The Commentariat -- Nov. 19, 2018

Late Morning/Afternoon Update:

Maria Sacchetti of the Washington Post: "Attorneys for immigrant advocacy groups on Monday are asking a federal judge in San Francisco to block the Trump administration from automatically denying asylum protections to migrants who illegally cross the border into the United States. The hearing underway before U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar in the Northern District of California comes as thousands of Central Americans are waiting in Tijuana to apply for permission to enter lawfully. But they are facing longer wait times and an increasingly inhospitable environment in Mexico that could compel them to sneak over the border instead."

Motoko Rich of the New York Times: "The Nissan chairman, Carlos Ghosn, was arrested on Monday after an internal company investigation found that he had underreported his compensation to the Japanese financial authorities for several years. Nissan said it was cooperating with Japanese prosecutors. It also said that it had opened its inquiry after a whistle-blower alleged that Mr. Ghosn had been misrepresenting his salary as well as using company assets for personal use. Both he and a director, Greg Kelly, who was also accused of misconduct, were taken in by authorities, the company said."

Derek Thompson in the Atlantic on how the media could handle Trump's lies: "Is it hopeless to smother the president's lies? In the biggest picture, yes. The news media cannot kill the virus. But by refusing to host it, they can at least limit the spread. That is, even as they acknowledge their inability to reform the tens of millions of people predisposed to believe and share the president's nonsense, they can protect their audiences with a combination of selective abstinence (being cautious about giving over headlines, tweets, and news segments to the president's rhetoric, particularly when he's spreading fictitious hate speech) and aggressive contextualization (consistently bracketing his direct quotes with the relevant truth). Call it an epistemic quarantine." Thompson points out that half the American public believes Trump's lies, & this: "... the top-performing stories on Facebook in the run-up to the midterms were shared by highly partisan websites such as Fox News and rushlimbaugh.com, not traditional, reporting-based outlets."

Betsy Woodruff & Sam Stein of the Daily Beast: "A group of Senate Democrats is suing to block Matt Whitaker from serving as acting attorney general on grounds that his placement in the post was unconstitutional. The suit, which is being filed by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI) in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, is the latest and most aggressive salvo against the Whitaker appointment. Last week, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel defended Whitaker's promotion in a memo that drew immediate criticism for its expansive understanding of the president's power. That view is in hot dispute, including from the state of Maryland, which petitioned a federal judge to stop him from serving on constitutional grounds."

Brian Stelter of CNN: "The White House has issued a new warning to CNN's Jim Acosta, saying his press pass could be revoked again at the end of the month. In response, CNN is asking the U.S. District Court for another emergency hearing." ...

     ... Update. Trump Blinks. Brian Stelter & David Shortell of CNN: "The White House on Monday backed down from its threats to revoke Jim Acosta's press pass. 'Having received a formal reply from your counsel to our letter of November 16, we have made a final determination in this process: your hard pass is restored,' the White House said in a new letter to Acosta. 'Should you refuse to follow these rules in the future, we will take action in accordance with the rules set forth above. The President is aware of this decision and concurs.' The letter detailed several new rules for reporter conduct at presidential press conferences, including 'a single question' from each journalist. Follow-ups will only be permitted 'at the discretion of the President or other White House officials.'The decision reverses a Friday letter by the White House that said Acosta's press pass could be revoked again right after a temporary restraining order granted by a federal judge expires. That letter -- signed by two of the defendants in the suit, press secretary Sarah Sanders and deputy chief of staff for communications Bill Shine -- cited Acosta's conduct at President Trump's November 7 press conference, where he asked multiple follow-up questions and didn't give up the microphone right away."

Matt Shuham of TPM: "Departing with years of tradition, this year's White House Correspondents Association dinner will feature a historian, Ron Chernow, in place of a comedian."

Isaac Stanley-Becker of the Washington Post: "Chickenpox has taken hold of a school in [Asheville,] North Carolina where many families claim religious exemption from vaccines.... The outbreak ranks as the state's worst since the chickenpox vaccine became available more than 20 years ago. Since then, the two-dose course has succeeded in limiting the highly contagious disease that once affected 90 percent of Americans -- a public health breakthrough. The school is a symbol of the small but strong movement against the most effective means of preventing the spread of infectious diseases. The percentage of children under 2 years old who haven't received any vaccinations has quadrupled since 2001, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Like the Disneyland measles outbreak in 2015, the flare-up demonstrates the real-life consequences of a shadowy debate fueled by junk science and fomented by the same sort of Twitter bots and trolls that spread misinformation during the 2016 presidential election."

*****

He Can Be So Presidential. Quint Forgey of Politico: "... in a post Sunday, the president may have coined his crudest nickname yet for a political rival. 'So funny to see little Adam Schitt (D-CA) talking about the fact that Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was not approved by the Senate,' the president wrote online, 'but not mentioning the fact that Bob Mueller (who is highly conflicted) was not approved by the Senate!' Schiff fired back 35 minutes later, quoting the president's post and writing on Twitter: 'Wow, Mr. President, that's a good one. Was that like your answers to Mr. Mueller's questions, or did you write this one yourself?'" Mrs. McC PS: Mueller was "approved by the Senate -- four times. Quint should read Sean Illing's interview of George Lakoff, linked below, & commentary by Patrick, PD Pepe, Akhilleus, et al., today.

Felicia Sonmez of the Washington Post: "President Trump said he would not overrule his acting attorney general, Matthew G. Whitaker, if he decides to curtail the special counsel probe being led by Robert S. Mueller III into Russian interference in the 2016 election campaign. 'Look, it's going to be up to him ... I would not get involved,' Trump said in an interview on 'Fox News Sunday.'... Trump also essentially shut the door to sitting down with Mueller, telling host Chris Wallace that his written answers mean 'probably this is the end' of his involvement in the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. 'I think we've wasted enough time on this witch hunt and the answer is probably: We're finished,' Trump said. He said that he had given 'very complete answers to a lot of questions' and that 'that should solve the problem.'" (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...

