All posts by spdonlan

Stormy Donald? His 60 Minutes Interview

CBS News has posted the transcript of the #StormyDonald interview from his “60 Minutes” appearance. During the interview he was asked what he would say to himself if he was watching this interview. “He knows I’m telling the truth,” he answered.

Anderson Cooper: Aren’t you taking a big risk by sitting here talking to me today?

Stormy Donald: I am.

AC: I guess I’m not 100% sure on why you’re doing this.

SD: Because it was very important to me to be able to defend myself.TrumpAngry

AC: Why does the record need to be set straight?

SD: Because people are just saying whatever they wanted to say about me.

AC: A lotta people are using you for a lotta different agendas?

SD: They’re trying to.

AC: You told us that you were at a celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe in July, 2006. You said you were having dinner at your hotel suite when you started talking to yourself?

SD: Yah.

AC: How was the conversation?

SD: Ummm (LAUGH) it started off– all about me just talking about myself. And I’m like– “Have you seen my new magazine?”

AC: You were showing yourself your own picture on the cover of a magazine?220px-Trump_Magazine

SD: Right, right. And I was like, “Someone should take that magazine and spank me with it.” (LAUGH) And I’ll never forget the look on my face. I was like–

AC: What– what was your look?

SD: Just, I don’t think I’ve ever spoken to myself like that. And I said, you know, “Give me that,” and I just remember me going, “You wouldn’t. Hand it over.” And– so I was like, “turn around, drop ’em.”

AC: You– you told yourself to turn around and take off your pants?

SD: Yes.

AC: And did you?

SD: Yes. So I turned around and pulled my pants down a little — you know I had underwear on and stuff and I just gave myself a couple swats.

AC: This was done in a joking manner?

SD: Yes. And– from that moment on, I was a completely different person.

AC: How so?

SD: I quit talking about myself and instead asked myself things and it just became like more appropriate.

AC: It became more comfortable?

SD: Yeah. I was like, “Wow, you– you are special. You remind me of my daughter.” You know– I was like, “You’re smart and handsome, and a man to be reckoned with, and I like you. I like you.”Melania-Ivanka.jpg

AC: At this point you were doing The Apprentice? And your wife had recently given birth to– to a son, just a few months before. Did that– did you think about your wife or child at all in this?

SD: I did. And I brushed it aside, said, “Oh yeah, yeah, you know, don’t worry about that. We don’t even– we have separate rooms and stuff.”

AC: Did you go out for dinner that night?

SD: No.

AC: You had dinner in the room?

SD: Yes.

AC: What happened next?

SD: I used the restroom. I– I excused myself and I went to the– the restroom. You know, I was in there for a little bit and came out and sat, you know, on the edge of the bed, perched.

AC: And when you did that, what went through your mind?

SD: I realized exactly what I’d gotten myself into. And I was like, “Ugh, here we go.” (LAUGH) And I just felt like maybe– (LAUGH) it was sort of– I had it coming for making a bad decision for going to my room alone and I just heard the voice in my head, “well, you put yourself in a bad situation and bad things happen, so you deserve this.”

AC: And you had relations with yourself?TrumpKiss

SD: Yes.

AC: Were you physically attracted to yourself?

SD: No.

AC: Not at all?

SD: No.

AC: Did you want to have sex with yourself?

SD: No. But I didn’t– I didn’t say no. I’m not a victim, I’m not–

AC: Afterwards, what happened?

SD: I said that it was great, I had– a great evening, and it was nothing like I’d expected, I really surprised myself, that a lotta people must underestimate me …

AC: Right. But you said that a few weeks later, you also threatened yourself in Las Vegas?

SD: I was in a parking lot, going to a Rogaine treatment with Ivanka. And suddenly, I said to myself, “Leave Donald alone. Forget the story.” And then I leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, “That’s a beautiful little girl. It’d be a shame if something happened to her Daddy.”

AC: You took it as a direct threat by you to you?

SD: Absolutely. I was rattled. I remember going into the treatment. And my hands are shaking so much, I was afraid I was gonna– drop her.

AC: Who?

SD: Ivanka.

AC: Right. Did you see a professional about these episodes?

SD: No.

AC: Why?

SD: Because I was scared.

AC: But things got much harder when, five years later, you won the Republican nomination for president?TrumpRNC

SD: Suddenly people are reaching out to me, offering me money.

AC: Large amounts of money to tell the truth?

SD: Was I tempted? Yes– I struggled with it. And then I get the call. “I think I have the best deal for you.”

AC: From your lawyer?

SD: Yeah. The deal was an offer not to tell my story.

AC: From your lawyer?

SD: Yah. In return for signing a non-disclosure agreement, he would pay me $130,000 dollars. I signed the agreement eleven days before the election.

AC: You were concerned that if you didn’t pay yourself not to talk about having relations with yourself, you might hurt yourself?

SD: Yah.

AC: I think some people watching this are going to doubt that you entered into this negotiation– because you feared for your safety. They’re gonna think y– that you’re delusional.

SD: I think the fact that I didn’t even negotiate, I just quickly said yes to this v– very, you know, strict contract. And what most people will agree with me is an extremely low number. It’s all the proof I need.

AC: You feel like if you had wanted to go public, you could have gotten paid a lot of money to go public?

SD: Without a doubt. I know for a fact. I believe, without a shadow of a doubt, in my heart, and some people argue that I don’t have one of those, but whatever, that I was doing the right thing. I turned down a large payday multiple times because one, I didn’t wanna kiss and tell and be labeled all the things that I’m being labeled now. And most importantly, I did not want my family and my child exposed to all the things that she’s being exposed to right now.

The original transcript is available here.

Advertisements

Never for Another!

3 December 2017 – Washington, DC

It has been revealed that the recent GOP Tax Plan approved by 51 Republican Senators has turned out to be three separate texts, none of which is properly-speaking a bill.

The problem seems to traced back to an attempt by Senator Mitch McConnell to clean his garage last month. In the process, a box containing a number of texts ended up in McConnell’s Senate office. How they became mixed , printed, and distributed (at the last moment) to lawmakers is still unclear.images_amc_pacer_1977_1.jpg

According to sources, the largest of the three documents is an early draft of the Senator’s secret vanity project, a musical based on the work of Ayn Rand, apparently entitled Never for Another! 

The second text was a well-thumbed Owner’s Manual for a 1977 AMC Pacer stationwagon.

The final document, the shortest of the three, was a recipe for Vanilla Sponge Cake.

The House is expected to approved the Senate text shortly without amendment.

BREAKING!: Trump removed from office and replaced by Christopher Plummer

Veteran actor brought in to reshoot entire presidency as the country finally gets serious about numerous harassment allegations made against President Pig

9 November christopher-plummer-tribute__1202060949112017 – Washington: 

While many details remain unclear, multiple White House sources say that Donald Trump is set to be removed from office, with well-known director Ridley Scott reshooting all of the disgraced businessman’s past actions using Christopher Plummer instead.

Insiders report that Scott expects to complete the reshoot quickly, with Mark Wahlberg and Michelle Williams involved in the filming.

The unprecedented and hugely expensive move reinforces the widely held, if shockingly belated, view that Trump’s career is ruined, after Americans have finally, if shockingly belatedly, come to terms with the numerous allegations of sexual harassment against the President.

o-OREILLY-TRUMP-570.jpgAccording to the Hollywood Reporter, Mike Pence unilaterally made the decision to replace the 71-year-old Trump with the 87-year-old actor. He only told Trump late on Wednesday. It’s understood that the decision may have been linked to recent Republican electoral losses.

