As you know, I’ve been really enjoying the timely — ripped from today’s headlines! — job opportunities I keep reading about in the emails I get from Daybook.com.
Check out today’s:
Wow, they got that notice out fast.
After the recent appeals for people to work for AOC, Bernie and JUUL and now this, I expect soon to see the following employment opportunities crop up:
- Rudy Minder — Main job duty is to pull back on the choke leash each time Giuliani tries to go on TV.
- West Wing Naysayer — Entry-level White House position that does nothing but say “no” to all congressional requests or subpoenas for documents or testimony by executive branch personnel. Low base pay, but plenty of overtime.
- Global Newsbreaker — State Department official charged with finding a nice way to break it to allies that we’re suddenly pulling the rug out from under them. For instance, finding a better way to say, “Thanks for years of fighting ISIS for us, but now we’re going to let Turkey come in and wipe you out.” Extraordinary communication skills a must.
- Cancel culture consultant — No, we don’t expect you to be able to help. There’s nothing you can do when the mob turns on you. This person’s job is just to tell you when it’s time to throw away your phone and move to that cabin you’ve been preparing up in the mountains.
And so forth…
Related Posts
I don’t have any problem with the Global Newsbreaker, if I can work remotely I may apply for it as long as they let me work out of my house. We’ve been the world’s peacekeeper long enough. Let someone else take over for a while. I can’t remember the last time I cared about the well being of Syrians. Probably about the same time they cared about those in the United States.
You and Bud are on the same page, then.
Let me just ask a completely serious question. I’m just trying to understand this apparent contradiction. There are 2 major foreign policy situations in the news right now. Basically here is a summary:
Situation A: The USA perceives a major threat from a powerful foreign adversary, Russia, against one of it’s allies. The threat is countered with military aid, not troops, that involves Javelin missiles that are highly effective against armored vehicles. This military aid is authorized by congress in a bipartisan fashion. The president holds up this aid in exchange for investigating a long debunked conspiracy theory, Crowdstrike, and for obtaining dirt on a political opponent. The main facts are not in dispute. Republicans are ok with this and even offer bombastic attacks against the whistleblower who brought this to the public and congress’ attention.
Situation B: This also involves an ally of the USA, in fact an official NATO ally, Turkey. After many years involvement in an undeclared war that has never been authorized by congress the president decides to withdraw American troops from a foreign country, Syria. The USA has rendered aid to a segment of Syria, the Kurds, in order to fight a major terrorist organization, ISIS. American aid has helped the Kurds eliminate a major threat to their unofficial “homeland”. In effect we have done a good deed for the Kurds that has cost the USA much in blood and treasure. But, according to the president, the mission has been accomplished and he has ordered the troops home. The complicating factor is that Turkey, our NATO ally, considers the Kurds a threat. According to the UN charter we are obliged to assist another NATO ally in dealing with military threats. Conversely we have no obligation to the Kurds other than humanitarian goodwill.
Given these two situations I cannot understand why Republicans are outraged by the actions of the president in one and not the other? As a non-military intervention liberal I cannot see any justification for intervention in either situation. No one is going to launch an invasion of the USA which is the only legitimate use of our military. But if I had to choose, the situation in Ukraine seems a bit more problematic. Yet the difference in the response by Republicans is just baffling. What is going on??
What is going on is that somehow, Republican members have decided they can get away with disagreeing with Trump on national security issues, but not on other things.
The mystery is why they don’t consider the Ukraine thing a national security issue.
But maybe it’s not a mystery. With Ukraine, taking sides against Trump would mean being on the same side as those who would remove him from office, which the base would NOT forgive. The domestic political stakes in Syria are lower….
And Bud, forgive me for seizing on one thing you said, because overall I DO appreciate your thoughtful comment, which was offered in a genuine spirit of civil discussion.
But I have to say that this statement goes to the heart of SO many disagreements we have: “No one is going to launch an invasion of the USA which is the only legitimate use of our military.”
So basically you’re saying that there wasn’t anything in particular wrong with the Vietnam War, except that it didn’t involve a defensive action against someone invading the territory of the United States?
Do you realize that by that standard, we shouldn’t have gotten involved in World War II — or in any other conflict since the War of 1812?
Sure, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, but at the time that was NOT part of the United States….
A few of things about WW II. Hawaii absolutely was a part of the United States. It just wasn’t a state yet. Second, the Germans declared war on us first. Third, you can’t understand WW II without understanding the events of WW I. The 2 wars are really one war with a 20 year gap. And fourth, as to the Japanese, we were meddling in affairs in the Pacific. That didn’t justify an attack but still it was a factor that is largely forgotten in this country.
As for the war of 1812, that was about invading Canada.
Well, for that matter, what were we doing meddling in Europe in 1917?
Why fight Mr. Wilson’s war?
In Tudor England, one of the jjobs surrounding the king was a person employed to wipe the king’s butt. This job was sought after since it gave one close access to the king, and thus gave that person many opportunities to help people advance (or send them to the tower). I’m suprised that Trump hasn’t resurrected this position.
Trump has an entire team devoted to this task: Pence, Barr, Pompeo and most of the United States Senate.
Great comment Karen. Of course, the same position has been available to every POTUS serving this country. Many have sought the position and many have served but not publicized. Some of our recent presidents have the egotistical requirement that would render a butt wiper position a key position on their staff.
As bud noted, Trump already has several who would seemingly fit the position if offered or would volunteer to be listed for future consideration.
Other presidents have probably had similar listings in their bucket list of subservient positions and there have been publically announced willingness by supporters to fulfill certain positions with apparent vigor and supplication.
Let us be very candid about this. Why would a POTUS not surround themselves with advisors and attendants who would not be willing to pucker up and kiss said butt or wipe it if necessary after winning a great victory at the polls, especially if along with victory comes the victory of winning a majority of support in Congress. Whether truth or legend, one of my favorite examples of pride and glory relates to the successful Roman general after a victory. The line used in the movie “Patton” by George C. Scott is perhaps the best example I could find.
“For over a thousand years Roman conquerors returning from the wars
enjoyed the honor of triumph, a tumultuous parade. The conqueror rode
in a triumphal chariot, the dazed prisoners walking in chains before
him. And a slave stood behind the conqueror holding a golden crown and
whispering in his ear a warning: that all glory is fleeting.”
Trump has become his own version of a Roman emperor and general at the same time and the servant would whisper into his ear during the parade, “You will always be victorious and hold glory forever”. The words, ‘Sic Transit Gloria’ would never be tolerated by Trump. The servant would be beheaded or sent to the mines.
I’d be perfectly happy to be king, and I assure you I would rule wisely and with fairness. And the country would be much, much better off.
And I suppose I could tolerate the usual servants. I may even allow a gentleman’s gentleman to help dress me, up to a point. I’d let him lay the clothes out, but I’d put them on myself.
But no, I would not have a royal butt-wiper. I would either eliminate (pun intended) the position, thereby sparing the treasury, or convert the FTE to something more useful… say, the Royal Drawer of Pints of Guinness.
This is only partly because I’d rather not let anyone get quite that intimate with that portion of the royal anatomy. At least as strong a reason is that I doubt anyone could meet my standards for that task. I mean, we all have our own particular ways of doing certain things, ways that we’re used to, and I would assume that for most of us, that would be one of those things.
“Dammit, Jeeves, you’re just not doing it right, blast you!” It would start the whole day off wrong.
I’m trying to remember a quote, and Google isn’t helping me. It goes something like this: “There are three things that no mortal can do to another person’s complete satisfaction: make love, poke a fire, and…”
I can’t remember the third thing. So let’s just say the third thing is, “wipe the other person’s butt.”
“… run a newspaper.”
William Allen White, editor of the Emporia (KS) _Gazette_, 1917.
YES! Can’t believe I forgot that one, because that is the truest one of the bunch!
That cannot be done, period. You can’t do it to the satisfaction to the editor sitting next to you, even if it’s your oldest and best friend. Everybody would do it differently…
I guess that’s why I remembered the saying, and remembered that I though it was a good one, even though I forgot the most important part.
The brain is a funny thing…
There was a person who was hired to be in the bathroom with the king at the time, there has never been any proof that this person wiped the king’s butt. How would they do it… have the king bend over when he was getting off the royal throne, drop to the floor and lay on his back like a baby, stand up and lift a leg? Inquiring minds want to know. Like I said, I doubt it every existed.
Fox News also wipes cleanly from all reports. They sure do try.
Like with a cloth?