Skip to content

Month: June 2019

Clarence Thomas lights a match to stare decisis

Clarence Thomas lights a match to stare decisis

by digby

This piece about Clarence Thomas by Jeffrey Toobin is downright depressing:

Mississippi prosecutor went on a racist crusade to have a black man executed. Clarence Thomas thinks that was just fine.

That’s the message of an astonishing decision today from the Supreme Court. The facts of the case, known as Flowers v. Mississippi, are straightforward. As Justice Brett Kavanaughput it, in his admirably blunt opinion for the Court, “In 1996, Curtis Flowers allegedly murdered four people in Winona, Mississippi. Flowers is black. He has been tried six separate times before a jury for murder. The same lead prosecutor represented the State in all six trials.” Flowers was convicted in the first three trials, and sentenced to death. On each occasion, his conviction was overturned by the Mississippi Supreme Court, on the grounds of misconduct by the prosecutor, Doug Evans, mostly in the form of keeping African-Americans off the juries. Trials four and five ended in hung juries. In the sixth trial, the one that was before the Supreme Court, Flowers was convicted, but the Justices found that Evans had again discriminated against black people, and thus Flowers, in jury selection, and they overturned his conviction. (The breathtaking facts of the case and its accompanying legal saga are described at length on the American Public Media podcastIn the Dark.”)

As Kavanaugh recounted in his opinion, Evans’s actions were almost cartoonishly racist. To wit: in the six trials, the State employed its peremptory challenges (that is, challenges for which no reason need be given) to strike forty-one out of forty-two African-American prospective jurors. In the most recent trial, the State exercised peremptory strikes against five of six black prospective jurors. In addition, Evans questioned black prospective jurors a great deal more closely than he questioned whites. As Kavanaugh observed, with considerable understatement, “A court confronting that kind of pattern cannot ignore it.“

But Thomas can, and he did. Indeed, he filed a dissenting opinion that was genuinely outraged—not by the prosecutor but by his fellow-Justices, who dared to grant relief to Flowers, who has spent more than two decades in solitary confinement at Mississippi’s notorious Parchman prison. Thomas said that the prosecutor’s behavior was blameless, and he practically sneered at his colleagues, asserting that the majority had decided the Flowers case to “boost its self-esteem.” Thomas also found a way to blame the news media for the result. “Perhaps the Court granted certiorari because the case has received a fair amount of media attention,” he wrote, adding that “the media often seeks to titillate rather than to educate and inform.”

The decision in Flowers was 7–2, with Neil Gorsuch joining Thomas’s dissent. The two have become jurisprudentially inseparable, with Gorsuch serving as a kind of deputy to Thomas, as Thomas once served to Antonin Scalia. But Thomas usually has a majority of colleagues on his side, in a way that often eluded Scalia. The Flowers case notwithstanding, Thomas now wins most of the time, typically with the assistance of Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Kavanaugh.

Despite Thomas’s usual silence on the bench (he did ask a question during the Flowers argument), he is clearly feeling ideologically aggressive these days. In his Flowers dissent, Thomas all but called for the overturning of the Court’s landmark decision in Batson v. Kentucky, from 1986, which prohibits prosecutors from using their peremptory challenges in racially discriminatory ways. Earlier this year, he called for reconsideration of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, from 1964, which established modern libel law, with its protections for journalistic expression. And in a decision earlier this month, Thomas made the case that the Court should be more willing to overturn its precedents. It’s customary for the Justices to at least pretend to defer to past decisions, but Thomas apparently no longer feels obligated even to gesture to the Court’s past. As he put it last fall, in a concurring opinion in Gamble v. United States, “We should not invoke stare decisis to uphold precedents that are demonstrably erroneous.” Erroneous, of course, in the judicial world view of Thomas. The Supreme Court’s war on its past has begun, and Clarence Thomas is leading the charge.

Great.

I know that all the Federalist Society types are very excited about this. In fact, it’s their dream come true. But I’m afraid a whole lot of the same people who voted for Trump because he’d remake the courts are going to be surprised at just what a wrecking crew they created. It’s going to hurt a whole lot of people, including them.

.

The second coming of Jim Crow by @BloggersRUs

The second coming of Jim Crow
by Tom Sullivan

“The essence of the Confederate worldview,” Doug Muder wrote in 2014, “is that the democratic process cannot legitimately change the established social order, and so all forms of legal and illegal resistance are justified when it tries.” So it was in the pre-Civil War United States. So it is today. The political parties devoted to safeguarding that established social order have changed over time. The Confederate worldview has not.

Defeated on the battlefield, men of the South set about undoing their loss. They morphed the Civil War into The Lost Cause. Reconstruction they morphed into Jim Crow. Through stubbornness and “terrorist insurgency,” the planter aristocrats that lost the war succeeded in winning the peace and rewriting history. The “three constitutional amendments that supposedly had codified the U.S.A’s victory over the C.S.A.– the 13th, 14th, and 15th — had been effectively nullified in every Confederate state,” Muder wrote. “Except for Booker T. Washington and George Washington Carver, [blacks] vanished like the Lost Tribes of Israel. They wouldn’t re-enter history until the 1950s, when for some reason they still weren’t free.”

Nancy LeTourneau pulled together several more recent threads at Washington Monthly that leave the impression history being made today at least rhymes with that Confederate past. If the 1960s represented a second Reconstruction, legislative terrorism being wrought now by a rump Confederate faction against American minorities represents a renewed insurgency against rights they’ve won at the ballot box and in the courts since then.

In “The American Right Gets Tired of Democracy,” Josh Marshall examines how in the face of a demographic trajectory unfavorable to upholding the white political and cultural dominance God intended, the right concluded “the culture war and the related battle for an ethno-nationalist identity are simply too important, immediate and dire to have any time to worry about things like the rule of law or even democracy.”

Conservative faux-patriots are systematically laboring to ensure their incipient plurality status will not mean they must share power with neighbors not of their tribe. “Republicans in red and battleground states have spent the last six years winding back the clock to the good old days when voting was a (white) privilege, not a right,” Bob Moser writes at The American Prospect in a near-exhaustive accounting of post-Shelby election-rigging. He begins, naturally, in North Carolina.

A series of field hearings across the country sponsored by Speaker Nancy Pelosi would examine voting discrimination since Shelby. The hearings hope to document the persistence in 2018 of election practices outlawed in 1968 and loosed again with the Supreme Court overturning the “preclearance” provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote in her dissent that past “attempts to cope with this vile infection resembled battling the Hydra. Wherever one form of voting discrimination was identified and prohibited, others sprang up in its place.” She predicted “second-generation barriers” would arise to replace the old Jim Crow system. And so they have:

She proved to be prophetic. The field hearings, which concluded in Birmingham in late May, provided ample evidence of the Hydra-headed nature of the new voter suppression—and how Republicans in Southern and battleground states have been learning from each other since the monster law set the tone for the post-Shelby era. “Notes are compared,” Tomas Lopez, head of the civil rights group Democracy North Carolina, said in Halifax. “You see something in one place, it gets used in another.”

The recent battle cry for “uniformity,” for instance, hadn’t originated with North Carolina lawmakers; it was the brainchild of Ohio Republicans. And that, in turn, means that the 900,000 voters in Ohio’s largest county, Cuyahoga, have just one polling place till Election Day—making Cleveland a supersized version of Halifax County. At the hearing there, longtime county board of elections member Inajo Chappell projected photos of the predictably long lines that ensued. She couldn’t tell the subcommittee how many voters in her majority-black county had simply given up and gone home. “There is no way to estimate the number. But I can say that uniform rules have continued to be implemented in a manner that limits voter access,” she testified. The Republicans’ justifications for the changes did not pass muster, she said. “The constant clamoring about rampant voter fraud is discouraging voter participation, and my experience over the years permits me to say that persistent claims about voter fraud are wholly without merit.”

Ohio Republicans also popularized voter purges, with former Secretary of State Jon Husted (who’s now lieutenant governor) showing other states how to perfect the art of tweezing minority voters from the rolls. As Tom Roberts of the Ohio NAACP testified, Husted used a provision in the 2002 Help America Vote Act—Congress’s timid response to the Florida debacle in 2000, which “we all thought was a helpful law,” said Roberts—to start removing voters from the rolls if they’d sat out two straight elections. The Supreme Court upheld the practice, which stripped 270,000 voters from the rolls in Ohio in 2018. There’s ample evidence that the practice disproportionately affects poor people and voters of color, who tend to move more and miss the notices that come in the mail from the state, directing them to update their information to remain active voters. “The decision allows states to treat the fundamental right to vote as a use-it-or-lose-it right,” Roberts said.

Repressive practices that pop up in one state replicate themselves in others where Republicans control legislatures. Diabolical in their “sheer inventiveness,” the measures end up in litigation that drags out for years.

“We will support democracy in Venezuela, in Russia, in China, everyplace but here,” said Representative Marcia Fudge of Ohio. “Every time we change the rules, which we do in every single election, we make it more difficult for people to vote. If you’re confused about what time of the day you can vote, it is suppressing your vote.”

North Carolinians have voted since 2012 in state and congressional districts declared unconstitutional. Still, the costly court battles to enforce those rulings continues, sewing “nothing but chaos and confusion” among voters. But Republicans are well funded. They’re fighting a war of attrition. If they retain control of North Carolina’s legislature after 2020, they’ll gerrymander, suppress, and go to court again for another ten-year cycle. Voting rights advocates have overcome the obstacles through aggressive organizing, but they shouldn’t have to.

LeTourneau adds that conservatives in America as well as in Europe are poised to replace democracy with authoritarianism:

This willingness to eschew democracy in favor of authoritarianism was forecast by Zachary Roth before Trump’s election. He noted that, recognizing that they were about to become a permanent minority, Republicans decided that “being outnumbered doesn’t have to mean losing.” The strategies employed to undermine democracy included voter suppression, gerrymandering, fighting for the involvement of dark money in politics, judicial engagement, and something called pre-emption, by which red states overruled laws passed by more progressive local communities.

Frustrating in the debate over impeaching Donald Trump is Democrats’ insistence on procedure and rule-following in the face of an administration openly rejecting liberal democracy. Pundits peddling both-siderism may argue that were the demographic shoe on the other foot, Democrats would do the same. Adam Serwer argues the opposite case:

Black Americans did not abandon liberal democracy because of slavery, Jim Crow, and the systematic destruction of whatever wealth they managed to accumulate; instead they took up arms in two world wars to defend it. Japanese Americans did not reject liberal democracy because of internment or the racist humiliation of Asian exclusion; they risked life and limb to preserve it. Latinos did not abandon liberal democracy because of “Operation Wetback,” or Proposition 187, or because of a man who won a presidential election on the strength of his hostility toward Latino immigrants. Gay, lesbian, and trans Americans did not abandon liberal democracy over decades of discrimination and abandonment in the face of an epidemic. This is, in part, because doing so would be tantamount to giving the state permission to destroy them, a thought so foreign to these defenders of the supposedly endangered religious right that the possibility has not even occurred to them. But it is also because of a peculiar irony of American history: The American creed has no more devoted adherents than those who have been historically denied its promises, and no more fair-weather friends than those who have taken them for granted.

Bishop William Barber II, a leader of the renewed Poor People’s Campaign, argues what we are experiencing in America today are the birth pangs of a Third Reconstruction. Meeting it head on is a second Jim Crow thinly disguised as “election integrity” or “uniformity” or state-sponsored terrorizing of Latinos and blacks. It is a cat-and-mouse game played by flag-waving legislators, their hands over their hearts and humming Lee Greenwood, as they ensure no matter how much the white majority shrinks, the established order — their Confederate order — retains power, democratically or not.

I never sang for my father: “Rocketman” (***½) By Dennis Hartley @denofcinema5

Saturday Night at the Movies

I never sang for my father: Rocketman (***½)

By Dennis Hartley

So…Baz Luhrmann, Ken Russell, and Bob Fosse walk into a bar. Out pops Rocketman, an unabashedly over-the-top biopic about an unabashedly over-the-top superstar. And considering that it’s been unabashedly executive produced by said over-the-top superstar, it is surprisingly not so much a vanity piece as it is a ­self-abasing confessional.

With lots of singing, dancing, and jazz hands.

The eponymous astro-powered gentleman is Reginald Kenneth Dwight, aka Sir Elton Hercules John…pianist, singer-songwriter, balladeer, glam-rocker, pop star, composer, and a man prone (at times in his life) to drug-alcohol-sex-food and/or shopping addiction.

It is the latter iteration (a walking gestalt of coked-out, fucked-silly, booze-soaked, self-absorbed and over-pampered rock star excess) that the director Dexter Fletcher (Bohemian Rhapsody) and screenwriter Lee Hall (Billy Elliot) present as the film opens.

In case we don’t glean that this troubled, troubled man is about to face his inner demons by going full confessional at an addict recovery meeting, Elton (Taron Egerton) makes a grand entrance with a world-weary plod down a long hallway, bedecked in a devil costume that recalls Tim Curry’s Mephistophelian creature in Legend. He looks…unwell.

The support group device is a launch pad; a flashback-generator enabling rocket man to blast off into inner space, access his drug-addled memory banks and reassess his life as a mashup of kitchen sink drama, lurid soap, Fosse musical and MTV video (fasten your seat belts, check ignition, and may God’s love be with you…it’s gonna be a bumpy night).

Rocket man’s earliest recollections roil through his psyche. We observe young Reggie (Matthew Illesley) constantly vying for attention from his mother (Bryce Dallas Howard) and father (Steven Mackintosh). But alas, it is for naught; Dad is cold and distant as the moon and Mum is vain and self-absorbed (in one telling scene, Reggie is traumatized when he stumbles upon Mum and future stepdad having a shag in the back seat of a car).

In fact, it is his Gran (Gemma Jones) who becomes his nurturer (in real life, John was raised by his maternal grandparents). She is the one who encourages her daughter to invest in piano lessons for Reggie when he begins to demonstrate a natural ear for music early on (his Dad, despite being a trumpet player and a jazz fanatic, is oddly ambivalent).

[SFX: phonograph needle ripping across vinyl] A quick note, before I proceed. If you are a stickler for linear timelines, 100% historical accuracy, and such-abort this mission now. As I noted in my review of Fletcher (and Bryan Singer’s) biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody:

Now, I like to fancy myself a bit of a rock ‘n’ roll historian. I’m not claiming to be a “scholar”, mind you…but I’m cognizant enough to conclude that for beauty of language, I would read Lester Bangs, and for interpretation of fact…I would read Richard Meltzer. 

I am also a film critic (allegedly). So, when I settle down to review a rock ‘n’ roll biopic like Bryan Singer’s long-anticipated “Bohemian Rhapsody”, I start to feel a little schizoid. My mission as a film critic is to appraise a film based on its cinematic merits; e.g. how well is it directed, written, and acted? Does it have a cohesive narrative? Do I care about the characters? How about the cinematography, and the editing? Are you not entertained?

However, my inner rock ‘n’ roll historian also rears its head, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge it’s only a movie, thereby releasing the kraken of pedantic angst. So, I’ll endeavor to tread lightly…otherwise I’ll be at risk of pleasing neither of my two readers.

And so, I was fully prepared, and therefore did not flinch (okay maybe I did twitch once or twice) when, for example, pre- “Elton” Reginald and his band launched into “Saturday Night’s Alright for Fighting” a decade before he and Bernie Taupin actually co-wrote it. Steel yourself for these anachronisms; a good portion of the songs are chosen to fit the scene, rather than the actual historical timeline. That said, since we’re (largely) talking the Elton John/Bernie Taupin catalog here…one could do worse for a movie soundtrack.

This turns out to be an effective device. For example, in my favorite music vignette, wherein Elton debuts the finished version of “Your Song” for writing partner Bernie (Jamie Bell), it lends a completely new and emotionally resonant subtext to a familiar tune. While I’ve heard the song 100s of times over the years, I’ve never considered the possibility (as the scene infers) that it’s Bernie’s way of telling Elton he loves him, but “just not like that” (which Bernie says to Elton, whilst gently deflecting a romantic pass).

My gift is my song
And this one’s for you

(Elton’s 2019 net worth is $500 million…a loving “gift” indeed, in the fullness of time).

In case you were wondering, not all of Elton’s romantic overtures are deflected; the film is open and honest regarding his sexuality. There is no “straight-washing” (which was a bone of contention regarding Fletcher and Singer’s Bohemian Rhapsody). So, if Aunt Mabel is an Elton fan but maybe a little conservative, just a caveat that she is going to get the truth, the whole truth, and…oh fuck it. There’s gay sex, alright? Bring her-she’ll deal.

The film is fueled by Egerton’s knockout performance, which obfuscates a few “backstage drama” clichés. He’s also a terrific singer. He doesn’t mimic Elton’s voice, but does capture his essence (most of the songs are truncated or reconstructed anyway). Ultimately, it’s more musical fantasy than biopic. For just the facts, ma’am…read the Wiki entry. But if you’re up for singing, dancing and jazz hands…you’ll dig Rocketman.

Previous posts with related themes:


.

“I run the risk of making him more popular by revealing what he did…”

“I run the risk of making him more popular by revealing what he did…”

by digby

I read Carroll’s advice column in Elle for years. She’s an honest, edgy writer who doesn’t hold back. If you haven’t read the NY Magazine excerpt of Carroll’s book, here’s the part about Trump:

Which brings me to the other rich boy. Before I discuss him, I must mention that there are two great handicaps to telling you what happened to me in Bergdorf’s: (a) The man I will be talking about denies it, as he has denied accusations of sexual misconduct made by at least 15 credible women, namely, Jessica Leeds, Kristin Anderson, Jill Harth, Cathy Heller, Temple Taggart McDowell, Karena Virginia, Melinda McGillivray, Rachel Crooks, Natasha Stoynoff, Jessica Drake, Ninni Laaksonen, Summer Zervos, Juliet Huddy, Alva Johnson, and Cassandra Searles. (Here’s what the White House said: “This is a completely false and unrealistic story surfacing 25 years after allegedly taking place and was created simply to make the President look bad.”) And (b) I run the risk of making him more popular by revealing what he did.

His admirers can’t get enough of hearing that he’s rich enough, lusty enough, and powerful enough to be sued by and to pay off every splashy porn star or Playboy Playmate who “comes forward,” so I can’t imagine how ecstatic the poor saps will be to hear their favorite Walking Phallus got it on with an old lady in the world’s most prestigious department store.

On the Ask E. Jean show, which aired from 1994 to 1996. Photo: Courtesy of the author

This is during the years I am doing a daily Ask E. Jean TV show for the cable station America’s Talking, a precursor to MSNBC launched by Roger Ailes (who, by the way, is No. 16 on my list).

Early one evening, as I am about to go out Bergdorf’s revolving door on 58th Street, and one of New York’s most famous men comes in the revolving door, or it could have been a regular door at that time, I can’t recall, and he says: “Hey, you’re that advice lady!”

And I say to No. 20 on the Most Hideous Men of My Life List: “Hey, you’re that real-estate tycoon!”

I am surprised at how good-looking he is. We’ve met once before, and perhaps it is the dusky light but he looks prettier than ever. This has to be in the fall of 1995 or the spring of 1996 because he’s garbed in a faultless topcoat and I’m wearing my black wool Donna Karan coatdress and high heels but not a coat.

“Come advise me,” says the man. “I gotta buy a present.”

“Oh!” I say, charmed. “For whom?”

“A girl,” he says.

“Don’t the assistants of your secretaries buy things like that?” I say.

“Not this one,” he says. Or perhaps he says, “Not this time.” I can’t recall. He is a big talker, and from the instant we collide, he yammers about himself like he’s Alexander the Great ready to loot Babylon.

As we are standing just inside the door, I point to the handbags. “How about—”

“No!” he says, making the face where he pulls up both lips like he’s balancing a spoon under his nose, and begins talking about how he once thought about buying Bergdorf ’s.

“Or … a hat!” I say enthusiastically, walking toward the handbags, which, at the period I’m telling you about — and Bergdorf’s has been redone two or three times since then — are mixed in with, and displayed next to, the hats. “She’ll love a hat! You can’t go wrong with a hat!”

I don’t remember what he says, but he comes striding along — greeting a Bergdorf sales attendant like he owns the joint and permitting a shopper to gape in awe at him — and goes right for a fur number.

“Please,” I say. “No woman would wear a dead animal on her head!”

What he replies I don’t recall, but I remember he coddles the fur hat like it’s a baby otter.

“How old is the lady in question?” I ask.

“How old are you?” replies the man, fondling the hat and looking at me like Louis Leakey carbon-dating a thighbone he’s found in Olduvai Gorge.

“I’m 52,” I tell him.

“You’re so old!” he says, laughing — he was around 50 himself — and it’s at about this point that he drops the hat, looks in the direction of the escalator, and says, “Lingerie!” Or he may have said “Underwear!” So we stroll to the escalator. I don’t remember anybody else greeting him or galloping up to talk to him, which indicates how very few people are in the store at the time.

I have no recollection where lingerie is in that era of Bergdorf’s, but it seems to me it is on a floor with the evening gowns and bathing suits, and when the man and I arrive — and my memory now is vivid — no one is present.

There are two or three dainty boxes and a lacy see-through bodysuit of lilac gray on the counter. The man snatches the bodysuit up and says: “Go try this on!”

“You try it on,” I say, laughing. “It’s your color.”

“Try it on, come on,” he says, throwing it at me.

“It goes with your eyes,” I say, laughing and throwing it back.

“You’re in good shape,” he says, holding the filmy thing up against me. “I wanna see how this looks.”

“But it’s your size,” I say, laughing and trying to slap him back with one of the boxes on the counter.

“Come on,” he says, taking my arm. “Let’s put this on.”

This is gonna be hilarious, I’m saying to myself — and as I write this, I am staggered by my stupidity. As we head to the dressing rooms, I’m laughing aloud and saying in my mind: I’m gonna make him put this thing on over his pants!

There are several facts about what happens next that are so odd I want to clear them up before I go any further:

Did I report it to the police?

No.

Did I tell anyone about it?

Yes. I told two close friends. The first, a journalist, magazine writer, correspondent on the TV morning shows, author of many books, etc., begged me to go to the police.

“He raped you,” she kept repeating when I called her. “He raped you. Go to the police! I’ll go with you. We’ll go together.”

My second friend is also a journalist, a New York anchorwoman. She grew very quiet when I told her, then she grasped both my hands in her own and said, “Tell no one. Forget it! He has 200 lawyers. He’ll bury you.” (Two decades later, both still remember the incident clearly and confirmed their accounts to New York.)

Do I have photos or any visual evidence?

Bergdorf’s security cameras must have picked us up at the 58th Street entrance of the store. We would have been filmed on the ground floor in the bags-and-hats sections. Cameras also must have captured us going up the escalator and into the lingerie department. New York law at the time did not explicitly prohibit security cameras in dressing rooms to “prevent theft.” But even if it had been captured on tape, depending on the position of the camera, it would be very difficult to see the man unzipping his pants, because he was wearing a topcoat. The struggle might simply have read as “sexy.” The speculation is moot, anyway: The department store has confirmed that it no longer has tapes from that time.

Why were there no sales attendants in the lingerie department?

Bergdorf Goodman’s perfections are so well known — it is a store so noble, so clubby, so posh — that it is almost easier to accept the fact that I was attacked than the fact that, for a very brief period, there was no sales attendant in the lingerie department. Inconceivable is the word. Sometimes a person won’t find a sales attendant in Saks, it’s true; sometimes one has to look for a sales associate in Barneys, Bloomingdale’s, or even Tiffany’s; but 99 percent of the time, you will have an attendant in Bergdorf’s. All I can say is I did not, in this fleeting episode, see an attendant. And the other odd thing is that a dressing-room door was open. In Bergdorf’s dressing rooms, doors are usually locked until a client wants to try something on.

Why haven’t I “come forward” before now?

Receiving death threats, being driven from my home, being dismissed, being dragged through the mud, and joining the 15 women who’ve come forward with credible stories about how the man grabbed, badgered, belittled, mauled, molested, and assaulted them, only to see the man turn it around, deny, threaten, and attack them, never sounded like much fun. Also, I am a coward.


Carroll, Donald and Ivana Trump, and Carroll’s then-husband, television-news anchor John Johnson, at an NBC party around 1987.Photo: Courtesy of the author

So now I will tell you what happened:

The moment the dressing-room door is closed, he lunges at me, pushes me against the wall, hitting my head quite badly, and puts his mouth against my lips. I am so shocked I shove him back and start laughing again. He seizes both my arms and pushes me up against the wall a second time, and, as I become aware of how large he is, he holds me against the wall with his shoulder and jams his hand under my coat dress and pulls down my tights.

I am astonished by what I’m about to write: I keep laughing. The next moment, still wearing correct business attire, shirt, tie, suit jacket, overcoat, he opens the overcoat, unzips his pants, and, forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me. It turns into a colossal struggle. I am wearing a pair of sturdy black patent-leather four-inch Barneys high heels, which puts my height around six-one, and I try to stomp his foot. I try to push him off with my one free hand — for some reason, I keep holding my purse with the other — and I finally get a knee up high enough to push him out and off and I turn, open the door, and run out of the dressing room.

The whole episode lasts no more than three minutes. I do not believe he ejaculates. I don’t remember if any person or attendant is now in the lingerie department. I don’t remember if I run for the elevator or if I take the slow ride down on the escalator. As soon as I land on the main floor, I run through the store and out the door — I don’t recall which door — and find myself outside on Fifth Avenue.

And that was my last hideous man. The Donna Karan coatdress still hangs on the back of my closet door, unworn and unlaundered since that evening. And whether it’s my age, the fact that I haven’t met anyone fascinating enough over the past couple of decades to feel “the sap rising,” as Tom Wolfe put it, or if it’s the blot of the real-estate tycoon, I can’t say. But I have never had sex with anybody ever again.


If you can read the whole NY Magazine article
, do it. Her story is harrowing.

They knew he was a snake before they let him in…

.

QOTD: Greg Sargent @ThePlumLineGS

QOTD: Greg Sargent

by digby

A super smart observation by the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent, one which too many journalists don’t get about Trump:

The news that President Trump ordered strikes on Iran, only to reverse himself at the last minute, provides an occasion to revisit the big story that Trump told in the course of getting elected to the most powerful position on Earth.

That story went a little something like this.

Trump grasped the festering popular discontent over multiple catastrophic elite failures that their architects were entirely oblivious to as they tittered away in their coastal enclaves. Trump would smash the elite consensus on immigration and globalization, no longer subjecting U.S. workers to the competition from unskilled migrants and foreign sweatshop-wage workers that had wreaked “carnage” on the Appalachian and industrial Midwestern heartlands.

And Trump would end the elite consensus on foreign policy that had mired young men and women from those forsaken places in faraway Forever Wars that represented the height of elite hubris and folly.

The latest Iran news exposes one of the most important, and potentially most destructive, false narratives at the core of that whole story.

As Trump just confirmed on Twitter, he had ordered strikes as a response to Iran’s shooting down of a surveillance drone, but cancelled the attack only “10 minutes before the strike.” He did this after learning it could result in 150 deaths, which he called “not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone.”

So, let’s give Trump qualified credit here: It does appear he’s resisting the push for war from the administration’s hawks. (Another explanation is that he thinks Iranian capitulation is inevitable anyway, as will be discussed below.)

This seeming instinct against war, if it exists, is often presented as signaling a “contradiction,” one that pits this reluctance against his desire to look “tough” in international affairs. That reluctance is said to be grounded in the story he told in 2016 — in his “nationalist” and “America First” aversion to pouring U.S. blood and treasure down foreign sinkholes.

But in this particular case, it’s precisely because the story he told is completely false that Trump is trapped in that contradiction right now — and we are trapped in an escalating situation with potentially horrible consequences.

Trump’s story about Iran has always been a lie

As many observers have noted — see this from Evelyn Farkas, or this Post editorial — it is Trump’s decision to pull out of the international nuclear deal negotiated by President Barack Obama that has led to this moment.

The short version: Iran was abiding by the deal, and was being constrained from developing nuclear weapons. But Trump pulled out — then reimposed sanctions to choke the Iranian economy, and has since dictated terms for sanctions relief that appear deliberately unrealistic, cornering Iran into a choice between escalating on its side or submitting entirely to those terms.

As David Ignatius explains, the administration is confident that this submission is right around the corner, but this would require “total capitulation.” The continued push for this makes miscalculation — and war — more likely.

But let’s focus on the original withdrawal from the deal. In the run-up to that decision, Trump falsely claimed Iran was on the verge of total collapse before Obama negotiated it, and overinflated what Iran financially got from it, to falsely portray it as a giveaway to Iran. Trump also insisted the deal was premised on believing Iran could be trusted not to develop nukes (in fact, it had strict verification mechanisms) and that the deal would inevitably fail to constrain Iran.

That latter claim proved completely false for a time, as Iran continued to abide by it. Now Iran is suggesting it will restart its programs, but this is coming after the United States pulled out of the deal that was successfully constraining it, compounding the folly of Trump’s decision.

Trump’s claim that the deal was hopelessly weak — which has been revealed as false by events, though one cannot conclusively say it would have worked forever — probably derived from the fact that Trump couldn’t bear that Obama had negotiated it. Trump treated it as weak by definition.

But there’s a deeper deception here, one that goes back to the whole story Trump tells.

The deeper deception

How did Trump square his campaign vow to pull out of the nuclear deal with his promise to avoid Mideast quagmires? By claiming not just that elites were foolishly sinking us into such quagmires but also that our elites were weak and allowing other countries to take us to the cleaners. Trump’s vow to withdraw was a sign of his strength — he’d be “tougher” with Iran, unilaterally so, and force its full capitulation (without any shots fired) that way.

As Zack Beauchamp has exhaustively demonstrated, Trump has never really been averse to military adventurism in any deeply committed sense. What he campaigned on was much closer to hawkish nationalism — he blustered for years about using force unilaterally. As we’re now seeing, this is manifesting itself in open hostility to international compromise solutions.

The Iran deal was and is imperfect — designed to constrain Iran, not through total capitulation to all our demands, but through a painstakingly negotiated international compromise.

It was working. But Trump’s worldview did not permit acknowledgment of this. Now he’s making good on his vow to achieve total capitulation through toughness, and we’re living through the deeply risky consequences.

We should hope Trump really is reluctant to go to war, and that this reluctance will prevail. But the terrible thing here is that, despite the story Trump told about elite failure, the Iran deal was one case in which international elites actually did set up a framework that likely would have averted senseless, costly foreign quagmires. In other words, here they got a very big thing right.

The idea that people can believe that Trump is not driven by domination is shocking to me. The fact that he doesn’t jump to military invasion as his choice to do that means nothing. He built up the military as a back-up to his preferred method: bullying the world economically, starving, torturing, whatever it takes, to force them to do his (America’s) bidding. The massively expensive military is an enforcement threat.

He has said it for 20 years: “the world is ‘taking advantage’ of the US, we’ve been their “piggy bank” and he’s going to put a stop to it. Here’s Trump Junior making the case for how he sees foreign policy in plain terms just last week:

“Last week we were in the UK. My father had an incredible visit there with the Queen. They actually had a great rapport. And the media is doing an incredible statistic. They say, ‘Trump has, he has a terrible approval rating in the UK’, you know who else had a terrible approval rating in the UK? George Washington!

First of all, it’s a lie. Second of all, I don’t want other countries to love our president. Because that means they know they are taking advantage of America.

I want them to say, ‘oh man, that guy’s coming in here, we’d better shape up. We’re not taking advantage of those people.’
And just because American politicians have let them get away with it for decades, we’re stopping it NOW!”

It’s not as if they are trying to hide it.

The Ditherer in Chief pulls back on cocked and loaded ICE raids at the last minute

The Ditherer in Chief pulls back on cocked and loaded ICE raids at the last minute

by digby

He did it, of course, because ICE was upset and there’s infighting within the administration, not because Democrats wanted “time” to compromise on asylum claims — which has nothing to do with these raids. All the reporting says Trump made this call on impulse and sent ICE into chaos trying to fulfill an order for which they were unprepared and wouldn’t have wanted to be announced even if they were prepared.

In other words, Trump fucked up.

Now he’s throwing hit hot potato to the Democrats so he can give them time to get prepared and then blame them for failing to “fix” all the immigration problems so he can give the order.

Anyway,Trump let his id take over his twitter feed again and here’s the result:

President Donald Trump announced Saturday that he’s delaying US Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids that were planned to take place Sunday in 10 major US cities.

“At the request of Democrats, I have delayed the Illegal Immigration Removal Process (Deportation) for two weeks to see if the Democrats and Republicans can get together and work out a solution to the Asylum and Loophole problems at the Southern Border,'” Trump said on Twitter Saturday. “If not, Deportations start!”
Earlier in the day, Trump defended the raids, arguing that targeted families have been running from the law.
“The people that Ice will apprehend have already been ordered to be deported,” Trump tweeted. “This means that they have run from the law and run from the courts. These are people that are supposed to go back to their home country. They broke the law by coming into the country, & now by staying.”

ICE is planning on arresting and deporting approximately 2,000 migrant families with court-ordered removals in 10 cities beginning Sunday, a senior immigration official told CNN. Trump told reporters as he departed the White House for Camp David Saturday that the raids would begin “during the course of this next week, maybe even a little bit earlier than that.”

“These are people that came into the country illegally. They’ve been served. They’ve gone through a process. A process of the courts, and they have to be removed from the country,” Trump said. “They will be removed from the country.”

This is what local leaders are saying about planned ICE raids in their cities
He characterized the deportation raids as “very good law enforcement people going by the law,” and claimed that his administration is “very focused on getting MS-13 out of this country.”

“Some cities are going to fight it, but if you notice, they’re generally high crime cities. If you look at Chicago, they’re fighting it. If you look at other cities, they’re fighting it. Many of those cities are high crime cities and they’re sanctuary cities,” Trump said. “People are tired of sanctuary cities and what it does and the crime it brings.”
Raids are planned in Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York and San Francisco.
Trump made a vague announcement on Monday that an ICE operation was imminent. He claimed that his administration would be deporting “millions” of undocumented immigrants next week — disclosing such an operation before it was carried out and surprising some officials within his own administration.
Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan, however, has been hesitant about elements of the operation, two sources familiar with his thinking told CNN.
CNN reported last month that the administration had been considering deporting migrant families. A source told CNN at the time that McAleenan was resistant to the plan, concerned in part that it could hurt negotiations with congressional Democrats for ICE funding, which has been strapped for resources as well as the political optics.
According to a source familiar with the situation, McAleenan on Friday pulled out of a planned Sunday show appearance on the day the ICE operation is slated to begin, adding to speculation that there’s a split with the White House.
A separate source told CNN that McAleenan was at the White House Friday and “not in a good way.”
An ardent supporter of Trump’s immigration policies, Tom Homan, the former ICE director and now a FOX News contributor, seemed to suggest Saturday that McAleenan leaked information about the upcoming ICE operation to media.
“You got the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security resisting what ICE is trying to do. In the Washington Post, in numerous media outlets, he does not support this operation,” Homan said on Fox News, adding, “This leak, which I know where it came from, we all know where it came from. That story only benefits one person, put these officers at greater risk of harm.”
Homan, who Trump named “border czar” but has not yet accepted the job, has previously backed McAleenan.

CNN has reached out to McAleenan for comment.

Another example of the well-oiled Trump administration machine at work.

.

Of course he knew about the body count long before he gave the order. He just dithered

Of course he knew about the body count long before he gave the order

by digby

If this were any other president I’d be happy to give credit for having second thoughts about war and pulling back at the last minute. The Cuban Missile Crisis comes to mind. But this happened because Trump is a clueless ditherer who doesn’t know what he’s doing and any normal president wouldn’t have gotten himself into this situation in the first place.

This “maximum pressure” campaign designed to bring the Mullahs to their knees so they will come begging Trump for mercy isn’t working the way Trumpie thought it would. It’s not working in North Korea either. In fact, nobody on this planet is reacting the way Trump assumed they would because nobody believes a word he says and nobody thinks he has a clue about what he’s doing. He thinks “unpredictability” (also called “not knowing what he’s doing”) is an asset. In some cases it probably works out. In others, it almost certainly won’t unless we are very lucky.

The point is that you could just as easily have an internet cat rolling an 8 ball to make decisions as leave it up to Trump. There is no logic, reason or experience that’s guiding the most powerful nation on earth.

We must rely entirely on luck. God help us.

Anyway, here’s the tick-tock on how our Dear Leader dealt with a possible war this week.

President Donald Trump approved preparations for military strikes against Iran—fully aware that dozens or more Iranians might die as a result, two senior Trump administration officials and another source familiar with the situation tell The Daily Beast.

To many observers, including some in his own administration, this appeared to be at odds with Trump’s account of Thursday’s deliberations; the president claimed that he abruptly halted the attack minutes before it was set to occur.

In a series of tweets on Friday morning, the president stated that the U.S. military was “cocked and loaded” on Thursday night to hit Iran before he changed his mind, stating that “10 minutes before the strike” he stopped it after being informed by “a General” of the potential loss of 150 lives.

The president’s Friday tweets caused widespread confusion within Trumpworld, with some interpreting the tweets to mean that Trump wasn’t told, or didn’t ask, about a potential body count until minutes before the strikes would have taken place.

But that wasn’t the case, as The Washington Post first reported. Trump was initially briefed on Thursday for military options to retaliate against Iran for downing a U.S. surveillance drone. One of the things his advisers discussed with him was the potential for a high Iranian body count. With the possible death toll made clear, the president approved the preparations for striking Iran.

“Yes, he was briefed on it earlier in the day,” a senior administration official said.

“The military has a standard in which the president is briefed on a potential strike—the battle damage assessment is included in that,” added a former national security official involved in past briefings. “It’s always part of the package. And that includes possible military and civilian casualties.”

White House spokespeople declined to comment on the record for this report. The Pentagon declined to comment.

Later on Friday, Trump fed the confusion further, telling NBC News’ Chuck Todd that he hadn’t given a final approval to a military strike against Iran at all—even though he tweeted that the attack was 10 minutes out.

“I thought about it for a second and I said, you know what, they shot down an unmanned drone, plane, whatever you want to call it, and here we are sitting with a 150 dead people that would have taken place probably within a half an hour after I said go ahead,” Trump said. “And I didn’t like it…I didn’t think it was proportionate.”

The series of events were the first indication that the president had seriously considered military strikes against Iran—a move he has for weeks publicly shied away from. Just Thursday, Trump walked back a tweet, in which he said Iran had made a “big mistake” for shooting down an unmanned American drone.

“We talked in great depth about what they felt the appropriate response would be,” Smith said. “The gist was, the president was really wrestling with it. On the one hand, certainly you want to hold Iran accountable for this; on the other hand, nobody wants this to spin out of control.”

Smith said he was concerned that the White House was not consulting enough people when it came to Iran.

“The meeting yesterday was incredibly helpful. It was the first one he’s had. I’m chairman of the Armed Services Committee, was ranking member before that, two-plus years, it’s the first time I’ve met with anyone at the White House,” Smith said. “I wish the [national security council] had more discussions. I wish they met more frequently with leaders.”

It’s unclear if the president is considering striking Iran at all in the near future. But two former Trump White House officials told The Daily Beast that they feared that if the president saw TV pundits knocking his decision to pull back—including those on his favorite channel Fox News—it would increase the likelihood the president would actually end up confronting Iran militarily, and soon. Trump hates being portrayed as “weak,” these former officials added.

Over the last several days the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington, D.C. think tank known for its hawkish approach to Iran, wrote the White House and the State Department with guidance on how to handle the most recent attacks on tankers in the Gulf of Oman and the shooting down of an American drone. The message to the administration: Continue the so-called “maximum pressure” campaign, which includes crippling the Iranian economy through sanctions and cutting off Tehran’s access to the financial markets. Administration officials told The Daily Beast Friday that they were preparing to continue implementing that effort by announcing a new round of sanctions on Tehran.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill were briefed this week on Iran not only by administration officials but also by former Obama administration officials, including Wendy Sherman, the lead American negotiator on the nuclear deal, who often keep in touch with the Iranians.

“We need to unambiguously seek to de-escalate tensions with Iran,” said Jarrett Blanc, a former Obama administration official in the State Department who worked on the Iran nuclear deal. “There’s no justification in our national security interests to test Iran’s willingness to absorb military confrontation with the US. We need to get ourselves out of this situation.”

I feel so safe, don’t you?

.

The Village never dies

The Village never dies

by digby

Because political journalists are stuck in the Commons and on Twitter – real world and digital versions of Versailles – they are prone to panic about not representing “real people”. But who gets depicted as the authentic voice of unheard Britain is governed by implicit assumptions that are grim when exposed to the light. Why are the views of a retired steelworker in Grimsby about “where the country has gone wrong” more important than those of a second-generation Nigerian-British nurse in Plaistow? Citizenship is supposed to transcend personal identity, and yet we still indulge an idea of the “volk”. This tendency applies equally in America, where retired steelworkers in Pennsylvania were held up as the Great Unheard, but the same epithet was not bestowed on black voters in Detroit.

This is true. But it was true long before twitter. If anything it was even worse before twitter because they never got any feedback.

I called this phenomenon “the Village.”
Here’s an excerpt of one piece at random I wrote over 12 years ago. People who have read this blog for a long time are very familiar with the riff:

I would point out that Broder and others also venture out into the American landscape with a sort of pre-conceived notion of what defines “the people” that appears to have been formed by TV sit-coms in 1955. They seem to see extraordinary value in sitting in some diner with middle aged and older white men (sometimes a few women are included) to “ask them what they think.” And invariably these middle-aged white men say the country is going to hell in a handbasket and they want the government to do more and they hate paying taxes. There may be a little frisson of disagreement among these otherwise similar people on certain issues of the day because of their affiliation with a union or because of the war or certain social issues, but for the most part they all sit together and politely talk politics with this anthropologist/reporter, usually agreeing that this president or another one is a bum or a hero. The reporter takes careful notes of everything these “real Americans” have to say and take them back to DC and report them as the opinions of “the people.”

Meanwhile, someone like me, who lives in a big city on the west coast and who doesn’t hang out in diners with middle aged white men are used as an example of the “fringe” even though I too am one of “the people” as are many others — like hispanic youths or single urban mothers or dot-com millionaires or elderly southern black granddads or Korean entrepreneurs (or even Sheryl Crow.) We are not Real Americans.

This fetishization of that other mythical “Real American” seems to stem from a public epiphany that the previous “Dean” of the DC press corps, Joseph Kraft, had almost 40 years ago when confronted with the disconcerting sight of violence in the streets perpetrated by nice white boys and girls:

“Are we merely neutral observers, seekers after truth in the public interest? Or do we, as the supporters of Mayor Daley and his Chicago police have charged, have a prejudice of our own?

“The answer, I think is that Mayor Daley and his supporters have a point. Most of us in what is called the communications field are not rooted in the great mass of ordinary Americans–in Middle America. And the results show up not merely in occasional episodes such as the Chicago violence but more importantly in the systematic bias toward young people, minority groups, and the of presidential candidates who appeal to them.

“To get a feel of this bias it is first necessary to understand the antagonism that divides the middle class of this country. On the one hand there are highly educated upper-income whites sure of and brimming with ideas for doing things differently. On the other hand, there is Middle America, the large majority of low-income whites, traditional in their values and on the defensive against innovation.

“The most important organs of and television are, beyond much doubt, dominated by the outlook of the upper-income whites.

“In these circumstances, it seems to me that those of us in the media need to make a special effort to understand Middle America. Equally it seems wise to exercise a certain caution, a prudent restraint, in pressing a claim for a plenary indulgence to be in all places at all times the agent of the sovereign public.”



Joseph Kraft defined “Middle America” as a blue collar or rural white male, “traditional in his values and defensive against innovation.” Ever since then, the denizens of the beltway have deluded themselves into thinking they speak for that “silent majority.” (And what a serendipitous coincidence it was that this happened at the moment of a right wing political ascension that also made a fetish out of the same blue collar white male.) The converse of this, of course, is that they also assume that the “fringe” liberals from the coasts are way out of the mainstream, even to the extent that editors of Time simply make up data to conform to Kraft’s outdated observations.

It reached the zenith of synergistic absurdity during the Lewinsky scandal when the cosmopolitan beltway courtiers finally went all in and portrayed themselves as as the salt-of-the-earth provincial town folk who were appalled by the misbehavior ‘o them out-a-towners from thuh big city:

When Establishment Washingtonians of all persuasions gather to support their own, they are not unlike any other small community in the country.

On this evening, the roster included Cabinet members Madeleine Albright and Donna Shalala, Republicans Sen. John McCain and Rep. Bob Livingston, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, PBS’s Jim Lehrer and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, all behaving like the pals that they are. On display was a side of Washington that most people in this country never see. For all their apparent public differences, the people in the room that night were coming together with genuine affection and emotion to support their friends — the Wall Street Journal’s Al Hunt and his wife, CNN’s Judy Woodruff, whose son Jeffrey has spina bifida.

But this particular community happens to be in the nation’s capital. And the people in it are the so-called Beltway Insiders — the high-level members of Congress, policymakers, lawyers, military brass, diplomats and journalists who have a proprietary interest in Washington and identify with it.

They call the capital city their “town.”

And their town has been turned upside down.



Here you had the most powerful people in the world identifying themselves with Bedford Falls from “It’s A Wonderful Life” when the court of Versailles or Augustan Rome would be far more more apt. The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking. Thirty years after Kraft’s epiphany, this decadent world capital that had recently seen the likes of Richard Nixon’s crimes and John F. Kennedy’s philandering (and corruption of all types, both moral and legal at the highest levels for years), were now telling the nation that they themselves were small town burghers and factory workers upholding traditional American values. And even more amazing, the rest of America was now morally suspect and needed to be led by these purveyors of Real American values:

With some exceptions, the Washington Establishment is outraged by the president’s behavior in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The polls show that a majority of Americans do not share that outrage. Around the nation, people are disgusted but want to move on; in Washington, despite Clinton’s gains with the budget and the Mideast peace talks, people want some formal acknowledgment that the president’s behavior has been unacceptable. They want this, they say, not just for the sake of the community, but for the sake of the country and the presidency as well.



They were just defending their lonely little outpost against the interlopers:

This is where they spend their lives, raise their families, participate in community activities, take pride in their surroundings. They feel Washington has been brought into disrepute by the actions of the president.

“It’s much more personal here,” says pollster Geoff Garin. “This is an affront to their world. It affects the dignity of the place where they live and work. . . . Clinton’s behavior is unacceptable. If they did this at the local Elks Club hall in some other community it would be a big cause for concern.”

“He came in here and he trashed the place,” says Washington Post columnist David Broder, “and it’s not his place.”

“This is a company town,” says retired senator Howard Baker, once Ronald Reagan’s chief of staff. “We’re up close and personal. The White House is the center around which our city revolves.”

Bill Galston, former deputy domestic policy adviser to Clinton and now a professor at the University of Maryland, says of the scandal that “most people in Washington believe that most people in Washington are honorable and are trying to do the right thing. The basic thought is that to concede that this is normal and that everybody does it is to undermine a lifetime commitment to honorable public service.”

“Everybody doesn’t do it,” says Jerry Rafshoon, Jimmy Carter’s former communications director. “The president himself has said it was wrong.”

Pollster Garin, president of Peter Hart Research Associates, says that the disconnect is not unlike the difference between the way men and women view the scandal. Just as many men are angry that Clinton’s actions inspire the reaction “All men are like that,” Washingtonians can’t abide it that the rest of the country might think everyone here cheats and lies and abuses his subordinates the way the president has.

“This is a community in all kinds of ways,” says ABC correspondent Cokie Roberts, whose parents both served in Congress. She is concerned that people outside Washington have a distorted view of those who live here. “The notion that we are some rarefied beings who breathe toxic air is ridiculous. . . . When something happens everybody gathers around. . . . It’s a community of good people involved in a worthwhile pursuit. We think being a worthwhile public servant or journalist matters.”

“This is our town,” says Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, the first Democrat to forcefully condemn the president’s behavior. “We spend our lives involved in talking about, dealing with, working in government. It has reminded everybody what matters to them. You are embarrassed about what Bill Clinton’s behavior says about the White House, the presidency, the government in general.”

And many are offended that the principles that brought them to Washington in the first place are now seen to be unfashionable or illegitimate.

Muffie Cabot, who as Muffie Brandon served as social secretary to President and Nancy Reagan, regards the scene with despair. “This is a demoralized little village,” she says. “People have come from all over the country to serve a higher calling and look what happened. They’re so disillusioned. The emperor has no clothes. Watergate was pretty scary, but it wasn’t quite as sordid as this.”

