RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: How Much More of Trump's Insanity Are We Willing to Take? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Friday, 12 January 2018 13:21

Pierce writes: "I'm truly not sure how long the institutions of government can withstand this daily insanity."

Donald Trump. (photo: Getty)
Donald Trump. (photo: Getty)


How Much More of Trump's Insanity Are We Willing to Take?

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

12 January 18


Reflections on the morning after President* Trump's "shithole" comments.

t or near the end of business on Thursday, as the entire world—even the shitholes—knows by now, via The Washington Post, the president* provided a perfect ending to another day in our lunatic paradise.

Trump questioned why the United States would want people from nations such as Haiti, while being briefed on changes to the visa lottery system. According to the aide, when the group came to discussing immigration from Africa Trump asked why we want all these people from "all these shithole countries" and that the U.S. should have more people from places like Norway. The White House issued a statement that did not deny the remarks. "Certain Washington politicians choose to fight for foreign countries, but President Trump will always fight for the American people," White House Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah told NBC Thursday afternoon, part of a lengthy statement that did not directly dispute the language reportedly used in the meeting. "He will always reject temporary, weak and dangerous stopgap measures that threaten the lives of hardworking Americans, and undercut immigrants who seek a better life in the United States through a legal pathway."

Some of the initial reactions to the president*’s diatribe were predictably revolting. White House aides burbled that these remarks would play well to The Base. (Economic anxiety has many faces, as we know.) On Thursday night, a ragged band of apologists for the president* fanned out to the cable shows. All of them eventually found themselves arguing that, hey, if you like places like that, why don’t you go live there? It was pathetic.

By Friday morning, the president* (or someone like him) was back tweeting bullshit about how the Democrats were to blame for the immigration impasse, about how he never said what his own staff declined to deny, and some completely surreal nonsense about how the Obama administration sold the American Embassy in London for “peanuts,” and that’s why he won’t be going to Great Britain any time soon.

(Not that it matters in the great scheme of things, but the Bush Administration sold the embassy in 2008 because of security concerns.)

Also, Jake Tapper of CNN tweeted that he had a source familiar with the meeting who told him that the president* was referring only to countries in Africa as shitholes. But even Tapper’s source told him that the president* did ask why we “needed” more Haitians and that they should be “taken out” of whatever deal, if any, is finally reached. This certainly doesn’t make anything better, but it might explain why the president*’s denials Friday morning were limited to his alleged remarks on Haiti. And, as for why we don’t see many people immigrating here from Norway, I can’t explain it either. Why don't more of those nice white folks give up national healthcare, a guaranteed pension, sickness and survivor benefits, and free college to come here and be embarrassed on a daily basis by a vulgar talking yam? There's just no understanding some people.

Even if Tapper’s right, the remarks remain racist, ignorant, and dangerous. As to the latter, right now, there are 6,000 American soldiers stationed all over Africa in places like Niger, where four Americans were killed from ambush last fall, and Mali, as well as in Cameroon, and in Somalia and Djibouti, on the eastern side of the continent. There has been an American military presence in Djibouti for longer than anywhere else in Africa. The country needs cooperation from these countries in fighting terrorist groups like Boko Haram and what’s left of al Qaeda. By allowing the American military into their country, these governments put bullseyes on themselves. This is what they get in return? And we probably shouldn’t forget that some of the countries in this hemisphere remain devastated at least partly because of American military meddling over the past century.

In addition, according to The New York Times, the Norwegians are outraged at having been drawn into the president*’s psychoses uninvited. I mean, there they were, laying in supplies in preparation to watch their countrymen kick the world’s ass at the Winter Olympics when suddenly, they get dragooned into whatever twisted drama is playing out in the president*’s mind this week.

“The real White House: Trump calls Haiti and African countries ‘shithole’ countries to the face of members of Congress, and uses Norway to prove his racism,” wrote Andreas Wiese, a newspaper commentator who manages the House of Literature, a popular cultural center in Oslo, Norway’s capital.

Helge Ogrim, a veteran journalist who used to cover the United States for the Norwegian News Agency, said of Mr. Trump’s latest remark: “It falls into a pattern of nativist and very unpleasant language from a poorly qualified president, if not worse. President Trump seems to relish in derogatory remarks about others and praise for himself. This incident, just after his blunder with the fictional ‘F-52’ planes, further lowers the respect for his office and for the U.S. abroad.”

Is it that hard to stay friendly with Norwegians? Really?

And, of course, outside of Haitian-American Congresswoman Mia Love of Utah, most Republicans have gone quiet on the whole business. Orrin Hatch, for example, screwed his courage to the sticking place and demanded “a more detailed explanation” of the president*’s remarks, and James Lankford of Oklahoma pronounced himself to be disappointed “if the remarks are accurate.”

I’m truly not sure how long the institutions of government can withstand this daily insanity. The executive branch is a chew-toy. The legislative majorities seem willing to cooperate in their own institutional destruction. There has been some pushback on the lower levels of the federal court system. But, for 30 years, by fair means and foul, the Republicans have been arranging things to produce a one-party corporate state. Now, they have it, or something close to it, except that a half-senile, racist old bag of guts got elected to run it, which is not something they planned on. This modern, caucasian reboot of The Emperor Jones is overlong and incoherent, and Robert Mueller is beating on those drums so loudly that it’s distracting the lead actors.

Up here in the Commonwealth (God save it!), we have a rising political star named Linda Dorcena Forry. She represents the First Suffolk District in the state senate and is currently the assistant majority leader. She also is the child of Haitian immigrants. On Thursday, she released a statement concerning the president*’s remarks.