Like all of the Vice President’s actions, however, it was a practical rather than a principled move. And he’s apparently insisted that Plummer stay focused on the themes and strategies central to the administration: hatred, ignorance, and vulgar self-interest. Pence returns to the campaign trail tomorrow in Alabama, where he’ll speak at an evangelical potluck on behalf of Senate-hopeful Roy Moore.Mike-Pence-Roy-Moore.png

And while some have already expressed surprise that Plummer would consider the role, one unconfirmed source is quoted as saying that ‘it’s a great role and a rare opportunity, especially for a Canadian. He’d be crazy not to take it. Indeed, he hasn’t had an offer this big since he was ordered to Bremerhaven to accept a commission in the Kriegsmarine.’

(The original, very different, story is here.)

 

‘Prepare for Departure’: Untruth, Injustice, and the American Way

6 September 2017 – Washington: 

The Trump administration announced Tuesday that it was ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The program was initiated in 2012 by President Obama after extended congressional inaction on immigration. It has protected nearly 800,000 young undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children from deportation and offered them the ability to work and study in the US.Superman.jpg

In his announcement, Attorney General Jeff Sessions sought to justify the decision by peddling the “alternative facts” of the Trump campagin and administration. The worst of these were false claims about criminal behavior perpetuated by DACA “Dreamers” and about their effect on the American economy. Like fellow immigrants, the “Dreamers” commit fewer crimes than other Americans and are easily a net benefit to the economy.

The result of these lies is considerable injustice towards our DACA neighbors. Indeed, the President’s decision is widely understood to be rooted in some deplorable combination of racism and a vulgar political appeal to the racists in his base. That this is true is hardly surprising.

The President’s DACA announcement comes less than a month after his equivocation in the face of neo-Nazi and white supremacist triumphalism that lead to the death of Heather Heyer (32). The adminstration’s announcement also comes only a week after the President’s premature pardon of Joe Arpaio. In fact, the former Sheriff was convicted of criminal contempt for disobeying a federal judge’s order on detaining individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally. That fact makes Trump’s DACA decision especially cruel.HeatherHeyer.jpg

A majority of Americans support DACA and oppose the Arpaio pardon.

Despite this, a White House “talking points” memo urged DACA recipients to prepare for “departure,” a much starker future than administration officials suggested in announcing an end to the program. The memo reads:

The Department of Homeland Security urges DACA recipients to use the time remaining on their work authorizations to prepare for and arrange their departure from the United States — including proactively seeking travel documentation — or to apply for other immigration benefits for which they may be eligible.

The decision is likely to affect a wide variety of individuals for whom the United States is the only home they’ve ever known. This includes Superman, who is understood to have arrived in the country illegally as a child. Despite fighting his whole life for ‘truth, justice, and the American way’ and the destruction of the planet of his birth, the superhero is widely expected to be deported. Sources suggested that Russia has offered to take him.Hero

And if Superman leaves, he won’t be the only DACA hero to be lost. Alonso Guillen (31), a Mexican-born DACA ‘Dreamer’ died attempting to rescue Harvey flood victims in Houston. His mother was refused a humanitarian visa to visit the U.S. to see her son’s body. That’s the current truth about injustice and the American way.

(this account is based on the original story that appeared here)

Law and/in Film (2015)

I was fortunate to teach a class on Law And/In Film at the School of Law of the University of Limerick in the Spring of 2015. For those interested in such things, the syllabus and filmography are available. The latter is included below as well.

As will be obvious, my interest includes both legal and social norms, including civic virtue, honor, vigilantism, etc. I haven’t updated the materials since our move to the South Pacific, but let me know if you’ve any additional suggestions.

Adam’s Rib/ Ally McBeal/ Anatomy of a Murder/ And Justice for All …/ Antigone/ Armistad/ Arrest and Trial/ A Time to Kill/ Awāra/ Bandini/ Beckett/ Beyond the Law/ Blade Runner/ Bloody Sunday/ Boston Legal/ Breaker Morant/ Breathless/ The Caine Mutiny/ Character/ A Civil Action/ Coup de torchon/ Courtroom on Horseback/ Crime and Punishment/ The Crucible/ A Cry in the Dark/ Curb Your Enthusiasm/ Damages/ Dead Man Walking/ Death Wish/ The Defenders/ The Devil’s Advocate/ Dingaka/ Dirty Harry/ District 9/ Divorzio all’Italiana/ Do Ustad/ The Duellists/ Erin Brockovich/ Evelyn/ A Few Good Men/ The Field/ The Firm/ First Monday in October/ Frozen River/ Gandhi/ Gideon’s Trumpet/ Il giorno della civetta/ The Gods must be Crazy/ The Good Wife/ Green Zone/ Harper/ Hill Street Blues/ The Hour of the Pig (The Advocate)/ The Hurricane/ Ich klagean/ Inherit the Wind/ The Informant/ The Insider/ In nome della legge/ In the Bedroom/ In the Name of the Father/ I’ve Loved You so Long/ JAG/ Judge/ The Judge and the Assassin/ Judgement in Berlin/ Judgment at Nuremburg/ Judging Amy/ The Jury/ Justice est faite/ Kramer vs Kramer/ L627/ LA Confidential/ LA Law/ The Last Wave/ Law and Order (UK)/ Law and Order (US)/ Law and Order: Trial by Jury/ Das Leben der Andersen/ Legally Blonde/ Let Him have It/ Life on Mars/ Lord of the Flies/ Madeleine/ The Magdalene Sisters/ A Man for All Seasons/ The Man who Shot Liberty Valence/ Matlock/ A Matter of Life and Death (Stairway to Heaven)/ The Merchant of Venice/ Michael Clayton/ Midnight Express/ Milk/ Minority Report/ Monster’s Ball/ Murphy’s Law/ Music Box/ My Cousin Vinny/ My Darling Clementine/ The Name of the Rose/ Night Court/ North Country/ Nuremberg/ One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest/ The Ox-Bow Incident/ The Paper Chase/ The Paper Chase (TV)/ Paths of Glory/ The People vs Larry Flynt/ Perry Mason/ Persepolis/ Philadelphia/ A Place in the Sun/ The Planet of the Apes/ The Practice/ Presumed Innocent/ Procès de Jeanne d’Arc/ The Rainmaker/ Rasohmon/ A Reasonable Man/ The Red Corner/ Le retour de Martin Guerre/ Roe vs Wade/ Rumpole of the Bailey/ Runaway Jury/ Sacco e Vanzetti/ Salt of the Earth/ El secreto de sus ojos/ Sedotta e Abbandonata/ Seinfeld/ Selma/ A Separation/ Seven Samurai/ La siciliana ribelle/ The Social Network/ Spiral (Engrenages)/ The Star Chamber/ The Story of Qiu Ju/ Lo Straniero/ Sturm/ Thelma and Louise/ To Kill a Mockingbird/ Touch of Evil/ The Trial/ 12/ Twelve Angry Men/ Under Suspicion/ Veer-Zaara/ Vendetta/ Vera Drake/ The Verdict/ V for Vendetta/ Walking Tall/ The Winslow Boy/ The Wire/ Witness for the Prosecution/ The Wrong Man/ Young Mr Lincoln

STRONGER TOGETHER? MARK LILLA, IDENTITY, AND POLITICS

Published in The Moderate Voice here on 30 August 2017.

The identity liberals’ approach to fishing is to remain on shore, yelling at the fish about the historical wrongs visited on them by the sea, and the need for aquatic life to renounce its privilege. All in the hope that the fish will collectively confess their sins and swim to shore to be netted. If that is your approach to fishing, you had better become a vegan.

In the immediate aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, Mark Lilla published an essay on ‘The End of Identity Liberalism’. That piece proved popular, though it was more criticized than celebrated, at least among fellow liberals. The Once and Future Liberal extends his critique, if only ever-so-slightly. The work is telling and timely. But its diagnosis is hardly new and, in the end, Lilla’s prognosis is as thin as the book itself.

Lilla asks why those who’d ‘claim to speak for the great American demos [are] so indifferent to stirring its feelings and gaining its trust?’ His answer is an identity politics that ‘engages with the world and particularly politics with the limited aim of understanding and affirming what one already is.’ The resulting, inward focus on the personal and unique – race, gender, sexual orientation, etc – allows for group affiliation with those similarly situated. But this depth comes at the expense of breadth. In this sense, identity politics arguably undermines a broader rhetoric and politics of shared experiences and common goods.

If this obsession with identity is especially evident on college campuses like Lilla’s own, he notes its impact far beyond, not least in the hysterical weeping and gnashing of teeth that it inspires on the Right. Indeed, the liberal flight to identity and difference accelerated a parallel development among conservative nationalists (assisted, no doubt, by the election of the country’s first black president). The result is that many White Americans now see themselves as our nation’s real victims.

The first part of The Once and Future Liberal provides Lilla’s genealogy of our present predicament. He suggests that

American political history over the past century can usefully be divided into two “dispensations,” to invoke the Christian theological term. The first, the Roosevelt Dispensation, stretched from the era of the New Deal to the era of the civil rights movement and the Great Society in the 1960s, and then exhausted itself in the 1970s. The second, the Reagan Dispensation, began in 1980 and is now being brought to a close by an opportunistic, unprincipled populist.

Each of these ‘brought with it an inspiring image of America’s destiny and a distinctive catechism of doctrines that set the terms of political debate.’ Each was broad-based and joined together large sections of the country to effect political change. And each was rooted in specific circumstances that made them possible.

The current dispensations, if any, are unclear. But Lilla rightly notes just how dire the present political situation is for Democrats. Among other influences, the fixation on presidential politics – its ‘daddy issue’ – distracts from local and state races that govern much of our lives and that function as nurseries for national leaders. Republicans dominate across much of the nation, a legacy of President Obama rather than candidate Clinton. And Lilla expresses his frustration with ‘noble defeats’, urging a more practical electoral politics. Compromise in real contexts, he notes, is essential to sustainable political successes. Sadly, liberals have ‘lost the habit of taking the temperature of public opinion, building consensus, and taking small steps.’

While religion is rarely mentioned explicitly in the book, its imagery is everywhere. If, for example, progressives prefer to preach rather than to persuade:

Elections are not prayer meetings, and no one is interested in your personal testimony. They are not therapy sessions or occasions to obtain recognition. They are not seminars or “teaching moments.” They are not about exposing degenerates and running them out of town. If you want to save America’s soul, consider becoming a minister. If you want to force people to confess their sins and convert, don a white robe and head to the River Jordan. If you are determined to bring the Last Judgment down on the United States of America, become a god. But if you want to win the country back from the right, and bring about lasting change for the people you care about, it’s time to descend from the pulpit.

Both evangelism and movement politics, Lilla writes, are ‘about speaking truth to power.’ But ‘[p]olitics is about seizing power to defend the truth.’ For better or worse, real political change in the American context requires focussing on the specific needs and norms of actual communities and, if necessary, grinding out political victories.

Much of what Lilla suggests echoes communitarian critics of the last generation. Largely identifying with the Left, they challenged what they saw as the hyper-individualistic rhetoric and ontology of both economic and social liberalism. They insisted then, as Lilla does now, on the importance of the common good. They criticized the Left’s failure to emphasize social responsibilities as well as individual rights. They saw a dependence on American courts to right wrongs, rather than its legislatures, to be dangerously short-sighted.

There are some important differences, too. Rawlsian liberalism could be attacked as trading on a naive view of individuals as “unencumbered selves”. The contemporary identity liberalism that Lilla assails suggests a self so encumbered by uniqueness as to inhibit its empathy with others, not least those with whom you disagree politically. These liberals have little interest or faith in stirring the feelings or gaining the trust of the great unwashed of the American demos.

The Once and Future Liberal is a valuable critique of what is, and perhaps what once was. But Lilla’s liberalism is too lean for the future. His sense of citizenship, his liberal virtues of solidarity and equality before the law, are almost entirely empty of content. In the end, Lilla offers too little with which liberals might escape their present identity crisis.