“People felt a reverent attitude toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,” says Tish Baldrige, who once worked there as Jacqueline Kennedy’s social secretary and has been a frequent visitor since. “Now it’s gone, now it’s sleaze and dirt. We all feel terribly let down. It’s very emotional. We want there to be standards. We’re used to standards. When you think back to other presidents, they all had a lot of class. That’s nonexistent now. It’s sad for people in the White House. . . . I’ve never seen such bad morale in my life. They’re not proud of their chief.”



That “demoralized little village” was all a-twitter, wasn’t it? You’d never know that they were running the most powerful nation the world has ever known, would you?

Yet, even while they ostentatiously ranted and wailed hysterically with anachronistic notions of bourgeois American values, they still carried on as if the White House and the nation’s capital belonged to them instead of the American people, which is the very definition of elitism. What an achievement! The very rich and powerful (but we won’t talk about that) “bourgeoisie” now had to save degenerate “Middle America” from itself.

When the equally phony George W. Bush came to town it was love at first sight, and why wouldn’t it be? Here you had a man whom these people could truly admire — a rich man of the bluest blood, born into one of the most powerful families in America who nonetheless pretended to be some hick from Midland Texas. He took great pride in his phoniness, just as they did, and they all danced this absurd kabuki in perfect step for years each pretending to the other that they were all “just regular guys.”

You can see then why some of us have concluded that the Dean and his cadre of establishment courtiers don’t actually care much about what “the people” think about anything. And it should also be obvious why we are so skeptical of their reporting skills when they venture out on their anthropological expeditions to find only examples of Americans who strangely hew to their own Hollywood casting of themselves — an America of Sally Quinns warmly played by plucky Donna Reed and David Broder himself, brought to life by loveable Wilfred Brimleys. (“They came in and they trashed the place. And it’s not their place.” Can’t you just hear it?)

Of course political reporters should go out and interview Americans and write stories about what those Americans have to say about the issues of the day. But those interviews are not any more representative of what “the people” as a whole think than are the liberal blogs or Sally Quinn’s fictitious “small town” or the fans at a NASCAR race. This is especially true when it’s filtered through the phony bourgeois posturings of a bunch of highly paid reporters and insiders who have contrived a self-serving little passion play in which they are regular blue collar guys from Buffalo and corn fed farmers from the Midwest (Real Americans!) who just happen to summer on Nantucket and get invitations to white tie state dinners with the Queen of England. Pardon us fringe dwellers for being just a tad skeptical that these forays out into “America” are informing us about anything more the embarrassing neuroses of some very spoiled elites.

Hearts of darkness by @BloggersRUs

Hearts of darkness
by Tom Sullivan

Eyes otherwise fixed on the Strait of Hormuz Friday night caught this dispatch from a western hemisphere heart of darkness:

Children as young as 7 and 8, many of them wearing clothes caked with snot and tears, are caring for infants they’ve just met. Toddlers without diapers are relieving themselves in their pants. Teenage mothers are wearing clothes stained with breast milk.

Conditions at Customs and Border Protection’s dangerously overcrowded “camps” (we’ll get to that) on the southern border with Mexico continue to deteriorate. Over “45,000 people from 52 countries,” refugees, have arrived over the last three weeks, the New York Times reports. Conditions are, to use a loaded word, deplorable. Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas on Friday condemned national leaders in Washington for their inaction, “Congress is a group of reprobates for not addressing the crisis on our border.”

Department of Justice lawyer Sarah Fabian argued before a panel of judges whether “safe and sanitary” conditions required for refugee centers under the Obama-era Flores Settlement Agreement was so vague as to be unenforceable. Provide refugee children with soap and toothbrushes? Where does it end?

Dumbfounded, U.S. Circuit Judge William Fletcher had no problem defining the term:

“And [it’s] at least obvious enough so that if you’re putting people into a crowded room to sleep on a concrete floor with an aluminum foil blanket on top of them, that doesn’t comply with the agreement,” he said. “I mean, it may be that they don’t get super-thread-count Egyptian linens. I get that. But the testimony that the district court believed was, it’s really cold — in fact, it gets colder when we complain about it being cold. We’re forced to sleep crowded with the lights on all night long.”

And much, much worse:

At another Border Patrol station in McAllen, Texas, attorney Toby Gialluca said all the children she talked to last week were very sick with high fevers, coughing and wearing soiled clothes crusted with mucus and dirt after their long trip north.

“Everyone is sick. Everyone. They’re using their clothes to wipe mucus off the children, wipe vomit off the children. Most of the little children are not fully clothed,” she said.

Conditions on the border led Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to declare that “the United States is running concentration camps on our southern border.” Fellow lawmaker Liz Cheney (R-Wy.) took her to task, suggesting Ocasio-Cortez demeaned the 6 million Jews exterminated in the Holocaust. But what really offended Cheney was the use of United States and concentration camp in the same breath.

The challenge the term and camp conditions pose is to American exceptionalism, the jingoistic notion that America stands morally head and shoulders above the rest of the world and its peoples. Where the world is broken and imperfect, we alone can fix it. It is an article of civic faith to which politicians of both major parties have long cleaved.

Writing for The Atlantic, Peter Beinart observes:

Embedded in exceptionalist discourse is the belief that, because America has a special devotion to democracy and freedom, its sins are mostly incidental. The greatest evils humankind has witnessed, in places such as the Nazi death camps, are far removed from anything Americans would ever do. America’s adversaries commit crimes; America merely stumbles on its way to doing the right thing.

That the term concentration camp predates WWII is irrelevant to Cheney. Invoking it demeans the United States in the same way the word torture mischaracterizes what her father and the Bush administration did to prisoners in the Global War on Terror. It was not torture. It was enhanced interrogation. Get it right. The Trump administration is not holding mass numbers of foreign children in concentration camps. They are “tender-age facilities.” The choice of what we call them, Masha Gessen adds, is between choosing to believe what we do is by definition acceptable “and thinking that some actual events in our current reality are fundamentally incompatible with our concept of ourselves.”

Gauzy fiction for some. For others, lived reality. Actor George Takei backed up Ocasio-Cortez, tweeting, “I know what concentration camps are. I was inside two of them, in America. And yes, we are operating such camps again.” Those were internment camps, George. Get it right.

In the face resurgent white supremacism and the xenophobic fear-mongering of the Trump era, Ocasio-Cortez and other millennials are challenging exceptionalist dogma in a way not seen since the Vietnam War, writes Beinart. Terrorism is a term Americans reserve for others, not for ourselves, and especially not for native-born, white Christains. But even that barrier is breaking down. Representative Tom Malinowski of New Jersey named America’s greatest terror threat “white supremacists.”

Torch-carrying Nazis are fine people, Tom. Get it right.

Beinart concludes:

Ocasio-Cortez and others on the Millennial-led left are challenging that separation now. They are challenging not only the physical and legal barriers that Trump is erecting against immigrants entering the United States, but also the conceptual barriers that American exceptionalism erects against seeing the United States as a nation capable of evil. And for Ocasio-Cortez’s critics, removing those ideological barriers is every bit as frightening as allowing migrant caravans to pass unimpeded across the Rio Grande.

Deplorable. Appalling. Reprobates. “This is a dark moment for our country, and history will not be kind to the perpetrators of this cruelty,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York said. Cruelty was and is the point. We are working on becoming exceptional at it.