Update on Sessions, the Russians and collusion to elect Trump (allegedly)

Here is a little more on why recused AG Jeff Sessions getting busted for perjury could be a big deal to investigating Trump's apparent collusion with the Russians to rig the outcome of the election.

From USA Today:

"Trump and other White House aides have repeatedly denied any contact between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

The ties between Sessions' staff and the current White House are many. Trump senior policy adviser Stephen Miller was Sessions' communications director before joining the Trump campaign in January 2016, and former Sessions chief of staff Rick Dearborn was director of the Trump transition and is now Trump's deputy chief of staff for legislative affairs.

..Sessions was perhaps Trump's most loyal supporter in Congress last year, and he chaired Trump's national security advisory committee."

Sessions directly benefited from Trump's questionable election.  He gained personally from this apparent collusion, gaining a position arguably more powerful than being a senator, and one from which he could shield Trump from investigation.  While there is no clear quid-pro-quo, no evidence so far that Sessions was promised the AG slot, or some other political plum, if Trump won, I think we can consider it implied from the outcome.

As a Trump National Security advisor, the CHAIR of Trump's National Security Advisors, Sessions would know damn well about the efforts of the Russians against the US, from hacking Americans (and not ONLY the DNC) but also in the proxy war in Syria as it relates to terrorism and ISIL. Sessions was much more than "called a surrogate a time or two" in his relationship to Trump and the campaign. He was a key insider, which makes his connections to Russia all the more suspect.

If the DoJ and the FBI can get leverage on Sessions for his conduct -- like perjury -- Sessions might throw Trump under the bus to save his own hide.  Not just Trump but also Trump staffer Stephen Miller who is a former Jeff Sessions staffer. Or at least Sessions might try to reduce the punishment from his actions in some way if not seek total immunity. Sessions has never struck me as a particularly strong person who would fall on his sword for someone like Trump; rather he is and has always been something of an opportunist, a man who took more money from special interests like Big Oil to act against the interests of his constituents than any other member of Congress.

Liar in Chief, Libeler in Chief

I'm thinking maybe Obama, if he is serious enough about getting rid of Trump, might go ahead and do this. I for one would LOVE to see a libel suit against "their" president.

Here is at least a spark that could lead to fire in all the Russia /Trump smoke

I have always found the Guardian to be reliable, one of the great newspapers world wide for being accurate and careful in what they write.

Today the Guardian wrote a piece that calls Jeff Sessions a liar. Still. New. It says that after Sessions met with the Russian Ambassador at the RNC convention, casually, which appears to be true, SESSIONS ALSO MET WITH THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR PRIVATELY AT THE RNC, OTHER THAN HIS CASUAL PUBLIC ENCOUNTER.

That makes his explanation of his failure to admit this to the Senate Confirmation senators' questions under oath a lie. THIS raises the issue of credible perjury by Sessions, if it can be proven -- and I would expect it can be proven, if it is being leaked in this way by Justice or other whistle blowers.

"According to a justice department official speaking anonymously to the Washington Post when it first reported the story, the meeting was casual: Kislyak and other ambassadors approached Sessions after he finished giving a speech. Sessions then spoke with Kislyak alone, the official said, citing a former staffer for the senator. To say the meeting was “set up by the Obama administration” is false."

Further it clarifies that contrary to claims, this was not a meeting set up by the Obama State Department. What is true is that the US State Department had a long standing pattern of inviting ambassadors from other countries to our political conventions as an educational opportunity. No subsequent meetings at the convention could be characterized as this kind of very public attendance by the Russian ambassador.  This is a case of both the original action AND the cover up being what will bring down Sessions, and Trump and his advisors, past and present.

Nowhere do we see this attendance by the Russian ambassador or anyone in his embassy doing this with Hillary Clinton and the Democratic convention.

Further, it appears that Jeff Sessions attended the GOP Convention on the Trump campaign dime, using campaign donations funding for that trip, not his own $$$ and not any senate funds to do so. This has been reported by a range of sources, including the Wall Street Journal and San Francisco Gate:

"The use of political funds instead of legislative funds is an important distinction because the Trump administration maintains that Session was acting only in his role as a then-U.S. senator when he talked to Kislyak."

This looks like the first sparks of the fire behind the smoke. This looks like more heat than just attempted obscuring the facts

https://www.theguardian.com/…/fact-check-trump-obama-wireta…
http://www.sfgate.com/…/Report-Sessions-used-political-fund…

What Liz Warren and Coretta Scott King had to say about Jeff Sessions

The deplorable Jeff Sessions has been confirmed as Attorney General of the United States. He is actually a step worse than the most incompetent AGs of prior presidents, notably Dubya’s Alberto Gonzales who was so execrable as AG that he could not find even a patronage job from righties as an attorney after he left office. Sessions has taken more money from big oil than any other member of Congress; he is fully owned and operated by the fossil fuel industries. He is a bigot of the worst order, and a religious zealot of the worst extremism. Shame shame shame on the right. Shame on Rump; he is not president of the entire United States. He is further demonstrating he is the president only of special interests and the deplorable worst elements of the United States.

The pesky truth: the Statue of Liberty WAS originally a Muslim Woman

I"m fed up with the lie blindly and enthusiastically accepted by the right that credible, professional media has a secret agenda to lie to the general populous.  It is false. In point of fact, the only real "fake news" of any substance or quantity originates from the right, particularly the right wing propaganda machine.

There is a fact free, fact averse paranoia which is being promoted by "their" president, Rump, and his White House, most notably by press secretary Spicer and other spokes puppets that the main stream professional media are liars.  We see it in a wide range of major stories and also minor stories like the one about the origins of the Statue of Liberty origins, a topic featured on CBS news and USA Today among others.  The Statue of Liberty Originated as a Muslim Woman story is an excellent template to examine the right wing mdeia paranoia.

The reality resisted by the right, for example, in their anti-Muslim bigotry,is that the story is true and factually correct that the Statue of Liberty really was originally conceived and designed as a female Muslim figure, Libertas, (the Roman Goddess of Liberty) by the artist who created it, Bartholdi. 

Why pick a Roman goddess reconfigured as a Muslim woman in Egypt? Why not? A little history: the Romans conquered Egypt when Octavian /aka Augustus kicked out Marc Antony and Cleopatra was the last of the Ptolemeic dynasty put in place by the Macedonian Alexander the Great. (Cleopatra was actually ethnic Greek.) Trajan conquered the rest of the applicable territory to the canal a bit later.  And in the era of Bertholdi (a German from the Alsace Lorraine region of France) the French were fascinated with "orientalism" and neo-classic subjects in the works of artists like Gerome and Ingres as well as Bartholdi.  So the assumption that the Egypt of the mid 19th century, the time of the construction of the Suez Canal, was subject to rigid Islamic fundamentalism is false, as is the right wing notions of the Islamic version of Aniconism as it pertains to a Muslim woman being the image for a statue of Libertas/Liberty.

Aniconims is the prohibition of figural art, sometimes defined as only applying to human figures, sometimes applying to images of all forms of natural and supernatural subjects, both plant and animal, as well as figures such as angels and demons, etc.  The strongest examples of aniconism tend to occur in the monotheistic Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  But that varies tremendously by geography and historic era.  There is in fact a rich tradition of figural art in Islam, both religious and secular forms.  But don't take my word for it, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City has an excellent essay on it, here.  In my personal experience, which has included viewing a wide range of Islamic art featuring human beings, aniconism tends to be limited to religious contexts, such as inside mosques.  The assumption that all figurative art is prohibited in Islamic countries or by Sharia law is ridiculous, the kind of bigoted misinformation one finds on the right.

A little more history as context to the original statue that became the Statue of Liberty in New York City harbor, while Egypt at that time was a semi-autonomous part of the Muslim Ottoman Empire, it was ruled by Mohammed Ali Pasha, a Muslim Albanian.  Egypt had a substantial presence of Albanian mercenaries.  But the real control of Egypt was by the French and English, who owned the debt for the building of the canal, and who held important seats in government that provided de facto control of the region involved in the Canal zone.

The original design was for a female figure holding aloft a torch, that would serve as a lighthouse at the mouth of the Suez Canal, back in the 19th century.  We only have the current statue of Liberty, or more correctly, and certainly ironically, "Liberty Enlightening the World", because the funding on the Suez Canal version fell through.  The title for the proposed but not completed Suez Canal version of Libertas, holding a torch just like the one held by the USA Statue of Liberty was very similar, "Egypt Carrying the Light to Asia".

This rubbish about the mainstream media is simply not true.  It relies on a mixture of propaganda from what has become a right wing propaganda machine, a concerted effort to misinform and dis-inform, and from willful intentional ignorance on the part of the right wing and right wing leaning information consumers.

The premise of being "post Truth" is wrong, that facts simply matter less in this first quarter of the 21st century.  This is pure bloody-mindedness combined with a childish denial of objective reality by those who don't find reality catering to their prejudices.   Put another way, the facts are not their friends. It is compounded by resentment that the 21st century requires education based knowledge and expertise, and that gut hunches and wishful thinking are insufficient for making good decision or for good governance.  An example of this would be Sarah Palin's selection and appeal as John McCain's VP choice and Betsy DeVos, the theocrat Education Secretary pick of Trump who wants God in schools, not facts or logic.  These are two women who shed only darkness on the American populace.

To be unable and unwilling to differentiate fact from ideological fiction, to believe one doesn't need to know anything of history, or art, or factual comparative religion, or geography is a weakness.  To deny objective reality is a terrible failing.  This is a facet of right wing ideology which not only dangerously exacerbates existing tensions but which endangers us all in the short, middle and especially the long term.

Rump, Obama and their respective Executive Orders and Immigration Bans. And a big thank you to the Attorneys General of WA and MN.

Anyone else remember all the right wing nut claims of executive order overreach leveled at Obama?

I can't be the only one with a clear memory, but for those who might be a bit fogged by the razzle dazzle of the overwhelming amount of bold faced lies and bullshit, I will document it for you below.

Over the weekend, the Appellate Court refused to reinstate the apparently unconstitutional Rump Immigration ban against Muslims.  Further, the Rump spokes-puppets incorrectly claimed that Obama had used a similar ban -- he didn't; and that the Rump ban was both Constitutionally and Statutorily well founded.  That doesn't appear to be true either.

It only serves to underline the rank hypocrisy and double standards applied by the right, as well as their failure to understand or accept objective reality facts.  I have long maintained that conned-servatives embrace lies (aka "alternative facts") because the real facts are not on their side. 

I've also strongly advanced the argument that conned-servatives don't properly assess or identify ACTUAL risks versus their hobby horse fears of all varieties.  The right uses fear to justify attacking our freedom, particularly those aspects of freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, without ever making us safer or better in any other way.

And here is an example of that, citing the right wing think tank the Cato Institute by way of Fact Check.org.

Only 17 of the 154 foreign-born terrorists were from the seven countries covered by the Trump administration’s temporary travel ban. But none of the 17 was responsible for any deaths — even though the seven countries combined represented almost 40 percent of all refugees accepted into the U.S. in the last 10 years.
As of Jan. 31, a total of 255,708 refugees from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen have been admitted to the U.S. since the start of 2008. Those countries account for almost 40 percent of the 642,593 total refugees who have come to the U.S. in that time period, according to the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center.
“The first sentence of his order states that it is to ‘protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States,'” Nowrasteh wrote in a blog post. “However, the countries that Trump chose to temporarily ban are not serious terrorism risks.”

Cato Institute, Sept. 13, 2016: The annual chance of being murdered was 252.9 times as great as dying in an attack committed by a foreign-born terrorist on U.S. soil.

Here is the failed right wing claims fact check from Snopes:

Executive Orders

President Obama did not issue a whopping 923 executive orders, giving the government unprecedented power to take over control of civilian institutions.

Claim: President Obama has issued a whopping 923 executive orders, many of which give the government unprecedented power to take over control of civilian institutions.

 FALSE

Example: [Collected via e-mail, September 2012]

The President signed 923 Executive Orders in 40 Months. It is all over the net. These sites include commentary on what the executive order is for and what it does. If this is the truth, I'm scared to think about it. Most of the past presidents have allegedly signed around 30 of them. At the end of the day an executive order circumvents the congress and senate. Fill in the blanks. Someone credible needs to research and report on this.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.
Feel free to verify the "executive orders" at will ... and these are just the major ones ...
Teddy Roosevelt: 3
Others Prior To FDR: NONE
FDR: 11 in 16 years
Truman: 5 in 7 years
Ike: 2 in 8 years
JFK: 4 in 3 years
LBJ: 4 in 5 years
Nixon: 1 in 6 years
Ford: 3 in 2 years
Carter: 3 in 4 years
Reagan: 5 in 8 years
Bush 1: 3 in 4 years
Clinton: 15 in 8 years
Bush 2: 62 in 8 years
Obama: 923 in 3+ years!
During my lifetime, all Presidents have issued Executive Orders, for reasons that vary, some more than others.
When a President issued as many as 30 Executive Orders during a term in Office, people thought there was something amiss.
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT 923 EXECUTIVE ORDERS IN ONE PART OF ONE TERM?????? YES, THERE IS A REASON.
IT IS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS DETERMINED TO TAKE CONTROL AWAY FROM THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE.
Even some Democrats in the House have turned on him, plus a very small number of Democrat Senators question him.
HE SHOULD BE QUESTIONED. WHAT IS HE REALLY TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH????
DOES THIS SCARE YOU AS MUCH AS IT DOES ME?

Origin:In the United States, an executive order is a presidential policy directive that implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty without the requirement of congressional approval. As described by TheFreeDictionary:

The president can use [executive orders] to set policy while avoiding public debate and opposition. Presidents have used executive orders to direct a range of activities, including establishing migratory bird refuges; putting Japanese-Americans in internment camps during World War II; discharging civilian government employees who had been disloyal, following World War II; enlarging national forests; prohibiting racial discrimination in housing; pardoning Vietnam War draft evaders; giving federal workers the right to bargain collectively; keeping the federal workplace drug free; and sending U.S. troops to Bosnia.
Historically, executive orders [are] related to routine administrative matters and to the internal operations of federal agencies, such as amending Civil Service Rules and overseeing the administration of public lands. More recently, presidents have used executive orders to carry out legislative policies and programs. As a result, the executive order has become a critical tool in presidential policy making. For example, President John F. Kennedy used an executive order to eliminate racial discrimination in federally funded housing, President Lyndon B. Johnson acted through an executive order to prohibit discrimination in government contractors' hiring practices, and President Richard M. Nixon used an executive order to set a ninety-day freeze on all prices, rents, wages, and salaries in reaction to rising inflation and unemployment.

The item reproduced above purports that President Obama issued a whopping 923 executive orders in his first term (compared to about thirty each for previous presidents) and offers supposedly alarming provisions of some of those orders. However, the entirety of this item is erroneous.
First of all, the number of executive orders issued by President Obama is grossly exaggerated here. Through his first term (i.e., the first four years of his presidency), Barack Obama issued 147 executive orders, not 923. (Barack Obama signed a total of 275 executive orders during his two terms, averaging 35 a year; the lowest number signed since Grover Cleveland.) Moreover, compared to President Obama's predecessors in the White House, this is not an unusually large number of orders for a modern president: President George W. Bush issued 291 executive orders during his eight years in office, while President Bill Clinton issued 364 such orders over the same span of time.
The listing of numbers of executive orders issued during the terms of modern presidents included in one of the examples above also bears no resemblance to reality. This chart compares the claimed number of orders issued by each president on the list with the actual number issued, as documented by The American Presidency Project:

Name

	Number claimed:	Actual number:
Theodore Roosevelt	3	1,081
Franklin Roosevelt	11	3,522
Harry Truman	5	907
Dwight Eisenhower	2	484
John Kennedy	4	214
Lyndon Johnson	4	325
Richard Nixon	1	346
Gerald Ford	3	169
Jimmy Carter	3	320
Ronald Reagan	5	381
George H.W. Bush	3	166
Bill Clinton	15	364
George W. Bush	62	291
Barack Obama	923	147

  The attribution to President Obama of fourteen executive orders (numbered between 10990 to 11921) in the example text reproduced above is way off base as well: not a single one of those orders was issued by President Obama. The first twelve orders in the list date to the administration of President John F. Kennedy in 1962, one dates to the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966, and one dates to the administration of President Gerald R. Ford in 1976.
The text of these orders can be viewed in full through the following links:

• Executive Order 10990: John F. Kennedy, Feb. 2, 1962
• Executive Order 10995: John F. Kennedy, Feb. 16, 1962
• Executive Order 10997: John F. Kennedy, Feb. 16, 1962
• Executive Order 10998: John F. Kennedy, Feb. 16, 1962
• Executive Order 11000: John F. Kennedy, Feb. 16, 1962
• Executive Order 11001: John F. Kennedy, Feb. 16, 1962
• Executive Order 11002: John F. Kennedy, Feb. 16, 1962
• Executive Order 11003: John F. Kennedy, Feb. 16, 1962
• Executive Order 11004: John F. Kennedy, Feb. 16, 1962
• Executive Order 11005: John F. Kennedy, Feb. 16, 1962
• Executive Order 11049: John F. Kennedy, Sep. 14, 1962
• Executive Order 11051: John F. Kennedy, Sep. 27, 1962
• Executive Order 11310: Lyndon B. Johnson, Oct. 11, 1966
• Executive Order 11921: Gerald R. Ford, June 11, 1976

Last updated: 28 January 2017

Conned-servatives, Pixie Dust and Unicorn Poop - the issue of Health Care and Government Funding

References to unicorn droppings seems to be a frequent euphemism for unrealistic expectations or ludicrous political promises in the UK.  I have become a big fan of the phrase while reading comments at the BBC web site on a range of topics, including in particular Brexit promises from the right relating to funding the UK National Health Services.

(An aside, gentle readers; be prepared for the unexpected should you choose to google the term Unicorn Poop.)

Similarly we might as well get out the shovels for the unicorn poop when it comes to Donald Rump and his promises of health care and health insurance for everyone, better and cheaper and serving more people than what was provided under the ACA  aka Obamacare.

A recent poll from the Pew Research Fact Tank shows that a sharply increasing number of Americans, including the Conned-servatives who vote Republican, NOW believe that the federal government should ensure Health Care Coverage!  As with the change in public opinion, which the right tends to consistently lag, this reflects a similarly dramatic change which in some respects parallels the shift in public opinion relating to the LGBT community and how they should be treated fairly.  In that regard the shift is both unexpectedly rapid, and likely to be reflected in demands for legislative changes.  This is a dramatic change that the political right would be wise to follow; however they appear hell bent on the opposite.  That doesn't bode well. 

More Americans say government should ensure health care coverage

As the debate continues over repeal of the Affordable Care Act and what might replace it, a growing share of Americans believe that the federal government has a responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

Currently, 60% of Americans say the government should be responsible for ensuring health care coverage for all Americans, compared with 38% who say this should not be the government’s responsibility.

Just as there are wide differences between Republicans and Democrats about the 2010 health care law, the survey also finds partisan differences in views on whether it’s the government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage. More than eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (85%) say the federal government should be responsible for health care coverage, compared with just 32% of Republicans and Republican leaners. 

...The survey also finds continued differences on this question by race and ethnicity as well as income. A large majority of blacks and Hispanics (85% and 84%, respectively) say the government should be responsible for coverage, while non-Hispanic whites are split on the issue (49% agree, 49% disagree). And while about three-quarters of those with family incomes of less than $30,000 per year (74%) say the government should ensure coverage, only about half (53%) of those with incomes of $75,000 or higher say the same.

Currently, 52% of Republicans with family incomes below $30,000 say the federal government has a responsibility to ensure health coverage for all, up from just 31% last year. There also has been a 20-percentage-point increase among Republicans with incomes of $30,000-$74,999 (34% now, 14% last year). But there has been no significant change among those with incomes of $75,000 or more (18% now, 16% then).

Those who think government should ensure health coverage for all are divided on a follow-up question about whether health insurance should be provided through a mix of private insurance companies and the government (29% of the overall public), or if the government alone should provide insurance (28% of the public).

...Most of those on the other side of the issue – people who say the government does not have a responsibility to ensure health coverage – say on a subsequent question that the government should continue Medicare and Medicaid (32% of the overall public), while just 5% of the public says the government should have no role in health care.

Among Republicans and Republican leaners, most of whom (67%) say the government does not have a responsibility for ensuring health coverage, there is very little support for the government not being involved in health care at all. Just 10% of Republicans favor no government involvement, while 56% say it should continue Medicare and Medicaid.

While Republicans in Congress have already taken the first steps toward repealing the ACA, Americans remain largely divided on what Congress should do with the health care law. Overall, in a Pew Research Center survey in December, 39% said it should be repealed, while an equal share (39%) said the law should be expanded. Just 15% of Americans said the law should be left as is. Although the public is divided on the future of the law, there is bipartisan support for a number of ACA provisions.

It is dispiriting that there are still so many people, particularly among the conned-servatives, who do not know the ACA / Affordable Care Act IS THE SAME THING as Obamacare.  That we should be assured these people were wiser than the rest of us when they elected Don the Con (T)Rump to office or pretty much ANY of the GOP is ludicrous.

Continuing his con, his direct and ludicrous lies, that any human being either over the age of 4 or with an IQ higher in equivalence than a 4 year old would recognize as impossible BS.  Or should I say US2, for United States of Unicorn Scat?

The current crop of Republicans either don't know or don't care, or more likely don't care enough to want to know, what Americans really want from them and from government.  The next election is coming up fast in 2018, and this looks to be a hot issue, one that will likely fracture support for Republicans and Conservatives.  The next presidential election will be in 2020, the same year that the Census mandated by the constitution will raise the issue of gerrymandering and redistricting.

If the right continues to ignore what "we the people" really really want, to borrow a blast from the past phrase from the Spice Girls,  I think we can realistically hope for some change in those elections, and be confident that the interim not-valid president Rump will provide nothing but unicorn poop and rubbish promises.

I've said it before and I will say it again here now; Republicans do not govern well, and do not correctly grasp the proper function and role of government.

Because it is funny

You can't make up this stuff. From If You Only News:

The Company Supplying Portable Toilets To Inauguration Is Called ‘Don’s Johns’ And People Are DYING

Just a few days after news broke that the Russians may or may not have secretly filmed Donald Trump enjoying a urination fetish with Russian prostitutes, inauguration organizers realized to their horror that attendees will have an abundance of giant reminders of that scandal dotted around the capital during the event.
Don’s Johns bills itself as the “the Washington area’s top provider of portable toilet rentals” but it’s name is just a smidge to close to the “Don” about to be sworn in to office. According to the Associated Press, organizers have begun frantically covering up the names on the port-a-potty units in order to avoid the embarrassment.

It’s the great port-a-potty cover-up for President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Workers preparing for the inauguration Jan. 20 have taped over the name of the company — “Don’s Johns” — that has long supplied portable restrooms for major outdoor events in the nation’s capital.
Virginia-based Don’s Johns calls itself the Washington area’s top provider of portable toilet rentals. But the name apparently strikes too close to home for inaugural organizers.
Workers have placed blue tape over the company name on dozens of portable restrooms installed near the Capitol for the inauguration.
Hilariously, the blue tape doesn’t really work. You can still see the name underneath.

For many internet users, news that Trump’s team was panicking about being compared to a literal box filled with pee was almost too much to handle.

Friday Fun Day: Schadenfreude Edition

Donald Trump, the man elected by fools "to drain the swamp" has been at the center of too many CREDIBLE scandals post-election in addition to his rapacious appointments/cabinet picks.

And THAT is coming home to roost, sometimes in humorous ways.

While Trump is expending apparently an unprecedented amount of tax payer dollars on his gaudy but tacky inauguration, it is an ongoing thorn in his "not my president" side that major performers, both in the US and outside the US (notably from the UK), have refused Trump.

He has already demeaned the prestige of the office; I cannot recall, before, in my lifetime a performer declining to perform for an incoming president at such a previously important national event.  I do not fault the performers for refusing Trump; he is even more deplorable than the deplorables who voted him into office in a record low voter turnout election.  That low voter turn out above and beyond the polarized low information voters who turned out for Trump make him a less legitimate president.  It is not the candidates, contrary to some pundits claims who are responsible for that low turnout, it is the right wing efforts at voter suppression coming to fruition.

So here is the morning's Schadenfreude for your amusement.  A poseur band performing for a poseur president; all hail mediocrity and Rump.

From the Rolling Stone:

Bruce Springsteen Cover Band Defends Donald Trump Inauguration Party

"It's got nothing to do with politics whatsoever," says the B-Street Band's Will Forte. "It's really just a New Jersey party" "I've been beaten down. I haven't slept. I've been up all night," says Will Forte, the founder of popular Bruce Springsteen cover group the B-Street Band. The 63-year-old musician tells Rolling Stone that when news broke that his band would play a Donald Trump inauguration party this month, he received a flood of emails excoriating the group.
"We kind of fell into this and never saw it coming," he adds. "I'm only a small fry. I like publicity, but I didn't want this kind of publicity. The last time we had this much publicity is when we almost played the Craigslist Killer's wedding up in Boston."

This is the first I heard of it that the Craigslist Killer had a fiance. I suspect that as much as she (I assume it is she but could be he) was as distressed by their choice of mate as Rump voters are going to be by their choice in president. While not a murderer (that we know of), Rump may very well be a criminal of the rich sort that gets away with his crimes, up until the issue of high crimes and misdemeanors brings him crashing down.

Even conservative artists have bailed on any association with Rump.  Not to mention Trump's bad track record of paying people being a presumed consideration.  Being a deadbeat employer is just one of the many failings coming back to haunt him.  I predict this is a taste of abandonment by the right yet to come, but coming soon.

Also from Rolling Stone:

Why Even Trump-Friendly Artists Won't Perform at His Inauguration

Afraid of media circus, musicians are steering clear of president's swearing in, according to music managers.

Weeks before Donald Trump's presidential inauguration, the subject of securing performances has been contentious. Last night, the president-elect weighed in on the debacle (on Twitter, naturally), saying in his inimitable way that he didn't need "so-called 'A' list celebrities." "I want the PEOPLE!" he tweeted. But according to top music managers, Trump's team has been hustling to secure a high calibre of talent and star-power for the event nonetheless.

"We've gotten calls that almost sound a little bit desperate: 'Does anybody want to perform?'" says Ken Levitan, a top music manager who represents liberal and conservative artists including Kings of Leon, Hank Williams Jr., Lynyrd Skynyrd and Emmylou Harris. "At this point, we haven't had anybody that has any desire to perform at the inauguration.

"Even if you're a Trump supporter, you've got to look at how he plays the media [and] the public, in terms of how he attacks and twists things around. I've got to think there's a fear of talking about things and working with him," Levitan continues. "I do know some of the very conservative [artists] have no desire to do it. ... [They] just don't want to be involved in the circus — it's a media circus, and not necessarily in a good way."
Elton John, Garth Brooks and Celine Dion have reportedly turned down offers.

And in MORE Schadenfreude news, there are only 200 buses that have applied for bus parking during the inaugural on January 20th; for the Women's March on the 21st (not, of course, limited to women participants) has in contrast, applied for 1,200 bus parking permits; the parking location for such events holds a maximum of 1,300 buses.

Mr. Rump, the people appear to be catching on to you, and that doesn't look good.

Like White on Right, er, Rice

There has been a rise in white supremacy supporters, and other racists.  There has been a rise in supporters of religious intolerance, misogyny, and intolerance towards the LGBT.

This is not fictional, it is a factual.  But the right, well, the right keeps trying to pretend; they don't want us looking at the man behind the curtain, to borrow an analogy from the vintage movie, The Wizard of Oz.

The harsh reality is that the right, especially the Trump campaign, has been perfectly happy and willing to accept anyone, no matter how deplorable, on their side.  That has included the dregs, the same disreputable crowd that formed the John Birchers back in the mid 20th century, and worse.  And the respectable right (sarcasm) which has been so tolerant of driving out moderates, has looked the other way.

Watching the 2015 movie, Woman in Gold, I was struck by what that particular slice of history tells us about the rise of authoritarianism.  Helen Mirren's character observes how the Austrians welcomed the Germans, and only later tried to claim they were victims of them.  Now we see occasionally where the right is embarrassed, or in denial, about their political bedfellows. But it is too little, and it is way too late.

We have heard the accusation by our intelligence services of Russian meddling in our elections.  Vice News went further in connecting the dots between the neo-nazis and other deplorables and the mainstream Conservatives, including the proposed Trump administration.  I would argue the list below compiled by Vice News is far from exhaustive or encyclopedic.  Information like this makes it all the more important that we push back against conflicts of interest and that we push back against the influence and interference of other nation states and their governments intruding into our government.  And always, always, always, follow the money.  Because this is about all forms of power, and money is only one of them.

Austria's far-right party cozies up to Russia

The leader of Austria’s far-right Freedom Party said his party had signed a friendly pact with the Russian government in Moscow on Monday and vowed to be “a neutral and reliable intermediary and partner in promoting peace” between the United States and Russia.  
FPO leader Heinz-Christian Strache also revealed in a statement that he’d traveled to New York a month earlier to meet with Ret. Gen. Mike Flynn, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for national security adviser.
Monday’s announcement sought to establish Austria’s growing populist party on the world stage, but it served the dual purpose of signifying Russia’s growing ties to Europe’s far-right movement.
“The FPO continues to gain international influence,” the statement said, although it did not not elaborate on the contents of the agreement with Russia.
Monday’s meeting in Moscow was also attended by the FPO’s recently defeated presidential candidate, Norbert Hofer, and members of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ruling United Russia party.
Originally founded by Nazis shortly after World War II, the FPO has become one of Europe’s leading platforms against migration. Like many of Europe’s rising far-right populist parties, it also supports scaling back the European Union and cutting down on sanctions against Russia, which were imposed by the EU and U.S. governments in response to Russia’s 2014 annexation of the Crimea region in Ukraine.
Russia’s recent meddling in European domestic politics has stirred plenty of anxiety among EU leaders, who accuse Russia of funding these populist movements in an effort to weaken Western democracies. The issue was a major preoccupation among EU leaders during a summit in October.
Monday’s meeting is hardly the the first time Russia has been linked with Europe’s far-right populist parties.

• France: The National Front Party (FN) borrowed 9.4 million euros from Russia to help fund its reelection campaign in 2014. FN’s leader, Marine Le Pen, has made her admiration of Russia well known — she famously supported Russia’s annexation of the Crimea and opposes the EU and U.S. sanctions. Earlier this year, Le Pen sought a 27 million euro loan from a Russian-owned bank to finance her presidential bid. 
• Hungary: In May 2013, leaders of the far-right party Jobbik met with members of Russia’s parliament at Moscow State University. A member of the same party was accused in 2014 of acting as a Russian spy.   
• Bulgaria: The leader of the neo-Nazi Ataka Party, Volen Siderov, traveled to Moscow in 2012 for Putin’s 60th birthday party and expressed support for the Russian president.
• Slovakia: The far-right Our People’s party is an ally of Moscow. Leader Marian Kotleba sent a letter of support to Ukraine’s pro-Russia leader, Viktor Yanukovych, just before he was ousted in a popular revolution in 2014.

The meeting between Strache and Flynn took place at Trump Tower, where, according to the statement, they discussed ending the United States’ and EU’s “harmful and ultimately useless sanctions” against Russia. It is the latest indication that historically chilly relations between the U.S. and Russia will warm under the incoming Trump administration.
Several key members of Trump’s Cabinet have shown close ties to Moscow in the past, most notably Trump’s pick for secretary of state, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, who has a history of friendly relations with Putin. Flynn has also expressed an openness to working with Moscow, and once sat next to Putin during an event.

Macro and microcosm: my novel experience with a conned-servative Trump supporter

I acquired a new facebook friend who is a conservative Trump supporter.

He differs from many Trumpanzees in that he is an atheist, but in many respects we have the same conversations that would take place with other Trump supporters.  These have been surprisingly cordial and informative, once we get past some of the assumptions we BOTH have about the other person.  We are similar in age, but very different in employment background, most areas of interest, and especially in education.  W. is an excellent example of the white, blue-collar, K-10 educated male supporter of Donald Trump.

Over the weekend, the conversation wandered from a shared enjoyment of certain poetry (to my surprise) to the topic of race and criminality.  W. is convinced that black people are "crack-head animals" who are more inherently criminal because of their race. But W. is convinced he is not a racist, because he likes a few of the "good ones" [black people] he knows personally So in his thinking, acknowledging there are a few exceptions to the racial rule, like Condi Rice, or Colin Powell, or a few people he personally has known or worked with, excludes the possibility that his views of a majority of black people are racist.

W. does not really understand that the concept of race he holds is faulty, an artificial construct that does not really encompass much less explain human similarities and differences that he believes defines race.  W. regularly messages me for example with instances where someone commits a road rage shooting to assure me that while no individual had yet been identified, the shooter was certainly going to turn out to be black.  I refuse to believe anything about the shooter one way or the other; I'm comfortable waiting for that identification, without making those same assumptions.  W. further asserted with strong conviction that were the shooter to turn out to be white, because the victim was black, that there would be widespread looting (he used the word "shopping") by African Americans.

It is a fact that some statistics show a larger number of black Americans responsible for crimes generally and for violent crime particularly.  However there are also problems with the statistics inadequately covering rural areas where there are more white people.  The numbers are not definitive, and any interpretation of those flawed numbers that also involves a false understanding of both race and genetics cannot come to a valid conclusion.

For presuming to differ with W. I was of course called names, like a "deluded liberal" among others.  The legitimate objections I hold to his faulty conclusions, which include a practical and applied understanding of genetics and genetic inheritance was blithely dismissed as elitism and a compulsion to be politically correct. Any science which rejected his conclusion was denied while anything which was rejected by science that bolstered or supported his bias, no matter the quality of that source, was embraced.

I have two problems with the racism that I have encountered with conservatives, one is the "don't try to confuse me with the facts" response, and the other is the "I know it because I've seen it" response.  W. disparages black people for supposedly still using crack cocaine in large numbers, which statistically is not the problem it was at one time, from the mid 1980s into the early 1990s. At the same time W. unrealistically minimizes the dangers and illegality of a close white friend who snorts cocaine on a regular basis, and whom he admits is an addict.  W. even claimed not to be aware that it was possible to overdose on coke, or that it could cause heart attacks and strokes which might not be fatal but could certainly be massively debilitating.  No, the white guy shoving coke up his nose was -- in his estimation -- nothing like those animalistic black people.

I consistently see not only this failure of information as a recurring problem with conservatives, not only W., but a very superficial level of understanding and analysis.  Beyond that however I have seen a serious and recurring problem with applying a double standard to the conduct of those they like and those they don't like.  For example, W. has no problem with any of the well documented issues with the Trump charity, but is convinced that Hillary Clinton should be in jail for some vague misconduct that he cannot specify and for which he cannot cite a single statute, and believes that there is no benefits from the operation of the Clinton Foundation.

The stark reality of course is that the Clinton Foundation has done a broad range of public good, both in the US and overseas, and that while both Bill and Hillary Clinton have prospered during the existence of the Foundation, there does not appear to be any illegality involved so far.  The same cannot be said either for the benefits from the Trump Foundation, or the credible accusations of fairly blatant illegality, and Donald Trump has clearly benefited from an entity that spends other people's money (NOT his own) on toys like autographed footballs, on egotistical portraits, and on legal fees from Trump's for-profit businesses that run afoul of the law.

Pointing out those acts of misconduct by Trump elicit complaints that "Trump won, so I need to get over it".  They elicit complaints that I am a "poor loser" and that there is nothing wrong with what Trump did because he is "a smart man".

This blatant denial and the gleeful application of double standard, not only to Trump but to so many, many more issues and people, and the enormous accumulation of false information combined with the utter denial or disregard for anything that does not support the blind illusion and delusion of expectations about Donald Trump deeply concern me.  The failure of facts to persuade deeply concerns me because when facts are denied or rejected, there can be no finding of common ground, no meeting of the minds, and no reality based on the grasp of cause and effect.  I see a pattern of emotional thinking that deeply concerns me because it actively rejects logic and rational critical thinking.

As frustrating as these engagements with conservatives like W. are, I see value in continuing them.  There is some hope that if W and other conservatives decide they LIKE me enough to at least listen, to at least consider briefly before rejecting facts, that it will be possible to make gains in finding common ground.  And it serves to remind me to make a concerted effort not to dismiss the thinking of conservatives as bigoted without listening to why they feel the way they do.  It is by addressing the why of their feelings rather than the ways those feelings are wrong or invalid that we find any future reunification of the factions of this country.

But dear God, it is not going to be easy to find that "meeting of the minds", that common ground.  And if one more low information low education Trump supporter tells me to sit down, shut up, and relax because now the "grown ups are in charge", I might throw up.

It's Not Broken, so leave it alone

A 13th century French representation of
the tripartite social order
of the middle ages –
Oratores: "those who pray",
Bellatores: "those who fight",
and Laboratores: "those who work".

I see where once again we have the religious right trying to justify their exclusionary and punitive tendencies when it comes to marriage, this time in Missouri.  This seems well-intentioned, but it is misguided.  Among the problems with the proposal outlined below is the factually inaccurate notion that marriage has ever been primarily a religious institution.  That is false.

Recognizing that same-sex marriage is a real thing, a commitment that has existed with or without the role of religion OR government  has not 'broken' the concept of marriage.  It's not broken, so our legislators should stop trying to 'fix' it.

Increasingly I am seeing the role of conservatives as one of trying to turn back time, to a time that never was, in their misguided desire to coerce and control their fellow human beings.  Sometimes that is an attempt to restore the worst of the mid-20th century, and sometimes it goes back further to something more approaching the middle ages.

Marriage has NEVER been primarily a religious institution. Period. Full stop. That is crappy religious right revisionist history.  Marriage has always been primarily about property, and inheritance, with wives and children usually being considered property under a large portion of European Christian history, not much different than livestock, aka 'chattels'.  To again review the history of our terminology, to better define and understand the concepts:

[the] meaning of chattel can excite considerable emotion, as it refers to humans as property, i.e., slaves. Chattel, slave and the less common bondman and thrall are all synonyms for a person held in servitude by another. Chattel and cattle both come to English from the same source: each is descended from the Medieval Latin word capitale, which itself traces to the Latin caput meaning “head.”

Rather Christianity intruded itself into the religion biz as the primary recorders of property contracts that existed as part of alliances through what were largely political and economic based marriages.

Anyone who is skeptical of this factoid should investigate the role of plural marriage and legal, official, government sanctioned concubinage in European history that continued almost to the era of our own American Revolution.  It's fascinating stuff, but doesn't get a lot of coverage in most American history classes; rather the entire absence of this area of study leaves a vacuum that is filled by the assumptions that the religious right would like to see that perpetuates their intrusion into the freedom of American citizens and residents. Ignorance is simply ignorance, and frequently the foundation for intolerance, not bliss.

God only is involved as the Christian church sought to control more aspects of human existence, as a sort of power tripping monopoly.  That this put it in recurrent historic conflict with civil laws and government is sadly something that too few Americans know and understand. 

That is a failure of our educational system that should be addressed, but that is a tangential discussion here.

Americans, and particularly those in Missouri who suffer under the misconceptions of red state schools, should acquaint themselves better with the historic lessons of conflict between civil government and religious establishment efforts to extend their control and influence, such as that between Thomas a Becket and Henry the II, or the role of the so-called "estates of the realm" like that of the French 'ancien regime' where the first estate in society, government and the economy was the clergy, which controlled large sections of property with equally large revenues culminated in the French Revolution.  In England, from the middle ages onward, there was a simplified two-tier system: the first estate - clergy - was combined with the second estate - nobility -  in the house of Lords, with the remainder all lumped into the "commons" (what we are now sometimes referring to as the 99% who are not obscenely wealthy and privileged.)

Write this off to my esoteric interests which have in the past included an interest in heraldry for a brief outline of the UK background to American government.  In the UK, in the parliamentary House of Lords, there is something called the Lords Spiritual, aka the Spiritual Peers, a holdover from the middle ages.  Those are the 26 bishops of the Church of England; the regular nobility are termed the Lords Temporal, (temporal: 1. relating to worldly as opposed to spiritual affairs; secular. 2.of or relating to time.); not to be confused with the wonderful UK fantasy fiction of the Time Lords and Dr. Who.  I've always wondered if the concept of the Lords Temporal suggested the notion of the old television series in the UK which one could argue has taken on a life of it's own.

Nobility and the religious hierarchy were co-equal in government for a very long time in English history.  After Henry the VIII invented the C of E (Church of England, aka the Anglicans in the US) during the Brit version of the reformation, that role of the clergy was institutionalized in parliament, in the House of Lords.  And it continues to the present, although a topic of some controversy, and one we in the US should consider as we contemplate the very good concept of separation of church and state.

That institution of religion in government is something we in the US heartily reject -- and in the UK that role of the religious "Lords" is still having an active involvement in the course of government, as seen here.

"There are no restrictions placed on bishops in terms of how they participate, no bar on them getting involved in process."
He added: "If you look back through history, they haven't had a self-denying ordinance on important issues."
The Lords Spiritual - not affiliated to any political party - date back to the 14th Century and, apart from a few years after the English Civil War, have been ever-present in the chamber.
In 1847 their number was restricted to 26.

And so endeth today's history lesson.

This is a misguided notion that is predicated on a Christian-centric and European-centric view of human history.  It ignores what the rest of the world has done, and it ignores all of the pre-Christian European experience of humans.

From Ozarks First.com:

Missouri Bill Could Diffuse Controversy in Gay Weddings

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- State Representative T.J. Berry (R-Kearney) has pre-filed a measure that would replace marriage licenses with contracts of domestic union.
Berry tells Missourinet a controversial Senate resolution that died this year in a state House committee prompted him to file the legislation. The resolution would have protected churches and businesses from penalties for denying goods and services for gay weddings.
Berry calls his proposal a compromise that would diffuse some of the controversy in that resolution.
“There are many, many, many churches out there right now that will perform any kind of marriage and that’s great. That’s fine but when you take and define it and argue it as a government when it was originally religious, then you start having this other discussion that isn’t appropriate to begin with,” says Berry.
He says he is indifferent about the Senate resolution, which is commonly referred to as SJR39. The measure was sponsored this year by Senator Bob Onder (R-Lake St. Louis).
“We’ve gotten confused between government benefits and religious ceremonies and marriage has gotten caught up in that and it’s created tremendous controversy for lots of different groups,” says Berry.
He says his legislation would still allow the government benefits that apply to all married couples.
“I think what you would see is we would get back to government being in its role and religion being in its role,” says Berry. “Marriage has been, through history going back thousands of years, a religious ceremony not a governmental ceremony. So, that’s what this does and it applies to straight people, gay people, everyone exactly the same way.”
Whether or not SJR39 returns in 2017 is unknown but lawmakers expect it to come up eventually. Some conservatives are not expected to embrace Berry’s proposal, likely saying it doesn’t go far enough.

Marriage is a concept of a foundational commitment that is contractual and governmental, which MAY OR MAY NOT be spiritual as well -- as chosen by those entering into a specific marriage.  I don't see it as likely that any state, Missouri or other, will succeed in removing religious institutions from their involvement in sanctioning marriage.  Marriage, like government is of, by, and for people.

But that is not the same thing as bending over backwards to extend the control of religion into that institution.  We have ALWAYS had civil / non-religious marriage; marriage is no in any way dependent for existence on religion. It is first and last a decision made by two people to commit to each other.  That swearing to that commitment, that CONTRACT, might be taken more seriously for some people if it involved God as the implied enforcer of that contract is no reason to amend modern law to oblige the bigoted and narrow minded.  Frankly, given the high divorce rates in the so-called Bible Belt, it should be pretty obvious that God is NOT a successful guarantor of marriage, but the opposite, but neither should we interfere with the religious choice of those who still want a religious ceremony of marriage to be happy.

Marriage, whatever kind of legal marriage between two people -- just LEAVE IT ALONE.