Slouching Towards Oblivion

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Today's New Normal

"...and the place was packed."
--Sean Spicer

"PRESIDENT MOBBED BY ADORING CROWD"
--Conservative Media

"We're seeing quite a surge in the president's Alternative Popularity."
--Kellyanne Conway

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Today's Pix













The Coming War(s)

Trade Wars that is. 

I've spent a lot of time and effort playing Snarky McFreak-Out since 11-8-16, and I'll continue in that vein for as long as I can (because it's pretty fun), but I have to get back to my semi-wonk self and start looking at the specifics behind what I think is obviously gonna be a whole series of clusterfucks as Trump Drains The Swamp Into His Cabinet So They Can Funnel Tax Dollars Into Their Pockets.

And we might as well start with trade.

Brookings Institution:
The aim of these policies, as stated by Trump, are to address harms to U.S. workers from trade and to improve trade deals he sees as not being in the U.S. interests. These are certainly worthwhile goals. The problem is that Trump’s current trade proposals will work against each other, threatening to cancel out any gains, and likely inflicting additional costs on the very people he has pledged to help. And, as the U.S. is approaching full employment, the key challenge is less about more jobs but rather about getting at the concentrated losses in particular communities.
And holy fuck, right outa the chute, there's something I missed because I wasn't really paying attention the way I shoulda done.
For instance, Trump has stated that he plans to renegotiate NAFTA —the trade agreement with Mexico and Canada. Mexico and Canada are the U.S.’s largest export markets, together buying more U.S. goods and services than any other country. President Obama also proposed renegotiating NAFTA in 2008 and the TPP was his response. So from one perspective the TPP already achieves this goal.
But should Trump withdraw from the TPP and then seek to renegotiate NAFTA, any concessions on the part of Canada and Mexico will also require concessions by the U.S., i.e., lower tariffs and other trade barriers.
So I still (obviously) don't know all I need to know, but I gotta say Brookings is a decent thing to follow. They tackle some of the big stuff and explain it in a bite-sized-chunks kinda way. I think I'm learning.

Today's Tweet

Monday, January 23, 2017

Keith

One From Slate

William Saletan - Slate:
A Morally Empty Man Gave A Morally Empty Speech
Trump’s narcissism and cynicism seemed boundless. He said blacks had stayed home on Election Day “because they liked me.” He implied that the agency in charge of enforcing immigration laws had supported his candidacy: “ICE endorsed Trump.” He suggested that Phyllis Schlafly, the conservative activist who died last year, had endorsed him out of sheer opportunism. Trump, speaking of himself, paraphrased Schlafly this way: “I don’t care what exactly he is. He’s like an unknown quantity. But he is gonna win.” Trump said Priebus had made the same calculation. In Trump’s mind, these people didn’t care what sort of person he was. They just wanted power. And he admires them for it.

On Friday, a morally empty man gave a morally empty speech. There was no talk of humility, no acknowledgment of enduring prejudice, no plea for decency. Instead, Trump railed against foreigners and “a small group in our nation’s capital” that “has reaped the rewards of government.” In place of Bush’s praise for mosques, Trump spoke of Islam only as a source of terrorism. The man who ran on a platform of “take the oil” fumed that American wealth had been “redistributed all across the world.” He accused countries of “stealing our companies and destroying our jobs.”
This is why Trump is unworthy of your respect. It’s not because he didn’t win the popular vote. It’s not because of his party or his policies. It’s not because of Russia. It’s because of who he is. For all his faults, even those that turned out to be disastrous, Bush was a decent man. He believed in something greater than himself. Trump doesn’t.

With Apologies To Mr Truman

Sarah Cooper - on psychological warfare:
“But reporters were clapping and laughing, they loved it.”  — a commenter defending Trump’s first press conference.
“But members of the CIA were clearly laughing at his jokes and clapping, so what he was saying couldn’t have been inappropriate.”  — CNN pundit defending Trump’s CIA speech where he talked about his war with the media, in front of a memorial to men and women who lost their lives in actual wars.
The clapping and laughing you hear in both instances are Trump’s own people. They are sycophants who he brings to cheer him on and make it seem like what he’s saying is being well-received. And it’s working.
The laugh track was invented to cue the audience to the jokes and encourage laughter in response. But it has another effect: if you hear people laughing and you’re not, you start to question if maybe there’s something wrong with you for not getting it. You might even impulsively start laughing just to fit in, not because you think anything is funny. In fact that’s how these fluffers work — one person initiates a clap and suddenly everyone thinks there’s something to clap for. And then everyone is clapping. For no reason.
It's business and it's politics. It's the business of politics, and the merging of politics with business, wrapped in the flag and blessed by the church. The result is the institutionalized hyper-corruption-on-steroids called Fascism. In that system especially, if you wanna friend, buy a dog.

I won't be forgiving of willful ignorance. I won't be tolerant of Alternative Facts. I won't be quiet about it.

And while I'll always try not to be deliberately unkind to you, understand that I'll fail in that regard on occasion, because I won't treat you like a child by tiptoeing around your delicate sensibilities.

I'm really not trying to be an asshole about it - it just seems like too many people are trying to make it impossible for me not to be.

So put all of this under "Sorry-Not-Sorry-But".

If you come in here without a helmet,
you might leave with some brain damage.

A Tweet

The Balls

In 1993, the Clintons attended 14 inaugural balls.

Laura & W went to 8 of 'em in 2001.

And the Obamas had 10 in 2009.

Trump had 2, and they were lightly attended - Trump's 2 itty-bitty sad little balls.

*Is any of this true? Who gives a fuck - this is the Post-Truth World of Alt-Fact.
It's not a question of True vs False. The only thing that matters now is what you choose to believe at any given moment.
And that's how the bad guys get power; and how they stay in power.