Chinese hackers are breaching Navy contractors to steal everything from ship-maintenance data to missile plans, officials and experts said, triggering a top-to-bottom review of cyber vulnerabilities.
A series of incidents in the past 18 months has pointed out the service’s weaknesses, highlighting what some officials have described as some of the most debilitating cyber campaigns linked to Beijing.
Cyberattacks affect all branches of the armed forces but contractors for the Navy and the Air Force are viewed as choice targets for hackers seeking advanced military technology, officials said.
Navy contractors have suffered especially troubling breaches over the past year, one U.S. official said.
The data allegedly stolen from Navy contractors and subcontractors often is highly sensitive, classified information about advanced military technology, according to U.S. officials and security researchers. The victims have included large contractors as well as small ones, some of which are seen as lacking the resources to invest in securing their networks.
One major breach of a Navy contractor, reported in June, involved the theft of secret plans to build a supersonic anti-ship missile planned for use by American submarines, according to officials. The hackers targeted an unidentified company under contract with the Navy’s Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Newport, R.I.
The hackers have also targeted universities with military research labs that develop advanced technology for use by the Navy or other service branches, according to analysis conducted by cyber firms as well as people familiar with the matter.
While Brooklyn is known for liberal silos such as Park Slope and Williamsburg, the Brooklyn I’d known as a child was politically diverse. A number of my former classmates and colleagues remain Republicans. And some of them have come to my aid at the darkest, most tragic times in my life. Many are still my friends. They are police officers, nurses and combat veterans; they are Jews, immigrants, Asians, Latinos and African-Americans. Some would vote for Donald Trump: Conservative Jews who liked his pro-Israel stance; Wall Street workers who liked his business background; rank-and-file police who wanted to stick it to New York Mayor Bill de Blasio; visible minorities who liked his “America First” rhetoric, and imagined that he’d bring back secure manufacturing jobs. These promises may have been empty and dishonest. But they resonated with a lot of people, not all of them “troglodytes.”
I also witnessed something else that alarmed me. The charges of Russian collusion against Trump’s campaign—while being a completely legitimate (and ongoing) political concern—were curdling into Russophobic hysteria among some members of the New York literary caste.
“I think Russians have been at the root of our discord for years,” Daniel announced at one point. “I think they own the government and the NRA.…They are the true enemy…Seriously, #russia, fuck you.” Caught up in these negative reveries, he would lapse into Swiftian absurdism, declaring at one point, “I hope we deport every single one of you motherfuckers back to Russia where you’ll live in gulags.” Eventually, Twitter deleted Daniel’s account after he allegedly posted threatening tweets against other users.
On another occasion, after I refused to discuss my Soviet immigration experience via Facebook and suggested we talk in person instead, the daughter of a renowned American novelist told me to “honestly fuck off. Go translate media monitoring kits for Trump… How did you all get into our country? Jesus Christ…You are a great reason why we need immigration reform now.”
As a New York writer, I’m supposed to be reflexively hostile to Trump voters—a political breed that often is caricatured as a bunch of racist Appalachian hillbillies. But because of what I do for a living, and who my friends are, I’ve learned that Trump’s enemies can be every bit as Manichean and hysterical as Trump’s supporters.
Americans are largely against the country becoming more politically correct.
Fifty-two percent of Americans, including a majority of independents, said they are against the country becoming more politically correct and are upset that there are too many things people can’t say anymore. About a third said they are in favor of the country becoming more politically correct and like when people are being more sensitive in their comments about others.
That’s a big warning sign for Democrats heading into the 2020 primaries when cultural sensitivity has become such a defining issue with the progressive base.
Drones shutdown Gatwick airport. When they find the asshole responsible, instead of trying him, they should just turn him over to the people whose flights he’s delayed…
“A prominent ‘Republican’ women’s political action committee that regularly receives national media attention for its criticisms of President Donald Trump and the GOP is bankrolled by three liberal billionaire donors and activists, Federal Election Commission filings show.” (Hat tip: Ace of Spades HQ.)
The easiest way to sum up the failure of the Weekly Standard is this: Why would anyone on the right offer financial support to the Weekly Standard when CNN will call us a racist for free? And why would anyone on the left offer financial support to the Weekly Standard when CNN will call us a racist for free?
Sarcasm aside, that is the Weekly Standard’s primary problem. In the age of Trump, the publication offers nothing we cannot get everywhere else in the elite media, nothing we cannot find at the far-left Washington Post, MSNBC, New York Times, CNN, etc.
