Friday, November 17, 2017

Muchas Gracias, Carlos Beltran

"I am blessed to have played this game for 20 years.  I am blessed to have played for so many great organizations. I am blessed to have shared all of my experiences with my wife and my three kids, my family and friends. To have so many loving fans. To have been able to build a school in Puerto Rico and change the lives of so many kids. To have won the Roberto Clemente Award, which is the greatest honor I could have ever received as a ballplayer. And I am blessed to be a champion. But now, my time as a player has come to an end. Today, I am officially announcing my retirement. Muchas gracias, bĂ©isbol."  -- Carlos Beltran on his retirement from baseball
Carlos Beltran announced his retirement this week.  If not for suffering though some injury-plagued seasons in his prime, Carlos would be a lock for entry into the Hall of Fame.  A nine-time All-Star, he finished with over 2700 hits, over 400 homeruns and over 1500 RBIs -- numbers that do not automatically put him over the top.  But when healthy, Carlos Beltran was one of the best players in the game -- he could hit, hit with power, steal bases and cover centerfield as well and as gracefully as anyone.  Based on advance metrics, he is just below the pantheon of the greatest centerfielders of all time (e.g., Mays, Cobb, Mantle, Griffey, DiMaggio) but is in the top ten.  His similarity score puts him closest to two Hall of Famers, Andre Dawson and Dave Winfield.

Beltran played six-plus years with the Mets, and also played for the Royals, Astros (twice), Giants (briefly), Yankees, Cardinals, and Rangers.

I wrote the following in July 2011, after Carlos was traded from the Mets to the Giants:

BYE BYE BELTRAN
"What we’ve seen from Beltran is ours to keep forever, no matter what team he’s playing for tomorrow. Carlos Beltran playing baseball at the peak of his ability is a beautiful sight to behold, and we got to watch it hundreds of times."  Ted Berg
There are some Met fans who have never forgiven Carlos Beltran for taking a called strike three with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth inning of the seventh and final game of the 2006 playoffs.  It was a brutal end to a great season and the Mets have suffered nothing but heartbreak and frustration since.  But the Mets would not have come close to making the playoffs that year without the incredible season Carlos had.  He was an All Star, played a brilliant centerfield, earning him the first of three consecutive Gold Glove awards, and put up huge offensive numbers, especially for a Met (41 home runs, 127 runs scored, 116 RBIs).

I recently wrote about great players who came to the Mets with high expectation only to flounder.  Carlos was not one of them.  The Mets signed him after his monstrous 2004 post-season with the Astros to a 7-year contract that at the time was the biggest in franchise history.  In his first year, he suffered from injuries, including those stemming from an outfield collision with Mike Cameron, and his numbers were off.  But for three years, 2006-2008, before getting hurt once again, he was great.  And this year, finally healthy after knee surgery, he has rebounded superbly, making the All Star team once again, and becoming the much sought after hitter for contending teams. 

As a Met, Beltran hit 149 home runs (6th All Time), had 557 RBIs (6th), scored 548 runs (6th) and stole 100 bases (11th).  He has been a great leader on the field and was known for charitable works off the field.  Although admittedly not a deep pool, he is one of the greatest Mets ever.  But with his 7-year contract coming to an end and the Mets going nowhere this season, they decided to trade the 34-year old to the Giants.

I understand why the Mets made this deal.  They got an excellent pitching prospect, Zach Wheeler, in exchange for two months of Beltran.  But it is a shame that the business of baseball comes down to buyers and sellers in the second half of the year, with struggling teams having to give up players before they are lost to free agency -- especially players as fun to watch and who have given so much to the team as Carlos Beltran.  He will be missed.

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Rebecca Solnit On Fighting Foundational Misogyny One Story At A Time

Let This Flood of Women’s Stories Never Cease

Guest Post by Rebecca Solnit

There’s a problem with the way feminism moves forward in reaction to breaking news stories. It brings focus to a single predator, a single incident, and people who haven’t faced the pervasiveness of misogyny can build stories around it about why this was the exception, not the rule. That Harvey Weinstein was typical of liberals or Hollywood, or Roy Moore and Bill O’Reilly were typical of conservatives, that this mass killer with a domestic violence background was typical of veterans or loners or was mentally ill, that case after case is a glitch in the pattern of society, not the pattern itself. But these are the norms, not the aberrations. This is a society still permeated and shaped and limited by misogyny, among other afflictions.

Obviously—as we keep having to reassure them, because when we’re talking about our survival we’re supposed to still worry about men feeling comfortable—not all men, but enough to impact virtually all women. And in another way all men, because we’re all warped by living in such a society, and because as Kevin Spacey’s case demonstrates, though men are nearly always the perpetrators, other men and boys are sometimes the victims. Being groomed to be a predator dehumanizes you, as does being groomed to be prey. We need a de-normalization of all that before we can try to rehumanize ourselves.

Women spend their lives negotiating survival and bodily integrity and humanity in the home, on the streets, in workplaces, at parties, and now on the internet. The torrent of stories that has poured forth since the New Yorker and New York Times broke the long-suppressed stories about Weinstein tell us so. They tell us so in the news about famous women at the hands of famous men, in social media about the experiences of not-so-famous women and the endless hordes of abusers out there, whether we’re talking rape, molestation, workplace harassment, or domestic violence.

This seems to be what’s produced the shock in a lot of what we are supposed to call good men, men who assure us they had no part in this. But ignorance is one form of tolerance, whether it’s pretending we’re in a colorblind society or one in which misogyny is some quaint old thing we’ve gotten over. It’s not doing the work to know how the people around you live, or die, and why. It’s ignoring or forgetting that we had this kind of story explosion before, in the 1980s, with Anita Hill’s testimony in 1991, after the Steubenville gang rape and New Delhi rape-torture-murder in late 2012, and the Isla Vista mass shooting in 2014. One sentence I come back to again and again is James Baldwin’s: “It is the innocence that constitutes the crime.” He’s talking about white people in the early 1960s ignoring the violence and destructiveness of racism, their opting out of seeing it.

You can say the same about men who have not bothered to see what is all around us: a country in which a woman is beaten every 11 seconds, in which as the New England Journal of Medicine put it, “domestic violence is the most common cause of nonfatal injury to women in the United States,” and male partners and former partners were responsible for a third of all murders of women in the US, in which there are hundreds of thousands of rapes a year and only about 2 percent of rapists do time for their crimes. A world in which Bill Cosby wielded a power that could silence more than 60 women and let his crime spree go unchecked for half a century, in which Weinstein assaulted and harassed more than 109 women who, for the most part, had no recourse until something in the system broke, or changed. A world in which Twitter temporarily shut down Rose McGowan’s account for a tweet related to Weinstein that allegedly contained a phone number, but did nothing when alt-right pundit Jack Posobiec tweeted out the workplace address of the woman who reported Moore sexually exploited her when she was 14, as it has done nothing about so many campaigns of threat against outspoken women.

Because here’s a thing you might have forgotten about women being menaced or assaulted or beaten or raped: we think we might be murdered before it’s over. I have. And because there’s often a second layer of threat “if you tell.” From your assailant, or from the people who don’t want to hear about what he did and what you need. Patriarchy kills off stories and women to maintain its power. If you’re a woman, this stuff shapes you; it scars you, it tells you you are worthless, no one, voiceless, that this is not a world in which you are safe or equal or free. That  your life is something someone else may steal from you, even a complete stranger, just because you’re a woman. And that society will look the other way most of the time, or blame you, this society that is itself a system of punishment for being a woman. Silence over these things is its default setting, the silence feminism has been striving to break, and is breaking.

Each individual action may be driven by an individual man’s hate or entitlement or both, but those actions are not isolated. Their cumulative effect is to diminish the space in which women move and speak, our access to power in public, private, and professional spheres. Many men may not have perpetrated it directly, but as some have finally discussed, they benefitted from it; it knocked out some of their competition, it dug a Mariana Trench through the playing fields we’re always being told are level. Diana Nyad, the world-famous swimmer who has just revealed that starting when she was 14 her Olympic-champion swim coach began sexually assaulting her, talks about the harm she suffered, the way that it changed who she was, diminished her well-being. She says, “I might have defied ruin, but my young life changed dramatically that day. For me, being silenced was a punishment equal to the molestation.” This story: it could be that of dozens of women I know, hundreds or thousands whose stories I’ve heard.

We treat the physical assault and the silencing after as two separate things, but they are the same, both bent on annihilation. Domestic violence and rape are acts that say the victim has no rights, not to self-determination or bodily integrity or dignity; that is a brutal way to be made voiceless, to have no say in your life and fate. Then to not be believed or to be humiliated or punished or pushed out of your community or your family—or in the case of Rose McGowan after Harvey Weinstein allegedly raped her, followed by spies intent on containing your voice and undermining your truth—is to be treated the same way over again. Ronan Farrow just exposed the network of spies employed to keep her silent; fellow New Yorker writer Emily Nussbaum noted, “if Rose McGowan had told the story of the Mossad spies earlier, everyone would have simply assumed she was nuts.”

Because we tell stories about what’s normal, or we’re told them, and this level of malevolence from our prominent men is not supposed to be normal, even when we have so many stories confirming that it is. So many women who told stories about men trying to harm them were treated as crazy or as malicious liars, because it’s easier to throw a woman under the bus than a culture. The bus rolls forward on a red carpet of women. Trump gets out of the bus and brags about getting away with grabbing women by the pussy and gets elected president less than a month later. He puts in place an administration that starts clearcutting women’s rights, including the rights of victims of sexual assault.

Fox renewed Bill O’Reilly’s contract after he settled a sexual harassment claim for 32 million dollars, a payment for silence from the victim that included destroying all the emails that documented what he had done to her. The Weinstein film company kept paying off victims, and the settlements purchased the victims’ silence. Fellow straight men in comedy apparently formed a protective wall of silence around Louis CK, making it clear that the man who kept jerking off at unwilling, non-consenting, appalled women was more valuable than those women were and would remain more audible than them. Until something broke; until journalists went fishing for the stories that had been hidden in plain sight. And the stories poured forth: about publishers, restaurateurs, directors, famous writers, famous artists, famous political organizers. We know these stories. We know how the victim in the 2012 Steubenville rape was harassed and threatened for reporting a rape by her high school peers. Four adults in the school district were indicted for obstructing justice by covering up the crimes. The message was clear: boys matter more than girls. One 2003 investigation reported that 75 percent of women who report workplace sexual harassment faced retaliation.

What would women’s lives be like, what would our roles and accomplishments be, what would our world be, without this terrible punishment that looms over our daily lives? It would surely rearrange who holds power, and how we think of power, which is to say that everyone’s life might be different. We would be a different society. We have shifted a little over the past 150 years or so, but since the Civil War, black people have still been held back, since women got the vote 77 years ago, women of all colors have still been kept out, and of course black women got it both ways. Who would we be if our epics and myths, our directors and media moguls, our presidents, congressmen, chief executive officers, billionaires were not so often white and male? For the men now being exposed controlled the stories—often literally as radio executives, film directors, heads of university departments. These stories are doors we walk through or doors that slam in our faces.

It is to the credit of Diana Nyad that, despite having a rapist as a coach, she became a great swimmer, to the credit of those Olympic gymnasts on the US team that they won gold medals despite having a molester for their doctor (more than 100 women have accused him to date). But who might they have been, in their personal lives as well as their professional achievements, without such harm being inflicted upon them by men who wished to harm them, who regarded harming them as their right and their pleasure? Who might we all have been if our society didn’t just normalize but celebrate this punishment and the men who inflict it? Who have we lost to this violence before we ever knew them, before they ever made their mark on the world?

Half a century after the fact, Tippi Hedren told how Alfred Hitchcock sexually assaulted and harassed her off-camera and punished her on-camera and then told her, “his face red with rage,” if she continued rejecting his advances, “I’ll ruin your career.” Hitchcock, whose desire to punish beautiful women drives  many of his films, did his best to do so, even blocking an Oscar nomination for her starring role in his 1964 film Marnie. These famous people are not the exceptions, but the examples, the public figures we know playing out the dramas that are happening in schools and offices and churches and political campaigns and families too.

We live in a world where uncountable numbers of women have had their creative and professional capacity undermined by trauma and threat, by devaluation and exclusion. A world in which women were equally free and encouraged to contribute, in which we lived without this pervasive fear, might be unimaginably different. In the same way, a United States in which the votes of people of color were not increasingly suppressed might not just have different outcomes in its recent elections but different candidates and issues. The whole fabric of society would be something else. It should be. Because that is what justice would look like, and peace, or at least the foundation on which they could be built.

Rebecca Traister and others have made the important point that we should not mourn the end of the creative lives of the men being outed as predators; we should contemplate the creative contributions we never had, will never know, because their creators were crushed or shut out. When Trump was elected we were told not to normalize authoritarianism and lies, but the losses due to misogyny and racism have been normalized forever. The task has been to de-normalize them and break the silence they impose. To make a society in which everyone’s story gets told.

This too is a war about stories.

San Francisco writer, historian, and activist, Rebecca Solnit is one of the essential voices of these fraught times.  She is the author of seventeen books about geography, community, art, politics, hope, and feminism and the recipient of many awards, including the Lannan Literary Award, and the National Book Critics Circle Award.  This piece was originally posted at Literary Hub.

Monday, November 13, 2017

The Two Men From Alabama Who Personify The GOP

First, there's your former judge whose Senate campaign is in jeopardy, not because he is a racist, homophobic, religious bigot who was twice removed from the bench but because he is a pedophile. Then there's your pro-NRA, anti-Hillary blogger whose nomination for a lifetime appointment on the Alabama district court may be called into question not because he has only been a lawyer for three years, never tried a case, and has barely ever been in a courtroom but because he forgot to disclose that his wife is chief of staff for the White House Counsel and has been interviewed pursuant to Mueller's investigation. 

Republicans didn't care about Moore's racism, anti-LGBT and anti-Muslim views or his disdain for the Constitution.  But will they take meaningful steps to thwart his candidacy for sexually assaulting young women?  And they didn't care about Brett Talley's utter lack of qualifications for federal judge.  But will any Republican vote against his confirmation for his lack of honesty?
 
Hopefully they won't ask the leader of their party if any of these qualities are disqualifying characteristics.

Friday, November 10, 2017

"If It Turns Out To Be True" Is Meaningless In The Republican World Of Alternative Facts

If it turns out to be true that Roy Moore preyed on young girls, Republicans would demand he withdraw from the Alabama Senate race.
If it turns out to be true that Donald Trump groped, grabbed and assaulted women, Republicans would oppose him.
If it turns out to be true that Trump stocked his administration with white supremacists and neo-Nazis, Republicans would condemn him.
If it turns out to be true that Trump was involved with Russia's efforts to interfere with the presidential election and obstructed the Russian investigation, Republicans would impeach him.
If it turns out to be true that Trump, his family and his cabinet are getting rich off the presidency, they would investigate them.
If it turns out to be true that human activity causes climate change, Republicans would take steps to mitigate it.
If it turns out to be true that massive tax cuts to corporations and the top 1% create greater inequality while failing to spur the economy, Republicans would not support them.
If it turns out to be true that Trump's judicial nominees are unqualified, Republicans would reject them.
If it turns out to be true that the Affordable Care Act is not imploding but is providing affordable health care to millions of Americans, Republicans would not try to repeal it.

Luckily for the Republican Party there is no objective truth.  There is alternative truth and there is fake news.  And so they don't have to face the fact that the president is a corrupt bigot bent on dismantling democratic institutions.  They don't have to deal with the fact that he very likely colluded with a foreign power to get elected.  And they don't have to accept the fact that, based on thorough and well-sourced reporting, Roy Moore is a pedophile.  After all, look how they acted after the release of the Hollywood Access tape, followed by a parade of women describing how Trump assaulted them.  That wasn't true enough?

They care only about tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation for business and installing right wing judges.  And if sexual predators like Roy Moore can help them maintain power and achieve these goals, they will stick with .them  And that's the truth.

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Normalization Alert: Trump Lies, Media Balks, Public Shrugs

Republicans may believe -- in the face of all historical evidence, from Reagan to Brownback -- that massive tax cuts to wealthy business owners spur the economy and create jobs.  Fine.  If they want to rationalize their plan based on zombie economics, whatever.  But it can't be reasonably argued that their tax reform plan hurts the rich and helps the middle class.  After all, if their plan burdened the wealthy, how would they ever become job creators?  More objectively, the Tax Policy Center determined that the top 1% would receive over 50% of the tax benefits from the plan's tax cuts -- their after-tax income would increase by 8.5% while most other taxpayers would see their incomes increase between 0.5 and 1.2%. 

Many Republicans have conceded this.  They've more or less acknowledged that while their plan may be unpopular with voters who justly see it as benefiting the rich over the middle class, they are compelled to pass it in order to assuage their donors. 

But then there's the president, who insists that the plan will actually hurt those in the highest income brackets and will be a great boon to the middle class.  According to the Washington Post, during a meeting this week in which administration officials briefed Democrats about the Republican tax plan, Trump phoned in from Asia to say that "he has spoken to his own accountant about the tax plan and that he would be a 'big loser' if the deal is approved as written." He further stated that "the deal is so bad for rich people, I had to throw in the estate tax just to give them something."

Does anyone believe him?  Does anyone think that Trump actually spoke to his accountant?  Does anyone think that a tax plan that includes a pass-through loophole, eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax, and slashes the corporate tax rate will hurt, rather than enrich the president and others of his social strata?  Of course not.

Has the media asked any questions to follow up on these statements?  Have they sought to track down Trump's accountant?  Have they asked why Trump is still not providing his tax returns and how the public can trust that he isn't benefitting from the tax bill -- and other policies -- without knowing the nature and extent of Trump's finances?  Of course not.

He lies.  He lies about the impact of tax reform on the country.  He lies about the impact of tax reform on himself.  He refuses to disclose his tax returns or resolve myriad conflicts of interest.

This.  Is.  Not.  Normal. 

Monday, November 6, 2017

Surviving Autocracy: One Year Later

But Trump is anything but a regular politician and this has been anything but a regular election. Trump will be only the fourth candidate in history and the second in more than a century to win the presidency after losing the popular vote. He is also probably the first candidate in history to win the presidency despite having been shown repeatedly by the national media to be a chronic liar, sexual predator, serial tax-avoider, and race-baiter who has attracted the likes of the Ku Klux Klan. Most important, Trump is the first candidate in memory who ran not for president but for autocrat—and won. -- Masha Gessen, New York Review of Books, Nov. 10, 2016
One year ago, after the unthinkable happened and a malevolent orange shit gibbon became the President of these United States, Masha Gessen wrote an important and much circulated piece entitled "Autocracy: Rules for Survival."  She criticized Obama, Clinton and other leaders of the Democratic Party for their far too conciliatory post-election reactions that pretended Trump was a "normal" politician to be given the benefit of the doubt.  She sharply observed that their magnanimous responses may have been meant to ensure a peaceful transfer of power but effectively closed off any alternative to despair and acquiescence by implying that there was no daylight between acceptable, indeed necessary, peaceful protest and a violent insurgency. 

Gessen also provided six rules which, in the wake of our collective anniversary reaction to the election trauma, are well worth revisiting:

Rule #1.  Believe the autocrat.

Trump says a lot of ignorant and provocative things that one would not expect from any rational human being, much less the purported leader of the free world.  While, as Gessen pointed out, it is human nature to assume he is exaggerating and to reach for a rationalization, it should be clear by now that Trump means what he says.  When he taunts Kim Jong-un and threatens to obliterate North Korea we should not assume he is bluffing.  When he uses white nationalist rhetoric harkening back to the Jim Crow Era that includes support for the symbols of the Confederacy while condemning African Americans who protest police killings and mass incarceration as "sons of bitches," we should not assume he is merely firing up his base.  And when he repeatedly bemoans his inability to influence the Justice Department to shut down the Russia investigation and refocus on his political opponents, we should not assume he is merely venting and won't start issuing pardons or takes steps to fire Mueller when the walls start closing in further.  

Rule #2.  Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.

The bar is so low for Trump that anytime he reads complete sentences from a teleprompter without going on an off-the-cuff rant or responds to a crisis or national tragedy with an appropriate, if robotic, scripted response without drooling all over himself, the media is quick to remark that, at long last, Trump has acted presidential.  Mainstream pundits and politicians yearn, as we all do, for a calm, rational leader and many continue to engage in magical thinking, believing that any time now Trump will moderate his behavior and transform from mentally and morally unfit to fit.  But we can't be fooled by the occasional appearance of reasonableness.  As Gessen wrote last year: "Panic can be neutralized by falsely reassuring words about how the world as we know it has not ended. It is a fact that the world did not end on November 8 nor at any previous time in history. Yet history has seen many catastrophes, and most of them unfolded over time. That time included periods of relative calm."

Rule #3.   Institutions will not save you

The White House press corps dutifully lines up every day to ask questions of Trump's press secretary who enables the President by translating his crazy gibberish into something less insane and inane (but see #1), and by spewing lies that are then dutifully reported.  Any criticism of Trump or members of his Administration -- particularly if they have worn a military uniform -- is immediately characterized as disrespectful, not to mention "fake news."  Trump himself refers to the media as "the enemy of the people" and has threatened to shut down those outlets that he deems to be unfair -- or disloyal -- to him.  This has all had a corrosive effect on the public's view of what constitutes not only real news, but real facts.  As for other institutions, Congress, controlled by Republicans, has slow walked investigations that could lead to revelations of the Trump campaign's connections to Russia while pursuing trumped up scandals to undermine those revelations.  Republicans have determined to ignore Trump's corruption and unfitness for office in favor of tax cuts, deregulation and appointing right wing judges.  And speaking of those judges, the courts, are being stocked with lifetime appointees who are filling vacancies left open by unprecedented Republican obstruction during the Obama Administration -- not to mention the theft of a Supreme Court seat.  This may come in handy for Trump and his cabal as they challenge the arrests, indictments and subpoenas that are sure to come their way.

Rule #4.  Be outraged.

Every day there is something -- often more than one thing -- to be outraged about.  It is hard to resist scandal fatigue.  It is hard not to become inured to the arrogant abuse of power, the daily madness, the destruction of formerly accepted norms, the lies, the corruption, the cruelty, the ignorance and the instability.  The drip, drip, drip of the Russia scandal.  The Katrina-like failure to respond to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.  The nomination of unqualified judges who are avatars for the culture war.  The senselessly harsh and aggressive immigration tactics that have recently included extraordinary steps to try to stop an undocumented teenager from getting an abortion and to detain and deport a ten-year-old girl with cerebral palsy as soon as she recovers from a surgical procedure.  The attempts to sabotage the ability to obtain affordable health insurance.  The ethics violations from virtually every cabinet member when they are not otherwise destroying the agencies they were appointed to run.  The efforts to mine, drill, frack and otherwise exploit public lands while ignoring climate science and destroying the environment.  The self-enrichment and business deals by Trump's family in the face of massive conflicts of interest.  And on and on and on.  It is impossible to keep up.  But, as Gessen reminds us, "in the face of the impulse to normalize, it is essential to maintain one’s capacity for shock"

Rule #5.  Don’t make compromises.

We have already seen virtually the entire Republican Party -- except those who are retiring or who have incurable diagnoses -- sell their already very dark souls.  It is essential that we ensure that the Democrats resist and refuse to cooperate with an illegitimate president -- one who has still not disclosed his tax returns or revealed his myriad business interests and conflicts of interest; who, the mounting evidence suggests, cooperated with a foreign power to get elected; who is catering to a white nationalist agenda; and who has complete disdain for constitutional principles, democratic institutions and conventional norms.  "Those who argue for cooperation will make the case, much as President Obama did in his speech, that cooperation is essential for the future. They will be willfully ignoring the corrupting touch of autocracy, from which the future must be protected."

Rule #6.  Remember the future.

I can't say it any better than Gessen said a year ago:  "Failure to imagine the future may have lost the Democrats this election. They offered no vision of the future to counterbalance Trump’s all-too-familiar white-populist vision of an imaginary past. They had also long ignored the strange and outdated institutions of American democracy that call out for reform—like the electoral college, which has now cost the Democratic Party two elections in which Republicans won with the minority of the popular vote. That should not be normal. But resistance—stubborn, uncompromising, outraged—should be."

Saturday, November 4, 2017

Trump, Using Nixon's Playbook, Commits Yet Another Impeachable Offense


University of Missouri Law Professor Frank Bowman writes a blog, Impeachable Offenses, that should be essential reading as we try to sort through and process the myriad outrages committed almost daily by the malevolent shit gibbon that, at least for now, resides in the White House.  Far more fair and balanced than this blog, it was recently described by The New York Times as "dedicated to “a more rigorous analysis” of impeachment than the one found in the mainstream news media. Professor Bowman has allowed me to re-post his latest piece, originally titled "Trump Commits Another Impeachable Offense: Siccing Federal Criminal Investigators On His Enemies."

Guest Blog by Professor Frank Bowman

On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Richard M. Nixon. The second article charged that President Nixon abused the powers of the presidency either by using or trying to use federal investigative agencies against his political enemies or by interfering or trying to interfere with lawful investigations by those agencies into his own wrongdoing or that of his subordinates.  He tried to get dirt on his opponents through the IRS. He ordered the FBI to conduct investigations of actual or suspected enemies in and outside of government. He sought to suppress investigations into the growing Watergate scandal. As the fifth specification of the article of impeachment put it:
In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
In short, the House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach Richard Nixon because he sought to turn the immense power of the Justice Department and federal criminal investigative agencies against his political adversaries. Although this article of impeachment was never approved by the full House of Representatives because Nixon resigned before a vote could be taken, it received more votes in committee than any other proposed article. No respectable scholar of the constitution doubts that directing the criminal justice and intelligence systems of the United States against political opponents for purposes unrelated to the impartial enforcement of the law or preservation of legitimate national security interests is among the impeachable “high Crimes & Misdemeanors” of Article II, Section 4.

This morning, Friday, November 3, Mr. Trump sent out a series of Tweets in which he explicitly urged the Justice Department and the FBI to investigate Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party for a grab bag of supposed offenses — e-mails deleted from Secretary Clinton’s private server, the Russia-uranium kerfluffle, activities by Tony Podesta (lobbyist and brother of Secretary Clinton’s campaign manager), and the allegation that officials at the Democratic National Committee worked with Secretary Clinton’s campaign to give it a boost over that of Senator Bernie Sanders.

The Trump Tweet-string included these classics:
Everybody is asking why the Justice Department (and FBI) isn’t looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems..
….People are angry. At some point the Justice Department, and the FBI, must do what is right and proper. The American public deserves it!
Mr. Trump followed up these Tweets with statements to the press in which he said he is “disappointed” with the Justice Department and would not rule out firing Attorney General Sessions if Sessions won’t investigate Democrats.

In my view, Mr. Trump’s tweets tiptoed right up to the line of an impeachable offense.  His subsequent statements to the press stepped firmly over it.

Using the Nixon precedent as a template, in order to show that Mr. Trump’s behavior is impeachable, several requirements must be met:

First, he must be seeking to employ the criminal investigative powers of the federal government against his political opponents.  That is unquestionably the case.

Second, he must be acting, in the words of the Nixon impeachment article, “for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office.”  Although his most devoted adherents may claim otherwise, it is impossible to divine any legitimate, non-political, purpose in his call for action by the Justice Department.
  • Although it is doubtless a matter of intense interest for members of Democratic Party, whether the DNC did or didn’t favor Secretary Clinton can by no stretch be translated into a violation of law, and still less a fit subject for a criminal investigation by a Justice Department controlled by the opposing party.
  • The Clinton e-mail matter has already been investigated by the Justice Department, even if extreme Republican partisans may not have liked the outcome.
  • Tony Podesta’s activities are already the subject of inquiries by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which is why Podesta just resigned from his own lobbying firm.  So Trump’s inclusion of Podesta in his broadside manifested either a scarcely credible ignorance of the state of play of an investigation with which Mr. Trump is plainly obsessed or a willful attempt to deflect attention from Mueller’s focus on Trump campaign affiliates.
  • And, as multiple credible observers have explained, the Russia-uranium-Clinton connection is an invented non-story. Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear materials and non-proliferation expert, observed in Newsweek, “I have to say that this is one of those things where reasonable people cannot disagree: There just aren’t two sides.”
In short, every item on the laundry list of things for which Mr. Trump wants the Justice Department to investigate his political opponents is either not a crime, has already been or is being investigated, or, in the case of the Clinton-uranium “scandal,” is an invented storyline promoted by Mr. Trump and his supporters to divert attention from the Mueller investigation.

Third, it is not necessary to establish impeachable misconduct that a president succeed in bending law enforcement agencies to his corrupting purpose. While some of the law enforcement and intelligence officials Nixon tried to enlist in his illegal schemes cooperated, many refused or ignored his orders, the IRS, the CIA, and important elements of the FBI among them. His failed attempts to misuse federal agencies were nonetheless integral components of the impeachment case against him.

This is a key point in the present case. If pressed, Mr. Trump will no doubt claim that he didn’t order anybody to do anything and that his Tweets are, at worst, expressions of dismay at the established norm that bars presidents from direct involvement in Justice Department decisions. This is, of course, transparent eyewash.  When a President of the United States publicly proclaims that he wants an executive branch agency to do something and will be deeply displeased if it doesn’t, that’s tantamount to an order.

Even if it were not, Mr. Trump took the next and fateful step this morning when he expressed disappointment in the Justice Department for its inaction and held open the option of firing the Attorney General if his wishes were not honored.  That is as close to a direct order as a president can give without putting it in writing.  Any way you slice it, Mr. Trump is telling the Justice Department and the FBI that he wants them to engage in legally baseless, politically motivated criminal investigations.

Finally, it is not, cannot be, an excuse if Mr. Trump were to say, “Well, even though the uranium story and all the rest prove to be baseless, I didn’t know that. As I so often do, I was just responding to what ‘people are saying.'” As the Nixon articles of impeachment observed, a president has the solemn constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws shall be faithfully executed.”  If this duty means anything in the criminal justice setting, it means that presidents shoulder an obligation even more binding than that assumed by their subordinates not to unleash on any citizen the intrusive, life-altering power of federal investigative agencies absent credible evidence that a real crime may have been committed.

Let us be absolutely clear here. No matter how far Mr. Trump has warped our collective sense of what is normal or even minimally acceptable in an American president, it is not acceptable for a president either to employ, or threaten to employ, the agents and ministers of the criminal law of the United States against his enemies for political gain.  A president who does so engages in precisely the class of misconduct perilous to the maintenance of republican government for which the founders designed the remedy of impeachment.

When and if the political season is ever ripe for enumerating Mr. Trump’s “high Crimes & Misdemeanors” in articles of impeachment, his attempts to corrupt the American justice system should be among those articles.

Frank Bowman is the Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor of Law, University of Missouri School of Law.  He blogs at Impeachable Offenses? ~ Examining the Case for Removal of the 45th President of the United States, where this piece was originally posted.

Thursday, November 2, 2017

Groucho Marx On Why It Is Never A Good Time To Talk About Gun Control

The malevolent orange shit gibbon immediately seized upon the truck attack by an immigrant from Uzbekistan to bash Democrats, condemn immigration policies and call for shipping the perpetrator off to Guantanamo and then, on second thought, urge that he be given the death penalty "fast."  The contrast with the measured thoughts and prayers response to the Las Vegas shooting or the "very fine people on both sides" response to the Neo-Nazi car attack in Charlottesville couldn't be more black and white (so to speak).

When Democrats want to discuss solutions to gun violence after mass shootings (by white U.S. citizens), Republicans argue that we shouldn't politicize tragedy.  As Trump's press secretary put it after Las Vegas:  “There’s a time and place for a political debate, but now is the time to unite as a country."  A month has now passed, but it is still not time to talk about gun control. 

The absurdity is captured perfectly by the Marx Brothers in Duck Soup:
Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho):  And now members of the cabinet, we'll take up old business.
Cabinet Member: I wish to discuss [gun violence and gun control].
Firefly: Sit down, that's new business. [pause] No old business? Very well, we'll take up new business.
Cabinet Member: Now about [gun violence and gun control]
Firefly: Too late, that's old business already. Sit down.
Trump has no interest in uniting the country -- unless that country is the Confederate States of America.  His tweets about the most recent tragedy in New York is all about divisive politics -- diverting attention from Mueller's investigation into collusion, corruption and obstruction of justice that has the walls closing in on him and providing fodder to impose ever more restrictive, discriminatory and mean-spirited immigration and refugee policies -- and, of course, to blame Democrats for everything. 

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Fall Classic

Every October, no matter how bitter and broken I am from suffering through another dismal Met season, I take a few days to shake it off (this year, admittedly, it took more than a few days) and refocus on the post-season. 

Playoff baseball encapsulates a season's worth of drama into a few short weeks.  Each team has its own uplifting story and appears to be the team of destiny.  We get to know the personalities of the players and see rivalries develop as the same teams play each several games in a row.  Every game, every inning and every pitch is pivotal.  We are treated to legendary victories and tragic failures in each series, culminating in the Fall Classic itself.  While I can't help but be reminded that my team is once again not a team of destiny but of ignominy, I eventually find players and teams to root for and to root against, and I lose myself in the drama.

And this year's World Series is proving to be one of the most exciting in years.  The Astros and Dodgers are both really fun teams to watch, stocked with brilliant young players, future hall-of-famers and gritty role players. We're five games in and already two of the games will go down as a pair of the most dramatic in World Series history. 

I'm loving every minute -- and all five hours and seventeen minutes of Game #5.  But, at the same time, some troubling issues have arisen.

First, there is something wrong with the baseballs.  Pitchers are having difficulty gripping the ball, and typically dominant pitchers are getting uncharacteristically roughed up because they've lost the ability to throw a slider.  There have been reports all season that the baseballs have flatter seams, which is deemed largely responsible for the unprecedented  explosion of home runs.  But in the post-season, the balls are not only more lively, they are apparently slicker and harder to grip. Sure, home runs are exciting and dramatic, but so are pitching duels.  Messing with the quality of baseballs is messing with the game.  This is not cool.

Then there's the disturbing racist gesture and slur by the Astro's Cuban slugger Yuli Gurriel in Game #3.  After hitting a home run off Yu Darvish, who grew up in Japan and whose mother is Japanese, Gurriel not only stretched the corners of his eyes, but uttered the derogatory term, "chinito."  It seemed stupid and juvenile rather than cruel and malicious, but it was undoubtedly offensive and the fact that Gurriel and his teammates saw nothing wrong with doing this on a national stage is a vivid example of how racial insensitivity remains so ingrained.  While Major League Baseball handed down a five-day suspension without pay for the start of next year, it seems to me that they too quickly swept this under the turf.  A one-game suspension during the World Series would have sent a stronger message about racism and intolerance.

Finally, George H.W. Bush and his son George W. Bush threw out the first ball to start Game #5 yesterday to wild cheering and applause.  Sure this was Houston and all, but did we really need to see the 41st President -- most recently known for groping women from his wheel chair and historically known for putting another sexual harasser, Clarence Thomas, on the Supreme Court -- handing the ball to the 43rd president -- who is not as cruel, corrupt and unhinged as the current occupant of the White House, but did lie us into the worst foreign policy disaster in modern history, approve torture, and botch the recovery from Hurricane Katrina.  

Baseball is our National Pastime and, as such, it often provides a reflection of who we are as a nation.  And so it shouldn't be surprising, particularly at this fraught time, that the Game, like the Country, would be marred by questions of integrity, demonstrations of racism and mindless support for undeserving Republicans.  But baseball -- and hopefully America -- is incredibly resilient.  Whatever its problems, we are always left to revel in its beauty and power, in the remarkable feats and the agony of defeats, and in the drama of the unexpected.  Let's Play Ball!

Friday, October 27, 2017

Life Lessons

Sponsored by Death Penalty Focus, the undeniably greying but still vital and passionate stalwarts of California's death penalty community with whom I've toiled for over a quarter century gathered last night to celebrate the remarkable life and work of Scharlette Holdman.  (Scharlette died of cancer in July. For an excellent primer on her career, see We Saw Monsters, She Saw Humans.) 

Scharlette came to us from the South in the early 1990s, and forever changed not just the way death penalty cases were litigated but for those lucky to work with and be mentored by her, how to confront injustice in all its forms while showing compassion for, as former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart put it, "the diverse frailties of humankind."

When challenging death penalty cases back then, we mostly poured over the thousands of pages of trial transcripts and made hyper-technical arguments about the trial judge's errors and the unfairness of the capital trial.  Our focus was primarily on fashioning legal challenges to the sloppily-crafted death penalty statute (the Briggs Voter Initiative) that, together with misleading arguments by prosecutors, was confounding jurors who were charged with the impossible task of determining whether the death penalty was the appropriate penalty in a given case.  But these efforts, which had been successful before a once open-minded California Supreme Court, were being met with increasing skepticism from an increasingly conservative Court.  Then along came Scharlette.

She taught us to get out from behind our desks and to get into the field -- to sift through every piece of evidence with great skepticism and to challenge every aspect of the case -- even those (particularly those) that seemed iron clad and beyond dispute. 

She taught us how to see each and every one of our clients as individuals, as human beings who were never the sum total of the worst things they had ever done.  She demonstrated how we could not convey their humanity and convince judges and jurors to see them as uniquely individual people deserving of sympathy and mercy if we didn't see them that way ourselves.

She taught us the critical importance of story telling -- about changing the narrative that put these men and women on death row, to tell their compelling life stories not to provide an excuse but to provide an explanation for how they ended up where they did.   And she taught us that these stories needed to be told not only with compassion but, more importantly, backed by facts -- through the exhaustive gathering and development of their family's history of poverty, discrimination, trauma, mental illness, and substance abuse -- and supported by experts in a wide and ever-evolving variety of disciplines. 

She taught us to be humbled by the awesomeness of our task in fighting the seeming impregnable power of the state to kill.  But, at the same time, and in stark contrast to the tenderness she exhibited towards her clients, she was brutally unforgiving of and contemptuous towards the prosecutors, judges, and compromised defense lawyers who as she put it, were trying to kill our clients.

And she taught us to never give up.  Even when, especially when, a case was at its end, she would creatively find one more avenue that might conceivably garner a stay of execution, and she didn't stop until that horrible phone call came from the prison telling us it was over.  And after absorbing the body blow of such an excruciatingly painful loss -- the loss of a truly loved client, the loss of a righteous and hard-fought legal case, and the loss of humanity -- she moved on to the next case and next client with the same relentless dedication and compassion but with new insights gained from the last one.

I'm no longer a full-time death penalty lawyer but the lessons I learned from Scharlette go well beyond litigating death penalty cases.  Her irreverence, self-effacing humor, brilliance, sensitivity, empathy, fearlessness and dedication should serve as a model for all who strive for social justice.

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Let's Play: Scandal Or No Scandal?

The Trump Administration is so brazenly corrupt, so completely devoid of ethics, so contemptuous of our institutions and so cynical about governing that its scandalous behavior comes at us at a breathtaking pace that is impossible to process.  Every day brings us another lie, another Trump-family enrichment scheme, another ethical breach by a cabinet official, another dropped shoe in the Russia investigation.  At any other time in our history, any one of these incidents would lead to intense media scrutiny, Congressional investigations, indictments and resignations.  Now, we get an initial frenzied social media blitz before moving on to the next outrage.  We can't keep up. 

And then there are the faux scandals that often are incubated on Fox & Friends, Breitbart or some other sketchy source, pushed by Trump tweets and then picked up by the gullible media and the enabling Republican Party.  Anything having to do with Hillary Clinton still resonates with the Republican base and serves to distract from actual malfeasance.  And if the story also includes Russia, it has the added benefit of propping up those seeking to undermine the credibility of the real Russian investigations and to provide fodder for those with a "both sides do it" fetish.

So, as a public service, here's an admittedly incomplete but easy-to-follow guide to distinguish real scandals from fake scandals.

1.  Russia's interference with the 2016 election:  SCANDAL
2.  The Trump Administration's refusal to accept that Russia interfered with the 2016 election or to take any steps to prevent Russia from interfering with future elections:  SCANDAL
3.  The Trump campaign's many contacts with Russia prior to the 2016 election:  SCANDAL
4.  Trump's provision of confidential information to Russia that burned a critical Israeli source against ISIS: SCANDAL
5.  The Trump Organization's attempts to conduct real estate business in Russia during the campaign:  SCANDAL
6.  Trump's refusal to disclose his tax returns and the extent of his business operations while promoting a tax plan that he falsely claims will not benefit him or his family:  SCANDAL
7.  Trump's refusal to divest himself from his business operations from which he continues to profit and the Trump Organization's continued efforts to conduct business rife with conflicts of interest domestically and overseas:  SCANDAL
8.  Trump's violation of the Emoluments Clause: SCANDAL
9.  Hillary Clinton’s involvement with a Russian uranium deal:  NOT A SCANDAL
10. Congress launching an investigation into the previously debunked story of Clinton's involvement with a Russian uranium deal:  SCANDAL
11. A law firm working for the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for an opposition research project (after a Bush donor stopped paying for it) that ultimately produced the infamous Steele dossier:  NOT A SCANDAL
12. The media and the Republican Party treating the Democratic funding of opposition research as either new or scandalous:  SCANDAL
13. The Trump Administration's incompetent and ineffectual response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands:  SCANDAL
14. Puerto Rico doling out a $300 million contract to a tiny Montana company -- connected to Interior Department Secretary Zinke and the Trump Administration -- to repair its power grid:  SCANDAL
15. Trump's mental unfitness for office: SCANDAL
16. Republican leaders' recognition of Trump's unfitness for office and unwillingness to do anything about it:  SCANDAL
17. Trump's pardoning of Joe Arpaio:  SCANDAL
18. The Trump Administration's efforts to discriminate against Muslims, including imposing a ban on Muslims entering the country:  SCANDAL
19. The Trump Administration's war on science and the dismantling of environmental rules and regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gases:  SCANDAL
20. Trump's sabotage of the Affordable Care Act:  SCANDAL
21. Trump cabinet officials' sabotage of their respective agencies:  SCANDAL
22. Trump's Election Integrity Commission's efforts to sabotage democracy:  SCANDAL
23. The Trump Administration's stocking of agencies and courts with pro-life zealots who seek to interfere with the reproductive rights of women, documented and undocumented: SCANDAL
24. The Trump Administration's stocking of agencies and courts with white nationalists, racists and religious bigots who seek to roll back the civil rights gains of African Americans and the LGBT community: SCANDAL
25.  The Trump Administration's aggressive deportation efforts that are heartlessly breaking up families and sweeping up hard-working, law-abiding, long-standing residents:  SCANDAL

And, last but not least, the Democratic Party's unwillingness to take seriously the clear and present danger that the aforementioned scandals pose for the Country:  SCANDAL

You're welcome.

Thursday, October 19, 2017

Facebook Won't Let Me Post This

Senator Leahy Can Go Fuck Himself

Patrick Leahy of Vermont is the longest serving Democratic Senator.  His liberal bona fides are beyond dispute.  Throughout his tenure he has personified decency, thoughtfulness and honor.  His rectitude was on full display as the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee during the Obama Administration.  There he clung to the Senate's norms and traditions in the face of unprecedented obstruction by the Republicans who sought to thwart Obama's judicial nominations regardless of their qualifications.  It did not shake the stalwart Leahy from his deep and abiding principles that Republicans shamelessly used whatever tools they could to ensure as many judicial vacancies as possible remained open for the next Republican president to fill with right wing judges.  

And so, even when it was blatantly obvious that Republicans were abusing the time-honored blue slip tradition -- where a senator could block the nomination of a judge from his or her home state -- Leahy could not be deterred from continuing to honor the tradition.  And because he refused to dispel with this informal rule, 18 of Obama's nominations, including 6 for the Courts of Appeal, never made it to the Committee -- and many other judges from red states were not even nominated because of the perceived futility in getting past the Republican Senators.  Once Republicans regained their majority in the Senate, they not only slowed down the nomination process to a crawl, they stole a Supreme Court seat by refusing to hold hearings on Obama's nomination, Merrick Garland. 

We all know what happened next.  Trump somehow became president and the Republicans kept their majority in the Senate.  Neil Gorsuch, not Merrick Garland, became the next Supreme Court Justice after Republicans blew up another time-honored tradition, the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.  (The Democrats were compelled to get rid of the filibuster for non-Supreme Court nominees earlier after Republicans, violating an agreement not to filibuster judges except in extraordinary circumstances, sought to prevent a Democratic majority on the D.C. Circuit). 

And now all those federal court vacancies are in the process of being filled, and it isn't pretty.  As Charles Pierce reminds us, Trump "subcontracted the job of picking judges to the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, and various other wingnut intellectual chop shops" and, accordingly, we have been presented with an atrocious cast of nominees for lifetime appointments that are anti-LGBT, anti-choice, anti-civil rights, anti-regulation, anti-labor.  I've written about some of these gems before.  Here's another one:  Jeff Mateer, nominated to a Texas district court, does not believe that the Constitution provides for the separation of church and state, does believe that transgender children are part of Satan's plan, and is afraid that same-sex marriage is a slippery slope that will lead people to marry trees and pets.

Yet Democrats, for the most part, continue to go along with business as usual.  They refuse to use whatever procedural tools are available to the minority (admittedly, there aren't many) to slow down a judicial process that has become completely tainted by Republican bad faith.  The Republicans fucking stole a Supreme Court seat.  They ran out the clock on Obama's other nominees.  Oh, and the President is under investigation for colluding with a foreign power to get elected.  Democrats should be throwing sand in the gears at every conceivable opportunity to thwart every single judicial nominee -- even if they weren't a horrid bunch of right wing extremists. 

At least Democratic Senators Al Franken of Minnesota and Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley of Oregon refused to return blue slips for judges nominated to the Eighth and Ninth Circuit, respectively.  Predictably this has led Sentate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Republican hypocrites to call for ending the hallowed blue slip tradition that they relied on when they were in the minority.  And while Judiciary Chair Charles Grassley has so far resisted, it is just a matter of time before he gives in and does away with any obstacle to Republican stacking of the federal courts -- despite the fact that the ever-honorable Senator Leahy "trusts" Grassley to keep his word to respect the blue slip tradition. 

But Republicans may not need to do away with blue slips when they have spineless Democrats returning them. In fact, seven Democrats have so far returned blue slips, allowing Trump's nominations -- nominations that are being filled only because Republicans kept the vacancies open during the Obama Administration -- to go forward.  

In 2004, Dick Cheney infamously told Leahy to go fuck himself, when Leahy questioned the then-Vice President about Halliburton's activities in Iraq.  This breach of protocol was all the more shocking because of Leahy's stature.  It was as if Cheney was profaning the Congress itself.

Patrick Leahy and his unwavering belief in the integrity of our political process is emblematic of a Democratic Party that goes about the business of governing while the government is controlled by an ignorant, corrupt and unstable monster enabled by a cynical and uncompromising political party that is engaged in an all out war for the soul of the Country.  Those Democrats who to continue to acquiesce to conventional norms and operate as if this were a normal state of affairs can go fuck themselves.

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Rebecca Solnit on Harvey Weinstein, Hillary Clinton, and Blaming Women for the Acts of Men

Guest Post by Rebecca Solnit

Harvey Weinstein is Hillary Clinton’s fault, we have learned from many sources. So is eczema and the Civil War and the fact that your child refuses to learn to tie shoelaces and sticks to Velcro shoes. The hairs and stuff that get caught in the Velcro are also Hillary Clinton’s fault, and she could have passed legislation against them if she cared instead of being uncaring. It is also the soon-to-be-divorced Mrs. Weinstein’s fault that her husband is an alleged rapist, except that it is Hillary Clinton’s fault, except that it is the fault of the victims for choosing to be small, young female victims looking for work at the outset of their cinematic careers instead of being Matt Damon, a choice open to us all.

Why are you not Matt Damon yourself? This is your fault. Perhaps you could also choose to be Jason Bourne, which would guarantee your safety every time? Take it from me: the Bourne option. After all I have read in Wikipedia that Bourne these days is “isolating himself from the world and making a living by taking part in savage, bareknuckle fighting bouts,” which is what everyone should have done if they saw Harvey Weinstein rising like a great scary potato over the horizon. It appears that Clinton was in Washington pushing to get the Children’s Health Insurance Program reauthorized while the reports broke about Weinstein’s alleged creepitude, but it’s her fault if she can’t multitask. Likewise it is the fault of young actresses for not speaking just because they were threatened by a terrifying bully, and it’s their fault that if they spoke up no one would have believed them, and of course you can now blame them for what happened, because in Shakespeare’s day there were no actresses, but these women insisted on entering the field, where there were men, and even entering the production facility, where there was this man.

Remember that every time a man commits a violent act it only takes one or two steps to figure out how it’s a woman’s fault, and that these dance steps are widely known and practiced and quite a bit of fun. There are things men do that are the fault of women who are too sexy, and other things men do that are the fault of women who are not sexy enough, but women only come in those two flavors: not enough, too much, and it is the fate of heterosexual men to endure this affliction. Wives are responsible for their husbands, especially if their husbands are supremely powerful and terrifying figures leading double lives and accountable to no one. But women are now also in the workforce, where they have so many opportunities to be responsible for other men as well.

It is Anita Hill’s fault that Clarence Thomas is a creep, and it’s also her fault that he’s on the Supreme Court, and it’s her fault she didn’t speak up about his sexual harassment, and also her fault that she did speak up about it, ruffling important waters when men were trying to fly-fish them, as women do when men try. To fly-fish that is, and the trout that are not biting are the fault of the woman who did not smile at you on the bus this morning, though it is a gospel truth that lady strangers owe you smiles. If we study up, it may be possible to figure out which parts of everything are Anita Hill’s fault. Mary Todd Lincoln: perhaps her faults linger on, and it would be fun to blame her for something, and why did Michelle Obama choose to exercise her right to bare arms? Perhaps that makes her responsible for some mass shootings, which tend to be carried out by men, but not their fault. Someone made them do it, and every time a man does something awful we can all pause for a moment of respectful silence while we figure out who to blame.

It is possible, as I study the situation, that I personally am responsible for the sack of Rome and for Attila the Hun and the Black Death (I wore a lot of black back in the day, still do), but more research is needed. It may also be that my friends Conchita and Amy are responsible for ebola and the holes in the socks of our great men that so afflict their heels when they would rather be thinking of how to serve our fatherland. If I were a man perhaps I would understand why a man just explained to me that Trump is Clinton’s fault and not be baffled about why no one ever said in my hearing that Bush II was Al Gore’s and then John Kerry’s  fault or Ronald Reagan was Jimmy Carter’s fault for that matter.

Evidently it is the fault of Hillary Clinton that there is Donald Trump, and it was wrong of her to put Harvey Weinstein’s donation to work on to her attempt to beat Trump and protect reproductive rights and stuff, instead of donating the money to a cause that benefited women, and it’s her fault that a lot of Americans wanted to vote for, as Laurie Penny put it, the Hog-Emperor of Rape Culture who hunted her onstage in the second debate like Sherman going after Atlanta, only with snorting. After all the Civil War was her fault.

I have spoken. Which I do. Which is one of my faults; I am crafting an apology for that out of dynamite and backhoes which will be ready presently.

San Francisco writer, historian, and activist, Rebecca Solnit is one of the essential voices of these fraught times.  She is the author of seventeen books about geography, community, art, politics, hope, and feminism and the recipient of many awards, including the Lannan Literary Award, and the National Book Critics Circle Award.  This piece was originally posted at Literary Hub.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

That Boy Ain't Right

In an emperor's new clothes moment for the GOP, Republican chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker, stated that the White House has become “an adult day care center,” that "every single day at the White House, it’s a situation of [senior officials] trying to contain him,” and that Trump’s behavior is setting the nation “on the path to World War III.”  What's more, Corker admitted in a Washington Post interview that most Republicans in Congress are well aware of this:  “Look, except for a few people, the vast majority of our caucus understands what we’re dealing with here.  Of course, they understand the volatility that we’re dealing with and the tremendous amount of work that it takes by people around him to keep him in the middle of the road.”

Corker's "day care center" comment couldn't be more apt given today's disturbing piece in the Washington Post that portrays Trump as a volatile baby, sulking and fuming because he isn't receiving the universal praise he thinks he deserves.  He is "lashing out, rupturing alliances and imperiling his legislative agenda" and "has torched bridges all around him, nearly imploded an informal deal with Democrats to protect young undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children, and plunged himself into the culture wars on issues ranging from birth control to the national anthem."

The article goes on to say that Trump "has shown flashes of fury and left his aides ... scrambling to manage his outbursts."  Politico tells a similar story, describing "a process in which Trump's aides try to install guardrails for a president who goes on gut feeling — and many days are spent managing the president," convincing him that "something better was his idea or ignore what he said to do and hope he forgot about it the next day.”  His main source of information appears to be Fox News, and his tweets and rages, particularly in the morning, can generally be tied to whatever happened to be on Fox & Friends.

Apparently Trump has been brooding about Corker's comments and remains frustrated by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson calling him a "fucking moron," leading Trump today to challenge Tillerson to an I.Q. test.  He also remains focused on the NFL player protests.  And, according to the Post, to get out of his funk, he was pushing to have another campaign-style rally in North Carolina this past weekend, and was disappointed it didn't happen because he longed to get back in front of "the rowdy crowds he loves."  Meanwhile, there are real disasters not in Trump's orange covered head that one would think would command presidential attention -- from hurricane recovery, including in Puerto Rico which remains largely without power or drinking water, to wildfires in Northern California.

Instead we get a dangerous new reality game show.  Apropos of Corker's World War III reference,  Trump quipped at a dinner with his top military commanders that this might represent "the calm before the storm," which he followed up, when asked by a reporter what storm, with "you'll find out."  Such comments would be alarming under any circumstance, but in the context of Trump's constant taunting of North Korea's leader Kim Jung-un and dismissing any efforts at diplomacy, becomes another exhibit in support of his removal under the 25th Amendment.

But, realistically, implementing the 25th Amendment seems far fetched, at least until there is even greater unraveling.  And impeachment proceedings won't happen unless and until the Democrats take back at least one chamber of Congress and/or Robert Mueller's investigations bear fruit.

In the meantime, we cannot assume that Trump won't crash through the carefully erected guardrails that the so-called adults in the White House are using to contain him.  Corker needs to do more than engage in a Twitter war with the president.  He and his fellow Republicans need to act -- and act fast -- to restrain Trump's destructive tendencies by, for example, putting more safeguards in place to prevent him from launching a nuclear strike or reneging on treaties.  Meanwhile, his keepers in the White House need to start giving him consequences, like sending him to his room without his two scoops of ice cream, limiting his time on social media, and taking away his television privileges.

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

You Say Dotard, I Say Moron, Let's Call The Whole Thing Off

What do you call an ignorant, lying, malignant narcissistic bigot who happened to get elected President of the United States?  North Korean leader Kim Jong-un calls him a "mentally deranged U.S. dotard."  U.S. Secretary of State refers to him as a "fucking moron." 

One of the earliest entries is, or course, from Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter, who got under his thin orange skin with "Short-fingered Vulgarian."

Then there are the late night tv hosts.  John Oliver has called him "America's back mole," "Rome burning in man form" and "Donald Drumpf."  Stephen Colbert has gone with "Toupee-Human Hybrid," "Microwave Circus Peanut," "Godzilla with less foreign policy experience," and far worse.  John Stewart's classic still resonates:  "Fuckface von Clownstick."  Trevor Noah has described him as "the face of a butternut squash who wished on a shooting star and became a real boy.”  Samantha Bee has a million of them, including, "Thrice-Married Foul-Mouthed Tit Judge," "Crotch-Fondling Slab of Rancid Meatloaf," "Melting Hunk of Uninformed Apricot Jello," and "America’s Burst Appendix."   

Conservative columnist George Will called him a "Bloviating Ignoramus,"  Sarah Palin (fondly) called him a "Golden Wrecking Ball," and Republican strategist Rick Wilson referred to him as "Cheeto Jesus."  On the Democratic side, former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley called him a "Facist Carnival Barker."

My all time favorite to date comes from Pennsylvania State Senator Daylin Leach: "Fascist, Loofa-faced, Shit-gibbon." 

Care to pile on?