Blog Catalog

Showing posts with label columnist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label columnist. Show all posts

Monday, May 4, 2020

This President Keeps Proving He's Not Up to, Not Capable of the Duties of this Office


This Republican Party President keeps doing just that---he keeps proving he's no way up to or capable of fulfilling the duties of this office.  I and a great deal of others---lots of them conservatives and members of the Republican Party---keep point in out.

Here's yet one more.

Post image


It was clear that the email writer was a supporter of President Donald Trump. He was incensed about an item that had appeared on the Post-Dispatch editorial page referencing Trump’s recent suggestion that intravenous injection of disinfectant might be a way to kill the coronavirus.

“Who on earth would believe that Trump actually suggested that a sane civilian should do this to themselves?” he demanded. He angrily dismissed it all as “fake news.”

That was confusing, because there is absolutely no debate about what Trump said, in front of the entire country, during his April 23 coronavirus briefing: “I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning?”

Injection inside. Not much room for interpretation there.

Yes, Trump came back later with one of his typical schoolboy lies, saying he was just being “sarcastic” (revealing in the process that he doesn’t really understand what that word means). But no rational English speaker who watched the original comments could doubt that he was serious. The president of the United States really, truly suggested that, because chemical disinfectants can kill the virus on hard surfaces, it might be worth seeing if that would work in the bloodstream.

(It’s one of the oddities of our time that we must pause here to stress the obvious: Don’t inject or ingest a disinfectant. Ever. It could kill you.)

On the third reading of the email, the realization dawned: Trump’s dangerously bonkers suggestion — which, again, he absolutely, positively made — was so outlandish that this Trump supporter, upon reading a factual account of it, simply refused to believe it. Ipso facto, the newspaper made it up.

Some folks are unreachable. They’re the army of core Trumpers who, as he once bragged, wouldn’t abandon him even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue. It’s the truest thing he ever said.

But that army may, finally, be getting smaller.

While most presidents benefit from a rally-around-the-flag effect during crises, Trump is currently going in the other direction. After a brief polling bump early on, his approval rating percentage now sits in the mid to low 40s — as low or lower than before the pandemic hit. Worse, head-to-head polling with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden now has Trump losing in the battleground states that were crucial to his Electoral College asterisk of a victory in 2016.

Some of it may stem from the growing realization of just how badly Trump botched this from the start. I wonder, though, if it might be a more fundamental shift, driven not just by his terrible handling of this specific crisis, but by a broader recognition of his general unfitness for office, by people who didn’t see it, until now.

We’re sheltered in, after all. People who in normal times have better things to do are now watching TV throughout the day. That happened just as Trump started taking the stage, day after day, to impart his wisdom to the world regarding the coronavirus. (Note to the president: The previous wisdom reference is the definition of “sarcastic.”)

For the relative sliver of Americans who closely watch Trump’s Twitter account, his daily descent into narcissism, grievance and bile is nothing new. But to normal people with normal lives — many of whom wouldn’t necessarily call themselves “Trumpers,” but who perhaps had been assuming that all the fuss about his behavior was just standard partisan sniping — these briefings must have been full of dark revelation.

Think of what the blissfully uninitiated have had to see lately: A president bragging about his TV ratings as thousands of Americans die. Savaging journalists for asking softball questions, savaging governors for desperately seeking help. Threatening to withhold aid from states that have voted against him. Taking undue credit for action while rejecting any responsibility for failure. Repeatedly spewing useless or dangerous nonsense, as medical professionals stand nearby looking like they’re in a hostage video.

Among quarantined viewers with previously busy lives, this has all surely spawned lots of “WTH?!” moments. Like the distant uncle they’d always heard was crazy, but they didn’t necessarily believe it until he showed up on the doorstep for an extended visit. Now they’re seeing with their own eyes that the self-proclaimed “stable genius” is neither.

For people like the incredulous email writer, even Trump’s Lysol Moment — which in a rational universe would be the final nail in any political coffin — can be, if not defended, then simply denied. That self-deception will be further enabled if Trump’s minions are successful in keeping him off the podium now. Which is why they’re doing it.

But Trump’s falling approval numbers indicate they may be too late. Many of those on the fence have already seen something that they won’t be able to unsee: Irrefutable proof — live, in their own living rooms — that this man belongs nowhere near power. Especially during a crisis.


Links:



Wednesday, April 29, 2020

Quote of the Day -- On This President


Post image

Trump, as a person and politician, is riddled with flaws. But he also has an ignominious super power: He is completely unencumbered by the truth, the need to tell it or accept it. He will do and say anything that he believes will help him. He has no greater guiding principles. He is not bound by ethics or morals. His only alliances are to those who would support and further his devotion to self-promotion.

--Charles M Blow,  New York Times Columnist

From his column today:


Additional link, to give a person hope:


Be well out there, everyone. Stay safe. Stay at home.


Sunday, November 10, 2019

Conservative, Right Wing Republicans on this President


Herewith, I give you, as said above in the title, two Right Wing, very Conservative Republicans and what they have to say about this Republican Party President. First up, George Will.

Image result for stupid trump


It's an excellent, I think even important column with lots of good to great information and points but, following here, I'll only post this one paragraph from the end:

In 13 months, all congressional Republicans who have not defended Congress by exercising “the constitutional rights of the place” should be defeated. If congressional Republicans continue their genuflections at Trump’s altar, the appropriate 2020 outcome will be a Republican thrashing so severe — losing the House, the Senate and the electoral votes of, say, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina and even Texas — that even this party of slow-learning careerists might notice the hazards of tethering their careers to a downward-spiraling scofflaw.
Next up, as we go into the beginning of the public hearings from and in the House of Representatives on this President and possible impeachment this week, finally, keep this in mind, too.


And now, from very deeply Right Wing, Conservative, Republican Bill "I Usually Support All Republicans Blindly" Kristol:

Republican Should Challenge Trump in 2020


From earlier this year:

Manchester, N.H. — For the good of the country and the Republican party, Donald Trump has to be challenged from the right in 2020, Weekly Standard editor-at-large Bill Kristol told a friendly crowd of business executives and political insiders here Wednesday morning.

“I don’t know if a challenger would succeed. In my view, I think it’s important to have one just to force the debate,” Kristol said. “I think if Trump were to lose in 2020 it would allow for someone to step up and say, ‘Well, here’s a different way forward than just kind of trying to redo Trump over the next several years.’”

Kristol was the second prominent Never Trumper in as many months to appear at the Politics & Eggs event series, which puts political speakers in front of an audience of New England business leaders who tend to show up in charcoal suits, wearing name tags that flash impressive job titles. Senator Jeff Flake’s anti-Trump speech here at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics drew a standing ovation in April. Attacking Trump from the conservatarian right, Flake flirted with the idea of challenging Trump for the nomination in 2020. (Kristol, who rejects speculation that he might run himself, says he prefers to help find the right challenger, and thinks John Kasich is the most obvious and potentially formidable one.)

After that, let's please, please all keep in mind that it was this President, Donald J "The John" Trump who, this week, was penalized by a judge for--get this--taking 2 million dollars from a charity. And not just any charity, either. This was a charity for American Veterans.

The man given 493 million dollars from his father felt he needed to also take 2 million dollars from a charity for our Veterans.

To date, Republicans have expressed zero regret or remorse for this man.

Zero.

Finally today, I have to ask, in what bizarro world could or would it possibly be okay if a President of the United States were to ask the head of another, foreign nation to investigate any private U.S. citizen, let alone the son of one of his foremost political rivals in the coming national election?

Additional links:


FBI investigated how Trump's actions seemed to benefit Russia







Sunday, July 23, 2017

What We're Getting With and From This President


Columnist Leonard Pitts puts it very well today.


So here we are, six months later. How time has trudged.

But the calendar does not lie. On Thursday, we will be half a year through the Trump Era. And, contrary to his signature promise, America seems less great by the day. Nor are his other promises faring particularly well.

There is no sign of progress on that border wall, much less any idea how he is going to make Mexico pay for the thing. His promise to preserve Medicaid and provide healthcare for everyone has dissolved into a GOP bill that would gut Medicaid and rob millions of their access to healthcare.

Meantime, the guy who once said he would be working so hard he would seldom leave the White House spends more time on golf courses than a groundskeeper.

But for all that Trump has not achieved, there is, I think, one thing he indisputably has. He has taught us to live in a state of perpetual chaos and continuous crisis. Six months later, the White House commands the same horrified attention as a car wreck or a house fire.

In that sense, last week’s revelation that the Trump campaign, in the person of Donald Trump Jr., did in fact collude with a hostile foreign power to influence the 2016 election was just another Tuesday. Sure, it might have been shocking from the Bush or Obama campaigns. But under Trump, we live in a state of routine calamity.

Besides which, a few days from now, there will be something else. With Trump, there inevitably is. Things can always get worse — and usually do.

And when they can do, we can count on the GOP, that inexhaustible fount of righteous outrage, to stand tall and courageously look the other way. For almost 20 years,the party has never seen a minor episode (“Travelgate”), a sheer nothing (Whitewater) or even an international tragedy (Benghazi) it could not turn into Watergate II. Yet, as credible accusations of treason, obstruction, collusion, and corruption swirl about this White House, the GOP has been conspicuous in its acquiescent silence. It seems the elephant has laryngitis.

But the rest of us can’t stop talking.

Indeed, from the studios of CNN to the bar stools of your neighborhood watering hole, amateur psychoanalysis has become America’s favorite pastime in the last six months. Dozens of theories have been floated, all aimed at answering one question:

What is wrong with him?

But I have come to believe that question misses the point. Sixty-three million people voted for this. And make no mistake, they knew what they were getting. It was always obvious that Trump was a not-ready-for-prime-time candidate, but they chose him anyway. And the rest of us need to finally come to grips with the reason why.

It wasn’t economic anxiety. As a study co-sponsored by the Public Religion Research Institute and The Atlantic reported in May, people who were worried for their jobs voted for Hillary Clinton. But people who dislike Mexicans and Muslims, people who oppose same-sex marriage, people mortally offended at a White House occupied by a black guy with a funny name, they voted for Trump.

That’s the reality, and it’s time we quit dancing around it.

This has been said a million times: Donald Trump is a lying, narcissistic, manifestly incompetent child man who is as dumb as a sack of mackerel. But he is the president of the United States because 63 million people preferred that to facing inevitable cultural change. So I am done asking — or caring — what’s wrong with him. Six months in, it’s time we grappled a far more important question.

What in the world is wrong with us?


Links to more of Mr. Pitts columns:


Republican Party has ‘flat out lost its mind’

Mr. President: ‘Just who the hell do you think you are?’

No, Donald Trump isn’t crazy, but he’s not very smart, either

President Trump is an 'F' student


Sunday, February 26, 2017

The Complete, Total, Even Outrageous Hypocrisy of This Donald J. Trump


You can't really comprehend the really complete and total, utter hypocrisy and even stupidity of Trump's "Muslim ban"--because that's what it is, let's face it--until you see this very brief (3 minutes, 36 seconds) video from Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times.



And besides his grandfather, think, too, of Mr. Trump's wife.

Besides being a nearly unimaginable hypocrite, the man doesn't know America's own history.

"Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free..."


Monday, June 22, 2015

Important Article on Race Today


Columnist/economist Paul Krugman penned an excellent, even important article in the New York Times that was released today.



...racial hatred is still a potent force in our society, as we’ve just been reminded to our horror. And I’m sorry to say this, but the racial divide is still a defining feature of our political economy, the reason America is unique among advanced nations in its harsh treatment of the less fortunate and its willingness to tolerate unnecessary suffering among its citizens. 

Of course, saying this brings angry denials from many conservatives, so let me try to be cool and careful here, and cite some of the overwhelming evidence for the continuing centrality of race in our national politics. 

My own understanding of the role of race in U.S. exceptionalism was largely shaped by two academic papers. 

