Rat shouldn’t visit party

Dec 5th, 2017 11:01 am | By

Not appropriate. Should not happen. Should be rejected. Should be turned away at door if it goes that far.

President Donald Trump will be traveling to Mississippi on Saturday to attend the opening of a new civil rights museum.

No. That’s insulting. The man is a vehemently openly unabashedly racist pig. He

  • was a “birther” for years
  • was sued for refusing to rent properties to black people
  • made a “Pocahontas” “joke” to three Native Americans in the Oval Office just last week, in front of a portrait of Andrew “Indian Removal” Jackson
  • told April Ryan to “make an appointment” for him with the Congressional Black Caucus at a press conference
  • took out a full page ad in the New York Times demanding the death penalty for the Central Park Five
  • said the Central Park Five were guilty after DNA evidence had shown that they were not
  • said Mexican immigrants are rapists
  • said Judge Gonzalo Curiel wouldn’t judge a case against Trump “University” fairly because he’s Mexican
  • said there were good people on “both sides” in Charlottesville
  • has ranted repeatedly for weeks about football players taking a knee instead of standing for the national tune in protest over racist police practices
  • has insulted John Lewis

And that’s just off the top of my head. He’s a noisy angry racist who spends a lot of time shouting his racism into the public discourse in order to make other people noisy angry racists too. He has no business going anywhere near any civil rights museum.



Put up a parking lot

Dec 4th, 2017 5:07 pm | By

Mr Destroy Everything hopes people will rush out to Utah in order to mine and farm and pave over the entire state without delay. He expects a cut of the profits.

President Trump said he would dramatically reduce the size of a vast expanse of protected federal land in Utah on Monday, a rollback of some two million acres that is the largest in scale in the nation’s history.

The administration said it would shrink Bears Ears National Monument, a sprawling region of red rock canyons, by about 85 percent, and cut another area, Grand Staircase-Escalante, to about half its current size. The move, a reversal of protections put in place by Democratic predecessors, comes as the administration pushes for fewer restrictions and more development on public lands.

Yeah. Let’s build condos on every inch of Yosemite, and shopping malls all over Yellowstone (supervolcano nothing – it will save a bundle on heating bills), and golf courses in Olympic National Park, and casinos in the Grand Canyon. Why the fuck not?

Image result for olympic national park

Look at all that wasted land, just lying there, with honest entrepreneurs not allowed to build hotels on it.

The decision to reduce Bears Ears is expected to trigger a legal battle that could alter the course of American land conservation, possibly opening millions of protected public acres to oil and gas extraction, mining, logging and other commercial activities.

Yay! No more public lands! All of it private and put to work and off limits to the smelly peasants.

“Some people think that the natural resources of Utah should be controlled by a small handful of very distant bureaucrats located in Washington,” Mr. Trump said, speaking at Utah’s domed State Capitol. “And guess what? They’re wrong.”

“Together,” he continued, “we will usher in a bright new future of wonder and wealth.”

And money money money, and no dirty damp dangerous public lands for people to walk on and enjoy. If they want beautiful places and nature and mountain vistas they’ll just have to buy them!

Environmentalists and some native tribes say Mr. Trump’s move will destroy the national heritage and threaten some 100,000 sites of archaeological importance tucked into the monuments’ desert landscapes.

Oh blah, who cares. Read an old National Geographic, it’s the same thing.

For its supporters, the Bears Ears monument designation came to symbolize an indigenous victory after centuries of frustration.

For its opponents, it was an abuse of power by Mr. Obama, an infringement on the right of local people to decide what happens in their backyard.

“Our country places a high premium on consent,” said Phil Lyman, a county commissioner who lives at the edge of the monument. The designation, he said, “felt very nonconsensual.”

Wellllll…by “local people” and “their backyard” and “consent” they of course mean local white people and white people’s backyard and consent of white people. They don’t mean the browner people who were there long before the white people and who never gave their consent to all that moving in and taking over and calling it their “backyard.”

Related image



BillO

Dec 4th, 2017 4:04 pm | By

Oh gosh gee what do we have here:

A woman who reached a settlement with Bill O’Reilly over harassment allegations sued Mr. O’Reilly and Fox News on Monday for defamation and breach of contract, saying that public statements he and the network made violated the settlement and portrayed her as a liar and politically motivated extortionist.

The woman, Rachel Witlieb Bernstein, is one of six known to have reached settlements after making accusations against Mr. O’Reilly. (Her allegations did not include sexual harassment.) None of the others have said anything publicly about their claims, which involved sexual harassment.

Mr. O’Reilly has repeatedly said that the harassment allegations that led to his ouster from Fox News in April have no merit, that he never mistreated anyone and that he resolved the matters privately to protect his children.

Nope, says the lawsuit, it’s O’Reilly who’s the liar here.

Settlements involving harassment allegations often contain strict confidentiality and nondisparagement clauses, which some employment lawyers have said build a culture of silence around these issues and allow misconduct to continue.

Some? Not all? Of course nondisparagement clauses build a culture of silence around these issues and allow misconduct to continue; how could they possibly do anything else?

