"The vocal group Boyz II Men performed at the wedding.... Dishes included truffle agnolotti, chilled English pea soup and an American Wagyu bavette and grilled prawns."

I'm reading "The Clintons and Kamala Harris Descend on a Hamptons Wedding of Liberal Royalty/The wedding of Huma Abedin, a longtime aide to Hillary Clinton, and Alex Soros, the scion of a liberal philanthropic dynasty, drew a rare concentration of wealth and power" (NYT).

Is it okay to be out of touch? I mean, truffle agnolotti in the summer? Or rather:

The festivities happened to coincide with an exceptionally chaotic weekend at home and abroad. Protesters gathered across the country to oppose President Trump even as he held an unusual military parade in Washington; a Minnesota lawmaker was assassinated in a new outburst of political violence; and attacks between Israel and Iran stoked fears of a wider Mideast conflagration.

Weddings, planned in advance, always "happen to coincide" with world events that pop up spontaneously.

Mr. Soros and Ms. Abedin announced their engagement last July. They initially planned to elope, Vogue reported on Saturday, but they changed their minds after an engagement party co-hosted by Mrs. Clinton in December, where attendees pressured the couple to hold a more traditional celebration. 

“I think she deserves it,” Mrs. Clinton told the magazine. “She deserves to have that kind of moment.”...

If only we could all have what Hillary Clinton thinks we deserve.

The moneyed scene was especially striking given the Democratic Party’s raging debate over how to improve its historically low standing with voters and win back working-class Americans, with whom it is widely seen as having lost touch....

Here's how I'd spin it: It was so out of touch it was in touch. They were in touch with their out of touchness. 

"An explosive device was found on Wednesday morning by a technician who screens mail for the office of Hillary Clinton..."

"... a law enforcement official said. A similar device was also sent to the office of former President Barack Obama. The official said the devices were similar to one found at the home of the billionaire philanthropist George Soros on Monday.... That device was constructed from a length of pipe about six inches long filled with explosive powder... Mr. Soros, who made his fortune in finance and is now a full-time philanthropist and political activist, is often a subject of the ire of right-wing groups. In recent days, some have falsely speculated that he funded a caravan of migrants moving north in Mexico."

The NYT reports.

Interesting to see the caravan woven into the speculation. The caravan seems to be powerfully helpful to the right wing.

ADDED: Yesterday, I blogged a WaPo article about the caravan and noted that the most-liked comments over there are working on a conspiracy theory that says "GOP operatives" funded the caravan. This morning, I'm reading a newer WaPo article — "How the migrant caravan became so big and why it’s continuing to grow" — and the same thing is happening in the comments. Here's the most-liked one:

Why isn't the media digging into the possibility that Trump's administration is behind the caravan? The timing of its formation right before the mid-terms seems totally suspect to me.

Maybe just a troll, with trolls doing the up-voting. Or just a sarcastic comedian.

How can the NYT think this photograph is an illustration of "The Paranoid Style in G.O.P. Politics"?

The article, from 2 days ago, is "The Paranoid Style in G.O.P. Politics/Republicans are an authoritarian regime in waiting" by Paul Krugman. (The phrase "The Paranoid Style" is an invocation of the 1964 essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" by Richard Hofstadter.)

The photograph — which is a nice photograph by NYT photographer Damon Winter — shows anti-Kavanaugh protesters. The signs make that clear. Perhaps the idea is that "paranoid" Republicans characterize Democratic protesters as crazier than they really are. The only slightly "crazy" sign is the one that shows angry-face Kavanaugh wearing one of those hats that hold 2 beer cans with a tube feeding beer into the hat-wearers mouth. The protesters' faces look not crazy but — if I had to choose one word — concerned.

I haven't read a Paul Krugman column in a long time, but because the headline/photograph combination raised a question for me, I'm going to read to get my answer.

Krugman begins at a level that I consider rash. He calls Kavanaugh "a naked partisan who clearly lied under oath." This is why I don't read Krugman. It's red meat for readers who are hungry and know what they want. The Supreme Court's "moral authority" is "for the foreseeable future," "destroyed."

If there's one person who should not use the phrase "the foreseeable future," it's Krugman. It's alway a silly phrase. We're not psychics. We don't see into the future. But Krugman is famous for writing, the day after the 2016 election, that the financial markets will never recover from the election of Donald Trump. He should know he got burned and be careful.

Back to this new column. Krugman accuses Republicans — based on their performance during the Kavanaugh hearings — of "contempt for the truth" and "a rush to demonize any and all criticism." He sees Republicans as susceptible to "crazy conspiracy theories" because Kavanaugh accused the Democrats of making "a calculated and orchestrated political hit" and seeking "revenge" for Hillary Clinton's loss of the election. Kavanaugh's statement, according to Krugman,  was a "completely false, hysterical accusation." Completely false? That sounds... hysterical.

Trump made things worse, Krugman says, by "declaring, falsely (and with no evidence)" that some anti-Kavanaugh protesters were getting paid. How can Krugman know that the President has no evidence? How can Krugman know that it's false to say they were paid? Does Krugman have evidence conclusively proving that the protesters were all self-funding? I'd like to see an investigation into the inner workings of the protests, and I do think there shouldn't be accusations without evidence, but criticism of the accusers should model proper concern for evidence, or everyone seems to be putting partisan fervor above scrupulous adherence to the truth.

Midway through the column, Krugman shifts from saying that the GOP uses the "paranoid style" to the announcement: "the G.O.P. is an authoritarian regime in waiting." In Krugman's analysis, when those who hold government power use the paranoid style, it's evidence that they're going for authoritarianism. Krugman lists some things — evidence? —  "investigations," "scandals," "tax cheating," "self-dealing," "possible collusion with Russia," and then asks "Does anyone doubt that Trump would like to go full authoritarian, given the chance?"

Well, of course, many people doubt that Trump would like to go full authoritarian! Why did Krugman write a question in such an extreme form that any intelligent, fair person would have to answer yes? Is he paranoid?

I'm not quick to guess paranoid. I think it's more likely that he's angry, cynical, tired of losing, and aware of his readership. In other words, he's deeply entrenched in the very sort of political discourse he's hoping to critique. It's paranoid when they do it. Uh huh.

His last line is another look into the "foreseeable future": "If you aren’t terrified of where we might be in the very near future, you aren’t paying attention." Be scared! Be very afraid! Be terrified... of the way those other people are spreading fear!

And I still don't know why that's the right photograph. I can only guess that the idea is: Look at these very real, sincere faces. Surely, they paid their own expenses.

ADDED: With an eye out for paid protesters stories, I found "Trump apparently misunderstands ‘Fox & Friends’ joke, makes baffling tweet" (WaPo), which tries to understand a Trump tweet that says "The paid D.C. protesters are now ready to REALLY protest because they haven’t gotten their checks - in other words, they weren’t paid! Screamers in Congress, and outside, were far too obvious - less professional than anticipated by those paying (or not paying) the bills!" WaPo puzzles:

In a literal sense, it’s true that the protesters didn’t get checks, because as far as anyone knows they had not expected any payment. But Trump’s tweet seems to be an elaboration on the original fiction, rather than a retraction of it. As best we can discern, he’s saying the imaginary benefactors of imaginary paid protesters have skipped out on their imaginary obligations and left the imaginary paid protesters with imaginary unpaid wages.

It’s a weirdly specific scenario to conjure out of thin air. We can’t even find any fake news articles to support it....

Some Trumpsters theorized that Trump deliberately said something wrong to trick some protesters into admitting that they did get paid. But "the dominant theory" is that Trump heard Asra Nomani, a guest on “Fox & Friends,” say, "People have sent me lots of messages that they’re waiting for their check." Later, she said it was sarcasm, but whether it was a joke or not, Trump apparently didn't think it was a joke.

"Steve Bannon... told The Daily Beast that he is setting up a foundation in Europe called The Movement..."

"... which he hopes will lead a right-wing populist revolt across the continent starting with the European Parliament elections next spring."

The non-profit will be a central source of polling, advice on messaging, data targeting, and think-tank research for a ragtag band of right-wingers who are surging all over Europe, in many cases without professional political structures or significant budgets.

Bannon’s ambition is for his organization ultimately to rival the impact of Soros’s Open Society, which has given away $32 billion to largely liberal causes since it was established in 1984....

Meddling!

ADDED: I looked up "ragtag" in the OED and learned that the earlier phrase was "tag and rag" — and insult for "all the components of the masses or those of lower social status; a gathering of people held in low esteem; all and any, every man Jack, everybody, Tom, Dick, and Harry." Example:

1610 A. Cooke Pope Joane in Harl. Misc. (Malh.) IV. 95 That you have made Levites..of the scurvy and scabbed, of the lowest of the people, tag and rag...
18.. R. Southey Devil's Walk xxiii With music of fife and drum, And a consecrated flag, And shout of tag and rag, And march of rank and file.

Also, "ragtag" originally appeared in the longer phrase, "rag-tag and bob-tail" (or "rag, tag and bob-tail") — "A disreputable or disorganized group of people; the lowest element of a community; the riff-raff or rabble."

1725 W. Teague Let. in Mist's Weekly Jrnl. 2 Oct. My Assistance in this Piece of Impudence, if it should ever succeed, will be esteemed Persons of Worth and Reputation, especially if they should be indicted, though they are Rag-Tag, and Bob-tail, and be thought witty....

The OED has that as the earliest example, but I easily found an earlier example in Samuel Pepys diary, Tuesday 6 March 1659/60 (except that he puts the "tag" before the "rag"):

... I went to see Mrs. Jem, at whose chamber door I found a couple of ladies, but she not being there, we hunted her out, and found that she and another had hid themselves behind a door. Well, they all went down into the dining-room, where it was full of tag, rag, and bobtail, dancing, singing, and drinking, of which I was ashamed, and after I had staid a dance or two I went away.... 

AND: As long as I'm looking up words, I looked up "meddle," which basically means "mix." I was amused to see that one meaning is "To have sexual intercourse (with)." This is an old, old, old meaning:

c1400 (▸c1378) Langland Piers Plowman (Laud 581) (1869) B. xi. 335 (MED) Alle other bestes Medled nouȝte wyth here makes þat with fole were....
?a1450 (▸1422) Lydgate Serpent of Div. (McClean) 63 (MED) Hit sempte vnto hym in his slepe þat he medled fleschely with his owne moder....
1695 W. Congreve Love for Love i. xi. 10 I never could meddle with a Woman, that had to do with any body else.

Al Franken sees anti-Semitism in Trump's new 2-minute ad: "This was something of a German shepherd whistle, a dog whistle...."

On "State of the Union" this morning, the host Jake Tapper asked Franken about Trump's ad (which we were talking about yesterday, here). Here's the ad:



Did you see the anti-Semitism? Tapper froze a frame that showed billionaire George Soros, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein — all of whom, Tapper said, are Jewish. Franken said:

Franken, a Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter, said his reaction to the ad was: “This was something of a German shepherd whistle, a dog whistle, to sort of the, a certain group in the United States” and said it speaks to “a certain part” of Trump’s base in the alt-right.

“I’m Jewish, so maybe I’m sensitive to it, but it clearly had sort of [an] ‘Elders of Zion’ kind of feel to it,” Franken said. “International banking plot or conspiracy, rather, and then a number of Jews.”

“I think that it’s an appeal to some of the worst elements in our country as his closing argument,” he added. “And I think that people who aren’t sensitive to that or don’t know that history may not see that in that, but that’s what I immediately saw.”

If an anti-Semitic message was intended, Franken gave it air, but Franken had to think that accusing the other side of anti-Semitism would help his candidate. Maybe the message from Trump works, but only if it's kept at a subconscious level — or maybe that's just what Franken thinks. What if anti-Semitism works and it was not intended by the ad, but Franken originated the charge and unintentionally helped Trump?

This is an awful subject to bring up now, but maybe the Democratic cause is desperate. Franken certainly looked very depressed. He could barely get his words out. It was painful to watch.

Now, I do want to add that I'm sympathetic to the argument that political material can sneak in an anti-Semitic message. That's what I thought I saw in Michael Moore's movie "Capitalism: A Love Story," blogged here in October 2009:

The most striking thing in the movie was the religion. I think Moore is seriously motivated by Christianity. He says he is (and has been since he was a boy). And he presented various priests, Biblical quotations, and movie footage from "Jesus of Nazareth" to make the argument that Christianity requires socialism. With this theme, I found it unsettling that in attacking the banking system, Moore presented quite a parade of Jewish names and faces. He never says the word "Jewish," but I think the anti-Semitic theme is there. We receive long lectures about how capitalism is inconsistent with Christianity, followed a heavy-handed array of — it's up to you to see that they are — Jewish villains.

Am I wrong to see Moore as an anti-Semite? I don't know, but the movie worked as anti-Semitic propaganda. I had to struggle to fight off the idea the movie seemed to want to plant in my head.

If you're celebrating the generosity of Marc Zuckerberg, you're a hypocrite if you won't also celebrate the Koch brothers.

That's what crossed my mind as I read this NYT op-ed, "How Mark Zuckerberg’s Altruism Helps Himself," by Jesse Eisinger (of ProPublica).

