Showing posts with label Daily Kos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Daily Kos. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 1, 2020

Where are the drive-thru COVID-19 testing locations Trump promised? Here they are. All 5 of them


Daily Kos

On Friday, March 13, Donald Trump stood in the Rose Garden of the White House alongside the CEOs of mega-corporations like Walmart, Target, and Walgreens. Together they announced there would be nationwide testing done in the parking lots of the huge retailers. Huzzah! Only days after the market tanked because of coronavirus fears and whole industries shut their doors, this was welcome news and the market responded. The Dow Jones jumped 1,985 points over the previous Friday.
Nearly three weeks later, where are all these critical drive-thru testing locations? I could link to a website to find the one closest to you, but there are only five locations. According to CNN, those three retailers have more than 30,000 locations, but only five are set up for drive-thru testing: “One drive-thru at a CVS in Massachusetts, three at two Walmarts and a Walgreens in the Chicago area and another at a Rite Aid in Philadelphia.”

Here’s another little glitch: CNN reports testing in those locations is still very limited. “Almost all of the locations are offering coronavirus testing only to first responders and health care workers, and some offer it only to those who fall under those categories and are showing symptoms.”
Not to take anything away from those health care workers and first responders, because they absolutely, positively need to be tested, but we also need mass testing to figure out where we are in this pandemic. As CNN notes, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has tested approximately 34,000 people after various community centers, but that is a drop in the bucket for a nation of 327,000,000 people. 

Like all things Trump, that March 13 press conference in the Rose Garden was more about creating the appearance of effective leadership and strong partnerships between the public and private sectors. The CEOs were little more than props in a made-for-television production. The reality is this is one more failed test of the reality show president.
And be fair, these CEOs could be doing a lot more, starting with guaranteed sick leave for all employees (now and forever) and protective gear for all front-facing employees.
At the end of the day, forget four more years of this reality buffoon. There are many days where I question whether we can withstand four more months of this deadly incompetence. 

Sunday, November 24, 2019

It's almost 2020 and New York Times editors are still debating if Trump's a racist

Eric Boehlert for Daily Kos

Wasting untold time and energy, New York Times newsroom leaders continue to struggle with the not-very-difficult question of whether they ought to refer to Donald Trump as a racist. More than four years after Trump entered our national political conversation by announcing his candidacy for president, the Times still can't figure out if the paper should accurately label him for his obviously racist behavior.
Likely terrified of sparking a right-wing media backlash, journalists continue to tiptoe around Trump's open embrace of hate speech and his deeply racist leanings.
Top editors at the Times recently sent a memo to department heads offering guidance on the topic. “It’s about navigating through calling things what they are, not getting into the kind of name-calling that seems to pervade political debate,” one anonymous Times editor told Vanity Fair. "That’s a little bit of the tension. We’re in a real name-calling culture. We like to stay above the fray, yet we also like to avoid excessive euphemisms, so the attempt here is to say: Let’s not use labels so much as to describe things as they are."

This came after Times executive editor Dean Baquet last week stressed that the paper just can't tell if Trump's a racist. "I don’t know. I think Donald Trump  says racially divisive things. I think that’s a little bit different. I’m not in his head enough to know whether he says them because he wants to stoke his base," the editor told The Guardian.
Note that that's the same illogical defense the paper uses for not calling Trump a liar: Reporters and editors aren't in his head, so they can’t tell for sure. But it’s been documented that Trump has told certain lies more than 60-70 different times, which means there's zero doubt that he knows he’s telling boldfaced lies. Still, the confused Times just can’t make a tough call. Just like the paper can't make a tough call on Trump's misogyny.
There's "no question Donald Trump has trouble with women,” according to Baquet, who nonetheless oversees a newspaper that won't call him a sexist in its news pages.
That mind-reading defense is a convenient cop-out for the Times. But other publications and news agencies aren’t as reserved.

Note that the Associated Press assures journalists that they don't have to be telepathic in order to be accurate. In other words, when using "racist" as an adjective to describe comments or events, reporters and editors “need not involve examining the motivation of the person who spoke or acted, which is a separate issue that may not be related to how the statement or action itself can be characterized.”
Also, does it seem to you like Times editors are slow-walking this issue in hopes of playing out the clock? Trump entered the Republican race in June 2015. It’s now November 2019, and Times higher-ups are still grappling with this topic. Why do I get the feeling that right after Trump loses reelection next year, the paper is going to announce it's now comfortable tagging him as a racist? Not exactly a profile in courage.
To be fair, the Times is hardly alone in its timid approach to describing racist behavior in the Trump era. Instead of an honest conversation, news consumers have been served a feast of euphemisms — "racially tinged," "racially charged," racially incendiary, disparaging," "racially infused," "crass epithet," "crass denigrations," “bluntly vulgar language"—as journalists frantically try to avoid being truthful about Trump. This kind of media timidity was basically invented by the Beltway press in order to cover Trump, and to avoid telling hard truths.
Time essayist Anand Giridharadas recently revealed how in 2016 when writing a piece on Trump's name-calling campaign, an editor forced him to remove the accurate "racist" adjective from his piece. "Of all the biases that assist this normalizing, perhaps the supreme is the bias for sobriety, caution, restraint," Giridharadas lamented on Twitter. "These values build great publications. But we also need to have an honest conversation about what these values miss when we are living in extraordinary, ugly times."
HuffPost writer Julia Craven collected a wide sample of examples of reporters burning up their thesauruses in order to avoid typing the word "racist." From The New York Times: “disparaging,” ”racially tinged,” ”vulgar.” From The Washington Post: ”racially charged,” “crude reference,” “racially incendiary,” ”disparaging,” ”vulgar,” ”expressed a preference for immigrants from Norway.” From the Boston Globe: “the vulgarity,” ”crass epithet,” ”derogatory,” ”crass denigrations.” And from the Associated Press: ”bluntly vulgar language.”

Still, it's rather stunning to watch the Times' best and brightest treat this so-called conundrum like it's some impossible-to-solve physics equation, as editors gather around and try to determine the correct answer.
Fact: Trump is a racist. He constantly uses racist language, such as demanding that congresswomen of color "go back" to where they came from, and likens predominantly black American cities to rodent-infested hellholes. Recall that the bloody gun rampage that unfolded in El Paso earlier this year, just minutes from the Mexico border, was sparked by a white gunman whose manifesto explicitly cited Trump's "invasion" rhetoric about migrants as his motivation to kill as many brown-skinned people as possible by emptying his AK-47 rifle inside a shell-shocked Walmart.
So why the ongoing attempt to make this all way more complicated than it really is? Calling out racism is a moral imperative and by refusing to hold Trump accountable, the press is failing that task.

Eric Boehlert is a veteran progressive writer and media analyst, formerly with Media Matters and Salon. He is the author of Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush and Bloggers on the Bus. You can follow him on Twitter @EricBoehlert.


Wednesday, April 3, 2019

What The Trump: From morning to night, Trump's Tuesday was filled with unbelievable comments







It’s not as if Donald Trump doesn’t occasionally deliver a head-scratcher. In fact, Trump’s staff of media surrogates spend most of their time not advancing the case for some policy proposal, but acting as translators for his latest gibberish-burst. Trump’s regular production of nonsense, counter-sense, anti-sense, and plain old hate speech is so high that most of the media has long become inured to the idea that each day would see a verbal Trump land in the punch bowl. 
But by any standard, even if that standard is noises made by a possum with one foot caught in a trap, Trump’s Tuesday was special. Extra special. Over the course of a single day, Trump declared that:

His father was born in Germany. "My father is German.  Right? Was German. And born in a very wonderful place in Germany, and so I have a great feeling for Germany." Fred Trump was born in the Bronx in 1905.
The noise from windmills causes cancer. After claiming that living “anywhere near a windmill” drops property values 75 percent (it doesn’t), Trump wasn’t sure that he had made power from something that doesn’t burn a fossil fuel sound scary enough, so then he added on. “They say the noise causes cancer.” In this case “they” are clearly idiots.
The 2018 midterms were rigged. Speaking at a Republican fundraiser, Trump told the assembled politicians they need to ramp up the paranoia about elections and implied that the midterms were rigged. “There’s something going on. Hey, you gotta be a little bit more paranoid than you are. We have to be a little bit careful, because I don't like the way the votes are being tallied.”
The oranges of the Mueller report. In a meeting with the secretary general of NATO, Trump told reporters that they really needed to look into the “oranges” of the Mueller report. Then he did it again. Then he did it again. “I hope that they now go and take a look at the oranges, the oranges of the investigation.” While it was hilarious at the time, misfiling the word “origins” turns out to be the least-odd statement of Trump’s day.
Someone is going to leak his speech to the media. Trump’s speech at a Republican fundraiser was carried live on C-SPAN, various media sites, and attended by the White House press corps. All of which needs to be said just to make it clear how TrumpTrump’s statement that "Someone's going to leak this whole damn speech to the media" really was.

Windmill noise does not cause cancer. No kind of noise causes cancer—not even listening to Trump. Though coal dust, coal smoke, and coal ash … those things absolutely can cause cancer. But the windmill thing wasn’t the most over-the-top statement from the paranoid man with German oranges.
And it wasn’t even Trump’s statements about how he could make a profit by shutting down a billion dollars a day in business on the southern border. Or reversing himself on the same topic.
During the same GOP fundraising speech, Trump suggested that he might change his catchphrase for the 2020 election. Rather than MAGA, Trump declared, "We'll be the party of health care. We shouldn't run away from health care." Then he went on to explain how he wrangled with Mitch McConnell and convinced him to run away from health care. Though, to be fair, Trump actually said “hett care,” and no one knows what that is, so maybe he’s doing it well. 
Trump went on to say that his new Make America Hetty Again campaign would be different because they would make overturning Obamacare mission one. "Immediately after the election, it's going to be our first vote.”
But didn’t he say exactly that in 2016? Someone needs to go back to the oranges to be sure.

Monday, July 10, 2017

The GOP’s Holocaust sound bites bite back

By Jon Perr  

During the 2016 presidential election, Republican Donald Trump captured a staggering 80 percent of the white evangelical vote. But among Jewish Americans, Hillary Clinton expanded the Democratic advantage from four years earlier, crushing Trump by a 71 to 23 percent margin.
There’s no mystery as to why. On almost every issue—from education, the social safety net, and abortion to the economy, health care, and science itself—Jewish voters remain a reliably liberal bloc of Democratic support. Despite the right-wing demagoguery over the Iran nuclear deal and the GOP hyping of the Trump-Bibi friendship, “the year of the Jewish Republican” did not come to pass. While Israel may be near the top of American evangelicals’ priorities, that is simply not the case for American Jews. That many of their most ardent conservative devotees see the Jews’ eschatological role as biblically-mandated, End-Times cannon fodder doesn’t help matters.
Oh, and one other thing: Casual analogies to the Nazi slaughter of European Jewry appear in Republican talking points only slightly less often than “tax cuts” and “Ronald Reagan.” From health care, taxes, and the national debt to public education, abortion, gun control, and now terrorism, the GOP's best and brightest now routinely compare everything they hate to the Holocaust.
Take, for example, this week’s Auschwitz photo-op by Louisiana Republican Congressman Clay Higgins. Higgins, whose previous claim to fame was to declare “all of Christendom ... is at war with Islamic horror,” used the backdrop of the crematoria to make his case in a five-minute video:
“The world’s a smaller place now than it was in World War II. The United States is more accessible to terror like this, horror like this. It’s hard to walk away from gas chambers and ovens without a very sober feeling of commitment, unwavering commitment, to make damn sure that the United States of America is protected from the evils of the world.”
Higgins’ choice of the spot where 1.1 million Jews were murdered was disrespectful and disturbing, all the more so given his solution for “radicalized Islamic suspect[s]” is to “hunt them” and “kill them all.” Higgins later issued the standard conservative unpology “for any unintended pain,” making him one of the few Republican Holocaust appropriators to do so.
Appropriators, that is, like former Tennessee state Sen. Stacey Campfield. In May 2014, he posted a message warning about the Affordable Care Act, claiming that “Democrats bragging about the number of mandatory sign ups for Obamacare is like Germans bragging about the number of manditory [sic] sign ups for 'train rides' for Jews in the 40s.”
Sen. Campfield was actually late to adopt the GOP's health-care-as-Holocaust analogy. State insurance exchanges helping millions of people in the United States obtain coverage, Idaho state Sen. Sheryl Nuxoll darkly warned, are the equivalent of a final solution for health care:
"The insurance companies are creating their own tombs. Much like the Jews boarding the trains to concentration camps, private insurers are used by the feds to put the system in place because the federal government has no way to set up the exchange."
In Maryland, the Republican Women of Anne Arundel County explained in 2009 that "Obama and Hitler have a great deal in common." Five summers ago, Maine Republican Gov. Paul LePage reacted to the Supreme Court's ruling upholding Obamacare:
"We the people have been told there is no choice. You must buy health insurance or pay the new Gestapo -- the IRS."
LePage was not the first Republican to compare the Internal Revenue Service to Hitler's henchman. During the GOP's successful crusade to gut the agency in the late 1990s, Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott decried the IRS's "Gestapo-like tactics" while Alaska's Frank Murkowski protested, "You don't need to send in armed personnel in flak jackets."
Michele Bachmann and Mike Huckabee couldn't agree more. Despite the fact that the total federal tax burden as a percentage of the U.S. economy hit its lowest level since 1950, presidential candidate Bachmann had a different story to tell New Hampshire Republicans in May 2011:
Bachmann recounted learning about a horrific time in history as a child -- the Holocaust -- and wondering if her mother did anything to stop it. She said she was shocked to hear that many Americans weren't aware that millions of Jews had died until after World War II ended.
Bachmann said the next generation will ask similar questions about what their elders did to prevent them from facing a huge tax burden.
"I tell you this story because I think in our day and time, there is no analogy to that horrific action," she said, referring to the Holocaust. "But only to say, we are seeing eclipsed in front of our eyes a similar death and a similar taking away. It is this disenfranchisement that I think we have to answer to."
While Michele Bachmann was in Manchester wondering, "what will you say to that next generation about what you did to make sure that wouldn't be their fate?" Mike Huckabee was in Pittsburgh asking the same thing. As the Daily Beast reported, the former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister told the National Rifle Association that the mounting U.S. national debt is akin to, you guessed it, the Holocaust:
He spoke of how, at Israel's Holocaust museum, he looked over his 11-year-old daughter's shoulder as she wrote in the guest book, "Why didn't somebody do something?" Then he said, "We cannot afford to be a generation that leaves our children with nothing but a huge debt and the very erosion of the freedoms that our founders and our fathers died and gave us so valiantly. And that's why I say, 'Let there never be a time in this country where some father has to look over his daughter's shoulder and see her ask this haunting question: Why didn't somebody do something?'"
Why didn't someone do something is the same question that haunted North. Carolina Rep. Virginia Foxx when it came to protecting the bottom lines of for-profit colleges. In her speech to National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the North Carolina Republican appropriated the famous Holocaust maxim to protest federal regulation of for-profit colleges. As Inside Higher Ed reported, Foxx complained that non-profit, private institutions should have joined in their defense:
"'They came for the for-profits, and I didn't speak up'… Nobody really spoke up like they should have."
For her part, Foxx was only following in the footsteps of her GOP colleague, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland. Federal student loans, he cautioned in 2012, weren't merely unconstitutional, but the first step toward the gas chambers:
"If you can ignore the Constitution to do something good today, tomorrow you will be ignoring the Constitution to do something bad...The Holocaust that occurred in Germany--how in the heck could that happen? And when you start down the wrong road, it can be a very slippery slope."
That’s the same kind of slippery slope, the National Rifle Association and its GOP water carriers warn, which runs from common-sense  gun safety legislation directly to the gas chambers.
"In 1939, Germany established gun control," GOP Congressional candidate Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher announced, adding ominously, "From 1939 to 1945, six million Jews and seven million others, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated." As Salon reported, Mr. Plumber has plenty of company within the ranks of the GOP in spouting the handguns-to-Hitler myth. Calling out Fox News, the Drudge Report, and Ohio Republican Debe Terhar, the Anti-Defamation League lamented that "Holocaust imagery taints gun control debate."
Then there's the issue of abortion. Last January, Virginia GOP legislator Dick Black marked the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade by comparing family planning clinics to the Nazi's death camps:
I recall back to the days of Nazi Germany, there was a place called Auschwitz. And over the gates of Auschwitz was a sign, and the sign said "arbeit macht frei," which means roughly "your labors will make you free." People who went behind those doors never returned. Their labors didn't make them free. And I'm reminded that we refer to our clinics as "women's health clinics" and we talk about women's reproductive rights and so forth.
In 2011, the people behind Mississippi's failed "personhood" initiative distributed 600,000 DVDs declaring, "Saying it's OK to choose is the same thing as saying it's OK for Hitler to choose." Again, as Salon reported that year, the Holocaust analogy was one happily shared by some of the leading lights in the Republican Party:
Mike Huckabee, who supported Personhood USA's failed efforts in Mississippi, has often compared the Holocaust and abortion, saying of Nazi extermination, "educated scientists, sophisticated and cultured people looked the other way because they thought it didn't touch them." The day before Phil Bryant was elected governor of Mississippi -- at the same time the state's voters rejected the Personhood amendment -- he evoked the Jews of Nazi Germany "being marched into the oven," because of "the people who were in charge of the government at that time" as an argument to vote for it.
As it turns out, even a Republican can go too far when they target other Republicans with the Holocaust smear. In his now infamous "Uncle Sugar" speech, Gov. Huckabee also protested that tea party conservatives who denounce "Republicans in Name Only" were following in the Nazis’ footsteps "when you start with the idea that people just aren't as valuable as you are." As Red State's Erick Erickson put it:
"I hope he seriously reconsiders these remarks in his disagreements with conservatives. That is really uncalled for. The establishment has no inherent right to re-election and supporting Matt Bevin in Kentucky does not make one a Nazi."
But for Erickson, supporting the Affordable Care Act or unions or just about anything else in the Democratic platform does.
Which is exactly what many Republicans and their supporters on the far right have been claiming for years. Protesting tax increases for the wealthiest Americans, Powerline declared, "First, they came for the rich." (Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tom Perkins agreed, warning that scrutiny of America's 1 percent was leading to a repeat of Nazi Germany's Kristallnacht against the Jews while Blackstone chief Stephen Schwarzman complained that President Obama's proposal to raise tax rates on private equity firms is "like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.")  
Michelle Malkin similarly argued, "First, they came for the Catholics." And during the last election, many social conservative leaders warned that voting for Obama could trigger another Holocaust. In so doing, they were just updating the nightmare scenario described by CBN founder and former GOP presidential candidate Pat Robertson after he was criticized by the Miami Herald over his involvement in the 1990 Florida governor's race:
"Do you also have a ghetto chosen to herd the pro-life Catholics and evangelicals into ? Have you designed the appropriate yellow patch that Christians should wear?"
Sadly, the Republican butchery of Holocaust history applies to the Shoah itself.  Just one week into his presidency, Donald Trump marked International Holocaust Remembrance Day with a statement that proclaimed:
“It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror.”
Impossible, indeed, if like President Trump, you don’t mention that any of those “innocent people” were Jewish. The chutzpah of the White House didn’t help matters, as press secretary Sean Spicer rejected complaints about the omission as “nitpicking,” “pathetic,” and “ridiculous.” Yet less than three months later, Spicer played—or more accurately, misplayed—the Hitler card to justify U.S. strikes against Syriafollowing the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons.
“You had someone who was as despicable as Hitler who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons. So you have to, if you are Russia, ask yourself is this a country that you and a regime that you want to align yourself with."
For their part, Jewish voters have already asked—and answered—the question about aligning themselves with the Republican Party and the Trump regime.
As for what now passes for the Party of Lincoln, here's a friendly suggestion for the Holocaust peddlers of the GOP and its allies in the gilded class and the religious right. The next time you feel compelled to compare, say, Head Start, a carbon tax, food stamps, or just about any other Democratic policy to Nazi Germany's extermination of six million Jews, just repeat this helpful phrase silently to yourself:
Never again.




Translate