The first, by the political scientist Larry Bartels, analyzed the move of the white working class away from Democrats, a move made famous in Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” Mr. Frank argued that working-class whites were being induced to vote against their own interests by the right’s exploitation of cultural issues. But Mr. Bartels showed that the working-class turn against Democrats wasn’t a national phenomenon — it was entirely restricted to the South, where whites turned overwhelmingly Republican after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Richard Nixon’s adoption of the so-called Southern strategy

And this party-switching, in turn, was what drove the rightward swing of American politics after 1980. Race made Reaganism possible. And to this day Southern whites overwhelmingly vote Republican, to the tune of 85 or even 90 percent in the deep South. 

The second paper, by the economists Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser, and Bruce Sacerdote, was titled “Why Doesn’t the United States Have a European-style Welfare State?” Its authors — who are not, by the way, especially liberal — explored a number of hypotheses, but eventually concluded that race is central, because in America programs that help the needy are all too often seen as programs that help Those People: “Within the United States, race is the single most important predictor of support for welfare. America’s troubled race relations are clearly a major reason for the absence of an American welfare state.”

Just this, above, a portion of the article points out truths, sure, but also ends up being quite an indictment of Republicans in general, the Republican Party itself and much of the Right Wing in this country.

I believe there will be 3 reactions to the article.

First, there will be the Right Wingers and Republicans who deny it completely, out of hand, immediately.

The second group will never see or so, be able to consider these points.

Finally, there will be a small, tiny, even number of these people who read the article and accept its truths.

We have a long, long way to go in America, regarding race and wealth and poverty, that's certain.


Sunday, November 23, 2014

On the 2016 Election (guest post)


What hope looks like:

"I don’t think it’s possible for Republicans to win the 2016 presidential election or keep control of the Senate. That’s because the GOP is disappearing from the most heavily populated sections of the country while increasing its lead in a declining bloc of aging, white, rural voters. Look at voting demographics and you get the likely 2016 voting map below (based on 2014’s returns, New Hampshire and Virginia are turning blue, and Georgia is now at play).  

--Robert Reich, economist

Saturday, June 21, 2014

Question for The Kansas City Star


The StLouis Post-Dispatch rather quickly--and wisely, I think--ended publishing Right Wing columnist George Will after his first article on rape that was strongly anti-women.

Now, Mr. Will is at least "doubling-down" on his comments and defending them:

George Will Stands By His Incendiary Sexual Assault Column


I love that he also tries to blame, in this video, the Obama administration for his situation.


So the question is, Star, how soon until you do the same?


It's not about following the "big brother across the state" or that big competitor or anything like that.

He has defended rape and rapists and belittled the situations of rape and possible rape.. Additionally, there are plenty--plenty--of Right Wing, Conservative columnists out there to choose from, heaven knows.

What part of this man's writing could or would you possibly want or want your readers to have now?



Tuesday, January 21, 2014

The middle- and lower-classes in America: How we got here and why we're likely to stay (guest post)



Occasionally David Brooks, who personifies the oxymoron “conservative thinker” better than anyone I know, displays such profound ignorance that a rejoinder is necessary lest his illogic permanently pollute public debate. Such is the case with his New York Times column last Friday, arguing that we should be focusing on the “interrelated social problems of the poor” rather than on inequality, and that the two are fundamentally distinct.

Baloney.
First, when almost all the gains from growth go to the top, as they have for the last thirty years, the middle class doesn’t have the purchasing power necessary for buoyant growth.

Once the middle class has exhausted all its coping mechanisms – wives and mothers surging into paid work (as they did in the 1970s and 1980s), longer working hours (which characterized the 1990s), and deep indebtedness (2002 to 2008) – the inevitable result is fewer jobs and slow growth, as we continue to experience.

Few jobs and slow growth hit the poor especially hard because they’re the first to be fired, last to be hired, and most likely to bear the brunt of declining wages and benefits.

Second, when the middle class is stressed, it has a harder time being generous to those in need. The “interrelated social problems” of the poor presumably will require some money, but the fiscal cupboard is bare. And because the middle class is so financially insecure, it doesn’t want to, nor does it feel it can afford to, pay more in taxes.

Third, America’s shrinking middle class also hobbles upward mobility. Not only is there less money for good schools, job training, and social services, but the poor face a more difficult challenge moving upward because the income ladder is far longer than it used to be, and its middle rungs have disappeared.

Brooks also argues that we should not be talking about unequal political power, because such utterances cause divisiveness and make it harder to reach political consensus over what to do for the poor.

Hogwash. The concentration of power at the top — which flows largely from the concentration of income and wealth there — has prevented  Washington from dealing with the problems of the poor and the middle class.

To the contrary, as wealth has accumulated at the top, Washington has reduced taxes on the wealthy, expanded tax loopholes that disproportionately benefit the rich, deregulated Wall Street, and provided ever larger subsidies, bailouts, and tax breaks for large corporations. The only things that have trickled down to the middle and poor besides fewer jobs and smaller paychecks are public services that are increasingly inadequate because they’re starved for money.

Unequal political power is the endgame of widening inequality — its most noxious and nefarious consequence, and the most fundamental threat to our democracy. Big money has now all but engulfed Washington and many state capitals — drowning out the voices of average Americans, filling the campaign chests of candidates who will do their bidding, financing attacks on organized labor, and bankrolling a vast empire of right-wing think-tanks and publicists that fill the airwaves with half-truths and distortions.

--Robert Reich,  American political economist, professor, author, and political commentator

Original post here:  

Robert Reich (David BrooksUtter Ignorance About Inequality)


Friday, September 6, 2013

Terrific points/questions and food for thought about Syria and a possible attack (guest post)


From Robert Reich:

Cliff notes on a potentially disastrous decision:
 
(1) Were Syrian civilians killed by chemical weapons?
Yes.
 
(2) How many?
Estimates vary.
 
(3) Was Assad responsible?
Probably but not definitely.
 
(4) Should the world respond?
Yes.
 
 (5) What’s the best response?
Economic sanctions and a freeze on Syrian assets.
 
(6) What are the advantages of bombing Syria with missiles? (a) Highly visible response, (...b) no American troops on the ground.
 
(7) What are the disadvantages?
(a) Syrian civilians will inevitably be killed,
(b) it will fuel more anti-American, anti-Western sentiment, thereby increasing the ranks of terrorists in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East,
(c) our involvement will escalate if Assad or others use additional chemical weapons or engage in retribution against the us or Israel,
(d) we have no exit strategy,
(e) most of our allies aren’t with us, and we can’t be the world’s policeman everywhere,
(f) it will distract us from critical problems at home,
(g) the Syrian rebels are not our friends.
 
Question from me: 
 
Don't economic sanctions first, make sense?
 
 
 
 
 

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Saturday, June 15, 2013

On corporate profits, human greed and why we need government



The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday -- that human genes cannot be patented, but that patents can be had on scientific discoveries altering genes' natural states and on new processes to carry out genetic tests, such as cancer screenings -- will alter the future of the biotech industry and, in many ways, medical research. It will reduce the price of many new drugs and alter investment incentives.

But it also illustrates a more basic point.

At least since economist Milton Friedman first advanced the view (popularized by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher) that the basic choice is whether to rely on the market or on government to decide who gets what -- and that the market is more compatible with freedom -- we have been locked into an ideological debate that has little or no bearing on the real world.

The fact is, markets don't exist in a state of nature. All we have there is survival of the fittest. Civilized societies create markets. They decide on the rules of the game, such as whether genes can be private property. Markets can be organized in many different ways, some more equitable than others. The fundamental choice isn't between the so-called "free" market and government. It is between static efficiency or equal opportunity and access, between growing apart or growing together.

--Robert Reich, American political economist, professor, author, and political and economic commentator

It's regulation. It's why we need government to regulate business, clearly. Someone, some organization must oversee the human tendency for greed and the corporate propensity to cut costs at all costs, to maximize profit.  It's why there were 2 blasts yesterday in Louisiana at the oil processing plant--cost-cutting corporations for profit above all else.

Like it or not, ladies and gentlemen, we need government. We need strong government and we need government regulation of business. We don't need huge government but we do need strong government and we keep getting reminded of exactly why, too, with catastrophe after catastrophe.

Links:  Robert Reich

Robert Reich - Wikipedia

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Think government surveillance is new?


The whole brouhaha over government surveillance of our emails and phone calls gives me two reactions.

First, it makes me laugh because I think people are making a great deal out of not much and second, it kind of p*sses me off because the people complaining are quite likely, also, the ones who would REALLY scream bloody murder if we WERE attacked by some wack-jobs, intent on killing and hurting people in this nation.

And for anyone who thinks this is a new phenomenon, think again.

Back in 1937, the following happened:

"When Princess Juliana of the Netherlands became a mother, CBS planned a fifteen-minute spot" on the radio, mind you "...about the new heir to the House of Orange. For reasons of scheduling, New York changed its mind. The decision to drop it, a cabled order went back to London:

"KILL JULIANA'S BABY." 

That afternoon, Helen Sioussat found two FBI men at her door."*

Mind you, that's 1937, too.

When it comes to the government surveillance of our emails, so far, I come down with the likes of Right Wing, Republican, small-government, though moderate columnist David Brooks last week on NPR :

"You know, I'm not as bothered as some. I'm somewhat bothered by the secrecy, but I don't feel it's intrusive. Basically, they're running huge amounts of megadata through an algorithm. That feels less intrusive to me than the average TSA search at the airport. And so I don't think it's particularly intrusive. It is supervised by the court. It has some congressional supervision.

It seems to be reasonably narrowly focused. And so I don't regard this as a crime against our civil liberties. I regard it as a somewhat moderate and balanced way to look for people who are calling bad people."

What the government is doing was put by the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, also, so it's not as though it hasn't been "aired out", so to speak. It was never a big secret.

And what's the alternative choice?  That we have wackos with bombs running around the country for some God-knows-what purpose, trying to kill and hurt Americans?

I'll stick with the possible loss of a little privacy every time.

*Director of Talks and Public Affairs for CBS radio from 1937 to 1958. Passage taken from the book
 Murrow: His Life and Times by A. M. Sperber.

Link:

Week In Politics: Sifting Through Surveillance

Additional, great article, just out this week, that rather agrees with my points:

The New Yorker:  So Are We Living in 1984?

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Here's your real IRS scandal, ladies and gentlemen


That phony, bogus, trumped-up IRS scandal that's going around right now by the Republicans and "All Who Hate Obama"?

That's just what it is, phony.

George W. Bush had just the same situation and his administration went after far more groups, too.

And forget that this same IRS, now, also went after Liberal groups. Sure, forget or ignore that.

Here's the real IRS, America--it's companies not paying taxes, period and cheating you and I:

Another aspect of the real tax scandal that's being ignored: Google, Amazon, Starbucks, every other major corporation, and every big Wall Street bank, are sheltering as much of their U.S. profits abroad as they can, while telling Washington that lower corporate taxes are necessary in order to keep the U.S. "competitive." Baloney. The fact is, global corporations have no allegiance to any country; their only objective is to make as much money as possible -- and play off one country against another to keep their taxes down and subsidies up.

I'm in London for a few days, and all the talk here is about how Goldman Sachs just negotiated a sweetheart deal to settle a tax dispute with the British government; Google is manipulating its British sales to pay almost no taxes here by using its low-tax Ireland subsidiary (the chair of the Parliamentary committee investigating this has just called the do-no-evil firm "devious, calculating, and unethical"); Amazon has been found to route its British sales through a subsidiary in low-tax Luxembourg, and now receives more in subsidies from the British government than it pays here in taxes; Starbucks' tax-avoidance strategy was so blatant British consumers began boycotting the firm until it reversed course. 

As global capital becomes ever more powerful, giant corporations are holding governments up for ransom -- eliciting subsidies and tax breaks from governments concerned about their nation's "competitiveness" -- while sheltering their profits in the lowest-tax jurisdictions they can find. Major advanced countries need a comprehensive tax agreement that won't allow global corporations to get away with this."


--Robert Reich, economist, author, professor, columnist for The New York Times

The least corporations and the wealthy could do--the least--is pay some minimum amount, say, 10% of profits, at least, no matter what other deductions they take so we can pay, as a nation, for our schools and infrastructure and so they can have access to our markets.

But that would make sense.

Links:


Robert Reich - Wikipedia