But it's found frequently in the boardroom, unfortunately. Smart leaders surround themselves with people of differing viewpoints. If I were in the White House, I'd want someone in there with diverging viewpoints to lay it out for me. Multiple someones. And there's no reason the President of the United States shouldn't be able to get those multiple someones. Be aware that they have an agenda and they'll push it, but listen to to the facts and opinions from both sides and then make the call. THAT is what you get paid to do. You don't get paid to pontificate on a subject you've never spent any time trying to understand prior to it surfacing in the world. What he should do is say "Hey, you know what? This isn't my expertise. I've got people who give me advice on these topics. I'm going to let them speak." And then hand over the God damned microphone.
Coronavirus: Trump 'can't imagine why' US disinfectant calls spiked BBC - https://tinyurl.com/yb5kpmjn President Donald Trump has said he "can't imagine why" US hotline calls about disinfectant have risen after he suggested injecting the substance to treat coronavirus. The governors of Michigan and Maryland on Sunday blamed the president for the spike in such calls. Following heavy criticism from medical professionals, Mr Trump said his remarks were made sarcastically. Disinfectants are hazardous substances and can be poisonous if ingested. During Monday's Covid-19 news conference, a reporter noted that the state of Maryland's emergency hotline had received hundreds of calls in recent days seeking guidance about Mr Trump's comments. "I can't imagine why," the president said, moving quickly on. "I can't imagine that." When asked whether he took responsibility at all for the increase in calls, Mr Trump replied: "No, I don't." (More at above url)
He keeps forgetting that the only reason he got voted in was because dim people are allowed to vote (and buy disinfectant).
It would appear so. But it's a bit of a misnomer because, as you know, although they tend to go hand in hand, education doesn't necessarily imply intelligence and vice versa. For example, Trump threatened to sue Wharton if the school released his transcripts. Self-love, it would appear. But he was supposedly educated. However, education was no match for his dimness. It is the dim that he loves. The dim are his brethren. But for our purposes here, yes, the two can be used interchangeably.
He was only being sarcastic. Given that's how he portrays sarcasm it's fair to say he's a duplicitous, insincere, idiotic piece of shit. He's burnt his bridges and only the toadiest of individuals will want his stank on their person. Walk through life with that....
It interesting as an American but only technically so really what it is to love America?Certainly some national parks and some cities like New Orleans are loveable but wow are the people hit and miss, the majority very unlovable.. or perhaps tolerable with 30 percent totally unloveable. I was literally just discussing it with a friend here and he found this old 1980 article "A cult of ignorance". This links to to the PDF and maybe makes a fair commentary. http://www.openculture.com/2016/10/...e-cult-of-ignorance-in-the-united-states.html (disclosure, I own four Azimov first editions )
Blame Bill de Blasio By KYLE SMITH April 27, 2020 5:26 PM New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio speaks to the media during a press conference in a temporary hospital located at the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in Queens, N.Y., April 10, 2020. (Eduardo Munoz/Reuters) His stubborn refusal to take the coronavirus seriously may have caused thousands of deaths. America’s COVID-19 devastation is disproportionately a story of New York State’s devastation, and New York State’s devastation is overwhelmingly a story of New York City’s devastation. There’s a case to be made that New York City mayor Bill de Blasio is the single individual in the United States who is most to blame for the catastrophic loss of human life. I refer you to a grueling investigation by Charles Duhigg in the New Yorker that painstakingly compares the responses to the outbreak in Seattle and New York City. Seattle, paying heed to warnings from scientists, acted quickly to stem the outbreak; de Blasio, despite having several weeks after Seattle announced its first case to prepare for the deluge, shrugged at the virus and even advised people to go out and mingle. As of April 26 Seattle appears to be in good shape: King County, Washington has had 5,739 cases and 400 deaths, according to the Johns Hopkins University dashboard. New York is another story: 17,126 deaths in the city, 22,009 deaths in the state, and nearly all of the state’s deaths are in the metro area. That’s out of 53,755 deaths in the entire country. New York City, with less than 3 percent of the U.S. population, has more than 30 percent of the country’s fatalities. Gotham has been crushed so badly that the Johns Hopkins coronavirus dashboard lists only four countries (Italy, Spain, France, and the U.K.) with more deaths than the city. The worst-hit country, Italy, has only about 50 percent more deaths from the virus than New York City despite having more than six times the population. New York City’s population density is off the charts compared with the rest of the U.S., as is its usage of mass transit. A map of COVID-19’s lethality maps fairly neatly onto the subway map, with infections increasing for the lengthiest commutes. The metropolis is especially vulnerable to infectious disease, as its epidemiologists are well aware. Yet on March 2, de Blasio urged New Yorkers in a tweet to go out on the town. On March 10, de Blasio said on MSNBC, “If you’re under 50 and you’re healthy, which is most New Yorkers, there’s very little threat here. This disease, even if you were to get it, basically acts like a common cold or flu. And transmission is not that easy.” On March 11, the day Seattle closed its schools, de Blasio said in a press conference, “If you are not sick, if you are not in the vulnerable category, you should be going about your life.” De Blasio didn’t acknowledge until April 3 that asymptomatic transmission was taking place, claiming he had learned this in the last two days. It had been 63 days since Anthony Fauci declared that asymptomatic transmission was certainly happening. Meanwhile, governor Andrew Cuomo, who often makes a point of publicly opposing de Blasio, this time joined the mayor in lethal obliviousness. “We should relax, because that is what is dictated by the reality of the situation,” Cuomo said on March 2, promising that most of the afflicted would recover easily and that “we don’t even think it’s going to be as bad as it was in other countries.” This was mayor-from-Jaws-level happy talk, times a thousand. The two leaders’ science experts were horrified by what de Blasio and Cuomo were saying, according to the New Yorker piece. A former head of the city’s Department of Health told the magazine that there’s always a divide between political appointees and public-health professionals, “who sometimes have to make unpopular recommendations. But, with the de Blasio people, that antagonism is ten times worse. They are so much more impossible to work with than other administrations.” In early March, the city health department passed along alarmed advice and advised collecting information from swabs about the outbreak in a procedure called sentinel surveillance. The most disturbing passage among many in the New Yorker piece is this one: The Mayor’s office refused to authorize testing the swabs. “They didn’t want to have to say, ‘There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of you who are positive for coronavirus, but we don’t know who,’ ” a Department of Health official told me, adding, “It was a real opportunity to communicate to New Yorkers that this is serious — you have to stay home.” The effort was blocked over fears that it might create a panic, but such alarm might have proved useful. After all, the official told me, panic is pretty effective at getting people to change their behavior. Instead, the Mayor’s office informed the Health Department that the city would sponsor a job fair to find a few new “disease detectives.” That event was held on March 12th, in Long Island City. The Department of Health official said, “We’re in the middle of a catastrophe, and their solution is to make us waste time interviewing and onboarding people!” (The Mayor’s office eventually relented on the sentinel-surveillance samples, and testing began on March 23rd — almost a month after samples were first collected. By then, the outbreak was well under way.) Disastrously, on March 4 de Blasio publicly advised New Yorkers who thought they might have the virus to go to their doctor (presumably by subway) — exactly the opposite of what the epidemiologists were saying. People were better off staying home unless they were in extremis. Not till the catastrophically late date of March 15 did the de Blasio administration allow the city’s Department of Health to post a thread advising sick people to stay home because “Everyone in NYC should act as if they have been exposed to coronavirus” and “New Yorkers who are not sick should also stay home as much as possible.” A member of the New York City Council told Duhigg that health officials “had been trying to say that publicly for weeks, but this mayor refuses to trust the experts — it’s mind-boggling.” Thanks to all the bad messaging, it took a week for New Yorkers to catch up to Seattle residents, who had been encouraged but not required to stay home, in adopting social distancing. “All you had to do was look at the West Coast, and you knew it was coming for us,” epidemiologist Jeffrey Sharman of Columbia University told the New Yorker. “That’s why Seattle and San Francisco and Portland were shutting things down.” New York “dithered,” he said. That’s a polite way of putting a retreat from reality that may have unleashed more deaths in the city than 9/11. A former head of the CDC, Tom Frieden, estimated that if New York City had moved up its various lockdown measures by just ten days, 50 to 80 percent of lives could have been saved. In New York City, that translates to more than 8,500 deaths, on the low end. That’s three times the scale of 9/11. A second former New York City health commissioner told Duhigg that “de Blasio was just horrible,” adding, “Maybe it was unintentional, maybe it was his arrogance.”