Over the millenia, multiple thousands of works of literature have been lost or destroyed for many reasons. Some because they were deemed inappropriate for religious reasons; some because they were deemed seditious, a danger to the ruling class; some because they were considered minor or inconsequential and many simply because they were considered poor examples of the author's work. Now, in the age of The Cloud, nothing is ever really 'lost', only hidden until somebody does their work and for one reason or another decides it should be brought into the light. One such example, and certainly one that can't be categorized as 'literature', is the recent interview conducted by the Wall Street Journal with the current resident of the Oval Office on July 25, 2017. Published only in snippets but discovered and released in it's entirety by Politico on August 1, one recognizes why it wasn't put out in whole. Whether it was the publication's feeling the need to do so for the sake of brevity or whether it was redacted at the request of certain parties involved doesn't matter*, but the lengthy back-and-forth does make for interesting (to say the least) reading. For the sake of brevity and also because reading it in full may cause nausea and vomiting, uncontrolled laughter and even possible terminal eye-rolling, I shall include only those segments I feel are suitable for making my point. DISCLAIMER: Since i haven't read the interview as published in the WSJ, I really have no idea whether or not some of what I'll mention is covered and if I repeat some of what actually ended up in print, I apologize.
The session began with a brief comment on how consumer confidence is at a 17 year high which elicits an "Isn't that nice." response from the interviewee, followed by "There's good reason for that..." though he doesn't go on to explain just what that reason (or reasons) is, he just changes the subject to healthcare and the up-coming vote and his recent and seemingly hopeful conversations with Sen. John McCain. Remember, this took place before the calamitous/welcome (the choice is yours) ultimate collapse of Trumpcare only 2 days later. Oh, if he only knew.
Next, to possibly inject an air of gentility into the testosterone- heavy atmosphere, there's the entrance of daughter-and-First-Lady-surrogate, Ivanka Trump-Kushner, which leads to a short conversation about children's names and who-had-what-name first that followed by
Talk briefly detours to how much, despite all this obstructionism, he's been able to get done in such a short time and it's pretty much what we've heard before: "Because people are saying, Trump has not produced. I honestly believe for 6 months I have done more than just about any president when you look at all the bills that were passed, 42, 43." Once again nobody is going to tell him that an Executive Order is not a bill. Why bother creating a headache, right?
Blah, blah, blah, more typical bragging about how big his win was until we reach one (and not the only) of the most curious statements made during the course of this interview which is associated with his need to brag. After making a point about his up-coming rally in Ohio, he has to take a moment to reflect on his showing at the Boy Scout Jamboree ("Was that a scene?...Biggest crowd they've ever had"). It's his next question that tends to leave those there sitting on pins and somewhat-warm needles and results in a rather awkward exchange:
WSJ: I think it was an interesting speech in the context of the Boy Scouts.
T: Right.
WSJ: They seemed to get a lot of feedback from former scouts and....
T: Did they like it?
WSJ: It seemed mixed.
T: They loved it. [laughter] It wasn't...it was no mix. That was a standing...
WSJ: In the...you got a good...you got a good reaction in...
T: I mean...you know he (my note: not sure who 'he' is) writes mostly negative stuff. But
that was ac standing ovation
WSJ: You got a good reaction inside the arena, that's right.
T: ...from the time I walked out on the stage, because i know. And by the way, I'd be the
the first to admit mixed (my note: sure you would). I'm a guy that will tell you mixed
(my note: riiiight). There was no mix there. There was a standing ovation from the
time I walked out to the time I left (my note: how did they hear you talk for 40 minutes
if they were applauding the whole time?), and for 5 minutes after I had already gone.
There was no mix.
WJS: There was a lot of supporters in the arena.
Now, here's where it takes a little curve to the HUH? zone:
T: And I got a call from the head of the Boy Scouts saying it was the greatest speech that was ever
made to them. and they were very thankful. So, there was...there was no mix.
