« Who disabled an unmarked unit, with a banana? Op. Thr. | Main | About the recent unpleasantness »

June 15, 2018

Comments

Trump found yet another policy option he didn't know he had.

We already knew that he was massively ignorant of his office and how it works. Of course, any President relies on advisors to know all the stuff that he can't personally keep up on -- and there's more than even someone who wants to know can. But when your advisors are folks like Miller, who don't want to do anything but be as noxious as possible, they aren't going to bother to learn about other options. Let alone tell you.

SAD. But not surprising.

He, Trump knows One Big Thing: how to cater to the Martys of the world.

Don't get me wrong: I do not mean to offend Marty inadvertently. If I want a revolution, I have to offend somebody. When Birther-in-Chief He, Trump or boy-Nazi Stephen Miller deign to speak for themselves here (instead of counting on Marty to parrot their nativist yahoo talking points) then I will joyfully lay off Marty and enthusiastically violate the posting rules all over their pasty-white asses.

Anybody who wants to "solve the immigration problem" without demanding a national ID card is fooling himself, not me. A red-haired, freckle-faced, blue-eyed Irishman who overstays his visa after flying into the port of entry called JFK is just as much an "illegal immigrant" as a brown Spanish-speaking Central American who swims across the Rio Grande. Whichever of those stereotypes represents a bigger population, neither would make the trip if there were no way to earn money, rent housing, get medical care, or even buy electricity without presenting a valid, unexpired national ID card. Of course, since many people named Kelly or Sanchez are native-born Americans (maternity-ward immigrants, IOW) everybody would need the ID card.

I recognize that such a regime would seriously inconvenience the "job creators" who count on hiring low-wage workers for unpleasant jobs without having to vet their legal status. It might seriously displease the "Independent Business" types whose "National Federation" He, Trump addressed to howls of applause the other day.

I also recognize that many on the Left, as well as the RWNJs, consider a national ID card to be anathema.

But you can't "solve the immigration problem" without it. You can "solve" some problem, maybe, but it might be embarrassing to have to admit which "problem".

--TP

"o zero tolerance doesn't require detention, nor separation, after all. It appears they had a choice all along.
Marty?"

Wow, he is such a great President. He worked all that out in just a few weeks to solve that problem!

Thank goodness for his leadership.

Seriously, it still isn't legal and once again everyone is happy with the president when he does what they want, even if he has no right to do it. It will be interesting to see the results of the legal challenges.

It will be a complete circle when they announce catch and release instead of prosecution to avoid having to incarcerate people per the court orders.

Seriously, it still isn't legal and once again everyone is happy with the president when he does what they want, even if he has no right to do it.

What still isn't legal? Does the law require detention? For how long? Under what circumstances?

Please, educate us!

once again everyone is happy with the president

Trump has already stored up several lifetimes' worth of DO NOT WANT from my point of view.

Ain't nothing the man is gonna do that's gonna make me happy except leave.

He's a f'ing crook, and he harms the nation every day he is in office.

Just to clarify. Don't want to set any unrealistic expectations.

once again everyone is happy with the president

Riiiight. Just like everyone is happy with him because he decided to meet with North Korea rather than start a shooting war, like he'd been talking about. And, when he did so, didn't quite give away the store for nothing -- even though he made significant concessions in exchange for nothing but flattery.

The fact is, this week's fiasco was entirely due to his own choices. And his executive order, while better than what his administration was previously doing, is still significantly worse than what went before.

So no, there are still a lot of people who, while acknowledging that he stepped back from a major horror show, are not happy with the latest policy either.

Probably just rumors.

No, not facebook. The AP.

D'you know, it's incredible how something can just be staring you in the face and you just don't see it. Or at least I didn't. Obviously Trump has always disliked and criticised Merkel, and his comments about her refugee policy and Germany's "rising crime" (totally untrue) have been disobliging, to say the least. And he's backed things that weaken the EU (Brexit, Putin etc) and Nato (Putin etc), but for some ridiculous reason it never occurred to me that he was actually trying to get rid of her.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/angela-merkel-donald-trump-immigration_us_5b2bbc25e4b00295f15a1d5d

I suppose this was common knowledge? Did everybody else see it, and if Hartmut is around, can he tell us how much this will help Merkel, as opposed to harm her?

Trump dislikes every world leader who's smarter than him (almost all of them) and doesn't bother to hide it from him.

His occasional attempts to interfere in UK politics have attracted near-universal derision. May is quick to distance herself from him when he does it.

It’s ugly out there.
New Italian Interior Minister Salvini is talking of ‘cleansing’ Italy of immigrants. To applause.

