First off, I should apologize to Meghan Trainor for alluding to her hit single in the title of today's entry. On the other hand, it seems appropriate.
While people still struggle to climb out from underneath the wreckage in Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico caused by hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, our President is busy accusing NFL players of being unpatriotic and divisive and basically laying blame for the disorganized rescue response in Puerto Rico at the feet of the victims. All of this, despite the fact that he himself displayed a first grade knowledge of geography when describing where Puerto Rico is.
Many on the right end of the political spectrum spent the first several months of the current administration calling those on the left divisive and encouraging them (actually, more like berating or browbeating them) to unite behind this President, something they failed to do during eight years of the previous administration. It's time to call the man and his supporters out for what they are. Hypocrites.
During the Presidential campaign, supporters of this President called for his opponent to be put in prison for her use of a private e-mail server while conducting government business. Now that it appears some of this President's inner circle have been doing the same exact thing. Where are the calls for prison now? Crickets. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Of course, his advisers and staff take their lead from the man at the top. And while he spends a lot of his time and public meanderings catering to his base, it ultimately is really all about him. He somehow manages to bring everything back to him and what a great job he is doing as President. Narcissus would be proud.
If he isn't giving himself credit for something that actually began or occurred during the previous administration ( some of the early economic reports come to mind), he's busy taking credit or proclaiming success for something that hasn't actually happened (the building of "The Wall," the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and the great job the federal government is doing with relief efforts in Puerto Rico are all examples). And if he isn't doing either of those things, he is busy blaming other people for their problems or his own (blaming the Mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico for aid not getting to those in need and "Fake News" immediately come to mind). Hypocrite-in-Chief.
Episodes like these are partly what San Antonio Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich had in mind when he said America "is an embarrassment" to the rest of the world. Ronald Reagan famously coined the term "trickle-down economic" to argue that benefits flow from the top down. Well, something else is flowing down from on high, and it sure isn't money or respect or anything good.
I'll be the first to admit I did not do enough to prevent this man's election to the Presidency, although I did vote for his opponent. I'll also be the first to admit I have not done enough to oppose this man now that he is in office. Part of the reason for that is I have friends with opposing views whom I have tried not to anger or offend. But the time for worrying about that has passed.
While I can respect the fact that some people have differing views that I on issues such as immigration, the economy, the environment (well, not so much that one), foreign aid, and the like, I can no longer respect the fact that they voted for a man so obviously unqualified to be President of anything other than his own mutual admiration society.
The fact that people continue to support this egotistical blowhard in spite of increasing evidence that he is mentally and morally deficient negates any merit their arguments on other issues may have. The fact that what I say may offend or anger some to the point they no longer want to be my friends no longer worries me. The time for silence has long since passed.
Showing posts with label Donald Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Donald Trump. Show all posts
Saturday, September 30, 2017
Thursday, January 19, 2017
#219 - Dawn of a New Era or the Eve of Destruction
"Ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction." - Barry McGuire, "Eve of Destruction" (written by P. F. Sloan
By this time tomorrow, the United States will be led by the 45th President, Donald Trump, arguably one of the most divisive incoming Presidents in American history based on his incoming approval rating, the lowest of any new President in history.
There are those who might also argue that the new President is perhaps the most egotistical and narcissistic man to ever occupy the White House. In the immortal words of The Eurythmics, who am I to disagree?
For most of the nine years I have irregularly posted to this blog, and for most of the previous 217 posts I have published, I have stayed away from politics and religion. While I will likely continue to leave religion as only the rare and occasional topic, I expect politics to become more prevalent, and the reason is the new man behind the curtain, Donald Trump.
I recently read an opinion piece in The Atlantic that argued the possibility that Trump may end up as one of the most corrupt presidents in our history. That notion could be dismissed as mere hyperbole were it not for the fact that it was written by John Dean, the man who served as counsel for the only President ever to resign from office, Richard Nixon.
According to Dean, Trump and Nixon share some of the same authoritarian tendencies. The difference being that Nixon held many of those tendencies in check. The early indications are that Trump does not have that same level of self-restraint. From the article:
So, those who feel Trump will be a disaster as President can look forward to an early end to the Trump Presidency, right? Not if Dean is correct in his assessment of how things have changed in America since Watergate.
According to Dean the checks and balances system has been weakened by "partisan paralysis." For evidence of some of this paralysis at work just look back to the government shutdown and near shutdown, along with the constant gridlock in Congress over the last several years.
Much as many argue we have become desensitized to violence by the plethora of video games, Dean believes we have become desensitized to political scandal. After Watergate, Dean says America was on high alert. But now, according the article, "that culture of vigilance has so eroded that it’s nearly impossible now to envision a sin so grave, or a revelation so explosive, that it would lead to the ouster of a sitting president." Says Dean, “the Trump campaign is an interesting measure of how high the tolerance has gotten for a public figure’s misbehavior.”
An indication of how little we seem to care about even the possibility of impropriety with regard to a Trump presidency can be seen in the reactions of many to the choices put forth for Trump's Cabinet. The fact is that few, if any supporters are concerned by the fact that most of the nominees either have worked against the agencies they are now supposed to lead or are rich, like Trump.
The proposed head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has sued the EPA a number of times on behalf of companies opposed to EPA regulations even though ten-percent of the children in his state suffer from asthma, a condition exacerbated by pollution.
Texas Governor Rick Perry, Trump's proposed Secretary of Energy, wants to shut down the agency. Secretary of Labor nominee Andrew Puzder has opposed labor regulations designed to protect workers (and also seems to be a fan of gridlock, saying "the less Washington does, the better". Secretary of Education nominee Betty DeVos supports voucher programs that divert taxpayer money from public schools, has no idea or apparent decision on the decades long proficiency vs. growth debate with regard to assessment, and does not appear to believe in uniform enforcement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Other nominees, such as Housing and Urban Development nominee Ben Carson, who has criticized regulations designed to combat segregation in housing projects, seem equally dangerous. (This op/ed piece in The Baltimore Sun outlines Carson's criticisms and the arguments against those criticisms.")
For me, the biggest danger of a Trump presidency may not be Trump himself but those who seem to blindly follow him. Many of them profess to be Christian, yet the man they support is no more Christian than a pine tree and possibly less so.
One comment I read this morning on Facebook is indicative of the support that concerns me. It read, "I thank God he chose this man to help save this country, and saved us from doom." After reading that, all I could think was a) God really does have a sense of humor (something I've long suspected since learning Jimmy Swaggart and Jerry Lee Lewis belonged to the same family tree), followed by b) God must really hate us, before concluding with c) we can't blame God for Trump. This is on us.
These same Christian Trumpeters seem to conveniently forget one of Christ's most important teachings, "love thy neighbor as thyself." Either that, or they are full of self-loathing.
To my mind, there is nothing inherently Christian about any of Trump's Cabinet nominees. "As you do unto the least of them, so you do unto me" seems to fly in the face of the positions these nominees have taken. The Catholic church teaches that we are supposed to be stewards of God's creation. Among other things, that seems to mean protecting the environment, not opening up federal lands to additional energy exploration.
The next four years promise to be divisive, confrontational, controversial, and contentious. They will, however, get off to a rousing start on Saturday with the Women's March on Washington and the affiliated marches in the individual states.
The battle lines appear to be drawn. They are not, however, drawn along the moral lines many religious people would have us believe, at least not in the way they think. The lines are moral, but they are drawn along the lines of right and wrong, as in what is right for all people, what is right for the environment, what is right for the children, what is right for all faiths, and what is right for the least of us.
Instead of fighting to "make America great again" (a slogan Trump took from Reagan, by the way), perhaps we should focus on keeping America great, part of which includes celebrating diversity, promoting fairness, working to help the elderly and the poor, ensuring all Americans have access to and receive affordable health care, and not providing additional wealth and tax breaks to those who already have the most.
If America is to be and to remain great, the majority of people must benefit, not just a handful at the top. Putting a billionaire in charge and appointing a handful of wealthy people as his advisers and Cabinet members does not seem the best way to ensure that the greatest number of people possible benefit.
Let the battle begin.
By this time tomorrow, the United States will be led by the 45th President, Donald Trump, arguably one of the most divisive incoming Presidents in American history based on his incoming approval rating, the lowest of any new President in history.
There are those who might also argue that the new President is perhaps the most egotistical and narcissistic man to ever occupy the White House. In the immortal words of The Eurythmics, who am I to disagree?
For most of the nine years I have irregularly posted to this blog, and for most of the previous 217 posts I have published, I have stayed away from politics and religion. While I will likely continue to leave religion as only the rare and occasional topic, I expect politics to become more prevalent, and the reason is the new man behind the curtain, Donald Trump.
I recently read an opinion piece in The Atlantic that argued the possibility that Trump may end up as one of the most corrupt presidents in our history. That notion could be dismissed as mere hyperbole were it not for the fact that it was written by John Dean, the man who served as counsel for the only President ever to resign from office, Richard Nixon.
According to Dean, Trump and Nixon share some of the same authoritarian tendencies. The difference being that Nixon held many of those tendencies in check. The early indications are that Trump does not have that same level of self-restraint. From the article:
To Dean, these moments suggested a functioning sense of shame in Nixon, something he was forced to wrestle with in his quest for power. Trump, by contrast, appears to Dean unmolested by any such struggle.Dean goes on to suggest Trump may find himself embroiled in a Watergate-style meltdown similar to the one that forced Nixon from office. Says Dean, “he’s carrying loads of potential problems into the White House with him.” He goes on to say: “I don’t think Richard Nixon even comes close to the level of corruption we already know about Trump.”
So, those who feel Trump will be a disaster as President can look forward to an early end to the Trump Presidency, right? Not if Dean is correct in his assessment of how things have changed in America since Watergate.
According to Dean the checks and balances system has been weakened by "partisan paralysis." For evidence of some of this paralysis at work just look back to the government shutdown and near shutdown, along with the constant gridlock in Congress over the last several years.
Much as many argue we have become desensitized to violence by the plethora of video games, Dean believes we have become desensitized to political scandal. After Watergate, Dean says America was on high alert. But now, according the article, "that culture of vigilance has so eroded that it’s nearly impossible now to envision a sin so grave, or a revelation so explosive, that it would lead to the ouster of a sitting president." Says Dean, “the Trump campaign is an interesting measure of how high the tolerance has gotten for a public figure’s misbehavior.”
An indication of how little we seem to care about even the possibility of impropriety with regard to a Trump presidency can be seen in the reactions of many to the choices put forth for Trump's Cabinet. The fact is that few, if any supporters are concerned by the fact that most of the nominees either have worked against the agencies they are now supposed to lead or are rich, like Trump.
The proposed head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has sued the EPA a number of times on behalf of companies opposed to EPA regulations even though ten-percent of the children in his state suffer from asthma, a condition exacerbated by pollution.
Texas Governor Rick Perry, Trump's proposed Secretary of Energy, wants to shut down the agency. Secretary of Labor nominee Andrew Puzder has opposed labor regulations designed to protect workers (and also seems to be a fan of gridlock, saying "the less Washington does, the better". Secretary of Education nominee Betty DeVos supports voucher programs that divert taxpayer money from public schools, has no idea or apparent decision on the decades long proficiency vs. growth debate with regard to assessment, and does not appear to believe in uniform enforcement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Other nominees, such as Housing and Urban Development nominee Ben Carson, who has criticized regulations designed to combat segregation in housing projects, seem equally dangerous. (This op/ed piece in The Baltimore Sun outlines Carson's criticisms and the arguments against those criticisms.")
For me, the biggest danger of a Trump presidency may not be Trump himself but those who seem to blindly follow him. Many of them profess to be Christian, yet the man they support is no more Christian than a pine tree and possibly less so.
One comment I read this morning on Facebook is indicative of the support that concerns me. It read, "I thank God he chose this man to help save this country, and saved us from doom." After reading that, all I could think was a) God really does have a sense of humor (something I've long suspected since learning Jimmy Swaggart and Jerry Lee Lewis belonged to the same family tree), followed by b) God must really hate us, before concluding with c) we can't blame God for Trump. This is on us.
These same Christian Trumpeters seem to conveniently forget one of Christ's most important teachings, "love thy neighbor as thyself." Either that, or they are full of self-loathing.
To my mind, there is nothing inherently Christian about any of Trump's Cabinet nominees. "As you do unto the least of them, so you do unto me" seems to fly in the face of the positions these nominees have taken. The Catholic church teaches that we are supposed to be stewards of God's creation. Among other things, that seems to mean protecting the environment, not opening up federal lands to additional energy exploration.
The next four years promise to be divisive, confrontational, controversial, and contentious. They will, however, get off to a rousing start on Saturday with the Women's March on Washington and the affiliated marches in the individual states.
The battle lines appear to be drawn. They are not, however, drawn along the moral lines many religious people would have us believe, at least not in the way they think. The lines are moral, but they are drawn along the lines of right and wrong, as in what is right for all people, what is right for the environment, what is right for the children, what is right for all faiths, and what is right for the least of us.
Instead of fighting to "make America great again" (a slogan Trump took from Reagan, by the way), perhaps we should focus on keeping America great, part of which includes celebrating diversity, promoting fairness, working to help the elderly and the poor, ensuring all Americans have access to and receive affordable health care, and not providing additional wealth and tax breaks to those who already have the most.
If America is to be and to remain great, the majority of people must benefit, not just a handful at the top. Putting a billionaire in charge and appointing a handful of wealthy people as his advisers and Cabinet members does not seem the best way to ensure that the greatest number of people possible benefit.
Let the battle begin.
Saturday, December 31, 2016
#218 - A Year To Forget, A Year To Remember
In many ways, I will not be sorry to see the back of 2016. The year got off to a rocky start with the death in January of David Bowie and continued on through the double whammy deaths of Carrie Fisher and her mother, Debbie Reynolds.
In between, a number of famous and important people left the scene, and a minority of Americans succeeded in handing the keys to the candy store (and the nuclear arsenal) to an rude and overbearing reality TV host. It's as if The Truman Show (the Jim Carrey movie in which his entire life is fodder for reality TV and he's the only one not in on it) has been flipped on its ear, the script pages mixed with those of Panic In The Year Zero (the 1962 Ray Milland film about a family which must learn to survive in the aftermath of nuclear war) to give birth to some sort of Nightmare on Elm Street revision in which the nightmare is all too real.
I have little in the way of expectations for positive change from the incoming administration, and based on some of the names on the transition team and those being bandied about for Cabinet posts, I doubt I'll be pleasantly disappointed.
I am lucky in that I do not expect my life to be negatively impacted much by the Trump presidency. My fear is that millions of others will not be able to say the same.
Based on the rhetoric coming out of Washington since the election, attempts will again be made to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and the elderly. This, even though those two groups make up a smaller portion of federal spending than military spending, federal subsidies, and tax breaks for large corporations.
I expect to see racism become, if not more prevalent, more visible and overt over the next four years. The change is already taking place as evident in the turning of a family's outdoor Menorah display into a swastika. The incoming President may not be a racist, but I believe he is an enabler of such behavior.
This last year, quite frankly, sucked in a lot of ways, and I could continue to lament what happened and outline my fears regarding what lies ahead. Instead, I will hope to be wrong and will hope that in 2017 fewer people than I expect will suffer a rolling back of rights; that fewer people than I expect will be excluded from the safety net that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security were created to provide; and that more people than I expect will find love in their hearts for people who are different from themselves.
Happy New Year, everyone.
In between, a number of famous and important people left the scene, and a minority of Americans succeeded in handing the keys to the candy store (and the nuclear arsenal) to an rude and overbearing reality TV host. It's as if The Truman Show (the Jim Carrey movie in which his entire life is fodder for reality TV and he's the only one not in on it) has been flipped on its ear, the script pages mixed with those of Panic In The Year Zero (the 1962 Ray Milland film about a family which must learn to survive in the aftermath of nuclear war) to give birth to some sort of Nightmare on Elm Street revision in which the nightmare is all too real.
I have little in the way of expectations for positive change from the incoming administration, and based on some of the names on the transition team and those being bandied about for Cabinet posts, I doubt I'll be pleasantly disappointed.
I am lucky in that I do not expect my life to be negatively impacted much by the Trump presidency. My fear is that millions of others will not be able to say the same.
Based on the rhetoric coming out of Washington since the election, attempts will again be made to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and the elderly. This, even though those two groups make up a smaller portion of federal spending than military spending, federal subsidies, and tax breaks for large corporations.
I expect to see racism become, if not more prevalent, more visible and overt over the next four years. The change is already taking place as evident in the turning of a family's outdoor Menorah display into a swastika. The incoming President may not be a racist, but I believe he is an enabler of such behavior.
This last year, quite frankly, sucked in a lot of ways, and I could continue to lament what happened and outline my fears regarding what lies ahead. Instead, I will hope to be wrong and will hope that in 2017 fewer people than I expect will suffer a rolling back of rights; that fewer people than I expect will be excluded from the safety net that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security were created to provide; and that more people than I expect will find love in their hearts for people who are different from themselves.
Happy New Year, everyone.
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
#213 - I Tried, Really!
Sunday night, I sat down to watch the second Presidential debate. At least, that was the plan.
I watched in hopes of getting an idea of specific policy points from the candidates, specific arguments in support of their stands on the issues. You know, an actual debate.
What I saw instead was more akin to an elementary schoolyard war of words: "Did not!" "Did too!" "I know I am, but what are you?" "Takes one to know one."
Beyond that, Sunday night's debate seemed an attempt by one candidate to browbeat and bully the other candidate (as well as the moderators) into submission through the use of continued interruption.
After 40-minutes, I'd had enough and could no longer watch. I knew I would get nothing of substance from the debate. Instead, I would only get more of what passes these days for political theater or reality TV. If I wanted either of those, I would watch an episode of Madam Secretary or Survivor. (For the record, I concluded that Clinton's non-answers were closer to being on-topic than were Trump's, as he seemed to only be interested in talking about emails.)
I also had a pretty good sense of how the day-after debate news cycle would run. Trump supporters would declare him yet again as the debate winner while hammering the moderators for being members of the "liberal media" and Clinton supporters, something Trump himself set the stage for when he complained about the debate being "three against one."
From the vantage point of my easy chair, it seemed the moderators were only trying, with limited success, to do their jobs. They have basically four responsibilities: ask questions; try to keep candidates on topic; try to get candidates to keep their answers within predetermined time constraints; and perhaps most importantly, keep candidates from interrupting while another candidate is speaking.
I give the moderators a B-plus for effort and a D-minus for execution, although the lack of execution is not really their fault given that they have no power to truly control the candidates' behavior or actions during the debate.
Donald Trump has taken Teddy Roosevelt's "bully pulpit" and inverted it, turning it into a pulpit from which to bully those who disagree with him. His behavior during the debates seriously suggests Trump would be unable and, perhaps worse, unwilling as President to listen to or consider opposing viewpoints and scenarios from advisers.
A President has to be able to consider all options before becoming locked in on a course of action and must be able to change tactic when a specific action is clearly not working. Trump's actions, words, and behavior during the campaign suggest he would be unable and unwilling to make such changes and would instead "double down" on the action or tactic already shown as not working.
I do not think Trump is capable of or is willing to change his behavior and demeanor before the third Presidential debate in one week's time. At least not without some help in the form of a change to the debate rules.
This leads me to a suggestion I humorously made on Facebook but one which I think deserves some serious consideration. This will require some real strength of spirit on the part of moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News and debate organizers. I don't expect such strength, but in the spirit of hope springing eternal, here goes.
First, enforce the two-minute limit of candidate responses. The two-minute clock located in the candidate's line of sight is clearly not working in and of itself. How to remedy this? At the two-minute mark, the moderator says "fifteen seconds" to give the candidate a chance to wrap up their remarks. At the 2:15 mark, the candidate's microphone is turned off and not turned back on until it is the candidate's turn to respond to another question.
Second, keep candidates on topic. How can a moderator do this, you ask? Especially when candidates seem to think (based on past Presidential debate history) they can simply take any question in whatever direction they want to go? Enter the microphone strategy again.
If/When a candidate begins to veer completely away from a question's topic, the moderator should remind the candidate once to return to topic. If/When that fails, the candidate's microphone should be turned off (I think you're beginning to see a trend here), and the moderator should say, "If you are not going to answer the question, we will move on" to either the other candidate's answer or to another question.
Third, keep candidates from interrupting one another during answers. The first offense should result in the moderator politely asking the offending candidate to refrain until it is his or her turn to respond. The second response should result in a candidate's microphone being turned off, with no further warning, until it is his or her turn to speak. This process should be automatically repeated (i.e., the microphone turned off without warning) for the remainder of the debate whenever a candidate interrupts.
While these proposals are designed specifically with Donald Trump and his verbal-bullying tactics in mind, they should be applied equally to Hillary Clinton should she transgress. I have no hope of these ideas actually being implemented, but they would, even if artificially, restore something sadly lacking in the debates and in the overall campaign, civility. (Of course, they could also result in some truly entertaining political theater should Trump storm off the stage because he isn't being allowed to rampage through the debate like a bull in a china shop.)
Based on the 40-minutes of the debate I watched Sunday night and the numerous Internet memes I've seen on Facebook, I'd say civility is something we are sadly in need of in this election year. However, I think it is safe to say that one has better odds of winning the lottery than of witnessing anything resembling true civil discourse during the remainder of the 2016 Presidential campaign.
I watched in hopes of getting an idea of specific policy points from the candidates, specific arguments in support of their stands on the issues. You know, an actual debate.
What I saw instead was more akin to an elementary schoolyard war of words: "Did not!" "Did too!" "I know I am, but what are you?" "Takes one to know one."
Beyond that, Sunday night's debate seemed an attempt by one candidate to browbeat and bully the other candidate (as well as the moderators) into submission through the use of continued interruption.
After 40-minutes, I'd had enough and could no longer watch. I knew I would get nothing of substance from the debate. Instead, I would only get more of what passes these days for political theater or reality TV. If I wanted either of those, I would watch an episode of Madam Secretary or Survivor. (For the record, I concluded that Clinton's non-answers were closer to being on-topic than were Trump's, as he seemed to only be interested in talking about emails.)
I also had a pretty good sense of how the day-after debate news cycle would run. Trump supporters would declare him yet again as the debate winner while hammering the moderators for being members of the "liberal media" and Clinton supporters, something Trump himself set the stage for when he complained about the debate being "three against one."
From the vantage point of my easy chair, it seemed the moderators were only trying, with limited success, to do their jobs. They have basically four responsibilities: ask questions; try to keep candidates on topic; try to get candidates to keep their answers within predetermined time constraints; and perhaps most importantly, keep candidates from interrupting while another candidate is speaking.
I give the moderators a B-plus for effort and a D-minus for execution, although the lack of execution is not really their fault given that they have no power to truly control the candidates' behavior or actions during the debate.
Donald Trump has taken Teddy Roosevelt's "bully pulpit" and inverted it, turning it into a pulpit from which to bully those who disagree with him. His behavior during the debates seriously suggests Trump would be unable and, perhaps worse, unwilling as President to listen to or consider opposing viewpoints and scenarios from advisers.
A President has to be able to consider all options before becoming locked in on a course of action and must be able to change tactic when a specific action is clearly not working. Trump's actions, words, and behavior during the campaign suggest he would be unable and unwilling to make such changes and would instead "double down" on the action or tactic already shown as not working.
I do not think Trump is capable of or is willing to change his behavior and demeanor before the third Presidential debate in one week's time. At least not without some help in the form of a change to the debate rules.
This leads me to a suggestion I humorously made on Facebook but one which I think deserves some serious consideration. This will require some real strength of spirit on the part of moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News and debate organizers. I don't expect such strength, but in the spirit of hope springing eternal, here goes.
First, enforce the two-minute limit of candidate responses. The two-minute clock located in the candidate's line of sight is clearly not working in and of itself. How to remedy this? At the two-minute mark, the moderator says "fifteen seconds" to give the candidate a chance to wrap up their remarks. At the 2:15 mark, the candidate's microphone is turned off and not turned back on until it is the candidate's turn to respond to another question.
Second, keep candidates on topic. How can a moderator do this, you ask? Especially when candidates seem to think (based on past Presidential debate history) they can simply take any question in whatever direction they want to go? Enter the microphone strategy again.
If/When a candidate begins to veer completely away from a question's topic, the moderator should remind the candidate once to return to topic. If/When that fails, the candidate's microphone should be turned off (I think you're beginning to see a trend here), and the moderator should say, "If you are not going to answer the question, we will move on" to either the other candidate's answer or to another question.
Third, keep candidates from interrupting one another during answers. The first offense should result in the moderator politely asking the offending candidate to refrain until it is his or her turn to respond. The second response should result in a candidate's microphone being turned off, with no further warning, until it is his or her turn to speak. This process should be automatically repeated (i.e., the microphone turned off without warning) for the remainder of the debate whenever a candidate interrupts.
While these proposals are designed specifically with Donald Trump and his verbal-bullying tactics in mind, they should be applied equally to Hillary Clinton should she transgress. I have no hope of these ideas actually being implemented, but they would, even if artificially, restore something sadly lacking in the debates and in the overall campaign, civility. (Of course, they could also result in some truly entertaining political theater should Trump storm off the stage because he isn't being allowed to rampage through the debate like a bull in a china shop.)
Based on the 40-minutes of the debate I watched Sunday night and the numerous Internet memes I've seen on Facebook, I'd say civility is something we are sadly in need of in this election year. However, I think it is safe to say that one has better odds of winning the lottery than of witnessing anything resembling true civil discourse during the remainder of the 2016 Presidential campaign.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
#212 - Making The Best of a Bad Situation
I've been thinking about this post off and on for a while, eight weeks to be exact. That's how long it has been since my last post.
Part of that delay is not knowing exactly what to write about. Part of it is due to everyday life getting in the way, but part of it is knowing I needed to write this while dreading it at the same time.
I don't fool myself into thinking that I have many readers of this blog. However, I'm pretty sure that the few readers I do have are not all aligned politically, culturally, religiously, or any other -ly. (Which is why I normally shy away from writing about politics, in particular.) So, I suspect whatever I have to say in the following paragraphs will not be agreed with or appreciated by all.
It has taken me until this day, exactly six weeks before election day to firmly decide which candidate for President would receive my vote. For several months, I had convinced myself that I would vote for one of the third-party candidates, a refusal, if you will, to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Having lived through a number of Presidential elections now, it seems that too many of them have been a choice between the lesser of two evils, regardless of which side of the ideological spectrum you stand on. This coming election may yet be the clearest example of that.
On the one hand, you have Hillary Clinton, the first woman Presidential nominee from a major political party. She is shrewd, clever, intelligent, and also calculating, possibly devious, and perhaps a bit disingenuous. I firmly believe she moved many of her positions to the left because of the candidacy of Bernie Sanders.
I don't really trust Hillary Clinton to do many of the things she says she will, even if Congress were inclined to go along. I suspect she will only do what she thinks she has to do to win and stay in power.
Now, before I am accused of being misogynistic, let me say that two of my favorite bosses during my working career were women. Let also say that, in spite of my misgivings and mistrust of her, I will be voting for Hillary Clinton in November.
The simple reason is that, on the other side of the ticket we have Donald Trump, a man who wouldn't know a fact if it bit him in the ass. Just as I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton is a politician in the worst sense of the word (I know some don't think there is any other), I also believe Donald Trump is a liar and a cheat (his good points) as well as a racist, a bully, and a misogynist. Not to mention a complete and utter egomaniac.
Trump has changed direction on various issues and topics so many times over the years, I'm not sure he could find north on a compass if someone pointed it out to him. (Others have documented some of these reversals and apparent "lapses of memory," so I won't bother here.) He speaks for whites afraid of losing their all out of proportion privilege and power and promises things he knows he can never deliver. (Just how will he "make" Mexico pay for his proposed wall, anyway? Does he plan to declare war on that country?)
Donald Trump is a bit like this century's version of Joseph McCarthy, he of the Communist witch hunt fame from the 1950s. Trump makes wild accusations, which he then fails to back up and says he did and said one thing when the record clearly shows he did and said the exact opposite (President Obama "birther" issue, anyone?).
Donald Trump is like a David Duke wet dream, promising to restore an America that thankfully died long ago, one where white men were in complete control, women knew their place, and minorities were treated as the second-class citizens he seems to believe them to be.
Trump plays upon the fears of whites who see the world changing in ways they don't understand, of gun owners who believe their rights are being taken away (even though that won't happen), of tinfoil hat wearers sure the government is out to get them, of and of individualists who believe we can return to the days of the open West when people were free (supposedly) to do what they wanted and make their own way, including those opposed to federal government regulation of any kind.
This latter group fails to understand that clean air and water are too important to leave to individual states and fails to accept that what one state does can and will impact its neighbor, if not now, somewhere down the line. After all, air and water to not recognize artificial boundaries drawn on a piece of paper.
For some time, I considered voting for Jill Stein of the Green Party. Her views, especially on the environment, align with mine closest of any of the candidates. Since I live in Idaho, I figured my vote would not help elect anyone anyway, especially since I never had any intention of voting for Trump, his numerous robo-calls (especially at meal times) not withstanding.
