I grew up in a medium size town in New Jersey in the 50's and 60's. We never had much money, but I never felt that we were poor. We lived in a garden apartment complex. The friends I made there, all of whom still live in New Jersey, have remained life-long friends. It's very special.
It was, for me, an ideal place to grow up. My fond memory of that time and place is not negated by the medical setback I had at age 15, ultimately resulting in spine surgery at age 17, and being diagnosed with an auto-immune arthritic disorder. In fact, I would say that those problems have given me a certain perspective on what is truly important in life.
My Mom loved to read. She probably read one book a week. My Dad used to say that she always had her nose in a book. But her love of reading also translated into a love of the world of ideas. That love of ideas, with an openness and willingness to discuss anything, was passed on to me. No topic (personal or otherwise) was off limits for discussion, and there was never any requirement that I agree with her on any particular issue. There was, however, an expectation that I be true to her values.
My Mom was a people lover. She taught that everyone was to be treated equally - regardless of skin color, religion, or any other unimportant "difference." My Mom worked as a sales clerk part-time in the neighborhood pharmacy. Given her outgoing nature, it seemed as if everyone in town knew her. One time, while I was in the fourth grade with a rather strict teacher, I was sitting and doing an assignment, as was the rest of the class. All of a sudden, the teacher calls me up to her desk, and I could not imagine how I got into trouble just sitting there. As she told me to come close to her, she whispered to me: "Listen, can your Mom (calling my Mom by her first name) get me some (I don't recall what it was) from the store." Everyone, it seemed, knew her and liked her. In turn, she never had a bad word to say about anybody.
My Dad was very direct in his approach - no tolerance for bad guys. Behave properly and you won't have any problems. As tough as he sometimes seemed on the outside, he was warm and loving and affectionate to his family. Until going on the DL at age 15, I loved playing sports with the boys in the neighborhood. I also loved watching sports on TV with my Dad - from Wide World of Sports to football, baseball and track and field.
My Dad also loved to kid around, and show off when my friends were over. He'd say to my Mom: "I'm going to trade you in for a couple of 20's." It was all in good fun. He had lines such as: "Stay single, and your pockets will jingle." But he was quite serious when it came to life issues. You work hard for what you want in life. Hard work never hurt anyone. Never expect handouts. And he demonstrated that by the way he did what he needed to do to support his family - including working on nights and weekends. And no job was so menial as to not deserve respect, and any job worth doing deserved to be done well. But he had no tolerance for the "work" of criminals.
My Dad was a gun owner. I recall him taking me to the shooting range one time. Even though he gave me ear plugs, the noise seemed so loud to me that I did not enjoy it. He kept the gun in a locked box in the house. And he made it very clear that we were never to go near that box. In an age when parents still bought toy guns for their kids, he also made it very clear that you do not point even a toy gun at anyone.
For a number of years my Dad would play pinochle once a week with a group of other men. Some were clearly more well off (professionals and businessmen) than we were. The same for many of my parents friends. I do not recall socioeconomic differences determining who their friends were. It did not seem to work like that back then. Friends were friends, regardless of career paths or money earned.
The 1960's was a contentious time in our country. My brother was drafted, but our parents did not want to see their oldest child go off to war. But off he went. After his basic training, he was headed for Viet Nam. My parents had to cope with one child going to war as another was developing disabling back problems. As a parent now, I know it is never easy. One of the aforementioned neighborhood boy's father was a Lt. Col. in the Air Force Reserves. He gave my brother a pocket Bible to keep with him at all times, and told him to bring it back safely. While I have never discussed it, I have always believed that that Bible was what kept my brother alive. He was shot, but he survived. And I have always been grateful for my friend's Dad, and for that Bible.
The older I get, the more I seem to miss my Mom and Dad. But I treasure my memories of them and the lessons learned. The main lessons I learned? Always treat everyone the same (unless and until they give you a reason not to), and always do the right thing. I have tried to pass those values on to my kids. Whenever any of our kids would leave the house when they were in middle school and high school, I would stop them at the front door as they were leaving and ask them to repeat the Number One Rule: Always do the right thing, regardless of what anyone else is doing. I hope they pass on the same values to their kids.
Saturday, July 22, 2017
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
The Left's Love Affair With Tyranny Continues
The Left's affinity for tyranny seems to know no bounds. In my April 30, 2017 post, I discussed how the Left's new theory of speech was to protect only that speech which was deemed to be for the "public good." Additionally, there was concern that the "oppressed" would not be able to stand up for themselves. None of the proposed "standards" came even close to meeting First Amendment Constitutional guidelines for protected speech.
Now, the Left has yet another reason to ban certain speech. According to a 7/16/17 op-ed piece in the New York Times ("When is Speech Violence?"), Lisa Feldman Barrett, a psychology professor at Northeastern University, claims that certain speech, scientifically speaking, is a form of violence. You see, the professor tells us that "certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sick, alter your brain - even kill neurons - and shorten your life." "Can make you sick." We can assume, then, that not every individual exposed to this adverse speech will suffer ill health effects. Is it only a tiny percentage of people that might be negatively affected by exposure to adverse speech?
Then, the good professor takes this incredible leap: "The scientific findings I described above provide empirical guidance for which kinds of controversial speech should and shouldn't be acceptable on campus and in civil society." What? A few people may suffer ill effects from certain speech and that tells us which speech should not be acceptable? Too much sugary soda can be bad for you, so New York City limited the size of a soda anyone could buy from fast food establishments. Second hand smoke can be bad for you, so... Plastic bags can be bad for everyone, so... Guns can definitely be used to commit violence, so the left looks for new and creative ways to restrict gun ownership. And the list goes on and on.
Except, speech has First Amendment Constitutional protections. Gun ownership has Second Amendment Constitutional protections. But, the Constitutional protections generally do not occur to the Left when they are making their arguments; the Constitution did not come up in this professor's article. Speech, gun ownership, big sugary drinks, plastic bags - it's all the same. If we can say it's bad or unhealthy, then that ends the conversation.
Said the professor: "If you spend a lot of time in a harsh environment worrying about your safety, that's the kind of stress that brings on illness and remodels your brain. That's also true of a political climate in which groups of people endlessly hurl hateful words at one another...that's why it's reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulis to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained (this sounds like the "public good" argument coming) from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering."
I wonder who else the good professor would say is not offering debate? Ann Coulter? Sean Hannity? What about some left-wingers, such as Bill Maher? Or is it only conservative speakers we need to be concerned with because, after all, guys like Maher do not stress out college kids. The liberals on campus love him; and conservatives just ignore him. And what about this offering of debate argument? What about the orator on the proverbial soap box whose only interest is in expounding on his own views? He is not seeking debate, so do we ban him from speaking?
Freedom and liberty frequently yield to the left-wing agenda. When that agenda supersedes even Constitutional restraints on government power, such as restricting speech or preventing individual gun ownership, then what you have is tyranny.
Now, the Left has yet another reason to ban certain speech. According to a 7/16/17 op-ed piece in the New York Times ("When is Speech Violence?"), Lisa Feldman Barrett, a psychology professor at Northeastern University, claims that certain speech, scientifically speaking, is a form of violence. You see, the professor tells us that "certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sick, alter your brain - even kill neurons - and shorten your life." "Can make you sick." We can assume, then, that not every individual exposed to this adverse speech will suffer ill health effects. Is it only a tiny percentage of people that might be negatively affected by exposure to adverse speech?
Then, the good professor takes this incredible leap: "The scientific findings I described above provide empirical guidance for which kinds of controversial speech should and shouldn't be acceptable on campus and in civil society." What? A few people may suffer ill effects from certain speech and that tells us which speech should not be acceptable? Too much sugary soda can be bad for you, so New York City limited the size of a soda anyone could buy from fast food establishments. Second hand smoke can be bad for you, so... Plastic bags can be bad for everyone, so... Guns can definitely be used to commit violence, so the left looks for new and creative ways to restrict gun ownership. And the list goes on and on.
Except, speech has First Amendment Constitutional protections. Gun ownership has Second Amendment Constitutional protections. But, the Constitutional protections generally do not occur to the Left when they are making their arguments; the Constitution did not come up in this professor's article. Speech, gun ownership, big sugary drinks, plastic bags - it's all the same. If we can say it's bad or unhealthy, then that ends the conversation.
Said the professor: "If you spend a lot of time in a harsh environment worrying about your safety, that's the kind of stress that brings on illness and remodels your brain. That's also true of a political climate in which groups of people endlessly hurl hateful words at one another...that's why it's reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulis to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained (this sounds like the "public good" argument coming) from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering."
I wonder who else the good professor would say is not offering debate? Ann Coulter? Sean Hannity? What about some left-wingers, such as Bill Maher? Or is it only conservative speakers we need to be concerned with because, after all, guys like Maher do not stress out college kids. The liberals on campus love him; and conservatives just ignore him. And what about this offering of debate argument? What about the orator on the proverbial soap box whose only interest is in expounding on his own views? He is not seeking debate, so do we ban him from speaking?
Freedom and liberty frequently yield to the left-wing agenda. When that agenda supersedes even Constitutional restraints on government power, such as restricting speech or preventing individual gun ownership, then what you have is tyranny.
Monday, July 10, 2017
SCOTUS Provides Much Needed Civics Lessons
An Asian-American rock band, the Slants, fought all the way to the Supreme Court to be able to register their name with the Patent and Trademark Office. Federal law bars someone from registering a name or mark that is "scandalous, immoral, or disparaging." Such potential trademarks are likely to offend. The question was whether or not the Patent and Trademark could prohibit the registering of the name "Slants" because of its disparaging nature.
The band wanted to be able to register the name, not to be self-deprecating, but as a means of removing the disparaging nature that the word has come to embody. In a unanimous 8-0 decision in the case of Matal v. Tam, the Court found for the Slants. Justice Alito wrote: "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought that we hate.'"
In a concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy explained: "A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all...The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence."
The positive impact has been felt already. First, the Justice Department is dropping its case against the Washington Redskins over the use of its name, after the Redskins lost their Trademark protection in 2014. Second, the New York Times got a needed lesson in the First Amendment. Their editorial board (6/20/17 editorial) opined: "Based on this case, however, we've since reconsidered our underlying position" on the Redskins case. Why would a media outlet need any instruction on the significance of free speech? As previously noted in this blog, the Left no longer shares in the fundamental American values - values such as free speech. The name "Redskins" is deemed offensive by the Left, and that ends their analysis. That approach is why conservatives speakers are not welcome on college campuses - they don't like the message, so no need to allow them to speak. The First Amendment be damned.
The other civics lesson came in the case of Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project - the so-called travel ban case. Two federal appellate courts, the Fourth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit, upheld District Court decisions striking down Trump's executive order. The Supreme Court disagreed, at least for now. The Court agreed to hear the merits of the case in the fall. In the meantime, the injunctions issued by the lower courts are removed, except in cases of those who have connections to the USA - "a credible claim of a bona fide relationship."
The Court's decision was an unsigned - but unanimous - per curiam decision. Three Justices did write an opinion, but not in dissent. Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch joined in an opinion saying that all the restrictions in the executive order should stand, without the restriction on "bona fide relationships."
What are the lessons from this case? First, the entire population of the world does not have a constitutional right to come to the United States. The fact that two appellate courts thought otherwise speaks more to a political agenda than to the rule of law. Second, the Supreme Court clearly understands that our Constitution set up three branches of government - all with different functions. Federal courts are not privy to day to day intelligence briefings, and they are not subject to being voted out of office. If the President's policy offends enough people, he may be voted out. In the meantime, it is the President who, traditionally, sets our foreign policy. Not the Courts. Should we also have courts second-guessing where and when a president may order the deployment of troops? While some on the Left would undoubtedly approve of that arrangement, the Constitution tells us that it is the president who is the Commander-in-Chief.
Over the last century the Left has increasingly looked to the Courts to accomplish their agenda, as the political process has often failed them. Just as the Left viewed "offensive" speech as superseding the First Amendment's right to free speech, they also viewed their opposition to the so-called travel ban as superseding any issue about the Constitutional separation of powers. Having said this, it remains extremely disappointing that a government agency (the Patent and Trademark office) and that various District Court and Appellate Court Judges, needed these reminders from the Supreme Court about our Constitution.
Given the failure by federal officials, one can only wonder about how well informed the average student and citizen is about our Constitution. It is for that reason that I suggested (in my July 1 post) that all students be required to learn about the Constitution and how our system of government works. For now, I will be content that the New York Times, the Patent and Trademark Office, and a number of federal judges all got the message.
The band wanted to be able to register the name, not to be self-deprecating, but as a means of removing the disparaging nature that the word has come to embody. In a unanimous 8-0 decision in the case of Matal v. Tam, the Court found for the Slants. Justice Alito wrote: "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought that we hate.'"
In a concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy explained: "A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all...The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence."
The positive impact has been felt already. First, the Justice Department is dropping its case against the Washington Redskins over the use of its name, after the Redskins lost their Trademark protection in 2014. Second, the New York Times got a needed lesson in the First Amendment. Their editorial board (6/20/17 editorial) opined: "Based on this case, however, we've since reconsidered our underlying position" on the Redskins case. Why would a media outlet need any instruction on the significance of free speech? As previously noted in this blog, the Left no longer shares in the fundamental American values - values such as free speech. The name "Redskins" is deemed offensive by the Left, and that ends their analysis. That approach is why conservatives speakers are not welcome on college campuses - they don't like the message, so no need to allow them to speak. The First Amendment be damned.
The other civics lesson came in the case of Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project - the so-called travel ban case. Two federal appellate courts, the Fourth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit, upheld District Court decisions striking down Trump's executive order. The Supreme Court disagreed, at least for now. The Court agreed to hear the merits of the case in the fall. In the meantime, the injunctions issued by the lower courts are removed, except in cases of those who have connections to the USA - "a credible claim of a bona fide relationship."
The Court's decision was an unsigned - but unanimous - per curiam decision. Three Justices did write an opinion, but not in dissent. Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch joined in an opinion saying that all the restrictions in the executive order should stand, without the restriction on "bona fide relationships."
What are the lessons from this case? First, the entire population of the world does not have a constitutional right to come to the United States. The fact that two appellate courts thought otherwise speaks more to a political agenda than to the rule of law. Second, the Supreme Court clearly understands that our Constitution set up three branches of government - all with different functions. Federal courts are not privy to day to day intelligence briefings, and they are not subject to being voted out of office. If the President's policy offends enough people, he may be voted out. In the meantime, it is the President who, traditionally, sets our foreign policy. Not the Courts. Should we also have courts second-guessing where and when a president may order the deployment of troops? While some on the Left would undoubtedly approve of that arrangement, the Constitution tells us that it is the president who is the Commander-in-Chief.
Over the last century the Left has increasingly looked to the Courts to accomplish their agenda, as the political process has often failed them. Just as the Left viewed "offensive" speech as superseding the First Amendment's right to free speech, they also viewed their opposition to the so-called travel ban as superseding any issue about the Constitutional separation of powers. Having said this, it remains extremely disappointing that a government agency (the Patent and Trademark office) and that various District Court and Appellate Court Judges, needed these reminders from the Supreme Court about our Constitution.
Given the failure by federal officials, one can only wonder about how well informed the average student and citizen is about our Constitution. It is for that reason that I suggested (in my July 1 post) that all students be required to learn about the Constitution and how our system of government works. For now, I will be content that the New York Times, the Patent and Trademark Office, and a number of federal judges all got the message.
Sunday, July 2, 2017
The Fake News Media
The self-described "paper of record," the New York Times, is another participant in the fake news world. Following the shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise and others by a left-wing fanatic, the New York Times tried to do what the left commonly does - create an equivalency with the right when someone on their side engages in bad behavior. In this case, the paper attempted to equate the shooting of Scalise with the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords six years ago.
Said the Times in one of their editorials: "Before the shooting (of Gabby Giffords) Sarah Palin's political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs." First, the cross hairs were over the districts - not on individual politicians. Second, the shooting of Gabby Giffords was in 2011. It has been common knowledge for quite some time that the shooter had no particular political affiliation that motivated him to commit his murderous acts. He was thought to be a mentally ill individual.
So, why would the New York Times run with such a story in their editorial? They had to know it was false. This editorial is best understood as yet another example of what motivates the left - their left-wing agenda. As I have noted before, truth often bows to the agenda. Their "issues" are their values, which also explains why the left and the right do not share the same values. The right relies on fundamental religious and Constitutional values.
The allegations against Sarah Palin were so obviously false that the Times had to issue a "correction." It read as follows: "An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established." However, there was such a link between the shooting of Representative Scalise and his shooter - as that shooter clearly hated Republicans. The "correction" did not include an apology to Sarah Palin, who is now suing the Times over the editorial.
Recently, another anti-Trump news outlet - CNN - had their own controversy. Three of their journalists were forced to resign. A story run by CNN accused Trump adviser, Anthony Scaramucci, of having improper ties to Russia. Mr. Scaramucci denied the allegations and the network did not have the facts to back up the claim.
James O'Keefe runs Project Veritas. One of his people was speaking with a CNN producer, John Bonifield. Bonifield: "Just to give you some context, President Trump pulled out of the climate accords and for a day and a half we covered the climate accords. And the CEO of CNN (Jeff Zucker) said in our internal meeting...he said good job everybody covering the climate accords, but we are done with that, let's get back to Russia." Queried the Project Veritas reporter: "Then why is CNN constantly, like, Russia this, Russia that?" Bonifield: "Because it's ratings." To which I would add, it is also consistent with their left-wing, attack Trump news.
Just how biased against Trump is the mainstream media? Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy sought to study that issue, looking at Trump's first 100 days in office. The results should not be surprising to anyone. CNN and NBC had the worst records for fair reporting, with 93% of their news coverage of Trump being negative, with only 7% being positive. As for the rest: CBS was 91% negative and 9% positive, The New York Times was 87% negative and 13% positive, The Washington Post was 83% negative and 17% positive, The Wall Street Journal was 70% negative and 30% positive, and Fox News (formerly under the slogan "Fair and Balanced" but now "Most Watched, Most Trusted") was the only one of these media outlets to have balanced reporting - 52% negative and 48% positive.
Overall, Trump's coverage was 80% negative and only 20% positive. Obama's first hundred days came in at 60% positive to 40% negative. That is a 40% shift towards the negative. Notwithstanding these statistics, it does not mean that I believe Trump should engage in a Twitter war with every critical news outlet or individual. I would like to see him use Twitter to discuss his accomplishments and his policies. But, an occasional Tweet against the "fake media" is sometimes in order.
Said the Times in one of their editorials: "Before the shooting (of Gabby Giffords) Sarah Palin's political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs." First, the cross hairs were over the districts - not on individual politicians. Second, the shooting of Gabby Giffords was in 2011. It has been common knowledge for quite some time that the shooter had no particular political affiliation that motivated him to commit his murderous acts. He was thought to be a mentally ill individual.
So, why would the New York Times run with such a story in their editorial? They had to know it was false. This editorial is best understood as yet another example of what motivates the left - their left-wing agenda. As I have noted before, truth often bows to the agenda. Their "issues" are their values, which also explains why the left and the right do not share the same values. The right relies on fundamental religious and Constitutional values.
The allegations against Sarah Palin were so obviously false that the Times had to issue a "correction." It read as follows: "An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established." However, there was such a link between the shooting of Representative Scalise and his shooter - as that shooter clearly hated Republicans. The "correction" did not include an apology to Sarah Palin, who is now suing the Times over the editorial.
Recently, another anti-Trump news outlet - CNN - had their own controversy. Three of their journalists were forced to resign. A story run by CNN accused Trump adviser, Anthony Scaramucci, of having improper ties to Russia. Mr. Scaramucci denied the allegations and the network did not have the facts to back up the claim.
James O'Keefe runs Project Veritas. One of his people was speaking with a CNN producer, John Bonifield. Bonifield: "Just to give you some context, President Trump pulled out of the climate accords and for a day and a half we covered the climate accords. And the CEO of CNN (Jeff Zucker) said in our internal meeting...he said good job everybody covering the climate accords, but we are done with that, let's get back to Russia." Queried the Project Veritas reporter: "Then why is CNN constantly, like, Russia this, Russia that?" Bonifield: "Because it's ratings." To which I would add, it is also consistent with their left-wing, attack Trump news.
Just how biased against Trump is the mainstream media? Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy sought to study that issue, looking at Trump's first 100 days in office. The results should not be surprising to anyone. CNN and NBC had the worst records for fair reporting, with 93% of their news coverage of Trump being negative, with only 7% being positive. As for the rest: CBS was 91% negative and 9% positive, The New York Times was 87% negative and 13% positive, The Washington Post was 83% negative and 17% positive, The Wall Street Journal was 70% negative and 30% positive, and Fox News (formerly under the slogan "Fair and Balanced" but now "Most Watched, Most Trusted") was the only one of these media outlets to have balanced reporting - 52% negative and 48% positive.
Overall, Trump's coverage was 80% negative and only 20% positive. Obama's first hundred days came in at 60% positive to 40% negative. That is a 40% shift towards the negative. Notwithstanding these statistics, it does not mean that I believe Trump should engage in a Twitter war with every critical news outlet or individual. I would like to see him use Twitter to discuss his accomplishments and his policies. But, an occasional Tweet against the "fake media" is sometimes in order.
Saturday, July 1, 2017
I Hate You More!
Phil Montag, a former Nebraska Democratic party official (since fired) had these kind words to say after Congressmen Steve Scalise was shot: "I hate this motherf..... I'm f...... glad he got shot. I'm glad he got shot. I'm not going to f...... say that in public. I wish he was f...... dead."
Comedian Marcella Arguello said this: "If a few old ass conservative white men have to die in order to get the gun control issue discussed then I'm willing to take that risk."
Regarding the Senate Republicans' healthcare plan, Elizabeth Warren said: "These cuts are blood money. People will die. Let's be very clear - Senate Republicans are paying for tax cuts for the wealthy with American lives."
Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton said this: "Forget death panels. If Republicans pass this bill they're the death party." I have to say a word or two here. Remember how Sarah Palin was mocked and laughed at for suggesting that Obamacare would lead to rationing; and with rationing comes decisions about who gets treatment and who does not - in some cases, who lives and who dies. But, Elizabeth Warren can say the Republican plan will kill people; Hillary Clinton can say it - and no outcry. Nothing. Crickets.
Here is the latest from Johnny Depp, to an approving audience in Glastonbury, UK: "When was the last time an actor assassinated a President?" So clever. I do hope that the Secret Service pays him a visit.
Chelsey Gentry-Tipton is the Democratic Black Caucus Chairwoman in Nebraska. She had this to say about the shooting of Steve Scalise and others: "The very people that push NRA legislation in efforts to pad their pockets with complete disregard for human life. Yeah, having a hard time feeling bad for them."
One writer for the Huffington Post, Jesse Benn, said this: "What's more harmful: putting millions already on the margins more at risk via draconian policies, or shooting a racist lawmaker in the hip?" Here is what is more harmful: your inability to view those who hold differing views as being human beings. The same applies to all the others quoted above.
Here is a real hater - Professor Johnny Williams of Trinity College in Connecticut: "It is past time for the racially oppressed to do what people who believe themselves to be 'white' will not do, put end to the vectors of their destructive mythology of whiteness and their white supremacy system #let them f...... die" "The time is now to confront these inhuman a..holes and end this now."
Today's Los Angeles Times reports on a new Pew Research poll concerning how Democrats and Republicans feel about one another. It is not a pretty picture. 47% of Democrats say Republicans make them angry, but 46% of Republicans say the same thing about Democrats. No difference between the parties there. But there was a very interesting difference: 52% of Republicans say that Democrats are more closed-minded than other Americans. But a whopping 70% of Democrats say Republicans are more closed-minded than other Americans. Do I believe that Republicans are more closed-minded than Democrats? Of course not. Given the above quotes, and once again given what happened to me personally (discussed in last summer's post entitled "A Personal Tale of Intolerance"), I could certainly make the case that Democrats are more closed-minded.
In fact, it is the rare case where I encounter a liberal Democrat who tells me that they read or listen to opposing views. I am not alone in expressing the concern that we seem to be in a civil war in this country - albeit a mostly non-violent one. There are an increasing number of commentators who are now expressing the same sentiment. I am seeing an increasing number of articles discussing what might be done to increase tolerance for divergent views, especially on college campuses. For now, however, one commentator said it best about colleges - colleges provide tremendous diversity of race, religion and ethnic background, so long as everyone thinks alike.
I have previously discussed that I believe that a core problem is that Democrats and Republicans no longer share the same fundamental values. That certainly makes it easier to disrespect those with whom you disagree. It is time - past time - to bring back the fundamentals to our schools. Requiring recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance daily. Teaching civics. Teaching how our governing document - the Constitution - works, and why it is the greatest governing document ever written. And teaching why allowing the expression of many viewpoints is one of our greatest freedoms, a freedom that we have because the First Amendment to the Constitution protects that right.
Comedian Marcella Arguello said this: "If a few old ass conservative white men have to die in order to get the gun control issue discussed then I'm willing to take that risk."
Regarding the Senate Republicans' healthcare plan, Elizabeth Warren said: "These cuts are blood money. People will die. Let's be very clear - Senate Republicans are paying for tax cuts for the wealthy with American lives."
Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton said this: "Forget death panels. If Republicans pass this bill they're the death party." I have to say a word or two here. Remember how Sarah Palin was mocked and laughed at for suggesting that Obamacare would lead to rationing; and with rationing comes decisions about who gets treatment and who does not - in some cases, who lives and who dies. But, Elizabeth Warren can say the Republican plan will kill people; Hillary Clinton can say it - and no outcry. Nothing. Crickets.
Here is the latest from Johnny Depp, to an approving audience in Glastonbury, UK: "When was the last time an actor assassinated a President?" So clever. I do hope that the Secret Service pays him a visit.
Chelsey Gentry-Tipton is the Democratic Black Caucus Chairwoman in Nebraska. She had this to say about the shooting of Steve Scalise and others: "The very people that push NRA legislation in efforts to pad their pockets with complete disregard for human life. Yeah, having a hard time feeling bad for them."
One writer for the Huffington Post, Jesse Benn, said this: "What's more harmful: putting millions already on the margins more at risk via draconian policies, or shooting a racist lawmaker in the hip?" Here is what is more harmful: your inability to view those who hold differing views as being human beings. The same applies to all the others quoted above.
Here is a real hater - Professor Johnny Williams of Trinity College in Connecticut: "It is past time for the racially oppressed to do what people who believe themselves to be 'white' will not do, put end to the vectors of their destructive mythology of whiteness and their white supremacy system #let them f...... die" "The time is now to confront these inhuman a..holes and end this now."
Today's Los Angeles Times reports on a new Pew Research poll concerning how Democrats and Republicans feel about one another. It is not a pretty picture. 47% of Democrats say Republicans make them angry, but 46% of Republicans say the same thing about Democrats. No difference between the parties there. But there was a very interesting difference: 52% of Republicans say that Democrats are more closed-minded than other Americans. But a whopping 70% of Democrats say Republicans are more closed-minded than other Americans. Do I believe that Republicans are more closed-minded than Democrats? Of course not. Given the above quotes, and once again given what happened to me personally (discussed in last summer's post entitled "A Personal Tale of Intolerance"), I could certainly make the case that Democrats are more closed-minded.
In fact, it is the rare case where I encounter a liberal Democrat who tells me that they read or listen to opposing views. I am not alone in expressing the concern that we seem to be in a civil war in this country - albeit a mostly non-violent one. There are an increasing number of commentators who are now expressing the same sentiment. I am seeing an increasing number of articles discussing what might be done to increase tolerance for divergent views, especially on college campuses. For now, however, one commentator said it best about colleges - colleges provide tremendous diversity of race, religion and ethnic background, so long as everyone thinks alike.
I have previously discussed that I believe that a core problem is that Democrats and Republicans no longer share the same fundamental values. That certainly makes it easier to disrespect those with whom you disagree. It is time - past time - to bring back the fundamentals to our schools. Requiring recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance daily. Teaching civics. Teaching how our governing document - the Constitution - works, and why it is the greatest governing document ever written. And teaching why allowing the expression of many viewpoints is one of our greatest freedoms, a freedom that we have because the First Amendment to the Constitution protects that right.
Thursday, June 15, 2017
"Terminate the Republican Party"
Apparently, that was the name of a group to which today's shooter in Alexandria belonged. This man (for new readers this blog does not give the names of evil perpetrators), who hated Republicans and was a Bernie Sanders supporter, shot up a practice baseball game of Republican Congressmen.
Said the man's brother: "I know he wasn't happy with the the way things were going, the election results and stuff." A lot of people were not happy with the election results. The media, the Left, the Democratic Party have engaged in non-stop "resistance" that frequently exceeds the bounds of decency and civility.
We recall Madonna telling us that "I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House." Stephen Colbert thought it was funny to joke about Trump's mouth being a receptacle for Putin's private parts. Recently, we had Kathy Griffin holding up a head made to look like the bloody decapitated head of the President. But, do not for one minute think it's just the Hollywood crowd that acts so disrespectfully and inadvisedly.
Let's not forget what Hillary Clinton thought of Trump supporters - the basket of deplorables - "the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it." It is not just that she said that - it is that so many on the Left actually believe it. If you think that about your political opponents, it is easy to think of them as not deserving of respect. If you doubt that, see last summer's post entitled "A Personal Tale of Intolerance."
With regards to the Republican's American Heath Care Act, numerous Democratic politicians said that the bill, if passed, would result in people dying. Those politicians include Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Terry McAuliffe, John Lewis, and undoubtedly others. These comments could be taken as saying that a vote for the bill essentially makes you a murderer - you are voting to get people killed. Rather extreme rhetoric. And clearly also believed by many on the Left. For example, the Chairman of the Democratic Party said this about Republicans: "Republicans don't give a shit about people." I'd say that is fairly clear as to what mainstream Democrats think about Republicans. Add in all the insults to Republicans from the mainstream media, and from academia, and you've got quite the vortex of hatred.
As for the shooter, he was quite active on social media, with comments such as: "Trump is guilty and should go to prison for treason." And this: "It's time for the Republican congressmen to grow up. Maybe if they weren't so full of hate, they could see what they are doing to this country." And this very ominous one: "Trump has destroyed our democracy, it's time to destroy Trump."
As of this writing, Congressman Steve Scalise remains in critical condition. As he is the Majority Whip, he had a security detail of two Capitol Police officers. Although wounded themselves, these officers (one man and one woman) stood their ground and returned fire, wounding the shooter, whose wounds later proved fatal. Two others were also wounded. One thing is certain - everyone there was extremely grateful that there were armed good guys able to take down the shooter. Otherwise, it might have been a massacre. The actions of these officers reflect the finest of the men and women in blue who protect us on a daily basis.
Six years ago, when Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot and severely wounded by a deranged man, the mainstream media wasted no time in blaming Republicans/conservatives/the right for the shooting. The 1/11/11 LA Times editorial said this: "the Right bears the brunt of responsibility for this poisoned atmosphere." The lead editorial in the 1/10/11 NY Times opined: "...it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media (an obvious reference to talk radio) responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge."
I am ending this post with two thoughts. One, I wonder how the mainstream media will spin this so that the shooter's actions do not reflect negatively on the Left; and maybe even find a way to blame Republicans. Two, and I am not happy that this thought even occurred to me, but what if it was President Trump who was shot? I have personally experienced the vitriol from the Left. I have seen the outpouring of animosity and pure hatred coming from the Left towards Republicans generally, and towards Trump particularly. So, my question is, if Trump was the victim, would we be seeing celebrations by the Left across the country, with the hope that Trump wouldn't make it? The fact that such a scenario seems possible tells us about the sad state of politics today in the - still - United States of America.
We recall Madonna telling us that "I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House." Stephen Colbert thought it was funny to joke about Trump's mouth being a receptacle for Putin's private parts. Recently, we had Kathy Griffin holding up a head made to look like the bloody decapitated head of the President. But, do not for one minute think it's just the Hollywood crowd that acts so disrespectfully and inadvisedly.
Let's not forget what Hillary Clinton thought of Trump supporters - the basket of deplorables - "the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it." It is not just that she said that - it is that so many on the Left actually believe it. If you think that about your political opponents, it is easy to think of them as not deserving of respect. If you doubt that, see last summer's post entitled "A Personal Tale of Intolerance."
With regards to the Republican's American Heath Care Act, numerous Democratic politicians said that the bill, if passed, would result in people dying. Those politicians include Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Terry McAuliffe, John Lewis, and undoubtedly others. These comments could be taken as saying that a vote for the bill essentially makes you a murderer - you are voting to get people killed. Rather extreme rhetoric. And clearly also believed by many on the Left. For example, the Chairman of the Democratic Party said this about Republicans: "Republicans don't give a shit about people." I'd say that is fairly clear as to what mainstream Democrats think about Republicans. Add in all the insults to Republicans from the mainstream media, and from academia, and you've got quite the vortex of hatred.
As for the shooter, he was quite active on social media, with comments such as: "Trump is guilty and should go to prison for treason." And this: "It's time for the Republican congressmen to grow up. Maybe if they weren't so full of hate, they could see what they are doing to this country." And this very ominous one: "Trump has destroyed our democracy, it's time to destroy Trump."
As of this writing, Congressman Steve Scalise remains in critical condition. As he is the Majority Whip, he had a security detail of two Capitol Police officers. Although wounded themselves, these officers (one man and one woman) stood their ground and returned fire, wounding the shooter, whose wounds later proved fatal. Two others were also wounded. One thing is certain - everyone there was extremely grateful that there were armed good guys able to take down the shooter. Otherwise, it might have been a massacre. The actions of these officers reflect the finest of the men and women in blue who protect us on a daily basis.
Six years ago, when Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot and severely wounded by a deranged man, the mainstream media wasted no time in blaming Republicans/conservatives/the right for the shooting. The 1/11/11 LA Times editorial said this: "the Right bears the brunt of responsibility for this poisoned atmosphere." The lead editorial in the 1/10/11 NY Times opined: "...it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media (an obvious reference to talk radio) responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge."
I am ending this post with two thoughts. One, I wonder how the mainstream media will spin this so that the shooter's actions do not reflect negatively on the Left; and maybe even find a way to blame Republicans. Two, and I am not happy that this thought even occurred to me, but what if it was President Trump who was shot? I have personally experienced the vitriol from the Left. I have seen the outpouring of animosity and pure hatred coming from the Left towards Republicans generally, and towards Trump particularly. So, my question is, if Trump was the victim, would we be seeing celebrations by the Left across the country, with the hope that Trump wouldn't make it? The fact that such a scenario seems possible tells us about the sad state of politics today in the - still - United States of America.
Monday, June 12, 2017
J. "Edgar" Comey
For those unfamiliar with the first director of the F.B.I., J. Edgar Hoover had a reputation for keeping secret files, or dossiers, on politicians - just in case. Some think those secret files helped keep Hoover in office as the Director from 1935 through 1972. That's some tenure.
Last week, another Director (albeit former Director) of the F.B.I., James Comey, testified before the US Senate Intelligence Committee. Lost in all the noise coming from the Left was the fact that Comey presented no evidence of Trump's alleged collusion with Russia. There were "no new bombshells about Russian meddling in the 2016 election or improper contacts by the Trump campaign or the White House with Russian authorities." That, from the liberal LA Times (6/9/17). And from Chris Matthews, we were told that those who claim the president colluded with the Russians to affect the election - "what came apart this morning was that theory."
Having lunch with two friends afterwards, I suggested that the mainstream media had several options for the next day's headlines. Comey: No collusion with Russia. Comey: No votes affected by any Russian interference. However, my prediction was this: Comey: Trump lied! So, how did I do? USA Today: "Comey calls Trump a liar." LA Times: "Comey accuses Trump of 'lies, plain and simple.'" NY Times: "TRUMP TRIED TO SINK INQUIRY, COMEY SAYS." The sub-headline does, however, say Comey "Condemns President's 'Lies.'" Not too bad in my prognostications. Or, as one of those two friends later texted me: "Nostramichaelus." But, really, just how difficult is it to predict what the mainstream media will say?
Exactly what did Comey say Trump lied about? That the F.B.I. was poorly led and in disarray, as the alleged reasons for firing Comey. There's a shocker - a dispute between an employer and employee over the reasons for the employee's termination. That's the type of dispute that occurs daily across the country. And that's what makes the headlines in the mainstream media. Apparently, the Russian collusion story is already acknowledged by the Left to be a lost cause. Ten months in and we have no hard evidence of collusion with the Russians. At least the media can call Trump a liar, given Comey's testimony.
It turns out that the "big" story to come out of Comey's testimony was his claim that Trump asked him if he could "see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go," because Flynn is a good man. Before Comey was the Director of the FBI, beginning in September of 2013, he was in the private sector. However, prior to that he was the US Deputy Attorney General from December, 2003 to August, 2005. And prior to that he was the US Attorney for the Southern Distract of New York. That US Attorney office is one of the top two US Attorney offices in the country, along with the one in Washington, D.C. The Southern District of NY gets very tough cases, including organized crime and terrorism cases. But, suddenly, Comey tells us he is not that tough after all.
Apparently, it was not only Trump who thought he might have some influence, when expressing his "hope" that Comey could let the Flynn investigation go. It turns out that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch made her own request of Comey when she asked him to refer to the Clinton e-mail investigation as a "matter" and not an "investigation." Comey said that request "confused me and concerned me." It also made him feel "queasy." Later on, when Lynch agreed to the meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix, Comey declared that "that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the F.B.I. and the Justice Department."
Senator Dianne Feinstein, (Dem., CA) asked Comey why he did not tell Trump that his request regarding Flynn was wrong. Why not say: "I cannot discuss this with you?" Comey: "Maybe if I were stronger, I would have." And: "Maybe other people would be stronger in that circumstance." Let's examine that. The man who was a Deputy US Attorney General, and a former federal prosecutor in one of the most important offices in the country, and ultimately the top cop in the country - turns out to be a wimp? Is that what we are supposed to believe? If so, he did no service to this country and no service to the President. The President does not need a "yes" man in such an important position. Any President needs an F.B.I. Director who will speak truthfully to him. Comey, if he is to be believed, failed in that; and that alone forms a sufficient basis for his termination.
Another way to look at it is that Comey acted as just another member of the "deep state," extremely distrustful of this outsider Trump. Comey says he kept memos (like dossiers?) of his discussions with Trump. Did he keep memos of his discussions with Loretta Lynch? Did he think that the directive to use the term "matter" came from Lynch, or that Obama instructed her to tell him? When Lynch then met with Bill Clinton, that "capped" it for him, and he went public with his assessment of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation. Why didn't he resign? He clearly felt that Lynch was not impartial. If he felt that Trump was asking him to do something improper, why didn't he resign, or at least report it to higher-ups in the Justice Department? Comey made it clear that he would still be the Director had Trump not fired him. Apparently, he saw nothing so egregious that would prompt his resignation.
J. Edgar Hoover has been credited with making the F.B.I. the modern, preeminent law enforcement agency that it is. He was also a man who apparently relished in the power that he wielded. So, was Comey the wimp, unable to stand up to any higher official? Or, was he also enamored of his power, writing memos to be used against political foes as necessary - memos that, perhaps, he assumed would protect his job? Astonishingly, Comey admitted to leaking his memo about the Trump meeting to his friend who teaches at Columbia Law School, encouraging him, in turn, to turn it over to the NY Times. Quite a manipulative scenario. But what if this happened - what if Comey, when asked if he could let the Flynn matter go, responded "Mr. President, that is an improper request and we cannot be discussing that." Then, Trump's reaction would tell us if he meant to exert any undue influence or not. That is what someone who is not a wimp, or manipulator, does. As for any obstruction of justice, liberal law professor Jonathan Turley said this: "the legal fact is that Comey's testimony does not establish a prima facie - or even a strong - case for obstruction." Just don't expect the mainstream media to drop the unproven allegations against Trump from their front pages for the next four years.
Last week, another Director (albeit former Director) of the F.B.I., James Comey, testified before the US Senate Intelligence Committee. Lost in all the noise coming from the Left was the fact that Comey presented no evidence of Trump's alleged collusion with Russia. There were "no new bombshells about Russian meddling in the 2016 election or improper contacts by the Trump campaign or the White House with Russian authorities." That, from the liberal LA Times (6/9/17). And from Chris Matthews, we were told that those who claim the president colluded with the Russians to affect the election - "what came apart this morning was that theory."
Having lunch with two friends afterwards, I suggested that the mainstream media had several options for the next day's headlines. Comey: No collusion with Russia. Comey: No votes affected by any Russian interference. However, my prediction was this: Comey: Trump lied! So, how did I do? USA Today: "Comey calls Trump a liar." LA Times: "Comey accuses Trump of 'lies, plain and simple.'" NY Times: "TRUMP TRIED TO SINK INQUIRY, COMEY SAYS." The sub-headline does, however, say Comey "Condemns President's 'Lies.'" Not too bad in my prognostications. Or, as one of those two friends later texted me: "Nostramichaelus." But, really, just how difficult is it to predict what the mainstream media will say?
Exactly what did Comey say Trump lied about? That the F.B.I. was poorly led and in disarray, as the alleged reasons for firing Comey. There's a shocker - a dispute between an employer and employee over the reasons for the employee's termination. That's the type of dispute that occurs daily across the country. And that's what makes the headlines in the mainstream media. Apparently, the Russian collusion story is already acknowledged by the Left to be a lost cause. Ten months in and we have no hard evidence of collusion with the Russians. At least the media can call Trump a liar, given Comey's testimony.
It turns out that the "big" story to come out of Comey's testimony was his claim that Trump asked him if he could "see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go," because Flynn is a good man. Before Comey was the Director of the FBI, beginning in September of 2013, he was in the private sector. However, prior to that he was the US Deputy Attorney General from December, 2003 to August, 2005. And prior to that he was the US Attorney for the Southern Distract of New York. That US Attorney office is one of the top two US Attorney offices in the country, along with the one in Washington, D.C. The Southern District of NY gets very tough cases, including organized crime and terrorism cases. But, suddenly, Comey tells us he is not that tough after all.
Apparently, it was not only Trump who thought he might have some influence, when expressing his "hope" that Comey could let the Flynn investigation go. It turns out that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch made her own request of Comey when she asked him to refer to the Clinton e-mail investigation as a "matter" and not an "investigation." Comey said that request "confused me and concerned me." It also made him feel "queasy." Later on, when Lynch agreed to the meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix, Comey declared that "that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the F.B.I. and the Justice Department."
Senator Dianne Feinstein, (Dem., CA) asked Comey why he did not tell Trump that his request regarding Flynn was wrong. Why not say: "I cannot discuss this with you?" Comey: "Maybe if I were stronger, I would have." And: "Maybe other people would be stronger in that circumstance." Let's examine that. The man who was a Deputy US Attorney General, and a former federal prosecutor in one of the most important offices in the country, and ultimately the top cop in the country - turns out to be a wimp? Is that what we are supposed to believe? If so, he did no service to this country and no service to the President. The President does not need a "yes" man in such an important position. Any President needs an F.B.I. Director who will speak truthfully to him. Comey, if he is to be believed, failed in that; and that alone forms a sufficient basis for his termination.
Another way to look at it is that Comey acted as just another member of the "deep state," extremely distrustful of this outsider Trump. Comey says he kept memos (like dossiers?) of his discussions with Trump. Did he keep memos of his discussions with Loretta Lynch? Did he think that the directive to use the term "matter" came from Lynch, or that Obama instructed her to tell him? When Lynch then met with Bill Clinton, that "capped" it for him, and he went public with his assessment of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation. Why didn't he resign? He clearly felt that Lynch was not impartial. If he felt that Trump was asking him to do something improper, why didn't he resign, or at least report it to higher-ups in the Justice Department? Comey made it clear that he would still be the Director had Trump not fired him. Apparently, he saw nothing so egregious that would prompt his resignation.
J. Edgar Hoover has been credited with making the F.B.I. the modern, preeminent law enforcement agency that it is. He was also a man who apparently relished in the power that he wielded. So, was Comey the wimp, unable to stand up to any higher official? Or, was he also enamored of his power, writing memos to be used against political foes as necessary - memos that, perhaps, he assumed would protect his job? Astonishingly, Comey admitted to leaking his memo about the Trump meeting to his friend who teaches at Columbia Law School, encouraging him, in turn, to turn it over to the NY Times. Quite a manipulative scenario. But what if this happened - what if Comey, when asked if he could let the Flynn matter go, responded "Mr. President, that is an improper request and we cannot be discussing that." Then, Trump's reaction would tell us if he meant to exert any undue influence or not. That is what someone who is not a wimp, or manipulator, does. As for any obstruction of justice, liberal law professor Jonathan Turley said this: "the legal fact is that Comey's testimony does not establish a prima facie - or even a strong - case for obstruction." Just don't expect the mainstream media to drop the unproven allegations against Trump from their front pages for the next four years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)