MORE SENSELESS ACTS OF BLOGGERY

ITEM: D.Trump has issued a decree executive order putting an end to the policy of separating child immigrants from their families at the border – this being the policy that he and his staff have simultaneously said was (1) not his policy, (2) totally legal, (3) entirely the fault of Democrats, (4) Biblically justified, (5) intended as a deterrent to illegal immigrants, (6) upholding the law of the land, (6) something that only an act of Congress could stop and (7) non-existent.

(NOTE: To be clear, the policy wasn’t specifically to separate families. The policy was to arrest everyone and try the adults as criminals – which resulted in families being separated. And baby jails tender age shelters.)

As you may know, the good news is ICE won’t be separating families anymore. The bad news: kids will still be put in jail (albeit together with their parents), and most of the kids who have already been separated are probably going to stay that way for awhile, because nothing in the EO provides for it.

This Vox explainer and this article from New Republic covers the basics of what the EO does and doesn’t do. A few extra comments from me for bloggery purposes:

1. It’s important to understand that that what Trump actually wants is the ability to arrest every single illegal immigrant (regardless of age), prosecute them as criminals and keep them jail together for as long as it takes to process and deport them. The Flores Settlement apparently prevents that, and Trump wants to get rid of Flores so that he can detain immigrants indefinitely. In fact, as I understand it, the EO is essentially designed to ensure a court case to challenge Flores, provided Congress doesn’t overrule it first.

So the EO isn’t really about reuniting families or ending a barbaric practice – it’s about giving the Trump admin legal powers of indefinite detention for illegal immigrants.

2. That’s important to remember because let's never forget that the Trump admin does not care one bit about kids being ripped from their families, and doesn't see that as a bad or immoral thing in itself.

I feel confident in saying this because they were perfectly fine with it until it turned out to be a political liability that even Fox News couldn’t mitigate. And since this admin typically doubles down on unpopular statements and decisions (not least because Trump’s MAGA base loves his hardline – womp womp), I’m assuming they’re only changing gears now because (1) Trump wants to force the aforementioned legal battle, and (2) they realized quickly it was too expensive and troublesome to build tent cities or find places to put all those kids. Put simply, for TrumpCo, this is not about doing the right thing – it's about the cold logistical fact it's cheaper and easier to keep families together.

3. Which is another thing – apart from the policy being morally vile, it was also badly planned and incompetently executed. Apparently it never occurred to anyone in TrumpCo to work out the logistics of arresting literally every illegal they caught, the caseload involved, and just where they would keep these people in the interim. It seems pretty obvious no one in charge of this bothered to think beyond “arrest ‘em and deport ‘em”.

4. In any case, the EO does not excuse in any way what TrumpCo has done to these families so far, why they’re doing it, and how they’ve sold it to the MAGA base. They still own that, and they will continue to do so long after these families are reunited (if they ever are – and it doesn’t look so good right now).

5. As for Melania Trump’s jacket … I think the only reason to pay any attention to it at all is to point out that it was intended as a sideshow distraction. Because let’s stop to think for a moment of just who in the POTUS/FLOTUS ecosystem thought that jacket was a good idea, and why.

I mean, seriously – yr sending FLOTUS to the Texas border to visit the separated families that the left are making so much noise about. And she has this jacket that she is going to be seen wearing in plain sight in the midst of all that fury. It’s inconceivable to me that it never occurred to anyone involved that the jacket might be controversial or send an unintended message.

Which is why I’m assuming that was the entire point.

I do wonder just where Melania fits into this – did it ever occur to her wearing that jacket at this time would be a bad idea? What did she think people would say about it? What did she want them to think? Did Trump make her wear it? Did she wear it to gaslight Donald?

I don’t know. And the answers aren't important right now in the context of the bigger issue at hand. But I don’t believe for a second it was an unfortunate coincidence. And I don’t believe for a second it’s a comment on “fake news”.

We care a lot,

This is dF

Like a BOSS.



[Via Matt Fraction]

Biden my time,

This is dF

re: our US tour in October (which I was supposed to be doing a series about, but was too busy with other things to get around to until now):

Our ultimate destination – by way of Chicago, Carbondale, IL and Nashville – was Maryville-Alcoa, Tennessee to visit my family for a week.

As you might imagine, there’s not a lot to do in Maryville-Alcoa and the surrounding area unless you enjoy college football, hayrides, Dolly Parton and mountain tourist traps.

Which is probably how my sister talked us into driving 100 miles to score some t-shirts from the Piggly Wiggly in Spring City, TN.





It’s a kind of family in-joke, albeit one I wasn’t really aware of until this trip.

As you may or may not know, Piggly Wiggly is a grocery store chain that everyone who isn't from the South or Midwest thinks is fictional because it was mentioned in Driving Miss Daisy. People laugh at the name, but it actually has an interesting history. The first one opened in 1916 in Memphis, and it single-handedly invented the self-service supermarket concept at a time when most towns had general stores. Checkout lanes? Shopping carts? Price tags on every item for sale? Piggly Wiggly basically invented that.

Anyway, we ended up making the drive twice – once at night, which ended up with us failing to find the store due to bad directions from Mapquest, and once the following day.