I have received inquiries asking for my reaction to the president's latest racist slur directed against Haitians and people of African descent worldwide. I am really getting tired of having to do this. I have to express first how demoralizing and upsetting it is to have to register my outrage about hateful remarks made by my own president. And then to have to do it again. And again. The president's words are ignorant and repulsive and an affront to decency and to history.

Like many, I would like to believe that Trump represents the last gasp of a racist worldview that has been in retreat, here in America, since the fall of Jim Crow. Sadly, his views and his presidency serve to embolden other hateful people and to diminish our nation's position as a power for good, for decency, for democracy. Those who enable and normalize his behavior are every bit as culpable as the president himself.

As leaders and as people of free-will, I call upon all Americans to denounce his statements. I'm very disappointed in us, the people of the United States, who saw fit to elect an ignorant, mean-spirited, white supremacist to the most powerful office in the world. This is a very sad time for our country. I ask that the people of Haiti and the African diaspora worldwide keep us in their prayers.

Finally, tonight is the eve of a heart wrenching anniversary for Haiti, for our hemisphere and for all people. Eight years ago tomorrow, Haiti suffered one of the greatest natural catastrophes of the modern age when an earthquake struck on Jan. 12, 2010. Hundreds of thousands of people died. So many more were maimed and left homeless for years to come. Haiti is still working hard to recover and to grieve. On behalf of my family and my constituents here in Boston, I extend my deepest condolences to the families of the victims of the Jan. 12 disaster, who are tonight thinking of their loved ones they have lost. We will always be with you.

This is how leaders talk. This is how presidents used to talk. Goddamn us for forgetting that.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The Short Attention Span Guide to Michael Wolff's 'Fire and Fury' Print
Friday, 12 January 2018 11:49

Taibbi writes: "There is considerable debate in the media world, on both the left and the right, about the value of this book. In the end, I think it's like a piece of moldy rye bread - you have to cut around the hairily sourced parts to keep from getting poisoned. But on a broad level, there is something to dig into."

Donald Trump. (photo: Tom Brenner/Redux)
Donald Trump. (photo: Tom Brenner/Redux)


The Short Attention Span Guide to Michael Wolff's 'Fire and Fury'

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

12 January 18


As factual reporting, it's dubious, but as insight into the thinking of high-level right-wing intellectuals like Steve Bannon, it's subtle – and maybe valuable

quick note about Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury, which upon a second pass still has, to put it mildly, some serious issues: As any art historian can pick out a forgery, veteran journalists reading this book will quickly spot an oversold narrative and perhaps unprecedented sourcing issues.

The tortured "Author's Note" preceding the prologue almost reads like a novel in itself. In fact, trying to follow Wolff's idea of what "off the record" means or does not mean is like trying to follow the hands of a three-card monte dealer. It just can't be done.

As a White House source put it, Wolff's narrative personality is almost like a comedy act in itself:

"He's like the old Jon Lovitz character from Saturday Night Live," the source said. "You know – 'Yeah, I went to Harvard, that's the ticket. And, yeah, I was on the couch in the West Wing for months, that's the ticket.'"

Fire and Fury is really two books rolled into one. The first is a compelling nonfiction book about the intellectual divide in the modern right, as candidly hashed out to Wolff by influential figures like Steve Bannon and Roger Ailes and (seemingly?) Rupert Murdoch.

The second is a Primary Colors-style novel about what goes on behind various closed doors in the Trump White House, based on a few bits and pieces of fact, which are offset by mountains of eye-rollingly insupportable supposition, spiced with occasional stretches of believable analysis.

There is considerable debate in the media world, on both the left and the right, about the value of this book (even I've gone back and forth on it). In the end, I think it's like a piece of moldy rye bread – you have to cut around the hairily sourced parts to keep from getting poisoned. But on a broad level, there is something to dig into.

Reading the book, there are at least a few real points about Trump that shine through:

1) Trump has almost no ideological convictions and is motivated almost entirely by the classic narcissistic value equation, i.e. how much praise or scorn he gets on a second-to-second basis, from whom, and why. Had he not run as a Republican – and in particular won on a platform scripted by a nationalist true believer like Bannon – he might very well by now have been pushed into a completely different kind of presidency. Trump wants so badly to be liked that, especially with the influence of Kushner and Ivanka, he might easily have allowed his White House to drift back toward his original politics, which (as New Yorkers and furious conservatives alike will clearly remember) was once squarely in the Bob Rubin rich-guy sort-of Democrat mold.

2) However, as Bannon points out in the book – correctly – Trump by now is so firmly entrenched in the consciousness of America's intellectual elite as a villain that he will never be accepted by that crowd. The constant battering Trump gets from the press, especially, ensures that he will continue to lash out at them, forcing him continually to tack back to the only people who still like him – Bannon's angry-man followers. This despite the fact that what Trump clearly craves is, instead, the approval of members of his own class.

3) The result is an insane paradox of an America led by a doomed and trapped psyche. This is a president who in another era might have been confined to the impact of an ordinary bad commander-in-chief (we've had many), i.e., sedated and/or scripted in public, and kept on the golf course the rest of the time while the empire runs on the dreary autopilot of donors, P.R. flacks and military advisers.

Instead, we get a leader whose most dangerous moments come during his ever-expanding calendar of hyper-tweeting downtime (incidentally, is anything more certain than the term "executive time" replacing "taking my talents to South beach" as this generation's euphemism for masturbation?). All those crazed Trump tweets guarantee an endless cycle of paranoia and rebuke – and a permanently paralyzed White House.

Anyway, it's a fascinating book. But too long for most people in the Internet age to actually read. So without further ado, here's shorter Michael Wolff, in chapter form:

a) The Author's Note: 

See if you can make sense of this passage:

"Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. Those conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book. Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."

In other words: The unattributed facts you're about to read are sometimes my best guess as to the truth, and sometimes someone else's more dubious version, and you won't know which is which, but – whatever, enjoy!

b) Prologue: Ailes and Bannon

This is the most interesting part of the book, and not just because Wolff has the stones to use the word "louche" in a sentence early on (there's an "I went to college, honest" word choice about once every four pages in Fire and Fury). This passage alone sums up 30 years of the history of right-wing thinking:

"Ailes was convinced that Trump had no political beliefs or backbone. The fact that Trump had become the ultimate avatar of Fox's angry common man was another sign that we were living in an upside-down world. The joke was on somebody – and Ailes thought it might be on him."

This is the main theme of the book: That both the Republican establishment (as represented by the likes of Ailes and Murdoch) and the alt-right revolution (as represented by Bannon) think Trump is a fumbled football they can pick up and run into the end zone of power.

In the end, of course, the joke is on everyone, as Trump's brain fumbles hopelessly out of bounds and neither side successfully appropriates his presidency, which becomes an endlessly circular, purposeless, narcissistic tweet-storm.

1. ELECTION DAY

Wolff becomes roughly the 40,000th writer to compare Trump's campaign to The Producers. In classic Hollywood formula-script fashion, the Trump campaign is presented as composed of characters that each have their own desperate motivation to lose, only to each be crushed in their own way by the shocker result.

This chapter reads a lot like Shattered, the acid catalogue of finger-pointing that took place among high-ranking Clinton campaign figures after Hillary's loss, except here it's backwards. In this case, the characters start to blame each other for somehow transforming what Steve Bannon called a surefire "broke dick" loser campaign into a winner.

The only person who truly believed from the start that Trump would win is Melania, who had learned to expect, with religious certainty, that her husband would deliver upon the worst-case scenario in every situation. She was right.

2. Trump Tower

The president spends the Saturday after the election begging guests to stay to meet a late Rupert Murdoch, not yet realizing he is the president of the United States and probably should be at the top of every party's A-list from now on. 

The fate of Chris Christie and the White House chief-of-staff job is explained. Christie, who played a huge role in Trump's election by being the first establishment Republican to endorse his candidacy (until then, Trump's top backers were celebrity not-smart people like Gary Busey, John Daly, and Johnny Damon), would almost certainly have been chief of staff. But Trump does the unthinkable and gives daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner official posts in his White House, over the objections of noted ethicist Ann Coulter.

In his prosecutor days Christie had put Jared's dad Charlie Kushner in jail in 2005 for tax evasion and witness tampering, among other things, so Christie is cashiered as an impossible fit with the family-run administration.

A number of other unsuitable candidates for the chief post are considered until Trump finally settles on Reince Priebus, a lifetime Republican functionary who lacks the willpower to refuse the suicidal assignment.

3. Day One

Everybody warns Trump not to mess with the intelligence community. "If you fuck with the intel community… you'll have two or three years of a Russia investigation, and every day something else will leak out," Jared is told by one of Wolff's Someones.

Kushner, alarmed, comes up with a plan to build a bridge to the "IC" with a Day One presidential visit to the CIA. Trump dutifully shows up for the address and doesn't take off his overcoat, lending him a "hulking gangster look" that may or may not have been designed to ingratiate him with an audience of spies.

He proceeds to go off on a lunatic rant about the size of the inauguration crowd, how God stopped the rain just in time to allow the great Trump to speak, and how he, Trump, didn't really take down a bust of Martin Luther King, despite what a guy named Zeke from Time tweeted, because "I would never do that, I have great respect for Dr. Martin Luther King."

This is the first of many bridge-building efforts that don't work out so well.

4. Bannon

Bannon goes from being a team player pre-election to being "focused on my shit." He passes David Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest around the White House so that staffers can learn what a political establishment looks like and to recognize a true presidential "mien" (Wolff went to college!). Foreigners, we learn, are the ne plus ultra mania of Trumpism (ibid).

A growing fault line inside the Trump White House is described as beginning to be visible between establishment GOP functionaries like Priebus, Spicer and Priebus deputy Katie Walsh on the one hand, and the likes of Bannon and ex-Jeff Sessions aide and seeming escaped med-school cadaver Stephen Miller on the other. Who will get the upper hand?

5. Jarvanka

Bannon invents the term "Jarvanka" to describe Jared Kushner and wife Ivanka Trump. Trump invites Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough to the White House and serves fish. Mika doesn't eat fish. A long story about Kushner and the New York Observer is told that ends with an explanation about how Trump, who once sought to conquer the New York media scene, eventually had to flee it, going to Hollywood to become a reality star.

This story is important because in Hollywood and then through the election, Trump becomes so famous that the coastal media set – which had effectively driven Trump from New York in the first place in search of less judgmental audiences in flyover country – is now once again forced to cover Trump; a "fabulous, incomprehensible irony," as Wolff puts it.

Also in this chapter: Ivanka once dated an heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune, Jamie Johnson, who cast her in a bizarre movie about the horrible travails of inheriting assloads of money, a film called Born Rich (ultimate marijuana challenge: get baked and watch a tuxedoed Jamie's intro narration without laughing).

"If you have a douchebag dad, and everyone is open about it, then maybe it becomes fun and life a romantic comedy," Wolff writes, channeling Ivanka. "Sort of."

6. At Home

Trump is increasingly mad at the media, in particular at The New York Times, which has reported he stalks around the White House at late hours in a bathrobe.

Bannon's interpretation of the bathrobe detail is that this is a way of depicting Trump as losing it, a la Norma Desmond, the spiraling loony ex-actress in Sunset Boulevard.

Trump complains to everyone that he doesn't have a bathrobe, and moreover wouldn't think of wearing one, and can't believe people would think he does.

"Do I seem like a bathrobe kind of guy?" Wolff says he demands of "almost everyone" he spoke to in the wake of the Times story. This is the kind of thing that passes for important in the Trump White House.

7. Russia

Fire and Fury, while a devastating "notional" portrait of Trump generally, describes a White House that seems genuinely to believe the Russiagate scandal to be a complete hoax. The only crack here is that some of Wolff's sources wonder what Michael Flynn might have "roped the president into."

Wolff furthermore describes a White House that seems more concerned that Russiagate investigations might lead toward more-real revelations in unrelated business dealings.

Bannon says he likes Flynn, that Flynn reminds him of his uncles, but "that's the problem, he reminds me of my uncles."

Flynn, depending on what he says going forward, is, according to Wolff, maybe the most powerful person in Washington.

8. Org Chart

Priebus, says Wolff, is expected to lose his job "as soon as his losing it would not embarrass the president too much."

Katie Walsh, the deputy chief of staff, is portrayed as a Stalinesque figure, quietly assuming all the real organizational responsibilities of the palace while a bunch of more bombastic and self-aggrandizing males proudly pretend to be in charge of the historic ongoing failure that is this presidency.

Trump's ability to read is questioned. Then, that question is questioned, as Wolff notes that Trump can read headlines about himself. "He's just a guy who really hated school," Bannon says, "and he's not going to start liking it now."

9. CPAC

It's a long book but Wolff doesn't have much material, so he fills a lot of it with the transcripts of that weird series of days in which Bannon touches Priebus on the knee at the CPAC conference, only to have Reince recoil (although this scene is not described in the book).

Rebekah Mercer, daughter and heiress to hedge fund manager and major right-wing donor Robert Mercer, who had rescued Trump's floundering campaign after Pussygate, is seen saying the president's insane CPAC speech (basically a declaration of war against the news media) showed him at his "most gracious and charming."

10. Goldman

Wolff discusses how Bannon, Trump and Kushner have differing views about Jews. This somehow becomes a segue to talk about how Goldman, Sachs vets like Gary Cohn and onetime Goldman philanthropic chief (and noted Davos schmoozer) Dina Powell were brought into the White House by Jarvanka. The new Goldman-enhanced team is given credit for composing Trump's relatively sane speech to a joint session of Congress, for which he is, for a few brief hours, praised by almost everyone in the news media, even Van Jones. Jarvanka decrees that "Reaching Out" is the new watchword.

Bannon, who "cast himself as a Cassandra to anyone who would listen," correctly predicts the adulation won't last. Because the virtue of Donald Trump, at least to Bannon, is that he will never be accepted by the "cosmopolitan elite," which by extension includes the news media – which in turn means Bannon will have the White House back in violent conflict with the right people soon enough.

11. Wiretap

Jeff Sessions becomes the center of the latest Russiagate controversy. Trump doesn't understand why talking to the Russians was a big deal.

Tony Blair visits Jared Kushner in a freelance diplomacy capacity and purportedly lets on that the British may have had the Trump campaign under surveillance. This becomes an obsession with Trump, who goes bonkers when he sees Bret Baier interview Paul Ryan on Fox on March 3rd, 2017, quoting a Circa report about surveillance involving the Trump Tower.

It seems like Baier just misspoke in using the word "wiretap," but Trump goes nuts and tweet-storms at 4:35 a.m. that Trump Tower had its "wires tapped."

Then he calls Priebus and holds the phone up so that he, Priebus, can hear a playback of the interview between Baier and Ryan, who appears to kinda-sorta endorse the Circa report in the appearance. Ryan later tells Priebus he was just "BS-ing through the interview."

12. Repeal and Replace

The effort to undo Obamacare fails spectacularly in an episode that either speaks to the total incompetence of the Trump White House, or to a brilliant strategic move by Steve Bannon to demonstrate to Trump the total impotence of Paul Ryan and establishment pols like him. Or both, or neither.

13. Bannon Agonistes

Steve Bannon sees America as hopelessly divided into two hostile groups, one of which will win and one of which will lose. It is a modern undeclared civil war in which the rise of one side will mean, necessarily, the marginalization of the other.

Bannon had originally succeeded in making Trump a believer of this idea. Now, however, the failure of the health care debacle has instead begun to convince Trump that Bannon has to go. The logic here, as relayed by Wolff:

"Bannon's efforts to use the epic health care fail as evidence that the establishment was the enemy had hopelessly backfired. Trump saw the health care failure as his own failure, but since he didn't have failures, it couldn't be a failure, and would in fact be a success – if not now, soon. So Bannon, a Cassandra on the sidelines, was the problem."

The "centrist" wing of the Trump White House and inner circle, which by now includes not just Jarvanka but also Rupert Murdoch, begins to shark-circle around Bannon and point to him as the cause of all trouble.

