Breaking Fake News Update (v2)

 Fake News Broke on August 8, 2025!

This news broke after MAGA Reps. Elise Stefanik and Nick Langworthy wrote a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on August 6th, telling him to do something about the wildfires burning in his country and causing smoke issues for New Yorkers. The letter stated

The scale and severity of these fires continue to raise concerns about forest mismanagement and lack of effective deterrence of human-caused fire.

No word on Carney's response, but the fake news response was quick, and we're grateful to Rawanda for taking these two pesky representatives on with the next planeload of undocumented immigrants the US is shipping there.

We'll continue to share fake news as it breaks.

Ranting and Raving (v4): It's not the Impeachment, Stupid

So, there's this WaPo column, "Let's be honest. Impeachment hurt Trump's response to coronavirus," making the rounds on social media.

 The column was written by Henry Olsen., who joined the paper last year, and, according to the announcement that he'd be a daily columnist, he's "a widely respected thought leader in American politics and conservatism... His work will offer a steady stream of new ideas, informing and challenging readers to explore issues from his unique perspective."

OK - challenge accepted. Here's Olsen's premise:

President Trump has been roundly criticized for allegedly failing to prepare for the coronavirus crisis before it arrived in the United States. Those critics conveniently overlook something else that could have been distracting the president’s attention during that crucial period: impeachment.

It seems forever ago, but Trump’s impeachment was the major story in January and early February — the same time that disease was forcing China to lock down cities. Despite the near certainty that Republicans would not vote to convict the president, Democrats and most of the major media were almost entirely focused on impeachment. As a result, the White House was focused on addressing this threat to its survival, not on preparing for a threat from China that might never even materialize.

Olsen admits that "Trump's efforts to prepare the nation for this pandemic ha(ve) been far from perfect," and I think that's a fair assessment. No one, not even a Never Trumper like me, expects any president to be perfect. I mean, that would be even sillier than expecting My Sweet Baboo to be perfect, or any of our cats.

Trump did ban travel from China, as Olsen indicates - and he did take flak for that from many quarters: unions, medical professionals, the ACLU, members of Congress, the international community, etc. GOP hardliners agreed with it; Dem hardliners did not, which should be to no one's surprise. But Olsen takes a huge leap at this point, saying

Given that impeachment managers were regularly calling Trump a king or incipient dictator, a more forceful response against the virus in January or early February likely wouldn't have gone well.

That one made me laugh out loud. We're talking about Donald Trump, who blurts out whatever he feels like blurting, whether it's a policy change, a threat against a Republican who dares disagree with him, any number of insults at any number of Democrats or just random crap directed at random citizens. He doesn't shrink away from anything - he tells us that all the time. If you need an example, ask the McCain family.

Olsen moves on to suggest that

In fact, the situation could be even worse today had the Democrats gotten their way. Imagine if Republicans had buckled under the pressure and backed the Democratic move to subpoena witnesses. The Senate would have spent most of February interviewing witnesses in depositions and probably fighting in court to force recalcitrant witnesses to testify.

Four witnesses. Four witnesses. That's what the Democrats wanted.

If the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees can't depose four people (some of whom publicly stated their willingness to testify, and for whom the questions basically wrote themselves) in a matter of days, not weeks, shame on them. And if the other 50-some-odd Senators not on those two committees can't find something to do during that time, shame on them, too.

Yes, I understand that after the depositions, there would be a continuation of the trial in the Senate, and that would have occupied all of the Senators, I get that. But to pretend that these men and women are incapable of, say, legislating in the morning and listening to testimony in the afternoon, or that they are incapable of doing anything at all while their colleagues are doing their work, is an insult to all of them.

And, do you remember the issue with the witnesses who testified before the House Committees?  None of them, we were told repeatedly by House lawyers and GOP Representatives, had any direct conversations with the president on any relevant subject. Not one of them was truly a 'fact witness' the GOP said, because they didn't talk to Trump. That being the case, there was no need for any of them to testify in the Senate trial.

And that's exactly why, if you're like Olsen and looking for a reason that it would be "extremely unlikely that the matter would have been over by the end of (February)" look no further than the Senate witness list, which included these people: Adam Schiff, the whistleblower, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden - for Pete's sake, they'd be as relevant as the Ghost of Christmas Past, the Easter Bunny, a unicorn or two, and Bigfoot (or Darryl). Hypocrisy much, GOP?

I do agree with Olsen on some things, though, including that "impeachment's lingering stain is damaging the country even today." We just disagree on why - and who - contributes to that stain.

Olsen suggests that Trump and Pelosi not speaking during the COVID-19 crisis is an indicator of the lingering stain, but it's a completely different stain, one painted with layers and layers of Trump's and Pelosi's actions starting before the impeachment ever happened.

Not only that, but Trump's failure to invite Pelosi - or a single Democrat - to any number of bill signings (including the recent one for the pandemic stimulus package) is indicative of a deeper stain on the country than impeachment: the president is a petulant belligerent child, a narcissist, and a jerk, He knows it, Olsen knows it, and so does everybody else.

Olsen laments that "any action (Trump takes) is subject to criticism." Seriously? Seriously??

Name a single politician, in the history of this or any other country, who has not been in the same boat? And don't forget that Trump, by his words and actions, rains criticism upon his own head - regularly, under normal circumstances. During the coronavirus crisis? Almost daily.

And then, Olsen continues,

Had he acted decisively in February when he had time, many surely would have accused him of manufacturing a crisis to distract the public from impeachment. Now that we are suffering from that month’s relative inaction, he is attacked for failing to act in advance. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. 

To drive home that point, he lists out the things that other world leaders - including "the sainted Canadian Prime Minister" - also didn't do in advance of the pandemic. I wouldn't say Trudeau is 'sainted' but I would accuse him of being an empathetic human being, an accusation that has never been made about Trump. Olsen continues, "the rational analyst sees these facts and notes that it is extremely difficult for politicians to foresee an event unprecedented in modern times and act accordingly."

Funny how it we haven't seen it presented as being "extremely difficult" for politicians not to act like bastards when it comes time for them to respond to such an unprecedented event. You know, like going to the CDC and saying that he prefers a couple thousand people stay on a cruise ship so that his numbers don't look bad. Or that we haven't seen it presented as being "extremely difficult" for politicians to not say these other things.

Why is it not presented as "extremely difficult?"  Because it's not difficult  at all for any politician, other than Trump.

Yes, "it must end," Olsen says, the "hyper-partisanship that views any act that (Trump) could possibly take as presumptively tainted and wrong. " And, I'll note, Olsen did not, the lockstep marching by the GOP, which started well before impeachment and continues through whatever day it is that you're reading this, also must end, as must the GOP view that any act Trump takes is presumptively correct, as if each and every one is individually the greatest thing since sliced bread.

So, too, must Trump's insistence that he be showered with truckloads of flattering flatulence at every occasion. That is another lingering stain on our country.

It's not the failed impeachment that brought us here; impeachment is the icing on the cake, the dressing on a salad, the salt on the caramel, the... you get the drift. It's the whole of the Trump that has brought us here, and the whole of those Democrats who are their own worst enemies.

Yes, it's surely time to "put country over party." That applies to Democrats, whether they're Never Trumpers or not. It applies to Never Trumpers like me, who have left the Democratic Party in our rear -view mirrors. It also applies to Independents.

And it most assuredly also applies to Republicans. Asking only people on the left to make the "country over party" declaration is as absurd as expecting the president to suddenly start acting like some who was elected leader of the free world. Don't tell me that - tell him that. He acts as if he doesn't believe it to be true, and he still has a laser focus on all who suggest he was undeserving.

Nope. It's not impeachment that's making it harder for Trump, but I know what is: people like Olsen, who set the bar so much higher for people like me, than they do for the president they so adore.

TGIF 8/23/19

I hereby order you to appreciate this TGIF post, or else!

Or else, what, you ask?  I'm not certain, honestly, any more than anyone has a clue what the president was talking about when he "hereby ordered" American companies to "immediately start looking for an alternative to China..."  Does it mean they have to leave forthwith? A$AP Rock(il)y? Never?

