Month: January 2017

Worldwide furor
by Tom Sullivan

Washington Post headline: Judge halts deportations as refugee ban causes worldwide furor

A second Sad! Saturday™ for President Donald J. Trump. Where to begin? Well, first by resisting the urge for a play on the word furor, but of course worldwide just sells it. You know the Post’s headline writer laughed out loud typing that. The Post reports:

A federal judge in New York blocked deportations nationwide late Saturday of those detained on entry to the United States after an executive order from President Trump targeted citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

Judge Ann Donnelly of the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn granted a request from the American Civil Liberties Union to stop the deportations after determining that the risk of injury to those detained by being returned to their home countries necessitated the decision.

The fact that a woman issued the emergency stay made me laugh out loud. Donnelly was joined soon after by another court in Alexandria Virginia, and a ruling by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema. Double ouch. Donnelly was appointed by President Barack Obama. Brinkema, by President Bill Clinton, according to one report.

David Atkins reminded Twitter: “As judicial blocks on Trump reach SCOTUS, remember that 4-4 rulings affirm lower courts. Trump’s SCOTUS pick must be delayed at all costs.”

The ACLU was defiant:

“I hope Trump enjoys losing. He’s going to lose so much we’re going to get sick and tired of his losing,” ACLU National Political Director Faiz Shakir told Yahoo News shortly after the decision was announced.

The backlash to Trump’s action was instant once reports of detentions circulated. Protesters jammed airports across the country. CNN reports that the policy did not receive the standard interagency vetting experienced White House teams use:

Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen — did not apply to people who with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as green card holders.

The White House overruled that guidance overnight, according to officials familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President’s inner circle, led by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. Their decision held that, on a case by case basis, DHS could allow green card holders to enter the US.

Guidance sent to airlines on Friday, however, stated “lawful permanent residents are not included and may continue to travel to the USA.”

Before the President issued the order, the White House did not seek the legal guidance of the Office of Legal Counsel, the Justice Department office that interprets the law for the executive branch. A source said the executive order did not follow the standard agency review process that’s typically overseen by the National Security Council, though the source couldn’t specifically say if that included the decision to not have the order go through the Office of Legal Counsel.

Despite Trump’s claims Saturday that the plan was “working out very nicely,” there were reports of chaos on the ground:

Hearing that customs officials in tears because they can't get guidance from White House, DHS not returning calls, etc and crowds growing.— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) January 28, 2017

And reports of cheers in the air:

Starting descent into JFK. Captain announces demonstrations against Trump’s immigration policies. Plane erupts in cheers and applause.— Andreas Gebhard (@agebhard) January 29, 2017

Digby pointed yesterday to stories about some of the people the Department of Homeland Security began detaining at airports yesterday. Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Haider, a former US interpreter during the Iraq War, and Sameer Abdulkaleq Alshawi were released at JFK Airport late Saturday, but it was unclear how many others remained in custody at airports around the country. It was “chaos, confusion and fear,” according to ABC News. Fuad Sharif and his family got pulled off a plane in Cairo and will have to return to Iraq. He received a visa because he risked his life for the U.S. government. “I am ruined now. I don’t know what to do, because I sold my house. I quit my job. My wife had job and kids left school. And I paid $5,000 for the tickets. I don’t know what to do, and tomorrow I am going back to Iraq. Really, really, really, I am in terrible situation.”

Twitter exploded along with airport protests across the country. At New York’s JFK Airport, protesters chanted into the night, “Let them in! Let them in!” and “When Muslims are under attack, what do we do? STAND UP FIGHT BACK!!”

Protesters cover the parking decks at JFK as drums beat and protesters chant: "I-L-L-E-G-A-L, this shit is illegal!!" pic.twitter.com/2ayKm7fjPI— Jack Smith IV (@JackSmithIV) January 28, 2017

Thousands of protesters at JFK, chanting "Let them in!" and "No hate no fear refugees are welcome here!" #MuslimBan pic.twitter.com/9SDiunzJDq— Robert Mackey (@RobertMackey) January 28, 2017

The arrivals gate at O'Hare's intl terminal is packed pic.twitter.com/7aBUMXEVHR— Sam Charles (@samjcharles) January 29, 2017

There's a sit down now at international arrivals SFO. People not moving until attorneys allowed in. pic.twitter.com/b3jiNfhN6T— Sana Saleem (@sanasaleem) January 29, 2017

New York’s taxi drivers joined in by halting service:

This is what actual solidarity actually looks like in the real world: https://t.co/nhojvrd1N3 #MuslimBan— phillip anderson (@phillipanderson) January 28, 2017

A “bigoted, cowardly, self-defeating policy,” writes the New York Times Editorial Board of Trump’s order this morning:

The order’s language makes clear that the xenophobia and Islamophobia that permeated Mr. Trump’s campaign are to stain his presidency as well. Un-American as they are, they are now American policy. “The United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles,” the order says, conveying the spurious notion that all Muslims should be considered a threat. (It further claims to spare America from people who would commit acts of violence against women and those who persecute people on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation. A president who bragged about sexually assaulting women and a vice president who has supported policies that discriminate against gay people might well fear that standard themselves.)