... Maggie Haberman of the New York Times: During the interview, "the president also claimed that he had no idea that his acting attorney general, Matthew G. Whitaker, viewed the Mueller investigation skeptically, despite reports that the two had multiple conversations about the inquiry over the past year.... Several news outlets have reported that Mr. Trump and Mr. Whitaker discussed the inquiry in the Oval Office while Mr. Whitaker served as the chief of staff to the attorney general, Jeff Sessions.... His comments on the Mueller investigation marked an apparent reversal from a year of claiming that he was willing and eager to be interviewed by the special counsel.... It remains to be seen whether Mr. Whitaker would sign off on a subpoena for testimony from Mr. Trump if Mr. Mueller sought one; the president's advisers believe that he would not do so.... The president continued to be defensive about his abandoned trip to an American military cemetery during a visit to Paris last week [and] insulted the widely respected retired Navy admiral who oversaw the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.... Mr. Trump ... criticized the retired Navy SEAL commander William H. McRaven, who did not endorse anyone in 2016 but has excoriated the president's leadership in office, as a 'Hillary Clinton fan' when Mr. Wallace mentioned his name. Mr. Trump then suggested that Mr. McRaven did not move fast enough to capture the mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.... 'You're not even going to give them credit for taking down bin Laden?; an incredulous [Chris] Wallace asked." ...

... Paul Sonne of the Washington Post: "The comments ... [about Adm. McRaven] represent the latest point of tension between Trump and a group of retired general officers who have criticized the commander in chief publicly for his handling of national security and military matters.... After Trump revoked former CIA director John Brennan's security clearance in the summer, McRaven wrote an article in The Washington Post defending Brennan as a man of unparalleled integrity and asked the president to revoke his clearance, as well, in solidarity. McRaven also criticized Trump more broadly." ...

... Matt Shuham of TPM: "The retired admiral who oversaw the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011 repeated his criticisms of ... Donald Trump on Sunday after the President attacked him an interview. 'I stand by my comment that the President's attack on the media is the greatest threat to our democracy in my lifetime,' Retired Adm. Bill McRaven said in a statement to CNN, referring to a speech he gave last year. 'When you undermine the people's right to a free press and freedom of speech and expression, then you threaten the Constitution and all for which it stands.'... 'I am a fan of President Obama and President George W. Bush, both of whom I worked for,' he continued. 'I admire all presidents, regardless of their political party, who uphold the dignity of the office and who use that office to bring the nation together in challenging times.'" ...

... Paul Sonne & Philip Rucker of the Washington Post: Trump "has risked alienating parts of the military community by escalating a fight with one of its most revered members, retired Adm. William H. McRaven, amid other recent remarks and decisions that have fanned controversy in the ranks and among some who served.... Former CIA deputy director Michael Morrell pointed out on Twitter that McRaven's forces had nothing to do with locating bin Laden. Morrell said it was the CIA that did the 'finding' and McRaven's forces that did the 'getting,' moving out within days of receiving the order." The reporters run down a list of other ways Trump has offended the military. ...

... Deb Riechmann & Jonathan Lemire of the AP: "... Donald Trump said there is no reason for him to listen to a recording of the 'very violent, very vicious' killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, which has put him in a diplomatic bind: how to admonish Riyadh for the slaying yet maintain strong ties with a close ally. Trump, in an interview that aired Sunday, made clear that the audio recording, supplied by the Turkish government, would not affect his response to the Oct. 2 killing of Khashoggi.... Trump noted to 'Fox News Sunday' that the crown prince has repeatedly denied being involved in the killing inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. 'Will anybody really know?' Trump asked. 'At the same time, we do have an ally, and I want to stick with an ally that in many ways has been very good.'" (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...

... Washington Post Editors: "Saudi Arabia's crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, is brazenly seeking to lie his way out of accountability for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi -- and the Trump administration is helping him do so.... The Treasury Department imposed sanctions on 17 mostly low-level suspects already implicated by the Saudis, while excusing both Mohammed bin Salman and top intelligence officials. Now we learn that Mr. Trump backed the Saudi leader despite a conclusion by the CIA that the prince was, in fact, responsible for ordering Khashoggi's assassination.... As in the case of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election, Mr. Trump is rejecting a firm conclusion by the U.S. intelligence community that he finds politically inconvenient. And as in that instance, Congress should move to base U.S. foreign policy on truth rather than lies." ...

... Felicia Sonmez & Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post: "... Trump maintained in an interview on 'Fox News Sunday' that the crown prince had told him 'maybe five different times' and 'as recently as a few days ago' that he had nothing to do with the killing. Aides have said Trump has been looking for ways to avoid pinning the blame on Mohammed, a close ally who plays a central role in Trump's Middle East policy.... On Sunday, several Republican senators demanded accountability at the highest levels of the Saudi leadership.... Democrats also ramped up their calls for Trump to take a stronger stance.... With frustration mounting, a bipartisan group of senators introduced legislation Thursday that would impose tougher sanctions on Saudi Arabia, including a blanket embargo on the sale of arms to Riyadh for offensive purposes and a ban on U.S. refueling of Saudi planes engaged in Yemen's brutal civil war." ...

... Mark Landler of the New York Times: "As evidence piles up pointing to the Saudi crown prince's responsibility in the brutal killing of the dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi, President Trump has only hardened his refusal to concede any possibility that the prince had a hand in the crime.... The president's remarks [this weekend] were a vivid illustration of how deeply Mr. Trump has invested in the 33-year-old heir, who has become the fulcrum of the administration's strategy in the Middle East -- from Iran to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process -- as well as a prolific shopper for American military weapons, even if most of those contracts have not paid off yet.... For Mr. Trump, it is enough that Prince Mohammed denied any involvement in the killing in phone calls with him. The president's defense of the prince is reminiscent of how he deflects questions about Russia's interference in the 2016 election by saying that President Vladimir V. Putin always denies it when he asks." ...

     ... Mrs. McCrabbie: Other than as a campaign talking point, I suspect peace in the Middle East is of no interest to Trump, so that prospect does not explain his back of Mohammed. I could be wrong, but I think Trump's real motivation in his defense of both Mohammed & Vlad is personal. Besides the Saudis' direct payments to Trump facilities, wealthy Russians buy a lot of Trump properties. Putin could "discourage" any more purchases in rather severe ways. Also too Kompromat. Too cynical of me? Sorry.

AP: "Finland's president isn't sure where ... Donald Trump got the idea that raking is part of his country's routine for managing its substantial forests. Trump told reporters Saturday while visiting the ruins of the Northern California town where a fire killed at least 76 people that wildfires weren't a problem in Finland because crews 'spend a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things' to clear forest floors. Finnish President Sauli Niinisto said in an interview published Sunday in the Ilta-Sanomat newspaper that he spoke briefly with Trump about forest management on Nov. 11, when they both were in Paris for Armistice Day events. Niinisto said their conversation focused on the California wildfires and the surveillance system Finland uses to monitor forests for fires. He remembered telling Trump 'We take care of our forests,' but couldn't recall raking coming up. The U.S. leader's comment generated amusement on social media in Finland, which manages its vast forests with scientific seriousness." ...

... Avi Selk of the Washington Post: "Wherever Trump got the notion that raking parts of California -- be it entire forest floors or the areas around little nut trees -- could have prevented the Camp Fire, not many people seem to agree. The online reaction in Finland alternated between those pointing out that the country has a vastly different climate and population density and those making jokes.... Yana Valachovic[,] a forest adviser with the University of California..., [said] California's problems are complicated ... -- a combination of hot, dry climates, poor community design and '100 years of fire suppression' that helped turn forests into tinder boxes.... Like Trump, Valachovic said the problem is solvable -- but through long-term programs of community education, controlled burns, forest thinning and economic incentives. Much more than rakes, in other words." ...

... This Finnish woman thinks Trump is dumber than deadwood (via BuzzFeed News):

Just an ordinary day in the Finnish forest ~ Ihan normipäivä suomalaisessa metsässä #Trump #forest #firesafety #raking #forestry #Finland #Finnish #CaliforniaFire #RakingAmericaGreatAgain #rakingtheforest #Suomi #haravointi #metsäpalot #rakingleaves pic.twitter.com/YOKA3D6C2K

— Pyry Luminen (@pyryluminen) November 18, 2018

The Check Is in the Mail, Ha Ha. Alan Rappeport of the New York Times: "America’s farmers have been shut out of foreign markets, hit with retaliatory tariffs and lost lucrative contracts in the face of President Trump's trade war. But a $12 billion bailout program Mr. Trump created to 'make it up' to farmers has done little to cushion the blow, with red tape and long waiting periods resulting in few payouts so far. According to the Department of Agriculture, just $838 million has been paid out to farmers since the first $6 billion pot of money was made available in September.... The program's limitations are beginning to test farmers' patience. The trade war shows no signs of easing...."

Sean Illing of Vox: "George Lakoff, a professor of linguistics and cognitive science at UC Berkeley..., recently published an article laying out the media's dilemma. Trump's 'big lie' strategy, he argues, is to 'exploit journalistic convention by providing rapid-fire news events for reporters to chase.' According to Lakoff, the president uses lies to divert attention from the 'big truths,' or the things he doesn't want the media to cover. This allows Trump to create the controversies he wants and capitalize on the outrage and confusion they generate.... I reached out to Lakoff to talk about Trump's media strategy, but also, more importantly, about solutions. If the president has indeed turned journalistic conventions to his advantage, how can we, the media, respond constructively?" Includes interview. --s

Maggie Haberman: "A firsthand account of the tumult inside President Trump's White House is scheduled to be published in January, the latest in a string of books that seek to decipher his unprecedented presidency. The new book, 'Team of Vipers,' is written by Cliff Sims, a former aide in the White House communications office who had previously worked on the Trump campaign.... In the author's note, Mr. Sims writes: 'I suspect that posterity will look back on this bizarre time in history like we were living on the pages of a Dickens novel.' He added: 'Lincoln famously had his Team of Rivals. Trump had his Team of Vipers. We served. We fought. We brought our egos. We brought our personal agendas and vendettas. We were ruthless. And some of us, I assume, were good people.'"

Jill Abramson in New York: Republicans are trying to exploit the #MeToo movement, but they don't understand it or the press's coverage of it, so they're not doing too well. Prime example: "... Sarah Huckabee Sanders falsely accused the reporter, Jim Acosta, of manhandling a young female White House intern, an attempt at contorting the non-touch touch into a White House #MeToo moment. 'We will ... never tolerate a reporter placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern,' she indignantly tweeted. (Surely the emphasis on 'White House intern' was meant to remind liberals of their own presidential baggage.) Such a sweet hypocrisy from Sanders, who won't even answer questions about sexual misconduct or where the president's hands have been. Instead of accepting Sanders's spin, in about a nanosecond, good reporters and reliable social-media watchdogs exposed the doctored tape [of the supposed manhandling] and the brouhaha backfired." ...

... The White House Isn't Giving Up. Brian Stelter of CNN: "After CNN won a temporary restraining order on Friday, forcing the White House to restore his press pass for 14 days, White House officials sent Acosta a letter stating that his pass is set to be suspended again once the restraining order expires. From the looks of the letter, the W.H. is trying to establish a paper trail that will empower the administration to boot Acosta again at the end of the month. CNN responded with this statement on Sunday: 'The White House is continuing to violate the First and 5th Amendments of the Constitution. These actions threaten all journalists and news organizations. Jim Acosta and CNN will continue to report the news about the White House and the President.'"

Sarah Okeson of D.C.Report: "Almost three decades after the landmark Lead and Copper Rule went into effect, children and pregnant women are being poisoned by lead in our nation's drinking water in part because there is no requirement that the EPA be notified about where lead pipes are. Public employees are pushing the EPA to rewrite its regulations which have helped enable crises like Flint, Mich., and now Newark, N.J. An estimated 15 million to 22 million people, or 5% to 7.5% of our nation's population, drink water delivered through lead pipes. 'EPA has known about this problem for years but has yet to lift a regulatory finger,' said Kyla Bennett of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. The EPA under former President Barack Obama and now Trump have delayed plans to revise the Lead and Copper Rule six times. The agency is now supposed to start the rulemaking process in February." --s

Civil Rights Turns Green? Juan Cole: "Veteran Congressman and Civil Rights icon John Lewis (D-GA) has joined the Green New Deal proposed by the Sunrise Movement and endorsed by newly elected Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). Here is a video of his remarks, among them that the people 'have a right to know what we are breathing.' The Green New Deal argues precisely that the Climate Crisis disproportionately punishes working people, and that therefore decarbonization is an intrinsically progressive platform. That John Lewis, whose skull Alabama police fractured when they beat him on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama in 1965, has signed onto the program suggests the increasing appeal of climate action to rights activists." --s

Election 2018

** Jeff Toobin in the New Yorker on "how voting rights fared in the midterms." Don't miss Toobin's first two paragraphs.

David Lublin in the Washington Post: "Historically, black representatives [in the House] have been elected from majority-minority districts. But here's the big news: Eight of the nine newly elected African Americans won in districts dominated by non-Hispanic whites.... These new black representatives couldn't have been elected without substantial white support."

Mark Hand of ThinkProgress: "Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum on Sunday [show A.M. Joy] shared what turned out to be very similar experiences with voter disenfranchisement in their quest to become the first African American governors of neighboring southern states. The elections in Florida and Georgia were both seriously flawed, but in different ways, said Gillum, one day after conceding the governor's race in Florida to Republican House member Ron DeSantis.... The two politicians vowed to press for electoral change in their respective states[.]" --s

Florida. Patricia Mazzei, et al., of the New York Times: "Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, a Democrat, conceded on Sunday that he had lost his re-election bid to Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican, bringing Florida's turbulent midterm election to its long-delayed end after an unprecedented statewide recount. Mr. Nelson telephoned Mr. Scott on Sunday afternoon to congratulate him, shortly after the conclusion of the manual recount showed that Mr. Scott had won the Senate race by 10,033 votes, out of more than 8.1 million cast." Mrs. McC: Nelson, a class act, lost to one of the scummiest people in U.S. politics. Floridians are nuts. And I'm still one of them. ...

... Anthony Man of the Sun-Sentinel: "Just hours after finishing a tumultuous election recount, Broward Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes submitted her resignation, ending a 15-year tenure full of botched elections, legal disputes and blistering criticism.... The exact effective date of the resignation was unclear Sunday evening."

Nevada. Michelle Price & Nicholas Riccardi of the AP: "Harry Reid may no longer lead Senate Democrats in Washington, but the political machine he built in Nevada has Republicans on the run. Democrats romped up and down the state in the Nov. 6 midterm elections, ousting Republican Sen. Dean Heller, winning races for governor and lieutenant governor, and expanding their state legislative majorities. The shellacking was 15 years in the making, the culmination of a long-term plan to shift a battleground into the Democratic column. Democrats elsewhere will work to replicate Nevada for years to come. Republicans were humbled.... Reid started building the state party for the 2004 election, when Nevada was in a tug of war between its Western libertarian roots and the Democratic leanings of recent transplants. The party had no permanent staff in nonelection years; now it has double digits.... 'It didn't really matter that his name wasn't on the ballot, he was all in every day,' said Rebecca Lambe, a longtime Reid aide and Democratic strategist."

Nick Anderson of the Washington Post: "Former New York mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced Sunday he is giving a record $1.8 billion to Johns Hopkins University to support student financial aid at his alma mater and make its admissions process 'forever need-blind.' The gift, believed to be the largest private donation in modern times to higher education, is a landmark in a growing national movement to make elite universities more accessible to students from low-to-middle income families. It will enable the private research university in Baltimore to eliminate loans from financial aid packages for incoming students starting next fall, expand grants for those in financial need and even provide relief to many current undergraduates who had previously taken out federal loans to pay their bills." ...

... Mike Bloomberg, in a New York Times op-ed: "Denying students entry to a college based on their ability to pay undermines equal opportunity. It perpetuates intergenerational poverty. And it strikes at the heart of the American dream: the idea that every person, from every community, has the chance to rise based on merit.... Hopkins has made great progress toward becoming 'need-blind' -- admitting students based solely on merit. I want to be sure that the school that gave me a chance will be able to permanently open that same door of opportunity for others. And so, I am donating an additional $1.8 billion to Hopkins that will be used for financial aid for qualified low- and middle-income students." ...

     ... Mrs. McCrabbie: Pretty damned socialistic, Mike. You should have asked fake billionaire Donald Trump to match your contribution. He could give the money to Penn, which "gave him a chance" to claim he was an Ivy Leaguer. ...

... David Leonhardt on the complexities of college debt & why just eliminating it -- as some progressives propose -- is mostly a gift to the upper middle class. "The right approach is a debt-forgiveness program that helps families who really need it. People whose income is below a certain threshold should have some of their debt forgiven (expanding the income-based repayment programs that already exist). And federal financial aid should expand too, with a focus on poor, working-class and truly middle-class families." ...

     ... Mrs. McCrabbie: Leonhardt's suggestion is hardly a new idea. In the 1960s, my first husband had a government-backed college loan, 10 percent of which was forgiven for every year he taught school (tho he still had to pay off half of it no matter how long he taught). I don't doubt, BTW, that part of progressive politicians' enthusiasm for forgiving college debt is that their own "base" runs heavily to young college-educated people burdened by college loans.

Joanna Walters of the Guardian: "Members of the multi-billionaire philanthropic Sackler family that owns the maker of prescription painkiller OxyContin are facing mass litigation and likely criminal investigation over the opioids crisis still ravaging America. Some of the Sacklers wholly own Connecticut-based Purdue Pharma, the company that created and sells the legal narcotic OxyContin, a drug at the center of the opioid epidemic that now kills almost 200 people a day across the US.... The Sackler name is ... now inscribed on a lawsuit alleging members of the family 'actively participated in conspiracy and fraud to portray the prescription painkiller as non-addictive, even though they knew it was dangerously addictive'." --s

Democracy Today. Eli Saslow of the Washington Post chronicles how Mainer Christopher Blair, a liberal, makes up outlandish, obviously fake, right-wing-crazy "news" stories & posts them online. But the thing is, the right-wing crazies believe the stories, no matter how ridiculous the "news" Blair makes up daily. Here's one: "'President Trump extended an olive branch and invited Michelle Obama and Chelsea Clinton [to a White House event],' Blair wrote. 'They thanked him by giving him "the finger" during the national anthem. Lock them up for treason!'... [In a photo accompanying the story,] the white woman was not in fact Chelsea Clinton but former White House strategist Hope Hicks. The black woman was not Michelle Obama but former Trump aide Omarosa Newman." Saslow then profiles Shirley Chapian, a Nevada woman who is one of the many believers in Blair's nutty stories: "Chapian looked at the photo and nothing about it surprised her. Of course Trump had invited Clinton and Obama to the White House in a generous act of patriotism. Of course the Democrats -- or 'Demonrats,' as Chapian sometimes called them -- had acted badly and disrespected America. 'Well, they never did have any class,' she wrote." Thanks to Patrick for finding this story, which was kinda hidden online until the Post eventually featured it on its online front page. ...

... Democracy Today, Ctd. Kelly Weill of the Daily Beast: "Thousands of years after ancient Greeks began referencing Earth as a sphere in mathematical proofs, people who believe in a flat Earth have become a movement. They've found their voice in the disinformation age, fueled by YouTube videos. For true believers, it's more than just a conspiracy theory. It's whole world view, a level plane onto which hucksters, trolls, and Christian fundamentalists can insert their own ideologies.... [A] conference [of Flat Earthers] that drew hundreds took place Thursday and Friday at ... a Denver airport hotel and convention center." Weill attended the conference, which consisted mostly of video presentations of flat-earth "proofs." One thing is certain: these people have fallen off the edge. Also, they tend to blame Jews or NASA (which might be a front for Nazis) for perpetrating the globe "theory."

Democracy Today, Ctd.

     ... Mrs. McCrabbie: Thanks to safari for embedding the video. You know those old white ladies are voters, don't you?

Beyond the Beltway

David Goodman, et al., of the New York Times: "Entrusted as the landlord to 400,000 people, the [New York City] Housing Authority has struggled for years to fulfill its mission amid a strangled budget and almost endemic political neglect. Last week, a judge suggested strongly that the federal government should take over the agency after an investigation found evidence of deep mismanagement, including that the Housing Authority failed to perform lead inspections and then falsely claimed it had. Six top executives lost their jobs amid the federal investigation; a complaint was filed in June. But the authority did not just ignore the required lead inspections, The New York Times found. For at least two decades, almost every time a child in its apartments tested positive for high lead levels, Nycha [NYC Housing Authority] launched a counteroffensive, city records show. From 2010 through July of this year, the agency challenged 95 percent of the orders it received from the Health Department to remove lead detected in Nycha apartments. Private landlords almost never contest a finding of lead...."

Ordinary Heroes. Paul Vercammen, et al., of CNN: "Kevin McKay drove the school bus along gridlocked, dark roads as pockets of fire burned all around. Nearly two dozen elementary school children were on board with him. Smoke began to fill the bus, so McKay took off a shirt. He and two teachers on the bus tore it into pieces and doused them with water. The children held the damp pieces of cloth to their mouths and breathed through them. He had been on the job ... only for a few months. Now, McKay was ferrying the 22 stranded children to safety as the Camp Fire scorched everything in its path. It would take five hours for them to reach safety.... Family members of other students had already picked up their children. But nearly two dozen students were stranded because their family members hadn't made it to the school. McKay discussed evacuating the students with Ponderosa's principal."

News Lede

CBS/AP: "The death toll from the Camp Fire in Northern California increased by one Sunday to 77, while the number of people unaccounted for has decreased to 993 people. The blaze was two-thirds contained as of Sunday night after consuming some 150,000 acres. In Southern California, just outside Los Angeles, the Woolsey Fire was 91 percent contained after burning 96,949 acres and killing three people. Dense smoke from the fires has been smothering parts of the state with what has been described as 'the dirtiest air in the world.' Rain is forecast for mid-week, which could help firefighters but also complicate the challenging search for remains."

Comments

[Ken Winkes]

More numbers on U.S. versus Finland's forests. They're rough, like my research and arithmetic, but they do indicate how any rakes and rakers the job will take.

Finland 98,000 square miles

CA forests 33,000 square miles

U. S
Lower 48 800,000. " "

That's a whole lotta raking (or vacuuming).

[Patrick]

Everyone should read the Vox/Illing interview with Lakoff that Safari linked above. It reiterates the need for reporters to "truth sandwich" DiJiT's lies when reporting them, because otherwise just reporting what he says reinforces his lying.

Lakoff notes that :

"If you’re someone who shares Trump’s worldview, there are certain things that follow from that worldview. In other words, certain things have to be true, or have to be believed, in order to sustain that worldview. The things that aren’t actually true but nevertheless preserve that worldview are “alternative facts” — that’s what Conway was getting at, whether she knew it or not.

The conservatives use those alternative facts all the time, and so does Trump. If he’s talking to his base, he’s talking to people who have already bought into a picture of the world, and his job is to tell them things that confirm that picture — and he knows they’ll believe it for that very reason.

I think we have to understand “alternative facts” in this way, and understand that when Trump is lying, he’s lying in ways that register with his audience. So it may be lying, but it’s strategic lying — and it’s effective."

This phenomenon matches the WaPo story yesterday about how conservative web followers buy into the most outrageous BS even when it is labelled as BS. If it fits your preconceptions, it feels truthy.

I was originally going to comment that Lakoff was committing a category error by saying that DiJiT lies "strategically." DiJiT is no more capable of "strategy" than a dog is. It's all about squirrels. But in the middle of the interview Lakoff says DiJiT doesn't know he is using a strategy ... he just does it.

We are the ones who "see" strategy, because after almost four years of DiJiT BS our brains still need to find some pattern or meaning. We can't help it. Look up "apophenia." So let me share some old Vietnam vet wisdom the week after veterans day: "It don't mean nuthin"

[PD Pepe]

@Patrick: I, too, thought the Vox piece worth paying attention to and like you, that "strategical" maneuver re: Trump hit me in the face before Lakoff clarified it. So––-here's an example of how I understand his sandwich analogy:

As for voters using things like disguises in order to vote multiple times simply does not happen and would not be possible because ...(spell out the reasons). President Trump's claim that this takes place is unsubstantiated.

Here you are not repeating Trump's lie first but tacking it on at the end. As Lakoff explains, "by repeating the lie first you are strengthening it."

Gary Hart is back in the news for some reason. MSNBC had an old documentary about his rise and fall and rise last night and there is now a new film out about him–-Hugh Jackman plays Hart. That old black magic or as Hart named his boat, "Monkey Business" done brought the good man down. Until Hart our presidents (and many did) could frolic and fuck to their heart's content and nary a peep was in the papers but a single reporter who got a call from a close friend of Donna Rice (the woman in question at the time) telling him that Hart's heart was wayward decided to pursue it and it changed the media's game from that time forward. Hart was the voice who warned us a year before 9/11 that we were going to be hit by Middle East terrorists. He has also been a liberal voice through the decades.

Perhaps we are reliving that time when someone like Hart–--smart, erudite, presidential material could be outed by philandering (Clinton survived by the seat of his pants) in contrast to what we have now in this president* who flaunted his indiscretions and won. A commentary on our changing culture or a slam on the sham and the shame of Trump. Perhaps both. Such a shame.

[PD Pepe]

But of course when you have examples of Kimmel's ladies of the street telling us how happy they are that Trump has balls, then all bets are off. Lakoff's sandwich wouldn't make a difference one way or another–-ignorance surely is bliss.

Question: what would you say if President Trump wanted to shoot the President of France?

Person in the street: Hey, man, if Trump wanted to do that I think he must have a good reason.

And–-he has the balls to do it!

[Marie Burns]

@PD Pepe: Hart did not "name his boat 'Monkey Business.'" As Jim Fallows reported in an article I linked last month, Hart was invited to take a cruise on a boat of another name. But that boat mysteriously became unavailable at the last minute, so the trip's host mysteriously moved the Hart party to the "Monkey Business." As it turned out, according to Fallows' story, the "Monkey Business" monkey business, right down to the mysterious boat switch and "candid" photo of Donna Rice sitting on Hart's lap, was engineered by famed GOP dirty trickster Lee Atwater. Whether or not all of the particulars of Fallows' story are true, it is certain the "Monkey Business" was not Hart's vessel.

[Ken Winkes]

@PD

"...sham and shame of Trump..." Nice.

And your brief history of presidential (and candidate) shortcomings and how the nation's reaction to them makes it seem standards have slipped over the years is provocative, in the limited sense anyway that it made me think a little this early morning.

It's hard to get very far outside one's own head, but I'm thinking people deal with these indiscretions in predictably standard ways, depending on various factors, like one's gender, political orientation, and psychology.

Some, I'm sure, truly believe that adultery shouldn't be countenanced under any circumstances. (I wonder if that belief fractures along gender lines, if men more than women might treat such reports with a smirk and a silent atta boy.)

Some don't much care how their candidate behaves in his or her private life, just because it should be private, as long as that behavior doesn't affect their ability to get elected, a position easier to support before the Hart blowup.

Some (see Safari, Lakoff and Patrick) meet their candidates wayward behavior the same way they accept anything he or she says, regardless of its factual basis. If their savior/hero/avatar did it, it may not be entirely OK, but he or she is in there fighting for us, on our side, and besides everyone does it....All politicians are the same, but this one is ours. Use the thousands of mind-bent Evangelicals who support the Pretender fill in this blank.

Some of the more thoughtful (liberal?) might view such behavior through a split screen: It's a private matter, among Bill, Hillary and Monica, or one of the many others...Bill done very wrong....he's an embarrassment to anyone who voted for him (Me) and he's damaging the party..but the Republicans' reaction is vastly out of proportion; they are such hypocrites! I don't like it, but I guess I'll stick with Bill.

In all, the Hart story was a political genie released from its bottle, still unpredictable in its effects. But then in many respects, we're a schizophrenic country. We have the MeToo# movement and the Evangelicals voting for a serial philanderer.

Go figure.

[Akhilleus]

Nice to see George Lakoff in the national conversation. His suggestions as to how to handle the Liar-in-Chief complement his work on how we use metaphors to understand the world. Trump's "strategy", if you want to call it that, is more the result of his empirical experience coming out of the sordid, blood soaked New York tabloid jungle.

He learned early on that lying doesn't only work, it works especially well when you have tabloid publishers trying to out-outrage each other. In that environment, it doesn't matter if it's a lie as long as it's a spectacular lie, something people will fork over money to read. Just look at the National Enquirer. If truth were a requirement to publish in this country the Enquirer wouldn't have lasted past the first edition. Trump has just moved his tabloid "strategies" into the mainstream.

In that regard, Lakoff's solution is an important one. It's a tool, a weapon if you will, that has never (or rarely) been used by the MSM. Like the famous generals who are always fighting the last war, the press is working off a playbook that Trump knows inside and out. They're like those British generals at the beginning of WWI who were using battle tactics from the Napoleonic wars, throwing men into the maw of machine gun fire, gas, and tanks.

The Germans (and Trump) were thrilled to see it. Come and get it.

A new strategy is definitely in order, but it would require discipline. Not to repeat every stupid thing Fatty tweets would go against the most basic impulse reporters and editors rely on to "get out the news", but Lakoff's truth sandwich strategy would certainly be a step forward.

Fatty and the Confederate liars have staged a paradigm shift of tectonic force and consequence. We cannot move forward in any fashion unless a similar shift in paradigmatic understanding and approaches takes place on the other side, the side of truth, facts, and reason.

As a long-time consumer of a fair amount of academic writing, I've noticed that far too often, this form is good at pointing out problems, uncovering underlying issues and paradoxes. What it tends not to be so good at is devising solutions. Too often it's "Well, here's the problem. You're on your own now." So it's nice to see someone of Lakoff's stature come up with a practical solution to the problem of how Trump and his treasonous horde twist metaphors to seize and maintain power and control.

Lakoff, in his earlier work, has explained the basic controlling structure for conservatives as the "Stern Father" metaphor. They need daddy to tell them how to behave, to discipline those who get out of line, and to reward those who follow his rules. I see this metaphor as being twisted significantly under Trump and the Confederates. In this adjusted metaphor daddy isn't just stern, he's a mean drunk and you better not piss him off. Stay on his good side by going along with every crazy rant. And those children who feel empowered by those drunken rants are on the front lines.

The crazy siblings are the ones who think Gerard Depardieu is the president of France and that sending back the Statue of Liberty is perfectly fine as long as Big Daddy sez so.

[safari]

From the David Dublin article above: "Eight of the nine newly elected African Americans won in districts dominated by non-Hispanic whites"

This is a hugely important fact to spread. And it needs be drilled into every Democratic strategy session moving forward, especially with our eyes on 2020 where Trump will obviously double down on raking in the white vote, cause that's all he's got.

I'm all for an inclusive party and bringing in each and every person cast asunder by the GOP's strategy of empowering rich white men. Democratic policies should be inclusive themselves, although it's not always the case. But I oftentimes feel like our current Democratic party panders far too hard for the minority vote, especially African Americans, to the detriment of an overall strategy. Democrats need to be shrewd and detail oriented if we're going to take down this presidunce*. In today's world where images matter enormously, everything must be taken into account, especially on the teevee in the age of YouTube and viral videos.

A while ago I caught some clips of Obama stumping for Stacy Abrams at a campaign rally. Literally every person behind Abrams was African American, except for one woman (who could've also been African American) who was wearing a headscarf, obviously symbolizing the Muslim community's support in her presence. In the close up shot, every person in the crowd was female.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjEEIq2ZuHM

I get it: it's Obama and Abrams, in Georgia, trying to whip up the African American vote, especially women. Great, we need those votes. But here's the thing: I grew up in white, middle-class Kansas, and although I don't share a whole lot of cultural values with my fellow Kansans, I do know the typical Kansan's mentality, and I'm pretty sure that same mentality is shared at least across the Midwest. When my fellow Kansans, who don't travel extensively and have minimal social contact outside of their white communities, switch on those channels, they might agree with what's being said but I'm afraid the images are at the minimum creating hesitancy in embracing the message and the party. Besides feeling affinity for the candidate, the viewer feels little to no reflection of self in the enthusiastic crowd. Caveat: While I'm generalizing here, I'm NOT saying Midwesterns are all racists. Many are, many aren't. What I'm advocating for here is a simple symbolism of the true Democratic base, which should be represented by all the flavors of our melting pot. At every opportunity, throw in some black folks, white folks, Asians, Latinos, different religions, young and old. Mix it up. The diversity is important. The guy on his LazyBoy in Kansas is going to feel more represented and have a much easier time projecting himself into that community if he can see others "like" him in the group, cheering for the same ideals and feeling like an important player on the team.

Republicans, by far the shrewder tacticians, understand this all too well. Whenever they can find one, they'll always track down the one African American guy in the crowd and place him behind Trump. They'll put a mixture of young and old (mostly white folks) to show generational attachments. Hell, the other day in Montana Trump even had people in full Native American headdress (maybe authentic? probably paid) behind him. You think that was by chance? Not a fucking chance.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW1c_OvDV0o

It's cheesy political theater, but if it contributes to more votes by opening minds or weakening obstacles, it's worth it. And it doesn't cost a dime extra.

[Akhilleus]

Hey, maybe Fatty thinks that raking the woods will give "good climate".

Trump is like some paranoid delusional mental patient for whom absolute hard evidence can never dislodge some embedded fantasy.

Fatty: It's forest management! That's why the fire.
Experts: No, it's not. And here are the fifty reasons your conclusion is wrong.
Fatty: Oh. I see. Well, then it's forest management. That's why the fire.
Experts: What?
Fatty: In Finland, they rake the woods. Forest management. I told you.
Experts: Jesus.

And I'm with Marie regarding my surprise at reading that Fatty promises to work with environmental groups. After I put my eyes back in my head, I realized it's just another lie. "Working with environmental groups" for Fatty means putting a coal guy science denier in charge of the EPA. This is after he shoved Scott (Cone of Silence) Pruitt into the job, and nominated a guy best known as Dow Chemical's Dioxin King to run the EPA Superfund (Peter Wright). Run it into the ground, he means.

And now Trump wants Wheeler to formerly take over the EPA. Great. I'm sure the environmental groups Trump wants to "work with" are thrilled. Here's a response after Wheeler was picked as Pruitt's deputy:

"'Halloween apparently came early this October because the nomination of Andrew Wheeler as Deputy EPA Administrator is absolutely horrifying,' Melinda Pierce, the Sierra Club's legislative director, said in a statement."

Oops.

I guess "working with" means working over.

Oh well, any eon now we'll have good climate. And forest management.

[Akhilleus]

Safari has a point about the theatrics of political grandstanding. Remember Ronald Reagan's appearances? He never showed up at the opening of an envelope without a football field-sized American flag behind him (thank you, Mike Deaver, drunken liar). Confederates have been much better at putting on a show than Democrats (the Clint Eastwood empty chair notwithstanding), much more organized about the fantasy settings (Native Americans in full headress? Jesus). Don't forget how Trump's gestapo agents dragged a kid out of the crowd behind the Glorious Leader who wasn't giving out with the "Oh Gee, I'm so in awe of this man!" expressions. And the token black faces behind him are priceless.

But more than creating an inclusive image, Democrats need to figure out what we're going to do moving forward. The infighting surrounding the next speaker is a case in point. I like the passion, and I get that the newbies are anxious to boot out the old and bring in, well, the new, but let's be smart about this. Are we really going to kick out a seasoned commander and bring in someone who just graduated from West Point in the battle of our lives? It would be one thing if Pelosi were Boehner-weak, Ryan-gutless, or Hastert-pederastical, but that's not the case.

Plus, we need a national battle plan that includes immediate work addressing the toxic gerrymandering set in place to ensure permanent employment for traitors. We need to start working on 2020 right now. Is Beto going to throw his hat in the ring? Okay, let's start working on that yesterday. You can bet that Fatty and his traitors and media lackeys will be going hammer and tong after any Democrat who even takes a sniff at 2020, the lies and attacks will be momentous; so we need a plan.

And we don't have time for amateur hour. The new kids should pay attention, learn the ropes, and keep their eyes open. Their turn will come.

[Ken Winkes]

@Akhilleus,

Spent part of pleasant weekend finishing Greenblatt's "The Swerve."

Thought of you as I read it. Akhilleus has probably read Lucretius in the Latin, I thought, and might enjoy this book if he has not already read it. I thought it pretty good. Then I read this:

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12216712/harvard-professor-the-swerve-greenblatt-middle-ages-false

My point? I think myself reasonable intelligent and well-read, and have a critical faculty which gets at least occasional exercise, but according to this review of a book I would have recommended to others (tho' I did think it disturbingly facile in places and its claims occasionally a little thin), I got the whole thing wrong. The reviewer makes a convincing critical case about a book I enjoyed.

I wonder if I'm that much different from the hordes who can't seem to tell when the Pretender is lying and who obviously don't much care, because he's so much fun to "read."

[Marie Burns]

@Ken Winkes: I'm off to the doctor, so I don't have time to address Miles' review of "The Swerve," but I will try to do so, perhaps tomorrow.

[Akhilleus]

Ken,

I have read (some of) Lucretius' poem. I first dug into it when I was trying to expand my Latin chops as a student. I found a couple of things. First, poetry is a lot harder to translate than prose (which is mainly why I still go back to Caesar and Tacitus much more often than Horace, for example, or Lucretius).

Second, as the recently deceased master screenwriter William Goldman once said, "No one knows anything". Well, not "no one", but if you think you're dead certain about something, you might want to reconsider. The main topics of the poem caused me to want to dig much deeper into Roman history and society and philosophy. I didn't know all that much about Epicurus when I first opened the book, or Atomism. I was surprised to learn that not all Romans held the gods in high esteem. Lucretius gives them a great big "Meh. Yeah, they're around, maybe, but they don't do much, so don't even bother with them". That was pretty funny, and surprising to me since it immediately challenged my preconceptions about Rome.

I haven't read Greenblatt's book (I've already got a stack on my night table--and under and beside it, that you could use to start Trump's wall), but I've read his book on Shakespeare, "Will in the World", which I found to be thoroughly enjoyable, scholarly without being pedantic, a fun read. When "The Swerve" came out, I thumbed through it in the bookstore, just for the hell of it. National Book Award, must be pretty good, right?. But as I started getting the general idea of the thesis, I remember thinking "Hmm...I dunno, nothing is this uncomplicated, especially not something that purports to establish a grand connecting thread across historical eras." But hey, what do I know? Anyway, I passed on it.

