"It hasn't all been fun, and I know he's been frustrated."—An anonymous Republican "who has spoken with Bannon in recent weeks."
Oh poor Steve Bannon. He isn't having undiluted fun.
Imagine being a person so privileged, so entitled, and so arrogant that you think running the United States of America should be all fun and no frustration.
Quote of the Day
Rep. Devin Nunes to "Temporarily" Step Aside in Russia Investigation
After Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, completely destroyed his own credibility by running interference for the White House during his committee's investigation of Russian interference and possible collusion, prompting calls for his recusal, he has now announced that he will "temporarily" step aside, blaming it on "leftwing activist groups." (LOL.)
His statement reads in full:
Several leftwing activist groups have filed accusations against me with the Office of Congressional Ethics. The charges are entirely false and politically motivated, and are being leveled just as the American people are beginning to learn the truth about the improper unmasking of the identities of U.S. citizens and other abuses of power. Despite the baselessness of the charges, I believe it is in the best interests of the House Intelligence Committee and Congress for me to have Representative Mike Conaway, with assistance from Representatives Trey Gowdy and Tom Rooney, temporarily take charge of the Committee's Russia investigation while the White House Ethics Committee looks into this matter. I will continue to fulfill all my other responsibilities as Committee Chairman, and I am requesting to speak with the Ethics Committee at the earliest possible opportunity in order to expedite the dismissal of these false claims.Nunes can try to spin this as a partisan smear to distract from conservatives' bullshit conspiracy theory about Susan Rice all he wants, but, the truth is that the ethics complaints were prompted by his brazenly unethical behavior.
Even Speaker Paul Ryan's statement was tepid and perfunctory in its support for Nunes:
Devin Nunes has earned my trust over many years for his integrity and dedication to the critical work that the intelligence community does to keep America safe. He continues to have that trust, and I know he is eager to demonstrate to the Ethics Committee that he has followed all proper guidelines and laws. In the meantime, it is clear that this process would be a distraction for the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russian interference in our election. Chairman Nunes has offered to step aside as the lead Republican on this probe, and I fully support this decision. Chairman Mike Conaway, a senior member of the Committee, will now lead this investigation in the House. I am confident that he will oversee a professional investigation into Russia's actions and follow the facts wherever they lead.Ryan did not add: "And he will also do everything he can to make sure those facts don't lead to the White House, but he has assured me he will be less obvious about it than that dipshit Nunes."
In case you've forgotten who Mike Conaway is, he's this guy:
Excruciating: Comey tries to explain to a Republican that if Putin wanted Clinton to lose, he wanted Trump to win pic.twitter.com/QtqzKi6dR6
— Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) March 20, 2017
CONAWAY: The logic is that because [Putin] really didn't like, uh, President— candidate Clinton that he automatically liked Trump? That assessment's based on, um, what?So, that's with whom Nunes is being replaced. If you were wondering if we should have any confidence in him, the answer is a hard no.
COMEY: Well, it's based on more than that, but, part of it is that, we're not going to get into the details of it here, but part of it is the logic. Wherever the Red Raiders are playing, you want the Red Raiders to win; by definition, you want their opponent to lose.
CONAWAY: I know, but this says that, that you wanted both of 'em— that you wanted her to lose and you wanted him to win. Is that what you're saying?
COMEY: Right. They're inseparable. Right? So it's a two— it's a two-person event.
CONAWAY: Right, right. I gotcha. So I'm just wondering when you decided you wanted him to win.
COMEY: Well—
Bannon, Trump, and a White House in Paranoid Chaos
Yesterday, it was reported that white supremacist Steve Bannon had been removed from the National Security Council. A "senior White House official," probably named Beve Stannon, told the Washington Post that the reason was because Bannon "had accomplished what he'd set out to do on the National Security Council," which was, according to a White House official who spoke to Bloomberg, having kept a close eye on Michael Flynn.
Which for sure definitely makes sense, since Flynn's been gone since mid-February. (It does not make sense.)
Since the White House's (and Beve Stannon's) explanations for why Bannon was removed from the National Security Council are a wee bit suspect, the press is digging for the story of what really happened.
Peter Baker, Maggie Haberman, and Glenn Thrush at the New York Times report that National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster was behind ousting Bannon from the NSC, because he didn't want a political operative in "the Situation Room where decisions about war and peace are made."
Buried deep in the same article, however, is this:
Moreover, Mr. Bannon's Svengali-style reputation has chafed on a president who sees himself as the West Wing's only leading man. Several associates said the president had quietly expressed annoyance over the credit Mr. Bannon had received for setting the agenda — and Mr. Trump was not pleased by the "President Bannon" puppet-master theme promoted by magazines, late-night talk shows and Twitter.Something tells me that has a lot more to do with this decision. Even if McMaster indeed advocated for Bannon's removal, it was only because Trump's ego was taking a beating that he agreed to it.
It probably also matters, as Eliana Johnson, Kenneth P. Vogel, and Josh Dawsey at Politico report, that Bannon has increasingly been clashing "with the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner, who's taken on an increasingly prominent portfolio in the West Wing. Bannon has complained that Kushner and his allies are trying to undermine his populist approach, the sources said."
Because Trump surrounds himself with family, in the long tradition of paranoid authoritarians, it doesn't matter how loyal anyone is to Trump nor how much they believe they've earned a place in the inner circle: If they can't get along with the family, they're going to find themselves on the outs very quickly.
Bannon reportedly threatened to quit over his demotion, but conservative mega-donor Rebekah Mercer "prevailed upon him to stay."
Another person familiar with the situation, a GOP operative who talks to Mercer, said: "Bekah tried to convince him that this is a long-term play."That's an interesting way of convincing Bannon to stay: It's "a long-term play." Which sounds a lot less like Bannon is actually the trusted advisor we (and Trump?) have been led to believe he is, and more like Bannon is an interloper representing an external agenda.
Bannon has worked closely with Mercer not only at the right-wing website Breitbart News, where her family is a major investor and where he served as executive chairman until joining the Trump campaign in August, but also at Cambridge Analytica, the data-analytics firm owned largely by the Mercers.
Which brings us to a different Politico piece, by Alex Isenstadt and Andrew Restuccia, bluntly headlined: "Civil war rages throughout Trump administration." They report: "A civil war between Donald Trump loyalists and establishment-minded Republicans is escalating throughout the federal government—and increasingly the president's allies are losing."
A former Trump campaign aide is quoted bitterly complaining: "As we get further away from Inauguration Day, it is very obvious that no one cares what happens to the people who worked for the campaign or who have loyalty to the president. The swamp is winning the battle."
Maybe the swamp doesn't like the idea of a chief strategist who can't actually get anything done, because he doesn't know what the fuck he's doing.
The real story of what's going in remains unclear. What is clear, however, is that this is a White House mired in paranoid chaos, with multiple factions competing for control. And Trump appears to be woefully unequipped to make good decisions or be any kind of stabilizing leader. Overwhelmed by the quagmire, he's more interested in golfing than governing.
That leaves his White House in utter disarray, and leaves all of us in one hell of a mess.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker GreyLadyBast: "Do you have any firm life rules to live by, and if so, what are they?"
The Sixth Sentence on Page 61
Whatever book you're reading right now, turn to page 61 and share the sixth sentence. No titles. Just the sentence. Let's see what story we end up telling together, in these series of isolated sentences!
"He'd had his drinking and his war and his Yugo music."
The Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by flowers.
Recommended Reading:
Jason: [Content Note: Misogynoir] April Ryan, Maxine Waters, and Now Susan Rice: Black Women Are Natural Enemies of the Trump Administration
Jess and Avital: [CN: Misogyny] Title Fight: Title IX Is 45 yrs old, But Schools Still Struggle with Gender Equity in Sport. Why? A Case Study.
Leah: For a Trip to the ER, Some Are Opting for Uber over an Ambulance
Lance: [CN: Bigotry] They Want People to Die
Jacob: FCC Chief Ajit Pai Really Sounds Like He Plans to End Title II Net Neutrality
Kaiser: [CN: Appropriation] On Kendall Jenner's 'Protest' Pepsi Commercial
Leave your links and recommendations in comments. Self-promotion welcome and encouraged!
The U.S. President Is a Dangerous Fool
Today, Donald Trump made a joint appearance with King Abdullah II of Jordan in the White House Rose Garden, during which he was expectedly asked about the devastating gas attack in Syria yesterday, and what the United States' response would be.
He gave several, equally terrible answers, all of which were evasive, and, as per usual, Trump framed his evasion as some sort of brilliant military strategy.