The unrighteousness of this new policy should be enough to prompt the courts, Congress and responsible members of Mr. Trump’s cabinet to reverse it immediately. But there is an even more compelling reason: It is extremely dangerous. Extremist groups will trumpet this order to spread the notion, today more credible than ever, that the United States is at war with Islam rather than targeting terrorists. They want nothing more than a fearful, recklessly belligerent America; so, if anything, this ban will heighten their efforts to strike at Americans, to provoke yet further overreaction from a volatile and inexperienced president.

To Republicans who remain quiet, or tacitly support Trump's immigration ban: history will remember you as cowards. https://t.co/xzWXRcctWZ pic.twitter.com/defVncsHzJ— NYT Opinion (@nytopinion) January 29, 2017

But Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders who was convicted in December for inciting hate against Muslims thinks Trump’s action is all good. His invitation to the White House is likely on its way.

Just two months ago, Trump called Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti to express support for the city’s 2024 Olympic bid. This morning, Trump’s support may just have cost the city the Olympics:

The International Olympic Committee votes in September whether to award sport’s biggest event to LA, Paris or Budapest, and one of the officials who will decide their fate condemned on Saturday what was among Trump’s first acts since taking office.

IOC member Richard Peterkin, of St Lucia, posted on Twitter: “Trump’s Executive Order on immigration is totally contrary to Olympic ideals. For him, collective responsibility trumps individual justice.”

Rank amateurs. Emphasis on rank.

In case you are near a large airport, there are protests planned today across the country. Protesters in Denver reportedly thanked police for keeping them safe before leaving. Iraq War combat veteran Raf Noboa y Rivera replied, “This is key. Getting the security services to identify with us & be friendly with us will help forestall repression & make much harder.”

I’m guessing he never figured he’d have to write those words about the country for which he risked his life.

Any news that fits: Criterion reissues The Front Page *** & His Girl Friday ****


By Dennis Hartley

Come back with me now to the halcyon days of the chain-smoking star reporter…a time when men were men (and cracked wise) women were women (and cracked wiser), and fake news was but a colorfully enhanced version of the truth (as opposed to “alternative facts”). Actually, this particular version of “reality” existed largely within the imagination of Hollywood screenwriters.

The granddaddy of the genre is Lewis Milestone’s 1931 screen adaptation of Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur’s 1928 Broadway hit, The Front Page. As Michael Sragow notes in his essay, included with Criterion’s Blu-ray reissue of the film and its 1940 remake, His Girl Friday:

[The Front Page] became famous, sometimes infamous, for its frankness about sleazy backroom politics and reckless, sensationalistic newspapers, and for its suggestive patter and profanity. It brought a crackling comic awareness of American corruption into popular culture, and it made rapid-fire, overlapping dialogue fashionable…

What did he say? “Profanity” in an American film from 1931? Well, this was “pre-Code” Hollywood, which is demarcated by the implementation of the 1930 Hays Code. Not strictly enforced by the major production studios until 1934, the Code set fairly strict guidelines on “morality” and message in films until it finally fizzed in 1968 (don’t laugh…could happen again).

He was a human being: R.I.P. John Hurt

by Dennis Hartley

Man of 1,000 faces: 1940-2017

Maybe I should just trash this whole movie review gig and become a full-time obit writer. I can’t keep up. I realize that this is all part of life’s rich pageant…but Jesus H. Christ.

When Digby texted me last night about John Hurt, I hadn’t heard about it. After reeling for a moment or so, I mustered up all the eloquence that befits my métier and texted back:

“No! Fuckity-fuck.”

I know. Style under pressure, right? But seriously, there are no words. He was one of the good ones. He was a master thespian with an embarrassment of rich, immersive performances. He was one of those actors who was so damn good that “he” wasn’t there.

But his characters were. Fully present. In the moment. Fully human. And unforgettable.

Here’s five performances I’ll never forget:

I,Claudius – While an opening line of “I, Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus…” could portend more of a dull history lecture, rather than 11 hours of must-see-TV, the 1976 BBC series, adapted from Robert Graves’1934 historical novel about ancient Rome’s Julio-Claudian dynasty, was indeed the latter, holding viewers in thrall. While it is possible that at the time of its first run on Masterpiece Theater, my friends and I were more in thrall with the occasional teasing glimpses of semi-nudity than we were with, say, the beauty of Jac Pulman’s writing, the wonder of the performances and complexity of the narrative, over the years I have come to realize that I learned everything I needed to know about politics from watching (and re-watching) I, Claudius. With such a huge cast of heavyweight actors (many hailing from the Royal Shakespeare Company), it’s no small feat to steal the show…and John Hurt did just that, without blinking, as the mad emperor Caligula. This was my introduction to his work, and I’ve been a fan ever since.

Midnight Express– If you can get through the first 15 minutes of this 1979 Best Picture winner without experiencing even the slightest little anxiety attack, well then you are a much bigger man, or woman, than I. Which brings me to my next question: Have you ever been in a Turkish prison? Alan Parker’s almost unbearably intense drama is the next worst thing to actually being there. Oliver Stone won an Oscar for his adaptation of the screenplay from the eponymous book by Billy Hayes and William Hoffer, which recounted Hayes’ harrowing, real-life experience as an American student who got busted at the airport while attempting to smuggle some hash out of Turkey. The late Brad Davis is nothing short of astonishing as Billy Hayes, but interestingly it was John Hurt who caught the Academy’s eye; he earned a Best Supporting Actor nomination (and a Golden Globe win) for his portrayal as a long-time inmate who befriends Billy and becomes a father figure (or junkie uncle?). The film won a third Oscar for Giorgio Moroder’s score.

The Shout– For some unknown reason, Robert Graves and John Hurt go together like soup and sandwich. This 1978 sleeper was adapted from a Graves story by Michal Austin and its director, Jerzy Skolimowski. Hurt is excellent as a mild-mannered avant-garde musician who lives in a sleepy English hamlet with his wife (Susannah York). When an enigmatic vagabond (Alan Bates) blows into town, their quiet country life begins to go…elsewhere. This is a genre-defying film; somewhere between psychological thriller and culture clash drama. I’ll put it this way-if you like Peter Weir’s The Last Wave, this one is for you. Look for an uncharacteristically low-key Tim Curry in a supporting role.

The Elephant Man -This 1980 David Lynch film (a Best Picture winner) dramatizes the bizarre life of Joseph Merrick (Hurt), a 19th Century Englishman afflicted by a physical condition so hideously deforming and upsetting to people that when he entered adulthood, his sole option for survival was to “work” as a sideshow freak. However, when a compassionate surgeon named Frederick Treaves (Anthony Hopkins) entered his life, a whole new world opened up to him. While there is an inherent grotesquerie to much of the imagery, Lynch treats his subject as respectably and humanely as Dr. Treaves. Shot beautifully in black and white (nice work by DP Freddie Francis), Lynch’s film has a real “steampunk” vibe. Hurt deservedly picked up an Oscar for his performance, made all the more impressive that he was so expertly able to convey the intelligence and gentle soul of this man while encumbered by so much prosthetic. Amazing work by all the cast, including Anne Bancroft, Freddie Jones and John Gielgud.

The Hit– Directed by Stephen Frears and written by Peter Prince, this 1984 sleeper marked a comeback for Terence Stamp, who stars as Willie Parker, a London hood who has “grassed” on his mob cohorts in exchange for immunity. As he is led out of the courtroom following his damning testimony, he is treated to a gruff, spontaneous a cappella rendition of “We’ll Meet Again”. Willie relocates to Spain, where the other shoe finally drops “one sunny day”. Willie is abducted and delivered to a veteran hit man (Hurt) and his “apprentice” (Tim Roth). Willy accepts his situation with a Zen-like calm.

What exactly is going on in Willie’s head? That’s what drives most of the ensuing narrative. As they motor through the scenic Spanish countryside (toward France, where Willie’s former boss awaits for a “reunion”) the trio engages in mind games, taking the story to unexpected places. The dynamic gets even more interesting when an additional hostage (Laura del Sol) enters the equation. Hurt is sheer perfection as his character’s icy detachment slowly unravels into blackly comic exasperation; if pressed, this is my favorite Hurt performance. While this is essentially a drama, and not a “funny ha-ha” rom, there are black comedy underpinnings revealed upon subsequent viewings. There’s a great score by flamenco guitarist Paco de Lucia (Eric Clapton plays the opening theme).

More reviews at Den of Cinema 

–Dennis Hartley


.

Random stories of shame

by digby

From the NY Times:

Hameed Khalid Darweesh, Iraq

Mr. Darweesh, a husband and father of three who worked for the United States military in Iraq for about a decade, was detained after arriving at Kennedy Airport on Friday night. He was granted a special immigrant visa on Jan. 20. When he filed for it, he said he had been directly targeted because of his work for the U.S. as an interpreter, engineer and contractor.

Although Mr. Darweesh’s wife and children were allowed into the country, he was initially detained. Mr. Darweesh was released on Saturday after lawyers filed a writ of habeas corpus in federal court seeking freedom for him, as well as for another Iraqi who was detained at the airport.

Speaking to reporters and some protesters who gathered outside Kennedy Airport, Mr. Darweesh called America the greatest nation in the world and said he was thankful for the people who had worked on his behalf. “This is the humanity, this is the soul of America,” he said. “This is what pushed me to move, leave my country and come here.”

The family members have been living in a refugee camp in Turkey, and were scheduled to fly to the United States on Monday, according US Together, a refugee resettlement agency quoted in The Cleveland Plain Dealer. The agency had found an apartment for them to rent with another family of Syrian refugees in Cleveland.

Those plans have been canceled in the aftermath of Mr. Trump’s order.

“It was going to be really perfect,” Danielle Drake, a community relations manager for US Together, told the newspaper. “I can’t even imagine how the family feels right now.”

Seyed Soheil Saeedi Saravi, Iran

Mr. Saravi, a young scientist in Iran, had been scheduled to travel to Boston, where he was awarded a fellowship at Harvard to study cardiovascular medicine, according to Thomas Michel, the professor who was to supervise his research. Then the visas for Mr. Saravi and his wife were suspended, Professor Michel said.

“This outstanding young scientist has enormous potential to make contributions that will improve our understanding of heart disease, and he has already been thoroughly vetted,” Professor Michel wrote to The New York Times. “This country and this city have a long history of providing research training to the best young scientists in the world, many of whom have stayed in the U.S.A. and made tremendous contributions in biomedicine and other disciplines.”

Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, Iraq

Mr. Alshawi, who worked for a United States contractor in Iraq, was detained after he landed at Kennedy Airport on Friday. He had flown from Stockholm to New York, en route to Texas to see his wife and son.

“He gave his package and his passport to an airport officer, and they didn’t talk to him, they just put him in a room,” his wife told The New York Times. “He told me that they forced him to get back to Iraq. He asked for his lawyer and to apply for an asylum case. And they told him: ‘You can’t do that. You need to go back to your country.’”

Ali Abdi, Iran

Mr. Abdi, an Iranian Ph.D. student at Yale with permanent residency in the United States, was left in limbo in Dubai after leaving the United States for Afghanistan on Jan. 22, according to The Guardian.

In statement he posted on his Facebook page that the publication quoted, Mr. Abdi said he had been headed to Afghanistan for ethnographic research. The executive order, he wrote, “is likely to prevent permanent residents like me from returning to the country where I am a student, where I have to defend my thesis,” according to The Guardian.

“Meanwhile, it’s not yet clear whether the consulate of Afghanistan in Dubai would issue the visa I need in order to stay in Kabul for a year,” he wrote, “and I cannot stay in Dubai for long or my UAE visa would expire. It’s not wise to go to Iran either.”

Travelers, Cairo

Six travelers — five from Iraq and one from Yemen — who were on their way to New York were prevented from boarding a flight in Cairo on Saturday even though they had valid United States visas, Reuters reported.

The Iraqi travelers began their journey in Erbil, part of Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, and were in Cairo on a layover, Reuters said. The Yemeni traveler arrived at the airport from elsewhere in the Egyptian capital.

All six were told they could not board EgyptAir flight 985 to Kennedy Airport. The Iraqis were being detained at the airport in Cairo until they could be returned to their country of origin, Reuters said. It had no information on the status of the Yemeni traveler.

I’ve been hearing a number of stories about legal residents being denied entry, including people like doctors who have been overseas saving lives but live and work in the US. Who needs ’em right? All those Real Americans in Trump country can do the job these immigrants are doing. We’ll be fine.

.

Trump’s rich Muslim friends will be an exception

by digby

Via Bloomberg:

President Trump has signed an executive order that bans citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East from entering the United States for 90 days, according to the White House. His proposed list doesn’t include Muslim-majority countries where his Trump Organization has done business or pursued potential deals. Properties include golf courses in the United Arab Emirates and two luxury towers operating in Turkey.

Now, it is true that the list was drawn up from an Obama administration list of countries that people with Visa waivers (like the UK and France) are not allowed to have visited if they want to come to the US without going through the formal visa process. And yes, the US has long had “special relationships” with Saudi Arabia and Turkey and Egypt all of which have major terrorist ties so you cannot assume this was done specifically to protect Trump’s company.

So sure, it’s a total coincidence. The corrupt government’s he’s letting off the hook just happen to be places where he stands to make a fortune and whose leaders will likely be very grateful to fill his pockets handsomely. What a lucky guy.

Recall this:

“I have a lot of friends that are Muslim and they call me,” Trump told MSNBC during the event. “In most cases, they’re very rich Muslims, OK?”

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews then asked Trump whether his very rich Muslim friends would be allowed to enter the U.S. during President Trump’s Muslim ban.

“They’ll come in,” Trump said. “And you’ll have exceptions.”

And recall his puerile logic:

“Maybe they’ll be more disposed to fight ISIS,” Trump said of the banned, presumably not-rich Muslims.

He continued: “Maybe they’ll say, ‘We want to come back into America, we’ve got to solve this problem.'”

This is the cretin we have running the country and he’s clearly got a bunch of similarly idiotic working for him.

.

Grown-ups in charge

by digby

He’s brought honor and dignity back to the White House:

“There goes that relationship.”

Trump smirks and scoffs when a BBC reporter takes him to task about torture, abortion and banning Muslims: pic.twitter.com/bl42L3Luoy

— Fusion (@Fusion) January 27, 2017

Via Alternet, here are the five most cringeworthy moments:

What happens when an American authoritarian meets a British arch-conservative? The public found out Friday, as President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Theresa May held their first joint press conference, a sporadically awkward affair that reminded us just how ill-prepared Trump is for the world stage.

Here were the five most painful moments.

1. On NATO and Trump’s Changing Positions

“On defense and security cooperation, we’re united in our recognition of NATO as the bulwark of our collective defense, and today we’ve reaffirmed our unshakable commitment to this alliance,” PM May said in her introduction. “Mr. President, I think you said, you confirmed that you’re 100 percent behind NATO,” she added.

Trump has repeatedly challenged the validity of NATO, calling the organization “obsolete,” a remark that sent shockwaves through Europe earlier this month. Apparently, for Trump, putting “America first” means reconsidering alliances made when America was a “rich nation” and focusing on our own defense going forward.

In response to his opening remarks, one reporter asked Trump, “You said you’d stand by us with NATO, but how can the British prime minister believe you? Because you have been known in the past to change your position on things.”

“I really don’t change my position very much,” Trump told him, using trade as an example. However, even this proves untrue.

2. On Russian Sanctions

Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin is just a day away, and given his blasé answer in the press conference, it appears Russian sanctions may not even be discussed.

“How close are you to lifting some of the sanctions imposed on Russia over Ukraine incursion? What would you expect in return?” Trump was asked by a reporter.

Trump said it was “very early to be talking about that,” but PM May was much firmer in her answer.

“In relation to Russia’s activities in Ukraine, we’ve been very clear that we want to see the Minsk agreement fully implemented. We believe the sanctions should continue until we see the Minsk agreement fully implemented and we’ve been continuing to argue that inside the European Union,” she said.

3. On a Free Press

Trump’s controversial views were called into question by one British reporter who asked Trump to defend them.

“Mr. President, you’ve said before that torture works; you’ve praised Russia; you’ve said you want to ban some Muslims from coming to America; you’ve suggested there should be punishment for abortion,” she rattled off.

“For many people in Britain those sound like alarming beliefs. What do you say to our viewers at home who are worried about some of your views and worried about you becoming the leader of the free world?” she asked Trump.

Trump turned to May, smirking.

“This was your choice of a question?” he asked the PM. “There goes that relationship!” he sort-of-joked.

4. On Mexico

Trump’s turbulent relationship with Mexico was also questioned in the press conference, to which he responded, “[The Mexican president and I] had a very good call. I have been very strong on Mexico. I have great respect for Mexico. I love the Mexican people… but as you know, Mexico… has out-negotiated us and beat us to a pulp.”

He also persuaded May not to weigh in, even though the question regarding the U.S.-Mexico relationship was directed at her as well.

“I think the prime minister, first of all, has other things that she’s much more worried about than Mexico and the United States’ relationship,” Trump said.

“The relationship of the United States with Mexico is a matter of the United States and Mexico,” May reiterated.

5. On Brexit

The reporter who questioned Trump on his changing positions also asked Trump how he and May planned to work together, given their political differences.

“People are fascinated to know how you’re going to get on with each other… have you found anything in common personally yet?” he asked Trump and May.

Trump awkwardly explained that he, like May, is a “people person,” and then proceeded to rant on about Brexit. Did he forget that May voted “Remain” not “Leave”?

A big beautiful basket of hate

by digby

Some lovely Real Americans lovin’ them some Trump:

The challenge Annette Cottrell pondered was how to grade President Trump’s stormy first full week on the job. A trade war bubbling up with Mexico. A divisive border wall. A ban on refugees from war-torn countries. Brawls with the news media and national parks.

“I’d give him an A-plus,” Ms. Cottrell, 38, said from her salon, Mane Attraction, on Main Street here in the seat of a conservative Ohio county of pastures and maple groves where Mr. Trump won 70 percent of the vote. “He’s doing what he said he was going to be doing.”

So, about that head-spinning week. Mr. Trump drew a torrent of criticism after pressing a series of falsehoods about voter fraud, the size of the crowd at his inauguration and his attacks on the intelligence community. His rapid-fire executive actions reversing years of policy on immigration, abortion and the environment left his critics seething and fearful and liberal opponents preparing a volley of legal challenges to blunt them.

But in more than two dozen interviews this week, voters who helped hand Mr. Trump the presidency — die-hards and reluctant supporters alike — were cheering from their living rooms, offices and diners across America as they saw the outlines of a new conservative era in government fast taking shape, even if they were still a little uneasy about the man doing the shaping.

Yes, they said, Mr. Trump should tone down his tweets and rein in what they gently called his impulse toward “exaggeration.”

“Honestly, he sometimes needs to shut up,” said Joshua Wade, 24, of Ann Arbor, Mich., a state that had not supported a Republican for president since George Bush in 1988. “Just do what we elected you to do. We won. Drop the inauguration stuff. It’s fine.”

Gun rights top Mr. Wade’s wish list for the new administration. He wants Supreme Court nominees friendly to gun owners and laws that extend concealed-carry rights across state lines. He said he had been encouraged that Mr. Trump took swift action on some campaign promises during his early days in office.

“There’s no doubt: He’s good at showmanship,” said Mr. Wade, a registered Republican. “But I think this first week is proving he’s capable of following through on that with real action.”

But what appeals to supporters may be turning off independents. A Quinnipiac University poll released on Thursday gave Mr. Trump only a 36 percent job approval rating and found that majorities of people surveyed said he was neither honest nor levelheaded.

Still, Trump voters interviewed said they cared little if the president spouted off on Twitter because he was issuing the kind of executive actions many had long craved — freezing federal grant money for environmental research, banning foreign aid for groups that give abortion counseling and cutting off immigration from several Muslim-majority nations.

“Trump’s done more in five days than Obama did in eight years,” said Doug Cooperrider, 58, who works in construction repairing bridges and roads around central Ohio.

The bar at Boondocks, where Mr. Cooperrider dug into a B.L.T. sandwich on a sleety morning, sits about 1,900 miles from the Arizona deserts where sections of the multibillion-dollar border wall may rise. The Hispanic population is tiny in this overwhelmingly white county of 35,000, and it has grown only 0.3 percent in the past five years.

Still, people here said they felt as if immigration had undercut wages for construction workers in the area. One man said he was uneasy about the longstanding Somali community in Columbus, about an hour’s drive south. Several embraced Mr. Trump’s directives that limited new refugees, ordered up the border wall and cut off federal grant money to cities labeled sanctuaries for immigrants.

“I’m 100 percent behind the wall,” said Ms. Cottrell, the salon owner. “If he asked me to lay the first brick, I’d sign up. I’m tired of them being here illegally and cutthroating the rest of us.”

There’s more but I couldn’t stomach it.

I know I am supposed to feel empathy for these people. But right now I really have to dig deeply to find it. But I will. I understand that it’s my fault that they hate everyone who isn’t exctly like them and I need to change my ways. Working on it …

.

From the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect:

THE STATUE OF LIBERTY WEEPS
AS PRESIDENT TRUMP TARGETS
MEXICANS AND MUSLIMS

Statement of Steven Goldstein, Executive Director of the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect, the U.S. civil and human rights organization among Anne Frank organizations worldwide:

As President Trump prepares orders to wall out Mexicans and shut out refugees from America, today marks one of the most hateful days in our nation’s history. Donald Trump is retracting the promise of American freedom to an extent we have not seen from a President since Franklin Roosevelt forced Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II. Today the Statue of Liberty weeps over President Trump’s discrimination.

President Trump is beyond the wrong side of history. He is driving our nation off a moral cliff.

When President Trump uses national security as a guise for racism, he doesn’t strengthen our national security. He compromises our national security by engendering disrespect for America by people around the world.

Make no mistake, suspending visas for citizens of Middle Eastern and African countries is not called national security. It’s called prejudice.

President Trump is now exacerbating the largest global refugee crisis in history. His slamming America’s doors on the starving, the wounded and the abused is a grotesque blot on our nation’s history of freedom. The President’s actions are an embarrassment to the timeless vision of America as inscribed by Emma Lazarus to “give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Demonizing refugees and immigrants, and spending billions of taxpayer dollars to keep them out of our nation, will go down in American history as one of the most tragic deviations from our national conscience.

Trump’s infrastructure tolls for thee
by Tom Sullivan

Photo by freakapotimus via Wikimedia Commons.

“With infrastructure, the devil is in the details,” writes Business Insider’s Linette Lopez. Joel Moser of the Columbia Business School, an infrastructure investor, puts it bluntly in Forbes last November:

“Use whatever tools, direct government spending or borrowing, private finance, any flavor of fees and/or taxes, to get it done,” he added. “This is the approach the new administration must adopt if it is serious about making something happen.”

To be fair to the Democrats, Schumer has a point in his opposition to financing this spending through tax breaks for the private sector: Projects that don’t generate revenue for the private sector generally don’t get financed.

“No amount of tax break will encourage investment in an asset that doesn’t produce revenue,” Moser wrote. “No one will invest in the replacement of defective bridges that have no tolls, regardless of the tax abatement, unless a revenue stream is attached to those assets.”

Which is why public infrastructure should remain public. Not to mention that public anger over a “unanimously reviled” state plan to pay for widening I-77 north of Charlotte involving public-private toll lanes cost Pat McCrory tens of thousands of votes there and the NC governorship in 2016. File that away.

Why involve private investors at all? asks Paul Krugman. It’s not as if the government cannot borrow the money at rock-bottom rates:

Second, how is this kind of scheme supposed to finance investment that doesn’t produce a revenue stream? Toll roads are not the main thing we need right now; what about sewage systems, making up for deferred maintenance, and so on? You could bring in private investors by guaranteeing them future government money — say, paying rent in perpetuity for the use of a water system built by a private consortium. But this, even more than having someone else collect tolls, would simply be government borrowing through the back door — with much less transparency, and hence greater opportunities for giveaways to favored interests.

Which, after decades of Republicans demonizing government spending, is just the point. They don’t care how much government spends, just whose pockets get lined. Conservatives zealots like Grover Norquist made raising taxes a reelection killer. Fees for service gets infrastructure built without them, and if taxpayers end up with even less in their pockets at the end of the year, well, they won’t notice and at least they can’t blame us for their taxes going up. So, tolls:

Any infrastructure initiative should include rebuilding and expanding U.S. interstates, constructed in the 1950s, and addressing the almost 58,500 structurally deficient bridges, said Robert Poole, director of transportation policy at the Reason Foundation, a nonprofit in Los Angeles that advocates for free markets. To do so, Congress would need to give states the opportunity to levy tolls on existing federal interstates, a practice which is prohibited in current law, he said.

Taxes: bad. Fee for service: better. (Ask Pat McCrory what he thinks of that now.) What most reporting on Trump’s infrastructure plan(?) fails to tell Trump’s red-hatters is into whose pockets the indirect taxes they’ll be paying will go.

With investment at the scale being discussed, it will be nearly impossible to follow the “two simple rules” Trump laid out in his inaugural address: “buy American and hire American.” Construction work will go to Americans, sure. But the ownership of the assets and the decades of tolls is less certain, writes The American Interest:

Trump has not commented on how and whether foreign interests might be involved in the infrastructure plans. But Qatar won’t be the only foreign interest knocking on the doors of Trump Tower/the White House, nor will overseas assistance come only in the form of capital investment offers. Much of the privatization expertise is in Europe, which has decades of experience with the kinds of private-public partnerships Trump will likely pursue. Companies like Spain’s Cintra already have deals to construct and operate highway projects with American state governments. American firms and investors are at a disadvantage because they don’t have competencies in evaluating and participating in these kinds of deals.

So large multinational investors and foreign constructors, firms such as Cintra (Spain) or Macquarie (Australia) or Ferrovial (Spain) or AECOM (US). Or water privatization companies such as Suez (France) or Veolia (France). Between those two, they “command a 24% share of the global market, while the current five largest companies account for 35% of the global market in population served terms.” Buy American and hire American? Try keeping your eye on the pea under the walnut shell. These kinds of infrastructure contracts are highly complex just so less-sophisticated government bureaucrats cannot. Guess who has the better lawyers?

We’ve covered this ground here before. The “private equity” portion of highway deals tends to be largely federally backed Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loans that leave taxpayers on the hook when within 15 years of decades-long contracts toll revenues go south and the shell companies file for bankruptcy:

Beginning with the contracting stage, the evidence suggests toll operating public private partnerships are transportation shell companies for international financiers and contractors who blueprint future bankruptcies. Because Uncle Sam generally guarantees the bonds – by far the largest chunk of “private” money – if and when the private toll road or tunnel partner goes bankrupt, taxpayers are forced to pay off the bonds while absorbing all loans the state and federal governments gave the private shell company and any accumulated depreciation. Yet the shell company’s parent firms get to keep years of actual toll income, on top of millions in design-build cost overruns.

These are just the kinds of “deals” Trump loves to cut for himself. Think he won’t find a way to cut himself in?

As Krugman asks, why involve private investors at all? The Democrats’ $1 trillion plan will keep more money at home. Brad Plumer writes at Vox, Democrats want to keep the public in public infrastructure:

The Democratic
proposal is more old-fashioned — the federal government would mostly send money
directly to states for public works. The biggest concern with a plan like this,
Glaeser told me last fall,
is that in the past, a lot of federal spending on infrastructure has been
wasted on unnecessary new roads (or white elephant transit projects) rather
than upgrading aging but valuable infrastructure.

The proposal — backed
by Democratic Sens. Schumer, Tom Carper, Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, Bill
Nelson, Maria Cantwell, and Ron Wyden — steers away from new road construction
and focuses more on repairing existing roads. It also has billions for transit,
ports, the electric grid, and other projects. Here’s a more precise breakdown:

• $210 billion to
  “repair crumbling roads and bridges.” This would include an expansion of
  the Obama administration’s TIGER grants, which offered money
  to cities trying to solve key environmental issues via transportation.
• $110 billion to
  upgrade local water and sewer systems by providing local communities and
  taxpayers with federal grants, rather than loans.
• $180 billion to
  replace and expand existing rail and bus systems.
• $75 billion to
  rebuild schools (these projects are typically financed through local
  property taxes).
• $70 billion to
  “modernize America’s Ports, Airports, & Waterways.”
• $20 billion to
  expand high-speed broadband in unserved and underserved areas.
• $100 billion in
  new funding for energy infrastructure and grid modernization. This would
  also include reforming tax incentives for renewable energy. Also: “A
  permanent incentive would be given for electricity generation,
  transportation fuels, and energy efficiency improvements.”
• $200 billion for
  “a new Vital Infrastructure Projects program that will direct major
  federal investments to the most critical national projects.”
• $20 billion in
  funding to “address critical infrastructure backlogs on Public Lands and
  in Indian country.”
• $10 billion to
  “construct new Veterans Administration Hospitals & Extended Care
  Facilities for our nation’s heroes, and upgrade Army National Guard
  Readiness Centers.”
• $10 billion to
  “support the creation of New Innovative Financing tools aimed at unlocking
  private pools of capital and increasing infrastructure investment.”
• It proposes the
  creation of a new infrastructure finance entity (“I-Bank”) that would
  unlock private pools of capital to provide low-cost loans or loan
  guarantees for infrastructure projects across a broad range of sectors,
  including transportation, energy, affordable housing, and water
  infrastructure.

Trump supporters thinking their champion will “make America great again” could be in for a great surprise. David Cohen writes at The American Prospect, besides financial risks, public-private partnership deals carry risks of loss of public control, profit rather than need driving decision making, reduced labor standards, for some, loss of access to infrastructure their taxes paid for, and loss of transparency. One week in, the last is already a hallmark of the Trump administration.

I say the world is in the grip of an economic cult for good reason. Especially with preserving access to clean, unprivatized water, but beyond that, with privatization we are dealing with people for whom no essential for life is beyond finance. We are dealing with people who would sell you the air you breathe if they could control how it gets to your nose. And if you cannot afford to buy their air, well, you should have worked harder, planned better, and saved more.

Let’s rebuild, but keep the public in public infrastructure.

Friday Night Soother

by digby

Speaking of pussycats. Via The Dodo:

It’s been shown that the common house cat is basically a little lion — compared to dogs, who evolved from wolves, cats really haven’t changed much from their wild counterparts.

So how did we end up living with these essentially wild, yet cuddly, creatures?

It started thousands of years ago in a little — but literal — game of cat and mouse:

1. Early farmers in Asia and the Middle East started getting really good at agriculture around 12,000 years ago. They started storing their crops, like grains — and this meant they started having a rodent problem.

2. The Near Eastern wildcat — which still roams the deserts in the Middle East — saw an opportunity. While some of these wildcats may have been captured to be rodent hunters on the farms, it’s thought that the cats probably chose to get closer to farmers so they could hunt the rodents eating the grain.

Cat figurine from the Early Dynastic Period of ancient EgyptThe Metropolitan Museum of Art

3. Scientists speculate that farmers saw the benefits of having these wildcats around, so they probably started providing food and shelter to the cats to get them to stick around.

4. For the next several thousand years, cats started being friendly to humans, who were friendly back. As it’s well known, Egyptians even worshipped their feline friends. And a grave from 9,500 BC on the island of Cyprus was recently unearthed: it contained the remains of a person who had been buried with the remains of their cat. This means that when a family moved to the island, they must have brought their pet cat with them.