MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
Hits of the Day
Trump Lawyers’ Sudden Realization: They Don’t Know What Don McGahn Told Mueller’s Team
By artappraiser on Sun, 08/19/2018 - 8:16pm |
URL:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/19/us/politics/don-mcgahn-trump-mueller.html
- Add new comment
- 9283 reads
Comments
Hence: Giuliani: ‘Truth isn’t truth’ ?
by artappraiser on Sun, 08/19/2018 - 8:18pm
Well, there are always “Alternative Facts.”
Is that the same as “Truthiness?” Or does it fall into the “Truth isn’t true” genre?
by CVille Dem on Sun, 08/19/2018 - 8:31pm
CVille Dem... Let a pro explain it...
======
~OGD~
by oldenGoldenDecoy on Sun, 08/19/2018 - 9:33pm
by artappraiser on Sun, 08/19/2018 - 11:07pm
Saying nonsense like "Truth is not truth" is just a polite way of saying fuck you. It is denying the very idea of a public space of investigation, argument, debate, deliberation, justification, and ultimately responsibility. It is a way of saying that the president is not answerable to anyone. It is a radical but natural extension of Cheney's argument that the people get a say every four years and can be ignored the rest of the time.
The media's doing a poor job of explaining how closely Truth and rule of law are tied together. We arguably wouldn't have a notion of truth without Greek proto-democracy, rule of law and institutions of public debate and argument. If you weaken the institutions both formal and informal that sustain the notion of truth, you can't go around complaining about how stupid it is to say "truth is not truth". Everything is stupid. Truth doesn't have some sort of magical existential property that maintains its vitality and relevance if you don't sustain it.
by Obey on Mon, 08/20/2018 - 9:48am
The spokesperson for the President (or one of them anyway) has stepped back from the consequences of recently collapsing the shared experience of the actual world as a necessary presupposition for common discourse to assert that there is no way to distinguish the merits of one narrative from another.
I am not sure this adjustment signals an advance.
by moat on Mon, 08/20/2018 - 7:36pm
It must have been fun to have gotten that call from Yates warning that Flynn was a criminal on the first days on the job.
Want anything from Starbucks, Don?
by moat on Sun, 08/19/2018 - 9:31pm
I would venture that should the NYT run a caption contest for the photo they are using for this article, your comment certainly would be right up there.
by artappraiser on Sun, 08/19/2018 - 9:51pm
retweeted by Ezra Klein (whom I follow) presumably because this PoliSci dude who is sometimes on his payroll @ Vox is making a really good point:
by artappraiser on Sun, 08/19/2018 - 9:39pm
by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 08/20/2018 - 9:37am
How bout you & Trump get a room - you're practically married already.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 08/20/2018 - 1:37pm
Clippity-clop ...
by barefooted on Mon, 08/20/2018 - 3:22pm
Almost all criminal conspiracies are revealed and taken down because one of the co-conspirators flips, usually a low level operative. "Rat" is a derogatory mafia term used by those who have no trouble with the murders, theft, and corruption of institutions by the criminal enterprise instead only condemn those who reveal it to the public. Co-conspirators can flip for self serving reasons or as seems to be the case with John Dean, eventual disgust over how deep he got into criminal behavior. One doesn't need to honor those who flip. The question becomes: What do you hate more? The criminal conspiracy or the one who reveals it? Trump clearly hates those who testify against the criminals more than the criminals themselves. I think that comes from fear, the same fear of the mafia dons. Fear that a co-conspirator will reveal his criminal enterprise.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 08/20/2018 - 4:03pm
has quite a few other interesting things to say lately @JohnWDean
by artappraiser on Sun, 08/19/2018 - 11:28pm
Also CNN video John Dean responds to Trump's 'RAT' tweet live via phone, 5 hrs. ago, Duration: 03:08 (via MSN.com)
by artappraiser on Sun, 08/19/2018 - 11:35pm
In regards to Trump's legal team being surprised by this development, David Graham of the Atlantic does a good job of pulling the various reporting from the NYT and other sources by asking the musical question: Are Trump’s Lawyers an Asset or a Liability?
It should be read in the context of the whole article but this bit shows how even those who ardently want to help Trump are at wits end with a difficult client who makes poor decisions:
Of course, a quick stropping of Occam's Razor suggests that Trump didn't worry about all these details because he doesn't understand that he has a job now and is no longer running a real estate company.
by moat on Mon, 08/20/2018 - 5:20pm
Maggie Haberman, who seems to have covered Trump the longest and with the most depth, claims in this very interesting video that Trump has no long term strategy. He says what ever he thinks is what he needs to say in the moment.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 08/20/2018 - 5:26pm
At Trump Called Manafort a Crook:
DT can not not lie. It's how he survives. Call someone a crook today, and the very best people tomorrow. It's all based on what he needs at any given moment, and how he can keep from feeling shame. He has no other drivers. None of it makes sense to the rest of us. It totally makes sense to him. He doesn't remember what he said from one minute to the next.
by NCD on Mon, 08/20/2018 - 6:54pm
That video is very interesting.
The comparisons with previous administrations' attempts to control the narrative is helpful as means of comparison.
The call to other members of the press to change how they work is refreshing because she is squaring up with the problem of being trolled and just doesn't claim the casino has a shocking amount of gambling going on. She is trying to adapt to changes and looking beyond the immediate circumstances.
The straight forward descriptions of the mechanics of how information is put forth from the White House helps support the press in the role of reporting what can be seen. The whole objectivity thing.
In regard to Trump seeking approval as a primary motive, Haberman observes
"The funny thing is when he gets it, it is not enough."
So, if Trump is only pursuing this from a reality show framework, the actual agenda is being carried out by those savvy enough to take advantage of the distraction.
by moat on Mon, 08/20/2018 - 7:01pm
But will she change how she works? She mentions the use of Twitter as a means for journalists to connect not only with each other, but the public. She's also recently claimed she's backing away a bit from that (the video precedes that, I think). It's known that she is one of a few Trump media darlings, despite his occasional lambasting, and it's certainly added leverage to her career. Not to mention her reports. Or the NYT. I just question her point, because most of what she said about Trump, his WH, the administration and the media ... etc. ... is known.
It was a good video because it gave those of us on the left an hours worth of what we want to hear from a serious journalist. But it didn't give us anything new.
by barefooted on Mon, 08/20/2018 - 7:46pm
The video is not telling us anything new. Her report is more about what is not happening than an explanation of what is going on. And what the real thing may be is as difficult to figure out as it has always been.
What struck me about the presentation is that she is exhausted by the process and wants the listener to understand just one thing. The character, motivations driving the POTUS, and why they are shoved into our face, are exactly what they appear to be.
What else is happening and how those agendas are being carried out at the same time are not as transparent.
by moat on Mon, 08/20/2018 - 8:46pm
I think she is sick and tired of him and disgusted by him after being inside his head for so many years and would love to be on another beat--would love a divorce as it were. I sense that she never wanted to be an expert in all things Donald Trump, but-sigh-ended up that. And now feels since she has the experience and he is so dangerous as president that it's the right thing to do to continue, like not getting a divorce because you're staying for the children
I recognize the syndrome because at my age there are some things I have become very expert at that now bore me to tears and I probably affect that weary tone when speaking on them, it's either that or get real sarcastic. I'm sure I'm not the only one here like that, it's a common thing among news junkies, I find. It's not a moral question for me to continue to work in those areas, though, just a monetary one.
by artappraiser on Mon, 08/20/2018 - 8:55pm
It's not a moral question for me to continue to work in those areas, though, just a monetary one.
As, I believe, it is for Haberman. She's writing and talking about Trump, while being paid to do so. She is a favorite of his - good and bad - which ups her stead. The very fact that she has covered him for so long lends her credence when she writes/talks about him. Consider this: if given the choice, would she give up the beat?
by barefooted on Mon, 08/20/2018 - 9:16pm
What struck me about the presentation is that she is exhausted by the process and wants the listener to understand just one thing. The character, motivations driving the POTUS, and why they are shoved into our face, are exactly what they appear to be.
I don't mean to come across as anti-Maggie. But what's the difference between her remarks then and her reporting now?
by barefooted on Mon, 08/20/2018 - 9:20pm
Short version, for those w/o an hour for the video:
Hoarsewhisperer:
The key thing to remember in watching Trump is that there are literally only two things
1) Fight to the death to avoid being seen as shameful or
2/ Doing whatever it takes to make the people right in front of him think he's powerful, important and special. That's it.
by NCD on Mon, 08/20/2018 - 7:52pm
Thanks for sharing the video. I've imbibed a lot of what she says there from reading her tweets over months but it is helpful to to have her summary round up.
From the video, here's two things on the whole "truth" and narcissism thing I think are really important, points I have often seen her make on Twitter when she's posting a new story or commenting on some breaking or retweeting someone else's story, so I think she thinks they are important, too:
1) that since the 70's he spent decades turning himself into a commodity for the tabloids and gossip pages; lived by an ethos where all press was good press; used to the transactional nature of the tabloids...
So this is what he thinks the media is about. She thinks that only recently is he "adjusting" to notion that press corps assigned to the White House not there to tell his story but the story of what is happening with this government and to hold people in the government accountable.
It's still mostly about him and is like he doesn't get the concept of reporting something that is not P.R. as it were, as if he can't even conceive of why someone would just tell facts without spin, because to him it's not a story. Like if it's not a good narrative that would fascinate people, spin it so it is. .Back before he ran for president he used to describe stories as "negative" or unfair" he still uses those same words and whether they were accurate or not, the stories, was a secondary concern, what mattered was whether they conveyed an image that he liked
2) what the president sees on TV drives policy to an extant that still surprises people both inside and outside the White House
by artappraiser on Mon, 08/20/2018 - 8:46pm
Perhaps inevitable but interesting the extent to which this thread exemplifies the old joke:
Probably fitting given Maggie's subject . In both meanings of the term.
What I (ah, finally) was struck by was the anecdote about Trump remarking to some reporters that he was disappointed by something subordinate A had done. The reporters reported that. And various WH people complained that this reporting itself would get A in trouble.
The press :
The WH people:
by Flavius on Tue, 08/21/2018 - 12:07am
yeah, was nearly lol on the last! (always good to see ya comment, Flav.)
by artappraiser on Tue, 08/21/2018 - 12:41am
by artappraiser on Wed, 08/29/2018 - 2:19pm
by artappraiser on Wed, 08/29/2018 - 4:37pm
by artappraiser on Wed, 08/29/2018 - 4:44pm
Wow!
by artappraiser on Wed, 08/29/2018 - 4:46pm
The Hill on Grassley's reply tweet (and also one from Kellyanne's hubb):
Grassley to Trump: You can't let McGahn leave
by artappraiser on Wed, 08/29/2018 - 4:53pm