Pressed for action on #SyriaGasAttack, Trump settles on "I'm not saying I'm going to do anything, but I'm not going to tell you." pic.twitter.com/6Itp9JH3cd
— Tommy Christopher (@tommyxtopher) April 5, 2017
REPORTER (off-camera): You seem to be reluctant to get involved, or to intervene, in Syria directly. Is that one thing that's changed after yesterday?[Video via Tommy Christopher.]
TRUMP: Well, one of the things I think you've noticed about me is, militarily, I don't like to say where I'm going and what I'm doing. And I watched past administrations say, "We will attack at such-and-such a day, at such-and-such an hour—" [gestures at King Abdullah II] And you, being a warrior, you would say, "Why are they saying that?" And I'm sure you sat back in Jordan, and you said, "Why are they saying that?" [King Abdullah II gazes back at him blankly]
I watched Mosul, where the past administration was saying, "We will be attacking in four months." And I said, "Why are they doing that?" Then a month goes by, and they say, "We will be attacking in three months." And then two months, and then: "We will be attacking next week." And I'm saying, "Why are they doing that?" And, as you know, Mosul turned out to be a much harder fight than anyone thought. And a lot of people have been lost in that fight.
I'm not saying I'm doing anything one way or the other, but I'm certainly not going to be telling you, as much as I respect you, John. Thank you.
For some odd reason—perhaps my failing memory, or the fact that it didn't happen—I'm not remembering quite the way Trump does the Obama administration having a countdown clock announcing the schedule of its military operations.
Nevertheless, there is a very good reason that a government might announce an impending military operation: The hope of avoiding it altogether. That is, to give the adversary the time and opportunity to change strategy.
And, perhaps, to come to the table in a diplomatic process and avoid warfare and its devastating consequences.
The Trump administration doesn't do diplomacy, and Trump views military operations exclusively as an end in and of themselves. He can't imagine why any president would undermine the power of shock and awe inherent to a surprise attack, because he regards military operations as a desirable objective, rather than something to avoid.
That alone is enough horror for a single one-minute clip of this president, but his insistence on presuming to speak for another country's leader is appalling and humiliating.
Not only does he put words in King Abdullah II's mouth; Trump puts his own words in his mouth. Quite literally. Trump brazenly asserts that King Abdullah II was saying the same thing he was saying: "Why are they doing that?" It is incredibly presumptuous, and aggressively bad leadership.
Further to that, it's provocative. Trump constantly risks pissing off foreign dignitaries with this kind of overfamiliar and bullying nonsense.
He is a dangerous fool, and every moment of every day that he remains in office, he makes us all decidedly less safe.
Daily Dose of Cute
(The mail.)
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
We Resist: Day 76
One of the difficulties in resisting the Trump administration, the Republican Congressional majority, and Republican state legislatures is keeping on top of the sheer number of horrors, indignities, and normalization of the aggressively abnormal that they unleash every single day.
So here is a daily thread for all of us to share all the things that are going on, thus crowdsourcing a daily compendium of the onslaught of conservative erosion of our rights and our very democracy.
Stay engaged. Stay vigilant. Resist.
* * *
Here are some things in the news today:
Today I want to talk about the (adult) Trump kids, because they are the woooooooorst. And they have obliterated any sense of restraint I have maintained regarding going after politicians' kids, because they have: 1. Made their own politics abundantly clear; 2. Decided to participate in their father's administration.
Don Trump Jr. is a nightmare. He's not in the news today, so I just thought I'd mention that and get him out of the way.
Eric Trump, however, is in the news today. Alana Horowitz Satlin at the Huffington Post: Eric Trump Doesn't Care That He Was Hired Because of Nepotism. LOL I'm sure he doesn't! Sayeth Eric: "Nepotism is kind of a factor of life. We might be here because of nepotism, but we're not still here because of nepotism. You know, if we didn't do a good job, if we weren't competent, believe me, we wouldn't be in this spot."
Okay, first of all, nepotism is not a fact of life. Not for the vast majority of people, whose parents aren't in positions to assist them. It shows how insular and privileged this dipshit's life has been that he imagines nepotism is just a fact of life.
Secondly, just because Eric Trump says "believe me," in the same way his contemptible father does, does not, in fact, make his line of garbage any more believable.
Third, I can't imagine any sensible person believing for a nanosecond that Eric and his odious siblings have retained their positions because of their competency. Trump doesn't demand competency of his staff who aren't family members, so I find it highly unlikely that he would exact more rigorous standards for his own offspring.
Get to fuck with this horseshit, Eric.
Also in the news today is Ivanka Trump, who did an interview with CBS Morning, which was obviously terrific in its entirety, but I'm going to highlight just two bits.
First there was her supercool commentary on how she has her father's ear, and she disagrees with him on some stuff: "There are multiple ways to have your voice heard. In some cases, it's through protest and it's through going on the nightly news and talking about or denouncing every issue on which you disagree with. Other times, it is quietly and directly and candidly. Where I disagree with my father, he knows it. And I express myself with total candor."
Swell. The thing is, he obviously doesn't listen to her, so what the fuck difference does it make?
Then there was this:
Ivanka: My biz trustees are independent.
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) April 5, 2017
King: They're family members.
Ivanka: They're still independent. pic.twitter.com/AnghcbRsHT
GAYLE KING: When we talk about the Ivanka Trump brand you are no longer running the day-to-day.Good grief. All the mirthless laughter in the universe.
IVANKA TRUMP: No, I'm no longer—
KING: What have you done with your business?
TRUMP: I have no involvement with any of it. I felt like proximity to my father and to the White House and, with my husband taking such an influential role in the administration, I didn't want to also be running a business. So I put it into trust. I have independent trustees. I have no involvement in its management, in its oversight, in its strategic decision making—
KING: But the trustees are family members, right? Your brother-in-law and your sister-in-law?
TRUMP: They are.
KING: So from the—
TRUMP: But they're completely independent. And I'm transparent about that.
KING: Can you see from the public point of view, yes, you put it in trust, but it's family members. They're thinking: Well, is she really not involved? Do you really not get on the phone and say, "What's going on?" Do you have no involvement whatsoever?
TRUMP: I take— I take a legal document very seriously, and I wouldn't go through the pains of setting this up if I intended to violate it.
Also in the news today is Ivanka's aforementioned husband, Trump's son-in-law and shadow president, Jared Kushner, the most talented and competent polymath in all the land!
Hannah Allam at BuzzFeed: Trump's Son-in-Law Secretly Met with Muslim Leaders Weeks Before the Travel Ban.
The goal was a candid talk about what kind of relationship the new administration might forge with American Muslims — a minefield of a topic given Trump's anti-Muslim remarks during the campaign.Gross. Every single time this guy's name is in the news, it's another story about how much is being delegated and how badly that's going.
The meeting, which has not been previously reported, went smoothly, but any optimism Muslims left with that day vanished within a couple of weeks as Trump took office and immediately set about turning his anti-Muslim rhetoric into policy.
And so fizzled one of the few attempts at dialogue between Muslim representatives and Trump's inner circle.
...Muslims' access to the White House is severely restricted, apparently now reduced to a back channel run by the president's son-in-law, at a time when Islam is the faith singled out in Trump's inaugural address, attacked by White House officials, targeted in travel bans, and subject to intense surveillance.
Finally: Tiffany Trump, Donald's daughter with Marla Maples, has showed up to smile and wave at all the important times, but at least thus far has had the good sense not to join her father's administration. But she's only 23. We'll see if that sticks.
Once again, I will note that elevating adult children to leadership positions is a common feature of authoritarianism. Paranoid men who prioritize loyalty above all and feel that they can't trust anyone surround themselves with adult children, who they empower within the boundaries of a parent-child relationship, thus reducing the likelihood of being meaningfully challenged.
This is not a good thing for the country, in any way.
* * *
Glenn Thrush and Maggie Haberman at the New York Times: Trump Suggests Susan Rice Committed Crime, Citing No Evidence. "Trump said on Wednesday that he thought that the former national security adviser Susan E. Rice may have committed a crime by seeking the identities of Trump associates who were swept up in the surveillance of foreign officials by American spy agencies and that other Obama administration officials may also have been involved. The president provided no evidence to back his claim. Current and former intelligence officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations have said that nothing they have seen led them to believe that Ms. Rice's actions were unusual or unlawful."
Relatedly: Tim Peacock details the genesis of the Rice conspiracy theory, which, like many of its predecessors, emerged from rightwing media.
[CN: Misogyny] Christine Grimaldi at Rewire: Republicans Prep Regulatory War on Women's Health-Care Benefits. "From their leadership perches in both the House and U.S. Senate, Republicans described a 'three-pronged approach' to repealing and replacing Obamacare. Even with a repeal bill potentially out of the picture, they still have two prongs left in play. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has delivered somewhat on prong three, passing a pair of insurance reform bills with varying degrees of bipartisan support that likely won't hold up in the Senate. The second prong leaves crucial rollbacks up to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). By HHS Secretary Tom Price's accounting, there are 1,442 citations in Obamacare providing discretion to the secretary. He pledged that HHS will 'look at every single one.'"
[CN: Homophobia] Andy Towle at Towleroad: Matt Baume Has the Goods on SCOTUS Nominee Neil Gorsuch, and We Should Be Worried. "With the Democrats amidst a filibuster of SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch and the Republicans threatening to change Senate rules by using the 'nuclear' option, you might need a refresher on the expectations out there for Gorsuch and LGBT rights. Should we be worried? All signs point to yes."
[CN: Racism] Yessenia Funes at Colorlines: Standing Rock's Issues Extend Beyond the Pipeline. "As the crowds and media attention surrounding Standing Rock have lessened, there is also a marked decrease in attention to the tribe’s other problems. In a special report co-published with The Huffington Post today (April 4), InsideClimate News looked into life on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, 3,600 square miles in North and South Dakota where almost half of the 8,200 population living below the poverty line. So while momentum around the tribe grew out of the Dakota Access Pipeline, that fight symbolized more for its people than environmental concerns."
[CN: White supremacy] Lois Beckett at the Guardian: White Nationalists' Latest Tactic to Recruit College Students. "Under cover of darkness, the groups put up posters with slogans like 'America is a white nation,' 'Let's Become Great Again,' 'Serve Your People,' or 'Our Destiny is Ours.' One group, which asks members to affirm their 'non-semitic heritage,' splashes its slogans over black-and-white photos of marble icons, such as Michelangelo's David, who is, of course, a famous Jewish hero. That group, Identity Evropa, tweets out photos of its paper conquests, proudly displaying the images it has deposited in the midst of advertisements for college improv performances, math tutors, Bible study groups, and open mic nights. The group calls the effort 'Project Siege.'"
What have you been reading that we need to resist today?
Steve Bannon Is off the National Security Council
White supremacist Steve Bannon is off the National Security Council. At the moment, the entirety of the Washington Post's report reads: "A senior White House official said that the change is not a demotion, and that Bannon had accomplished what he'd set out to do on the National Security Council."
Followed by a note that the story will be updated. But at least we've gotten the important detail—that Bannon is TOO AWESOME for the National Security Council ANYWAY.
This is good news, in the sense that Bannon never should have had a seat on the National Security Council in the first place.
BUT. Bannon will presumably retain his position as chief strategist in the White House, where he will continue to operate with even less oversight and transparency than he did on the NSC.
So that's not great. As long as Bannon remains in the White House at all, we have a problem.
[Content Note: Video may autoplay at link] Jennifer Jacobs at Bloomberg reports that the role of Trump's Homeland Security Adviser, Tom Bossert, has also been downgraded, while "the national intelligence director, Dan Coats, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, are again 'regular attendees' of the NSC's principals committee."
And there's this amusing note: "A White House official said that Bannon was placed on the committee in part to monitor Trump's first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and never attended a meeting."
So they're trying to argue at they were totes on top of the whole Flynn thing and put Bannon there to babysit him, and now his job is done because Flynn's gone. Laughably cynical and opportunistic. Trump defended Flynn even on the day he fired him, and now he wants to rewrite history to try to frame Bannon as a hero, rather than a shitlord who is being relocated to minimize scrutiny.
As investigations for administration ties to Russia continue, and the administration appears to be angling for a war.
TV Corner: Big Little Lies
[Content Note: SPOILERS. Discussion of domestic violence and rape culture.]
I just finished the HBO limited series Big Little Lies, based on the book of the same title by Liane Moriarty. Since it was such a popular series, I thought I'd open a thread for discussion, in case anyone else has also watched it and wants to talk about it.
I thought it was very good, and there was a tremendous amount I liked about it, starting with the fact that there were five fully realized female characters, three of whom were over 40.
I hadn't read Moriarty's book on which it was based, but I figured out almost immediately the three central parts of the mystery: Who was bullying Amabella; who was Jane's attacker and Ziggy's dad; and who died and why.
Normally, that would be a big strike against a story that centers around a tangled mystery, but, in this case, it's a credit to how well the material dealt with rape and domestic violence. I figured it out because it was real.
Instead of some bullshit Law & Order: SVU twist on sexual violence, Big Little Liars told a very realistic story. I was able to predict the outcome because I know how sexual violence works in the real world.
And to see the story unfold exactly as it should have was immensely satisfying in its own way.
Much more so, in fact, than had it told a story that SHOCKS! for the virtue of shocking, at the expense of real-life survivors' truth.
Gorsuch Is a Plagiarist
The headline at Politico reads "Gorsuch's writings borrow from other authors," which is a very polite way of saying that Gorsuch is just the latest Trumpster to be exposed as a plagiarist.
Melania Trump plagiarized Michelle Obama; Monica Crowley withdrew from a position on Trump's national security team after her plagiarism was discovered; Betsy DeVos was found to have plagiarized parts of her nomination questionnaire; and even Trump himself "borrowed" (though probably due to ignorance) Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign slogan.
Now Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch has been revealed to have plagiarized "several passages from the tenth chapter of his 2006 book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, [which] read nearly verbatim to a 1984 article in the Indiana Law Journal. In several other instances in that book and an academic article published in 2000, Gorsuch borrowed from the ideas, quotes, and structures of scholarly and legal works without citing them."
Naturally, the Trump administration is pushing back with the usual codswallop: Partisan attack blah blah. Fake news blah blah. Smear blah blah. Gorsuch could kick your Supreme Court nominee's ass blah blah.
But Politico quotes Rebecca Moore Howard, a Syracuse University professor with expertise in plagiarism, who says bluntly: "Each of the individual incidents constitutes a violation of academic ethics. I've never seen a college plagiarism code that this would not be in violation of."
Welp.
Trump wants to run govt like a business, but if a business owner discovered a potential hire was a thief, they probably wouldn't hire them.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) April 5, 2017
This, among many other examples, puts paid the lie that Trump wants to run the government like a business (which is a garbage idea anyhow). Smart people who run effective businesses don't surround themselves with people who are unqualified for the jobs they were hired to do, and they certainly don't make a habit of hiring people who have exposed major ethical weaknesses during the job interview.
Anyway. Let's see if Neil Gorsuch is the hill Senate Republicans still want to die on, despite the fact they definitely would have had something to say about an Obama SCOTUS nominee who was found to be a plagiarist.
Now that we've got another Republican president, IOKIYAR is back bigly.
North Korea Escalates; Tillerson Utterly Fails Diplomatic Test in Response
[Content Note: Video may autoplay at first link.]
Joshua Berlinger, Barbara Starr, and Paula Hancocks at CNN: North Korea Fires Ballistic Missile as Trump, Xi Prepare to Meet.
Ahead of the first meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, North Korea fired a ballistic missile off the coast of the Korean Peninsula, US and South Korean officials said.So, basically, the Trump administration's posture at this point is that: 1. They are ready to go to war with North Korea, if they deem it necessary. 2. If China doesn't do something, the U.S. will. 3. It's Obama's fault.
The missile—which fell into the Sea of Japan, also known as the East Sea, on Wednesday morning—is one of several the country has test-fired in recent months.
Even before the missile test, North Korea's nuclear program was expected to be an important talking point between Xi and Trump.
The United States has been pushing China to put pressure on North Korea to stop its nuclear program and missile testing, but Trump said on Sunday the United States would be prepared to act alone to stop North Korea.
...A senior White House official on Tuesday said: "The clock has now run out, and all options are on the table," pointing to the failure of successive administrations' efforts to negotiate an end to the country's nuclear program.
That sounds very much to me like an administration that wants to go to war, and is looking for excuses and justifications. Chilling.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson responded last night to the North Korean ballistic missile launch by issuing this statement:
👀 This is Rex Tillerson's statement on North Korea's missile launch pic.twitter.com/S2xAgZAGlX
— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) April 4, 2017
If you can't view the image in the tweet, it a screencap of Tillerson's complete statement, which reads: "North Korea launched yet another intermediate range ballistic missile. The United States has spoken enough about North Korea. We have no further comment."
That's it. That is the real statement from the United States Secretary of State.
This "we're not going to dignify that with a response" response is wildly inappropriate. Kim Jong Un didn't call Trump a poopyhead on the playground; he launched a missile.
Our top diplomat cannot respond to North Korean aggression with: "We're done talking about that."
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) April 5, 2017
"Hard pass" isn't a diplomatic option.
Tillerson's statement is, quite genuinely, one of the most incredible things I've ever seen in U.S. politics, which is really saying something.
We are being ruled by reckless, dangerous men. I am legitimately fearful about where this is going to lead.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker Lady Blanchester: "What is your oldest piece of clothing that you still wear on at least a semi-regular basis?"
If shoes count as a piece of clothing, I have Doc Martens I bought during college that are still going! If shoes don't count, I have a good few t-shirts and sweaters that are at least a decade old.
An Observation
Meanwhile, on Twitter...
Another day another one million reminders that no one has a lower opinion of men than men who love love love the patriarchy.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) April 4, 2017
Seriously. Just listen to how men talk about other men and tell me how it's feminists and womanists who get the reputation as "man-haters."
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) April 4, 2017
No one thinks men are more helpless, entitled, predatory dirtbags than patriarchy-loving men.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) April 4, 2017
The only thing "worse" to these guys than women who expect to be treated like their equals is a woman who expects them to be her equal.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) April 4, 2017
That's what's really underwriting the vicious antifeminist backlash ATM. Women have moved beyond asking for equality; we're setting the bar.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) April 4, 2017
Men who are still clinging to antiquated notions of sexual entitlement and homestead helplessness are being left behind. And deservedly so.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) April 4, 2017
Quote of the Day
"We're here to help people, and if we're not helping people, we should go the fuck home."—Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, in an extensive profile by Rebecca Traister for NY Mag.
Take a note, Republicans.
[Note: The entirety of the linked profile is on-topic for this thread.]
BREAKING: Man Takes Credit for Woman's Idea That He Repeatedly Said Was Garbage
On a scale of 0-1, how shocked are you to hear that the higher education plan Bernie Sanders introduced is essentially Hillary Clinton's plan, which Sanders roundly criticized during the campaign?
The legislation outlined by Sanders Monday, which Democrats are calling College for All, would make public colleges and universities tuition-free to students with family income up to $125,000; make community colleges tuition-free; cut student loan interest rates in half; and triple funding for the Federal Work-Study program.Emphasis mine. That was the biggest distinction between Clinton's and Sanders' plans: Clinton did not believe that students whose families could afford college tuition needed to have their education subsidized. Sanders resoundingly dismissed out of hand that qualification throughout the Democratic primary.
The outline of the bill announced Monday hews closely to that final Clinton plan, including the promise that colleges and universities would be tuition-free for students from households earning less than $125,000."Hews closely." Indeed!
Clinton is, naturally, not being given credit for the plan. Because of course she isn't.
Haha remember when I said people preferred to listen to men who told them what they wanted to hear than a woman who told them the truth?
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) April 4, 2017
I also said:
Trump (and Sanders) got lots of credit and gushing admiration for "telling it like it is," but when it was a woman who was legitimately telling it like it is, and crafting policy to address those realities instead of making promises that no president could possibly keep, the response was FUCK YOU, LADY.This is a perfect, terrible example of the dynamic I was addressing. Sanders would shout about how Clinton's proposal wasn't progressive enough, implying (though never outright saying) that Clinton just didn't want to provide free college to everyone, because she was the cold-hearted, insufficiently progressive establishment candidate who didn't know how to dream big enough.
Really, it just comes down to the fact that Hillary Clinton was the only one running for president rather than dictator. She knew she'd have to work with Congress and a divided public, not just wave a scepter and command the defense budget be reallocated to the Department of Free Shit.
That was her fatal flaw: Running for the presidency as though she wanted to actually be a president.
But the reality was that Clinton was determined to introduce and advocate workable policy, as opposed to endorsing fantasies that she knew could never be properly funded. It wasn't insufficient progressivism; it was evidence of the preparedness and pragmatism that would have made her an effective leader of this nation.
Now that Sanders is actually expected to make good on his promises, he has to rely on the groundwork laid by the pragmatic progressive Hillary Clinton to get shit done. Not that you'd know it if you waited for him to admit it.
Y'all don't need to wonder "what is Hillary even doing?" anymore. The answer is: Providing the framework for workable progressive policy.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) April 4, 2017
This is a good policy. I hope the Republicans agree (and expect that they won't). The thing is, it was a good policy back when it was Hillary Clinton's idea, too.
2FA, #25
.@MrDeeky I'm sorry, we can't be friends anymore because we're not going to have babies together. https://t.co/FFqrnG6YIs
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) April 4, 2017
Between this and Mike Pence's marriage rules, I'm beginning to think that our friendship is itself a radical act of resistance.
