Category Archives: Politics

March for Science 2017

Leave a reply

It was a wet and gloomy day in Washington DC yesterday, the appointed time for the mothership of the global March for Science, but it had little, if any, effect on the size or enthusiasm of the crowd which had to be in the tens of thousands in DC alone. By the latest count, more than 500 satellite marches were scheduled in all 50 states and around the world. A report and some pictures of the DC march can be found here: http://bit.ly/2pLoSgV

The march will be followed by the Climate March in Washington DC on April 29. Satellite marches will be held around the country and in Canada (and perhaps elsewhere). See https://peoplesclimate.org/

In keeping with his unbroken history, Not-My-President Donald Trump issued a tweet demonstrating his total cluelessness and venality regarding science and the environment:

“Today on Earth Day, we celebrate our beautiful forests, lakes and land. We stand committed to preserving the natural beauty of our nation.”

That statement must be intended solely for his infatuant base since all informed people will recognize that Trump’s actions as President are directly contrary to the interests of science and the environment that sustains us. More on that another time. The turnout for this march shows pretty clearly that the people are not going to stand by idly while the administration wrecks the planet.

For now, I have set out below a few photos I took. It was hard to see much because of the umbrellas and the absence of high ground but these will convey the general gist.

 

I

 

I Am Amazed That Top Government Lawyer in an Office in Washington Doesn’t Understand the Federal Judicial System

Leave a reply

By now you have likely seen the remarkable statement from the Attorney General of the United States, the self-declared unbiased non-racist Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, who was educated at Huntingdon College in Montgomery, AL and the University of Alabama School of Law in Tuscaloosa. If not, here it is:

“I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power.” http://n.pr/2pLWTxZ

Since UASL is accredited by the American Bar Association, it reasonable to expect that it teaches courses on the federal court system and one would hope that AG Sessions took at least one such course. Constitutional Law is in fact a required first-year course that presumably covered at least some core elements of the structure and function of the judicial system.

Now, to be “fair,” I understand that Sessions has — to use the popular “walking it back” theme of current political discourse (“walk back” means “uh oh, I said something really stupid that reflects what I really think but that is going to be really unpopular so I will “walk it back” – imagine a dog, having pooped on the carpet, slinking out of the room backwards) – walked this back. Here’s what he said:

“I wasn’t criticizing the judge or the island. I think it’s a fabulous place and had a granddaughter born there,” he said. “But I got to tell you, it is a point worth making — that a single sitting district judge out of 600, 700 district judges can issue an order stopping a presidential executive order that I believe is fully constitutional, designed to protect the United States of America from terrorist attack.”

Even in “walking back” his first statement, Sessions still refers to Hawaii, as much a state of the United States as Alabama, as “the island,” as if being an island is somehow a lesser status. When asked if he would like to rephrase his statement, the “walking back” ended: “I don’t know that I said anything I would want to phrase differently.” http://cnn.it/2pLBTXN

In fact, of course, the judge in question holds a law degree from Harvard, so, no, rest assured, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III wasn’t criticizing him. Furthest thing from his mind. He was instead just criticizing the entire setup of the judicial system, which in his mind is apparently just a fine thing to do. He typifies the lawyer who can never accept that he lost the case, that his arguments were simply wrong. Or badly presented. No, it must be “that judge” who did me wrong, who sits on an island somewhere. Who does he think he is, anyway?

This might be amusing if it were not a central element in the mind-set of Not-My-President Donald Trump who is never wrong and who is always being mistreated by those Mexican judges or someone else with dubious credentials. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is the lead attorney in the United States government, the head of the Department of Justice! And he apparently doesn’t accept the structure of the federal judiciary.

The literature on authoritarianism is replete with discussions of the dangers to freedom and democracy that arise when the powerful attempt to delegitimize the core institutions that enable democracy to work. We therefore must not simply write Sessions’ remarks off as more buffoonery from the Trump administration. These types of statements are dangerous indicators of the ideology that drives the administration’s agenda. They must be called out for what they are at every opportunity and resisted in every responsible way possible.

I rest my case, Your Honor. At least for a while.

Science – Who Needs It? Everybody

Leave a reply

The attached video by Neil deGrasse Tyson, one of our contemporary geniuses and a true polymath, should be seen by everyone. It is especially appropriate since the March for Science is happening this Saturday. In addition to the main march in Washington DC, there are now 517 “satellite marches” around the world. See https://www.marchforscience.com/ People who believe in science are about to make a powerful statement.

There is nothing meaningful I can add to the video, so, uncharacteristically, I’m going to just put the Facebook link in here and urge everyone to view it. It’s only four minutes long.

https://www.facebook.com/neildegrassetyson/videos/10155195888806613/

March for Science on Earth Day – April 22 & Write the EPA

Leave a reply

Having just come off the Tax March this past Saturday, my aching back is preparing for another long walk on Earth Day, April 22. While it is likely that Not-My-President Trump will be vacationing and golfing yet again at his Mar-a-Lago palace in Florida, the event will surely attract media attention and, like the Tax March, Trump will be watching. This was his tweet about the Tax March:

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump  Apr 16

Someone should look into who paid for the small organized rallies yesterday. The election is over!

And my response:

ShiningSeaUSA‏ @ShiningSeaUSA  Replying to @realDonaldTrump

Not small. I was there. U were playing king in FL castle. Paid my own way. U didn’t. One election over. Next one not.

He will likely lie about the size and intensity of the March for Science just as he did about the Tax March. But the people will keep marching and he will keep lying until maybe, just maybe, the Russia connection will be uncovered and he will face the unpleasant music that grows louder with each revelation. The drumbeat grows stronger every week and Trump can hear it even through the walls of the White House, Trump Tower and his palace in Florida.

Meanwhile, we’re stuck with him and everyone … and I mean everyone … has a decision to make. Trump and his team of corporate insiders are rapidly dismantling critical environmental protections established from as far back as the Clinton administration. Trump and his gang of thieves appear to believe that they and their ultra-privileged heirs can afford to buy all the clean water they want and that by some magic trick, they will be able to avoid breathing the polluted air their friends will spew into the atmosphere once freed of the EPA’s controls. The Washington Post reports that the overwhelming majority of comments to the Commerce Department regarding the Trump “regulatory rollback” relate, directly or indirectly, to the EPA and the environmental restraints on the polluting industries.  http://wapo.st/2onrSyr. The polluters are demanding the freedom to wreak havoc on the world and we are all that stands in the way.

Meanwhile, the EPA itself is soliciting comments on the Trump regulatory rollback. See https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190. As of this writing there were already 723 comments filed. The comment deadline is May 15, 2017. You can file anonymously if you must, but you will be joining hundreds of Americans who are objecting to the slash-and-burn policies of the Trump administration. Filing is easy. Read just a few of the other comments and then just say what you believe. Your life and the lives of your descendants may depend on thwarting the administration in its campaign to sell out America to the polluters.

This is what democracy looks like. It takes some work but it can do the job if we support it. Don’t let Trump’s people get away with saying “we asked for input and didn’t get much, therefore we conclude that the public is on board with our program to eliminate meaningful environmental regulations.” If you can’t join the marches for whatever reason, let your fingers do the walking for you by objecting to the end of responsible environmental regulation. Do it now. Please.

Tax March DC 2017

Leave a reply

Yesterday tens of thousands of Americans gathered in cities across the country to demand that the sitting President of the United States release his tax returns so that the country can decide for itself whether there are concerning ties to Russia, whether and where lie his continuing conflicts of interest resulting from failure to divorce himself fully from his business interests and how he and his family may benefit from changes in the federal tax code now being considered.

There are also many questions whether he has lied about his charitable giving, the scale of his earnings and others. Trump first said he would release his returns when the audits were finished. That excuse fails on multiple grounds. He signed the returns when they were filed and, as we all do, vouched for their accuracy and completeness. The audit may reveal issues with those criteria, or other failings, but the audit, which Trump could and likely would contest for years, is no excuse for withholding the returns from public scrutiny. As many of the signs at yesterday’s march stated: what is Trump hiding? T

he same question arises due to the Trump decision to withhold from public view the visitor logs to the White House. The proposed excuses for this latest example of secret government are security and privacy. The security question can easily be handled by time delaying the release or by masking names where there is a legitimate security reason for not disclosing a visitor to the White House. In an open democracy those should be few and far between. The privacy rationale is ludicrous coming from an administration that supports letting Internet providers sell the browsing records of their users.

For those interested but couldn’t attend a march personally, I have attached 116 images from the march in the District of Columbia which was massive. The photos from ground level do not fully reveal the size of the event nor, of course, the sounds.

Next up is the March for Science on Earth Day, Saturday, April 22. I urge you to join this march to convey to the administration that the people of this country are not going to accept the dismantling of the environmental protections that have been put in place to protect our life-essential air, water, bio-diversity and other natural elements critical to life on the one planet on which we can live. See this site for information:  https://www.marchforscience.com/

Mitch McConnell – Hypocrite for the Ages

Leave a reply

In the April 6 edition of the Washington Post, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wrote “Reaping what they have sown,” devoted to blaming the Democratic Party in Congress for, in effect, forcing Republicans to use the “nuclear option” to stop the filibuster of the Supreme Court nomination of Neil Gorsuch. http://wapo.st/2oVsKeP. McConnell called the Democratic filibuster of the Gorsuch nomination an “unprecedented attack on the traditions of the Senate.”

Not one word of McConnell’s 753-word “the devil made me do it” disquisition mentions the refusal of the Republican Party last year to even given a hearing, let alone a Senate vote, on President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland for the seat that has now gone to Gorsuch.

Upon close examination, the real thrust of the piece is not to poke the Democrats about resisting Gorsuch per se. It is rather to say to Democrats, and everyone else watching: “we beat you on this one and now you should start cooperating with us and the Trump agenda instead of your “blind “resistance” to anything and everything this president proposes.”

Ah, yes, it’s time to stop resisting and start cooperating. See my blog post immediately preceding this one, entitled “On Tyranny-Read It Now.” McConnell’s call for “cooperation” is precisely what Timothy Snyder warns against in his prescient treatment of the sources of authoritarianism.

McConnell’s piece ends with this:

“Perhaps this is the moment Democrats will begin again to listen the many Americans – the people who sent us here – who want real solutions so we can work together to help move our country forward.”

Consistently with the rest of his thoughts, McConnell overlooks the fact that while Trump won the Electoral College vote, the majority of American’s voted for someone else. There is no case for listening to the Republican minority now. Indeed, as the former Democrats who flipped for Trump continue to become aware of how the Trump/McConnell/Ryan agenda is going to actually defeat their interests, it is reasonable to expect, by 2018 mid-terms, a significant shift away from the party that proposes to gut the federal government, reverse the environmental rules that have resulted in massive improvements in air and water quality and … on and on. Mr. McConnell is feeling pretty smug right now so he can, with a straight face, now call on Democrats to “cooperate.”

As long as the President of the United States continues to lie about the Russia connection (see “White House assertions on intelligence and Russia” in Fact Checker, Washington Post print edition, Sunday, April 9, 2017, inexplicably not online, at A2), promotes health legislation that reduces coverage for millions, supports desecration the environment and wanton killing of animals on federal land, to name just a few, there can be no “cooperation.” McConnell and the Republican Party’s hypocrisy is on full display now as the administration careens from one side of the listing ship of state to the other, with no principled leadership or strategy. So, NO, Mr. McConnell, there will be no “cooperation.”

On Tyranny – Read It Now

Leave a reply

On his CNN show last Sunday, Fareed Zakaria recommended that viewers read On Tyranny, by noted Yale University Professor of History, Timothy Snyder. You can read about him here: http://history.yale.edu/people/timothy-snyder.

The subtitle of the 126-page book is “Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.” Using examples from the history of Europe and other places where dictatorships and far-right authoritarian regimes have arisen, Snyder sets out advice, well-grounded in history, of how people in the United States should respond to the threats to democracy that are now flourishing in the United States. Some of the “lessons” may seem simple in their expression, but Snyder powerfully connects them to historical experience elsewhere. It is a “how to” guide to resisting the slide toward authoritarian governance.

The compelling first chapter, for example, is entitled “Do not obey in advance” and explains the concept of “anticipatory obedience” and where it can lead. I found Chapter 17 particularly compelling. It’s titled “Listen for dangerous words” and explains it this way:

“A Nazi leader out-maneuvers his opponents by manufacturing a general conviction the present moment is exceptional, and then transforming that state of exception into a permanent emergency. Citizens then trade real freedom for fake safety.” [On Tyranny at 100].

On Tyranny is an important work that should be read by everyone interested in the disrupted and disruptive political situation faced by the United States under the Trump administration.

I have thought a lot about the source of this book’s power. In part, I think, it derives from the very brevity of the messages and supporting material. The 126 pages are only 4.5 by 6.75 inches – you can carry in the back pocket of your jeans

But the call-outs are not merely cheap and easy aphorisms. They are deep concepts that should be absorbed and acted upon by all who want to preserve the Land of the Free. If you are concerned about what is happening to America under the Trump administration, you should read this book. You can find it here: http://amzn.to/2ouLXHs and here: http://bit.ly/2oRXmx8.

 

Trump and Putin – Two Peas

Leave a reply

Commentators continue to marvel and puzzle over Not-My-President Trump’s apparent adulation of Vladimir Putin and, in turn, the adulation of Trump by the Rust Belt workers and families who have historically been the Democratic base. I have a theory of my own based on my and others’ observations of Trump’s behavior during the campaigns and since taking office.

Recall Jimmy Connors, the great tennis champion of the 1970s and 1980s who was known for his fierce competitive drive. When asked for an explanation of his ferocity in what had been a gentlemanly game, he said “I hate to lose more than I love to win.”

Trump sold his political base on much the same idea. With him as President, he claimed, the Rust Belt workers, who were either unemployed (and possibly unemployable) or were hanging onto tenuous positions in dying industries like coal mining and raw steel production and who felt, rightly, that they had “lost” something, would “win” again. No more losing!

Generally, behavioral economists tell us, loss-aversion is a stronger force on people’s thinking than is the opportunity to gain an equivalent value. Like Jimmy Connors, people really hate to lose especially employment that, in the American ethos, is so central to people’s sense of self-esteem. That was the psychology that Trump played to in the campaign with his “jobs, jobs, jobs” and “Make America Great Again” themes. He called the Rust Belt voters the “forgotten people” and assured them they were “forgotten no longer.”

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton was announcing multi-part complex plans to solve the dis-employment problem while promising to put coal companies and their employees out of business and condemning Trump’s supporters as “deplorables.” In essence, Trump’s simple message, while phrased in terms of “so much winning,” was actually “When I am president, you will no longer be losers.” By touching the “loser nerve,” Trump was able to capture the deep loyalty of his fan base that is seemingly impervious to repeated proofs that he has lied or made demonstrably false statements.

Now consider Putin. Many knowledgeable people in the Western world would describe Putin as dishonest, corrupt, despotic, a murderer and generally an immoral and evil person. To that description, Putin would likely have one answer: “Am I winning?”

Putin’s answer would be ‘yes,’ though the price of his “winning” is being paid in impoverishment of much of the Russian population along with suppression of opposition speech, among other horrors. To which Putin would respond again, with a smirk, “Am I winning?” That is the only relevant metric for him. His political goal, to the extent one exists beyond ill-gotten accrual of personal wealth, and the likely source of such support as he enjoys among some Russians is the restoration of the Russia of days gone by – a global superpower equal to or even dominant over the United States and the “West.” Not too far in concept from Trump’s “Make America Great Again” theme. Putin uses different techniques than Trump to advance his agenda, but in fundamental ways the goals are very similar. The crucial point is that losing and winning are not equivalents. “Avoiding loss” carries more psychological heft than “winning.”

That perception is, I believe, the true meaning behind the question he reportedly kept asking as the ObamaCare “repeal and replace” legislation unraveled: “Is the Ryan legislation a good bill?” He really meant “am I going to lose with this bill?”  When it became clear that losing was almost certain to happen, he abandoned the effort before the losing could become choate in a House floor vote.

Trump hates to lose and ending the healthcare fight was a way to avoid losing, even if in reality he did not achieve his goal and by any objective standard would be seen as having lost with resulting damage to his self-image as an infallible deal-maker. When he was widely portrayed in the media as having lost the ObamaCare replacement fight, he immediately reversed course and said that the battle was not over and that negotiations were on-going, an assertion now shown by recent reports to be true. http://wapo.st/2nYE37S.

Given Trump’s history and lifestyle, it is hard to imagine he ever really got to know people like those who are now his most ardent supporters. It is highly unlikely that he is capable of genuine empathy regarding their situation. But Trump doesn’t have to genuinely care about those people in order to “win” with them. He showed during the health care battle that he was prepared to deprive millions of them of health care coverage in order to avoid losing the fight to repeal ObamaCare. And, by recent accounts of what is being discussed among Republicans as a “compromise” approach, the “essential benefits” and “pre-existing conditions” coverages that he promised to keep are now expendable. One solution reportedly being considered is to amend the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) so that the states can individually decide which essential benefits to retain. In the states the influence of the giant corporations and the big-money SuperPACS is even greater than at the federal level, so the principal benefits of the ACA will likely be diluted or eliminated.

On the other hand, we are now witnessing an apparent backlash against Trump’s agenda at multiple Town Hall meetings of Republican legislators. Republicans are facing the wrath of their constituents who are finally beginning to recognize the threat of the Republican agenda to their welfare. The reality that Trump lied to them appears to be sinking in, as his popularity in polls has fallen to 35 percent.

It is, on the other hand, often reported that many of his infatuants still appear to forgive him every sin, no matter what he does or says. These folks are impacted by a real conundrum. Trump promised to lift them up from their “loser” status. He is failing to deliver on those promises, but his base really hates to return to being losers. Losing is the worst thing and they have nowhere else to turn that offers the same comfort. So they reject the idea that their chosen champion has played them. They refuse to accept a self-image of being losers and … chumps.

Putin, of course, doesn’t have to worry about whether his constituents approve of his policies. His dictatorial control over the state machinery of compulsion assures that he cannot be displaced or even seriously challenged. Putin hates to lose too and no doubt understands what might happen to him if he were displaced, given that Russia is not wedded to the peaceful transfer of power. He would readily crush any opposition with any and all means at his disposal.

Trump doesn’t have the same tools at this disposal as Putin, so he is forced to negotiate when he would prefer to dictate. That Trump admires Putin so much is one of the most disturbing aspects of his status as President of the United States. One wonders whether Trump would attempt to use the instruments of state compulsion to get his way if he believed he was otherwise completely blocked and that he was losing his hold on the infatuants who continue to believe he can do no wrong. He is showing signs of that in his deportation policy and in the latest announcement that the Department of Justice consent decrees on law enforcement practices in some major cities may have gone too far in compelling the use of non-violent policing practices.

Ultimately, Trump’s affection for Putin may be his undoing. The investigation of the Russia connections, and possible collusion, involved in the presidential campaign is on-going and almost every day some new revelation emerges that strengthens both the concern about possible collusion to influence the election and the concern about Trump’s efforts to sabotage the investigations. To the more suspicious mind, there is a major cover-up underway whose unmasking would likely bring about the premature end of the Trump presidency.

Assuming that does not occur, the 2018 electoral season is afoot and it’s time to prepare to act where it matters most. The challenge for the Democrats is to relearn the language that in the past had earned them the voting loyalty of the working-class American. It is not enough to offer complicated ten-point plans to these citizens. They have experienced loss, are suffering deeply as a result, both economically and psychologically. If Democrats are to be successful in regaining their prominence with this voting group, they have to change how and what they are communicating. Trump still knows how to talk their language and the Democrats need to catch up.

And they need to do it fast.

Killing Us Bigly – Trump Environment Policy

Leave a reply

Killing Us Bigly – Trump Environment Policy

Surely Neil DeGrasse Tyson is one of the smartest, and I think also the funniest, humans on Earth.

In Death by Black Hole (2007) he devoted the first chapter, “Coming to Our Senses,” to the reality that the five senses humans enjoy, while robust for many purposes, are insufficient to help us understand the world and the universe. He wrote this:

“Consider that the human machine, while good at decoding the basics of our immediate environment – like when its day or night or when a creature is about to eat us – has very little talent for decoding how the rest of nature works without the tools of science. If we want to know what’s out there then we require detectors other than the ones we are born with. In nearly every case, the job of a scientific apparatus is to transcend the breadth and depth of our senses.” [Death by Black Hole at 26]

He expanded that idea by noting that the development of our senses as we grow up helps us make sense of the world but almost no scientific discoveries in the past hundred years were accomplished by relying just on our senses. Instead, they came through the use of mathematics and human-created hardware. Id. at 29.

And finally Tyson made this powerful point:

“Our five senses even interfere with sensible answers to stupid metaphysical questions like, “If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”” My best answer is, “How do you know it fell?” But that just gets people angry. So I offer a senseless analogy, “Q: If you can’t smell the carbon monoxide, then how do you know it’s there? A: You drop dead.” In modern times, if the sole measure of what’s out there flows from your five senses then a precarious life awaits you.” [Id. at 30]

That brings me to the environment “agenda” of Not-My-President Trump. His proposed budget, which is subject to review and adoption by Congress, seeks to lay off 25 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency staff, terminate 56 programs involving restoration of some of America’s largest and dangerously polluted bodies of water (the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay). See details at http://wapo.st/2nJy9FX.

To the extent that there is any solace in these proposals, some funding would be directed at the states who would, in theory, act to protect the environment in lieu of the federal government. However, at the root of this view is the inevitability that the influence of the large polluters on state regulators is likely to be significantly greater than they have been able to exercise at the federal level. The threat to “move our assets, and jobs, elsewhere” is powerful lever against aggressive environmental regulation by states and localities, creating a “race to the bottom” among the states to show the big polluters that they are a “coal friendly” or “farmer friendly” state where regulation in the name of the environment is nothing to be feared.

In addition to the possibility, however remote, that the Republican-dominated Congress will reject those drastic cuts, coalitions of environmental groups are using the courts to challenge Trump’s effort to turn environmental protection over to the polluters. See http://wapo.st/2nMn7B6. These actions portend a long fight to protect the country and the world from the Trump agenda to reduce or eliminate regulation of corporate behavior in the interest of the biosphere.

Trump’s approach to the environment is not a “conservative” program. It more closely resembles something an anarchist would propose. Not surprising, perhaps, considering the prominent position at Trump’s right and left hands of Steve Bannon who has vowed to “deconstruct the administrative state.”

There can be no reasonable doubt that the implementation of Trump’s plans will result in many deaths, not only of animals and their habitat, but of humans as well. I haven’t seen any estimates, partly, I think, because Trump’s proposals are in a state of flux and get more draconian with each iteration. But deaths will surely result, along with more black lung disease, cancer and other avoidable ailments arising from lack of care for the environment.

The number and quality of “new jobs” created due to the removal of environmental protections will be miniscule compared to the costs to humans and the planet. All of the regulations that Trump is now sweeping away through Executive Orders and budget hatchet jobs were carefully evaluated, before adoption, for costs and benefits as required by federal law. The destruction of the environmental safety net is not being accompanied by a similar demonstration of costs and benefits.

The ensuing damage to the biosphere and the deaths of animal and human life that will inevitably result from Trump’s policies will be laid by history at Trump’s feet. The blood will be on his hands and on the hands of his enablers in Congress. But the pain and suffering will be felt by others.

Disturbingly, in my view, a contrary view was set out in the Washington Post on Sunday, April 2 at B1 (not posted on WaPo website). The article by Ben Adler, a New York journalist, is entitled “Trump can’t do much to worsen climate change.” As I understand it, Adler’s basic point is that Trump’s anti-environmental policies in the U.S. cannot by themselves do much to worsen global warming and, in any event, other countries will likely step up their game to offset the negative contributions of the United States.

That, I suggest, is wishful thinking of the worst kind. The United States has been a leading force in bringing about the Paris Agreement under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Paris treaty went into effect in the United States just days before the last presidential election. http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php.

There are no guarantees that other countries will not lose their resolve in the wake of the United States’ retreat from its commitments as the Trump administration appears intent to do. Moreover, whatever other countries may do in the way of offsets on a global scale will do nothing to resolve the air and water pollution and habitat destruction that Trump’s no-nothing approach to the environment will impose directly on the United States.

If you have young children, or grandchildren, you no doubt understand already the harsh future that Trump’s policies will yield. If so, you should immediately engage with the Resistance to oppose what the administration is trying to do. It is not enough now to wring your hands and hope for better days after the mid-term elections. The damage will have been done by then. It is time now to join actively with the Resistance by connecting with MoveOn.org, PeoplePower.org, the ACLU, Indivisible, the Sierra Club and any of the many other organizations actively working right now to stop the desecration of the planet which is the only home the human race is going to have in any time frame that matters. Just ask Neil deGrasse Tyson.

The White House Press Corps Must Do Its Job

Leave a reply

Most weekdays White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer holds a Daily Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sean Spicer, during which members of the White House “press corps” sit in a small room, listen to a recitation of White House “news” and, when signaled by Spicer, ask him questions. March 28 was No. 30 in the series. You can, if so inclined, read the transcripts of these events, with a day’s delay, at http://bit.ly/2nMPMqv. The contests are also covered on radio and sometimes on television. I caught part of the March 28 episode on radio, during which Spicer lambasted a reporter for “shaking your head” while he was rejecting her question, and decided to read the entire transcript.

Because the mission of the free press is to discover and report the factual news, what we might call reality or as close to reality as they can get, while the working hypothesis of the Trump administration is that the free press is out to get the President through “fake news” (i.e., anything Trump doesn’t like), these sessions often have a competitive edge to them. Indeed, you might say there is a lot of hostility, both expressed and implied. Some of this conflict is natural and has been around for decades. The White House always wants the news to be good and the press brings to the table an innate skepticism about much of what politicians have to say. Nevertheless, the Trump administration has, perhaps uniquely, declared open war on the press, describing it, in a phrase borrowed from dictators and autocrats over the ages, as the “enemy of the people.”

Turning to the Spicer performance, he said this:

“One of those places that he [Trump] hopes to find common ground with Senate Democrats … is the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.  Yesterday, many Senate Democrats began declaring support for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s partisan filibuster of Judge Neil Gorsuch….

Leading Democrats have lamented these tactics as recently as last year [citing statements by Senator Schumer, Hillary Clinton and Senator Claire McCaskill who tweeted “[T]he constitution says the Senate shall advise and consent.  And that means having an up-or-down vote.”] ….

When the shoe was on the other foot, when a Supreme Court nominee for a Democratic President went through the confirmation hearings and meetings with senators from both parties, neither Justices Kagan nor Sotomayor faced an attempted Senate filibuster.  Both received Republican votes in support of their confirmations.

In fact, during the Kagan nomination, on the Senate floor, when Senate Leader Harry Reid planned to file a cloture motion to bring Kagan to a vote, it was then-Senator and now current Attorney General Jeff Sessions who … asked Senator Reid to proceed with a vote without the need for overcoming a Republican filibuster.

Judge Gorsuch has met with most of the Senate Democratic caucus.  He has gone through days of hearings and answered probing questions.  He is eminently qualified and deserves the deference and consideration from the minority Senate Democrats that President Obama’s selections were given once they had gone through the confirmation process.” [Italics added]

Wow! That one takes my breath away. Notice the phrasing “when a Supreme Court nominee for a Democratic President went through the confirmation hearings” and “once they had gone through the confirmation process.” That language enables Spicer to completely ignore the fact that the Republicans refused to give even a hearing to President Obama’s nominee for the same Supreme Court seat. Nicely done, Mr. Spicer. You juked and dodged around that one without a challenge!

Later, Spicer said: “… the President was pleased to see that Ford announced $1.2 billion investment in three manufacturing facilities in Michigan, just two weeks after automobile executives came to the White House and met with the President.”

Another whopper. Trump once again claims credit for something that Ford Motor Company, according to its President for the Americas, as reported in the Detroit News, has been working up for “quite some time. It’s a mixed bag here for what’s new.”  http://detne.ws/2nGDC24. Ford’s own announcement on March 28 did not mention Trump or their meeting. http://ford.to/2nedho9.

Eamon Javers of CNBC asked this:

“… the White House is saying that they’re going to reverse President Obama’s so-called “war on coal.”  But a lot of people in the coal industry suggest that jobs are just not going to come back in that industry, based on the way the industry has changed, technology and other things.  Does this administration have an estimate of how many jobs will be created as a result of the actions it’s taking today?

Spicer’s response: “I’m not aware of one, an estimate….” He went on the say that miners and mine owners who had been invited to the White House were big supporters and that was enough.

Clearly, the White House has no clear idea what the job-creating effects of the reversal of environmental restrictions on the coal industry will be. The administration is simply taking the word of the industry that it’s “going to make coal great again,” and is disregarding the painstaking work that went into the Clean Power Plan to estimate the benefits and costs, as required by law. The MCGA move will result in huge environmental damage while likely yielding an insignificant number of new jobs.

But that is small potatoes compared to what followed.

Francesca Chambers of Mail Online asked:

“Yesterday you weren’t able to tell us very much about Congressman Nunes’s visit to the … White House grounds to view classified information last week.  A Democrat on the committee today said that the White House would have known that he was here.  The same Democrat also said that it looked like a criminal cover-up to him.  My question to you is, have you learned any more information since we had this conversation yesterday about how he would have even gotten in and how he would have gotten cleared?

Here is Spicer’s response:

“I think the thing that’s important to note is there is somewhat of a double standard when it comes to classified information.  When leaks are made illegally to the press, and you all report them, the coverage focuses almost entirely on the substance of the allegation and that are part of an illegal lead, not on the illegal nature of the disclosure, the identity of the leaks, or their agenda.

But when the information that is occurring now, which is two individuals who were properly cleared — or three, or whoever he met with — I don’t know — that they are sharing stuff that is entirely legal with the appropriate clearances — and then there is an obsession on the process.

… it’s a backwards way that when you all report on stuff with sources that are leaking — illegally leaking classified information, that’s appropriate and fine.  No one questions that — the substance and material.  When two individuals, or however many are engaged in this process, have a discussion that is 100 percent legal and appropriate and cleared, suddenly the obsession becomes about the process and not the substance.

And I think that it is somewhat reckless and — how the conversation over classified information is discussed without — while sort of attempting to press a false narrative that exists.  So while it is completely appropriate to share classified information with individuals who are cleared, it is clearly not the case to do that when it is illegally leaked out.  And I think that’s sort of the irony of how this whole conversation has …. [Note: transcript ends here]”

Spicer never came close to answering the question that was asked, which was: ““have you learned any more information since we had this conversation yesterday about how he would have even gotten in and how he would have gotten cleared?” Instead, he launched an attack on the media’s treatment of leaks, the standard playbook for almost every question that relates to whether Trump and colleagues colluded with Russia to influence the last election.

And he got away with it! The closest he came to a substantive response is this exchange with another reporter: “So we’re taking what you’re saying as assurances that Chairman Nunes’s decision to call of [sic: s/b “off”] that hearing did not have anything to do with any pressure from with [sic] White House? Spicer’s answer: “No.”

Then there was this exchange:

“Does the President still believe that climate change is a hoax?

Spicer’s reply:

“I think you will hear more today about the climate and what he believes.  I think he understands — he does not believe that — as I mentioned at the outset, that there is a binary choice between job creation, economic growth, and caring about the environment.  And that’s what we should be focusing on.  I think, at the end of the day, where we should be focusing on is making sure that all Americans have clean water, clean air, and that we do what we can to preserve and protect our [transcript ends].”

Of all the questions asked at this briefing, that one, you would think, could be answered with a simple, direct “yes or no.” The equivocation suggests that the actions the President has taken to eviscerate the Environmental Protection Agency and other abrupt removals of restraints on air and water pollution show that the President of the United States sticks to his earlier claims that “climate change is a hoax.”

It’s also a fair conclusion that, despite the dissembling, the press corps never laid a glove on Spicer or Trump, despite multiple opportunities to challenge falsehoods, distortions and deflections. It’s perhaps too early for a final judgment but this experience suggests that Trump is winning the disinformation battle with the media. If so, we are in serious trouble.

If you are concerned about this, you should communicate with the principal media organizations on which you depend to find out and report the truth. Tell them they must not sit like lumps of clay when confronted with overt dissembling, avoidance of hard questions and outright false statements. It is difficult, but the members of the White House press corps must aggressively press for answers to their questions and challenge the evasions with which the March 28 event was replete.