Who's Obsessing?

To be clear: If Beto O'Rourke somehow becomes the Democratic nominee against Donald Trump in 2020, I will happily vote for him. In the meantime,  though, I also would like to answer some questions about him. Does he support Medicare for all? $15 minimum wage? Green New Deal? Jobs guarantee? ICE? And others.

These happen to be issues that are very important to me. If asking these questions is somehow offensive to Beto supporters or other centrists, then I would contend that I am not the one "obsessing", as they seem to be claiming. This is how it's supposed  to work.

Personhood and Speech

Conservatives have created out of whole cloth a world in which corporations have (1) personhood and (2) free speech rights like any other person. Conservatives have further constructed--also out of whole cloth--a world where money is speech. So when people call out, say, Pacific Life for advertising on a TV program which labels immigrants as dirty, it is disingenuous to cry foul. Conservatives have defined Pacific Life's advertising spending as speech, so it is perfectly legitimate to challenge that speech. And if I decide to not use my money to buy Pacific Life's products, I am simply exercising my speech.

Conservatives have created that world but now don't want to have to live in it. This is the world you wanted. Don't wish for something if you don't really mean it.

A Review

Just a few things to review, just to keep them clear in my mind.

1. James Comey is (was) a Republican.
2. Robert Mueller is a Republican.
3. Mueller was appointed by the Trump administration.
4. Fed Chair Jerome Powell--whom Trump is currently bad mouthing--was appointed to his position by (drum roll) Donald Trump.
5. People referred to as "Never Trumpers" are Republicans.
6. Deputy Attorney General Ron Rosenstein was appointed to his position by (drum roll) Donald Trump.
7. Since I have been a voter (i.e., 1972), the only significant documented voter fraud I know of just occurred in North Carolina and was perpetrated by Republicans. The number of votes involved in one relatively small county in North Carolina probably far surpasses the total number of documented voter impersonation episodes in the entire country over that same period (maybe the entire history of the US). Not one of the votes in question in North Carolina would have been stopped by any of the various Jim Crow laws passed by Republicans around the country.

Interest Rate Hypocrisy

In this article Kevin Drum has put into words what I've been thinking a lot of recently, with the Fed expected to raise interest rates this week. (They could still change their minds.)

I recall that during the entire Obama presidency, the Wall Street Journals and the Rick Santellis of the world were predicting clear and immediate catastrophe if the Fed didn't raise rates and soon. Inflation was either in full swing or just around the corner, even though it was essentially zero or even negative. Shoot, the House's resident Obama/Bernanke/Yellen hater, Jeb Hensarling, was holding hearings all the time scolding the Fed for not raising rates (and quite disrespectfully I might add).

Like Drum, I happen to agree that rates don't need to be raised, but the hypocrisy of the Right is pretty amazing. There was even less justification for raising rates during the Obama years than now, but that didn't matter. The Repubs spent eight years opposing everything for the sake of opposing everything, even if it hurt the country.

And I am supposed to think things will get better if we just get rid of Trump? Give me a reason to think so. They are all Donald Trump now.

Blue Dog Dems?

Generally I view Josh Rogin pretty favorably. While I frequently disagree with him--he is quite conservative--he's also a guy who argues in good faith and is worth a read.

This op-ed piece in The Washington Post isn't among his best, The title suggests that the Blue Dog Dems will have an important part to play in the upcoming Dem majority in the House. Unfortunately, other than the vaguest of generalities, he never really delineates what this "crucial role" actually is.

The piece leaves more things unanswered than answered. For example, the essay suggests that the progressive wing of the party is pursuing issues and policies "outside the mainstream". I wish he had told us what those are. $15 minimum wage? Medicare for All? Affordable housing? Criminal justice reform? Gun control? Jobs guarantee? These issues are basically the platform that Ocasio-Cortez ran on. If Rogin and the Blue Dogs think these are not in the mainstream of the Democratic Party, then they are the ones out of touch.

It's also ironic that on the very day I read Rogon's piece, I also read that a handful of Blue Dog Dems in the House joined the Repubs in preventing a vote on the disastrous war in Yemen. Is this the sort of "crucial role" Rogin has in mind for these folks? This is what moving to the center means? This is what compromise means?

No thanks.

Misreading the Fight Against Centrism

From Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone

The inability of pundits to make sense of the plummeting popularity of “centrism” is a long-developing story in the West. 

Over and over, a daft political class paternalistically implements changes more to the benefit of donors than voters, then repeatedly is baffled when they prove unpopular.

See: NAFTA, the creation of the WTO and GATT, deregulation of the banking sector, multiple unnecessary wars, tax holidays and other corporate subsidies like bans on drug re-importation, mass construction of prisons during an era of sharply declining crime (coupled with broad non-enforcement of white-collar offenses), and so on.

Headline of the Day

Washington Post today....

Wisconsin Republicans shield their voters from the horrors of democratic elections

Trump Voter Disconnect

In this article from The Washington Post, working-class Trump voters (largely white) in Ohio and other places where GM is closing plants seem to be saying that it is not Trump's fault. That's an interesting viewpoint and leads me to the following:

1. You felt like no one cared about you, and finally Trump came along and said he would protect your job; sort of guaranteed it. And you believed him, so you voted for him.
2. You lost your job anyway.
3. Now you say Trump has no power to prevent things like GM closing factories and having massive lay-offs.
4. If you didn't think Trump could save your job, then why did you vote for him (quite a contradiction there)?
5. Those of us on the Left have been treated to an endless (and tiresome) series of lecturing articles from The Post and The Times, where the reporters go to Rust Belt diners and talk with "misunderstood" Trump voters, who only feel ignored and patronized by the Left. All they want is a good job and that's the only reason they voted for Trump.
6. Well, now you say Trump couldn't have saved your job anyway.
7. Then, I can only conclude that the Trump-will-save-our-jobs narrative was just a smokescreen for why you really voted for him.
8. My conclusion is that what really attracted you to Trump--and why you voted for him--was his politics of cruelty, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and quasi-fascism. Please spare me the sob stories.

Thanksgiving Randomness

• I have serious issues with Nancy Pelosi's promise to reinstate some kind of PayGo policy. But it also seems that she is the most liberal of all the potential Speakers, so there ya go. Maybe some of the new members will keep her in check. PayGo simply plays into the hands of the Repubs. Repubs are never punished for profligacy; and Dems are never rewarded for "fiscal responsibility".
• Now we have the inevitable cases being made that the Dems need to move to the center. We  need to remember that the "center" gave us both the Vietnam and Iraq wars; Glass-Steagall repeal; welfare "reform"; Simpson-Bowles; stop-and-frisk; the list goes on. Spare me please.
• And while you're at it, also stop the tiresome narrative (I saw one in the Sun-Times today) that the racists and neo-Nazis on the Right, and those on the Left opposing racism and Fascism, are equally "strident" and if only both sides would just tone it down we could find common ground in the center....Puhlease!
• On a lighter note, I just added something to my list of things I wish I could do before I die: a selfie with Alexadria Ocasio-Cortez.
• I don't know why all those rich folks in Orange County threw the Republicans out of the House. But unlike some of my leftie friends, I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. It's Thanksgiving and I am thankful for their votes. Better late than never!

Quote of the Day

"I bet you'd be on my side if I had killed a journalist."

Michelle Wolf , tweet to Pres. Trump

Don't Think of an Elephant

I think this article is related to yesterday's post. For Trumpies, there isn't truth or falsehood:

If you’re someone who shares Trump’s worldview, there are certain things that follow from that worldview. In other words, certain things have to be true, or have to be believed, in order to sustain that worldview. The things that aren’t actually true but nevertheless preserve that worldview are “alternative facts” — that’s what Conway was getting at, whether she knew it or not.

Truth and untruth are irrelevant. "Belief" trumps them both.

This is an interesting article in The Washington Post but I think it misses a key feature of Trump's support. The piece talks about whether or not people are better of in "Trump country" than they were before. The conclusion is that the answer is "No" based on a year or so of data.

The tendency among those of us living in the real universe is to ask why in the world these people can't see this. Based on what I've seen from my conservative friends on social media, I think many of them do see it. Furthermore, I don't think a lot of them voted for Trump because they thought he'd make the real world any better. Rather, as long as he is--at least as they see it--owning the Libs, spewing racial and ethnic hate, validating their feelings of entitlement and victimhood, and just generally being an asshole, they are in full support.

They accept the fact that they continue to fall behind. Trump just gives them lots of scapegoats.

Anonymous Op-Ed Crock

Everyone else has jumped on this on one side or the other, so here's my two cents worth on the NY Times anonymous op-ed piece, and why I think it's a crock.

1. It's self-serving.
2. We essentially know nothing we didn't already know.
3. How has it made anything better? Indeed, it's just as likely to make things worse.
4. The entire GOP and right wing owns this presidency and has been totally complicit in it. Trying to take credit for the "good stuff" while blaming Trump for the "bad stuff" is simply revisionism. Do you think you are protecting "real" conservatism? In 2018, this is the real conservatism and you are part of it.
5. If you really want to be a hero, let me remind you that there are 500 kids still separated from  their parents and 3,000 of our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico are dead because of the administration you are a part of. Do something about that instead of writing a cover-my-ass "essay".

Disappointments

I am a subscriber to the Washington Post digital edition (I gave up my NY Times subscription a year or so ago), and I think it's pretty good. But I have at least two things for which I am wayyyy disappointed.

The crisis in Yemen is one that has been largely uncovered. (To be clear, this tragedy was occurring during the Obama administration, too.) Since this human catastrophe is happening with the consent and funding of the US, it is both an international and domestic news story, but weeks can go by with hardly a bit of coverage. And then it is covered as if there is an occasional bombing mistake now and then, rather than the ongoing humanitarian crisis that it is.

Puerto Rico is one of the worst catastrophes on American soil in my lifetime. It warranted daily coverage, but the Post hardly covered it at all. And the recovery there is far from over. American lives are not more valuable than any others, but with 3,000 deaths, one would think that a major American newspaper would have been on this story constantly.

Very disappointed on both counts.

Post-Labor Day Post

• A lot of things are amazing about Trump supporters, but one if the most bizarre is how they confuse his daily rants of victimhood with "strength".
• What's the difference between Trump and a Trump enabler like Orrin Hatch? Not a thing.
• I saw that Nike's target for the Kaepernick campaign is 15-17 year-olds. I am a 70-year old white veteran who has never been much of a Nike customer. I think I just became one!
• Speaking of Nike, I have a hard time understanding the Twitter rants to the effect of "Yeah Nike is doing this but whaddabout child labor." Their labor practices deserve all the scrutiny they get, but if otherwise imperfect people do the right thing, they deserve a high five.

Some Stuff

• Those who have read this blog from the beginning (not many, I know!) may recall that it started partly as a watchdog of the increased politicization of my former church body--The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS). The drift toward political activism started with the Affordable Care Act (they were against it), then on to gay marriage (against), gay wedding cakes (against), and the right to disobey any law they felt like (for). But the icing on the cake is that they are now firmly in the camp of the right-wing Religious Right Evangelical Movement (for) and Donald Trump (for). I am glad I am not there anymore. I only say this because, although WELS was always theologically conservative, they took great pains to (usually) keep a solid line between theology and politics. Now they are in the full-monty Fox News, alt-right cult.
• The afore-mentioned Religious Right is not a Christian organization. (1) It is a big business, from which lots of people make lots of money. (2) Its business is hate. (3) Business is very good.
• This whole "leftists-are-dividing-the-party" thing is really pissing me off. It's not very historical either. The first election I was able to vote in was the 1972 Nixon/McGovern race. Who abandoned the party that year? It wasn't the left wing of the party who voted for the war monger and criminal Richard Nixon. It was the centrists who abandoned the party. (The country would have been much better off with a President McGovern.) It's not the leftists in Maryland who seem to be supporting the Republican governor instead of their own Democratic nominee, Ben Jealous. It's the centrists and right-leaning labor unions. I have been voting for the establishment candidates my whole adult life. It's time for the Third-Way types to suck it up and support (enthusiastically) those candidates who happen to be to the left of them.

Blaming the Greens

With the apparent results in the OH12 special election, the favorite pastime of the Democratic Party establishment--blame the Green Party--has once again reared it's ugly head. I know, I know: I am definitely in the minority among those who are left of center, but I still take a more contrarian view of this. (Elizabeth Bruenigs's column today in The Washington Post had an interesting take on this as well.)

For one thing,  so much of the discussion about this tends to drag Bernie Sanders into it, and this is bullshit. It makes me tend to dismiss other parts of the argument that might be worthwhile. But in the context of, say, the 2016 election here is a much-abbreviated list of reasons Hillary lost:

1. James Comey
2. Jill Stein voters
3. Hillary chose a boring and uninspiring running mate (aka "safe")
4. Hillary largely ignored the Rust Belt and didn't campaign there enough

One could say that all of these played a hand in the election results. My problem is that laying the blame primarily on #2 (as well as #1) makes it too easy to ignore #3 and #4 and other equally plausible factors. (I happen to think #4 was crucial. If Hillary had worked harder there, the Stein vote may have been moot, but that's just me.)

I am also just generally skeptical about deciding what are valid and invalid reasons for how someone votes. Or to even assume I know why someone voted as they did. It makes it too easy to construct straw men, which then make it easy to prove whatever you want to prove.

There have always been third and fourth party candidates. There is also a third to a half of voters that don't vote at all. Insulting the Greens or the Bernie Bros might make some folks feel better, but I'm not sure it's the way to earn votes.

August 1st Thoughts

Haven't posted anything for awhile. so thought it was about time.

• How do we pay for Medicare for All? Stephanie Kelton and other economists have better and more thorough answers to this, but as a layperson my explanation is that we pay for it by paying for it. Just like everything else we pay for on the federal level.
• Somebody I know shared something on Facebook, showing a graphic of the number of votes for Stein in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, next to Trump's margin of victory in those states. The meme was something like "But you just didn't like Hillary did you? Well, are you happy now?" Don't get me wrong, I wish they'd voted for Hillary, too. But I also think that you have to earn somebody's vote. You're not entitled to it. Maybe they didn't feel like she earned their vote. (There are other things wrong with this argument, but this is my main issue.)
• Conventional wisdom seems to be that Trump supporters believe whatever he says is the truth, no matter what the facts. I have come to believe something different. I think that (1) they know he is lying and (2) they want him to lie. That's why if you engage them about it, they invariably don't address the issue, but just change the subject. Trump's lies are kinda beside the point. Giving the libs the finger is what's important to them. The more he lies to do it, the better they like it. (For example, Me: Trump just lied. Trumper: How's your 401(k) doing?)
• I just read in The Washington Post that some centrist Democrats in Maryland are withholding their support and/or endorsement of Ben Jealous, the Democratic nominee for Governor. Okay, does somebody want to give me one more of those tireless and endless lectures about how "the Left" is disloyal and tearing the party apart. Bleh!

Friday the 13th

I really did write this on the 13th, just forgot to post it. Just some random thoughts.

• The "centrist", Third Way wing of the Democratic Party keeps saying that the Left should give up certain of its core values for the sake of "winning". In the interest of compromise, therefore, I want to know which of their values they are prepared to abandon?
• Many (most?) of the "immigrants" in Britain that Trump is talking about aren't immigrants at all, but rather former colonial subjects of the British Empire. When you colonize half the world, you also create additional citizens (even of they're second class citizens).
• The "Russian" indictments are of interest in and of themselves, without deteriorating into a discussion only about how cost HRC the election. There are many plausible explanations for Trump's win and none of them is the answer in and of itself. Until I see something more directly linking this to actual votes being somehow "stolen", I choose to let Mueller's investigation run its course. The DNC, the HRC campaign, and other entities which have an incentive to save face always want the discussion to end up with something else to blame for the loss.
  
  
  
  
  
  

Learning New Things

I've been reading a lot of interactions of people with Jelani Cobb over the past few days, about Lincoln, the Civil War, the contribution of Black soldiers, and a whole bunch of other issues. If you want to see some of it, it'd be easy to find on Twitter. For what it's worth, these are the thoughts that the discussion triggered in my mind:

• Why is everyone so defensive?
• If we can't be open to the possibility of learning something new from the likes of Jelani Cobb, then we are all in trouble.
• Were all northerners responsible for slavery? Of course not. But the entire white economy of both North and South benefited from it. If we can't acknowledge that then how can we even attempt to engage in the history of slavery in America.
• Similarly, did I create the white privilege under which I have lived my whole life? I hope not. But I certainly benefited from it. I can't undo that but I can start by acknowledging it.
• I went to grade school and high school in the north (Wisconsin) in the 50s and 60s. Was I taught about the many attempts by slaves to break their shackles? Hardly. About the thousands of Black soldiers without whom the Civil War would not have been won? No.
• I was taught (even in a northern school) that slavery was only a secondary cause of the War. "States Rights" was the noble issue of the South.
• I also wasn't taught much nuance about Abraham Lincoln's role as the Emancipator. Rather, mythology was taught instead of history.
• Does this mean that my school and its teachers were acting in bad faith. No. But good faith does not always equate to truth. Indeed, their good faith is all the more reason to be willing to learn something new from people who were excluded for the textbooks of that era.
• This is not all on the schools of the my childhood. Or even on the other actors who were NOT acting in good faith. It is also on me.
• I spent too much of my life--especially after the civil rights laws were passed in the 60s--believing that things were better, that they were on some nonstop path to the disappearance of racism. I was wrong. I've never been more wrong about anything. To the extent I did that, I was part of the problem.
• One thing that has happened in the Trump era is that this has definitely become clearer. Politicians abide bigotry as long as they get their tax cuts. People (friends?) whom I've known most of my adult life are expressing open racism on social media. Religious leaders give all sorts of "mulligans" to racism, xenophobia, and misogyny.
• Hey, I'm a 70-year-old white dude, and probably not even aware of my own hidden prejudices. So what am I to do?
• At the very least, I am determined to spend whatever years I have left learning from people like Jelani Cobb, and others like him. If some of what they say makes me uncomfortable, instead of getting defensive, maybe I should be looking inside me. I don't know if I can be part of the solution, but maybe--in the end--I can stop being part of the problem.

Liberal Mainstream

Kevin Drum asks if the "liberal mainstream" has moved left.

I think the answer is no, but there is one thing that seems to be changing: the narrative of the more "centrists" commentators. In the past, ideas like Medicare for All and job guarantee were ridiculed or treated as kooky ideas. Now they are at least treated with a modicum of respect (cf. Paul Krugman's Times column on Ocasio-Cortez's primary win). While still disagreeing with the proposals, they are at least describing them as reasonable positions addressing real problems.

This is a good thing. There was no purpose in implying that these ideas are just left-wing versions of Tea Party lunacy. At the same time, if there isn't room in the Democratic Party for both Ocasio-Cortez and Paul Krugman (and Joe Manchin, for that matter), then the party is in trouble.

I welcome the change in attitude.

A Short History of Deficit Scolds

Here is a history of what I have been hearing my whole life. I will start in 1969 because that was the first year I could vote (the voting age was 21 then).

1969: The deficit and national debt are out of control. Catastrophe is just around the corner.
1970: The deficit and national debt are out of control . Catastrophe is just around the corner.
1971: The deficit and national debt are out of control . Catastrophe is just around the corner.
1972: The deficit and national debt are out of control . Catastrophe is just around the corner.
1973: The deficit and national debt are out of control . Catastrophe is just around the corner.
1974: The deficit and national debt are out of control . Catastrophe is just around the corner.
1975: The deficit and national debt are out of control . Catastrophe is just around the corner.
1976: The deficit and national debt are out of control . Catastrophe is just around the corner.
...
...
...
2009: The deficit and national debt are out of control . Catastrophe is just around the corner.
2010: The deficit and national debt are out of control . Catastrophe is just around the corner.
2011: The deficit and national debt are out of control . Catastrophe is just around the corner.
2012: The deficit and national debt are out of control . Catastrophe is just around the corner.
2013: The deficit and national debt are out of control . Catastrophe is just around the corner.
2014: The deficit and national debt are out of control . Catastrophe is just around the corner.
2015: The deficit and national debt are out of control . Catastrophe is just around the corner.
2016: The deficit and national debt are out of control . Catastrophe is just around the corner.
2017: The deficit and national debt are out of control . Catastrophe is just around the corner.
2018: The deficit and national debt are out of control . Catastrophe is just around the corner.

My message for the debt/deficit scolds (yes I mean you Simpson and Bowles): please excuse me while I ignore you the rest of my life. You're batting 0 for 50.

"We didn't see this coming"

From this story in today's Washington Post:

Mid-Continent Nail of Poplar Bluff, Mo., the largest U.S. nail manufacturer, cut 60 jobs on June 15 and plans to lay off an additional 200 workers in a few days, citing plummeting sales following the imposition of Trump’s metals tariffs. The company said it may not survive past Labor Day if it doesn’t get relief from the tariffs.

“It’s not just us. There will be many, many companies that will pay a price for this,” said George Skarich, vice president of sales and marketing. “I’m disappointed in Trump. We didn’t see this coming.” (emphasis is mine)

I admit that it's hard to not say "you got what you asked for", but I really do feel bad for these workers and the company. It's never pleasant to see someone played like a piano like President Trump does. But time after time I've seen quotes like "We didn't see this coming" and I want to ask just what did you see coming? It seems too me that this is entirely what was to expected.

Real Democrats?

My Twitter feed is full of establishment Democrats and their supporters telling me that Bernie Sanders is not a "real" Democrat (or whatever) and is bad for the Party. They seem to want some sort of pledge to only support "real" Democrats. Many of these tweets are quite hateful and full of denial about the 2016 election, but let's put that aside for now. (Full disclosure: I voted for Hillary Clinton in both the primary and the general election. Further disclosure: I am now a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.)

Well, I am willing to make a deal with these folks. As soon as I see and hear a "real" Democrat speaking as persistently and as forcefully as Bernie Sanders does about

• Medicare for All
• Job guarantee
• Free college tuition
• Income inequality
• Opposition to our support for the catastrophic war in Yemen
• $15 minimum wage
• Other progressive issues

That is when I will gladly support such a "real" Democrat.

In the meantime, they can stop insulting us that this is some kind of personality Bernie cult. (Actually, some of these tweets suggest a Hillary cult to me.) It's about POLICY! Progressive policy. That is the person I will support. I hope the Democratic Party recognizes that the future lies with a progressive agenda, not the Third Way or some other tiresome tack to the right.

Thoughts on Trump Reneging on the Iran Deal

• Once again the Repubs are allowing Netanyahu to dictate to the US what our foreign policy is (in this case also Saudi Arabia and the UAE). That is a sign of weakness, not strength.
• Saudi Arabia and the UAE don't really care about Iran's nuclear program. the just want to be the dominant authoritarian players in the Mideast, rather than Iran.
• The neocons got there way here as in Iraq. We know how that turned out.
• The US is no longer the leader of the free world.
• Iran has abided by its part of the agreement; the US has just violated its part.
• Trump owns it now.

Some Things I Believe

Here are a few things I believe to be true. I present them without proof or justification.  I can do that because it's my blog.

• Political Correctness is not a thing. It doesn't exist.
• White Privilege, on the other hand, is a real thing.
• Donald Trumpp isn't our problem. The Republican Party is our problem.
• Everyone should introduce themselves to Modern Monetary Theory. The basics of the theory aren't that wonkish. You will discover how much you've been misled about economics--specifically about deficits and the national debt--your whole life.
• My kids' generation is a lot smarter than my generation. And their kids' generation will be smarter than them.
• My first reaction to the DNC suing Russia et al is that it's a dumb idea.

Sunday Morning

Random and unrelated thoughts/opinions on a Sunday morning:

• I love podcasts but almost all of them are way too long. I am getting old and I just don’t have that many spare 60-90 minutes laying around anymore. They need senior citizen versions that I can listen to while drinking my McDonald's senior coffee.
• The New York Times was a much better newspaper when it had a daily bridge column.
• It was also a much better newspaper when it covered the substance of domestic politics instead of the tactics. It has become a Trump enabler.
• One could make the argument that the biggest problem with Trump is that he's a fool. Having a fool as President of the United States is bad for America and for the world. Having a racist fool as president makes it dangerous.
• NFL games are getting more boring all the time.
• Franklin Graham is pond scum. I didn't agree with Billy Graham's theology, but he always strove to be a man of integrity and decency. His son has neither integrity nor decency.

 

Can Anything Good Come out of Nazareth?

For my conservative Christian Trump-supporting friends and miscellaneous Trump apologists. Today's (2nd Sunday after Epiphany) gospel reading from John. I have added a couple words for additional interpretation. It seemed apropos.

Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.” Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of [that shithole] Nazareth?

Quote of the Day

"Barack Obama's foreign policy was characterized as leading from behind. Trump's doctrine may come to be understood as retreating from the front."

Evan Osnos, "Making China Great Again", The New Yorker, January 8, 2018 issue

Who's Surprised?

Trump's shithole comments were awful, but what else is new? No surprises here. New lows are met almost daily by this guy. But if this follows the normal pattern of things, the really disturbing part is that a sizable number of people--and probably a majority of whites--will have found his statements okay, and some even enthusiastically so.

And the sadder part of this for me is that this group of Trump enthusiasts likely includes a significant number of my family and friends.

Last Year's Reading List

Books I read in 2017:

M.O. Walsh, My Sunshine Away
Scott O'Connor, Half World
Orhan Pamulk, A Strangeness in My Mind
Alice Hoffman, The Museum of Extraordinary Things
George Eliot, Daniel Deronda
Matt Taibbi, The Divide
Ahdef Soueif, The Map of Love
J.K. Rowlings, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (thanks to my granddaughter for lending it to me)
Rachel Cusk, Outline
Gerard Reve, The Evenings
Catherine Lacy, Nobody Is Ever Missing
Rachel Cusk, Transit
Nathan Hill, The Nix
Marisha Pessl, Special Topics in Calamity Physics
Rabih Alameddine, An Unnecessary Woman
Sarah Perry, The Essex Serpent
Lorrie Moore, Bark
Virginia Woolf, The Waves
Cynthia D'Aprix Sweeney, The Nest
Christine Schutt, Florida
Elizabeth Strout, Olive Kitteridge
Jesmyn Ward, Salvage the Bones
Stephen Budiansky, The Bloody Shirt
Sarah Healy, The Sisters Chase
Jim Grimsley, Winter Birds
Salman Rushdie, The Satanic Verses
Philip Caputo, Acts of Faith
Eleanor Brown, The Light of Paris
Nell Zink, Nicotine
 
Interesting note: roughly two-thirds female, one-third male authors.