Talk about a loophole

A 3D printed gun is downloadable death

Imagine this: the convicted domestic abuser next door tries to buy a gun. He's turned down because he fails his background check. 

When he gets home, he opens up his browser, and in half an hour he's printing out his own undetectable, fully functional plastic gun, with no background check and no record of his purchase.

As of August 1, it will be a reality in America -- unless we are able to stop it.

Due to a settlement between the State Department and Defense Distributed -- a Texas based designer of 3D guns -- felons, domestic abusers, terrorists, those adjudicated too mentally ill to own guns and any other person unable to legally purchase firearms will be able to print one at home. 

Depending on the printer, they can be untraceable and plastic, or they can be metal. 

People will be able to make anything from novelty guns to AR-15s. And we will never know -- until it is too late.

It gets worse: this requires a legislative fix immediately, and the House of Representatives session adjourned for August recess on Thursday. 

In other words, there won't be a fix this month.

. . . .

This is part of the larger problem of ghost guns. 

These guns are made from DIY kits, which have no serial number, require no background check and are currently fully legal due to loopholes in our laws. 

An internet search on ghost guns tells a terrifying tale: headlines of gangs stocking up on these untraceable weapons. 

Of states with strict gun laws like Massachusetts confiscating hundreds of these guns. 

Of a tide of guns we don't know are out there and we don't know how to trace.

. . . .

Gun violence prevention organizations -- Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence -- filed a lawsuit to get an injunction to keep these downloadable guns from becoming legal, but on Friday a judge denied their motion to halt the sale of these deadly weapons.

Partnered with The Newtown Action Alliance and Fred Guttenberg of Orange Ribbons for Jaime, the No Rifle Association (NoRA), my organization, is helping to build a coalition of state attorneys general to also fight in court. 

We hope that we will be able to keep us safe long enough to enact a permanent legislative solution to this menace.

But without the public electing a Congress with the backbone to stand up to the gun industry and drawing a line in the sand at guns on demand for everyone, anytime, it's unlikely to happen.

How Trump and the Republicans are trying to save us from a particular horror of Obamacare

Using the courts to do what their own Congress dared not do.

Kavanaugh on Obamacare, per CNN

The fate of the health care law isn't an abstract question. 

The Trump administration is backing a lawsuit brought by Texas and other Republican-led states challenging the requirements that insurers offer coverage to everyone regardless of their medical history and do not charge more to people who have had certain health conditions.

. . . .

That new case, Texas v. United States, could ultimately land at the Supreme Court, where a new Justice Kavanaugh, tapped to succeed the retiring Anthony Kennedy, could make the difference in whether a popular ACA plank survives. 

. . . .

Kavanaugh's critics on the left contend his conservatism over the past 12 years on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit would lead him to rule against the Affordable Care Act.

Signs of his opposition to the law were plainly sufficient to satisfy Trump, who has long railed against the signature domestic achievement of President Barack Obama and has vowed to appoint justices who would overturn it. 

He has also taken consistent aim at Chief Justice John Roberts, who provided the fifth vote to uphold the law in 2012.

A true friend of the little guy, is our Donald.

A Democratic strategist was asked today on TV which to prioritize at the expense of the other, if necessary, winning control of the senate or keeping Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court.

The question arises because some Democratic senate seats are up, this fall, that are for states that went for Trump.

Those senators are feeling pressure to not piss off their states' voters by voting against Trump's pick, though Chuck Schumer is trying hard to maintain unanimous Democratic opposition to him in hopes not all the Republicans will vote for him.

There is actually a chance that Schumer's efforts could prevent Kavanaugh's confirmation.

But the Dem strategist came down for winning control of the senate without a moment's hesitation, arguing the need for checks and balances.

As if letting Trump put the Supremes in his pocket, and on the Republica team, would not far more damagingly undermine checks and balances, and for decades longer, than continued GOP control of the senate for another two years.

As if putting a right winger on the Supreme Court who has publicly said the Supremes back in the day were wrong to rule Nixon had to honor the subpoena demanding the White House tapes just as the chickens of Russiagate start to come home to roost would not right away show us how bad things can be when the Supremes decline to either check or balance.

When Trump was mulling who to nominate and in the immediate aftermath of the choice of Kavanaugh, newsies repeatedly said that Democrats routinely undervalue control of the courts, and even the Supreme Court, as compared to the great importance Republicans assign to it.

Seems they are right.

I did not know those things, and they are important

Sanders' Medicare for All plan would involve no cost sharing, no copays, no premiums for covered individuals.

All medical services would be covered at 100%.

And adopting the plan, which socializes the health insurance business and not medicine, would actually save the government trillions it would otherwise pay on health care.

Koch-backed study finds ‘Medicare for All’ would save U.S. government trillions

An estimated cost of $32.6 trillion over 10 years is less than the US government would spend over the next 10 years under the current system.

. . . .

Sanders’ proposed single-payer plan would be free at the point of service, and would not include any cost-sharing — that is, no co-pays or premiums. 

Under his plan, taxes would replace those often high costs, which currently are shouldered by patients.

Research from March of this year found that the present system has left 15.5 percent of adults between 19 and 64 without health insurance, while more than a quarter of lower-income families are uninsured. 

Monday’s study concluded that not only would Medicare for All provide insurance for the millions of Americans currently without coverage, but it would also save the government $2.054 trillion over the next decade.

. . . .

Ultimately, Sanders’ Medicare for All plan would provide comprehensive coverage for all residents of the United States, including primary and preventative care, emergency and hospital services, maternity and newborn care, prescription drugs, substance abuse and mental health services, as well as pediatrics, laboratory, and diagnostic services. 

The plan also guarantees dental, vision, audiology, and abortion coverage.

. . . .

The point is this: The resistance to single-payer, especially among establishment Democrats, is really just resistance to changing the status quo. 

The Democratic party is supposed to be the one that believes government can and should help people. 

Single-payer, as Monday’s study confirmed, is the best way to do that — while also saving the government trillions of dollars!

Trump bashes immigrants going to Europe

And the EU countries for tolerating mass illegal immigration for too long.

Taking the occasion of the visit of the new Italian PM.

And he repeats his threat to shut down the government if he doesn't get the money for his Wall and "great border security".

And he babbled nonsense about NATO and how he bullied them into paying a lot more.

Oops.

Lost Illusions.

Part 1, ch 3, Ms. Wormeley nods, translating the French "air" to English as "air" rather than "aria".

Du Chatelet was called upon to accompany Monsieur de Bartas, who murdered Figaro's grand air [sic].

The way once opened for music, the company was obliged to listen to a chivalric song, written under the Empire by Chateaubriand, and sung by du Chatelet.

BTW, why is Dickens a satirist while Balzac is a realist?

Is it only want of a satisfactory hero or heroine?

Or a happy ending?

Near as I can tell, Balzac is simply more dismal.

He is also more absurd and bombastic, but that can't be it.

So your complaint is that law enforcers acted to defend you and your home?

Actor Ving Rhames says police held him at gunpoint in his own home

Ving Rhames was held at gunpoint by police officers in his home after a neighbor reported that a “large black man” had broken in, the actor said on Friday.

“I open the door and there is a red dot pointed at my face from a 9mm [handgun],” the star of Mission: Impossible, Pulp Fiction and other films said on the Clay Cane show on Sirius XM. “They say, ‘Put up your hands’.”

Rhames said the confrontation happened earlier this year and was defused quickly when the police chief recognized him.

So the police chief personally was there to defend you and your home?

And the police response is a problem?

“He said it was a mistake and apologized,” the actor said, adding that he was still shaken. 

“My problem is, and I said this to them, what if it was my son and he had a video game remote or something and you thought it was a gun?”

Wait, so your problem is that something bad might have happened had it been your son - which it was not - and not you - which it was?

So does that make what did happen a bad thing?

Rhames said police told him a neighbor had called 911 and said a large black man was breaking into the house.

“Myself, the sergeant and one other officer, we went over to that house, which was across the street from my place, and the person denied it,” Rhames said.

He continued: “Here I am in my own home, alone in some basketball shorts. Just because someone called and said a large black man is breaking in, when I opened up the wooden door a 9mm is pointed at me.”

Not  good enough reason for the police to show up?

You really want the police to not check it out when a burglary is reported?

Or do you think they ought to do it disarmed and not ready for violent criminal resistance?

Remember the Gates incident?

That black chip on Gates's shoulder got him arrested, and the one on Obama's shoulder got the cop a presidential rebuke that was latter publicly regretted.

Sisi vs. the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt

Trump has publicly admired the strong man currently in power in Egypt for his authoritarian rule and for the ferocity of his efforts against Islamism, of which the Muslim Brotherhood could almost be said to have been the creator, back in the day.

The Society of the Muslim Brothers (Arabic: جماعة الإخوان المسلمين‎ Jamāʻat al-Ikhwān al-Muslimīn), better known as the Muslim Brotherhood (الإخوان المسلمون al-Ikhwān al-Muslimūn), is a transnational Sunni Islamist organization founded in Egypt by Islamic scholar and schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna in 1928.

The organization gained supporters throughout the Arab world and influenced other Islamist groups such as Hamas with its "model of political activism combined with Islamic charity work", and in 2012 sponsored the elected political party in Egypt after the January Revolution in 2011. 

However, it faced periodic government crackdowns for alleged terrorist activities, and as of 2015 is considered a terrorist organization by the governments of Bahrain, Egypt, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The Brotherhood's stated goal is to instill the Quran and the Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ... ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state".

For many years the movement was supported by Saudi Arabia, with which it shared some enemies and some points of doctrine. 

Today, the primary state backers of the Muslim Brotherhood are Qatar and Turkey.

Trump has also expressed admiration for Erdogan's strongman rule in Turkey.

As a Pan-Islamic, religious, and social movement, it preached Islam, taught the illiterate, and set up hospitals and business enterprises. 

The group spread to other Muslim countries but has its largest, or one of its largest, organizations in Egypt despite a succession of government crackdowns in 1948, 1954, 1965, and 2013 after plots, or alleged plots, of assassination and overthrow were uncovered.

The Arab Spring brought it legalization and substantial political power at first, but as of 2013 it has suffered severe reversals. 

The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood was legalized in 2011 and won several elections, including the 2012 presidential election when its candidate Mohamed Morsi became Egypt's first president to gain power through an election, though one year later, following massive demonstrations and unrest, he was overthrown by the military and placed under house arrest.

Egyptian court sentences 75 people to death over 2013 demonstration

An Egyptian court on Saturday sentenced 75 people to death for participating in a 2013 demonstration in support of then-President Mohamed Morsy, and referred their cases to the country's Grand Mufti for a final decision, according to state-run news agency Ahram Online.

The defendants, which included members of the Muslim Brotherhood, were arrested and tried for participating in a sit-in at Rabaa al-Adawiya and al-Nahda squares in Cairo, to protest the removal of Morsy, a former Brotherhood leader and the country's first democratically elected president.

The month-long protest culminated in mass violence, when Egyptian security forces -- under the command of now-President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi -- attempted to clear thousands of demonstrators by using automatic weapons, armored personnel carriers and military bulldozers.

The government's actions were widely condemned by international rights organizations. 

A 2014 report by Human Rights Watch found at least 817 people were killed in the violence.

The Egyptian government has since banned the Muslim Brotherhood, declaring it a terrorist organization.

And yet nobody would say Sisi's Egyptian government is entirely secular.

The 75 defendants sentenced to death on Saturday are accused of "attacking citizens, resisting authorities, destroying public property and buildings, and possessing firearms and Molotov cocktails," according to Ahram Online.

Among those sentenced are Brotherhood leader Mohamed Badie and prominent members Essam El-Erian, Mohamed El-Beltagy and Wagdy Ghoneim, Ahram reported.

The government is prosecuting 739 people for participation in the protests.

Before the verdict can be finalized and death sentences carried out, Egypt's penal code requires the Grand Mufti, the country's leading Islamic authority, to issue a religious opinion on the matter, according to Ahram. 

The Grand Mufti's opinion is non-binding but rarely ignored.

. . . .

A criminal court will issue its final verdict on the death sentences on September 8, Ahram reported, but defendants will have the right to appeal.

Please kill me

That plea of a totally immobilized but conscious person parked all day, every day, in front of a TV by his keeper is a staple of streaming videos and crime stories.

I get it.

It would be my plea, under those circumstances.

And what's the merit in keeping somebody alive who can be kept from going mad with anguish only if you keep him drugged out of his skull all the time?

The terminally ill should be allowed to die

The piece is actually about physician assisted suicide.

And that's a step beyond "Thou shalt not kill; but needst not strive / Officiously to keep alive[.]"

And, yes, it covers only the terminally ill.

That's just not good enough.

We need a media literacy project

North Miami Beach Officer Charged With Allegedly Beating Pregnant Woman

No one has ever been, is now, or ever will be charged with allegedly doing anything.

Allegedly doing something is not a crime, and no one ever goes to prison for allegedly doing anything.

She has been charged with doing it.

Doing it is a crime.

A North Miami Beach Police officer is behind bars after she allegedly kicked a woman who was eight months pregnant, causing the victim to be transported to the hospital for an emergency delivery.

Correct.

It is alleged; it has not been proven in court.

Officers arrested 26-year-old Ambar Pacheco Wednesday and charged her with one count of aggravated battery on a pregnant woman. 

She was not charged with alleged aggravated battery.

Pacheco was off-duty and not in uniform when the alleged incident happened.

An arrest report stated that Miami Beach officers arrived at the scene near Espanola Way and Washington Avenue shortly after 8:30 p.m. on Wednesday after the victim said Pacheco had struck her in the stomach.

Pacheco told officers that the victim’s boyfriend had kicked her sister in the face, saying that she “saw red and beat the (expletive) out of her," later saying that she didn't know who she kicked.

Remember scientific racism?

Scientific misandry endorsed as a real and valid thing by NBC news.

Why are men so terrible, and what can we do about it?

Why are women so terrible and what can we do about it?

No man will dare write an article with such a title, nor will any mainstream medium publish it.

Why Bob Casey's disgusting campaign must be forgiven

Bob Casey is running ads intended to make him look good to those good white working folks who pushed the state into the Trump column.

They are pretty disgusting stuff.

But the Republican who wants his seat is another upstart Trumpist asshole, er, white male "populist".

Trump to boost flagging Senate candidate behind immigrant crackdown

The former Pennsylvania mayor Lou Barletta’s approach to undocumented immigrants lines up closely with the president’s.

The article is perfectly clear about and opposed to the scapegoating of immigration but - unsurprisingly in a vehicle of the further left that preferred Hillary the man-hating woman to Trump but strongly preferred anti-globalist, anti-capitalist Sanders to both - itself castigates the globalization of the economy and implicitly condones protectionism, blaming the economic woes of hillbilly Pennsylvanians on too-free trade.

Those free trade treaties all these folks hate have allowed those same white morons to buy lots of manufactured goods and some foods a lot cheaper than if they were made or grown here.

And protecting coal and steel is as bad an idea now as it was when it was up to Ronald Reagan - when, come to think of it, a good part of the local professional left - local activists and DSA types - were not only for protectionism but against auto manufacturers closing plants in the Rust Belt to open new plants in the Sun Belt in order to break the UAW's control over the entire industry.

Control that enabled them to effectively push up the price paid by everyone in America for an American-made car.

And most of those folks didn't work in the auto industry.

Who now doubts Trump personally colluded from the beginning?

Including the illegal parts, with the Russians, right up to Putin?

This fool, his family, and his campaign leaders were in it from the start.

And he and they have been obstructing justice in plain sight all along, some of them perjuring themselves along the way, all of them lying constantly for over a year to everyone.

Will he be impeached?

Will he or anyone be prosecuted?

Those in his party who are not personally implicated are silently looking away, apart from a few critics.

All are putting party, power, and the success of their agenda first.

They will tolerate anything.

The world is indeed laughing at us.

I have never been so ashamed of my country, so revolted by so many Americans.

Can't wait for the pardons to start flying.

And how will Trump's two new appointees vote when the question gets to the Supremes whether a president can commit obstruction of justice?

Whether he can pardon himself and others preemptively, as Republican stooge Ford disgracefully did for Republican crook Nixon, after he resigned but before he was actually charged?

Whether he and through him all his willing minions, his running dogs, are, in fact, for all intents and purposes, utterly and totally above the law?

And there's this.

Besides, he's still actively pushing the Republican agenda.

About to roll over, big time?

Or is it never too late for a pardon?

A few weeks ago, Rudy Giuliani couldn't speak highly enough on all the TV news networks about his friend and Bozo's, Michael Cohen.

Now he's on all the networks screaming he is a proven liar, and that his uncorroborated testimony cannot possibly bring down a president.

He's probably right both times, though who but the fools who voted for him actually believes any longer in the innocence of Trump and his top folks regarding Russiagate?

As for Trump and all his public defenders, they are simply liars, themselves.

As for Cohen, he could actually be lying to try to squeeze the best deal he can out of investigators and prosecutors.

And that though his claims are actually true, nonetheless.

Michael Cohen said Trump knew ‘everything' about Russia, tower meeting, says friend of president's former lawyer

Donny Deutsch, a longtime friend of Cohen’s, said Friday that he had heard “several months” ago from Cohen that the president had previous knowledge of the infamous Trump Tower meeting that many have said is evidence of collusion with Russia to steal the White House.

“What Michael’s made very clear to me is No. 1…nothing went on in this business without Donald knowing about it. And he had led me to believe that he could bring Trump back to Russia,” Deutsch said on MSNBC Friday.

Deutsch’s claim followed reports from CNN and NBC, citing anonymous sources, of Cohen’s apparent willingness to testify before the special counsel investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election that the president knew his eldest son would be meeting with Russians who could have damning information about Clinton.

“What came out yesterday to me was not a surprise, based on conversations Michael and I had had,” Deutsch added. “I don’t want to use his exact words, but everything that was going on, Trump knew about.”

Michael Cohen just dropped a collusion bombshell in the Russia investigation

This may be the most important paragraph of Donald Trump's presidency:

"Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's former personal attorney, claims that then-candidate Trump knew in advance about the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower in which Russians were expected to offer his campaign dirt on Hillary Clinton, sources with knowledge tell CNN. 

"Cohen is willing to make that assertion to special counsel Robert Mueller, the sources said."

L'Illusion Comique

Beautiful verse, not always alexandrines.

A play within a play within the play.

The innermost is confined to Act Five, within the second play within a play, also confined to Act Five.

The first play within the play runs from Act Two to Act Four.

Both the first and second recount adventures of the same people, but the second is rather a sequel, picking them up two years after those of the first.

Within that second those people are actors and perform the innermost play.

Corneille ends with the magician Alcandre's paen to theater and Richelieu.

A loud, boorish, and stupid Trumpist nut wants to be Speaker

Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan announces bid for House Speaker

A wrestling coach accused of turning a blind eye to sexual abuse during his tenure.

Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, a conservative firebrand and staunch ally of President Donald Trump, said Thursday he would run to succeed Paul Ryan as House Speaker.

"Should the American people entrust us with the majority again in the 116th Congress, I plan to run for Speaker of the House to bring real change to the House of Representatives," Jordan, a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus, said in a statement.

"President Trump has taken bold action on behalf of the American people. Congress has not held up its end of the deal, but we can change that. It's time to do what we said," added Jordan, who also sent a letter to his House colleagues announcing his intention to run.

This is how nuts.

He loudly echoes every craziest wingnut claim about Russiagate, the FBI, the Justice Department, and even Hillary's exoneration for the email business.

Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday that he doesn't support the effort by some of his conservative House colleagues to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.

"Do I support impeachment of Rosenstein? No, I do not," Ryan, R-Wis., said at his weekly press conference as lawmakers packed up to leave Capitol Hill for a month-long recess.

"I don't think we should be cavalier with this process or term," he said of impeachment, adding, "I don't think this rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors."

A group of conservative House members filed articles of impeachment against Rosenstein Wednesday night, alleging that he has withheld documents from Congress and made misleading statements to lawmakers. The resolution was introduced by Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of the House Freedom Caucus; Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio; and nine co-sponsors.

Ryan said that while Congress hasn't gotten full compliance on its requests for documents from the Department of Justice, lawmakers have seen "tremendous progress" since he stepped in and got involved.

If an impeachment resolution were to pass the House, Ryan warned, it would "tie the Senate into knots," delaying both appropriations bills and the confirmation of President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

"For many reasons, I don’t think it's the right way to go," Ryan said.

. . . .


And Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, indicated Thursday that he doesn't back the impeachment effort.

"I am supportive of our desire to gain of getting the documents. Impeachment is a punishment. So, I want the documents," he said. 

"My position for the most part has been I don't like drama but I want the documents. It hasn’t changed."

The other issue with impeachment, added Gowdy, is that it's unlikely to succeed: "I don't see the votes."

Meanwhile, Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended Rosenstein.

"My deputy, Rod Rosenstein, is highly capable. I have the highest confidence in him," Sessions said at a press conference in Boston.

Sessions said that Congress has far more pressing issues to deal with than impeaching a top DOJ official.

"We need Congress to deal with the immigration question," he said.

Lost Illusions

Balzac is a snob and he is full of absurd generalizations masquerading as worldly wisdom.

When NOT to return fire

When the bad guy is running into a store where there could be people who are NOT bad guys.

Trader Joe's employee was killed by officer's bullet, LAPD says

Accidentally killing someone during a stupid shootout should be grounds for instant dismissal and perhaps for prosecution.

The Republican nominee for the Supremes

Kavanaugh: Watergate tapes decision may have been wrong

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh suggested several years ago that the unanimous high court ruling in 1974 that forced President Richard Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes, leading to the end of his presidency, may have been wrongly decided.

Kavanaugh was taking part in a roundtable discussion with other lawyers when he said at three different points that the decision in U.S. v. Nixon, which marked limits on a president’s ability to withhold information needed for a criminal prosecution, may have come out the wrong way.

In 1999

Kavanaugh’s belief in robust executive authority already is front and center in his nomination by President Donald Trump to replace the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. 

The issue could assume even greater importance if special counsel Robert Mueller seeks to force Trump to testify in the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“But maybe Nixon was wrongly decided — heresy though it is to say so. 

"Nixon took away the power of the president to control information in the executive branch by holding that the courts had power and jurisdiction to order the president to disclose information in response to a subpoena sought by a subordinate executive branch official. 

"That was a huge step with implications to this day that most people do not appreciate sufficiently...

"Maybe the tension of the time led to an erroneous decision,” Kavanaugh said in a transcript of the discussion that was published in the January-February 1999 issue of the Washington Lawyer.

At another point in the discussion, Kavanaugh said the court might have been wise to stay out of the tapes dispute. 

“Should U.S. v. Nixon be overruled on the ground that the case was a nonjusticiable intrabranch dispute? Maybe so,” he said.

. . . .

Philip Lacovara, who argued the Watergate tapes case against Nixon and moderated the discussion, said Kavanaugh has long believed in a strong presidency. 

“That was Brett staking out what has been his basic jurisprudential approach since law school,” Lacovara said in a telephone interview Saturday.

Still, Lacovara said, “it was surprising even as of 1999 that the unanimous decision in the Nixon tapes case might have been wrongly decided.”

In 2016

Kavanaugh allies pointed to a recent, more favorable assessment of the Nixon case. 

“Whether it was Marbury, or Youngstown, or Brown, or Nixon, some of the greatest moments in American judicial history have been when judges stood up to the other branches, were not cowed, and enforced the law. 

"That takes backbone, or what some call judicial engagement,” Kavanaugh wrote in a 2016 law review article in which he referred to several landmark Supreme Court cases.

What would he think about the president pardoning himself or people who have done illegal things at his bidding or to his advantage?

How "strong" does Kavanaugh think a president should be?

Trump goes bonkers

Not for the first time, but still.

Threatens horrible military action against Iran, denounces claims of Russian election interference as a hoax (again), attacks weak Obama and crooked Hillary (again) vents anger in private that NK isn't moving toward denuclearization.

Trump is lashing out all over

And his party loves him.

Eighty-eight percent of Republican voters in the poll approve of Trump’s job — the highest of his presidency — and 29 percent of all voters strongly approve of his performance, which is another high for him. 

“The more Trump gets criticized by the media, the more his base seems to rally behind him,” says Democratic pollster Fred Yang, who co-conducted the NBC/WSJ poll with the Republican team from Public Opinion Strategies.

Trump’s approval rating in the poll is 45 percent among all registered voters (up 1 point from June), while 52 percent disapprove, including 44 percent who do so strongly.

The bad news for the president is that his standing — plus the GOP’s — is now worse with independents than it was a month ago. 

Just 36 percent of independents approve of Trump’s job (down 7 points from June). 

What’s more, independents prefer a Democratic-controlled Congress by more than 20 points, 48 percent to 26 percent. 

In June, the Dem lead among indies was just 7 points, 39 percent to 32 percent.

Overall, Democrats hold a 6-point lead in congressional preference, 49 percent to 43 percent. 

That’s down from their 10-point advantage last month, 50 percent to 40 percent, though the movement is well within the poll’s margin of error. 

Democrats continue to enjoy an enthusiasm advantage heading into the midterms: 65 percent of Democratic voters have a high level of interest in the upcoming elections — registering either a “9” or “10” on a 10-point scale — compared with 49 percent of GOP voters.

So less than four months until the midterm elections, two things are going on, according to this poll: Trump’s hold on the GOP base is getting stronger, while his relationship with independents and the middle of the electorate is getting weaker.

A Pittsburghism in Jane Eyre

I have never in my life seen or heard this usage anywhere but Pittsburgh.

I am New England born and bred.

Jane to Rochester, after combing his hair.

"There, sir, you are redd up and made decent."

Chapter 37, Jane Eyre.

She has a happy ending and marries Rochester.

St. John has a happy ending and dies for his Lord.

Globalism or America First?

This is a piece by an academic who wrote a book about FDR getting us into the war in Europe.

Republican leaders need to remember what happened the last time America chose to be isolated

She quotes Henry Luce's The American Century in opposition to Trump's America First policy and his hammer blows against American globalism.

Luce published his famous article, "The American Century," in February 1941, seven months after all the European democracies -- except Great Britain -- had surrendered to Hitler's ruthless armies. 

Luce traced this catastrophe to the end of World War I when the Senate rejected Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations and the United States began its retreat from world affairs.

In the 1920s and '30s, Americans embraced "the moral and practical bankruptcy" of isolationism, Luce wrote, and "failed to play their part as a world power." 

That unwillingness to confront Hitler's aggression in the 1930s, he underscored, brought "disastrous consequences" to "all mankind."

All the same, the idea that we should or had to eventually enter the war to keep Hitler from conquering the world is exactly the sort of childish twaddle that it appears, and Luce himself said just that in this very piece.

Even the British, whose regime and empire Hitler vastly admired, could probably have negotiated a separate peace without accepting any degree of nazification.

And Luce in this piece concedes that an American defense of North America against all enemies, if that was what Americans wanted, could well have worked.

Anyway, there was no convincing argument against that notion.

For Luce, the question whether America should send armies to fight in Europe to stop Hitler depended on what Americans wanted to do.

Defend only their own democracy in their own country, or defend and advance "so-called democratic principles" and government throughout the world?

Isolationism or engagement?

In the latter part of his piece, Luce presents a brilliant and sweeping picture of what American internationalism could and should be.

It is, today, a stirring and powerful defense of the kind of international liberal order built up after the Second World War.

But what it really comes down to, today, is whether we continue our engagements in NATO, in the Far East, in Oceania, and elsewhere, along with participation in global institutions like the UN and the WTO and support for pan-European institutions like the EU.

All for the encouragement, construction, and consolidation of a civilization of global democratic capitalism.

Or instead let it - or even make it - all fall apart.

And risk enemies rising up everywhere, surrounding fortress North America and forcing us to risk fighting a war to save ourselves right here in our home turf, rather than far lesser wars, often proxy wars, at a very great distance from ourselves.

PS. Luce in this piece suggests America commit itself to feeding everyone in the world who would otherwise go without, at taxpayer expense, with food produced by American agriculture.

But we have not done it and are very unlikely to.

We won't even feed all our own.

It goes wrong right away

St. John wants all the more urgently to go to India, and does his level best to exploit his ascendency over Jane to get her to go with him as his wife, using both their 5,000 pound shares to finance a mission and both a boys' and a girls' school.

His sisters are fine with the marriage, though they, he, and Jane are completely aware he does not love her for one second.

But they fear she would die in India in less than a year, a belief she and he seem also to share.

Still, so great is his power over her that, though it defies everything she actually wants, she agrees to run off with him to die soon as a missionary schoolmistress but refuses the loveless marriage.

He is all the more firm and refuses to let her come along at all without binding herself once and for all to him, his life, and his control of her by marrying.

Of course he guilt-trips the hell out of her about it, forcing upon her the idea she has a religious duty to go with him to an early death in divine service, an idea which he seems to be quite successful in imposing on her, though no such thing ever in life for a moment entered her head, neither before nor after she first encountered her cousins.

He goes away for two weeks during which he wants her to think about it.

Before leaving he hectors her one last time.

She nearly surrenders, cries out to God, "What shall I do?"

She hears the voice of Rochester calling, "Jane! Jane! Jane!"

St. John leaves the next morning to begin his two weeks preparation for India.

Jane leaves to find Rochester.

Jane Eyre.

The Liar in the White House

Trump says 'inconceivable' that Cohen recorded conversation about ex-Playmate payment

Trump cannot even tweet three sentences without lying at least once in each.

And thrice  in the first.

Inconceivable that the government would break into a lawyer’s office (early in the morning) - almost unheard of. 

Even more inconceivable that a lawyer would tape a client - totally unheard of & perhaps illegal. 

The good news is that your favorite President did nothing wrong!

They had a warrant and did not break in, such intrusion is far from inconceivable, and it's not even "almost unheard of".

It is legal in New York state for one party to tape a conversation with another without letting that other know.

He is far from my favorite president and he has done much wrong and even criminal.

This won’t end well

A lately deceased uncle has left Jane 20,000 pounds, while leaving nothing to his nephew and nothing to his two other nieces.

Jane says this is unjust and an arbitrator agrees with her.

She wants to split the inheritance with her three cousins, 5,000 pounds each.

But her reason is that she is committed to never marrying, having abandoned Rochester, and she desperately wants to live happy ever after and quite at leisure with all three of her newfound cousins.

But St. John has known plans to leave the country to be a missionary in India and the two girls, his two sisters, beautiful, better educated, and more accomplished than Jane, are hardly likely to never marry, themselves.

All the less so if she makes them each rich.

But that is what she is doing, anyway.

Trying to buy herself a cozy little family with which to be happy ever after, all four living together in harmony and joy.

Jane Eyre.

Trump the Usurper

He has legal authority to meddle with tariffs only in case of genuine national security issues, authority allowed him by law as a exception to the constitutional order, an exception itself unconstitutional since it purports to by statue alter the constitutional assignment of powers.

He has no authority to impose or alter tariffs ad lib.

But to usurp this power he has publicly proclaimed that anything to do with the economy is a matter of national security, thus arrogating to himself the powers to regulate trade and impose taxes (tariffs are taxes) the constitution assigns to the Congress.

The Republicans control the Congress and, though they generally are free traders, hate tariffs, and fear trade war, they have so far done nothing to stop their jackass in the White House.

Trump says he's 'ready' to put tariffs on all $505 billion of Chinese goods imported to the US

And every other worker in America will pay more for a car if this happens.

Nobody will have the least reason to give them all a raise - or to give me a raise - to cover the price hike.

Nor will the value of savings rise magically to cover lost buying power.

Trump supporters are stupid, and demagogues at least partially refute the best argument for universal suffrage, that it allows the masses to protect their interests from the predatory plutocracy.

Except the UAW, groups rip Trump's proposed auto tariffs at hearing

President Donald Trump's proposal to place tariffs of 25 percent on imported autos and auto parts received a near-unanimous flogging Thursday as automakers, dealers, suppliers, repair shop owners and foreign allies each stepped up to warn against it, saying it will hurt production and cost jobs.

In fact, through midafternoon of what was scheduled to be an all-day hearing at the Commerce Department, only one organization — the UAW — defended Trump's call for an investigation into whether imports, including those from allies such as Canada, Mexico, the European Union, Japan and South Korea, should face stiff tariffs.

But even in that case, the UAW's Jennifer Kelly, director of the union's research department, cautioned against ultimately applying broad tariffs or using them against key allies such as Canada, which she said could hurt production in the U.S. and cost jobs.

"It's our hope the Trump administration will take targeted measures to protect domestic manufacturing," she said. 

He facilitates globalism even as he continuously undermines it

Trump says defending tiny NATO ally Montenegro could result in World War III

He sounds like Pat Buchanan.

Montenegro, located on the Adriatic Sea in southeastern Europe, joined the NATO alliance during the Trump administration. 

The nation, which borders Serbia, Albania, Bosnia and Croatia, is geographically smaller than Connecticut and has a smaller population than Washington, D.C. Russia has condemned its NATO membership.

The most recent addition to the alliance became a topic of discussion Tuesday during a Fox News interview with the president in the wake of his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"Membership in NATO obligates the members to defend any other member that's attacked," Fox News host Tucker Carlson said to Trump. 

"So let’s say Montenegro, which joined last year, is attacked. Why should my son go to Montenegro to defend it from attack?"

Trump answered: "I understand what you're saying. I've asked the same question. Montenegro is a tiny country with very strong people. … They're very aggressive people. They may get aggressive, and, congratulations, you're in World War III."

But he carries on like Hillary.

Despite his rhetoric on defense spending, the president signed onto an agreement at the NATO summit that reiterated the mutual defense language included in Article 5 of NATO's founding document.

The agreement the president signed last week notes that any "attack against one Ally will be regarded as an attack against us all."

Article 5 is the bedrock principle of NATO and the reason it is widely considered the most powerful military alliance in the world. 

The last time NATO invoked Article 5 was after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

Montenegro's prime minister was asked about Trump's interview Wednesday in parliament.

"He said that the Montenegrin people are brave and that he does not want the U.S. citizens to fight for others and for other NATO member states," Prime Minister Duško Marković said, according to an official translation provided to NBC News. 

"He did not say that only on that occasion, but he also said the same at the NATO summit, you know it because he said it publicly, not in terms of justification of NATO's existence, but of NATO funding."

According to NBC News, citing official figures, Montenegro contributes more troops per capita to the war in Afghanistan than the United States. 

Overall, Montenegro maintains a standing military of less than 2,000.

Montenegro joined NATO last year with the overwhelming consent of the U.S. Senate, which voted 97-2. 

Trump himself signed off on the country's entrance into the alliance.

Really so young?

We are 400 pages into a story of 527 pages and she says she is 19 years old.

Jane Eyre.

Fool me once . . .

Cloris explains to Melite why she has not taken back Philandre.

Melite to Cloris: But he dumped you for me. Who can blame him?

Cloris to Melite: And for that I laugh at him and his pleas to take him back.

Act V, Melite, Pierre Corneille.

MSNBC says Reuters says he's claiming he misspoke

He said "I see no reason why it would be Russia" but meant to say "I see no reason why it would not be Russia," is their story, now.

Reuters says he says that on the tape, still being edited and yet to be released, of remarks starting at 2 and now (2:43) completed.

Completely incredible, given everything else he said before and after that single sentence.

MSNBC asks which C-word fits.

Trump publicly asks the Russians to hack Hillary and find her emails and make them public, and that very night the 12 indicted Russians attempt to do just that.

Coincidence?

Or collusion, right there in public?

So, how much of this is about Trump getting great real estate deals for golf courses and hotels in Russia?

A guy on MSNBC is saying he thinks Trump and the Russians, and Putin in particular, have extensive and longstanding financial ties that may include collusion in money laundering and other crimes.

That's what they've got on him, he says.

2:50 they finally release the tape.

The usual Trump mix of lies, bromides, and bragging.

"Full faith and support for America's great intelligence agencies . . . . I accept our intelligence conclusion that there was Russian meddling in our elections . . . .  no collusion . . . . "

"I said 'would' instead of 'wouldn't', and the sentence should have been 'I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia.'"

So Reuters is right and he's just lying through his teeth, again, as he so often does.

Then goes on to blame Obama for keeping it fairly dark during the campaign.

And says his administration has taken a firm stance and will take strong action to secure the election process.

Obama went to Mitch McConnell and asked him to go public with the administration in making the Russian interference public so it wouldn't look like an effort to help Hillary win, and McConnell refused.

So the Obama administration thought it better not to give the problem much public attention, rather than undermine Hillary by inviting a firestorm of Republican accusations Obama was blatantly trying to undermine the Trump campaign.

Not a word about that from The Duce.

Not a word about McConnell virtually forcing silence on the Obama administration on the topic in order to protect the Trump campaign.

Then Trump turned to bragging about Korean denuclearization and talk about the possibility of reducing the number of nuclear weapons both sides have.

Finished up with a lot of talk about how much faith he has in our intelligence agencies.

He ended saying that he and the GOP leaders are going to have a special closed meeting about more tax cuts and somehow legislating something that will prevent future congresses from "stealing back" the GOP tax cuts.

And that's just campaign bullshit, too.

The moron in the White House

Worse reaction today to Trump's idiocy yesterday in Helsinki than yesterday.

The president's 2 o'clock is not live.

It is being taped right now, and when he's done the tape will be released.

After editing, I'd wager.

They do not want him live in front of the press.

It amazes me that he accepts this level of handling.

Can they get him to spend the rest of his presidency in a closet?

The madness of King George, eh?

No live coverage, ever.

Just edited statements and taped remarks.

Prisoner of the White House.

Pretty thin gruel

Feds Charge Russian Student, Linked To NRA, With Conspiracy

Looks like the only crime here is her failing to register as an agent of a foreign power, and even that would not be easy to make stick.

Mostly innuendo, arm waving, and yelling "Boo!"

And all the same it looks more likely than not that she was indeed an agent of influence.

Funneling money thru the NRA to advance the Trump campaign could involve the NRA and the Russians involved in violation of campaign finance laws.

And maybe members of the Trump campaign.

Maybe.

Quid pro quo

Trump is now repaying Putin for helping him win the presidency

The events of the past few days — culminating in President Trump’s meeting today with Russian President Vladimir Putin — have rendered this interpretation inescapable: 

Trump is currently in the process of repaying Putin for helping to deliver him the presidency.

Whatever comes of this meeting — even if Trump does, in fact, gain some concessions from Putin, and even if Putin does not get what he wants out of Trump — that storyline will remain operative. 

The known facts have now established it beyond any reasonable doubt, and the only alternative interpretations of that now-established basic bargain that make any sense are actually more nefarious than that one.

. . . .

In blaming only previous U.S. leadership and the current Mueller probe for bad relations with Russia — and not Russia’s attack on our democracy, which is particularly galling, now that this attack has been described in great new detail — Trump is not merely spinning in a way that benefits himself. 

He’s also giving a gift to Putin, by signaling that he will continue to do all he can to delegitimize efforts to establish the full truth about Russian interference, which in turn telegraphs that Russia can continue such efforts in the future (which U.S. intelligence officials have warned will happen in the 2018 elections). 

In a sense, by doing this, Trump is colluding with such efforts right now.

Putin eats Trump's lunch in Helsinki

When asked if he would hold Russia accountable for any of its past actions, Trump deflected and deferred. 

President Trump’s unwillingness to stand up to Russia on this issue only serves to weaken the Western alliance and encourage further Russian incursions into the territory of sovereign nations now that Putin knows Trump will give him a pass.

Most importantly, on election meddling, Trump refused to stand with U.S. intelligence and charge Putin with interference, saying he doesn’t “see any reason why it would be” the Russians carrying out the illegal meddling.

For a sitting U.S. president to say publicly that he believes a foreign leader over his own intelligence team is shocking and admonishable. 

At a time when our democracy faces grave threats, it is deeply troubling that the president would side with the very country who attacked us.

Additionally, Trump’s failure to distinguish between campaign collusion and Russia’s blatant attack on our democracy allowed Putin to sow more discord during the press conference.

Mike Pence lies for his boss as numerous leading GOPsters criticize him

Trump and Putin

Mike Pence: Trump "will always put the prosperity and security of America first"

Vice President Pence is speaking at the Commerce Department today and mentioned President Trump's meeting with Putin at the top of his remarks.

"The world saw once again that President Donald Trump stands without apology as leader of the free world," Pence said. 

"Earlier today, President Trump completed what he described as a direct, open, and deeply productive dialogue with President Putin in Helsinki. As the President said, it was a constructive day. But it was only the beginning."

Pence continued: "Disagreements between our countries were discussed at length, and what the world saw, and the American people saw, is that President Donald Trump will always put the prosperity and security of America first."

Since the meeting — in which Trump declined to side with US intelligence on Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election — numerous Republicans and Democrats have criticized his performance.

John McCain, John Cornyn, Trey Gowdy, Bob Corker, Paul Ryan, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, and Orrin Hatch, for example.

Phooey. Just bullshit.

Lucian Truscott goes there.

New Mueller Indictments Prove That Donald Trump is an Illegitimate President

Anybody who gets elected to office in this country with the help of the intelligence agents of a foreign power has been elected illegitimately. 

It’s not a tough call.

Proving that Trump and his friends at Fox have a point when they argue the real purpose of accusations of Russia intentionally influencing the election in his favor is to deny the legitimacy of his presidency.

All which denials are bullshit, of course.

Trump got elected because that's how the people, and the Electoral College, voted.

The voters voted as they were persuaded, and by whom or how does not affect the legitimacy of their choice or of the winner's victory.

Actual hacking, however, is a crime, as is collusion in said crime.

The Duce and his thugs could still go down for something like that, or for cooperation with the Russians in other crimes related to the election, if there were any.

Oh, and winning an election is not stealing an election.

Only falsifying the actual vote count or interfering with the counting process is that, provided it aims at handing a election he would not otherwise win to so and so, and succeeds.

It has been alleged that the Supreme Court's intervention regarding recounts in Florida during the election of 2000 was unconstitutional and intended to hand an otherwise unlikely victory to GW Bush.

If the allegation is true that intervention would count as stealing an election.

It’s all right there in the indictment — day by day, hack by hack, theft by theft — how agents of the Russian intelligence service, the GRU, set out in the spring of 2016 to steal the election for Donald Trump. 

When you track the actions taken by Russian intelligence in the indictment with statements made by Trump and actions taken on his behalf by members of his campaign, the picture is as clear as an iPhone photo. 

Agents of the Russian government coordinated with members of the Trump campaign and took cues from Trump himself in order to influence the election of 2016.

In announcing the indictment, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein may have refused to point to a victim of the Russians’ crimes other than to say it was America itself, but the intent of the Russians was clear. 

They took active measures over a period of at least nine months to aid the campaign of Donald Trump and to damage the campaign of Hillary Clinton. 

They stole the election for Donald Trump, and he helped them do it.

Not every liberal wants to take that Truscott line.

Chris Cillizza

In Trump's mind, any talk of Russian interference in the election is an attempt to undermine the "brilliant campaign" (his words) he ran in 2016 and somehow invalidate his victory. 

Why else would Trump launch into an extended riff about his Electoral College margin in front of the President of Russia and almost two years removed from that election? 

What does Putin care how many electoral votes Trump won? 

And what difference does it makes anyway? 

Trump is President. 

He won. 

The end.

Conservative pundit Brit Hume summed up Trump's remarkable blindness to anything beyond his own nose in this tweet: 

"Because Trump is unable to see past himself, he sees the Russia meddling investigation as only about him and the collusion claim, and thus calls it a witch hunt. 

"But the investigations are much more about what Russia did, as the House and Senate reports long since established."

Not everything in the world is about Donald Trump.

Attempting to get to the bottom of the meddling of a foreign power in a US presidential election isn't about trying to hurt Trump. 

It's way, way, way bigger than that. 

It's about trying to protect democracy from those who would tear it down from the inside out. 

A President who can't or won't see that is someone who is actively dangerous not only to the United States but to the world.

Trump gives Putin everything he could want, short of a promise to exit NATO and pull all US troops out of Europe

Asked about whether he would challenge Putin, then on stage with him, about interference with the election and demand he not do it again, Trump deflected blame onto the Democrats, demanded to know where Hillary's emails went, protested he had no idea why the Russians would interfere, and denounced the Russiagate investigations as a witch hunt and disgrace to our country.

Live on MSNBC just before noon.

Standing beside his buddy the KGB man.

Trump attacks Mueller at joint press conference with Putin, advances conspiracy theories

At a press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin on foreign soil, President Donald Trump attacked fellow Americans — Democrats, Special Counsel Robert Mueller and members of the news media — for damaging U.S.-Russia relations by pursuing questions about Moscow's efforts to help him win the presidency in 2016.

"There was no collusion at all," Trump said here following a one-day summit. "It’s ridiculous what’s going on with the probe."

"The probe is a disaster for our country. It’s kept us separated," he added.

Trump also touted several conspiracy theories related to the election, including asking about the 33,000 Hillary Clinton emails he has long claimed are missing — the very emails he publicly asked Russia to hack before what Mueller says was an "after hours" Russian attack on accounts connected to Clinton's personal office.

He threw in references to the whereabouts of a computer server at the Democratic National Committee and the activities of a former House Democratic staffer who some conspiracy theorists have alleged penetrated lawmakers’ computers.

Trump also blamed the U.S. in part for the deterioration of the relationship between the two countries in recent years.

"I hold both countries responsible," he said "I think that the United States has been foolish."

Donald Trump sent the worst tweet of his presidency this morning

"Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years of U.S. foolishness and stupidity and now, the Rigged Witch Hunt!," tweeted Trump.

Let's be very, very clear about what Trump's tweet suggests: That the reason the US and Russia have an adversarial relationship is because of the special counsel investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election.

Staggering. Stunning. Surreal.

Remember that the intelligence community -- unanimously! -- has concluded that Russia actively interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump and hurt Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. 

The Senate Intelligence Committee, which is chaired by Republican Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina concluded the same earlier this summer. 

Special counsel Robert Mueller charged a dozen Russians last week for their roles in what the charging document made clear was a broad and deep operation to influence the US presidential election.

Simply put: With the exception of a handful of Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, there is simply no one in a position to know who thinks that a) Russia didn't meddle in the 2016 campaign and b) wasn't trying to help Trump and hurt Clinton.

All you need to know about Trump's Monday morning tweet is that it was a big hit in Russia. "We agree," tweeted the Russian Foreign Ministry in response to Trump's tweet.

Putin: I wanted Trump to win the election

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Monday that he wanted President Donald Trump to win the 2016 election because he believes Trump's policies would be more friendly to the Kremlin.

"Yes I did. Yes I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal,” Putin said, standing alongside Trump at a joint news conference.

Putin was asked whether he directed any of his officials to help Trump’s presidential campaign, but Putin appeared to sidestep that part of the question.

When Christian clergy write the marriage laws.

And the law of divorce, and the law of annulment.

You get the tragedy of Rochester and Jane Eyre.

And yet, how far would the conditions of her imprisonment have contributed to her madness?

Mrs. Rochester, of the West Indies, I mean.

But in the end it's really Jane's own fault.

"Mr. Rochester, I will not be yours," she says.

I think of The Mill on the Floss, and of George Eliot's heroine who rejected the rejection of convention Ms. Eliot did not reject.

Jane rejects Rochester and happiness because she is a Christian, advising prayer and hope for a good afterlife.

No kidding.

Reading Charlotte Bronte's masterpiece.

Identity Politics favors the dominant group

Because it is, after all, the dominant group.

"Hey, hey! Ho, ho! Western Civ has got to go."

And "the white race and all its works are a cancer upon the Earth."

That kind of talk plays straight into the hands of the mini-Fuhrer in America and all his like in Europe.

But it grossly distorts and misrepresents the real politics and views of the overwhelming majority of the center-left and left voters and their parties, who are after all both white and native born, both in Europe and in America.

Still, it's not the Democrats - nor the whites who are the majority of them - who today defend and even revere monuments to the white people who betrayed the Union in 1860 and fought a war to build a rump republic that would never end black slavery for as far into the future as anyone could then see, on purpose and for that very reason and no other.

Or who either by implication or outright attack the president who defeated those traitor armies.

How are the left and center-left - most of whom by far don't say - or think - such extreme things, anyway - supposed to talk about the criminal and vicious tribalism of the right in the US or in Europe and its horrific real world effects in both places without in a measure exacerbating the problem?

It's not, after all, nothing but venting or seeking "psychic release".

These are realities that have to be named and criticized.

Not a hint, in this article.

Doubtless because it can't be done.

Still, one can and should avoid being needlessly provocative.

I suppose.

Why identity politics benefits the right more than the left

In a fascinating study, Karen Stenner shows in The Authoritarian Dynamic that while some individuals have “predispositions” towards intolerance, these predispositions require an external stimulus to be transformed into actions. 

Or, as another scholar puts it: “It’s as though some people have a button on their foreheads, and when the button is pushed, they suddenly become intensely focused on defending their in-group … 

"But when they perceive no such threat, their behavior is not unusually intolerant. So the key is to understand what pushes that button.”

What pushes that button, Stenner and others find, is group-based threats. 

In experiments researchers easily shift individuals from indifference, even modest tolerance, to aggressive defenses of their own group by exposing them to such threats. 

Maureen Craig and Jennifer Richeson, for example, found that simply making white Americans aware that they would soon be a minority increased their propensity to favor their own group and become wary of those outside it. 

(Similar effects were found among Canadians. 

Indeed, although this tendency is most dangerous among whites since they are the most powerful group in western societies, researchers have consistently found such propensities in all groups.)

. . . .

Understanding why Trump found it easy to trigger these reactions requires examining broader changes in American society. 

In an excellent new book, Uncivil Agreement, Lilliana Mason analyzes perhaps the most important of these: a decades-long process of “social sorting”. 

Mason notes that although racial and religious animosity has been present throughout American history, only recently has it lined up neatly along partisan lines. 

In the past, the Republican and Democratic parties attracted supporters with different racial, religious, ideological and regional identities, but gradually Republicans became the party of white, evangelical, conservative and rural voters, while the Democrats became associated with non-whites, non-evangelical, liberal and metropolitan voters.

. . . .

This social sorting has led partisans of both parties to engage in negative stereotyping and even demonization. 

(One study found less support for “out-group” marriage among partisan Republicans and Democrats than for interracial marriage among Americans overall.)

Once the other party becomes an enemy rather than an opponent, winning becomes more important than the common good and compromise becomes an anathema. 

Such situations also promote emotional rather than rational evaluations of policies and evidence. 

Making matters worse, social scientists consistently find that the most committed partisans, those who are the angriest and have the most negative feelings towards out-groups, are the most politically engaged.

What does all this mean for those who oppose Trump and want to fight the dangerous trends his presidency has unleashed?

The short-term goal must be winning elections, and this means not helping Trump rile up his base by activating their sense of “threat” and inflaming the grievances and anger that lead them to rally around him. 

This will require avoiding the type of “identity politics” that stresses differences and creates a sense of “zero-sum” competition between groups and instead emphasizing common values and interests.

Stenner, for example, notes that “all the available evidence indicates that exposure to difference, talking about difference, and applauding difference … are the surest ways to aggravate [the] intolerant, and to guarantee the increased expression of their predispositions in manifestly intolerant attitudes and behaviors. 

Paradoxically, then, it would seem that we can best limit intolerance of difference by parading, talking about, and applauding our sameness … 

Nothing inspires greater tolerance from the intolerant than an abundance of common and unifying beliefs, practices, rituals, institutions and processes.”

Relatedly, research suggests that calling people racist when they do not see themselves that way is counterproductive. 

As noted above, while there surely are true bigots, studies show that not all those who exhibit intolerant behavior harbor extreme racial animus. 

Moreover, as Stanford psychologist Alana Conner notes, if the goal is to diminish intolerance “telling people they’re racist, sexist and xenophobic is going to get you exactly nowhere. 

"It’s such a threatening message. One of the things we know from social psychology is when people feel threatened, they can’t change, they can’t listen.”

This has obvious implications for recent debates about civility. 

Incivility is central to Trump’s strategy – it helps him galvanize his supporters by reminding them how “bad” and “threatening” the other side is.

. . . .

By engaging in even superficially similar tactics, Democrats abet Trump’s ability to do this – as one Trump supporter put it, every time Democrats attack him “it makes me angry, which causes me to want to defend him more” – potentially alienate wavering Republican-leaning independents, and help divert debate from policies, corruption and other substantive issues.

Of course, there is a double standard here and this, along with the psychic release that comes with venting the anger and grievances that have been building over the past year, are the rationales given by the left for incivility. 

But against these must be weighed incivility’s impact on upcoming elections as well as the overall health of democracy. 

(Scholars consistently find that incivility spreads rapidly, generates anger and defensive reactions, demobilizes moderates and activates the strongest partisans, corrodes faith in government, trust in institutions and respect for our fellow citizens.)

. . . .

Perhaps ironically, identity politics is a both more powerful and efficacious for Republicans (and rightwing populists more generally) than it is for Democrats, since the former are more homogeneous.

As long, therefore, as politics is a fight between clearly bounded identity groups, appeals and threats to group identity will benefit Republicans more than Democrats, which is presumably why Steve Bannon infamously remarked that he couldn’t “get enough” of the left’s “race-identity politics”. 

“The longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em ... I want them to talk about race and identity … every day.”