Month: February 2018

Ben Carson’s $31,561 Conference Table

It was revealed yesterday that the Department of Housing and Urban Development spent $31,561 on a conference table set so that Ben Carson could better entertain guests at work. It was also revealed that then-Acting Secretary Craig Clemmensen had pushed a request from Ben Carson’s wife for a major upgrade of her husband’s office space. When told that the department would need congressional approval for any expense beyond $5,000, Clemmensen reportedly responded that they couldn’t even buy a decent chair for $5,000. This prompted the Washington Post to research the typical prices for conference tables and chairs.

They did find a couple of office chairs that cost more than $5,000. And they found this excellent option that came in just under budget:

Then there’s the Osaki OS-3D Pro Cyber Zero Gravity Heated Massage Chair, in firetruck red, on Amazon. For a measly $4,795.00, you can enjoy a 3-D Roller and “features that will allow for a very vigorous massage, or even a gentle massage.” These include, of course, “next generation airbags, computer body scan, Zero Gravity, lumbar heat, MP3 music system, Foot Rollers, chromo therapy, and more.”

As for conference tables, they asked Deb Longua-Zamero, an interior designer who worked on “the post-presidential office space for President George H.W. Bush.”

Longua-Zamero said high-end conference table sets can run upward of $20,000, so the $31,561 price tag is “not unreasonable” — at least not for corporate executives.

When it’s funded with taxpayer money, she said, “that’s a whole different ballgame.”

“I do think that anybody in a political office should be more conscientious about their choices because it’s coming from the taxpayers’ money,” she said.

It sounds like $31,561 is more than $10,000 or 50 percent more than what even high-end conference tables cost at the upper margin, so I am not sure why that would be a reasonable price even for a corporate executive. But there is something unseemly about a department dedicated to housing for the poor spending this much money on office furniture.

Of course, it had to be done. After all, HUD spokesman Raffi Williams explained yesterday that “the previous table was old and beyond repair.” I’d like to see this old table so I can discover how it it could be possibly be beyond repair. Had termites eaten away at the legs or did someone put their soft drink down without a coaster and absolutely ruin the finish?

When President Trump asked Ben Carson to serve as his HUD Secretary, Carson sensibly declined because he considered himself wholly unqualified for the position. It’s too bad he was talked out of that. But if you visit him for lunch, don’t take your eating surface for granted. It cost a fortune.

Deep State and the Cold War – Feeding Fascists

    Recent post @BooMan: “The whole deep state thing is a hoot.”

Victorious over Nazis in WWII … the Cold War required a Deep State … Dulles bros – J. Edgar Hoover – J.J. Angleton – Richard Helms – OSI – Mind Control experiments MKULTRA – Operation Gladio – CIA – Covert action – beyond control of U.S. Congress and quite often unknown to the person sitting in the Oval Office – any and all false flag events. Amazing synchronicity between intelligence agencies across Western nations and beyond – indeed beyond the Five Eyes  

How many citations are needed? The CIA assassinations of presidents in the 1950s – 1960s – 1970s – Church Committee – …

○ In Cold War, U.S. Spy Agencies Used 1,000 Nazis

Value of whistleblowers!

○ Breaking: Italian fascist spy network possibly linked to US intelligence   by paper tigress @dKos on July 1, 2005
○ ‘Operation Gladio’ reveals ‘Gladio’, the secret state-sponsored terror network operating in Europe | BBC documentary – 1992 |

“Deception is a state of mind
  and the mind of the State”

James Jesus Angleton,
Head of CIA Counter Intelligence 1954-1974

Quite a number of terror events during the last decades in Europe were perpetrated by “soldiers” of Gladio.

 
Update-1:

To Don:

I have been a community member since early 2005 and have been encouraged in my writings throughout. Many bloggers in this community have left for whatever reasons. The useful idiots trolling every comment I made in a front page story block any sensible debate. I am not AG, so I will remain in what I do best and cover international issues connected to the United States, Europe and the Middle East. Bush & Co created chaos according to the neocon AIPAC playbook. The events since have been predicted including the turn to the right and populism. In many nations, it’s home grown, so also in the US.

Kind regards,
Oui

PS: In the meantime I will divide my time between BooMan and EuroTrib.

More below the fold …
Update-2: Kelly Taking Control of Intelligence Briefings

A Brief Guide to Every Five-Alarm Fire Currently Engulfing The White House | NY Mag |

Jared Kushner repeatedly failed to disclose all of his foreign contacts to the FBI; is (ostensibly) a person of interest in an ongoing counterintelligence investigation; and was desperately seeking a $400 million investment from an entity tied to the Chinese government weeks before he moved into the White House. And yet, for nearly a year, the presidential son-in-law was allowed to view top secret information without a security clearance – despite his ongoing inability to pass an FBI background check.

But no more. In the wake of his botched attempt to cover for a serial domestic abuser, John Kelly has sought to reimpose discipline on the West Wing. His first order of business: Downgrading the security clearances of the scores of White House officials who’d been accessing top-level state secrets without the FBI’s endorsement. Kushner didn’t see why this new rule had to be applied to princeling like himself. Kelly didn’t see why not – after all, the chief of staff was already (reportedly) interested in finding a way to keep Kushner from stepping all over Rex Tillerson’s toes.

Now, Jared, Ivanka and Don Jr. are all (reportedly) “furious with Kelly and his allies” – and they’ve apparently enlisted the not-so-dearly departed Anthony Scaramucci in their fight.

Meanwhile, the president is (reportedly) furious with all of the above.

BMW = Brexit Made Wonderful

Fintan O’Toole has an interesting take on why the Brexiteers think they can ultimately force the EU to give the UK what it wants in the Brexit deal:

Marxism is alive and well in British politics. The irony, though, is that its strongest influence is not in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party. It is on the Tory right. Perhaps the oddest thing about the Brexit zealots – though there is a great deal of competition for this title – is that they cling to a particularly crude form of Marxist economic determinism.

Their whole project is predicated on the belief that a cabal of capitalist bosses can issue orders that the entire European Union would rush to obey. The all-powerful clique in question is made up of the principal shareholders of Volkswagen, BMW, Audi, Opel, Porsche and Mercedes.

It would be hard to overstate just how large these German industrialists have loomed in the consciousness of the Brexiteers and their media cheerleaders. They were to be Britain’s saviours. It was they who would ensure that the EU would be forced to give Britain all the benefits of the single market and the customs union even after it departed from both. It was they who would provide the lubrication for the zipless, frictionless Brexit of the Leavers’ dreams.

Of course not all economic determinism is Marxist. The Realpolitik school of foreign policy analysis often defines the interests of state actors in economic terms. And of course you can define politics in terms of class war and be on the side of the ruling as opposed to working classes. But the Tory Brexiteers were in no doubt as to how the world worked:

The chain of reasoning began with a factual proposition: the Germans sell a hell of a lot of cars to the UK. The next link in the chain is rational: therefore, the German car manufacturers would not want any tariff barriers to be created after Brexit. And then, in the way of magical thinking, there is the great leap.

Seeing their interests threatened, Frau Mercedes and Herr Audi would lift the phone to Angela Merkel. “Merkel!” they would bark. “There must be no tariff barriers. We will not allow it!”

The chancellor in turn would call Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk: “The British must have their cake and eat it. Understood?” “Yes, Ma’am!” Hence, BMW stands for Brexit Made Wonderful.

—snip—

Even as the Brexit project retreats ever further into chaos and absurdity, this fantasy survives. Pro-Brexit papers continue to run headlines like the Daily Express’s “Merkel’s Brexit NIGHTMARE: 18,000 German car firm jobs at risk.” The Sun reports on the “pleas from German car manufacturers, led by BMW, builders of Britain’s electric Mini, for Brussels to stop punishing Britain”.

This in spite of the explicit statements from those same German car bosses that the integrity of the single market matters much more to them than the disruption of their trade with Britain.

There are many ironies in all of this, not least the reliance on Germans to save an English nationalist project and the fact that most Marxists (including Marx) have long since abandoned this very crude idea of how economic interests translate into political actions. But the greatest irony of all is that Brexit itself is a particularly powerful example of how political sentiment can outweigh economic self-interest.

It has long been my view that the UK government regards the formal Brussels based Brexit negotiations with the EU Commission as little more than window dressing. The REAL DEAL was always going to be done behind the scenes by the UK Prime Minister and Angela Merkel, anxious to preserve Germany’s trade surplus with the UK. I suspect the UK fully expects the Brussels talks to break down, at which point the Prime Ministers of the countries which REALLY MATTER would ride in to the rescue with a “sensible deal” more to the liking of the captains of Capitalism.

And the reason the Brexiteers think this is that that is more or less the way things work in the UK. Rupert Murdoch once gave the game away as told by Anthony Hilton: “I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. `That’s easy,’ he replied. `When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.'”

So when Boris Johnson et al talk about “TAKING BACK CONTROL”, they mean that it is they and their primary sponsors and funders who want to take back control from the EU. The people of central and northern England who voted for Brexit in large numbers were never going to gain any more power over their lives: they were but pawns in a power struggle between competing elites in British political and economic life. Brexiteers fondly imagined that all they had to do was make a deal with German Capitalists, as they do in the UK, and the EU would have no option but to rubber stamp the deal.

Even after a year of negotiations in Brussels which have basically gotten nowhere in terms of realising the Brexiteers’ dream of “having cake and eating it” their fantasies persist. I recently had a conversation with a Remain voter, now a convinced Brexiteer, who made the following arguments:

  1. The German’s won’t want to lose their trade surplus to the UK and will force the EU to agree a deal
  2. Many in Europe are also unhappy with the EU and will soon follow the UK’s lead
  3. Britons are prepared to accept some short-term economic pain if it means greater economic growth and political freedom in the long run
  4. Longer term the UK economy will grow much more rapidly outside the EU because more of its exports go to non-EU countries, and these are growing more rapidly than its exports to the EU.
  5. The “experts” got it all wrong when they predicted economic collapse are the referendum vote and many other experts see a much brighter future for the UK outside the EU
  6. The EU will still want the UK’s cooperation and support on matters like defence and security and thus will be forced to agree a close relationship on other matters of common interest.
  7. The EU is basically a failing, undemocratic, bureaucracy and the UK is ahead of the curve in getting out.
  8. The UK will never allow a border in “the Irish sea” as the Irish government and EU are suggesting.

I made the following points in response:

  1. The UK makes up 4% of EU exports, while 40% of UK exports go to the EU. The impact of any tariff and non-tariff barriers on trade will therefore be an order of magnitude greater for the UK than the EU.
  2. Opinion polling in the EU actually shows an upswing in support for EU membership and parties advocating withdrawal from the EU have not performed well in recent elections. In Ireland, support for the EU is at an all time high, despite the fact that the impact of Brexit will be greatest there.
  3. All the economic models predict that the impact of Brexit will be slow, incremental, and cumulatively very negative for UK economic growth in the longer term.
  4. There is nothing to prevent the UK increasing its exports to non-EU countries now, while still a member of the EU, and in fact the EU has been actively concluding relatively advantageous FTAs with all our major trading partners. The EU has far greater leverage in such negotiations than the UK would have on its own and a much more experienced trade negotiating team.
  5. The “experts” are virtually unanimous in predicting reduced economic growth for the UK in the longer term, and the UK economic growth has already slowed considerably compared to its peers in the EU and elsewhere. And this is before Brexit has even happened.
  6. I, for one, will be very happy when the UK’s influence on the EU’s foreign and security policies is much reduced. We do not want to be dragged into another Iraq war by Tony Blair and his like.
  7. It is a rich irony that it is the UK which accuses the EU of lacking in democracy when the UK is the only EU country with an entirely unelected House of parliament and an entirely antiquated single seat FPTP voting system which ensures that smaller parties are often grossly under-represented and where voting in many constituencies is pointless as the result is a foregone conclusion. The “Brussels bureaucracy” is smaller than the Derbyshire County Council staff and is no more unelected than the Whitehall civil service. The UK will soon see the flip side of how democratic the EU is when any deal they negotiate requires the unanimous consent of 27 members, the EU Parliament and some regional parliaments.
  8. The UK will have to allow N. Ireland to remain in the Single Market and Customs union if it cannot devise another way of avoiding a requirement for customs controls at the Irish border. Ireland and the EU will not agree to a Brexit deal that requires one.

—

Naturally the argument got nowhere with both sides accusing the other of getting their facts wrong. Overall the Brexiteer position can be summed up as “the EU needs the UK as much as the UK needs the EU and therefore they have no option but to agree a deal in the interests of both parties.” I’ve been studying politics a long time, and if there is one conclusion I have come to it is that nothing is inevitable and if things can go wrong, they often will. It is still possible for the EU and UK to reach an amicable settlement which mitigates the damage caused by Brexit but it is by no means certain that they will.

Indeed if my recent conversation is anything to go by there will be no substantial Brexit deal. Both parties are simply living in a different universe. For a negotiation to succeed you need common interests, competence, goodwill and trust. In my view the last three are sorely lacking and not showing any signs of improving. I see no reason to change my prediction, made shortly after the referendum, that a very hard Brexit with no substantial deal was the most likely outcome followed by a prolonged period of deteriorating relationships. A post Brexit FTA could take decades to negotiate and ratify.

The EU was founded to secure and preserve peace in Europe after many centuries of war including two world wars. It has been an extraordinary success in doing so. It has secured democracy in Spain, Portugal, and Greece and straddled the Iron Curtain divide. Attempts by Brexiteers to breakup the EU and restore the previous system of rivalry between the great powers resulting in many wars must be resisted at all costs. Continued European peace depends on the Brexiteer project of dismantling the EU being roundly defeated.

Making America Unwelcome to Immigrants

At the urging of his triangulating strategist Dick Morris, The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) was signed by President Clinton in August 1996. During his 1992 campaign, Clinton had repeated his intention to “end welfare as we know it” like a mantra. The Republicans, who took over joint control of Congress in 1995 for the first time since the early 1950’s, responded by giving him draconian versions of welfare reform which he vetoed. But he was convinced that he needed to keep his promise so he called the Republicans’ bluff and signed PRWORA into law. It was the second of three harshly anti-immigrant bills Clinton signed in 1996 as he fought for his reelection. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act became law in April. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) became effective on September 30th.

All three bills were notable not just for their aggressiveness towards illegal immigrants but for their collective effect on legal permanent residents, or green card holders. Suddenly, green card holders were ineligible for food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Medicaid. They couldn’t participate in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and Aid to Families with Dependent Children was eliminated in favor of Temporary Aid to Needy Families, or TANF. Permanent legal residents weren’t eligible for TANF, either.

Clinton’s approval of PRWORA led to some resignations at the Department of Health & Human Services, including longtime family friend Peter Edelman. It also led to a widespread feeling among legal permanent residents that they were vulnerable. Prior to this wave of anti-immigration law, many foreign-born people in business and academia lived and raised their children in the United States without much thought of becoming citizens. It’s true that they couldn’t vote, but they otherwise lived lives that were indistinguishable from their neighbors. In the aftermath of 1996, there was a large rush among this class of people to start the naturalization process even though few of them had ever relied on government programs like Medicaid or Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

In progressive circles, welfare reform was generally opposed, but the provisions on legal permanent residents were seen as the most egregious and unforgivable aspects of PRWORA. The administration acknowledged the flaws in the bill but repeatedly promised to fix them in the years ahead.

[Health and Human Services Secretary Donna] Shalala herself had been a tenacious critic of the welfare bill, but she argued to angry liberals in recent weeks that they needed to support Mr. Clinton so he could fight for changes in the legislation.

“I promise you this, on behalf of the President,” she told delegates at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, “that this bill will be changed and that this bill will be improved in the years ahead until we get it right for American families.”

I bring this history up now because it was very controversial at the time to create a new system in law whereby legal permanent residents were treated as a problem that needed to be addressed. In some sense, they had already been in a second class, since they were not technically citizens. But they felt welcome here prior to 1996, and a decision to become a citizen was more of a personal than a practical decision. Few of these people were actually impacted by the laws that were enacted in 1996, but those laws definitely changed how the felt about their place in our society.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court effectively ruled that non-citizens, both legal and illegal, can be detained indefinitely without judicial review.

Many people will rightfully focus on how this might impact illegal immigrants, just as most of the focus on Clinton’s welfare reform focused on the people who would lose benefits and the children who would suffer. But, we should ask ourselves what kind of message this will send to green card holders, too. Will professors and researchers be as eager to work in America when they know that they can be Gitmoed? Will skilled workers choose America over Australia or Canada or the United Kingdom?

Once again, we’ve let a wave of anti-immigrant feeling grow out of control without really considering all the implications.

Natasha Bertrand, Another ‘Unaligned’ Reporter

The American troll factory for one-track mind in anti-Russia propaganda has got a new advocate: Natasha Bertrand. An useful stooge coming from nowhere with few journalistic credentials.

Of course, after the bull shit of Louise Mensch, PropOrNot and the Hamiltan68, what else could we expect from the likes of JDW?

A new website named after a Founding Father is tracking Russian propaganda in real time | Business Insider | by Natasha Bertrand

More below the fold …

 

○ G M F : The Methodology of the Hamilton 68 Dashboard

    In other words – the “Twitter accounts suspected of having links to Russia” were following the current news just as cable news networks do. When a new sensational event happened they immediately jumped onto it. But the NYT authors go to length to claim that there is some nefarious Russian scheme behind this that uses automated accounts to spread divisive issues.

    Those claims are based on this propaganda project:

       Last year, the Alliance for Securing Democracy, in conjunction with the German Marshall Fund, a public policy research group in Washington, created a website that tracks hundreds of Twitter accounts of human users and suspected bots that they have linked to a Russian influence campaign.

    The “Alliance for Securing Democracy” is run by military lobbyists, CIA minions and neo-conservative propagandists. Its claimed task is:

       … to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin’s ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in the United States and Europe.

h/t one of the blogs listed on PropOrNot!

Natasha Bertrand

Natasha is a political correspondent at Business Insider. She writes mainly about national security and foreign policy.

Before joining Business Insider, Natasha worked at a political think tank in Madrid [Citation needed: ???], Spain, researching EU relations with the Middle East and North Africa. Later, she served as the CSR intern at the oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues in London, focusing on human rights and sustainable development.

She is an alumna of Vassar College and the London School of Economics.

Education

Vassar College   2010 — 2014
Bachelor’s degree, Political Science and Philosophy

The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)   2012 — 2013
Government and Philosophy

A.W. Dreyfoos School of the Arts

Experience

Business Insider   November 2014 – Present
Business Insider   September 2014 – November 2014
Vassar College   August 2013 – May 2014
IPIECA   June 2013 – August 2013
Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior (FRIDE – Wikipedia)   July 2012 – October 2012

The Atlantic Hires Natasha Bertrand as Staff Writer, James Somers as Contributing Editor – Jan. 18, 2018

○ ‘A model for civilization’: Putin’s Russia has emerged as ‘a beacon for nationalists’ and the American alt-right | Business Insider | by Natasha Bertrand on Dec. 10th, 2016

A few articles written by Natasha Bertrand were reprinted @ Russia Insider …

○ Turkey Is Hosting Peace Talks Between Russia and Syrian Rebels — And the US Isn’t Invited – Dec. 8, 2016
○ A Bunch of Frustrated People’ in the Obama Administration Want to Set Syria on Fire Again – Apr. 15, 2016

JDW’s source – RESIST!

 

Update-1:

I never have been someone to blend into the grey masses or ease to join a majority opinion on false pretense in political dialogue. U.S. Congress is a true reflection of the will of the American People as was designed by the Founding Fathers in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Polling indicates US politicians aren’t trustworthy. Trump is on the top of the heap. It’s not of his making and in my analysis he was the one more surprised than anyone. I have lived through many generations of Americans and its way of life. So I am not surprised but will try to do some damage control. That’s why I am optimistic the American influence in Europe will take a hit once Brexit is implemented in full. America represents the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. I understand the US is shutting its borders for immigrants. AngloSaxons in optima forma, Therese May will be proud.

Re: Wikileaks lied about talking to Roger Stone. (none / 1)

You’re the one that made a mountain out of a molehill. Then, as usual, you toss out your long-standing negative opinion of me to bolster your rejection of the points in my comment. (btw that is dishonest argumentation.)

Do you believe Roger Stone’s claim, prior to his first (and now documented) DM message to Wikileaks in Oct ’16 that he was in contact with Wikileaks? Nothing in these tweets suggest that it was true. Or his later claim that he wasn’t in direct contact with Wikileaks? Or that his contact with Wikileaks was through an intermediary? How do you decide when Stone is lying and when he’s telling the truth?

While you and I have had numerous spats on this site, if you told anyone that you were in “direct contact” with me, I’d say not true. Same with unsolicited email contact that doesn’t go beyond a terse response from me.

Have you never been falsely accused of doing something that you didn’t? Having a short response comment blown up into something it wasn’t? (Yes, Clinton’s “depends on the meaning of is” may have been entirely appropriate and responsive and understood in that situation. (In depos and on a witness stand I’ve had opposing attorneys attempt to trap me into admitting something that wasn’t true. They didn’t succeed but that doesn’t mean that the task was easy for me.) Did Clinton lie about having an extramarital sexual relationship? Yes — numerous times. Did I care about his lies or consensual relationships? No because it wasn’t any sort of capital offense or dereliction of his public duties and I found Starr’s pursuit of that in his Whitewater investigation offensive.)

My opinion of Wikileaks, and in general all media and reporters, is primarily based on what they publish. Is it authentic and of importance for the general public to know? If the work passes muster, I don’t expect full transparency or disclosures on sources and methods used to obtain the information in response to inquiries by other media sources seeking to discredit the messenger. Good investigative journalism can be dangerous to a messenger and his/her sources. So, it’s important to cut them some slack in holding back or even misleaing on how and from whom they obtained the information. However, that’s not a license to present/publish crap, lies, etc. and those that do so, have only themselves to blame for not being a credible and reliable reporter.

Did WoodStein’s Watergate work hold up? Yes. Did they mislead about one (possibly more) source, yes. There was no shortage of critics, Republicans and other media folk, that harangued WoodStein and WAPO for their deceptions, but the final arbitration was “the work” and that stood up as credible and reliable. Then there was the thirty year mystery (a Beltway parlor game) as to the identity of “Deep Throat.” Once known, it’s still rather curious and Felt himself couldn’t satisfactorily explain why he’d acted. So, now we have a brand new mystery — or two if one doesn’t see the same hand behind the extraction and submission to Wikileaks of the DNC and Podesta emails. (I only use that as example and am aware that Felt’s importance as a source to crack the CRP/Nixon conspiracy was grossly inflated, but it made the story sound better.)

The CIA knew by 1985 (because human assets were disappearing) that a KGB asset was at the CIA. Yet it wasn’t until early 1993 that they began seriously focusing on Aldrich Ames. (Before then they were like the guy searching for his keys under the lamppost when he’d dropped them far from there.) Similar story at the FBI in finding its KGB mole, Robert Hanssen only the FBI active investigation of him didn’t begin until 2001 (sixteen years after he began passing information to the GRU). Meanwhile and for decades earlier and after, the FBI and CIA kept seeing non-existent Soviet/Russian fingerprints on all sorts of matters in all sorts of places. Given the odds, it’s a sucker’s bet to believe most of what is publicly released from US intell agencies.

While it’s nice to have a liking for those that produce work I can respect, for me the former isn’t necessary for the latter. As I see contemporary libertarianism as anti-social (testosterone driven for the CPAC flunkies), I don’t much care for those with that particular orientation or bias. It’s different from the anti-socialism of Republicanism, neo-cons, and neo-liberalism, but I don’t like those folks either, but they’re also not producing any work — reporting and business and government policies — that I respect and they lie a lot. Truth-tellers are rare.

It’s devolved further from “who to believe” to “who and when” to believe. Newsweek 2/18/18

    Secretary of Defense James Mattis made it very clear recently that “aid groups and others” had provided the U.S. with evidence that was insufficient to conclude that President Bashar Assad had recently used the chemical weapon Sarin against Syrian civilians. In other words, the Pentagon does not believe what has been presented to it as evidence, chiefly because of the dubious provenance of the providers.

Who/When to believe: US intell then (before bombing) or now (after bombing). At the moment, looks as if I won the “then” wager.

by Marie3 on Wed Feb 28th, 2018 at 10:49:29 PM MEST

An excellent comment by Marie3 – appreciated by none who read and promoted JDW’s paragraph. Diary? NOT!

[Update-2] Due to brutal and ignorant comments to Marie3’s post I wrote a diary …

Midweek Cafe and Lounge, Vol. 54

Happy Hump Day!  Once again, I’m filling in for Don Durito and continuing my theme of music nominated at awards shows.  This week, I’m sharing the music videos nominated at the Makeup and Hair Stylists Guild Awards.

I begin with the same artist I began with last week, Katy Perry, this time in “Swish Swish,” which was nominated for both Makeup and Hair Styling in a Commercial or Music Video.

Starring Katy Perry, Nicki Minaj, Molly Shannon, Terry Crews, Hafþór Júlíus “Thor” Björnsson, Bill Walton, Rich Eisen, Gatan Matarazzo, Jenna Ushkowitz, Christine Sydelko, Dexter Mayfield, Doug The Pug, Russel “Backpack Kid” Horning, Iris Kyle, Rob Gronkowski, Karl-Anthony Towns, Joey Chestnut, the ladies of GLOW (Sydelle Noel, Britney Young, Kia Stevens, Jackie Tohn), Carter Wilkerson, West Hollywood Cheerleaders, Amanda LaCount, and Nugget as herself.

Just like last week, Katy Perry was competing with Pink, this time for her collaboration with Eminem, Revenge.  Unfortunately, the actual video is not available.  As Breathe Heavy reported, Pink Scrapped The Music Video For Her Eminem-Assisted Track “Revenge”.

Pink will not allow her “Revenge” music video to see the light of day.

The singer filmed a visual for her Eminem collab, a track about getting even with a cheater, but she decided to leave it on the cutting room floor? Why? It was “terrible.”

“We shot it and it was terrible. It’s never coming out,” Pink confirmed to The Sun. “It just didn’t work and it was the wrong timing for it.”

Oh, well, enough people saw it that it was nominated for Best Make-up in a Commercial or Music Video, although we won’t.  Since this diary is about the music more than the visuals, here’s the censored audio.

Follow over the jump for the other two nominated music videos.
Competing against both Katy Perry and Pink for Best Make-up in a Commercial or Music Video was “Run” by the Foo Fighters.

Yes, that’s the Foo Fighters under all that makeup.

The final music video nominee was Selena Gomez for Best Hair Styling in a Commercial or Music Video.

Yes, that’s Selena Gomez playing four different roles with lots of wigs.

Unfortunately, none of the music videos won.  Instead, one of the commercials they were competing against took home both the Make-up and Hair Styling trophies.  I’ll reveal it in the comments.

Before I do, I’m concluding the diary proper by quoting Don Durito.

For those of you wondering how I and Neon Vincent are circumventing Sucuri to embed videos, here is an example of the embed code we use, so that you can replicate as wanted:

Just remember that each unique 11-digit video code in YouTube needs to be pasted in two separate locations within the embed code in order for your video to show up properly. So easy that I can do it!

With those instructions, feel free to post your favorite videos (preferably with good hair, makeup, and costumes 🙂 in the comments.

Wikileaks lied about talking to Roger Stone.

The Atlantic monthly has published exchanges between Roger Stone and Wikileaks that Wikileaks has been denying existed. Wikileaks has repeatedly denied their existence.

I’m sure that The Saintly Glenn Greenwald is already kicking back with a refreshing tropical drink in Rio de Janeiro and writing a rebuttal to The Atlantic, and that that rebuttal will be duly repeated here by the usual suspects, who will assure us that exchanges between Stone and Wikileaks may have occurred but didn’t matter. Those remarks will be peppered with condemnations of “the Clintons”, who we ought to recognize as the real villains, and with reminders that The Saintly Julian Assange is a martyr to free speech.

And we have always been at war with Eastasia.

Trump Isn’t Protecting Our Elections

What happens when you have a president who asked for and received help from Russia during his campaign? Will he have any interest in holding the Russians accountable for their actions? Will he lift a finger to prevent the Russians from doing the same types of things again to help his party in the midterms? Will he even worry that the Russians might lose interest in his party and just start trying to get Americans to go for each other’s throats?

These are questions Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) wants answered.

US Cyber Command chief Adm. Mike Rogers told lawmakers on Tuesday that he has not been granted the authority by President Donald Trump to disrupt Russian election hacking operations where they originate.

Asked by Democratic Sen. Jack Reed if he has been directed by the President, through the defense secretary, to confront Russian cyber operators at the source, Rogers said “no I have not” but noted that he has tried to work within the authority he maintains as a commander.

While he did not agree with Reed’s characterization that the US has been “sitting back and waiting,” Rogers admitted that it is fair to say that “we have not opted to engage in some of the same behaviors we are seeing” with regards to Russia. “It has not changed the calculus or the behavior on behalf of the Russians,” Rogers said about the US response to Russia’s cyber threat to date.

“They have not paid a price that is sufficient to change their behavior,” he added.

Sen. Reed, who is the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, asked similar questions to FBI Director Christopher Wray. The leaders of that committee also have privileges to attend meetings of the Intelligence Committee.

Reed, D-Rhode Island, also asked FBI Director Christopher Wray, earlier this month whether the efforts to counter Russia’s election activities in 2018 had been directed by Trump.

“Not as specifically directed by the President,” Wray responded during a hearing at the Senate Intelligence Committee.

We are not deterring the Russians. We aren’t punishing them. Insofar as the intelligence community is working to protect our elections, they’re doing it on their own without any direction from the president. They haven’t received any additional authorities they might need for the fight.

I think they’re probably putting their careers in jeopardy just by acting like the security of our elections is important.

This is just one more piece of evidence of collusion, in case you weren’t already convinced.

John Kelly Should Man Up

White House chief of staff John Kelly’s concerns about sending Ivanka Trump to South Korea are sound. As one unnamed administration official put it, “This isn’t like going to Italy. The stakes are far higher and more complex.” With a nuclear showdown looming and South and North Korea engaged in an unusual show of unity for the duration of the Winter Olympics, the peninsula is a minefield for even experienced diplomats and policy hands. Ivanka doesn’t have the right experience for the job, and there are unacceptable risks to putting her in a position where her words and actions could have far-ranging and even catastrophic consequences.

John Kelly was reportedly persuaded to shelve his objections on the theory that he had no way of winning a battle that would pitch him against the president’s daughter. That was probably astute, as least in its predictive value for any likely outcome. Of course, if he was concerned enough about it, he could have made a stand and then resigned in protest if things didn’t go his way.

What Kelly did instead is give himself the worst of both worlds. He didn’t try to stop the trip and protect our national security, but he still allowed his concerns to leak out to the press where the president can now read about them. The result is that there are stories about “tensions” in the White House. CNN writes “the blurred line between staffer and daughter has long irked Kelly” and that “Kelly has grown increasingly frustrated with Ivanka Trump.” Kelly has supposedly complained in private about Ivanka “playing government” as if she were playing House.

This is self-defeating. If Kelly knows enough not to get in between the president and his daughter about the trip to South Korea, then he should know enough not to allow his displeasure with the trip become a major story. He should be at pains to prevent his aides and associates from broadcasting his frustration and displeasure with Ivanka and her role in the White House. If he feels that way, he should tell the president privately and resign of he can’t some kind of satisfactory solution.

The way this appears, it seems like Kelly doesn’t have what it takes to confront the president in person, so he resorts to sending messages to him through the press. Either that, or he’s just trying to cover his ass in case anything goes wrong. This strikes me as dysfunctional and cowardly, either way.

And it weakens him because it certainly does not avoid the problem he sought to avoid, which is getting into a battle he can never win. If I were Trump, I’d probably fire him over this incident. He’d be justified in doing so. If Kelly wants to object to something Ivanka proposes, that should be done in private. Trashing the president’s daughter in the press is not something that should be tolerated in a chief of staff, and that is true whether the daughter is Malia, Sasha, or Ivanka. In most cases, Kelly should salute and get with the plan when he loses policy and strategy debates, but he can also resign if he feels strongly enough about it. By doing neither of these things, Kelly is basically begging to get canned.

Rhetoric of Hate

Even when the Pond felt more like a community, this diary from:

SallyCat has not dropped by since 2013 …

○ Froggy Bottom Café – Jan. 3, 2013

Rhetoric of Hate

Sweeping generalizations by an individual, in a blog diary, in the media, or by a government are ALWAYS wrong. There are so many times that a few people have spouted hateful comments and generalizations about the United States, about Republicans, about Democrats, about Arabs and Muslims, about Christians, about anything ‘they’ don’t like. What happens is always predictable – attack and counter-attack.

During the past 2 months I have watched this blog from the sidelines and participated in the ‘big’ blog. The attacks are by a few…and participated in by the many. So – it looks like those that spew the rhetoric of hate are sowing the seeds of discontent and distrust that keeps them in power. Or maybe it just salves their egos to be one that has the power to disrupt.

More below the fold …

All major theologies teach lessons of tolerance and patience and peace. Generically here I will include Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Shinto…and so many others. I believe, and this is a big jump for some, that almost all of us want peace and are basically compassionate caring people.

So what happens?

  • Many of us have been fighting for decades for peace. We have worked for the good of humankind – around the world – for all these years.
  • Many of us have been working for political change for years and years. Some are new to the political process but they are jumping into the fray with their heart and soul.
  • Many of us are religious and have worked with our respective churches for peace and compassion around the world.
  • Many of us are painfully aware that governments – of many countries – do not represent the will of their people.
  • Many of us are tired of the few that make claims and assertions that a brash and hateful generalizations about any people or country.
  • Many of us are no longer willing to turn the other cheek and being caring and compassionate to the hateful. We will fight for the dignity of accuracy and integrity in words and speech.

Now what?

We have choices if we are we willing to exercise those choices.

Do we tolerate hate and hateful speech or do we call for peaceful solutions?

Do we tolerate rhetoric or ask for specific points of fact?

Do we walk the walk and promote peace and change or do we accept the status quo?

This is not a political diary it is philosophical discussion of where we choose to be.

This is not an open forum for more rhetoric…but a forum for what we see and expect of ourselves and the world around us.

What choices do we choose to make?

Promoted by:

BooMan
Cali Scribe
shirlstars
Meteor Blades
ask
CabinGirl
alohaleezy
diane101
dada
Sirocco
Nag
boran2
Militarytracy
Damnit Janet
cruz del sur
Alice
Brementown Musician
kansas
scribe
AndiF
olivia
shermanesqe
Egarwaen
the other colleen
tampopo
redwagon
stiela
mythmother
Kahli
poemless
KMc
esquimaux
Shalimar
maryb2004
Family Man
Iowa Victory Gardener
vieravisionary
Chris
clammyc
proximity1
Mrs white trash poet

…41 total.

Life is too short … civility on this blog is unfortunately a feature of the distant past!

[psst … from the blog owner’s clear instruction: troll feature to be used on … trolls]