Trump was trying to make some kind of point, just like he was earlier in the week with his repeated accusations of disloyalty on the part of any Jew who votes with Democrats instead of voting with Republicans or maybe any Jews who don't agree with Trump, it's hard to tell exactly what disloyalty he was talking about.

Never mind that such an accusation has long been considered to be anti-Semitic; heck, even Trump said it was when one of the Squad said something along those lines. But when he says it, of course, it's not anti-Semitic. It can't be: his son-in-law and daughter are Jewish, after all. You know, just like someone can't be anti-gay if they have a gay friend, or can't be racist if they have a black friend.

Were any of his points made? Yes, if you listen to his base. No, if  you don't But I think his collective actions put him on top of the 'bad week' list, especially if you include his childish dropping of a visit to Denmark after it was suggested nastily (his characterization) that his offer to buy Greenland was 'abzerd' - and then, to make reference to President Obama in the same conversation, about how the US is being treated by other countries. Egads, man!

On the good week side of the ledger? Democratic presidential primary voters had a good week, I think, with the cast of thousands running for the top spot on the 2020 ballot dwindling by a couple. Jay Inslee and Seth Moulton dropped out this week, joining John Hickenlooper who bailed last week.

Ideally, the third debate, coming up next month, will be held on only one night (I would be delighted, since I live-comment the debates on my Facebook page). Here's the list of the ten who have met both the fundraising and polling requirements:  Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Julian Castro, Pete Buttigieg, Beto O'Rourke, and Andrew Young.  Anyone who doesn't meet the requirements by the August 28th deadline should drop out, in my opinion.

Of course, I say the same thing about anyone who's not a registered Democrat, but what do I know?

Finally, I wanted to share something that happened last Saturday, when we were returning from vacation in Nova Scotia. We were waiting in line for the ferry to New Brunswick when the line of cars next to us was given the go-ahead to board. Several cars started their engines and pulled forward, but one car wasn't moving. After what seemed like half a minute, I looked over and the two women in the car were both dozing, holding up several other cars in line behind them. I got their attention and they quickly started their car, pulling up to the front of their now-empty lane.

None of the drivers behind the women honked their horns. There was no shouting or cursing or fist-shaking - in fact, it was strangely calm. I pointed out to my husband that the other drivers must have been Canadian, because we're so used to horns, shouting, cursing and fist-shaking if a person doesn't immediately go as soon as a light changes, or as soon as there's even the hint of an opening in traffic leaving the grocery store. I mean, we're Americans, dammit, and we have things to do, people to see, places to go. We certainly don't have time to sit around for an hour in a line of cars...

Truth be told, all but one of the cars that pulled up behind the now wide-awake women had US plates. So, for a brief moment, at the Digby ferry terminal at least, the US had a good week.  Yay, us.

TGIF, everyone.

Hereby ordered.

TGIF 6/15/18

Thank freaking goodness it's Friday!  Have you had enough of this week yet? I sure have - let me count the ways.

First, we had the painful G7 meeting in Canada, in which, we're told, president Trump said that he could send 25 million Mexicans to Japan and Prime Minister Abe would be out of office in no time; that all the terrorists are in Paris, and of course, all the nonsense about Canada, and attacking our other allies, and suggesting that Russia get back in, and that Obama is to blame for, well, pretty much everything.

Net neutrality officially ended, leaving it open for service providers to slow down traffic for people who don't want to pay more for faster moving bits and bytes; block or otherwise demote content from competitors, and so on -- all things the Trump administration argued were ridiculous and would not hurt consumers because they probably wouldn't even happen so we need to just let net neutrality die.

Then we had the highfalutin' rootin-tootin' holy salutin' summit between Trump and Kim Jong Un, of whom the president said, he's a great negotiator. Coming from the Artist of The Deal, them's some pretty strong words of praise. And it must be true, because it doesn't appear Kim gave up anything in return for a lifetime of handshakes  - and that salute - and a movie trailer. Don't forget the movie trailer. Now, the fact that North Korea has previously promised some level of the 'denuke' process that Trump says we will get. And there was that whole war games comment. All I could think of was Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy and that computer...

We had the pro-net neutrality administration all up in arms when a federal judge decided that an AT&T-Time Warner merger was just fine (even with Fake News CNN in the mix) and it wouldn't hurt consumers in the least, honest.

We've got all those kids in detention along the border, because the Bible tells us it's OK or something like that. Or maybe it's because it's the Democrats' fault, not the Bible's. The story changes so many times in a day or two, it's hard to keep track. But as long as we fully fund the border wall that Mexico's going to pay for, it's all good.

And the IG report - the one that proves that there was "no collusion" even though the report had nothing whatsoever to do with determining whether or not there was collusion? Yeah, that happened too.

Finally, I think every single media outlet said something along the lines of 'Trump said numerous things that were misleading' or 'not totally accurate'  or 'maybe incomplete', with only people on Twitter calling out the lies - repeated lies - about North Korea, kids ripped out of the arms of their parents, and the IG report, among other topics.

And only people on Twitter were calling out the media's complicity in allowing Trump to lie with impunity each and every day. Today was just like the first 500 or so days of this administration, after all.

I don't know about you, but I could really use a drink. Or, whatever it is that Rudy Giuliani's having.

TGIF.

Sunday School 6/10/18

Oh dear - the classrooms were quite boisterous today!  There was a whole lot of posturing going on, and name calling, and tit-for-tatting and all that kind of stuff.  Let's take a look, shall we?

There were two Trumpeters making the rounds today: Peter Navarro, who's the president's trade advisor, and Larry Kudlow, the director of Trump's National Economic Council.

Navarro was the more over the top of the two, speaking with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday about that backstabbing, traitorous blankety-blank we used to call Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.  Wallace led into Navarro's tirade by mentioning Trudeau's statements about going ahead with promised retaliatory tariffs, which are to take effect on July 1st. Trump responded as he usually does (my words, not Wallace's) by calling his opponent names - 'weak' and 'meek and mild' and 'very dishonest'.  And Wallace asked if that was really how we wanted to deal with our 2nd largest trading partner. I recommend fastening your seat belts for the response.

Chris there's a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with president Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door. And that's what Bad Faith Justin Trudeau did with that stunt press conference. That's what Weak, Dishonest Justin Trudeau did. And that comes right from Air Force One. 

Well, except Navarro admitted those were his special place in hell words, not Trump's.

And I'll tell you this, to my friends in Canada, that was one of the worst political miscalculations of a Canadian leader in modern Canadian history. All Justin Trudeau had to do was take the win... Trump did the courtesy to Justin Trudeau to travel up to Quebec for that summit. He had other things, bigger things on his plate in Singapore... He did him a favor and he was even willing to sign that socialist communique. And what did Trudeau do -- as soon as the plane took off from Canadian airspace, Trudeau stuck our president in the back. That will not stand. 

Whoa.  The United States participating in a G7 summit is a 'courtesy'? What did he have on his plate that is more important than representing our country at a meeting of our closest allies? I mean, it might have been a courtesy if Melania had attended, but I'm not sure at what point the president of the US doing his job should be considered a courtesy, especially since he has nothing else on his plate, by his own admission.

But wait - there's more!

And as far as this retaliation goes, the American press needs to do a much better job of what the Canadians are getting ready to do because it's nothing short of an attack on our political system and it's nothing short of Canada trying to raise it's high protectionist barriers even higher on things like maple syrup and other goods.

Well, cheese and crackers, not maple syrup!!!  I don't know where Navarro's been lately, but Canada retaliating against the US in a trade war is not an attack on our political system. That's actually what Russia did, but you know, these pesky details are hard to remember, if you've been living under a rock.

Navarro went on to bash Canada for NAFTA, saying we'd have a great deal on that existing deal, if only the Canadians would deal with Trump instead of trying to deal with Congress, blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda.

They are just simply not playing fair. Dishonest. Weak.

 Navarro was reminded of his earlier statement that no one would retaliate against our new tariffs, with Wallace pointing out Canada's $13B, and the EU's $3B in tariffs since our announcement. In response, Navarro talked about Germany, where we says we have a $151B annual trade deficit, and not only that - not only that, but

Germany has tariffs on autos four time higher than our tariffs on the equivalent German imports here and they sell us three times as many cars as we sell them.

Because we like German engineering almost as much as the Germans do, maybe?

So on the issues alone, we have allies strategically. But when it comes to these trade disputes, these allies basically are robbing us blind. The president is not going to put up with that.  

Nope -he's going to tweet about it, and send minions out to yell at our allies.

Kudlow, for his part, didn't declare a final resting place for Trudeau; in fact, he made it a point to talk about how directly involved he was with the Prime Minister, as if tooting his own horn would make everything right with the world. Here are some of the high points of his conversation on Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.

Regarding why the president called Trudeau weak and dishonest:

Well, to be honest with you, Prime Minister Trudeau - by the way, I respect. I have worked with him in good faith, getting through a good communique on Friday and Saturday. So, he holds a press conference. The president is barely out of there on a plane to North Korea, and he starts insulting us. You know, he starts talking about US is insulting Canada. We are not -- we, Canada, are not going to be pushed around. 

Brennan noted that Trudeau was talking about the trade tariffs.

That's correct, and in general, OK, it was an attack on the president. "We're going to have retaliatory tariffs." Now, these are things that the prime minister said before, basically, but he didn't say them after a successful G7 communique, where president Trump and the others all worked in good faith to put a statement together, which, by the way, almost nobody expected to happen. In fact, reporters were asking me before the trip whether the president was going to show up at all. He did. He negotiated. He directed his team, myself and others. We worked it out. We used good language that was acceptable. 

At which point Brennan noted

And the the president reneged on that G7 statement.

Kudlow:

No, No, I'm sorry.  And then Trudeau decided to attack the president. That is the key point. And yes, you know, if you attack this president, he is going to fight back.  But here is the key point, Margaret. The president is going to negotiate with Kim of North Korea in Singapore. It is a historic negotiation. And there is no way this president is not going to stand strong, number one. He is not going to allow other people to suddenly take potshots at him hours before that summit. And number two, Trudeau should have known better.

On and on it went, and it went on and on on CNN's State of the Union as well.  Let's pick up when Tapper reminds Kudrow that Trump is known for this kind of thing.

JT: But president Trump does that all the time, though, doesn't he?

LK: No, he doesn't.

JT: He doesn't say things for domestic consumption? 

LK: No, the point is, if you are going through a treaty process, a communique, and you have good faith... And those leaders were together. I mean, I was right smack in the middle of it on Friday night and Saturday morning. You don't walk away and start firing bullets. Now, look

JT: I can't believe that an adviser to president Trump is saying that - because president Trump does that all the time.  He does things for - for domestic consumption.

LK: Jake, not in -- not after you pull a treaty or a deal together...

 JT: Why walk away from it just because of something Justin Trudeau said for domestic consumption.

LK: No, not something. Look you -- yes, for domestic political consumption. But it was a global statement. The whole world listened to what he said. Look, you're reporting it here in Washington, as you must.  

 JT: Sure.

LK: I get that. You just don't behave that way, OK? It is a betrayal, OK? He is essentially double-crossing -- not just double-crossing president Trump, but the other members of the G7, who were working together and pulling together this communique. You know, you never get everything you want. There are compromises along the way; president Trump played that process in good faith. 

So I ask you, he gets up in the airplane and leaves. And then Trudeau starts bashing him in a domestic news conference? I'm sorry, that is a betrayal. That is a double-cross. It pains me, because I like Trudeau. I was working with him. We were together putting words on paper.... 

It pains me to keep going, to keep paying attention. It pains me that none of them realize, or admit, that if the president hadn't acted like a two-year old and resorted to name-calling, no one would be paying any attention to the fact that the Canadian Prime Minister reiterated comments he had made previously to everyone, including government officials, media outlets from both countries, and to Kudrow himself. 

It pains me that the president of the United States is a big crybaby, a big bully...  I can go on, but that pains me too.

See you around campus. 

The Immigration Question

A friend posted a snippet of an article about immigrants being arrested for illegally crossing the border from the US into Canada, and wondered why it was OK for Canada to arrest them, but not OK for America to do the same, and she asked her political friends to try and explain it, before removing the post.

I don't blame her for removing it. She's asked challenging questions before, and has been extraordinarily tolerant of the responses, even as her friends digressed into equally extraordinarily intolerant squabbling, name-calling, and arguing, none of which are necessary, but all of which are really too frequent. really.

There was no way I was going to try and answer on her page, but I do want to consider the question because it's one I've heard before, and one that I try and answer for myself. I will try here, knowing that my answer probably won't satisfy anyone, including me.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The picture at right, from a recent New York Times article, shows just one of those arrests; the article notes that the RCMP has seen a surge in illegal crossings over the past several months.

And lately, we've heard many news reports about people losing fingers and toes to frostbite, as they're crossing the border in the middle of winter, grossly unprepared for the weather, in their haste to leave America and get to someplace safer.

Crap -- did I just write that? Is it just me, or is it hard to actually contemplate people fleeing America to get to safety?

Back to my friend's question: the simple answer is, it's not OK to enter a country illegally. That's why we have the Border Patrol, and why we have checkpoints, and it's why we reject so many people and send them back, and why we work so hard to try and keep them out, whether they come through the checkpoints with fake papers or are smuggled in, hidden in cars and trucks, or if they cross onto some farmer's ranch and we catch them. It's why we deport so many people every year, following a defined process (because that's the way we do things).

Unfortunately, the immigration issue is not as simple as keeping people out, or even sending people back when we catch them. If only it were that easy, though. Because the question that was not asked is the one that gives most of us pause, including both Democrats and Republicans, legal and illegal immigrants, religious and the nonreligious,rich and poor.

It's the part about America having a long tradition of accepting people seeking asylum, people who are fleeing persecution in their home countries, whose lives would be in danger (in their perception, anyway) if they were to stay. So they come here, some of them through normal channels such as being sponsored by aid groups, and some of them in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere.

Many of these folks pay every last penny they can muster up to good people or bad people who may or may not be able to get them to the border; these people risk everything to try and make it to America, or to get their children safely to America, knowing that if they manage to make it here, there's a strong chance that they'll get caught and sent back. And they try anyway, and they come anyway, because to them anything is better than where they come from. That is the America the rest of the world used to see; some still do, particularly those who come across our southern border from Central American countries, or from Mexico. Those are the ones that wall is supposed to keep out.

And, we have the people we know are here illegally, the ones we 'keep track of' but don't force to get a green card, don't put in jail, just let go about living their lives, having children, becoming part of the fabric of our communities and our country. The ones who work in construction, building our houses; they work for landscapers, keeping our yards and gardens beautiful; they work in agriculture, traveling with the seasons, with the vegetables and fruits that grace our tables; they work in the hospitality field, parking our cars, making the beds and cleaning our hotels, serving us food and drinks in restaurants and clubs; they work the amusement circuit, putting up rides, taking them down, loading and unloading the prizes we work so hard to win.

These, and the others who are here illegally that we don't necessarily know so much about, are the 11-odd million that we don't know what to do with. If we're honest, we know we can't just ship them back, leaving their American-born children with no parents and nowhere to go. And leaving a giant whole in the workforce in the fields outlined above. These are the folks who need a path to citizenship that shouldn't entail going back to wherever they came from for some random number of years, only to be allowed to stand at the back of the line trying to come back to their adopted home.

If we're dishonest, or fooling ourselves, we say they all need to go back, too. But that would be the same as saying that people who get speeding tickets or parking tickets should be in jail, when most of them never do more than pay a fine - if they bother doing that. We in America have a process for things, including not treating all criminals as criminals.

When the politicians talked about comprehensive immigration reform for the past several years, they weren't talking about the easy stuff; they were talking about the hard stuff like the 11 million, or the kids who could lose their parents to deportation; they were talking about the people who work hard at jobs most of us wouldn't take; and, to at least some degree, they were talking about those who are now fleeing to someplace safer than America.