The Mercers, who had rescued Trump's campaign and installed Bannon, apply pressure to keep Bannon around. A compromise is reached: Bannon will begin leaving at more reasonable hours, and not lingering in case Trump needs a dinner companion.

14. Situation Room

"The unique problem here," writes Wolff, "was partly how to get information to someone who did not (or could not or would not) read."

Trump says of H.R. McMaster, his post-Flynn National Security Advisor: "That guy bores the shit out of me… He looks like a beer salesman."

Then Trump sees McMaster perform well on Morning Joe and decides he's made a good hire.

Bannon has pushed Trump pretty far into what is described as a radical isolationist posture toward the Middle East (or, as Bannon puts it more succinctly, "Fuck 'em").

Now, however, a chemical attack in Syria takes place, and Ivanka and Dina Powell – this is according to Bannon – get Trump's eyes in front of pictures of child chemical-warfare victims "foaming at the mouth."

Trump, Bannon says, melts. He may not like to read, but pictures work. The president (allegedly) calls "a friend" that night. "The foam," Wolff reports him saying. "All that foam."

Trump launches a missile attack in response, and informs the visiting first couple of China over a dinner of "Dover Sole, haricots verts, and thumbelina carrots" that the attack has been completed. Fire and Fury has a fish motif.

Bannon (and the Chinese) are mortified, but everyone else is thrilled that, for the first time, Trump shows evidence of being "manageable."

15. Media

There is a long discussion about what to do about the White House Correspondents' Dinner. The universal assessment is that Trump can dish it out but can't take it, and is not particularly funny – at least not "in that kind of humorous way," Kellyanne Conway is quoted as saying.

There is relief among the staff when it is decided Trump will not attend. He instead goes to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where he inspects a line of "colorful wheelbarrows."

16. Comey

Wolff's telling of the Comey firing story seems to come almost entirely from Bannon's viewpoint. Most of the theories of what happened seem to involve the family, and Ivanka in particular, being afraid the Russia investigation will eventually lead to personal business matters. "The daughter will take down the father," Bannon-Cassandra prophesies on.

A huge part of Trump's problem in Washington, Bannon says, is his inability to understand the mindset of people who seek collective prestige – the "association with hegemonic organizations and a sense of higher cause" – as opposed to individual aggrandizement. Trump, Bannon explains, doesn't get the idea and continually insults career functionaries for being what they're supposed to be, because he doesn't understand anyone who would want that kind of job.

17. Abroad and At Home

Trump and the family pack up for a trip to the Middle East to establish peace there. No problem! They go to Saudi Arabia to visit the Crown Prince of the House of Saud, Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud, a.k.a. MBS.

They don't establish peace in the Middle East. But they do have a $75 million party thrown for them, where the fam gets driven around in gold golf carts and Trump gets to sit "on a throne-like chair."

18. Bannon Redux

Bannon exults in Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, another move designed to permanently place Trump on the other side of a battle with the cultural elite. Bannon crudely says this is a blow to Ivanka.

"Score," he is quoted as saying. "The bitch is dead."

19. Mika Who?

Bannon is quoted as saying that, in his estimation, there is no way Donald Trump Jr. did not bring the dirt-promising Russian delegation led by Natalia Veselnitskaya up to his father's office. "The chance that Don Jr. did not walk these jumos up to his father's office on the 26th floor is zero," Bannon says.

The Urban Dictionary defines a "jumo" as "used universally to insult any person/s regardless their gender, race, nationality, etc."

20. McMaster and Scaramucci

On the reason Anthony Scaramucci wasn't hired initially: "The problem was that, really, nobody liked him."

21.Bannon and Scaramucci

Bannon is feeling superior because Gary Cohn, "once a killer enemy," is by summer trying to curry favor, in search of a Fed Chair appointment.

Cohn is "licking my balls," Bannon says, in an image viciously relayed without warning by Wolff.

Bannon also seems pleased to hear that special prosecutor Robert Mueller has hired Andrew Weissman to his team. Bannon thinks this is deliciously bad news for Jarvanka, who now, Bannon says, have "the LeBron James of money laundering investigations" on their tail.

"You realize where all this is going," Bannon says. "This is about money laundering."

And once again, Bannon-Cassandra predicts that Mueller will steamroll through Manafort straight into Trump family business dealings, Deutsche Bank, etc., what Bannon calls the "greasy shit."

"They're on a beach trying to stop a Category Five," he says.

22.General Kelly

After Charlottesville, Jarvanka urges the hyper-tweeting, defensive and clearly tone-deaf Trump to take a strident posture condemning hate groups and racialists.

Bannon counsels against it, saying, "It will be clear his heart's not in it."

Bannon also advises against the disastrous impromptu presser at Trump Tower that Trump does anyway, sinking the White House into major crisis after Charlottesville.

Bannon at this point calls Robert Kuttner of the American Prospect and gives the interview that will seal his fate – and not coincidentally, provide the end of Wolff's narrative. In the curiously unguarded interview, he says of his enemies in the White House: "They're wetting themselves."

In fact it is Bannon who is out. He immediately runs to Breitbart, swearing revenge. About a half-year later, he is out of that job, too.

Leaving us in the moment we're in now: with Bannon sidelined, but billionaires like Trump and Mercer and permanent Beltwayers back piloting this ghost ship of a presidency. Will Mueller find the "greasy shit" and put an end to it all? Or will the Trump family complete the full Producers-style four-year jail sentence?

What a crazy story. If only we weren't really living it. 


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
NYC Is Taking a Game Changing First in Turning the World Right Side Up Print
Friday, 12 January 2018 09:35

Excerpt: "I want to thank Mayor de Blasio for this historic announcement that New York is divesting from fossil fuels and suing five oil majors."

Naomi Klein. (photo: NaomiKlein.com)
Naomi Klein. (photo: NaomiKlein.com)


NYC Is Taking a Game Changing First in Turning the World Right Side Up

By Naomi Klein, Fossil Free

12 January 18


Speech given by Naomi Klein on January 10, 2018 during NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio's historic announcement.

want to thank Mayor de Blasio for this historic announcement that New York is divesting from fossil fuels and suing five oil majors.

What’s happening here is not only about changing the economics of energy, speeding the transition from dirty to clean.
It’s also about justice.

And it represents a collective victory for the amazing climate justice movement around the world and in this city.

Groups like Uprose, the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance and New York Renews, some of which are here today, as well as global groups like 350.org, which helped kick off the fossil fuel divestment movement about five years ago.

For a very long time, our movements have been insisting that principles of justice need to be at the centre of the response to the climate crisis – a crisis that plays out in the most perversely unjust ways right now.

Justice means that people who did the least to create this crisis but are bearing the heaviest risks and most toxic burdens need to be first to benefit from green economic development and job creation.

Justice also means that workers in polluting industries are not sacrificed or left behind. And justice means something else too, something most politicians are loath to talk about because the wealth and power of fossil fuel companies is so vast.

It means that the corporate interests that did the most to get us into this mess – with their pollution and with their campaigns of wilful misinformation – are going to have to pay their true share of the tremendous costs of climate disruption, and of delayed transition. Because right now we have it upside down and backwards.

As it stands, the costs of sea level rise and ferocious and unprecedented weather events are offloaded on to the public, with taxpayers stiffed with the ballooning bills. And as governments absorb these costs, there is less money for schools, for affordable transit and housing, for health care. And, in yet another bitter irony, this hurts the people who are already impacted by climate change the most.

This city saw all this in dramatic fashion during Sandy, when it was the people in public housing who were left for weeks in the cold and dark.

Meanwhile, the extravagant profits from destabilizing our planet’s life support system, earned from ignoring and suppressing the scientific consensus – well, those are systematically privatized.

Earlier this decade, ExxonMobil alone made $45 billion in profits in a single year– more than any company in history. Enough to pay Rex Tillerson, then its CEO $100,000 a day.

In short, the status quo means the poor are paying again and again for the polluters to get even richer. It’s a world upside down.
But that starts to change today.

By suing these five oil majors who knowingly deepened the climate crisis, and simultaneously beginning the process of divesting $5-billion from fossil fuel companies, New York City is taking a game changing first step in turning the world right side up. And not to overstate the case, but I actually think this could change the world.

There have been lawsuits before that have tried to sue the fossil fuel giants for climate damages. The tiny Arctic community of Kivalina, population 383, which attempted to recover the costs of having to relocate. Some citizens of the low-lying Pacific Island of Vanuatu– population 300,000 – that began a similar suit. A lone Peruvian famer, suing a German coal giant for the risks to his home. A small group of Gulf Coast Mississippi homeowners, with the help of a scrappy lawyer, who tried to sue the fossil fuel companies after Hurricane Katrina.

These have been valiant attempts, but in every case, the industry has relied on the relative weakness and poverty of its accusers, sometime managing to quash suits before they were filed.

And that is why today’s news is so historic. Because bullying isn’t going to work here the way it has in the past.

This lawsuit is coming from the largest city in the most powerful country on the planet, a city which also happens to be the financial capital of world.

And now that New York City has thrown down in such a big way – on divestment, on polluter pays — it’s going to embolden all kinds of other actors to step up as well. Other cities around the world. Universities. Foundations. Other states. Even entire nation states.

As of today, everyone needs to up their ambition. Be bolder. Move faster. It’s what our planet requires. And it’s what justice demands. No politician on the planet is doing enough. But there can be no doubt that the bar for what it takes to call yourself a climate leader has just been dramatically raised.

A few years ago, an Ecuadorian court ordered Chevron to pay $19-billion in damages for an oil disaster known as the “Rainforest Chernobyl.” A spokesperson for the company responded by pledging that it would “fight this until hell freezes over. And then we’ll fight it on the ice.”

Well, New Yorkers know how to fight. They even know how to fight on the ice, as the New York Rangers occasionally show. I want to thank all the fighters in this room for reminding us of that.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Warning: Trump's Babysitters Are About to Go Home Print
Friday, 12 January 2018 09:31

McArdle writes: "'More than half a dozen of the more skilled White House staff are contemplating imminent departures,' says the news site Axios. 'Many leaving are quite fearful about the next chapter of the Trump presidency.'"

National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty)
National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty)


Warning: Trump's Babysitters Are About to Go Home

By Megan McArdle, Bloomberg

12 January 18


If this is what he's like surrounded by A-list advisers, expect chaos after they quit.

o Michael Wolff wrote a book about Donald Trump. Perhaps you've heard about it?

The internet spent a few days pointing and laughing at the more extraordinary claims about Trump’s behavior (including some the book didn't actually make), and then settled down to the serious business of figuring out which of them were true.

The consensus here in Washington is that Mr. Wolff has perhaps been a little too credulous with his sources, particularly with Steve Bannon, who has since recanted. But beneath that is the feeling that while many of the specifics are in question, the underlying picture resonates with those who deal with the White House.