Not a nice guy...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/21/matteo-salvini-threatens-to-remove-gomorrah-roberto-saviano-police-protection

That's true, Pro Bono, Teresa May even managed to say “The pictures of children being held in what appear to be cages are deeply disturbing. This is wrong, this is not something that we agree with” which for her was quite something. But what I'm getting at is that even someone who despises Trump as I do (and as pretty much everyone here does - personally I take Marty at his word) somehow hadn't actually formulated the thought that he was trying to topple the leader of Germany. Stupid and blind, I admit. Hopefully it will do her good with domestic opinion, as May's sucking up to him sometimes does her harm with UK public opinion, but the resurgent xenophobic rightwing in Europe worries me a great deal and may outbalance that effect. That's why I was hoping Hartmut might be around to comment...

Trump dislikes every world leader who's smarter than him (almost all of them) and doesn't bother to hide it from him.

I don't think so. He seems to like Putin just fine, and I will offer very long odds that Putin is smarter than Trump.

He also expressed admiration for Kim Jong-un.

Maybe he just dislikes the ones who are both smarter than him and reasonable people.

I doubt he would recognize whether or not someone was reasonable. What he dislikes is anyone who is smarter, and fails to flatter his ego by pretending not to be.

That's where Ms Merkel falls short. She doesn't pander to the Trump ego. Inability, or just unwillingness, to suffer fools gladly is a fatal flaw in Trumpworld.

I doubt he would recognize whether or not someone was reasonable. What he dislikes is anyone who is smarter, and fails to flatter his ego by pretending not to be.

I, in turn, doubt whether he would recognize whether someone was smarter. Egomaniacs, especially not-too-bright ones, tend to have trouble with that.

You're right about "reasonable," though. Maybe it's just flattery that's required.

Krauthammer was shit.

Carry on

But would even Krauthammer have gone to visit traumatized children wearing a jacket saying "I really don't care. Do U?"? Talk about tone deaf -- or was it careful calculation to speak to the base?

I just recall thing Krauthammer a poisonous snake during the Obama administration, lobbing criticisms that could be said twice over against Bush and 100 times against Trump, plus yadda yaddaing the Iraq war and its aftermath.

Ah, here is a link discussing why K was such shit

http://crookedtimber.org/2012/04/22/happy-krauthammer-day-2/

"I really don't care. Do U?"? Talk about tone deaf -- or was it careful calculation to speak to the base?

i'm sure the FBI Deep State snuck up on her and spray-painted those words onto the back of her jacket when she wasn't looking.

it's the only explanation.

and the FBI is notorious for these kinds of illegal operations. so i'm told.

No, no! Not the FBI, the Secret Service. Far better access to the First Lady. Plus the name says it all -- especially if you're a conspiracy theorist.

Are you guys talking about
the Third Lady of the United States
?

--TP

Krauthammer was shit.

the man is dead. maybe let it be.

I can’t even process the jacket thing. It’s so f*cking bizarre. Words???

Someday He, Trump will be, too. Will your advice be the same then, russell?

--TP

What if it won’t be? What’s the relevance? Are they the same?

Great news for Mr Trump! He made the cover of Time again!

Welcome to America:
https://mobile.twitter.com/rolandscahill/status/1009828329250283520/photo/1

But unlike many of the neocons, not entirely without nuance:
"I used to think Trump was an 11-year-old, an undeveloped schoolyard bully," he wrote in August 2016, around the time Trump officially became the Republican nominee. "I was off by about 10 years. His needs are more primitive, an infantile hunger for approval and praise, a craving that can never be satisfied. He lives in a cocoon of solipsism where the world outside himself has value — indeed exists — only insofar as it sustains and inflates him."...

russell @ 9:36: some of these people aren't going to see their kids for years. because we are utterly unprepared to keep track of who belongs to who. it's stupid and unnecessary and wrong. people who support this need to take a good long look in the mirror.

And that's not the worst of it. I've read far too much commentary where the POV is parent-centric.

All I can come away from when thinking about the implications of this freely-chosen, venal mess is that thousands of humans are suffering tremendous early childhood traumas from which the basic arc of their life will be set. Relationship issues (mostly with intimacy), problems with properly regulating intoxicant intake, suicides, and in the worst cases settling into a life of criminality are the predictable outcomes that will result from what we have done.

I care less about the parents than the innocent children (toddlers?) who have been damaged by this at an age at which it will be difficult to ever recover.

It is hard for me to fully express my sadness as I ruminate on this idiotic cruelty. And so I drink.

