Month: November 2017

To serve and protest
by Tom Sullivan

Another lengthy “natives vs. newcomers” thread on Facebook over the weekend reinforced the economic stresses people experience from inmigration of people, rising costs, and disappearance of living-wage jobs in a service-based economy. Life was better “back when,” say old-timers, before the “ain’t from around heres” arrived. Except back when much of downtown was boarded up. But parking? Parking was a cinch. Now downtown is crowded and parking is tough. Rents have gone up faster than paychecks. Property taxes are pricing natives out of the city limits. Developers want to put multi-story hotels on every vacant lot left in downtown. Those with generational roots in the area, in a kind of magical thinking, claim special status somehow conferred by the GIS coordinates of their birthplace. Not in this economy.

The compulsion to maximize financial returns at the expense of people is toxic for the haves as much as for the have-nots. While have-nots are busily pointing fingers at one another on Facebook for the stresses in their lives, the structure of the economic system we serve but that does not serve us goes unchallenged. We treat it as though it is somehow a product of nature rather than of flawed human design. Which is rather convenient for those who benefit from it most.

The release of the Paradise Papers exposed just “the tip of the Bilderberg” according to Brooke Harrington, Professor of Economic Sociology at Copenhagen Business School, author of “Capital Without Borders.” NYC’s “On the Media” spoke to Harrington for its examination of the world of wealth managers, the enablers of international wealth-hiding and tax avoidance.

The practice goes back to the Middle Ages, she says, but the profession dates back only about a quarter of a century. It exists to ensure those with wealth shield as much of it as possible from any accountability to the communities and countries from which they extract it. Yet both fawn over them so much, the uber-rich have created a kind of system where they have “representation without taxation.” Wealth management involves a kind of Smithers-like subservience to the money wealth managers serve. The attitude great wealth engenders, she finds, is one of entitlement and privilege: “I have the money and you don’t, so you are my puppet.”

Harrington relates a story she heard from a wealth manager in Switzerland:

I had a client call me saying that I had to help her find her lost bracelet. And I said, well, do you know where you lost it? She said, well I’m outside a restaurant in London. This woman was based in Switzerland, the wealth manager. So, the client was asking her wealth manager to find a piece of jewelry that was lost in a different country. The client couldn’t even name the restaurant or the street that she was on. So, somehow the wealth manager triangulated on the general location of the client, sent some people out, found the bracelet, and billed the client for it. But it was that sort of hand-holding that was astounding. What some of the people I interviewed called social work for the rich.

This system undergirds the “self-made” myth that undercuts the social contract that pays for the taxpayer-funded infrastructure that produces (and concentrates) the wealth in the first place.

“We are the product of investments that society has made in the future,” Harrington says. “And until recently, the social contract has meant that we are obligated to pay forward so that other people can benefit from living in our society just as we did.”

Globalization has broken that contract, as well as financialization and the vile ethos that greed grows the economy: the one we serve but does not serve us. Now, go back to fighting amongst yourselves over the crumbs.

* * * * * * * *

Request a copy of For The Win, my county-level election mechanics primer, at tom.bluecentury at gmail.

Saturday Night at the Movies

The purple testament: Five 4-star films for Veteran’s DayBy Dennis Hartley

He is come to open
The purple testament of bleeding war.
-from Richard II, by William Shakespeare

In honor of Veteran’s Day, here are my picks for five of the finest war films ever made.

Breaker Morant – Few films have conveyed the madness of war more succinctly than Bruce Bereford’s moving 1980 drama. Based on a true story, it recounts the courts martial of three Australian officers (Edward Woodard, Bryan Brown and Lewis Fitz-gerald) by their British higher-ups during the Boer War. The three are accused of shooting enemy prisoners (even though they did so under orders from superior officers). They are hastily assigned a military lawyer (a fellow Australian) with no previous experience in criminal defense (Jack Thompson, in a star-making performance), who surprises even himself with his passion and resourcefulness in the face of stacked odds. Marvelously acted and tightly directed, with an intelligent script by Beresford, Jonathan Hardy and David Stevens (from Kenneth G. Ross’ play). It’s a perfect film in every way.

Casablanca – It certainly could be argued that Michael Curtiz’s 1942 treatise on love, war and character, did not necessarily achieve its exalted status by design, but rather via a series of happy accidents. Warner Brothers bought the rights to a play called Everybody Comes to Rick’s (written by Murray Burnett and Joan Alison) for $20,000, which at the time was considered an exorbitant investment for such an untested commodity (no one had yet staged a production). The script went through a disparate team of writers.

Brothers Julius and Philip Epstein initially dropped out to work on another project, eventually returning to resume primary authorship (after much of replacement Howard Koch’s work was excised) and then they were joined by (non-credited) Casey Robinson for daily rewrites. Even producer Hal Wallis put his two cents worth in with last-minute lines (most notably, “Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.”).

And would it have been the same film without the screen chemistry between Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman as the star-crossed lovers at the heart of the story? Bogart, while certainly a rising star at the time, had not been previously considered as a romantic lead in Hollywood; the studio had trepidation about his casting. Also, Curtiz was not the first choice as director (Wallis originally wanted William Wyler). Most significantly, the film did not set the world on fire upon initial release; no one was touting it as a “classic”.

And yet, for whatever the reason(s) may be, it is now considered as such. For me, it’s a true “movie movie”…cinematic comfort food. In other words, it doesn’t have to make sense on every level to be entertaining. Whether 100% believable as a World War II adventure, or whether the characters are cardboard archetypes, or whether it looks like it was all filmed on a sound stage…ultimately become moot issues in a true “movie movie”.

What matters to me is the romance, intrigue, selfless sacrifice, Bogie, Bergman, Paul Henreid, Peter Lorre, Sidney Greenstreet, Rick’s Café, Claude Rains rounding up the usual suspects, Dooley singing “As Time Goes By”, the beginning of a beautiful friendship, the most rousing rendition of “La Marseille” ever, that goodbye at the airfield, and a timeless message (if you love someone, set them free). What’s not to love about it?