That picture shows a president who does not read enough to be given thorough briefings, who makes snap judgments (nobody is quite sure what these judgments are based on), who is extremely confident of his own acumen and little interested in the opinions of others -- and whose staffers, even the anti-establishment types, often quiver with contempt for their boss whenever they are off the record.

“More than half a dozen of the more skilled White House staff are contemplating imminent departures,” says the news site Axios. “Many leaving are quite fearful about the next chapter of the Trump presidency.”

Ominous words, for those who have been counting on what Ross Douthat this week called “Trump’s Petticoat Government” -- the coalition of people who keep Trump from blithely making disastrous snap decisions.

Those advisers are frequently derided by people who had hoped that Trump’s administration would be more revolutionary, and far more effective, than it has turned out to be. Insiders, of course, have a different take. But while conceding that insiders are self-dealing and self-protective, and often blind to many important things, including their own blindness, I still maintain that you can’t write off Trump’s caretakers as simply counterrevolutionaries who have enfolded our new leader’s noble ambitions in a stasis field of red tape.

In fact, the outsiders whom people were counting on to “drain the swamp” needed startlingly little assistance to get themselves booted off the SS Trump as it headed into those murky waters. And even before those folks were thrown overboard, they proved no more effective than anyone else at steering the understaffed and rudderless vessel toward coherent policy change.

There is a reason that the only successful major endeavor of the Trump administration so far has been a rather conventional Republican tax bill, and it’s not that he was undone by his advisers. It’s that a conventional Republican tax bill was about the only thing that Republicans in Congress could agree upon (barely), and pass (barely), without presidential leadership laying out detailed policy goals and rallying the public behind them.

On foreign policy, of course, the president has more scope for action. But by a similar token, he has vastly more potential to blunder catastrophically, at the cost of millions of lives. Perhaps the foreign policy establishment is too cautious; perhaps America could wring more concessions out of foreign leaders if we were more intransigent. But when errors on the aggressive side mean war, overcaution is an understandable posture, even if it means some financial cost, and some missed opportunities to enjoy swashbuckling triumphalism.

We saw what those sorts of errors looked like in our second showdown with Iraq. Having seen, how many of us are eager for the nuclear sequel to the Korean War? Even if that isn’t the most likely outcome -- even if the probability remains small -- it’s the sort of thing you want to go a long way to avoid.

During the campaign, his supporters seemed to agree with this premise. Over and over, I was informed that Trump was the alternative to establishment Republicans who engaged in gratuitous military adventurism. Now, when left to his own devices, he seems to positively enjoy goading a nuclear-armed enemy. Which raises the question: What happens if he’s left to his own devices? What happens if those advisers actually do leave?

We may be about to find out. Why stay with the administration? At this point, it’s clear to everyone who might become any sort of policy adviser that there is no hope for a grand master plan of anything, no hope of getting any expansive policy agenda to catch Trump’s extremely limited attentional bandwidth. That’s true whether you’re a MAGA America Firster or a conventional Republican.

It’s also clear that Trump has lost a great deal of political capital, limiting legislative options even if he would listen to his most ambitious and savvy advisers. And one more thing is positively pellucid: Anyone who joins this White House can look forward to unprecedented levels of chaos, infighting and backstabbing, under a boss who will not respect them, or listen to much of anything they have to say.

As the current crop of advisers turns over, who will step forward to take up their unenviable burdens? No one has so far walked out of the Trump West Wing looking better than when they entered. It would be better for the country if the president had good people around him. But how many are going to volunteer to lean into the strike zone and take one for the team? And how many can be confirmed if the Senate tips into Democratic hands next year?

The first chapter of the Trump presidency has been … interesting. We’ll have to hope that the next chapter doesn’t find the protagonist left all on his own, embarking upon a series of truly hair-raising adventures.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Corporate America Celebrated Tax Cuts by Laying Off Workers Print
Friday, 12 January 2018 09:28

Dayen writes: "Don't let a twisted and dishonest PR scheme by massive companies grateful for Trump's huge Christmas present distort the truth."

Donald Trump. (photo: Getty)
Donald Trump. (photo: Getty)


ALSO SEE: Walmart Quietly Lays Off
Thousands of Workers After Bonus Announcement

Corporate America Celebrated Tax Cuts by Laying Off Workers

By David Dayen, VICE

12 January 18


Don't let a twisted and dishonest PR scheme by massive companies grateful for Trump's huge Christmas present distort the truth.

ast week, Donald Trump appeared remotely on two giant monitors before the White House press corps to personally thank corporate America. “The historic tax cut I signed into law… is already delivering major economic gains,” the president boasted, ticking off a series of announcements from big business about one-time bonuses, 401(k) contributions, workforce and infrastructure investments, and even higher wages. “I want to thank all of the companies that worked so hard to do it.”

Could it be that all the naysayers, the economists and advocates and experts who expected Trump’s massive corporate tax cut to quickly get funneled into the pockets of the rich, were wrong? Will the tax cut really spur the kind of economic activity that will boost jobs and wages and lift up the ordinary worker?

No. But this may end up being the most aggressive corporate public relations scheme we’ve seen in America since a bunch of movie studios got together during the Great Depression to run attack ads smearing Upton Sinclair’s progressive campaign for governor of California. The money flowing to workers in these announcements are like a nickel in a tin can compared to the bounty rushing into corporate treasuries. In many cases, they seem to have been pre-planned prior to the tax bill, done to reap a tax write-off, or announced to mask layoffs elsewhere in the business.

Consider the one-time, $1,000 bonuses for employees that many companies, like Comcast and AT&T, have announced. First of all, one-time bonuses, while nice to have, are not wage increases. The promise of the tax cut was not that it would let companies throw a few bucks in the employee tip jar, but permanently raise pay. Bonuses don’t make up for stagnant wages, as Southwest Airlines’ mechanics union, which has been locked in a contract battle for over five years, told the company.

The Comcast and AT&T bonuses were also announced late last year, allowing them to be written off as a business expense in 2017. If a business gave a bonus in 2017, it went against the 35 percent corporate tax rate then in effect. If were to give one this year, the bonus would only go against the new 21 percent rate. In other words, it was cheaper for businesses to announce bonuses in December than January, suggesting we may not see much of their kind again.

But Comcast and AT&T in particular serve as the poster children for dishonesty in this matter. Because around the same time that they made a big show of rewarding employees with bonuses, both companies quietly engaged in layoffs. Comcast fired 500 members of its sales department before Christmas, and AT&T is eliminating “thousands” of jobs, according to its union, the Communications Workers of America. “We believe there's more than 4,000 people AT&T has (notified of layoffs) across the country,” Larry Robbins, vice president of CWA Local 4900, told the Indianapolis Daily Star.

Just to do the math on this, $1,000 bonuses to 200,000 AT&T workers is $200 million. Cancelling 4,000 jobs at the median US compensation of $59,000 per year (some of the workers affected likely earned less) would actually amount to a higher number, and unlike the bonuses, those layoffs are permanent. More to the point, any $1,000 bonus for workers is a drop in the ocean compared to chopping the corporate tax rate by 40 percent, as the Trump tax cuts will. AT&T, according to calculations from economist Dean Baker, will see $2.4 billion in annual savings from that tax cut, more than ten times the likely cost of its the one-time bonus. (Neither Comcast nor AT&T immediately responded to a request for comment.)

Then there are the vows to increase investment ringing down from the highest corridors of American business. Boeing, for example, announced $200 million in workforce-related investments last month; they also announced $100 million in charitable investments, which are tax-deductible. Southwest has also announced a “charitable investment,” also known as a tax deduction. Companies donate to charity all the time to pump up their public image and take tax benefits. And these particular donations don’t even come close to the size of the corporate tax cut.

If there are real and enduring upticks in corporate investment from the tax bill, it will emerge in forthcoming data, but recent history suggests we should be deeply skeptical. A 2004 tax holiday allowed businesses to bring $312 billion back from overseas at a 5.25 percent rate. But the top 15 companies that took advantage of the holiday cut 20,931 jobs, according to a Senate investigation. The money went not into investment, but executive compensation and shareholder payouts, such that even George W. Bush reportedly vowed to never do such a thing ever again.

But what about companies like Wells Fargo, which kicked up its entry-level wage to $15 an hour? Surely this is a good sign? It sure is, except Wells Fargo’s own spokesman said it had nothing to do with the tax bill. “We have been on a path to increasing the minimum hourly rate, having most recently increased it in January 2017,” spokesman Peter Gilchrist pointed out to the LA Times, only to change his mind a day later, saying it really was about the tax cut.

Gilchrist should have stuck with his initial statement. States around the country, including California, where Wells Fargo has its headquarters and many branches, are gradually increasing minimum wages to $15 an hour. Those laws, and companies like Target escalating their own wages to retain staff in a tight labor market, seem like a better bet for wage hikes than the Trump tax cuts.

By the way, we actually know what executives like those at Wells Fargo are thinking about the tax law, because the bank's CEO Tim Sloan told CNN Money the day the bill passed: “Is it our goal to increase return to our shareholders… yes. So our expectation should be that we will continue to increase our dividend and our share buybacks next year and the year after that and the year after that.”

Dividends, a flat payout of profits to shareholders, and buybacks, a more roundabout way of taking shares off the market and thereby increasing the stock price artificially, both reward investors. And in the first ten days after the Senate advanced its version of the tax bill December 2—when everyone knew it was likely that a big corporate tax cut would pass—companies announced $70.2 billion in stock buybacks. That included Boeing, announcer of planned workforce investments, with an additional $4 billion in buybacks; Bank of America, whose $5 billion buyback dwarfs its $1,000 one-time bonus to 145,000 workers; and JetBlue, whose $750 million in buybacks also came alongside a $1,000 bonus announcement.

But the real corporate face of the tax cut is Pfizer. The drugmaker is said to have among the largest stash of money of any corporation parked offshore, which under the tax law they can now bring back at a dramatically discounted rate. So how have they repaid workers since enjoying that windfall? They’ve announced a $10 billion buyback, an increased dividend, and the elimination of investment into research on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, laying off 300 scientists and putting breakthroughs to fight those diseases further out of reach. (When reached for comment, Pfizer spokeswoman Neha Wadhwa told VICE that the research and shareholder payout decisions were "totally independent of tax reform," and that the company would decide how to react to the tax changes alongside its earnings statement later this month.)

In other words, these announcements are worse than a joke. They represent a deliberate strategy to curry favor with the public and President Trump while executives gorge themselves on tax cuts, most of which won’t trickle down to anyone. Corporations simply don’t make decisions based on taxes, and certainly not decisions to benefit workers over the long-term. These corporate PR departments are deceiving America to preserve an ideology of ultra-low taxes, and hoping nobody notices the truth.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 Next > End >>

Page 1377 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN