Today's Tweet

I AM IN TEARS pic.twitter.com/VUX8OcM4eo

— Chanel #45 (@monicamenzeI) June 19, 2017

And a reminder of what we're losing:

President Obama spoke truth last year about trashy trump & his words are more relevant today than ever before. 🇺🇸pic.twitter.com/64MPKWUbWf

— Ricky Davila (@TheRickyDavila) June 19, 2017

Down We Go

CNN:

The two agencies that protect the country's coast lines and its residents, NOAA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are still without leaders -- positions that must be appointed by President Donald Trump and confirmed by the Senate.

"That should scare the hell out of everybody," retired US Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré told CNN. "These positions help save lives."

Honoré knows all too well the value that leadership plays during a crisis, as he commanded Joint Task Force Katrina. He coordinated military relief efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

--and--

But according to Honoré, things could be anything but orderly. "These operations will not function as they should with temporary people doing the jobs." 

"Just look back to Hurricane Katrina to see how important leadership was. If someone is slow in making decisions it can be costly -- imagine having no one at all," Honoré said, referring to the criticism and eventual resignation of then-FEMA director Mike Brown over the bungled response after Katrina hit.

We'll see how it shakes out, of course, but is anybody really expecting good things? This is another play to Privatize (I think - prob'y), as per the usual shit the GOP is always trying to pull:

1) Fuck up the system of Federal Response and Aid to natural disasters

2) Point at it and say, "Oh look, that whole FEMA thing's fucked up"

3) Have your son-in-law's buddies step in and collect a shit-ton of tax dollars for doing something it would've cost a third of a shit-ton of tax dollars to get it handled by somebody who actually knows what the fuck they're doing.

How sure are we that those buddies of the son-in-law aren't working for a shell company?

- with a mailing address in Panama?

- that hides the fact that somebody's raking in nice fat profits from the misery of average Americans?

And how sure are we that those tax dollars aren't being funneled to a bunch Russian Oligarchs?

This is not governance - this is a fucking robbery.

Keith

45* is self-destructing.

Today's Tech Tip

Weeks of trouble-shooting your code can save you hours of planning.

Today's Wonderment

David Brooks - NYT:

He is thus the all-time record-holder of the Dunning-Kruger effect, the phenomenon in which the incompetent person is too incompetent to understand his own incompetence. Trump thought he’d be celebrated for firing James Comey. He thought his press coverage would grow wildly positive once he won the nomination. He is perpetually surprised because reality does not comport with his fantasies.
--and--

Our institutions depend on people who have enough engraved character traits to fulfill their assigned duties. But there is perpetually less to Trump than it appears. When we analyze a president’s utterances we tend to assume that there is some substantive process behind the words, that it’s part of some strategic intent.

But Trump’s statements don’t necessarily come from anywhere, lead anywhere or have a permanent reality beyond his wish to be liked at any given instant.
As driftglass is consistently pointing out for us, David Brooks is the Poodliest of all the Pundit Poodles, and he's paid handsomely to maintain the Both Sides bullshit.  But oddly, there's no razor blade hidden in this particular apple.  Brooks puts up a very sharp critique of 45* and manages to get through the whole piece without saying it's all the liberals' fault because of they smoked some pot 50 years ago, or "But what about those Democrats?"

Won't wonders never cease?

Today's Tweet

When you post a controversial tweet pic.twitter.com/O3AyICAqTz

— Gautam Trivedi (@Gotham3) June 17, 2017

Putting Up With It

From Elle:

HARRIS: You referred to a longstanding DOJ policy. Can you tell us what policy it is you're talking about?

SESSIONS: Well, I think most cabinet people, as the witnesses, uh, you had before you earlier, those individuals declined to comment. Because we're all about conversations with the President —

HARRIS: Sir, I'm just asking you about the DOJ policy you referred to.

SESSIONS: — a longstanding policy that goes beyond just the Attorney General.

Every American, when listening to (mostly) GOP pus-brains who can't quite figure out how to construct the next several lies in order to maintain the false reality they created with that first fucking lie:

Today's Pix

Give It Up

The Press Poodles (and way too many politicians and their constituents) are still taking everything 45* says as something deserving of the kind of respect most of us have paid to everything every POTUS has said or done up until now.

Even The Shrub - the guy who knew practically nothing but what Darth Cheney told him to sell us.

We have to suspend the Presumption of Regularity when we're talking about 45*.

Schiff: "We don't have one ethical standard for this president and a different ethical standard for other presidents." pic.twitter.com/SUKMMU8kaV

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 18, 2017

An example from Lawfare Blog:

In the normal course of events, the announcement by DHS that it would ban large electronic devices from direct flights originating at ten airports in the Middle Eastwould excite a great deal of comment. Technologists would speculate as to the nature of the potential new bomb threat. Intelligence-types would be curious as to the provenance of the intelligence -- was it SIGINT or HUMINT? Law and policy folk would ask about the legal underpinnings and debate the policy's scope and wisdom. But, in the normal course, nobody (I submit) would doubt the underlying bona fides of those who had adopted the policy. We might think they were unwise, mistaken, or foolish -- but nobody (save a few on the fringes) would have thought it was a sham. If this policy had been announced by President Obama, or Bush, or Clinton the salience of speculation as to a sham would be literally zero. We would allow our professionals at TSA and DHS the presumption of regularity in their work.

Not so with President Trump. My GWU colleague Henry Farrell and his co-author Abraham Newman have speculated, in the Washington Post, that the real reason for the device ban was in retaliation for unfair subsidies provided to the Gulf airlines by their governments. As they write:
It may not be about security. Three of the airlines that have been targeted for these measures — Emirates, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways — have long been accused by their U.S. competitors of receiving massive effective subsidies from their governments. These airlines have been quietly worried for months that President Trump was going to retaliate. This may be the retaliation.

The presumption has to be: Until or unless it proves out, nothing this 45* guy says or does is legit.

An Oldie

Let's not forget we were warned - by lotsa people.

And almost weirdly, the Libertarians were among the most sharply critical of 45*: