With the 50th anniversary of the original (and best) Star Trek coming up Sept. 8, Esquire decided to look at its 23rd-century 1966 look:
In “Tomorrow Is Yesterday,” an episode of the original Star Trek, the good ship Enterprise accidentally time warps back to 20th Century Earth. A gung-ho U.S. Air Force colonel captures our hero Captain Kirk and, upon giving him the once-over, snarls, “What is that? Is that a uniform of some kind?”
“This little thing?” replies a coy William Shatner. “Something I slipped on.”
Actually, it was a lot more.
In today’s over-the-top world of fantasy entertainment, where everyone from Batman on down wears self-conscious, rubbery body armor, there is something reassuringly relaxed and classic about the original Star Trek uniform. Trekkies still embrace that quality as the 50th anniversary of the premiere of their beloved NBC series approaches on September 8.
The original look was blue for science (Spock, left), red for engineering and communications (Scott, right, and Uhura, third from right) and gold for command (navigator Chekov and helmsman Sulu seated in front of Captain Kirk).
“You go to a convention,” said Tod Sturgeon of Auburn, Washington, “and there are all these people in different costumes, and you say, ‘Well, I’ll have to research that.’ But when you walk in wearing a Starfleet uniform, there’s just no question. Everyone says, ‘Captain!’”
Credit the designer, William Ware Theiss. He took his cue from Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, who envisioned a blissful United Federation of Planets with only quasi-military garb aboard its otherwise mighty starships.
“Gene wanted something on the order of a shirtsleeve environment,” said Star Trek story editor Dorothy Fontana. “It was more like being around the house than being around the ship.”
Theiss’ final product was sleek and trim, with no pockets or visible fasteners to disrupt the clean lines. The single arrowhead breast insignia constituted decorative minimalism, and the limited use of wavy rank braids didn’t clutter your forearm. Still, you could tell your superior and inferior officers at a glance. In most Star Trek spin-offs, by contrast, tiny pins and pips signify your standing—a strain on the eyes of viewers and crew alike.
The uniform’s tripartite color scheme delineated functions vividly: Gold was for command, blue for sciences, and red for engineering and support services (including, of course, all those doomed security guards). Not only did the bright hues explode on the small screen, they set off the uniform’s black bottom half smashingly. Mid-calf trousers made the leg look longer, while the high-topped boots were perfect for unexplored alien terrain. The combination was altogether unfamiliar and futuristic without being outlandish.
The materials themselves were otherworldly: Theiss used a stretch cotton velour for the tops and, in the last two seasons, a black Dacron with a sprinkling of iridescent silver fleck for the pants. Both emitted a subtle, subliminal glitter of stardust under the bright studio lights. (Alas, “that rotten velour,” as many insiders called it, shrank when laundered. So in the series’ third and final season, a nylon double-knit was substituted.)
Like Theiss himself—a reclusive, humorless man who died of AIDS in 1992—the uniform was quirky. The command tunics were green in real life but photographed and transmitted over the small screen as gold. And all of the tops, no matter what their designation, featured a raglan construction that concealed an invisible zipper along the left front seam. Naturally, this novel arrangement often jammed and broke.
“That zipper was weird,” said Shatner’s stand-in, Eddie Paskey, who played the red-shirted Lieutenant Leslie in many episodes. “It started at the neck and went down to your armpit.”
Paskey also recalled that despite the lack of pockets, the pants had a small hidden slot, inside at the beltline. “You could put a few folded dollars in there so you could go to the commissary.” James Doohan, a.k.a. Scotty, used the enclosure to stash cigarettes.
Some of Theiss’ wardrobe decisions were determined by sheer necessity; he used material that was cheap and available. “We had very little time,” said co-producer Robert H. Justman, “and even less money.”
And the colors themselves “were chosen purely for technical reasons,” the designer confessed. “We tried to find three colors for the shirts that would be as different from each other as possible in black and white as well as color.”
Remember, this was the Age of Aquarius, when bold hues reigned supreme and NBC was billing itself as the “full-color network.” You can also see nods to the costumes’ 1960s heritage in the boots’ go-go contour, especially their Cuban heels. The flared trousers even suggested the evolution of bell-bottoms.
Beyond the prevailing cultural mood, Roddenberry’s working kit entailed some heavy ergonomic thinking. “No matter how many times NASA described the outfit of the future,” he once quipped, “it always sounded like long underwear.”
“Gene’s idea was that a replicator would redo the clothes every day,” said Andrea Weaver, a Star Trek women’s costumer. “In his mind, the crew would go in and the clothes would materialize, molded to the body form.”
That form was all-important. “Roddenberry’s theory,” said Joseph D’Agosta, the casting director, “was that by the 23rd Century, diet would be down to a science and everyone would be thin.”
Unfortunately, 20th Century reality didn’t always match 23rd Century fitness. “We found ourselves having to stay away from longer shots wherever possible,” Roddenberry observed, “as the simple plain lines of our basic costume render most unflattering any extra poundage around the waist.”
Shatner, who exercised fiercely but tended to gain weight, found that out the hard way. “As the season progressed and time passed,” recalled Justman, “the top of his pants and the bottom of his tunic moved inexorably away from each other as they got smaller and he got larger…The eternally slim Leonard Nimoy [Mr. Spock] and DeForest Kelley [Dr. McCoy] were much easier to outfit.”
Others had their own problems with the look. “Personally, I didn’t like the flare legs,” Doohan griped. “I thought that they came on kind of fey.” At least one director agreed. Running over a certain script, he intoned, “OK, our team materializes on the planet in their ballet pants.”
And George Takei—the unflappable helmsman Lieutenant Sulu—wasn’t exactly enamored of the boots. “We weren’t used to wearing high heels,” he said recently, “and I began complaining about this ache in my foreleg. And DeForest said, ‘I have the same ache.’ Then Jimmy chimed in. And we deduced it was the heel.”
On the whole, though, Takei thought the uniform “a joy,” especially when compared with its fussy, complicated big-screen variants. “You just jumped into it and pulled the sweatshirt over you.”
“If you were looking for a new pair of pajamas, you could look to that uniform,” chuckled Walter Koenig, who as the navigator Ensign Chekov manned the command console with Takei. “It never registered that it would become iconic.”
Just the same, he said, “It was a very simple design and did not take away from the person in it. It’s not something you would find yourself experiencing to the exclusion of the performance. It doesn’t feel like we were trying to overwhelm somebody with a sci-fi element.”
Ultimately, said Takei, the garb was a mere extension of something far more important.
“Gene Roddenberry had a utopian, peaceful, diverse vision of the future,” he reflected. “That’s what viewers responded to. That’s why the show has endured. And that’s why the costumes have endured.”
They endured in the J.J. Abrams reboot, another sign of how Abrams makes enough references to the original form of his remakes to make the viewer forget that no one is acting as they should.
J. J. Abrams’ Star-Trek Into Darkness, and the forthcoming After Earth(Shyamalan, 2013), are reminders of how film and TV so often depicts future fashion as skimpy or skin-tight. The uniforms in Abram’s recent Star Trekrevival have progressed from previous versions, but retain the hallmarks of the originals. The men’s uniforms have a mesh outer layer, reminiscent of moisture-wicking sportswear. The female uniforms are more precise replicas of the originals, with miniskirts and knee-high boots. …
Science is also transforming the way we create clothes. Clothes have historically been produced by sewing flat shapes of fabric together, thereby transforming multiple flat shapes into a single three-dimensional shape. New technologies are beginning to make sewing obsolete. Issey Miyake has established a research institute in Toyko with the aim of exploring new possibilities in fabric and garment creation. This research has yielded new bonding methods that may change our approach to garment manufacture. As in A-POC (a complete outfit that is manufactured at once, from a tube of fabric), the acts of weaving fabric and sewing pieces together are no longer separate processes. The weaving of the fabric and the bonding of the layers can be a single automatic process. There is no sewing, and therefore no seams.
A collaboration between Imperial College London and the Royal College of Art resulted in the invention of Fabrican, a spray-on-fabric. Fabrican canisters contain wet fibres which may be sprayed directly onto the surface of the body. … As the fibres dry, they bond, forming a single piece of flexible shaped fabric[2]. Spray-on-fabric has the potential to revolutionise the fashion industry. As it is sprayed directly onto the body, it removes the issue of sizing from the dressmaking process. It also changes the way that garments may be repaired. In order to fix a rip or tear, more fabric may be sprayed to invisibly seal the hole.
Fabrican is like a second skin: tight-fitting and seamless. This gives credence to the theory that skin-tight garments may become more common, and provides further evidence that future fashion is likely to be seam-free. As in the reinvented Man of Steel (2013) costume, and wetsuits in Star Trek Into Darkness, clothes may be moulded to fit our bodies perfectly.
I had not heard of Fabrican before this. It looks like another example of how technology has moved faster than Star Trek predicted.
Contrary to most people’s perception of what Captain Kirk’s original command division tunic looks like, the costume worn by William Shatner on Star Trek (1966) was actually not the color of gold or mustard, but a shade of avocado green! In order to create a uniform design that photographed gold on original 60s film stock and under the lighting conditions on set, costume designer William Ware Theiss had to use a greenish hue when he dyed the velour for the uniforms. “It photographed one way – burnt orange or a gold. But in reality was another; the command shirts were definitely green”, Theiss recalls in an interview.
Contemporary versions of the uniform as costumes, however, try to emulate the gold look of the television appearance rather than replicate the authentic (but ultimately false looking) lime green color. Below is a comparison of how the uniform appeared on television and how the original costume actually looks under more normal lighting.
In case that wasn’t green enough (and evidently it wasn’t; read the longer explanation here), Kirk got three additional outfits …
… which actor William Shatner didn’t care for due to their wrap design, intended to obscure Shatner’s, uh, horizontal growth. (On the other hand, the green wraps are almost all from the best Star Trek episodes. The wrap disappeared in the third season, which says something about the quality of third-season episodes.)
It may interest those who haven’t stopped reading already that what followed the original Star Trek got away from Roddenberry’s only-as-military-as-necessary look. The first Star Trek movie made one think we were in the process of evolving away from color:
If you’ve read this far, you undoubtedly are aware of the Legend of the Redshirts — that red-shirted Enterprise crew inevitably died during the episode, memorialized in …
Well, for the second movie and thereafter …
… everyone was a redshirt of sorts, explained by Empire Online:
Determined to make a change, Robert Fletcher stayed on as costume designer for the next three movies. The uniforms went back to a more military style for The Wrath Of Khan, with the main cast wearing burgundy jackets with overlapping lapels that they could dramatically rip open if their character was called upon to look tired or stressed out. The change in colour scheme, by the way, was not so much for design reasons as because the new uniforms were actually the old uniforms from The Motion Picture, dyed to a dark red (picked because it was the best dye that actually stuck to the Motion Picture costume fabrics).
Budgetary serendipity struck again, and the burgundy colour, combined with a variety of Naval-inspired turtlenecks, stuck around until the Star Trek movie torch was passed on to Captain Picard and the Next Generation crew. With the exception of the casual-looking suede bomber jackets worn when characters beamed down to an alien planet, the 1980s uniforms didn’t date too badly — mostly because they largely adhere to what we think of as a traditional military dress uniform. The boxy tailoring is more formal than anything seen earlier in the series, and details like vertical stripes down the side of the trousers are a direct reference to real-world military traditions.
For The Next Generation and beyond, red and gold were flipped.
It is I suppose ironic, given how much TV I used to watch, how little TV I watch now.
My TV- and movie-watching days coincided with the superstardom of actor Burt Reynolds, whose megahit (given its low budget) “Smokey and the Bandit” premiered when I was a sixth-grader.
A decade before that, Reynolds was a TV actor. He appeared in several shows, got his first non-guest-star role in the one-season “Riverboat,” was on “Gunsmoke” for three seasons, and was cast in two movies, the second as the lead in “Operation CIA.”
Reynolds then got his first starring TV role in an ABC-TV series about an American Indian detective who was a New York police detective, “Hawk.”
This was when ABC was the third-place network in a three-network race. The same night that “Star Trek” premiered at 7:30 p.m. Central time on NBC, “Hawk” premiered at 10 p.m. on ABC. (Yes, that was Gene Hackman in the first episode.)
“Hawk” didn’t even last to the 1967 half of the season; its final episode ran Dec. 29. But the idea of Reynolds, the son of a police chief, as a cop would persist. (More on that later.)
A decade after “Hawk” left the airwaves, it returned out of nowhere. NBC, which by then was the third-place network in the three-network face, decided to show “Hawk” in the summer of 1976 to take advantage of Reynolds’ stardom. That’s when I watched it.
The treasure trove that is YouTube, which previously produced two episodes of the obscure Jack Webb-created TV series “Chase,” unearthed two episodes of “Hawk.”
The amusing part of this episode for ’60s TV viewers could be guest star Frank Converse, who one year later played a New York detective in “N.Y.P.D.”
An Internet Movie Database review shows the promise and downfall of the series beyond bad scheduling:
“Hawk” (1966) had a brilliant core idea of filming a detective series on location in New York City at night. Making the central character an American Indian and casting 30-year old Burt Reynolds as Lt. John Hawk were also extremely smart moves.
“Hawk” was created by Emmy winner Allan Sloane (“Teacher, Teacher”, “East Side, West Side”, “The Breaking Point”). Sloane also wrote several strong episodes. The executive producer was Hubbell Robinson (“Boris Karloff’s Thriller”, “87th Precint”), who always strove for quality.
The stories were literate and intriguing (coming from the same people who were doing “The Defenders” and the other top dramatic shows of the day.) The casting of guests was impeccable, often drawing from the fine pool of actors working out of New York City. Some of the guest stars were Gene Hackman, Robert Duvall, Martin Sheen, Frank Converse, Philip Bosco, Scott Glenn, Diana Muldaur, Diane Baker, Louise Sorel, Bradford Dillman, Carol Rossen, James Best, Emily Prager and Beverlee McKinsey.
The main problem with the series was that the character of John Hawk was an arrogant jerk, apparently modeled after Ben Casey with a little Marlon Brando thrown in. Hawk had a big chip on his shoulder. It was impossible to like him. Burt Reynolds was never more appealing than as “half-breed” blacksmith Quint Asper on “Gunsmoke” for two years in the early 60’s. The writers and producers should have let Reynolds play Hawk more like Quint Asper.
Another weakness was that Hawk always had to be right and always had to perform the heroics solo. This made Hawk even more insufferable. The producers should have given Hawk a partner who was an equal rather than an eager beaver trainee. Gerald S. O’Loughlin, Ossie Davis or Frank Converse could have been good choices for Hawk’s partner. Reynolds could have easily developed a humorous, easy rapport with any of those actors. The partner could have shared some of the heroics and might even have made fun of John Hawk’s preening self-importance.
Even with its weaknesses, “Hawk” was an excellent effort, and I wish it had lasted longer. With just a little tweaking of the main character, this could have been one of the finest TV cop shows in history. Indeed, th premise of “Hawk” was so good, it could be remade as a series today.
My only connection with New York City is a former boss of mine who grew up in Queens. I’ve never been to New York City, though I was briefly in western New York. But as a crime TV viewer I’ve always been a bit fascinated with the televised image of New York City for crime shows, including “The Naked City” movie and TV series (the latter a half-hour drama that took one season off and then grew to a full hour with an almost completely different cast) …
… the one-season “Johnny Staccato” …
… the one-season “87th Precinct” …
… the aforementioned “N.Y.P.D.” …
… “Kojak” …
… the great “NYPD Blue” …
… and (though I’m an infrequent watcher) “Blue Bloods.”
New York seems like a perfect film noir setting. Even on TV the city seems dark and foreboding with washed-out colors. Where else could you have eight million stories?
Back to Reynolds. Four years later he was back on ABC in a police series, but on the other end of the U.S. in “Dan August, a Quinn Martin Production.”
Dan August was the title character of an excellent TV movie “The House on Greenapple Road,” but August wasn’t played by Burt Reynolds.
Christopher George played August, a police lieutenant working in his California home town, but after ABC green-lighted (that’s a Hollywood term) the series George apparently wasn’t available, so Reynolds replaced him.
(Trivia: The stunt coordinator on “Dan August” was Hal Needham, who would go on to produce “Smokey and the Bandit.” More trivia: Richard Anderson went on to be Steve Austin’s boss in “The Six Million Dollar Man.”)
Anyone whose knowledge of Reynolds began with “Smokey and the Bandit” (or “Boogie Nights”) probably is not used to serious Reynolds.
Less serious Reynolds may have begun to emerge when he went back to Boston with Norman Fell, who was in the series “87th Precinct” (which was set in New York), based on the Ed McBain novels (which were set in the fictional big city of “Isola,” which looked an awful lot like Manhattan), for “Fuzz” …
… then returned to the Big Apple to play private detective Shamus …
… though he got serious again when he went back to L.A. for “Hustle”:
Perhaps the presence or absence of facial hair is a sign of whether Reynolds’ role is serious or not.
Fox News contributor George Will says GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump will not release his tax returns because they may show “he is deeply involved in dealing with Russia oligarchs.”
The claim — which Will could not support with any tangible proof — was made to Bret Baier on Fox News’s “Special Report” live from the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on Monday night. The topic was raised after some Democratic Party officials, including presumptive Democratic presidential nomineeHillary Clinton‘s campaign manager, Robby Mook, attempted to connect the Republican presidential nominee to a leak of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails.
The Friday release by WikiLeaks of those emails, which appear to show an effort by DNC officials to lead a campaign against Clinton’s primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders(I-Vt.), led to the resignation of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who will step down after the convention.
“Both the campaign chair and anybody you talk to, including Sen. [Chris] Murphy [D-Conn.] would not go down that road once pressed on the connection between Russia and the Trump campaign,” said Baier. “But they have thrown it out there. George?”
“Well, it’s the sort of thing we might learn if we saw the candidate’s tax returns,” Will responded. “Perhaps one more reason why we’re not seeing his tax returns — because he is deeply involved in dealing with Russian oligarchs and others. Whether that’s good, bad or indifferent, it’s probably the reasonable surmise.”
Will was not making an out-of-the-ether statement. Josh Marshall says:
Over the last year there has been a recurrent refrain about the seeming bromance between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. More seriously, but relatedly, many believe Trump is an admirer and would-be emulator of Putin’s increasingly autocratic and illiberal rule. But there’s quite a bit more to the story. At a minimum, Trump appears to have a deep financial dependence on Russian money from persons close to Putin. And this is matched to a conspicuous solicitousness to Russian foreign policy interests where they come into conflict with US policies which go back decades through administrations of both parties. There is also something between a non-trivial and a substantial amount of evidence suggesting Putin-backed financial support for Trump or a non-tacit alliance between the two men. …
Let’s start with the basic facts. There is a lot of Russian money flowing into Trump’s coffers and he is conspicuously solicitous of Russian foreign policy priorities.
I’ll list off some facts.
1. All the other discussions of Trump’s finances aside, his debt load has grown dramatically over the last year, from $350 million to $630 million. This is in just one year while his liquid assets have also decreased. Trump has been blackballed by all major US banks.
2. Post-bankruptcy Trump has been highly reliant on money from Russia, most of which has over the years become increasingly concentrated among oligarchs and sub-garchs close to Vladimir Putin. Here’s a good overview from The Washington Post, with one morsel for illustration …
Since the 1980s, Trump and his family members have made numerous trips to Moscow in search of business opportunities, and they have relied on Russian investors to buy their properties around the world.“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
3. One example of this is the Trump Soho development in Manhattan, one of Trump’s largest recent endeavors. The project was the hit with a series of lawsuits in response to some typically Trumpian efforts to defraud investors by making fraudulent claims about the financial health of the project. Emerging out of that litigation however was news about secret financing for the project from Russia and Kazakhstan. Most attention about the project has focused on the presence of a twice imprisoned Russian immigrant with extensive ties to the Russian criminal underworld. But that’s not the most salient part of the story. As the Times put it,
“Mr. Lauria brokered a $50 million investment in Trump SoHo and three other Bayrock projects by an Icelandic firm preferred by wealthy Russians “in favor with” President Vladimir V. Putin, according to a lawsuit against Bayrock by one of its former executives. The Icelandic company, FL Group, was identified in a Bayrock investor presentation as a “strategic partner,” along with Alexander Mashkevich, a billionaire once charged in a corruption case involving fees paid by a Belgian company seeking business in Kazakhstan; that case was settled with no admission of guilt.”
Another suit alleged the project “occasionally received unexplained infusions of cash from accounts in Kazakhstan and Russia.”
Sounds completely legit.
Read both articles: After his bankruptcy and business failures roughly a decade ago Trump has had an increasingly difficult time finding sources of capital for new investments. As I noted above, Trump has been blackballed by all major US banks with the exception of Deutschebank, which is of course a foreign bank with a major US presence. He has steadied and rebuilt his financial empire with a heavy reliance on capital from Russia. At a minimum the Trump organization is receiving lots of investment capital from people close to Vladimir Putin.
Trump’s tax returns would likely clarify the depth of his connections to and dependence on Russian capital aligned with Putin. And in case you’re keeping score at home: no, that’s not reassuring.
4. Then there’s Paul Manafort, Trump’s nominal ‘campaign chair’ who now functions as campaign manager and top advisor. Manafort spent most of the last decade as top campaign and communications advisor for Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian Ukrainian Prime Minister and then President whose ouster in 2014 led to the on-going crisis and proxy war in Ukraine. Yanukovych was and remains a close Putin ally. Manafort is running Trump’s campaign.
5. Trump’s foreign policy advisor on Russia and Europe is Carter Page, a man whose entire professional career has revolved around investments in Russia and who has deep and continuing financial and employment ties to Gazprom. If you’re not familiar with Gazprom, imagine if most or all of the US energy industry were rolled up into a single company and it were personally controlled by the US President who used it as a source of revenue and patronage. That is Gazprom’s role in the Russian political and economic system. It is no exaggeration to say that you cannot be involved with Gazprom at the very high level which Page has been without being wholly in alignment with Putin’s policies. Those ties also allow Putin to put Page out of business at any time.
6. Over the course of the last year, Putin has aligned all Russian state controlled media behind Trump. As Frank Foer explains here, this fits a pattern with how Putin has sought to prop up rightist/nationalist politicians across Europe, often with direct or covert infusions of money. In some cases this is because they support Russia-backed policies; in others it is simply because they sow discord in Western aligned states. Of course, Trump has repeatedly praised Putin, not only in the abstract but often for the authoritarian policies and patterns of government which have most soured his reputation around the world.
7. Here’s where it gets more interesting. This is one of a handful of developments that tipped me from seeing all this as just a part of Trump’s larger shadiness to something more specific and ominous about the relationship between Putin and Trump. As TPM’s Tierney Sneed explained in this article, one of the most enduring dynamics of GOP conventions (there’s a comparable dynamic on the Dem side) is more mainstream nominees battling conservative activists over the party platform, with activists trying to check all the hardline ideological boxes and the nominees trying to soften most or all of those edges. This is one thing that made the Trump convention very different. The Trump Camp was totally indifferent to the platform. So party activists were able to write one of the most conservative platforms in history. Not with Trump’s backing but because he simply didn’t care. With one big exception: Trump’s team mobilized the nominee’s traditional mix of cajoling and strong-arming on one point: changing the party platform on assistance to Ukraine against Russian military operations in eastern Ukraine. For what it’s worth (and it’s not worth much) I am quite skeptical of most Republicans call for aggressively arming Ukraine to resist Russian aggression. But the single-mindedness of this focus on this one issue – in the context of total indifference to everything else in the platform – speaks volumes.
