See How A REAL President Conducts A Press Conference - vs. A Hollow Pretender -Elect

Watching the spectacle of Trump's first press conference in 168 days yesterday had me wondering why the hell I bothered. Well, let us admit that deep within every person there lurks the desire - every now and then - to watch a 'train wreck'. Because that's what yesterday's fiasco was. A brash, brusque buffoon with no class or intelligence, conducting what was advertised by his lackeys as a "press conference" but was in fact merely another forum to display his authoritarian narcissistic tendencies at the expense of the press corps. No give and take, no humor, only crass bully boy attacks that were designed to appeal to only the crassest natures.

But the starkest takeaway for me had to be how far the quality of press conferences had fallen in the past 50 odd years. From JFK's exuberant, infectiously intellectual and witty displays to the obnoxious snorts and indignant accusations - coupled with sneers - of Donald J. Trump.

Compare Trump's one sided "you are fake news"  ranting crappola e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAkumy7_Pbc


With any of the excerpts from JFK's press conferences shown here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twL2wzOf1c4


In particular, note the respect conveyed to the press by JFK, and the boundless wit and intelligence with which he delivers his responses, compared to Trump's petulant, self-absorbed and accusatory exhibition which was more like a dare, and definitely defiant. As if to say, "wait'll I become President you will really find out who's the boss!"

Might Trump improve to the level of JFK after he's inaugurated. Doubtful, because putting lipstick on a pig doesn't alter the nature of the pig. It's still what it is. In the same way, you can't transfer class or intelligence or even humor to a hollow money grubbing, glorified carny barker who lacks it.

During his afternoon broadcast Fox News’ Shephard Smith said, “CNN’s exclusive reporting on the Russian matter was separate and distinctly different from the document dump executed by an online news property. Though we at Fox News cannot confirm CNN’s report, it is our observation that its correspondents follow journalistic standards and that neither they nor any other journalists should be subjected to belittling or delegitimizing by the President-elect of the United States.”

Shep's points were spot on and shouldn't need bolstering. They ought to be evident to any sane and reasonable person.   Certainly, no genuine member of the press corps who witnessed yesterday morning's diatribe -laced event could not come away shaken, and yes, wondering if freedom of the press might be under the gun in the Trump administration.

National Press Club President Thomas Burr called it "dangerous and unhealthy to declare a news item as 'fake news' to distract from facts that you may not like or don't favor your perspective," in a statement issued about the president-elect's press conference. "Our incoming president must treat the news media as the vital cornerstone of our democracy that it is," he said. "To label something as 'fake' in an effort to undermine news outlets endangers the trust granted journalists by the public and is antithetical to our country's values."

And as I pointed out in the previous post, the ultimate irony of it all is that Trump himself is the "godfather" of fake news!  He concocted the BS news that the "Chinese invented global warming", and also the pseudo-conspiracy bilge that Ted Cruz' dad was involved in the Kennedy Assassination. He also invented the hyper-ignorant bollocks that he actually "won" the popular vote - if you subtract all the "illegal voters". Of course, no evidence at all supports this claptrap any more than Trump's other fake news brain farts. They are all the creations of a febrile mind that operates at the level of a hormone -compromised adolescent - of maybe 13.

The biggest outrage apart from marginalizing members of the press yesterday may be when he compared the intelligence community to "Nazi Germany".  But like his other insane balderdash the analogy is wacked. You can't compare an entire national entity to an intelligence agency. The 'apples to apples' comparison is the U.S.  intelligence agencies to the Gestapo.

But even here he fails. Because if the CIA and other agencies were really like the Gestapo, Trump would have been hanging by his thumbs in a rendition site over a month ago, getting bratwurst enemas and electric shocks delivered to ....well.....all the sensitive areas the Gestapo preferred.

In short, Trump is lucky the intelligence agencies in our country aren't like the Gestapo of Nazi Germany.

The best take recently on Trump has been offered by Richard Cohen in his WaPo article, 'How to Remove Trump From Office'. He writes:

"Donald Trump is a one-man basket of deplorables. He is a braggart and a liar. He is a bully and a demagogue. He is an ignoramus and a deadbeat, a chiseler and either a sincere racist or an insincere one, and his love for himself is matched only by my loathing of him. He is about to be president of the United States. A constitutional coup may be in the offing.

Since winning the election, Trump has not moderated his behavior. He still behaves like a brat ...It is folly to think that aides such as Priebus are going to be able to moderate Trump. They are enablers, emptying their consciences and stuffing their egos, and it is even sillier to think that Trump himself will change

He thinks he is infallible, a kind of secular pope. Things will go from bad to worse...  One remote remedy is impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate...There is, however, another way. Under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, the vice president, together with a “majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide” can remove the president for being “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

The 25th amendment, hmmm. sounds like a plan to rid ourselves of this ambulatory pestilence.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/richard-eskow/70643/the-dullest-moment-in-trump-s-press-conference-was-also-the-most-shocking

Trump Goes Ballistic Tweeting He's Not A Russian Stooge

'The Donald' goes ballistic (again) denying he's a Manchurian candidate.

All hell broke loose yesterday, as a breaking news item on CNN, disclosed the Trump campaign had used surrogates to remain in communication with the Russkies, and also that Trump himself was compromised by salacious material they had on him.   This, of course, was the very thing the Founders most worried about: a chief executive compromised by a foreign power.  The signs were all there earlier (based on Trump's numerous business entanglements)  which is why we literally begged electors to do the right thing and deny Trump the presidency. Now, we may have a compromised Russian stooge in office by inauguration day - next Friday.

Of course Trump,  in a tweet storm,  denied it all.

In a series of four tweets on Wednesday, Mr. Trump denounced the report as “A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FABRICATION, UTTER NONSENSE,” adding: “Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA — NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!”

Notice here all the caps, the equivalent of shouting, the sure sign of a three year old's temper tantrum . Also, methinks he doth protest too much. Further question: WHY didn't this jackass stooge not respond when the intelligence agencies released its report to him last Friday and included the latest findings (made possible by a Brit MI-6 agent) in an appendix.

As per a NY Times report from yesterday:

"The chiefs of America’s intelligence agencies last week presented President Obama and President-elect Donald J. Trump with a summary of unsubstantiated reports that Russia had collected compromising and salacious personal information about Mr. Trump, two officials with knowledge of the briefing said."

In a real stroke of irony, Trump also said on Twitter that the report was “fake news” leveled by “crooked opponents” who were trying to belittle his victory.  Not even realizing he's already belittled (as well as delegitimized)  his presidency by refusing to accept the original  intelligence agencies' report on  Russian hacking of the recent election.

In an even more classic case of irony Trump likened the report — a summary of which was presented to him, to President Obama and to congressional leaders — to a smear campaign, asking, “Are we living in Nazi Germany?”

Are you shitting me? Seriously? A guy with all the personality hallmarks of Adolf Hitler (authoritarian narcissist, necrotic) is asking if we are living in Nazi Germany? Well, uh no, at least not yet. But we may soon be living in a new Reich if Trump and his cohort succeed in implementing their brand of fascism on us all. (As a first warning look for any repeal of habeas corpus via the 2006 Military Commissions Act).

What is Trumpy pissing in his Depends over?

The report appended to the main Intel release comprised a series of memos, describing sex videos involving Mr. Trump and prostitutes at a Moscow hotel in 2013. The videos were supposedly recorded as “kompromat,” a Russian word used to describe compromising material that can be used to gain leverage.

Before any Trumpster objects, let's bear in mind this was the same asshole caught on tape bragging about "grabbing pussies". Now, with an MI-6 report on him getting it free, we're expected to dismiss it out of hand - even after it was included in the report handed him last week?  (And intel sources cited it as "credible")

As I noted the appended report was compiled mainly by a retired British intelligence operative who received information from Russian informants and others.  This MI-6 operative, by the way, had always proven credible in his earlier contacts with U.S. intelligence so there is no reason to doubt him now.

It is true it was prepared for a Washington political and corporate research firm, and was paid for by Mr. Trump’s political rivals- including in his own Republican Party. But let's be quite clear here: merely because an "oppo" research contribution was made doesn't mean it was fallacious, fabricated  or illegitimate.

What we need to do now is wait as the assorted U.S. intelligence sources, as well as the FBI, vet the information and hopefully in an expeditious manner. One thing we cannot afford is having a compromised stooge occupying the most powerful position in the world.  That would be one shade worse than an unhinged, mentally unbalanced narcissist with the proclivities of a 3- year old.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/john-feffer/70642/the-russian-honeypot

AGU Needs To Sever Ties With ExxonMobil's "Blood money"

When I joined the American Geophysical Union more than 30 years ago, I did so to be part of a professional organization of scientists at the forefront of research from space physics to climate change.  Indeed, from the time the AGU position on climate change first came out, followed by a mild revision, e.g.


http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf


It has been encouraging to see at least one major scientific organization out in the open stating clearly the extent to which climate change-global warming is real and a threat to all of us on this planet.

Therefore, it was somewhat shocking to read in a recent issue of Eos: Earth & Space Science News (December, page 8, 'AGU Should Sever Ties With ExxonMobil') that the research organization to which I belong has actually been taking money from the most arrogant and deceptive climate change deniers for the past 15 years.  This according to the three authors of the article: Michael Mann, Naomi Oreskes, and Kerry A. Emmanuel.

As the authors note:

"For decades, ExxonMobil has engaged in a campaign of disinformation: funding individuals and organizations committed to portraying climate change as highly uncertain, if not a hoax; questioning the motives of climate scientists; and targeting researchers for personal attacks aimed at discrediting their findings.

ExxonMobil executives have repeatedly suggested in speeches, in interviews, and in “advertorials” that climate science was too unreliable to be trusted as a basis for policy making. Flying in the face of peer-reviewed economic studies, they have also insisted that the costs of mitigating climate change would be greater than the benefits.

Accepting ExxonMobil money violates AGU’s own policy on accepting funding from groups that peddle misinformation. Given these facts, it baffles us that the American Geophysical Union (AGU) continues to accept money from ExxonMobil. The more than half a million dollars of ExxonMobil money that AGU has accepted over the past 15 years violates AGU’s own policy on accepting funding from groups that peddle misinformation.

Last month, AGU reaffirmed its perplexing stance. On 23 September, its Board of Directors chose not to sever ties to ExxonMobil funding, despite receiving a detailed report from AGU members that demonstrates that ExxonMobil is still in the business of disinformation."


These opening sentences left me with mouth agape and in near disbelief. How on earth could an organization to which I'd committed more than 3 decades of time, energy (and money!)  have made such an awful, near sighted decision? I mean, why accept "blood oil money" from a bunch dedicated to denying what your own position statement displays?  Have even the most venerable professional scientific organizations been perverted by "Trumpdom"? Well, of course, that can't be a factor given it's been going on for 15 years. This elicits the question of whether the money given was that important to AGU carrying out its mission.

I doubt it, given that a half million bucks over 15 years is, let's be clear, essentially "chump change" compared to the tens of millions collected in regular professional fees, membership fees. I mean, we're talking about  $33,300 a year. Is that really all it takes for a scientific organization to sell its principles, its very "soul"?   

These questions are even more to the point given, as the authors point out (ibid.):

"ExxonMobil’s systematic attacks on climate science are well documented. They have been detailed by our fellow scientists, as well as us—indeed, we ourselves have been targets of ExxonMobil’s repeated attacks. ExxonMobil’s assault on climate science has been documented in the scholarly research of historians and sociologists who have taken up the issue of attacks on science as a question of academic scholarship. The attacks have also been heavily explored by journalists, science advocacy organizations, and filmmakers.

What’s more, ExxonMobil’s attacks on climate science are not a thing of the past. A report by AGU members sent to AGU’s Board on 25 March 2016, ahead of their 6–7 April Board meeting, documented an exhaustive body of evidence supporting the fact that ExxonMobil “continues to generate its own misinformative comments, fund groups that promote climate science misinformation, and financially support more than 100 climate-denying members of Congress.”

Moreover, “despite stating publicly in 2008 that it would no longer support climate science misinformation, ExxonMobil has continued to make public statements disparaging the validity of climate science and to financially support others who do the same.”"

The most trenchant point of all is perhaps:


"The fact that AGU accepts this money is a clear violation of AGU’s Organizational Support Policy. The policy states, “AGU will not accept funding from organizational partners that promote and/or disseminate misinformation of science, or that fund organizations that publicly promote misinformation of science.”

Adding:

"It is precisely because ExxonMobil so clearly fails to meet the standard of this policy that more than 100 leading AGU members, including the three of us, were signatories to an open letter last February urging AGU to sever its ties with the company. The letter noted that “AGU has established a long history of scientific excellence with its peer-reviewed publications and conferences, as well as a strong position statement on the urgency of climate action. But by allowing Exxon to appropriate AGU’s institutional social license to help legitimize the company’s climate misinformation, AGU is undermining its stated values as well as the work of its own members.”

AGU must understand that this is not merely a matter of cosmetics or optics. The fact that money - in any amount - is being accepted from ExxonMobil, actually undermines credibility in AGU's position statement and its commitment to serious climate science.

At the same time this schizoid behavior may need a broader explanation. As Naomi Klein has noted ('This Changes Everything') while insurance and re-insurance companies are at the forefront of concern over climate change, i.e. Ms. Klein quotes  (p. 49)one Swiss re-insurer (Swiss Re Americas):

"What keeps me up at night is climate change."

Many still contribute "substantial sums of money" to climate denier think tanks like the Heartland Institute. Ms. Klein offers no convincing reason for such contradictory behavior, but it could well be explained by a divergence between individuals in a company and the opinion of the whole Board of Directors.  In any case, as climate change disasters ramp up this split will have to end, given insurers will be bleeding more and more money.

In any case, one hopes AGU will soon see the gross error of its ways and send these ExxonMobil spinners and their money packing.

See also:

www.ucsusa.org/decadesofdeception

As We Feared: Trumpies Are Hopeless Brain-jacked Zombots- But WHY?

In the wake of Trump's ascension to power, many academics and others have been working overtime to try to explain how so many could fall for this character's codswallop to the extent of allowing him entry  to the most powerful position in the world. The race to understand has ramped up as Trumpies - as we call them - merely shrug their shoulders at multiple outrages, including: Trump's absurd cabinet picks, and especially the release of the declassified intelligence report on the hacking of the recent  election.

Many of us in the reality-based community feared that too many on the other side would yet again shrug shoulders, yelp 'sour grapes' or express contempt. We feared, and it now seems we are proven right, that this country truly is divided across perception lines which bodes ill for its future. Because a house divided against itself - certainly in terms of common perceptions - cannot stand.

A NY Times article from Sunday, exposed the mental, perceptual fault lines clearly, and showed Trump voters exist in a bubble of their own, devoid of historical or political insight.  One is also led to contemplate that their bubble excludes rational thought, though that may not mean they are of low IQ.

Work by Dr. Robert Altemeyer, for example, discloses a subset of humans he calls "right wing authoritarians" whose choices are largely driven by fear. Thus, they are largely immune to rational exchange and any digression from an authority template is violently rebuked, or dismissed. It is not lack of intellect that governs this but fear. Fear of the unknown, of the "liberal" (or Muslim) "other",  As one commentator on this blog has put it: "At heart, these people are afraid to the extent of cowardice and they will accept anything buttressing their conception of safety...no matter how ridiculous or absurd the prophylactic / remedial measure may be."

In a way this also dovetails with work by Erich Fromm on the  "Necrophilous personality".  Harvey Hornstein's profile of the necrotic personality (p. 41) is especially chilling ( 'Cruelty & Kindness: A New Look At Altruism and Aggression'):

"(These) intolerant, prejudiced, authoritarian people are ill at ease. The baggage of their youth is filled with inescapable hates and fears. Mistrusting their own impulses, they are wary of others and the impulses they might possess. Their world becomes a jungle which must be carefully scrutinized because it is filled with human beings who harbor the 'evil' that they painfully learned to deny in themselves."

The upshot from this is that their perceptions and political choices are skewed and distorted in much the same way Robert Altemeyer attributes to "right wing authoritarians". That is, they view the outside world  - economic and political - as "a jungle which must be carefully scrutinized" but also rejected if it doesn't comport with their Zeitgeist.

All of this is necessary to grasp the examples illustrated in the Times' piece. Let's look at a few of them, dealing with reaction to the declassified intelligence report (which I have also read and found compelling to the extent we have a national emergency on our hands):

"From the parts of the report I’ve seen,” said Rob Maness, a retired Air Force colonel who twice ran for Senate here as Tea Party favorite, “it seems silly.”

Silly? Really? That a foreign entity is intruding into our elections, something that would have elicited at least overt alarm in 95 percent of citizens even thirty years ago. But his remark shows the extent to which brains -minds have  evidently been twisted toward the authoritarian mindset, likely by decades of PR and propaganda that render them numb to reason, objectivity.

"There are genuine concerns about Russia’s cyberoperations", Maness said, but ""the notion that they changed the outcome of the election was absurd". (The report made no determination on how they affected the election, but this is not the same as Trump's claim that no affect on outcome was concluded.)

Of the comments he had seen from fellow Trump supporters on Facebook and in emails, he added, “90 percent of them are like, ‘What’s the big deal?’”

The Russians may have very well gotten involved, several people said. They added that kind of interference should be combatted. But many assumed that foreign actors had long tried to play favorites in American elections (NOT true) and that the United States had done the same in other countries’ elections (true, as with Chile in the 1970s, and Mossadegh in Iran, overthrown in 1953). 

A most disturbing theme that recurs is "Even if the Russians did do it what difference did it make?" 

And typically, many Trump voters did not need the Russians to make up their minds about Mrs. Clinton.  Hence, blaming her loss on the Russians was, as one Trump supporter said, “ just being sore losers.”

No reference (from the report) that the Russians had ALSO hacked the Republicans, but they simply didn't use what they found against that party.

Incredibly, even among those who were troubled by the hacks, few felt that Russia was a serious threat. That country was “a basket case,” (not true)  or not the powerful foe it once was (false, as they still have nearly 400 more nuclear warheads than the U.S.), Others said that North Korea, the Islamic State and China were the real threats   A claim difficult to reconcile with the fact that Russia has more than five times the nuclear warheads and missiles as all these other entities combined.

That those on the political right seemed to be warming to Russia was not seen as a particularly unusual development to the Trumpies interviewed, though some joked about the incongruity of the left putting such faith in the Central Intelligence Agency..  This, of course, is a variant of the post hoc fallacy, that because the political left may have earlier had issues with the CIA (e.g. during the Church Committee (FISA) hearings of the 1970s) they must have issues in all later years.

Another form of dismissal pivots on Trump's personality, or what Trumpies are confident is his personality.

Thus, one woman insisted “Trump is Trump,” adding “Do I think he’s going to become more of a friend to Russia because of this? No I don’t. I think — I hope — his focus will be on making America great again.”

Again, this reflects the clouded judgment of a right wing authoritarian who is prepared to dismiss obvious character  faults (e.g. lack of impulse control)  in the interest of embracing a faint hope of national betterment ('making America great').

Perhaps the most disturbing reaction of all was this, in response to the issue of the Russians hacking actually affecting the electoral outcome:

“If that’s what it took, I’m glad they did it.”  In the words of one guy from Louisiana.

Sadly, his remark says all we need to know about how our nation is now in the grip of unreasoning authoritarian zombots, inhabiting their own bubble, to the detriment of the nation.

Don't Even THINK Of Comparing TRUMP to JFK!

Seems now some addle-pated conservo bloggers with too much time on their hands have taken the fake news idiom even further - to fake history. That is, actually trying to argue (presumably with straight face) that Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy are both cut from the same cloth. Not bloody likely! Or let me put it this way, about as likely as Ike Eisenhower being a commie.

Let's start with some basics: irrespective of whether dad Joseph P. Kennedy was a "Bootlegger" or not, this did not make Jack one too, or mean that Jack inherited all or part of Joe's money to launch his own bootlegging business!

Most significantly, JFK would never in a billion years have kept Kennedy business interests while President, nor would he have turned them over to close family members and called it a "blind trust" as Trump has.  Thus, Jack like other real presidents, divested himself completely of any and all business entanglements (including investments) unlike Trump.

JFK, like my dad, served in the Pacific Theater in WW II and actually helped save a number of his men. Trump, by contrast, has no military service at all, nor saved anyone in ANY war. He did spend some time at a New York Military Academy, basically because his parents couldn't keep control of him. (No wonder when you see his lack of impulse control now)

JFK read profusely, up to twenty complete newspapers a day. In addition, he read books - whole books - not comics like Trump, or National Enquirer gossip pieces.  JFK could do this because he read at a rate exceeding 1200 words per minute. This compares to Trump's 50 words per minute, which is why he must stick to tweets.

JFK held full news conferences, more than any other president where he took on the press, media openly and ably. His vocabulary and wit never failed to astound the gathered press corps. Trump has yet to call a major press conference, and if he does is unlikely to say anything more than "Yeah that there idea sounds good".

The extent of Trump's  vocabulary runs to about 200 words, as captured by his twaddle-filled tweets.

Contrary to the misbegotten trope that JFK voted against Civil Rights, in fact he was the one who proposed the original civil rights act which HE would have signed into law had he not been assassinated.  While it is true Bobby did worry about the political implications of supporting civil rights, JFK actually took on the segregationists directly.

But maybe these bloggers have short memories or none at all.

I am writing, of course, of his ballsy federalization of the Alabama National Guard, 17,000 strong, in September of 1963 to ensure integration in Gov. George Wallace’s state. Wallace, recall, was memorialized in Southern Secessionists’ lore by his infamous remark: “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever!”

JFK at NO time supported "supply side" tax cuts, because technically these did mot exist until Arthur Laffer (with his "Laffer curve") invented them in the 1980s.   Laffer's curve become the basis of Reagan's tax cuts and the whole supply side definition which meant cutting taxes more for the wealthy than the lower or middle class to enable "trickle down" effects. (Laffer argued that higher tax rates on the rich would only cause them to work fewer hours, or if REALLY rich, invest in fewer projects, enterprises, hence create fewer jobs.)

In their examination of supply side tax cuts,  authors James Medoff and Andrew Harless, The Indebted Society, 1995, found, p. 23:

"For the health of the economy, Reagan's policies turned out to be just about the worst thing that could have happened: investment did not increase, growth continued to stagnate, and the federal deficit ballooned to new dimensions....In 1981, the year Reagan took office, the public debt was 26.5 % of the gross domestic product (GDP)....In 1993, the year that Bush left office, the public debt was a staggering 51.9 percent of the GDP."

JFK's  targeted tax cuts, by contrast, were more for the lower and middle class  far less for the wealthy and combined with his strategic deficit spending, allowed the economy to grow, unemployment to dive to 4 %..

 Don't take my word for it, just consult the financial press at the time, to see how they actually felt about JFK's proposed policies and initiatives. One of these, which appeared in Fortune accused him of an attempt to "manipulate the tax level against the business cycle". ('Activism in the White House', June, 1961, p. 117). Two years later, Fortune implored Congress to stop JFK from using tax policy "as instruments to manage the economy". ('The Dream Businessmen Are Losing', Sept. 1963, p. 91).

These aren't just fiction, but historical records of the press of the JFK era and what THEY actually thought of his tax proposals. They are available to anyone with the diligence to seek them out.

Along the same lines, the "central organ of finance capital" - The Wall Street Journal, launched various articles and diatribes accusing JFK of being a "statist" and other things. Some of those articles include:

- 8/6/62 'No Cause for Celebration'; p. 6;

- 3/26/63 'Too Much Money, Too Little Thought', p. 18;

- 8/15/63 'When Friends Become Foes', p. 8

Meanwhile, Henry Hazlitt, contributing editor at Newsweek (The Washington Post's sister publication) was airing many of the same complaints against JFK. These polemics, appearing regularly in Hazlitt's 'Business Tides', included taking JFK to task for his tax policies - including the proposed tax on U.S. business earnings abroad while he also chastised Kennedy for "welfare spending".

JFK was the epitome of the classy intellectual, who appreciated intellectual things, and often used the White House as a venue to present special musical or other events (poetry reading) . Trump, by contrast, is  the embodiment of the Vulgarian and anti-intellectual. He is only interested in using his Trump-branded crap to try to make more money.

The best proof of that? Just look at the brains appointed to JFK's cabinet, as opposed to the grubby lot of misanthropes and degenerates numbered among Trump's appointees. Derelicts who are likely to destroy the very agencies to which they've been appointed.

Lastly, JFK had firm impulse control and would never brag about "pussy grabbing", nor brand Mexicans as "rapists" or impugn a captured warrior (John McCain) for being captured.

JFK's impulse control was tested most severely during the October, 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when the Joint Chiefs, especially Gen. Curtis Lemay, implored him to invade and bomb Cuba.  A move that would have triggered a release of at least 93 IRBMs and initiated a nuclear exchange.

Would Trump have been able to exert such control and opt for a peaceful alternative? I doubt it. Had Trump been in power for such a situation, likely none of us would be around to relate the story.

Thank whatever power there is or was that JFK was at the helm then and mot "The Donald".

Sessions And Other 'Despicables' Need to Be Properly Vetted This Week - NO Rushing Through!

Jeff Sessions: Having this Racist Boor at AG would be like appointing  an ex Nazi as Israel's Attorney General

Seriously now, would you permit an uncertified or unlicensed guy who professes the skills of a surgeon (but who's been found to have botched numerous operations) to remove your gall bladder or appendix? If not, then why would you countenance the appointment of a racist scofflaw to the position of highest legal officer in the land? Would you not, as a matter of integrity for the office and respect, demand whoever aspired to this position be thoroughly vetted - especially his legal background- and not sped through with dramatic recklessness?

Let's not bandy words here: What the Repukes are trying to do  starting tomorrow with scheduling a slew of hearings for Trump nominations  is nothing short of unethical, and likely immoral as well.  And, as the NY Times noted in its editorial yesterday, this will be the first true test of the degree to which the Democrats are willing to fight, especially against the Johnny Reb racist swine Jeff Session.

To put this shameful rush into perspective, Walter M. Schaub, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics has already made his verdict known, affirming that the "pace of hearings is putting undue pressure on investigators."  (Denver Post, yesterday, 'Watchdog Worried By Rush to Confirm',  p. 12A).

Mr. Schaub informed Democrats as well as Republicans that such shenanigans are "of great concern" because the nominees have not been properly vetted.  That includes completing a detailed ethics review - by answering multiple questions in a formal questionnaire - as to do with possible conflicts of interest and ethical issues. In other words, it would be analogous to allowing a flock of doctors, dentists, lawyers through to practice without having  passed their exams or shown certification of any ability. This ought to worry not just Democrats but ALL citizens, and that includes Reepos.

As Mr. Schaub put it in a letter answering an inquiry by Democrats:

"The schedule...has left some of the nominees with potentially unknown or unresolved conflicts of interest issues shortly before their scheduled hearings."

Those with short memories might want to have them jogged regarding how Nixon VP Spiro Agnew was forced to resign (Oct. 10. 1973) when his background of political corruption and income tax evasion finally saw the light of day.  Thus underscoring the importance of doing a proper, thorough vetting of any high ranking government official.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but eight years ago Sen. Mitch McConnell insisted ALL of Obama's appointees submit to full vetting including full background checks and financial disclosures. Now, however, "Bitch" is singing a different, hypocritical tune, saying: the Dems are invoking "sour grapes"  (the same tune the Repukes are singing with the revelation of the Russian hacks) and blabbering:

"So all of these procedural complaints are related to their frustration in having not only lost the White House but having lost the Senate. I understand that but we need to sort of grow up here and get past that."

So, "Bitch", why didn't your lot "grow up" back in 2009 and just let Obama's appointees pass?  Oh wait, might it not be that "Bitch" believes there's one rule for his GOOPrs and one for the Dems? Yeppers.

As the Agnew case shows, these matters are not merely procedural complaints or technical abstractions. If a guy is allowed through to a high official position it can wreak no end of havoc on the nation, and on his party too. This is why blabbering balderdash (such as spouted by "Bitch") needs to be ignored and a proper vetting done. Again, would you really want a guy only qualified to be a cable technician removing your wisdom teeth? Or removing your gall bladder? How 'bout doing a prostate biopsy?

Well, it's the same damned thing here if we properly assume these positions bear real responsibility and aren't merely political rewards!  Nowhere is this more critical than vetting the racist, proto Confederate,  KKK sympathizer Jeff Sessions (who only backed off from a full endorsement of  the Klan because he learned they used marijuana).  Jeff Sessions, let's be clear, isn't fit to run a pig farm far less occupy the highest law position in the land, that of Attorney General of the United States. In fact, allowing this asshole to go through without a fight would be not so much different as Israel allowing a known ex-Nazi and S.S. ascend to become Israel's Attorney General.

The Senate Republicans' tactic of flooding the zone with multiple hearings over two days is itself despicable.  This is especially as many of these ultra-wealthy nominees (e.g. Betsy DeVos, Rex  Tillerson)  exhibit tangled financial interests that are nowhere near being fully vetted by ethics officials.  Also their paperwork is incomplete.

The fact McConnell made Obama's picks jump through ever hoop , dotting every i, crossing every t in this background paperwork shows the same must be demanded here. NO exceptions!.  Scanning over this  menagerie of misfits and despicables, the one that really needs a search light is Sessions.

As the NY Times Editorial put it:

"If anyone requires a thorough vetting, it’s Mr. Sessions, the Republican senator from Alabama who trails behind him a toxic cloud of hostility to racial equality, voting rights, women’s rights, criminal justice reform and other issues at the heart of the Justice Department’s mandate. Yet in their eagerness to act on his nomination, Senate Republicans seem unconcerned that Mr. Sessions, who has made appropriate financial disclosures, has failed to turn over dozens — possibly hundreds — of documents that the committee specifically requests in its standard questionnaire, including transcripts of speeches, interviews, opinion pieces and other public remarks."

The Times went on to observe that Sessions  - who up to now has not provided all relevant details regarding background and conflicts of interest, once suggested that judicial nominees may be committing crimes when they withhold relevant information from the Senate,.  Well, how about prosecuting Sessions now for his own withholding of information? Or are we to permit this hypocritical knuckle dragger to practice 'do as I say not as I do' ethics? In other words, allow a scofflaw to become AG.

He's used the absurd argument the that there is no record of the vast majority of interviews he has given over the years, but a quick Google search disproves that.  Clearly, the Dems need to force the bastard to cough up the links for every one, especially the most racially charged and hostile. Then he needs to explains each and every instance where he inveighs against civil rights, especially voting rights.

Mr. Schaub. head of the government ethics office put this even more bluntly:

"I am not aware of any occasion in the four decades since OGE was established when the Senate held a confirmation hearing before the nominee had completed the ethics review process"

Spiro Agnew clones on the way?  Maybe!

Another Trump 'Bait & Switch': The Mexican Wall Now To Be Paid For By U.S. Taxpayers

Trump shows original elaborate Mexican Wall plans during campaign. Now, he wants Americans to pay for it.

It turns out now that all of Donald Trump's gullible groupies have been played yet again, as he's done a turnabout on the much ballyhooed Mexican Wall - which construction cost he vowed to put on Mexico during his idiotic campaign.   How many people swallowed this bullshit is hard to say, but given so many Trump voters have virtually believed everything this blowhard has said, the proportion is likely stupendous. (They also likely swallowed Trump's bilge about "lock her up" and he can replace Obamacare while leaving certain provisions in place, like kids remaining on parents' plans until age 26).

Again, Trump  originally vowed to build an impenetrable, concrete wall along the southern border and insisted Mexico was going to pay for it - despite a former Mexican leader (Vicente Fox) telling him  to "fuck off".   Now, as reality seems to be descending,  Trump has changed his tune to a plan in which American taxpayers — at least initially — would foot the bill.  Sorry, but I did not vote for this fucker, and have NO intention of paying for any dumb,  fuckin wall.  If Trump and his minions want it that badly let them get the dumb Trump voters who fell for his BS to pay for it.

Never mind, like their other walk backs, the Trump shills are trying to spin this too, insisting that "no campaign vow has been broken". Huh? I guess they can get that past their dumbass, comatose followers and gaggle of groupies, but for those of us paying attention it was a classic bait and switch.

Top Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway in an interview with CBS yesterday morning claimed "Nothing has changed from our perspective" and that Congress was"taking it on themselves to explore different options to pay for the wall."

What options? There are only two: Either American taxpayers have to pony up for this Rube Goldberg scheme, or the Mexicans. And as per Vincente Fox's follow up tweet this a.m. ('How many times must I tell you Trump, we aren't paying for your fucking wall!') it is clear the Mexicans  aren't signing on. Nor can Trump, despite all his bluster, make them.

That leaves Americans holding the bag. How much will this farce cost? John Oliver about four months ago did a rough 'back of the envelope'  estimate -  based on Trump's early specs (solid concrete, 20' high, 2' thick, 750 miles long)  - that it would come to over $50b. Just imagine how many teachers' salaries that $50b could pay, and Trump wants already burdened taxpayers to foot the bill. Especially when they'll have to pay enormously high deductibles, e.g. $5k a year, once the ACA is repealed and the new Repub plan put into place. As we know, Tom Price, the guy appointed to HHS to dismantle it, loves huge deductible plans (Denver Post, today, p. 17A, 'Obamacare Repeal Winners: The Young, Healthy and Wealthy')

But hey, I guess the Trump voters don't mind being played for fools over and over again. I suppose in their spare time they can come up with all sorts of rationalizations for why Trump would never really carry out his appalling bait and switches. Dream on, Trumpsters!

Or perhaps they are gullible enough to swallow the codswallop in Trump's tweet:

"The dishonest media does not report that any money spent on building the Great Wall (for sake of speed), will be paid back by Mexico later!"

Ah yes, "dishonest media". Whenever the verifiable (non fake news)  media hold his feet to the fire and out his BS, they are "dishonest". But when the Mexicans spit in his foolish face, as they will, I suppose Trump's next tweet will read:

"Dishonest media refuses to say I have Tau Ceti extraterrestrials ready to build wall at NO cost to Americans! Forget Mexicans!"

According to an AP report filed yesterday,  under the plan being discussed, the new construction would be pushed through without any new border legislation, relying on a 2006 law that authorized more fencing along the southern border. Congress would pay for it in its annual spending bills.

Again, note the secondary 'bait and switch':  you Trumpies are now reduced to having a FENCE, not a wall, and certainly not the $50b extravaganza initially envisaged by The Donald.  But it's estimated even this fence will cost from $300m to $1b and have to be paid by taxpayers, because neither Mexicans or ETs are going to pay up.

Trump told the New York Times in an interview Friday that the spending plan would help "speed up the process," and insisted that even if taxpayers pay upfront, "We're going to get reimbursed."

By whom? Tau Ceti aliens? Santy Claus?    Idiot that Trump is, he insisted the money would likely be recouped through a renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which he had criticized often in the past.  So let's get this straight:  as opposed to repealing and ditching NAFTA - which he also promised his troupe of follower fools - he now wants to retain it as a vehicle for getting Mexico to renegotiate and pay for the wall.

And if you really believe that will go down, I have a plot of seaside land in Barbados for you at the fire sale price of one buck! (Sargassum not included)

Never mind, Trump - lost in a different, separate reality, maintains: "Mexico will pay for the wall, 100 percent. They don't know it yet, but they're going to pay for the wall."

Oh, and I suppose the ETs don't know it yet either, that they will be the default builders when Mexico tells you to shove it where the Sun don't shine.

Bear in mind, for those who forgot, this is the same loon that tried to tie Ted Cruz' dad to Lee Harvey Oswald in the Kennedy assassination. This despite all the evidence shows Oswald wasn't even involved, and the guy (in a blurred photo) Trump took to be Cruz' dad was another member of the Cuban group run by Carlos Bringuier.

I mean, Trump is so steeped in his own fake news orbit he no longer is able to distinguish fantasy from reality. In this respect, the guy is absolutely the wrong person to occupy the most powerful position in this country in 2 weeks.

But, as if by some karmic justice, the plague the Trump dolts have visited upon us, will now come down on them too. There has to be some schadenfreude in that!