science of Spiteful Donald Trump

    This is a descriptive model of Donald Trump’s behavior, which ultimately works out to a prediction that Donald Trump won’t last very long. In an evolutionary sense, at least.

    I’ve found that many people use the term “spite” incorrectly. Many assume it has to do with vitriol or nastiness, or otherwise, is motivated negative behavior of some kind. This is not even close to the scientific definition of the term. A daffodil plant can carry out an act of spite, and a daffodil plant is unlikely to engage in motivated behavior.

    Spite involves carrying out an act where the ultimate cost to oneself exceeds the net benefit to oneself, at the same time the recipient of the behavior experiences a net cost.

    Trump’s anti John Lewis tweeting is an example of spite. It was an attack on Lewis, but it caused huge problems for Trump, and strengthened his opposition.

    Since Trump’s tweet may actually have benefited his victim and may have done very little harm to anyone else, it is actually possible that it was an act of altruism.

    The pertinent theory comes from behavioral biology, which many years ago influenced economics theory, so you see the concept in both evolutionary theory and game theory today. (Because most people incorrectly assume that economists are smarter than everyone else, except possibly physicists, it is often assume that this set of theories comes from economics and then was borrowed by biology, but the reverse is actually true. See work by Sewall Wright and Robert Trivers.)

    This classic theory can be classically represented by the following classic graphic:

    ClassicBehavioralTheoryAlturismSpiteEtc

    The actor, called here the “donor,” can help or hurt the recipient. In this case, the potential act probably has to do with nuts, since these are squirrels. But it can be any act as long as the act itself incurs a cost for the actor. (The cost is part of the definition of acts.) Then, the actor and the recipient, eventually, count up the net result. The actor can expend energy and incur risk by taking a nut away from the recipient. The recipient runs away. This is an act of selfishness on the part of the actor. The actor can give a nut to the donor. That is an act of altruism. The actor and recipient can share the nuts under a tree, and thus share the job of keeping an eye out for predators. They are both losing because they need to share the nuts, but since there are a gazillion nuts the loss is very close to zero. Since two sets of eyes are more than twice as good as one set of eyes for feeding squirrels, both gain. That is cooperation. And so on.

    Trup’s Attack on John Lewis was spite

    Trump seems immune to the idea of forethought when he tweets. I sincerely — and this is not an ablist remark but a legitimate question — suggest he is a victim of Tourette’s. Even the most obvious degree of restraint is like water cast on granite. Alternatively, it is possible that Trump sees himself as invulnerable to legitimate criticism — all those who disagree with him are mere losers, he seems ready to declare. He does seem to have megalomaniac tendencies.

    Whatever the reason, a pair of 140 character missives by Trump can be relatively benign or incredibly offensive, but this time were very self destructive.

    Susanne.Posel-Headline.News_.Official-donald.trump_.tweet_.john_.lewis_occupycorporatism

    John Lewis was up to the fight:

    Lewis said in an interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” on Sunday, that he doesn’t believe Trump is a “legitimate president” and that he wouldn’t be attending the presidential inauguration for the first time in his 30-year political career, citing the intelligence community’s explosive findings over Russian hacking of the presidential election.

    More here.

    The material harm to Trump and his presidency from this act of spite is growing, as the tweet is causing a cascade of effects..

    The number of Democratic members of Congress saying they will boycott Donald Trump’s inauguration on Friday has increased to 26.
    Many have cited as a reason the president-elect’s recent attack on civil rights icon and fellow congressman John Lewis.

    There is also a petition.

    See also: BBC – Democratic Inauguration boycott grows

    In the end, what started out as a harmful stab against an opponent caused more harm to Trump than benefit. If the tweets also harmed Lewis or Liberal Democrats, then this was probably an act of spite. If, and look at the squirrels above, this was an act that benefited Lewis, Liberals, and Democrats, and hurt Trump, then it was an act of altruism. Maybe the Democrats should send Trump a thank you note!

    Trump vs. CIA chief

    Everybody knows that in Washington, the story is usually the comment or reaction, not the thing. It is all very meta. The story is the story, not what the story is about. We have a new term these days bandied about to stand in for thinking about this: The narrative. You control the narrative. Just hope no one asks you to explain what a narrative is. This can all seem very senseless, but it is also a little bit complex, thus pretty much beyond the range of Trump’s level of thinking. And for this reason, perhaps, Trump has not learned when to shut up.

    The result is that when a moderately interesting story comes along, Tump picks it up and bludgeons himself about he head and neck with it. Five year old’s do this. The John Lewis story is an example. Rather than ignoring a complaint from a liberal democrat, he victimized a widely loved civil rights leader on the eve of MLK celebrations.

