@matthewr
@DonQuixote99
@Marky-Mark
i really should stop posting late at night, but failing to do so this evening would have seriously interfered with sleep, mainly because i expect a lot better from the 3 of you -- in your own unique ways, of course.
i watched the BBC america news a few hours ago and they had on the washington post journalist who broke the trump-talking-with-foreign-leader story. it was all smiles, self-congratulation and almost no supporting facts.
unidentified source says/claims trump said
something to
some foreign leader: dear readers and viewers, please fill in the blanks with your own extreme prejudices.
is this really different to the classic dog whistle tactics of the right? apart from quality of language, does it rise above a gossip piece in a supermarket magazine?
if we're truly concerned about what may have happened -- and i actually am -- should the story not be about congress failing to intervene immediately and informing the public? or maybe why congress is unable to do that? perhaps wonder why the greatest democracy on earth has such a catastrophic relationship with whistle-blowers? even better would be to use the incident as an excuse to argue for total transparency of government, including "intelligence" agencies -- you'd figure journalists would be all for it.
my second point is about the "norms" a couple of you have referenced. this is hardly a new attack, but it always strikes me as a fundamentally downton abby argument, which is baffling on lefty pfm. i certainly get the bit about not speaking like a charlatan or lying almost all the time. i part ways when the objections stray into the territory of saying things out loud that are only supposed to be understood. i really object when it comes to matters of war or rampant capitalism and the entire mainstream media lines up with authoritarian fervour. it's not just attacking trump from the right, it's an attack from a position not far off from the nazi right.
another part of these norms, which may be in play (we can't know definitively because the story reveals almost nothing, but i'm reacting to my perception of dominant assumptions) is the implicit moral superiority of the anglo world in terms of deciding which foreigners deserve punishment and should certainly not be spoken to casually over the phone. that definitely works well for a modern day anglo consumerist who doesn't need the extra pressure of worrying about really serious life-and-death social justice or racism/xenophobia as it occurs in non-domestic contexts. it can actually facilitate the scoring of some easy social media points, which is what political life seems mainly to be about at the moment.
***
genuine (7 year-old) cuban rum bonus:
if the president should not have unsupervised conversations with foreign leaders over the telephone, then why can he do something equivalent at a g7 (or g-whatever) conference? we've all seen it happen with them seated side-by-side in those hotel lobby armchairs or at dining room table. can he have private conversations with anyone? are there actual laws that anyone follows? again, in addition to what i pointed out above, shouldn't the washington post be asking these fundamental questions?
