Um, care to make it interesting?
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) March 1, 2017
Um, care to make it interesting?
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) March 1, 2017
I spend a good bit of time in New York and have driven by the exit for Donald Trump State Park in Westchester County many times. I’ve long been curious and disgusted by the sheer existence of this. Turns out it looks like the whole nation will look in about 4 years.
Also, for the love of any higher power you choose to worship, do not watch this speech tonight. It’s not only for sanity’s sake. It’s also a total waste of time. You can read these transcripts or read the summaries in about 1/100th of the time and know everything you need to know. Do yourself a favor.
Having the FBI and an undemocratic sop to the slave power install a racist man-child in the White House seemed like a great idea at the time. What went wrong?
President Donald Trump reportedly issued a bizarre statement Tuesday in response to the recent wave of anti-Semitic attacks around the country, in which dozens of Jewish community centers and cemeteries have been targeted by bomb threats and vandalism.
According to Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro (D), who was quoted by Buzzfeed, Trump said, “Sometimes it’s the reverse, to make people—or to make others—look bad.” Shapiro added that the president “used the word ‘reverse’ I would say two to three times in his comments.”
“I really don’t know what that means, or why he said that,” Shapiro said. (Shapiro did note that Trump called the crimes “reprehensible.”)
I’m sure the Franco of 5th Avenue has impeccable sourcing on that.
Some people on the internets have been joking about a picture of Kellyanne Conway kneeling on a White House couch in shoes. At least one reporter is very upset that people are wasting their time on something silly:
Conway is kneeling on the couch. Other pictures of the same moment show she has her shoes on.
This has, of course, inflamed the (mostly liberal end of the) Internet.
SHE IS DISRESPECTING THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.
HOW COULD SHE.
And so on and so forth.
This tempest in a teapot is, in a word, dumb. In two words: incredibly dumb.
So, who is the rigorous policy reporter who is enraged that this has caused
a few jokes a yooge avalanche of coverage, distracting people from what really matters?
By Chris Cillizza
You may remember Chris Cillizza from such examples of Writing About Real Issues rather than Pretending to be Outraged by Inane Trivia as writing 50 stories about Hillary Clinton’s email server before the first Democratic debate.
Next, we will hear from Maureen Dowd about highly-compensated pundits who engage in repetitive, puddle-deep pop-psych rather than writing about important issues.
I have long given Sarah Palin credit for the innovative view that the First Amendment does not permit speech that Republicans don’t like, but I hope Sean Sphincter also gets due credit for his pioneering work in this field.
A funny thing happened to public opinion and the Affordable Care Act:
Republicans may not have even realized until recently how deeply their ability to make political hay on Obamacare depended on not having power. They could posture against every inconvenient aspect of an industry nobody has ever liked, and promise all things to all people, with no responsibility to fulfill their grandiose promises. Now the dynamic has reversed. Loss aversion has inspired massive, energetic protests to speak up for a law Democrats could hardly be roused to defend before, while the energy has drained away from the opposition. Amazingly, polling for Obamacare, which has been unpopular since the outset, has sharply reversed. The last ten polls all show net positive approval for the Affordable Care Act. If Republicans somehow muster the partisan discipline to tear down Obamacare, as opposed to settling for minor changes, they will have to be willing to endure searing political pain.
There is one potential way of interpreting this:
Dems really need to examine how they screwed up the selling of Obamacare. https://t.co/Q8wW9eSzZW
— Jesse Eisinger (@eisingerj) February 24, 2017
It it, I guess, theoretically possible that the ACA had suddenly become significantly more popular because the Democrats have suddenly gotten much better and/or the Republicans much worse at messaging. The far, far more plausible explanation is that public opinion on the issue is driven primarily by structural factors. When comprehensive health care reform is being proposed, the very loss-averse public tends to focus on the downsides, and the people with the least to gain tend to be among the most influential (a problem that has only gotten worse since the passage of Medicare.) What’s changed is that the loss-aversion shoe is now on the Republican jackboot.
Again, we shouldn’t be complacent — a lot of Republican legislators want to kill the ACA and they’re not guaranteed to fail. But the very heavy status quo bias is American politics, which has almost always been the enemy of better health care policy, is for once working in its favor.
I figure that most LGM readers aren’t soap fans, but that I might persuade many of you to stick with me through this entry if I look at my favorite–The Bold and the Beautiful–through the prism of gender, race and class. On that score, my favorite has lots of problems.
My favorite character is Brooke. In fact, she’s the only reason I’ve continued to watch this mess of a show for half my life. I’m waiting for her to get her happy ending. (Or at least the closest you can come to one on a soap.) She’s a controversial character, but I don’t know why; she’s just a prototypical “scrappy, immensely-flawed, heart-of-gold” heroine. (She just happens to be the best one. ;))
It’s been hard to be a Brooke fan because when the show’s head writer and producer handed the reins to his son it was akin to leaving the show to a monkey with a typewriter; and it’s clear he had a very different vision for Brooke than his father did. The Taylor vs. Brooke rivalry was very much in swing when he took over, but Jr. made it into a Madonna vs. Whore spectacle, with Taylor playing the role of Madonna. It didn’t matter how much of a passive-aggressive hypocritical liar or manipulator Taylor was: Brooke was “the slut from the Valley,” so she was always on the losing end of every storyline. And Jr. took this to ridiculous heights, often having Brooke be the recipient of verbal and physical abuse. It was deserved because Brooke was an impetuous slut. (In reality, Brooke had slept with two men–to whom she’d been engaged–when this dynamic kicked in.)
Fans rebelled. We still loved Brooke no matter kind of shit Jr. flung at her. So he upped the ante, eventually having her sleep with her son-in-law. It was out of character, but unfortunately when you’re a fan, you don’t get to say “This doesn’t count.” So we continued loving the character, despite this immense flaw, ’til after nearly two decades of tying to establish Taylor as the resident saint by trashing Brooke he finally gave up and wrote the character off. But this whole gross chapter was so emblematic of the gross misogyny that taints of this show. Brooke was a successful chemist, inventor and CEO, yet Jr. clearly viewed her mostly through the prism of her sexuality. Brooke was “bad” because she had poor romantic judgement; this badness trumped all sorts of disturbing chicanery in Jr.’s world.
This brings us to B&B’s extremely troubling classism. The voice of morality on this show– always passing judgement on Brooke–was Stephanie. Stephanie could be abusive (seriously, horrifyingly) –and often was. This was allowed because Stephanie was wealthy, a “strong” woman of “class.” Stephanie was allowed to do all manner of disgusting things to Brooke in the name of “family,” up to and including physically assaulting Brooke and taking away her children. There was no act that was too outrageous or petty or cruel that couldn’t be excused because Stephanie was the noble matriarch of a wealthy family.
The classism runs far and deep in B&B. Take the show’s rival fashion house. It’s made up of “scrappy” idiots who are too rough-hewn to design their own stuff, so rely almost solely on stealing designs from the wealthy Foresters. The message is clear: the Foresters take a refined, intellectual approach to the art of fashion, while those dumb Spectras just hope to steal their way to glory. The Spectras are frequently portrayed as bumbling jokes, while the Foresters are portrayed as portraits of class.
And so we move to race. This is the part that really really disappoints me: I think B&B’s gravest mistake is not creating a fashion house that actually rivals the Foresters in a meaningful way. Lately the show has been putting forth a solid effort to make the cast more diverse. So, they’ve brought on a black family. Good, right? Nope. Here’s what they should have have done: they should have made the Avants a fashion powerhouse, folks with immense wealth and power to really rival the Forester brand. A gorgeous, glamorous family that would give the Foresters a run for for their money. Instead they made them a barely-middle-class family with very, um, oddly-cast parents. (They are not, uh, glamorous. In fairness, the daughters are gorgeous.) For a spell, they had the Avant parents camping out in a tiny, cramped hotel room while the mom tried to get a job at the DMV. I was actually embarrassed for the show because the show didn’t have the good sense to be embarrassed for itself.
Mind you, there are 0 things wrong with being middle class, and there are 0 things wrong with seeking employment at the DMV, but since when are soaps centered around this kind of mundane real-life shit? Never. Oh, except when Jr. brought a BLACK family on. And don’t get me started on their shoddy, insulting attempts at Latino inclusion…dad was a firefighter and daughter was an intern. The message is clear: Latinos and Blacks aren’t wealthy power-players; they’re middle-class background players. It’s infuriating. (Interestingly, its sister soap, The Young the Restless is MUCH better on this score, making the Winters clan major movers and shakers and in their fictional town.)
The Bold and the Beautiful has the potential to be a really fun, juicy, glamorous soap. But on so many counts I am still waiting for my happy ending.
At some point, embarrassingly late begins to verge on something more disquieting.
President Donald Trump has silently planted himself in that space.
Nearly a week has passed since two India-born engineers were singled out and shot at an Olathe bar, presumably because they were immigrants, darker in skin tone and possibly viewed by the shooter as unwanted foreigners.
People around the world were immediately and rightfully horrified.
But our president?
Mum. Not a word has been spoken, tweeted or prepped for Trump’s teleprompter.
Trump has offered no words of condolence for the grieving widow of Srinivas Kuchibhotla, who died from his gunshot wounds.
The president has expressed no sympathy for Kuchibhotla’s best friend, Alok Madasani, who continues to recover from bullet wounds and the trauma.
Trump usually loves to celebrate all-American heroes. But he’s passed on commending Ian Grillot, a bystander who leapt to take the gunman down before anyone else was harmed. Grillot was shot, too.
Surely the White House team could have cobbled together a statement of some sort, a response to at least address growing fears that the U.S. is unwelcoming of immigrants, or worse, that the foreign-born need to fear for their lives here. The deadly incident in Olathe has resonated across the country and even around the globe.
During such moments of crisis, people look to the president for strength and guidance.
They need to hear their moral outrage articulated, the condemnation of a possible hate crime and the affirmation that the U.S. values everyone’s contributions, whether you’re an immigrant or native-born. For Trump, this was a crucial opportunity to condemn such hateful acts and to forcefully declare that this is not who we are.
Others grasp that role. On Monday, Hillary Clinton tweeted a Kansas City Star story recounting the plea from Kuchibhotla’s widow for a U.S. response to hate crimes.
Clinton goaded Trump, writing: “With threats & hate crimes on rise, we shouldn’t have to tell @POTUS to do his part. He must step up & speak out.”
On the other hand, EMAILS!!!!!!
The White House has announced six guests who will sit with the first lady during President Trump’s first address to a joint Congress. They include Megan Crowley — a college sophomore who is the daughter of a health care entrepreneur, Jessica Davis and Susan Oliver — widows of California police officers killed by an undocumented immigrant in 2015, Denisha Merriweather — a woman who was the first in her family to graduate from high school and college, late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s widow Maureen McCarthy Scalia, and Jamiel Shaw Sr. — a father whose son was shot by an undocumented immigrant in 2008.
Traditionally, the president and the first lady guests’ are personifications of policy initiatives that that administration wants to focus on from the president’s speech.
The right kind of murders are OK, I guess.
Betsy DeVos, reminding everyone that the “saying the quiet parts loud” remark we used to make about the Republican Party’s racist statements is completely antiquated in an era of open racism.
Wowwowwow. These paragraphs are from a real, official US Department of Education statement from Betsy DeVos released today. pic.twitter.com/I2FDZfzdmt
— Ankit Panda (@nktpnd) February 28, 2017
I have some other images of freedom-loving choice here:
Here’s someone who is choosing to oppress white choice in Birmingham.
Here’s some people choosing to live in poverty.
Here’s people who chose to be sent across the Atlantic as slaves.
You’d like to think that openly racist statements promoting Jim Crow America as a model for the present would get DeVos fired, but who I am kidding. It all just makes Rand Paul’s dream to overturn the Civil Rights Act more likely.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) is floating the idea of simultaneously confirming both Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee, and Merrick Garland, former President Obama’s nominee, to the Supreme Court.
The New Mexico Democrat told reporters Monday that he pitched moving the two judges during his meeting with Gorsuch, according to multiple reports.
“[Trump’s] got a book that’s widely acclaimed in terms of ‘The Art of the Deal.’ This is a deal that makes sense for the country,” Udall said, according to CNN. “It’s a deal that heals the real deep wounds we’ve had in this election.”
Under Udall’s pitch, Trump would meet with justices considering retiring.
If he promised to nominate Garland — whom Republicans refused to give a hearing or a vote — a justice would submit their letter of resignation. The Senate would move both Gorsuch and Garland’s nomination simultaneously.
What? Who would this resigning judge be? And how would Tom Udall or anyone else make this happen? But then, well, I should have known.
Udall’s proposal is similar to a 2004 episode of “The West Wing.”
In the TV show, the Democratic president needs to fill a Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of a GOP-appointed justice.
As part of a deal to preserve the balance of the court, the president and his staff convince the chief justice to retire and nominate a younger conservative judge to serve on the Supreme Court, as well as a judge considered too liberal to otherwise be confirmed, to be the chief justice.
But an aide for Udall told CNN that the Democratic senator’s plan isn’t ripped from the “West Wing” plot and that he’s only seen a few episodes of the TV show.
I might believe Udall on that last part, but clearly he has a staff member taking The West Wing seriously enough to put this idea in the senator’s ear.
The long-term impact of this show on the thinking of people who are legitimately not stupid and politically minded is way, way too strong.
President Donald Trump told a bipartisan group of governors at a White House reception Monday morning that GOP tax reform would have to wait for lawmakers to move on repealing Obamacare, cautioning that, “Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated.”
“I have to tell you, it’s an unbelievably complex subject,” Trump said.