Random Thoughts: Krugman, Tennessee, New Zealand and Obama and Trump

AROUND THE BLOCK

Random thoughts…

Some random thoughts from this morning’s news and commentary.

Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman posted, and I read, two columns today.

Now, I know that many of you wouldn’t read a Krugman column even if he paid you (Nobel Prize notwithstanding) but bear with me.

Krugman’s original column (Trump's China Shock) was about the mass shooting in El Paso, but as he writes in his second column, 

“I didn't know that the Dow was going to drop 750 points, so my latest column is El Paso-related, probably the right choice anyway, because US-China is moving so fast that anything in the print paper would be out of date. But it does look as if I should try to explain (a) what I think is happening (b) why the markets are going so nuts.”

Krugman goes on to talk about tariffs, currency manipulation and Trump’s trade wars.

 “…it’s pretty clear now that he refuses to give up on his belief that trade wars are good, and easy to win; his plan is to continue the beatings until morale improves..." 

And ends with this chilling statement, 

“So how does this all end? I have no idea. More important, neither does anyone else...At this rate, we may have to wait for a new president to clean up this mess, if she can.”

As I write this, the Dow is up around 100 points. I guess that since Trump measures the success of his economic policies(?) on the stock market, he’ll probably declare a victory. 

[-750)]+ [+100)]= [-650)]. 

Oh yeah, I forgot…Trump knows words; he has the best words. Numbers? Not so much!

Krugman’s original column (Trump, Tax Cuts and Terrorism), as he mentioned, is about El Paso, opening with this question, “Why has the Republican Party become a systematic enabler of terrorism?”

But you might ask, Krugman is an economist not a social scientist. What does enabling terrorism have to do with his specialty? 

“This agenda (passing tax cuts for the rich, defunding Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act) however, is unpopular. Most voters believe that the rich should pay more, not less, in taxes, and want spending on social programs to rise, not fall. 

 “So how do Republicans win elections? By appealing to racial animus. This is such an obvious fact of American political life that you have to be willfully blind not to see it...And the election of our first black president really kicked hatred into overdrive.   

“The result is that there are more and more angry white people out there willing to commit mayhem — and able to do so because those same Republicans have blocked any effective control over sales of assault weapons.”  

So, Krugman concludes, why does the GOP enable terrorism? “Follow the money.”

CBS News – Nashville, TN

In Krugman’s El Paso column, to help assist in his characterization of Republican politicians, he mentions that Nathan Bedford Forrest, who helped found the Ku Klux Klan, was recently honored by the Republican governor of Tennessee. 

“Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed a proclamation declaring July 13 Nathan Bedford Forrest Day. Forrest was a Confederate general, slave trader and an early leader of the Ku Klux Klan. A Tennessee law dating back to 1971 mandates that the governor must issue proclamations for six state holidays each year, including days for Nathan Bedford Forrest and Robert E. Lee. 

 “According to the Tennessee code, the governor must declare January 19 as ‘Robert E. Lee Day’; February 12 as ‘Abraham Lincoln Day’; March 15 as ‘Andrew Jackson Day’; June 3 as ‘Memorial or Confederate Decoration Day’; July 13 as ‘Nathan Bedford Forrest Day’; and November 11, as ‘Veterans' Day.’ 

 "’I signed the bill because the law requires that I do that and I haven't looked at changing that law,’ Lee said Thursday.” 

Wait, what? He signed a bill declaring “Abraham Lincoln Day” in Tennessee? Really? Hasn’t he learned anything from his fearless leader in the White House? If he doesn’t want to follow the law he can just invoke an executive order.

New Zealand Abortion Law

The Associated Press reported that the New Zealand government “announced Monday that it plans changes to the country’s abortion laws that would treat the procedure as a health issue rather than a crime. 

“While abortions have been available in New Zealand for decades, the procedure is still regulated under the Crimes Act, which came into force in 1961. Many say that presents unnecessary obstacles for women who are seeking abortions. 

 “In order to get an abortion under the current law, women must be able to prove to their doctor that their pregnancy presents a danger to their physical or mental health. The proposed law would remove that requirement for women who are up to 20 weeks pregnant. For those more than 20 weeks pregnant, a doctor would still need to approve the procedure. 

 “The new law would also allow anti-abortion activists to be banned from demonstrating near abortion clinics if they were harassing patients. 

 Justice Minister Andrew Little said the changes would bring New Zealand into line with other developed nations.”

Not so fast, Minister Little. There’s a large developed nation across the Pacific that seems to be ready to leave the line. American Exceptionalism indeed!

Oh, and talking about New Zealand, how long did it take the Kiwis to pass gun control after a mass shooting? Like the next day?

Obama and Trump

Former president Barak Obama issued a statement yesterday decrying racism, white supremacy and terrorism. He said, in part, 

"We should soundly reject language coming out of the mouths of any of our leaders that feeds a climate of fear and hatred or normalizes racist sentiments; leaders who demonize those who don't look like us, or suggest that other people, including immigrants, threaten our way of life, or refer to other people as sub-human, or imply that America belongs to just one certain type of people."  

When I read the statement yesterday, my only criticism was that whenever he mentioned “our leaders,” he should have really said, “…our leaders, like the President of the United States,” to make his sentiments absolutely clear.

Boy, was I wrong!

In a tweet-storm this morning, the aforementioned president of the United States, egged on by his buddies at Fox and Friends said, 

“‘Did George Bush ever condemn President Obama after Sandy Hook. President Obama had 32 mass shootings during his reign. Not many people said Obama is out of Control,'” Trump tweeted. “'Mass shootings were happening before the President even thought about running for Pres.' @kilmeade @foxandfriends” 

 “‘It’s political season and the election is around the corner. They want to continue to push that racist narrative.’ @ainsleyearhardt @foxandfriends. And I am the least racist person. Black, Hispanic and Asian Unemployment is the lowest (BEST) in the history of the United States!” 

By the way, how many times does a person have to say something like “I am the least racist person…” to make it believable. 

Psychologists out there, isn’t there some kind of syndrome that explains this? 

Trump, Muskets, AR-15s, the 2nd Amendment and "NRA Mitch"

AROUND THE BLOCK

I learned…

I learned today that there is some good news and some bad news.

First, the good news.

In his first “official” statement following the horrific mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton this weekend, President Trump said, “In one voice our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy.”

(Of course, the good news has to be tempered by the fact that Trump is like the boy who pours gasoline on a fire and then yells, “fire.”)

But he did say, “condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy” and didn’t say that any gun control legislation has to be tied to “comprehensive immigration reform” as he did in his tweets on Sunday. 

(There are those who theorize that perhaps his conflation of gun control and immigration reform stems from his belief that with fewer immigrants there would be fewer targets, thus less need for guns – but that’s just a theory.)

Now, the bad news.

His solutions included the same, tired, old gun advocate tropes: more background checks, and stronger action to address mental illness, violence in the media and in video games, as well as, his words, “the perils of the internet and social media.”

And remember, as the Times reports, “the House passed back-to-back bills on firearms soon after Democrats took control, voting in February to require background checks for all gun purchasers, including those at gun shows and on the internet, and to extend waiting periods for would-be gun purchasers flagged by the existing instant-check system. They were the first significant gun control bills to clear the chamber in a quarter century.”

“Moscow Mitch” McConnell has not allowed either bill to be taken up by Senate. (Perhaps in this context he should be called “NRA Mitch” – not as alliterative but certainly appropriate.)

But, given the fact that both these gunmen, who were wearing body armor and used assault weapons with large capacity magazines, were able to slaughter 30 people and injure scores more despite almost instantaneous police response means he did not address the real “what are you going to do about it issue:” A call for legislation that immediately and unequivocally bans this kind of weaponry.

Oh yeah, I forgot the Second Amendment. We can’t ban this stuff because the Second Amendment won’t allow it.

Let’s take a look at the Second Amendment

(I’ll take a break now so that you can read this several times……….)

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

(OK, I’m back. Thanks for reading the most obtuse sentence ever written by our Founding Fathers.)

So, what does this mean? 

From the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute:

“On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. 

“On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language ‘a well regulated Militia’ to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.”

And the debate* goes on – individual right or state’s right to self-defense – with the “correct” interpretation based on who controls the Supreme Court. 

(*For more on the debate, I encourage you to read the late Justice John Paul Stevens' 2018 Times op-ed, "Repeal the Second Amendment")

But wait, the Second Amendment was written in 1791. The “Arm” of choice was the musket – a single shot weapon with which the most skilled “musketeer” would take 20 seconds to load in order to get off three shots per minute. It is feasible during that 20-second loading period, members of crowd being attacked could rush the shooter, rendering him impotent (and I use that word purposely).

By contrast, an assault rifle like the AR-15 can fire between 700 to 950 rounds a minute.

So, while the debate goes on and while well-intentioned background check bills are stalled in the Senate by "NRA Mitch," the death toll continues to rise because the current “Arm” of choice is not an “Arm” but a weapon of mass destruction.

And, by the way, if we’re going ban the sale of these weapons of mass destruction, let’s also ban the sale of body armor that these civilians, that these wielders of these guns, wear to protect themselves against…right, the police that are trying to protect us from them!

  

No Country for Sane Men...

AROUND THE BLOCK

I learned…

I learned that this weekend has been particularly bad for America.

First, courtesy of the Associated Press, 

“U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo left Thailand on Saturday with his hopes for resuming nuclear talks with North Korea dashed, while facing an escalating trade war with China and a potentially devastating breakdown in relations between key American allies Japan and South Korea.”

And, courtesy of the New York Times, 

“a popular news anchor watched by hundreds of millions of Chinese poured scorn on the United States, using an obscenity to accuse it of sowing chaos. A prominent official blamed Washington directly for the anti-government protests upending Hong Kong. Pointed hostility toward America, voiced by Chinese officials and state-run news organizations under the control of an all-powerful propaganda department, has escalated in recent weeks in tandem with two of China’s big problems: a slowing economy complicated by trade tensions and turbulence in Hong Kong that has no end in sight.” 

And, from the Associated Press,

“July saw the highest number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in a single month since 2017, the U.N. mission said Saturday. 

Its preliminary findings indicate more than 1,500 civilians were killed or wounded, mainly due to a spike in casualties from insurgent attacks. It did not provide a breakdown of deaths and injuries, but said the overall number was the highest for a single month since May 2017.”

And, finally, from the New York Times,

“U.S. defense secretary, Mark Esper, said Saturday that he was in favor of deploying ground-based missiles to Asia, a day after the United States formally pulled out of a Cold War-era arms treaty that directly limited such weapons. 

“Such a move would be likely to anger China and North Korea, two countries that have long opposed the deployment of U.S. military hardware anywhere near their borders, and would most likely prompt further consternation from allies that Washington was veering dangerously close to starting a new arms race.”

Wow, one day, one newspaper! Isn’t this special? 

Well, not really special, but the norm. This is what we’ve become – a country with no foreign policy; no, rather a country with an inconsistent, incoherent foreign policy. A foreign policy that, incredibly, can alienate our allies and our adversaries at the same time.

All this, coming on the same weekend that at least 29 Americans were slaughtered in two separate mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton…a week after the mass shooting in Gilroy. A weekend in which the El Paso and Dayton shootings were the 249th and 250th mass shootings this year!

And a weekend with evidence that the El Paso shooter, Patrick Crusius, posted an online manifesto that listed, according to the Washington Post, “angry — and, at times, jumbled — motivations for the attack, including rants about a ‘Hispanic invasion.’”

On the same weekend that El Paso County Sheriff Richard Wiles called the attack racist.

“This Anglo man came here to kill Hispanics,” he wrote. “I’m outraged and you should be too. This entire nation should be outraged. In this day and age, with all the serious issues we face, we are still confronted with people who will kill another for the sole reason of the color of their skin.”

A Hispanic invasion? Convoluted foreign policy? Stalled gun control? Killing others because of the color of their skin? How can this be happening?

Here’s looking at you, Donald J. Trump.

The current vogue expression among Trumpsters regarding those who oppose their hero for his “policies,” his crudeness, let’s face it, his being – “America, Love it or Leave It.” 

Well, we do love it, worts and all. And leaving it would just be a capitulation to those who really do hate what this country actually stands for – where "all men are created equal" regardless of national origin, color, religion or creed. Not those who only love an America that is a "White America," an America with no "Other," an "America First America" with no regard for the rest of the world or respect for the planet we live on. 

So…

In 2007, the Academy Award winner for best picture was the Coen brothers’ film, “No Country for Old Men.” Where are the Coen brothers now and where is their 2019 follow up: “No Country for SANE Men…or Women or Boys or Girls?”

  

Baltimore Sun: Better to have a few rats than to be one!

AROUND THE BLOCK

I learned…

I learned today, in the wake of Donald Trump’s racist attacks on Representative Elijah Cummings and his Baltimore district, that perhaps the best commentary on these unacceptable assaults shouldn’t come from me, but from someone eminently more qualified: Charles M. Blow of the New York Times.

But first, in case you’re not up to speed, here are the tweets the President of the United States, the alleged PRESIDENT OF ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, directed at a sitting U.S. Congressman:

‘Rep, Elijah Cummings has been a brutal bully, shouting and screaming at the great men & women of Border Patrol about conditions at the Southern Border, when actually his Baltimore district is FAR WORSE and more dangerous. His district is considered the Worst in the USA......”

“Cumming [sic] District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place…”

“Why is so much money sent to the Elijah Cummings district when it is considered the worst run and most dangerous anywhere in the United States. No human being would want to live there. Where is all this money going? How much is stolen? Investigate this corrupt mess immediately!”

Please be aware, the probable impetus of this screed was a Fox News segment suggestIng that Cummings’ district was worse off than the border. And you all know where this President gets all his information:

The Fox News distortions behind Trump's attack on Baltimore and its congressman

One last thing before Mr. Blow’s commentary.

According to the Washington Post: “His (Trump's) criticism rang with a particular irony in Baltimore County, where the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner owns more than a dozen apartment complexes that have been cited with hundreds of code violations and, critics say, provide sub-standard housing to lower income tenants. 

"In an interview Saturday, Baltimore County Executive John A. Olszewski Jr. condemned Trump’s comments as ‘an attack on basic decency.’ 'It is certainly ironic that the president’s own son-in-law was complicit in contributing to some of the neglect that the president purports to be so concerned about,' Olszewski (D) added."

And now, Charles M. Blow.

The Rot You Smell Is a Racist Potus

By Charles M. Blow - July 28, 2019

It seems maddeningly repetitive to have to return time and again to the fact that Donald Trump is a racist, but it must be done. It must be done because it is a foundational character issue, one that supersedes and informs many others, in much the same way that his sexism and xenophobia does.

On Saturday, Trump tweeted that Representative Elijah Cummings’s district “is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess,” a “very dangerous & filthy place” and “No human being would want to live there.” Cummings is black, as are most people in his district.

This talk of infestation is telling, because he only seems to apply it to issues concerning black and brown people. He has sniped about the “Ebola infested areas of Africa.” He has called Congressman John Lewis’s Atlanta district “crime infested” as well as telling him to focus on “the burning and crime infested inner-cities of the U.S.” He has called sanctuary cities a “crime infested & breeding concept.” He has talked about how “illegal immigrants” will “pour into and infest our Country.” He has called the presence of the MS-13 gang members “in certain parts of our country” an “infestation.”

None of this is about crime as a discrete phenomenon, but rather about inextricably linking criminality to blackness. White supremacy isn’t necessarily about rendering white people as superhuman; it is just as often about rendering nonwhite people as subhuman. Either way the hierarchy is established, with whiteness assuming the superior position.

A survey of Trump’s tweets reveals that his attachment of criminality to populations is almost exclusively to black and brown people and to “inner cities,” an urban euphemism for black and brown neighborhoods.

Trump has repeatedly made clear his view, from the Central Park Five case to a series of tweets he published in 2013, writing: “Sadly, the overwhelming amount of violent crime in our major cities is committed by blacks and hispanics — a tough subject — must be discussed.”

But blackness doesn’t make one more apt to abuse others, any more than whiteness makes one apt to abuse opioids. Human beings respond to their environments, to their needs and desires, to their hopelessness and despair.

For instance, crime raged in New York City in the 1800s when there were almost no black people in the city. Indeed, in 1985, the writer and prodigious chronicler of New York City, Edward Robb Ellis, wrote in The New York Times about a citizen complaining in 1852 that “the increase of crime, the ferocity and frequency of assaults on private citizens at night in this city, and the … imbecility and inefficiency of the police is creating great alarm in the decent and orderly portion of our inhabitants.”

According to Ross, Walt Whitman himself said, “New York is one of the most crime-haunted and dangerous cities in Christendom.”

Were the white people living in New York at the time racially, pathologically predisposed to criminality? Of course not. And black and brown people now aren’t. That historical and sociological context is lost on the racists.

Furthermore, there is nothing benign in Trump’s language. Infestations justify exterminations. There is a reason that Martin Luther King Jr. said, “In the final analysis, racism is evil because its ultimate logic is genocide.” The mouth that demeans may not always be attached to the hand that destroys, but they are most assuredly connected in spirit and in spite.

It would be easy to prosecute a case against Trump on policy, but policies are not at the center of the creature. White supremacy, white nationalism and white patriarchy are.

The core of this man is racist in a way that is so fused to his sense of the world that he is incapable of seeing it as racist. It is instinctual for him to attack people of color. It is instinctual for him to denigrate the places they live and the countries to which they trace their heritage.

He has so bought into the white supremacist narrative that his ideology no longer requires, in his own thinking, a label. For him, this lie of it is just the truth of it, and what is “right” can’t be racist.

This is a means by which racists have operated throughout history, to rescue themselves from association with those who flayed the flesh of the enslaved, who raped the women and sold the children, who released the dogs and aimed the water cannons, who noosed the necks and set ablaze the crosses.

Those demonstrative few, those consumed by hatred and sadism, those were the racists. Not the exponentially larger groups who swallowed and regurgitated a warped view of the world, a doctored view of history, and supposedly damning “facts” without contextualization.

Trump is a racist. Say that out loud. Say it with the profundity that it deserves. That to me is the beginning and the ending of the rationale I need to stand steadfast in my resistance.

Palm Beach GOP to The Mooch: "You're Fired"

AROUND THE BLOCK

I learned…

I learned some news today, courtesy of the Palm Beach Post, that should be interesting to all my readers, but particularly to my dear fellow Palm Beach County neighbors and Republicans. (Wow, that came out wrong – what I meant to say was my “fellow Palm Beach County neighbors including those who happen to be Republicans"). In any event…

According to the Post, the Palm Beach County Republican Committee has disinvited Anthony Scaramucci from its annual Lobsterfest fundraiser in response to the former White House communications director’s tweet calling President Trump’s attack on progressive congresswomen of color “racist and unacceptable.”

The Post reported that Michael Barnett, chairman of the Republican Party of Palm Beach County, sent an email to Scaramucci disinviting him. “He emailed me back saying he would take the event off his schedule,” Barnett said. 

In response to Trump’s tweets about the four Congresswomen, now referred to as “The Squad,” Scaramucci tweeted, “Would              @RealDonaldTrump ever tell a white immigrant — whether 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th+ generation — to ‘go back to your country’? No. That’s why the comments were racist and unacceptable. America is a nation of immigrants founded on the ideals of free thought and free speech.”

Barnett said that he immediately moved to cancel Scaramucci but decided to meet with his board before taking any action. The board agreed with Barnett and “The Mooch” was disinvited.

“I’ve gotten nothing but positive feedback that we did the right thing by disinviting him,” Barnett said.

Of course, the real question is this: is the most egregious part of this story Scaramucci’s disinvitation, or the fact that Barnett received “nothing but positive feedback” from his GOP cronies?

Ever the counter-puncher, The Mooch got the last tweet:

“Moving in the right direction ... Fellow Republicans be honest! Palm Beach GOP I am going to miss you guys! I will be eating lobster on the 15th out in the Hamptons without you!”

But sorry, Charlie...er Tony..., your “moving in the right direction” comment is actually moving in the wrong direction. 

Scaramucci’s tweet was apparently in reference to Trump’s comments to reporters following the uproar over his attacks on The Squad in which he not only took no responsibly for the chants which his tweets precipitated, but also claimed he tried to stop the chanting by quickly resuming his speech.

“I was not happy with it. I disagree with it. ... I think I did [try to stop the chant]. I started speaking very quickly.”

In the easiest fact-check in the history of the Trump era, you be the judge:

https://youtu.be/abx0QPRyBY0 

Trump Limbo --- How low can you go?

AROUND THE BLOCK

I learned…

I learned today, courtesy of David Leonhardt of the New York Times, that we are pretty much reaching rock bottom when it comes to civil discourse in this country. (I say “pretty much” because with this president and his base, it’s a good bet that we will be going lower…I mean it’s still six or so months from the first primary voting).

In any event, here’s Leonhardt’s column:

Last night, the president of the United States stood in front of his supporters while they chanted about expelling a Muslim-American member of Congress from the United States: “Send her back! Send her back! Send her back …”

It was an ugly, lawless, racist sentiment, and President Trump loved it. He had worked the crowd into a frenzy by denouncing the congresswoman, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, and three other House Democrats — all women of color, as well.

“No safe, sane, decent country or leader should ever speak of its own citizens this way,” Jill Filipovic said on Twitter. “And it’s difficult to put into words how profoundly sad this makes me. Is this who we are? Is it who we want to be?”

The Atlantic’s Ronald Brownstein offered a good way of thinking about it, by posing a question to corporate executives: “If workers in your companies chanted ‘send her back’ at a colleague of color they disagreed with would they retain their jobs? Is this now the standard you’ll accept for how your workers interact in a diversifying country?”

Joe Walsh, a former congressman, said: “It saddens me beyond belief that the standard-bearer for the Republican Party, my Party, is making ‘Send her back’ his re-election rallying cry. It’s so ugly. It’s so un-American. It just saddens me beyond belief.”

And yet elected Republicans — those with power — continue to do nothing about Trump’s behavior. Some bless it. Some are quiet. And some mumble modest regret. But virtually none would even vote for a symbolic resolution this week decrying his racism.

“Thank you, @realDonaldTrump, for visiting the great state of North Carolina today,” Senator Thom Tillis, who represents the state, said on Twitter. “I know you are working hard to Keep America Great!”

The Republican Party’s 2020 election strategy seems to be hatefulness.

Let’s unpack this a bit – comments from the expected and the unexpected:

The Expected

Jill Filipovic is is a lawyer and author, known for promoting feminist causes. She’s written for Cosmopolitan, The Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post and Time magazine. Her blog, Feminste, is one of the most read feminist blogs

Ronald Brownstein is an American journalist, political correspondent, and analyst. He has worked at the National Journal, the Los Angeles Times and U. S. News and World Report. He is currently senior political analyst for CNN and Editorial Director for Strategic Partnerships for The Atlantic.

Senator Thom Tillis is the junior Senator from the great state of North Carolina who, this week when asked if he thought President Trump’s recent tweets about the four Democratic congresswomen of color were racist, said he hadn’t seen them because "I literally don't go on Twitter." (Just so you, my dear readers, don’t have to, I went to Twitter to check the facts; here are the @ThomTillis Twitter stats: 14.3K Following; 36.5K Followers; 2,210 Tweets. Not sure which term the esteemed senator doesn’t understand: “literally,” “go on” or “Twitter.”)

The Unexpected

Joe Walsh is an American singer, guitarist, and songwriter. In a career spanning more than 50 years, he has been a member of five successful rock bands: James Gang, Barnstorm, Eagles, the Party Boys, and Ringo Starr & His All-Starr Band.

Only kidding. Not that Joe Walsh…

...this Joe Walsh, the former GOP Illinois Congressman, now a conservative radio talk show host, who has said on the air: "This is now war. Watch out Obama. Watch out Black Lives Matter punks. Real America is coming after you."; and, "On November 8th, I'm voting for Trump. On November 9th, if Trump loses, I'm grabbing my musket. You in?"; and, when asked what he meant by “grabbing my musket” said, "It means protesting. Participating in acts of civil disobedience. Doing what it takes to get our country back.”

Now, a little more unpacking.

Whether Donald Trump realizes it or not, he is the head of the U.S. Federal Government, not just his rabid, (I’ll leave it to you to fill in the next adjective), base.

And, as head of that federal government, all agencies ultimately report to him. Including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency responsible for enforcing federal laws regarding discrimination or harassment against a job applicant or an employee in the United States. The EEOC was formed by Congress to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Here’s what the EEOC says about discrimination and, specifically about epithets like “Go back to where you came from.”

Now in fairness, the rally in North Carolina was not about equal employment so, technically, the President of the United States and his (adjective, please) followers were not officially breaking the law. But they were breaking the spirit of what MAKES AMERICA GREAT. 

I opened this piece with the thought that we’ve "pretty much" reached rock bottom in this country regarding civil discourse. 

But, when the President of the United States can tweet, and rile up his supporters at rallies by saying “If you don’t agree with me, leave, go back to your own countries,” and figuratively put a target on the back of a U.S. citizen (and a Congresswoman, to boot) perhaps we have reached rock bottom after all.

One last thing -- was it just my eyes and admittedly inadequate lip-reading skills, but did this happen after Trump accused Representative Ilhan Omar of a "history of launching vicious anti-Semitic screeds?"

Tweet blind test: Was it David Duke or Donald Trump?

AROUND THE BLOCK

I learned…

I learned today that someone posted the following tweets: 

"So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly...

"...and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how...

"...it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!"

Ever curious, I went on Twitter to find out who would post such a vile harangue urging elected Congresswomen of color to “go back” to the country they came from, even though most of them were actually born in the United States.

Was it David Duke, Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, Steve King, Stephen Miller, Sebastian Gorka, someone channeling Robert W. Welch, Jr. (founder of the John Birch Society)? Nope, not them.

Who then?

I took a shot in the dark and guess what? I got it. It was none only than the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, who tweeted this contemptible claptrap.

But, as the Times’ Peter Baker reported, “it should have surprised few who have watched the way he has governed a multicultural, multiracial country the last two and a half years.”

Baker continued, “When it comes to race, Mr. Trump plays with fire like no other president in a century. While others who occupied the White House at times skirted close to or even over the line, finding ways to appeal to the resentments of white Americans with subtle and not-so-subtle appeals, none of them in modern times fanned the flames as overtly, relentlessly and even eagerly as Mr. Trump."

Baker went on to quote Douglas A. Blackman, the author of “Slavery by Another Name, a Pulitzer Prize-winning history of racial servitude in the America between the Civil War and World War II.  

“In many ways, this is the most insidious kind of racial demagoguery. The president has moved beyond invoking the obvious racial slanders of 50 years ago — clichés like black neighborhoods ‘on fire’ — and is now invoking the white supremacist mentality of the early 1900s, when anyone who looked ‘not white’ could be labeled as unwelcome in America.”

You know in advertising there's a commonplace gimmick — the blind taste test — Coke vs. Pepsi being the most famous.

Can you imagine blind testing that tweet? C'mon folks, was that tweet from David Duke or the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

Has it finally gotten this low?

But wait, what’s that echoing in my head?

Oh yeah, someone saying, “I am the least racist person you have ever met.” 

Who is that person again? Oh, now I remember – Donald J. Trump, the President of the United States.

In the tragically ironic words of the Ukrainian comic Yakov Smirnoff,  “What a country!”