Today's Must-Read: He's Lost It

This is downright scary -- it's somewhat more serious than Trump's usual twitter tantrum, and it behooves us all to read the entire thread. Here's the crux:

His lies were made in perhaps the most blatant and sinister manner ever seen in the great Chamber. He wrote down and read terrible things, then said it was from the mouth of the President of the United States. I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason.....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 29, 2019

Given the emotional maturity of his base, he's just painted a big target on Schiff's back: his followers will take this as licence to go gunning for, not only Schiff, but anyone who participates in the impeachment hearings.

I've already seen comments to the effect of "Oh, it's just Trump having a tantrum." No -- he's calling for the trial and execution of a sitting member of Congress for doing his constitutional duty.

Oh, and notice the phrasing: I want him tried. All that's missing is the royal "we".

Read the whole thing.

(The comments at Trump's Twitter account are not sympathetic.)

This Week at Green Man Review

Autumn is upon is, and so is Green Man Review. Nice stuff:

A Folkmanis Robot, Mug Cakes, Pogues Sans Shane McGowan, McKillip’s “Mystery” Story and Other Autumnal Matters

ANd of course, there are other things -- many other things. You know the drill.

Review: Michael Nyman: Noises, Sounds and Sweet Airs

Another Epinions orphan, and one of my favorite works:

Michael Nyman’s Noises, Sounds & Sweet Airs is a modified version of Nyman’s score for Karine Saporta’s opera-ballet, La Princesse de Milan, written during and after the period in 1990-91 when Nyman was also working on the score for Peter Greenaway’s film Prospero’s Books; both works have their source in Shakespeare’s The Tempest. Saporta was also the choreographer for the film. (It is, indeed, a small world.) Nyman is one of the more independent-minded composers working today, and it’s very interesting to see what he does with one of the standbys for operatic texts, William Shakespeare, particulary working with text from one of his greatest plays.

Nyman’s music is quirky, sometimes ethereal, sometimes evoking the feel of Shakespeare’s time, sometimes very much of the late 20th century, often quite melodic. Shakespeare’s text, according to Nyman, was “heavily and idiosyncratically edited;” also, Nyman set only Shakespeare’s spoken text to music for this work, since he had already set the songs to music for Prospero’s Books. Also very idiosyncratic is the device, whether Nyman’s or Saporta’s is not clear, of treating the voices (soprano Catherine Bott, alto Hilary Summers, and tenor Ian Bostridge) not as characters, as would happen in opera, but simply as voices, so that Bott may be at one moment Miranda and shift immediately to being Prospero; any character may be a soprano, alto, tenor – or a combination.

Nyman makes full use of the dramatic tension in Shakespeare’s text, and the various sections move along quite fluently. There is a lot of action in this music, several passages where the strings take on a driving quality that suddenly releases to an almost sublime quiet. And I can’t help but suspect that Nyman was having a little fun with this – the music ranges from stark passages that recall Alban Berg (in mood, if not in actual rendering), to little touches that are almost bel canto. Nevertheless, this is very firmly a contemporary work, but one that makes use of many possibilities and avoids the kind of academicism that all too often shoots down otherwise talented composers. Add to that the “poetics” (Nyman’s word) behind the assignement of voices to various passages, and Nyman comes up with several opportunities for wonderful duets and trios, such as section 11, between Stephano and Caliban, sung by Summers and Bostridge, which is very dramatic and in parts, downright evil.

The voices are a good mix. Bott’s soprano is very clear, almost bell-like in tone, while Hilary Summers’ alto is a good rich voice, with a smoky quality that brings an essential hint of earthiness to the music. The big surprise is Bostridge, with whom I was not familiar, and whose photograph in the liner notes makes him look like a drugged-out schoolboy: his voice is a marvelous instrument, with a richness and depth that makes me think that somewhere in there is a baritone, and that supports his higher range beautifully – if he gains about fifty pounds, he would probably make a good Siegfried. He also exhibits the amazing ability to blend in completely with the orchestra, becoming another instrument in the chorus, with quite amazing effect. All of the singers are beautifully expressive, rendering the text with passion and finesse, and, like the very best opera singers, more concerned with the character than the vocal quality. (I admit to a bias: opera is essentially theater, and what actors do is build characters. I have recordings of Hans Hotter as Wotan, recorded at the end of his career: his voice was all but gone, but his acting was incomparable, leading to one of the most effective interpretations I’ve ever heard – I don’t think I’ve heard that combination of power and majesty, and in the “Lebewohl,” tenderness, since.) One caveat, however, and I do not fault the singers for this: English, for some reason, seems to be fiendishly difficult, if not impossible, to enunciate in an operatic setting; if you think you’re going to just listen and comprehend without reference to the text, guess again. (And, of course, there’s the small matter that comprehension of this work is going to involve a lot more than just understanding the words.)

Dominque Delbart leads the Ensemble Instrumental de Basse-Normandie, with aid from Daid Roach and Andrew Findon on saxophones, in a very intelligent rendering; the orchestra works beautifully with the voices, which is fortunate, since at this point, there’s no other recording.

This is a work that deserves careful listening – and it’s seductive enough that that should present little problem. For what is essentially a small work, there is more than enough dramatic impact and activity to engage the listener, who is rewarded with some very beautiful passages. And it is not so “contemporary” that it is incomprehensible.

(Polygram 1995)

Teetering on the Edge

Or maybe over. This is just beyond belief:

This is way beyond delusional. If there were anyone in Trump's cabinet who had any integrity, we'd be doing a 25th Amendment fix right now.

Today iIn Bald-Faced Liars

And of course, it's an evangelical preacher -- none other than Robert Jeffress:

There is no such thing as a separation of church and state in the Constitution. We have allowed the secularists, the atheists, the humanists to hijack our Constitution and pervert it into something our forefathers never intended.

And I’m gonna say this. I’m gonna say this, and it may cost me some book sales, but I’m gonna say it anyway. Thank God we have a president like Donald J. Trump who understands that. I don’t like seeing my friend under attack like he is under right now, but I don’t like the prospect of what’s going to happen in America if we allow the left to seize control of this country again.

And I believe one of the great ironies of history is gonna be this: When the historians look back, they are gonna say with great surprise, that it was a secular, billionaire real estate tycoon from New York City who became the most pro-life, pro-religious liberty, and pro-Israel president in history.

I have a couple of quotes for Mr. Jeffress. The first is from Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States of America, which begins:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .

The second is from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists:

. . . I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Now, you may recall that Jefferson, aside from being the third president of the United States, had also served in several capacities in previous administrations, including vice president and secretary of state. He was also, while American envoy to France, in close touch with the framers of the Constitution, so I suspect he had a fairly good idea of what it meant. (And no, as long as we're on the subject, America was quite deliberately not founded as a "Christian nation.")

As for the rest of the drivel -- well, can you say "sycophant"?

There's video at the link, if you can stand it.

Culture Break: Linkin Park: The Catalyst

Given the state of the country these days, this seems appropriate:

And yes, Linkin Park is one of my favorite bands, right up there with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra.

This Week at Green Man Review

Our usual eclectic selection:

Falstaff’s Fireplace, Superb Chocolate, Single Pot Irish Whiskey, Great Fiction and Sweet Music — Small Treats Indeed!

Hop on over and enjoy!

Today's Must-Read: Business As Usual

This is what happens when you install a sleazy CEO in the White House:

We always hear that Trump thinks of things transactionally. So he will think of the Saudi protection contract as a "new business" contract that he got for the Pentagon. He expects the Pentagon will make money off the deal, after all, "They pay cash!"

