From "Half Empty" by David Rakoff (who was facing the cancer treatment of amputation of his left arm and shoulder):
A friend asks if I’ve “picked out” my prosthetic yet, as though I’d have my choice of titanium-plated cyborgiana at my disposal, like some amputee Second Life World of Warcraft character. Another friend, upon hearing my news, utters an unedited, “Oh my God, that’s so depressing!” Over supper, I am asked by another, “So if it goes to the lungs, is it all over?”...In a somewhat similar vein, in the NYT: "Trump’s Not Alone. A Lincoln Condolence Letter Stirred Controversy, Too."
But here’s the point I want to make about the stuff people say. Unless someone looks you in the eye and hisses, “You fucking asshole, I can’t wait until you die of this,” people are really trying their best. Just like being happy and sad, you will find yourself on both sides of the equation many times over your lifetime, either saying or hearing the wrong thing. Let’s all give each other a pass, shall we?
If we make it too hard to talk to a person in dire circumstances, a lot of people will play it safe and not speak at all.
Indeed, John Kelly advised Trump against calling the widows of fallen soldiers. But that's not the kind of person Trump is. He goes ahead and speaks, even though it's often imperfect, and he knows he's got antagonists ready to jump on anything he says. I've regarded him as a free-speech inspiration ever since I had a dream about him — long before the election — in which I hugged him and thanked him for showing that free speech — with mistakes, straight from the human head — is much better than inhibition, self-censorship, and holding back until you've somehow arrived at the ability to get it exactly right.
Here's something Scott Adams wrote (in the WSJ) about Trump's imperfect speech:
When Mr. Trump smack-tweets a notable public critic... it violates our expectations of his office. That's what makes it both entertaining and memorable. He often injects into his tweets what memory expert Carmen Simon calls a "little bit of wrongness" to make it hard to look away. If the wrongness alarms you, consider that for years he has adroitly operated within a narrow range of useful wrongness on Twitter without going too far. That suggests technique. In the Twitter environment, strategic wrongness is jet fuel.That's not about giving people a pass and tolerating wrongness. In this analysis, a little bit of wrongness is a good thing.
The Carmen Simon idea is: Impossible to Ignore. A different value of a little bit of wrongness is: Proof of Humanity. If you say things that aren't entirely correct, it shows you're not tightly scripted, that you are speaking the thoughts that are alive in your head right now. Perhaps when the President awkwardly connects volunteering for the military, understanding the risks, and the meaning of courage and, literally, it seems to say that the man signed up to die, the response should be something more like, Thank you for letting me see your imperfection, your humanity.
Posts
221 comments:
1 – 200 of 221 Newer› Newest»David Rakoff was a treasure, and I miss his presence in the world.
A truly gracious and wildy gifted man.
I've had this same thought about giving people a pass. If someone says something wrong, at least they put themselves out there to say something at all! And that's hilarious that you dreamed up Trump as a speech warrior. I love it. -- Jessica
Let’s all give each other a pass, shall we?
Ha Ha ha ...
There is no way the Left will ever honor this...they can't. Their whole reason for existence is precisely not to give people a pass. Grievance is the fuel and currency of the Left, their entire raison d'etre.
That UPS logo on the side of their trucks with that bizarrely projected globe uses that principle.
Trump looks human while most politicians look phony. My father-in-law knew Hubert Humphrey and said he was witty and funny in person. In political speeches, he was a stiff. Some have said the same about Bush although alcohol might have been the source of some of Bush's private wit.
Trump is Trump.
Must admit, Now I Know! has a point about Althouse giving Trump a total pass. There really are no standards any more.
"Must admit..."
Yeah, you are "admitting"...
Don't you hear your own bullshit?
Great analysis of Trump by Althouse. Should be required reading at the DNC, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, WaPo, CBS and NYT. But they need to destroy Trump.
But here’s the point I want to make about the stuff people say. Unless someone looks you in the eye and hisses, “You fucking asshole, I can’t wait until you die of this,” people are really trying their best...
Rakoff's lovely writing doesn't apply to Trump. Trump has been one of those people who hisses, Low Energy Jeb! Little Marco! Lyin' Ted! I have people in Hawaii finding things they can't believe! A firing squad for Bergdahl! Those shots they give to these beautiful little children, and then they are never the same! I saw thousands of people cheering on 9/11!
There is intent with Trump. Intent, and the most stubborn refusal to apologize in modern public life.
In the instance of Mrs. Johnson, all reasonable people must acknowledge that Trump did not wish to speak ill of her husband or to do anything but perform his own kind of presidential consolation. And so Althouse's point (through David Rakoff) has merit.
But it exists against the background of Trump being an intentional prick.
I don’t remember Ann writing this when Hillary made her one gaffe in the campaign with her “deplorables” comment.
The Doofus-in-Chief try’s to offend everyday. He is like the insult comic, except he is never funny.
His one-trick act is now getting really old and you can now feel the country fully turning on him.
In that way he will be an unifier.
"...ever since I had a dream about him — long before the election — in which I hugged him and thanked him for showing that free speech ..."
Easy to see the snark that this will probably draw.
Althouse no doubt knows that, and wrote it anyway.
Which supports the point of the post.
I am Laslo.
If we make it too hard to talk to a person in dire circumstances, a lot of people will play it safe and not speak at all.
You don't even need the "in dire circumstances".
you can now feel the country fully turning on him.
Oh brother.
I don’t remember Ann writing this when Hillary made her one gaffe in the campaign with her “deplorables” comment.
At least she said an actual insult...I'll see your Deplorables and raise you a binder full of women......
Ann Althouse said...
"Must admit..."
Yeah, you are "admitting"...
To be fair, I partially disagreed with Now I Know! on this issue in an earlier thread and am now conceding that they have a point.
Part of what Trump has accomplished with his insult theater is to make his critics incredibly dull.
Do you see Althouse? Not only are they unwilling to give Trump a pass ever, about anything....they are unwilling to give you a pass unless you are constantly attacking Trump.
All this focus on words, and tone, and etiquette. You'd think he wore the wrong color gloves to the theater.
It's not surprising that people whose medium is words consider words all important, but Terence, this is stupid stuff.
I, too, dislike it: there are things that are important beyond all this fiddle.
"Let’s all give each other a pass, shall we?" The whole point of prog politics is to beat down the opposition, everywhere, all the time. No one gets a pass, ever. Call it the Justine Sacco Syndrome.
"If we make it too hard to talk to a person in dire circumstances, a lot of people will play it safe and not speak at all." So? If people can't speak correctly, or think correctly, regardless of circumstances, they'd better STFU. This has been the leftist MO everywhere they have had power for the last century. In any case, men should not want to say anything women don't want to hear.
"A different value of a little bit of wrongness is: Proof of Humanity. If you say things that aren't entirely correct, it shows you're not tightly scripted . . . thank you for letting me see your imperfection, your humanity." That's sweet, and I'd prefer to live in an Althousian world. But back in the real world, this is about politics and power. Who, whom, is all.
Progs haven't given up on straightening out the crooked timber of humanity. On to the New Xe, perfect and immaculate
Not going to give the prog a-holes a pass until they earn it with their behavior towards conservatives. They've been given many, many chances.
Gahrie said...
Do you see Althouse? Not only are they unwilling to give Trump a pass ever, about anything....they are unwilling to give you a pass unless you are constantly attacking Trump.
Haha! Did you even read my post before you started typing? Where I acknowledge the merit of Althouse's point?
Althouse closed this post with the notion of "humanity." Again, a valid point. And I say that it does not apply to Trump -- it CAN'T apply to Trump -- because time and time and time again Trump demonstrates that he is hard-wired to ignore all humanity in himself and in others.
"I don’t remember Ann writing this..."
Why not check the archive?
ARM, Ann always goes ballistic when you hit the mark with her. Ann knows that for two years she has given the Doofus-in-Chief a total pass. She also knows that she is now stuck with him. (“But it was all due to a dream!!”) She is now lashing out at you ARM because you highlighted her predicament.
To me, "he knew what he was signing up for" refers to his courage, knowing he was enlisting while we were at war but choosing to do so anyway. Other people read it as a dismissive statement, as if he got what was coming to him. When you can't listen to the call yourself and can't hear the tone of voice that was used, you interpret it either the way you would say it yourself or the way you imagine Trump would say it.
I think the way people are interpreting it says more about them than it does about Trump or what was actually said.
In particular, I can think of something I said to a woman who had a miscarriage that was insensitive. I did not realize it at the time, but I would never say it to someone in her situation again - it was one of those stock phrases. She and I are still friends. People don't know what to say and no matter what they say, it's never going to be exactly right because their words are always going to be inadequate and will never "solve" the situation. Barring the egregious example in the post, the worst thing you can do is say nothing. I think that's the default for a lot of people because they're so afraid of doing it "wrong."
I don’t remember Ann writing this when Hillary made her one gaffe in the campaign with her “deplorables” comment.
Hillary's comment revealed something very ugly about her and how she views a very large segment of the voters in this country. I don't recall Trump ever saying something like that about Hillary's voters. When Trump says something unguarded and nasty, it's almost always about an individual person. And it's usually about a politician or other high-profile person who has entered the fray. Personally, I wish he wouldn't engage them, especially on a vulgar platform on Twitter. But that's what he does, and it seems to work for him, so I wouldn't expect anything else.
Where Trump really goes wrong, in my opinion, is when he engages a private citizen or Gold Star parent or something. It's so petty, so low. But again, his focus is almost always on individuals.
Chuck--I love you, man, but that last post is crazy.
Trump is a type--a promoter, a huckster, a showman. He does some good stuff, but it isn't as good as he says it is. He also does some bad stuff, but it is all part of the show.
He is not my first choice, but he is president. Let's cheer the good stuff and boo the bad stuff.
Civility Bullshit.
Two things one should never write in a comment thread:
1) Why isn't the blogger/author writing about this thing that I care about much more than the thing the blogger/author wrote about?!
Don't be such a self-centered dork.
2) I wrote about this 37 blog-posts ago. Here's a link. I've been saying this for years, and I've always been right. You just haven't been paying attention.
Don't be such a self-centered dork.
Amadeus 48 said...
Chuck--I love you, man, but that last post is crazy.
Trump is a type--a promoter, a huckster, a showman. He does some good stuff, but it isn't as good as he says it is. He also does some bad stuff, but it is all part of the show.
He is not my first choice, but he is president. Let's cheer the good stuff and boo the bad stuff.
And so I have! I cheered the Gorsuch confirmation. I cheered the nomination of Betsy DeVos at Education. I am cheering the aggressive rollback of ISIS in Syria.
You seem to not really like my booing the bad stuff, even as you say it is the right thing to do.
The problem is that those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome will never be persuaded.
Ann knows that for two years she has given the Doofus-in-Chief a total pass.
If only there were someplace, a newspaper, or network television broadcast, or even a small segment on some cable news channel where negative takes on Trump were available!
Great to see that the Doofus-in-Chief is spending his morning on Twitter attacking a Republican senator, including calling him a “lightweight”! (You couldn’t make this shit up, even if you really tried.)
Something tells me that Trump will fail more miserably on tax cuts than he did on healthcare...
Trump is both a magnification of the problem with politics and culture today, and a hint at the solution. Our tendency to jump all over what the opposition says, hoping to win the gotcha game by fatally wounding them, is just not sustainable because ultimately, everyone will be guilty of something that is deemed offensive, insensitive, etc. Perhaps Trump’s refusal – time and time again -- to concede defeat after a "conventional" gotcha moment will create an environment where fewer people attempt the gotcha in the first place. If nothing else, Trump is raising the bar for what constitutes a mortal wound in politics. That can be both good and bad.
mockturtle wrote: The problem is that those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome will never be persuaded.
The problem is that those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome will never be interesting.
By the way "Now I Know!" how is the Russian collusion investigation going? Did they find the pony under all of the horse shit yet?
they are unwilling to give you a pass unless you are constantly attacking Trump.
Yes. It is a wonder why they bring themselves to read all this Trump adulation when there are so many Trump hater blogs that are available and all for free.
Nothing lefties like better than free stuff.
Trump is a type--a promoter, a huckster, a showman. He does some good stuff, but it isn't as good as he says it is. He also does some bad stuff, but it is all part of the show.
Yes, that is part of his background but he tapped a vein of public disapproval of the ruling class that was ignored by 15 GOP candidates.
He was not my first choice either but he is doing what I wanted.
I'm not sure he can piull it off and every man's hand is against him in DC.
The State Department is run by NeverTrumpers and blocking the Hillary e-mail trove from exposure.
It's a wonder he gets anything done but he is shutting down the Administrative State and they hate him for it.
Patrick McLaughlin of the Mercatus Center, a free-market-oriented think tank at George Mason University, applies innovative research techniques to the study of regulation and the economy. He recently analyzed the output of regulatory restrictions promulgated in the last several presidencies, going back to Jimmy Carter. McLaughlin found that there have been periods in some presidencies when regulatory output slowed or declined—in several years of the Reagan presidency, for instance, and in 1996, when “reinventing government” was part of Bill Clinton’s election pitch. But over the full terms of each recent president, including Reagan, regulation increased, according to McLaughlin. So far the increase in regulatory restrictions under Trump has been near to zero.
Why isn't Althouse writing about Russian collusion several times a week?!!!!
There is a lot wrong with Trump, but a lot of people must either have lost; or perceived to have lost, a lot that mattered to them to generate such irrational hatred:
To many on the Left, I’m guessing this is because they lost political power and influence within a doctrine that pits them against others in the world where all, apparently, are in a ruthless competition for political power and influence (utopia is just around the corner, those who disagree are evil). Their party is split, their ideals are getting a lot of negative feedback from real world application, and the ‘oppressor’ is gloating about such failure right in their faces:
**The WaPo seems to be in the boat of stagnant media business models following popular threads of logic to current mainstreamed issues of the day, which from where I sit, create a fertile field for the Left but aren’t exclusively Left (have we included transgendered atheist undocumented dwarves into our moral concern yet?)
To many more principled conservatives, the NRO crowd, various Establishment types and ‘Chuck,’ there seems a mood that they have lost their ideals and decent institutions, like the more conservative civil society that respected decorum, basic rules of procedure, personal responsibility’ military service and economic liberty. Their party is split, they have lost a lot of political power and influence. The Shining City appears covered in mud and what’s emerging seems a lot worse; Trump is either that something worse or a symbol of the end of what was better...a harbinger for maybe something worse coming yet.
I get the hatred, but it’s the irrational part I’m trying to explain.
My mother-in-law was one of those people who always criticized the words of others. She was kind of like a fashion critic, though. If she liked a person, she was less critical. The flip side of that is, that when she said something insensitive, I always assumed it was on purpose because she was such a parser of other people's words.
When she was diagnosed with cancer, I didn't know what to say, feeling for sure that nothing I said would be acceptable to her, yet also not saying anything seemed wrong. I ended up saying whatever popped into my head, and of course, it was wrong.
We are coming to a point that the only empathy left on the internet will be on 4chan.
I am Laslo.
Republican Senator Corker just tweeted—
“Same untruths from an utterly untruthful president.”
“#AlertTheDaycareStaff”
LOL! I LOVE IT!!
"Why isn't Althouse writing about Russian collusion several times a week?!!!!"
Yes, I've notice that Inga has gone quiet on Russia lately,.
The zealots are always the last to get it.
So Hillary's written speech that included a part about a basket of deplorables who are irredeemable and Unamerican is now a "gaffe."
You people crack me up.
Chris N said...
To many more principled conservatives, the NRO crowd, various Establishment types and ‘Chuck,’ there seems a mood that they have lost their ideals and decent institutions, like the more conservative civil society that respected decorum, basic rules of procedure, personal responsibility’ military service and economic liberty.
Chuck is Linda Loman: "Attention must be paid".
It's all cheap shots, and obfuscation. Words don't prove sincerity, or what's in your heart.
No really, Now I Know, I haven't heard much about Russian Collusion lately, and you always seemed to have the inside skinny. How about an update?
mockturtle said...
The problem is that those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome will never be persuaded.
Labeling all opposition to Trump as "Trump Derangement Syndrome," is every bit as bad -- worse, I'd say -- than Hillary labeling "a basket of deplorables." At least she defined her terms. She defined it as "half" of Trump's supporters. Given my election-day support for Trump, I have never once felt like a "deplorable." She also defined half of Trump's supporters as ordinary people "desperate for a change." She did not insult or assail those people. She named her deplorables; “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.”
I don't know if she'd call me "homophobic." If she thinks that Chief Justice Roberts, the late Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito are "homophobic" despite the clear language of their dissents in homosexual rights cases, she'd sure think that I was "homophobic." I'd wear that badge proudly.
I have never once voted for any Clinton and I expect I never will. I voted for the insufferable Trump because of my low regard for Mrs. Clinton and Democrats. But it sure wasn't because Trump is a better person in any way, than Clinton.
If I have "Trump Derangement Syndrome," then so do the notorious left-wingers like President George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Bob Corker, John McCain, George Will, Bret Stephens and Jonah Goldberg.
President George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Bob Corker, John McCain, George Will, Bret Stephens and Jonah Goldberg.
Talk about a basket of deplorables!
Chuck,
I have seen some amazing posts from you that add a lot. I have also seen a lot of posts that are nit picking on Trump, just looking for the negative. I seem his as a bit OCD, and his people skills are not automatic. He seems to be a bit emotionally deaf. He is playing by the Alinsky Rules of the Left, and they are not very nice. Unfortunately they are effective. I see him as fighting fire with fire. He is not subtle in his approach, he takes a sledge hammer to a problem, where a less energetic approach would work. His gut driven use of branding is amazing, how he has used ridicule as a way to destroy his opposition. Again, one of Alinksy's Rules. https://www.steelonsteel.com/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals/
Giving apologies, per SJW Always Double Down by Vox Day (available through the Althouse Amazon Portal) advise against apologizing. The reason is the apology will be used as evidence you admitted guilt.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B075BGGKLG/
It's not a very nice political world that Alinsky's Rules for Radicals have created.
I would be VERY interested in Althouse's take on the Vox Day book.
Perhaps other presidents have made similar gaffes, but you wouldn't know it because the press wouldn't have covered it as it wouldn't have been considered newsworthy.
Today, Trump being Trump and the press being what it's become, anything that makes Pres. Trump look bad will remain in the news cycle as long as "journalists" and editors can keep it there.
Most of the press follows where the New York Times leads, and the NYT has become like Pravda in that one doesn't take what's printed literally but as a reflection of what the leftish establishment wishes to accomplish: it's not the news so much as an emanation of the penumbras cast by the Sulzberger class.
Now I Know! said...
Republican Senator Corker just tweeted—
“Same untruths from an utterly untruthful president.”
“#AlertTheDaycareStaff”
#PresidentMoron
Actually, "President Moron" is only a partial quote of Secretary Tillerson. It would have to be "President... Moron." Or most correctly, "President Fucking Moron."
The Doofus-in-Chief is still on twitter trying to have a pissing match with Republican Senator Corker!
How are people supposed to know what to say? What can they say really? It isn't as though they can fix anything with their words. The kindness is in the attempt to say anything at all.
One of my favorite bits of sympathy I have ever received was when one of my children had been in the hospital, and a kind man, trying in earnest to express his condolences, told me about how worried he'd been when one of his fish had been ill and almost died. The memory still makes me laugh. My husband and I immediately liked him. Has any other fish ever been so loved?
I've always been way more forgiving and let it go than most people I know. The score keeping and grudge bearing of the current and most recent president are definitely some of their least desirable traits in leaders.
So no updates on Russian Collusion then? How is the impeachment going?
The HILL revealed to us that under Obama, the Clintons made millions from The Uranium One deal with Putin... so - we cannot let an opportunity pass to trash Trump over something that amounts to a paper cut.
Rakoff's lovely writing doesn't apply to Trump.
Or Bush. Or McCain. Or Romney. Or whoever comes after Trump.
You really have the lefty talking points down, Chuck. The ability to dehumanize the opposition is central to a strategy of victimhood.
If you haven’t noticed, Rakoff’s lovely writing won’t apply to any white male soon. When it doesn’t, you should know you contributed.
He just called him “liddle” Bob Corker again!
What a buffoon you have elected as the president of our country. The world is now laughing at us, you stupid asses.
Bill, Republic of Texas said...
President George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Bob Corker, John McCain, George Will, Bret Stephens and Jonah Goldberg.
Talk about a basket of deplorables!
You took the bait. Anyone who questions Trump is labeled with "TDS." So the whole world is either pro-Trump, or "deranged." You won't acknowledge devout, devoted, determined conservatives/Republicans/Democrat fighters as thoughtfully critical of Trump. It can only be "Derangement."
I find it fascinating that the "______ derangement syndrome" thing began with President George W. Bush, right? The original subject of the "derangement syndrome" labeling is now part of a "derangement" culture. What irony.
And so I have! I cheered the Gorsuch confirmation. I cheered the nomination of Betsy DeVos at Education. I am cheering the aggressive rollback of ISIS in Syria.
Each time giving the credit to others and pointing out how Trump made their success less probable.
Blogger Kevin Weiss said...
...
You really have the lefty talking points down, Chuck. The ability to dehumanize the opposition is central to a strategy of victimhood.
#Sad!
I don’t remember Ann writing this when Hillary made her one gaffe in the campaign with her “deplorables” comment.
Hillary doubled down, stating she only got the percentage wrong.
That’s hardly a “gaffe”.
The world is now laughing at us, you stupid asses.
The choice was Hillary, you seem to keep forgetting that you guys nominated Hillary.
I am heartened by the display of civil discourse here today.
Laughing at us, yet voting more and more in a Trumpian way, from Brexit to Austria.
Speaking of Austria, did you know that Obama thought that the "Austrian School" was where you went to learn Austrian?
Laughter Trumps corruption.
Merkel has been hugely damaged too, but to be fair, that was as a result of Hillary's foreign policy unleashing millions of refugees on Europe with her wars of choice.
That's who you wanted us to elect, instead of Trump.
Politically speaking, why would Democrats want to impeach the Doofus-in-Chief?
He just spent the entire morning on twitter personally attacking a key Republican Senator, derailing the Republican tax plan.
Democrats can just sit back and enjoy the popcorn.
When the impeachment comes—and it will—there is no doubt that it will be Republicans who will be engineering that train.
Freeman Hunt, I think the fisherman in The Old Man and the Sea talks about loving the marlin he has caught and killed. Not the same kind of love.
Fish don't cuddle well.
Dealing with Death (yes I capitalized it on purpose) is a very hard thing for many people.
Some cannot face it and shut down. Others have too much empathy and overly attempt to console. Some become too maudlin and create more hurt by being unable to contain themselves. Others make themselves the focus of the event (narcissists). Most people are just awkward, clumsy but well meaning. I think Trump falls into that last category.
I once had a very good friend who had terminal liver cancer. She was going to die shortly. She knew it. We all knew it. Her time was within weeks and we were sitting on her deck together, in the sun, looking over the view.
Knowing this would be the very last time that we would be able to talk.....we both didn't have much to say. What CAN you say? "Sorry?" It isn't anyone's fault. We are all sorry. "Is there anything I can do?" Hardly. Unless you can do a miracle cure. "Hope you feel better?" Nope. She is dying almost dead. It was the giant nasty elephant on the deck with us.
Instead....we talked and laughed about some of the good times and stupid times we had in the past. Remember when we....ha ha ha. How about that time we both got drunks and....ha ha ha.
Hugged and left it at that.
You guys are going to have to start talking about some alternative to Trump aside from Hillary, because right now, she is the alternative we avoided. Maybe you can drag Mike Dukakis out of retirement?
Trump won the election from Hillary not because of Russian Collusion, but because none of the resident lefties on this blog voted for H>er and none will defend H>er. This allows them to compare Trump to some Platonic Ideal President, rather than the somewhat less ideal alternative we were presented with. Bullshit.
Bill Kristol, Serious Conservative:
Bill Kristol Retweeted Donald J. Trump:
What's with "Flag & Country"? Those words aren't capitalized in English--and the concepts aren't, so to speak, capitalized in America.
Seeing the former presidents at last night's event was a reminder the office has been held by men of stature and dignity. It will be again.
I'm no Bushie (I was for Reagan in '80, Kemp '88, McCain '00 & Rubio '16.) But I'm honored to stand with the Bushes against Trump & Bannon.
In addition to Trump enthusiasts and rationalizers, there are those who look on with distaste but without objecting. They too are enablers.
AND
What would your family do w/ a pet unicorn? REPLY & I'll share your family's story in the @weeklystandard editorial meeting.
Hates Trump. Likes Unicorns.
Serious Conservative.
I am Laslo.
Politically speaking, why would Democrats want to impeach the Doofus-in-Chief?
Given up already? Don't tell me you have given up on the Russian collusion thing too? Say it ain't so!
ALTHOUSE says:.."Indeed, John Kelly advised Trump against calling the widows of fallen soldiers..."
Sorry, I would beg to differ and suggest just the opposite - watch and read Kelly closely and indeed, he gave Trump his judgmental APPROVAL and encouragement for such a call - but, yes, after and along with very sensible cautions/warnings.
ONE of the Kelly quotes from his Press appearance being:
"..There’s no perfect way to make that phone call. When I took this job and talked to President Trump about how to do it, my first recommendation was he not do it because it’s not the phone call that that family members and parents are looking for. It’s nice to do in my opinion...."
Making a call like this is a crapshoot and Kelly gave proper cautions - and then gave Trump his encouragement and assistance as to how to DO it. Trump, being Trump, I guess, took the risk. Having personally been in such situations in my own time, I can testify to both the negative risk and the positive urge to do it anyway. In such matter, you win some and lose some.
Giving each other a pass is an internet plan, to unfuse mob action.
In real life passes are given or withheld as the occasion demands, but no mob is involved to it's personal and can be changed.
Labeling all opposition to Trump as "Trump Derangement Syndrome," is every bit as bad
it's not all opposition. It's constant opposition. When you can't say something nice about someone, you have lost objectivity. I saw it with Obama and I'm seeing it with Trump.
Here's a test. Say something nice about Trump. Trump as a person. Not his Supreme Court picks, or his kids, or the people around him.
Say something which humanizes him and thus makes future criticism of his actions more difficult.
If I have "Trump Derangement Syndrome," then so do the notorious left-wingers like President George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Bob Corker, John McCain, George Will, Bret Stephens and Jonah Goldberg.
I agree with you chuck. I wouldn't call them "left wingers" but they are part of the donor class and their recipients. Who do you think pays Jonah Goldberg's salary ?
I liked his book, "Liberal Fascism" and I still do. I met him on the NRO cruise in 2008. The two Bush's are sort of the royal family of present day GOP politics. Do you understand why Reagan beat Bush I?
Did you notice how Bush I, once in office, dismantled Reagan's legacy ?
Will and Stephens are almost insane with TDS.
Corker has his own problems and may have tax troubles coming. I had hopes for him but he gave Obama cover on the Iran deal.
Your examples are mine, too. Not of TDS but of what Angelo Codevilla wrote about.
Remember how upset the Democrats were with the apparent Chinese Intelligence Service's interference with our elections with Clinton. Remember how upset they all were when Clinton approved giving the Chicoms ballistic missile technology so that their rockets would stop blowing up on the pad, all so that Clinton's largest donor, Bernie Schwartz, of Loral, could launch his "Iridium" satellites from China?
I don't either.
I don’t remember Ann writing this when Hillary made her one gaffe in the campaign
Really? Just One?
(laughs)
TDS is the descendant of BDS, which Charles Krauthammer (MD, Psychologist, and lawyer) coined.
It's a useful concept, because so many on the left are afflicted with it and can't even recognize that Trump is basically a centrist, non-racist, non-anti-Semitic type. He used to be a center-leftist.
But put a GOP label on him, and Dems go batty with TDS.
True, though, it's overused. Not everyone on the left has TDS, just as not everyone on the right (like me, and Laslo and others above) is a Trumper.
Listening to Chuck relentlessly go on about Trump reminds me of when the Crack Emcee would continually eviscerate Romney.
But Crack DID had style.
Chuck's style is closer to Shouting Thomas.
I am Laslo.
watch and read Kelly closely and indeed, he gave Trump his judgmental APPROVAL and encouragement for such a call
Yes, the text of his statements is exactly what he stated: He told Trump not to do it. And when Trump said he was going to do it anyway, Kelly told him how best to attempt it.
But if you read Kelly CLOSELY you can see that even though his words were clear and unambiguous, to the trained observer one can make whatever of them one wants to find.
It's dog whistles all the way down.
tim in vermont: That UPS logo on the side of their trucks with that bizarrely projected globe uses that principle.
Damn, I never noticed that! Shows how observant I am.
Corker has his own problems and may have tax troubles coming.
Corker is following in the tradition of less-than-squeaky-clean Congress critters trying to burn it all down on their way out the door. Blame it on mindless cannibalism and all...
Our firemen run towards the fires, and as the recent release “Only the Brave” makes clear, sometimes they pay for their dedication with their lives. Navy SEALs, army Green Berets, virtually any marine, they run towards the sound of gunfire, not away like a sensible person. SGT Johnson certainly did know the risks, but he went because he was honorable, courageous, and a genuine man. (Note to “Now I Know” — I get that you’ll have to look up manliness.)
So where do we go from here? Should Trump stop making condolence calls to gold star widows? I don’t agree! Perhaps we should instead bar black men and women from serving in elite military units so Trump will never have to call a black widow who resents having to speak with a honkie president? Looking at Wilson, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Maxine Waters, perhaps we should bar black women from serving in Congress. Shoot! Then we’d lose Mia Love; that can’t be right. Oh! What to do?
" So far the increase in regulatory restrictions under Trump has been near to zero."
If this is all he accomplishes in his first term it will be enough. That he has done so much more is a bonus.
I would think "true conservatives" would be happy.
"Dealing with Death (yes I capitalized it on purpose) is a very hard thing for many people."
On two occasions I had to inform a wife that her husband was dead. One was a helicopter pilot who was involved in a collision at 1500 feet, He was, amazingly, alive when they brought him in. We made frantic efforts to save him, especially as he was still alert. In the ned, we failed. I later learned that his aorta had been avulsed out of his heart.
I told his wife and she stood there and screamed and screamed in my face, There was nothing to do but stand there and take it.
On another occasion, my partner and I had been called by an older surgeon who did not do vascular surgery to come and operate on a man with a ruptured aneurysm. The man had thought he had a kidney stone and had come in for an IVP, a kidney xray. We jumped in the car and and raced to the other hospital.
We wheeled the man into the operating room and as we moved him to the table, he said "Do a good job. I still have a lot I want to do with my life." We lost him on the table and then walked out with the other surgeon to meet the wife and tell her what happened.
What I didn't know was that no one had told her he was going to surgery. She was waiting for his kidney xray to be finished. When the other surgeon told her he had died, she screamed and screamed.
There have been many other occasions but they were the worst.
Corker is following in the tradition of less-than-squeaky-clean Congress critters trying to burn it all down on their way out the door.
Whatever troubles may follow, he can then claim they are politically motivated.
Why do you think he keeps Tweeting at Trump? One or two exchanges does not a conspiracy make.
My husband and I lost our baby girl shortly after her birth. It was a hard time. When I returned to work, a co-worker very badly expressed his sympathy. I ignored how he said it and tried to take comfort in the fact that he was expressing his sympathy. When he made his comments to me, a co-worker who vehemently disliked him was there and she was morally offended and outraged at what he said. She could have easily gotten me wound up over his comments if I had focused on his words but not his intent.
I think that is what happened here: the President said something imperfectly but sincerely and the people Mes. Johnson was with focused on the imperfection of his words and not the sincerity of them.
Maybe this time Trump was reading from a script, and that explains the hesitancy the widow heard.
It has not escaped my notice that the fuss stirred up by the despicable, detestable, and, yes, utterly deplorable Frederica Wilson has obscured the sad fact that our Green Berets were ambushed by a force large enough to have been detectable. But it wasn't detected. Why not? Do we need Flynn or someone like him back in charge at the DIA? Maybe Brennan's CIA needs to be cleaned out end to end? As a nation, that's the debate we should be having.
