Tag NPR

Here’s another reason I couldn’t work for this president

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

The first reason, of course, is that he would never ask me to.  Or more correctly, the deeply cynical and hyper-efficient Christian nationalists, and the vacuous and power-hungry suck-ups who run his administration, would have no use for me since I am not on board with their plans to turn back time to an America where white men alone are in charge of everything, women are meant to serve the men even when they are put in positions that seem to carry authority, and anyone not from their tribe – nationally. ethnically, religiously, or otherwise – knows better than to cause trouble.  (You don’t really think TFG himself came up with all these ideas for government “reforms,” do you?  He’s focused mainly on self-aggrandizement and financial corruption.)  The second reason is I could never keep my mouth shut long enough about the national embarrassment that is the Republican-controlled Congress and their complete abrogation of their responsibility to be a check and/or balance on the Executive branch to win Senate confirmation.

And the third is, it’s got to be just too exhausting, what with all the work they have to do to constantly kiss his ass and to flex for the public to show what big strong masculine manly men they are.  Here are two shining examples from just the past few days.

In more than fifty years of paying attention to the operations of the federal government I never once before saw anything meant to be so stupefyingly ego-massaging, while also as appallingly degrading, as the televised opening of a Trump Cabinet meeting, at which each member is expected to publicly slather the boss up one side and back down the other with excessive praise for some imagined achievement, all as he sits by with a canary-eating grin to feign embarrassment and gratitude for the unsolicited praise.  Imagine, if you will (if you can), how the titans of industry and government who agreed to serve in this administration, even when they had little to no respect for TFG himself, were silently thinking that they now knew what it must have been like for Prometheus to be chained to that rock.  Since then our government leaders have suffered no shortage of sickening superlatives any time they are called upon to describe Trump’s abilities, his wisdom, his patriotism or his leadership.  Now some of them have been called on to measure their praise of the president in another way.  Another, very weird way.

Will Marco Rubio’s humiliations never end? Recent photos show the secretary of state, whom Donald Trump dubbed “Little Marco” at a campaign rally almost exactly one decade ago, clomping around in shoes that are far too large for his feet. They’re black and freshly shined, an otherwise appropriate choice for a political leader a few heartbeats away from the presidency, but with a gap around his heels that could fit a sizable tube of lip gloss in a pinch.

The shoes cut an absurd figure, like a little boy pretending to be a businessman in Daddy’s oxfords. And they’ve got to be hideously uncomfortable. If you’ve ever walked a mile in the stiff leather dress shoes of someone bigger-footed than you, you know the blisters, toe stubs, and awkward gaits that can come as a result.

But a little fashion faux pas and a touch of foot pain are a small price to pay for pleasing the temperamental king of the GOP. As the Wall Street Journal reported this week, Rubio’s shoes came as a gift from the president, who has taken to bestowing his favorite brand of shoes on Republican lawmakers, right-wing A-listers, and the men who work in his administration. A pair of affordable Florsheims has become Trump’s go-to token of appreciation for his bro gang—or, depending on how you look at it, a mandatory uniform signaling the loyalty of his acolytes.

Having to wear the same stupid shoes to every White House meeting because your self-obsessed boss wanted you guys to be matchy-matchy is embarrassing enough. But the particular circumstances of Rubio’s shoes are downright pathetic. As Vice President J.D. Vance recalled at an event in December, the Journal reported, he was meeting with Trump, Rubio, and an unnamed third politician in the Oval Office when the president accused Vance and Rubio of having “shitty shoes.” Trump asked them all for their shoe size; Vance made sure to put in the record that he’s a size 13, while Rubio claimed to be an 11 and the third man a 7. The president then launched a sideways insult at the guy with the daintiest feet: “You know you can tell a lot about a man by his shoe size.”

That the “locker-room talk” president would place an inordinate, genital-related premium on a man’s foot size was surely no surprise to Rubio, who has risen in GOP influence in direct proportion to his willingness to contort himself to Trump’s exact desires. It does not seem out of the realm of possibility, then, that Rubio would inflate his own shoe specs to impress Trump with his masculine bulk.

You can imagine the gears in Rubio’s brain whirring as he sat across the Resolute Desk from Trump. If he shared his actual shoe size, the president might scoff at his presumably small penis. If he lied and offered a larger number, he’d end up shuffling around D.C. in Daddy’s big-boy shoes for the rest of time. The correct answer was clear: Rubio’s pee-pee reputation had to remain intact, whatever the cost to his feet.

(snip)

Perversely, Rubio’s gaping shoes might do more to please the president than any pair of ample-sized feet ever could. Humiliation is exactly how Trump prefers to test the fealty of those in his employ. If you want to be in the president’s orbit, you’d better pretend it’s the pinnacle of artistic excellence when Lara Trump belts out a nasal Tom Petty cover at the Mar-a-Lago New Year’s Eve party. You’ve got to smile and choke down your Big Mac on Air Force One, even if you’ve made your name as the clean-eating guy. As the vice president, you’re supposed to graciously nod as Trump calls you incompetent, accuses you of being a buttinsky, and says you’ll never be his successor. Every time Trump makes these people lie to themselves or endure a public shaming, he weakens their sense of self and their public image, reducing their worth to their proximity to him.

Regardless of how they used to do things in whatever world they came from, the men of Trump World know they are now expected to be confrontational with the news media.  Aggressively confrontational, whether or not either aggressiveness or confrontation is appropriate.  Always.  It is part of the lesson Trump learned more than fifty years ago from the infamous New York City lawyer Roy Cohn, whose mantra when it came to any dispute was: never apologize, always fight back with greater force, and never admit you were wrong.

Even though he catered to the New York City newspapers in his business career, Trump the politician and president has always accused journalists – all journalists – of being against him.  Unless they are sucking up to him (yes, I’m looking at you, Fox News, Newsmax and some others) and/or inventing new ways to curry favor, any journalist who dares acknowledge provable reality and ask a non-fawning question is “the enemy of the people.”  Now, Trump didn’t invent this strategy, and there are plenty of conservative Americans who don’t believe impartiality is really a thing, who view any negative story as evidence of opposition rather than the result of regular old honest reporting.  We know that all of establishment journalism is not against this president, nor were they nor will they all be against any other president.  It is not their job to be “for” any president or elected official, but to ask questions and report news for the benefit of the readers, listeners and viewers.

That does not mean that there can be no complaints about how a story is covered.  Not all journalism is perfect…most of it is not perfect, probably.  And Trump is only the 47th president ever to complain about stories written about his government.  (I assume.)  In his case, the complaints are usually not that any particular story is inaccurate, but that it is insufficiently flattering of him.  What is different now is that this president accuses those who do not flatter him of committing treason.  And his top broadcasting regulator is busy showing how tough he can be with “the media” but forgetting everything he should have learned about the First Amendment last September.  Back then he was pressuring a television network to discipline a talk show host for expressing an opinion that Trump didn’t like or agree with; now, he is blatantly, unconstitutionally threatening to use the power of the government to put the offenders out of business.

Brendan Carr of the Federal Communications Commission, issued an explicit warning to broadcast television networks on social media, writing that “hoaxes and news distortions” could lead to the revocation of licenses for local stations, a threat that Mr. Trump said he was “so thrilled to see.”

(snip)

Previous White Houses also complained about domestic news coverage of American intervention in the Middle East. But this administration’s attempts to shame, and in some cases punish, journalists for straightforward reporting on the war has engendered comparisons to the demands of foreign authoritarian leaders.

(snip)

The licensing threat from Mr. Carr, the F.C.C. chairman, raised eyebrows in part because the agency has been traditionally viewed as independent. As a regulator, Mr. Carr has government tools at his disposal to punish media organizations, though the process for revoking a broadcast license is onerous and can take years. On Sunday, the Democratic minority leader, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, called his comments “vindictive, fascist stuff.”

Mr. Carr made his remarks on a day when he was seen speaking with Mr. Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., according to CNN. Mr. Carr was criticized last year for implying that he might retaliate against ABC for on-air comments by Jimmy Kimmel, the late-night host, who was then temporarily suspended by the network.

To Trump and Carr, and Pete Hegseth and Karoline Leavitt and all the others crying about their bad press this week: toughen up, snowflake.  (Maybe, don’t do those things that people are criticizing?)  And, seriously, what part of the government “shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” don’t you understand?

Dear 1A,

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

I appreciate your coverage of the current redistricting fight in the Texas Legislature, another example of the on-going threat to democracy in my state and the rest of the U.S.  (There are so many threats to choose from, as you’ve demonstrated with your “If You Can Keep It” series!)  But your recorded interview with Texas state Representative Brian Harrison during your Aug. 11 program honestly made me shout at my radio.

To Jenn White’s follow-up question about Harrison’s position on the arrest warrants issued for the Democrats who left the state to deny the Republican majority a quorum to do any business in the state House, he unexpectedly blasted the GOP establishment.  From your online transcript at 00:18:46:

…if elected Republican leadership in Texas had been bolder or actually wanted to stop it, they had all the tools available to stop it, before they left or to have arrested them before they left the state.  [emphasis added]

FOR WHAT!?

At first I was just surprised that this political remora was paying so little attention to the circumstance of his interview that, as we now say so often, he said the quiet part out loud — we should just have arrested them because we knew they were going to oppose what we wanted to do.  No assertion of any kind that they had committed a crime that should lead to their arrests; just “we should have locked them up because it suited our purposes.”

A moment later I was more surprised that the interviewer let him get away with it.  I understand that this was a recorded interview dropped into the broadcast, but when it was still an interview in progress this assertion screamed for a follow-up: arrested for what?  The audacity to not follow Trump’s and Abbott’s orders?  No doubt he would have mumble/blurted the nonsense du jour from the MAGA talking points, but at least he would have been made to scramble for a minute.  And maybe that would have been the opportunity for the light bulb to go off above the head of some of your listeners.

As luck would have it, today I was catching up on the July 2025 issue of Texas Monthly magazine and its coverage of the just-concluded regular session of our state legislature, and I found out more about Rep. Harrison than I knew, and I’ll bet more than you knew, too.  You may have assumed he was, well, “representative” of the Texas GOP in the legislature, but that isn’t the case:

[Harrison] passed no bills and made about as many friends. But he forged something rare and inspiring in the House: bipartisan consensus. Most everyone agreed that Brian Harrison is unbearable.

As such, he is the successor to former state Representatives Jonathan Stickland and Bryan Slaton, past winners of our honorary title of “cockroach,” an old Lege term for a figure who mucks up lawmaking the same way vermin sully a kitchen. Even compared with the antics of his bomb-throwing predecessors, Harrison’s behavior was uniquely tailored to the X feeds of the Texas GOP’s most conspiratorial far-right voters.

Please click the link above for several examples of Harrison at work (sadly).

Thanks for your program and its thoughtful coverage of important issues we face in this historic era.

Reality checkers

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

obfuscate: to throw into shadow; to make obscure; confuse; to be evasive, unclear, or confusing (Merriam-Webster)

We — all of us, I think — we need more people in our world with clear vision about things that are happening plus both the ability and the commitment to speak plainly and honestly about those things. Today I come to praise the deobfuscators.

Have you heard, there were people in the White House during the last term who tried to cover up the president’s physical and mental decline? I know, such a shock, right? Or, as the great Charles P. Pierce puts it in Esquire, the hysteria over Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson’s revelation “that a White House will withhold adverse health information from the public…is, of course, news to those people who remember Grover Cleveland’s secret cancer operation, the unspoken agreement not to photograph FDR in his wheelchair, the relative severity of Eisenhower’s heart problems, the staggering medical record of John F. Kennedy, Nixon’s manic boozing during the height of the Watergate crisis, and, in the closest parallel we have, Reagan’s staff’s successful concealment of the fact that he was a symptomatic Alzheimer’s patient for most of his second term.”

It’s not to say that what is reported in this book is not true; it is to say, rather, “duh.” The diminishment of public dialogue in our time, to a focus on what is shiny and new to the exclusion of all else, makes it easy for us to lose sight of the things that should really matter to our country, to our children’s future. Of course, there are those who prefer it this way:

Life will go back to normal for the elite political media and their useful idiots in the Democratic party. They won’t have to think much about assaults on habeas corpus, deportation of tiny cancer patients, destruction of the regulatory safeguards of the federal government, or clear-cutting of American democracy. Game on!

Earlier this month we all learned that Rob Manfred, the commissioner of Major League Baseball, decided to lift the “permanent” ban from baseball issued in 1989 to Pete Rose, which makes Rose eligible for election to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Columnist Mike Finger at the San Antonio Express-News elegantly gives voice to the clear reading of events which corporate Baseball would prefer you ignore: MLB dishonestly re-defined “permanent” to mean “lifetime” and cravenly capitulated to a president who can’t keep his tiny tiny hands off of other people’s business.

In one view of America, apparently shared by Manfred, character counts, but it doesn’t count that much. Some sins are unforgivable, but only for a while. History should be honored, but the parts that make us uncomfortable can be omitted.

And above all, principles are what matter, right up until the day someone in power asks you to abandon them.

Within three years, baseball’s all-time leader in hits might be enshrined at last in the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York. Thanks to Manfred’s decision, Rose is eligible to be considered by the veteran’s committee, even though he repeatedly broke the game’s most hallowed rule, even though he denied it for more than a decade, even though he never apologized, and even though the ban he accepted in 1989 was supposed to be “permanent.”

None of those facts changed after Rose died last September at age 83. The only big development since then was that Rose received a public show of support from the president of the United States.

If your consideration is limited to Rose’s career as a player, there’s no doubt he deserves the honor of being in the Hall, starting with the fact the had more hits than any other player, ever. But he was banned because he broke the rule that no player is allowed to bet on baseball, ever. Period.

Rose had his chances to atone for his misdeeds while he was alive, and he never did. He applied for reinstatement in 2015, initially claimed he didn’t bet on sports anymore, then admitted he still did. He kept making appearances in casinos, even after then-commissioner Bud Selig suggested that staying away could provide a path to removing the ban.

(snip)

And now is the time that Manfred chooses to ease off the most notorious betting rule-breaker of his generation?

Apparently, now is indeed the time. Now is the time, even though betting wasn’t the worst of Rose’s alleged transgressions. In 2017, Rose was accused in federal court documents by a woman who claimed to have had a sexual relationship with him when she was 14 or 15 years old in 1973, when Rose was in his 30s. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Rose issued a response acknowledging he had sex with the accuser, but “said he believed she was 16 at the time, old enough to legally consent in Ohio.”

In 2022, when an Inquirer reporter asked him about the incident, Rose responded, “It was 55 years ago, babe.”

That, of course, is not an admission of guilt. It’s also probably not a line likely to be included on Rose’s Cooperstown plaque, if he gets one.

It is, however, a reflection of one version of America. As long as the right man is vouching for you, any source of shame can be overlooked, if not outright ignored.

We need people who are on the lookout for attempts to warp the facts of the reality we share, and I’m pleased to have found two more.

…and hope never to see again

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

I saw the worst show on TV tonight…but couldn’t turn away.  Someone suggested taking a drink every time the lead character said “like no one’s ever seen before” and it just got harder and harder to work the remote control.  Almost as bad as when you had to take a shot each time a character on The Bob Newhart Show said “Hi, Bob.”  (Oh, college days.)

Did our president really just say that military recruiting offices “are having among the best recruiting results ever in the history of our services”?  (What about the days after Pearl Harbor?)  Or that we will get Greenland “one way or the other, we’re going to get it”?  In what race can one break the old record time by five hours?  He did say DOGE is “headed by Elon Musk,” directly contradicting his own staff’s efforts to convince a judge that someone else is really in charge.

If you enjoy a good fact-checking of TFG – and who doesn’t – here (in no particular order) are a few from which you can choose.  (Sorry, couldn’t find the one from Fox News…you know, where they used to promise to report so we could decide.)

NPRWashington Post
New York TimesCBS
MSNBCPolitiFact
CNNABC

Also:

  • Isn’t he just the worst public speaker, in the sense of classic oratory?  For all his criticism of others being tied to the teleprompter, he’d have been totally lost if that thing had died…never even opened the binder in front of him.  He can read OK, but he conveys no sense of what the words really mean.
  • Why did we even have this speech anyway?  It was not a State of the Union speech, even if he seemed to think it was.  I guess his ego is as fragile as they say for such a self-gratifying performance piece to be required.
  • Good for you, Al Green (my own representative in Congress)…I couldn’t hear what you were saying, but it was good to see someone literally standing up to this doofus.

As the coach used to say each Monday, let’s talk a bit about the happenings of last week

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times… (Been done.)

It was the worst night of my entire life… (Take it easy, Princess.)

What in the actual f**k were you people thinking… (Leave that approach to Jon Stewart.  How about this:)

I am very disappointed with the result of the presidential election, and I’m concerned about what’s going to happen starting next year.  (OK…keep going.)

It’s not that I was firmly convinced that Kamala Harris was going to win and am now staring at the returns in disbelief.  I definitely wanted her to win, but wasn’t deluded into thinking there was only one possible outcome.  I am bewildered to think that more than 73 million Americans think the former guy – now the once and future guy, I guess? – is the best person for the job.  Unless they really don’t think that at all.

Now I’m reading (see the reading list below, and thanks to everyone who kept this such a secret until after the whole thing was over) that Trump, as opposed to Harris or Joe Biden or apparently any other Republican, represents a dramatic change from a system that these people do not trust.  Strenuously do not trust.  The theory is that Trump voters don’t really agree with everything that comes out of his mouth; some things, sure, but not everything.  But they do want a major change from the status quo.  They want to throw out the scoundrels of the political establishment, and they trust that anything is better than what we have right now.  Even crazy, lying, fascist Trump is, they think, preferable to more of the same old same old.

While recognizing that all of us only have two real choices in this race by the time we get to November, I’m still surprised that so many people would vote for Trump.  A guy who lies to us so profoundly and so often, who is a convicted criminal, who has shamelessly used public office to enrich himself; who offers a plan to fight inflation and lower prices with tariffs that will undoubtedly raise prices instead, who promises to deport tens of millions of people in a plan that will be enormously expensive and disruptive to the labor force and economy as well as probably inhumane, who promises the unattainable instantly (end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza?  Easy peasy) with no clear plan of action.  Or any plan at all.

I’m worried about what’s going to happen next.  We were surprised in 2017 when he didn’t become more presidential or tone down the rhetoric or act more like what we were used to, but this time no one should be surprised if he does some of the out-there things he promised to do.

–he promised massive tariffs on foreign goods; we’ll all pay higher prices for those goods because the higher prices will be passed along to us by the seller.

–he promised (allegedly) vaccine denier Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. control of our public health agencies; yeah, what could go wrong there.

–he promised to jail his critics; First Amendment, Schmirst Amendment.  Stand by for other protected rights to be ignored.

–he promised the largest mass deportation in American history; waiting now for the (multi-million dollar) plans to construct a new generation of internment camps while he strong-arms our allies to accept repatriation.

–he promised to settle the wars in Gaza and Ukraine; stand by for “America First” plans that will provoke Iran, threaten Ukraine’s sovereignty (to the benefit of Russia), and put the NATO alliance in jeopardy.

You get the picture.  If Republicans end up with control of the House of Representatives as well as the Senate, we’ll also see Trump’s sudden support for Project 2025 and any other effort to push the Christian nationalist agenda to remake America civil society in their image.  And he’ll do it all while, as he did the first time, illegally enriching himself (hello, Emoluments Clause, my old friend).

Oh yeah, there’s this result, too:

image

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

To those thinking, how could Trump possibly win – that’s not who we are: Michelle Goldberg makes the case that maybe it is:

“Trump’s first election felt like a fluke, a sick accident enabled by Democratic complacency. But this year, the forces of liberal pluralism and basic civic decency poured everything they could into the fight, and they lost not just the Electoral College but also quite likely the popular vote. The American electorate, knowing exactly who Trump is, chose him. This is, it turns out, who we are.”

The polls say Trump won big with male voters; Elizabeth Spiers explores just which men they mean: Trump’s appeal to men was

“a regressive idea of masculinity in which power over women is a birthright. That this appealed in particular to white men was not a coincidence — it intersects with other types of entitlement, including the idea that white people are superior to other races and more qualified to hold positions of power, and that any success that women and minorities have has been unfairly conferred to them by D.E.I. programs, affirmative action and government set-asides. For men unhappy with their status, this view offers a group of people to blame, which feels more tangible than blaming systemic problems like rising economic inequality and the difficulty of adapting to technological and cultural changes.”

Bernie Sanders’ take:

“It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them…First, it was the white working class, and now it is Latino and Black workers as well. While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they’re right.”

David French calls the vote a revolt against the ruling class and a faithful effort by those who believe Trump fulfills a prophecy.  (Honest to God)

Democratic mega-donor (and one-time candidate himself) Michael Bloomberg wonders how Democrats could possibly lose to such a bad candidate.

Just for fun, here’s a “deep dive” (as the kids say) on the scary details of Project 2025; Christian nationalists are unlikely to let this opportunity pass.