Clearly, no one is in charge
Given the last couple of weeks, that's a good thing, but we're not finished until someone is running the government, and responsible to crises that are sure to come, soon.
by Dave Winer Sunday, February 5, 2017

I just did a tweetstorm that says something important. I've listed the points below with a little light editing.

Journalism plays dumb, worse than "view from nowhere." Can't ask who is in charge until someone says Trump isn't.

It seems journalism has at least two functions. 1. Reporting facts in evidence. 2. Asking questions. What are the rules governing #2?

Was journalism allowed to ask if Obama was born in the US, because someone made a big deal of it? (Clearly no. And they, largely, didn't.)

But they were allowed to question Hillary's honesty because other candidates raised it as an issue. They did. Even though scant evidence.

This is one of those conventional wisdom vs obvious reality things. I think it's obvious Trump is not in charge. Isn't it? Objectively.

But the press plays along with the (imho) farce that Trump is on top, ready to respond to crises, or even driving what his admin is doing.

Perhaps instead of 1984 or Brave New World, we all ought to be reviewing Wag the Dog?

People joke about #presidentbannon b/c we think we understand what's going on. But Bannon has been impeded, so even he isn't in charge.

The problem is this -- when the attack comes, and it is coming, there won't be anyone home at the White House. And everyone knows this.

But we are collectively pretending we don't.

The flow of EOs has stopped, which is good, by govt managers, the military and courts. system worked. we passed a big test.

The next step, to get back on solid ground, get someone in charge of the White House who is up to the job. Trying to be clear as I can.

To Repubs, get a grip. Your shopping spree is over, for a while. Pop your heads up, realize no one is running the show, fix it.