Skip to main content

Brexit, Coronavirus, and a Teleprompter I

Image result for Oval Office

I'm still collecting my thoughts about President Trump's speech from the Oval Office on March 11 with regard to coronavirus.

The whole point of speaking from the Oval Office is that a President gets a solemn backdrop -- like a captain on the bridge, or a King in his 'throne room.'

The throne room is only rarely used for this purpose, and the rarity of course helps underline the importance of the pronouncements made in this way.

On March 11th, though, Trump went off the rails.

VOX has the full text:

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/11/21176001/trump-coronavirus-speech-travel-ban-transcript

The key conceit of the speech is that the US under Trump's wise leadership had shut the virus out on the western flank, by limiting immigration from China, and that it would now simply have to perform the same magic on our eastern flank, limiting immigration from Europe. Here's the key bit.

"To keep new cases from entering our shores, we will be suspending all travel from Europe to the United States for the next 30 days. The new rules will go into effect Friday at midnight.
"These restrictions will be adjusted subject to conditions on the ground. There will be exemptions for Americans who have undergone appropriate screenings and these prohibitions will not only apply to the tremendous amount of trade and cargo, but various other things as we get approval. Anything coming from Europe to the United States is what we are discussing. These restrictions will also not apply to the United Kingdom."
This was all lunacy and quickly came unraveled. Within minutes, the White House press office was clarifying that the Orange Dynast hadn't meant  "cargo" when he clearly said "cargo." Cargo would continue to move, only people doing anything other than accompanying cargo would be affected.  My first impression from this, though, was that the Prez had cut a deal with Boris Johnson. If he HAD meant what he said, then the natural response of a French business trying to sell champagne in the US would be for it to ship the champagne to a middleman in the UK, which would not be affected and would ship it on to the US. The middleman would take a cut of the proceeds, the UK Treasury would take a cut of that.  So Johnson gets a favor from Trump, and Trump gets a draft choice to be named later. 
I was giving Trump way too much credit when that thought crossed by head. He had nothing so coherent in mind. More tomorrow. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
17 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more