Betty MacDonald, Dorita Hess, favourite city and conflicts of interest
Hello 'Pussy', this is Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle. You took calls from foreign leaders on unsecured phone lines, without consulting the State Department. NOOOOOOOO!
Should I remain in bed, leave my country or fight against the dragon?
( see also the story by Wolfgang Hampel, ' Betty MacDonald: Nothing more to say ' )
Betty MacDonald's sister Alison Bard Burnett
Betty MacDonald's mother Sydney with grandchild Alison Beck
Betty
MacDonald fan club newsletter November not only includes the story of
Betty MacDonald's and Monica Sone's friendship but also more info on
Betty MacDonald's mysterious lady Dorita Hess and other persons
described in Betty MacDonald's books. New info regarding Betty MacDonald's filmed interview will come soon.
Betty MacDonald fan club voting will be very exciting.
Which city will be the winner?
My favourite is this city.
Do you have any idea which city this might be?
Send
us a mail, please and you can win the the new Betty MacDonald
documentary with several interviews by Wolfgang Hampel never published
before.
Thank you so much for sharing this witty memories with us.
Wolfgang Hampel's literary event Vita Magica
is very fascinating because he is going to include Betty MacDonald,
other members of the Bard family and Betty MacDonald fan club honor
members.
I agree with Betty in this very witty Betty MacDonald story Betty MacDonald: Nothing more to say by Wolfgang Hampel.
I
can't imagine to live in a country with him as so-called elected
President although there are very good reasons to remain there to fight
against these brainless politics.
Is this result really true?
In
his remaining time in office, perhaps the most difficult decision
President Obama will face is how the United States should respond to the
stunning Russian cyberattack on our electoral system: the penetration
of Democratic National Committee servers and the email account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.
Don't miss the article below, please.
This guy calls Hillary Clinton corrupt.
Even before his election, Trump had already made a mockery of good government norms, by refusing to extricate himself from the myriad conflicts of interest
his company presents. Instead, the president-elect promised to place
his assets into what he refers to as a “blind trust,” but is actually an
entity that would allow him perfect knowledge of the assets he holds —
and that would be managed by his children, who are also members of his
transition team.
This week, Trump revealed that those children will also, apparently, take part in diplomatic meetings with the leaders of foreign countries.
I'm
afraid that these activities will influence his policy and it will be
very bad for the United States of America and the world.
Floated
the idea of hiring his son-in-law to a White House position, in
possible defiance of laws against nepotism and norms against conflicts
of interest.
Public officials are barred from hiring family members
to agencies that they have authority over. They also, generally, avoid
hiring the significant others of the heads of their blind trusts.
Don't miss this article below, please.
The most difficult case in Mrs.Piggle-Wiggle's career
Hello 'Pussy', this is Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle.
You
took calls from foreign leaders on unsecured phone lines, without
consultung the State Department. We have to change your silly behaviour
with a new Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle cure. I know you are the most difficult
case in my career - but we have to try everything.......................
Betty MacDonald was sitting on her egg-shaped cloud and listened to a rather strange guy.
He said to his friends: So sorry to keep you waiting. Very complicated business! Very complicated!
Betty said: Obviously much too complicated for you old toupee!
Besides him ( by the way the First Lady's place ) his 10 year old son was bored to death and listened to this 'exciting' victory speech.
The old man could be his great-grandfather.
The
boy was very tired and thought: I don't know what this old guy is
talking about. Come on and finish it, please. I'd like to go to bed. Dear 'great-grandfather' continued and praised the Democratic candidate.
He always called her the most corrupt person ever and repeated it over and over again in the fashion of a Tibetan prayer wheel.
She is so corrupt. She is so corrupt. Do you know how corrupt she is?
Betty MacDonald couldn't believe it when he said: She
has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time, and we
owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country.
Afterwards old toupee praised his parents, wife, children, siblings and friends.
He asked the same question like a parrot all the time: Where are you? Where are you? Where are you? I know you are here!
Betty MacDonald answered: No Pussy they are not! They left the country.
They immigrated to Canada
because they are very much afraid of the future in the U.S.A. with you
as their leader like the majority of all so-called more or less normal
citizens.
This
is incredible! I'll You get what you pay/vote for and Trump is the
epitome of this ideology. America I won't feel bad for you because you
don't need my sympathy for what's coming but I am genuinely scared for
you. 'Forgive them lord for they know not who they do' or maybe they do
but just don't care about their future generations who will suffer for
this long after the culprits have passed away.
Wise guy, North Pole, Svalbard And Jan Mayen, 9 minutes ago
Is the USA like North Korea where you can't trust other politicians?
That's it.
Put Ivanka in! Put Ivanka in! Put my whole family and friends in! ' What about Putin?
Or the leaders from China and North Korea?
Wouldn't it be a great idea to put them in too?
What about very intelligent and qualified Sarah Palin?
In 2006, Palin obtained a passport[88] and in 2007 traveled for the first time outside of North America on a trip to Kuwait. There she visited the Khabari Alawazem Crossing at the Kuwait–Iraq border and met with members of the Alaska National Guard at several bases.[89] On her return journey she visited injured soldiers in Germany.[90] That's the reason why very intelligent and brilliant Sarah Palin knows the World very well. Sarah and ' Pussygate ' will rule America and the World - what a couple.
Our next Betty MacDonald fan club project is a collection of these unique dedications.
If you
share your dedication from your Betty MacDonald - and Mary Bard Jensen
collection you might be the winner of our new Betty MacDonald fan club
items.
Thank you so much in advance for your support.
Thank you so much for sending us your favourite Betty MacDonald quote.
More info are coming soon.
Wolfgang
Hampel's Betty MacDonald and Ma and Pa Kettle biography and Betty
MacDonald interviews have fans in 40 countries. I'm one of their many devoted fans.
Many Betty MacDonald - and Wolfgang Hampel fans are very interested in a Wolfgang Hampel CD and DVD with his
very funny poems and stories.
We are going to publish new Betty MacDonald essays on Betty MacDonald's gardens and nature in Washington State. Tell us the names of this mysterious couple please and you can win a very new Betty MacDonald documentary.
The series premiered on September 3,
1951, the same day as "Search for Tomorrow," and ended on August 1,
1952.
Although it did well in the ratings, it had difficulty
attracting a steady sponsor. This episode features Betty Lynn (later
known for her work on "The Andy Griffith Show") as Betty MacDonald, John
Craven as Bob MacDonald, Doris Rich as Ma Kettle, and Frank Twedell as
Pa Kettle.
Betty MacDonald fan club exhibition will be fascinating with the international book editions and letters by Betty MacDonald. I can't wait to see the new Betty MacDonald documentary.
At Donald Trump’s Properties, a Showcase for a Brand and a President-Elect
Club members and guests waited for President-elect Donald J. Trump on Friday at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.Credit
Hilary Swift for The New York Times
They
stood in line at Trump Tower, sometimes up to half an hour, handing
over their cash for mementos of the president-elect: mini, gold-wrapped
chocolate bricks stamped “Trump.” Trump monogrammed sweaters, towels and
glassware. Trump cologne.
“I
bought it for my two sons,” said Shanon Loggins, 47, of Lufkin, Tex.,
showing off a golden shopping bag embossed with the Trump crest that
carried two bottles of Success by Trump, a fragrance for men. “They need
to be successful,” she explained.
Business is good for Donald J. Trump.
People are flocking to his Midtown Manhattan skyscraper, dining in his
restaurants and buying his wares. Reporters are fastidiously chronicling
the comings and goings of his transition team, his self-branded
properties providing the backdrop for television live shots.
Mr.
Trump has taken the staid task of preparing to assume the presidency
and turned it into an exercise in conspicuous self-promotion and
carefully choreographed branding.
But
as the president-elect makes use of his vast real estate holdings, he
is also raising questions about whether he is exploiting the high
profile and stature of the office to conduct what could be seen as a
promotional tour for the Trump Organization.
Items for sale at the Trump Store at Trump Tower in Manhattan, where meetings on the transition to power are being held.Credit
Todd Heisler/The New York Times
The
venues he has picked to conduct his official transition planning attest
to his success as a real estate developer: Trump Tower, the Manhattan
skyscraper where he lives and works amid Trump-themed eateries and
boutiques; Mar-a-Lago, the upscale, private Palm Beach, Fla., club where
he has chosen to hold meetings over Thanksgiving; and the Trump
National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J.
Mr.
Trump especially liked the Bedminster setting, he told his aides,
because the images of him receiving potential cabinet appointees at the
front door of the clubhouse resembled 10 Downing Street in London.
In
planning future transition meetings, Mr. Trump and his team are
considering other properties of his that might fit his desire for rich,
regal symbolism.
“It stinks,” said Norman Eisen,
who was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President Obama from
2009 to 2011. Because there is no specific law prohibiting public
officeholders from financially beneficial self-promotion, what Mr. Trump
is doing is probably not illegal, Mr. Eisen added.
“But
that doesn’t make it right,” he said. “It’s part and parcel of the
unsavory marketing of his brands that he also did during the campaign.”
Unsavory
or not, it is all part of the stagecraft and spectacle that Mr. Trump
has directed from his 26th-floor office in Trump Tower — all of which is
being ravenously consumed by the news media and his loyal followers.
Most
days since Mr. Trump became the president-elect, the lobby of Trump
Tower has been a public staging area for aspects of the transition that
Mr. Trump most wants people to see.
Potential
cabinet appointees march across its buffed marble floors, past the
cameras that stream the scene live to C-Span, and into the gold mirrored
elevators. This week there were people like Gov. Mary Fallin of
Oklahoma and Rick Perry, the former Texas governor, who disparaged Mr.
Trump as “a cancer on conservatism” when they were battling for the
Republican nomination.
Mr.
Trump and his staff have even devised a proper greeting protocol for
arriving guests. As Mr. Perry made his way through the lobby on Monday, a
young woman looped her arm around his and escorted him past the
cameras. The same woman was also on hand over the weekend to accompany
visiting guests when Mr. Trump moved the meetings to Bedminster.
The
golf club was even more of a display of munificence, with Mr. Trump
turning to the cameras to embrace Mitt Romney, who just months ago
condemned Mr. Trump as a “phony” and a “fraud.”
He is now a leading candidate for secretary of state. There were more
ethnically diverse potential cabinet candidates there, as well, like T.
W. Shannon, the first African-American speaker of the Oklahoma House,
and Michelle Rhee, a former schools chancellor in Washington, who is
Asian-American.
When Mr. Trump was done interviewing them, he would see them off outside and, once again, banter with the news media.
“Tremendous talent — we’re seeing tremendous talent,” Mr. Trump said on Saturday.
“People that, as I say, we will ‘make America great again.’ These are
really great people. These are really, really talented people.”
Visitors at Trump Tower watched last week as potential cabinet nominees and others passed through the lobby.Credit
Sam Hodgson for The New York Times
As
the cameras rolled during the weekend at Bedminster, temperatures
dropped sharply, sending journalists into the gift shop, where the only
cold-weather attire they could find was a winter hat with Trump
embroidered on it.
The
market for anything stamped Trump has been bustling. At the gift kiosk
on the lower level of Trump Tower — between the Trump Ice Cream Parlor
and the Trump Grill, with its $25 prix fixe lunch — the line on Monday
morning was about two dozen people deep. Cashiers were doing their civic
diligence, asking anyone purchasing Trump campaign gear like the “Make
America Great Again” hats ($25) whether they were American citizens.
(Law prohibits foreigners from giving money to campaigns.)
Marilyn
Bryan, 70, of Terre Haute, Ind., was sitting at a table outside the
kiosk with her daughter Trisha. In May, Ms. Bryan was at a Trump rally
in her hometown when someone passed out next to her, knocked her down
and broke her femur.
That
might have been enough Trump for anyone else. But she decided that as
long as she was visiting New York this week, she might as well stop by
the tower to take in the scene. “What’d we spend? $200?” she asked her
daughter. Inside her shopping bag were a hat, the golden Trump chocolate
bars and some other Trump knickknacks she planned to give to her
relatives. The chocolate, they were somewhat disappointed to learn, was
actually made in Fort Wayne, Ind.
Standing
nearby were Paul and Lea Foster of Hidden Hills, Calif. After
purchasing two hats and two T-shirts, Ms. Foster, 62, marveled at Mr.
Trump’s ability to cash in on his name. “He’s sure figured out how to
make money,” she said.
Her husband nodded. “He’s a businessman, a promoter,” said Mr. Foster, 81. “Let’s hope he knows how to run the country.”
A version of this article appears in print on November 23, 2016, on page A17 of the New York edition with the headline: At Trump’s Properties, a Showcase for a Brand and a President-Elect. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe
Spill details on Russia hack: Gabriel Schoenfeld
Gabriel Schoenfeld
2:32 p.m. EST November 21, 2016
Retaliation is a bad idea, but Obama should order a full accounting before Trump takes the oath.
In
his remaining time in office, perhaps the most difficult decision
President Obama will face is how the United States should respond to the
stunning Russian cyberattack on our electoral system: the penetration
of Democratic National Committee servers and the email account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman. For
an extraordinary reason, this is not something Obama can leave to his
successor. Donald Trump, despite having received classified briefings on the Russian cyber threat,
has refused to accept the intelligence community’s judgment that such
an attack took place. His most notable public comment about it came at
the second debate with Hillary Clinton, where he tossed a word salad of
doubt over the matter: “Maybe there is no hacking,” Trump said, “but
they always blame Russia.” If Obama does not act in his final weeks, it is a virtual certainty that
President Trump will not act either. As the beneficiary of the hacking,
and as an admirer of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, Trump would have every reason to let it slide. Options for a response have already been outlined in a paper that has
made its way to Obama’s desk. They are, of course, top secret, but last
month Vice President Biden told NBC’s Meet the Press that we would be “sending a message” to Putin, one that “will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact.” That was tough talk, but an unfortunate axiom applies to Obama administration
pronouncements: the tougher the talk, the lower the likelihood
commensurate action will follow. That rule is especially likely to
pertain in this instance because all the imaginable options are so
unattractive.
Among
other capabilities, the Pentagon’s cyber command or the CIA's Center
for Cyber Intelligence could send signals into Russian computers that
could wreak destruction. Already back in the Cold War, the CIA planted “Trojan horse” computer chips
in turbine technology the KGB was stealing from the West to control the
flow of natural gas in Siberian pipelines. When the doctored chips
performed their special task, the largest non-nuclear explosion ever
seen from outer space was the result celebrated in CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. The way the world is wired today, we could undoubtedly repeat such a
feat with the right sequence of key strokes on a laptop in Langley,
causing major pieces of Russia’s infrastructure to fail
catastrophically. But the Russians could retaliate just as easily, and
they probably would. Given how computerized our economy is, we stand to
lose a lot more than we would gain from engaging in such kinetic action.
Mutual assured destruction applies to the cyber age just as it did (and
does) in the nuclear age. A non-kinetic alternative, already much discussed, is to make public
some portion of the enormous trove of documents the CIA undoubtedly
possesses that demonstrate massive corruption by Putin and his cronies.
This would have some salutary consequences. But every Russian already
knows that the denizens of the Kremlin have pillaged the country’s
treasure for personal gain. The trouble is, Russia is not a democracy
and there is nothing its citizens can do about it. The major effect of
such a U.S. action would be to induce a collective yawn. Indictments? Sanctions? Both have been employed in response to past
bouts of North Korean and Chinese hacking, and both would induce more
yawns. Moreover, whatever punitive economic measures Obama puts in place
today, President Trump could reverse on Jan. 20. Unless we settle for
engaging in some petty retaliatory hacking of little moment, it would
seem that we’re out of tricks. Indeed, given Biden’s swaggering threat,
we might be witnessing a repeat of the Syrian chemical weapons fiasco in
which Obama drew a red line, Syria promptly crossed the red line, and
Obama — contemplating the unknown cost of launching a military operation
— chickened out and said sorry, never mind. Still, even if there is no effective means of retaliation, there remains
one thing that Obama absolutely must do, though it comes at a price.
POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media The Russia-WikiLeaks assault on our electoral process was one of the
most consequential influence operations in modern history. The public
deserves a full accounting of exactly what happened. The intelligence
community should lay out what it knows. Even if this means disclosing
sensitive sources and methods, a timeline, a list of players and a
description of the technology involved, and any and all relevant
evidence should be put into the public domain in a report prepared and
signed by trusted blue-ribbon names. The stakes here
could not be higher. If we do not obtain a documented account before
Inauguration Day of what we have just witnessed, the incoming Trump
administration will have every incentive to erase the evidentiary trail
and bury the truth. Trump has exhibited no compunctions about falsifying
far more trivial things. His designated national security adviser,
retired general Michael Flynn, is a brazen Putinophile who has taken
money from RT, Moscow’s principal English-language propaganda organ. Flynn will only be too happy to go along. As
we draw closer to the moment Trump takes the oath of office, the
American people deserve an accounting that clears up as thoroughly as
possible all questions about one of the many extraordinary aspects of
the 2016 presidential campaign: how a candidate favored by Russia, and
who favors Russia, was helped by Russia to ascend to the most powerful
position in the world. Gabriel Schoenfeld, a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and the author of Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law. Follow him on Twitter: @gabeschoenfeld You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @USATOpinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To submit a letter, comment or column, check our submission guidelines.
16649
CONNECTTWEET
15
LINKEDIN
29
COMMENTEMAIL
Five years ago, I warned about the risk of a Donald J. Trump presidency. Most people laughed. They thought it inconceivable.
I
was not particularly prescient; I come from Italy, and I had already
seen this movie, starring Silvio Berlusconi, who led the Italian
government as prime minister for a total of nine years between 1994 and
2011. I knew how it could unfold.
Now
that Mr. Trump has been elected president, the Berlusconi parallel
could offer an important lesson in how to avoid transforming a
razor-thin victory into a two-decade affair. If you think presidential
term limits and Mr. Trump’s age could save the country from that fate,
think again. His tenure could easily turn into a Trump dynasty.
Mr.
Berlusconi was able to govern Italy for as long as he did mostly thanks
to the incompetence of his opposition. It was so rabidly obsessed with
his personality that any substantive political debate disappeared; it
focused only on personal attacks, the effect of which was to increase
Mr. Berlusconi’s popularity. His secret was an ability to set off a
Pavlovian reaction among his leftist opponents, which engendered
instantaneous sympathy in most moderate voters. Mr. Trump is no
different.
We
saw this dynamic during the presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton was
so focused on explaining how bad Mr. Trump was that she too often didn’t
promote her own ideas, to make the positive case for voting for her.
The news media was so intent on ridiculing Mr. Trump’s behavior that it
ended up providing him with free advertising.
Unfortunately,
the dynamic has not ended with the election. Shortly after Mr. Trump
gave his acceptance speech, protests sprang up all over America. What
are these people protesting against? Whether we like it or not, Mr.
Trump won legitimately. Denying that only feeds the perception that
there are “legitimate” candidates and “illegitimate” ones, and a small
elite decides which is which. If that’s true, elections are just a
beauty contest among candidates blessed by the Guardian Council of
clerics, just like in Iran.
Silvio Berlusconi in Milan last year.Credit
Flavio Lo Scalzo/European Pressphoto Agency
These
protests are also counterproductive. There will be plenty of reasons to
complain during the Trump presidency, when really awful decisions are
made. Why complain now, when no decision has been made? It delegitimizes
the future protests and exposes the bias of the opposition.
Even
the petition calling for members of the Electoral College to violate
their mandate and not vote for Mr. Trump could play into the
president-elect’s hands. This idea is misguided. What ground would we
then have to stand on when Mr. Trump tricks the system to obtain what he
wants?
Have you changed anything in your daily life since the
election? For example, have you tried to understand opposing points of
view, donated to a group, or contacted your member of Congress? Your
answer may be included in a follow up post.
The
Italian experience provides a blueprint for how to defeat Mr. Trump.
Only two men in Italy have won an electoral competition against Mr.
Berlusconi: Romano Prodi and the current prime minister, Matteo Renzi
(albeit only in a 2014 European election). Both of them treated Mr.
Berlusconi as an ordinary opponent. They focused on the issues, not on
his character. In different ways, both of them are seen as outsiders,
not as members of what in Italy is defined as the political caste.
The
Democratic Party should learn this lesson. It should not do as the
Republicans did after President Obama was elected. Their preconceived
opposition to any of his initiatives poisoned the Washington well,
fueling the anti-establishment reaction (even if it was a successful
electoral strategy for the party). There are plenty of Trump proposals
that Democrats can agree with, like new infrastructure investments. Most
Democrats, including politicians like Mrs. Clinton and Bernie Sanders
and economists like Lawrence Summers and Paul Krugman, have pushed the
idea of infrastructure as a way to increase demand and to expand
employment among non-college-educated workers. Some details might be
different from a Republican plan, but it will add credibility to the
Democratic opposition if it tries to find the points in common, not just
differences.
And
an opposition focused on personality would crown Mr. Trump as the
people’s leader of the fight against the Washington caste. It would also
weaken the opposition voice on the issues, where it is important to
conduct a battle of principles.
Democrats
should also offer Mr. Trump help against the Republican establishment,
an offer that would reveal whether his populism is empty language or a
real position. For example, with Mr. Trump’s encouragement, the Republican platform called for reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act, which would separate investment and commercial banking.
The Democrats should declare their support of this separation, a policy
that many Republicans oppose. The last thing they should want is for
Mr. Trump to use the Republican establishment as a fig leaf for his own
failure, dumping on it the responsibility for blocking the popular
reforms that he promised during the campaign and probably never intended
to pass. That will only enlarge his image as a hero of the people
shackled by the elites.
Finally,
the Democratic Party should also find a credible candidate among young
leaders, one outside the party’s Brahmins. The news that Chelsea Clinton
is considering running for office
is the worst possible. If the Democratic Party is turning into a
monarchy, how can it fight the autocratic tendencies in Mr. Trump?
Luigi Zingales, a professor
of entrepreneurship and finance at the Booth School of Business at the
University of Chicago, is the author of “A Capitalism for the People:
Recapturing the Lost Genius of American Prosperity.”
It’s
been ten days since Donald Trump won the White House. But for the
demagogue’s detractors, it’s felt like centuries — long medieval
centuries, chock-full of plague, illiteracy, and barbarians running
roughshod through the ruins of the old republic.
But
we’re not actually living in the dark ages (yet). So we might as well
shed some light on what the barbarians have already wrought.
At
Daily Intelligencer, we’ll be taking a weekly inventory of all of
Donald Trump’s most jaw-dropping, stomach-churning, spine-tingling
affronts to liberal democracy. Here’s a quick rundown of everything the
president-elect has already accomplished.
Derided protestors as paid professionals whose acts of free speech are fundamentally “unfair.”
American presidents generally try not to discredit their detractors via patently false right-wing conspiracy theories
— a point that someone on Trump’s staff apparently relayed to him, as
the president-elect’s Twitter account declared its “love” of the
protestors’ “passion” nine hours later.
Invited the manager of his “blind trust” to a meeting with the prime minister of Japan.
Even before his election, Trump had already made a mockery of good government norms, by refusing to extricate himself from the myriad conflicts of interest
his company presents. Instead, the president-elect promised to place
his assets into what he refers to as a “blind trust,” but is actually an
entity that would allow him perfect knowledge of the assets he holds —
and that would be managed by his children, who are also members of his
transition team.
This week, Trump revealed that those children will also, apparently, take part in diplomatic meetings with the leaders of foreign countries.
Assembled a team of racists to lead his White House.
First, Trump tapped the allegedly anti-Semitic mastermind of an “alt-right” website as his chief White House strategist. Then, the president-elect tapped a retired general who believes that “fear of Muslims is rational” as his national security adviser. Finally, he named a man that a Republican Senate deemed too racist to serve
as a federal judge in 1986 — one who thinks the Voting Rights Act is
“intrusive,” and (allegedly) told an African-American federal prosecutor
that he should “be careful what you say around white folks” — as the
head of the Justice Department.
Took
credit for the fact that Ford will not be relocating a plant to Mexico
(which they never had any intention of relocating to Mexico).
In
truth, Ford opted to keep the Lincoln SUV production line in Kentucky,
after considering moving it to Mexico — but in either event, the plant
would have remained open, and no jobs would have been lost. But fake news outlets — and some not-so-rigorous “real” ones — celebrated Trump’s “victory,” anyway.
Declared America’s leading newspaper a “failing” institution.
Trump
has made a years-long habit of denigrating any media institution that
accurately reports information he doesn’t like. But the stakes of this
behavior are drastically higher now that he leads the world’s most
powerful country.
Abandoned his press pool.
Presidents-elect
typically feel compelled to allow a pool of reporters to travel with
them to public events, as a gesture to the public’s right to have a
watchful eye on its leader. Trump feels no such compulsion.
Floated
the idea of hiring his son-in-law to a White House position, in
possible defiance of laws against nepotism and norms against conflicts
of interest.
Public officials are barred from hiring family members
to agencies that they have authority over. They also, generally, avoid
hiring the significant others of the heads of their blind trusts.
Took calls from foreign leaders on unsecured phone lines, without consulting the State Department.
Trump
spent the 2016 campaign savaging Hillary Clinton for her reckless
violation of the State Department’s protocols for transmitting
information. He has spent the past week taking calls from foreign
leaders — on the unprotected phone lines of Trump Tower — without first soliciting pertinent briefings, in defiance of longstanding practice. Referred to his White House transition as though it were the next season of The Apprentice.
THE BLOG
History Tells Us What Will Happen Next With Brexit And Trump
Note: this essay contains a lot of links out, which are underlined. Consider them further reading or me backing up my opinions.
It seems we’re entering another of those stupid seasons humans impose on themselves at fairly regular intervals.
My background is archaeology, so also history and anthropology. It
leads me to look at big historical patterns. My theory is that most
peoples’ perspective of history is limited to the experience
communicated by their parents and grandparents, so 50-100 years. To go
beyond that you have to read, study and learn to untangle the propaganda
that is inevitable in all telling of history. In a nutshell, at
university I would fail a paper if I didn’t compare at least two, if not
three opposing views on a topic. Taking one telling of events as gospel
doesn’t wash in the comparative analytical method of research that
forms the core of British academia. (I can’t speak for other systems,
but they’re definitely not all alike in this way.)
So zooming out,
we humans have a habit of going into phases of mass destruction,
generally self-imposed to some extent or another. This handy list
shows all the wars over time. Wars are actually the norm for humans,
but every now and then something big comes along. I am interested in the
Black Death, which devastated Europe. The opening of Boccaccio’s
Decameron describes Florence in
the grips of the Plague. It is as beyond imagination as the Somme,
Hiroshima or the Holocaust. I mean, you quite literally can’t put
yourself there and imagine what it was like. For those in the midst of
the Plague, it must have felt like the end of the world.
[Trump is] a charismatic narcissist who feeds on the crowd to become ever stronger, creating a cult around himself.
But a defining
feature of humans is their resilience. To us now, it seems obvious that
we survived the Plague, but to people at the time it must have seemed
incredible that their society continued afterwards. Indeed, many takes
on the effects of the Black Death are that it had a positive impact in the long term. Well summed up here:
By targeting
frail people of all ages, and killing them by the hundreds of thousands
within an extremely short period of time, the Black Death might have
represented a strong force of natural selection and removed the weakest
individuals on a very broad scale within Europe,” ...In addition, the
Black Death significantly changed the social structure of some European
regions. Tragic depopulation created the shortage of working people.
This shortage caused wages to rise. Products prices fell too.
Consequently, standards of living increased. For instance, people
started to consume more food of higher quality.
But for the
people living through it, as with the World Wars, Soviet Famines,
Holocaust, it must have felt inconceivable that humans could rise up
from it. The collapse of the Roman Empire, Black Death, Spanish
Inquisition, Thirty Years War, War of the Roses, English Civil War...
it’s a long list. Events of massive destruction from which humanity
recovered and move on, often in better shape.
At a local
level in time, people think things are fine — then things rapidly spiral
out of control until they become unstoppable, and we wreak massive
destruction on ourselves. For the people living in the midst of this, it
is hard to see happening and hard to understand. To historians later,
it all makes sense and we see clearly how one thing led to another.
During the Centenary of the Battle of the Somme I was struck that it was a direct outcome of the assassination of an Austrian Arch Duke in Bosnia.
I very much doubt anyone at the time thought the killing of a minor
European royal would lead to the death of 17 million people.
My point is
that this is a cycle. It happens again and again, but as most people
only have a 50-100 year historical perspective they don’t see that it’s
happening again. As the events that led to the First World War unfolded,
there were a few brilliant minds who started to warn that something big
was wrong, that the web of treaties across Europe could lead to a war,
but they were dismissed as hysterical, mad, or fools, as is always the
way, and as people who worry about Putin, Brexit and Trump are dismissed
now.
A little thing leads to an unstoppable destruction that could have been prevented if you’d listened and thought a bit.
Then after the
War to end all Wars, we went and had another one. Again, for a historian
it was quite predictable. Lead people to feel they have lost control of
their country and destiny, people look for scapegoats, a charismatic
leader captures the popular mood, and singles out that scapegoat. He
talks in rhetoric that has no detail, and drums up anger and hatred.
Soon the masses start to move as one, without any logic driving their
actions, and the whole becomes unstoppable.
That was
Hitler, but it was also Mussolini, Stalin, Putin, Mugabe and so many
more. Mugabe is a very good case in point. He whipped up national anger
and hatred towards the land owning white minority (who happened to know
how to run farms), and seized their land to redistribute to the people,
in a great populist move which in the end unravelled the economy and
farming industry and left the people in possession of land, but
starving. See also the famines created by the Soviet Union, and the one caused by the Chinese Communists
last century in which 20-40 million people died. It seems inconceivable
that people could create a situation in which tens of millions of
people die without reason, but we do it again and again.
But at the time
people don’t realize they’re embarking on a route that will lead to a
destruction period. They think they’re right, they’re cheered on by
jeering angry mobs, their critics are mocked. This cycle, the one we saw
for example from the Treaty of Versaille, to the rise of Hitler, to the
Second World War, appears to be happening again. But as with before,
most people cannot see it because:
1. They are only looking at the present, not the past or future
2. They are only looking immediately around them, not at how events connect globally
3. Most people don’t read, think, challenge or hear opposing views
Trump is doing this in America. Those of us with some oversight from history can see it happening. Read this brilliant, long essay in the New York magazine
to understand how Plato described all this, and it is happening just as
he predicted. Trump says he will Make America Great Again, when in fact
America is currently great, according to pretty well any statistics. He
is using passion, anger and rhetoric in the same way all his
predecessors did — a charismatic narcissist who feeds on the crowd to
become ever stronger, creating a cult around himself. You can blame
society, politicians, the media, for America getting to the point that
it’s ready for Trump, but the bigger historical picture is that history
generally plays out the same way each time someone like him becomes the
boss.
On a wider
stage, zoom out some more, Russia is a dictatorship with a charismatic
leader using fear and passion to establish a cult around himself. Turkey
is now there too. Hungary, Poland, Slovakia are heading that way, and
across Europe more Trumps and Putins are waiting in the wings, in fact funded by Putin, waiting for the popular tide to turn their way.
We should be
asking ourselves what our Archduke Ferdinand moment will be. How will an
apparently small event trigger another period of massive destruction.
We see Brexit, Trump, Putin in isolation. The world does not work that
way — all things are connected and affecting each other. I have
pro-Brexit friends who say, “Oh, you’re going to blame that on
Brexit too??” But they don’t realize that actually, yes, historians will
trace neat lines from apparently unrelated events back to major
political and social shifts like Brexit.
We are entering a bad phase. It will be unpleasant
for those living through it, maybe even will unravel into being hellish
and beyond imagination.
Brexit — a
group of angry people winning a fight — easily inspires other groups of
angry people to start a similar fight, empowered with the idea that they
may win. That alone can trigger chain reactions. A nuclear explosion is
not caused by one atom splitting, but by the impact of the first atom
that splits causing multiple other atoms near it to split, and they in
turn causing multiple atoms to split. The exponential increase in atoms
splitting, and their combined energy is the bomb. That is how World War
One started and, ironically how World War Two ended.
An example of how Brexit could lead to a nuclear war could be this:
Brexit in the
UK causes Italy or France to have a similar referendum. Le Pen wins an
election in France. Europe now has a fractured EU. The EU, for all its
many awful faults, has prevented a war in Europe for longer than ever
before. The EU is also a major force in suppressing Putin’s military
ambitions. European sanctions on Russia really hit the economy, and
helped temper Russia’s attacks on Ukraine (there is a reason bad guys
always want a weaker European Union). Trump wins in the US. Trump
becomes isolationist, which weakens NATO. He has already said he would not automatically honor NATO commitments in the face of a Russian attack on the Baltics.
With a
fractured EU, and weakened NATO, Putin, facing an ongoing economic and
social crisis in Russia, needs another foreign distraction around which
to rally his people. He funds far right anti-EU activists in Latvia, who
then create a reason for an uprising of the Russian Latvians in the
East of the country (the EU border with Russia). Russia sends “peace
keeping forces” and “aid lorries” into Latvia, as it did in Georgia, and
in Ukraine. He cedes Eastern Latvia as he did Eastern Ukraine (Crimea
has the same population as Latvia, by the way).
A divided
Europe, with the leaders of France, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and
others now pro-Russia, anti-EU, and funded by Putin, overrule calls for
sanctions or a military response. NATO is slow to respond: Trump does not want America to be involved,
and a large part of Europe is indifferent or blocking any action.
Russia, seeing no real resistance to their actions, move further into
Latvia, and then into Eastern Estonia and Lithuania. The Baltic States
declare war on Russia and start to retaliate, as they have now been
invaded so have no choice. Half of Europe sides with them, a few
countries remain neutral, and a few side with Russia. Where does Turkey
stand on this? How does ISIS respond to a new war in Europe? Who uses a
nuclear weapon first?
This is just
one Arch Duke Ferdinand scenario. The number of possible scenarios are
infinite due to the massive complexity of the many moving parts. And of
course many of them lead to nothing happening. But based on history we
are due another period of destruction, and based on history all the
indicators are that we are entering one.
It will come in
ways we can’t see coming, and will spin out of control so fast people
won’t be able to stop it. Historians will look back and make sense of it
all and wonder how we could all have been so naïve. How could I sit in a
nice café in London, writing this, without wanting to run away. How
could people read it and make sarcastic and dismissive comments about
how pro-Remain people should stop whining, and how we shouldn’t blame
everything on Brexit. Others will read this and sneer at me for saying
America is in great shape, that Trump is a possible future Hitler (and
yes, Godwin’s Law.
But my comparison is to another narcissistic, charismatic leader
fanning flames of hatred until things spiral out of control). It’s easy
to jump to conclusions that oppose pessimistic predictions based on the
weight of history and learning. Trump won against the other Republicans
in debates by countering their claims by calling them names and
dismissing them. It’s an easy route but the wrong one.
Ignoring and
mocking the experts, as people are doing around Brexit and Trump’s
campaign, is no different to ignoring a doctor who tells you to stop
smoking, and then finding later you’ve developed incurable cancer. A
little thing leads to an unstoppable destruction that could have been
prevented if you’d listened and thought a bit. But people smoke, and
people die from it. That is the way of the human.
We need to find a way to bridge from our closed groups to other closed groups, try to cross the ever widening social divides.
So I feel it’s
all inevitable. I don’t know what it will be, but we are entering a bad
phase. It will be unpleasant for those living through it, maybe even
will unravel into being hellish and beyond imagination. Humans will come
out the other side, recover and move on. The human race will be fine,
changed, maybe better. But for those at the sharp end — for the
thousands of Turkish teachers who just got fired, for the Turkish
journalists and lawyers in prison, for the Russian dissidents in gulags,
for people lying wounded in French hospitals after terrorist attacks,
for those yet to fall, this will be their Somme.
What can we do? Well, again, looking back, probably not much. The liberal intellectuals are always in the minority. See Clay Shirky’s Twitter Storm
on this point. The people who see that open societies, being nice to
other people, not being racist, not fighting wars, is a better way to
live, they generally end up losing these fights. They don’t fight dirty.
They are terrible at appealing to the populace. They are less violent,
so end up in prisons, camps, and graves. We need to beware not to become
divided (see: Labour party), we need to avoid getting lost in arguing
through facts and logic, and counter the populist messages of passion
and anger with our own similar messages. We need to understand and use
social media.
We need to harness a different fear. Fear of another World War nearly stopped World War 2, but didn’t. We need to avoid our own echo chambers.
Trump and Putin supporters don’t read the Guardian, so writing there is
just reassuring our friends. We need to find a way to bridge from our
closed groups to other closed groups, try to cross the ever widening
social divides.
(Perhaps I’m just writing this so I can be remembered by history as one of the people who saw it coming.)
____________________
A version of this post originally appeared on Medium.
I have replied to some of the comments on this essay here.
Hillary Clinton’s Popular-Vote Victory Is Unprecedented—and Still Growing
Her margin is now bigger than the winning margins for John Kennedy and Richard Nixon.
Hillary Clinton now leads
the national popular vote for president by roughly one million votes,
and her victory margin is expanding rapidly. That margin could easily
double before the end of an arduous process of counting ballots,
reviewing results, and reconciling numbers for an official total. But one thing is certain: Clinton’s win is unprecedented in
the modern history of American presidential politics. And the numbers
should focus attention on the democratic dysfunction that has been
exposed.
When a candidate who wins the popular vote does not take
office, when a loser is instead installed in the White House, that is
an issue. And it raises questions that must be addressed.
So let’s address them:
WHO WON THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE? AND BY HOW MUCH?
Clinton is winning it. The only question now has to do with the size of the win. You will see different numbers
in different counts because keeping on top of the national totals
requires constant monitoring of the results from 50 states and the
District of Columbia. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report maintains
one of the most frequently updated spreadsheets
on the race. One week after the election, it had Clinton with
62,403,269 votes to 61,242,652 for Trump. That puts Clinton ahead by
1.16 million votes. Another able chronicler of the count, Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, also puts Clinton ahead by more than one million votes.
The million-vote figure is a baseline from which to
analyze Clinton’s popular-vote victory. But it is only that—a
baseline—as her margin will continue to expand.
HOW COME NO ONE IS GOING OVER 50 PERCENT?
The previous three US presidential elections saw the winning
candidates win actual majorities of the popular vote. But that won’t
happen this time. As in 18 previous presidential elections, the winner
of the popular vote in this year’s election will achieve only a
plurality of the votes.
More than a million votes have already been counted for
Libertarian Gary Johnson, Green Jill Stein, independent Evan McMullin
and others, according to various counts.
The totals for third-party, independent, and write-in candidates will
rise as the tabulation continues—providing a powerful indication of the
desire for a broader democracy and political alternatives. The high
level of support for third-party and independent candidates also
guarantees that neither major-party candidate will do this year what
Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012: win a majority of the popular vote.
WHY AREN’T ALL THE VOTES COUNTED A WEEK AFTER THE ELECTION?
The United States has no clear and consistent national
standard for holding elections or for counting votes. The rules differ
radically from state to state. In some states, election officials are
already engaged on the process of establishing a final official count.
In other states, ballots are still being counted. The big distinction is
between states that do most of their voting on Election Day and states
that rely heavily on “absentee” ballots and mail voting. It happens that
many of the bigger states that make it easier to vote (at the polls and
by mail) are states that favored Clinton.
The biggest of these is California,
where Clinton is ahead 62-33 percent at this point. California election
officials explain: “It typically takes weeks for counties to process
and count all of the ballots. Elections officials have approximately one
month (28 days for presidential electors and 30 days for all other
contests) to complete their extensive tallying, auditing, and
certification work (known as the ‘official canvass’) Most notably,
voting by mail has increased significantly in recent years and many
vote-by-mail ballots arrive on, or up to three days after, Election Day
(vote-by-mail ballots postmarked on or before Election Day and received
by the county elections official no later than three days after the
election are included in the canvass). In processing vote-by-mail
ballots, elections officials must confirm each voter’s registration
status, verify each voter’s signature on the vote-by-mail envelope, and
ensure each person did not vote elsewhere in the same election before
the ballot can be counted. Other ballots that are processed after
Election Day include provisional ballots (processed similar to
vote-by-mail ballots), and ballots that are damaged or cannot be
machine-read and must be remade by elections officials.”
As on November 11, according to the state’s updated “Estimated Unprocessed Ballots” report,
more than one million ballots were as yet uncounted in Los Angeles
County. Two days later, San Diego County reported that it has more than
600,000 ballots to count.
BUT THE HEADLINES JUST TALK ABOUT DONALD TRUMP WINNING?
Elite media outlets do not, for the most part, have an
interest in vote counts and what they mean. Coverage of the 2016
election campaign confirmed the extent to which major media are more
interested in personalities than facts on the ground. The television
networks like to declare a “winner” and then get focused on the palace
intrigues surrounding a transition of power. Those intrigues are worth
covering. But perspective on the will of the people get lost.
Election-night numbers get locked in, and that’s that. There may be a
notation that Clinton won “a narrow popular-vote” margin, but rarely is
there a deep dive—even as the “narrow” margin grows to something much
more substantial.
It was announced on election night that the Republican
nominee had secured a sufficient number of Electoral College votes to
claim the presidency. With the counts continuing, and with recounts a
possibility, the Electoral College totals as of one week after the
election project that Trump will win 306 electoral votes, as opposed to
232 for Clinton. The Trump figure is 36 more than is needed to reach the
270 total that is required to claim the presidency. Trump will almost
certainly stay above the 270 threshold, although he could still lose a
state (such as Michigan, where he leads by less than 13,000 votes) or
win one (such as New Hampshire, where Clinton is up by around 3,000
votes). The results in a number of battleground states were so close
that a shift of around 55,000 votes
in three states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) would align the
national popular vote result with the Electoral College result for a
Clinton win.
What is important here is to recognize that there was no
Trump mandate, in the popular vote (which he lost by a significant
margin) or in the Electoral College (which he won narrowly, thanks to
close results that tipped a handful of states in his favor). Notably,
Trump’s total fell below 50 percent in the majority of states; he lost
20 states and the District of Columbia, and in at least seven additional
states he leads, but without a majority of the vote.
IS CLINTON’S POPULAR-VOTE VICTORY UNPRECEDENTED?
Yes. Clinton has already won the popular vote by a
dramatically larger number of ballots than anyone in history who did not
go on to be inaugurated as president.
There have been cases
in the past where popular-vote winners have not become president. Three
of them occurred in the 19th century, before the majority of Americans
were allowed to vote. Before this year, there was only one instance in
the modern era when a popular-vote winner was denied the presidency by
the Electoral College. That was in 2000, when Democrat Al Gore beat
Republican George W. Bush by 543,816 votes nationally.
Clinton’s popular-vote margin over that of Trump is now
greater than that of Richard Nixon over Hubert Humphrey in 1968, and
that of John Kennedy over Nixon in 1960.
Clinton is now winning roughly 47.8 percent of the vote, according to David Wasserman’s count for the Cook report. That’s a little less than the level reached by Gore in 2000.
As Clinton’s popular-vote margin increases, so, too, will her
percentage. It is possible that she will win the popular vote with the
highest percentage of anyone who has not taken office.
But the percentage that matters is Trump’s. The
Republican nominee will become president with less popular support than a
number of major-party candidates who lost races for the presidency.
Trump is now at 47.0 percent of the popular vote, according to the Cook
count. That is a lower percentage than were won by Mitt Romney in 2012,
John Kerry in 2004, Gore in 2000, or Gerald Ford in 1976.
IS THIS ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON AND DONALD TRUMP?
No. Supporters of Clinton and critics of Clinton can kvetch
about the virtues of her candidacy, and about what remains of the
Democratic Party, for as long as their voices hold out. And Trump
supporters can certainly announce that “the rules are the rules.” But
this is about a higher principle than partisanship, and about something
that matters more than personalities. This is about democracy itself.
When the winner of an election does not take office, and when the loser
does, we have evidence of a system that is structurally rigged. Those
who favor a rigged system can defend it—and make empty arguments about
small states versus big states that neglect the fact that many of the
country’s smallest states (Delaware, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, and Vermont) backed the popular-vote winner. But those who favor
democracy ought to join their voices in support of reform.
There are national movements to address the mess that is made when the Electoral College trumps democracy. There are petitions that call for abolishing the Electoral College. California Senator Barbara Boxer
this week proposed a constitutional amendment to do just that, saying:
“This is the only office in the land where you can get more votes and
still lose the presidency. The Electoral College is an outdated,
undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it
needs to change immediately.”
There is also the bipartisan National Popular Vote initiative. Promoted by the reform group FairVote,
it commits states to respect the national popular vote (as part of a
multi-state compact in which states with a majority of electoral votes
commit to assign them to the candidate who gets the most votes) and to
ending the absurdity of elections in which losers can become presidents.
IF SOMEONE TELLS ME I SHOULD “GET OVER IT,” HOW SHOULD I RESPOND?
Just tell them that you agree with Donald Trump, who in 2012 described the Electoral College a “disaster for democracy.” On Sunday, he told CBS’s 60 Minutes
that he still agrees with himself—even if he is not prepared to defer
to the will of the people in this instance. “I would rather see it where
you went with simple votes,” Trump explained. “You know, you get 100
million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win.”
Video
Mr.
Tigerli in China Copyright 2016 by Letizia Mancino translation by Mary Holmes All rights reserved
Yes Betty, either or it seems he wanted to fly only with
Singapore Airways.
Boeing or Airbus, it’s just the same
isn’t it? Aren’t they both just fat birds with 500 passengers?
Yes, but Singapore Airlines has the
most beautiful airhostesses: delicate, fine, graceful…Mr. Tigerli had looked forward to the flight
so much!
So the little man was disappointed?
You just can’t imagine how disappointed
he was.
But thank God one of the hostesses was a
pretty Chinese girl. Mr. Tigerli purred loudly but she didn’t hear him because
the purring of the Airbus 380 was even louder.
The poor cat!
You’ve said it Betty. Mr. Tigerli was
in a very bad mood and asked me for a loud speaker.
I’m sure you can get one in 1st
Class.
“”Russian Girl” had even heard you over
the roar of the Niagara Falls” I said to Mr. Tigerli. “You are a very
unfaithful cat. You wanted to get to know Asiatic girls. That’s how it is when
one leaves one’s first love”.
And what did he say to that?
“Men are hunters” was his answer.
Yes, my dear cat, a mouse hunter. And
what else did he say?
Not another word. He behaved as if he
hadn’t heard me.
The Airbus is very loud.
I told him shortly “Don’t trouble
yourself about “Chinese Girl”. There will be enough even prettier girls in
China. Wait till we land in Guilin”.
Did he understand you?
Naturally Mr. Tigerli understood me
immediately. Yes, sweetheart, don’t worry. They will find you something sweet
to eat.
And he?
He was so happy.
No problem going through the immigration
control?
Naturally!Lots of problems. How could I explain to
customs that the cat had come as a tourist to China to buy shoes?
Fur in exchange for shoes…
Don’t be so cynical Betty!
Cat meat in exchange for shoes?
I said to the officials. He isn’t a cat, he is Casanova.