The Miles review, if accurate, and I've no reason to think otherwise, sounds like Greenblatt had decided upon an unfortunate road to travel in "The Swerve" (although she might have her own agenda of which I am unaware). I'm not a professional historian ( I don't even play one on TV, or Netflix, for that matter), but I've done a fair amount of reading in medieval history and Miles is correct about such an outdated and simplistic view of the period prior to the Renaissance. Middle Ages: bad, dark, stupid, and superstitious. Yes superstition abounded, but it didn't disappear on Renaissance Day One. It's still with us (see Trump, Donald).

Scholasticism, one of the major explorations of medieval thinkers, is a branch of philosophy I find endlessly fascinating and it's anything but dark and stupid. And as Miles reminds us, there were several periods during the Middle Ages that are rightfully recognized as renaissance moments. The Renaissance of the twelfth century was written about to great effect by the Harvard historian Charles Homer Haskins, and he wrote that book in the 20's! It was, in fact, the book that jump started my interest in the so-called dark ages.

Miles is also correct that no historical period is without its paradoxes and multiple and simultaneous political and social movements and interests. Middle Ages-bad, Renaissance-good, is seventh grade stuff that does not reflect that reality. Currently I'm reading John Hale's book on the "Civilization of Europe in the Renaissance". It's a dense, granular account of that period, and opening it to the chapter I'm reading now, about the demise of civility, one would be hard pressed to recognize the Renaissance of DaVinci, Michelangelo, and burgeoning humanism. While Renaissance scholars were reviving interest in Aristotle, just down the street a convicted criminal was getting his hands chopped off to the cheers of onlookers. It just ain't that simple.

Basically, I'm reading this as a bookend to Jakob Burkhardt's study on the Renaissance in Italy, which takes a more black and white (Middle ages-bad, Renaissance-good) approach, similar to that described by Miles as used in the Greenblatt. But Burkhardt's book, for all it's wonderful (if dated) scholarship, was written in the freakin' 19th century!

And to get back to Lucretius, it's interesting that Greenblatt (according to this review) chose such a simplistic way to describe the Middle Ages-Renaissance rift (if that's truly what he did), because that poem is so complex and nuanced.

Anyway, that's my quick take on this. Popular histories, the good ones, can offer the general themes and story lines and characters without all the footnotes and the hundred page bibliography, but popular histories with an agenda (see anything published by Regnery, or books with "Patriot" and "Real American" in the titles) can be problematic at best.

Again, since I haven't read the Greenblatt book, I'm going by what Miles discusses in her review, so I might be one of those guys Goldman was talking about, the ones who don't know anything.

Hey, whatever the merits of this book, you'll always have the poem.

[Akhilleus]

Arsonist Sez "Don't Play With Matches!"

The galactic irony of a racist, loudmouth, insulting bully lecturing the press on the need for decorum beats all.

Just waiting for the next "Hey, you stupid assholes! A little decorum please. Dirty, lying, fake news scumbags!" Liarbee is no better, conducting her Propaganda Dissemination Time with what amounts to verbal tasers, then sniffing about how mean people are to her and the Liar-in-Chief.

Beats all.

[Patrick]

So ... Renaissance -shmenaissance. The modern age began when Spain tapped the specie in the New World, the Dutch figured out how to move goods safer/farther/faster/cheaper, the Brits (Scots, really) supercharged all that with steam and serious banking, and the Italians learned better how to enjoy it all.

It's complicated.

[Akhilleus]

Ken,

One more thing (probably the most important one) that I left off...

Your sentiment that you might have been gulled by the author which might put you in the same boat as Trumpbots...

Never in life.

First, Greenblatt is a respected and well-read author and academic. If you didn't come to the book with a reasonable background in medieval and Renaissance history, it would be difficult to challenge assertions you found to be less than solid. You did, after all, say that you felt the arguments expressed therein to be a little wanting, so I'd say your critical thinking cap was on and in good shape.

Treatises handed down from authorities can be dangerous. One of the reasons Trump is so toxic is the way he uses the authority of his position to spread lies and hate. I'm sure there are plenty of largely disengaged listeners who simply take it on good faith that a president wouldn't lie so often and so blatantly. Don't know where they've been for the last 40 years or so, but it happens.

And, as you suggest, many more of his fans willingly accept the lies as long as they're having fun listening to the Glorious Leader excoriating people and ideas they've been taught to hate. Mob mentality at its most elemental.

[Victoria]

"The Swerve" was the first book I ever read where I knew more than the author. Not to say the author was ignorant, but his knowledge of even well known things was limited, and his thinking narrow. I'll stop there, because I gave the book away so I'm not in a position to defend any points.

[Ken Winkes]

Akhilleus,

Thanks for the considered response. As I've been told is too often the case, was spoofing just a little comparing myself to Trumpbots, but do think the wholesale acceptance of a neatly wrapped, attractive package is a misstep we're all (I, anyway) too likely to make. We come at things from where and who we are and our programming, as you say, opens us to some things more readily than to others. I think of those chemical receptors deep inside our bodies that accept some visitors and quickly reject the rest. Nowhere is the welcome mat is alway out.

Reading Greenblatt, I was aware I didn't bring enough to the academic table to be certain of my judgment. That's why I checked a couple of reviews. Skepticism should go hand in hand with ignorance. I say should, but it is belief that too often does.

As for the review, it made some sense to me, too, but again, I don't know enough. Even Burkhardt is forty five years in my past and as I remember I read only the first volume of the two that are still on my shelf. Are things more complicated than Greenblatt said? I'm sure they were. I did think, however, that some of the review's burden was territorial*, an implication that by focusing on the period that preceded the Renaissance, Greenblatt was ranging out of his own territory and into someone else's. I also had the sense that reviewer wished all to know that she knows so much about the period that finding instances that contradict Greenblatt's narrative was mere child's play. A little ego at work here, too, in other words, as it always is.

*another common source of intellectual (or should I say, academic) myopia

And @ Patrick:

Never read a better history of the rise of the West. Longer but not better. Thanks.

[Akhilleus]

Ken,

The "...reviewer wished all to know that she knows so much about the period that finding instances that contradict Greenblatt's narrative was mere child's play."

Yeah, maybe. You always have to consider ulterior motives.

Certainly there could be some ego involved, but there could also be a bit of territorial umbrage. I am, at best, an amateur historian, but Victoria, who, unlike me, has read "The Swerve" (and who may be a professional historian) came away with a similarly jaundiced view.

You know it's a bad sign when a reader can say "I know more than this dude" and not out of spite but because she realizes that well known aspects of a certain period seem to have been purposefully ignored if they were known, or surprisingly overlooked if they were not.