A Secret Recording About the President's Character

This kind of thing just keeps oozing out.  The Washington Post writes:

Maryanne Trump Barry was serving as a federal judge when she heard her brother, President Trump, suggest on Fox News, “maybe I’ll have to put her at the border” amid a wave of refugees entering the United States. At the time, children were being separated from their parents and put in cramped quarters while court hearings dragged on.

“All he wants to do is appeal to his base,” Barry said in a conversation secretly recorded by her niece, Mary L. Trump. “He has no principles. None. None. And his base, I mean my God, if you were a religious person, you want to help people. Not do this.”

Barry, 83, was aghast at how her 74-year-old brother operated as president. “His goddamned tweet and lying, oh my God,” she said. “I’m talking too freely, but you know. The change of stories. The lack of preparation. The lying. Holy shit.”  

Lamenting “what they’re doing with kids at the border,” she guessed her brother “hasn’t read my immigration opinions” in court cases. In one case, she berated a judge for failing to treat an asylum applicant respectfully.  

“What has he read?” Mary Trump asked her aunt. 

“No. He doesn’t read,” Barry responded.  

In response to a question from The Washington Post about how she knew the president paid someone to take the SATs, Mary Trump revealed that she had surreptitiously taped 15 hours of face-to-face conversations with Barry in 2018 and 2019. She provided The Post with previously unreleased transcripts and audio excerpts, which include exchanges that are not in her book.  

At one point Barry said to her niece, “It’s the phoniness of it all. It’s the phoniness and this cruelty. Donald is cruel.”

Those are candid remarks the president's sister, a federal judge, made when talking about her brother. One has to wonder whether Mary Trump will be prosecuted for the secret recordings. If the president had his way, he would. It is reasonable to think that his sister is pretty steamed about this too.

A Modest Suggestion to the Biden Campaign

“How long will I be allowed to remain a Christian?” That was the deeply dismaying question posed to me by a friend with four young children as we discussed the plight of the Christian faith in America and around the world. With each passing month, that shocking question becomes more relevant and even more disturbing. .... Here in the United States, Christians and Christianity are mocked, belittled, smeared and attacked by some on a daily basis. This is a bigoted practice that is not only increasing exponentially, but is being encouraged and sanctioned by a number on the left. .... As more and more of the mainstream media, entertainment, academia and the hi-tech world continue to purge or discriminate against Christians, what future job fields will be open to young Christians? -- Fox News opinion piece, April 2018

White conservative evangelicals in America are anxious people. I know because I am one. Our sense of fear, perhaps more than any other factor, explains why evangelicals voted in such large numbers for Donald Trump in 2016 and continue to support his presidency. .... Any effort to make sense of the 81 percent of evangelicals who voted for Donald Trump cannot ignore evangelicals’ fear of the Barack Obama administration. Obama was an exotic figure to many white conservative evangelicals. He grew up in Hawaii and spent time as a child in a predominantly Muslim country. He was the son of a white woman and an African man. He had a strange name; that his middle name was “Hussein” did not help. .... Hillary Clinton did not help herself among evangelicals in the 2016 election campaign. She lied about using a private email server in her role as secretary of state. She placed Trump supporters in a “basket of deplorables.” She made no effort to court evangelical votes, a strategy that the progressive evangelical writer and Clinton supporter Ronald Sider called “dumbfounding and incredibly stupid.” -- The Atlantic, June 2018

The fear factor

What is common at various radical right, pro-Trump sites is expressions of fear among Trump supporters. Lots of irrational, reality-detached fear. Here is an extreme example:

“Dilbert” creator Scott Adams made a fearful prediction about the 2020 presidential election on Twitter on Wednesday, telling his Republican followers that if Joe Biden is elected to the White House, “there’s a good chance you will be dead within the year.” 

“Republicans will be hunted,” he wrote in a follow-up tweet, later adding, “Police will stand down.”

One of the things that these sites focused on is heavily criticizing and attacking various speeches and speakers at the DNC convention this past week. Among other things, most of the criticisms accuse the speakers and democrats generally of (1) their exclusive, polarizing US vs Them rhetoric, (2) hostile intentions toward Trump personally, his administration and his supporters, and (3) lying and lying and lying. Some of the criticisms are insightful and carefully crafted. Some are crude. Many contain a kernel or two of truth that is twisted to falsely portray an entire speech in a very negative and threatening light.

There is very little to be seen of the Principle of Charity[1] coming from these sources. This is all-out propaganda war and all rhetorical means justify the ends, not principled debate constrained by facts and sound reasoning.

Since fear is a common theme on the radical right, it helps to look at DNC speeches and rhetoric from a fearful Trump supporter point of view. One needs to at least try to understand the fears. It also takes some practice. After a while, one can come to see the DNC speeches very differently, even if one excludes the outright lies and obvious gross uncharitable characterizations. There are some things in most of the speeches that can be used to foment fear, rational or not.

For example, some of the speeches were heavily criticized for not condemning social violence in street protests, e.g., in Portland, OR, or not  condemning it enough. Radical propagandists falsely characterized the dems as generally pro-violence and illegality. That scares lots of people on the right.

Some of the speeches celebrated the strides that minorities have made, including the selection of Kamala Harris and all that means to American society. The propagandists argued strenuously and repeatedly that this is polarizing, exclusive Us vs Them rhetoric. They vehemently argue that Trump supporters are being excluded and attacked. The propaganda was directed to making white people feel they themselves and their values and/or religion are under serious attack. That really scares lots of people on the right.

The modest suggestion

In view of how powerful fear on the radical right is, my limited review of the speeches and the reactions to them, it seems that it would be pretty easy to at least try to blunt most of the fear-generating criticisms. Democratic rhetoric could do that by simply directly addressing the basis that radical propagandists key on to foment fear. For example, a speech could easily include a separate but clear sentence or two about not tolerating or even fomenting illegality in street protests. The same can be said of illegality associated with immigration, which is another topic used to effectively foment fear.

Similarly, try to be more explicitly inclusive of people on the right by explicitly stating things that do not scare them. Acknowledge the basis for their fears and address them. For example, many on the right fear that their guns are going to be confiscated. By just saying that is not what democrats would do or want to do, such reassuring statements would lessen the impact of propaganda that says otherwise. It makes the propagandists explain why the assertion is a lie. The more explaining away a propagandist has to do, the weaker the propaganda becomes.

In other words, the modest suggestion is this: Just address the sources of conservative fears clearly and directly to the extent you can without lying, deceit or some sleight of hand. Keep it honest, simple and direct.

Two criticisms of the modest suggestion

The first is simple. We already know all of this. What's new? My response to that is: If you know all of this so well, why is your rhetoric larded with so many easy cheap shots for the propagandists to use against you? If you are aware of all of this, your speech writers suck. Up your game and open your minds, or risk losing.

The second is more complicated. If democratic messaging is made too accommodating to the fears of people on the right, it will drive some or many of our supporters away.

Well, good grief. If that's the concern, then one has to ask if conservative criticisms about being excluded and disrespected aren't fundamentally correct. Does the democratic party really mean to be inclusive and respectful or not? If it does, then why do propagandists so easily and effectively make your rhetoric seem to disregard conservative fears and dignity?

One response to that last criticism is that expert propagandists can easily make any rhetoric seem to disregard anyone's fears and dignity. Maybe that is true to some extent. But if the rhetoric they are distorting into alt-realities lends itself to that, the propagandist job is easier and more effective. In my firm opinion, rhetoric that is hardened against propagandist tactics is a less effective source for spinning alt-realities.

Another response is that it is very hard to craft such rhetoric. My response to that is, so what? Get better speech writers. Up your game or risk losing.


Footnote:
1. Principle of charity (Wikipedia): "In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn 'it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings.'"

Democratic election sweep would be bad for stocks, says Biden-backer Marc Lasry

 

• Billionaire investor Marc Lasry told CNBC that a Democratic sweep in November would present problems for U.S. equity markets. 
• “You know that if the Democrats sweep, you’re going to have more regulation. You’re going to have higher taxes,” Lasry said.
• “I just don’t see that as being a positive for the market,” said the longtime Democratic donor. 

• Billionaire investor Marc Lasry told CNBC on Wednesday that U.S. equity markets would be troubled if Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress and the White House in the November election.  

  “I don’t think it’s going to be good. You know that if the Democrats sweep, you’re going to have more regulation. You’re going to have higher taxes. I just don’t see that as being a positive for the market,” Lasry said on “Halftime Report.”

  Lasry, co-founder and CEO of Avenue Capital Group, is a longtime Democratic donor. He raised money for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and had initially supported Sen. Kamala Harris in the Democratic primary. 

• He began to back former Vice President Joe Biden in December after Harris dropped out of the race. Biden, who officially became the Democratic nominee Tuesday, recently chose Harris as his running mate. 

  Lasry’s comments Wednesday came on Day 3 of the Democratic National Convention. The Republican Party is set to hold its convention next week, where President Donald Trump will accept the GOP nomination. 

  Lasry said he does not believe Wall Street is worried about the election just yet; on Tuesday, the S&P 500 eclipsed its record high from Feb. 19, solidifying the start of a new bull market, despite the coronavirus pandemic. But eventually, investors will pay closer attention to the race, Lasry said.

  Biden leads Trump by 7.6 percentage points in an average of national polls, according to RealClearPolitics. Democrats currently control the House, while Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate.

  “I think the market is going to focus on this sometime in September, October,” said Lasry, co-owner of the NBA’s Milwaukee Bucks. “The closer you are, the polls will get a little bit tighter and we’ll start getting a better feel of what’s going on in October. But I don’t think the market is really focused on it as much today.”

  Some on Wall Street have made the case that a Democratic sweep could be a boon for the market. However, stocks have historically performed best under a divided government. 

  In a note last month, Bank of America said a unified government with Democrats in control may be helpful in battling the pandemic and lead to an easing of geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and China. 

  “Containment of the coronavirus is critical, and the differences in each candidate’s approach merits consideration,” wrote Michelle Meyer, head of U.S. economics at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

  “Stocks have recovered since March, suggesting that investors are looking past 2020′s recession and valuing companies on out-year earnings. But a meaningful uptick in new COVID-19 outbreaks could reverse this optimism.”

• https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/biden-donor-marc-lasry-democratic-sweep-in-election-would-be-bad-for-stocks.html

• Does the concerns expressed by Marc Lasry have any merit?

• Please weigh in, pro or con.

The Post Office: Sabotage, or Business as Usual?

A San Diego Union Tribune article reports on mail processing in California. The situation looks rather bad. The SDUT writes:

“Six weeks ago, U.S. Postal Service workers in the high desert town of Tehachapi, Calif., began to notice crates of mail sitting in the post office in the early morning that should have been shipped out for delivery the night before. 

At a mail processing facility in Santa Clarita in July, workers discovered that their automated sorting machines had been disabled and padlocked. 

And inside a massive mail-sorting facility in South Los Angeles, workers fell so far behind processing packages that by early August, gnats and rodents were swarming around containers of rotted fruit and meat, and baby chicks were dead inside their boxes.”

The article indicates that the information about impaired services is coming from postal service employees. The postal workers union claim that six high-speed mail-sorting machines in San Diego have been removed. The employees assert that the postal service had planned to remove 671 (about 10%) of its mail-sorting machines. Seventy-six were to be removed from in California. At least five high-speed mail-sorting machines have been removed from service in Sacramento. The post office also cut overtime pay and imposed a new policy that could delay outgoing mail.

I know nothing

Amazingly, new Postmaster General Louis DeJoy claims he was unaware of mailboxes and mail sorting machines being removed under any new policy. The Washington Post writes:

“DeJoy described the removal of mail-collection boxes and sorting machines as typical within the Postal Service and denied he knew anything about them or the process behind the decisions before the issue became a source of public controversy.

‘Since my arrival, we've removed 700 collection boxes, of which I had no idea that was a process,’ he said, adding that he ‘decided to stop it’ once he ‘found out about it’ and all of the ‘excitement it was creating.’ 

Mail-sorting machines were removed regularly in previous years when data showed underutilization, he said, calling it a ‘process I was not aware about’ until it got a ‘lot of airplay.’

Answering questions from committee chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Postmaster General Louis DeJoy said the Postal Service has “adequate capacity” to handle a flood of election mail for the November election and that the agency’s policies for election mail have not changed.

‘I’d like to emphasize there has been no changes of any policies in regard to election mail for the 2020 election,’ DeJoy said. 

‘We deliver 433 million pieces of mail a day; 160 million ballots over the course of a week is a very small amount,’ he added.”

Mr. DeJoy’s comments are not credible or coherent. His claim that removing mail-sorting machines was an ongoing event is contradicted by what postal system employees are telling news sources. His comments do not address why food was rotting in Los Angeles due to slowed processing of packages. Maybe that was due to the post office cutting overtime pay. 

CNN recently commented on delayed package delivery: 

“The Department of Veterans Affairs has been forced to find alternative ways to ship mail-order prescriptions for patients whose medication is delivered by the United States Postal Service, including FedEx and UPS, CNN has learned.

The VA acknowledged the change in an email to a veterans group called Disabled Vets of America after it raised the issue on behalf of patients who had reported significant delays in receiving medication from USPS in recent weeks amid a nationwide slowdown, according to a copy of the correspondence reviewed by CNN.  

‘The VA has now confirmed to us that the United States Postal Service (USPS), which is responsible for delivering about 90% of all VA mail order prescriptions, has indeed been delayed in delivering these critical medications by an average of almost 25% over the past year, with many locations experiencing much more significant delays," the group's national commander, Stephen Whitehead, said in a statement Monday.’”

A few things seem to be rotten in the post office and they include Mr. DeJoy and his boss the president.

Various Thoughts About Trump’s “Best People”

Background

This OP has been in the back of my mind ever since the 2016 election. In view of the upcoming election, this seems to be a reasonable time for this to get a mention.

In the 2016 election, the president promised to hire the best people to help him do the best governing that has ever been done in the history of humankind. So far, the president has criticized, forced out or fired a lot of his “best” people.

The president's criticisms of his best people included “way over his head” (fired John Kelly) “washed up” and a “liar” (resigned John Bolton), “Sloppy Steve”, “lost his mind” (fired Steve Bannon), “not smart”, “lowlife” and “wacky Omarosa” (Omarosa Manigault Newman), “clueless” (criticized but still in power Fed Chairman Jerome Powell) and “moron”, “dumb as a rock” and “lazy as hell” (resigned former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson).

In his own words, the president hires people who are wacky, sloppy, liars, morons, dumb as rocks and so forth. Clearly, the president is not very good when it comes to being able to pick people that he thinks are the best of the best. For him, it's a matter of trial and error.

Of course, how one sees this can depend on how one defines the best people. By now it is clear, what the president meant by the best people, was not competent or honest people. He meant people who would be loyal to him above the Constitution, the rule of law, truth and common decency. That casts the concept of best people in a very different light than how most people probably think of it.

Others have commented on the qualities of two of the people the president had in his administration, Michael Flynn and Larry Kudlow.

General Michael Flynn and the WYSIATI bias

In their 2012 book, Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction, Philip Tetlock and Dan Gardner specifically single out two people to exemplify the reasons for big mistakes or even continuing incompetence of people who sometimes rise to power. This was in 2012, not 2015 or 2016. Flynn was the president's top national security advisor for a short while in 2016. The president did not criticize Flynn. Despite his felony conviction, Flynn has stayed loyal to the president, not the Constitution, the rule of law or the American people.

They wrote this about Flynn, who is now a self-confessed felon-level liar that the president is trying to save from justice:

“Consider a 2014 interview with General Michael Flynn .... ‘I come into this office every morning .... I spend two to three hours reading intelligence reports. I will frankly tell you that what I see each day is the most uncertain, chaotic and confused international environment that I've witnessed in my entire career. .... I think we're in a period of prolonged societal conflict that is pretty unprecedented.’ Much of what Flynn said is too vague to be judged, but his final line isn’t. Societal conflict at a pretty unprecedented level] is an empirical claim that can be checked by reviewing the many reports that have quantified global violence since World War II. And what they all show, broadly, is that interstate wars have been declining since the 1950s and civil wars have been declining since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s.”

Tetlock and Gardner point out that all Flynn had to do was Google the phrase ‘global conflict trends’ to find this out. Flynn had succumbed to the powerful unconscious WYSIATI (what you see is all there is) bias. He assumed he knew it all from reading the intelligence reports. His false belief was so deep that he simply could not see that he was awash in assumptions. He mistook an easily testable false assumption for certain knowledge. 

Flynn was too arrogant to self-question to step outside the bubble of false certainty he lived in. It was probably a combination of Flynn’s smug arrogance, his sycophancy and the fact that Obama had fired him that led the president to pick Flynn as his unfortunately incompetent security advisor and likely traitor. 

One can imagine that all of this would be lost on our clueless president and/or of no concern in view of Flynn’s probable sycophancy during the sloppy job application process the president employed. Right, best people.

Larry Kudlow and the deadly big idea bias

In their book, Tetlock and Gardner refer to people they call hedgehogs. Those folks have one big idea about something they believe is really important, even if it is false or tenuous. Their weakness tends to be that they make reality fit with their big idea, even when reality just does not fit. They cannot see this bias. It leads some to incredible heights of incompetence. Larry Kudlow is a hedgehog. The president made him the Director of the United States National Economic Council 2018. Tetlock and Gardner wrote:

“Larry Kudlow hosted a business talk show on CNBC and is a widely published pundit, but he got his start as an economist in the Reagan administration, and later worked with Art Laffer, the economist whose theories were the cornerstone of Ronald Reagan’s economic policies. Kudlow’s one big idea is supply-side economics.”

Tetlock and Gardner go on to point out that Kudlow's supply side bias led him to be one of the blindest, worst economic forecasters in the pundit business. In the recession and financial meltdown that started in 2017, Kudlow asserted in December of that year that “there is no recession. In face we're about to enter the seventh consecutive year of the ‘Bush Boom’”. That was the month the recession officially started.

For months after that, Kudlow remained unaware of what was happening because his big idea ideology blinded him to what was happening at the time. In April 2008, Kudlow wrote “President George w. Bush may turn out to be the top economic forecaster in the country.” Later in the summer of 2008 he said “We are in a mental recession, not an actual recession.” He repeated that mantra until September 15, 2008, the date that Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy and financial chaos erupted.

Unfortunately, Kudlow is one of the president's best people who are still in government and still being incompetent. That shows that at least he is still loyal to the president, which makes him among the best.

A patriotic message in these troubled times...

 

Click here.

We may disagree on politics, but can we really disagree on this message of restoring decency to a troubled nation?  What part did Obama get wrong??

Thanks for listening and recommending.