Very difficult, not to say very unsatisfactory

May 28th, 2017 9:42 am | By

Our problem child didn’t impress the more intelligent, polite, informed, thoughtful heads of state who encountered him on his Adventure Overseas.

Europe can no longer “completely depend” on the US and UK following the election of President Trump and Brexit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel says.

Mrs Merkel said she wanted friendly relations with both countries as well as Russia but Europe now had to “fight for its own destiny”.

It follows the G7’s failure to commit to the 2015 Paris climate deal, talks Mrs Merkel said were “very difficult”.

And they were very difficult why? Because our stupid self-willed narcissistic president refused to co-operate, because he thinks his ego is more important than the future survival of everyone on the planet.

Earlier the German leader had described the “six against one” discussion about the Paris Accord during the G7 summit in Sicily as “very difficult, not to say very unsatisfactory”.

Mr Trump said he would abandon the Paris deal – the world’s first comprehensive climate agreement requiring countries to cut carbon emission – during his election campaign and has also expressed doubts about climate change.

Speaking in Brussels last week, Mr Trump also told Nato members to spend more money on defence and did not re-state his administration’s commitment to Nato’s mutual security guarantees.

BBC Defence and Diplomatic Correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the mere fact that this is even in question shows just how uneasy the relationship is between Mr Trump and the organisation of which his country is the leading member.

Used to be the leading member.



Dr Jen brings her A game

May 27th, 2017 6:00 pm | By

Jen Gunter tears a chunk out of Gwyneth Paltrow’s metaphorical hide.

Dear Ms. Paltrow,

I understand you recently said that anyone who is going to fuck with you better bring their A game.

From tampons to tomatoes to toxic lube your website is a scare factory. Literally. It’s either made up (often poorly, but with liberal use of the word toxin) or someone’s hypothesis with little to no supporting data. Tampons are not vaginal death sticks, vegetables with lectins are not killing us, vaginas don’t need steaming, Epstein Barr virus (EBV) does not cause every thyroid disease, and for fuck’s sake no one needs to know their latex farmer what they need to know is that the only thing between them and HIV or gonorrhea is a few millimeters of latex so glove that shit up. Here’s an A game pro tip for you, if you are writing a “sex post” use an expert who actually knows that the WHO has guidelines on lubricants. Your post on lubes is so bad it’s a joke.

You have the gall to tell people like me that we better bring our A game when you bring ghosts and magic to the table. Literally. You promote a ghost whisperer and crystals and of course jade eggs that one recharges with energy from the moon. Really, a dude who talks with ghosts, Naturopaths, and a jade eggthusiast who has a certification from the school she founded is on your A squad?

Jade eggs? That one recharges with energy from the moon, or the sun, or winsome distant Pluto?

Screen Shot 2017-05-22 at 12.36.02 AM

Q

Why and how are crystals so powerful?

A

This is where science and mysticism intersect: Crystals are millions of years old and were forged during the earliest part of the earth’s formation. I think of crystals as a timeless database of knowledge, because they retain all the information they have ever been exposed to. Crystals absorb information—whether a severe weather pattern, or the experience of an ancient ceremony—and pass it to anyone that comes into contact with them.

The 8 essential crystals page

But where’s the science?? I missed the science! I see the mysticism all right but where does it intersect with science?

How do crystals absorb information? How does Paltrow know they do? How do they pass it to people who touch them?

And ancient therapies? Girl, you love those. This means that you want your medicine from before we understood that bacteria and viruses were a thing, like when people thought tuberculosis was caused by vampires? What about trepanation or drinking Gladiators’ blood? Those are ancient therapies. Are they in your rotation? Honestly, it’s like you and your experts use Horrible Histories as a reference.

Your goopshit bothers me because it affects my patients. They read your crackpot theories and they stop eating tomatoes (side note, if tomatoes are toxic why do Italians have a longer life expectancy than Americans?) or haven’t had a slice of bread for two years, they spend money on organic tampons they don’t need, they ask for unindicted testing for adrenal fatigue (and often pay a lot via copayments or paying out-of-pocket), or they obsess that they have systemic Candida (they don’t). I have a son with thyroid disease and I worry that in a few years he might read the kind of batshit crazy thyroid theories you promote and wonder if he should stop his medication and try to cure the chronic EBV that he doesn’t have. I also worry that science will have to spend more and more resources disproving snake oil as opposed to testing real hypotheses. I worry that you make people worry and that you are lowering the world’s medical I.Q.

Platrow’s bullshit is funny in a way, but it’s very harmful. She’s Trumpesque in the arrogance of it – what makes her think she gets to make up her own medical facts? Just the fact that she’s a movie star? That’s no different from Trump thinking his reality tv stardom makes him a suitable candidate for the presidency.

It does not take my A game to counter the snake oil, biologically implausible theories, incorrect information, and magic that you and GOOP pass off as health advice. Really, I’m not sure it even takes my C game. It might take a game, like Clue, but that’s about it.

We’re not fucking with you we’re correcting you and you know what? We’re not going to stop.

XOXO

Science

*May 24, 2017: Correction, this post has been updated to reflect the fact that GOOP claims the energy of jade eggs is recharged by the moon and not the sun.

The sun would make it much too hot. That’s just silly.



Stolen tortillas

May 27th, 2017 2:33 pm | By

Another “cultural appropriation” crisis.

Willamette Week reported ten days ago:

During an impromptu Christmastime road trip last year to Puerto Nuevo, Mexico, Kali Wilgus and Liz “LC” Connelly lost their minds over tortillas.

“In Puerto Nuevo, you can eat $5 lobster on the beach, which they give you with this bucket of tortillas,” Connelly says. “They are handmade flour tortillas that are stretchy and a little buttery, and best of all, unlimited.”

They liked them so much they wanted to sleuth out the recipe.

“I picked the brains of every tortilla lady there in the worst broken Spanish ever, and they showed me a little of what they did,” Connelly says. “They told us the basic ingredients, and we saw them moving and stretching the dough similar to how pizza makers do before rolling it out with rolling pins. They wouldn’t tell us too much about technique, but we were peeking into the windows of every kitchen, totally fascinated by how easy they made it look. We learned quickly it isn’t quite that easy.”

They went home to Portland and worked on trying to make something similar.

“On the drive back up to Oregon, we were still completely drooling over how good [the tortillas] were, and we decided we had to have something similar in Portland,” Connelly says. “The day after we returned, I hit the Mexican market and bought ingredients and started testing it out. Every day I started making tortillas before and after work, trying to figure out the process, timing, refrigeration and how all of that works.”

They came up with something they liked, and opened a weekend food truck, and Willamette Week reported on the story…and they promptly closed the food truck.

Mic.com’s Jamilah King responded to the Willamette Week interview with a piece Friday calling out the women for “stealing recipes from Mexico to start a Portland business.”

“The problem, of course, is that it’s unclear whether the Mexican women who handed over their recipes ever got anything in return,” King wrote in the piece that also outlined how others had begun to accuse the women of cultural appropriation. “And now those same recipes are being sold as a delicacy in Portland.”

As opposed to what? As opposed to not being sold as a delicacy in Portland. Why is the second an obvious improvement? The women in Puerto Nuevo weren’t going to move to Portland, so why couldn’t tourists try to replicate their delicious tortillas in Portland so that more people could enjoy them?

There’s this thing in the world called the recipe, and recipes are often shared. They’re also often kept secret and jealously guarded, to be sure, but that doesn’t prevent people from using trial and error to try to replicate them. Broadly speaking, though, cooking techniques are part of human culture and heritage. If you sell food, as the tortillas were sold in Puerto Nuevo, there’s a chance consumers of the food will go home and try to make it themselves; some might even sell it. Is that really stealing, or appropriation?

If an entrepreneur did it and made a hugely profitable product I would say yes, seek out those cooks in Puerto Nuevo and give them a damn good cut. But a little local food truck? Is it really worth bullying them into closing?

“How would you people feel if I went and spied on your family or business recipes and took it somewhere else for my own financial benefit?” Olivia L. from Portland wrote in a Yelp review. “This is stealing.”

If you took it to Venezuela or Belgium? I would probably feel flattered. If you took it down the street from my restaurant, that would be unfair, but thousands of miles away? I would see it as the usual cultural cross-pollination.

Supporters, however, have pointed to how common it is within the culinary world and food industry to take methods and ingredients from other countries and profit off of them.

Fast food places tend to do it badly. Small local places can do it well. I’m not convinced that anyone was harmed in the making of these burritos.



Crunching and shoving

May 27th, 2017 11:13 am | By

Trump viewed from the vantage point of Jon Henley at the Guardian:

He crunched hands, shoved shoulders and struck poses. He scoffed chocolates, ignored protocol and harangued heads of state. He denied saying things he had said, then said things that showed he did not understand.

In short he was an embarrassing ludicrous spectacle.

First, there were the body language battles. Trump is well known for his efforts to dominate male interlocutors with a firm handshake, often accompanied by an arm wrench: notable victims include the Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, who survived a 19-second power grip in February.

In Brussels on Thursday for meetings with EU and Nato leaders, he was trumped by the French president, Emmanuel Macron, whose smile and squeeze – reporters present described “knuckles whitening” and “faces tightening” – were so fierce that Trump was forced to yield.

Macron did what Trump does: he kept the hand and yanked it pitilessly back and forth. How do you like it, Donnie? Not so fun when someone else is doing it to you, is it, you cheap bully.

The rematch came at Nato headquarters after lunch, when Macron pointedly embraced German chancellor Angel Merkel, and shook hands with several other heads of state, before finally turning to Trump – who jovially pulled the Frenchman’s arm half out of its socket.

And then the shove.

Then he artlessly betrayed the fact that his opinions about the EU all stem from his experience of opening golf clubs there.

What European leaders did not seem to have anticipated was the US president’s patchy understanding of the bloc.

The Belgian daily Le Soir reported that while eating “a lot” of “the best” chocolates, Trump revealed to prime minister Charles Michel that his frequent criticisms of the EU were due largely to his personal experiences trying to set up businesses there.

“Every time we talked about a country, he remembered the things he had done,” one source told the paper. “Scotland? He said he had opened a club. Ireland? He said it took him two-and-a-half years to get a licence and that did not give him a very good image of the EU.”

Besides reportedly telling EU leaders the Germans were “bad, very bad” on trade, Trump and his team shocked the Europeans by their ignorance of the bloc’s trade policy, according to Süddeutsche Zeitung, repeatedly suggesting America had different trade deals with Germany and Belgium.

Rude, ignorant and domineering – what more could we want?



Trump went to the G7 to learn

May 27th, 2017 9:22 am | By

The BBC on A Trump Abroad, this time at the G7, refusing to reaffirm the Paris accord.

The final communique issued at the G7 summit in Italy said the US “is in the process of reviewing its policies on climate change and on the Paris Agreement and thus is not in a position to join the consensus on these topics”.

However, the other G7 leaders pledged to “reaffirm their strong commitment to swiftly implement the Paris Agreement”.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the discussion on climate change had been “very unsatisfactory”, adding “we have a situation of six against one”.

Mr Trump tweeted: “I will make my final decision on the Paris Accord next week!”

His economic adviser, Gary Cohn, said Mr Trump “came here to learn. He came here to get smart. His views are evolving… exactly as they should be.”

No. No no no no no no no. He should have been smart already. He should have learned long ago. The G7 isn’t School for Stupid Rich Men Who Want to Be Important. The other six heads of state are not there to educate empty-headed Donnie from Queens. It’s way too late for him to “get smart.” Being smart is a prerequisite, not a fun ornament that can be added any time.



The Trump administration has hired dozens of former lobbyists

May 27th, 2017 8:29 am | By

They gave up on one fight while Donnie Twoscoops was out of town.

The White House unexpectedly backed down Friday in a confrontation with the government’s top ethics officer, announcing it will publicly disclose waivers that have been quietly handed out since January to let certain former lobbyists work in the administration.

The reversal came after the White House wrote last week to the Office of Government Ethics and asked its director to suspend his request for copies of the waivers. Such waivers are needed when officials want to work on policies or other government issues that they were directly involved in recently as private-sector lobbyists or industry lawyers.

The debate over the waivers — which were routinely made public during the Obama administration — has drawn heightened attention as the Trump administration has hired dozens of former lobbyists and lawyers, and is frequently placing them into jobs that overlap with the work they did for paying clients.

Like this guy for instance:

Michael Catanzaro, who until early this year worked as a lobbyist for a coal-burning electric utility and an oil and gas company, among other clients. He is now the top White House policy official overseeing the rollback of the same environmental protection rules he had lobbied against. So far this year, the Trump administration has not said if Mr. Catanzaro was given a waiver, as it was keeping them confidential.

Scuzzy enough? Companies that make money from coal, oil and gas don’t like environmental protection rules that cut into their profits, so lobbyists for such companies should not move to government jobs that have to do with those environmental protection rules. When they go to work for the government they should be working for the public good, not the private good of companies that make money from coal, oil and gas.

Walter M. Shaub Jr., the head of the Office of Government Ethics, said Friday evening that he was glad that the White House had changed its position, as it will allow his agency, and the public at large, to better evaluate if Trump administration officials are complying with the ethics rules.

But he also made clear that there should not have been a need for a confrontation before these waivers were made public.

“This really is routine stuff, and I am glad we are back on track again,” said Mr. Shaub, who is in the final year of a five-year appointment overseeing the agency, which does not have subpoena power.

It should be routine, but when you have a scuzzy corrupt real estate hustler as president, anti-corruption rules are no longer routine.

Norman Eisen, who served as the White House ethics adviser at the start of the Obama administration, said this represented a clear reversal of the earlier position, which he said had clearly implied to federal agency heads that they should hold off from complying.

Mr. Eisen and other ethics lawyers said they believed that the Trump administration — even after promising to “drain the swamp” — had instead looked for ways to place former lobbyists and industry lawyers into jobs from which they could help former clients get special favors, be it in the energy industry or on Wall Street.

“It’s a victory for checks and balances, the rule of law and the independent oversight of the Office of Government Ethics, and the news media,” Mr. Eisen said. ”With any bully, when you punch them in the nose, they back down.”

Or else they take to Twitter and accuse you of crimes.

Former senior officials with the Office of Government Ethics said that in the 39-year history of the agency, which was created in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, they could not remember an instance in which the White House had similarly tried to block, or even to discourage, an effort to collect ethics compliance data.

Trump is special that way.



Shadow Secretary of State Jared

May 27th, 2017 7:32 am | By

So. Last December – after the election, before the inauguration. Some people got together at Trump Tower in Manhattan; among them were Jared Kushner, Michael Flynn, and Sergey Kislyak. After the eggnog and mince pie and the exchange of prezzies, Kushner suggested “establishing a secret communications channel between the Trump transition team and Moscow to discuss strategy in Syria and other policy issues.”

Yes that’s right, the president-elect’s daughter’s husband, age 36, a real estate hustler, tried to set up a secret communications channel with the Russians, i.e. a hostile foreign rival.

News of the discussion was first reported by The Washington Post. The revelation has stoked new questions about Mr. Kushner’s connections to Russian officials at a time when the F.B.I. is conducting a wide-ranging investigation into Russia’s attempts to disrupt last year’s presidential election and whether any of Mr. Trump’s advisers assisted in the Russian campaign.

Current and former American officials said Mr. Kushner’s activities, like those of many others around Mr. Trump, are under scrutiny as part of the investigation. But Mr. Kushner is not currently the subject of a criminal investigation.

In the days after the meeting with Mr. Kislyak, Mr. Kushner had a separate meeting with Sergey N. Gorkov, a Russian banker with close ties to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin.

The Post reported that the direct line between the transition team and the Kremlin in concept would have been conducted through Russian diplomatic facilities to avoid being monitored in American communication systems. The Post also reported that Mr. Kushner had proposed the communications channel and that it took Mr. Kislyak by surprise. The New York Times could not immediately confirm these details.

Well this all seems a bit messy. Maybe we could have a rethink. Maybe Trump could dig deep and come up with some childhood friends or classmates or drinking buddies who could fill these jobs instead of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump and other relatives.

On Friday, Reuters reported that Mr. Kushner had at least two previously undisclosed phone calls with Mr. Kislyak between April 2016 and Election Day. The calls focused on how to improve economic relations between the United States and Russia, and how the two countries could better cooperate in the fight against Islamist extremism, Reuters reported, citing six current and former American officials.

Why wouldn’t we want an ignorant young real estate hustler doing homemade amateur diplomacy in his garage? What could possibly go amiss?



Guest post: Reading Whipping Girl 5 – Who ISN’T Transgender?

May 26th, 2017 6:18 pm | By

Guest post by Lady Mondegreen

Time for another whipping of Whipping Girl. We’re on Chapter 1, Coming to Terms with Transgenderism and Transsexuality. As the title implies, it’s about terms, but Serano slips a lot of assumptions into the mix.

If you want to play along at home, we’re on pages 25 – 28.

Serano defines “transgender”–

While the word originally had a more narrow definition, since the 1990s it has been used primarily as an umbrella term to describe those who defy societal expectations and assumptions regarding femaleness and maleness;

Note that this definition would include Portia, Viola, Atticus Finch, Scout, me, and probably you, dear reader.

this includes people who are transsexual (those who live as members of the sex other than the one they were assigned at birth), intersex…and genderqueer…as well as those whose gender expression differs from their anatomical or perceived sex (including crossdressers, drag performers, masculine women, feminine men, and so on). I will also sometimes use the synonymous term gender-variant to describe all people who are considered by others to deviate from societal norms of femaleness and maleness.

The far-reaching inclusiveness of the word “transgender” was purposely designed accommodate the many gender and sexual minorities who were excluded from the previous feminist and gay rights movements.

Excluded? No evidence is offered for this claim.

At the same time, its broadness can be highly problematic in that it often blurs or erases the distinctiveness of its constituents.

You don’t say.

The broadness of the term transgender is a conceptual mess. It confuses issues that should be considered clearly.

For example, while male crossdressers and transsexual men are both male-identified transgender people, these groups face a very different set of issues with regard to managing their gender difference….

