The honest-to-god truth finally comes out

I woke up this morning to learn that Donald Trump has totally destroyed the credibility of all of those WOMEN who have been accusing him of sexual harassment and assault. He has proof that WOMEN have been lying.

And that proof is a MAN.

Case closed. Donald Trump has a witness who as an 18 year old British BOY was flying first class on a domestic American flight, and HE had his eyes locked on the WOMAN who claims Trump was pawing at her, and HE swears it was actually the WOMAN who was pawing HIM.

HE has no evidence that HE was even there, but you should believe HIM because HE said so, and HE also said HE has a photographic memory, and also was clearly witnessing the scene through eyes made of cells containing Y chromosomes, and perceiving it with a MALE brain.

The person who was being pawed and might be expected to retain a more vivid recollection than a random passenger on the flight was, well, a WOMAN, and bitchez be lyin’, am I right, fellas?

Of course, Anthony Gilberthorpe also claims to have procured rent-boys for the Thatcher cabinet, that he was engaged to a beautiful American woman who doesn’t exist (is this like the Canadian girlfriend trope, only for the British it’s their American fiance?), and he fed a story that he had AIDS to the newspapers so he could sue them for defamation. HE is not exactly a source with a great reputation for probity, but HE says what the Trump Campaign wants to hear, and HE is a MAN, which adds +10 to all reliability rolls.

That Trump accepts this MAN as a credible source, by the way, adds another oily, repulsive sheen to his trusted television surrogates, Corey Lewandowski, Kayleigh McEnany, Jeffrey Lord, and Scottie Nell Hughes. That isn’t the reek of cadaverine and hydrogen sulfide coming from those people, it is the scent of sanctity and the aroma of veracity, soon to be bottled and sold under the Trump™ brand as the perfume, Honestly.

Two expressions I’ve come to detest

As the Trump campaign steadily sinks deeper into the swamp of racism, misogyny, and anti-semitism, there are a couple of phrases I hear over and over, in multiple variations, and it just needs to stop.

“We didn’t know he was this bad”. I usually hear this one from Republicans. It’s a lie. We’ve all known that he was a colossal boor since at least the 1990s, and he hasn’t gotten worse — this is the same jerk we’ve known for about 30 years. There is absolutely no surprise in his behavior or his record, but people have just always looked the other way. You probably know assholes like this right now, and we’ve always just rolled our eyes, shaken our head, and walked away.

“And now he’s running for President of the United States,” usually said by Democrats with a note of horror. The high office he is running for should not make the slightest difference. Would this be acceptable if he were merely a real estate tycoon, or a ditch digger? Is there some kind of invisible class line such that if you’re below it, it’s expected that you will call women pigs, but once you’re above it, only then does it become rude?

What prompts my irritation is that a friend of mine, a woman, a feminist, and a prominent atheist, has been receiving a flood of hateful comments on facebook that aren’t really that different from what Trump says. We all take this for granted as the normal state of affairs. But I have to wonder…these petty vulgarians have friends — I should say enablers — who retain their associations with them even as they call women “ugly”, “fat”, and “pieces of shit”. They are not shunned. They have their own little communities of hatred. They thrive. They get healthy sums of money from their patreon accounts. They have turned the atheist movement into an embarrassing crap heap.

What I’m learning from Trump is that we can’t expect to see them condemned until a) they’ve been at it for 30 years, or b) they decide to run for president. And until then, the only people we’re going to scorn are the ones who dare to call them out before either of those eventualities are reached.

Nice legal burn

The New York Times has responded to Donald Trump’s lawsuit threats. It’s a very nice letter. I get the impression that legal training is all about teaching you when and how to politely say “go fuck yourself”.

Re: Demand for retraction

Dear Mr Kasowitz:

I write in response to your letter of October 12, 2016 to Dean Baquet concerning your client Donald Trump, the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States. You write concerning our article “Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately ” and label the article as “libel per se.” You ask that we “remove it from [our] website, and issue a full and immediate retraction and apology.” We decline to do so.

The essence of a libel claim, of course, is the protection of one’s reputation. Mr. Trump has bragged about his non-consensual sexual touching of women. He has bragged about intruding on beauty pageant contestants in their dressing rooms. He acquiesced to a radio host’s request to discuss Mr. Trump’s own daughter as a “piece of ass.” Multiple women not mentioned in our article have publicly come forward to report on Mr. Trump’s unwanted advances. Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.

But there is a larger and much more important point here. The women quoted in our story spoke out on an issue of national importance — indeed, an issue that Mr. Trump himself discussed with the whole nation watching during Sunday night’s presidential debate. Our reporters diligently worked to confirm the women’s accounts. They provided readers with Mr. Trump’s response, including his forceful denial of the women’s reports. It would have been a disservice not just to our readers but to democracy itself to silence their voices. We did what the law allows: We published newsworthy information about a subject of deep public concern. If Mr. Trump disagrees, if he believes that American citizens had no right to hear what these women had to say and that the law of this country forces us and those who would dare to criticize him to stand silent or be punished, we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight.

Sincerely,

David E. McCraw

It’s also interesting because some of us are being hit with legal threats that could also be answered in almost exactly the same way (the “national importance” bit would have to go, I probably wouldn’t suggest that there would be a “disservice to democracy”, and obviously it all would sound much more authoritative coming out of the mouth of a lawyer), so it’s good to see my opinion affirmed so eloquently.

The descent of a lie

It’s not often that ideas in evolutionary theory become directly applicable to politics, but now we have a case of plagiarized errors in the Trump campaign. “Plagiarized errors” is the idea that the propagation of mistakes is often more revealing of the history of a lineage than the functional parts of an organism. The example often give is of how we can catch students cheating on a test: if two students turn in an exam with identical correct answers, it could just mean they both studied very hard and mastered the material well; if they have identical wrong answers, right down to the spelling mistakes, that tells you that someone has been slavishly copying someone else. For more examples of how the concept is actually used, check out Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics by Edward Max.

The nice thing about the plagiarized error concept is that it allows one to trace the history of the error. In the recent debate, Trump made an unusual error of attribution — he quoted Kurt Eichenwald (incorrectly, as it turns out, ignoring his conclusion) and claimed that it was a quote from Sydney Blumenthal. It was an odd combination of specific errors, and that makes one wonder where Trump could have gotten the same set of mistakes. It turns out that there is only one other media source that makes the same combination of errors, misattributing Eichenwald’s words to Blumenthal, and distorting the meaning of the piece in the same strange way, and that tells us exactly what source Trump plagiarized.

It came from “Sputnik, the Russian online news and radio service established by the government controlled news agency, Rossiya Segodnya“. Russian propaganda sources are feeding misinformation to the Trump campaign.

As Eichenwald explains the distortions and errors in the Russian piece:

The Russians were quoting two sentences from a 10,000 word piece I wrote for Newsweek, which Blumenthal had emailed to Podesta. There was no mistaking that Blumenthal was citing Newsweek—the magazine’s name and citations for photographs appeared throughout the attached article. The Russians had carefully selected the “of course” paragraph, which mentions there were legitimate points of criticism regarding Clinton and Benghazi, all of which had been acknowledged in nine reports about the terror attack and by the former Secretary of State herself. But that was hardly the point of the story, “Benghazi Biopsy: A Comprehensive Guide to One of America’s Worst Political Outrages.” The piece is about the obscene politicization of the assault that killed four Americans, and the article slammed the Republican Benghazi committee which was engaged in a political show trial disguised as a Congressional investigation—the tenth inquiry into the tragedy.

And then, to his surprise, Trump makes exactly the same set of mistakes.

At a rally in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, Trump spoke while holding a document in his hand. He told the assembled crowd that it was an email from Blumenthal, whom he called “sleazy Sidney.”

“This just came out a little while ago,’’ Trump said. “I have to tell you this.” And then he read the words from my article.

“He’s now admitting they could have done something about Benghazi,’’ Trump said, dropping the document to the floor. “This just came out a little while ago.”

Further, Trump did this on the same day that the Sputnik article emerged — it wasn’t as if this lie had time to percolate out into right wing media. The Trump campaign is being fed stories by the Russian media, or at the most benign, is reading Russian propaganda looking for dirt to dish on Clinton.

This is not funny. It is terrifying. The Russians engage in a sloppy disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee for president is standing on a stage reciting the manufactured story as truth. How did this happen? Who in the Trump campaign was feeding him falsehoods straight from the Kremlin? (The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment).

