Category Archives: The Contrarian

The Blue Path Forward

http://childpsychiatryassociates.com/contact/ Image result for mueller trump

I have a psychological problem when it comes to sports. I’m such an irrational fan of my favorite teams I cannot stand to watch them on live TV. I get angry at player mistakes, infuriated by referees’ missed calls, and generally so wound up I cannot watch the event for risk of either smashing my TV to bits or suffering an embolism.

So I created a homeopathic treatment for my emotional disorder: I tape the game, check the score on the web after the contest is over, and either enjoy the victory I know is coming or delete the recording before I watch one second of futility.Image result for tony romo grips helmet

Though I know it’s got to be a deep-rooted psychological imbalance, it’s at least easy to rationalize: If you knew a movie was going to have a bad ending before you bought the ticket, would you still go see it? Similarly: If you knew the flick had a good ending, would you watch it? I know the thrill of watching sports is akin to the adrenaline charge of gambling; the dopamine rush is in the unexpected. But I figure life is uncertain enough. Best to hew to that which you know makes you happy.

I’d offer a similar proposal to Democrats, who, in the wake of the Mueller report, are acting like  they just lost the Super Bowl on a blown call. There’s screaming, cursing, crying of injustice. Already, Dems are threatening to subpoena Mueller — a man whose qualities the left raised to the rafters the past two years — to bring him in for questioning under oath. They are demanding to inspect the entire 300-page report themselves. Nancy Pelosi called the GOP “scaredy cats” for its refusal to release the findings, perhaps a fair criticism.Image result for pelosi calls gop scaredy cats

But it’s a useless approach, and a peculiar one. What would the Dems do with the report anyway? In 2000, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), a branch of the Justice Department, ruled that a sitting president cannot be indicted; it’s either impeachment or bust. So we knew that Mueller wasn’t going to be walking Trump out in cuffs. And we knew impeachment wasn’t going to result: That requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate. You couldn’t get two-thirds of the Senate to agree sand is dry.

The left’s problem is this: They fail to see the similarity between Trumpism and religion. For years, we’ve heard that this is the piece of evidence that will turn the tide: the Access Hollywood tape; the Stormy Daniels affair; the failed overhaul of Obamacare; the Mueller investigation.

But let’s face the undeniable: Nothing will change a Trumpian mind, just as nothing will turn a believer into a doubter. Faith in Trump is like faith in an afterlife; they have no evidence to support their belief system, but gosh is makes them feel good.Image result for trump and god

Given that, perhaps Dems should try a new approach: acceptance. Better yet, relief.

Fox and the GOP have been gloating since the report’s release, and they have that right. But they were always going to handle the report that way, rejecting news they didn’t like, embracing news they did. As the president has (rightfully) boasted, he could commit murder without consequence. Faith is a bitch; just ask the women of Salem.

Instead, when they’re surrounded by media, why don’t Nancy and Chuck try this tack: Say you’re relieved by the findings. You’re happy with the half dozen convictions and 19 indictments brought about by the investigation. After all, isn’t that actually true? Would you really have wanted to hear, from any top cop investigating any federal officials, from either party, that they are pawns of an enemy state? Does our partisanship infect that deeply?Image result for trump russian spy funny

It’s a tough pill to swallow, to be sure. It’s hard to see righteous, loudmouth fat asses brag. But that’s what we elected and, thus, what we’ve got coming. Remember: Trump’s election was America’ diagnosis of metastatic political cancer. Some vomiting and hair loss is inevitable. And it still may kill us.

But acceptance of foolish faith doesn’t mean you have to abandon sniping. Far from it. If anything, the report allows for some delicious sarcasm from the left, though we’re lousy at that. Imagine if Pelosi were to say the following: “First of all, we’d like to thank Bob Mueller. It was a thankless task, and he was the model of professionalism. Second, we’re actually relieved that Mr. Mueller decided the president of the United States is not a Russian spy. We know the guy is bad, but that would have been tough to deal with, him being a spy and all. Now let’s to fixing things we know he screwed up, like healthcare and tax inequity.” Trump and Hannity would lose their unwrinkled gray minds. And for god’s sake, somebody officially thank Mueller. He served the military, saw battle, and was rewarded with two years of Trump work? He probably envies John McCain at this point.

Or Dems could be even snippier with a single retort: “O.J. was acquitted, too.”

The point is, act like you’ve got a goddamn job to do, which you do. Ultimately, we’re going to have to concede that Trump is that immovable societal object. The answer is not to create an unstoppable force, but an indifferent one.

I better wrap this up. I have several games to delete.

 

 

The Science of Denial

 

As a boy, I was always intrigued by the commercials for Trident chewing gum. To this day, I can remember the exact wording of part of the ad: “Four out of five dentists surveyed recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum.”

Even then, two things stood out in my mind. One, that wasn’t an ad for Trident; it was an ad for sugar-free gum. And two: Who in the hell is that fifth dentist? Did he also recommend Pixie Stix as part of a balanced breakfast? Image result for pixie stix

Apparently Donald Trump found that doctor. And he’s appointed him head of what was once called the “The Federal Committee on Climate Security.” His name is William Happer, and apparently he took his own advice regarding sugared gums and Pixie Stix. Just check out his chompers. Image result for william happer's bad teeth

But I digress. I say once called Trump’s federal committee because it will no longer be called that. It will instead be called his “advisory committee.” And, in a rarity for the president, it was a canny, subtle shift.

You see, when Trump first called for a new federal advisory committee to offset the findings of the the congressionally-mandated report on climate change (www.globalchange.gov), he was hoping to lessen fears of the committee’s startling findings. The report, written by more than a dozen U.S. government agencies and departments, said the effects of climate change would harm human health, damage infrastructure, limit water availability, and alter coastlines. Agriculture, tourism and fishing industries that depend on natural resources and favorable climate conditions would all be hit, it said. In all, the report concluded, global warming would reduce the U.S. economy by 10% ($1.93 trillion).

That’s bad news for any president who wants at least one more term (and maybe more: Trump publicly stated that “maybe we should try that” when he returned from a visit to China, which recently named Xi Jinping “president for life”).

So Trump launched a new contrarian federal committee, one that consisted of his hand-picked stooges. The problem with the first name, he discovered, is the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub.L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770, enacted October 6, 1972). FACA is a federal law which governs the behavior of all federal advisory committees. In particular, it has special emphasis on open meetings, chartering, public involvement, and reporting.

The last thing Trump would want is public involvement or documentation of his naysayers’ research methodology. After all, a U.S.-led team of international scientists wrote last month in the journal Nature Climate Change that global warming had hit the “gold standard” of research. They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there were no warming.

And Trump’s going to appoint a federal advisory committee to argue against that? Not a chance. That would be like betting on the Washington Generals against the Harlem Globetrotters. So he switched the title to panel, which does not require any public reporting.Image result for harlem globetrotters vs washington generals

This is the art of subterfuge. Trump can’t disprove global warming. But with a federal “panel,” he can argue the science is debatable. That’s all the ammo his supporters need.

Already, he’s putting climate deniers in key governmental positions. Like Kelly Craft, the U.N. ambassador to Canada. In an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, she responded to a question on global warming by saying “I think both sides have their own results from their studies, and I appreciate and I respect both sides of the science.”

By the way, her husband, Joe Craft, is the billionaire president of Alliance Resource Partners, L.P., the third-largest coal producer in the eastern United States.

The GOP has done this before, most recently with Creationism to battle the science of evolution. In Texas, for instance, the state is considering a bill that would allow public school teachers to present alternative theories to subjects that “may cause controversy,” including climate change, evolution and the origins of life.

Texas needs a new bumper sticker: “Fuck you, Darwin and physics.” Expect some of those slackwits on Trump’s advisory panel.

We in the media, of course, will play along. Fox in particular, but even CNN and MSNBC are complicit in the deceit. Consider the networks’ debate format: One talking head is pro, while the opposing one is con. This format, either consciously or sub, gives the viewer the impression the scientific community is split 50/50. Image result for cnn split screen global warming

If the panel were truly representative of the facts, you’d have nine scientists debating one on the boob tube. And even that would be underestimating the true consensus.

Alas, consensus has never been part of Trump’s lexicon. For one, it’s multi-syllabic. And has truth ever been high on his priorities list?

If you find it all too much, relax. Just take some Valium, and crush it up into powder form. A Pixy Stick full should do you.

‘Please, Please, It’s Too Much Winning.’

 

I’ve never been much on attack ads, Political Action Committees or cliches, especially in U.S. politics.

Alas, it may be time to embrace all of them. In fact, it may be the only time.

As demonstrated in the terrific documentary Get Me Roger Stone, the GOP has been masterful at whisper campaigns, PAC money laundering and sloganeering. How else to explain that our last two Republican presidents managed to take  office despite not winning the popular vote? (If the Dems do win enough of the two branches of government and do not eliminate the electoral college — an antiquated concession to appease slave states after the Civil War — they will deserve its consequences.)

But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. The Dems’ first goal has to be 2020. And never have they been more poised to claim it.

Consider: The Democrats have never been a more diffused enemy to target, nor the Republicans a more unified one. So why not start the attack ads now?

The reasoning is simple math. The Dems are looking at the most crowded slate of presidential hopefuls in the party’s history. And it’s too early to begin ads from any of them for fear of voter fatigue. But that’s an advantage; it makes a smear against any of them impossible.

Image result for democratic presidential candidates

Republicans, on the other hand, have become victims of political singularity: The Donald. Challengers have either died, retired, or quietly become supplicants of the inbred tanning bed. Image result for mcconnell graham

So why not start sowing the seeds of discontent now against Trump, which would be a shotgun blast at the GOP writ large. Liberals have free reign to use PAC money to point out the broken promises of the president, with no singular target vulnerable to a return volley. What would a GOP ad do? Attack Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer? There’s no indication either will even seek the Democratic nomination.

You don’t even need a narrator for the ads.

Picture this: a prime-time, 30-second spot simply replaying a broken promise Trump has made, followed by a headline or news clip showing the reality of truth. There would be so many to choose from you’d run out of PAC money before you could address them all. (Speaking of which, while you’re at it, change the acronym, Dems. Instead of Political Action Committee, already seen as a scourge, why not Public Action Committees?)

Sample ads could include:

  • Trump’s promise that Mexico would pay for a border wall. Then cut to any number of rebuttals, from Mexico laughing at the proposal of Trump proudly — and publicly — announcing he’d take the mantle of shutting down the U.S. government if Congress won’t force taxpayers to foot the bill.  Image result for mexico laughing at paying for the wall
  • Trump’s public denial of global warming. Then cut to the 17 TRUMP-run agencies declaring it real. Or footage of a state on fire.  Image result for california wildfires 2018 from freeway
  • Or underwater.Image result for hurricane flooding 2018
  • Or Trump’s promise of a tax cut, along with his oath of a simpler tax form. Image result for trump kissing tax form
  • Follow that with the new IRS study showing refunds declined 17% in 2018.Image result for smaller tax refund 2018
  • Or the promise of bringing jobs back to America. Abutted against, among others, Harley-Davidson’s announcement of moving abroad because of tariffs.
  • Or his pledge of hiring “only the best” advisers, trailed by mugshots of Trump campaign staff charged, indicted or already in prison. Image result for trump indictment bingo

 

The options are endless. And the precedent already set: Remember the Brett Kavanaugh support TV commercials? And the guy wasn’t even running for office.
Image result for angry brett kavanaugh

At the end of each ad, end with Trump’s most notorious lie: the promise that voters would win so much they’d get sick of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daOH-pTd_nk

After the clip, simply end with the tagline: Cañas SICK OF ‘WINNING’ YET?

Throw a punch back, Dems. You already struggle with a mealy mouth reputation, a stigma that has likely cost you myriad elections. Yes, it would require embracing the demons of American politics: negative ads and PAC money. But you already do, just too late in the game. Sometimes it’s better to own the pit bull than be running from it.

And yes, it’s a tired cliche, to fight fire with fire. But as we learned watching innumerable firefighters struggling just to hold their own last year, controlled burns work.

That’s the ugly reality about cliches. All have a kernel of truth. So speak it.