Michael Wolff’s ‘Fire and Fury’: Inside Trump’s White House

Donald Trump as president:
One of the important takeaway points in this article is that they didn't expect to win. Some of us said more or less from the beginning that in some (many) ways, this presidential bid did not seem real--did not seem like it was intended as much more than theater, purpose unclear. In fact it has lately seemed to me that the explanation for Trump's harping on the idea that Democrats had somehow stolen a large proportion of their votes was driven by the desire for misdirection from their own having stolen votes somehow.

Those two (admittedly "conspiratorial") ideas don't match very well with one another. Oh--unless the _vote stealing_ was just to make their own effort (apparently inevitable failure) seem less embarrassing.

But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Perhaps it all is just what it seems to be: atypical in American politics, but yet completely predictable in light of the personalities involved and other aspects of current social and political (and educational) trends.

Interesting article:
<http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-book-donald-trump.html>


Mark_

Trump's Handshake

Months ago Cindy & I had discussed the obviously aggressive handshake-and-jerk Trump had used on Mike Pence when he announced Pence as his running mate (I think that was the event), but this is the first I have heard about the Trump-shake's being discussed more widely.

Very interesting--very telling.

• <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/justin-trudeau-trump_us_58a1dc96e4b03df370d8a29b>
• <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-justin-trudeau-handshake-twitter-reddit-photoshop-battle_us_58a206b0e4b0ab2d2b17d7e7>

I shall advise that if you are a musician, protect yourself by never shaking hands with this guy.

UPDATE: There are dozens of videos online showing the handshake, satirical presentations of the handshake, and at least one (tongue-in-cheek?) method for defending against it. YouTube is your friend and protector.  17 Feb. '17.


Mark_
14 February 2017

Trump's State(s)

<http://www.theonion.com/article/secret-service-adds-emotional-protection-division--55263>

This is very amusing lark--except that something like it (laws against defaming the head of state) have been used against political enemies in places where we would not wish to live.  I saw that satirical Onion article today; the possibility had occurred to me a day or so ago.  It is interesting--and more than slightly unsettling--to see that others have had the same worrisome thought.  (Google for "trigger warning" to see that this issue is real and is apparently common.)

So, which seems more likely? 

- He resents a slight, and, realizing that legislation could fix that, (eventually) signs into a law a bar against disparaging a sitting president.

- He resents a slight, and, realizing that legislation could fix that, weighs the damage and decides that such an action would be entirely too petty, too undignified, and too much against what our system has long been assumed to represent, both here and abroad, and lets it go.

Should we be worried?  Republicans have been a bit casual about news reportage and our freedom to express opinions (or, indeed, to report observable facts).  This kind of law would not be entirely out-of-character for them or for him.  I think we should worry--and I have no idea what to propose.

And there is this:

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/customs-border-patrol-aclu-lawyer-detain-question_us_589a42d6e4b0c1284f292263?section=us_politics>

If things are _not_ as bad as they seem, what is it that is likely to prevent the worst?  What prophylaxis is in place?  What would stay the hands of people who think that they have finally more or less won it all, and have nothing to fear from any direction?

Is this actually the _end game_ of a longstanding program to subvert & pervert of our system?  Is Trump our time's short-sighted isolationist and probable Nazi Charles Lindberg ("America First!" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lindbergh#Isolationism_and_America_First_involvement>)?  If these are true, what can be done?

Trump seems to get very little sleep.  He admits as such--or claims it.  I am confident that very little money would be required to buy a computerized mechanism that would cache tweets composed during the day for issue in the small hours--just so one could give the impression of being perpetually awake.  In fact, I think this already exists for e-mail.  (I have said for years that if I were in a position of authority I absolutely would use such a system.) 

Unfortunately, this claims seems to be true; Trump gets very little restful sleep.

I have been saying for some months that sleep deprivation could explain a lot about Trump's erratic behavior; now I see that others have been saying much the same thing.  

The Huffington Post (various authors): 

March 2016 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-bulkeley-phd/donald-trump-the-sleep-de_b_9413588.html>. 

May 2016 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-sleep_us_574606cde4b055bb11710fcf>. 

CNBC January 2017 <http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/17/donald-trump-is-poster-child-of-sleep-deprivation-arianna-huffington.html>. 

On the other hand <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/02/donald-trump-s-4-hour-sleep-habit-could-explain-his-personality.html>.  Except that it is unlikely that Trump carries the efficient sleeper gene mutation; those people don't seem nutty as a result of sleep deprivation.  Or he has both that advantage and some offsetting disadvantage.

Does the cause really matter much?

But now it's personal <http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/08/trumps-nordstrom-attack-blurs-politics-and-personal-business.html>.  

Mark_

Reminder: "Spear Phishing" (Warning)

I post this as a timely reminder that an e-mailed convenience can be used to compromise your online accounts.  The technique is referred to as "spear phishing"; it works like this:

You receive an e-mail message informing you of the need to go change your password, and a convenient link to the necessary settings page is provided right on the message.  This link goes not to where you are being told it does, but to a lookalike page that delivers your information to the criminals.

The safe solution is simple: Take the alert seriously--don't even bother considering the other alternative.  However, use the links you should have entered into your own address book software for that institution or web service.  In this way, you use your IQ to divert _bad luck_ away from yourself (and, alas, toward other people).

I wrote "timely" because this is apparently the technique that got [someone] into Democratic e-mails during the period before the 2016 presidential election.  

• New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/06/us/russian-hack-evidence.html> 

• Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phishing> 

I have said this before:  Most of us have lived our entire lives in neighborhoods (both our domiciles and our retail and other business activities) in places where criminal activity was more a matter of news reportage than of experience.  Now the criminality--the actual threats--come(s) right into our homes.

Welcome to the constantly-connected future.

Mark_

06 January 2017 (a date that still seems like it belongs to The Future)

The Rise of H. Sapiens; and Fall?

The Smiths and I have been reading this book:

_Sapiens_, by Yuval Harari:

- <https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23692271-sapiens>

- <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind>

- <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuval_Noah_Harari>

@ TED: <https://www.ted.com/speakers/yuval_noah_harari>

Note that Harari cites _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel>.  I have begun this, and now I need to finish it, too.  Diamond has a related video @ _National Geographic_ online, or somewhere; I have watched part of it on my Apple TV.

Also by Harari: <http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/does-trumps-rise-mean-liberalisms-end>

"Interesting times" indeed.  A pox upon it!  (Except that we have mostly cured the poxes--take _that_, anti-vaxxers!)

And:

Some time back I had a look at this book: 

The Triumph of Human Empire:

Verne, Morris, and Stevenson at the End of the World

by Williams, Rosalind H.

<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17673913-the-triumph-of-human-empire>

I had to return it to the library as we were setting off on a cruise; it had looked like a good thing to read, so I should get it again.

But then there is this on the subject of "progress":

<http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/11/progress-isnt-natural-mokyr/507740/>

I believe I had previously encountered the idea that most of our ancestors had never noticed that there was such a trend (because for most of human existence there was none--or it was so gradual that no [illiterate] generation could notice it; this is an interesting discussion of that novelty.

Recent events in U.S. politics may make us realize that progress is not necessarily permanent; if we are to build the future upon the accomplishments (and the hard lessons) of the past, the next few years are likely to loom large in explaining the decades that may be required for our recuperation.

And this (for fun...and yet oddly to the point):

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBr6vDCj3Qw>  

This is from a truly great 1936 movie based upon H.G. Wells' 1933 book _The Shape of Things to Come_ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shape_of_Things_to_Come> <http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0301391h.html>; I doubt that this speech actually comes from the book, however.

Youtube may have at least one copy of the movie online.  It is well worth a couple of hours for a couple of reasons.

Anyway, I am seriously displeased about the prospect that I may be well over the hill when Trump departs--and that his legacy could persist for decades beyond that.

Mark_

20 November 2016

A Political Tantrum

Hidden Injuries of Class, Race, and Culture- 

<http://prospect.org/article/hidden-injuries-0>

Perhaps:

• People like to be permitted the illusion that they are making it on their own.

• People do not like to be told what to do--even when it is obvious that doing [whatever] would benefit them.

• Some of what Liberalism proposes may seem aligned with values that the poor either cannot afford financially or cannot be expected to care about in the face of more pressing concerns (if those two are not overlapping or identical)--or worse, would directly harm their interests (in the near term or longer).  Concerns about pollution, never mind about pure aesthetics, are possible only when more basic needs have been met.  Working toward the future--long-term goals--makes sense only when today's pressing needs have been met.  Present comfort is superior to purely hypothetical--very doubtful--future improvement in situation.

• People don't like accepting solutions from a group (a _class_) they do not respect (such as educated "elites").

• People don't like accepting solutions (advice, money, or rules) from a group that seems faceless and unaccountable to them, to which they can only with great difficulty speak, query, appeal, negotiate, or resist.

• People will accept false hope--even if its futility is fairly obvious--when it seems to them to be the only option available.  _One-in-a-million_ seems superior to _none_.  Consider the casino or the lottery.

• People don't like being told that they don't--cannot--understand the complexities of their own situations; they will continue against all evidence that they understand their situations better than outsiders could.

• People like to be able to act--to exercise their freedom; voting for the _status quo_ would have seemed like doing nothing at all.

So, this kind of thing happens:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hsi-qvFE4M>

Perhaps I have omitted or overstated some aspect, some explanatory factor in the election outcome.

Perhaps this all seems obvious (and I am the last person to have these ideas).  

Perhaps none of the above is true, but some more complicated or more obscure explanatory system is.

What is demonstrable is that a large number of people are seriously dissatisfied--are actually hurting--enough to wish to embrace the unknown because the known is not quickly enough moving to help them.  It is not clear that this outcome has had anything to do with principle, and perhaps little to do with confidence in the one side; it has everything to do with loss of confidence in the _status quo_ and in its perfectibility.

Ignoring for the moment the fact that the popular vote chose Mrs. Clinton, I believe that the vote for Mr. Trump was a _tantrum_.  

Does anyone ever actually "win" a tantrum?

Mark_ 

20 November 2016

Government _is_ the solution.

Or it ought to be--and not small government, either, because the challenges are large (in two ways).

Continuing about anti-union sentiments and activities (and remembering that it was Ronald Reagan, mentioned in the previous message, who crushed the air-traffic controllers' union), here is more about union troubles in "recent" American history:

<https://thinkprogress.org/the-true-story-of-how-one-man-shut-down-american-commerce-to-avoid-paying-his-workers-a-fair-wage-fe8ff26e236b#.ikovxh9lh>

The events are less recent, but in the sense that the struggles mentioned are perfectly familiar to people who are finding their labor under-valued, they are "modern" events.  The article is from 2014.

It is beyond me how workers who should value union protections could have come to despise them.

Are we _all_ Ayn Rand Objectivists now--even those who absolutely cannot afford to be?  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)>

Appalling.

Mark_
19 November 2016

Government is not the solution--it is the problem (NOT).

Reasonable people were outraged at the time it occurred, and we still are: Ronald Reagan's pronouncement that Government was causative in (virtually all of) our problems, and that they are addressed by diminution of its size, scope, and power.  Donald Trump, our new <gritted teeth> president, seems to be saying much the same thing; this canard is now one of the assumptions--stipulations--in public discourse about our way of life.

This is outrageous, as is the practice of electing to government service persons who believe that government cannot serve.  Why would people who hold that belief stand for election or appointment to such jobs?  Why would we trust them in those positions?

My usual assumption is that where motivations are not apparent, then there exists something that I am (we are?) are missing or misunderstanding about what we have been told--but equally or more likely may be that we are being lied to.  This time my suspicion is that they hold to no such principle in general; they just don't like constraints on the actions of members of their class.  Constraining the actions of the powerful is a good bit of why we have a civil government--an _elected_ government--in place of a monarch or some other form of tyrant.

Another possibility--one that many others have advanced as fairly adequately covering the facts--is that they take those jobs as part of a campaign to finish it off: to advance (complete?) the destruction of democratic government by further undermining our confidence in its competence.

Michael Moore has seemed to me a bit shrill, a bit outrageous, a bit hyperbolic, rather graceless--but lately I have been listening to him somewhat more attentively.  I have had a look at his Web site <http://michaelmoore.com>, which contains a link to this old-but-not-stale posting from 2012 on the subject of Reagan's damage to American politics and way of life: <http://www.wearethedog.com/2012/07/22/how-reagan-destroyed-america/>.

I find it difficult to reconcile _despising our government_ with patriotism.  I believe that the two do not mesh at all.

Mark_
19 November 2016

Rachael, from Member Services (Scam!)

A persistent scam involving telemarketing calls from "Rachael, from Member Services" has continued to be active despite official attempts to stop it. I have just received one of these calls.

It's a minor inconvenience, of course--I always disconnect as soon as I realize that I am hearing a recorded message--but it's also illegal, and irritating in principle--because all of my telephones are registered with the national Do Not Call list.

I filed a complaint on the List's web site, but while there learned yet another bit of somewhat disheartening news: Some scammers are calling people, claiming to represent Do Not Call, and offering to put your numbers on that very list that should prevent their calling you. Of course, two things would follow from your having given your telephone number(s) to these horrible people: You are not on the Registry despite your believing that you are, and a scammer has just gotten your telephone number(s) from your own lips.

From the Do Not Call page:

Scammers have been making phone calls claiming to represent the National Do Not Call Registry. The calls claim to provide an opportunity to sign up for the Registry. These calls are not coming from the Registry or the Federal Trade Commission, and you should not respond to these calls. To add your number to the Registry you can call 888-382-1222 from the phone you wish to register, or go click on “Register a Phone Number” in the left column of [the Registry's] page.   

Your registration will not expire. Telephone numbers placed on the National Do Not Call Registry will remain on it permanently due to the Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007, which became law in February 2008. Read more about it at <http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/04/dncfyi.shtm>.

It's all enough to make one feel more or less completely surrounded.

(And this, doubters, is why we need big government.)


Mark_
29 May 2012