Say something which humanizes him and thus makes future criticism of his actions more difficult.
I will add this for Chuck: say something which humanizes Trump and thus humanizes yourself.
When we make it OK to dehumanize others, we don't see it gives tacit permission for others to dehumanize us.
I assume the best in people. That's the easiest way to go through life IMO. To be perpetually outraged? That's exhausting.
How to react around Death is a very hard thing to learn. How to express sympathy on someone else's loss -- also very hard to learn, and too easy to bungle. Getting older, and the unfortunate practice that goes with it, helps.
I will add this for Chuck: say something which humanizes Trump and thus humanizes yourself.
On the very topic that led to this blog post -- Trump's telephone conversation with Sgt. Johnson's widow -- I repeatedly made the point that I thought that all reasonable people had to recognize that Trump's intentions were good, and that he could not have possibly meant to do anything that would have caused offense on the part of Mrs. Johnson.
This very topic. In just the last 48 hours. Repeatedly.
So far the increase in regulatory restrictions under Trump has been near to zero.
Actually, Trump's appointees are rolling back some of the more pernicious ones. Bravo to Donald Trump and to his appointees.
We wheeled the man into the operating room and as we moved him to the table, he said "Do a good job. I still have a lot I want to do with my life." We lost him on the table and then walked out with the other surgeon to meet the wife and tell her what happened.
Yeah, I have an aneurysm of the ascending aorta too. They say that I don't need it operated on yet, but then the statistics they give me don't really add up. I have the bicuspid aortic valve which is a risk factor for an early pop, and a couple other congenital cardiac anomalies , one of which is very rare, none of which are that worrisome except that they point to a heart that is not normally formed, but they don't seem to take it into account when deciding when I need surgery. Anyway, thanks for the story of the guy dying on the table with it. I think the fact that I am taking blood thinners for a-fib means I wouldn't have a chance if it dissected anyways, but I would rather go quick than suffer a stroke and live my life out under nursing care.
Anyway, after a couple of years I have found peace with this condition, a condition which killed my grandmother. But you can't help feeling, every time you get heartburn, or a pain somewhere, that, in the words of Red Foxx as Fred Sanford "I'm coming Elizabeth!"
As I said before, Chuck, don't say as I said before. It's boring, and we don't want to look it up.
Just let it ride across your shoulders like...like pollen in the wind. Maybe sneeze a bit; that's OK.
So when Corker acts like a jerk on Twitter it's awesome, but when Trump does it it's awful? Got it.
I can tell you as a veteran and current spouse of an active duty service member, people deal with grief differently. Upon hearing about the death, family members are completely distraught. Some are angry, some are overwhelmed, some seem indifferent. I have been to many memorial services for fallen heroes. There is no "right" way to grieve. Mrs. Johnson is angry and upset and I don't doubt her sincerity for one second. I also don't believe the Commander-in-Chief would say something intentionally disrespectful to the widow. It is sad that this conversation is in the forefront of our news right now.
All of these Principled Conservatives seem more than happy to bathe in the mud they deplore Trump for sitting in.
Ascending aneurysms are tougher. I know you appreciate knowing that.
A few years ago (maybe 20), the best place in the world to have that repaired was The Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans.
I remember being at a vascular surgery meeting about 25 years ago when a surgeon from Ochsner stood up at the meeting and said that, because of managed care restrictions, they were having to turn down referrals from other surgeons for that condition. Everybody in the US sent their cases to Ochsner.
If it ever gets to the point of thinking about having to do something. Thank about Ochsner.
"Unless someone looks you in the eye and hisses, “You fucking asshole, I can’t wait until you die of this,” people are really trying their best"
I buy this.
The Left wing media and academia want to put up a great big list of all the things you can't say. I saw a list of Halloween costumes you're not supposed to wear.
Well, fuck that.
It's ok for people to stumble thru their thoughts and words, jeez. Inadvertent slights aren't too big of a deal. But the politically correct Left enjoys seizing on these perceived slights to punish their opponents and advance their agenda.
Dealing with Death
Never tell someone who has lost a loved one "I know how you feel" Or anything that indicates you have any idea of what they are going through. Even IF you have also lost a loved one, you have ZERO idea of what someone else is feeling. Clinton's "I feel your pain!" is insulting and narcissistic.
To try and put their pain through the lens of what YOU imagine or through the lens of YOUR own experiences can be insulting and narcissistic. I'm sorry for your loss, is an acceptable sentiment.....I know what you are feeling is not.
When my daughter's best friend lost her brother in a drowning accident, in 5th grade...my daughter asked what she should say or do. My advice was to tell her the sorry for your loss line and that when she (her friend) is ready to talk and that you will be there for her.
the President said something imperfectly but sincerely and the people Mes. Johnson was with focused on the imperfection of his words and not the sincerity of them.
People in pain often want to cast blame, somewhere, anywhere. They have so much pain that they want to offload some of it to someone or something else. Unfortunately, in this situation, Mrs. Johnson had someone on hand who wanted to self aggrandize and use that pain as a weapon against her chosen target. Trump.
In this situation, there is probably nothing that Trump could have said that wouldn't be taken in offense as they were already predisposed to take offense.
We lost a baby due to a "Baby Fay" condition, bad left heart, if you remember the baby that they put a baboon heart in. I was so angry at the doctor, and I didn't even know why.
very interesting post
Famous Positive Quotes
Positive Famous Quotes
Train Hard Quotes
Future Quotes
Quotes Words
Make New Friends
all reasonable people had to recognize that Trump's intentions were good
I don't mean his intentions in one particular situation. Robots have intentions that can on occasion be interpreted as "good". Robots are not accorded humanity and the benefit of the doubt from other imperfect humans.
I mean something intrinsically about him as a person. Something which affirms his intrinsic humanity and thus negates your statement above that Rogoff's words don't apply to Trump.
It's a very humanizing thing to be awkward. Being in an awkward state means you're questioning your own actions and you're considering the feelings of other people. The only people who don't at some point question their own actions are people with pathologically high levels of self confidence, like diagnosable narcissists, psychopaths, and the otherwise mentally deranged.
Acknowledging that Trump was awkward in a given situation is also acknowledging that he's probably not a narcissist or a psychopath. People who are convinced that Trump is a monster aren't most likely going to interpret what happened on this call as Trump being completely apathetic. But if Trump really was a monster, why make these calls at all? Unless you believe he's a psychological sadist who derives pleasure from other people's pain. If you go by the "Trump is a monster but not a sadist" theory then the only other explanation is that he was doing it to brag about it later to inflate his own brand. But there's probably better ways to go about that.
Kevin said...
Something which affirms his intrinsic humanity
He likes hot women.
I've regarded him as a free-speech inspiration ever since I had a dream about him — long before the election — in which I hugged him and thanked him for showing that free speech — with mistakes, straight from the human head — is much better than inhibition, self-censorship, and holding back until you've somehow arrived at the ability to get it exactly right.
Did you blog the dream? What an awesome dream!
The world is now laughing at us, you stupid asses.
Just as did when Reagan was president and when both Bushes were president. Next you'll be saying that Trump is stupid.....
a key Republican Senator
You mean the one that has already announced that he's taking his ball and going home?
"I was so angry at the doctor, and I didn't even know why."
I once had to call a mother to inform her that her 16 year old son had been killed in a car accident that was his fault.
I was the only target available. I had done an ER thoracotomy to try to save him but he was too far gone.
She accused me of doing the thoracotomy for money ! Her husband was a chaplain at El Toro MCAS. I wondered if he could help her and he certainly had had other occasions when he had to deal with this but he said nothing.
Our magnificent Professor gets it. Trump communicates well at all levels. He directly talks to the American middle class working folks like one of them, all the while he is trick shooting down one Media Fake News story after another like Annie Oakley with her guns shoots from all angles and never misses.
Will they ever learn? The word is out now that the small details DJT misstates in his tweets are the fireworks that draws the Media attention to his messages. The Road Runner using the Wylie Coyote over and over is the best image of DJT in action.
He likes hot women.
The rest of the world respects hot women and men who marry them. Hotness represents status and power for both the woman and the spouse.
Ugly girlfriend means no confidence.
Politically speaking, why would Democrats want to impeach the Doofus-in-Chief?
The Democrats will put aside their narrow sectarian interests and impeach due to the overwhelming evidence of Trump's criminal activity, is the pair of falsehoods that didn't even occur to you as a response to that question.
"I've regarded him as a free-speech inspiration ever since I had a dream about him — long before the election — in which I hugged him and thanked him for showing that free speech..."
Isn't that a paraphrase, and a parody, of something someone once said about Obama? I don't remember who said it, or what it was about exactly, but I vaguely recall it, and how creepy it seemed.
Maybe it's an excerpt from "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Rape and Inheritance".
“Liddle’ Bob Corker”
It is well accepted that personal insults based on appearances is of the lowest character.
He is your president and Senator Corker is right, his legacy (and those who support him) will be that of debasement.
A different value of a little bit of wrongness is: Proof of Humanity. If you say things that aren't entirely correct, it shows you're not tightly scripted, that you are speaking the thoughts that are alive in your head right now.
The First Lady dresses like a hooker.
t is well accepted that personal insults based on appearances is of the lowest character.
Even lower than starting wars or sending weapons to one side in a conflict that has nothing to do with us, and for which we have no treaties in place?
Even lower than selling out the US to the highest bidders, as the Clinton's have done many times?
Even lower than that? Or are they just useful distractions from the unfortunate turns that the Russian Collusion probe is taking?
"We came! We saw! He died! (chortle guffaw!!!)" Take about low character! Gloating over the assassination of the sovereign leader of a country we attacked, an assassination during which said leader was sodomized by a rifle barrel. "Chortle, guffaw!"
You keep forgetting the choice we were offered.
For the President of the United States: He is the most powerful man in the world. He has a lot of support staff. His speech is much more important then my neighbour responding to a personal tragedy
Once again, what were our choices?
I voted against Trump in the primaries. I voted for the guy I thought had the best chance to beat him. Democrats own his presidency more than I do. I would have voted for Bernie without hesitation. I would have been wrong, but I would have done it. You guys put up a candidate that it was impossible for us to vote for in some effort to rub our noses in your political power. Stew in it.
The Rakoff quote is along the lines of the first thing I wrote about this particular Trump episode- you literally have to be a cretin to believe Trump meant to be disrespectful to this particular widow and family, and this is me giving the congresswoman the benefit of the doubt about the line she quoted.
Really, has anyone ever heard a deliberately disrespectful comment in such a situation that wasn't an anonymous blog comment? And yet the progressives and LLRs will continuously double down on this. I have written it many times, and will no doubt do it again- Trump is fortunate in the colossal ineptitude of his enemies- their derangement is an amazing if at times troubling thing to behold.
His speech is much more important then my neighbour responding to a personal tragedy
And it's his speech we will pick apart at his every utterance.
We won't look at his actions, but will endlessly dissect his word choices. And has been shown on this very thread, when his word choices are fine, we will "carefully examine" them for true meaning, so as to find what we wish in them no matter what he says.
Almost all of Clinton’s perceived faults Trump has as well. The difference is that Trump was and is an obvious madman.
Trump voters—That’s on you.
Tim in Vermont,
Sorry to hear about your heart condition, and your loss of your baby.
Like the topic of this post itself, not sure what the 'right' words could be, other than I hope the best for you.
I am Laslo.
Let us unpack this -
" The President must do better then the ordinary person."
Define "better". A common style of leadership through history, even for monarchs, is to use the common voice. Julius Caesar did when it suited him. The President of the US speaks to many audiences simultaneously. One of them, of critical importance to him but consistently ignored for decades, is the American common man. Much of Trumps messaging is directed to this person.
And this messaging works on many levels. To one audience it is essentially "I am one of you, despite appearances"; to others it is "these people whose voice I use are dangerous to you (primaries). Be warned".
"If he cannot do better with his speech, he should stick to a script."
He has used scripts when it suited the need.
"His impulsive speech is damaging our national interest."
Define "national interest". Much (nearly all) of the Trumpian program is to pursue domestic reform, which requires challenging a vast and powerful array of entrenched interests. This has created enormous hostility. Much of the Trumpian reaction is determined by what side is threatened by him.
"Man, Moscow and Beijing must be astonished and laughing today." -Tom Nichols on twitter."
Foreign reaction to Trump is not the same as what the US establishment says is foreign reaction to Trump. A great deal of foreign bien-pensant reaction (which is not really what people in power think) is based on what they get out of the US MSM. This uniformly hostile and biased voice determines a great deal of foreign feedback, which comes from that same class of bien-pensants. Its a loop really, that also explains much anti-Americanism. The US feeds it abroad, and gets an echo back.
Scotus?
My husband and I lost our baby girl shortly after her birth. It was a hard time. When I returned to work, a co-worker very badly expressed his sympathy. I ignored how he said it and tried to take comfort in the fact that he was expressing his sympathy. When he made his comments to me, a co-worker who vehemently disliked him was there and she was morally offended and outraged at what he said. She could have easily gotten me wound up over his comments if I had focused on his words but not his intent.
I'm so sorry for your loss, and you are a good woman.
The world needs more people treating each other with what used to be called charity.
My own rule of thumb is to remember that people generally do the best they can with what they have to work with. It's best for everyone if we can just assume good intentions and not see malice or insult when it's just people being only human.
Nice words laslo.
I didn't know what to say to you, Tim, but Laslo said what I couldn't articulate.
Almost all of Clinton’s perceived faults Trump has as well.
Why did you run a person with such a freight train of baggage in such an important election? And tell me which if her faults are merely percieved?
Www. The President’s speech is his choice. That you claim that somehow it is wrong, is just stupid. There is zero evidence that the President’s speech has been a hindrance in anyway lacks evidence. No other political person has held up to all the lies told about him. Not a single person would have succeeded the way this President has, with all the forces arrayed against him.
My baby daughter was lost a long time ago, and we later had another daughter who is doing well. I really have come to accept the heart condition, and view the perspective it has given me as a gift.
But thank you.
"Almost all of Clinton’s perceived faults Trump has as well.
What a curious construction, NIK. Good to know Trump's faults are just perceived.
Trump was and is an obvious madman.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Look at Ashton Carter's grimace in the picture with this post. The forced smile as he sees his wife being fondled by the VP. Carter goes all squinty-eyes with impotent rage, but he's still willing to let her take it for the sake of his own political ascension. Quid pro quo: Mr.Secretary, you can join our big boys club but only if you're okay with the higher ranking alphas groping your women in public like this.
Anyone who watches Trump's speeches and appearances rather than relying on the Media coverage have a good impression of him. Except Lefties, of course. Lying, corrupt Lefties hoping to regain power.
" The President must do better then the ordinary person."
The only way to do better is to NEVER talk to Frederica Wilson or any friend of hers.
I heard a McDonalds ex CEO say on CNBC today that people should listen to what Trump means rather than what he says, that's what fair minded people usually do unless they have an agenda.
The left gladly eat the crap and lies regurgitated to them by their hack liar press. Hillary is only perceived as being a liar and a money grubber.
Chuck retorts: I will add this for Chuck: say something which humanizes Trump and thus humanizes yourself.
On the very topic that led to this blog post -- Trump's telephone conversation with Sgt. Johnson's widow -- I repeatedly made the point that I thought that all reasonable people had to recognize that Trump's intentions were good, and that he could not have possibly meant to do anything that would have caused offense on the part of Mrs. Johnson.
This very topic. In just the last 48 hours. Repeatedly.
Reminds me of the old joke about a father advising his son when going to his first dance, "Remember to always find something complimentary to say about your partner".
Boy says to partner, "For a fat girl, you don't sweat much!"
To be clear -- when Donald J. Trump is acting as a private individual the post holds. But when he is using speech as Commander-In-Chief, or Head-of-State, he must be held to a higher standard. Like a pilot, he is responsible for the safety of many souls. Unlike a pilot, he is responsible for millions of people in his charge. Particularly in the realm of foreign policy, there is no room for "pilot" error, and he has a responsibility to script himself if it improves communications.
This morning he tweeted this:
Sen. Corker is the incompetent head of the Foreign Relations Committee, & look how poorly the U.S. has done. He doesn't have a clue as........the entire World WAS laughing and taking advantage of us. People like liddle' Bob Corker have set the U.S. way back. Now we move forward!
This is not in the national interest of the USA. He's practically writing the propaganda for North Korea. His speech must be held to a higher standard when acting as POTUS.
This is not in the national interest of the USA.
Selling 20% of our Uranium to Putin, on the other hand, was, because it funneled 145 million dollars into the Clinton Foundation, with which they could do good!
On the one hand, we have a vast network of corruption that is being widely ignored by the press, on the other, we have some tweets that all the right people find annoying.... Hmmmm.....
“I've regarded him as a free-speech inspiration ever since I had a dream about him — long before the election — in which I hugged him and thanked him for showing that free speech — with mistakes, straight from the human head — is much better than inhibition, self-censorship, and holding back until you've somehow arrived at the ability to get it exactly right.”
Trump often says things that disrespect the First Amendment, he calls the Press “The enemy of the people”. To dream that this man is a champion of free speech? This is what Trump nuttery looks like, even in a dream. My lord!
"This is not in the national interest of the USA."
Why not?
He is fighting with a domestic opponent. There are disputes with Senate leadership and elections coming up where they are under pressure. The President should not openly dispute with a Senator? He should argue only behind closed doors, and leave the PR of the thing to opponents?
This "higher standard" complaint is not historically supported, nor is it realistic under the circumstances. At best it is an aesthetic preference.
Who will come out of this with the victory is impossible to say, but the foreign impact of this is, if not irrelevant (uncertainty of US foreign policy) it is hardly unique. The US has hardly ever (in spite of pious assurances) spoken with one voice on foreign policy. We can get into cases if you like.
tim in vermont said...
"This is not in the national interest of the USA."
Selling 20% of our Uranium to Putin, on the other hand, was, because it funneled 145 million dollars into the Clinton Foundation, with which they could do good!
Do you understand how much of a non-sequitir that response is, to someone like me?
Valid criticism of Trump, followed by a variant of, "But what about Hillary, or Obama, or the far left?"
I never voted for Hillary, or Obama, or the far left. I don't like them. I don't care about them. I want to beat them in elections. I voted for Trump. Voted for Trump despite his grossly manifest weaknesses. And I don't propose to stop voicing my complaints about Trump's grossly manifest weaknesses.
"he calls the Press “The enemy of the people”.
I believe that my old chieftain, Jaime Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila, once said the same thing in a sermon, about the government-controlled press. The situation of that segment of the press is very similar.
buwaya said...
"This is not in the national interest of the USA."
Why not?
He is fighting with a domestic opponent. There are disputes with Senate leadership and elections coming up where they are under pressure. The President should not openly dispute with a Senator? He should argue only behind closed doors, and leave the PR of the thing to opponents?
Chris Stirewalt was on FNC in the last hour and he said (I hope I get this quote exactly right without a transcript), "Bob Corker is treating Trump the way that Trump has been treating other people, and Trump doesn't like it." The host was Harris Faulkner. After Stirewalt said it, there was a brief pause and then Faulkner said something (I wish I could recall the word) expressing her surprise and shock. It was along the lines of, "Ouch!" or "Burn!"
Let’s all give each other a pass, shall we?
And I don't propose to stop voicing my complaints about Trump's grossly manifest weaknesses.
Asked and answered.
Trump often says things that disrespect the First Amendment, he calls the Press “The enemy of the people”
So it's the people in the press who are sacred, not free and open speech?
Valid criticism of Trump, followed by a variant of, "But what about Hillary, or Obama, or the far left?"
We were given a binary choice. Trump's oafish tweets and in artful language, and occasional errors of fact, or the Democrats' vast network of corruption. I wanted Trump, or wishfully thinking, Sanders, to take on this corruption head on. More and more of it is coming to light, even Mueller is slowly turning his sights on Hillary. What you are focussing on is just so much noise, as somebody said. The important stuff is getting done. Of course the establishment, of which, if your posts are to be believed, and I think they are, you are a part, is screaming bloody murder. Of course they are, they are being exposed.
Who is your alternative, realistically, that will not dynamite the party you claim to support, Chuck? If there are Republican fingerprints on the knife in Trump's back, you can kiss your beloved party goodbye.
“.... Jaime Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila, once said the same thing in a sermon, about the government-controlled press. The situation of that segment of the press is very similar.”
This is the US, not the Phillipines. Our Press is not state run. The situation couldn’t be more different. Trump isn’t an Archbishop, he’s the President of the United States.
"Bob Corker is treating Trump the way that Trump has been treating other people, and Trump doesn't like it."
No evidence that it's true that Trump doesn't like it.
Do you understand how much of a non-sequitir that response is, to someone like me?
Valid criticism of Trump, followed by a variant of, "But what about Hillary, or Obama, or the far left?"
Chuck you started this thread by denying the humanity of the President. Once you've done that, the idea that "valid criticism" can ever follow is voided.
Everyone seems to understand that but you.
Our Press is not state run. The situation couldn’t be more different.
Somebody hasn't been reading their Wikeleaks! The press is run by "the Party" which Wikileaks made clear, and we all know which party that is.
"Bob Corker is treating Trump the way that Trump has been treating other people, and Trump doesn't like it."
This is not wrong, but quite incomplete. Trump has been consistently treated badly since he declared his candidacy in 2015. From Trumps point of view (I am presuming, but based on experience) it is just more of the same.
Trump brings disputes into the open. Not completely so, as far as laying out the true battle of interests (yet), but it is for your own good that knives must be made to go in the front and not the back.
"The world is now laughing at us, you stupid asses."
No. They're laughing at you.
"Our Press is not state run. The situation couldn’t be more different. "
On the contrary, the US MSM is if anything even more disciplined and well controlled in its messaging than the Manila press under Marcos. The message discipline and especially the to-the-minute timing is extremely impressive.
Trump often says things that disrespect the First Amendment, he calls the Press “The enemy of the people”
You're making a very common mistake here. When the First Amendment talks about "freedom of the press" they are not referring to a group of people who work in the media. When the First Amendment was written, "press" referred to machinery not people. The only thing insulting people who work in the media has to do with the First Amendment is that it is precisely the type of speech protected by the First Amendment.
Chris Stirewalt was on FNC in the last hour and he said (I hope I get this quote exactly right without a transcript), "Bob Corker is treating Trump the way that Trump has been treating other people, and Trump doesn't like it."
A better analogy is Bob Corker is trying the same strategy as Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. How did that work out for them?
People with TDS are like Charlie Brown. This time they're really going to kick that football!
"Our Press is not state run. The situation couldn’t be more different. "
Our press is party-run. Sometimes that party runs the state, sometimes not.
In either case they are not serving the country's interests, but the party's.
This is not wrong, but quite incomplete. Trump has been consistently treated badly since he declared his candidacy in 2015. From Trumps point of view (I am presuming, but based on experience) it is just more of the same.
Actually since well before he declared his candidacy. Go back to the 2011 White House correspondents dinner. In fact many believe that was the night he decided to run for president.
Selling 20% of our Uranium to Putin, on the other hand, was, because it funneled 145 million dollars into the Clinton Foundation, with which they could do good!
Yeah, the Clintons engaged in Pay For Play. This is my shocked face. It's not going to get covered because (1) they aren't in power and (2) Trump's generating so many stories they are stepping on each other. The Corker story has removed the dead soldier/funeral story. Some other exciting new tweet will happen in the next 24 hours that will take over the Corker story. We didn't hear anything about the liberation of Raqqa, and I'm assuming we'll hear nothing about tax reform. And so it goes.
Whenever Rakoff first comes to mind I don't think of the cancer or the amputation, but about the little boxes he would make for friends. How lucky to have been his friend.
The Press is owned by private corporations. They are not run or owned by any political party or state owned entity. You people really get deep into your conspiracy theories and your President Bone Spurs uses your nuttery and his own to foment divisiveness and unrest in this country.
I’ve seen you Trumpists fall deeper into Trump sycophancy week by week. What is wrong with you people? Seriously.
The Press is owned by private corporations. They are not run or owned by any political party or state owned entity. You people really get deep into your conspiracy theories and your President Bone Spurs uses your nuttery and his own to foment divisiveness and unrest in this country.
The CEO of NPR disagrees with you:
"In an editorial printed in the New York Post, Stern criticized the media for being roped off from understanding America, saying, "the media should acknowledge its own failings in reflecting only their part of America. You can’t cover America from the Acela corridor, and the media need to get out and be part of the conversations that take place in churches and community centers and town halls."
http://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/
Lefties, have you looked a poll of the public about the press ?
Lots of media sites assert that people truest them but that is propaganda.
Another view of the trustworthiness of the press.
Quote: “Based on what you know, do you believe the nations major news organizations fabricate news stories about President Trump and his administration, or not?” People weren’t being asked here about mere “fake news,” i.e. bad reporting or dubious sourcing. They were asked whether they think the press is inventing stuff whole cloth. And still, a plurality said yes. If there’s a more damning statistic about lost faith in journalism, I don’t know what it is:
More than three-quarters of Republican voters, 76 percent, think the news media invent stories about Trump and his administration, compared with only 11 percent who don’t think so. Among Democrats, one-in-five think the media make up stories, but a 65 percent majority think they do not. Forty-four percent of independent voters think the media make up stories about Trump, and 31 percent think they do not.
It's interesting
Gahrie said...
Trump often says things that disrespect the First Amendment, he calls the Press “The enemy of the people”
You're making a very common mistake here. When the First Amendment talks about "freedom of the press" they are not referring to a group of people who work in the media. When the First Amendment was written, "press" referred to machinery not people. The only thing insulting people who work in the media has to do with the First Amendment is that it is precisely the type of speech protected by the First Amendment.
No, you are comprehensively wrong.
Trump's "criticizing" the press is the dog-bites-man story. Trump's eye-opener was his suggestion that perhaps the FCC should look into the federal licensing of NBC. That is a real threat to the First Amendment insofar as it involves a person of great power (the President) threatening the force of the U.S. government (via the FCC) against a private player in the press (NBC) with federal action based on the content of NBC's broadcasting.
Moreover, the whole thing just smacked of more of Trump's stupidity insofar as he didn't realize that the FCC doesn't actually "license" NBC, but rather licenses local NBC affiliates across the country. Trump came off in the end as an impotent dumbass for tossing out that nasty, worthless threat.
If you think Harvey Weinstein would have been covered for by the media if he were working to get Republicans elected, I have a bridge to sell you.
" What is wrong with you people? Seriously."
Watching your conspiracies crumble. Russia was funding Clinton.
Comey and Mueller were hiding the truth.
Obama and Holder/Lynch were sitting on the investigation since 2010.
Just a few facts,
On the one hand, we have a vast network of corruption that is being widely ignored by the press, on the other, we have some tweets that all the right people find annoying.... Hmmmm.....
Trump could tweet about that story instead of trashing Corker, the Foreign Intelligence Committee, and US foreign policy.
Kevin said...
...
The CEO of NPR disagrees with you:
...
Correction; the former CEO of NPR, who was summarily fired way back in, I think, 2008. It was not a happy parting.
"Trump's eye-opener was his suggestion that perhaps the FCC should look into the federal licensing of NBC."
Do you know what was associated with that quote ?
NBC had killed a Weinstein story. Trump can bluster but won;t do anything about it.
But Democrats have, with the "Fairness Doctrine" as an attempt to strangle talk radio, the only right opinion outlet.
The internet has made talk radio less significant but they are trying to strangle that . Dennis Prager has a lawsuit trying to force the censors at You Tube to stop blocking his course at Prager U.
No, you are comprehensively wrong.
Then why didn't you prove me wrong using actual facts?
All you did was repeat your endless attacks on Trump.
Provide evidence that when the First Amendment was written "press" referred to people who work in the media and not printing machinery.
Provide evidence that criticism directed at people who work in the media isn't covered by the First Amendment.
Or just continue mindlessly attacking Trump like the Moby you are.
Moreover, the whole thing just smacked of more of Trump's stupidity insofar as he didn't realize that the FCC doesn't actually "license" NBC, but rather licenses local NBC affiliates across the country.
Gee Chuck, if they were taken off the air, how would NBC distribute its programs?
Oh right, once again it's not the substance but the word choices which inflame you.
Moreover, the whole thing just smacked of more of Trump's stupidity insofar as he didn't realize that the FCC doesn't actually "license" NBC, but rather licenses local NBC affiliates across the country.
This is what is known as a distinction without a difference.
Correction; the former CEO of NPR, who was summarily fired way back in, I think, 2008. It was not a happy parting.
So, he was CEO of NPR and he disagrees based on actual observations over time.
Once again, parsing words rather than discussing substance.
"The Press is owned by private corporations. They are not run or owned by any political party or state owned entity. "
So was the Manila/Philippines MSM in those days. The newspapers and Radio/TV networks were not government-owned (save one). And everyone would be assured that the country had a free press, of course, in spite of all news from the national government being a matter of rewritten press releases.
The same was true for the newspapers in Franco's day, though the Radio/Tele were government-owned.
The US MSM, vs that of Manila in the 70's-80's, has much more ownership concentration btw.
Years ago, I attended a party for children who'd come through Stanford Medical Center's Intensive Care Nursery and their parents. There was a long line for the Dunk-a-Doctor tank. I gave my spot to my husband because I knew he could throw harder. I wondered why the fathers in line seemed so eager, almost angry. These doctors had saved our kids' lives. I remembered how powerless and terrified we'd been, while the doctors were calm and cool. Nobody wants a terrified doctor, but . . . Every time a doctor went down, we cheered.
Trump could tweet about that story instead of trashing Corker, the Foreign Intelligence Committee, and US foreign policy.
He did, the press ignored it.
"The same was true for the newspapers in Franco's day, though the Radio/Tele were government-owned."
That was the Spanish press, in this case, not the Philippine, sorry. There is a great similarity in such systems is my point.
Once you understand the "tells" of a controlled press they are hard to miss.
NBC had killed a Weinstein story. Trump can bluster but won;t do anything about it.
Yeah, Trump won't do anything about it; we all know it; that's why people ignored it. Josh Barro kind of summed it up. Trump's cried dictator too many times. No one believes he will do what he says, even if he threatens to violate the 1st amendment. His words wouldn't worry me if he was a private individual. Don't like that the world & the general public are getting habituated to ignore POTUS. I prefer a Teddy Rosevelt who speaks softly but carries a big stick.
The Press is owned by private corporations. They are not run or owned by any political party or state owned entity.
Sure, as long as you refuse to read their emails in Wikileaks, out of loyalty to your political party, you can maintain that fiction.
Here is some of it:
John Harwood, CNBC/New York Times: Harwood was the moderator for a Republican primary debate in the fall of 2015, but was constantly emailing Podesta to offer political support, even congratulating him on Hillary Clinton’s primary wins. He also gloated in one email about asking Donald Trump provocative questions in the debate. And Harwood also used his exchanges with Podesta to minimize the Clinton e-mail scandal and Clinton Foundation scandal.
It's all gaslighting by Democrats, I can't believe they are that ignorant of the facts.
@ Joanne Jacobs
Love your blog...frequent reader and sometimes commentator.
Kevin, I actually agree with Ken Stern's point in the quote that you posted. I just corrected something you got wrong.
You probably expected (or wanted) me to say something pro-Left, or taking issue with Ken Stern, or defending the mainstream media from a charge of left-wing bias. I'm not doing any of that.
I'm just correcting what you got wrong.
"It's all gaslighting by Democrats, I can't believe they are that ignorant of the facts."
Yes it is gaslighting, they are not unaware of the facts.
It is all hostile disingenuousness.
Tribal war is the real reason.
To be fair, tribal war is behind a lot of the other side too.
Kat Timpf, conservative Fox Newsbabe and National Review contributor, savaging Trump for his First Amendment stupidity on his NBC "licensing" blunder:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452623/trumps-press-attack-conservatives-first-amendment-hypocrisy
here's a couple of Roosevelt quotes for you:
The unforgivable crime is soft hitting. Do not hit at all if it can be avoided; but never hit softly.
Hmm..sounds pretty Trumpian....
It is not the critic who counts. ... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly ... who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.
Lots of cold and timid souls around Althouse these days.
Post a Comment