At this point the topic was abruptly changed to taxes. Maybe they knew that very shortly the Boy Scouts would, in addition to an apology for the inappropriateness of the speech, issue a statement saying the call he said he received never happened.
As far as the tax discussion is concerned, I don't know enough on the matter to make a fair judgement on it's validity or to make any reasonably intelligent sarcastic remarks without sounding like a moron so I'll simply move on with these observations: Having the wealthy pay less taxes is not going to benefit anybody but them so don't try to make us think it will. We're not that stupid. And Mr. Trump has an imaginary friend he calls "Mister Elegant". Don't ask but things like this usually get a person committed.**
However, stretching the topic of economics to a global arena he was asked about on-going trade talks with Great Britain and Scotland, finding an opening to discuss Brexit at length something he knows quite well..golf, making a point of saying that should Scotland decide to vote to withdraw, course there would not qualify to host the British Open. Bringing China into the discussion of agricultural deals concerning the import of American beef, saying that while he was in West Virginia with the Boy Scouts he "had farmers coming up to (him) hugging...and kissing (him) because of the cattle stuff."
There was some discussion about Janet Yellen, chair of the Federal Reserve of whom he said "I have a lot of respect for her, and I like her", which if we've come to understand anything is the equivalent of the kiss of death in this administration, one step behind saying they have his 'full confidence'. Names that have no meaning to me were tossed around but when pressed on whether or not she'd be replaced after her term, he danced like dervish on crack.
The remainder tends to concentrate most on the Mueller investigation, more denials of any connections to Russia, other than the Miss Universe pageant, how this whole thing is nothing but 'a witch hunt' being fed by the Evil Fake News Beast and how he's become dissatisfied with the way his Attorney General has changed from the trustworthy toadie he was before the election.
That wraps up my breakdown of memorable moments (at least for me) contained within the interview. Perhaps others will find things of interest that I may have missed but, to be perfectly honest, reading and writing about what he had to say gave me almost as much of a headache as actually listening to him. The unfortunate part of that is I've run out of my Bayer Extra Strength. I may just have to have a cocktail instead
*A WSJ spokesman did say that they 'were very proud of the on-the-record interview' and eliminating any 'cross-talk', they published only those portions they considered 'noteworthy' and which produced 'newsworthy articles'.
**In the midst talking about economics and corporate tax rates he said this, which itself contains some what-worthy statements which I've commented on in [ ].
"Well, you know, we're going for 15%.....So I deal with foreign countries, and despite what you might read, I have unbelievable relationships with all of the foreign leaders. They like me. I like them. You know, it's amazing.So, I'll call. like major - major countries, and I'll be dealing with the prime minister or the president. And I'll say, how are you doing? Oh, don't know, don't know, not well, Mr. President, not well. [so far it sounds like a conversation you'd have with an old maid hypochondriac aunt you haven talked to since last Thanksgiving.] I said, well, what's the problem? Oh, GDP 9%, not well. And I'm saying to myself, here we are at like 1%, dying, and they're at 9%, and they're unhappy.So, you know, and these are like countries, you know, fairly large, like 300 million people [you mean about the size of the U.S.?]. You know, a lot of people, say...they say, well, but the United States is large. And then you call places like Malaysia, Indonesia, and you say, you know, how many people do you have [that's what the internet is for]? And it's pretty amazing how many people they have.So China's going to be at 7 or 8% and they have a billion-five, right? So we should do really well.
But in order to do that, you know it's tax reform, but it's a big tax cut. But it's simplification, it's reform, it's a big tax cut, 15...."
Now, mind you, this entire conversation is about tax reform and economics but only on a corporate/business level. when someone brought up the subject of personal taxes it was "Yeah, we want to do personal." with no details, nothing that would indicate the lower/middle classes would not suffer by lowering the corporate tax from 30-35% to 15%.
No comments:
Post a Comment