Smug virtue-signaling and superior Trump-bashing are the cheapest commodities in today’s news business. They are literally everywhere. And so, instead of offering a unique voice and perspective in an ocean of left-wing media, the Weekly Standard instead chose to sit in the middle of this ocean and sell saltwater.
Back in the late 1990s, I used to subscribe to The Weekly Standard, and they did some good articles. They were the first place I read about how the French government had lost control of the predominately Muslim banlieues. But I dropped my subscription because I wasn’t reading as many magazines any longer as my Internet reading increased, and National Review filled my “what I read at breakfast and dinner” needs.
There were always oddities in The Weekly Standard‘s worldview, including their embrace of “National Greatness” conservatism, which struck me as Big Government with a conservative facade. But judging from their Twitter timelines, the 2016 election seems to given them a more severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome than any other institution on the right. They became the voice for that tiny strand of elite conservatism that cared more about properly creased trousers and liking the right opera conductors than improving economic conditions for the middle class or reigning in the excesses of big government. They’d rather join forces with Democrats than let the uncouth ruffian Trump besmirch their class credentials by winning without them.
Now some tweets on the subject:
Writers for @weeklystandard have written fundraising copy for Peter Strzok, called for gun control, praised censorship of conservatives, endorsed pro-abortion Democrats, and even run sock puppet smear campaigns against their own @dcexaminer colleague @SalenaZito.
after consultation with my family and at their request, i have decided not to travel back in time to assassinate hitler or attempt to save the titanic. i do not make this decision lightly – i make it out of respect for my family. but for their concerns, i would do it
After consulting with my friends and family, I have decided not to ask Rihanna out for a date. I do not make this decision lightly. But for their concerns, I would totally do it, and she would totally say yes.
I remain hopeful Rihanna will find the right partner.
Avenatti was polling at 1 percent. His handling of Julie Swetnick was a disaster. He was recently charged with domestic violence. He doesn't have Trump's instincts and Democrats don't have an appetite for a Trump-like candidate. He would have lost badly and embarrassed himself.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is breaking up marriages as “woke” women leave their sane husbands. “Part of what causes fights is that I don’t want to hear his side, and he hates that. Mostly I tell him he needs to think about this more clearly before he talks to me about it, and then I walk away.” Golly, can’t imagine why their marriage isn’t a Hallmark movie.
Texas speaker-in-waiting Rep. Dennis Bonnen will speak at the Texas Public Policy Foundation orientation in January. “One of the open secrets about the capitol in recent sessions has been the degree to which the Straus/Gordon Johnson team despises TPPF. The Straus/Gordon Johnson team loathes TPPF more than any conservative organization. That includes Empower Texans.” That’s some bold talk…
MSBNC in action:
MSNBC anchors get completely rekt by their own reporter on the ground covering the migrant caravan.
ANCHOR: "It's innocent women and children right?"
REPORTER: "From what we've seen, the majority are actually men and some of these men have not articulated that need for asylum" pic.twitter.com/tWBTkeGmSE
In what appears to be the latest in a string of financial crimes and scandals that have generated some $18 billion in fines since the financial crisis, prosecutors are investigating whether two employees in the bank’s wealth management division helped clients set up accounts in offshore tax havens, including the British Virgin Islands, and possibly allowed criminals to move money through these shelters, some of which may have flowed through accounts at the bank (other employees may also have been involved, prosecutors said). According to Frankfurt prosecutors, the investigation, which stems from revelations contained in the ‘Panama Papers’, covers behavior that stretched through this year, meaning that it could become a blemish on the performance of the bank’s newly-installed CEO Christian Sewing.
Another jihad attack against Jews the media won’t label as a jihad attack:
General Motor’s announcement that it’s cutting thousands of jobs and closing several plants has met intense criticism because the company was the beneficiary of a $50 billion government bailout in 2009—which wound up costing taxpayers $11 billion—even as the government awarded the United Auto Workers’ health-care fund a 17.5 percent stake in the restructured company. Like many big American companies, GM has been the recipient of government-subsidized largesse over several decades. One particular piece of this history is especially noteworthy now. Nearly 40 years ago, in one of the most egregious cases of eminent domain abuse in American history, GM built a plant on land seized from homeowners and businesses in Detroit, obliterating a multi-ethnic neighborhood known as Poletown—all for a plant that will now be shuttered so that GM can invest somewhere else in new manufacturing facilities.
