Nothing We Didn't Know

I guess I've been a little derelict in my blogging the past several days in what should have been, for me, a "target-rich environment" for blogging opportunities. But, I must confess, I am almost bored with the surfeit of nonsense that is the Trump experience. If Trump has been explicitly racist in his policies and denies temporary protected status to people of El Salvador,  or says that all Haitians have AIDS and fails to understand the US shitty behavior to our neighbor, and denies these immigrants continued TPS status as well, and also treats all of the continent of Africa as if they are people in huts, we already know what he is. We could have known exactly what he was when he was denying apartments to "colored people" in the 1970's. We knew what he was when he was agitating against the Central Park Five in the 1980's (and later!).  There are only so many ways I know to phrase, once again, the central and overwhelming problem I have with a Trump presidency--his utter lack of qualification to serve as the head of a diverse nation and to represent us in front of a diverse international community. 

So, the disgraceful comments that Trump is alleged to have said with respects to calling Haiti and El Salvador and the African countries from which new Americans hope to come, don't surprise me, and I am mostly disgusted by the idea that there even should be an argument about what he meant based on whether he said "shithole" countries or "shithouse". The jist is the same. Senators Perdue and Cotton might feel fine temporarily assuming they did not hear what he said, and then pretending they heard no "shithole commentary". But we can all know very well what the White House immigration policy is, and in the meanwhile, Senator Graham knows what he knows, and the word is Trump even bragged to friends about dropping that nasty "shithole" statement about whole countries of people.  

He said this about millions of human beings, all equal in dignity to himself, all endowed by their Creator with the inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. He said this. There should not be a mistake in pretending that this is not either anything he would have said or historically proved himself to believe. 

The very worst thing he could think to say about his predecessor was that he might be born in Kenya. The people who voted for Trump don't understand what an international boob his comments make him seem.   

But this isn't new news. Trump is a racist--big whoop. The main argument shouldn't be "shithole" vs "shithouse" but whether his policies are unconstitutional and also really bad in outcomes and how they represent the US. It's as silly as getting bogged down in whether Trump said he did have a great relationship with China and North Korea, or would have a great relationship based on a barely aspirated "d". (During an interview where Trump rambled and seemed uninformed and more than a little ridiculous for several letters, words, whole paragraphs-worth.) How stupid! Trump easily thinks anyone could be his friend if they only figured out how to suck up to him properly. It's like his hopes for a great relationship with Putin. Trump is a man who believes people like him despite his money and power because they survive his temperamental trials by bullshit, and thinks he isn't either surrounded by "yes men" because all his employees assure him he isn't. He is a stooge.

And he also has a certain inoculation against the recent surfacing of claims that he is profoundly sexually immoral--being that the evangelicals have accepted him as their boy even though this kind of thing  is basically Trump's life story. Which tells us a whole lot more about the morals of evangelicals than it does about Trump. 

They rather his racism no matter what their ministries say about human dignity if he supports their notions of sexual prudery if he'd only appoint judges who are prudery-compliant. Which I find revolting but I will suffice to let them do themselves until they are chafed, if that is what they prefer.  My only concern is they should not get to make laws for people who aren't quite so morally fucked. 

My Condolences to the Families of the Niger Four

There is an incredible back-and-forth regarding the four deceased service members who were on a mission in Niger and were killed by an ambush attack from as many as 50 ISIS-linked combatants. Somehow, the story has been diverted from the nature of their mission and the purpose and reasons for their sacrifice, and has become a strange debate on the nature of how we recognize the ultimate sacrifice of our military personnel and the appropriate observances that should be made.

These were, by all accounts, excellent people from differing backgrounds, but united in a desire to exercise their skills with a sense of purpose.  What we know of the expected White House response to their unfortunate end was that a good statement was made regarding their service and the importance of their mission (in Niger, both ISIS and Boko Haram have been known to operate, and Niger is also well-known for uranium). This well-crafted statement was never delivered. 

“Melania and I are heartbroken at the news that three U.S. service members were killed in Niger on October 4 while providing guidance and assistance to Nigerien security force counter-terror operations. We offer our deepest condolences to the families and friends of these brave American soldiers and patriots. They will remain in our thoughts and prayers.

"We are also praying for the two U.S. service members who were injured in the incident. We wish them a complete and swift recovery.

"The heroic Americans who lost their lives yesterday did so defending our freedom and fighting violent extremism in Niger. Our administration and our entire nation are deeply grateful for their sacrifice, for their service, and for their patriotism.”

What we had instead was a nearly two-week period of silence from the White House regarding the deaths of these service members, despite news reports, until a reporter questioned President Trump about these men in a Rose Garden press conference on Monday.  That was when Trump, apparently unguardedly, spoke offhand about the event.

QUESTION: Why haven't we heard anything from you so far about the soldiers that were killed in Niger? What do you have to say about (OFF-MIKE)? TRUMP: I've written them personal letters. They've been sent, or they're going out tonight, but they were written during the weekend. I will, at some point during the period of time, call the parents and the families, because I have done that traditionally.

I felt very, very badly about that. I always feel badly. It's the toughest -- the toughest calls I have to make are the calls where this happens. Soldiers are killed. It's a very difficult thing. Now, it gets to a point where, you know, you make four or five of them in one day -- it's a very, very tough day. For me, that's by far the toughest.

So the traditional way -- if you look at President Obama and other presidents, most of them didn't make calls. A lot of them didn't make calls. I like to call when it's appropriate, when I think I am able to do it.

The problem with this statement is that as far as we know, Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama did call, or send letters. Often. But it's complicated. Sometimes people could not always be reached, or someone was reached and someone was not, and they felt some way, or whatever other purely human distraction caused a disruption between the intent of the occupant of the White House and the bereaved. Human interactions are often fraught, and those who have suffered losses often do experience a need to understand blame or fault or the reason for the catastrophe that had come into their lives. It isn't always even rational, however necessary that process might be to finding an end to the grieving.

My Thoughts are with Mogadishu

The appalling truck bomb attack by al-Shabaab on the capital of Somalia has claimed the lives of over 270 people and injured hundreds more, making it the deadliest terror attack in Somalia, a country that had been ravaged by a quarter century of war. Among the victims were old and young, people with bright futures, people who were greatly loved. They were beloved children, admired community members, doting spouses, greatest friends. And after some carefully deliberated, planned, calculated moments of terror, they were gone, amidst the disarray and rubble.

It is part of the landscape of terror that we are stunned by the senselessness of so many deaths and so much pain, the injuries visited on completely innocent people and families and the brutal disruption of lives. It is, in a darker way, part of that landscape that people exist who do deliberate, plan, and calculate terrorist acts to maximize exactly this kind of extraordinary damage--who see it as a message, and a political tool. 

I can't see anything in this act but a hatred of humanity, and no aim that could be in the hearts of people capable of such monstrosity, but emptiness and continued brutality. My thoughts are with the people of Somalia, and the loved ones and mourners and sufferers with the victims of this tragedy, however far-flung.  Those who have such a viciousness towards life to have contributed to this can not prosper in in any way. Those who maintain faith in humanity reap their own reward.

Women Without Walls: Reason to Hope

When looking into the extremist views and violent actions of groups like ISIL and Boko Haram it's hard not to notice that women and children are especially vulnerable to tactics that include kidnapping and rape--but women are also a huge part of fighting back. Hearing about Women Without Walls, a group of Christian and Muslim women who have joined forces to confront violent extremism, is a great example of people being able to look beyond their cultural constraints and differences to try and find solutions to problems they mutually face.

What they do:

is raise money, raise their voices, help the afflicted, and teach people how to do things in a better, non-conflicted way--while trying to hold their government accountable. It's a tall order and a necessary one. They are brave, they are right, and I find a lot of hope in what they are doing.

Not Understanding Boko Haram

One can't help but notice a discrepancy between the attention paid to the attacks in Paris that have led to the deaths of 17, to the blaze of terror that has led to the slaying of up to 2000 people in Nigeria at the hands of Boko Haram. I'm guilty enough of failing to address the attacks that have levelled Baga and caused havoc in several other towns over the weekend.

The problem is complexity. The Paris story regarding the murder of the staff of Charlie Hebdo magazine and others has a familiarity and scale that I can grasp. The issues regarding deciding what to print and publish versus the reality that there are people who would very much like to curtail that freedom absolutely and remove that ability to choose how one uses ones voice is something I can find a fast position with. The scale of the tragedy is not dissimilar to mass shootings that have occurred here in the States, or in Canada or Australia recently. France, as with the US, is a majority Christian and white nation, where the Enlightenment traditions regarding freedom of speech, religion, and the press, have coincided with a history of colonialism that I feel competent to address in the microcosm.

The enormity of the scale of the Boko Haram attacks, (about which no true numbers can be found, because the people on scene have simply despaired of counting all the bodies, and because the government of Nigeria does not seem interested in the real numbers), is orders of magnitude greater, and coexistent with a more profound history of colonialism and without our little Western era of Enlightenment. In fact, Boko Haram, in name, is saying that Western Education--our Enlightenment concepts of science, liberalism, freedom, are forbidden.

Could Ebola Teach US Americans Geography?

The late journalist Ambrose Bierce commented that "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." Yeah. As if Americans ever learn geography. Truth of the matter is, that picture to the left probably is where a disturbing number of Americans (well, nortemericanos, anyway) stand with respects to understanding our planet and how she is laid out. (More knucklehead geography is on view at Buzzfeed. [No, but I love Buzzfeed, news and nostalgia and cat videos forevah. It is my #1 time-sink site and I can not lie.])

Basically, even our most elite Americans are totally having Caitlin Upton moments--but particularly about the whole Africa and ebola thing.

No, really:

For instance, at a school in New Burlington, New Jersey, two Rwandan students are staying at home due to other parents’ fear that they will infect other children with Ebola. Rwanda is as close to the Ebola outbreak as New York City is to Seattle.

In Hazlehurst, Mississippi, a school principal’s recent visit to Zambia has led to a lot of parents choosing to keep their kids at home. But Zambia is in Southern Africa, over 3,000 miles away from the Ebola outbreak — the same distance between New Hampshire and Los Angeles.  

A school bus driver in Poplarville, Mississippi who recently visited Ghana is being prevented from returning to work. Meanwhile, in Pewaukee, Wisconsin, some parents kept their kids home when their school hosted two visitors from Uganda.

Seriously? People aren't even Google-mapping where people are from? Can't even do the most basic Wiki research into where folks are and how ebola works and then front that they are concerned? They have the maps--because they have the cell phones. Maps are even on cell phones, now. They have the gateway to non-stupid in their pockets.

So I am thinking the answer is "Nope." Americans will learn geography when the stupid is pried from their cold, dead hands. Or possibly in the case of zombie apocalypse.

Thomas Eric Duncan, RIP

I am saddened by the death of Thomas  Duncan, who bears the unfortunate distinction of being the first person to die in the US of ebola. I genuinely hoped that our health care system could have done something for him, as it had for Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol, but I think that medical intervention did not happen soon enough to benefit him.

I think I want it to be said he is not to be blamed for getting infected and bringing the virus here. I am certain he could not have wanted this. Who would? This was a man who boarded a plane a healthy man and eager to reunite with his partner and son. The fault that gave him contact with this disease was of kindness. He had helped a pregnant neighbor to the hospital when she was convulsing of fever, thought to be a complication of her pregnancy. He might genuinely have not known for sure what she had, and even so, what he had done was very human and humane. There is no malice in getting infected, or being human, and having the disease with one. There is no malice in seeking treatment, and wanting to believe that one isn't gravely ill. This strain seems slow to incubate and comes on like a touch of the flu.

He wanted to be reunited with his family here, maybe to start a better relationship with them, a new life. No one in this world can want to die half ashamed of spreading a contagion, so virulent one must be kept alone, so wretched one's family can't bear seeing you even via camera.

Ebola is Serious Business

I've been warily watching the ebola situation in Western Africa without saying a whole lot because I kind of took for granted that people would either take it very seriously or panic, which strikes me as just about the right level of interest.

Now, you know me, I am not about to holler "Oh my god! ISIS militants are schlepping ebola across the Mexican border to infect our precious bodily fluids!"

On the other hand, what a bad, uncontrolled outbreak of ebola in urban centers where it has more opportunity to spread can do as far as social breakdown goes, and the potential for the virus to mutate to a more communicable stage, are reasonable concerns. This is a disease with a high fatality likelihood and even more so when victims of it have no access to reliable care--there isn't a cure, but if it is beatable, nutrition, hydration, cleanliness and caring all help. If cases overwhelm the health system where an outbreak is occurring, then, survival rates would be far less.

In Which I Can Not Help Myself, Because...Tengrain.

Okay, I don't like to pick on Ann Coulter because I don't think she is actually well and picking on the unwell is not my scene, but, when the rabid Electra of the tragic Right mourns for an entire nation laboring under the tyranny of hashtags, there really is no answer but to slink to her Slitherin level.

It seems like Ann Coulter was not quite the figure of fun she is now, once upon a memory of mine, but I am old enough to remember K-tel music compilations and learned to crawl on a textured carpet. Anyway, I am old enough to remember that her slide towards random trollhood is not so new.  And continues to be sad. This may have everything to do with her copy-pasta-ing the same refrain "libs commies bad, me like guns, mens" with new footnotes, which naturally challenge the dedicated reader to test her veracity/reading comprehension.

Her social media fail is hardly a surprise; it's only a surprise it went viral because who knew so many people still recognized Coulter as a force once to be dealt with, let alone one so necessary to flick at, as one would a fly, to this day.

And yet it must be said--we see you, dear. Yes, we do.

George Will Just Seems Extra-Insufferable Lately

I've commented on George Will before, but usually having to do with climate change--his denialism, for a supposedly smart person, is tiresome in its sheer repetitive belief that science somehow works like politics does. But to be pretty honest, on any forum he's been on, he has a habit of talking down as if he's a guy who knows things, so listen to his plausible bullshit, okay?

I think of it as "Willsplaining" for obvious reasons.

So I shrugged off his kind of "Hey, kid president, get off my White House lawn"  column of a few weeks back because--why yes, I did think it was pretty insulting to basically call the president childish, but on the other hand, I don't yet know what it's like to have a president who is younger than me, and I guess that might feel weird, huh? I mean, if Marco Rubio became president, he'd still be a whole year and a half older than me.  Maybe that is kind of a mindscrew. Who is this punk who uses the slang and has smoked the marijuana and thinks he is the boss of the country anyway, the whippersnapper? It's a generation gap thing. Maybe Will can't, like, relate.

But this thing here about putting down hashtag activism is pretty awkward in more than a few ways:

CHRIS WALLACE: I want to turn back to the kidnapping, the terrible kidnapping of these Nigerian schoolgirls in the little bit of time we have left in this segment. Because this week Michelle Obama and Malala Yousafzai joined the Bring Back Our Girls movement. More than 2 million people have now tweeted the hash tag. And George, I'm just curious. Because I'm not saying I was that familiar with this phenomenon. It's even got a name, #activism. And I'm curious what you make of it. Do you think that this is significant and helpful? And can make progress? Or do you think it's really about helping the people who tweet the hash tag feel better about themselves? 

GEORGE WILL: Exactly that. It's an exercise in self-esteem. I do not know how adults stand there facing a camera and say, bring back our girls. Are these barbarians in the wild of Nigeria are supposed to check their Twitter accounts and say, oh, Michelle Obama is very crossed with us, we better change our behavior. 

WALLACE: It's trending on Twitter. 

WILL: Power is the ability to achieve intended effects. And this is not intended to have any effect on the real world. It's a little bit like environmentalism has become. But the incandescent light bulb becomes the enemy. It has no effect whatever on the planet, but it makes people feel good about themselves.

The LGBT Community Was Just Endangered Further in Uganda

I think I will single out Scott Lively as being a particular missionary of hate as far as this particular bit of legislation goes, because he did his time trying to make persecution of gay people happen. But Bryan Fischer of the AFA which every day and every way earns its label as a hate group, celebrates the imprisonment of LGBT Ugandans by comparing the anti-gay effort there, to Phil Robertson's comments here. 

Here's the deal--if they are celebrating this kind of persecution of gays there--is that not a really good sign they want that here in the US? It's imprisonment now--but what about camps? What about state-sanctioned murder of gay people? 

Look, I want to be tolerant of "religious people" of various stripes--but these monsters are advocating exterminating people who just don't have "opposite sex attraction" or whatever their bigoted reference for straightness is. Am I supposed to tolerate that? Am I supposed to benignly ignore that there is a species of Bible thumper that wants to stone actual human beings because their imaginary friend said so? But will maybe, intermittently, suffice with seeing them disappeared from their family and community. All because of their orientation--who these people love and choose to associate with?

They start with Africa because of colonialism and racism. They will try it here. If it is what they believe in they will. I can not tolerate this. I do not want to see my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters' lives actually ruined because we sucked up to a church based in hate. If that comment is invective--so be it. How in the hell is it right for anyone to lose years off their life because of who they love, or even want to spend time with?

This is where, I fear, anti-gay rhetoric actually leads. This is why I don't find this particular kind of speech tolerable. Lives genuinely do hang in balance.

RIP, Nelson Mandela, Liberator

Despite being a prisoner for three decades, Nelson Mandela was neither held back by adversity or by bitterness, yet strove to build a just and united South Africa:




It takes time to absorb the ways in which Mandela always advanced the twin causes of social and economic justice. He did not just fight against the racial injustice of apartheid, but spoke out and worked against poverty, advocated for the rights of women and LGBT people,  Despite the stigma of AIDS, he was open about the death of his son from the disease. He even advocated on behalf of the environment, recognizing the destruction of ecosystems as yet another form of injustice.

He demonstrated perseverance and set a tremendous example by the life he lived of what can be achieved. It is my opinion that even the quality of his critics ennoble his memory, because their criticisms seem to reveal more about themselves than about Mandela's legacy.

He was a great man and will be missed.

Hateful Scott Lively's "Nuclear Bomb" in Uganda

This is just some serious nonsense coming out of this man's mouth.



If there was a question about how a law endorsing capital punishment or life imprisonment for gay people had come about, it has to do with that kind of crap that people have been listening to.

What is amazing to me is that this man can equate homosexuality with serial killers and Nazis, accuse them of every horrible vice, and then wonder why he is called a hater. He says that he's a Christian as if that means he couldn't possibly be a hater.

Well, those things aren't mutually exclusive, are they? Many of the Nazis considered themselves Christians....and they put homosexual people in death camps. When he brings up genocide and references Rwanda, he knows full well what he is doing. He's playing on people's worst fears, basically inciting them to violence. Should he be appalled if those who have listened to him talk about a group as if they were a dangerous menace decide to do something drastic about it, instead of just maybe recommending some nice therapy for them?

What a sick piece of work he is.