    With respect to the intelligence business, Trump is attacking the outgoing director of the CIA for absolutely no reason, and this is causing a reaction that will harm Trump far more than his comment could possibly have benefited him.

    In a recent tweet, Trump accused the outgoing CIA chief of being behind the “leak” of the Trump Dossier. Meanwhile, the CIA chief notes that

    …Trump lacks a full understanding of the threat Moscow poses to the United States, delivering a public lecture to the president-elect that further highlighted the bitter state of Trump’s relations with American intelligence agencies.

    The Dead Zone
    The Dead Zone
    More here.

    Trump’s reaction to the widespread acceptance of Russian influence on the election, and the as yet less widely accepted — but very credible — Trump Dossier is to elevate these problems to the level of international incident. In his effort to protect himself from political fire, he is holding up a baby in front of his attackers. Unfortunately, the baby is all of use, Americans, his country, and beyond.

    Trump takes big risks with American security

    This is yet another example of spite, and a good one, because it shows that spite does not require malice. It can arise from simple ignorance.

    I think, and prove me wrong if you like, that the Trump transition team is, collectively, as dumb as a broken brick. When they saw all these “presidential appointments” on the list of things to consider, they assumed that they were to replace them all on the 20th of January. So, they fired everyone effective that day including all of the ambassadors around the world.

    This is one of several examples of misunderstanding the system, and in this case, putting our nation at risk.

    A plan by Donald Trump to toss out dozens of ambassadors on the day he takes office risks months of uncertainty in some of the most sensitive parts of the world, according to several experts.

    More here.

    You might argue that this is not spite because it was just stupid. But the evolutionary biological theory of behavior counts this as spite because motivation is not related to the definition. By keeping motivation out of the definition, the theory is more general. For example, a plant can carry out a spiteful act. That makes the theory a hell of a lot more useful.

    In this case, the Trump team gained nothing from their decision, but they risk causing innumerable problems world wide, hopefully mostly small ones, that put them in the hole with respect to foreign policy literally on day one. Nay, minute one.

    Spite ends things

    Look again at the chart above, and consider examples of spite in nature.

    You can’t easily find them. When you do see them, they usually end up being acts of altruism that are explained as acts of cooperation or selfishness by taking the analysis to the next level. A squirrel allows another squirrel to forage near itself even when there aren’t a gazillion nuts under the tree, and is taking a real hit on food access for this reason. That looks like altruism, which is even more stupid, evolutionarily, than spite. But it turns out that the recipient of that act it the actor-squirrel’s offspring. By benefiting an offspring even with a cost to herself, the mother squirrel gains an ultimate genetic benefit.

    I do not see how any of Trump’s acts of spite benefit him other than to strengthen the love he receives from his relatively small base. His spite erodes his support at the softer end, invigorates (and increases funding for, I’ll guess) his opponents, causes problems for his administration that will make him and his entire presidency less effective. Ultimately, he will spite his way into impeachment.

    We don’t see true acts of spite in nature very often because that sort of behavior, or more exactly, the behavioral facility to make the generation of such behavior even possible, is selected against.

    If Donald Trump does not learn, or is not restrained, almost literally, by his staff, he will spite himself into the annals of the Darwin Awards, in a political sense. Spite ends things. Spite will end Trump.

    The House Should Demand That Trump Apologize For John Lewis Insults

    A lot of people are just catching up on who John Lewis is. One way to do that is to read his memoir, Walking with the Wind: A Memoir of the Movement.

    U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) is presented with the 2010 Medal of Freedom by President Barack Obama.
    U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) is presented with the 2010 Medal of Freedom by President Barack Obama.
    He is a senior African American Representative to the House who was famously involved in the civil rights movement of the 1960s, along side Doctor King. If you watch any news at all you’ve seen him plenty of times. He is now also known as the latest person Donald Trump decided to denigrate and insult on Twitter.

    I would like to see everyone ask their representatives in the House to treat Donald Trump’s remarks about John Lewis as they would treat similar remarks made by any other member of the House against a colleague. Generally, there are rules and you can’t do or say certain kinds of things, or you get sanctioned. I want Trump’s remarks addressed as though they were remarks on the floor made to another member. To put a point on it, since little that Republicans in Congress do relates to decorum or ethics, since to them it is all partisan politics, let’s assume the hypothetical offender is a Democrat and the remarks are made against a Republican. And when making the remarks a little bit of spit flew out and landed on the guy.

    Here’s my letter to my representative, who is, sadly, a Republican. Can you please write a letter too?

    Representative Erik Paulsen
    U.S. House of Representatives
    Washington, DC 20515

    To the Honorable Erik Paulsen,

    I write to ask you to take appropriate action in response to the outrageous statements made by the Republican President Elect in regards to your colleague, the Honorable John Lewis, of Georgia.

    On the 14th of January, 2017, President Elect Trump railed against Representative Lewis, and denigrated the important work he has done as a member of Congress and as a leader in the area of Civil Rights, on the very eve of our national celebrations of the life of Martin Luther King Jr.

    How many of your colleagues in Congress have literally had their skulls smashed as a result of protesting racial injustice? This is what happened to young John Lewis on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1965. The Congressman has dedicated his life to fight racism, injustice, and to honorably and effectively represent the people in his district.

    Mr. Trump’s remarks are uncalled for, outrageous, and should not go unanswered.

    I ask you to stand in defense of the Honorable Mr. Lewis on the floor of the House, to make a public statement responding to the President Elect, and to make clear that this sort of behavior is not acceptable. Alternatively, perhaps you could let me know why you would chose to remain silent, should that be your decision, or why you might support Mr. Trump’s remarks, if that is your intent.

    I understand that Mr. Trump is a Republican and so are you, and Mr. Lewis is a Democrat. It is possible that the Republican Party’s position is to denigrate men like Mr. Lewis. If so, that would be a shame. If, on the other hand, you and your Republican colleagues truly represent the citizens of your respective districts, not just the narrow range of folk who voted for you, then you can not sit silently. You have to stand up and say something. As your constituent, I demand this. Do note that several of your colleagues in your party have done so.

    Sincerely,

    Greg Laden



    There is no way to sugar coat this: Trump is a Russian asset, according to me.

    ADDED: It has been suggested that I clarify an important point about this post.

    So, dear reader, please understand that the information provided here is my best attempt at analysis of the information that I have available. There is clearly conjecture here. So, of course, read all this with a grain of salt. The size of that grain of salt can be as small or large as you like. I also amended the title of the post.

    -gtl

    ADDED Feb 1

    I’ll just be putin’ this link here: http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/01/news/fsb-kaspersky-arrests/index.html?sr=twcnni020217fsb-kaspersky-arrests0129AMStoryPhoto&linkId=34031636

    The story that I outlined on this blog on November 10th was widely known in the US intelligence community and has been developed and elaborated upon in numerous stages. Pretty much everything we need to know is now known, and we await the appearance of the videos currently in possession of Russian agents, and some other key pieces of information. But the story is credible, outlined in moderate detail, and shocking.

    To get up to date, read this.

    As I have already noted, I find this story very believable because I already knew the broad outlines and some of the details. I came across this via a contact closer to the famous MI6 spy who put together the dossier than most people are to Kevin Bacon. Over the last several days, more information has been made available, and it would now appear, if these sources are accurate, that Russian intelligence has in its possession multiple copies of videos showing Trump in some sort of sexual activity. Multiple things, multiple occasions, multiple locations in Russia, possibly in both Moscow and St Petersburg, according to a source within the CIA (see link above).

    There are also financial dealings worthy of use in blackmail.

    Obtaining this kind of information on a person with influence is called “developing an asset” and here, Donald Trump is the asset. So, in just over a week, the executive branch of the United States will be run by a person who is arguabley a Russian FSB asset. We hope it is not true, but if it is, there is no way to sugar coat this: We are screwed. And, personally, I’m convinced this evidence is reliable. (I’ve discussed elsewhere, see link above, why I think it is reliable.)

    We know that the US Congress Gang of Eight had all this information weeks ago. People with links into the intelligence community were aware of this report. People like Mad Dog Mattis, who may become our Secretary of Defense, and who have taken an oath to protect and defend the US from all enemies foreign and domestic, knew about this. Let me restate something I’ve mentioned elsewhere. According to my contacts in the intelligence community, a) this information was generally known, b) this information was not unexpected given the usual methods of the intelligence agencies and Trump’s weaknesses, and c) the source, which is now publicly known, is among the most highly regarded agents alive today. It is becoming increasingly fashionable in the media to discredit this source. An MSNBC commenter yesterday morning called it “apocryphal” (tough, when Senator Franken pointed out that this word, “apocryphal,” may not mean what she thinks it means, she seemed to withdraw her statement). Bernie bots are resisting this information because they really want to blame Hillary Clinton for this loss, and if the Russians are in with Trump, that takes it away from them.

    But when it comes down to it, the evidence is both unproven and highly likely to be true, in my opinion. And — this is important — I’m taking my cues from the same people the Gang of Eight and the various other leaders are taking their cue from. It looks to me like they are all, to an individual, currently engaged in committing an act of treason. They will either have to convincingly disprove the ever hardening Trump-Russia connection or live up to their decision to stand by.

    What would be the consequences? Many and severe. Here is a quick theoretical look at one of the more obvious possibilities: a convenient arrangement whereby the Russians control key US decisions that will have great positive, and personal, consequences to Putin, and very negative consequences to the US and to the entire world.

    One of Trump’s most important appointments is his Secretary of State.

    The likely appointment of Rex Tillerson is widely seen as an affront to the Earth’s climate, and as a prelude to a period of entrenched denial of climate change. That is probably true. But I strongly suspect, and it is starting to become more generally apparent if you are watching the reporting, that this is not the main reason Tillerson is being placed in this position. Most people also assume that Russia would benefit from a Russia-Friendly Trump administration because Russia wants to weaken NATO, and invade a neighbor here or there. I’m sure that is part of it, but again, there is something more immediate afoot.

    Tillerson is being placed in this position because Vladimir Putin, Trump’s handler, wants Exxon-Mobil and possibly other international agencies to get on with the business of exploiting Russian oil using technology that the Russians are a bit thin on. This will involve the US lifting sanctions on Russia. While wary Americans are waiting for a Russian invasion of Syria or the cancellation of the Paris agreement, the sanctions will be first ignored, then given special exemption, then weakened, then lifted. The Republicans in Congress will facilitate this because they have no intellectual or emotional power to govern, having jettisoned those qualities the day the first black man was elected President of the United States, as they vowed to make removal of the uppity negro from office their number one, and in fact, sole, objective.

    Eight years is apparently enough time to gut a political party of even the smallest iota of ability to govern.

    Then, of course, there will also be the expected weakening of NATO, the invasions into neighboring territory unchecked by American interest, and all that.

    The other developing problem is with China. Trump and Tillerson have been waving swords at China all along, the most recent coming in yesterday’s hearings when Tillerson came an inch away from declaring war on China in the South China Sea. We would be prudent to assume, if the worst is true, that this attack on China comes at the request of Trump’s handlers in Moscow. The risk here is a trade war. Or a world war. Or worse.

    This Tillerson scenario is increasingly buttressed by the facts and the context. It will be very interesting to see how what Tillerson is saying in hearings holds up with his actions, should he be confirmed.

    At the moment, there seems to be only one way to address this problem in the short term, and the corruption of the Republican Party makes this nearly impossible. Impeachment would likely be successful, but the House has to initiate it, and the Senate has to conduct it. As long as both are in Republican hands, we would have to trust the Republican party to do the right thing. That, of course is impossible. They will never, ever do the right thing. Republicans will commit treason before they will stand up as patriots for America. How do we know this? Because they are doing it right now! Everything that is now publicly known about Donald Trump being handled as a Russian asset has been known by those in the know inside the beltway for weeks. For many, some of this was known since the summer. For virtually everyone, most of this was known before the election.

    The act of treason being carried out by the Republican Party right now has been going on far longer than one might expect for an entity that would eventually come to its senses. They are not going to change course. They are in it until the end.

    So, we are left with Plan B: Impeachment of Donald Trump after the midterms, if the citizens of the United States can get past their deeply held racism and sexism to replace many of the Republican members of the Congress, both houses.

    Addendum: Donald Trump Regularly Banged Russian People. It Is Said.

    This is interesting, if you can stand listening to it.
    Start at about 4:10 for the discussion of Donald Tump banging Russian people.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhqUbW35R3Q

    Also of note, near the end when “AJ” threatens to date Trump’s daughter, “Anything you have, I can take from you.” An oligarch in the making!

    One minor takeaway from this interview, relevant to those of you unfamiliar with New York (The City), is this: Donald Trump talks funny, both his accent and the way he constructs streams of non-sentences. This is, of course, how New Yorkers talk unless they are in polite company. I assume Donald Trump does not regard America as polite company.

    Also, all the talk about winning. Trump is a winner. The rest of you are losers, I hope you know that. Amiright?

    Wrong.

    What Does Rex Tillerson Get Out Of Being Secretary Of State?

    He’s trying, in the hearings, to not let it look this way, but the truth is that he and Exxon Mobile stand to benefit a great deal from a Tillerson SOC. Also, Russia will benefit a great deal.

    Putting it a slightly different way, Tillerson’s appointment makes the most sense of you replace “Trump” with “Putin” in sentences that refer to who the leader of the United States is.

    The composite graphic above explains this. The context for those graphics is here: