Trump 2.0

I hope I'm not violating any "rules" or whatever by posting this essay in full (and if I am: my bad, or too fucking bad), but it turns out that some 80-odd years ago one Larry David was invited to dine with Adolph, not unlike the esteemed Bill Maher's appointment with the king:

Imagine my surprise when in the spring of 1939 a letter arrived at my house inviting me to dinner at the Old Chancellery with the world’s most reviled man, Adolf Hitler. I had been a vocal critic of his on the radio from the beginning, pretty much predicting everything he was going to do on the road to dictatorship. No one I knew encouraged me to go. “He’s Hitler. He’s a monster.” But eventually I concluded that hate gets us nowhere. I knew I couldn’t change his views, but we need to talk to the other side — even if it has invaded and annexed other countries and committed unspeakable crimes against humanity.
Two weeks later, I found myself on the front steps of the Old Chancellery and was led into an opulent living room, where a few of the Führer’s most vocal supporters had gathered: Himmler, Göring, Leni Riefenstahl and the Duke of Windsor, formerly King Edward VIII. We talked about some of the beautiful art on the walls that had been taken from the homes of Jews. But our conversation ended abruptly when we heard loud footsteps coming down the hallway. Everyone stiffened as Hitler entered the room.
He was wearing a tan suit with a swastika armband and gave me an enthusiastic greeting that caught me off guard. Frankly, it was a warmer greeting than I normally get from my parents, and it was accompanied by a slap on my back. I found the whole thing quite disarming. I joked that I was surprised to see him in a tan suit because if he wore that out, it would be perceived as un-Führer-like. That amused him to no end, and I realized I’d never seen him laugh before. Suddenly he seemed so human. Here I was, prepared to meet Hitler, the one I’d seen and heard — the public Hitler. But this private Hitler was a completely different animal. And oddly enough, this one seemed more authentic, like this was the real Hitler. The whole thing had my head spinning.
He said he was starving and led us into the dining room, where he gestured for me to sit next to him. Göring immediately grabbed a slice of pumpernickel, whereupon Hitler turned to me, gave me an eye roll, then whispered, “Watch. He’ll be done with his entire meal before you’ve taken two bites.” That one really got me. Göring, with his mouth full, asked what was so funny, and Hitler said, “I was just telling him about the time my dog had diarrhea in the Reichstag.” Göring remembered. How could he forget? He loved that story, especially the part where Hitler shot the dog before it got back into the car. Then a beaming Hitler said, “Hey, if I can kill Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals, I can certainly kill a dog!” That perhaps got the biggest laugh of the night — and believe me, there were plenty.

But it wasn’t just a one-way street, with the Führer dominating the conversation. He was quite inquisitive and asked me a lot of questions about myself. I told him I had just gone through a brutal breakup with my girlfriend because every time I went someplace without her, she was always insistent that I tell her everything I talked about. I can’t stand having to remember every detail of every conversation. Hitler said he could relate — he hated that, too. “What am I, a secretary?” He advised me it was best not to have any more contact with her or else I’d be right back where I started and eventually I’d have to go through the whole thing all over again. I said it must be easy for a dictator to go through a breakup. He said, “You’d be surprised. There are still feelings.” Hmm … there are still feelings. That really resonated with me. We’re not that different, after all. I thought that if only the world could see this side of him, people might have a completely different opinion.
Two hours later, the dinner was over, and the Führer escorted me to the door. “I am so glad to have met you. I hope I’m no longer the monster you thought I was.” “I must say, mein Führer, I’m so thankful I came. Although we disagree on many issues, it doesn’t mean that we have to hate each other.” And with that, I gave him a Nazi salute and walked out into the night.

 
Nice riff on what is, in fiction and movies, sometimes called a Pet the Dog Moment. (GoT fans may remember Tywin having such when he makes Arya his cupbearer - for a couple minutes he resembles a decent human being)

BTW, if anyone needs a link to a paywalled article, you can usually find one at the Archive Today project if it's a few days old. ETA: looks like those sites are down atm, including archive.ph, which is the one I usually use for news media. Wonder if the Gray Lady or other media outlets sued them?
 
#WellDuh | #WhatTheyVotedFor

It's times like this:

Are scientific and medical journals the latest target of efforts by President Donald Trump's administration to reshape U.S. research?

The Trump-appointed interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia has sent multiple journal editors letters asserting their publications are "partisans in various scientific debates" and asking for responses to a variety of questions. Meanwhile, the Trump administration plans to cut funding for two open-access, peer-reviewed journals published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—Emerging Infectious Diseases (EID) and Preventing Chronic Disease (PCD)—according to a leaked draft of an internal 2026 budget proposal for the Department of Health and Human Services.

The letter, first reported by MedPage Today, is signed by federal prosecutor Edward Martin Jr. A version addressed to the medical journal CHEST was circulated widely on social media yesterday and the journal confirmed its authenticity. Science has learned that another journal has received a nearly identical letter. Martin's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The prosecutor's letter makes reference to U.S. regulations, stating that journals have a "position for which they are advocating either due to advertisement (postal code) or sponsorship (under relevant fraud regulations)." It asks journal editors to respond to questions such as "How do you clearly articulate to the public when you have certain viewpoints that are influenced by your ongoing relations with supporters, funders, advertisers, and others?" and "Do you accept articles or essays from competing viewpoints?" Responses are expected by 2 May, it adds.

Martin has issued a series of letters on matters unrelated to publishing that Democrats have argued use the threat of legal action, including prosecution, to "intimidate government employees and chill the speech of private citizens." Martin's letter to journals touches on a common accusation leveled by people affiliated with the Trump administration, such as new National Institutes of Health Director Jayanta "Jay" Bhattacharya, who has argued that journals (including Science) were biased against certain viewpoints during the COVID-19 pandemic. This claim has received pushback from journals ....

.... The letter has befuddled some researchers. "The author of the letter seems to misunderstand what scientific research does," says Marcus Munafò, a biological psychologist at the University of Bristol and advocate for research reproducibility and integrity. Scientists "criticize each other all the time, and journals are full of scientific disagreements, reinterpretation of data, and so on," he says. He acknowledges there are issues with a lack of political diversity in academia, and says science is not without its flaws. However, on the whole, "Scientists are trying to determine what is true [and to] advance knowledge," he argues. "What policymakers (and others) decide to do with evidence is a separate issue."


(Offord↱)

It's times like this when dabblers suddenly become sensitive.

For instance, after both Trump's victories, there were plenty who blamed liberal refusal of witch-hunting; if we go back and pick through the socmed noise, we'll find actual political players, including campaign hands and politicians, making the point about transgender after Trump's second win. And if, after both Trump victories, there were people in my own circles to make the point¹, the amount and diversity of noise suggests a certain point needs to be made.

And so, I get it: You're not a supremacist, it's just those trans activists were so mean to J.K. Rowling, who was just asking questions↗ and most certainly wasn't seeking notoriety when stirring an online mob to defame an Olympic athlete↗. There are many versions of the argument; he's not misogynist, but just reacting to uppity feminists. That one isn't racist, but holding the line for freedom against the thought police and their dastardly political correctness. And, over there, they all supported gay rights, as such, but recognized that gay rights were moving too fast so homosexuals needed to wait until the people who doctrinally refused them were more comfortable with the idea of permitting gay people to have their human, constitutional, and civil rights. And then, again, in the twenty-first century, it's not misogyny to protect the rights of people to refuse women access to contraception. And in a way, that leads us back toward Rowling, because people just asking questions about transgender have managed to impose boundaries on cisgender women. It's not misogyny, it's just ... what? In the '24 election, if we are to believe the anti-trans chatter, the Kitty Litter Brigade, the downward evolution of the Potty Police, the people whose emotions were so stirred by with pissing fantasies about schoolchildren, moved that many votes.

But, then, we also might want to take a moment to consider overlap with other questions. For instance, it's not racism, or bigotry against transgender, but courageous people holding the line against "cancel culture".

Yet, here we are. There's always a reason; it's always the little things.

And for the dabblers, maybe the trade is worth it.

But people need to learn, this is a package deal. Thus, yes, I get that you aren't really for canceling peer-reviewed scientific journals, but the fact that you share an exclusionist boundary with someone should never imply they will respect any of your other boundaries.
____________________

Notes:

¹ see "Ms. Rowling …" #191↗:

「One of my favorite antiliberal lectures was actually here, nearly eight years ago, when one of our ostensibly liberal neighbors faulted right, because well, right, it's always the little things: "Your obsession with pampering to ever smaller demographic groups," he complained↗, "while the majority of the population gets more and more livid from economic stagnation that they don't vote or worse vote for trump has gotten us to this horrifically low place of total lack of government power."

The conservative version, as a 2024 election post-mortem↗: "Focus on just the small groups in society that don't even vote to the exclusion of everyone that does. This is how you get the current result."」

Offord, Catherine. "Trump administration targets academic journals with attorney letter, proposed funding cuts". Science. 18 April 2025. Science.org. 22 April 2025. https://www.science.org/content/art...ournals-attorney-letter-proposed-funding-cuts
 
Elon & the Feelings

reuters-20250120-elonmusk-nazisalute-detail-bw.png

Perhaps the least unpredictable utterance in contemporary politics:

Elon Musk is reportedly going to step back from his role in government because of what he believes are 'vicious' attacks on him from the left.

According to a new report in the Washington Post, the Tesla CEO will depart as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) at some point in the near future.

One of the main reasons for his departure is because he is "tired of fielding what he views as a slew of nasty and unethical attacks from the political left," a source told the Post.


(Herbert↱)

You'd think he was at Sciforums.

After all, why would anybody criticize? It must be the nasty left.

Right?

The guy comes in, breaks the law, disrupts the government, screws with people's lives and livelihoods, and oversees what looks like a major foreign espionage op, and the only reason anyone would criticize is because they're leftist.

It's kind of like that totally notaconservative bit we hear on behalf of racism and misogyny, when nasty liberals unjustly attack totally not supremacist people for just asking questions that should have been settled decades ago except that hurts supremacist feelings. In a room like Sciforums, we've long shielded these sorts of arguments from their most direct criticism as if there would be some sort of irreparable discursive vacuum in its absence.

Setting aside Musk's feelings about various groups of people, this time it's corruption.

So, let's try a question that seems as simple as it is complex: ¿True or False: If we reject the corruption and crackpottery in American conservative discourse for its insupportability, have we silenced the whole of the American conservative discourse?

Reality should suggest there are other discussions for conservatives to have, but from Sciforums to the barfly to the kid's other grandpa to the conservative podcaster and even Elon Musk, there seems to be a belief that just saying no to crackpottery, conspiracism, and pseudoscience somehow silences conservatives.

Similarly, if we take Musk's complaint at face value, and then compare it to what goes on, it would seem he's suggesting the right really is that corrupt, and the real problem is that anyone would notice.

And don't get me wrong, that mass corruption in some way or other actually describes American conservatives is not something I'm going to reject just for the sake of some conservative's hurt feelings, especially when that idea is put in front of me by a conservative.

But it's also true that even I would have thought at least a little better of conservatives. At some point, I must take seriously their insistence to the other.
____________________

Notes:

Herbert, Charlie. "Elon Musk set to leave politics because of 'nasty attacks from the left'". The London Economic. 23 April 2025. TheLondonEconomic.com. 23 April 2025. https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/n...ecause-of-nasty-attacks-from-the-left-392314/
 
It's times like this when dabblers suddenly become sensitive.

For instance, after both Trump's victories, there were plenty who blamed liberal refusal of witch-hunting; if we go back and pick through the socmed noise, we'll find actual political players, including campaign hands and politicians, making the point about transgender after Trump's second win.
Looks like you lost your train of thought, Tiassa.

Bee in your bonnet about transgender? Maybe direct your ire about JK Rowling to the thread about JK Rowling. Save this thread for blogging about discussion of Mr Trump and his administration. What do you think?

By the way, that typewriter font you keep use for quotes is annoyingly difficult to read. People are liable to skip over it when you make it more difficult than it has to be. Just so you know. Actually, there's a point in there somewhere about your lengthy diatribes in general. I get it that, probably, nobody reads your blog, so you feel like you should just copy it all over to here in the hope that somebody here will read it all.
 
Give a Xhit

Three posts formerly known as tweets. (Okay, technically four, but never mind.)

The neverending centrist joke otherwise known as Matt Yglesisas↱ observes:

In 100 days of DOGE, Musk:

— Tanked Tesla sales
— Crippled tax collection
— Kneecapped medical research
— Got a bunch of African kids killed
— Achieved trivial savings that are swamped by higher interest rates

To the one, such business acumen. To the other, yeah, sure, Musk did the job.

Podcaster Brian Allen↱ notes:

BREAKING: Tesla just posted a $400 million profit but it's down 71% year-over-year, and revenue is down nearly $2 billion from this time last year.

And here's the kicker:

If it weren't for $595M in government-purchased emissions credits Tesla would've reported a loss.

Again, such business acumen. Propping up billionaires with public money is very much #WhatTheyVotedFor.

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich↱, however, makes a certain point about what they voted for:

So the Republican Party has historically blocked:

-Paid sick leave
-Paid family & medical leave
-Universal childcare
-Universal pre-K
-Expanded Child Tax Credit
-Programs to support reproductive health

And they're wondering why more people aren't having children?

So, here's the tricky part: The same people who can't figure out why the birthrate is down among white affluence are also the ones who expect business acumen from politicians like Donald Trump and Elon Musk.

Or, maybe that's too subtle?

rightwingwatch-20250218-x-1891936477547835670-simpsons-1f15-lisaivory-detail-bw-.png
 
Anyone understand why TP chose not to wear black at the pope's funeral?
He is the only head of state in a blue suit. And a shiny blue tie.

I wonder how someone who courted the Catholic vote (and cynically brought it up at the funeral), and who I presume has sartorial counselors, would seemingly go out of his way to offend. It's all the more stark for him sitting next to Melania, clad in black and a funeral veil. Getting and keeping a sizeable chunk of the Catholic voter base is key to GOP holding power, so this deliberately offensive choice does make me wonder if dementia is advancing.
 
Oh, and some of you may enjoy Helen Lewis' takedown of Joe Rogan's problematic approach to information gathering. (free gift link)


I felt a great disturbance in the world of podcasts, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in horror and were suddenly silenced. Someone had been on Joe Rogan’s show and pointed out that getting your opinions entirely from stand-up comics, Bigfoot forums, and various men named Dave might not be the optimal method for acquiring knowledge. Rogan fans were appalled at this disrespect.
 
who I presume has sartorial counselors
??? Why would you think this? He wears the same damn thing every day, his ties are too long (and ugly), the way his pants are fitted makes that plastic girdle thing he wears (to cover up the fact that he is plainly over 400 pounds) very apparent, his hair just looks like a rat's nest, and clowns apply makeup more thoroughly than he does with that bronzer crap.
 
Anyone understand why TP chose not to wear black at the pope's funeral?
He is the only head of state in a blue suit. And a shiny blue tie.

I wonder how someone who courted the Catholic vote (and cynically brought it up at the funeral), and who I presume has sartorial counselors, would seemingly go out of his way to offend. It's all the more stark for him sitting next to Melania, clad in black and a funeral veil. Getting and keeping a sizeable chunk of the Catholic voter base is key to GOP holding power, so this deliberately offensive choice does make me wonder if dementia is advancing.
He wants always to stand out and be the focus of the cameras.
 
Oh, and some of you may enjoy Helen Lewis' takedown of Joe Rogan's problematic approach to information gathering.

This part is important, in both the world at large and the virtual space:

The whole episode has revealed a major break between the members of the Roganverse who still have an attachment to journalism—such as Murray, who is an associate editor of The Spectator, a conservative magazine—and those who regard all information sources as basically equal. "The incentive structures and thought patterns we would typically associate with the entertainment business are not the same as those we would expect to see in journalism or academia," Kisin wrote in his perceptive post on the controversy. In other words, don't get your opinions on Israel, or anything else, entirely from stand-up comics, Bigfoot forums, and men named Dave.

(Lewis↱)

Observe the contrast point, "those who regard all information sources as basically equal".

This is the free speech of cacophony, in which all speech is equal for having been uttered. In such an environment, affirmable facts are no better—and often considered grievously worse—than a comedian's make-believe. And if we look back toward the beginning of the article, we find the underlying principle about "how things are done in the anti-woke sphere, which is brutally hierarchical. Free-speech absolutism does not include lèse-majesté."

And then take a look around. There's a reason why this bahavior is associated with antiliberalism and "anti-woke". We touched the subject briefly four years ago↗, but it's not the kind of thing people around here like to talk about. And why would they, given Seth Simons' headline at The New Republic: "The Comedy Industry Has a Big Alt-Right Problem"↱:

T.J. Miller, the comedian who has been thoroughly disgraced by allegations of sexual assault and transphobia but is somehow still at it, recently made an apt observation about how power works in mass culture. "Standups understand this: If you empower your audience, they're much more likely to pay you again to support you," he told comedian Bobby Lee. "The audience wants to be empowered." He was critiquing Hollywood's reliance on stale film franchises he believes audiences don't like, but the analysis applies to comedy, too. You empower an audience by giving them what they want. The power they give you in return is their trust, their loyalty, their willingness to fight for you. The relationship between an entertainer and his audience isn't all that different from the one between a political leader and his movement.

It's easy to lose sight of a simple truth: Things are the way they are because people made them so. The far right did not come into being by chance. People shaped it. They went where they thought they could win people over, and they won people over. They offered permission to revel in racism and sexism, in homophobia and transphobia, and they earned devoted followings in return. They couldn't do this alone, though. They had to be let in ....

.... The people who gave this movement a constituency in comedy—who masked it in the language of free speech, who hid it behind the shield of more respectable artists—are all still in charge of their little fiefdoms. They're not going anywhere anytime soon.

What Lewis describes as "the anti-woke sphere which includes other members of what was once called the 'intellectual dark web'", provides a glimpse of the contiguity: The so-called "intellectual dark web" was nothing new↗. As Jacob Hamburger wrote in 2018:

What exactly are the ideas that have made people like [Eric] Weinstein, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro, and Christina Hoff Sommers into what a recent New York Times profile described as intellectual "renegades"? According to the Times writer Bari Weiss, most emphasize the biological differences between men and women, a feeling that free speech is "under siege," and a fear that "identity politics" is a threat to the United States's social fabric ....

.... These thinkers ought not to be allowed to pretend that its ideas are, historically speaking, anything other than conservative ....

.... When this dark web finally does come out of the shadows, it may prove a formidable weapon for the next iteration of the conservative movement.

And then, maybe, take a look around. There is an old line↗ that says, if he accidentally accuses a casual drinker of alcoholism, the one thing the other will not do is prove him wrong by going on a five-day bender. And if once upon a time "entertaining take-downs of political correctness is their first exposure to 'intellectual' discussions of politics and culture", as Hamburger suggested years ago, we're now seven years down the line, and that audience isn't new, anymore.

If we go back to the end of Lewis' article, note what Kisin said: "The incentive structures and thought patterns we would typically associate with the entertainment business are not the same as those we would expect to see in journalism or academia." This might read like the sort of obliquity↗ some people find frustrating, but, if, for instance, one has paid any significant attention over the period, they already know that simpler expressions—i.e., entertainers think about it differently than academics or reporters—encounters the usual gamut of naïve indignance. You know, the whole whine about elitism and how someone knows what other people think, and how that's the problem with liberals, and all that. Do they really not know that comedians and medical researchers don't do the same things, and have different priorities? At some point, it comes down to the simply observable differences between people's relationships with what is true.

The academic or journalist is bound by some context of supportable truth. Entertainers like Joe Rogan are not. And even at the point that entertainers chase their ratings by mocking what is true or supportable, much of the audience seems incapable of understanding the difference.

It's one thing if Lewis describes a "desire for power without responsibility", but, as Simons reminded four years ago, "They couldn’t do this alone, though. They had to be let in."
____________________

Notes:

Hamburger, Jacob. "The 'Intellectual Dark Web' Is Nothing New". Los Angeles Review of Books. 18 July 2018. LAReviewOfBooks.org. 26 April 2025. https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-intellectual-dark-web-is-nothing-new/

Lewis, Helen. "Finally, Someone Said It to Joe Rogan’s Face". The Atlantic. 25 April 2025. TheAtlantic.com. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/04/roganverse-split/682593/

Simons, Seth. "The Comedy Industry Has a Big Alt-Right Problem". The New Republic. 9 February 2021. NewRepublic.com. 26 April 2025. https://newrepublic.com/article/161200/alt-right-comedy-gavin-mcinnes-problem
 
This Moment in Trump (Eleventh Form: Perfect Calm)

JCO↱ for the win:

every wife who's ever lived has nudged her husband awake in such circumstances. "Wake up!"--"W-what?"--"You were snoring!"--"I was not snoring! I was awake!"--"You were asleep & you were snoring!"--"I was not! I was awake!" etc.
& so the remarkable thing here is that the wife has refused to play the wife-role: "Let the old fool sleep."

It's one of the things that we get from paying attention to the storytellers. Before I ever heard of flash fiction, there was The Assignation, but in a single short post, Joyce Carol Oates just destroyed every sketch comedy writer in New York. It's like a sketch version of 4'33".
 
Well, Trump has managed to pull off a huge own goal in Canada, I see. I was particularly amused by the imagery used in the BBC report, which described him as “bellyflopping”one last time, into Canada’s election, on polling day, with another social media post about how Canada would be so much better off as a 51st state of the US. That will have sealed it for Mark Carney and his Liberal party. The image of Trump in bathing trunks ( in my mental picture still wearing a red tie that reaches down to his genitals), bellyflopping gracelessly into a swimming pool, is priceless.

Trump has had the clearest of one finger salutes from the Canadian people. A proud day for Canada, but they will need the new spirit of solidarity to deal with the crazy machinations south of the border.
 
Well, Trump has managed to pull off a huge own goal in Canada, I see.
And there was me thinking that he'd never do anything of merit! ;)
Carney's an eminently sensible chap, and he did well by us as Governor of the BoE, so there's hopefully a good relationship there to build upon.
 
Well, Trump has managed to pull off a huge own goal in Canada, I see. I was particularly amused by the imagery used in the BBC report, which described him as “bellyflopping”one last time, into Canada’s election, on polling day, with another social media post about how Canada would be so much better off as a 51st state of the US. That will have sealed it for Mark Carney and his Liberal party. The image of Trump in bathing trunks ( in my mental picture still wearing a red tie that reaches down to his genitals), bellyflopping gracelessly into a swimming pool, is priceless.

Trump has had the clearest of one finger salutes from the Canadian people. A proud day for Canada, but they will need the new spirit of solidarity to deal with the crazy machinations south of the border.
The BBC put out a "greatest hits" on him yesterday.

 
The BBC put out a "greatest hits" on him yesterday.

Yes, I've had to put up with endless trailers on Radio 4 for a similar show, all without saying what is blindingly apparent, viz. that Trump, Vance, Musk et al are carrying out a rolling authoritarian coup against the state.

I do wish the media would stop the sanewashing and trying diplomatically to find all kinds of strategy and meaning in what Trump says and does, other than the obvious.

And I can well do without yet more recordings of Trump's sly, grating, insinuating voice, spouting yet more egregious lies and issuing yet more thinly veiled threats against all and sundry.

But we have quite a litany of failure now as well. No peace in Gaza - and no more talk from Trump of ethnic cleansing - he's letting Netanyahu move directly to the genocide option instead. No peace in Ukraine and looks as if the ridiculous estate agent Trump has put in charge is about to give up. No trade deals have flowed from his tariff strategy and China has not "picked up the phone" as he arrogantly demanded. In fact instead it is China demanding Trump unilaterally withdraw the tariffs completely as a precondition for any trade talks, while the CEOs of Walmart etc. squeal, in his other ear, about empty shelves within 2 months. (On this one, Trump has now resorted to lying about trade talks going on when they obviously are not, in a weak attempt to save face while he works out how to climb down.)

China looks to me as if it has decided this is the symbolic issue on which they can show the world they can beat the USA.They are playing hard ball with Trump now. They can see Walmart writhing and sweating and the bond markets threatening a moron premium on US debt (in which they themselves have a big stake they could start to sell off, to make it worse). I think they sense they have Trump by the balls and want to force him into a public and total surrender, to show him who's boss in world trade these days.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top