Beset by foreign competition, America’s automakers began retrenching in the late 1970s, closing manufacturing facilities in and around Detroit even as the city struggled to rebound from the riots of 1967. Dodge had closed a giant plant in Hamtramck, a suburb that adjoins the Poletown neighborhood, and when GM announced that it wanted to build a new plant somewhere in America with modern industrial technology—though it was closing plants elsewhere—Detroit officials pleaded for an opportunity to find a site for the new facility. Mayor Coleman Young came up with a plan: seize some 1,500 homes and 144 businesses in Poletown, a low-income community of 3,500 where Polish immigrants had once settled. By the early 1980s, Poletown was a more diverse neighborhood, housing older Poles but also more recent immigrants and black Detroit residents. As the city deteriorated, Poletown remained relatively stable. “There is no place for us to go, no place we want to go,” two elderly residents told the New York Times in 1980, to no avail. To Detroit officials, Poletown’s appeal was its proximity to the Dodge site, providing some 465 acres for GM—if officials could just move out those inconveniently located businesses and people. To help make it happen, in April 1980 the Michigan legislature passed its infamous “quick-take” law, providing that government agencies could seize land deemed necessary for a “public purpose” and determine later how much to compensate the private landowners. That law accelerated the process of clearing out Poletown.
The cost of the ingredients of a Thanksgiving feast for ten are now said to cost an average worker their wages for under 2.25 hours of labor. A 16 pound turkey now costs less than what an average worker earns in an hour.
We live lives of such astonishing wealth that we scarcely notice it. Only a fool would rather be an Emperor in 1600 than a poor person living today. Compared to a king of several centuries ago, poor people in the developed world live in astonishing luxury. In the developed world, we eat fresh vegetables in midwinter, our homes are heated toasty warm in the winter and cooled and dehumidified in the summer, we travel in enormous comfort (no wooden wheeled carriages without shock absorbers for us, and indeed, we can fly to the other side of the world for a quite modest sum of money), our medical care is incomparably better, our beds more comfortable, our entertainment options beyond any ancient potentate’s wildest dreams. This is true even of quite poor people, at least in developed countries.
Whence comes this bounty? It is not because of union organizing, or minimum wage laws, or the triumph of the proletariat over the evil factory owners. Indeed, a few centuries ago, there were few mass production factories to triumph over.
No, the source of this bounty is productivity, and the engines of productivity are deferred consumption being invested in improved infrastructure (that is, capital accumulation), improved technology, and specialization. Thanks to our better means of making things and the sacrifices needed to construct those means, productivity per worker is orders of magnitude higher, and thus there’s more stuff to go around.
Centuries ago, it required something like 750 hours of human labor to produce a simple tunic; today it requires minutes of human labor. Almost no one is capable of truly internalizing this change. The shirt on your back once was a valuable capital good requiring four months of constant labor to produce. Now it’s not even worth repairing if it tears, it’s too inexpensive to replace it. Because of this change in productivity, even quite poor people in developed countries own many sets of clothing.
Centuries ago, there was barely enough food to go around, and often far too little, as a result of which starvation was common. It required constant labor by most of the population to produce enough food. Then, mechanization of agriculture set in, and the production of synthetic fertilizer, and pest control, and improved breeding methods; today, it requires very few people to grow more than enough food for everyone. There is so much food, in fact, that obesity has become a disease of the poor, an unprecedented development in human history.
So it is across the span of consumer goods. The amount of labor it requires to produce enough light to read at night has gone down by orders of magnitude, and the quantity of light produced by an ordinary lightbulb is 100 times greater than that of a candle at a tiny fraction of the price. Many goods didn’t even exist before; in my father’s youth there were no televisions, and now people can buy 4k 130cm flat screens.
People have a hard time believing that weight control isn’t just a matter of calories eaten and calories burned. But there is an alternate hypothesis about obesity, which is what my group studies. The carbohydrate-insulin model argues that overeating isn’t the underlying cause of long-term weight gain. Instead, it’s the biological process of gaining weight that causes us to overeat.
Here’s how this hypothesis goes: Consuming processed carbohydrates (especially refined grains, potato products and sugars), causes our bodies to produce more insulin. Too much insulin, one of the most powerful hormones, forces our fat cells into calorie-storage overdrive. These rapidly growing fat cells then hoard too many calories, leaving too few for the rest of the body. So we get hungry, and if we persist in eating less, our metabolism slows down.
Snip.
We started the participants on a calorie-restricted diet until they lost 10%-14% of their body weight. After that, we randomly assigned them to eat exclusively one of three diets, containing either 20%, 40% or 60% carbohydrates.
For the next five months, we made sure they didn’t gain or lose any more weight, adjusting how much food they received, but keeping the ratio of carbohydrates constant. By doing so, we could directly measure how their metabolism responded to these differing levels of carbohydrate consumption.
Participants in the low (20%) carbohydrate group burned on average about 250 calories a day more than those in the high (60%) carbohydrate group, just as predicted by the carbohydrate-insulin model. Without intervention (that is, if we hadn’t adjusted the amount of food to prevent weight change), that difference would produce substantial weight loss — about 20 pounds after a few years. If a low-carbohydrate diet also curbs hunger and food intake (as other studies suggest it can), the effect could be even greater.
This result could explain in part why U.S. obesity rates have been going up for decades. Individuals have a sort genetically predetermined weight — lighter for some, heavier for others. Despite this, the average weight for American men has gone from about 165 pounds in the 1960s to 195 pounds today. Women, likewise, have gone from an average of 140 pounds to about 165.
Welcome to the Friday before Thanksgiving! I hope you have your family gathering, gluttony and/or shopping plans all laid out. I tend to avoid Black Friday sales unless I happen to be near a used bookstore. (And speaking of booksales, I’ll be putting out a new Lame Excuse Books catalog after Thanksgiving, so drop me a line if you’re interested.)
Florida: DeSantis wins, Scott leads Nelson in senate race, where it goes to a hand recount. (Hat tip: Director Blue.)
Meanwhile, both Broward and Palm Beach counties, where most of the Democrat shenanigans occurred, missed the machine recount deadlines, so the initial tallies stood.
In all the bad recount news, here’s one bit of good news: Utah incumbent Republican congresswoman Mia Love is now expected to win reelection after recounts. (Hat tip: Director Blue.)
A bit more analysis of the midterms:
Interestingly, the largest/highest profile misses were almost all in races where the Republican beat the polls:
– IN-Sen: polls D+2; actual R+8 – OH-Gov: polls D+3; actual R+4 – SD-Gov: polls D+3; actual R+3 – TN-Sen: polls R+5; actual R+11 – IA-Gov: polls D+2; actual R+3
Over 50 million Chinese apartments are empty. (Caveat: Some sort of malware on ZeroHedge is trying to do a drive-by DMS install on that page. They should look into that…)
Austin’s sick leave ordinance was just struck down by the 3rd Court of Appeals. “The requirement violates the Texas Constitution because it is pre-empted by the Texas Minimum Wage Act.” (Hat tip: Dwight.)
Who frontman Roger Daltry “detests Jeremy Corbyn (whom he, not without cause, calls a “communist”), supports Brexit, and says of the Labour party, ‘It pains me to say it, but in my life a Labour government comes in with incredible optimism and leaves the country in the sh*t.'”
Roy Clark, RIP. To TV viewers, he was that guy on Hee-Haw. To fellow guitarists he was a legend. Here’s a nice rendition of his signature piece:
William Goldman, RIP. The Princess Bride is a swell novel, and he penned more than his share of great Hollywood movies.
If you’re going illegally carry a concealed gun without a permit, maybe you shouldn’t make yourself look like The Joker. And yes, it’s exactly the state you think it is. (Hat tip: Ann Althouse.)
I’m on quite a winning streak with Twitter this week.
Ken White, AKA Popehat, is a lawyer with some experience in First Amendment cases, and to which I’ve linked from time to time. Unfortunately, he seems to have come down with a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, attacking not only Trump, but other modern liberal hate objects like Scott Adams (who dares to explain that Trump isn’t a crazy buffoon, but someone using well-honed persuasion techniques to achieve desired goals) and Jordan Petersen.
Front and center in the discussion: the idea that President Donald Trump is, despite considerably countervailing evidence, a raging anti-Semite.
In fact, technically speaking, I did not quote @ScottAdamsSays to you, but merely provided a link to his "How To Know You’re In a Mass Hysteria Bubble" piece. But I can quote from it if you want. https://t.co/vfFhAmSH3t
"if a Republican agrees with you that Nazis are the worst, and you threaten to punch that Republican for not agreeing with you exactly the right way, that might be an oversized reaction." 1/
"-that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own." 3/
It seems like you're pounding the rhetorical table via adjectives ("stupid, dishonest, facile") to avoid having to make the case that President Trump is some sort of raging bigot rather than getting to assume it without having to argue the case.
And as for "gestures" that Trump is not antisemetic, having Jewish relatives he's obviously on friendly terms with and being one for the most pro-Israel Presidents in living memory do a provide fairly strong counter-argument, do they not?
..that ran a website that may have published, what, six articles among thousands that might be considered by some to be antisemetic? This sort of "transitive property of antisemitism" never seems to be applied to figures on the left like Farrakhan or Linda Soursor. (2/2)
1. So we agree that Farrakhan and Linda Soursor are antisemetic? Great! Agreement at last! 2. Is Michael Moore antisemetic? I've paid more attention to his false statements about guns than any about Israel, so I honestly have nothing to say on that point. (1/2)
I do find it interesting that Moore correctly understood what a threat Trump was to Democratic prospects in 2016 while the vast majority of his fellow liberals ere writing Trump off as a laughable clown. https://t.co/KBA4r7rXX8
I am more interested in why you have a need to assert, without argument, that President Donald Trump is some antisemite, despite considerably prevailing counter-evidence. (1/2)
All of which gets back to that Adams link about reality bubbles: https://t.co/vfFhAmSH3t It seems liberals decided to smear Trump as an antisemite based on scanty evidence and the sins of some of his worst supporters.
Strange, and interesting, that both Simon and White blocked me for politely challenging prevailing, fact-free liberal beliefs about President Trump, Israel, and Jews, as though I were attacking not falsifiable assertions to be debated with reason and logic, but deeply held religious dogma.
Interestingly, here’s another quote from that same Scott Adams piece I linked at the beginning of the exchange:
When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own.”
Numerous prominent liberals have gone to desperate, ridiculous and distasteful lengths to tie President Trump to the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, despite the fact that the antisemitic nutjob was extremely vocal about his own hatred for Trump. Part of it may simply be the MSM’s painfully obvious need to spin every news story as chance to slam Trump. Part of it may be liberal’s increasing electoral desperation that despite two years of throwing everything they had at Trump and the Republican Party, their expected “blue wave” wave has been reduced to, at best, a tiny splash and Republicans will still control most or all of the federal government for the next two years. And part of it may be that, with Kanye West, #WalkAway and #Blexit, their repeated attempts to smear Trump as a racist appear to have backfired big time, so they’re now desperate to cling to their remaining outdated smears against Trump.
But even with all that, the oversized reactions I got from two very different Twitter personalities on the same issue (Trump, Jews, and Israel) suggests some sort of deeper issue at work.
Here’s another explanation from Bruce Hayden, one of Ann Althouse’s commenters:
It all revolves around the reality that Jews primarily fund the antisemitic party, the Democrats, and their candidates. They very likely, anymore, provide more funding than any other source. Jews also provide a significant amount of the top leadership of the Democratic Party (averaging maybe 10% of the Senate for some time, including such notables as Schumer, Feinstein, and Sanders), as well as being its intellectual leaders. [Some historical political comparison between Jews and Mormons not relevant to the current point snipped.]
Jews, for the most part, in this country, face significant cognitive dissonance with this Faustian bargain that they have made with the Democratic Party. Cognitive dissonance just like we are seeing right now in the desperate attempts to pin the shootings at the PA Synagogue yesterday on Trump and the Republicans, trying to rewrite the reality that this shooter, as well as the perpetrators of almost all antisemitic hate crimes in this country, are leftists, and tied to the Democrats. The Dems can’t afford to lose them financially, but need the votes of the most antisemitic elements of society. You hear this in the ever more outrageous conspiracy theories Jewish Democrats seem to use among themselves to justify continuing to belong to and support the antisemitic party. For example, bring up conservative and Christian support for Israel, and you immediately hear about the Rapture, some Christian Evangelical thing that I only hear about from Jewish Democrats. The reality is much simpler – Jesus, his family, Disciples, etc, were all relatively devout Jews living in and around modern day Israel, which the Bible tells us is the Jewish Promised Land.
Add to that the fact that the core of the Democratic Party’s young activist base seem to be reflexively pro-Palestinian and thus virulently anti-Israel, and the parameters of American Jewery’s political problems begin to emerge. In places like New York and Los Angeles, to be a good Jew is to be a liberal Democrat, but to be a good liberal Democrat it is required that you hate Israel. This is a circle not easily squared.
It will be interesting to see if, after next week’s election, defeat will temper Democrats’ Trump Derangement Syndrome, or only make it all the more acute.
EU: “Bad Hungary! We are going to sanction you for thought crimes against the European elite!” Poland: “Hey EU! Get stuffed!” (Hat tip: Stephen Green at Instapundit.)
Bureaucrats try to strip the title of heroes from the defenders of the Alamo, and the elected state board of education stops them cold. (By the way, I recently watched John Wayne’s version of The Alamo, and it’s a much better film than its reputation.)
And it’s not just missed sleep: Trump Derangement Syndrome made a Democrat attempt to get all stabby on a Republican congressional candidate in California.
R.S. McCain on modern dating: “Guys, when women say they want you to ‘share your feelings’? Don’t believe it. All that stuff you read about how women want men who are ‘sensitive’ and ‘vulnerable’? This is a gigantic load of crap. Don’t fall for it.”
“Author of ‘How to Murder Your Husband’ Charged With Murdering Her Husband.” What are the odds?
“Facebook has banned Brandon Straka, the former Democrat who founded the ‘Walk Away’ campaign and its viral hashtag #WalkAway, after he linked to Infowars.com – which has been banned from the platform.” Evidently even linking or mentioning an official “unperson” can get you banned…
Via Ann Althouse comes this dramatic depiction of just what a 6′ and 9′ storm surge looks like:
“Google Rep Issues Heartfelt Apology For Anti-Conservative Bias While Wearing ‘Kill All Republicans‘ T-Shirt.” “We want Google to be completely free from bias, even against Republicans who need to die violent deaths for disagreeing with us. That’s what inclusivity is all about.”
I saw this over at Say Uncle and I may have to pick some up:
Today’s example of Trump Derangement Syndrome harming Democratic electoral chances comes from Tennessee:
A top Tennessee Democratic Party’s communications official made disparaging comments about President Donald Trump and lashed out against a suggestion to reach out to his voters, describing them as “idiots.”
Mark Brown, a top communications official for the Tennessee Democratic Party currently working as the leading spokesperson to help Democrat Phil Bredesen win the Senate race against Republican Marsha Blackburn, has made a number over-the-top comments on social media, including calling the president “f—stik” and “Putin’s b—-,” the Washington Free Beacon revealed.
“Exactly, f— ‘reaching out’ to Trump voters. The idiots aren’t listening,” Brown wrote in one of the tweets from 2017. In other tweets he also called Trump a “f—ing moron” and “insane f—.”
Tiny little problem: “Trump won Tennessee by 26 points.”
In dissecting a Washington Post piece ostensibly on why people like President Donald Trump, but actually yet another “how dare those flyover country rubes pick that jackass Trump over our obviously superior magnificence?” piece, Ann Althouse hits the nail on the head:
WaPo’s Richard Cohen seems to be asking the right question, according to the headline, “Why people like Trump.”
But very little of the column even attempts to tell us why people like Trump. Nearly all of it is about all the things that seemingly should have already made everyone loathe Trump — he said “shithole countries,” he probably committed adultery, he failed to show faith in our intelligence community— and the confounding persistence of support for Trump.
A more accurate headline would be a question, “Why do people like Trump?,” not what looks like a promise to answer that question. Elite media people like Cohen should finally come around to asking the question humbly, confessing to their abject failure even to admit that they’ve needed to ask it and rejecting their imperious concentration on telling people what they should think. Look at all these reasons to loathe Trump. Come on, you idiots, you’re embarrassing yourselves by not loathing him yet. It hasn’t worked, and yet you continue to do it.
Cohen has exactly one sentence that tries to say why people like Trump, and it’s incredibly weak:
My guess is that it’s a low-boil rage against a vague and threatening liberalism — urbane, educated, affluent, secular, diverse and sexually tolerant.
Yes, yes, I know. You’re so sure you and your friends are the good people. Your unshakeable love for yourself and your friends is glaringly evident, as usual.
Our ruling elites seem unable to come to grips not only with President Trump pantsing them at every turn, but that their own smug sense of superiority and entitlement is what led to his rise in the first place. They don’t do “humble.”
