A Blog about the Pillars of Belief: Politics, Culture, Stories
In this episode:
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Subscribe: RSS
In this episode:
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Subscribe: RSS
In this episode:
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Subscribe: RSS
In this episode:
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Subscribe: RSS
In this episode:
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Subscribe: RSS
Russia
We have known for a while that the FBI applied for a FISA warrant to surveil Trump associates during the election. This week we learned that the Carter Page was the one the FBI was investigating.
The Guardian reported that British Intelligence and half a dozen other European intelligence agencies were informing their U.S. counterparts of Trump’s ties to Russian spies as early as 2015.
Syria
Within 63 hours of Assad’s chemical attack on April 4, Trump sent 59 tomahawk missiles into Syria Thursday evening, April 6. There were a few skeptical media voices commenting about Trump’s decision to Bomb Assad’s airbase. David Frum was one.
Also, five days later, Tuesday, we dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb in ISIS in Afghanistan.
Pivot?
This was the week Trump backed off many of his most unrealistic campaign promises:
He has pivoted on foreign policy. Also on economic policy. NATO is no longer obsolete.
Bannon is on the outs. The White House staff Bannon calls “the Democrats” are ascending, and their corporate experience is now shaping Trump’s views on a raft of policies. Here is conservative writer Rich Lowery lamenting what will happen if Jared Kushner supplants Bannon.
One thing Trump has not pivoted on is illegal immigration: Trump administration moving quickly to build up nationwide deportation force
Congressional Actions
As the White House moves on the tax reform, the Democrats have take the strategy that they cannot support any tax policy without knowing how it would effect Trump’s tax bottom line, meaning he will have to release his tax returns before they agree to any tax legislation.
Let’s not forget to keep an eye on Jeff Sessions: He is shutting down a panel of scientists that the Obama Justice Department set up to do quality control on the use of forensic evidence. Also, he has hired Steven Cook, who has been a proponent of mandatory minimums and other tough-on-drugs policies.
Last week it was formally announced that Sonequa Martin-Green will play the lead character of CBS’s new Star Trek series, stepping into the boots previously filled by Shatner, Stewart, Brooks, Mulgrew and Backula. What is unique about the role (other than the fact that she is the second female lead and the first black woman to helm a Trek series) is that her character–First Officer Michael Burnham–is NOT the captain of the starship that serves as the setting of the series. That distinction goes to Jason Isaacs who will play Captain Lorca.
Burnham is the new “Number One” and the writers tell us that Lorca will refer to her by that title. So Martin-Green’s character is actually stepping into the boots previously filled by Spock, Riker, Commander Kira, and Chakotay–yet she is still the series lead. This will have profound implications for how the stories on Discovery unfold.
First, let us dispense with the notion that this is a gimmick, that Lorca will be killed off early and Burnham will assume command. Part of the show’s concept and approach seems to be predicated on the lead not being in command. The entire point is to create a pathway for a different kind of storytelling in the Trek universe. Martin-Green herself recently said, “it’s going to open up so much potential for new storylines because not being the captain automatically gives you a different perspective.” At least for the first season, and possibly for more or all of the series run, Burnham will not be captain. (Only Voyager writers would introduce a character one way only to reverse themselves by the end of the first episode–see Maquis, Chakotay.)
So how different will Discovery be?
The Captain’s Speech
In most previous Trek series, the way you knew the episode was coming to a close was because the captain gave a dramatic speech summing up the moral of the story. I exaggerate, but only a little. At the climax of the first episode of The Original Series, Kirk gave the very first Kirk Speech about Gary Mitchell becoming a god: “And what will Mitchell learn in getting there? Will he know what to do with his power? Will he acquire the wisdom? … Did you hear him joke about compassion? Of all else, a God needs compassion.” This pattern continued in many future episodes. In future series the pattern was replicated with the Picard speech, the Janeway speech, and (shudder, shudder) the Archer speech. Deep Space Nine was more democratic in who got to moralize: Sisko had some important speeches, but more often than not the honor went to Kira, Odo, and even Quark–and frequently the moral was so ambiguous that the episode ended in silence because no one knew quite what to say.
How will Discovery handle this Trekian tradition?
The traditional route would be for Burnham to be given the speechifying role, making her the moral center of the show. This begs the question: who will she be speechifying to? Will it be Lorca, in his ready room, and then he goes onto the bridge and gives the orders she has talked him into giving?
Another option is to have Lorca give the dramatic speeches, but unlike all the other series, position him to be in the wrong, or at least voicing opinions that Burnham disagrees with.
A third option is to dispense with the speeches altogether. Unless the writers are aiming for DS9-level ambiguity, this could mean that Discovery will emphasize plot and action over theme. I’m not sure how you maintain Trekian theme-based storytelling without a character to give voice to those themes. Though they might surprise us with a creative solution.
In any case, the question of who gets to make the speeches will be something to look for in the first episodes.
The Center Seat
In every Trek series, power is situated in the captain. He or she is the one who makes the decisions and gives the orders. All the other characters, no matter how skilled or interesting or well-loved they are by fans, revolve around the captain. The viewer will eventually always look to the captain for the solution to the story because he or she always makes the final call by nature of their position at the top of the chain of command. This will be no different on Discovery, which is what makes the Burnham’s lead status so intriguing: what kind of stories can be told when someone other than the lead gets to make all the decisions?
Keep in mind this is not a ‘lower decks’ situation where the lead is toiling away down in the astro-metrics lab, taking part in stories where the command crew is not central to the plot. Burnham is the first officer, positioned right beside the captain on the bridge. She will be in the middle of the action, integral to the main mission of the ship along side the captain. And yet–somehow–we are supposed to pay more attention to her than to him. I am not suggesting it is impossible. But this is the challenge the writers have set out for themselves, and it promises to make for a refreshing new take on a 50-year-old formula.
There is the ‘bad captain’ theory, wherein Lorca is designed to be the type of captain that we do not look to for the solution or the right answer–either because he is morally corrupt, or merely incompetent. In this case, the narrative tension rests on how Burnham handles situations where she has the right solution but is unable to act on it, or has to convince Lorca to act on it.
There is the ‘good captain’ theory, wherein Burnham idolizes Lorca. Here the narrative tension would rest on her struggles to live up to his standards, to make him proud of her.
In both of those scenarios, Burnham will still be stuck in Lorca’s orbit (and Martin-Green in Isaacs’s). Perhaps the series will slyly challenge the audience’s Trek (and other more engrained) biases by forcing us to turn our gaze from the white man in power to the black woman at his side. Yes, he is in the center seat and he gets to make the decisions, but the true drama and the real story is in her. That would be a radical change, and it would be a welcome updating of Trek’s long tradition of inclusivity and social commentary.
Despite the fact that Trump told reporters he has had the best first 13 weeks of any president, Week 11 was …
Russia
The week began with Sean Spicer doubling down–quadrupling down?–on Trump’s wiretapping claim: “But I think more and more the substance that continues to come out on the record by individuals continues to point to exactly what the president was talking about that day.”
The Devin Nunes chapter of this saga may have reached its climax and conclusion this week. We learned that the National Security Council’s senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting a review of ‘unmasking’ identities in intelligence reports that happened during the final months of the Obama Administration. He found out that Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice requested some names unmasked. APPARENTLY, this was the bombshell that Coehn-Watnick passed on to Nunes, the evidence that made Nunes jump out of his Uber and go to the White House, and then the following day pretend to brief the President on evidence already in his possession, which then allowed Trump to say his wiretapping claim was “partially vindicated.” While unmaking names in intelligence is routine, Rice denied compiling and leaking the names of Trump officials.
Then on Thursday, the House Ethics Committee said that Nunes’s stunt “may have made unauthorized disclosures of classified information.” He promptly recused himself from the Russia investigation.
We also learned this week that the CIA had evidence of Russia aiding Trump earlier than previously understood. This in an important piece of the tic-tock that is being assembled to paint the full picture of what happened during the 2016 election.
Palace Intrigue
The Washington Post paints an interesting picture of an increasingly lonely, isolated Trump who lacks true allies in Washington.
Trump donated some of his annual salary to the US Park Service, although not by enough to make up for the millions his budget cuts out from the same organization. The Wall Street Journal reports that Trump has revised the terms of his blind trust that allows him to withdraw money whenever he lives and without telling the public, which ethics experts say may pose conflicts of interest going forward.
Trump, at the request of National Security Advisor McMaster, removed Stephen Bannon from the National Security Council. Apparently he will still be allowed to attend meetings, which is still unprecedented for a political aide.
WaPo has a report on Bannon’s internecine office warfare with other White House staff, namely Kushner and Gary Cohn, whom he calls “Democrats.” While the first half of these 11 weeks have been marked by Bannon’s ascendence, by the end of Week 11 rumors were thick that he was about the be fired.
Health Care & Congress
There was a last minute shuffle on the American Health Care act this week (apparently requested by Preibus, who wanted even a symbolic win on health care before the Congress goes home for a two week recess). Politico reported that the push by Mike Pence failed because it was perceived by the GOP moderates and the Freedom Caucus that the White House was making different, even oppositional promises to the different groups.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the White House is taking the lead on tax reform legislation, not wanting to repeat the congressional bungling of health care. However, they do not have a consensus yet on how to proceed.
On Thursday, Mitch McConnel broke the Democrats filibuster of Gorsuch by abolishing the filibuster rule for Supreme Court judges. Here is a good op-ed by E.J. Dionne that explains why Democrats chose to filibuster Gorsuch.
Syria
The Trump administration’s views on Syria went on a roller coaster ride this week. Warning: Reading these three articles in order may cause whiplash.
Saturday (4/1): White House Accepts ‘Political Reality’ of Assad’s Grip on Power
Tuesday (4/4): For Trump, A Focus on US Interests and a Disdain for Moralizing
Wednesday (4/5): Trump’s View of Syria and Assad Altered after ‘Unacceptable’ Chemical Attack
Thursday (4/6): Trump ordered one of Assad’s airfield hit with tomahawk missiles.
Healthcare
On the first day of Trump’s 10th week in office, his promise to repeal Obamacare collapsed. One of the dramatic elements of Friday, which some of us followed by the minute on Twitter, was Trump’s demand that Paul Ryan force a vote that they will surely lose just so Trump can force members of Congress to go on record against him; at the last hour he backed off from a showdown.
Here is New York Time’s UpShot Blog on how Trump might proceed helping or hurting Obamacare going forward. And here is the Wall Street Journal’s take on potential next steps.
Here is Washington Post’s account of the legislative defeat: The Closer.
Here is a transcript of Trump’s call to WaPo journalist Bob Costa immediately after Ryan pulled the bill. He launches the talking points that this bill failed because no Democrats supported it.
Politico has a great piece that explains how and why Trump and Ryan’s American Health Care Act was so deeply flawed that it had no chance of passage. And Nate Silver makes the case that Trump does not have a mandate from his voters to enact Paul Ryan’s legislative agenda.
Six days after defeat, Trump finally unloads a Twitter screed against the conservative Freedom Caucus, threatening to support primary challenges of them if they do not get on board with his agenda.
Finally, David Frum in The Atlantic reminiscing this week over how he was fired from a conservative think tank back in 2010 for predicting that Obamacare would never be repealed: The Republican Waterloo.
Russia Stuff
Devin Nunes had a rough week. Here is a good WaPa profile of his history in politics, and of his previous connections to Trump. These were published over the weekend, a few days after his bizarre White House press conference last Wednesday where he revealed he had seen intelligence that some people in the Trump campaign had been “unmasked” in surveillance reports. By Monday, House Democrats where asking him to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. Then on Thursday NYTimes named the two White House officials who called Nunes to the White House last Tuesday evening and gave him the intelligence reports. Then WaPo reported that it was actually three White House officials.
We learned that Trump Administration sought to block Obama era DOJ official Sally Yates from testifying before the House investigative committee. It looks like they got Nunes to cancel her hearing so that they did not have to publicly invoke executive privilege to block her.
The Senate Intelligence Committee started it’s hearings this week. Senators Burr and Warner are clearly trying to present themselves as the adults in Washington. The first hearing on Thursday was dedicated to experts describing Russia’s “Active Measures” tactics both today and throughout the 20th Century. Also, the Senate committee announced that they will be questioning Jared Kushner soon.
Wall Street Journal had another bizarre story about Michael Flynn. He participated in forming a plot to return a Turkish national back to Turkey (where he is wanted by Erdogan) in an illegal manner that circumvented around extradition laws. The plot was not carried out. On Thursday Flynn’s lawyers said that Flynn would testify before the House and Senate committees in exchange for immunity.
In other news, Trump signed executive orders designed to start rolling back Obama’s climate change program.