From my POV the German situaition is as follows:
Our Texas GOP (the Bavarian CSU which is formally separate from the CDU and fills its slot in Bavaria) has always lived by the doctrine of 'no one (democratic) to the Right of us'. Now the AfD (the RW populist 'Alternative for Germany') threatens the de facto one-party rule of the CSU in Bavaria by outflanking it on the right without openly going Nazi (thus staying electable). The CSU has to secure that flank for the upcoming Bavarian state elections by going hard right-populist on refugees. Their (oversized) influence on the federal level depends on keeping near absolute power in Bavaria. If they lose that, they can wag the dog no more. So, they rather risk blowing up the federal coalition governmnent in a (possibly vain) hope to counter the AfD at home. No CSU guy could replace Merkel (it's another axiom of German politics that a CSU chancellor is unthinkable*). The hope is to weaken her position in the coalition (thus increasing CSU influence) without blowing it up. The late supreme CSU ruler Strauß tried something similar against Merkel's predecessor Kohl but failed. It's as of yet unclear what will be the outcome this time.
The likeliest scenario is that everyone but the AfD will lose but Merkel will remain chancellor due to lack of alternatives. A chancellor can only be replaced by the parliament voting someone else in with a majority of its members (constructive vote of no confidence). New elections would strengthen the AfD but they would not find a coalition partner to get a majority.
Merkel avoids extremes as a matter of principle but she can by pretty ruthless (a lesson she learned from her mentor Kohl).

My assumption is that Trump&Co. have no idea about these specific dynamics and believe that a CDU/AfD coalition run by a CSU guy would be feasible, if Merkel could be weakened enough.
If anything, Trump&Co.'s meddling will strenghthen Merkel since even on the Right he will not win popularity contests.

*ironically the last attempt in that direction failed due to Bush the Lesser. Schröder kept his chancellorship with the tiniest of margins because the CSU candidate did not 100% exclude the possibility of joining Dubya's Iraq adventure. There are rumors that Merkel deliberately held back knowing that this was going to happen, so she would run and win the next time herself.

Will your advice be the same then, russell?

i don't know, maybe. i hope so.

i'm a fairly irascible person and a lot of things make me angry. sometims it's useful sometimes it's not.

i try to let it go if i can, it's an exhausting thing to carry around. there are days when id gladly swap my temperament for another.

apologies if my comment came off as being advice, or really directive in any way. everyone's going to respond to stuff like this in their own way. maybe read my comment less as "you should..." and more as "I need to...".

thanks tony.

thousands of humans are suffering tremendous early childhood traumas from which the basic arc of their life will be set

this, and thank you.

recently, maybe a year or so ago, i went to a lecture by a neurologist from harvard. he's saudi, which is neither here or there other than that it may, perhaps, contribute to a heightened sensitivity on his part to stuff going on in that part of the world.

he was talking about syria, and his overall point was along the lines of what you are saying here. the refugee issue with syria is not simply, or even most significantly, the fact of millions of people who are being dislocated. it's the millions of people who are having extreme trauma seared into their nervous systems. literal, physical neurological damage. for younger people, their very nervous systems are being formed, for life, by years of daily acute trauma.

and there is no-one - no nation, no NGO, no charity, no institution - that has anything like the resources to address that kind of damage at that scale.

it is going to be a generational, maybe multi-generational, legacy.

we damage people at our own peril.

he was talking about Syria...

A similar dynamic has been going on for rather a long time in Afghanistan.
With no end in sight...
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/05/the-great-afghan-paradox-were-not-winning-but-that-doesnt-mean-we-should-leave/
the number of munitions dropped in the first quarter of 2018 was the highest recorded since reporting began in 2013, and is more than two-and-a-half times the amount dropped in the first quarter of 2017...

the bombings will continue until morale improves

Dear Marty,
first off, I apologize for dropping a question and not following up, I'm quite busy, but that being the case, perhaps I shouldn't have dropped the question at all.

But I did have an ulterior motive with the question that I'd like to explain. I don't really relish calling out what I perceive to be racism on your part and I agree that I don't think anyone's mind is going to be changed if I rag on you about it. So I was hoping that the question of open borders might move us away from talking about racism but still deal with the issues. Or at least allow us to explore it without perpetual outrage fatigue.

I understand why there are borders and how it might be important to only allow particular people to cross them, like only allowing people with paid up memberships to use a gym or something similar. But at that point, things break down for me. We clearly need people to pick lettuce and tomatoes, or buss tables or cook meals. At the risk of being called a communist, I would prefer that everyone had a living wage but a lot of these people make much less than I imagine I could survive on and still are able to remit money back to their home countries. So what is it about allowing people to come into the country and make a living that is so problematic?

Hitting wikipedia, it tells me that open border only applies to people, which surprised me a bit, because I assumed that it might also apply to goods or materials. Admittedly, people have free will and goods and raw materials are mostly inert, we don't expect a truckload of ball bearings or machine parts to go on a rampage, and some are trying to suggest that the reason we are doing this is because terrorists are using children as a way of sneaking into the US, but that seems totally far-fetched. So I'm wondering why it is such a big deal to you?

