« Blinding myself with science | Main | Commuted -- Open Thread »

January 15, 2017

Comments

It's a good piece. I thought if it this morning when I was rereading Coates remarkable long for piece on the Obama presidency, which certainly bears a second reading:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/01/my-president-was-black/508793/

The Coates piece is great. Several folks have said that the backlash against Clinton couldn't have been racist because Obama won two times, but it seems to me that the racist backlash (and I do think that because Clinton was basically going to continue Obama's policies, you have to view her candidacy as a continuation of Obama's presidency) occurs because of a building up of racial resentment. Not the only reason, but definitely in the mix.

Another factor in musicians' allergy to Trump: He frequently used various artists' songs without permission. One example. There were others.

The piece gets at prior discussions of the potential for Trump's removal from office and the nature of a subsequent Pence presidency. Pence is a normal sort of bad - a typical Republican from the religionist wing. On some points, he may well be worse than Trump, but he's not likely to burn the house down.

The problem as I see it is that Pence will get his way most of the time, anyway, with Trump as president, because Trump mostly doesn't give a sh1t either way about those things that are important to Pence and his like (e.g. women's reproductive health, protection of basic LGBTQ rights, prayer in schools, etc.). If letting the religionists have their way garners Trump more support and more power, he'll let them have their way, so long as it allows him to remove the traditional restrictions placed on him by our constitutional system of government.

If some number of people voted for Trump at least party out of economic anxiety, I can now claim political anxiety as a large part of my motivation in opposing Trump. Reading things like the linked New Yorker piece arouse that anxiety in me, not that I blame the writers of such pieces. I blame Trump and the people who voted for him.

Toby Keith is headlining. I don't follow country, so I don't know if he's an "A list" guy or not. And Lee Greenwood, which is sort of inevitable, I guess. And John Voight, who hopefully won't sing.

Those folks are probably all into it.

The rest of the folks, I have never heard of. DJ Ravidrums? The Piano Guys?

Why won't most people with actual careers perform for Trump?

Because he is a toxic human being and nobody wants to be associated with him. Because he's a litigious creep who doesn't pay people, and then buries them in countersuits if they take him to court.

There is no upside.

The folks who signed on need to make sure they are paid in full in advance. Make sure the check clears before the day of the performance. Better yet, get cash. And have your people on site to make sure all agrred-upon conditions are met.

I just read that Ted Nugent won't be performing at the Inaugural, those he was reported as a headliner in December.

I wonder if he dropped out because someone told him he couldn't use live ammo during his performance, probably the DC National Guard, which is why its commander got the sack.

Maybe Bannon noticed that Nugent used his left hand to grab his junk when he told the Blue States to "suck on this" the day before the election. I could see left-handedness being a problem for these people.

Did some grocery shopping yesterday so I was able to catch up on the real news from the National Enquirer, the trump organ. Headlines included "America and Russia Will Work Together to Destroy China", "Trump to Attack and Overthrow North Korea and Iranian Regimes", because I love me some geopolitical news along with "Mickey Rooney's Corpse Abducted by alt-Right Aliens and Given Breast Enhancement Surgery.

I look forward to the Enquirer center spread later in the year of terminal Obamacare patients having their catheters ripped out of their abdomens as these Republican ilk call them niggers, kikes, fags, and towelheads:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT5KrRGfJBI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq1Uso_u7c4

Must be economic anxiety.

Try that when I'm in the store. C'mon. Talk to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfDjvhsdQoo

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/johnwright/trump_doubles_down_on_attack_of_john_lewis_cancels_trip_to_african_american_museum

"He will commemorate MLK .... in another way."

Word has it he will break ground on April 4 at the shiny new James Earle Ray Memorial Shrine in Jeff Sessions' hometown. The off to the opening of the new King Kong movie.

He will also propose a Sirhan Sirhan Museum to commemorate the only one of "Those People" who contributed to the advancement of white people.

What it shows is the arrogance of the liberal elite who have decided they own music and all other creative arts and the careers of the artists, so no one can perform without the threat of the cybercascade and elite backlash.

Hate is hate. This is the epitome of the liberal hate machine.

Steve Bannon might point out to you that it's the Jews who own the music and the arts in this country and that will change as soon as we become more like Poland.

"Hate is hate. This is the epitome of the liberal hate machine."

Now that you have the Justice Department under Jeff Sessions, it's no contest.

@marty--have you considered that this may be related to this particular president-electoral college? after all, people like ricky martin and jessica simpson performed at the george w inaugurals and there wasn't any kind of massive resistance to performing for those events despite his unpopularity with liberals.

or are you saying taking that into account when you say hate is hate and implying that it is being directed solely at the donald?

Word has it that this guy will be pardoned the morning of the Inaugural so he can serve as guest producer for the trump show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DX45pE4dNU&list=PLyVCZMRmwd_ZECVdAH0dDUcb44R6PNRfu

Sorry for double post, didn't know which thread this should rightly go in:

Pence could very possibly be more corrosive to policies than Trump. However, Trump is more likely to be corrosive to institutions. Both are bad, and either can be worse than the other in specific circumstances, but the former is obviously easier to roll back after a regime change.

I think this distinction is exactly right, and the conclusion too.

I stand with John Lewis.

I'm guessing most people here do too, if you mean with John Lewis's values, and character. Interestingly, I heard on the radio that Pence is making conciliatory remarks to him, trying to get him to come to the inauguration after all. Regarding the legitimacy or otherwise of the election, here's hoping something irrefutable emerges; one thing's for sure, it won't be coming from Russia. It's hysterically funny that Trump seems to think it aids his case to say "Russia says it isn't true", it's almost as if he hasn't understood the substance of the accusation....

Who wouldn't want to perform at Mr. Grab them by the Pussy Mexicans are rapists inauguration? Liberal haters, that's who.

or are you saying taking that into account when you say hate is hate and implying that it is being directed solely at the donald?

Don't worry, Marty is still on the fence. It must be tough to balance a laptop up there, cause he didn't read the article, just reacted, as per usual.

I think it's funny that Marty thinks people don't want to perform solely out of fear of liberal-elite backlash, as opposed to those performers actually disliking Trump immensely themselves.

I'd be more persuaded by the argument that the performers are part of the liberal elite, rather than fearing it.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/report-trump-administration-white-house-press-corps

Marty,

Liberals are attempting a sort of artistic boycott of Trump's inauguration. Such boycotts (& we can all reference many other examples of liberal "hate") attempt to reinforce a taboos against behavior that appears to be at odds with fairly universal human values (referring to Haidt here: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity):

Sexual assault, lying, corruption, discriminatory scapegoating, egotism

Enforcing taboos (again, what you oddly call "hate") can of course be socially repugnant...that is, genuinely hateful. But, as a professed Conservative, you can at least understand that the opposite of propagating social norms regarding "immoral" behavior isn't some libertine utopia but rather a deeply oppressive hedonic individualism.

Can you see that a society that does not "taboo" a Trump is fit to become a society of Trumps?

My intuition is that what makes Conservative queezy about taboos isn't the taboos themselves. That's obviously a ridiculous notion. Rather, it is that the taboos arise from the cosmopolitan "mob" rather than a traditional authority: church, aristocracy...

Thus, your criticism of liberals' "hate" may indeed rest upon the value you place upon Authority as a foundation of morality?

This is the epitome of the liberal hate machine.

Wow. The epitome of hate is . . . to refuse to perform music that the other guy wants to hear. Just wow.

Lynching, for example, pales in comparison to the harshness of not playing music in honor of someone.

Btw, were proper fees paid for the music used in 'enhanced interrogation'?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0258.html

Does trump even like Elton John's music?

As with his sense of humor .... not a funny bone in that man's body ... he doesn't seem like a toe tapper to me either. For example, can you imagine trump line dancing?

I don't know, maybe he can hoof like Gleason.

Gangway, ladies, I'm coming through! Is this the Undressing Room!

And when he dances with Paul Ryan, who do you think will lead?

Maybe he likes to watch other people dance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFW3kEbhZd4

It could be with the louts that showed up at trump rallies and were sucker punching and throwing cabbage the fellow guests and the media that the bands and their agents got tired early in their careers of playing in road house venues where they had to duck inside a cage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdR6MN2jKYs

I believe Yo Yo Ma answered his invite to play the cello during dinner by sending a courier ... you don't use social media; you never know who's borscht-stained fingers might be diddling a Rockette ... with this note:

Yo Ma Ma.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised the whole show isn't karaoke, with the trump sons getting up and lip syncing along with Milli Vanilli lip syncing "It's a Man Man Man's World".

"Man thinks about our little bitty baby girls and our baby boys
Man made them happy, 'cause man made them toys"

Covered, of course. By Lee Greenwood.

Hate is hate. This is the epitome of the liberal hate machine.

yes,we have the power to destroy careers and bring entire industries to their knees.

fear us.

I understand that when trump attends his grandson's bar mitzvah, his daughter is afraid he and Richard Spencer are going to drink too much and demand the band play Wagner.

what happned to Nugent and Kid Rock? I thought those guys were on board.

and no, I don't think either of those guys declined because of their fear of a horrible liberal backlash.

Meet Richard Spencer's wife:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/20/meet-the-moscow-mouthpiece-married-to-a-racist-alt-right-boss.html

Fascinating, that.

fucking republican coward:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mike-coffman-flees-constituents-community-event

He was on the "fence" too, until trump told him there will be no sitting on either the fence or the wall after January 20.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/01/evidence-bizarre-trump-russia-ties-continues-ooze-out

this is nice:

“You can trust me that many intelligence agencies are trying to evaluate the extent to which Trump might have ties, or a weakness of some type, to Russia,” one of the intelligence officers said....The officer said part of Israel’s interest in the dossier — and in other intelligence on Trump’s ties to Russia — stems from concern that secrets Israel shares with the Unites States might be fed to Russia.

Earlier this week, Israel’s Yediot Ahronot newspaper reported that Israeli intelligence officials were questioning whether to continue sharing intelligence with the incoming Trump administration. The report said that during a recent meeting with US intelligence officials, Israel was told that the Russians had “leverages of pressure” to use against Trump. BuzzFeed News could not independently confirm that a meeting had taken place.

Other reports suggest that British intelligence is thinking along the same lines as Israel. And the Daily Beast reports that a group dedicated to hacking the NSA and releasing its prize malware has suddenly gone out of business a few days before Trump's inauguration"

Regarding impeachment, had the assassination of Hitler succeeded, there were plenty of aggrieved, pious chicken farmers like Pence to take up the slack. The unassuming grocery clerks can murder with just as much efficacy as the charismatic types with the big hair. Less sadistic gusto, true, but the bookkeeping is better.

Do they change the mattresses in the master suite at the White House between Presidents?

Certainly, trump will not lower himself to rest his hair-netted head on the same bed as the swarthy couple who used the Presidential suite in Moscow.

Or does he just hang himself by the ankles from the ceiling for dream time?

"Get that mattress out of here," trump will demand. "wait, Melania, no, not you, someone get me Coulter or Monica Crowley in here to squat on this pickaninny nest before we burn it and let the waters of liberty flow. Is Carson, that pathological child molester, free? Make him drink six beers beforehand.

Russell's judgement that the Russian golden shower tapes are the true thing for the reason that trump had the hookers piss on the mattress on which Barack and his bride once slept is very astute. The entire act is also an apt metaphor for the manner in which this couple was treated from the time the republican met with McConnell and Ryan and decided to stymie EVERY bit of governance, including that Supreme Court Justice they owe me.

I suspect the urinals in the White House will be outfitted with "Fuck Obama" urinal cakes for the next four years, going on eight.

I understand that when trump attends his grandson's bar mitzvah, his daughter is afraid he and Richard Spencer are going to drink too much and demand the band play Wagner.

There is quite a likelihood that they WILL play Dschingis Khan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVwGKo2pOmc

Here is the original (German)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAEUrp2V4ss

And the Donald himself may prefer this version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcycI2wzwzs

More on the moles that now run your country:

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/01/15/self-inflicted-wounds-blind-deaf-and-maybe-dumb/

I think it's funny that Marty thinks people don't want to perform solely out of fear of liberal-elite backlash, as opposed to those performers actually disliking Trump immensely themselves.

He thinks that, because if he didn't, he'd have to answer to the free market. And the free market can't fail, it can only be failed.

Sweety pie.

lj:

Thanks for writing this, I have notes for a post of my own that I couldn't get up what it takes to actually write about.

The surprising thing, to me, is that Trump's support seems so weak even among country music stars. The only article I can find about it said (pre-election) that country music is trying hard to be apolitical.

Nearly everyone interviewed for this article cited the Dixie Chicks as a primary reason so many singers are still scared to speak their minds politically. "The one thing the Dixie Chicks taught the industry is boy, you go against the prevailing political belief and you’re off the radio," says Cusic.
Note that Dixie Chicks were forced off country radio for being too *liberal*.

Is there any evidence that country stars couldn't be as Republican as they wanted to be? I can't find any -- and most of their public are likely to be Trump supporters, so where's the downside?

If I had to guess, I think the issue is that very, VERY few performers (music or otherwise) don't have LGBT+ friends and co-workers. I suspect *that* is the issue that has united the entertainment industry so solidly against Trump -- more solidly than any other industry, even college professors.

The other side to Trump's lack of country stars at the Inauguration is that he, personally, clearly doesn't care for country music and doesn't think country stars are "A-list". Otherwise his people wouldn't have waited so long to ask Toby Keith, who *is* a country A-lister and an obvious choice.

Speaking of Nina Kouprianova and her mission to promote the works of Alexander Dugin, someone on Balloon Juice posted a link to an article about Dylann Roof, and his website's ties to Russia. Obviously, this doesn't necessarily mean direct influence, but it is creepy as hell.

lj:

I'm disappointed in you for this remark:

Don't worry, Marty is still on the fence. It must be tough to balance a laptop up there, cause he didn't read the article, just reacted, as per usual.
Engage with Marty or don't, but this is ad hominem.

Alex Mohajer argues for courts to enjoin Trump from taking office.

The epitome of hate is . . . to refuse to perform music that the other guy wants to hear.

Or perhaps...

The epitome of hate is . . . to refuse to bake a cake that the other guy wants to eat.

That comparison would be more apt if a given performer refused Trump entry to that performer's public concert.

Trump *might* be able to get the "Liberty Kids" to perform.

If he paid them what he owed for their previous campaign performances.

So, "no", then, I'd guess.

to address Marty's point, George W Bush was able to get full bills of A-list performers for both his 2001 and 2005 inaugurals. and none of those people had their careers damaged by the "liberal hate machine".

Nugent, Kid Rock, and the Beach Boys were all named as likely performers for Trump. All are, famously, conservative people (Mike Love in the case of the Beach Boys), none of them would likely pay any price in box office or record sales for performing at the inaugural, yet none are on the bill. For some reason.

I submit that the reason is Trump. Not because he's conservative. Because he's Trump. He's a vain, litigious PITA with a hisory of not paying folks who work for him. And he's surrounded by sycophantic ass-kissing lampreys, who are likely just not people anyone wants to deal with, even by the standards of the music business. Which is saying a lot.

So artists who just don't need the freaking headache are probably going to take a pass.

Ask the folks I just named why they don't want the gig. Or half the acts in country. Or Christian pop, which is a big market chock full of conservatives.

I don't think the juggalos even want anything to do with him.

Rich entitled assholes are shitty bosses. Even just for one gig. So folks who just don't need the aggravation will quite often take a pass. Or, they'll charge a hefty PITA premium, which in this case was apparently on offer, but just wasn't enough to make it worthwhile.

Don't blame people like me for Trump's assholery.

Thanks.

people like ricky martin and jessica simpson performed at the george w inaugurals and there wasn't any kind of massive resistance to performing for those events

Queen Be herself performed at W's first inaugural as part of Destiny's Child.

Somehow her career survived the machinations of the liberal hate machine.

In a way, it seems like a reprise of the theme of Trump's whole life. He makes a huge effort to succeed, as he understands success. Expecting that his success will bring him acceptance and approval from those he sees as elites. Whether wealthy Manhattanites in past years or political and media elites today.

But it keeps not happening. The wealthy persist in seeing him as nouveau riche. The media elites see him as an uncultured boor; and one who will stiff them in an instant, not to save money but just because he can. And the political elites regard him as a loose cannon who not only doesn't understand how the game is played but is so far out that he's likely to trash the whole system. (And those politicians who are motivated by principles note that he has none beyond self-aggrandizement.)

So, once again, he finds himself having, he feels, checked all the boxes for acceptance and approval. And gotten . . . nada. No wonder the man keeps loudly proclaiming how great he is. On some level he knows that nobody he regards as important will do so.

Doc, I disagree, Marty is just coming in here and shitting in the thread. I can see no evidence that he clicked on the link to read it and even if he did, the reply was not some sort of refutation of what Gopnik wrote. He could have said that it actually is snobbish hostility and provided some support for that, he could have claimed that the weight Gopnik assigns to music is unwarranted, he could have listed all the wonderful artists that were going to perform. He didn't, he posited some 'liberal hate machine' that destroys the careers of those who don't hew to the liberal line. I left the door open for someone to take issue with what Gopnik said, but there was no taking issue, it was simply, to turn a phrase "disrupt or destroy meaningful conversation for its own sake".

Marty is on record as saying he is 'on the fence', but the utter incomprehension that he has about people really detesting everything that Trump stands for and refusing to grant one iota of respect to the man suggests that Marty's lying.That's not a charge I just toss out, but I'm not sure how one could assume otherwise. Marty doesn't have to prove that he's on the fence, but I don't have to pretend that I believe it.

Contrast the situation with that of the famous hater Stevie Wonder.

lj, Marty can be "on the fence" about Trump but still have a knee-jerk assumption that any large-scale liberal actions (particularity those by "snobby Hollywood limousine liberals") are reflections of ill will, bad faith, and unprincipled tribal malice on the part of liberals as a group. Those are two entirely different ideas, and believing one in no way means one must believe the other. Marty has been persistent in voicing the latter to varying degrees over the years, but that doesn't mean his claims to be on the fence are false, and it's hard to understand why that would be a concept that's hard to grasp. Trump and Trumpism are relative newcomers to the political discourse, but hating on liberals is old hat and habit.

FWIW, Marty has on a number of occasions attributed negative reactions to Trump to left-wing "hate". Often obnoxiously so.

A lot of people find the idea of a Trump presidency disturbing. A lot of people are, frankly, afraid of it, and are afraid of what the consequences will be for the country.

A lot of those people are not liberal, left, progressive, whatever. Many of them are conservative, in some cases markedly so.

Aversion to Trump does not require participation in a "liberal hate machine". For a hell of a lot of people, Trump himself is more than sufficient reason.

Lastly, I'll note the irony of claims of a "liberal hate machine" coming from a guy who considers Obama an unreconstructed tyrant, and Hilary Clinton one of the most evil people in history.

"Often obnoxiously so."

I have to say this is rich. Any commenter that doesn't decry Trump as the next Mussolini feels that hate. Right here. Obnoxious are people who would have Obama declare a state of emergency and prevent Trump from being inaugurated under the guise of "saving our institutions". A coup to save the country, that is banana republic crap.

I don't like Trump. I don't like bullies on either side. It isn't hard to see how the left is bullying everyone they can into hysteria over this. Which Trump will certainly respond to like any 12 year old. I have not engaged much, mostly because the echo chamber here is not willing to engage.

Trump states unequivocally yesterday that he isn't repealing without replacing, his goal is to cover everyone, he will make the drug companies et al negotiate costs and he isn't going to touch Medicare or Medicaid. The last person whose goals those were was Barack Obama.

Actually every single senior Republican leader has assured everyone there would be no repeal without a replace.

So, I'm on the fence, if they deliver on 80% of all that I'm good. Next issue. Same thing on the wall, lets build a wall, we'll charge Mexico for it later, we'll use money already in the budget. Ok, done, next issue.

Show me an actual policy that I hate I'll just agree. But defending Israel in the UN? We did that for over 60 years until last month, I cant get too worked up over his preference for the policy that was in place until last month. next.

Putin? The last President who tried to make friends with him was...oh yeah Obama. It seems like every President is going to reset that relationship. I am sure he will be disappointed also.

Wet foot Dry foot? That's just Obama declaring the Cuban community in the US isn't important to the Democrats coalition. Just like he decided he could punt Israel.

No, I don't like Obama, but I never questioned whether his Presidency was legitimate, even as he crams every possible rule, directive, order, regulation and dictate he can into his last few months in hopes that Trumps team will miss some of them.

But mostly, are you really reading any of the stuff you write here? Our institutions say that the inauguration is as much an honoring of the very most basic things our country is built on. Peaceful transition of power, government by the people. The Office of the Presidency gets some level of respect. I would prefer it if he would show a little of that, and vice versa.

Do I care that Melania is staying in NY? Not a bit.

Do I care that he might have Ivanka in the White House, no, I would love that. She's been running everything for him for years, at least someone competent will be there.

Is there enough separation from his businesses? That could prove problematic, or not. We haven't really had a President with that many diverse businesses to deal with, so it's hard to decide if he has done enough. That's a fence thing.

Do I think he should be talking about the intelligence folks the way he has? Absolutely not, I really hope that once he is actually inaugurated and it seems less likely that the coup advocates didn't win he can quit overreacting to them. But, I can understand that he hears everyday how he is illegitimate and feels the need to push back on that.

Did Putin decide the election? There are 50 million plus people that will tell you they didn't vote for Trump because of Putin. They voted in the right amounts in the right places and despite the whole fake news mantra, that really happened both ways.

The real impact Putin had was making the emails available, and no one has really challenged their accuracy. So it would have been ok to release them if WaPo had gotten them. So punish Putin for cyber spying, but don't make it seem like they won the election for Trump.

I am all for holding Trump accountable for what he does as the President. For me that is what we should be focused on.

Lastly, I read the article, I didn't think Dylan would be playing at Trumps inauguration, or the Dixie Chicks, but more than a few people have been bullied into declining, in fact, pulling out after accepting. The things they have been subjected to is pretty hateful.

And I am far from being obnoxious in this thread or others.

But it's okay to hate the haters, isn't it? That's what makes the label so useful. It's not like you have to demonstrate the hate the haters engage in within the context of history or on the spectrum of human behaviors. You only need to make a big deal out of something you disagree with, using dramatic language to describe it.

So, for instance, telling homosexuals they're unnatural and destined for an eternity in hell for their perversity is the same as turning someone down for a musical gig. Denying African Americans access to pubic accomodations is the same as expressing the opinion that someone is unfit for the highest office in the land (without regard for the basis provided for that opinion, even).

Hate is just hate. It's all the same. Some people might drag a man behind a pick-up truck until he's dead. Other people refuse to travel to DC to play music for someone. What's the diff?

Turning someone down for a musical gig? I never said a thing about that. In fact, I support it. Hating on someone for agreeing to play at the inauguration? Yeah, hate is hate.

None of those people did any of the things you listed, Obama was against gay marriage at the time of both inaugurations, IIRC, but certainly the first...yet?

Hyperbolic is an appropriate description of the response.

I'm all for balance.

So, I can tell you that Mike Love is one of biggest unreconstructed Republican assholes and jagoffs in the music business ... ask anyone ... and if he had his way "Pet Sounds" and the song "Surf's Up" would never have seen the light of day, an opinion that he shared with the Wilson Brothers' physically and mentally abusive, and Trump-like father, the manipulative aggrandizer of his own sons' talents, Murray Wilson.

True, he can carry the low harmony. And, true, to some extent he now grudgingly appreciates Brian's musical choices and talents, despite Love's insistence in the same breath that he put the "papa" in "papa-ooh-mao-mao".

He's the only person in the world who went thru the Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation regimen to come out the other end shittier than when he went in, regardless of the fact that Ringo couldn't stand the food in Rishikesh.

Where the balance comes in, is that regardless of Brian Wilson's political leanings, the man is a a genius. He and his brother Carl can and could sing like angels. As can Al Jardine. Denny had his problems, but put headphones on and you can hear him nailing his harmony every time.

I don't mind .. it doesn't hurt my feelings .. Marty stating that Meryl Streep is an uppity limousine liberal who should keep her mouth shut, despite the fact that she told the truth about trump mocking the disabled reporter.

But we never hear any criticism from the patronizing non-existent safety zone of "the fence" around here that Scott Baio, one of the least talents to ever hitch a ride in a limo, is a rude little c*nt.

"I don't like bullies on either side", you claim. It's hard to tell considering that you show us the bruises inflicted on you by Clinton's term "deplorables", but when time after time individuals, some of them Republicans, are sucker-punched, knocked around, and hauled out of a trump campaign venue at the orders from the punk on the dias, not a fucking peep out of you.

Aren't their ANY echos around here you find worthy of yodeling to?

Marty, the hatred you've expressed for Clinton and Obama over the past two years has been near hysterical. Fine. Have at it. The only criticism I have is that you aren't funny.

On the other hand, your dislike of trump and Sessions (an unreconstructed racist), for example, have been expressed in the most anodyne, politically correct terms.

That disparity, which seems pristinely objective to you, I guess, may be many things, but the "fence" it is not.

You're not C-Span by a long shot, and if you were, you'd be hacked by Russia and would call it commercial break.


Hating on someone for agreeing to play at the inauguration? Yeah, hate is hate.

For the record, I don't know who's playing at the inauguration, and don't care, since I plan to do other things on Friday.

But, I can understand that he hears everyday how he is illegitimate and feels the need to push back on that.

Poor baby - he might have thought about that when he promoted the birther movement.

As to whether Trump is illegitimate, if he colluded with a foreign government to perform electronic theft in order to gain assistance in becoming elected (seemingly in exchange for promoting a foreign leader's agenda - one that is adverse to the interests of the United States and its longtime treaty partners), I say he's a thief, a traitor and that he was illegitimately elected.

Hating on someone for agreeing to play at the inauguration? Yeah, hate is hate.

Oh, that's completely different. Refusing to buy someone's music or attend their concerts is just like shooting a bunch of people in church. Hate is hate, right?

Feh...

Marty can be "on the fence" about Trump but still have a knee-jerk assumption that any large-scale liberal actions (particularity those by "snobby Hollywood limousine liberals") are reflections of ill will, bad faith, and unprincipled tribal malice on the part of liberals as a group.

He certainly can, but when, as the Count points out, he casts Obama as a tyrant and Clinton as a criminal, yet his only response to this is an invocation of liberal hate, I call it obnoxious bs, regardless whether Marty himself notices the aroma or not.

Turning someone down for a musical gig? I never said a thing about that. In fact, I support it. Hating on someone for agreeing to play at the inauguration? Yeah, hate is hate.

I'm trying to see where anyone here said they hated someone for playing at Trump's inauguration. My impression was that no one, except those whom Trump could order to do so, were. I'm also looking thru the Gopnik piece to see where he makes that claim and am coming up empty. So, is Marty lying or just oblivious to the fact that he's making stuff up? after a certain point, I don't think it really makes a difference.

Gopnik's piece was a serious bit of reflection, imo. If you think the metaphor of American culture as polyphony, a wide range of voices that somehow create something greater than any of the individual voices alone, is too flowery or overblown, have at it. But if you make up shit about what people write, and weave notions of liberal conspiracies to silence all those artists who just want to play that gig, or falsely claim that we are hating on I have no idea who is taking the inauguaration gig, you are being obnoxious and are going to get called on it.

I'm trying to see where anyone here said they hated someone for playing at Trump's inauguration.

Someone somewhere must have said something about hating someone else over this inauguration, therefore liberal hate machine.

Turning someone down for a musical gig? I never said a thing about that. In fact, I support it.

Marty, FYI you may be all for it. But from the comment that you wrote, it definitely appeared that you weren't. Quite the opposite. I sure read you that way.

Note also that, while some slammed you over this, some of the more liberal folks here have been wading into the discussion on your behalf. Just sayin'

I say he's a thief, a traitor and that he was illegitimately elected.

Does it occur to you that it is possible to believe that, IF he did those things he is both a thief and a traitor. But that he was legitimately elected nonetheless?

Because otherwise, every elected official who connived at shady "dirty tricks" tactics was illegitimate. You can easily move from there to saying that their actions while in office are invalid. Which, regrettably, means a huge chunk of the law (not to mention regulations) has to be redone. Not just the parts that you oppose either.

Yeah Count I have said that people being attacked at Trump rallies was wrong, and bad and then we found out that the Dems were sending people in to start fights.

I don't attack Trump because the reasons not to like him are fairly well covered here. I didn't spend two years talking about Obama and Clinton, I bet you can't find 5 threads that I expounded on that at any length whatsoever. And each of those was when I was attacked, almost literally, for not supporting her over Johnson. Even by you.

What possible need is there to ever comment here on my view of Trump as a person again? I have steadfastly refused to support him, but he is President, so I want to disagree with what he does, not keep rehashing what an asshole he is. At this point my only concern is what he does as a President. I was one of the first to say that Jeff Sessions was an inappropriate pick.

Not sure of all the others, some are worse than others. Some that you don't like I probably don't mind.

I wonder if Republicans Bob Hope and ji-jim-uh-ji-Jimmy Stewart would have shown up at this festivo, like they did for Reagan and Bush.

And here's some bullying by a sniveling little ratfucking twerp trump consigliere, as bully Chris Christie looks on in envy from exile, against a guy trying to so his job as a public servant.

A threat. In an ethical world, the Ethics Chief would physically flatten Priebus' out of joint proboscis at their next meeting.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/priebus-warns-ethics-chief-to-be-careful-about-criticizing-trump.

By the way, for my own self, I hate Ted Nugent whether he plays at the Inaugural or not. If I get the chance, I'm going to piss on his bed.

Also, Russell more eloquently than I pointed out Marty's propensity for calling Obama a tyrant.

Jennifer Holliday's statement on withdrawing from performing at the inauguration is really interesting reading. In part:

I Sincerely apologize for my lapse of judgement, for being uneducated on the issues that affect every American at this crucial time in history and for causing such dismay and heartbreak to my fans.

Please know that I HEAR YOU and I feel your pain. The LGBT Community was mostly responsible for birthing my career and I am deeply indebted to you… You have loved me faithfully and unconditionally and for so many years you provided me with work even though my star had long since faded.

Thank you for communicating with me, I had no idea that I still meant so much to all of you.

One can certainly read that as a response to bullying. One can also read it as someone reflecting on her priorities, including acknowledge who gives her success, and adopting some of their concerns as her own in appreciative response.

Here's some hate which I was thinking about submitting as a post to OBWI some time ago, but this is as good a time as any for my proposal.

Given Marty's evident discomfort with Obamacare, mostly the $12,000 annual deductible he claims he is subject to under the plan he has chosen, which I would like to hear the details about, what company, what state, is it gold, silver, bronze, or what, but never seem forthcoming, I propose to send a check to Marty for $1000, if he needs it and if he accepts it to help meet his annual deductible in 2017 or to help pay a portion of his Obamacare premiums for the year.

While it would be nice if other OBWI regulars offered to match some or all of my $1000 offer for the year, my offer is not in any way contingent upon anyone else stepping forward.

Further, once and if Obamacare is repealed and IF it is replaced with yet another high deductible set of catastrophic insurance plans strictly thru the private sector, as the fake socialists Paul Ryan and Tom Price are proposing, with whatever inadequate premium support is provided and IF those with pre-existing conditions are grandfathered into the new plan, which, by the way, would never occur to republicans had it not been for Obama, I will send a $2000 check to Marty for the 2018 tax year to help cover a portion of THOSE deductibles and premiums, if he needs it and will accept it.

After 2018, I can't promise anything, because I fully expect to be fucked on my own Medicare arrangement by then.

I'm sure there might be some technical details ironed out with Marty about this. For example, I prefer to send a check of some kind, rather than cash, because I want to make sure the IRS, while it still exists in its present form, is able to collect gift taxes on this offer, should it be carried out.

Marty, if you will accept either or both of these offers, let the Kitty know and she will drop the gun and give you my email address so you can respond personally to me. If the Kitty needs that email address, the kitty can say so in a comment on this thread and I will supply it through channels.

I do not require Marty's tax returns for this offer. Nor do I ask for anything in return.

I suppose there might be a time limit on this offer, but I hate to cause the dreaded uncertainty (remember that, the uncertainty we heard about ad nauseum a few years ago for corporate finance officers and a relatively few folks who had to change their policies to conform to 20 million Americans getting any kind of insurance at all) for a guy who might be in medical need.

But let's say after April 15, 2017, the offer will disappear, unless before that I find a lump on myself somewhere or get run over by a bus and have to pay my own deductibles.

None of this is very businesslike, but if I were a businessman, I would shrug and tell you you are out of luck altogether, Marty.

Further, money is one thing, but don't ever ask me to bake you a cake. ;)

Let me know via the Kitty. Have a good day. I don't know what day it is anyway, but since Jesse Helms is back in the saddle, it won't matter much soon.

Marty, you left out the sexual assault, the lying (uncommon in its degree for politicians, and the racial/ethnic/religious provocations. You do mention that corruption could be an issue, but this misses the point. Anyone seeking to communicate respect for the People and the Office would've dealt with their unique situation as a business man to be extremely fastidious regarding ethics.

So if you want to argue it's "hate" (a.k.a irrational unprincipled "bullying"), you need to establish that none of this is relevant, it's actually just that he's an -R. Earlier commenters gave evidence that Bush IIA and IIB both evaded the "liberal hate machine". What's your counter point?

Not only have you not engaged with the core counter argument (Trump is getting the hate because he's uniquely awful), you have added fanatastical claims: that the Left equates Trump to Mussolini, that the Left wants to see a coup d'etat. That's poor form.

Again, the more fundamental issue is that liberals seek to enforce taboos against behaviors they find morally odious. We see this (attempted, sometimes successfully) regularly. But, what is the alternative? A taboo against taboos? Where we all feel pressured to abjure social organization and express nothing but individual desires and aversions, where right and wrong can only exist as lawful or unlawful? Economic activity must only be individual and hedonic? Can you not imagine how oppressive - in fact, totalitarian- such a society would be?

That to me is the heart of the matter that Conservatives struggle with, once we get beyond the obfuscation around what Trump is and why The Left seeks to shame his enablers.

Does it occur to you that it is possible to believe that, IF he did those things he is both a thief and a traitor. But that he was legitimately elected nonetheless?

No. It doesn't.

Incidentally, I'll be gone from here after Friday, pretty much, but I'll lurk to keep up, among other things, with my offer to Marty.

Why?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/01/why-republicans-hate-obamacare

I suppose now anyone can write to the Kitty under Marty's name and ask for email address, even a Russian.

So, how do we prove to each other who the each of is so we're on the up and up?

Lastly, I'll note the irony of claims of a "liberal hate machine" coming from a guy who considers Obama an unreconstructed tyrant, and Hilary Clinton one of the most evil people in history.

This is exactly right. Marty's (and to a certain extent McKinney's) past assumptions about Obama's tyranny and HRC's "ongoing criminal career" (exact quotation from Marty: once read never forgotten) look from outside the USA and even outside the liberal bubble like the ravings of madmen. I'm sorry to say this, and mean no real disrespect to the two of them, whose contributions I have always felt to be important to the micro-biome here, but this is the truth.

But Marty is right, he was always against Trump, and he did immediately say Sessions was an unacceptable pick. On the other hand, he doesn't seem to think that the election was tainted and that Trump's presidency is illegitimate, but weirdly he seems to buy every nutty rightwing theory going, like the fact that the people beaten and ejected from Trump rallies were because the Dems were sending people in to start fights. Is there much, if any, evidence for this other than Trump's glossolalia?

Marty: I want to disagree with what he does, not keep rehashing what an asshole he is. At this point my only concern is what he does as a President.

Does what he says constitute a part of what he does? Because in his joint interview with the Times and Bild this morning:

President-elect Donald Trump has avoided saying who he trusts more — German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a longtime US-ally, or Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Well, I start off trusting both — but let’s see how long that lasts," the incoming president said in an interview with The Sunday Times.

"It may not last long at all.”

I know Marty has said in the past that he is not too concerned with the rest of the world, but presumably putting one of the staunchest defenders of western democracy and values, and chief alliance of the USA, in the same basket with Putin the well-established gangster and thug, (yet possible holder of incriminating evidence), is a cause for concern? Or do the USA's alliances and foreign relations fall into the category of unimportant issues?

John Lewis needs to forgo the peaceful civil disobedience stuff, and go after this cracker thug physically:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/john-lewis-racist-pig-demonrat

Happy MLK Day.

And I am far from being obnoxious in this thread or others.

"your friends suck"

Because their kid was afraid of a Trump presidency. They suck. They're haters, teaching their kid hate.

As if you know one fucking thing about my friends and loved ones.

I understand from postings here that people close to you supported Trump. Vigorously. Have I ever said that those people suck?

No. Nor would I think it.

So you can try that line with someone else, but not me. Not now, not ever.

As far as the other BS, go and search the annals of ObWi and see if you can find me calling for anything whatsoever than the orderly transfer of power from Obama to Trump. You will find nothing.

Nothing.

As far as people being "hated" out of performing for Trump, you are talking about Jennifer Holliday and Andrea Boccelli. Both received very hostile reactions to their initial choice to perform. In Bocelli's case, there were apparently threats against his life.

All of that is hateful, and sucks. And I can assure you that it happens, more than often, the other way around.

Is there a right-wing "hate machine"? Are you, as a commenter here on ObWi, responsible for it?

Why don't you do something about it, Marty? Why do you accept the existence of right-wing people who bully and threaten others? If you don't make it stop, right now, you must obviously be in total support of it.

All of you right-wingers, you're just a bunch of blood-thirsty bullying fascists-in-waiting. It's what being "on the right" is all about.

Either that, or maybe your reaction to the whole thing is just more evidence that you are unhinged. Delusional.

See, I just handed you a mirror. Take a look in it.

"Is there much, if any, evidence for this other than Trump's glossolalia?"

People got fired at the DNC:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/10/18/undercover-video-democratic-operatives-griffin-tell-lead.cnn

In a world of fake news this seemed pretty real. It made CNN.

Marty has said in the past that he is not too concerned with the rest of the world

Not an uncommon sentiment. Some of my Trump-supporting family members say the same.

Unfortunately, "the rest of the world" is unlikely to just go away and leave us alone.

I want to disagree with what he does, not keep rehashing what an asshole he is

Unfortunately, to a degree that is unmatched by anyone else I can think of among national office-holders, what he does and what an asshole he is are virtually impossible to tease apart.

Maybe you have better tweezers than I do.

In a world of fake news this seemed pretty real. It made CNN.

It was a James O'Keefe special.

But his work is probably what we're going to be getting a lot more of during the coming Putin/Trump regime.

I can assure you that it happens, more than often, the other way around.

Writing this set me off on a walk down memory lane of all of the examples.

My favorite recent one was Breitbart's campaign against Kellogg's, because they withdrew their advertising.

Call out the flying monkeys!! Tony the Tiger must die!!! Corn Flakes delendo est!!!!

Anything For A Laugh. Our new national motto, soon to be replaced by Never Give A Sucker An Even Break.

In a world of fake news this seemed pretty real. It made CNN

It was a James O'Keefe special.

Yes, from what I can tell, despite it being James O'Keefe with all the shadiness that implies, some of HRC's people were discussing very dodgy tactics, but not only is there no proof they actually did any of it, it would suggest an extraordinarily high level of efficiency and organisation on their part if you thought they were actually responsible for all the (very frequent) violence and ugliness at Trump's rallies.

Project Veritas Action

Not only is irony dead, noting the fact that irony is dead, is dead.

GftNC: "Marty: I want to disagree with what he does, not keep rehashing what an asshole he is. At this point my only concern is what he does as a President."

OK, folks, let's try an exercise in fairness. Trump has not done exclusively bad things. For example, he has insisted that "repeal and delay" not happen; that a replacement plan be passed at the same time repeal is.

Now you may be unhappy with repeal at all. But it seems impossible to deny that it is a huge step better than what the Republicans in Congress were talking about doing. Not good, perhaps, but undeniably better.

And then there is the fact that he keeps talking about covering more people. The only way to do that is either force those states which didn't expand MedicAid to do so (on, the horror!), or increase the penalties for not buying insurance (oh, more horror!). Well, that or go to single payer (aka Medicare for all) -- i.e. what Congressional Republicans would regard as even worse than Obamacare.

"Even a blind pig gets an acorn now and then." And it seems reasonable to acknowledge it when it happens.

If the repeal and replacement of the ACA under Trump results in more Americans getting covered, including all those with pre-existing conditions, it will be a very welcome outcome. Even if to do it the Republicans put in measures which they made impossible under Obama, and then take the credit for it, it will be a bitter pill to swallow, but still a very welcome outcome.

he has insisted that "repeal and delay" not happen; that a replacement plan be passed at the same time repeal is.

Yes, and his HHS guy Tom Price is going to present the executive agenda for replacement as soon as his nomination is approved.

Take a look at the Price plan.

If the repeal and replacement of the ACA under Trump results in more Americans getting covered, including all those with pre-existing conditions, it will be a very welcome outcome.

After thousands of protests against ACA repeal in cities across the country, Putin probably suggested to Trump to make that statement as a great PR move to distract peopel from his interview with the German newspaper.

Skeptical? Who me? It will be interesting to see the Teabaggers in Congress now support Medicare for All.

If

The Price plan.

Which Trump has said will be the executive offering for ACA replacement.

  • HSA's.
  • Tax credits keyed to age.
  • High-risk pools for folks with pre-existing conditions.
  • Providers can sell across state lines
  • Tort reform

My questions:

If you don't have surplus income to start with, what does an HSA do for you?

If you don't make enough money to pay federal income tax, what does a tax credit do for you?

Maximum tax credit is $3K, for people over 50 years old. If you're fifty, what kind of coverage are you gonna get for $3K?

And that is what repeal with replace is going to look like.

Recently O'Keefes outfit ran right into a counter-sting where they got taped offering 100K $$$ to a perceived liberal group for disrupting Trump's inauguration. Nice 'oh sh|t!' moment at the end when the agent provocateur girl realized what had happened and for a moment thought that it was the FBI she was dealing with and considered to instantly call for a lawyer.

Thanks, russell, for the details. Sounds like "GoFundMe" is the real plan.

Yup, doesn't sound good. Surprise, surprise.

No question that the Price plan isn't going to cover more people. But then, a lot of Trump cabinet nominees seem to have very different (and, often but not always, better) views on a variety of subjects. Whether we will end up with his policies or theirs remains to be seen.

Personally, I think the smart money would bet on the worse alternative in most cases. Which doesn't change the fact that, occasionally, what Trump says, at the moment**, is the better way to go.

** Admittedly, his record of (lack of) consistency is a factor in which way I'd bet.

"All of that is hateful, and sucks."

Thank you.

"Is there a right-wing "hate machine"?"

Absolutely, never said there wasn't

Are you, as a commenter here on ObWi, responsible for it?

I am responsible for not pretending it doesn't exist. Or that it is somehow justifiable.

Why don't you do something about it, Marty?

I do every chance I get, in discussions just like this with my right wing acquaintances.

Why do you accept the existence of right-wing people who bully and threaten others?

I don't deny reality.

Hartmut, thanks. I'm providing a link for what you described.

Martin Longman provides another take on legitimacy.

I guess my point is that what Trump says at the moment may not actually be all that great.

If "no repeal without replacement" means replace with Price's plan, that's probably not going to be an improvement for very many people.

According to a Wa Post interview cited in TPM, Trump has said we'll have insurance for everybody, deductibles will be lower, it will be less expensive, health care will be great and in a simplified form, it won't be single payer, and Medicare and Medicaid will be able to negotiate drug prices, which will lower them.

Spokesperson Spicer adds that there will be more plans to pick from, more doctors in the plan, and health care will be cheaper.

So yeah, what he said at that moment sounds great, but what the hell does it mean?

Maybe he's a magician and can pull a rabbit out of his hat. That would be great.

I'm sorry to be so freaking down on Trump all the time, but he's been a thoroughly public figure for, like, 40 years, and there is nothing in his history that would lead me to believe that he has the skill set to do the job he's about to step into.

There is nothing in how he has conducted himself throughout his campaign, or since winning the election, that leads me to believe he has the inherent skill set to do the job.

Best of luck to us all, I think we are going to need every ounce of it we can get.

there is nothing in his history that would lead me to believe that he has the skill set to do the job he's about to step into.

This is true. Also, there's nothing about his history that indicates honesty, integrity, compassion, or intellectual curiosity.

Best of luck to us all, I think we are going to need every ounce of it we can get.

I wish we were trying something other than luck. (I know that many of us are trying to speak out, protest, call reps, advocate, work on local government political work. But I wish we were also trying something other than luck to get rid of him. Like an injunction. Or an arrest. Or something. Please, somebody, think of something, please.

Don't know if you all have access to Channel 4's output, but have just watched documentary on the Dispatches strand: "Trump's Dirty Secrets" about Trump's and his people's ties to the fossil fuel industry. Very interesting. Am just about to watch BBC's political documentary strand Panorama, film titled "Trump: the Kremlin Candidate". The trailers look pretty explosive....

Should have had a ? after Trump: the Kremlin Candidate. Seems pretty up to date so far.

Panorama includes fascinating interviews with Dugin (Putin's guru), and ex-head of CIA in 2004, also Tech company demonstrating hack's origins in Russia, among others. I seriously recommend this program, if you can get it.

Incidentally, I'll be gone from here after Friday, pretty much....

Noooooooo!

I've looked at Tom Price's plan, and I've observed the elitist, sadistic look on his face when he discusses it and I believe the man is mentally ill:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/01/any-mental-health-treatment-is-a-pre-existing-condition

He speaks with the absolute imbued certainty observed only among lunatics who shoot up black churches, movie theaters, and elementary schools.

Paul Ryan's inane smiling and smirking when a Republican, no less, tells him face to face that Obamacare saved his life from cancer is not of this world, but rather right out of the smug canned facial expressions the fictional Dagny Taggert was given by Ayn Rand in "Atas Shrugged".

Yessssss!

Noooooooo!

My thoughts exactly. Just another stab wound.

There will be so many wounds on the 20th and afterwards, we will be like Saint Sebastian (going overboard, would you say?), but the loss of the Count will be one of the unkindest cuts of all.

."which I would like to hear the details about, what company, what state, is it gold, silver, bronze, or what, but never seem forthcoming,"

Don't think I was ever asked. Florida Blue BlueSelect Silver 1443. (Couple)

Interesting thing about that. I have had that same policy for 3 years. The first year it was 1500 and no deductible and 25 copays. Pretty darn good insurance.

The second year it was 1500 a month 6000 (3000 each) deductible, didn't cover as much, lots of 50% coinsurance, $35 for most doctors,out of pocket max 11 grand maybe, don't quite remember.

This year 1500 a month 13000 deductible $65 copays, most procedures 50% coinsurance after deductible, 14000 out of pocket max. So after 31,000 I am down to just copays and then close to nothing after 32000.

Over three years, for the same premium, its gone from decent insurance to catastrophic insurance. The same policy number, silver level, I didn't even have to get new cards.

Since I spend time back and forth between MA and FL I looked at Mass Health and the same policy was 200 a month more.

And in FL this year we were down to two companies, a pretty fly by night new company that was more expensive and Florida Blue. I think five companies the first year although fewer at the gold level, less last year, and just the two this year.

The first 0 deductible policy was a gold policy at 2200 month with $65 copays and quite a few 50% coinsurance, although more 35% coinsurances. out of pocket max was around 10, I think.

Thanks for the offer, but I will figure out how to get it paid. If I can't, then I'm one of those folks still without insurance.

I have gone through about half my IRA at this point(Which prevents me from getting subsidized). But have found a little work so that bleeding is stopped for now.

Any more questions? This is not a secret.

Ouch.

Thanks, Marty.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad