- John Scalzi at Whatever contemplates the Trump administration, the American people, and feels strangely upbeat. Always look on the bright side, right?
- Ted McLaughlin at jobsanger has a brief graphic comment on the real primary concern of our President.
- Michael J.W. Stickings at The Reaction looks at the relationship between the US and Germany and senses a developing strange role reversal.
- Stinque believes that, when Donald Trump accidentally fell into the Presidency, he moved from Trump Tower into a new version of Hell.
- CNN walks us through another week in Trump alternate facts.
- At satiric site The Onion, high level Trump aid Steve Bannon uses climate science reports to build a nest.
- Frances Langum is surprised at the famed individual who may become our next ambassador to Canada.
- Conservative T. Paine, at Saving Common Sense, endorses our new President’s new Immigration ban. His reference to a previous Obama action as a precedent turns out to be mistaken. My friend might want to rely on better sources than Kellyanne Conway and Fox News.
- Max’s Dad reviews how the confirmation of new Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions is part of more general effort to revive what we thought were long dead lost causes. Aunt Tilly cautions that, because of language used, any children should read while covering their eyes.
- Dave Dubya compares the current state of contemporary conservatism with the traditional right and suggests a remarkable transformation has happened.
- Jack Jodell at The Saturday Afternoon Post counts the ways Americans should extend the unpopularity of our new President and toss out the entire Republican Party.
- Jonathan Bernstein, writing for BloombergView, explains that the task of determining whether Republican lawmakers are Trump lapdogs is more complicated than counting congressional votes.
- Jerry Wolfe at Dog Bless Us One And All mourns the passing of a famed public figure. I suspect he may not be serious.
- After warning us about upcoming leftist disruption of a rightwing speaker, Wisconsin conservative James Wigderson is surprised at the civil, orderly reception.
- Yellow Dog at Blue in the Bluegrass doesn’t much care for “right to work” laws, preferring unions who fight for the right to a reasonable wage.
- In The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser, Bruce understands the disappointment of former parishoners to the turn of their former pastor to atheism, but suggests they look to what has not changed.
- Vincent at A Wayfarer’s Notes is amazing. This week he goes to a familiar island to guide friends in a sort of exploration, falls somewhat ill, and shares with us insights into identity, empathy, love for one’s enemies, Jesus, and Martin Buber. Vincent is a very cool individual.
- PZ Myers, writing for Pharyngula, slams a scientist who sees nothing wrong, when experimental data does not produce anticipated results, with repeatedly analyzing and re-analyzing the same data until something better seems to emerge. Actual science does not work this way.
- And, via Nancy LeTourneau at Washington Monthly:
In 1998, Luciano Pavarotti developed a sore throat just before a scheduled performance of his famous operatic piece Nessun dorma. An emergency call was made to a surprise substitute who sang with virtually no special preparation.She brought the house down, the audience was just blown away:
11 thoughts on “Upbeat on Trump, Trump Cares, Trump Hell, Germany, Canada”
Comments are closed.
Okay, Mr. Deming, here is a “better source” for you from US Customs and Border Protection:
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waiver-program/visa-waiver-program-improvement-and-terrorist-travel-prevention-act-faq
Seems to me that they wanted to better vet people travelling to the United States particularly from those aforementioned nations.
Thank you, T. Paine.
The link you provide seems, on the surface, to confirm my impression that the act signed by President Obama does not satisfy the yearning of conservatives for an Obama precedent for President Trump’s harsh measures.
The act signed by Obama simply dropped some countries from participating in a program that permitted travel without a visa. That just meant citizens from those countries would need to obtain a visa, just like everyone else.
I am struck by this part of the FAQ to which you link:
The Act, among other things, establishes new eligibility requirements for travel under the VWP. These new eligibility requirements do not bar travel to the United States. Instead, a traveler who does not meet the requirements must obtain a visa for travel to the United States, which generally includes an in-person interview at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate.
You have an expertise in such matters that I lack as well as a keener eye and sharper mind.
Perhaps you can point out the part of the FAQ that has escaped my notice.
Right now, I don’t see anything that supports your belief in a precedent.
This seems to be another case of arguing a distinction without a difference, Mr. Deming.
The purpose of the “Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act” that President Obama signed into law was to force foreign nationals from several specific nations of concern (like Syria and others mentioned in Trump’s EO) to be forced to go to a U.S. embassy or consulate for a face to face interview (more in-depth vetting, in other words) before being granted a visa. The idea of this, as the very name of the Act implies is to PREVENT THE TRAVEL OF TERRORISTS into the United States.
Donald Trump’s executive order simply provides for a temporary ban on from those seven specific war-torn and unstable nations in order that a more thorough and proper vetting of those foreign nationals maybe carried out to ensure that they don’t have hostile desires in entering our country.
The purpose of each seems to be quite similar, to my “keener eye” accordingly.
Thank you for clarifying, T. Paine.
If the purpose is to prevent terrorism in the United States by those affected, the Obama action certainly succeeded, didn’t it? It was a measured, careful, application of existing immigration procedures. If I understand correctly, the number of those killed in the United States in terrorist attacks by anyone from those countries is zero. Do you suppose the Obama action is one reason for that?
The two measures apply to 6 of the same countries. They do not apply to most of the same people from those countries. The attempted Trump order specifically targets refugees, putting an indefinite ban on those fleeing death in Syria. Existing vetting of refugees averages 2 years. That may be why the number of those killed in the United States by terrorist attacks by refugees is also zero.
To equate the two actions because they name the same countries is a little like saying a flying house is the same as a house fly. The carefully applied Obama action is not the precedent that conservatives seek to invent.
That much seems indisputable fact.
Beyond that, I think it a reasonable observation that the Trump order would accomplish what it is intended to do. It would target the vulnerable, not because they are dangerous, but because they are different.
The two of you sound like two judges arguing a constitutional point of law, one interpreting the point broadly and the other narrowly to support their own point of view. Interestingly, it is the conservative taking the broad view.
Burr, with all due respect, multiple intelligence agencies and ISIS themselves have stated that they plan to try and infiltrate the ranks of refugees with radical Islamic terrorists in order to gain entrance to the United States and elsewhere for nefarious means. Do you think it is unwise to not take them at their word? The horrific events that have occurred and are occurring in many of these Middle Eastern nations makes it an exceptionally difficult task of trying to balance the protection of our citizens with the needs of allowing in refugees from these nations. I do not think this is an inappropriate weighing of those needs, my friend.
That balance seems to have been achieved with the extreme vetting introduced by President Obama. The objective of President Trump seems obvious. His apparent concern is less with banning terrorists than with banning those desperate folks who are fleeing terrorism. After all, they are different from us.
The conservative search for a plausible cover, the precedent of an Obama action, falls to pieces under any examination. You can’t ban napping kids by pointing to laws against kidnapping.
You need some other precedent. You might follow the example of a few of your fellow conservatives: try the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Or the deadly turning away of Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis. After all, the unsubstantiated invocation of National Security can be used yet again.
Right?
So you are either failing to acknowledge or are wilfully ignoring the FACT that ISIS is sending their terrorists within the ranks of the refugees coming to this country, I see. It is a fact that they have confirmed themselves! Do you acknowledge this, my friend?
Nearly every single Japanese-American was not a threat to America during WWII. The Jews that came here seeking refuge certainly were not. Interning American citizens of Japanese descent without due process was an anathema to the constitution. And it would have been exceptionally difficult for Nazi’s to hide amongst the Jewish refugees. Their demise was instituted by the “conservative” FDR nonetheless.
Further I think it is beneath you, my friend, to state that Trump was banning these refugees because they are “different” from us. If he had banned Muslims from all nations, then perhaps I could agree with you. Instead, seemingly you are desperately clinging to this falsehood in defense of what? A political agenda?
Thank you, T. Paine.
I suppose we could take the draconian step of banning ethnic, national, or religious groups the members of which might share the religion, ethnicity, nation of origin, or even skin color of those who would do us harm.
If we are to do that, we should ban those first who have committed the most damaging attacks in the United States, those who have proven themselves to be the greatest danger to our lives and well being. There is very specific data gathered since 9/11 identifying just those groups. That, of course, would be men, in particular white conservatives, most especially those who attend Christian churches. Here in the United States.
Or, we could take reasonable steps to identify and remove individuals rather than groups. That has been the Obama approach, and it has worked.
“Nearly every single Japanese-American was not a threat to America during WWII. The Jews that came here seeking refuge certainly were not. Interning American citizens of Japanese descent without due process was an anathema to the constitution. And it would have been exceptionally difficult for Nazi’s to hide amongst the Jewish refugees. Their demise was instituted by the ‘conservative’ FDR nonetheless.”
Thank you for that, T. Paine. Let’s apply that standard as a principle, shall we? The number of Americans in the US who have been killed in terrorist attacks committed by refugees would be, let’s calculate that (um … carry the one … um) zero. That would be none.
And the number of Americans in the US who have been killed in terrorist attacks committed by any immigrant from Mr. Trump’s target countries would be … all together now … zero.
It seems the Obama approach has worked quite well, wouldn’t you agree?
Oh, yes. Mr. Trump’s motives. The reason I know he wants to target Muslims is because he has told us exactly that.
You do remember that, do you not, Mr. Paine? And, diligent as I know you to be, I’m sure you have done your homework on the President’s top advisor, Mr. Bannon, as well.
Perhaps we should believe what they told us they would do.
Banning immigration while improving vetting, vetting that is working and taking 1 to 2 years to do, is not a necessary requirement to protect us.
I wouldn’t be so quick to agree that ISIS is telling us “facts”. They are saying just what they need to say to terrorize us. They have won in that front.