Trump Versus Bezos

Why does Trump hate him so much? Because, as Virginia Postrel points out, Bezos is the anti-Trump:

Trump, who likes his staff to have the right “look,” would never cast a wiry guy who doesn’t hide his lack of hair as a big-time businessman. How can someone only five-foot-nine intimidate people into submission? In Trumpworld, intimidation, not value-creation, is what business is all about.

Bezos also has a sense of humor, often at his own expense, and a famously raucous laugh. Trump is humorless. He certainly doesn’t laugh at himself.

Bezos speaks clearly and has amazing message discipline even by the standards of successful CEOs — something that struck me when I first interviewed him way back in 1996. Trump: not so much.

Trump grew up rich, went to private schools, and had an undistinguished college career. Bezos grew up middle-class, went to public schools, and knocked the top out of Princeton, graduating with highest honors and Phi Beta Kappa in electrical engineering and computer science. One had a rich father; the other has brains.

Ouch.

Debbie’s IT People

The indictment is very strange:

the indictment is an exercise in omission. No mention of the Awan group’s theft of information from Congress. Not a hint about the astronomical sums the family was paid, much of it for no-show “work.” Not a word about Wasserman Schultz’s keeping Awan on the payroll for six months during which (a) he was known to be under investigation, (b) his wife was known to have fled to Pakistan, and (c) he was not credentialed to do the IT work for which he had been hired. Nothing about Wasserman Schultz’s energetic efforts to prevent investigators from examining Awan’s laptop. A likely currency-transportation offense against Alvi goes uncharged. And, as for the offenses that are charged, prosecutors plead them in a manner that avoids any reference to what should be their best evidence.

As with the IRS, where the hell is Jeff Sessions? He didn’t recuse himself from this. My confidence in our justice system continues to plummet.

“Pick A Side”

Yes, definitely pick a side, but Antifa and fascism are the same side:

Partisans of “pick a side” insist that every mention of violence by both right-wing and left-wing thugs is an exercise in “whataboutism.” That is, an attempt to deflect from one’s own sins by invoking the misdeeds of the opposition. In the case of Donald Trump’s hemming and hawing over Charlottesville, that’s likely true. Asked to comment on a terrorist act by a neo-Nazi at a rally of racists and neo-Nazis who have vocally lent the sitting president their support, an invocation of “many sides” sounds an awful lot like whataboutism intended to shift blame from his friends.

But for those of us already calling out the violent bigots flaunting Nazi imagery, it’s not whataboutism to point out that an alleged alternative isn’t actually an alternative at all—it’s just another version of the same thing. As New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg tweeted from Charlottesville, “The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding ‘antifa’ beating white nationalists being led out of the park.” She later, understandably, changed “hate-filled” to “violent,” since actions are clearer and more important than motivations. And CNN’s Jake Tapper commented that “At least two journalists in Charlottesville were assaulted by people protesting the Klan/Nazi/alt-right rally.”

But is it fair to compare the violent far left in our streets to the violent far right opposing them? The left-wing antifa activists claim to be opposing the powers-that-be.

It’s certainly true that the violent right generally supports President Trump. Given that support, his hesitancy about criticizing even the most extreme Nazi imagery and lethal violence (he did call out “racist violence” two days later, then walked it back) creates the impression that, if he isn’t explicitly sympathetic to the marching morons at Charlottesville, he at least enjoys basking in the scented glow of tiki torches. If we’re balancing dangers on the great scale of suckage, that connection to the White House would seem to make the fascist right the more immediate threat.

But that doesn’t mean we have to pick a competing brand of ideological awfulness as a viable alternative to fascism. The thugs on the left have already proved themselves to be violent and intolerant. There’s no reason to favor one illiberal force over another when our country has a long history based on much different, and much better, political principles.

Yup.

Space And Religion

A brief history of their relationship. I infer that she thinks evangelicals not supporting spaceflight is a problem, because of concern that it could reduce public support for it. Apparently she doesn’t realize that public support is irrelevant to a space future that is funded not by the government, but by private interests, which is what our space future now is.

[Update a while later]

Related, sort of. Laura Seward Forczyk describes her eclipse experience.

[Update mid-afternoon]

Another account from Miri Kramer.

[Update Wednesday morning]

It’s good to be an earthling.

Tripling Down On Stupid

OK, we have a regular commenter, probably the most prolific one (note that this is not a quantity with a quality all its own), who thinks that the Republicans would like to replace Trump with Hillary.

No, don’t laugh, he apparently really thinks this:

In about a femto-second the left would choose a new primary target so we could all suddenly realize how stupid and evil that person is. It would not be Pence because a tie breaking vote is not much real power. The GOP would try to enact law to retroactively make Hillary president so they can return to their safe space where nothing positive is actually accomplished.

So I responded:

Ken, even if that were legally possible, it would be politically impossible, and very few Republicans would have any desire to do it. That’s just stupid.

If you seriously believe that any Republican wants Hillary (as opposed to Not Trump) as president, you’re insane. The only reason any Republican supported Hillary last year was because she was the only serious alternative at the time. Every Republican would be perfectly happy to replace Trump with Pence. [Emphasis added for future reference]

Now note his response:

Many said they voted for Hillary. They could have just not voted. Bush voted for Hillary (and we wonder why the country moves left regardless of elections.)

That’s it. No recognition whatsoever of my emphasized words above. He is fantasizing that because they voted for Hillary a year ago, they want her to be president now, and would prefer that to a President Pence. He offers no sane rationale for this fantasy, but there we go.

There’s a lot more nuttiness over there if you want to wade through it, but it gets really great here:

You seem to be presuming Pence would get the vote of every Republican over Hillary. This is you asserting your faith because there is no logic based on any fact that provably reaches that conclusion.

About the only related fact we have is that some Republicans did vote for Hillary when some conditions existed. Neither you nor I know if Pence being the alternative would not be such a condition for every Republican.

I am not presuming that Pence would get the vote of every Republican over Hillary, and it is not necessary for me to assume that. I am assuming, because I didn’t chow down on lead paint chips when I was kid, that there is an insufficient number of Republicans who would prefer Hillary to Pence for this to occur. I think any assumption other than that is insane.

Set aside the fact that neither he, or anyone else has responded to my challenge to name a single Republican who would prefer a President Hillary to a President Pence. He doesn’t even posit a Constitutionally plausible mechanism by which this could occur, even if it had (and again, this would be insane) majority Republican support. All he says is that “The GOP would try to enact law to retroactively make Hillary president.” It betrays an utter ignorance of how our government works. Congress has no power to simply remove a president, bypass the existing vice president, and name someone else president.

Is he saying that they’ll impeach and remove both Trump and Pence? Really? Then Orrin HatchPaul Ryan is president. Will Orrin Hatch Paul Ryan nominate Hillary to be Vice President? Really? And a majority of the House will go along with that? Really? And then he’ll resign, or they’ll impeach and remove him so they can get their precious President Hillary? Really?

No, this is just anti-anti-Trump derangement. And I wish I didn’t have to waste time responding to blithering idiocy like this in my comments section. But I guess the only way to avoid it is to either ignore it, and let it continue to clog it up, because he clearly has no more self control than his Lord and Savior Trump to stop doing it, or to ban him.

[Late Monday-night update]

Part of the purpose of this post was to ferret out other loons in my comments section. It seems to have succeeded. Also note that Ken is now saying, “Oh, I didn’t mean it, I was just joking,” after repeated defenses of his original idiocy.

Sorry, no.

The worst thing about Trump is arguing with morons who support him, even when I compliment him on the rare good things he does, like tonight’s speech (which obviously someone else wrote, but with his input, to make sure he had the right 3rd-grade words in it, like “horrible”).

[Monday-afternoon update]

OK, so there are still some people operating under the delusion that there exist Republicans today, who would, if they could, remove Trump and replace him with Hillary, in preference to Mike Pence.

The “logic” (such as it is, but it isn’t) seems to be:

a) Some Republicans voted for Hillary over Trump last year
b) Republicans cannot be trusted

Therefore, they will replace him with her at the first opportunity.

Folks, this is what is called a “broken syllogism.” It has two premises, both of which are true, and yet the conclusion in no way follows from them. It is a leap of logic that puts Evil Knievel’s attempted jump of the Snake River Canyon to shame. It makes as much (and as little) sense as “Roses are red, violets are blue, and therefore my chicken is unable to lay eggs.”

I personally know some conservatives who voted for Hillary. For instance, I’m pretty sure that Bob Zubrin did. They were (and in some cases remain) “Never Trumpers.”

Why did they do this? Was it because they preferred her policy positions? Or her picks for the Supreme Court? Or that they didn’t believe all the stories about how corrupt she was?

No.

They did it because, as awful a president as they expected her to be, they thought that Trump would be even worse. They did it not as an affirmative vote for Hillary, but as the only effective way to vote against Trump. Ken wrote “they could have not voted.” Yes, they could. They could have also howled at the moon. But neither of those things would have done anything to reduce the chances of a Trump presidency in the way that voting for Hillary Clinton would.

Now you can disagree with their assessment, and in fact I do. I felt physically relieved that she lost, but I recognize that the last election presented us with the most awful presidential choice in our lifetime, and I’m not going criticize them for that decision at that time.

But the other thing I’m not going to do (unlike, apparently some here) is to fantasize that they’re idiotic enough to actively want Hillary to be president, either then or now (as opposed to Trump not being president). They weren’t voting for Hillary, they were voting for the only Not Trump available at the time. That was then, this is now, and the best Not Trump option is Mike Pence. The second, third, fourth, fifth…ten millionth next best option is any (actual, as opposed to Trump) Republican. This was, in fact, one of the reasons that I preferred him over her, because he was potentially removable, and she never would have been. As I’ve repeatedly said, the notion that there are any prominent Republicans, let alone a significantly large number of them that would, if they could, replace him with her today, is utterly deranged.

But my challenge stands. Name one.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!