Skip to content

Month: July 2019

It’s hard to be proud of your country when your leader is an embarrassment

It’s hard to be proud of your country when your leader is an embarrassment

by digby

The latest Gallup Poll on Americans’ sense of pride in their country:

As Americans prepare to celebrate this Independence Day, pride for their country is at an 18-year low, according to a new Gallup poll.

– While 70 percent of U.S. adults surveyed expressed pride in their country, only 45 percent of those indicated “extremely” proud. That’s the lowest average since Gallup began measuring U.S. sentiments in 2001. It’s also the second consecutive year the number has dipped below 50 percent.

The Gallup year-over-year findings show steadily weakening patriotism in recent years.

“The highest readings on the measure, 69 percent and 70 percent, were between 2002 and 2004, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when the American public expressed high levels of patriotism and rallied around the U.S. government.

“Yet, since the start of George W. Bush’s second presidential term in 2005, fewer than 60 percent of Americans have expressed extreme pride in being American,” the poll found.

Gallup ties the results largely to President Donald Trump. Democrats registered a 22 percent extreme pride reading, the lowest since 2001. While Democrats have always been less patriotic than their Republican counterparts, the latest levels are half what they were in the months preceding Trump’s 2016 election.

“Absent a significant national event that might rally all Americans around the flag, given Democrats’ entrenched views of the president, these historically low readings on American pride are likely to continue until Trump is no longer in office,” Gallup’s survey analysis read.

Meanwhile, Republicans remain extremely proud of their country, with 76 percent indicating high levels of patriotism. However, that’s 10 points lower than the party’s 2003 record high in Gallup’s American pride poll. GOP pride in America was at its lowest point during former President Barack Obama’s administration, but even then it never fell below 68 percent.

Gallup added a new metric to its poll this year. To better understand sources of American pride, the polling organization asked respondents about eight aspects of U.S. government. Six of those had positive sentiments.

Ninety-one percent of respondents expressed extreme pride in American scientific achievements, 89 percent in the U.S. military, 85 percent in arts and culture, 75 percent in the economy, 73 percent in sporting achievements and 72 percent in national diversity.

Pride in American politics and the U.S. health and welfare system were significantly lower at 32 percent and 37 percent, respectively.

“While neither party group feels proud of the U.S. political system, politics may be affecting Democrats’ overall sense of pride in their country more than Republicans’, given Democrats’ low approval of the president.

“Democrats’ awareness of Trump’s historically low presidential approval rating across the international community may also be a factor in this latest decline in patriotism,” Gallup’s analysis found. “So too could be Gallup data from earlier this year, which found that just 31 percent of Americans (including 2 percent of Democrats) think foreign leaders have respect for Trump.”

Yeah. And then there’s this:

Love it or leave it Dobbsie.

.

“John Roberts has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”

“John Roberts has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”



by digby
The DOJ admitted to the Court yesterday they had been told to allow the census forms to be printed without the citizenship question (clearly with the President’s ok) and because the president tweeted that they weren’t going to do it are now trying to find a ‘rationale” for not doing it.  Yes, they actually used the words “finding a rationale” to a federal judge. 
We don’t know what kind of “rationale” they’ll try to find or if Chief Justice Roberts is as spineless as every other Republican and will capitulate to whatever bullshit they come up with. But here is one of their reported options: 

President Trump is considering an executive order to try to move forward with a citizenship question on the 2020 census, top sources tell Jonathan Swan and me. 

“We didn’t come this far just to throw in the towel,” said a senior administration official with direct knowledge of the conversations. 

Administration lawyers are exploring various legal options. 

A senior legal source said: “The administration is considering the appropriateness of an executive order that would address the constitutional need for the citizenship question to be included in the 2020 census.” 

But there is considerable skepticism within the administration that an executive order would succeed. 

If he just orders the Commerce Department to print the forms with the question on it, he will be defying the Supreme Court. 

That will be a real constitutional crisis.

However, it is not a “kitchen table issue” so I assume it will not trigger an impeachment inquiry. I’m not sure if there’s anything that would at this point.

The man is kissing up to dictators, putting babies in concentration camps, is accused of raping someone on 5th Avenue (along with more than a dozen other assaults) is running his business out of the oval office and has been shown to have colluded with a foreign adversary to sabotage his rival’s presidential campaign and blatantly obstructed justice to cover it up.

Telling the Supreme Court to go fuck itself when he doesn’t like their decisions is par for the course.

.

Nationalism vs patriotism

Nationalism vs patriotism

by digby

Trump is too dumb to know the difference, of course, as are many of his followers. But there is a difference. A big one.

This piece in the Monkey Cage breaks it down:

President Trump will celebrate the Fourth of July with armored tanks and other military vehicles rolling through the streets of D.C. — something he admired when he attended France’s Bastille Day celebration in 2017. But French President Emmanuel Macron might take exception to Trump’s framing of the event.

Soon after Trump declared that he is a “nationalist” and “somebody who loves our country” in 2018, world leaders gathered to remember World War I. Macron took that opportunity to counter Trump’s message when he warned that “the old demons are rising again.”

According to Macron, leaders and the public alike should embrace patriotism, not nationalism. Doing the latter, Macron implied, risks another devastating conflict.

As the United States celebrates Independence Day with fireworks, flags and armored tanks, here’s what you should know about nationalism, patriotism and foreign policy attitudes.

Nationalism and patriotism are not the same.

Like sports teams, churches and families, our national identities represent a type of social identity that fulfills our need to belong and form boundaries around “us,” our in-groups, and “them,” our out-groups. For many people in the United States, being “American” is a key part of their self-concept.

Despite Macron’s insistence that “patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism,” political science research shows that patriotism and nationalism are different facets of a person’s national identity.

On one hand, people can feel a sense of belonging and closeness to their country. Some people use the word patriotism as shorthand for “love of country” — a subjective feeling of inclusion in a national group that many scholars label “national attachment.” People who feel connected to the United States in this way view their nation positively, but their “in-group love” does not imply hostility to outsiders.

On the other hand, nationalism involves feeling committed to one’s country and seeing it as better than all others. Nationalists believe the world would be better off if more countries resembled their own.

Research shows that patriotism and nationalism are not just conceptually distinct but form separate dimensions of a person’s national identity when scholars measure them together in U.S. surveys. This means that people can strongly identify with the United States without being nationalists and vice versa. However, the two often go together. Most studies find a positive correlation between patriotism and nationalism.

Nationalism, but not patriotism, predicts militarism.

This distinction carries importance in debates about how a person’s national identification influences their foreign policy attitudes. If national identification encourages aggression, then it might have earned its bad reputation among those such as Macron who fear that a nationalist, jingoistic public could drive their country into conflict.

When researchers measure both facets of identification, they find that nationalists, but not patriots, are more hawkish in their foreign policy approach. Psychologists Rick Kosterman and Seymour Feshbach provided early evidence for a positive correlation between nationalism and beliefs that the United States should continue producing nuclear weapons to counter the Soviet threat, for example. Psychologists Christopher M. Federico, Agnieszka Golec and Jessica L. Dial similarly find that nationalism is associated with support for military action against Iraq.

Political scientists Richard K. Herrmann, Pierangelo Isernia, and Paolo Segatti surveyed a representative sample of U.S. adults to show that nationalism predicts militarism — the general belief that the United States should use force to pursue its goals abroad.

But these studies find limited evidence for a relationship between patriotism and militarism. Herrmann, Isernia and Segatti conclude that when controlling for nationalism, higher levels of patriotism are associated with stronger support for international cooperation, not conflict. When a person’s positive view of her country does not depend on dominance over others, they remain open to collaboration through international organizations.

[Trump supporters and opponents are increasingly divided over whether constitutional principles are threatened]

My research suggests that not all nationalists are militarists.

Despite the near-consensus among scholars that nationalism prompts militarism, I wanted to know whether such beliefs about U.S. dominance always involve hawkishness. People in the United States disagree about what it means to be an American. I argue that differences among nationalists will affect foreign policy attitudes.

When people think about the United States as a united community, maintaining U.S. superiority means using force to protect the group’s unity against outside threats. When a nationalist instead defines their identity based on equality and reciprocity, they are less likely to support force. This view sees expressing American greatness as entailing international give and take.

In October 2016, I surveyed 632 U.S. adults who resembled the general population on gender, age, race and census region via Dynata. I randomly assigned some participants to a group in which they read a short passage about what it means to be an American. Others were assigned to a control group, in which they read information about the size of the United States but nothing else.

Some of those who read a passage about being American read one depicting Americans as a united community, using the “all for one, and one for all” mantra. Others read a passage portraying Americans as holding the same rights/responsibilities and abiding by principles of reciprocal fairness.

All respondents then answered a series of questions that enabled me to measure nationalism, with a scale that asked respondents whether, for example, the world would be a better place if people from other countries were more like Americans. Finally, I measured militarism by asking participants whether they agree with questions about support for the use of military force.

To see how different concepts of being American influenced responses, I compared militarism in the two groups that read a passage to militarism in the control group. With that comparison, I found that among people who scored in the top 33 percent on nationalism, the group that read about equal rights, responsibilities and fairness scored 7 percent lower on militarism than did nationalists in the other two groups.

This response calls into doubt the belief that nationalism will always promote aggression. However, the sample is small, and the experiment cannot tell us about overall levels of different nationalisms in the United States. Nor can it tell us whether having tanks and military flyovers in the District will affect what it means when Fourth of July flags wave around the country. What it can tell us is that the mix of patriotism and nationalisms on display will not necessarily indicate a hawkish public.

The right wing of this country is very militaristic, it always has been. They are isolationist when they want to avoid getting into a war against someone they like. But all you have to do is go back just 15 years to see how bloodthirsty the right wing really is.

Reminder:

.

This canary is singing its independence by @BloggersRUs

This canary is singing its independence
by Tom Sullivan

Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan has declared his independence from the Republican Party. He did not issue a bill of particulars in the Washington Post as the colonies did against King George III in the Declaration of Independence. He did not have to. We can read between the lines.

Instead, Amash offers George Washington’s farewell warning that political parties can lead to despotism:

“The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

[…]

“It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

Amash adds:

True to Washington’s fears, Americans have allowed government officials, under assertions of expediency and party unity, to ignore the most basic tenets of our constitutional order: separation of powers, federalism and the rule of law. The result has been the consolidation of political power and the near disintegration of representative democracy.

The son of immigrants, Amash rejects “the partisan loyalties and rhetoric that divide and dehumanize us,” knowing full well the welcome immigrants on the U.S. border with Mexico receive this morning. He calls out no one by name. He calls the two-party system an “existential threat to American principles and institutions.” He suggests both sides are to blame, as is the fashion. We can read between the lines.

There is indeed an existential threat to American principles and institutions. A lust for power. Foreign influence and corruption. A new mad king disposed more towards his own elevation than public liberty.

Washington recommended the distribution of power as a hedge against autocrats. “The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism,” he warned. If he were alive today, he would see his fears realized.

People of Washington’s generation extolled the virtue of knowledge for the preservation of liberty. He wrote, “Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.”

Both parties have erred in support of replacing public education with profit-driven charter schools. One seems to have seen its error. Nevertheless, enlightenment remains under attack. In Alaska, as in Wisconsin, North Carolina, and across the nation. An educated populace is more difficult to control. Informed readers need not be reminded which political party is behind attacks on higher education.

In the states, power brokers shaken by the blue wave of 2018 are facing challenges to their hegemony with something less than Washington-like grace. In Pennsylvania, state Sen. Jake Corman rolled out for fellow legislators his “Mount Vesuvius impression,” writes Philadelphia Inquirer’s Maria Panaritis:

Mr. Corman, your tirade about parliamentary rules while Democrats were objecting to your party’s doing away with aid for some of the poorest people in Pennsylvania was a gift, a teaching moment. It may have done what countless civics classes and news stories have failed to do over decades in the 67 counties that include blue Philadelphia, blue Pittsburgh, and a whole bunch of red country in between: It let us know that there is an elected legislature.

Tribalism is, as Washington warned, always lurking just around history’s corner and “inseparable from our nature.” Both parties may have it within them, but one party now openly embraces domination “sharpened by the spirit of revenge.” Justin Amash just declared independence from his, offering an ecumenical pox on both. But there is a difference. One party wants to govern. The other wants to rule.

Junior and Jared at each other’s throats

Junior and Jared at each other’s throats

by digby

Here’s a little something from Gabriel Sherman to make your evening:

After a 2020 campaign rollout that included weak polls and a pair of disastrous network interviews, Donald Trump needed some good news. He got some Tuesday when his campaign and the Republican National Committee announced they had raised $105 million in the second quarter, a number that far surpassed where Barack Obama and the DNC were at this point in Obama’s reelection bid. The massive fund-raising haul, a former West Wing official told me, “showed money isn’t going to be a problem.”

What is a problem for the campaign, though, is the escalating cold war between Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr. for control of the reelection, five sources close to the White House told me in recent days. Brad Parscale is the nominal campaign manager—but Jared and Don Jr., who both have good relationships with Parscale, are jockeying to be the ultimate decision makers. “Jared wants to take control of the campaign,” a person close to Don Jr. told me. “It’s about power,” the former West Wing official said. One place the fight is playing out is over fund-raising. According to sources, Kushner has been seeking to marginalize Don Jr.’s close friend Tommy Hicks Jr., who serves as co-chairman of the RNC. According to a source, Jared has told RNC Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel not to be in touch with Hicks.

“None of this is true,” Ronna McDaniel replied in an email. “The president’s family, the campaign and RNC couldn’t be working any better together. This is a total team effort to re-elect the president and Tommy is an integral part of it.” In an email, White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley said: “This is completely false. Don Jr. and Jared are very close, and it’s pretty clear a ‘source’ who won’t even go on the record, is trying to stir up trouble where none exists.”

The tensions between Don Jr. and Kushner amplified beneath the glare of the Mueller investigation. “Don Jr. and Jared really dislike each other,” a Republican close to the White House told me. According to the source, Don Jr. has told people he suspected Kushner was behind the initial leak of Don Jr.’s infamous Trump Tower meeting with Russians to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. “Don was telling people Jared leaked it to hurt him. No one could figure out how it leaked. It was a closely guarded secret.” The source said Kushner has also told foreign dignitaries to steer clear of Don Jr. “Jared has told foreign people not to work through Don Jr. And Jared has said it’s on orders from the president,” the source said.

Paranoia about Kushner has set in among Don Jr.’s allies. According to one person close to Don Jr., his advisers were alarmed by Don Jr.’s now-deleted tweet questioning Senator Kamala Harris’s race. They worried Kushner would push the scandal to damage Don Jr. “We need to clean this up,” one adviser emailed another shortly after Don Jr. sent the tweet, according to the person, who was briefed on the exchange. “Don doesn’t want to give Jared any excuses to delegitimize him,” the person told me.

I thought Don Jr and Eric were supposed to be running the vast Trump empire. Maybe Tiffany has stepped in?

And that’s juicy about Kushner leaking the Trump Tower meeting. Wow. I always assumed it was one of the Russian participants (you know — sowing discord and all that.)

Whatever. Everyone in Trump’s circle thinks they’re very stable geniuses now. Let the games begin.

.

Pathetic

Pathetic

by digby

He can’t even throw a decent party:

National Committee have spent the past week scrambling to distribute VIP tickets to President Donald Trump’s Fourth of July speech at the Lincoln Memorial.

Now, White House officials and allies are wringing their hands over the risk of the hastily arranged event morphing into Trump’s Inauguration 2.0, in which the size of the crowd and the ensuing media coverage do not meet the president’s own outsized expectations for the event.

“They started this too late and everyone has plans already,” said Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor and CEO of the drilling services company Canary, LLC. “Everyone will be there in spirit, but in reality, people planned their July 4th activities weeks ago.”

Less than 36 hours before the event, White House aides were crafting Trump’s speech, while administration and RNC officials finalized the guest lists.

A White House official declined to explain the system for handing out tickets or the various tiers of VIP access, except to say the reserved seating area — extending from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to the middle the reflecting pool — will feature veterans, Trump family and friends and special guests. The first lady, vice president and second lady, and a number of Cabinet officials are expected to attend, as well as several senior White House officials — though the aide stressed this, too, was still coming together.

“They are creating this thing from scratch, and I do not know if anyone knows how it will go off,” said another White House aide. “There are questions about the ticket distribution and who will show up. The weather might be bad. Heads are spinning.”

An informal survey of more than a half-dozen Trump donors and allies showed that none plan to attend. Several Republicans close to the White House returned POLITICO’s calls from beaches at least one plane ride away from Washington.

While the RNC is trying to use Trump’s speech to woo high-end donors, few, if any, seemed to want the tickets because they’d already escaped D.C.

One Republican close to the White House said he has not heard any chatter among the donor class about attending the speech, even if it meant securing top-notch seats before one of Washington’s most majestic memorials. A Republican political operative called the week of July 4 normally a “dead zone for donors.”

“It’s not a very tough ticket to get,” said another Republican close to the White House. “They’re not going to give it away to anyone off the street, but if you have any juice at all, you can probably get the tickets.”

The White House allowed staffers to enter a lottery to receive up to 10 tickets per person — a sign of the administration’s rush to fill up that space on the mall, said a third White House aide.

I suppose it doesn’t really matter. Even if nobody shows up at all, Trump will just declare that it was the greatest national celebration in the history of the world and his followers will believe it. Still, if he can’t even do this right…

Oh my God, oh my God, oh my God…

Oh my God, oh my God, oh my God…

by digby

This is so bad I had to stop reading for a while and come back to it. This is nothing short of torture for these children and their parents. Torture:

MCALLEN, Texas—Inside the Border Patrol warehouse on Ursula Avenue, Dolly Lucio Sevier saw a baby who’d been fed from the same unwashed bottle for days; children showing signs of malnutrition and dehydration; and several kids who, in her medical opinion, were exhibiting clear evidence of psychological trauma. More than 1,000 migrant children sat in the detention facility here, and Sevier, a local pediatrician, had been examining as many as she could, one at a time. But she wasn’t permitted to enter the area where they were being held, many of them in cages, and find the sickest kids to examine. Instead, in a nearby room, she manually reviewed a 50-page printout of that day’s detainees, and highlighted the names of children with a 2019 birth date—the babies—before moving on to the toddlers.

When it was almost time to leave, Sevier asked to see a 3-year-old girl, and then two other children. But by that point, the friendly and accommodating Border Patrol agent assisting her earlier in the day had been replaced by a dour guard, wearing a surgical mask, who claimed that he couldn’t find the toddler. “We can wait,” Sevier said, as she recalled to me in an interview. Her tone was polite but firm; she knew that she had the right under a federal court settlement to examine whomever she liked.

“She’s having a bath,” Sevier recalled the guard as saying, a luxury one official told her is available only to babies removed from their guardians. In the facility’s standard cages, there is no soap or showering for the kids. Though 72 hours is the longest a minor can be legally confined in such a facility, some had been there almost a month. Sevier waited.

Finally, the guard returned with news. He had found the girls after all. “We located the bodies,” he said, in paramilitary slang. “I’ll bring them right in.”

I visited Sevier’s medical practice last week in the border town of Brownsville, Texas, 60 miles from the Ursula facility, where she’d been a few days before. In mid-June, a team of immigration attorneys had asked Sevier to come with them to their next appointment in Ursula, after they’d had an alarming visit there earlier in the month. They wanted a doctor to evaluate the children and then use the findings to force the government to improve conditions in Texas immigration facilities. It wasn’t the kind of work Sevier usually does.

Sevier grew up in Brownsville, and to Rio Grande Valley kids like her, then as now, the border was not a crisis but a culture. Sevier went to nearby Matamoros, Mexico, for dinner, dentist appointments, weddings, and baptisms. Each year on All Saints’ Day, she scrubbed relatives’ tombstones in Matamoros with soap and water, then shot BB guns with her cousins at the cemetery. She had American classmates who lived in Mexico and commuted to school over the international bridge.

She left the area for college and medical school. From afar, she told me, she began to understand that she had grown up in one of the poorest places in the United States, where low-quality, high-calorie food leaves kids both hungry and obese. Diabetes is widespread, and because access to health care is so limited, diabetic amputations are far more common than in the rest of the country. She thought that here was a place in need of a doctor like the one she was becoming. So after she completed her pediatric residency at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, in Dallas, five years ago, she returned home.
[…]
Sevier set up a makeshift clinic—stethoscope, thermometer, blood-pressure cuffs—in a room, lined with computer stations, that agents use for paperwork. Each of the agent stations had its own bottle of hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes. But when Sevier asked the 38 children she examined that day about sanitation, they all said they weren’t allowed to wash their hands or brush their teeth. This was “tantamount to intentionally causing the spread of disease,” she later wrote in a medical declaration about the visit, the document that the lawyers filed in federal court and also shared with me. (Asked for comment on this story, a Customs and Border Protection official wrote in an email that the agency aims to “provide the best care possible to those in our custody, especially children.” The agency’s “short-term holding facilities were not designed to hold vulnerable populations,” the official added, “ and we urgently need additional humanitarian funding to manage this crisis.”)

As agents brought in the children she requested, Sevier said, the smell of sweat and soiled clothing filled the room. They had not been allowed to bathe or change since crossing the Rio Grande and turning themselves over to officials. Sevier found that about two-thirds of the kids she examined had symptoms of respiratory infection. The guards wore surgical masks, but the detainees breathed the air unfiltered. As the children filed in, Sevier said she found evidence of sleep deprivation, dehydration, and malnutrition too.

Government inspectors said they observed filth and overcrowding at the Ursula facility days before Sevier’s visit. (Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General).

Beyond the children’s physical ailments, Sevier also began to worry about their mental health. She asked to see a 2-year-old from Honduras along with his teenage brother, who she hoped could provide the baby’s medical history. The older boy was excited because officials had kept them separate for more than two weeks. But when the guards brought the toddler over from the “day care” where the littlest detainees are held, he stared with wide eyes, Sevier recalled, and began panting heavily, hoarsely, and persistently for the rest of the encounter.

During the exam, she noticed that the toddler behaved differently from the kids his age she sees every day. In an exam room at her clinic decorated with a Lion King mural, I watched her do a routine checkup on a slightly younger boy. This toddler pulled back when Sevier touched him, but was easily soothed by his mother. The reaction was normal—“a small oscillation between worried and okay,” Sevier explained. A little shyness is typical, she said, but toddlers “shouldn’t be fearful of a stranger.” When they are afraid—when the memory of their last shots is fresh in their mind, for instance—they resist Sevier by crying, clinging to their caregiver, or squirming beneath her stethoscope.

At Ursula, however, the children Sevier examined—like the panting 2-year-old—were “totally fearful, but then entirely subdued,” she told me. She could read the fear in their faces, but they were perfectly submissive to her authority. “I can only explain it by trauma, because that is such an unusual behavior,” she said. Sevier had brought along Mickey Mouse toys to break the ice, and the kids seem to enjoy playing with them. Yet none resisted, she said, when she took them away at the end of the exam. “At some point,” Sevier mused, “you’re broken and you stop fighting.”

Sevier made her way down the list of names. A 15-month-old baby with a fever had been in detention for three weeks. His uncle had fed him from the same dirty formula bottle for days on end, until a guard replaced it with a new one. Because “all parents want the best health for their infant,” Sevier later wrote in the medical declaration, denying them “the ability to wash their infant’s bottles is unconscionable and could be considered intentional mental and emotional abuse.” Before her visit, the uncle had asked for medical attention because the baby was wheezing. In response, a guard had touched the baby’s head with his hand and concluded, “He’s not hot,” the uncle told Sevier.

“Denied access,” Sevier wrote. “Status: ACUTE.”

At her workstation, Sevier saw some quiet displays of resilience. A 17-year-old girl, with long black hair and a flat affect, entered the room carrying a green plastic bundle—her four-month-old son, wrapped in the kind of bed pad used for incontinent patients in a hospital. The mother explained that the boy had had diarrhea for several days and had soiled his clothes. Guards declined to provide clean baby clothes, she told Sevier, so she managed to obtain two extra diapers and flatten them out into rectangles—one for the baby’s back, one for his chest. She had connected them like a disposable tunic, then wrapped him in the plastic pad. Inside the package, the baby was dirty and sticky, Sevier said. Diaper fluff clung to his hands, his armpits, and the folds of his neck. He wore no socks.

“I carry my baby super close to me to keep his little body warm,” the mother told Jodi Goodwin, one of the attorneys with Sevier, who interviewed her the same day. Goodwin included her testimony in the court filing, which was a request for a temporary restraining order against the government on the migrants’ behalf. On Friday, a federal judge read her testimony, among others, in court and ordered the government to work with a mediator to improve Border Patrol holding facilities “post haste.”

These aren’t even the sickest children in the government’s care—those kids are quarantined at a different station, in Weslaco, Texas. When the team of lawyers visited Ursula without Sevier, “every single kid was sick,” Goodwin told me. When they returned three days later with the doctor, Goodwin asked to see four kids whom another attorney had previously flagged to the guards as especially sick. But they were already gone. The guards told Goodwin that their illnesses were severe enough that they had been admitted to the intensive-care unit at a local hospital.

The source of illness in a facility like Ursula is largely the facility itself, though the idea that immigrants carry infectious diseases is a durable conspiracy theory that even the American president has perpetuated. It is the filth, sleep deprivation, cold, and “toxic stress” of these human warehouses that diminish the body’s capacity to fight illness, Julie Linton, a co-chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Immigrant Health Special Interest Group, told me. Linton, a South Carolina–based pediatrician, visited Ursula last June and later testified before Congress to urge better access for health-care providers to children in detention.
[…]
Days before Sevier’s visit, reports of poor conditions at a similar facility in Clint, Texas, drew outrage around the country. Kevin McAleenan, the acting head of the Department of Homeland Security, told reporters the outcry was based on “unsubstantiated allegations regarding a single Border Patrol facility.”

But his own agency’s watchdogs soon contradicted him—the problems are not restricted to Clint. Ahead of Sevier’s visit, government inspectors toured Border Patrol camps in South Texas, including Ursula. Their report, released Monday, described “dangerous overcrowding and prolonged detention of children and adults in the Rio Grande Valley.” One Border Patrol supervisor, according to the report, called his holding facility “a ticking time bomb.” Congress last week authorized an additional $4.6 billion for Border Patrol and other agencies, despite the objections of progressive lawmakers, who said the bill did not go far enough to protect children in government custody.

Sevier spent years cultivating a physician’s empathetic-but-detached habits of mind. During her medical residency, an 8-year-old rescued from near-drowning arrived at the hospital. For the first time, Sevier had to insert a breathing tube down a child’s throat. Vomit began filling his esophagus and lungs. “Suction,” she commanded without missing a beat, surprising even herself, she told me. It’s what she was supposed to do—how she was supposed to act.

At Ursula, traumatized children with untreated illnesses sat before her. She probed, pressed, and listened. She took notes; she entered their data into a spreadsheet; she compartmentalized. She thought about a social event she’d promised to attend at 6 o’clock.

At 5:53, the guard with the surgical mask brought in the 3-year-old Sevier had requested to see, holding her by the armpits, like a puppy. Thin and subdued, the girl was crying but didn’t turn away. “Underweight, fearful child in no acute distress,” Sevier wrote. “Only concern is severe trauma being suffered from being removed from primary caregiver.”

After the exam, the child lingered, and Sevier offered to hold her. She climbed into the doctor’s lap and fell asleep in less than a minute. The squalor, the lighting, the agents, and the event that evening fell away from Sevier’s consciousness. As if in rebellion against her careful training, her mind shut down, she told me. And for what seemed like an eternity, she sat in vacant silence with the child.

We are monsters.

Trump tweeted this earlier today:

He just made their case for them. If these facilities are better than where they came from then there is no need to even have asylum hearings. They are obviously refugees from an authoritarian torture regime.

.

He loves the children

He loves the children

by digby

Remember when Trump “reluctantly” dropped bombs on Syria because he just couldn’t stand the terrible sight of children being brutalized? I do and I couldn’t help but recall this article in the Atlantic at the time:

In a tweet on Sunday, he mentioned young victims of the attacks:

On Monday, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said, “The images, especially of suffering children, have shocked the conscience of the entire civilized world.”

Of course, leaders often use brutality against young people as justification for their policies—who can be against the children? And he might have other reasons to act, including a burgeoning domestic political liability created by the FBI raid on his attorney Michael Cohen. Presidents have often used quick, decisive, and splashy but limited military actions as a distraction from less positive stateside news.

Yet Trump’s approach has undergone an abrupt reversal, from demanding that aides devise an early exit strategy from Syria last week to rattling his saber in Damascus’s direction. The change of heart echoes an episode last year, right down to the president reacting to victimization of children. At that time, Trump, having complained about the prospects for America getting sucked into a war in Syria, suddenly decided to launch a round of airstrikes against Assad-regime targets after a gas attack in Khan Shaykhun.

In interviews and public appearances to explain the shift, he consistently returned to one reason for his sudden resolve: images of children suffering from the effects of the gas attack.

“I think it’s a disgrace. I think it’s an affront to humanity. Inconceivable that somebody could do that,” Trump told The New York Times. “Those kids were so beautiful. To look at those scenes of those beautiful children being carried out.” He discussed the slaughter of children during an interview with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, too.

At a press conference with Jordan’s King Abdullah II, Trump said, “It crossed a lot of lines for me. When you kill innocent children, innocent babies—babies, little babies—with a chemical gas that is so lethal—people were shocked to hear what gas it was—that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line. Many, many lines.”

During a press conference with the secretary-general of NATO, Trump said something similar. “The vicious slaughter of innocent civilians with chemical weapons, including the barbaric killing of small and helpless children and babies, must be forcefully rejected by any nation that values human life,” he said, adding, “Everybody in this room saw it all too many times over the last three or four days—young children dying, babies dying, fathers holding children in their arms that were dead. Dead children—there can’t be a worse sight, and it shouldn’t be allowed. That’s a butcher. That’s a butcher.”

This language is striking because it was so far removed from anything the president had said about foreign policy during the campaign or in his presidency up to this point. The language of moral revulsion and horror, and of humanitarian intervention, was precisely what Trump had rejected. Now here he was, sounding like a street-corner Samantha Power.

That these images would move Trump to speak in such an uncharacteristic way is fascinating. The president’s inability to display empathy, or simple lack of interest in doing so, has been the subject of lengthy discussion. He values strength and bluster over softness and compassion. Thus it’s all the more peculiar that children seem to sometimes sway Trump to views, and displays of emotion, far removed from his typical demeanor.

Trump seems to dote on his granddaughter Arabella, daughter of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. She’s even crashed interviews with the Times. That’s not altogether surprising, although Trump has sometimes dealt coldly even with family members.

But one of the more peculiarly human moments of Trump’s presidency came when he welcomed the children of reporters into the Oval Office for a Halloween celebration. Trump being Trump, he made a couple of tonally awkward comments. “I cannot believe the media produced such beautiful children,” he quipped. “How the media did this, I don’t know.” Speaking about candy, he told one girl, “You have no weight problems, that’s the good news…

It went on to mention that Trump had his to say about the DREAMers

To me, it’s one of the most difficult subjects I have, because you have these incredible kids, in many cases—not in all cases. In some of the cases they’re having DACA and they’re gang members and they’re drug dealers too. But you have some absolutely incredible kids—I would say mostly—they were brought here in such a way—it’s a very, very tough subject. We are going to deal with DACA with heart. I have to deal with a lot of politicians, don’t forget, and I have to convince them that what I’m saying is right. And I appreciate your understanding on that. But the DACA situation is a very, very—it’s a very difficult thing for me. Because, you know, I love these kids. I love kids. I have kids and grandkids.

Well:

He has no sympathy for children. He has no empathy for any other human. He is 100% self-serving and cynical in all ways.

.

Some of the Big Money Boyz (and Gurlz) wise up

Some of the Big Money Boyz (and Gurlz) wise up

by digby

During the Great Recession I always used to comment on how the Masters of the Universe were so self-interested that they were going to kill their golden goose. If you want to be a successful capitalist, income inequality is not your friend. A thriving economy at all levels is a far better guarantee of good returns — and it makes for a more stable society in which pitch forks are in short supply.

Anyway, it looks like some of them are seeing the light after watching Trump for two and a half years. The stock market has been fine. But they can see what he’s doing to the domestic and global economy and they know this is a very ignorant, unstable, unpredictable president and that’s not good for anyone:

There’s a new whisper on Wall Street — maybe Elizabeth Warren isn’t so bad.

The Democratic senator, who rose to national prominence by calling for tough regulation after the financial crisis, is winning respect from a small but growing circle of senior bankers and hedge fund managers. As the presidential candidate from Massachusetts takes aim at the “rich and powerful” with a slew of tax-raising policy proposals, some financial types who fit that description say she’s proven capable and makes some good points.

“If she ends up being the nominee, I’d have no trouble supporting her at all,” said David Schamis, chief investment officer of Atlas Merchant Capital, where he’s a founding partner alongside former Barclays Plc head Bob Diamond. While Warren isn’t Schamis’s top choice, he said: “I think she is smart, hardworking, responsible and thoughtful. And I think she thinks markets are important.”

Schamis said people in his network who studied under Warren, a former professor at Harvard Law School, think highly of her, including some conservatives.

Warren emerged early as one of the strongest contenders for the Democratic nomination, and she’s been generating buzz in recent weeks with detailed policy proposals and a well-regarded performance in the first major debate. A CNN poll taken after the two nights of debates and released Monday showed her in third place among Democrats with 15%, an increase of eight points since a poll from the cable network in May. Former Vice President Joe Biden drew 22% and California Senator Kamala Harris 17%.

For some Wall Streeters who lean liberal, Warren is an acceptable alternative to candidates who trigger their most visceral objections: Republican President Donald Trump on the right and Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, on the left.

Creating CFPB

“I clearly don’t agree with everything she says, but I do give her credit for getting things done,” Tom Nides, a Morgan Stanley vice chairman and former deputy secretary of state under Barack Obama, said of Warren. He didn’t share which candidate he’s supporting.

Warren’s work to set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the wake of the crisis was “impressive,” Nides said. “You can’t argue with that. Having an idea, driving it to fruition, and having set it up is really hard to do.”

Some who like Warren might find that their backing isn’t welcome. Former hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson recounted a 2016 episode in which she criticized him on Facebook for being a Wall Street insider who stood to gain from Trump’s policies. The attack surprised Tilson and his wife, who had previously made small donations to Warren and followed her career. She later apologized.

“I agree with her general assessment that we’ve allowed multiple systems to develop in this country that screw average folks in countless ways, from education, health care, criminal justice, trade, etc.,” Tilson wrote in an article last week. Despite the mishap, “I’m glad she’s running.”
[…]
Those drawn to Warren cited her intelligence and stance on social issues. They expressed sympathy for her calls to bolster regulation after the financial crisis, within reason, and for her concerns about income inequality. There are worries among the Wall Streeters that if the wealth gaps keeps growing it will trigger a more radical backlash — what they ominously called the pitchforks. Yet that doesn’t mean they support her proposal for a wealth tax.

And some privately predicted she will shift to the center if she becomes the nominee.[nope — d]

Openness toward Warren may signal a change from just three years ago, when powerful Democrats in the financial industry sought to block her potential rise to the White House. In mid-2016, a dozen major donors from Wall Street warned in interviews with Politico that they wouldn’t give money to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign if she chose Warren as her running mate. Donors feared Warren would push Clinton too far to the left and harm the economy. Clinton ended up selecting Virginia Senator Tim Kaine. They lost to Trump.

Wall Streeters’ views have proven adaptable over the years. Some like to think of themselves as savvy investors in politics, able to bet early on the next big thing. At least a few prominent financiers are known to trade stories about how early they backed then-Senator Obama in the 2008 presidential race. Sometimes support is a calculated move. Even donors who backed Clinton later gave to Trump’s inauguration.

Yet Warren’s criticism of the industry has at times flared into direct clashes with its most prominent leaders. Her book “A Fighting Chance” describes a heated discussion about regulation with JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon during an encounter in 2013: “We weren’t quite shouting, but we were definitely raising our voices.”

Dimon later echoed the views of many in finance at an industry event in 2015: “I don’t know if she fully understands the global banking system.”

Warren shot back: “The problem for these guys is that I fully understand the system and I understand how they make their money, and that’s what they don’t like about me.”

Despite that exchange, Dimon and Warren have met a few times and the visits went well, according to a person with knowledge of the talks who asked not to be identified describing private meetings. In recent years, Dimon has also expressed concerns about many of the same issues Warren prioritizes, such as income inequality, stagnant wages and soaring health-care costs.

Yet there’s no truce: Last week, she took aim at JPMorgan for reviving a policy pushing credit-card customers to use arbitration to resolve disputes. In a letter, she urged the bank to “reconsider your plans to resume exploiting its customers.”

Warren has no plans to ease off the industry. “Nobody has been tougher on Wall Street than Elizabeth — and no one will be tougher on Wall Street as president than Elizabeth will be,” the campaign said in an emailed statement. “She wants to break up the big banks.”
[…]
Over the years, her views have become more accepted, Berry said.

“There is an increasing sense among the highly educated that the system is out of whack in terms of income inequality and so people who work with money day in and day out are acutely aware of that,” he said. “Her indictment of income inequality and the role that Wall Street plays in that is becoming more mainstream.”

Something’s got to give boyz. Donald Trump’s lunacy is a canary in the coal mine. This system is unstable. You can either get with the program and give a little now or give a lot later on. The status quo is not going to hold.

.

.

Looney tweets at dawn

Looney tweets at dawn

by digby

According to Mediaite:

President Donald Trump wants his Twitter followers to know two things on July 2nd, 2019: 1) He won ‘EVERY debate’ in the run-up to the general election against Democratic candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; and 2) the television production team for the first debate “modulated the sound” on him, and “got caught.”

Huh?

A cursory search on “modulated sound” for this debate comes up with nothing concrete to add to this post, so it is currently unclear where the Commander in Cheif is getting his data. Fox & Friends did not mention anything on the debates on Tuesday morning so that can be ruled out either.

He lost all three debates with Clinton. And if he won any primary debates it was simply by being a crude asshole and turning them into a three-ring circus.

There were no problems with sound.

He’s just lying for no apparent reason. As usual

,