With the recent deal that let him move money from military programs to The Wall, Trump can now see the military budget as just one big pool of money--that he just added to by signing a long term protection contract with "The Kingdom"

Trump will now expect the generals and the contractors to be grateful to him. He's a good earner for them. The Wall money, from the military budget, is now rightfully his. After all, he got them the big contract. When he didn't go after MBS for the murder of Khashoggi, he was protecting a huge revenue stream to the military.

The art of the deal, indeed. I suspect this is really the way Trump thinks.

Read the whole thing -- yes, it's pretty snarky, but that's certainly merited.

Today's Must-Read: Telling It Like It Is

Interesting profile/analysis on Beto O'Rourke -- makes me want to vote for him:

Beto O’Rourke, the former congressman from Texas who is now a Democratic presidential candidate, has been titillating the schoolmarms of the American press corps by saying naughty words. He let an F-bomb fly while dressing down the media for pretending that it was debatable whether Donald Trump was responsible for inspiring the mass shooting in El Paso, O’Rourke’s hometown. He let loose another one in response to another mass shooting in the Midland-Odessa area, which is relatively nearby by Texas standards.

Somehow, the press response to this was simultaneously one of feigned delicacy at his language and hardened cynicism, the assumption being that O’Rourke was using this extremely common word that almost everyone uses in private out of some political calculation. The possibility that mass slaughter in his own backyard had rattled O’Rourke out of political calculation and into talking like a normal person — no doubt the way all these pundits speak in casual conversation — was dismissed out of hand.

But let’s just assume for a moment that it’s real and what we’re seeing now is a man who, shaken by having to deal with unimaginable horrors inflicted on his once-peaceful community, has run out of fucks to give. When it comes to pandering to the pearl-clutching instincts of the Beltway media, Beto’s fuck-giving account is cleaned out.

I confess I've gotten pretty fed up with the Democrats' response to Trump's continuing atrocities against America (this latest bag of bullshit from Nancy Pelosi is just one more example of the Democrats' complete misreading of the mood of their constituents -- mean, is she seriously talking about changing the law to allow sitting presidents to be indicted when everyone knows that Moscow Mitch will spike any such attempt?)

This is a good example of how completely off in space too many Democrats in positions of prominence are:

During the most recent debate in his home state of Texas, O’Rourke didn’t flinch when asked if he was serious about this, saying, “We’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against a fellow American anymore.”

As Max Boot at the Washington Post noted, some Democrats, such as Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, flinched, scolding O’Rourke for giving Republicans an excuse to flip out about “gun-grabbers” on the left.

But what these Democrats fail to understand is that, buoyed by the radicalism and cash infusions of the NRA, Republicans are already calling Democrats a bunch of gun-grabbers. Since they’re going to make that accusation one way or another, why not do what O’Rourke’s doing, and just stake out a position that might actually open a discussion about real-world approaches to preventing gun violence?

It's not even a matter of giving Republicans an excuse -- they're already calling Democrats "gun grabbers". These Democrats should be shooting back, starting with the fact that a huge majority of Americans favor just that sort of approach -- which, by the way, worked very well in Australia and is now underway in New Zealand. And in both cases, it took one mass shooting to trigger their response. We have one at least once a month, and the Republicans blame everything except the NRA. And what are the Democrats afraid of -- offending Trump's base?

At any rate, read the whole article.

Today's Must-Read: Am I Surprised?

Not really: The "Christian" right is turning Americans off to religion:

A few weeks ago, the Democratic National Committee formally acknowledged what has been evident for quite some time: Nonreligious voters are a critical part of the party’s base. In a one-page resolution passed at its annual summer meeting, the DNC called on Democratic politicians to recognize and celebrate the contributions of nonreligious Americans, who make up one-third of Democrats. In response, Robert Jeffress, a Dallas pastor with close ties to Trump, appeared on Fox News, saying the Democrats were finally admitting they are a “godless party.”

This was hardly a new argument. Conservative Christian leaders have been repeating some version of this claim for years, and have often called on religious conservatives and Republican politicians to defend the country against a growing wave of liberal secularism. And it’s true that liberals have been leaving organized religion in high numbers over the past few decades. But blaming the Democrats, as Jeffress and others are wont to do, doesn’t capture the profound role that conservative Christian activists have played in transforming the country’s religious landscape, and the role they appear to have played in liberals’ rejection of organized religion.

It's beyond hope that someone as arrogant and self-absorbed as Robert Jeffress would confess to being the problem, if he could even entertain the notion. However:

Social scientists were initially reluctant to entertain the idea that a political backlash was somehow responsible, because it challenged long-standing assumptions about how flexible our religious identities really are. Even now, the idea that partisanship could shape something as personal and profound as our relationship with God might seem radical, or maybe even a little offensive.

But when two sociologists, Michael Hout and Claude Fischer, began to look at possible explanations for why so many Americans were suddenly becoming secular, those conventional reasons couldn’t explain why religious affiliation started to fall in the mid-1990s. Demographic and generational shifts also couldn’t fully account for why liberals and moderates were leaving in larger numbers than conservatives. In a paper published in 2002, they offered a new theory: Distaste for the Christian right’s involvement with politics was prompting some left-leaning Americans to walk away from religion.

I suspect that it has something to do with the fact that most Americans at least in theory believe in traditional American values: equality under the law, welcoming immigrants (and unless you're a pureblooded American Indian, your ancestors were immigrants -- although, taking a somewhat longer view, every human being in the Americas is descended from immigrants, given that there were no humans here until about 15,000 years ago), generosity, a government that actually does provide for the common welfare, those sorts of things, all of which are diametrically opposed to the Republican-evangelical program.

Do take the time to read the whole report -- it's pretty interesting, if a little soft-pedaled.

Via The New Civil Rights Movement.

Now That's Chutzpah!

This is from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, regarding the bombing of Saudi Arabian oil facilities:

Whenever you report about them, and you say, ‘The Houthis said,’ you should say ‘The well known frequently lying Houthis have said the following.’ This is important because you ought not report them as if they are truth-tellers, as if these are people who aren’t completely under the boot of the Iranians.

“So there you go, whenever you say Houthis, you should begin with, ‘the well-known, frequently known to lie Houthis.’ That’d be good reporting [laughter] and I know you care deeply about that good reporting.

Do you really want to go there?

And a not-so-tangential thought: There must be a strong push for war with Iran among Trump's toadies. This looks more and more like just paving the way.

Today's Must-Read: Another Brick in the Wall

And here we have another instance of the Trump regime trying (and probably succeeding) in stonewalling Congress:

Greg Sargent does an excellent job of laying out the DNI whistleblower story. It's confusing and the media generally isn't making it less so. (They seem to be being led in various directions by Intelligence sources who may or may not have their own agenda.)

This story is about to get a whole lot more media scrutiny, because it involves secretive back-channel maneuvering, a possible threat to national security and potential lawbreaking at the highest levels of the Trump administration, possibly at the direction of President Trump himself — all with a whole lot of cloak-and-dagger intrigue thrown in.

And now the mystery of Rep. Adam Schiff and the whistleblower has taken an ominous new turn, one that should only underscore concerns that serious — and dangerous — lawbreaking might be unfolding.

At the very least, we’re seeing yet another serious erosion in checks on this administration’s norm-shredding — and, as I hope to explain, there are big and important principles at stake here.

The latest development: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has informed Schiff, the California Democrat and chairman of the Intelligence Committee, that he will not forward a whistleblower’s complaint to the committee, as required by law.

Yet the legal rationale for refusing to do this appears specious — and raises further questions as to why this is happening at all.

Sargent makes the point that the acting Director of National Intelligence hasn't got a legal leg to stand on in this -- the statute that deals with whistleblowers in the executive is very clear and unambiguous, and he simply hasn't got the legal authority to do what he's doing.

Digby finishes with this caveat:

I should add that anyone who thinks that an administration that is willing to defy the congress this way will adhere to the rules and norms governing out elections are fooling themselves. We saw how far they were willing to go in 2000 and did nothing about it. We saw what they did in 2016 and we're wanking on the kitchen table every day. So I'm afraid we can't act surprised if they simply steal it openly in 2020 and then stand there and say "what are you going to do about it?" They have every reason to believe we will do nothing.

That's if we have an election at all.

Antidote: Yes, We Do Need Education

Here's a celebrity project that's worth more than publicity:

The students paraded through hugs and high-fives from staff, who danced as Sister Sledge’s “We Are Family” blared through the hallways. They were showered with compliments as they walked through a buffet of breakfast foods.

The scene might be expected on a special occasion at any other public school. At LeBron James’s I Promise School, it was just Monday.

Every day, they are celebrated for walking through the door. This time last year, the students at the school — Mr. James’s biggest foray into educational philanthropy — were identified as the worst performers in the Akron public schools and branded with behavioral problems. Some as young as 8 were considered at risk of not graduating. . . .

The academic results are early, and at 240, the sample size of students is small, but the inaugural classes of third and fourth graders at I Promise posted extraordinary results in their first set of district assessments. Ninety percent met or exceeded individual growth goals in reading and math, outpacing their peers across the district.

It's also working for the parents:

The school is unusual in the resources and attention it devotes to parents, which educators consider a key to its success. Mr. James’s foundation covers the cost of all expenses in the school’s family resource center, which provides parents with G.E.D. preparation, work advice, health and legal services, and even a quarterly barbershop.

It's worth reading the whole article -- it's really an amazing project, and it seems to be delivering huge dividends.

Via Crooks and Liars.

Tweet du Jour

No, it's not from Glorious Leader. Next best thing:

With thanks to commenter Boreal at Joe.My.God.

Culture Break: Philip Glass: Koyaanisqatsi, Part I

This is some of my favorite Philip Glass, who is one of my favorite composers (as in about 36 albums stored in my media player). From the description at YouTube:

Koyaanisqatsi, also known as Koyaanisqatsi: Life out of Balance, is a 1982 film directed by Godfrey Reggio with music composed by Philip Glass and cinematography by Ron Fricke. The film consists primarily of slow motion and time-lapse photography of cities and many natural landscapes across the United States. The visual tone poem contains neither dialogue nor a vocalized narration: its tone is set by the juxtaposition of images and music. In the Hopi language, the word Koyaanisqatsi means 'crazy life, life in turmoil, life out of balance, life disintegrating, a state of life that calls for another way of living', and the film implies that modern humanity is living in such a way. The film is the first in the Qatsi trilogy of films: it is followed by Powaqqatsi (1988) and Naqoyqatsi (2002). The trilogy depicts different aspects of the relationship between humans, nature, and technology. Koyaanisqatsi is the best known of the trilogy and is considered a cult film.

I have a dim memory of having seen the film many years ago, but don't ask me for any details. Although now I'm intrigued, and may look up the whole trilogy.

Today in Disgusting People

I realize that the last post was on the same theme, but it seems as though disgusting people make the news a lot more than they used to. This story is really appalling on a number of fronts:

Sean Cormie, 23, came out as gay in the spring. Since then, he said his family has asked him to go to church and bring his partner, Gary Gardner.

On Sunday, Sept. 8, the two joined family and friends for a service at a church Cormie had already attended many times.

“I wanted to go to church to make my mom proud and make her happy,” Cormie said.

The service was normal but at the end, something unexpected happened. Cormie said as 12 to 15 congregants circled around Gardner and himself, their prayer growing louder. Meanwhile, they said the pastor began making statements against homosexuality.

“‘It’s a sin, it’s an abomination, you need to realize, wake up, and see it for a sin,’” Cormie said.

The prayer got louder and louder until the two men felt so humiliated, they got up to leave. But Gardner was shuffled out of the building alone.

"They hold me down, pin me down, and I’m crying, and the Holy Spirit just comes through me, and they keep speaking in tongues, praying over me." Cormie said he was even punched in the face. "I was just crying 'mercy, mercy.'"

First off, the behavior of the congregation is beyond reprehensible. Fortunately, Cormie had sense enough to file a police report: this is assault, at the very least, and probably a few other crimes on top of that. Of course, he's now being threatened.

And it really looks as though his parents set him up.

What stopped me cold is this:

He said he does believe homosexuality is a sin, but he can't be forced to be something he's not.

"I’m full fledged gay, you can’t change it," Cormie said. "It’s my nature. I’m born that way, so let it be."

He obviously has conflicts. I really think he should drop this church -- there are denominations that are accepting of homosexuality, if he insists on remaining a Christian. There's no need to put yourself through this kind of torture for the sake of religion. He should also do what so many of the rest of us have had to do: if your family can't accept you as you are, make your own family. And get some professional counseling.

I have a lot of objections to Christianity, particularly those fundamentalist sects that are more grounded in the Old Testament than in the Gospels. (Which includes the most prominent "Christian" spokesmen so much in the news these days -- they really are nothing more than power-hungry hypocrites.) And the doctrine of Original Sin is thoroughly repellent -- it's nothing more than a tool to enforce obedience through guilt. The idea that the way you were born is sinful springs from that, and it paints a picture of a thoroughly disgusting idea of the divine.

Via Joe.My.God.

Today in Disgusting People

But we knew he was a disgusting piece of work:

Acting U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Ken Cuccinelli on Sunday defended the Trump administration’s decision not to grant temporary protected status to Bahamians displaced by Hurricane Dorian, saying the government there is “capable of taking care of their own.”

“The Bahamas is a perfectly legitimate country capable of taking care of their own,” Cuccinelli said on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” adding that U.S. immigration agencies “rushed in resources” and noting that power has already been restored in the northernmost islands.

The Associated Press reported Sunday that the official death toll from the storm stands at 50, and some 1,300 people are missing.

Even though he's nominally Catholic, Cuccinelli sounds like an evangelical "Christian". I'm sure that the fact that the population of the Bahamas is 80% black and only 12% white has nothing to do with it.

And according to commenter BobSF_94117 at Joe.My.God., they don't expect to have power restored to Abaco for weeks.

This seems like an appropriate place to refer to this article:

I understand why it’s hard for normal people to believe that white evangelical Christians are sadists. Normal people have never been, as I was a long time ago, on the inside of that shadowy religious world. But the sooner they understand this, the sooner normal people will see that white evangelical Christian support for Donald Trump isn’t rooted in hypocrisy, contradiction or merely straying from the straight and narrow. The reason they support a fascist president is simple: They’re sadists.

The word “sadist” is off-putting. I get that. But if you’re thinking of sex, you’re thinking in the wrong way. If you’re thinking of “pleasure,” as in sexual pleasure, you’re thinking the wrong way. The pleasure white evangelical Christians derive from the suffering of human beings deemed less human than they are is not about sex. It’s about the pain, humiliation or even violence out-groups deserve by dint of being out-groups. Gay men, for instance, deserve their punishment because they are gay. Punishment for being gay is “divine justice.” From such “justice” comes pleasure—which is sadism.

The whole article is worth reading, but I'm not sure that the analysis is spot-on: it's more complex than that. There is, in fact, a large element of hypocrisy in the attitudes of too many "Christians" toward the suffering of others, and, notwithstanding the fact that right-wing luminaries such as Tony Perkins and Franklin Graham, and Cuccinelli himself, spend a lot of time and effort inflicting pain on other people, that's in direct contravention of the tenets of the faith they claim to follow. (I'm sure you've noticed that however much they drop Jesus' name at the slightest opportunity, they're solidly grounded in Leviticus.) And I think that one of the main reasons so many white evangelicals support Trump is that they're proto-fascists themselves: they want everything cut and dried, they need to follow an authority figure, and Trump's saying the things they believe but haven't dared to say themselves. While the author concentrates on the right's focus on gay rights, the idea does have broader application, as indicated by the article above.

With thanks to commenter greenmanTN at Joe.My.God. for the link.

And now that Brett "I Like Beer" Kavanaugh is in the news again, a runner-up (aside from Kavanaugh himself):

The tweet is deleted but they really did say it. Having an unwanted penis shoved in your face is harmless fun according to @nytopinion #whoknew? #brettkavanaughlikesbeerandslappingwomeninthefacewithhispenis pic.twitter.com/pXLphK9nld

— 🔱🧜🏽‍♀️🔱Neptune’s Daughter🔮🐚🐳🦀🐬🦞🐡🐙🐠🦐 (@TurtleTears) September 14, 2019

How clueless is the Times? "Harmless fun"? Seriously? What kind of person thinks that sort of thing is "harmless fun"? I mean, aside from Brett Kavanaugh and whoever wrote that tweet at the Times.

With thanks to commenter Halou at Joe.My.God.

This Week at Green Man Review

And an interesting week it is:

Patrick Street, Ethan Iverson Quartet, Ashley Hutchings, Patricia McKillip, The Band, Issac Asimov and Other Matters as We See Fit

So hurry on over to see all that and especially those "other matters".

Giggle du Jour

Courtesy of commenter Harveyrabbit at Joe.My.God.

Hit 'Em While They're Down

This should come as no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to the Trump regime's attitude toward brown people:

The U.S. will not grant temporary protected status to people from the Bahamas displaced by Hurricane Dorian, an administration official told NBC News.

The status would allow Bahamians to work and live in the U.S. until it is deemed safe to return home. The same status is currently granted to over 300,000 people living in the U.S. from 10 countries, including the victims of Haiti’s 2010 earthquake.


Acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Mark Morgan said on Monday that the Trump administration was considering whether to grant temporary protected status to people fleeing the Bahamas after Hurricane Dorian devastated two major islands there.

Bahamians can still come to the U.S. temporarily, if they have the right travel documents, but will not be granted work permits.

So, they can come here -- if they managed to run out to the American consulate during a category 5 hurricane to get a visa -- but they can't work, and if they apply for public assistance, they'll be deported. Neat, huh?

This is Trump, as quoted in the NBC article:

"I don't want to allow people that weren't supposed to be in the Bahamas to come into the United States, including some very bad people and some very bad gang members and some very, very bad drug dealers."

Because everyone who's not from Europe is a gang member or a drug dealer. (And the man has the vocabulary of a five year old.)

Oh, but that's not all. Trump is going to solve the homelessness problem -- in California:

There was a time when Republicans would have had a fit at the idea of the president sending in federal authorities to deal with something that is clearly a local and state issue. "Local control" and "states' rights" were their watchwords. But no longer:

President Trump has ordered White House officials to launch a sweeping effort to address homelessness in California, citing the state’s growing crisis, according to four government officials aware of the effort.

The planning has intensified in recent weeks. Administration officials have discussed using the federal government to get homeless people off the streets of Los Angeles and other cities and into new government-backed facilities, according to two officials briefed on the planning.

(Emphasis added.)

That's it -- put them in cages.

Here's a summary of Trump's deep understanding of the issue:

Trump on urban decay: “It’s a phenomenon that started 2 years ago. It’s disgraceful ... You can’t have [it] where police officers are getting sick just by walking the beat. I mean, they’re actually getting very sick ... This is the liberal establishment.” pic.twitter.com/E4o9mVOqlL

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 2, 2019

Why California? Well, that should be obvious -- it's full of people who are mean to him.

Oh, and don't hold your breath waiting for the outcry from our "religious" leaders. Trump has them in his pocket.