Much of our advancement has been due to 'open borders' where information and goods move freely. That being the case, doesn't the denying of open borders for people limit us?

Thanks Hartmut for that extremely informative comment!

Hartmut: My assumption is that Trump&Co. have no idea about these specific dynamics and believe that a CDU/AfD coalition run by a CSU guy would be feasible, if Merkel could be weakened enough.

It seems more likely that Trump's approach to Merkel is entirely personal. She let him know just how low an opinion she has of him. That is sufficient to explain it all.

Now some of his people (e.g. Miller and Grenell) are sufficiently delusional about US politics that they are likely equally delusional about German politics. But they only get to spew about it because of Trump's personal animus.

instead of prosecution to avoid having to incarcerate people per the court orders.

it's a felony to lie on your security clearance papers. Kushner is still in the White House. GOP doesn't give a shit.

Trump is obviously in violation of the emoluments clause. GOP doesn't give a shit.

brown people ! GOP loses its stupid mind.

pull the other one.

speaking of pull the other one...

“The largest looming shadow of doubt on America’s future is, quite simply, the extent of the nation’s debt,” Committee Chairman Steve Womack (R-Ark.) said in his opening remarks of the two-day markup.

...

The proposed mandatory reduction includes $1.5 trillion from Medicaid, $537 billion from Medicare and $2.6 trillion in reductions to other programs such as welfare, nutritional assistance and other anti-poverty programs.

enjoy those tax cuts.

All I can come away from when thinking about the implications of this freely-chosen, venal mess is that thousands of humans are suffering tremendous early childhood traumas from which the basic arc of their life will be set.

It's not like governments haven't been ripping families apart like forever. It's just that Trump has the gift of rubbing everybody's noses in the things that governments have always done.

enjoy those tax cuts.

I have to wonder how many Trump/Freedom Caucus/Tea Party voters will get the rug pulled out from under them, and whether those who do will know who did it to them.

enjoy those tax cuts.
.
Especially since, at the rate that Trump is expanding his trade wars, the increase in prices will pretty well wipe out the benefits for anyone making under $1 million this year.

I don't understand. The tax cuts Womack voted for were going to produce a surplus we could spend on good things, Marty told us so.

Actually I do understand. Your party lied to you Marty. It's what it does.

Since this is an open thread, this is (mainly) a message for the Count:

I just watched James Corden's Carpool Karaoke with Paul McCartney. I was never a Paul girl, I was a John girl (I know to you musician types this is a frivolous and meaningless statement, and for the purposes of this comment I'm not talking about whether we fancied them or not, it was pretty much who we thought was coolest). But the truth is, hearing those songs sung (as Elvis Costello said) in the right voice, makes the hair stand up on the back of the neck. And parts of it (when you see people in Liverpool reacting to him singing at the end, or even James Corden reacting) are actually quite moving. It was rather a relief from lots of the awfulness on the news etc.

Anyway, I don't want to derail, so: as you were.

Derail away.

The world needs another permanent Beatles derailment.

That made my day.

I note with great melancholy that Paul can't hit the notes longer, for example, in Maybe I'm Amazed.

It was always impossibly miraculous anyway that he could hit the notes he did without going into falsetto. God, what an instrument.

He won't drop the song key either.

To be expected, it's a 76-year old voice that he puts through the meat grinder of three to four shows, and ravaged early on with the ciggies and the weed, but still, it's a loss, like spring without birdsong.

You were an Apple Scruff, kind of. How they loved you.

Three to four-hour shows, it should read.

Nah, I was never an Apple Scruff, although our London flat wasn't far from Apple (or in fact Abbey Road) and we used to drive past sometimes and see their psychedelically painted Rolls Royce (or Bentley? You would know!)

But pretty much everybody had an allegiance to one or other of them, from what I remember even boys did (although at the time I knew very few English boys, being at an all-girls boarding school). But I remember that at school, we used to sit around and analyse their latest albums, and we all portentously (innocently?) decided they were in trouble when we first heard the White Album and listened to such unprecedented stuff as Revolution Number Nine...

I'm taking a break to see U2 at the Garden.

I really like carpool karaoke, haven't seen Paul.

I know to you musician types this is a frivolous and meaningless statement

actually, to us musician types it's an expression of profound aesthetic preference.

tax cuts:

i would be utterly unsurprised if the tax cuts contributed to a nominal increase in gdp.

the question is, who gets the money.

i look at the increases in productivity and gdp over the last 40 years, and i look at the changes in real wages, and the question appears to be answered.

maybe there has been some radical re-odering of our national priorities in favor of working people of which i am somehow unaware. or maybe all of the folks making decisions about where the windfall should be directed have had some kind of pauline metanoia, a damascus road, scales falling from the eyes crisis, and have realized that some of that dough should go to the folks who created it through their own skill, dedication and effort.

maybe this time around it will play out differently.

maybe.

probably not.

i got a tax cut. i'll spend some of mine on RAICES and getting (R)'s out of office.

maybe i'm amazed is a hell of a song.

i got a tax cut. i'll spend some of mine on RAICES and getting (R)'s out of office.

I got very little. But I'll totally support RAICES and getting (R)'s out of office. And put my mouth where my money is.

This is a relatively small matter, but it is symptomatic of the utter cowardice of Republics who continue to enable Trump:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/it-wasnt-a-big-deal-trumps-portrayal-of-his-sanford-insult-goes-largely-unchallenged-by-house-republicans/2018/06/22/c2e46900-763e-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html

Trump looks at the cowards of the GOP and smiles inwardly, knowing that they will never hold him accountable in the only way they can, no matter what Mueller finds.

the GOP is a cult.

and this Christians-only HOA is a bit of a cult, too.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/06/22/bay-view-northern-michigan-resort-ban-non-christians-faces-lawsuit/712707002/

hey, it's an open thread, right?

JAZZ TRIGGER ALERT!!! :)

check these guys, buddies of mine. they had a local residency for about 13 years, a local film-maker made a movie about it, so they got back together for a re-union thing.

just bragging on my pals.

back to your regularly scheduled programming....

I thought the entire point of becoming a musician was to pull the birds.

The more frivolity and meaninglessness the better.

A-wum, toop, three, foie!

She was just seventeen, you know what I mean, and before to long ....

Count, your immersion in the period and the lingo is perfect - you take me right back...

I thought the entire point of becoming a musician was to pull the birds.

the folks who are in it for the dating opportunities pretty much fade away by about age 30.

check these guys

dang.

when that guitar player soled, he didn't even bother looking down at his hands.

back on the political tip - George Will leaves the (R) party.

George freaking Will.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders joins the ranks of Trump staffers shamed out of a DC area restaurant.

A court rules that bars can deny service to people wearing MAGA hats, because they're wearing MAGA hats.

Getting lonely out there for a (R).

A court rules that bars can deny service to people wearing MAGA hats, because they're wearing MAGA hats.

It's satisfying, but if the ruling holds, it works both ways. Or I should say, all ways.

Freedom to refuse to make cakes for gay weddings, freedom to refuse to make mixed drinks for MAGA supporters....freedom to ban Democrats from your bar? I mean, does political affiliation come under freedom of association, or under an argument that says political parties/beliefs don't a protected class make?

Lawyers....what do you think?

"freedom to refuse to make mixed drinks for MAGA supporters....freedom to ban Democrats from your bar?"

The problem was the MAGA hat; I don't think that any bar was checking voter registration cards, and I'm sure there are plenty of bars that would kick you out for wearing a t-shirt that has Trump kissing Putin.

However, I think this is going to get MUCH worse before people figure out that they'd better dial it down.

And that most of the "freedom to ban" actions are going to come from the same a-holes that luvved them some segregation, and who practice political mind-reading.

most of the "freedom to ban" actions are going to come from the same a-holes that luvved them some segregation

Yes. Whether it was clear or not, that was my point.

MAGAts aren't a protected class, as far as I know.

However, I think this is going to get MUCH worse before people figure out that they'd better dial it down.

what does "dial it down" mean?

I understand that there is value in not having people sorting themselves into mutually antagonistic camps. And I'm happy to engage anyone in dialog.

But it's not always possible. Sometimes people espouse points of view that are, frankly, abhorrent.

After the famous "free speech" rally in Boston, I went on the Facebook page of the folks who organized it. Lots of folks were chiming in there, from lots of points of view.

One guy shared his view that the guy who ran over and killed Heather Heyer could not have intended to do it, because it damaged his car, and he had a pretty nice car. Who would damage their car on purpose?

This is not even remotely the most head-shakingly bizarre point of view I've heard over the 15 years or so that I've been talking to the "other side" in an attempt to have an exchange of views.

There was the guy who thought Pinochet was actually a pretty good guy. The guy who would take a bullet for WalMart. All the people who think Milo is an unsung prophet of truth. I can go on and on and on.

The volume knob is stuck well beyond 11. I didn't put it there. WTF does "dial it down" mean, right now?

I'm all out of ideas.

Am I the only one who cares that if a person can be excluded from places of public accommodation for a viewpoint, then we can *all* be excluded because of our viewpoints?

Should we all stop wearing our political messages on our clothing? No bumper stickers on our cars, lest the restaurant of our choice tell us we can't eat there? I wonder how many of Paul LePage's fans would happily exclude me from stores and restaurants because LePage hates land trusts, and my favorite cap advertises the land trust I volunteer for.

Snarki says no one is going to ask to see our voter registration or party membership cards in a bar. I'm not convinced, either that it won't go that far or that "our side" will "win" at that game.

On the one hand, I'm cheering on the bar-owner who bounced the guy in the MAGA hat. On the other, maybe there's a difference between some anonymous bozo in a MAGA hat and Sarah Huckabee-Sanders.

Are you now or have you ever been.......

You're certainly not the only one who cares. This is always the danger of giving in to vengeful impulses, the results cut both ways. Or, to put it another way, it behoves us always to act or support on principle, rather than for personal reasons, because the principle applies no matter the personnel. I read somewhere recently of someone quoting A Man for All Seasons, it may have been about the George Will piece which I was unable to read behind the firewall, but if so I'd lay good odds the bit he quoted was this:

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

Am I the only one who cares that if a person can be excluded from places of public accommodation for a viewpoint, then we can *all* be excluded because of our viewpoints?

The law allows it. That doesn't mean it's wise. It makes news because most businesses want customers. Perhaps Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Kristin Nielson should themselves be more welcoming.

Thomas More lost his head. So even noble principles are sometimes of no avail.

Suppose it was a swastika armband rather than a MAGA cap. Would it make a difference, in principle? How about a big hammer-and-sickle insignia?

A standard comedy trope has a group of obvious nerds, or flamboyant gays, or suit-and-tie bankers, accidentally walking into a biker bar. The bikers all turn to give the newcomers the stink-eye over their brawny tattooed shoulders and the jukebox turns off. It's funny because it's true.

--TP

GftNC, I can't remember if I read the play or saw the 1966 movie first, but I've always loved that passage.

...and you're just the man to do it... -- No punches pulled, even for his son-in-law.

*****

TP: So even noble principles are sometimes of no avail.

I have a hunch Thomas More was well aware that his noble principles would be of no avail.

Suppose it was a swastika armband rather than a MAGA cap.

Getting to be hard to tell the difference.

Nah, real simple. The swastika was black on red. MAGA must, of necessity, be white on red -- anything else would be unthinkable. See? Simple!

Unusual day for me.

I went to a lovely luncheon with many friends of mine, mostly not close, but the person hosting is very close. Every single person was emotionally destroyed with what is happening with the missing children, and doing various things: protesting, contributing, whatever. Many talked about their own mental health issues dealing with this horrible responsibility of living in a democracy and bearing the burden of this administration.

I have a Facebook account, which I almost never used to look at. At least, not until the past couple of weeks, because organizing has been happening near me, and some of that happens on Facebook. Anyway, a friend from long ago, someone who disappeared for years, but for whom I had much respect for many reasons, posted an adulation of Donald Trump. I "unfollowed" this person, whatever that means on Facebook, without "unfriending". I hate Facebook, but more to the point, what do we do with these people who have such destructive hatreds? (Because what else could explain this?)

And yet, this was predictable, because this person is extremely driven, and single minded, and certain. There's no room for "what if". But, incredibly accomplished. And conservative. And making more and more money (all very much earned, IMO.)

But still, have to wonder whether the soul was left behind. I'm not ready to respond to this person. Maybe I should just shake my head and move on.

my point in citing the case of the guy in the maga cap who didn't get served wasn't to say "excellent! let's all deny service to people in maga caps!". it was to point out, per wj's questions about (R) affiliation in the age of trump, that such an affiliation is becoming increasingly toxic.

it's becoming toxic because trump is a crap president, and to all appearances a crap human being, and because he damages the nation and degrades our national discourse on a daily basis.

i'm not sure exactly what response is appropriate to that. i'm still trying to figure it out.

i suspect that "dialing it down" is, precisely, not the right response.

i suspect that "dialing it down" is, precisely, not the right response.

I am remembering, maybe because I've been reminded, of the Plaza de Mayo, the mothers of Argentinians who disappeared. I attend a weekly vigil at lunchtime. It's just started. I'm hoping that the kids are okay, but the fact that the US has disappeared them is not good. We need to stay loud until they are accounted for. Every single child.

The real Thomas More was less of a nice guy than his popular portrayal. He was all for burning (Lutheran) heretics at the stake. And he clearly overdid his panegyrics to Henry to foster his own career.Were it nor for his end, we would likely not look favorably on him.
(for that matter, even ignoring his anti-judaism for a moment, Luther was not actually a prophet of freedom and conscience either).
Still, "A man for all seasons" is worth watching and of relevance today.

It's commonly assumed that Thomas More ghosted Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, for which Henry VIII was awarded the title Fidei Defensor by the then pope. A few years and several popes later, Henry found it convenient to change his mind about Protestantism, and the title was revoked. And a few years after that Henry came up with the amusing idea of having parliament award him the same title.

Because of this, the coins in my pocket carry the notation "F.D." after the queen's name.

Yes, those of us (many of us, from what I remember of a past "favourite books" thread) who loved The Daughter of Time are well aware that the real Thomas More was not the man portrayed in AMFAS. But the man so portrayed is a powerful example, and although, Tony P, it didn't save his head, it did stop him from turning into somebody else.

I always remember a play I saw in 1981, called Good, starring that wonderful actor Alan Howard. It showed how a good man, a German academic, slides by small, seemingly insignificant increments into being a Nazi (an actual Nazi, in 1930s Germany). It was an important lesson about the slippery slope, the thin end of the wedge.

http://www.picks.plus.com/howard/broadwaygood.htm

That's why I think, as difficult and troublesome as it is, people need to think about their reactions and their reactions' long-term ramifications, not just react out of a sense of moral outrage and certainty.

I should mention that this is an aspiration, not something I think I'm all that good at!

But I should make clear that if everyone who supported the policy on separating the children, and supported Trump in general, were to end up feeling that they had done a shameful thing, and were consequently ashamed, that would be a very good thing. And if this came about because they were made to feel it by people who they respected (this is important), that would be the best thing. But it is this last condition that would be the hardest to achieve.

So we are thrown back on democracy, and laws. It's not until we are convinced that they have stopped working that it's time to go rogue...

Am I the only one who cares that if a person can be excluded from places of public accommodation for a viewpoint, then we can *all* be excluded because of our viewpoints?

i care, a lot.

but, i think giving the Sanders' of the world a taste of what they're encouraging others to dish out is worth doing.

The law should say that if you have a bar or restaurant serving the general public, you're not allowed to exclude anyone for any reason other than their behaviour on the premises. But you should have considerable latitude over what behaviour you disallow, including the right to exclude slogans you dislike.

That is, you should be obliged to serve Sanders so long as she's not wearing a MAGA hat.

If you sell goods and services to the general public, you should be obliged to provide generic goods and services to anyone, but you should not have to accept any particular commission. So if you're a baker selling wedding cakes, you should have to sell a generic wedding cake to anyone, but should not be obliged to make any particular cake to order.

For example, if you sell a standard cake carrying figures representing a mixed race couple, you should be obliged to sell one to a Klansman if he wants to buy it, but need not make a special one for him featuring two white people.

Does Sanders eat with that lying republican mouth?

The trolling mpers who get a jones on for Mexican food and have their racist republican asses run out of the restaurants should paraphrase Dick Gregory from the 1960s.

Server: I'm sorry, we don't serve republicans here.

That's ok, I'd rather have the burrito with a pound of Mexican child flesh, anyway.

Remember this shit from the filthy republican mp campaigns:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/11/18/i-voted-for-trump-you-lost-white-starbucks-customer-accuses-barista-of-discrimination/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2efe02804204

You want cake?

Bite this.

The Second Amendment was created to protect us against these scum.

The law should say that if you have a bar or restaurant serving the general public, you're not allowed to exclude anyone for any reason other than their behaviour on the premises. But you should have considerable latitude over what behaviour you disallow, including the right to exclude slogans you dislike.

If the restaurant proprietor is a non-fascist, and the restaurant becomes a regular hangout and meeting place for polite-while-dining fascists, I would think it would make the restaurant proprietor very uncomfortable.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the sentiment, but disagree that the law should prohibit discrimination based on expressed ideology.

Works for me....

It would also work for me if the owner or manager had gone up to her table and said "We're serving you because that's the law, but I want you to know that we think you are colluding with and working to support a shameful, unAmerican regime, and if by any chance you're right that there's a God, you and all your fellow minions will be damned for it."

Works for me referred to Pro Bono's formulation.

I'd say that "behavior on the premises" could easy cover attire. E.g. a MAGA hat. (Or an "I don't care..." jacket.)

But I support the law on not allowing discrimination on the basis of beliefs. (Religious or otherwise.) For that, I think telling the scum point blank that you are only serving them because that is the law, but that they are NOT welcome is a good way to go. We may think of a better one eventually, but that should cover it for the moment.

It occurs to me to wonder if it would be legal to say something like "Because you have demonstrated that you will and do lie at the drop of a hat, we must consider anything that you say here to be a lie. We must therefore require that you pay in cash and in advance." Yeah, it's stretching the point, but would it conform to the letter of the law?

I like it, wj! Would it be legal - probably not, but hopefully lawyers will weigh in.

Well, it IS discrimination based on behavior. Even if it's off-site behavior....

wj: But I support the law on not allowing discrimination on the basis of beliefs. (Religious or otherwise.)

I sort of agree, BUT:

What a person believes is a mystery. Only what a person says or does is visible to other people or to The Law. That goes double for "religious" beliefs.

I don't suppose that anybody here, much less anybody on the Supreme Court, would say that restaurants should be forbidden to have a dress code. Try wearing a baseball cap of any sort at the 21 Club. Dress codes can include requirements as well as prohibitions. Jacket and tie, for instance; and never mind the implicit gender discrimination.

So, what principle or law would I be violating if I owned a bar and imposed the following dress code: a "#MakeAMericaDecentAgain" armband must be worn in here at all times; loaner armbands available at the door.

You don't have to "believe" in America or Decency; you can sport any other insignia you like; you can tell anybody who cares to listen that you despise He, Trump but love his "(Republican) policies", but we have a dress code here, fella. Or missus, as the case may be.

--TP

always remember a play I saw in 1981, called Good, starring that wonderful actor Alan Howard...

I missed that - but I did see him play Richard II and III in the same day sometime around then.
He was a remarkable actor.

The real Thomas More was less of a nice guy than his popular portrayal...

Hilary Mantel rather redressed that balance.

For that, I think telling the scum point blank that you are only serving them because that is the law, but that they are NOT welcome is a good way to go.

I couldn't agree more!

"Because you have demonstrated that you will and do lie at the drop of a hat, we must consider anything that you say here to be a lie. We must therefore require that you pay in cash and in advance." Yeah, it's stretching the point, but would it conform to the letter of the law?

Hopefully! Because, what we need as a country, more than anything else right now, is a bunch of self-righteous, partisan douche bags publicly lecturing others on the moral deficiency of their political beliefs. Support gay marriage? Well, listen to this! Black Lives Matter, Planned Parenthood? Support murdering police officers and unborn babies? Well, have I got news for you. You want gun control? Open borders? Ok, fine, we'll serve you but good luck enjoying your meal in peace.

Along these lines, nothing is more uplifting than a bunch of SJW's interrupting someone's meal while those someone's are trying to enjoy the right--perhaps a former right--to be left alone. Because, SJW's are perfect in their understanding of humanity and understand PERFECTLY all that is true and right in this world. So yes, they have the right and the duty to call out and shame all non-conformists. Just because.

What a depressing conversation.

I think Sapient, WJ and GFTNC should collaborate on a freedom of conscience post.

BTW, I hope my words aren't too harsh. That would be sad and rude. Totally not like giving someone a bucketful of shit in a restaurant.

Because, what we need as a country, more than anything else right now, is a bunch of self-righteous, partisan douche bags publicly lecturing others on the moral deficiency of their political beliefs.

I was not (I hope!) talking about the substance of these folks beliefs. But rather about their willingness to lie. Specifically, to lie about readily verifiable facts (not opinions). It seems to me that that's something rather different from their political beliefs.

I was not (I hope!) talking about the substance of these folks beliefs. But rather about their willingness to lie. Specifically, to lie about readily verifiable facts (not opinions). It seems to me that that's something rather different from their political beliefs.

There you go: since you know others' minds, you should be allowed to ream them out for impure thoughts.

Since I'm on a roll, it occurs to me that it would be cool to accompany Planned Parenthood supporters' meals with pictures of aborted fetuses. You know, because they lie about not believing a fetus is human. They say they aren't lying, but "we" really know they are.

Good times!

WJ, since BLM is founded on a lie (Mike Brown--innocent black male shot down in cold blood for no reason at all, Holder's DOJ doing the cover-up), it's cool to call them out, right?

i suspect most people have some category of behavior, some line, that is just a step too far. such that you no longer care about decorum, or being nice, or perhaps even what the law demands of you.

for some people, separating people from their kids is one of those lines.

ymmv

so, yeah, good times indeed.

McKinney, your use (not for the first time) of the insult SJW, puts you in the same category you were accusing us of being in when we dismissed "Trumpists" as automatically wrong and refuted by definition.

Do you think that (to use your examples) known supporters of gay marriage, Black Lives Matter and Planned Parenthood are NOT insulted, called out and shamed publically? I don't even address your characterisation of the two last as "Support murdering police officers and unborn babies". Do you imagine that we SJWs have been the main public callers-out?

If you don't think that Trump, Sanders et al are damaging the fabric of American life in a way it hasnt been damaged before, that's your prerogative. But the facts (on dishonesty, financial corruption and treason) seem against you.

since BLM is founded on a lie (Mike Brown--innocent black male shot down in cold blood for no reason at all, Holder's DOJ doing the cover-up), it's cool to call them out, right?

i don't think you know much about BLM.

but hell yeah, call them out. they can take it. maybe you'll learn something. maybe both parties will.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad