What? You don't believe it? Why not? Paul Krugman is the left-wing Nobel prize winning economist and Op-Ed writer for the New York Times. In the August 18, 2018 online edition of the Times was an article by Mr. Krugman titled "The Slippery Slope of Complicity." Krugman starts out his piece by claiming that "Trump is every bit as much a menace to the republic, as some of us warned when all the cool kids were busy snarking about Clinton's emails." The "slippery slope" in his title refers to the Republicans having tolerated some of Trump's behaviors, to the point where they now "acquiesce in Trump's corruption, his incitement to violence, and his abuse of power."
Krugman then makes this outrageous assertion, based on nothing, which the New York Times - the self-described "paper of record" - happily publishes online: "Make no mistake: If Republicans hold both houses of Congress this November, Trump will go full authoritarian, abusing institutions like the I.R.S., trying to jail opponents and journalists on, er trumped-up charges, and more - and he'll do it with full support from his party." Then, Krugman went even further with this contention: "And some of them (Republicans) are making a coldblooded calculation that the demise of democracy is worth it if it means lower taxes on the rich and freedom to pollute."
It is hard to believe that this was not an "April Fool's" online edition of the Times. It was Obama who actually used the I.R.S. to target conservative 501(c)(3) organizations. It was Obama who spied on journalists, and sought to prosecute more people under the Espionage Act than other presidents. Where is Krugman's evidence that Trump wants to jail opponents and journalists? If there is no evidence, how dare he say it, and how dare the Times put it up online. And if there is evidence - and I am sure there is not - he should tell us what it is in the article.
One can only feel scorn for the claim that Republicans are willing to see an end to our democracy in exchange for lower taxes and pollution. Then again, Krugman also tells us that "Republican politicians are (not) serious, honorable people who care about policy." This sounds quite similar to Hillary's "basket of deplorables" - the racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes and Islamophobes. Only Krugman has taken it to the next level. Now, the deplorables (i.e. Republicans) want to lock up opponents, lock up journalists, and bring about an end to democracy just to get lower taxes and pollution.
In case Krugman's, and the Times, left-wing readers were not clear on the point of this trashy Op-Ed, Krugman makes it quite explicit: "democracy really could die just a few moths from now." In other words, with a Republican victory in the midterms, our democracy ends. So, Krugman, and presumably the Times, justify this garbage because the goal is to rally the base to get out and vote in order to prevent...fascism, jailing journalists, and lower taxes and pollution.
Here's how I look at it - if Krugman can make all these scurrilous comments about Trump and Republicans, then why can't I claim that Democrats will seek to imprison Republicans? Maybe Democrats will force Republicans into slavery and prostitution. Don't blame me. It's a time honored Democratic approach to the opposition - demagoguery and name-calling instead of true debate with facts and logical argument. Just ask Hillary. And Obama. And Pelosi and Reid and the rest of them.
Sunday, August 19, 2018
Thursday, August 16, 2018
Democratic Voices
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is seeking reelection. One of his opponents is TV star Cynthia Nixon. Nixon has called our Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) a "terrorist" organization which should be abolished.
Not to be outdone, Governor Cuomo said this: "We're not going to make America great again. It was never that great." Yes, his media people tried to walk that back. But the fact that those words came out of his mouth is clearly a reflection of the left's continuing attacks on America.
Here is another. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren referred to our criminal justice system as "racist...front to back." Didn't some recent Democratic officials high up in our government feel the same way about the police and our criminal justice system? That's right - President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder.
We cannot leave Hillary Clinton out of this. When an eleven year old sixth grader in Maryland decided to take a knee during the Pledge of Allegiance, Clinton supported her. I realize that today's kids are more sophisticated and more worldly than we were at that age, but how much of this girl's actions was actually being promoted by her parents? Here's Clinton: "It takes courage to exercise your right to protest injustice, especially when you're 11. Keep up the good work..."
Is that what we want as a society? Or do we want our kids to stand and say the Pledge? Do we want to instill a love of country? A love for the Flag and what it represents? As noted in the last post, a country is held together by shared values. When those values come under constant attack, then how can anyone be surprised by how divided we are as a nation.
Not to be outdone, Governor Cuomo said this: "We're not going to make America great again. It was never that great." Yes, his media people tried to walk that back. But the fact that those words came out of his mouth is clearly a reflection of the left's continuing attacks on America.
Here is another. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren referred to our criminal justice system as "racist...front to back." Didn't some recent Democratic officials high up in our government feel the same way about the police and our criminal justice system? That's right - President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder.
We cannot leave Hillary Clinton out of this. When an eleven year old sixth grader in Maryland decided to take a knee during the Pledge of Allegiance, Clinton supported her. I realize that today's kids are more sophisticated and more worldly than we were at that age, but how much of this girl's actions was actually being promoted by her parents? Here's Clinton: "It takes courage to exercise your right to protest injustice, especially when you're 11. Keep up the good work..."
Is that what we want as a society? Or do we want our kids to stand and say the Pledge? Do we want to instill a love of country? A love for the Flag and what it represents? As noted in the last post, a country is held together by shared values. When those values come under constant attack, then how can anyone be surprised by how divided we are as a nation.
Newspapers Across the Country Unite For Freedom of the Press
Today, August 16, 2018, over 300 newspapers across the country expressed - in separate editorials - why a free press is of critical importance to this country. Big City papers, small town papers, weeklies all joined in the call made by The Boston Globe to make today's editorials on this one topic. As I said at the beginning of the last post, I support newspapers. I like holding them, and folding the pages. There is no doubt that newspapers provide a great service to this country - from challenging abusive or corrupt government and businesses, to human interest stories, to sports, business and entertainment. Whether in print or online, it is how we find out what is happening in our communities, our state, our country and our world. In fact, the Los Angeles Times Sunday edition, during college football season, is my favorite paper - covering most of the Saturday games.
So, then why the big controversy and need to unite as one voice? In a word - Trump. The mainstream media feels that they are under attack with President Trump's frequent allegations of "fake news." Here is part of today's editorial from the Topeka Capital-Journal: "We're not separate from the public. We are the public. We live and work and play in Topeka and surrounding areas. We go to restaurants and send our children to school. We drive the same roads, see the same doctors. We're not the enemy of the people. We are the people." A similar sentiment was expressed in other papers' editorials. It sounds reasonable - but is it true?
We know that San Francisco is one of the most left-wing cities in the country. In 2013, only 8.6% of registered voters had registered as Republicans. Not terribly surprising. But Politico reported, based on data from Nate Silver, that in 2013 only 7% of journalists identified as Republican. In other words, the people that write the news are more left-wing than one of the most left-wing cities in the country. Does that make them just like the rest of us when it comes to reporting anything that may have a political aspect to it? Arthur O. Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, wrote after the 2016 election: "Did Donald Trump's unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?" No, Mr. Sulzberger, I disagree. When the overwhelming number of your journalists are left-wing, when they adored Hillary Clinton, they simply were unable to see or understand the appeal of a Donald Trump. I would suggest to Mr. Sulzberger that he try bringing true diversity - diversity of opinion - to the Gray Lady.
The USA Today was too easy on themselves in today's editorial by Manny Garcia, their "standards" editor. Here is what he wrote: "Treat everyone with fairness, dignity and respect, especially our harshest critics. Always take the high road. Never twist the knife." Platitudes are nice, but when they are ignored, they are just that - platitudes. Take the high road? Would that be when the USA Today wrote "a president (referring to Trump) who would all but call Senator Kirsten Gillibrand a whore (he didn't) is not fit to clean the toilets in the Barack Obama Presidential Library or to shine the shoes of George W. Bush." Is that how the USA Today treats everyone with dignity - especially the President of the United States? Is that the high road?
I do not recall the mainstream media being so distressed over the way President Obama and others in his Administration spoke about Fox News. Then White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said this: "We're going to treat them (Fox News) the way we would treat an opponent. (Kind of like an enemy?) We don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave." Obama's political adviser, David Axelrod said that Fox is "not really a news station." Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel gave the same talking point, opining that Fox is "not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." And here's Obama: Fox is "a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world." Yet, the mainstream media was apoplectic when Trump would not call on CNN's Jim Acosta at a White House press briefing. I am trying to understand. Calling Fox "destructive" to our society and not a real news organization is acceptable, but calling out CNN and others for "fake news" is the end of our democracy?
Former President Obama was at it again earlier this year: "If you watch Fox News, you are living on a different planet than you are if you listen to NPR." I cannot be 100% certain, but I would be willing to bet that Obama thinks more highly of NPR listeners than he does of the Fox News audience. And Obama said this: "One of the biggest challenges we have to our democracy is the degree to which we don't share a common baseline of facts." I could not disagree more. As a man of the left, Obama ignores what truly separates us - values. I have discussed this lack of agreement on values for years. What were common American values shared by both sides are now held by one side only, Republicans/conservatives. Just a few examples. Freedom of speech? Only conservative speech is shut down. Capitalism? The left prefers socialism. Support for our laws and police? The Democrats want to abolish ICE, have open borders, and we know what Obama thought of the police. Respect for the flag? No comment needed. Support for one of our closest allies, Israel? Not by Democrats.
Not only does Obama not get it, but the above sentences reflect his continuing attack on conservatives, in his subtle way of mocking those who watch Fox News and disagree with him and the left. No doubt Trump, being a New Yorker, is much more direct and in-your-face, while Obama is much smoother and more elegant in his insults. It is easy to be fooled by the tact with which Obama mocks the right, but there is no mistaking Trump's insults for anything but. The other difference is that we, on the right, can see that Trump is divisive. The left remains unable to see the divisiveness of Obama.
So, were today's editorials defending the press necessary? They were more akin to a self-congratulatory pat on the back. Which is fine. But the platitudes, and the continuing inability to recognize their own political biases, will remain a problem for the foreseeable future, absent structural changes in the media.
So, then why the big controversy and need to unite as one voice? In a word - Trump. The mainstream media feels that they are under attack with President Trump's frequent allegations of "fake news." Here is part of today's editorial from the Topeka Capital-Journal: "We're not separate from the public. We are the public. We live and work and play in Topeka and surrounding areas. We go to restaurants and send our children to school. We drive the same roads, see the same doctors. We're not the enemy of the people. We are the people." A similar sentiment was expressed in other papers' editorials. It sounds reasonable - but is it true?
We know that San Francisco is one of the most left-wing cities in the country. In 2013, only 8.6% of registered voters had registered as Republicans. Not terribly surprising. But Politico reported, based on data from Nate Silver, that in 2013 only 7% of journalists identified as Republican. In other words, the people that write the news are more left-wing than one of the most left-wing cities in the country. Does that make them just like the rest of us when it comes to reporting anything that may have a political aspect to it? Arthur O. Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, wrote after the 2016 election: "Did Donald Trump's unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?" No, Mr. Sulzberger, I disagree. When the overwhelming number of your journalists are left-wing, when they adored Hillary Clinton, they simply were unable to see or understand the appeal of a Donald Trump. I would suggest to Mr. Sulzberger that he try bringing true diversity - diversity of opinion - to the Gray Lady.
The USA Today was too easy on themselves in today's editorial by Manny Garcia, their "standards" editor. Here is what he wrote: "Treat everyone with fairness, dignity and respect, especially our harshest critics. Always take the high road. Never twist the knife." Platitudes are nice, but when they are ignored, they are just that - platitudes. Take the high road? Would that be when the USA Today wrote "a president (referring to Trump) who would all but call Senator Kirsten Gillibrand a whore (he didn't) is not fit to clean the toilets in the Barack Obama Presidential Library or to shine the shoes of George W. Bush." Is that how the USA Today treats everyone with dignity - especially the President of the United States? Is that the high road?
I do not recall the mainstream media being so distressed over the way President Obama and others in his Administration spoke about Fox News. Then White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said this: "We're going to treat them (Fox News) the way we would treat an opponent. (Kind of like an enemy?) We don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave." Obama's political adviser, David Axelrod said that Fox is "not really a news station." Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel gave the same talking point, opining that Fox is "not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." And here's Obama: Fox is "a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world." Yet, the mainstream media was apoplectic when Trump would not call on CNN's Jim Acosta at a White House press briefing. I am trying to understand. Calling Fox "destructive" to our society and not a real news organization is acceptable, but calling out CNN and others for "fake news" is the end of our democracy?
Former President Obama was at it again earlier this year: "If you watch Fox News, you are living on a different planet than you are if you listen to NPR." I cannot be 100% certain, but I would be willing to bet that Obama thinks more highly of NPR listeners than he does of the Fox News audience. And Obama said this: "One of the biggest challenges we have to our democracy is the degree to which we don't share a common baseline of facts." I could not disagree more. As a man of the left, Obama ignores what truly separates us - values. I have discussed this lack of agreement on values for years. What were common American values shared by both sides are now held by one side only, Republicans/conservatives. Just a few examples. Freedom of speech? Only conservative speech is shut down. Capitalism? The left prefers socialism. Support for our laws and police? The Democrats want to abolish ICE, have open borders, and we know what Obama thought of the police. Respect for the flag? No comment needed. Support for one of our closest allies, Israel? Not by Democrats.
Not only does Obama not get it, but the above sentences reflect his continuing attack on conservatives, in his subtle way of mocking those who watch Fox News and disagree with him and the left. No doubt Trump, being a New Yorker, is much more direct and in-your-face, while Obama is much smoother and more elegant in his insults. It is easy to be fooled by the tact with which Obama mocks the right, but there is no mistaking Trump's insults for anything but. The other difference is that we, on the right, can see that Trump is divisive. The left remains unable to see the divisiveness of Obama.
So, were today's editorials defending the press necessary? They were more akin to a self-congratulatory pat on the back. Which is fine. But the platitudes, and the continuing inability to recognize their own political biases, will remain a problem for the foreseeable future, absent structural changes in the media.
Sunday, August 12, 2018
Just Lazy Reporting? Or Fake News?
Let me begin with my own biases about the media. As someone who is "old school" I like to hold newspapers in my hands. I have no desire to see newspapers go out of business. As a conservative I am often annoyed and disheartened by the agenda driven reporting of the mainstream media. Here is just one example. On page A13 of the August 12, 2018 edition of the LA Times is an article titled "Asked about her book, Trump calls Omarosa ' a lowlife.'"
Omarosa Manigault Newman was a contestant on Trump's "The Apprentice." She later had a position in the Trump campaign and after that in the Trump White House. This week Omarosa has one of those tell-all books coming out: "Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House." I have never been fond of these "now I'm going to turn on my boss and tell you the real truth about him" books. These books are disloyal to those who helped the authors, and seek to profit off of personal "inside" gossip. I have never purchased one of them and I do not intend to purchase Omarosa's. I distinguish these books from those who write about policy and decision making.
Back to the article. The Times tells us that Omarosa claims Trump used racial slurs on the set of The Apprentice, and that Omarosa concludes that Trump is a racist and a bigot. One might think, for purposes of balance and accurate reporting, that the Times would tell us if Omarosa praised the President before her book deal. The Times might have told us that Omarosa was the Director of African American Outreach for Trump; that she described herself as a "Trumplican," after becoming a Republican.
The Times might have told us that in 2016 Omarosa wrote: "I'm black, female and Donald Trump is my friend." And they should have told their readers that Omarosa said: "He (Trump) does not judge people by their gender or race. He judges them on their ability to do the job." Instead, the Times would rather repeat unsubstantiated allegations made by Omarosa in her book. The Times: "In the book, Manigault Newman says without evidence that tapes exist of Trump using the N-word repeatedly on the reality show's set. She acknowledges she had never been able to obtain or hear the tapes but said three unnamed sources had described their contents."
A word on journalistic integrity. I suppose, if the Times were asked about printing this story, they would say that they simply picked it up from the Associated Press. And the Associated Press might say that they were just retelling what Omarosa wrote in her book. But here is a question for all of them - do they normally print serious allegations about public figures when the source of the information admits to having no direct knowledge of the tapes in question, only that three unnamed sources vouch for its authenticity? Is it any wonder that so much of the public has such a low opinion of the mainstream media.
Now, let me assume that Trump has, at times, used the "N" word in private. So what? I have also been told by some on the Left that Trump is anti-Semitic. Really? Would that be demonstrated by his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital? Would that anti-Semitism be reflected in his appointment of Nikki Haley as US Ambassador to the UN, and Haley's constant defense of Israel in the Security Council? Richard Nixon was said to not be terribly fond of the Jews. Yet, Henry Kissinger was Nixon's National Security Adviser and Secretary of State. When the Israelis faced possible defeat in the surprise attack known as the Yom Kippur War (the Arabs attacking on the holiest day on the Jewish calendar), it was Nixon who ordered that supplies and weapons be sent to Israel. Some say Nixon saved the Jewish state. Should I care much if he made anti-Semitic comments in private?
Imagine if the mainstream media were not so incredibly anti-Trump and driven by their Left-wing agenda, and were willing to challenge their sources for news. Then the headline might not have been "Asked about her book, Trump calls Omarosa 'a lowlife.'" Rather, it might have been "From Praise to Condemnation - Which Omarosa is to be Believed?" Or, to borrow an old lawyer's trick: "Was She Lying Then or is She Lying Now?"
Omarosa Manigault Newman was a contestant on Trump's "The Apprentice." She later had a position in the Trump campaign and after that in the Trump White House. This week Omarosa has one of those tell-all books coming out: "Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House." I have never been fond of these "now I'm going to turn on my boss and tell you the real truth about him" books. These books are disloyal to those who helped the authors, and seek to profit off of personal "inside" gossip. I have never purchased one of them and I do not intend to purchase Omarosa's. I distinguish these books from those who write about policy and decision making.
Back to the article. The Times tells us that Omarosa claims Trump used racial slurs on the set of The Apprentice, and that Omarosa concludes that Trump is a racist and a bigot. One might think, for purposes of balance and accurate reporting, that the Times would tell us if Omarosa praised the President before her book deal. The Times might have told us that Omarosa was the Director of African American Outreach for Trump; that she described herself as a "Trumplican," after becoming a Republican.
The Times might have told us that in 2016 Omarosa wrote: "I'm black, female and Donald Trump is my friend." And they should have told their readers that Omarosa said: "He (Trump) does not judge people by their gender or race. He judges them on their ability to do the job." Instead, the Times would rather repeat unsubstantiated allegations made by Omarosa in her book. The Times: "In the book, Manigault Newman says without evidence that tapes exist of Trump using the N-word repeatedly on the reality show's set. She acknowledges she had never been able to obtain or hear the tapes but said three unnamed sources had described their contents."
A word on journalistic integrity. I suppose, if the Times were asked about printing this story, they would say that they simply picked it up from the Associated Press. And the Associated Press might say that they were just retelling what Omarosa wrote in her book. But here is a question for all of them - do they normally print serious allegations about public figures when the source of the information admits to having no direct knowledge of the tapes in question, only that three unnamed sources vouch for its authenticity? Is it any wonder that so much of the public has such a low opinion of the mainstream media.
Now, let me assume that Trump has, at times, used the "N" word in private. So what? I have also been told by some on the Left that Trump is anti-Semitic. Really? Would that be demonstrated by his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital? Would that anti-Semitism be reflected in his appointment of Nikki Haley as US Ambassador to the UN, and Haley's constant defense of Israel in the Security Council? Richard Nixon was said to not be terribly fond of the Jews. Yet, Henry Kissinger was Nixon's National Security Adviser and Secretary of State. When the Israelis faced possible defeat in the surprise attack known as the Yom Kippur War (the Arabs attacking on the holiest day on the Jewish calendar), it was Nixon who ordered that supplies and weapons be sent to Israel. Some say Nixon saved the Jewish state. Should I care much if he made anti-Semitic comments in private?
Imagine if the mainstream media were not so incredibly anti-Trump and driven by their Left-wing agenda, and were willing to challenge their sources for news. Then the headline might not have been "Asked about her book, Trump calls Omarosa 'a lowlife.'" Rather, it might have been "From Praise to Condemnation - Which Omarosa is to be Believed?" Or, to borrow an old lawyer's trick: "Was She Lying Then or is She Lying Now?"
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
Trump Won. Time For The Left To Get Over It.
In the Sunday, July 29, 2018 Los Angeles Times, was an Op-Ed by writer Virginia Heffernan: "Was the 2016 election legitimate?" Let's take a look at her analysis. First, she tells us: "A nation devoted to majority rule has a minority president. Who squeaked into high office on an electoral college technicality." You have to admire the way in which, knowing she is stating half-truths, she describes Trump's election victory as some sinister scheme. Majority rule? Yes, our Constitution says that a majority of the Electoral College vote determines the winner. A "technicality?" That pretty much describes what many on the left think of the US Constitution - a technicality.
Yes, other Presidents have been elected by winning the Electoral College, but not the popular vote. Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, and George Bush in 2000. And let's not forget that John Quincy Adams won in 1824 with neither the popular vote nor the Electoral College vote. Adams won in the House of Representatives.
Heffernan says Trump won "Against most data projections. Using voter suppression. Using Russian disinformation." Against most date projection? Wow - I did not realize elections were decided by projections. If they were, we would have had a President-elect Dewey in 1948, inasmuch as Dewey was the overwhelming favorite over Truman - to the point where the advance printing of the Chicago Daily Tribune announced "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN." There is a famous photo of a beaming Truman holding up that erroneous edition of the paper. Voter suppression? Heffernan's evidence is an article in the left-wing publication Mother Jones, claiming that discriminatory ID laws in Wisconsin prevented many from voting. So, voter suppression by duly passed laws? Were those laws challenged in the courts? We don't know from her article. We do know that Trump was busy campaigning throughout the Midwest while Clinton was...just hanging out with Bill, savoring their anticipated victory? Because, you know, Hillary thought her election victory was already decided - by the projections.
Russian disinformation? No doubt that Putin and Russia try to interfere with Western democracies, including our own. But Robert Mueller is busy prosecuting Paul Manafort over allegations of tax evasion from years ago, with absolutely nothing to do with Russia or Russian collusion. Another reason why I'm opposed to the appointment of special counsel - unlimited prosecutorial power with the ability to go after anyone they want to.
Curiously, in addition to seemingly not knowing about how our Constitution and electoral system works, and ignoring the other Presidential elections with electoral but not popular vote winners, Heffernan also seems to not know or care about our alleged rigged Presidential elections. The most well known one in our lifetimes was the 1960 Kennedy vs. Nixon election. Quite a few people thought that Chicago Mayor Daley, along with the Chicago mob, purposely waited until the morning after election day to turn in Chicago's vote tallies - perhaps with the Cook County machine waiting to make sure they had enough votes to put Kennedy over the top.
Leftists tell me they are sick of Trump. Well, conservatives are sick of leftists being unable to accept that Trump won the election - and that he is the President. So, now that we've established everybody is upset about something, I suggest we let reason replace emotion so that everyone may calm down a bit. And I'd like to see mainstream papers like the LA Times stop printing distorted Op-Eds like this one.
Yes, other Presidents have been elected by winning the Electoral College, but not the popular vote. Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, and George Bush in 2000. And let's not forget that John Quincy Adams won in 1824 with neither the popular vote nor the Electoral College vote. Adams won in the House of Representatives.
Heffernan says Trump won "Against most data projections. Using voter suppression. Using Russian disinformation." Against most date projection? Wow - I did not realize elections were decided by projections. If they were, we would have had a President-elect Dewey in 1948, inasmuch as Dewey was the overwhelming favorite over Truman - to the point where the advance printing of the Chicago Daily Tribune announced "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN." There is a famous photo of a beaming Truman holding up that erroneous edition of the paper. Voter suppression? Heffernan's evidence is an article in the left-wing publication Mother Jones, claiming that discriminatory ID laws in Wisconsin prevented many from voting. So, voter suppression by duly passed laws? Were those laws challenged in the courts? We don't know from her article. We do know that Trump was busy campaigning throughout the Midwest while Clinton was...just hanging out with Bill, savoring their anticipated victory? Because, you know, Hillary thought her election victory was already decided - by the projections.
Russian disinformation? No doubt that Putin and Russia try to interfere with Western democracies, including our own. But Robert Mueller is busy prosecuting Paul Manafort over allegations of tax evasion from years ago, with absolutely nothing to do with Russia or Russian collusion. Another reason why I'm opposed to the appointment of special counsel - unlimited prosecutorial power with the ability to go after anyone they want to.
Curiously, in addition to seemingly not knowing about how our Constitution and electoral system works, and ignoring the other Presidential elections with electoral but not popular vote winners, Heffernan also seems to not know or care about our alleged rigged Presidential elections. The most well known one in our lifetimes was the 1960 Kennedy vs. Nixon election. Quite a few people thought that Chicago Mayor Daley, along with the Chicago mob, purposely waited until the morning after election day to turn in Chicago's vote tallies - perhaps with the Cook County machine waiting to make sure they had enough votes to put Kennedy over the top.
Leftists tell me they are sick of Trump. Well, conservatives are sick of leftists being unable to accept that Trump won the election - and that he is the President. So, now that we've established everybody is upset about something, I suggest we let reason replace emotion so that everyone may calm down a bit. And I'd like to see mainstream papers like the LA Times stop printing distorted Op-Eds like this one.
Monday, July 30, 2018
On Friendship
(Note: Regular readers will immediately notice that this post, like a couple of others I have done (7/22/17 - Lessons From My Childhood, and 11/12/17 - More Stories From My Youth) is not a political post, although politics does come into play in our times - even in friendships. I have been on a short two week hiatus, partly unsure about what I wanted to discuss, and partly just having hit a wall. Now, however, I feel fully refreshed, and have several new posts already written - in my head that is. We'll see what time permits me to post this week.)
Most of us are blessed to have what we would call "good friends." We also have "acquaintances," and often "colleagues." For me, the "boys in New Jersey," as I refer to the guys with whom I grew up, have mostly remained life-long friends. Two buddies from college have also remained friends to this day. The writer George Eliot (Mary Anne Evans) said: "Friendship is the inexpressible comfort of feeling safe with a person, having neither to weigh thoughts nor measure words."
Of course, we - hopefully - continue to make new friends throughout our lives. Some of those friendships last, others do not. Some that I thought of as friends abandoned me because of my conservative politics. Recently, a friend/colleague was telling me that Trump's divisiveness is responsible for much of the anger that he, and other liberals/leftists feel towards their, in some cases, now former friends who are conservatives. I tried to explain that was no excuse. Our three children were taught that they could only control their own behavior, and that other's misbehavior would never excuse their own. Yet, this man seemed to justify his nearly uncontrollable anger based on Trump's demeanor. I also explained my admiration for triple H, Hubert Horatio Humphrey, a Democrat who was known as "The Happy Warrior," because his passion for his beliefs never interfered with his respect for those with whom he disagreed politically.
However, Humphrey's outlook is not the prevalent attitude of today. Indeed, some of today's leftists have abandoned their friendships with me because of our political differences. While I am sure they rationalize their dropping even long-term friends, such attitudes - such intolerance - only makes me think less of them. "To go against the dominant thinking of your friends, of most of the people you see every day, is perhaps the most difficult act of heroism you can perform." So said the historian, Theodore H. White.
As painful as it is, I take personal responsibility for the loss of a friend, who was in mourning following the death of a close family member. I unintentionally said something that was rather insensitive to another in his family. It was a stupid thing to say, and I wished I could take it back almost immediately. It was the end of the friendship. I was disappointed. I thought of how the boys in Jersey might have reacted. They probably would have called me a dumb moron (okay, it would have been much worse, but I avoid those words in the blog). The point is, they would have expressed their anger at me, deservedly, yet we would have remained friends. "Real friends don't get offended when you insult them. They smile and call you something even more offensive." Writer unknown.
I am fortunate to have friends who are there in times of need - emotional, financial and who simply allow me to vent. Friends who understand that I may falter at times, but will give me a second and third and fourth chance. Ralph Waldo Emerson opined that true friendship was elusive, perhaps unattainable. Emerson: "Every man alone is sincere. At the entrance of a second person, hypocrisy begins. We parry and fend the approach of our fellow man by compliments, by gossip, by amusements, by affairs. We cover up our thought from him under a hundred folds."
A rather disconcerting view of friendships. I'm with George Eliot, and treasure those with whom I neither have to weigh thoughts nor measure words. I'm with those who will not write me off when I falter. And I promise to do the same in return. I want friends who will tell me when I am wrong - not just about politics, but about life, about family, about anything. When friends do that for us, instead of abandoning us, they make us better people.
To end on a humorous note, I once asked one of the boys in Jersey what he thought of my blog. They do not all read it. He said he agreed about 70% of the time, disagreed about 20% of the time, and the remaining 10% of the time he thought I was bat-shit crazy. He certainly did not worry about having to measure his words. Exactly the kind of friend I want.
Most of us are blessed to have what we would call "good friends." We also have "acquaintances," and often "colleagues." For me, the "boys in New Jersey," as I refer to the guys with whom I grew up, have mostly remained life-long friends. Two buddies from college have also remained friends to this day. The writer George Eliot (Mary Anne Evans) said: "Friendship is the inexpressible comfort of feeling safe with a person, having neither to weigh thoughts nor measure words."
Of course, we - hopefully - continue to make new friends throughout our lives. Some of those friendships last, others do not. Some that I thought of as friends abandoned me because of my conservative politics. Recently, a friend/colleague was telling me that Trump's divisiveness is responsible for much of the anger that he, and other liberals/leftists feel towards their, in some cases, now former friends who are conservatives. I tried to explain that was no excuse. Our three children were taught that they could only control their own behavior, and that other's misbehavior would never excuse their own. Yet, this man seemed to justify his nearly uncontrollable anger based on Trump's demeanor. I also explained my admiration for triple H, Hubert Horatio Humphrey, a Democrat who was known as "The Happy Warrior," because his passion for his beliefs never interfered with his respect for those with whom he disagreed politically.
However, Humphrey's outlook is not the prevalent attitude of today. Indeed, some of today's leftists have abandoned their friendships with me because of our political differences. While I am sure they rationalize their dropping even long-term friends, such attitudes - such intolerance - only makes me think less of them. "To go against the dominant thinking of your friends, of most of the people you see every day, is perhaps the most difficult act of heroism you can perform." So said the historian, Theodore H. White.
As painful as it is, I take personal responsibility for the loss of a friend, who was in mourning following the death of a close family member. I unintentionally said something that was rather insensitive to another in his family. It was a stupid thing to say, and I wished I could take it back almost immediately. It was the end of the friendship. I was disappointed. I thought of how the boys in Jersey might have reacted. They probably would have called me a dumb moron (okay, it would have been much worse, but I avoid those words in the blog). The point is, they would have expressed their anger at me, deservedly, yet we would have remained friends. "Real friends don't get offended when you insult them. They smile and call you something even more offensive." Writer unknown.
I am fortunate to have friends who are there in times of need - emotional, financial and who simply allow me to vent. Friends who understand that I may falter at times, but will give me a second and third and fourth chance. Ralph Waldo Emerson opined that true friendship was elusive, perhaps unattainable. Emerson: "Every man alone is sincere. At the entrance of a second person, hypocrisy begins. We parry and fend the approach of our fellow man by compliments, by gossip, by amusements, by affairs. We cover up our thought from him under a hundred folds."
A rather disconcerting view of friendships. I'm with George Eliot, and treasure those with whom I neither have to weigh thoughts nor measure words. I'm with those who will not write me off when I falter. And I promise to do the same in return. I want friends who will tell me when I am wrong - not just about politics, but about life, about family, about anything. When friends do that for us, instead of abandoning us, they make us better people.
To end on a humorous note, I once asked one of the boys in Jersey what he thought of my blog. They do not all read it. He said he agreed about 70% of the time, disagreed about 20% of the time, and the remaining 10% of the time he thought I was bat-shit crazy. He certainly did not worry about having to measure his words. Exactly the kind of friend I want.
Tuesday, July 17, 2018
Much Ado About Putin
Many on all sides have been highly critical of President Trump for not being sufficiently rough and tough on Vladimir Putin in their post summit press conference in Helsinki, Finland. While Trump expressed confidence in the US intelligence community, he also said that Putin gave a "strong and powerful" denial of any Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election. Trump went on to say he did not "see any reason why" Russia would be behind any meddling in our election. Trump went on to say there was no collusion with Russia in the 2016 election.
Here's George Bush in 2001: "I looked the man (Putin) in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul." Respectfully to former President Bush - that was moronic.
In 2009, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, presented Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, with a "reset" button. So, Democrats can make nice with Russia, and try to reset relations between the two countries, but not Republicans? Then, we have Obama telling Medvedev (unbeknownst to Obama he was caught on an open mic): "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it's important for him to give me space...This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility." Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir (Putin)." Maybe that "flexibility" encouraged Putin enough to take the Crimea and invade eastern Ukraine. Was there, shhh, collusion between Obama and Putin?
Let us not forget the 2012 debate between Obama and Romney. Recall that Obama mocked Romney for claiming that Russia was our biggest geopolitical threat. Obama: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their policy back because the Cold War's been over for 20 years." Uh-oh. Did Putin have something on Obama? Between this and the "flexibility" comment, I'm very suspicious.
At the time of the 2016 election, Obama was President, Loretta Lynch was the Attorney General, James Comey was the Director of the FBI, and John Brennan was the CIA Director. Surely, 2016 was not the first year Russia tried to interfere in our elections. Surely, Obama and his Administration were on the lookout for Russian cyber attacks during the election, and took the threat very seriously. So how is it that in October, 2016, only one month before the election, Obama said that there's "no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections." So, no collusion could affect the outcome of an election...until Trump upset Clinton and then...collusion!
But one President got it right, calling the Soviet Union the "evil empire." That, of course, was Ronald Reagan, who was highly criticized for daring to make such a comment. Reagan was called a "warmonger." I am confused. Reagan was a warmonger, but Bush and Obama were just trying to make nice with Putin and his evil empire?
Would I have preferred some tougher talk at the press conference? Probably, but I don't know what was discussed privately. It appears Trump sought assurances about the safety of Israel with regards to all the parties fighting in Syria. What else was discussed? And didn't the media claim that Trump just getting us into nuclear war when he talked tough to "little rocket man?" Let's be honest. Trump can never win. And, if he did cave in to Putin, he clearly would not be the first President to do so. Just the most highly criticized - along with Reagan, the too tough talking warmonger. No wonder I'm confused.
Here's George Bush in 2001: "I looked the man (Putin) in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul." Respectfully to former President Bush - that was moronic.
In 2009, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, presented Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, with a "reset" button. So, Democrats can make nice with Russia, and try to reset relations between the two countries, but not Republicans? Then, we have Obama telling Medvedev (unbeknownst to Obama he was caught on an open mic): "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it's important for him to give me space...This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility." Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir (Putin)." Maybe that "flexibility" encouraged Putin enough to take the Crimea and invade eastern Ukraine. Was there, shhh, collusion between Obama and Putin?
Let us not forget the 2012 debate between Obama and Romney. Recall that Obama mocked Romney for claiming that Russia was our biggest geopolitical threat. Obama: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their policy back because the Cold War's been over for 20 years." Uh-oh. Did Putin have something on Obama? Between this and the "flexibility" comment, I'm very suspicious.
At the time of the 2016 election, Obama was President, Loretta Lynch was the Attorney General, James Comey was the Director of the FBI, and John Brennan was the CIA Director. Surely, 2016 was not the first year Russia tried to interfere in our elections. Surely, Obama and his Administration were on the lookout for Russian cyber attacks during the election, and took the threat very seriously. So how is it that in October, 2016, only one month before the election, Obama said that there's "no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections." So, no collusion could affect the outcome of an election...until Trump upset Clinton and then...collusion!
But one President got it right, calling the Soviet Union the "evil empire." That, of course, was Ronald Reagan, who was highly criticized for daring to make such a comment. Reagan was called a "warmonger." I am confused. Reagan was a warmonger, but Bush and Obama were just trying to make nice with Putin and his evil empire?
Would I have preferred some tougher talk at the press conference? Probably, but I don't know what was discussed privately. It appears Trump sought assurances about the safety of Israel with regards to all the parties fighting in Syria. What else was discussed? And didn't the media claim that Trump just getting us into nuclear war when he talked tough to "little rocket man?" Let's be honest. Trump can never win. And, if he did cave in to Putin, he clearly would not be the first President to do so. Just the most highly criticized - along with Reagan, the too tough talking warmonger. No wonder I'm confused.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)