Trump is going to call Obama the N word at one of his rallies and his sycophants will argue he said Nagger because Obama likes to complain.
...hm. ....kind of makes the whole idea of burning books seem not-so-far-out there as I might have thought. ...more contributions from Nazi Germany to the American Republic, I guess.
Btw, Jr.'s beard is flat terrible. I'm usually encouraging everyone to grow a beard, but that thing looks like felt glued to his face.
It makes him look rugged. I bet he's capable of going out, killing elephants, and posing with their tails. That's just how rugged and resourceful his bearded ass is.
there was a posthumous Presidential Citizens Medal ceremony at the White House yesterday honoring a man named Rick Rescorla. This 2002 piece in The New Yorker tells part of the story of Rescorla's life. A difficult and moving tribute to an extraordinary individual. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/02/11/the-real-heroes-are-dead
Some of trump's most bizarre lies involve "strong people, very strong men and women, and almost all of them were crying"... and as usual, some of the tweet responses are hilarious...
Par for the course as he continues the destruction of our government institutions and country at large... How a Trump Administration Proposal Could Worsen Public Health Since Donald Trump took office, he has looked to weaken environmental regulations, with hazardous consequences: during the past two years, American air quality has worsened, after decades of steady improvement. Now, the Trump Administration has proposed a new measure that would limit the research that the Environmental Protection Agency can use when regulating public health. A draft proposal, obtained this week by the Times, calls for the E.P.A. to base regulations only on studies whose raw data is made public. The problem is that most studies of the health effects of environmental hazards are based on individual medical histories and involve confidentiality agreements. The new measure would also be retroactive, potentially undercutting many existing regulations. (My colleague Carolyn Kormann wrote last year about an earlier version of the proposal.) To discuss the measure’s potential effects, I recently spoke by phone with Douglas Dockery, a professor of environmental epidemiology at the T. H. Chan School of Public Health, at Harvard. Dockery was the lead author of the landmark Six Cities study, from 1993, which gathered data on thousands of Americans and found a link between life expectancy and air quality. If the draft proposal moves forward, the study, which has been the basis for public-health regulations for more than two decades, could become inadmissible. During my conversation with Dockery, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed how the study was conducted, the importance of confidentiality agreements in scientific research, and Dockery’s fears about what the proposed E.P.A. policy could mean for Americans’ health. What was your reaction to this latest policy change? There is a long history of this. The earliest recollection, for me, was going to testify in the Senate, shortly after the original study was published, and walking up to Capitol Hill, and coming across these guys in white jackets with signs saying, “Show us the data.” I didn’t know what that was about, but they were from the Citizens for a Sound Economy. Which was an industry front group of some sort? Yes, exactly. [The group, funded principally by the Koch brothers, went out of existence in 2004.] So this has been an issue for twenty-five or thirty years. When the E.P.A. proposed the standard, in 1997, there were calls at that time for release of the data. O.K., let’s take a step back. Tell me about this study and how it came about. The study was started in the mid-nineteen-seventies to examine the effects of expected changes in air quality in the United States as a result of depending more on domestic fossil fuels—that is, coal—for power production. It was funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Electric Power Research Institute, and we got some support from the E.P.A. How did you conduct the study? There were many aspects to the study. We recruited children in elementary school and were examining their growth and how their lungs grew over time. We also had a random sample of adults in each of the communities, and we asked them about their occupational history, their smoking history, and many other factors, and measured their height and weight and lung function, and then basically just followed them for the next fifteen years or so, until they died. We then looked at how long they lived, and showed that those who lived in dirtier communities were dying earlier than those who lived in cleaner communities, after adjusting for age and sex and smoking and occupation and obesity and all the other factors that we had measured. Why do you need confidentiality agreements? We are asking these people for a lot of individual information and personal characteristics. This was all done by face-to-face interviews with them, and going back and seeing them every couple of years, or writing to them. A lot of personal contact was required. Now you do these studies by trolling databases that are available, but this was depending on having the trust of the individuals in the study to provide you the information, knowing that you weren’t going to be using it for other purposes. So the study comes out in 1993, and then, later, you go to testify. What happened? When the study came out, there wasn’t any reaction initially. It was only several years later, when the E.P.A. proposed to create a standard for fine particles, after the American Cancer Society study came out [which corroborated the Six Cities study], that the industry started demanding access to the original data, to see the individual measurements for people in the study. We said that we cannot do that based on the confidentiality agreements we had signed with individuals, and the other confidentiality agreements we had signed, actually, with each of the states and the federal government for access to the mortality data. We were looking for a way to get around that and provide access to that data while still respecting the confidentiality of the participants, and so we turned to the Health Effects Institute, which was an organization funded by the E.P.A. and the automobile industry, and asked them, as a body that had a reputation as being independent and try to bridge government and industry, to organize an independent review. And they agreed to do that.
Connies don't like the EPA. You can bottle up free air and sell it for a nickel if you bribe lobby pennies to your Republican congressmen. So what if families and children choke on the air of their own doing... Work Harder, and move to a better community lazy maggots! It's Will o' the People meets Free Market Capitalism That's so America that you can't out-America it even further.
Military leadership, the ACLU, members of the platoon all offended by trump's pardoning war criminals...
So... is there a sudden health issue, or is trump (like everything else he does) purposely breaking presidential norms by not publicizing in advance a normally scheduled physician's exam?
This is so far down the list, it doesn't even register. I have no concern as to when he decides to get a physical or heads to the doctor for something else.