This is just weird. The Republicans, of Red Scare fame, with anti-Communist hatred imbedded deep in the brains, are now fielding a presidential candidate who admires Vladimir Putin and who glibly recites Russian propaganda as fact. And we don’t just have a Manchurian candidate, we have a Manchurian electorate that sees no problem with this.

The sad thing is that we have great difficulty getting the concept of plagiarized errors in evolution through to creationists, so I suspect the fanatical followers of Donald Trump won’t be able to comprehend the application of the concept to political propaganda, either.

I envy you your locker room

I’m suddenly seeing all these people talking about their locker rooms, and how it wasn’t anything like the locker rooms Donald Trump is talking about. They didn’t talk about women, or how they want to grab them, or other such crudities — they just wanted to take their shower and get out. I believe them. Personally, that’s how I dealt with being afflicted with the shower ritual in high school.

But I was not so lucky in my environment. The locker room I experienced was a hell hole of machismo, strutting athletes, point-by-point explicit ranking of the anatomical bits of women at school, and lots of bragging about sexual conquests. I didn’t have a nice locker room experience.

There was a reason for that. It was Coach. This locker room was run by a swaggering, bullet-headed lunk with no boundaries — he’d stroll through as we were taking showers and comment on boys’ penises. He’d ask for details of Friday night make-out sessions, and would laugh if you “scored”, and tell you which girls were “sluts”. He set the tone. He approved of the worst of behaviors, and mocked you if were a “nice boy”…which made you a “fag”.

Does this remind you of someone?

We have a presidential candidate who reminds me a lot of Coach. I see a nation acting like a tribe of monkeys, with many people following the lead of the coarse vulgarian and becoming worse themselves. That’s what people do.

I could do without the daily reminder of those years of misery from the media.

The most chilling exchange in last night’s debate

This is what we should fear from a Trump presidency:

I didn’t think I’d say this but I’m going to say it, and I hate to say it, but if I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation because there has never been so many lies, so much deception, there has never been anything like it and we’re going to have a special prosecutor.

That’s a classic Trumpism, to try to blunt the odious nature of what he is about to say by claiming that he hates to say it. He clearly knows he’s stepping over the line by advocating turning the US into a Stalinesque autocracy because he needed that initial, meaningless disclaimer, but that’s a real threat, and believable because that’s exactly what the Republicans have done over and over again. They drag the country into what ought to literally be described in this case as a witch hunt, led by fanatical inquisitors, over empty accusations. They will consume time and money. They will be nothing but a true distraction from the business of the Oval Office, and we’ve seen it multiple times, from Whitewater to Benghazi, and every time the sanctimonious asshole in charge, whether it’s a Ken Starr or a Trey Gowdy, will persevere despite a lack of evidence, because the purpose is not to arrive at the truth, but to prolong the harassment.

Trump just promised to legally hound a defeated political opponent with the same tactics that have been used against the Clintons for decades…this time, an opponent who would be out of office and out of power. A potential president of the United States just threatened to use all of his power to torment a private citizen.

Clinton stayed cool, and even smiled, and told everyone to go check the facts, that there’s nothing there.

We have literally Trump, you can fact check him in real time. Last time, at the first debate, we had millions of people fact-checking. So I expect we’ll have millions more fact-checking because, you know, it is, it’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.

Yes, go look up the facts. There is nothing criminal in what Clinton did. A Republican FBI director has already thoroughly scrutinized the data determined that there was no intent to hide anything, and that what was deleted was a collection of personal emails, and that Clinton wasn’t even responsible for their removal. But this fluff and nonsense is what Trump thinks is a useful goal.

He also interrupted Clinton’s response.

Because you would be in jail.

A candidate for the American presidency just threatened to abuse his power and imprison his opponent after the election.

Stop right there. The man is incompetent and unfit for office, and wants to be a tyrant. Fear for the Republic.

I’ve started on a bottle of wine

It’s the only way I’m going to be able to survive this debate.

First question to both: do you think you’re a good role model for children? Clinton answers with her goal to bring people together; Trump babbles like a man on quaaludes about the trade deficit, people getting shot, fixing the inner city. HE DOESN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION. Weird.

Asked about the #trumptape, his answer is it was just “locker room talk”, but look! Over there! ISIS is chopping off people’s heads! ISIS, ISIS, ISIS.

Good god, he’s awful and incoherent.

Clinton responds: he’s unfit, and this is exactly what Trump is. Points out all the groups he has denigrated over the course of this campaign.

Waiting for Trump to explode.

Trump: it’s just words. He’s going to help the African-Americans, the Latinos, and Clinton has done nothing. Sniff. Sniff.

New question: Trump says the campaign changed him. When did that happen?

Trump: That was just locker room talk. Bill Clinton was worse. Hillary Clinton laughed at a victim of rape. Sniff.

He doesn’t answer the question again!

Clinton: When they go low, we go high. The audience can judge whether he respects women. Trump never apologizes. Cites several of his attacks and racism that he never apologized for. You owe the president an apology.

Trump: No, you do. Emails. Emails.

Then he threatens that, if he wins, he’s going to get a special prosecutor to go after her.

Clinton just smiles. Tells people to go fact-check him at hillaryclinton.com, and that it’s a good thing Trump isn’t in charge of the legal system.

Trump: Because you’d be in jail. She’s getting to him.

Christ. He just keeps interrupting and whining. It’s one on three, he says. He’s a bullying coward.

Next question: What will you do about Obamacare? Clinton responds with a discussion of what’s work and what needs to be fixed. Trump: “it’s a disaster”. No details. Sniff. Canadian health care is so awful. He just keeps repeating that disaster word.

Next question: how will you help Muslim Americans deal with rising islamophobia?

Trump starts talking about how Muslims have to report terrorists. Radical Islamic Terror!

Clinton points out that Muslims have been in America since the Revolution, mentions Capt. Khan, who gave his life for the country. It’s dangerous to engage in the demagoguery Trump indulges in. Says we’re not at war with Islam, and it plays into the hands of the terrorists to do as Trump does.

A question to Trump: What about your claim that we need a total ban on Muslim immigrants? Trump now calls it “extreme vetting”. Clinton wants to allow in more Muslims! 100s of thousands of people!

Q to Clinton: you propose allowing more Syrians in. How can you justify that risk? She says she’s not talking about allowing risky people in, but is not going to ban people on the basis of their religion, like Trump wants.

I need more wine. Trump is such an asshole.

Tax cuts. Trump says he’s going to reduce taxes for everyone. Clinton says she’s going to raise taxes only on people making over $250K.

Did Trump avoid paying federal income taxes? He took advantage of tax loopholes, like Buffet and Soros…refuses a direct question to say how many years he avoided paying federal taxes.

Somehow he’s talking about ISIS again.

Clinton was a disaster (his word for the evening) as a senator. Clinton recites a long list of her accomplishments in office.

Fuck. If Trump says “disaster” one more time…

Black man asks a question. Trump responds with “inner city” and “disaster”. Fuck him.

“Would you be a disciplined leader?” Trump can’t even be a disciplined debater.

Supreme Court: Clinton will appoint judges who support Roe v. Wade, and marriage equality. Trump will appoint someone like Scalia. Enough said.

Energy policy: Trump says we have “clean coal”. Damn the EPA. Right.

I give up. Can’t take no more.

A prediction: the Republican party is about to divide itself

I’m not going to go so far as to predict that Hillary Clinton will win in this madhouse of an election, but the odds in her favor keep improving.

More icky revelations about Trump are trickling out.

The Republican party is cutting off support to the Trump campaign.

Many Republican leaders are publicly denouncing Trump, although many are not going so far as to decline to endorse him.

Trump donors are pissed off.

Trump refuses to resign. With an ego that size, can anyone imagine that he would?

Now picture this.

He loses big in the election in November. Even if it’s close, maybe especially if it’s close.

Now put yourself in his shoes, with his narcissism. He’s got to blame someone else, right? Who is he going to blame?

Not Clinton. Not some woman, especially not some woman he thinks is a crook. Maybe there will be some whining of voter fraud, but that’s not going to hold up for long.

He’s going to blame those Republican bigshots, Paul Ryan and John McCain and Reince Priebus and all those governors and senators and congresspeople who failed to support him in the face of these terribly unfair attacks. He has been betrayed. He has been stabbed in the back by his own party.

Trump still has fanatical supporters. Look at Breitbart. Look what’s happening: Trump fans are booing Paul Ryan.

This is what has the Republicans sweating bullets right now. You know they’re busy calculating: they have to repudiate what he said, but how far can they go before they alienate the Trumpian base and find themselves a target of their own fanatics in subsequent elections?

Even scarier — what if he wins? Do you think Trump is the kind of fellow who keeps enemy lists, bears a grudge, and is going to screw over anyone who tried to hurt him the campaign? These guys are trapped.

I do think Clinton will win, though, and then that 30-40% of the rabid electorate that was fueled by racial hatred will pin a Dolchstoßlegende on the Republican establishment and turn on them. They won’t go Democrat, though — they’ll sit there simmering in resentment waiting for a fresh demagogue. It’s just going to get uglier and uglier, but I don’t think the Republicans will benefit.

Republicans in disarray!

It’s good to see, finally. The rats are trying to desert the sinking ship, but don’t let them — and it’s not as if they can. It’s only about a month until the election. Deadlines to put names on the ballot have passed; no matter what the other Republicans do, come November, people will go into their voting booths and Trump’s name will be there, even if every other Republican in the country has repudiated him. He will get many votes from angry white people. All that has changed is that the size of his defeat will probably be larger (although we might also get surprised: this much controversy is probably going to increase the turnout, especially among the racist/sexist/white nationalist electorate).

But it’s also too late for the Republican leadership to untangle themselves from the hideous Trump. They endorsed him. They marched out and made their little speeches approving of the man — even Ted Cruz, who told everyone to vote their conscience at the Republican convention, swallowed his pride and got on board the Trump Train. None of these people should be allowed to escape public censure.

It’s particularly galling because we all knew all along that Trump was a racist, sexist, loud-mouthed hateful boor. He declared that Mexicans were racists and that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t be trusted; they waffled. He announced that he had a plan to deport Muslims, and he took on a running mate who wanted to bar all Syrian refugees; well, that’s all right then. He proposes shutting down Planned Parenthood and bringing in judges who will overthrow Roe v. Wade, and Pence tried to pass a law requiring formal funerals for aborted fetuses; no problem. Trump wants to end marriage equality, and Pence claims tolerance for gay rights will lead to societal collapse; that’s fine, they agree. He calls women pigs, ugly, fat, and mocks them for blood coming out of their wherever; he’s just speaking his mind. He builds a following of openly racist white nationalists, he foments violence at his rallies; Dick Cheney approves this message.

Everyone knew this. These were not secretive attitudes. He was utterly brazen. We also knew that he was incompetent, had a feeble attention span, was anticipating -science, and was totally unqualified for the job, but those are basically the prerequisites for being a Republican nowadays, so we can’t fault them for overlooking that, but the naked hatred was inescapably obvious, and one thing I’ll say for the Republicans, they usually try to keep their hatred discreetly clothed.

So what suddenly turned everyone against Trump? He said lewd things about a white woman. That is unforgivable. Paul Ryan revealed the real problem. Trump was not chivalrous.

Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified.

Fuck you, Paul Ryan. No. Women don’t need you to be their champion, and reverence is not what they are looking for: fairness and equality are. Especially when your version of “reverence” involves supporting a vulgar bigot who doesn’t trust women with their own bodies.

I’ll believe Republicans are sincere in the repudiation of Donald Trump when they also repudiate all the policies and ideas Trump represented. But until then, bury the lot of them in the dung heap of history.

New entertainment: look up all the people and groups who endorsed Trump before this, when he was a known racist and perpetrator of harassment and sexual assault and were undeterred by his history. For example, here’s a page of Scholars and Writers for America, a long list of very serious very intellectual wankers who think…

Given our choices in the presidential election, we believe that Donald J. Trump is the candidate most likely to restore the promise of America, and we urge you to support him as we do.

Where, apparently, the promise of America is to support slavery and not allow women to vote.

Theranos, soon to be a movie

If you’ve wondered about that spectacular flameout by Theranos, the blood testing company, but didn’t want to read all those articles all over the place, the story is now available in cartoon form.

theranos4

Next, it’s going to be made into a movie with Jennifer Lawrence starring as the grand fraud, Elizabeth Holmes? Say, if I lie and endanger sick people and suck in a few billions from gullible investors, I want George Clooney to play me in the movie of my life.