Two cheers for the Bovino firing

There’s certainly some Schadenfreude to be had by the underbussing of Gestapo Greg Bovino, but he’s just one ring in the ever-mutating three-ring circus that is the Trump Administration. As David Kurtz over at TPM cogently observes:

“But Bovino, while a problem, is not the problem. Stephen Miller, while a stain on American history, is a mere henchman. Switch out Bovino and Miller and Kristi Noem and whoever else is most deserving of your repugnance, and you’re still left with a mad king in the White House, who replaces Bovino in Minnesota with new muscle: the villainous Tom Homan.

 

“In Donald Trump’s reality-TV addled brain, his underlings are merely a rotating cast of characters. He gloms on to some of them very hard, but they are all expendable. Once their plot line runs its course, Trump is on to the next hook. He’s not invested in them or a particular plot point or in anything really. He’s looking for the next spectacle, the next distraction, the next provocation that gives him a frisson of power.

 

“We have no choice but to confront Trump at every turn, but he will never run out of plot devices or characters or locations for his next production. The pattern is already clear: The shows he puts on become over time increasingly low brow, appealing to a plummeting common denominator. The sex and violence is more gratuitous. The plot contrivances are more absurd and less believable. The production quality declines. He is chasing the audience all the way to the bottom. 

 

“Trump’s eye will quickly be caught by the next character to pop up on his screens who is good at being rancorous on TV, flashes sex appeal, ostentatiously flatters him, and matches Trump’s simplistic central-casting archetypes. We are in an endless loop of these Trumpian set-pieces — Minnesota, Venezuela, Greenland — until he is banished from public office forever.”

How many more lives is Trump willing to sacrifice for his circus?

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yes, the CDC can change its mind

The Nobel Laureate economist Paul Samuelson famously acknowledged in a Meet the Press interview: “Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?” This observation applies to the advice from medical authorities such as the CDC and WHO during the COVID pandemic. Some members of the public are fond of pillorying these agencies for having published different guidelines at different times, as though health officials are in the business of issuing ex cathedra dogma rather than responding to incomplete and ambiguous information. Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals with the weight of evidence. A scientific hypothesis is one that is capable of being tested and falsified by experiment. I get it. I used to teach problem-based learning to first year medical students, and they often struggled with what to do with incomplete and ambiguous information, which is what physicians in clinics do every day. Sometimes, one cannot wait for all the tests to be completed and all the data analyz...
Read more

About that Trump lawsuit

So Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch for defamation because of the release of a salacious doodle. Nothing remarkable about Donald J. Trump weaponizing the legal system against his opponents, I know. But there are some things that do bear remark here: “ . . . he's suing Rupert Murdoch personally. But you know who he's not suing? Lachlan Murdoch, who's actually the chairperson of News Corp and Fox, who's actually the decision-maker. Rupert Murdoch has no official role there anymore. He's an adviser.   “So, I thought that was revealing in a lot of ways, because it isn't just about going after the entity. It's sort of this expansion spillover, trying to send as much of a message as you possibly can. He's sort of hitting every potential lever, not just against Murdoch and that empire, but then all the other media properties in the future. It's also about sending an example.” “HAYES: Yeah. That, to me, is the point here, is that these lawsuits are not lawsuits...
Read more

I agree with RFK Jr.

Though it feels weird to say it, RFK Jr and I agree on something: curtailing direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals. “ The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending.   Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it’s instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.   “The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry’s ability to d...
Read more