Thus, the best way to reconcile the nebulous nature of the word is to recognize that it is primarily a political term, one that brings together disparate classes of people to fight for the common goal of ending all discrimination based on sex/gender variance….

Pay attention to the work the political term “transgender” does in trans discourse. Speaking of which–

Another point that is often overlooked in discussions about transgenderism is that many individuals who fall under the transgender umbrella choose not to identify with the term

O really?

For example, many intersex people reject the term because their condition is about physical sex (not gender) and the primary issues they face (e.g., nonconsensual “normalizing” medical procedures during infancy or childhood) differ greatly from those of the greater transgender community.

Yet still Serano includes them within the “greater transgender community.” Here, buried in a dense forest of wordage, is an acknowledgement that intersex people are not trans and that they tend to reject the term.

This speaks to this ongoing tendency within trans politics to obfuscate the distinctions between sex and gender, as well as distinctions between actual physical differences or disorders and differences in personality or personal style.

The appropriation of intersex people’s reality and concerns is one example. When reading transactivists and their allies, pay attention to how often they use terms that belong properly to intersex people (e.g., the whole “assigned at birth” trope), and give mini-lectures about how not all people fit neatly into the biological categories male and female, however irrelevant that may be to the issue at hand.

Throughout this book, I will use the word trans to refer to people who (to varying degrees) struggle with a subconscious understanding or intuition that there is something “wrong” with the sex they were assigned at birth [!] and/or who feel that they should have been born as or wish they could be the other sex…For many trans people, the fact that their appearances or behaviors may fall outside of societal gender norms is a very real issue, but one that is often seen as secondary to the cognitive dissonance that arises from the fact that their subconscious sex does not match their physical sex. This *gender dissonance* is usually experienced as a kind of emotional pain or sadness that grows more intense over time, sometimes reaching a point where it can become debilitating.

Serano doesn’t go into detail here about her claim that “many trans people” suffer from gender dissonance because of their “subconscious sex”, but she does discuss her own experience later in the book. I will get to that in another post.

I look at Serano’s constant (and politically convenient) conflation of “sex” with “gender”, and the garbage-can definition of “transgender” (which can easily include everyone, everywhere), and I suspect that she, and the trans movement as a whole, care less about understanding specific disorders that cause people pain than they do about promoting an ideology and maximizing their political clout. The more distinctions – sex/gender, female/male, persistent brain glitch/self-expression – are blurred, the harder it becomes to scrutinize the movement’s claims. And the larger the number of people who can be included under the trans umbrella, the bigger the shady bandwagon.

Serano’s quest to include everyone and his little genderqueer sibling under the trans umbrella continues on page 28:

[M]any of the above strategies and identities that trans people gravitate toward in order to relieve their gender dissonance are also shared by people who do not experience any discomfort with regards to their subconscious and physical sex. For example, some male-bodied [Why not just say *male*?] crossdressers spend much of their lives wishing they were actually female, while others see their crossdressing as simply a way to express a feminine side of their personalities.

Yet again, Serano claims both groups as “transgender”. She continues,

And while many trans people identify as genderqueer because it helps them make sense of their own experience of living in a world where their understanding of themselves differs so greatly from the way they are perceived by society, other people identify as genderqueer because, on a purely intellectual level, they question the validity of the binary gender system.

—HEAD.DESK—

Serano. People. You need to question more than the binary in “binary gender system”. You should not be promulgating and supporting gender by confusing it with sex.

As long as you do that, you are saying, “Yes, some people are male and belong to GENDER MALE (masculine), and some others are female and are belong to GENDER FEMALE (feminine), but me, I don’t.” You’ve simply made a show of opting out of it. As a privileged child of the West, this is easy for you, and it telegraphs your specialness to your friends, but the problem remains.

Let’s say there exists a binary system of stereotypes widely applied to the two most popular household pets. Something like this:

Cats are: cruel, selfish, beautiful

Dogs are: friendly, cheerful, stupid

Say you think these stereotypes are wrong, reductive, unfair, and harmful.

Say your response to this state of affairs is to proclaim

MY COMPANION ANIMAL IS PETQUEER!

Tell me how that helps matters, because I don’t see it.



Promotion

May 26th, 2017 3:37 pm | By

It’s entirely understandable that Trump is doing such a terrible job as president – he’s so busy promoting all his golf clubs. What’s he supposed to do, stop promoting them? That’s crazy talk. Now the Senior P.G.A. Championship is happening at one of his clubs. Big bucks for President Pig!

Over the past decade, the Trump Organization has stockpiled golf courses, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to buy, remake and upgrade a dozen different clubs and resorts from the Hudson Valley to Doonbeg, Ireland. Golf resorts and clubs have accounted for roughly half of Mr. Trump’s revenue, according to his personal financial disclosure last year.

Just four months into his presidency, Mr. Trump has visited his family-owned golf clubs 25 times, giving them the kind of media exposure that advertising could never buy. Six of those visits have been to the Virginia course while the P.G.A. marketed tickets to the event. And this week, Mr. Trump courted the senior P.G.A. club professionals in town by arranging a private tour of the White House, despite promising in his ethics plan that “the Office of the Presidency is isolated from the Trump Organization.”

He’s multitasking. He does an hour of ranting about Mooslims and shoving heads of state out of his way, and then an hour of showing golf pros around the White House. Win-win; everybody’s happy.



More swamp clearance work

May 26th, 2017 3:02 pm | By

Greg “Bodyslam” Gianforte won election to Congress despite having slammed a reporter to the floor and then jumped on top of him and punched him at least twice. Welcome to Trump’s America.

Republican Greg Gianforte won the special election for Montana’s lone congressional seat on Thursday despite an election eve misdemeanor assault charge for allegedly body-slamming a reporter.

Gianforte had been silent following the allegations, with his campaign only releasing a statement claiming that The Guardian‘s Ben Jacobs had been the aggressor. But speaking at his victory party in Bozeman shortly after the race was called, Gianforte admitted he was in the wrong and apologized to Jacobs.

What next, perps elected to Congress hours after their latest murder?

In his victory speech, Gianforte echoed many of the themes of Trump’s campaign.

“Tonight, Montanans are sending a wake-up call to the Washington, D.C., establishment,” Gianforte said. “Montanans said Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi can’t call the shots. Montanans said, ‘We’re going to drain the swamp.’ “

And assault anyone we take a dislike to.

 



Phone calls and emails to the State Department go unanswered

May 26th, 2017 2:03 pm | By

Der Spiegel too dislikes Trump.

Donald Trump is not fit to be president of the United States. He does not possess the requisite intellect and does not understand the significance of the office he holds nor the tasks associated with it. He doesn’t read. He doesn’t bother to peruse important files and intelligence reports and knows little about the issues that he has identified as his priorities. His decisions are capricious and they are delivered in the form of tyrannical decrees.

He is a man free of morals. As has been demonstrated hundreds of times, he is a liar, a racist and a cheat. I feel ashamed to use these words, as sharp and loud as they are. But if they apply to anyone, they apply to Trump.

I’ve used all three of those words many many times since last July. I’m not ashamed to use the words, but I am ashamed that Trump is president.

We’ll never live this down you know. Never. The Pig of 57th Street has tarnished us permanently.

Not quite two weeks ago, a number of experts and politicians focused on foreign policy met in Washington at the invitation of the Munich Security Conference. It wasn’t difficult to sense the atmosphere of chaos and agony that has descended upon the city.

The U.S. elected a laughing stock to the presidency and has now made itself dependent on a joke of a man. The country is, as David Brooks wrote recently in the New York Times, dependent on a child. The Trump administration has no foreign policy because Trump has consistently promised American withdrawal while invoking America’s strength. He has promised both no wars and more wars. He makes decisions according to his mood, with no strategic coherence or tactical logic. Moscow and Beijing are laughing at America. Elsewhere, people are worried.

In the Pacific, warships – American and Chinese – circle each other in close proximity. The conflict with North Korea is escalating. Who can be certain that Donald Trump won’t risk nuclear war simply to save his own skin? Efforts to stop climate change are in trouble and many expect the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris Agreement because Trump is wary of legally binding measures. Crises, including those in Syria and Libya, are escalating, but no longer being discussed. And who should they be discussed with? Phone calls and emails to the U.S. State Department go unanswered.

What?

Phone calls and emails to the U.S. State Department go unanswered.

I did not know that. I knew Trump and Co had left a lot of positions unfilled, but I didn’t know the State Department was ignoring communications. That’s horrifying. Klaus Brinkbäumer may mean communications from journalists as opposed to diplomats and governments, but that’s still bad.

Nothing is regulated, nothing is stable and the trans-Atlantic relationship hardly exists anymore. German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Bundestag Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Norbert Röttgen fly back and forth, but Germany and the U.S. no longer understand each other. Hardly any real communication takes place, there are no joint foreign policy goals and there is no strategy.

We elected a child president. Bad move.

 



A wise man who wants to see things get much better rapidly

May 26th, 2017 10:25 am | By

Amy Davidson at the New Yorker tells us how Trump lectured the democratic heads of state at NATO on how awesome the Saudi king is.

He had just come from Saudi Arabia, Trump told the nato leaders, in a brief speech. “There, I spent much time with King Salman, a wise man who wants to see things get much better rapidly.” That meeting had been “historic,” Trump said. The “leaders of the Middle East” had promised him that they would “stop funding the radical ideology that leads to this horrible terrorism all over the globe.” So that should take care of the problem. He did not define “radical ideology,” or acknowledge that he was praising a monarch in what seemed to be an attempt to put the assembled elected leaders of democracies to shame. Trump’s world view seems to combine a distaste for Islam with a predilection for monarchs of any background—for anyone with a decent palace, really.

Even an Islamist monarch, even an Islamist monarch of the family and regime and sect that has been assiduously funding “radical ideology” all over the planet, including the US.

European leaders were reportedly hoping for an affirmation of Article 5 in Trump’s remarks; they didn’t get it. In general, the approach of his hosts on this trip seems to have been to hope very much that he doesn’t actually break anything. Remarks have been kept short, flattery long—a reminder, as with the international and unmerited fêting of Ivanka, of how Trumpism lowers the level of dialogue all around. Trump does like it when people give gifts (though he may not have appreciated it when Pope Francis, at the Vatican, handed him a copy of his encyclical on climate change), and so he thanked the 9/11 Museum, in New York, which had donated the girders, and Merkel, as a representative of Germany, for donating the slabs. He spoke a few sentences about the memorials’ symbolic power. But, as he looked around at the new headquarters, he seemed, again, to be dwelling on a different definition of a value.

“And I never asked once what the new NATO headquarters cost,” he said, as if he should be thanked for that act of restraint. “I refuse to do that. But it is beautiful.”

Even though it doesn’t have the name TRUMP plastered all over it.



Guest post: Fewer doors and fewer chances

May 26th, 2017 9:38 am | By

Originally a comment by iknklast on Cop on Comrades.

This is something I have been seeing more and more. Well, you (meaning me) have a college degree and a job as a professional, while I (meaning the man speaking) am [unemployed, underemployed, uneducated – fill in the blank]. And I lost my chance at a job because a [black woman, Native American, Mexican] was hired instead of me, even though I was more qualified.

First, I would like to comment on that last sentence – I have never heard of any white male (who is self-reporting) that has lost out on a job to someone more qualified. They always lost it to a woman or a person of color, and that person is always less qualified for unspecified reasons (which probably is that they are female or a person of color, but the left-leaning individual does not wish to express/understand this).

I have lost out on jobs to less qualified people – people with fewer years of experience, in some cases people who did not meet the minimum job requirements – because I was female, and as a female, I had to have requirements higher than I could achieve (in short, I had to be a male). I may have landed on my feet in the end, but it took a lot more than the men who have achieved the same status. I found fewer doors open to me, and fewer chances to excel. Perhaps someone should ask why there are so many women teaching in our college? Most people assume it’s because women are getting such a sweet deal. It isn’t. I teach at a community college, and because many of us have difficulty finding a position in the higher levels of academia, the community college is able to get women with doctoral degrees very easily – and they are willing to hire.

Why do I consider that a result of being a woman? Because in my experience in college (and I know this will not be everyone’s experience, so please don’t come in and mansplain this to me) – women were in a different position. The men were being supported by someone, someone who was paying the bills, taking care of the kids, cleaning the house, cooking the meals, and letting them do what they needed to do. The men in my college rarely graduated as quickly as the women, but this was because the women had to get out of college and get a job. Whoever was paying the bills (if it wasn’t them, which it usually was) was not about to tolerate long stays in college and long post-doc work that would allow for the amount of published papers needed to even get your application past the first stage of the process in a four-year college or a university. Our whims about educating ourselves had been humored and tolerated, but we had that piece of paper, now could we, for Chrissake, go do something useful? Which means in many cases get married and have children, but in the case of a lot of women, it means go get a job right now, and I mean yesterday. Not a post doc, which pays very poorly, but a job, a real job.

In the entire time I was in school, I saw only one woman go off for a post-doc, and she was a woman who had been left enough money when her parents died that she was able to support herself, and put her husband through college. And her husband, who held no full time job, stayed in college four times longer than she did, and spent a lot of time in Mexico doing research that earned him publications he needed to go further.

Yes, I achieved more than the men who are working class (by the way, I started pretty low myself, living most of my life in poverty). But…and this is a huge but…the obstacles that were thrown in my way were larger than men going the same path I was going. In some cases, insurmountable. And more than just what I detailed above. I also had to deal with sexual harassment, condescension, refusal to accept that my work was really my work, failure to consider me when looking for someone to fulfill an important project, etc. Meanwhile, I was in the field with the best of them, doing ecological field work that requires physical ability to complete. I was more fortunate than most on that, because my field assistant in my masters was a woman, and in my doctorate, my husband stepped into that role, so sexual harassment was not an issue in that one particular space in my life.

Now I have reached the place in my life where I am past 50, and I can be totally ignored by everyone, because I am an “old” woman. In other words, I still have to face that societal construct that says I am somehow lesser, now not only than men but also lesser than younger women, because I no longer fulfill the major status in the life of a woman – someone who is attractive to men. I should stay home and bake cookies and dust, but I refuse to stop doing science, and for that I am to be punished by being ignored.



They just called your number at KFC

May 26th, 2017 9:27 am | By

Was it a shove? Yes, of course it was a shove.

Let’s break it down.

A slow-motion viewing of the video indicates no words spoken by Trump as he approaches the group from behind. No “Excuse me” or “Pardon me.”

Trump reaches out his right arm, grabs Markovic’s right shoulder and pushes him aside. Markovic looks surprised. Trump doesn’t acknowledge his existence as he moves past him. It’s as if Markovic isn’t there.

Or, rather, it’s as if Trump is an arrogant bullying shithead who treats other people as things he gets to shove out of his way.

Markovic abruptly looks back at Trump but gets no eye contact from Trump in return.

Then he pats Trump on the back, or perhaps the arm, displaying a slight grin as Trump, at the front of the group, stands tall and adjusts his suit coat. Trump begins conversing with Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite as Markovic looks on from behind.

Look. That would be rude enough in a crowd of strangers, at a ball game or a protest or a conference – but this wasn’t that. This was a gathering of heads of state. It was a group of people who were there to talk and interact with each other. It was a group of colleagues. That makes Trump’s behavior all the more grotesquely and conspicuously rude. Starting a chat with Dalia Grybauskaite while both stand in front of the shoved aside Marković is kindergarten-level rude.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer later told reporters that spots for the “family photo” for which the leaders were preparing were predetermined, as is usually the case — implying that Trump was not trying to get a better position, The Washington Post reported, but rather that he was heading for the position reserved for him.

Half a second faster than he would have arrived anyway, when they weren’t going to take the picture without him even if it did take him an extra half second to get there. No. I think he was dismayed to find himself lost in a crowd instead of conspicuously out in front, and took out his dismay on this frightful little man who had the gall to be slightly ahead of him. I think that’s the kind of pig he is.

As expected, the Trump shove captured the late-night shows.

“The President Show” on Comedy Central depicted an exaggerated scene, replacing the Montenegro prime minister with the secretary general of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg.

“Excuse me, excuse me, get out of my way,” the show’s Trump says to the secretary general, pushing him aside as they walk into a press briefing. “America first. America first.”

Seth Meyers, host of “Late Night With Seth Meyers,” also riffed on the exchange, saying “Look at this guy. Wow.”

“You’re a world leader at a meeting of dignitaries and you act like they just called your number at KFC,” Meyers said.

“Me, that’s mine, the 12 piece,” Meyers said, mimicking someone pushing and shoving others out of the way.

With two scoops of ice cream.



Cop on Comrades

May 26th, 2017 9:02 am | By

A week ago the Irish Times published an opinion piece by Frankie Gaffney that apparently was an instant hit with the Pepe crowd. It’s not difficult to see why.

I grew up in Dublin’s inner city, an environment where poverty, violence, and addiction were normal. Given the odds I had to overcome to get where I am today, I thought I’d meet a lot of allies among those who preach equality. But instead, I was often met with open hostility, despite the fact I campaign on a variety of related issues. Why? Because I happen to be straight, white, and male.

“Straight white male” is an identity I didn’t choose. I mean it wasn’t a decision I had any say in, what sexuality, race, or gender I am. I was born this way. But also, “straight white male” was never something I chose to “identify” as. At various times if you’d asked me about my identity, I might have said “Irish”, “a Dub”, or “working class”, but never straight, white, or male – let alone the arbitrary combination of all three. But people who talk a lot about “choice” and “freedom” chose for me, and decided that’s what my identity should be reduced to.

Well, no. That’s not how that works. Of course it’s not a choice, but the advantageous place on the hierarchy is what it is just the same. It’s not about choice. I didn’t choose to be white, but that doesn’t mean I get to deny that I have the advantages that being white bestows. I have them. I didn’t choose them, but I have them. It would be unbearably precious of me to insist that because I didn’t choose to have them I get to ignore them or brush off other people’s lack of them.

Gaffney talks about cultural appropriation for a bit and then gets down to his real business, complaining about feminism.

A recurrent theme of this ideology is patronising people. It’s a nice word, “patronise” – kind of similar to “mansplain”, except gender-neutral.

Ha, no. Consider the root. If you’re stumped, think “patriarchy.” Patronize could be rudely translated as daddyspeak.

The further irony is the most patronising people I’ve ever encountered are the people who explain to me why it’s fine to use words and phrases such as “mansplain”, “manspreading”, “toxic masculinity”, “fragile masculinity”, and to use “straight white male” as a pejorative, while simultaneously decrying gender stereotyping and the use of negative genderd terms. The proponents of identity politics discuss these concepts as if they were talking about the second law of thermodynamics, the periodic table of elements, or the disciplinary handbook of the GAA.

In other words there are plenty of dopey obnoxious feminists, just as there are plenty of dopey obnoxious people on the left generally. No kidding. There are plenty of dopey obnoxious people everywhere. We just have to soldier on somehow.

These people don’t want to separate church and state, they want to institute a new religion, just with themselves at the helm. And just like with Eve and the apple, they demand that individuals should be held responsible for the sins of their gender.

And so on and so on and so on, getting crosser as he goes. So Mary McAuliffe wrote a response:

#coponcomrades

Cop on Comrades

We are a group of activist women from a wide variety of backgrounds, races, ethnicities, and sexual orientations. Last week, a good number of the left-wing men we work and organise with seriously disappointed us. These men – our friends, our fellow trade unionists, activists, writers, organisers, and artists – shared and commented on a reductive and damaging article written by Frankie Gaffney, which was published in the Irish Times.

We live in a world where our advantages are tangled up with the things that disadvantage us – some of us are working class, some queer, some of us are poor, some of us come from minority ethnic groups or have disabilities or don’t enjoy the security of citizenship. As well, some of us have had a multitude of opportunities in our lives while some of us have had to fight our way through. It is an obligation on all of us to honestly look at our different positions within the structures of oppression and privilege under patriarchal racial capitalism. It is only by acknowledging all these differences that we have any chance of imagining and building a better world that includes us all.

Working-class ‘straight white men’ in Ireland don’t have it easy these days. They never did. They are ignored by a political class that couldn’t care less about them. They should have a say in the decisions that affect their lives, but they often don’t.

However, that doesn’t make them immune to critique. We all have to examine ourselves as oppressor as well as oppressed – because we are all both. The response to the article felt like a silencing to us and we are writing this because we are way past putting up with that. You will see from the names on this letter that we are women who have been in the thick of things. Whether in political parties and organisations, education, trade unions, or grassroots and community-based movements, we are tired of being accused of ‘bourgeois feminism’ and of betraying the struggle when we raise our voices. No campaign in this country could survive without women, without us – our work and energy and knowledge and organising have been instrumental in all the progressive movements in this country. When we say we need to be recognised and respected within our movements, we need you to listen.

The article expressed the view that identity politics is good for nothing except dividing movements, using language and narratives that have been made popular by MRA (Men’s Rights Activist) groups and the alt-right. According to such narratives, straight white men are the new most oppressed group. This ignores the struggles of women and others at the sharp end of misogyny, racism, anti-trans and anti-queer violence. It aims to silence those who will no longer tolerate the violence, abuse and marginalisation we have suffered for so long. These alt-right arguments have been used by people on the left to support the view that women, and feminists in particular, are to blame for the rise of the far right – for instance, for Trump’s election – and for neoliberal capitalism, which is seen as having damaged working class men in particular.

In this version of events, straight white men are made to feel uncomfortable about being ‘born this way’ by social media-fuelled ‘political correctness’. They are too afraid to say what they think or express opinions for fear of online retribution. Men who claim to be silenced in this way might try a week or even a day as a vocal woman or person of colour online and see how they deal with the rape threats and threats of racist violence that follow.

We are not concerned here about one opinion piece by one person. Rather we have all been aware of the increasing trend towards this particular new type of silencing of women from our supposed fellow activists on the left. The arguments mounted here and elsewhere are apparently to criticise some of the worst aspects of ‘call-out culture’, as well as the lean-in type of so-called feminism that disregards class and race. Yet they seem to be used now by some of our left-wing activist comrades as an excuse not to deal with the complexities of gender, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation in our political organising. These excuses, when accepted, prevent us from seeing clearly the state of our movements – who is taking part in them, who is heard and represented, who is doing the work. These are massive issues that have to do with how we are creating mass movements, which need to be addressed and faced to ensure that people of different classes, races, ethnicities, sexual orientation and gender have not just a voice but leading roles in our struggle. Without this solidarity in working together, we are simply imitating the oppressive structures we want to fight – the structures that say “not now, your life comes second.” It is not the straight white men who are being silenced when this argument is made.

We are working-class women, women of colour, migrant women, trans women, Traveller women, disabled women, queer women, women who are sex workers, women with children, and women who are none of these, active in our communities and committed to an anti-capitalist struggle. We are well aware that a right-wing, neoliberal distortion of feminism and what is called ‘identity politics’ exists. We know this because it erases our experiences and struggles and we resist this erasure through our work as activists every single day. It is distressing and enraging that we also have to fight against the bad faith of fellow activists on the left – mostly men, sometimes women – who, for their own reasons, blur the distinction between this kind of middle-class neoliberal faux-feminism, and a truly radical feminist politics that has class struggle at its very core. This hurts us because it erases and undermines our realities, our suffering, our analyses, and our organising, and gives more strength to the powers that are ranged against us. For many of us, it is heart-breaking to look at some of the men around us and realise that they are nodding in agreement with this erasure of their working class women friends and comrades.

Most of us have grown up learning to appease men. How to give them our space, how to deal with the fact that they dominate any political discussions, that they are paid more, heard more and believed more. However, most of us expect that the men we work with in all the social justice movements we are part of should have at least considered how they are complicit in this domination when they refuse to recognise that it exists. Patriarchy forces men into roles that damage them as well as us. Most of us have men that we love, admire and respect in our lives and for that reason, not only because it damages and diminishes the life experiences of women, we should all be fighting patriarchy together.

There are many signatures.



It was you Jared

May 25th, 2017 6:11 pm | By

I thought so. The Post reports that the White House official identified as a person of interest last week is Kushner.

Jared Kushner has just been revealed as the senior White House adviser who is under investigation in the Russia probe — which is news that comes as little surprise. Indeed, when The Washington Post reported last week that a then-unnamed top Trump adviser was a focus, many quickly assumed it was Kushner.

But while those assumptions were based on his known contacts with Russians and his status as one of few senior White House aides, there’s another reason his naming fits the puzzle: He’s related to Trump.

My guess was based on all three of those, definitely including the relationship with Bullyboy Trump.

I wish they would all go back to Queens and stay there forever.



Inept at best and deliberately insulting at worst

May 25th, 2017 6:02 pm | By

Europe doesn’t like Trump.

When President Donald Trump lectured NATO members on their contributions to the trans-Atlantic alliance, he demonstrated a lack of understanding about how the group works and potentially alienated the US’ closest allies, analysts said.

The speech comes at a time when Washington’s longstanding partnerships with the UK and Israel have endured friction over intelligence gaffes by the new administration.

“Diplomatically, the speech was inept at best and deliberately insulting at worst,” said Jeff Rathke, deputy director of the Europe Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

I’m going to go with both inept and deliberately insulting. That’s very Trump, after all.

Trump’s remarks Thursday, alongside his continued misrepresentation of how the alliance works and his failure to reaffirm US commitment to the group, is likely to further unsettle US allies, sowing doubt about US leadership and possibly making it harder for NATO leaders to convince their people of the need to spend more on defense.

Ivo Daalder, a former US ambassador to NATO, said that “this was a perfectly scripted event to deliver a very simple message that every president of the United States has delivered at the first possible opportunity, which is that the United States stands firmly behind its commitment to the defense of NATO.”

“We signed a treaty, we uphold it. It was really easy,” Daalder said. “And the fact that he didn’t do it was disturbing and will take a long time to overcome in Europe.”

They did their best. They were warned that he’s a giant baby, so they arranged things for a giant baby.

NATO leaders had envisioned this summit as an introduction to the new US President, adjusting the format to make it more accommodating for Trump, changing the date, shortening the day-long proceedings — in part by telling leaders to make speeches briefer — and making a casual dinner the centerpiece of the gathering.

They had someone pre-chew his food for him; they put stuffed animals in his chair; they ordered gallons of Diet Pepsi and all the ice cream in Belgium.

In Brussels, Trump charged that “many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years” and implied that these countries owed that money to the United States.

“This idea that countries owe money is flat-out wrong,” said Rathke. Countries commit to the 2% target for defense spending — a goal only five NATO members currently meet — within their own countries. The money is not paid to a central fund, though Trump continues to allude to a system like that, raising questions about his ability or willingness to listen and learn.

“Anybody with NATO expertise knows that there is no such thing as ‘debts’ owed by NATO allies for what they haven’t spent in the past,” Rathke said.

Well you’ll have to excuse him: he’s very stupid.



Manchester’s emergency services

May 25th, 2017 5:17 pm | By

Kate Smurthwaite on Facebook:

Credit to Jack Edward Mitchell for assembling this data and making these excellent points. (And he is happy for others to share, please do):

3. The number of Accident and Emergency departments closed in Manchester since the Conservatives entered government.

4. The number of Greater Manchester Police stations sold off to plug funding gaps since 2010.

10. The number of Police station front desks Greater Manchester Police have had to close because of budget cuts in the same period.

2246. the number of officers Greater Manchester Police have had to let go since 2010, formerly 8200, now cut to 5,954.

£134,000,000. the cut applied to Greater Manchester Police’s annual budget between 2011 and 2015.

Emergency services in Manchester did an amazing job on Monday night, but take Theresa May’s condolences with a hefty slug of salt because this is how she and her party have consistently attacked those same emergency services over the last 7 years. This is why we have soldiers on our streets, because the UK has 11.7% fewer police officers than it did when we last had a Labour government.



Get outta my way

May 25th, 2017 4:25 pm | By

How Trump comports himself on the world stage:

https://youtu.be/TL9XsHZmiys

That’s Duško Marković he so rudely shoved aside so that he could push forward – Duško Marković the Prime Minister of Montenegro.

He shoves him aside and pushes himself in front, and then sticks his chin in the air as if to remind everyone how important he is. It’s so ugly.

Every single other person there is presentable and normal and polite – and then there’s this exaggerated piggish preening shoving bully of a man. He is a nightmare.



Later that month

May 25th, 2017 1:45 pm | By

Sean Hannity is losing advertisers because of his relentless flogging of a nasty made-up conspiracy theory about the random murder of Seth Rich last summer. Good.

The automotive classified site Cars.com and several other companies pulled advertising from Sean Hannity’s Fox News show after he came under fire for promoting a conspiratorial account of the slaying of a former Democratic National Committee staffer.

“We don’t have the ability to influence content at the time we make our advertising purchase,” Cars.com said in a statement Wednesday. “In this case, we’ve been watching closely and have recently made the decision to pull our advertising from Hannity.”

The mattress maker Leesa Sleep, the exercise company Peloton, and the military financial services company USAA said they, too, were no longer advertising on Hannity’s show. Crowne Plaza Hotels, online mattress retailer Casper, and the video doorbell company Ring told BuzzFeed News on Wednesday that they were backing out as well.

Money talks.

Hannity had been one of the main purveyors of a widely discredited theory that DNC staffer Seth Rich was shot and killed near his home in Northwest Washington last year because he had supplied DNC emails to WikiLeaks. District police say Rich died in a botched robbery. His parents have pleaded with news outlets to stop speculating about his death.

Newt Gingrich helped Hannity flog the claim over the weekend. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Contract With America Newt Gingrich.

Rich, a 27-year-old data analyst, was gunned down in the early hours of July 10 in Washington’s Bloomingdale neighborhood. Later that month, WikiLeaks published a cache of DNC emails, leading some commentators to speculate that Rich’s death was somehow related.

Later that month. How is that not good enough for you libtards? Obviously later that month means connected. That’s science.