[Zuckerberg] created a limited liability company.... An L.L.C. can invest in for-profit companies.... An L.L.C. can make political donations. It can lobby for changes in the law. He remains completely free to do as he wishes with his money.... [H]e amassed one of the greatest fortunes in the world — and is likely never to pay any taxes on it....

Maybe Mr. Zuckerberg will make wonderful decisions, ones I would personally be happy with. Maybe not. He blew his $100 million donation to the Newark school system, as Dale Russakoff detailed in her recent book, “The Prize: Who’s in Charge of America’s Schools?” Mr. Zuckerberg has said he has learned from his mistakes....

But I think I might do a good job allocating $45 billion. Maybe even better than Mr. Zuckerberg. I am self-aware enough to realize many people would disagree with my choices. Those who like how Mr. Zuckerberg is lavishing his funds might not like how the Koch brothers do so. Or George Soros....

[W]e are turning into a society of oligarchs. And I am not as excited as some to welcome the new Silicon Valley overlords.

Eisinger wants "some kind of tax on wealth," even as he recognizes that "nobody thinks our government representatives do a good job of allocating resources." We do at least have some say in what the government does... which is part of why Soros, the Kochs, and presumably Zuckerberg would like to use their wealth to influence elections. But what happens when they act directly, using their vast wealth to skew choices that would otherwise belong to the people, as Zuckerberg did in Newark? We need to be skeptical and not naively appreciative of gifts. 

"Soros-backed group pores over emails as it targets Walker."

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports:

Organizers say they have committed about two dozen of their Washington, D.C.-based staff to poring over the 27,000 pages of emails.....

So about 1125 emails per staff member.  Guessing at the length of most emails, I say they can get their poring done in 2 days, max.

Larry Sabato, a prominent political analyst at the University of Virginia who had placed Walker atop his early list of Republican presidential hopefuls, said he didn't think the emails and documents hurt Walker.
"I would put a big red asterisk to anything I say," Sabato said, noting the huge number of documents could be hiding something damaging. "It could be Bridgegate. But I don't think it's like Bridgegate. I just don't think it is nearly as serious."

Yeah, also Bridgegate wasn't preceded by years of secret investigation by prosecutors. What do you think would be in there that we haven't heard about yet? Maybe some embarrassing little junky things that people jot down when they're emailing and imagining that they're more or less talking to the other person. We're going to have to get used to reading material like that and being reasonable about understanding this, but maybe everybody needs to see their side burned first.

For example — see previous post — what's in all that Department of Agriculture email that the Obama DOJ doesn't want to release in that Shirley Sherrod defamation case against Andrew Breitbart? What bad things did those insiders say in the course of decided to cut Sherrod loose? I doubt very much that it's something like: Now that Breitbart has established that Ms. Sherrod practices racial discrimination, we cannot keep her in her current position of power. It might be something more like: Sherrod is toxic. We can't let that get on us.

The NYT tries to figure out what portion of Barack Obama is Valerie Jarrett.

A fascinating long article by Jo Becker:

“She is the single most influential person in the Obama White House,” said one former senior White House official, who like many would speak candidly only on condition of anonymity.

“She’s there to try to promote what she understands to be what the president wants,” the former aide said. “Ultimately the president makes his own decisions. The question that is hard to get inside of, the black box, is whether she is really influencing him or merely executing decisions he’s made. That’s like asking, ‘Is the light on in the refrigerator when the door is closed?’ ”

Makes her sound like Karl Rove, right? But as the NYT puts it: "If Karl Rove was known as George W. Bush’s political brain, Ms. Jarrett is Mr. Obama’s spine."

“He’s got a real mess in the West Wing,” said one close presidential adviser. “Valerie is effectively the chief of staff, and he knows, but he doesn’t know. She’s almost like Nancy Reagan was with President Reagan, but more powerful.”...

It is not so much that she is Mr. Obama’s liberal id. Rather, her voice is often the one at the table reminding everyone of the president’s aspirational “first principles,” that he “didn’t just come to the White House to hold the office, but to make change,” [according to Anita Dunn, who was the president’s communications director].

Specifics: 1. Jarrett was responsible for encouraging Kathleen Sebelius to go ahead with the contraception mandate in the health insurance regulations; 2. She once "order[ed] a drink from a four-star general she mistook for a waiter"; 3. She snubbed George Soros and may be be responsible for his "largely sitting on the sidelines this presidential election," 4. She insulted Cornel West (after he whined about not getting invited to the inauguration), letting people know, as he put it: "one, I was crazy, and two, I was un-American."

#1 is the most important revelation, and the NYT begins and ends the article with it: