The Carpentariat

Today's posts below.

I have been writing from Detroit since Sunday, and this morning I must make my way to Chicago, where tomorrow morning a kindly gastroenterology "interventionist" (a specialist within a speciality) will prod, poke and endoscope me from end to end so as to identify — and, I trust, treat — the hideous disease that troubles. Then I'm off to the Champaign-Urbana area on Friday morning, whereupon I'll execute a quick turnaround back to Detroit, where I shall remain for a short spell — then back to C-U. All of which is to say, I shall be absent Thursday, and perhaps Friday. See you soon, and, as always, take care.     

A short and future history of Republican poopery

Frank Bruni relates the 2018 reporting of the Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg, who "went looking for [Steve King's] Republican colleagues’ reactions" to the Iowa congressman's allegedly inoffensive white supremacy:

He [had] retweeted a Nazi sympathizer’s dire warning about the dangers of immigration in Europe, making clear that he felt that same alarm about America…. Representatives of the three top House Republicans — Paul Ryan, who was then speaker; Kevin McCarthy, the majority leader; and Steve Scalise, the whip — "did not reply to emails seeking comment," nor did a representative of Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican.

Iowa’s other Republican senator, Joni Ernst, "ducked into an elevator as she was being asked" about what King had tweeted, saying that she wasn’t up to speed on the situation and "shrugging her shoulders as the elevator doors closed," Stolberg wrote.

Ms. Ernst — "Mother, Soldier, Conservative" — promised voters as a 2014 senatorial candidate that she would tackle the beastliness of Washington D.C. in the same manner as she, as a youth, had castrated malodorous hogs on an Iowa farm. Tough pol, that lady. But her toughness morphed into a fleeing shrug when it came to confronting — non-confrontationally — the stinking, bigoted pig that was Steve King. Same for the Republican House's "leadership."  

Yet now Republicans of both chambers are indeed castrating King as though his inveterate bigotry was an overnight shock to them all. Theirs is a mechanical herd mentality in motion, displaying humanly liberal virtues (never acquired). So who knows? Next they may avow that people of color are as good, worthy and civilized as lily-white folk — nearly as good, anyway. And then the yellow-bellied party of Trump, King & Strom Thurmond will take on an altogether different hue — the ruddy color of fresh horseshit. 

The perils of populism

"She has completely lost control of the process … if she loses by 230 votes [432-202]," said the Center for European Reform's deputy director of Theresa May's fateful shellacking yesterday. Parliament's vote "[thrust] the country further into political chaos," added the NY Times, "with only 10 weeks to go until it is scheduled to leave [the European Union]."

There you have it — Britain's dumber and even more populist version (but I repeat myself) of "The Wall," accompanied and vastly complicated by another American attribute: the government's "sheer incompetence," as the Labour Party's Jeremy Corbyn put it. Were the matter in Corbyn's hands, would our British cousins be in better shape? Bloody unlikely, wrote the London Times' Jenni Russell, since "both the prime minister and the leader of the opposition are known for being cautious, obstinate, unimaginative, tribal and charmless."

British politics now has more factions than America's mid-20th-century Democratic Party. What it lacks is an FDR or LBJ. Thus, as Ms. Russell also wrote, "if within the next few weeks Parliament cannot agree on [a] deal … then Britain will tumble out of the European Union at the end of March, smashing its economy and its relationships with its closest trading partners." Along with its manifold factions, Parliament would seem to have plenty of Donald J. Trumps as well.

The Washington Post's Anne Applebaum takes note of "The People’s Vote campaign," an anti-Brexit movement which advocates another referendum on Britain's economic suicide. A now-informed vote would likely do Parliament's necessary work for it, for as Applebaum also notes: "Polling is showing increasing numbers of people opposed to Brexit."

Prime Minister May, however, is opposed to an electoral replay, "because that outcome would split the Conservative Party" even more than it's already split. And that, writes Applebaum, "[May] wants to avoid that at any cost."

Though the rancid fruit of populism is that from which Britain now suffers, yet another plebiscite is, paradoxically, a desperate cure for its national botulism. One then hopes that this lethal political pathogen be forever frozen in a research-only lab, since populism's dubious merits so often include little but mass ignorance voting on an ignorant singularity designed by ignorant propagandists — be it economic self-annihilation, or, potentially, an asinine wall.

Representative democracy is not populism, which is, rather, democracy without mediating representation. The founders understood the critical difference and did all they could to keep direct democracy far away from actual governance. Yet even the founders' interventionist tools could not, as they also understood, keep the country entirely away from populist harm.

We are now enduring precisely that, as is the United Kingdom, whose adjective no longer applies. Nor will the United States', should the divisive ignorance of factions-prone populism take hold as a governing principle. Let Brexit be a lesson to us, as it has been (one hopes) for Britain.

Attack King? But not THE King?

The suddenly clear-eyed Michael Gerson:

In their criticism of [Iowa's Rep. Steve] King, you get the sense that Republicans are actually relieved to be in the position of attacking racism for a change, instead of being forced to defend it from the president. They seem to be signaling that they are not really the bigots they appear to be…. Attacking King reveals some sense of shame at what they have become.

Yet, in the end, Republican critics of King manage to look worse rather than better. If racism is the problem, then President Trump is a worse offender….

Trump feeds ethnic stereotypes of migrants as "rapists" and "murderers." He makes apocalyptic warnings that Democratic control would "turn America into Venezuela" and "totally open borders"…. Add to this Trump’s attribution of Kenyan citizenship to former president Barack Obama. And his sympathy for the "very fine people" attending a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville. And his attacks on African American athletes and other figures. And his pardoning of former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for racial profiling, terror raids and cruel punishment of inmates. And the president’s attempts at a Muslim ban. And his contempt for "shithole countries." And … a list far longer than I can include.

By any standard, Trump says things that are reckless, wrong, abhorrent, offensive and racist. Until Republicans can state this reality with the same clarity and intensity that they now criticize King, they will be cowards in a time crying for bravery.

It would be a near statistical impossibility that all Republicans are racists. Yet I abhor all Republicans, since anyone who is willing to self-identity with what is a vividly racist party — led by an obscenely bigoted president — deserves, it seems to me, nothing but the lowest contempt.

I suppose some would say that makes me a bigot myself — that I can so easily condemn an entire group because of guilt by association with its most virulent, racist members. But anyone who could vote for a party that embraced — or ignored — birtherism, that discriminated another entire group based only on its religion, or that would countenance the idiotic charge of Democrats' "totally open borders" is someone I myself would just as soon not countenance.

Because here, his or her guilt by association is as valid a burden as the self-degradation of reactionary Republicanism and grotesque Trumpism, and as vivid as his or her party is racist. 

Right-wing lunacy in everyday practice

The Washington Post reports what we all suspected: that Trump & Friends' government shutdown is about much more than a wall; it's about the right-wing thrill of watching the federal government get gutted.

"Prominent advisers to the president have forged their political careers in relentless pursuit of a lean federal budget and a reined-in bureaucracy," writes the Post. "As a result, they have shown a high tolerance for keeping large swaths of the government dark [and] services offline."

The more remarkable line in the Post's reporting, however, is this bit of Hayekian whimsy: "The shutdown has in some ways underscored their view that government can function with fewer employees."

Of course it can. Any banana republic can. But at what cost?

TSA inspectors are calling in sick and air-traffic controllers are working without pay — hardly a morale booster — threatening flight safety. The FDA's food inspections are down, threatening everyone. Federal contractors are missing as much as $200 million a day in payments. Food assistance for low-income women and their children is about to expire, and the larger SNAP program is facing cutbacks.

Bridge repairs are going undone. Crap is piling up at some national parks. Farmers are going without vital agricultural data and subsidy programs. The environment is not being monitored. Questions about new tax laws are unanswered by the IRS, 'cause ain't nobody home. Many Coast Guardsmen aren't being paid — and this is increased border security? The government ultimately will need to issue work-backpay for work never done. Federal employees' landlords have been asked by a billionaire president to be "nice" about rent. (Or, the employees could simply stiff the landlords, per Trumpian business practice.)

The USDA has put its mortgage program for low- and middle-income rural Americans on hold. IPOs are no longer being approved by the SEC. Federal civil cases are at court standstills. The tills of all federal courts are just about empty. America's AAA credit rating is at risk. Defense-contractor employees are losing $10 million a week. Federally funded scientific research is idled. Unemployment claims by federal employees are up 400 percent.

And 800,000 Americans are either working without pay or just sitting at home, both with bills mounting.

But hey, the lunatic right is getting its ideological kicks — so what's to worry?   

Of Trump, Putin, NATO, and catastrophe

It "would be one of the most damaging things that any president could do to U.S. interests," said a former Obama official. "A geopolitical mistake of epic proportion," said a retired admiral, who added that "even discussing the idea ... — let alone actually doing so — would be the gift of the century for Putin."

Unsurprisingly, then, Trump is giving it serious thought — as serious, that is, that his thinking is capable of. Already he has damaged U.S. interests by backing away from the Paris climate accord, by leaving South Korea in doubt as to America's military assistance, and by withdrawing from President Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership (which I believe will, in time, cause the greatest damage to U.S. interests).

Only natural it is, therefore, that Trump appears to be fixated on taking the United States out of NATO. He "first raised the possibility of leaving the alliance" last summer, reports the Times, telling "his top national security officials that he did not see the point of the military alliance, which he presented as a drain on the United States." His expressed annoyance at the U.S.-European alliance was so loony and unhinged from decades-long policy that senior officials "were unsure if he was serious." But "he has returned to the idea several times, officials said increasing their worries."

The particular bug wedged in Trump's arse is, of course, that of money; it has nothing to do with U.S. and European security. At a top-level NATO meeting in July 2018 Trump "expressed frustration that European leaders would not, on the spot, pledge to spend more," and since then, "allied military spending [has] continued to lag behind the goals the president had set" (my emphasis). But like Chancellor Merkel's repeated attempts to explain to Donald that he could not negotiate a trade treaty with Germany alone, "he appeared not to grasp the details when several [European leaders] tried to explain to him that spending levels were set by parliaments in individual countries."

When coupled with the recent revelation that Trump has huddled with Putin not only privately but, incredibly, off all official records, it is understandable that his national security aides are more worried than ever that he is "seriously" pursuing a break with NATO — again, a "geopolitical mistake of epic proportion" and "the gift of the century for Putin."

Although the author of Soviet containment policy, George Kennan, had (in my historical opinion wisely) opposed the creation of NATO as a needless provocation of Russia, NATO today is an indispensable institution. Europe faces Putin's reckless aggression in Ukraine (having already annexed Crimea), as well as the internal fragmentation of the European Union (thanks largely to the U.K.), and in general a weakening of the West's global leadership. Thus Trump's stupidity in relation to NATO could well prove catastrophic.

And now, especially with Jim Mattis gone, Trump's stupidity is entirely unbridled. The worst possible scenario is that contained in the words of his supporters, "Let Trump be Trump" — which is tantamount to, "Let disaster reign."

The perfect Christmas gift, 2019, for the seriously warped

You'll want to get your order in now, because doubtless they'll go fast. Here is a work of fiction that is sure to rival anything J.K. Rowling or purveyors of rabbit holes and snark hunts have ever written. Even the puff pieces (included herein) are journeys into the bizarre, the otherworldly, the dazzling extremes of the human imagination.

I'd order and read it myself, but given my intestinal limitations, I question that I could handle the rather psychedelic fictional trip.

Kasich is gearing up

This, from former governor John Kasich, is mighty close to a presidential candidacy announcement:

It’s a new year and almost two decades into a new century, yet so much about American life and our political leadership — notably in my own Republican Party — seems stuck in the 1950s…. Those who fancy themselves as leaders are plodding far behind the march of time. Sadly, too many Americans are content to plod along with them….

They’ve learned absolutely nothing from their skunking in the midterm elections. They didn’t watch, or chose to ignore, the new Congress being sworn in the other day. It was a more energetic, diverse and self-assured group than those chambers have seen before….

By failing to come up with fresh ideas and real solutions for our most vexing problems, congressional Republicans, the White House and other power structures in Washington let those problems fester or reluctantly patch them up with half-baked solutions that only make things worse….

It’s time for Republicans in our state capitals and Washington to get in step with the fast-moving parade. Otherwise, they’ll lose. Because there’s one thing we learn from parades: Anyone falling behind gets swept up by those guys who follow the horses.

I used to think of Kasich as an unmitigated demagogue. He seemed to play the part of the populist Everyman more than he ever seemed to hold the concept genuinely dear. My thinking has changed, somewhat, in fact a great deal. I now see Kasich as an earnest kind of Rockefeller Republican — a liberal Republican, if you will, a near-extinct species. Would he have a hope in hell of beating Trump in the 2020 primaries? No. Because "too many [Republicans] are content to plod along with" the president. But Kasich is looking at 2024; for perhaps by then, the near-extinct Republican Party will have looked around, and recognized the vast graveyard it is in.

Trump's eeny-meeny-miny-moe presidency

Friday morning, "Trump reasserted his right to build border walls via an emergency declaration"; he "appeared on the brink of declaring a national emergency."

Friday afternoon, "he said he wanted to give lawmakers more time to act"; his "comments marked a shift from earlier Friday."

One day. Both in one day. Not even that — both within just a few hours.

A year ago, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said "negotiating with President Trump is like negotiating with Jell-O." His analogy was too substantial. Even Jello-O one can hold in one's hand. Trump's words, vows and intentions are but the evanescent ether.

***

As I write, this just in via email, from Politico's Breaking News:

"Trump on Monday appeared to rule out declaring a national emergency to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border."

As for Tuesday, who the hell knows?

The Democratic pack will thin quickly

You just knew I would have to quote the Times' David Leonhardt:

"Run, Joe, run. Run because you have strengths that no other Democratic candidate does, including your depth of experience and connection to the Obama presidency. Run because your populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation."

I could not have said it better, even though I have said the same: that no one either running, or thinking of running, the presidential gauntlet comes close to Biden's deep well of experience and Everyman persona. American voters once respected these attributes, especially that of an extensive political and policy background. FDR, for instance, had been a state senator, assistant secretary of the Navy, a U.S. Senate candidate, vice-presidential candidate and governor of New York before he became a serious presidential contender. Earning one's chops seems to be lost in today's politics — largely to our detriment.

"Biden is unique among" Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar — my choice for the VP slot — writes Leonhardt. "For starters, he would bring strengths to the actual job of president that the others would not. He has an intimate sense of the modern presidency. He has spent decades … doing battle with a radicalized Republican Party."

Still, the columnist encourages the widest possible field. "If Biden runs now, I’m not sure whether I’ll be rooting for him to win. But I am rooting for him to run because the country needs to maximize the chances that Trump’s presidency ends as soon as possible." On the latter we can all agree, though I am more of an "all-in" man when it comes to Biden's run. I'm also not a NYT columnist under the paper's editorial strictures, so I can write that. Leonhardt can't.

In addition he muses the conventional musing; that "trying to identify the perfect nominee far in advance is a fool’s game. At the start of a presidential campaign, it’s hard to know who will shine and who will struggle."

That gauntlet I do not run. This one, I throw down. There is, of course, no such person as "the prefect nominee." But it would be foolish to deny Biden's earned, frontrunner status, as well as the reasons that got him there. They'll all shine from time to time, and they'll all struggle. But only one has the personal and empirical virtues to crush Trump, which, soon enough, should become apparent enough.

Now? All he has to do is run.

It was all there, 61 years ago

This 23-minute episode of an otherwise forgettable 1958 television series, "Trackdown," is something you simply must see. I saw two short clips of the oater on "Hardball" last week, and its 61-year-old prophecies just about blew me away.

The show's protagonist, lawman Hoby Gilman, played by Robert Culp, always gets his man, and the antagonist, Lawrence Dobkin, whose character's name will have you roaring in near disbelief, is your classic, shifty villain. The opportunistic town sheriff, Chet Farrow, played by the always serviceable Dabbs Greer, today sits in Virginia's Alexandria Detention Center. The townspeople? They're America's prototypical white working class. Enjoy this Sunday treat.

Donald Trump, us, and the double entendre of counterintelligence

This has to be the most breathtaking lede ever written in American journalism; an opening so bizarre, it seems better suited for a second-rate spy novel than the actual stuff of American politics:

"In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests."

So reports "the failing NY Times," which, with extraordinary success, is driving Trump into perfectly justified paranoia, which also manifests itself in increasingly incoherent, digressive and immaterial Twitter rants. "Just learned [the FBI] opened up an investigation on me, for no reason & with no proof," belched the Orange Dissonance this morning, "after I fired Lyin’ James Comey, a total sleaze!" — and "a Crooked Cop."

That the FBI would initiate a criminal and counterintelligence investigation into the president of the United States "for no reason" is of course absurd on its face. But perhaps more telling is that the president never refutes the imposing facts of such stories. Rather, he slops irrelevant and incomprehensible drivel onto his Twitter account: "Bob Mueller, & the 13 Angry Democrats - leaking machines who have NO interest in going after the Real Collusion (and much more) by Crooked Hillary Clinton, her Campaign, and the Democratic National Committee." Gruel for the toothless masses. Nothing more.

It could be that this famously subliterate president didn't actually read the Times story — that he was merely, scantily briefed on it, given that he also possesses virtually no attention span — and thereby missed the "reasons," plural, for the FBI's investigation. As with any investigation, proof is the sought-after product of its reasons for existence — proof is seldom the starting point. And this investigation's reasons are legion, including that Trump, on the campaign trail, publicly asked the Russians to hack into Hillary Clinton's email; he blew nothing but kisses at America's human threat of Vladimir Putin; and he revamped the Republican Party's 2016 platform in a pro-Russian way on the Ukraine crisis.

Later came British spy Christopher Steele's dossier which related that "Russian officials tried to obtain influence over Mr. Trump by preparing to blackmail and bribe him." Then Trump, as president, asked the FBI director to quash his investigation into National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's illicit doings; he wrote a preposterous letter explaining that the director's firing was because of his having "mishandled the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server" (the White House Counsel's "concerns about Mr. Trump’s letter show how much he realized that the president’s rationale for firing Mr. Comey might not hold up to scrutiny"; and then there was the Lester Holt, NBC News interview in which Trump blurted that he sacked Comey precisely because of the "Russia thing."

Not reasons enough to launch an obstruction of justice and counterintelligence investigation into the president, you say? Well how about the grandaddy of all justifiable reasons: "I just fired the head of the F.B.I.," said Trump to the Russian ambassador and foreign minister in the Oval Office. "He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off."

I opened this post by writing that the Times story is breathtaking. The descriptive can't really do justice to the report's historic significance — no descriptive can. In this nation's 232 years, never has it "had to consider whether the president’s own actions constituted a possible threat to national security," or "whether [the president] was knowingly working" for a hostile foreign power. I submit that only one such instance of the highest of all presidential crimes throughout a quarter of a millennium is a rather good record for this, the world's oldest representative democracy. Yet I would also submit that even this singular instance could have, and quite definitely should have, been averted by an informed, intelligent, rational electorate.

Trump isn't our greatest danger. We ourselves are.

Whence any real conservatism?

National Review:

"[Declaring a national emergency is] a terrible idea. Even if it’s legal — which is unclear, at best — it would represent another unwelcome step in America’s long march toward unilateral government by the executive…. It’s an offense against the spirit of our system for a president to fail to get he wants from Congress — in a dispute involving a core congressional power, spending — and then turn around and exploit a tenuous reading of the law to try to get it anyway."

I sometimes wonder who still reads the National Review. The publication struggled financially even when virtually every American conservative held Buckleyesque views. Now anywhere from 80 to 90 precent of conservatives (as always, I use the term loosely) are mere vassals of ramshackle Trumpism and its eponymous blockhead in the White House, conservative opposition to whom brings immediate damnation and permanent retribution by said blockhead and vassals.

How does the magazine pay so much as its power or water bills (which even the federal government can no longer do) when its readership has gone both bughouse daft and AWOL and the National Review, somewhat borderline daft itself, nonetheless dares to lethally question the Putinite wisdom of Comrade Trump?

The Weekly Standard is now gone because of its conservative heresies in this medieval age of Trumpian obscurantism, hence I also wonder at times if the National Review will be next. Which, if so, begs the question: How can any authentically conservative movement get kickstarted if young "conservatives" have no partly rational publications to read, and only Fox News to watch and gangs of talk-radio lunatics to listen to?

(A lot of) farmers (were) for Trump

Merriam-Webster defines schadenfreude as "enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others." The literal English translation of the German is "malicious pleasure." When reading of American farmers' troubles under an administration they, in such significant numbers, installed, I confess to some small amount of sinister pleasure — of the tackiness of schadenfreude. But mostly I seethe that they disgraced this country out of their racism, or ignorance, or authoritarian-personality thrill of sieg heiling a boorish popinjay. They're now getting what they deserve, and from that I also derive some satisfaction.

In fact what could be more satisfying than the NY Times' "Farm Country Stood by Trump. But the Shutdown Is Pushing It to Breaking Point"? It's a study in justice.

While many rural conservatives may loathe the idea of Big Government, farmers and the federal government are welded together by dozens of programs and billions of dollars in spending.

Now, farmers and farm groups say that federal crop payments have stopped flowing. Farmers cannot get federally backed operating loans to buy seed for their spring planting, or feed for their livestock. They cannot look up new government data about beef prices or soybean yields to make decisions about planting and selling their goods in an ever-changing global market.

For decades, the American farmer has railed against that Big Government with a bleeding heart; he has voted for every crackpot conservative pol who has promised that lesser "others" should get what they deserve, which is pretty much nothing (except farmer-benefiting food stamps, of course). The farmer, however, is promised a ceaseless flow of federal largess. With the advent of Trump, they were also promised fairy tales that are boomeranging as nightmares.

In New York’s farming communities, the shutdown is heaping additional pain onto farmers after a year of tariff losses, destructive weather and labor shortages because of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdowns.

Bad weather can't be helped, but even an agrarian ignoramus should have known that trade wars are losers and immigration crackdowns also crack down on seasonal labor. The Trump administration tried bribing farmers with its "trade bailout" program — paying farmers for being so stupid as to vote for an economic imbecile — but with Trump having shut down the government, even the boodle has now stopped.

All this has some farmers rethinking their support of this catastrophic president. Still, "many farmers," reports the Times, "have stayed unflinchingly loyal to Mr. Trump … even as the shutdown threatens their livelihood." Case in point: One David Nunnery, 59, of Miss., said — he actually said — to the Times, "I may lose the farm, but I strongly feel we need some border security."

OK, should that come to pass, Mr. Nunnery, I shall indeed go whole hog with the schadenfreude.

Do we want the same ugliness and hate?

My daughter just returned from a 10-day tour of Israel — Jaffa, Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Tel Aviv — as well as the West Bank, the Gaza and Syrian borders. Her university group was guided by an Israeli and, by law, accompanied by an armed bodyguard. (A mile from the Gaza Strip she heard explosions — bombs.) She says the tour was surprisingly objective in its presentations; the students were encouraged not only to ask questions but to express any disagreements with Israeli policies toward Palestinians (and they did), and to continue forming their own opinions about the endless Israel-Palestine conflict.

At lunch today I briefed my daughter on the current insanity of the Trump administration and its pointless government shutdown over the wall. Her response was, and I quote, After seeing the Israeli wall, the thought of us putting up a similar structure on our southern border makes me sick.       

My apologies, I'm still down with the plague, on top of which I must pick up my daughter at the train station this morning. At least something will be right with today. I will be back tomorrow morning, notwithstanding plagues, rides, or anything else. Take care.   

I wish I had known

Hilarious:

A gambling site is paying out thousands of dollars to people who correctly bet that President Donald Trump would tell more than 3.5 lies in his Oval Office address on Tuesday.

Bookmaker.eu asked people to wager on the president's truthfulness, offering odds of -145 for more than 3.5 lies and +115 for less than 3.5 lies. That means if a person bet $145 dollars that Trump would lie at least four times, they would win $100.

And some people won big. Odds consultant John Lester told BuzzFeed News the site will lose $276,424, with 92% of its bettors correctly wagering that Trump would lie a lot.

"It's a bad day for Truthiness and Bookmaker," he said. "We knew we were in trouble early with this one."

I'm puzzled that even 8 precent gambled that Trump would lie only a little, but utterly befuddled by a gambling site setting such odds on what was bound to be a sure thing: that Trump would lie his ass off (his lies averaged nearly one per minute for eight minutes), because he's Trump.

I'm a little under the weather this morning. I hope to be back later today, though.

p.s.: Not to leave you in the dark, it's the same bowel situation I've been battling for months. I'll be absent next Thursday, Jan 17, when I'll be scoped from both ends at Northwestern Hospital by a gastroenterology "interventionist." I have high hopes. 

Eight minutes of Trumpian blather. Surprise.

Well, at least he didn't declare a national emergency.

When I read his speech would last only eight minutes, I decided to watch after all, after fortifying myself with a spot of whisky, just in case.

Mostly we heard Trump's routine horror stories of criminally violent immigrants, even though statistics show immigrants are less criminally inclined than native Americans.

The big news? Trump no longer wants a wall. No, he wants not even steel slats. No, he now wants a physical barrier. This makes blithering iteration #3. (I prefer Nancy Pelosi's "beaded curtain.")

The genuinely puzzling part of Trump's gibberish was ...

What in God's name does a wall or steel slats or a physical barrier have to do with shutting down the government and depriving hundreds of thousands of federal workers their livelihood?

Trump's speech is OK, Obama's wasn't

In November 2014 (after the midterms), President Obama wished to give an immigration speech on the major networks (CBS, NBC, ABC) in primetime, as George W. Bush had done in 2006. The networks declined.

As CNN explained: "Television network officials say they consider a number of factors when determining whether to interrupt lucrative prime time programming for a presidential address. One factor is whether the speech is 'political' in nature," which every presidential speech is to some degree, just as Bush's was.

So while the liberal media allowed a Republican president a primetime speech on immigration, a Democratic president was denied, and now the cycle repeats. Trump will be on the networks tonight in the most extravagantly political speech — on immigration — ever aired on network television. And the latter permits it because it's afraid of Trump's subsequent whining about unfairness and other right-wing howls of injustice.

As the Times' David Leonhardt writes, "This whole situation means that Trump is effectively rewarded for his scorched-earth style of politics."

As it has always been.