A remarkable performance from the opening concert of Celtic Connections festival in Glasgow - broadcast while Trump's EOs were starting to do their ignorant and brutal worst. Eloquent, humane and moving.
Find it here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04q5cmf

Nigel, this is stunning. Liberating. Thank you.

The list you refer to was of "countries of concern", and Obama imposed certain visa-waiver restrictions to people who had visited one of those countries - a far cry from Trump's cruel and dictatorial blanket ban which is clearly aimed not at potential terrorists, but at all Muslims, including refugees from horrors for which America is at least partly responsible.

I can assure you that I don't own Breitbart or Fox News.

It is clear where most decent human beings stand, and "it ain't with Trump."

Thank you for linking to that performance, Nigel. It's stunning.

You still can't get it right, Brian. I'm worried for you. If it were a blanket ban on all muslims, no country where muslims hail from would be exempt from the EO. Come on, man. You can do better than this, can't you?

Nigel,

Thanks for that link. Another great reason for being a member of the sphere.

cheers,
Greg

Thank you, Nigel.

Yes, Charlie, I'm looking at all the countries linked to terrorism that are left out of the ban, and am wondering why. Earlier you mentioned Trump's business interests being irrelevant, or even a positive. But if he's placing his business interests above our national security, that's a problem.

If the ban were really only about "keeping the country safe," I'd expect a lot of overlap between the nationalities of Muslim terrorists who have attacked on U.S. soil and the seven countries mentioned in the ban. But not one of the high-profile attacks mentioned by Trump and his staff in defense of the executive order involved people born in the seven countries affected by the ban.

They are using the 9/11, San Bernardino, and Orlando attacks to justify an executive order that wouldn't have affected any of those attackers.

And check out these two graphics from the Washington Post (too huge to put them in the post here, sorry, if you want to see them you'll have to visit them via these links--and actually, they display better if you just go to full article):

Graphic #1

Graphic #2

The full article mentions that Somalia is the birthplace of the guy who drove his car into a crowd at Ohio State last November and then knifed people, injuring 11. But he seems to be the only "bad dude" who might have been stopped by this ban.

Conclusion: Either the ban is more about making a big show of bullying Muslims from countries whose goodwill Trump deems expendable than it is about addressing actual security concerns, or Trump is spectacularly incompetent at addressing actual security concerns.

Or both.

Yikes.

A few quotations from the article, and then I'll stop:

To follow up on Julie's post: this new article in The Atlantic, about how Trump is building an autocracy, says a lot about his mixing of personal business interests and national politics. Add to that the information in this Guardian article about why Steve Bannon "wants to destroy secularism" and you get the current immigrant crisis.

Btw, notice that the Administration timed the announcement of Bannon's role in the National Security Council to coincide with the one about Muslim countries. The latter attracts much notice and uproar, while Steve B. slips in the back door.

Charlie, it should be obvious to even the meanest intelligence that I was referring to the total ban on Muslims from the countries on Trump's list. This is particularly clear since one of my points was the fact that no Muslims are banned from countries where Trump has business dealings. Try to get a grip on these relatively simple facts, old chap - or are you being deliberately obtuse?

"I did a number of hallucinogens when I was younger to prepare me for any eventual reality. I have to say, I didn’t see this one coming.” – Lewis Black

Not bad, Jim! You should have posted it in metrical, just to stir the pot.

I'm not a Trump supporter, but I find the comparisons to Hitler particularly silly. If he starts systematically herding and murdering innocent people, then we can start with the Hitler comparisons. It looks to me that he's probably heading for impeachment at some point.

Very sorry to be the bad cop, Jim, but you're not allowed to post your own poem in a GT thread.

Jayne

But it wasn't me! It was someone else whose shoes I put on!

Oops! That fact slipped my mind Jayne, sorry! I guess I was just so thrilled to have coughed out a metric poem I forgot about the fences we put in place to make this a good place : )

Thanks

Jayne,

May I ask why it's against the rules to post our own poems in GT threads without bringing out more of the bad cop in ya? :D

I can understand why that would be frowned on in the workshop fora, but I don't (yet) understand why it's wrong here. Are we allowed to link to one of our poems? I did that in the last thread I started here in GD. I've just deleted the link. Ian quoted me, however, so the link is still in the thread.

I found that my poem (which was workshopped on the Sphere) was a better—and perhaps the best, given the thread's subject—explanation of my thoughts than anything else I might have written.

Apologies for going off topic. :o

No problem, William.
The rule is there to prevent people promoting their own work in a discussion thread (not that Jim was doing any promoting).

Here is Alex's explanation.

People forget, and occasionally post amusing little ditties to emphasise a point they want to make, which is not a big deal in the great scheme of things, but we all agree to abide by the rules when we sign up. The staff are there to make sure everyone does! :)

Jayne

Isn't Trump's list actually Obama's list? That's what the media say over here. Even the Beeb.

It's complicated. But all the fact-checkers whose reports I could find remained unpersuaded that this is basically Obama's list, or Obama's immigration policy.

Snopes.com rates the following claim as a "Mixture" of true and false:

PolitiFact's rates the following statement by Trump "Mostly False":

The Public Broadcasting System (which, by the way, Trump's advisors want to defund or privatize) calls Trump's statement "a big stretch" because "There are a number of key differences" [Evaluation here--scroll down to the third and fourth fact-checked claims on the webpage].

And of course Obama himself has broken his silence to say he disapproves of the ban. Here's the assessment at the end of yesterday's New York Times article:

More importantly, the temporary halt to immigration or travel was because several of those countries named had little to no form of organized government or had/has a government hostile to the U.S. which seems perfectly reasonable to me. National security seems to be a legit reason. CIC's try to do that since that's what they've sworn under oath to do.

Maybe he could be impounded. Like they do in the NHL ... two weeks in the penalty box, perhaps?

Or, like an abandoned car, impounded and sent to the scrap-yard.

Time will tell. I read a Snopes article about his link to the known criminal Jeffrey Epstein that made my skin crawl. Snopes is reputed to be legit and as unbiased as possible. I refuse to make quick judgments (a famous Jewish carpenter advised me of the danger in that), but one can only do so much.

**NOTE: I do not believe the Snopes article I linked to. I just thought I'd do it to see what others think. I'm interested in hearing as objective an opinion as possible. The more I travel the Internet, the more I want to think I'm a brain in a vat!

Only thing I wonder about is, if he's impeached, who are we left with?

Time will tell.

Snopes just reported on the existence of the lawsuit and did not opine on whether the charges were correct or not. What bothered me during the campaign was that the existence of the lawsuit was not reported by the mainstream media. I find it hard to imagine that when Obama was running in 2008, the mainstream media would not have made much more of accusations under oath, supported by witnesses, of child rape and murderous threats. And recall when Bill Clinton ran for his first term, the unproven allegations of the Paula Jones lawsuit were a huge story even though her charges were far less serious than the ones that were being made against Trump.

I do not believe the accusations either. Nonetheless, history is choked with men in high places being expert at covering up the truth with money and/or death threats.

One truth is plain, Trump was friends with Jeffrey Epstein and defended him. Even Epstein himself admitted that he paid underaged girls to, ahem...massage him, because he was fond of the, ahem...spiritual benefits of being massaged by an underaged girl.

Now, who the hell would defend a man like that? And I still can't get over the fact that a man as obviously intelligent as Trump would stick with that absurd comb-over!

Buckethead, a brilliant guitarist and composer, insists on wearing his KFC hat, and even declined on being Ozzy Osbourne's guitarist because he refused to ditch the bucket.

But Bucket is not our President. Even someone as candid and unconcerned with what people said about him as Frank Zappa was smart enough to wear a suit and tie to a courtroom.

I think for certain jobs your public image is important. But then again, Trump seems to revel in all the negative press. He does wear nice suits, though.

Roger, I appreciate your post.

I wouldn't have paid any attention to the rape allegations were it not for someone I dearly respect calling him a rapist. As I said to him, I realize that those on the left - at least several I know on Facebook and elsewhere - have said that all bets are off, that they are no longer playing by the rules, and that resistance to Trump will involve whatever they can do to drum up attention to what he's doing.

I strongly feel the opposite. Now is the time for truth, more than ever. We can seek for the truth in a rational manner, and be patient. The Net is crammed full of nonsense, websites that enjoy spreading confusion, and people who think it's all quite funny.

John Lennon: "All I want is the truth. Just give me some truth!"

Ad-homs are useless and counter-effective (at least for those of us who only reach a few people), and that famous Jewish carpenter warned against that as well. Yes, I know Lennon's song is full of ad-homs!

Nigel Mace posted this earlier (#121) And I can't express enough how powerful a poem song this is reflecting on our current situation here in the U.S. and by extension around the world.

It deserves multiple watches and listenings. It is rich is true wisdom -- and it's directed specifically, directly, emphatically at Mr. Trump and his Scottish heritage from which he has turned away but from which he cannot separate.

Thanks again Nigel for this.

Nigel: "Eloquent, humane and moving."
Karen Polwart: "I Burn But Am Not Consumed"
Find it here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04q5cmf

Jim, Mark, Gregory and Ann - so glad that Karine Polwart's wonderful performance of "I Burn But Am Not Consumed" struck home so well for Karine is a very great singer and a truly lovely person.
Part of her - and, in Scotland, our - horror at the whole clamjamfry of Trump and his circle's behaviour, is based in our identification with how we see ourselves as true internationalists - the polar opposite of the isolationist, 'British exceptionalist', post-imperial nationalism of the currently dominant (in provincial England and Westminster) Brexitanian ideologues, from the over-anxious May right down to the repellent Farage.

As the tide for a second independence referendum rises here - forced on by the Tory government's intransigent unwillingness to listen to our First Minister's compromise solutions for Brexit in relation to Scotland - there will be fresh debate about a Scottish anthem. Many will favour the great, late Hamish Henderson's "Freedom Come All Ye" - a fine poem and a moving song. Though I personally fear that its Scots is too difficult, for too many, to fulfill such a purpose, this rendition by Karine in the extraordinary setting of the chapel built by Italian POWs on Orkney during WWII, is an experience to melt anybody's heart.
Its sentiments we could all do with - on either side the 'English' Channel, of our mutual 'pond', or you, on either side of your aisle.

You can find it at - https://vimeo.com/73406037 and the full text of Hamish's poem at - http://www.scottishpoetrylibrary.org...om-come-all-ye

Hey Bill. While I do suspect Trump of some involvement in Epstein's world, and wouldn't be shocked by any of the accusations being true, my original rapist tag on him is from other accounts including his attack on his former wife. He transcript alone from the Billy Bush stupidity was a documentary on the mindset of a date rapist. It is sad that the idea of "actual rapist" has, through desensitization, come to skirt past cornering women and forcefully assaulting them, or violently raping your wife. He is, I suppose, in a legal terms merely a proven sexual assault fan. And president despite a tape of his own confessions to such and sworn testimony of others to multiple events. Which alone should tell you that our desensitization as a species and culture to violence against women is so serious that most of us are likely suspect in our reading of this. It is probably much worse than our jaded male filters can even assess.

Gorgeous, Nigel. Just gorgeous. I needed this to fully enjoy it, but I found it. :)

I'm sorry to leave that beautiful thought for the following.

Charlie's been warning us of Epstein for years, in association with Bill Clinton, e.g. in this Fox News link, if you've the stomach for it.

Seems there's enough slime in that bucket to splash Donald Trump, too.

But it won't make any difference to Trump's conservative base.

The Religious Right is thrilled with the way Trump is doing what they perceive to be God's work. After decades of ineffectual grumbling or gridlock, in a wasteland of too-liberal Democrats and too-moderate Republicans, they're now getting what they've longed for: they've got their war on Islam, they've got their first of potentially several Supreme Court picks on the way to eliminating abortion and gay rights, and soon they'll have their so-called pro-Israel policies. A lot of Jewish Israelis are going to be very, very surprised when they find out that certain extremist Christian groups define "Israel" as themselves, the spiritual descendants of Abraham, so "pro-Israel" doesn't really mean what it sounds like. But oh, well. The geographical Israel is important mainly because it plays a key role in conservative Christians' longed-for End Times, which Trump will no doubt hasten. (Since the Second Coming of Christ is what ISIS wants to bring about, too, I'm sure ISIS is thrilled with the assistance.)

I'm sure Trump's boast from last year, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose voters" (video here), is not far from the truth. The Religious Right knows that Trump is evil, but they don't care. They think Beelzebub is doing God's work despite himself.

Trust me, they won't care about this Epstein stuff, if it manages to stick. And they won't care if there's proof of conflicts of interest, or fraudulent business practices, or tax evasion, or misrepresentation of Trump's wealth, or favors owed to Russia, or ANYTHING. The Religious Right had enough practice justifying their boy's other morally reprehensible stuff along the way, in the name of a higher good, that they will have no problem finding a way to justify anything, at this point.

And on that depressing note, I'm going to bed.

No, I'm not--I'm going to listen to Karine Polwart sing that positive song in that beautiful space again. And then I'm going to bed.

And you guys wonder why I didn't support Trump for president. The allegations won't touch him. It's too late. The counter argument will always be Clinton. No one cares, and you wanna know why? Because Clinton was elected and re-elected and if it weren't for term limits on him, you'd have voted for him again. Such hypocrisy. Someday, the Devil will run on the democrat ticket and ya'll will vote for him (or her) too. Thanks, Julie.

I don't know who you are talking to, but far from voting for him, I was down with direct confrontation and resistance to his foreign policies and his person in those days. Clinton isn't the antonym for Trump anymore than tuberculosis is the antonym of ebola but that doesn't mean people who, when forced to choose, go with the former don't recognize disease. They can just distinguish between symbolism and policies that stand a fair chance of occasionally increasing the distance between life and the violences of the State and those that innately exclude any options but those violences.

I hear you Julie. When and if people finally figure out what the Church has actually accomplished in the polis in the last decade, I will surprised if they don't burn half the steeples to the ground. Not that there aren't good churches or that the church is the sole actor here but eventually you do have to pay the checks you sign so clearly with your real name.

Julie, well-said. Sometimes the light is brightest just before the darkness.

Cheers,
Greg

Yes, Julie, Yes.

And Greg, I loved your comment, “Sometimes the light is brightest just before the darkness” in the context of Julie's ending in #149.

Charlie: "And you guys wonder why I didn't support Trump for president. The allegations won't touch him. It's too late. The counter argument will always be Clinton. No one cares, and you wanna know why? Because Clinton was elected and re-elected and if it weren't for term limits on him, you'd have voted for him again. Such hypocrisy. Someday, the Devil will run on the democrat ticket and ya'll will vote for him (or her) too."

I'm afraid Charlie's right... But I'm not sure... if any of us are. It's so messy.

I'm not sure if anyone mentioned, but the lyrics to the Polwart song can be found here.

Nope, Gregory. The light is never brightest just before the dark. The dark may be darkest just before the dawn. As in England in 1942 I am told.

John,
I think Greg was playing off of "It's always darkest before the dawn" to Julie's closing comment in #149 that she was going to watch the video (bright) one more time before going to bed (dark) to put her in a better frame of mind. I think.

Although your reference is a point well taken by me.

I firmly disagree with that Jim (and Charlie- surprise surprise). Liberals have a hell of a time building consensus, even when the candidate isn't the devil. Or worse, Trump (I'm assuming the devil is at least intelligent).

Yes, I was commenting on Julie's lucid prose just before bedtime, unless she works the night shift. Then maybe John is correct. HA!

Cheers,
Greg