Did I mention there’s not a lot to do in Maryville-Alcoa?

Anyway, here’s what we drove an aggregate 400 miles for.

  

The things I do to entertain you people.

Some pig,

This is dF

ITEM: NASA has unveiled the new look of its prototype Z-2 spacesuit.

Interestingly, they put it up to a public vote.

These were the candidates.



This is the winner.



Evidently we want our astronauts to look more Tron-ish.

Because why not, Jim?

Details here.

Also available: an infographic history of the spacesuit.

Have space suit, will travel,

This is dF

The odds of me going to see The Great Gatsby are not very high, mainly because – quite honestly – I’m not a big fan of the book. I read it in high school, then I re-read it in college to see what I missed the first time, and generally I found it okay but too soap-opera-ish. 

But I did get the point of the book (at least the second time round) – namely, that it was a critique of the American Dream, the hypocrisy of high society, and what people will do to attain access to it and fit in.

So naturally, there is a trend of throwing Great Gatsby parties that basically miss the whole point of the book and celebrate the money-drenched decadence of Gatsby’s weekend soirees, according to The Atlantic:


And then of course you have the tie-in clothing promotions from Prada and Brooks Brothers and other designer brands. We went to Macau over the weekend, and inside the galleria of the Venetian I saw a few designer boutiques promoting the film and the fact that their clothing appears in it.

Even the hosiery gets a plug.



“You too can look like Jay Gatsby or a close personal friend of his.”

Granted, a lot of that is the usual film cash-in stuff. Also, regardless of how many wealthy people have (1) actually read the book and (2) got the point of it, they’re going to throw or attend lavish parties regardless of the theme, so why not based on TGG? In fact, in a way they kind of make Fitzgerald’s point for him. Throwing trendy parties that miss the point of the literature they're emulating is a very Gatsby thing to do. It’s like throwing a lavish Les Miserables theme party where everyone dresses like poor people – only not quite as tasteless.

(See also: hobo parties that make looking homeless and poor kinda jaunty fun. Like pirates!)

Still, the Atlantic piece does point out one other thing: part of the problem is that even high schools tend to teach TGG as a metaphor for striving for success, by way of the symbolism of the green light:


Res ipsa loquitur.

All this useless beauty,

This is dF

A: His jeans, baby.



[Via Weird Vintage]

Dressed to kill,

This is dF

I suppose in the interest of fairness, I should post something about the DNC convention in Charlotte, NC.

Obviously I didn’t watch it for the same reason I didn’t watch the RNC convention. But I’ve seen the highlights and the YouTube clips and Daily Show/Wonkette coverage. And I guess it says a lot about me that I have less to say about the convention content itself than I do about the batshit conservative commentary directed at it. Both are pretty predictable, but I got a blog to run here and I’m required by law to say something. So…

1. SPEECHIFY!

It’s fair to say Bill Clinton and Presidente Obama killed (though maybe that’s a bad choice of words). Republicans hate to admit this, but both of them owe a lot of their success to the fact that they give good speech. They both know how to get their message across, and they know how to beam charisma, work a room and rally the faithful to the cause (just like, you know, CASTRO, STALIN AND MAO).

And fact-checking aside, I think both of them made as good a case as you can make for giving Obama another four – namely, the fact that while Obama admittedly hasn’t quite got America out of the mess it’s in, do you really want to replace him with the party that got America into it?

2. FLOTUS!

I hear Michelle Obama’s speech got good reviews (even the Chinese were impressed, which I’m sure for some people will prove that she and Obama are Communist agents).

While I don’t think there’s any more reason for her to pitch Obama than there is for Ann Romney to pitch The Mitt, I do find it grimly hilarious that conservatives have been falling over themselves to point out what a big fat self-hating-rich liar Mrs Hussein Obama is – to the point where John Sununu is demanding to see the receipt for her convention speech dress.

Becayse, you know, the fate of America hangs in the balance and crap.

It doesn’t get much weirder than that. But of course it will.

For example, if my Facebook page is anything to go by, the only thing that made conservatives’ heads explode more than Michelle’s “we know poor” speech was:

3. SLUT!

Sandra Fluke’s appearance evidently touched a nerve with a lot of (male) conservative friends who swear blind that every female they know hates Fluke with a vengeance. (Which is funny because every female I know thinks she’s made of awesome. So it goes.)

The FlukeHate is a sideshow, of course, but I’m both impressed and puzzled by just how much energy conservatives waste just hating the holy hell out of her for becoming the poster child for covering contraceptives under ObamaCare.

4. Obama’s post-convention bounce

Unlike Mitt, he has one.

Granted, it’s not a very big one, and it does depend who you ask, and whether by “Obama bounce” yr talking about voter support or gun sales.

Still, at this rate Romney/Ryan have a busy two months ahead of them – especially when Ryan now has to explain why he’s spent his political career voting for stuff Romney has been campaigning against.

What?

It’s on,

This is dF

Because it’s never too early for Halloween costume ideas:

This year, why not dress like fun-size candy bars?



[Via Retrogirly]

Wrap it up,

This is dF