This does not mean Trump is controlled by or in the pay of Russia or Putin. It can just as easily be explained by having many of his top advisors having spent years working in Putin’s orbit and being aligned with his thinking and agenda. But it is certainly no coincidence. Again, in the context of near total indifference to the platform and willingness to let party activists write it in any way they want, his team zeroed in on one fairly obscure plank to exert maximum force and it just happens to be the one most important to Putin in terms of US policy. …
To put this all into perspective, if Vladimir Putin were simply the CEO of a major American corporation and there was this much money flowing in Trump’s direction, combined with this much solicitousness of Putin’s policy agenda, it would set off alarm bells galore. That is not hyperbole or exaggeration. And yet Putin is not the CEO of an American corporation. He’s the autocrat who rules a foreign state, with an increasingly hostile posture towards the United States and a substantial stockpile of nuclear weapons. The stakes involved in finding out ‘what’s going on’ as Trump might put it are quite a bit higher.
Donald Trump said he never met Vladimir Putin in a news conference Wednesday, contradicting a boast he’d made during the Republican primary debates about getting to know the Russian president.
“He said one nice thing about me. He said I’m a genius. I said thank you very much to the newspaper and that was the end of it. I never met Putin,” Trump said.
Trump, who has complimented Putin before, said that he would treat the dictator “firmly” but have their two countries be “friendly.”
On the GOP debate stage in November, though, Trump bragged about meeting the Russian leader.
“I got to know him very well because we were both on ’60 Minutes,’ we were stablemates, and we did very well that night,” Trump said.
Time reported that for that edition of “60 Minutes,” Trump was interviewed in the United States by CBS host Charlie Rose, who then traveled to Russia to interview Putin. The two appeared on the same segment of the long-running docu-series.
Trump contradicted something he previously said? Insert shocked face here!
This is from the final, and arguably worst, episode of the original “Star Trek,” in which Captain Kirk and a woman who bears some personality resemblance to Hillary Clinton switched bodies. Really.
Wait! There’s more! Sean Davis focuses on the most controversial statement of Trump’s news conference:
After taunting Hillary Clinton by asking Russian hackers to release 30,000 e-mails she deleted, Donald Trump finally forced Clinton’s campaign to admit that her unsanctioned e-mail server scheme was a “national security issue.” …
Trump’s comments about Russian hacking followed numerous reports this week that Russian hackers compromised the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) servers and then leaked thousands of e-mails sent by top Democratic staffers. DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign her position as a result of the leaks. …
On Wednesday morning, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump asked Russia to turn over the tens of thousands of e-mails deleted by Hillary Clinton. The scandal-plagued former Secretary of State maintained for months that the e-mails were personal, not work-related, and that they were in no way classified.
But in a press release issued on Wednesday, Clinton’s top campaign spokesman suddenly declared those e-mails to be a “national security issue”:
This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent. That’s not hyperbole, those are just the facts. This has gone from being a curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security.
Contrary to Sullivan’s assertion about the unprecedented nature of Russian meddling in U.S. elections, former U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) begged the Soviets to help him get rid of President Ronald Reagan in 1984.
You can certainly tell that the Democrats are increasingly rattled about the Wikileaks of Democratic National Committee emails. The Washington Post reports:
Activists and campaign officials, anxious about what leaks may be yet to come, also worried about the alleged involvement of the Russian government, with campaign officials suggesting that the Kremlin was releasing the documents to damage Clinton’s candidacy. National security experts, while cautious about leaping to premature conclusions, warned of the possibility of a significant escalation in an ongoing information war.
If the Russians were behind the leaks, said former CIA director Michael Hayden, “they’re clearly taking their game to another level. It would be weaponizing information.” He added: “You don’t want a foreign power affecting your election. We have laws against that.”
On Monday, the FBI formally acknowledged that it is looking into the DNC hack. The agency has been probing the matter for months and on Monday said publicly that it will “investigate and hold accountable those who pose a threat in cyberspace.” The FBI announcement followed the stunning allegation by the Clinton campaign Sunday that the Russian government was behind the release of damaging documents on the WikiLeaks website as part of a ploy to help Republican nominee Donald Trump.
Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, called the suggestions “absurd” and suggested that Democrats were looking to shift attention away from damaging information about the party’s conduct during the primary campaign.
On Monday, fallout from the hack also reverberated at the Kremlin, where a spokesman declined to comment on the hack except to refer reporters to comments by Trump’s son, Don Jr., calling the allegations part of a pattern of “lie after lie.”
“Mr. Trump Jr. has already strongly responded” to the Clinton campaign’s claims, the Russian spokesman said, according to the news agency Tass.
The founder of WikiLeaks and its current top editor, Julian Assange, told the Democracy Now radio show Monday that he would not discuss the source of the data.
“In relation to sourcing, I can say some things. (A), we never reveal our sources, obviously. That’s what we pride ourselves on. And we won’t in this case, either. But no one knows who our source is.” Assange has said the release Friday was the first in a series. …
The email releases continued to cause anxiety among Democratic officials as the party gathered for its convention in Philadelphia.
Most unnerving to activists here is the uncertainty over what may come next.
Former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) told The Post that his email account was hacked recently, but he said he had no indication that the hack originated overseas or was a matter of concern to law enforcement.
Former White House chief of staff William M. Daley, attending the convention, called the Russian hack of DNC emails “pretty frightening.”
Given Russia’s sophistication in this realm, Daley said that it would be reasonable to conclude that President Vladimir Putin and his government are behind the email leak in an effort to undermine Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.
“I don’t think anybody would be surprised if Putin would try to affect the election,” Daley said in an interview Monday. “That’s like the old ‘Casablanca’ — there’s gambling in the casino. It doesn’t surprise me at all. Period. I think anybody who dismisses that is living in fairy land here.”
An idiot writer for Slate (but I repeat myself) claimed that the DNC email hack was worse than Watergate, and said the way to defeat Putin and the Russians was to vote for Hillary Clinton. That assertion contains enough hypocrisy to sink a battleship, identified by David French:
It’s hard not to resist schadenfreude, but we must. After all, this is the same progressive movement that mocked Mitt Romney’s accurate declaration of Russia’s ambitions and intentions during the 2012 election. But now that the DNC is under siege, we face a national emergency. Better late than never, I suppose. On the list of threats to our national interests, I’d rank the DNC hack well below Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, annexation of the Crimea, threats against NATO-allied Baltic states, and aggressive assertions of power in the Middle East, but meddling in American presidential politics is serious nonetheless.
And it’s a matter of concern that the Putin government may view Trump favorably enough to intervene on his behalf to humiliate his opponent. It’s fair to wonder, what does Putin either like about Trump or hate about Hillary? Or is Putin merely seeking to cause chaos, and the DNC servers were a target of opportunity? Spare me any explanation that Putin would ratchet up international tensions merely because Trump “respects” him or has said nice things about him. Putin is a cold-eyed calculator who plays an old-school great power political game — from the line of thinking that says that nations don’t have “friends,” only interests. If Putin is intervening in the American election, he’s pursuing Russian interests, not Trump interests. But why?
Add the Wikileaks data dump to interesting research indicating that at least some online pro-Trump Twitter accounts appear to be Russian in origin (this isn’t news to those of us who’ve been targeted by the alt-right — it’s plain that many of those accounts aren’t American), and the concern should only grow. Again, I don’t claim to know why Putin seems to be intervening to aid Trump, only that for now that appears to be the Russian strategy. If the goal is sheer disruption, however, then he could shift his fire at any time. If the goal is to truly aid Trump, I’d be surprised if this was the last Russian surprise of the election.
But at least now — on this one thing — most progressives and conservatives are united. Putin’s Russia is, in fact, a geopolitical threat.
The Washington Post reminded us last year that “It’s been over five years since the United States and Russia vowed to ‘reset’ their relationship.”
On the eve of the Democratic National Convention, one country, and one authoritarian, was on everybody’s lips: Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
It was July 2016, sure, but it was also August 2008, when Democrats held their quadrennial convention in Denver against the backdrop of war between Russia and Georgia. Having been out of the White House for almost eight years, and energized in opposition to George W. Bush’s foreign policy, the donkey party had confident ideas about how to handle Putin.
“In recent days, we’ve once again seen the consequences of [Bush’s foreign policy] neglect with Russia’s challenge to the free and democratic country of Georgia,” soon-to-be Vice President Joe Biden said in his convention speech. “Barack Obama and I will end this neglect. We will hold Russia accountable for its actions, and we’ll help the people of Georgia rebuild.”
Former Secretary of Defense William Perry, a foreign policy advisor for Candidate Obama, insisted that “Russia really wants respect…We start off by treating Russia with respect.” And Obama himself vowed to “renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can…curb Russian aggression.”
Needless to say, Russian aggression during the Obama era has been anything but “curbed”—Putin annexed Crimea under military threat, and continues to be involved in low-level skirmishing in Ukraine. “Treating Russia with respect,” in the form of abandoning a planned NATO missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland, didn’t put a dent in Putin’s scheming, particularly in the countries under question: Russian intelligence and state-owned entities have been pouring into former Warsaw Pact countries, effectively turning the once-free country of Hungary into a client state.
Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, teamed up with President Obama and Vice President Biden on a “reset” of Washington-Moscow relations, betting that newly installed President Dmitry Medvedev would prove to be a more willing diplomatic partner. Clinton even presented her counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, with a bright red reset button in 2009. And no, I’m not making that up …
Conducting good foreign policy is hard, quickly exposing the limits of American omnipotence. But as the Democratic Party power structure cranks up for some full on Russia-baiting against both Donald Trump and Wikileaks, it’s worth remembering that very selling proposition of its presidential nominee is her experience conducting foreign policy, and that her track record with Russia was at best naïve and ineffectual. Democrats made the fatal mistake of believing their own campaign bluster, including the narcissistic notion that being different than George W. Bush was enough to be better.
Yes, the U.S. failures against Russia (as well as all our other foreign policy failures) are solely the responsibility of Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, who we are to believe will be the tougher of the two candidates against Russia. The truth is neither Clinton nor Trump — and I’m pretty sure not Gary Johnson either — can adequately take on our new old enemy Russia.
Just like last week, I will be on WBEL radio, which calls itself The Big 1380, on Big Mornings with Ted Ehlen Friday at 6:45 a.m. Just like last week, thanks to the Internet, you can listen, if you dare, online here. Just like last week, WBEL is near Domenico’s, delivering excellent Italian food since 1973.
My lack of faith in voters getting the Nov. 8 election correct (which would mean voting for neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump) makes me doubt Ben Shapiro‘s first sentence, but the rest is correct:
Hillary Clinton is in serious trouble.
She’s not in trouble because of the massive competence of Donald Trump. She’s in trouble because she is terrible at the game her husband invented: the game of “who cares more about people like you.” In March 1992, Bill Clinton met a member of an AIDS-activism group at an event at a nightclub in New York City. Attacked by the activist for not doing enough for AIDS victims, Clinton famously responded, “I feel your pain, I feel your pain.” Clinton’s false empathy led him from victory to victory; he defeated the out-of-touch George H. W. Bush and crushed the oddly self-referential Bob Dole.
But Bill Clinton’s wife is one of the least empathy-driven candidates in the history of politics. She’s manipulating, cynical, and nasty. She’s instinctively defensive, brutally cutting, and utterly cold.
The polls show it.
This week’s CNN poll demonstrated that 68 percent of Americans consider Hillary dishonest, and 54 percent think she’s running for personal gain. Fifty-five percent view Hillary unfavorably overall; but only 52 percent view Trump unfavorably. Just 47 percent think he’s running for personal gain.
A majority of Americans think Trump is running to help America. They think Hillary is running to help Hillary.
That’s Hillary’s fault.
But more important, it’s Barack Obama’s fault, and the Left’s fault.
Barack Obama has been a highly unsuccessful president by any objective measure. His foreign policy has led to the single most explosive rise in terrorism since the empowerment of al-Qaeda in the late 1990s by Hillary’s husband. His last two years have been plagued by a national increase in violent crime, particularly murder in major cities. The economy has continued to stall under his redistributionist, anti-capitalist watch.
And the Democrats have paid the price. The media that built Obama into a godhead for racial progress couldn’t abandon Obama; instead, they kept happy-talking their way through an increasingly dystopian America. So did Obama’s fellow Democrats. The result: massive Republican gains at the state and local level, and historic elections in 2010 and 2014 in Congressional races.
The media still can’t escape the Obama trap. When Donald Trump rightly pointed out a series of problems facing America at home and abroad, ranging from rising crime and economic malaise to the rise of jihadism, the media and the Obama administration responded by pooh-poohing Trump’s critique. No, they said, Trump’s wrong: Everything’s hunky-dory. He’s just being too “dark.”
Except he isn’t. And Americans know that.
Hillary knows it too, but she’s stuck in a bind.
Obama trapped her. Early in her campaign, Hillary seemed to want to break with Barack Obama’s presidency. She recognized that while Obama was personally popular, his tenure had largely been seen as a failure by a dissatisfied American republic. She therefore pursued twin goals: tying herself to Obama’s “first black president” legacy and big-government growth, and avoiding the consequences of his rotten decision-making.
By first delaying a decision from Vice President Joe Biden about whether Biden would run, the Obama White House forced Hillary into full-scale obeisance to the Obama era. That’s been disastrous for Hillary. Her convention week has completely ignored the serious problems that keep most Americans up at night. There have been five jihadist attacks in Europe in the last eleven months. On the first day of the convention, 61 speakers mentioned ISIS precisely zero times. That same day, ISIS beheaded an 86-year-old priest in Normandy, France. Over the past few weeks, Americans have mourned over a wave of anti-cop massacres. So Hillary is now trotting out the “Mothers of the Movement” — Black Lives Matter activists including the mother of attempted cop-killer Michael Brown — to promulgate myths about police racism.
Hillary doesn’t take Americans’ concerns seriously. She doesn’t feel their pain.
She feels her own pain.
Hillary’s pathetic self-indulgence leads her to moan about her plight even as the media fête her. On Sunday, Hillary complained about her victimhood at the hands of the brutal vast right-wing conspiracy: “I often feel like there’s the Hillary standard, and then there’s the standard for everybody else.” Scott Pelley of CBS News, who was purportedly interviewing her, then followed up by asking, “Why do you put yourself through it?”
Hillary’s answer: “ ’Cause I really believe in this country.”
Nobody believes that for a heartbeat. Not when she’s dismissing the problems of Americans in order to pander to Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood or remind Americans of the importance of transgender bathrooms.
Now, Hillary believes that she can succeed by labeling Trump arrogant and self-centered. But Americans already know he’s arrogant and self-centered. They think he’s out to help blue-collar Americans, that he’s ready to protect them from the vicissitudes of the global economy and the evils of crime. Americans have no idea why Hillary Clinton is running.
This they do know: She doesn’t share their priorities.
But she’s trapped now. Barack Obama is her greatest asset, but he’s also her greatest liability. When Michelle Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention to the plaudits of the media, she painted a rosy picture of America. Hillary’s going to have to do the same in order to defend the Obama program. But that program means nothing without Obama at the head of it, as former majority leader Harry Reid and former House speaker Nancy Pelosi have found out.
In the end, that could be Obama’s final revenge on Hillary: not helping to deny her the nomination, but forcing her to go down fighting for his priorities, even as the American people increasingly come to believe she doesn’t care about theirs.
Five years ago this summer, Wisconsin’s budget-repair law, better known as Act 10, went into effect. The legislation, which significantly curtailed collective-bargaining rights for public employees, was a signature part of Gov. Scott Walker’s effort to close the state’s $3.6 billion budget deficit. It sparked chaos in Madison: Tens of thousands of protesters occupied the capital. Fourteen Democratic state senators fled across state lines in an effort to stop the bill from passing. When it became law anyway, opposition culminated in a failed effort to recall Gov. Walker in 2012.
Looking at the law’s results half a decade later, it is safe to say that it was worth the trouble. Wisconsin’s example ought to embolden reformers everywhere: It’s possible to reform spending on public employees without damaging the quality of services.
Act 10 has saved taxpayers $5 billion since June 2011, according to the John K. MacIver Institute, a free-market think tank in Madison. Local school districts, government agencies and municipalities have acquired more affordable health-care plans, allowing them to put money into classrooms and critical services. Even Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Gov. Walker’s opponent in the 2012 recall election, used Act 10 to save his city nearly $20 million.
Because the law’s financial benefits have always been indisputable, Democratic lawmakers and teachers unions instead claim that Act 10 has led to increased class sizes and teacher shortages. A 2011 attack ad from a union-funded group claimed, without evidence, that the law was “so devastating that students are without chairs and a government survey found 47 kids in a classroom.” This earned a “false” rating from an independent fact-checker, but similar arguments too often go unchallenged. The top Democrat in the state senate, Minority Leader Jennifer Shilling, claimed only days ago that the “sun is setting on public education.”
A new study from our organization, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, disputes that conventional wisdom. The Institute’s Will Flanders, along with Marty Lueken of the Friedman Foundation, conducted a comprehensive survey of Act 10’s effect on teachers’ age, experience, salary and benefits, as well as classroom size. Using data from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction and the U.S. Education Department, the authors found that dire claims about Act 10 are greatly exaggerated.
For instance, the report shows that the number of students per teacher in Wisconsin has kept pace with surrounding states. Between 2009 and 2013, the ratio in Wisconsin increased by only 0.4 students per teacher, compared with 0.6 in Michigan and Iowa. The average age of Wisconsin teachers dropped 1.7 years between 2011 and 2014, and their average experience declined by three-quarters of one year. Hardly a radical undermining of the Badger State’s public schools.
The average teacher’s base salary did decline by $2,095, or 3.8%, between 2009 and 2014. But Wisconsin teachers’ pay remains above the U.S. average. Besides, thanks to Act 10 school districts have plenty of tools beyond base salary to attract, retain and reward good teachers: signing and retention bonuses, performance-based stipends, and tuition reimbursement for master’s degrees or advanced certifications. When this other compensation is included, Act 10 had no discernible effect on pay when compared to surrounding states.
Opponents of Act 10 have been quick to assert that the law led to a decline in the number of teachers in the state. But Wisconsin was already losing teachers before it was implemented. Between 2008 and 2011, the number of fully licensed teachers in the state shrank by 2.2%. Since 2012 the figure has dropped only 0.1%. Over the years the decline in teachers has roughly tracked the decline in student enrollment caused by an aging population with fewer children.
Public unions will continue to use anecdotes to suggest that Act 10 represented a death knell for Wisconsin schools. But the evidence tells another story. The law’s critics, who blame it for every negative trend in Wisconsin education over the past five years, will have to explain why many of the same changes occurred in Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota and Iowa—neighboring states without similar laws.
The results validate Gov. Scott Walker, his allies in the legislature and the millions of conservatives who rallied to support their cause. Wisconsin’s story should encourage other governors who face increasing budget pressure to reform ballooning pensions and benefits for public employees. Many may have looked to the backlash in Wisconsin and decided the fight wasn’t worth it. But as time passes, it becomes more clear than ever that it was.
Joel Pollak read the leaked emails between the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, and found out …
After being told for weeks by very concerned liberals and media pundits that Donald J. Trump represents the second coming of Adolf Hitler, it is richly ironic to learn that Hillary Clinton’s Democratic National Committee (DNC) planned to target Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) for his faith.
(And it is Hilary Clinton’s DNC: Rep. Debbie Waserman-Schultz (D-FL) resigned on Sunday after Wikileaks revealed emails showing that the DNC and the media conspired to stop Sanders’s insurgent candidacy.)
In one email, Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall allegedly said: “It might may (sic) no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”
Note that at least part of the senior leadership of the Democratic Party presumed a) that the voters of Kentucky and West Virginia are religious bigots; b) that Southern Baptist voters in those states are bigots, perhaps even more so; c) that these groups might have some problem with voting for a Jew; and d) but they would be even more troubled by voting for an atheist.
Forget Donald Trump and his retweets. This is as close to an honest-to-goodness “dog whistle” as you are going to get. The DNC actually contemplated appealing to the presumed prejudices of their own bitter-clinger voters by planting questions in a public forum.
On a day when the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee announced she plans to resign over a disturbing email leak, a new email has surfaced appearing to call outreach to hispanics “taco bowl engagement.” It’s unclear if the email chain or “script” referred to in the email was meant as a response to a picture that Donald Trump had tweeted on Cinco De Mayo that depicted him eating a taco salad and proclaiming his appreciation for latinos. Progressives and conservatives called for more firings on Sunday evening because of the email.
… and then got an immediate DNC response:
A representative with the DNC says the comment that some have perceived to be racist in nature was simply referring to a video. DNC staffer Eric Walker emailed VNL on Tuesday morning saying “The phrase “taco bowl engagement” was referring to a video we put out in response to Trump’s taco bowl tweet. Here’s the video we produced: https://www.facebook.com/democrats/videos/10153916682971943/.” We have linked to the email in question on the right side of this page. There you can also find a link to the full Wikileaks email archive from the DNC. Walker said the staffer who was named in the original email release from Wikileaks has been the subject of “incredibly unfair vitriol.”
The DNC demanded in their email to VNL that our original story be changed or taken down as they claimed “it reads as a grotesque misrepresentation of our staffers comments.” Walker also wanted to know how the story was going to be changed.
Ironic, isn’t it, that the DNC immediately jumped on Trump’s taco bowl tweet (which was, you’ll recall, his holding a taco bowl and proclaiming his love of Latinos on Cinco de Mayo) and then denied the DNC’s own racism by attacking the messenger instead of apologizing for its own message.
This shouldn’t be a surprise, because the Democratic Party has always been full of bigots. The party that ended slavery was not the Democratic Party. The party that enacted Jim Crow laws after the Civil War was the Democratic Party. The dirty little secret about the Progressive Era was the racism of such Democratic heroes as Woodrow Wilson, who, as reported by The Atlantic, “as president … oversaw unprecedented segregation in federal offices.” Franklin D. Roosevelt locked up Japanese-Americans during World War II despite no evidence that Japanese-Americans were threats to the nation. And of course there is U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia), former Ku Klux Klan leader.
In this state, Democrats except for late Rep. Polly Williams (D-Milwaukee) almost universally opposed school choice because teacher unions were more important to Democrats than education of minority children. Democrats refer to the Tea Party by a term that is offensive to conservatives and homosexuals. This week’s Democratic National Convention demonstrates that Democrats now take the side of criminals and against police. And recall Obama’s line about “clinging to their guns and religion”?
Today in 1958, a study by Esso (formerly one of the bazillion Standard Oil companies, now ExxonMobil) reported that drivers drove faster and therefore waste more gas when listening to rock music.
If a driver wastes (however you define that) gas, the oil companies sell more gasoline. It’s unclear to me why the oil companies would consider that to be a bad thing, particularly in the 1950s when cars got all of 12 or so mpg.
Today in 1968, Sly and the Family Stone failed to appear at a free concert in Chicago.
A riot ensued.
Today in 1977, John Lennon did not get instant karma, but he did get a green card to become a permanent resident, five years after the federal government (that is, Richard Nixon) sought to deport him. So can you imagine who played mind games on whom?
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 