The Deer Hunter – “If anything happens…don’t leave me over there. You gotta promise me that, Mike.” 1978 was a pivotal year for American films dealing head on with the country’s deep scars (social, political and emotional) from the nightmare of the war in Vietnam; that one year alone saw the release of The Boys in Company C, Go Tell the Spartans, Coming Home, and writer-director Michael Cimino’s shattering drama.

Cimino’s sprawling 3 hour film is a character study about three blue collar buddies (Robert De Niro, Christopher Walken and Jon Savage) hailing from a Pennsylvania steel town who enlist in the military, share a harrowing P.O.W. experience in Vietnam, and suffer through P.T.S.D. (each in their own fashion). Uniformly excellent performances from the entire cast, which includes Meryl Streep, John Cazale, Chuck Aspegren and George Dzundza. I remember the first time I saw this film in a theater. I sat all the way through the end credits, and continued sitting for at least five minutes, absolutely stunned. I literally had to “collect myself”. No film has ever affected me like that, before or since.

Le Grande Illusion – While it may be hard for some to fathom in this oh so cynical age we live in, there was a time when there were these thingies called honor, loyalty, sacrifice, faith in your fellow man, and (what’s that other one?) basic human decency. While ostensibly an anti-war film, Jean Renoir’s 1937 classic is at its heart a timeless treatise about the aforementioned attributes. Erich von Stroheim nearly steals the movie (no small feat, considering all the formidable acting talent on board) as an aristocratic WWI German POW camp commandant. Jean Gabin and Pierre Fresnay are also outstanding as French POWs of disparate class backgrounds. The narrative follows the prisoners’ attempt to escape, and the fateful paths that await each. Rich and rewarding.

Paths of Glory – Stanley Kubrick really came into his own with his third film (fourth, if you include his never-officially-released “lost film”, Fear and Desire). Kirk Douglas is in top form as a WWI French regiment commander caught between the political machinations of his superiors and the empathy he feels for his battle-weary soldiers, who are little more than cannon-fodder to the paper-pushing top brass. After an artillery unit serving under Douglas refuses to execute an insane directive from a glory-hungry field general to lay a barrage into their own forward positions, the commanding generals decide that the best way to ensure against any such future “mutiny” is to select three scapegoats from the rank and file to be court-martialed and shot.

Despite all the technical innovations in film making that have evolved in the 50+ years since this film was released, the battle sequences still make you scratch your head in wonder as to how Kubrick was able to render them with such verisimilitude. The insanity of conflict has rarely been parsed onscreen with such economy and clarity. A true classic.

And I’ll leave you with this clip from The Deer Hunter; one of the most affecting scenes in the history of the American cinema. Direct, powerful, eloquent, and timeless.

More reviews at Den of Cinema

Previous posts with related themes:

The Kill Team

The Messenger
The Monuments Men
Inglourious Basterds
The Wind Rises & Generation War
Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence
City of Life and Death
On Facebook
On Twitter

–Dennis Hartley

The Battle of the Somme
by Batocchio

The eleventh of November is primarily known as Veterans Day in the United States, but it’s also known as Remembrance Day and Armistice Day. These holidays typically dovetail well, but Armistice Day, commemorating the end of the “Great War,” is the part I’ve been pondering most. Veterans Day honors military veterans, which is only right, but Armistice Day seems to ask us to reflect on war and peace.

Americans tend to remember the Second World War much better that the First, and the Second is far more heavily featured in American feature films, TV shows, books and documentaries. The U.S. entered the First World War fairly late, we weren’t directly involved in some of its most horrific events, plus the Second had more moral clarity; we can feel like the good guys. (Stud Terkel’s great oral history of that war is called “The Good War” in quotation marks because although many of the interviewees justifiably feel proud of their service, no war is truly “good.”) I do wish as a country we considered more aspects of the First World War, including the lessons of the Battle of the Somme, which started a little over one hundred and one years ago. As the BBC explains:

The Battle of the Somme, fought in northern France, was one of the bloodiest of World War One. For five months the British and French armies fought the Germans in a brutal battle of attrition on a 15-mile front. The aims of the battle were to relieve the French Army fighting at Verdun and to weaken the German Army. However, the Allies were unable to break through German lines. In total, there were over one million dead and wounded on all sides.

The battle is much more strongly etched into British memories because its start on July 1st, 1916, entailed the highest single-day death count of British soldiers in history. British decisions were criticized at the time (by Winston Churchill, among others) and are still discussed. The British had initiated a massive military recruitment effort, led by Secretary of State of War Lord Kitchener, but because of British losses, the “Kitchener divisions” were rushed to battle with relatively little training and often short on equipment. For the Battle of the Somme, the British plan was basically for artillery to destroy German barbed wire so that British soldiers could advance from their trenches to take over the German ones. British military historian John Keegan sets the scene in his 1976 book, The Face of Battle:

French small-unit tactics, perfected painfully over two years of warfare, laid emphasis on the advance of small groups by rushes, one meanwhile supporting another by fire – the sort of tactics which were to become commonplace in the Second World War. This sophistication of traditional ‘fire and movement’ was known to the British but was thought by the staff to be too difficult to be taught to the Kitchener divisions. They may well have been right. But the alternative tactical order they laid down for them was over-simplified: divisions were to attack on front of about a mile, generally with two brigades ‘up’ and one in reserve. What this meant, in terms of soldiers on the ground, was that two battalions each of a thousand men, forming the leading wave of the brigade, would leave their front trenches, using scaling-ladders to climb the parapet, extend their soldiers in four lines, a company to each, the men two to three yards apart, the lines about fifty to a hundred yards behind each other, and advance to the German wire. This they would expect to find flat, or at least widely gapped, and, passing through, they would then jump down into the German trenches, shoot, bomb or bayonet any who opposed them, and take possession. Later the reserve waves would pass through and advance to capture the German second position by similar methods.

The manoeuvre was to be done slowly and deliberately, for the men were to be laden with about sixty pounds of equipment, their re-supply with food and ammunition during the battle being one of the thing the staff could not guarantee. In the circumstances, it did indeed seem that success would depend upon what the artillery could do for the infantry, both before the advance and once it was under way.
p. 230 (1988 edition)

If there’s an image associated with the First World War, it’s trench warfare. If there’s a specific weapon, it might be mustard gas, but more likely the machine gun, used on a greater scale than ever before. As Keegan explains:

The machine-gun was to be described by Major-General J.F.C. Fuller, one of the great enragés of military theory produced by the war, as ‘concentrated essence of infantry,’ by which he meant his readers to grasp that its invention put into the hands of one man the fire-power formerly wielded by forty. Given that a good rifleman could fire only fifteen shots a minute, to a machine-gunner’s 600, the point is well made. But, as Fuller would have no doubt conceded if taxed, a machine-gun team did not simply represent the equivalent of so many infantrymen compressed into a small compass. Infantrymen, however well-trained and well-armed, however resolute, however ready to kill, remain erratic agents of death. Unless centrally directed, they will choose, perhaps badly, their own targets, will open and cease fire individually, will be put off their aim by the enemy’s return of fire, will be distracted by wounding of those near them, will yield to excitement, will fire high, low or wide. It was to overcome influences and tendencies of this sort – as well as to avert the danger of accident in closely packed ranks – that seventeeth- and eighteenth-century armies had put such effort into perfecting volley by square, line and column. . . .

The machine-gunner is best thought of, in short, as a sort of machine-minder, whose principal task was to feed ammunition belt into the breech, something which could be done while the gun was in full operation, top up the fluid in the cooling jacket, and traverse the gun from left to right and back again within the limits set by its firing platform. Traversing was achieved by a technique known, in the British Army, as the ‘two inch tap’: by constant practice, the machine-gunner learned to hit the side of the breech with the palm of his hand just hard enough to move the muzzle exactly two inches against the resistance of the traversing screw. A succession of ‘two-inch taps’ first on one side of the breech until the stop was reached, then on the other, would keep in the air a stream of bullets so dense that no one could walk upright across the front of the machine-gunner’s position without being hit – given, of course, that the gunner had set his machine to fire low and that the ground as devoid of cover. The appearance of the machine-gun, therefore, had not so much disciplined the act of killing – which was what seventeenth-century drill had done – as mechanized or industrialized it.
pp. 232–234

On the first day of battle, July 1st, 1916, the British artillery started its job, and the British soldiers, many of them relatively untrained, advanced:

Most soldiers were encountering heavy fire within seconds of leaving the trenches. The 10th West Yorks, attacking towards the ruined village of Fricourt in the little valley of the River Ancre, had its two follow-up companies caught in the open by German machine-gunners who emerged from their dug-outs after the leading waves has passed over the top and onward. They were ‘practically annihilated and lay shot down in waves’. In the neighbouring 34th Division, the 5th and 16th Royal Scots, two Edinburgh Pals’ Battalions contained a high proportion of Mancunians, were caught in flank by machine-gun firing from the ruins of La Boiselle and lost several hundred men in a few minutes, thought the survivors marched on to enter German lines. Their neighbouring battalions, the 10th Lincolns and 11th Suffolks (the Grimsby Chums and the Cambridge Battalion) were caught by the same flanking fire; of those who pressed on to the German trenches, some, to quote the official history ‘were burnt to death by flame throwers as [they] reached the [German] parapet’; others were caught again by machine-gun fire as they entered the German position. An artillery officer who walked across later came on ‘line after line of dead men lying where they had fallen’. Behind the Edinburghs, the four Tyneside Irish battalions of the 103rd Brigade underwent a bizarre and pointless massacre. The 34th Division’s commander had decided to move all twelve of his battalions simultaneously towards the German front, the 101st and 102nd Brigades from the front trench, the 103rd from the support line (called the Tara-Usna Line, in a little re-entrant know to the brigade as the Avoca Valley – all three names allusions to Irish beauty spots celebrated by Yeats and the Irish literary nationalists). This decision gave the last brigade a mile of open ground to cover before it reached its own front line, a safe enough passage if the enemy’s machine-guns had been extinguished, otherwise a funeral march. A sergeant of the 3rd Tyneside Irish (26th Northumberland Fusiliers) describes how it was: ‘I could see, away to my left and right, long lines of men. Then I heard the “patter, patter” of machine-guns in the distance. By the time I’d gone another ten yards there seemed to be only a few men left around me; by the time I had gone twenty yards, I seemed to be on my own. Then I was hit myself.’ Not all went down so soon. A few heroic souls pressed on to the British front line, crossed no-man’s-land and entered the German trenches. But the brigade was destroyed; one of its battalions had lost over 600 men killed or wounded, another, 500; the brigadier and two battalions commanders had been hit, a third lay dead. Militarily, the advance had achieved nothing. Most of the bodies lay on the territory British before the battle had begun.
pp. 248–249

As for the overall results:

The first day of the Somme had not been a complete military failure. But it had been a human tragedy. The Germans, with about sixty battalions on the British Somme front, though about forty in the line, say about 35,000 soldiers, had had killed or wounded 6,000. Bad enough; but it was in the enormous disparity between their losses and the British that the weight of the tragedy lies: the German 180th Regiment lost 280 men on 1 July out of about 3,000; attacking it, the British had lost 5,121 out of 12,000. In all the British had lost about 60,000, of whom 21,000 had been killed, most in the first hour of the attack, perhaps the first minutes. ‘The trenches,’ wrote Robert Kee fifty years later, ‘were the concentration camps of the First World War’; and though the analogy is what an academic reviewer would call unhistorical, there is something Treblinka-like about almost all accounts of 1 July, about those long docile lines of young men, shoddily uniformed, heavily burdened, numbered across their necks, plodding forward across a featureless landscape to their own extermination inside the barbed wire. Accounts of the Somme produce in readers and audiences much the same range of emotions as do descriptions of the running of Auschwitz – guilty fascination, incredulity, horror, disgust, pity and anger – and not just from the pacific and tender-hearted; not only from the military historian, on whom, as he recounts the extinction of this brave effort or that, falls an awful lethargy, his typewriter keys tapping leadenly on the paper to drive the lines of print, like the waves of a Kitchener battalion failing to take its objective, more and more slowly towards the foot of the page; but also from professional soldiers. Anger is the response which the story of the Somme most commonly evokes among professionals. Why did the commanders not do something about it? Why did they let the attack go on? Why did they not stop one battalion following in the wake of another to join it in death?
pp. 259–260

It’s a striking account of senseless, unnecessary death. (It’s stuck with me since I first read it ages ago.) The battle grew to be criticized, but it took a while for the public to get a fuller picture. The newpaper Times of London, published by Lord Northcliffe, consistently painted a rosy view of the British soldier’s life. As Paul Fussell recounts in The Great War and Modern Memory:

It is no surprise to find Northcliffe’s Times on July 3, 1916, reporting the first day’s attack on the Somme with an airy confidence which could not help but deepen the division between those on the spot and those at home, “[Commander] Sir Douglas Haig telephoned last night,” says the Times, “that the general situation was favorable,” and the account goes on to speak of “effective progress,” nay, “substantial progress.” It soon ascends to the rhetoric of heroic romance: “There is a fair field and no favor, and [at the Somme] we have elected to fight out our quarrel with the Germans and to give them as much battle as they want.” In short, “everything has gone well”; “we got our first thrust well home, and there is every reason to be sanguine as to the result.” No wonder communication failed between the troops and those who could credit prose like that as factual testimony.
p. 106 (in the Illustrated Edition)

Fussell presents another familiar story – a government that doesn’t want the public to know what happened in a war (and at least one media outlet happy to play along). Some Americans might be reminded of U.S. government efforts to suppress the news about the Vietnam War and Walter Cronkite’s 1968 public commentary that the war was a stalemate and the U.S should negotiate an end. But similar dynamics play out with many wars.

It makes perfect sense that the Battle of the Somme remains a more powerful event for the British than for Americans, or even the French or Germans; it’s one of many events that shape my personal thoughts on Armistice Day, but that mix will be different for everyone. But if contemplating Armistice Day entails any lessons, for me they’re fairly straightforward: some wars may be necessary. Others definitely aren’t. The same goes for battles; military history is full of disastrous decisions. If you must go to war, prepare well. Going to war should require a high threshold; it shouldn’t be done capriciously. Distrust anyone who wants to go to war. Challenge anyone who tries bully others to go to war and attacks their patriotism or lies or offers frequently shifting rationales. Discuss matters of war and peace honestly and openly as a democracy. Obtain as much accurate information as possible and question suspect accounts (and certainly challenge outright propaganda). Treat veterans well, especially when it comes to physical and mental health. Listen to their stories. Remember that the best way to support current military personnel is to avoid sending them into an unnecessary war or sending them into a pointless battle or poorly preparing them. Challenge anyone who tries to pretend that either skepticism about going to war or questioning a specific war-related decision shows a lack of “support for the troops.” Resist authoritarian bullying.

In our current day, it’s worth remembering that although some veterans go on to become fine public servants, others become political hacks. Generals may serve as wise counsel for presidents, or may agitate for nuclear war, as Curtis LeMay did to President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. As political figures, generals may act as a sobering influences, but they can also be authoritarian bullies who lie and slander for attempted political gain, and misunderstand or disdain democracy. They have a voice, but undue deference to them can be dangerous.

Thanks to all who has served on this Veterans Day. As for Remembrance Day and Armistice Day, in 1959, Pogo creator Walt Kelly wrote:

The eleventh day of the eleventh month has always seemed to me to be special. Even if the reason for it fell apart as the years went on, it was a symbol of something close to the high part of the heart. Perhaps a life that stretches through two or three wars takes its first war rather seriously, but I still think we should have kept the name “Armistice Day.” Its implications were a little more profound, a little more hopeful.

A Putin Primerby digby

Trump’s crazy quotes today make me think it’s more important than ever that we get to the bottom of the Russia meddling thing. Trump is clearly just covering his own ass and the Republicans obviously believe that Putin is their ally against the Democrats and will do whatever they can to allow Russia to help them win. I find this bizarre since I don’t think Vladimir Putin or the Russian government has any greater love or respect for them than they do Democrats and they certainly think Donald Trump is an f-ing moron because well … he is. So the Republicans’ warm embrace of the Russian government interference in our democracy with new methods of propaganda and cyberwarfare is likely to be short-sighted for them.
I suppose if you think that Frontline is fake news, this documentary on Vladimir Putin and the election meddling won’t be of interest to you. If, on the other hand, you tend to find their reporting to be dependable and you haven’t seen the broadcast I recommend that you watch it if you would like a thorough overview of Putin and the election.

I’ve posted some excerpts and the whole thing is posted at the end. You can also watch at the Frontline website where there are a bunch of interesting interviews and transcripts.

Here’s the whole thing in two parts:

.

Jesus H. Christby digby

He’s had his massive ego stroked and now it’s

out

of

control.
I don’t ever want to hear Republicans talk about patriotism again. EVER. This is outrageous.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Everybody okay? Everybody happy? Everybody healthy? Two more days — no problem.

It’s been a — I think it’s been a great trip. In certain ways, it’s been very epic. I think things have happened that have been really amazing. Prime Minister Abe came up to me just at the end, and he said that since you left South Korea and Japan, that those two countries are now getting along much, much better. That’s from Prime Minister Abe — that there’s been a real bonding between South Korea and Japan. So that was great.

And we had a time in China. You were there. Were most of you there? Jennifer?

Q We all were, sir.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: They say in the history of people coming to China, there’s been nothing like that. And I believe it.

Did you see the show? Did most of you see the show or part of the show afterwards? It was incredible.

Q We saw the opera but not the —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: The opera was great too, but the following night — that was the first time that theater has been used at the Forbidden City in over a hundred years. You know that. They prepared the theater for that — the first time in over a hundred years.

No, it was an amazing — we have an amazing feeling toward each other. And he’s for China; I’m for USA. You know, it’s one of those things. But we have a great feeling.

So it’s been really very incredible. And then today was excellent. Today was a different kind of a thing. It’s a conference.

And then tonight they’re having a state dinner in Hanoi. And we then go to the Philippines, which was a rough trip the last time. That was a rough presidential trip, but this won’t be. And we’re staying the extra day because they have the two conferences; they have first day and they have the second day. And the second day, a lot of people say is very important. And I said, you know what, if I’m there, I should do it.

But it’s gone really well. I’ve really enjoyed it. Developed some new friendships — some really good friendships. But the three countries we’ve stopped in, the original three are — they’re really in our camp, and we’re in their camp.

Q How were your discussions with Vladimir Putin? Did you discuss Syria? And apparently they’ve issued a joint statement that —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: We issued a joint statement. We’re going to be — have you seen the statement yet?

MS. SANDERS: It’s going out — it’s on the way.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: So I think it’ll go out. You’ll see it in a little while.

MS. SANDERS: It may be out, now that you guys — now that we’re in the air.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: It’s going to save tremendous numbers of lives. And we did that very quickly. We agreed very quickly.

As you know, we saw each other last night just for a picture, and that was the first time. And then today we had a roundtable with numerous countries. You have a list of the countries, obviously. Right? You have a list.

And we spoke intermittently during that roundtable. We seem to have a very good feeling for each other and a good relationship considering we don’t know each other well. I think it’s a very good relationship.

We had two or three very short conversations because of the meeting, the fact that we’re at a meeting. But during those conversations, we talked about Syria and de-conflicting, et cetera. You know, we have areas where troops are facing — our troops — I mean, their troops are facing our troops and there’s nothing in between.

And we issued a statement — a joint statement. It was just approved, and I think people are going to be extremely happy with it and also very impressed with it.

Q Did Russia’s attempts to meddle in U.S. elections come up in the conversation?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: He said he didn’t meddle. He said he didn’t meddle. I asked him again. You can only ask so many times. But I just asked him again, and he said he absolutely did not meddle in our election. He did not do what they’re saying he did. And he said —

Q Do you believe him?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, look, I can’t stand there and argue with him. I’d rather have him get out of Syria, to be honest with you. I’d rather have him — you know, work with him on the Ukraine than standing and arguing about whether or not — because that whole thing was set up by the Democrats.

I mean, they ought to look at Podesta. They ought to look at all of the things that they’ve done with the phony dossier. Those are the big events. Those are the big events.

But Putin said he did not do what they said he did. And, you know, there are those that say, if he did do it, he wouldn’t have gotten caught, all right? Which is a very interesting statement. But we have a — you know, we have a good feeling toward getting things done.

If we had a relationship with Russia, that would be a good thing. In fact, it would be a great thing, not a bad thing. Because he could really help us in North Korea. We have a big problem with North Korea. And China is helping us. And because of the lack of a relationship that we have with Russia because of this artificial thing that’s happening with this Democratic-inspired thing, we could really be helped a lot, tremendously, with Russia having to do with North Korea.

And, you know, you’re talking about millions and millions of lives. This isn’t baby stuff. This is the real deal. And if Russia helped us, in addition to China, that problem would go away a lot faster.

Q How did you bring up the issue of election meddling? Did you ask him a question?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: He just — every time he sees me, he says, “I didn’t do that.” And I believe — I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it. But he says, “I didn’t do that.” I think he’s very insulted by it, if you want to know the truth.

Don’t forget, all he said is he never did that, he didn’t do that. I think he’s very insulted by it, which is not a good thing for our country. Because again, if we had a relationship with Russia, North Korea — which is our single biggest problem right now — North Korea, it would be helped a lot. I think I’m doing very well with respect to China. They’ve cut off financing; they’ve cut off bank lines; they’ve cut off lots of oil and lots of other things, lots of trade. And it’s having a big impact. But Russia, on the other hand, may be making up the difference. And if they are, that’s not a good thing.

So having a relationship with Russia would be a great thing — not a good thing — it would be a great thing, especially as it relates to North Korea.

And I’ll say this, Hillary had her stupid reset button that she spelled the word wrong, but she doesn’t have what it takes to have that kind of a relationship where you could call or you could do something and they would pull back from North Korea, or they’d pull back from Syria, or maybe pull back from Ukraine. I mean, if we could solve the Ukraine problem —

But this is really an artificial barrier that’s put in front of us for solving problems with Russia, and he says that very strongly. He really seems to be insulted by it, and he says he didn’t do it. So —

Q (Inaudible) do you believe him —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Excuse me?

Q Even if he (inaudible) one-on-one, do you believe him?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I think that he is very, very strong in the fact that he didn’t do it. And then you look, and you look at what’s going on with Podesta, and you look at what’s going on with the server from the DNC and why didn’t the FBI take it, why did they leave it; why did a third party look at the server and not the FBI — if you look at all of this stuff, and you say, what’s going on here?

And then you hear it’s 17 agencies. Well, it’s three. And one is Brennan and one is whatever. I mean, give me a break. They’re political hacks.

So you look at it — I mean, you have Brennan, you have Clapper, and you have Comey. Comey is proven now to be a liar and he’s proven to be a leaker.

So you look at that, and you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently says he had nothing to do with that. Now, you’re not going to get into an argument. You’re going to start talking about Syria and the Ukraine.

Q You seem to have a fairly warm relationship with a number of —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I do.

Q — totalitarian or authoritarian leaders —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: And others.

Q And others. So, Putin, Xi, leader of the Philippines. Do you think you — what do you think — do you think you understand them in a certain way or relate to them in a way that other Presidents haven’t?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I don’t know. They had a story today in one of the papers about China. China likes me. China likes me. And I get along with them; I get along with others too.

I get along very well with Angela. You people don’t write that. I actually get along really well with Angela. You know, they had that handshaking event. I was with her for a long time before that. And somebody shouts out, “shake her hand, shake her hand.” And I didn’t hear them. So by not shaking her hand, they said — I have a great relationship with her. I have a great relationship with Theresa May. I have a great relationship with Justin Trudeau, who I just left.

I think I — I’ll be honest with you, I think I have a great relationship with every single one of them. Every person in that room today — you had what, 15, or so, or 18? Asia Pacific —

Q Well, 21 including you.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Everyone in that room, I have a good relationship. They’re very different people, but everyone. And I do have a very good relationship with Xi, obviously. It’s the biggest state — it’s the biggest state entrance and the biggest state dinner they’ve ever had, by far, in China. He called it a state-plus. Like he said it — he actually said, state-plus-plus, which is very interesting.

But he’s — you know, look, again, he’s a strong person. He’s a very smart person. I like him a lot; he likes me. But, you know, we represent two very different countries. But we get along very well. And that’s a good thing that we along; that’s not a bad thing.

And on trade, you know, it was — most of the news covered it fairly. Some didn’t. When I said it’s not your fault — because I was saying how China has been hurting us on trade for many decades, for many years — and it really is. It’s not his fault. We should have been doing that. But we didn’t do it. It’s the fault of the administrations that preceded me. And we’re not going to do that anymore; we’re going to be very tough on trade. And he understands that.

Q In the past, American presidents have felt the obligation to raise issues about human rights abuses. Do you feel like that’s an obligation and that’s something that you feel is important to do?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I do. But I also raise issues on many other things. I mean, I have an obligation — we lost, last year, with China, depending on the way you do your numbers, because you can do them a numbers of way — anywhere from $350 [billion] to $504 billion. That’s with one country. I’m going to fix that. And I’ve got to fix what we have with Mexico, who was there today too, who I also have a very good relationship with. And I have a great relationship with France. Some of you were in France with me, with the Eiffel Tower dinner. We have a great relationship with Emmanuel.

So I think that’s the thing. I’ve actually been getting — I always said it, I think — I said, I think one of my strong suits is going to be foreign affairs. And we’re actually getting very good marks having to do with foreign affairs. There’s nobody that I can think of that I don’t have a very good relationship with.

But when we can — I mean, you’ll be seeing the release that’s put out. But we can save many, many, many lives by making a deal with Russia having to do with Syria, and then ultimately getting Syria solved and getting Ukraine solved and doing other things, having a good relationship with Russia is a great, great thing.

And this artificial Democratic hit job gets in the way. It gets in the way. And that’s a shame because people will die because of it. And it’s a pure hit job. And it’s artificially induced. And it’s a shame. But anyway.

Q If we could ask you about Roy Moore. Is it time to pitch him overboard?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, again, I’ve been with you folks, so I haven’t gotten to see too much. And believe it or not, even when I’m in Washington and New York, I do not watch much television. I know they like to say — people that don’t know me, they like to say I watch television. People with fake sources — you know, fake reporters, fake sources. But I don’t get to watch much television, primarily because of documents. I’m reading documents a lot, and different things.

I actually read much more — I read you people much more than I watch television. But anyway — but so I have not seen very much about him, about it. And, you know, I put out a statement yesterday that he’ll do the right thing, that — he was interviewed.

Q But four women have come forward and accused him of inappropriately touching them, basically making advances when they were underage, including a 14-year-old. I mean, at what point — and you said, “if he did it.” But at what point do you decide if he did it? It’s right now their word against his.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Honestly, I’d have to look at it and I’d have to see. Because again, I’m dealing with the President of China, the President of Russia, I’m dealing with the folks over here. So I haven’t devoted — I haven’t been able to devote very much time to it.

And I’ve been at — I mean, you people are just as strong as me. You’re following me all over the place. I mean, we are going to lots of meetings, right? And, by the way, anybody that took the bet, pick up your money, okay? And the hard stuff was that. Really hard.

Q What was the bet again?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, a lot of people said it’s almost physically impossible for someone to go through 12 days.

What I didn’t want to do was come back because I would have had to come back. And we would have been on this plane again in five weeks from now exactly to do four days. We were going to do four days and four days. And this way we did twelve, and we hit the big conferences, which is a big asset. So anyway.

Q So you’re not yet prepared to say that Roy Moore should —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I will see it when — I mean, I basically put out a statement which was obvious. So I’ll stick with statement for now, but I’ll have further comment as we go down the road. I have to get back into the country to see what’s happening.

Q Is there one thing that you were pressing President Xi on that you can say you’re going to take away, where he changed his mind or agreed to something that you’re looking to do specifically on North Korea?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: President Xi made a statement. If you read his statement yesterday — were you all there when he was speaking and made the statement in the big room — the Great Room?

He made a statement that he’s committed to stopping the nuclearization of North Korea. That’s a big statement. He made that statement, and a lot of people didn’t — they didn’t pick that up. I don’t think it was — because it was part of the speech. And somehow a lot people — to me, that was a very big statement. I even looked up — because I’m sitting waiting to speak — and I said, wow, that’s a big statement. He made that statement in his speech yesterday or the day before, when he made — you know, when we were speaking together. He put a statement out, Sarah, that said he’s committed to making that happen. That’s a big statement.

You know, he was, through this process — he’s the most powerful Chinese leader since Mao Zedong. Some people say more powerful than Mao. With that being said, I really believe he’s a good person, he’s a good man, he wants to do right, he’s representing his people. He’s strong, he’s very strong. But you know, you look at some of what you saw was very impressive. It was very impressive.

Q What’s the next thing you’d like to see him do on Korea?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Oh, I’d like to have him ratchet it up, and I think he’s doing that. We had a long talk about it.

Q But ratchet it up with what?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: And I was with him for hours. You know, I was with him — like I sat with him. You were there at the beginning of that evening, right? Of the —

Q No.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Oh, really?

Q I wasn’t pool.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I was sitting with him. We were together for hours. And the day before, we were together for hours. And we get along very well. You know, it’s easy to be with him for hours. Whereas, if you don’t have chemistry, you people know, you can’t be with somebody for two minutes. And we talked a lot about North Korea. We talked about a lot of things. We talked a lot about North Korea.

No, I think he’s going to ratchet it up. I did not speak to President Putin about it because we just had these little segments that we were talking about Syria. But President Putin would be tremendously helpful — tremendously helpful — if I had Russia and China helping us with North Korea, I think that would solve it. But this artificial barrier gets in the way. I call it the “artificial Democrat barrier.” It gets in the way, which is a shame.

Q So you didn’t have time to ask Putin specific things on North Korea?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I wasn’t able to — because I really didn’t, Jennifer. I really just — we did, like, little snippets in between. We didn’t have a planned meeting. We spoke, but we didn’t have a planned meeting.

Q Where did you leave it with President Putin? Are you looking for another meeting? Him coming to the U.S.? Or are you —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: We’ll have a meeting. I think we have the potential to have a very good relationship. I don’t know him like I know President Xi because I’ve spent a lot of time with President Xi, but I think we have the potential to have a very, very good relationship. I have it with Abe. I have it with Abe. Very good.

Q Did you see Abe fall at the sand trap?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I didn’t. I say this: If that was him, he is one of the greatest gymnasts because the way he — (laughter) — it was like a perfect — I never saw anything like that.

No, wasn’t it amazing? And he was standing up. I told him — I said, I’m not going to ask — because it was shot from a helicopter. I said, I will not ask if that’s you, but if it was, I’m very impressed because you’re better than any gymnast I’ve ever seen.

Q What do you mean by “artificial Democratic barrier”? I mean, you and Putin can’t warm up because of this investigation? Or what —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: There’s an artificial barrier that puts in the way by the Democrats. It’s a fake barrier. There was no collusion. Everybody knows there was no collusion. I mean, you speak to these people — I saw Dianne Feinstein the other day and I respect her. She was on television the other day saying there’s no collusion. The Democrats — the Republicans come out screaming it, but the Democrats come out, and they say, “No, there’s no collusion.” There is no collusion. There’s nothing.

And I think it’s a shame that something like that can destroy a very important potential relationship between two countries that are very important countries. Russia could really help us. And the Democrats wanted to have a good relationship with Russia, but they couldn’t do it because they didn’t have the talent to do it. They didn’t have the chemistry to do it. They didn’t have what it takes to do it. You know, there is a talent to that.

But I think Putin and I — President Putin and I would have a great relationship, and that would be great for both countries. And it would take a lot of the danger out because we’re really — you know, this is a dangerous time. This isn’t small stuff. This is a very dangerous time. And having a great relationship, or even a good relationship, with the President of Russia — Hillary tried it, and she failed. Nobody mentions that. They act like, you know — it’s so terrible. She did that reset button; it was a joke. But she tried and she failed.

Obama tried and he failed. Couldn’t have it, because he didn’t have chemistry. They didn’t have the right chemistry. And you know what? I understand that, because there are some people I don’t have chemistry with. Let’s see, some of you are right here. (Laughter.) There are some people I don’t — you know, sometimes if you don’t have chemistry with somebody, you don’t.

But Obama did not have the right chemistry with Putin. And Hillary was way over her head.

MS. SANDERS: Let’s take one more and then let them have lunch.

Q Were you able to get any commitments — when it comes to the trade balance, some of the issues you talk about like intellectual property theft — did he make any commitments there to make changes?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, the intellectual property — you’re talking about $300 billion a year. It’s tremendous. We talked about it. But I said, we’re friends, but this is a different administration than you’ve had for the last 30 years. For the last 30 years, China — and, in all fairness, and other countries. Look, we have a $71 billion trade deficit with Mexico. We have a $70 billion trade deficit with Japan. We have a $30 billion trade deficit with South Korea. I could go through a whole list. There are few countries we have a surplus with, and those countries it’s like a two-dollar surplus. It’s disgraceful.

And I don’t blame any of those countries. I blame the people that we had representing us who didn’t know what they were doing. Because they should have never let it happen.

Q I’d like to ask a question on AT&T and CNN. Do you want AT&T to sell CNN for the —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I didn’t make the decision. That was made by a man who’s actually a very respected person — a very, very respected person.

I did make a comment in the past as to what I think. I do feel that you should have as many news outlets as you can, especially since so many of them are fake. This way, at least you can get your word out. But I do believe you should have as many news outlets as you can.

Now, with that being said, I didn’t make a statement on it, but I made that statement long before at the very early part. So we’ll see how that — it will probably end up being maybe litigation, maybe not. We’ll see how it all plays out.

Q Did you talk to Xi about opening China to Twitter and other social media?

THE PRESIDENT: About what?

Q Opening China to Twitter.

THE PRESIDENT: I mentioned it very briefly. Honestly, it wasn’t number one on my list. Number one on my list with him was North Korea and trade. Those are the two I really spoke. I mentioned it, you know, briefly, but we’ll talk. I’m going to have plenty of time to talk. He’ll come here next time.

This all started in Florida, and it’s a great feeling to have that kind of a relationship where you can really help your country. Because we can really help our country, and he can really help his country.

But we’re going to be very tough on trade. This is not going to be like it was in the past. I did tell him that. This is not going to be the old days. This is a whole different thing going on.

And, you know, it’s not acceptable what’s been happening with trade, generally. China, yes — but generally. And I can think of almost no examples where it’s good. It’s all bad. We had the worst negotiators, whether it’s the Iran deal or any other thing. We had the worst — our trade deals are so bad. Last year, we lost $800 billion, right? Yeah. $800 [billion], approximately. Check it. But approximately $800 billion on trade. Why?

Q You put your own guys in there now. So what did you get from him?

THE PRESIDENT: I have a great team. Bob Lighthizer. Bob Lighthizer is — he’s going to town. And he works with me. He works with me. But Bob is going to town.

So I hope you’re all enjoying yourselves. Tonight we’re going to Hanoi.

Q Any highlights from APEC? Do you have any asks for the other countries?

THE PRESIDENT: I think the APEC was just — good, very collegial.

Q Did anyone ask you for specific things?

THE PRESIDENT: No, but I told them we’re going to have much tougher trade policies now, because, you know, they have barriers. We don’t. I’m not only talking about tariffs. They have non-tariff barriers, and we don’t. I said, you got to remove them.

Good to be with you. Good to be with you.

We’ll talk to you —

Q Thank you for coming back.

THE PRESIDENT: I’ll see you in Hanoi. Are you all going up?

Q Yes, sir.

Q We are.

Fighting about pedophiliaby digby

John Amato caught Outnumbered today and boy was it something:

After discussing the possible fate of the Alabama Senate seat after allegations that Moore likes underage girls and if Luther Strange should be a write-in candidate, the ladies on the panel got very serious about what was happening within the GOP.

Dagen McDowell asked how this would play out. Gillian Turner said it would guarantee a win for the Dems if he imitated Lisa Murkowski.

Turner continued, “Unfortunately for the Republican Party, whether Judge Moore is guilty or innocent, this is bad news and I think bodes poorly.”

“We just spent the previous block talking about tax reform. This bodes poorly for Republican initiatives because the party is now fighting amongst itself about pedophilia, right? This is not a party that is in a state to govern effectively, to lead the nation and legislate never mind take a stand and tackling generational issues like tax reform.”

Harris Faulkner was horrified and said, “They are dripping and searing those words. Fighting about pedophilia.”

No one on set denied these words.

Harris then opined that what was just as damaging was all these politicos retiring from the GOP.

She said, “You’ve seen more than two dozen House Republicans confirm that they will not be returning for reelection in 2018 above — “

Gillian, “And many of them Committee leaders.”

Harris replied, “Good point, Gillian. And that is far above the average of House retirement per election cycles. So you’ve got an onslaught and in the middle of it now a scandal that when I hear you describe it no matter how it shakes out in the end with the facts, yuck!”

What about tax reform people!!!

Click over to see the video. You won’t believe it.

Lemon Squeezy?by digby

What in the hell was this all about?

Trenton Garmon, an attorney for Roy Moore‘s family, nicknamed CNN’s Don Lemon twice in a testy interview about the allegations against Moore.

Garmon defended Moore and said he believes the judge, but he started out by lightheartedly nicknaming the CNN host “Don easy peasy Lemon squeezy.”

And as Lemon continued to press him on why the women would make these allegations up, Garmon again called him “Don Lemon squeezy keep it easy.”

Lemon cut in and told him, “It’s just Don Lemon.”

At one point Garmon claimed there are “people that say they were offered money… by The Washington Post” to make false allegations for thousands of dollars. (There was a Twitter hoax going around today making that claim.)

They kept going back and forth over the allegations against Moore and Garmon said that both the Foundation and Moore’s wife have been “slandered by the Washington Post.”

Multiple times during the interview Garmon accused Lemon and CNN over misleading him of what he was going to be talking about during the interview.

And then, once again, Garmon said he hoped Lemon wasn’t offended by the “lemon squeezy” nickname because he was just joking.

These people are so damned weird.

.

QOTD: Puppet editionby digby

This is your president , ladies and gentlemen:

“I mean, give me a break — they’re political hacks,” Mr. Trump said. “You have Brennan, you have Clapper, and you have Comey. Comey’s proven now to be a liar, and he’s proven to be a leaker, so you look at that. And you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently says he had nothing to do with that.”

Allies are shaken and adversaries are laughing and laughing and laughing. What a patriot.

.

A few, simple questions
by Tom Sullivan

What’s wrong with this picture? wasn’t one of them. But with a few, simple questions this week, Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wa.) demonstrated how corporations have successfully reconfigured government of, by, and for the people to prioritize the need and wants of business over those of the living and breathing. DelBene questioned Thomas Barthold, chief of staff for Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation on the proposed GOP tax overhaul:

Will a teacher in my district who buys pens, pencils paper, for his students be able to deduct these costs from his tax return under this plan?
Simple answer: No.

Will a corporation that buys pens, pencils, and papers for its workers be able to deduct those costs from its tax returns under this plan?
Simple answer: Yes.

Will a firefighter from my district be able to deduct the state and local sales taxes that she pays from her tax returns under this plan?
Simple answer: No.

And will a corporation be able to deduct sales taxes on business purchases under this plan?
Simple answer: Yes.

Will a homeowner in my district be able to deduct more than $10,000 in property taxes under this plan?
Simple answer: No.

Will a corporation be able to deduct more than $10,000 in property taxes under the plan?
Simple answer: Yes.

And if a worker in my district had to move because his employer is forcing him to relocate his family or potentially lose his job, can he deduct his moving expenses under this plan?
Simple answer: No.

But if a company, a corporation, decides to close its facilities in my district, fire its workers, and move its operation to China, say, can it deduct associated moving expenses under this plan? Or stated another way: Can a corporation under this plan deduct outsourcing expenses incurred relocating a U.S. business outside of the United States?
Simple answer: Yes.

Matthew 6:21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

The Associated Press presents additional evidence:

Nearly the entire net tax cut for individuals would come from two changes that would do nothing for most of the middle class: The government would repeal the alternative minimum tax, a provision that has long prevented many wealthy taxpayers from using loopholes to avoid paying taxes. The loss of the AMT would cause a revenue shortfall of nearly $700 billion over 10 years.

Also gone under the Republican bill: The inheritance tax on estates worth at least $5.5 million. That would let wealthy heirs keep an extra $172 billion over the next decade.

The plan would also allow business owners whose profits double as their personal income to pay, in part, at a discounted rate of 25 percent. This would cause the loss of an additional $448 billion over 10 years.

Given how these business owners are classified, the plan would let them deduct their state and local taxes from the equivalent of their personal income. By contrast, the employees of those business owners could not do so.

For more on eliminating state and local tax deduction, we turn to Jessie Hellmann at The Hill:

Red states are using blue states as their new piggy bank in the GOP Congress.

On big legislative issues such as tax reform and ObamaCare repeal, Republicans in the Senate have sought to redistribute federal funds from New York, New Jersey and other blue states dominated by Democrats to the red states in the South, Midwest and Great Plains that are mostly represented by the GOP.

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), one of a handful of GOP House members opposed to the plan, concurs with that assessment.

That’s not to say some red states won’t also feel some pain from the proposed tax changes. Red states that expanded Medicaid would suffer as well from loss of federal funds. It’s just that the biggest losers would be blue states. A cynic might say Republicans are simply playing the percentages again, figuring more of their opponents will get hurt than their supporters.

Rand Paul, noted cynic:

“It just looks like the Republicans are taking the money from the Democrat states and giving it to the Republican states,” GOP Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) said in September, adding that it’s a “game of Republicans sticking it to Democrats.”

That’s pretty much how it works out here in the provinces, yeah.

Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

(h/t M.C.)

* * * * * * * *

Request a copy of For The Win, my county-level election mechanics primer, at tom.bluecentury at gmail.

Friday Night Sootherby digby

They’re saving the tiniest bunnies:

Yay.

The Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit is a genetically distinct sub-population of pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis), the smallest rabbit in North America. By 2002, only 16 pygmy rabbits remained in Washington. The Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit is listed as endangered federally and in Washington state.

Once on the verge of extinction, these kitten-sized rabbits are beginning to repopulate their historic range thanks to the Oregon Zoo and its conservation partners.

.