Ms. Bernstein’s lawyers, Neil Mullin and Nancy Erika Smith, have been vocal critics of the use of nondisclosure agreements and nondisparagement clauses to silence victims of harassment…

“Knowing Ms. Bernstein and Mr. O’Reilly’s other victims are afraid to speak out because he and Fox forced them to sign nondisclosure agreements, O’Reilly and Fox have made false and disparaging claims,” Mr. Mullin said in a statement. “They should release all victims from their NDAs and let the truth out. It is cowardly to publicly attack these women knowing they have been subjected to contractual provisions requiring absolute silence.”

Cowardly and shitty and harassy.



That’s not going to go well

Dec 4th, 2017 2:57 pm | By

Setting the cat among the pigeons.

In a mysterious trip last month, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, traveled to Saudi Arabia’s capital for consultations with the hard-charging crown prince about President Trump’s plans for Middle East peace. What was said when the doors were closed, however, has since roiled the region.

According to Palestinian, Arab and European officials who have heard Mr. Abbas’s version of the conversation, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman presented a plan that would be more tilted toward the Israelis than any ever embraced by the American government, one that presumably no Palestinian leader could ever accept.

The Palestinians would get a state of their own but only noncontiguous parts of the West Bank and only limited sovereignty over their own territory. The vast majority of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which most of the world considers illegal, would remain. The Palestinians would not be given East Jerusalem as their capital and there would be no right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants.

I guess Kushner came up with that “plan”?

The White House says that’s not its plan, and the Saudi government said it doesn’t support it. But of course “the White House” is such a steadfast liar these days that who knows what that’s worth.

Even if the account proves incomplete, it has gained currency with enough players in the Middle East to deeply alarm Palestinians and raise suspicions about Mr. Trump’s efforts. On top of that, advisers have said the president plans to give a speech on Wednesday in which he would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, even though both sides claim it, a declaration that analysts and regional officials say could undermine America’s role as a theoretically neutral broker.

I think it’s safe to assume that Trump is assuming He Can Fix It where No One Else Can, and that he thinks that’s all he needs to know, and so that he’s probably perfectly happy to let his slumlord son-in-law pretend to be a policy expert in an area that has foiled actual experts for generations. Yeah that should work well.

Mr. Trump assigned the effort to reach what he calls the “ultimate deal” to his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, aided by Jason Greenblatt, his top negotiator, and other aides. After nearly a year of listening tours to the region, they are developing a comprehensive plan but have kept details under wraps.

“We know what’s in the plan,” Mr. Kushner said in a rare public appearance on Sunday at the Saban Forum, a Middle East conference in Washington hosted by the Brookings Institution. “The Palestinians know what discussions we’ve had with them. The Israelis know what discussions we’ve had with them.”

Said a callow young nobody who should be doing rental accounts in a small dusty office in Hoboken, not playing Miracle Diplomat at the Brookings Institution.

The Palestinians are saying hell no.

Adding to the shock for Palestinians, according to Palestinian officials from Fatah and Hamas, as well as a senior Lebanese official and several other people briefed on the matter, was the claim that Prince Mohammed had told Mr. Abbas that if he would not accept the terms, he would be pressed to resign to make way for a replacement who would.

Several of the officials said the prince had offered to sweeten the agreement with vastly increased financial support to the Palestinians, and even dangled the possibility of a direct payment to Mr. Abbas, which they said he had refused.

Elegantly put – “even dangled the possibility of a direct payment to Mr. Abbas” aka offered a bribe.

Mr. Abbas’s spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, dismissed the accounts of the Riyadh meeting and the Saudi proposals as “fake news” that “does not exist,” and said the Palestinians were still awaiting a formal proposal from the United States.

But the main points of the Saudi proposal as told to Mr. Abbas were confirmed by many people briefed on the discussions between Mr. Abbas and Prince Mohammed, including Mr. Yousef, the senior Hamas leader; several Western officials; a senior Fatah official; a Palestinian official in Lebanon; a senior Lebanese official; and a Lebanese politician, among others.

Ahmad Tibi, a Palestinian member of the Israeli Parliament, described a similar set of ideas that he said the Palestinians had received from the Americans and Israelis: a Palestinian state with only “moral sovereignty” and noncontiguous territory and without East Jerusalem as the capital; no Israeli settlement evacuation; and no right of return for Palestinian refugees.

And word of the plan has worried even some of the United States’ closest allies, who are eager for clarification from the White House.

Is this really just Trump, or Trump plus Kushner, doing yet another calculatedly off the charts extreme thing for whatever crazed reason Trump does such things? To rub everyone’s nose in it, to say Because I Can, to smash everything, to drain the swamp?

While the proposals may sound far-fetched on their face, they have deeply alarmed Palestinian and Arab officials because they come in a context of fast-moving new dynamics in the region.

Prince Mohammed, 32, is very close to Mr. Kushner, 36, both young men without much foreign policy experience who see themselves as creative reformers able to break with the ossified thinking of the past.

Uggggggggggh yes that’s what I was afraid of – young empty Mr Kushner thinking he’s a creative reformer. He has no foreign policy experience, none, zero; he is a slum landlord, period. He’s young, he’s shallow, he’s ignorant, he’s corrupt, he’s greedy, he’s happy to treat his wife’s horrible daddy’s job as permission to try to bully the Palestinians into giving everything up. There are rules against this crap, it should be stopped.

And the Saudi prince has made clear that his top priority in the region is not the Palestinian-Israeli issue, the fulcrum of Arab politics for generations, but confronting Iran.

Regional officials and analysts say they believe he might be willing to try to force a settlement on Palestinians in order to cement Israeli cooperation against Iran.

Hoo-boy.

Alarms began to go off across the region last month, when Mr. Abbas started making phone calls to political leaders in the region after he had left Riyadh.

One Lebanese government official who received a call was most surprised by what he said was a Saudi suggestion that the Palestinians could have Abu Dis, a suburb of East Jerusalem, as their capital.

Abu Dis is separated from the city by a wall built as part of Israel’s separation barrier.

The Lebanese official said no Arab could accept that kind of gamesmanship, adding that no one could propose that to a Palestinian unless a person lacking experience was trying to flatter the family of the American president.

This is what the Giant Nepotism Takeover is reaping: the perceived need to flatter the family of the American president cutting gashes in the landscape all over the globe.



Guest post: You are the fucking system

Dec 4th, 2017 11:41 am | By

Originally a comment by Bruce Gorton on Tatters.

You know, this is the thing that pisses me off with the ANC too.

For the Trumpies:

You’ve got the Whitehouse, you’ve got congress, you’ve got the Senate, you’ve got the majority of governorships, hell you’ve probably got the local dog catcher. You are the fucking system.

And you know what, this is the same thing I found a little off-putting about Bernie Sanders. Okay I thought he was the best option in the last elections, he had genuine grass-roots support, his popularity rose the longer he was in the race, and he was capable of delivering Democratic policy in a soundbite format.

It also didn’t hurt that in a nation so proud of its Christianity he was a Jewish failed carpenter with a messiah complex.

Also he didn’t have the mountain of baggage Hillary Clinton had, but still, his message was essentially revolution, tear down the system.

But in the absence of some system of governance there isn’t a whole lot the government can do. Everything that has gotten built into the system by prior presidents was built so that there would be one more sphere of automation in government, one more thing that they wouldn’t have to think to hard about because it would be taken care of by the civil service.

One more thing to make their jobs easier. Bureaucracy doesn’t exist in order to hold government back, it exists to pump the brakes on bad decisions and make implementing the good ones easier. It exists to give government the information it needs in order to run.

In the absence of a system, inertia reigns supreme. You don’t get less corruption by cutting out your internal controls, less injustice by weakening bodies designed to bring about justice. In order to achieve anything, it takes people, and competent ones at that.

Well, what has your guy been doing since he got into power? He’s been trying to tear those systems down – whether it is the EPA or the diplomatic corps. Has he actually achieved anything?

No because his entire regime has been about “fighting the system” – the very thing he’s supposed to be running. He’s essentially been taking the wheels off the car he’s driving and wondering why he isn’t getting anywhere.

And you’ve been along for the ride. If you want to achieve stuff have some respect for what the system is. Stop pissing and moaning about how hard your job is, while unsolving the problems of the past and thus making it harder than it needs to be.

Republicans, stop whinging and start doing.



White jihad

Dec 4th, 2017 11:16 am | By

Deeyah Khan has made a film about white supremacists: White Right: Meeting the Enemy.

It focuses on the rise of nationalism in Donald Trump’s America, from the “alt-right” to all-out neo-Nazis. She spent time with various leaders in the movement, going to their meetings, including the August rally in Charlottesville where Heather Heyer, an anti-racist campaigner, was killed. She hung out with the followers of the movement, going out at night in the car with one as he leafleted a Jewish area with hate-filled flyers. She also met former neo-Nazis. “I’m a woman of colour,” she says at the beginning of the film as she sits down to interview Jared Taylor, a well-known white supremacist. “I am the daughter of immigrants. I am a Muslim. I am a feminist. I am a lefty liberal. And what I want to ask you is: am I your enemy?”

She felt fear many times while making the film, but she wanted to know what kind of people they are.

In White Right, the men who emerge are strikingly similar to the men in Khan’s previous film, Jihad, which explored what attracted British recruits to the jihadi movement. “Their cause is different, but their motivations and the personality types are the same. You have the guy who just wants violence and wants to find a cause he can dress his violence with. But the vast majority of the people are either lost and looking for a sense of belonging or looking for a sense of purpose. This is true for the jihadis and these guys here. They’re looking for something to contribute to and give to the world – in their opinion – in a positive way.”

Khan has come away from her recent experience, she says, both more afraid and less. “What makes me more afraid is how organised, how galvanised [the white far right] are. They truly believe they are the victims. They feel like they have everything to lose and that’s worth fighting for.” But she also feels less frightened, personally, than she did. “I spent my life hounded by men like this and I left liberated from the fear because I realised they’re people who are just as messed up, in pain, broken or struggling as any of us. They just don’t have either the support or means to deal with some of the things they’re dealing with in a healthy way. I absolutely am not asking for people to feel sympathy for these guys – I don’t feel sympathy for them – but that does not exclude my ability to try to empathise with them. Having experienced racism my whole life, I decided that hating them or being afraid wasn’t enough for me any more.”

White Right: Meeting the Enemy is on ITV on 11 December at 10.40pm



We are not Trump’s peons

Dec 4th, 2017 9:16 am | By

Trump’s lawyer thinks Trump is an absolute monarch.

Trump continues to make it chillingly clear that his unceasing attacks upon the system are neither accidental nor a mistake borne of naïvete. Trump believes he commands the government with the same totality he commands his business. His lawyer, John Dowd, has elevated this assumption to official presidential doctrine in an explosive interview with Mike Allen. A “president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution’s Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case,” he says.

So Trump can do anything he wants to, and no one can stop him. That’s a dictatorship. John Dowd is saying Trump is a dictator.

Dowd is claiming on Trump’s behalf virtual immunity from the law. The powers he is asserting, and the dangers it would bring, have almost no limit.

There are two ways a president could abuse the power of law enforcement. The first is offensive, to direct it as a weapon against his political enemies. The second is defensive, shielding himself and his allies from any accountability, and thereby enabling them to commit crimes without consequence. Trump has expressed frequent interest in both methods. Trump has harangued the FBI and the Department of Justice for failing to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server. Clinton’s email server was investigated by the FBI in 2016, but the bureau concluded no rational prosecutor could bring charges. Trump has shown no compunction in asserting his belief that, now that he controls the presidency, if Trump demands the FBI lock somebody up, they should lock her up.

More pertinent to Trump’s needs of the moment is his demand for immunity from any mechanism of legal accountability. Trump does not accept the legitimacy of any legal restraint. He repeatedly demanded the FBI director pledge personal loyalty to him, and fired him when he failed to demonstrate his obsequience* to the president’s satisfaction. He did something similar to the U.S. Attorney in New York, who has legal jurisdiction over much of Trump’s financial world. He has publicly attacked Special Counsel Robert Mueller and threatened, publicly and privately, to fire him.

He seems to think the whole thing is just more The Apprentice, with a wider reach. It would be nice if he had acquired a little knowledge of how our system is supposed to work before running.

It is true, as Trump’s Republican defenders say, that he does not grasp the differences between his role as business owner and his role as elected official. But that is not a defense. It is a restatement of the accusation.

Trump’s belief that the entire government should operate on his personal behalf in exactly the same way as his employees at the Trump Organization is a worldview incompatible with republican government. Imagine the 2020 election conducted in an atmosphere in which Trump can sic law enforcement upon his opponent, and in which his supporters can commit any crimes they want on his behalf, secure in the knowledge that the president will protect them from prosecution.

He has to be gone long before then. Has to. Has to.

*Yo that’s not a real word.



Taking it

Dec 4th, 2017 7:58 am | By

So, Mary Beard and Hillary Clinton, together at last.

Since the Cambridge professor began presenting TV programmes on the Romans nearly a decade ago, she has become world famous, as well as wildly popular for her robust refusal to stand for misogynistic online abuse. Trolls are publicly challenged; one was memorably shamed into taking Beard to lunch to apologise for calling her “a filthy old slut”. Her latest book, Women & Power: A Manifesto, brings an illuminating historical perspective to the contemporary abuse of powerful women.

I have that book. Maureen sent it to me as a surprise.

The pair met briefly four years ago when both received honorary degrees at the University of St Andrews University in Scotland. Beard had been advocating a more combative strategy towards trolls than Michelle Obama’s famous injunction to “go high… when they go low”. The latter having failed to work for Clinton, she and Beard fall at once to discussing how women in public life can deal with misogyny…

Mary Beard What I remember us talking about when we met was the sense that it was extremely important to say: “Hang on a minute, mate, you are not right.” Or: “Please take this tweet down.”

Hillary Clinton Learning about the ongoing grief you took over standing up for women’s rights and accurate history was quite enlightening to me.

MB It’s gone on, too, actually.

HC Well, as you rightly point out, it has only continued, and in some ways gotten worse. The ability of people in public life or in the media to say the most outrageous falsehoods and not be held accountable has really altered the balance in our public discourse, in a way that I think is endangering democracy.

MB To me, what’s really interesting is that, although they look as if they’re going for what we said, what they’re really going for is the fact that we dared to say anything, almost. It’s not about having an argument about, say, migration. It’s about telling you to shut up.

HC That’s right. I know that very well, and so do you, and we have perhaps thicker skin than a lot of other people. But it is still distressing to be told, either explicitly or implicitly: “Go away. You have nothing to say.”

MB The friendly advice when it happens to you is always: “Don’t pay attention. Don’t give them oxygen and publicity. Block them and just move on, dear.” And you think, sorry, that is what women have been told to do for centuries. If somebody accuses you of having a smelly vagina that stinks of cabbage, you’re supposed to say: “Just block him.” Actually, no. Somehow, even among the people who are trying to support you, it’s basically saying: “Shut up.”

HC It’s interesting you say that, because, in my book, I try to talk about the dilemma that a woman faces between “be calm and carry on”…

MB You’re quite good at that!

HC Yes, I’ve had a lot of practice. You know, when Trump was stalking me [in the 2016 televised presidential debates] and leering and, oh, just generally trying to dominate me on this little stage, my mind was like: OK, I practised being calm and composed, you know, because that’s what a president should be. But, boy, would I love to turn around and say: “Back off, you creep.” But I didn’t, because I thought then his side will say: “See, she can’t take it. If she can’t take Donald standing there like the alpha male that he is, then how’s she going to stand up to Putin?” A ridiculous argument, but nevertheless one that might get traction. And, as you say, even your friends are like: “Oh, come on, don’t take the bait. Don’t take the bait.”

They have a good extended conversation about taking the bait, taking it and running with it.



He said it

Dec 3rd, 2017 5:40 pm | By

I was wondering if Billy Bush was going to say anything about Trump’s recent claims that “we think the voice wasn’t mine” – the voice on the Access Hollywood tape that is, the one we listened to repeatedly weeks before the piece of dung was elected. I was wondering if Billy Bush was going to say hey I was there and yes he did too so say it.

He has.

He said it. “Grab ‘em by the pussy.”

Of course he said it. And we laughed along, without a single doubt that this was hypothetical hot air from America’s highest-rated bloviator. Along with Donald Trump and me, there were seven other guys present on the bus at the time, and every single one of us assumed we were listening to a crass standup act. He was performing. Surely, we thought, none of this was real.

We now know better.

Recently I sat down and read an article dating from October of 2016; it was published days after my departure from NBC, a time when I wasn’t processing anything productively. In it, the author reviewed the various firsthand accounts about Mr. Trump that, at that point, had come from 20 women.

Some of what Natasha Stoynoff, Rachel Crooks, Jessica Leeds and Jill Harth alleged involved forceful kissing. Ms. Harth said he pushed her up against a wall, with his hands all over her, trying to kiss her.

“He was relentless,” she said. “I didn’t know how to handle it.” Her story makes the whole “better use some Tic Tacs” and “just start kissing them” routine real. I believe her.

Kristin Anderson said that Mr. Trump reached under her skirt and “touched her vagina through her underwear” while they were at a New York nightclub in the 1990s. That makes the “grab ‘em by the pussy” routine real. I believe her.

It’s not as if it seems bafflingly out of character, is it. It’s hard to think of anyone for whom it would seem more in character.

In 2005, I was in my first full year as a co-anchor of the show “Access Hollywood” on NBC. Mr. Trump, then on “The Apprentice,” was the network’s biggest star.

The key to succeeding in my line of work was establishing a strong rapport with celebrities. I did that, and was rewarded for it. My segments with Donald Trump when I was just a correspondent were part of the reason I got promoted.

NBC tripled my salary and paid for my moving van from New York to Los Angeles.

Was I acting out of self-interest? You bet I was. Was I alone? Far from it. With Mr. Trump’s outsized viewership back in 2005, everybody from Billy Bush on up to the top brass on the 52nd floor had to stroke the ego of the big cash cow along the way to higher earnings.

NBC did this to us. I like Maddow, but she doesn’t make up for that.



They think all of you are worthless

Dec 3rd, 2017 4:53 pm | By

Qu’ils mangent de la brioche aka let them eat cake, wot wot? Shoo the complaining peasants away and throw a few rotting cabbages at them.

After pretending for a brief moment in 2016 that the Republican Party stood for working people, the Republican-controlled Congress reverted back to trickle-down form on Friday when they passed a tax reform bill that overwhelmingly favored the rich. Not to be outdone, though, Senator Chuck Grassley made clear his disdain for those not benefiting under the new tax law.

“I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies,” Grassley told the Register in a story posted yesterday.

So he means men, not people. Don’t they always.

At any rate – is he even aware that many jobs don’t pay very much? That working class jobs don’t pay as well as they did for that short period between the war and the oil crisis? That unions have been all but wiped out? That health insurance (ahem) is expensive? That housing in many cities is grotesquely expensive? Does he really think poor people are poor because they spend all their money on…movies?

For a lot of working class people, there is a sense that lazy people living down the street from them are mooching off the government (and hey, there are some bums out there), which draws them to Republicans’ policies. But here’s the thing: Republican elected officials see everyone in the working class as bums. They’re not making a distinction between you and some of the folks around you. They think all of you are worthless if you don’t have a multi-million dollar estate. That’s the Republican Party.

Well put.



No Global Compact for Migration for us

Dec 3rd, 2017 4:22 pm | By

Trump is taking us out of an international pact meant to deal with global migration and refugee issues.

The US has been a part of the non-binding New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants since it was unanimously adopted by the UN General Assembly last year.

The declaration called for negotiations on a Global Compact for Migration, aimed at protecting the rights of refugees and migrants and helping them resettle.

It also seeks to fight xenophobia, racism and discrimination towards refugees and migrants.

So, naturally, Trump and his evil assistants would prefer us to weaken or demolish the rights of refugees and migrants, and hinder their efforts to resettle. Obviously they don’t want us to be fighting xenophobia, racism and discrimination towards refugees and migrants, because they love all three.

[L]ate on Saturday, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said the declaration’s “approach is simply not compatible with US sovereignty” and that the US will instead define its own migration plan.

But it’s non-binding, so it is compatible with US sovereignty, so she’s just lying.

“No country has done more than the United States, and our generosity will continue,” Haley said in a statement.

“But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone,” she added.

“We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country.”

But the agreement is non-binding.

The UN General Assembly president said he was disappointed with the decision.

“I regret [the] US decision to disengage from [the] process leading to a UN global compact on migration,” Miroslav Lajcak tweeted after the decision was announced.

His spokesperson said in a statement that the “role of the United States in this process is critical as it has historically and generously welcomed people from all across the globe and remains home to the largest number of international migrants in the world”.

Yes but Trump doesn’t like that about here (except for the part about providing cheap labor for rich guys who own golf clubs). He wants us to be more white and less foreign.



Another conflict Kushner “forgot” to list

Dec 3rd, 2017 11:51 am | By

The things these crooks get away with.

Jared Kushner failed to disclose his role as a co-director of the Charles and Seryl Kushner Foundation from 2006 to 2015, a time when the group funded an Israeli settlement considered to be illegal under international law, on financial records he filed with the Office of Government Ethics earlier this year.

The latest development follows reports on Friday indicating the White House senior adviser attempted to sway a United Nations Security Council vote against an anti-settlement resolution passed just before Donald Trump took office, which condemned the structure of West Bank settlements. The failure to disclose his role in the foundation—at a time when he was being tasked with serving as the president’s Middle East peace envoy—follows a pattern of egregious omissions that would bar any other official from continuing to serve in the West Wing, experts and officials told Newsweek.

It’s layers of wrongdoing. This guy has whole dimensions of violating rules and laws.

The first son-in-law has repeatedly amended his financial records since his initial filing in March, along with three separate revisions to his security clearance application. Despite correcting his financial history on multiple occasions, he has yet to include his role as co-director to the family foundation.

Plus there’s the law against presidents’ employing family in the first place.

The foundation donated at least $38,000 between 2011 and 2013 to a fundraising group building a Jewish seminary in a West Bank settlement known as Beit El. During that period, Kushner’s foundation also donated an additional $20,000 to Jewish and educational institutions in settlements throughout the region, the Associated Press reported. Had Kushner included the role in his financial records, his involvement in such donations—and the following conflicts of interest that could possibly arise in his government position—[might] have been considered by the Office of Government Ethics.

It certainly should have been.

Kushner demanded future National Security Adviser Mike Flynn “get on the phone to every member of the Security Council and tell them to delay the vote” on the West Bank settlement resolution, Buzzfeed reported Friday. The move may have violated over the 200-years-old law called the Logan Act, which bars “unauthorized citizens” from negotiating with “foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.”

Some little jumped-up turd of a slum landlord running US foreign policy. Brilliant.



The opportunities that this great country grants them

Dec 3rd, 2017 11:13 am | By

Priorities.

This week, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) helped push a tax bill through the Senate that will cost about $1 trillion. At the same time, he lamented the difficulties of finding the money to fund the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which pays forhealthcare for nine million children and costs about $14 billion a year — a program Hatch helped create.

Sunday-morning tweet from MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough quoting Hatch kicked off a dustup on Twitter over the Utah Republican’s take on CHIP. Funding for the program — which was created as a joint effort between Hatch and Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy in 1997 — expired at the end of September; Congress has yet to reauthorize it. That puts health care for millions of American children at risk.

But those children will probably never amount to anything. Their parents can’t afford to buy commercial health insurance for them, so what are the chances that they will ever be CEOs or senators or lobbyists? The tax cuts, on the other hand, go to incredibly valuable people like mortgage brokers and fraudulent bankers.

“We’re going to do CHIP, there’s no question about it in my mind. And it’s got to be done the right way,” Hatch said. “But the reason CHIP’s having trouble is because we don’t have money anymore, and to just add more and more spending and more and more spending, and you can look at the rest of the bill for the more and more spending.”

This came as he advocated for a tax bill that, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation’s latest estimate, will add approximately $1 trillion to the deficit even when adjusted for economic growth, and which disproportionately benefits corporations and the wealthy.

But it’s all about deserving. Rich people deserve more than poor people do. Once you understand that it all makes sense.

Hatch also said he thinks CHIP has done a “terrific job for people who really need the help” and noted that he had advocated for helping those who can’t help themselves throughout his Senate career. But, he continued, “I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves, won’t lift a finger and expect the federal government to do everything.” He blamed a “liberal philosophy” for creating millions of people “who believe everything they are or ever hope to be depend upon the federal government rather than the opportunities that this great country grants them.”

Opportunities to work in chicken processing plants or harvesting kale, to take on huge debt to get a worthless degree, to take three buses to get to work because rents close to work are pegged to tech wages.

But that’s what they deserve, isn’t it.



Warm and festive

Dec 3rd, 2017 10:48 am | By

HAPPY JESUS’S BIRTHDAY TO YOU TOO

Image result for white house christmas



A fateful struggle

Dec 3rd, 2017 10:36 am | By

Stephen F. Cohen writes another love letter to Putin in The Nation:

Cohen argues that America is now in unprecedented danger due to two related crises. A new and more dangerous Cold War with Russia that is fraught with the real possibility of hot war between the two nuclear superpowers on several fronts, including Syria. And the worst crisis of the American presidency in modern times, which threatens to paralyze the president’s ability to deal diplomatically with Moscow. (To those who recall Watergate, Cohen points out that, unlike Trump, President Nixon was never accused of “collusion with the Kremlin” or faced reckless, and preposterous, allegations that the Kremlin had abetted his election by an “attack on American democracy.”)

(He’s describing himself in the third person because he’s summarizing a dialogue he had with John Batchelor on the latter’s eponymous radio show.)

What Trump did in Vietnam last week was therefore vitally important and courageous, though uniformly misrepresented by the American mainstream media. Despite unrelenting “Russiagate” attempts led by Democrats to impeach him for “collusion with the Kremlin” (still without any meaningful evidence), and perhaps even opposition by high-level members of his own administration, Trump met several times, informally and briefly, with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Presumably dissuaded or prevented by some of his own top advisers from having a formal, lengthy meeting, Trump was nonetheless prepared. He and Putin issued a joint statement urging cooperation in Syria, where the prospects of a US-Russian war had been mounting. And both leaders later said they had serious talks about cooperating on the crises in North Korea and Ukraine.

Because why would we not want to cooperate with Putin? Why would we not prefer the journalist-murdering oligarch to more “mainstream” (as Cohen puts it) allies like Merkel and Macron? Why would we not want to cooperate with Putin on his takeover of Ukraine?

Trump’s diplomatic initiatives with Putin in Vietnam also demonstrate that a fateful struggle over Russia policy is under way at high levels of the US political-media establishment, from the two political parties and Congress to forces inside Trump’s own administration. Whatever else we may think of the president—Cohen reiterates that he did not vote for him and opposes many of his other policies—Trump has demonstrated consistency and real determination on one existential issue: Putin’s Russia is not America’s enemy but a national-security partner our nation vitally needs. The president made this clear again following the scurrilous attacks on his negotiations with Putin: “When will all the haters and fools out there realize that having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing.”

This shit is in The Nation of all places.

Cohen is married to the editor, Katrina vanden Heuvel, but that just pushes the puzzle back a step, it doesn’t solve it.



Tatters

Dec 3rd, 2017 9:32 am | By

He’s frantic.

Many more “people in our Country” are asking how this terrible man got elected president.

The guy who can’t open his mouth without lying accuses the FBI director he tried to bully into ignoring a serious crime…of lying. You couldn’t make it up.

Taking a break from his own legal problems, the president of the US complains about the outcome of a trial.

Returning to his own legal problems, the president of the US attacks his own FBI.

Frantic.



Guest post: Chronically dyspeptic and paranoid bullies

Dec 2nd, 2017 4:04 pm | By

Originally a comment by Pliny the in Between on You had to be an ass-kissing corporate hack.

With the passage of the tax bill, the GOP gets to complete what was started when the draft was repealed – completely shift the burden and cost of defending the freedoms exploited by our elites to the backs of the poor. Of course this example of ‘governance’ also targets urban areas and blue states with their higher state and locals taxes and large numbers of college graduates. To do this in the dark, without debate, on the eve of the Russian connection coming home to roost is even more galling. A half century of progressive programs shot to hell in the legislative equivalent of an alley mugging – great legacy GOP. I used to think you were just tools. Now I am convinced you’re just evil.

Hard to know where we go from here. We have a president who was probably drawn to Putin in the first place for the simple reason that Trump’s an oligarch wannabe. We have a large voting block (30%+) that sadly is not so much ill-informed as they are simply extreme caricatures of the worst in Americans -short sighted, libertarian, self-centered, anti-intellectual, chronically dyspeptic and paranoid bullies. And a congress full of true representatives of the people – short sighted, self-centered and devoid of almost any of the guts needed to be true patriots – those who put the needs of society ahead of themselves.



But his emails

Dec 2nd, 2017 1:33 pm | By

Oh gee, look what the Times has.

When President Trump fired his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in February, White House officials portrayed him as a renegade who had acted independently in his discussions with a Russian official during the presidential transition and then lied to his colleagues about the interactions.

But emails among top transition officials, provided or described to The New York Times, suggest that Mr. Flynn was far from a rogue actor. In fact, the emails, coupled with interviews and court documents filed on Friday, showed that Mr. Flynn was in close touch with other senior members of the Trump transition team both before and after he spoke with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, about American sanctions against Russia.

While Mr. Trump has disparaged as a Democratic “hoax” any claims that he or his aides had unusual interactions with Russian officials, the records suggest that the Trump transition team was intensely focused on improving relations with Moscow and was willing to intervene to pursue that goal despite a request from the Obama administration that it not sow confusion about official American policy before Mr. Trump took office.

And the Times has (some of?) those emails.

But it is evident from the emails — which were obtained from someone who had access to transition team communications — that after learning that President Barack Obama would expel 35 Russian diplomats, the Trump team quickly strategized about how to reassure Russia. The Trump advisers feared that a cycle of retaliation between the United States and Russia would keep the spotlight on Moscow’s election meddling, tarnishing Mr. Trump’s victory and potentially hobbling his presidency from the start.

As part of the outreach, Ms. McFarland wrote, Mr. Flynn would be speaking with the Russian ambassador, Mr. Kislyak, hours after Mr. Obama’s sanctions were announced.

“Key will be Russia’s response over the next few days,” Ms. McFarland wrote in an email to another transition official, Thomas P. Bossert, now the president’s homeland security adviser.

The Times chatted with Ty Cobb, Trump’s lawyer for The Russia Thing, said it’s all perfectly legal and normal and fine.

Read the rest.



A pretty substantial confession

Dec 2nd, 2017 12:57 pm | By

Lordy. I had to go do other things for a few hours and in that small space of time Trump only went and admitted obstruction of justice.

He fired him for lying to the FBI…and then tried to pressure Comey into letting him off. Obstruction. The lawyers are lining up to say so.

https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/937054063451168775

https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/937022847242915840

https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/937012963172642816



Why misogyny matters

Dec 2nd, 2017 7:23 am | By

Jill Filipovic notes that a lot of the fallen men in journalism helped Trump win the election.

Sexual harassment, and the sexism it’s predicated on, involves more than the harassers and the harassed; when the harassers are men with loud microphones, their private misogyny has wide-reaching public consequences. One of the most significant: the 2016 election.

Many of the male journalists who stand accused of sexual harassment were on the forefront of covering the presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Matt Lauer interviewed Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump in an official “commander-in-chief forum” for NBC. He notoriously peppered and interrupted Mrs. Clinton with cold, aggressive, condescending questions hyper-focused on her emails, only to pitch softballs at Mr. Trump and treat him with gentle collegiality a half-hour later. Mark Halperin and Charlie Rose set much of the televised political discourse on the race, interviewing other pundits, opining themselves and obsessing over the electoral play-by-play. Mr. Rose, after the election, took a tone similar to Mr. Lauer’s with Mrs. Clinton — talking down to her, interrupting her, portraying her as untrustworthy. Mr. Halperin was a harsh critic of Mrs. Clinton, painting her as ruthless and corrupt, while going surprisingly easy on Mr. Trump. The reporter Glenn Thrush, currently on leave from The New York Times because of sexual harassment allegations, covered Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign when he was at Newsday and continued to write about her over the next eight years for Politico.

Feel sick enough yet?

A pervasive theme of all of these men’s coverage of Mrs. Clinton was that she was dishonest and unlikable. These recent harassment allegations suggest that perhaps the problem wasn’t that Mrs. Clinton was untruthful or inherently hard to connect with, but that these particular men hold deep biases against women who seek power instead of sticking to acquiescent sex-object status.

Or, when they’re too old for sex-object status, just going away already.

For arguing that gender shaped the election narrative and its result, feminists have been pooh-poohed, simultaneously told that it was Clinton, not her gender, that was the problem and that her female supporters were voting with their vaginas instead of their brains.

The latest harassment and assault allegations complicate that account and suggest that perhaps many of the high-profile media men covering Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump were the ones leading with their genitals. Mr. Trump was notoriously accused of multiple acts of sexual harassment and assault, and was caught on tape bragging about his proclivity for grabbing women. That several of the men covering the race — shaping the way American voters understood the candidates and what was at stake — were apparently behaving in similarly appalling ways off-camera calls into question not just their objectivity but also their ability to cover the story with the seriousness and urgency it demanded.

They felt a sympathy for Trump that we weren’t aware of, though we may have suspected it.

The theme running through nearly all of the complaints is a man in a position of power who saw the women around him not as competent colleagues or as even sovereign human beings, but as sexual objects he could either proposition to boost his ego or humiliate to feed a desire for domination.

It’s hard to look at these men’s coverage of Mrs. Clinton and not see glimmers of that same simmering disrespect and impulse to keep women in a subordinate place. When men turn some women into sexual objects, the women who are inside that box are one-dimensional, while those outside of it become disposable; the ones who refuse to be disposed of, who continue to insist on being seen and heard, are inconvenient and pitiable at best, deceitful shrews and crazy harpies at worst. That’s exactly how Mr. Lauer, Mr. Halperin, Mr. Rose and Mr. Thrush often treated Mrs. Clinton.

I feel more than sick enough now.