Their smug sense of superiority shines through in every imperious announcement and self-satisfied Facebook post. That smug is the reason ordinary Americans love watching President Trump humiliate the media. What I said a year ago still applies:
While Trump does many things with his tweets, the latest controversy displays his masterful exploitation of the vast gulf between the borderline delusional self-regard of the media in general (and CNN in specific) and the public’s low opinion of same. It’s like watching Groucho Marx humiliate Margaret Dumont every morning. Normal people are laughing their asses off, while other stuffed shirt media pundits are aghast. “How dare he keep insulting that old rich lady!”
And here it is, a year and half or later, CNN is still declaring “Well, I never!” and wondering why everyone is laughing at them. Trump’s attacks are effective because average Americans hate the news media more, and trust them less, than they do Trump. And they feel that way because of the CNN and the media’s own self-inflicted wounds, and for obvious left-wing bias visible to pretty much any non-liberal observer.
The media keeps falling into Trump’s Twitter traps because their delusional self-love keeps leading them straight in. “Why surely fiend Trump’s latest attack on America’s sacred media outlets will finally rouse the populace to outrage!” Like Margaret Dumont’s characters, the media’s moral outrage never lets them realize they’re the butt of the joke.
Which, of course, always makes the joke that much funnier…
And here it is two and a half years later, and they’re still displaying the same arrogance and making the same stupid mistakes. Nothing can shake their faith in their own smug sense of superiority. And so, instead of reporting actual news, they continue to pimp Russian conspiracy theories and Stormy Daniels and wonder why we’ve tuned them out.
The same people love to conflate contempt for their biased selves into contempt for the freedom of the press and the First Amendment. This is patently false. Ordinary Americans love the First Amendment. It’s the current smug, biased, dishonest incarnation of the MSM that we hate.
Look in the mirror. We don’t hate the free press. We hate you. Personally. And our loathing for you smug pricks dates back to long before Donald Trump ever threw his hat into the ring…
It’s both puzzling and gratifying to see the American left make the same mistakes over and over again. Thinking that American voters will take kindly to their open borders and socialism platform is one. Refusing to learn just how President Donald Trump operates, despite ample opportunity to observe him, is another.
Scott Adams has already discussed Trump’s persuasion techniques at length, but here’s another approach to describing how Trump works:
I’m continually amazed at the legions of politicos, pundits and so-called ‘experts’ who don’t understand President Trump or how he conducts policy.
These elites have a mental model of how a president is supposed to behave and how the policymaking process is supposed to be carried out. Obviously, Trump does not fit their model.
Instead of trying to grasp the model that Trump does use, they continually berate and disparage Trump for not living up to their expectations. A more thoughtful group would say, “Well, he’s different, so why don’t we try to understand the differences and analyze the new model?”
Really, these people need to get out of Washington, New York and Hollywood more and get away from their screens. If they knew more everyday Americans, they would come a lot closer to understanding how Trump gets things done.
It’s not chaos; it’s just a little different and more down to earth.
This is because of Trump’s “art of the deal” style described in his best-selling book by that name. Bush 43 and Obama were totally process-driven. You could see events coming a mile away as they wound their way through the West Wing and Capitol Hill deliberative processes.
All you had to do was understand the process and you could forecast big developments in a relatively straightforward way.
With Trump, there is a process, but it does not adhere to a timeline or existing template. Trump seems to be the only process participant most of the time.
Here’s the Trump process:
Identify a big goal (tax cuts, balanced trade, the wall, etc.).
Identify your leverage points versus anyone who stands in your way (elections, tariffs, jobs, etc.).
Announce some extreme threat against your opponent that uses your leverage.
If the opponent backs down, mitigate the threat, declare victory and go home with a win.
If the opponent fires back, double down. If Trump declares tariffs on $50 billion of good from China,and China shoots back with tariffs on $50 billion of goods from the U.S., Trump doubles down with tariffs on $100 billion of goods, etc. Trump will keep escalating until he wins.
Eventually, the escalation process can lead to negotiations with at least the perception of a victory for Trump (North Korea) — even if the victory is more visual than real.
No one else in Washington thinks this way. Washington insiders try to avoid confrontation, avoid escalation, compromise from the beginning and finesse their way through any policy process.
Trump is in a league of his own. What amazes me is that the media still do not understand his style and keep taking the bait when he announces something crazy, as in Step 3 above.
That nicely fits the data, doesn’t it?
But why actually seek to understand what President Trump is doing and how he works when you can continue to sprawl in the comforting embrace of Trump Derangement Syndrome and shriek about how he’s insane and reckless and needs to be impeached right away?
It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle. – Sun Tzu, The Art of War