In the end, however, I decided I would hold my nose and, despite my misgivings about what exactly she stands for, vote for Hillary Clinton. Because, while I'm not sure what Clinton might do as President in terms of policy, I feel confident that I know exactly what a Trump Presidency would lead to, and that vision scares the hell out of me.
Part of that delay is not knowing exactly what to write about. Part of it is due to everyday life getting in the way, but part of it is knowing I needed to write this while dreading it at the same time.
I don't fool myself into thinking that I have many readers of this blog. However, I'm pretty sure that the few readers I do have are not all aligned politically, culturally, religiously, or any other -ly. (Which is why I normally shy away from writing about politics, in particular.) So, I suspect whatever I have to say in the following paragraphs will not be agreed with or appreciated by all.
It has taken me until this day, exactly six weeks before election day to firmly decide which candidate for President would receive my vote. For several months, I had convinced myself that I would vote for one of the third-party candidates, a refusal, if you will, to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Having lived through a number of Presidential elections now, it seems that too many of them have been a choice between the lesser of two evils, regardless of which side of the ideological spectrum you stand on. This coming election may yet be the clearest example of that.
On the one hand, you have Hillary Clinton, the first woman Presidential nominee from a major political party. She is shrewd, clever, intelligent, and also calculating, possibly devious, and perhaps a bit disingenuous. I firmly believe she moved many of her positions to the left because of the candidacy of Bernie Sanders.
I don't really trust Hillary Clinton to do many of the things she says she will, even if Congress were inclined to go along. I suspect she will only do what she thinks she has to do to win and stay in power.
Now, before I am accused of being misogynistic, let me say that two of my favorite bosses during my working career were women. Let also say that, in spite of my misgivings and mistrust of her, I will be voting for Hillary Clinton in November.
The simple reason is that, on the other side of the ticket we have Donald Trump, a man who wouldn't know a fact if it bit him in the ass. Just as I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton is a politician in the worst sense of the word (I know some don't think there is any other), I also believe Donald Trump is a liar and a cheat (his good points) as well as a racist, a bully, and a misogynist. Not to mention a complete and utter egomaniac.
Trump has changed direction on various issues and topics so many times over the years, I'm not sure he could find north on a compass if someone pointed it out to him. (Others have documented some of these reversals and apparent "lapses of memory," so I won't bother here.) He speaks for whites afraid of losing their all out of proportion privilege and power and promises things he knows he can never deliver. (Just how will he "make" Mexico pay for his proposed wall, anyway? Does he plan to declare war on that country?)
Donald Trump is a bit like this century's version of Joseph McCarthy, he of the Communist witch hunt fame from the 1950s. Trump makes wild accusations, which he then fails to back up and says he did and said one thing when the record clearly shows he did and said the exact opposite (President Obama "birther" issue, anyone?).
Donald Trump is like a David Duke wet dream, promising to restore an America that thankfully died long ago, one where white men were in complete control, women knew their place, and minorities were treated as the second-class citizens he seems to believe them to be.
Trump plays upon the fears of whites who see the world changing in ways they don't understand, of gun owners who believe their rights are being taken away (even though that won't happen), of tinfoil hat wearers sure the government is out to get them, of and of individualists who believe we can return to the days of the open West when people were free (supposedly) to do what they wanted and make their own way, including those opposed to federal government regulation of any kind.
This latter group fails to understand that clean air and water are too important to leave to individual states and fails to accept that what one state does can and will impact its neighbor, if not now, somewhere down the line. After all, air and water to not recognize artificial boundaries drawn on a piece of paper.
For some time, I considered voting for Jill Stein of the Green Party. Her views, especially on the environment, align with mine closest of any of the candidates. Since I live in Idaho, I figured my vote would not help elect anyone anyway, especially since I never had any intention of voting for Trump, his numerous robo-calls (especially at meal times) not withstanding.
In the end, however, I decided I would hold my nose and, despite my misgivings about what exactly she stands for, vote for Hillary Clinton. Because, while I'm not sure what Clinton might do as President in terms of policy, I feel confident that I know exactly what a Trump Presidency would lead to, and that vision scares the hell out of me.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
#208 - Trump, No Trump
"Publicity can be terrible. But only if you don't have any." - Jane Russell
"There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary." - Brendan Behan
"I have bought golden opinions from all sorts of people." - William Shakespeare
This is not actually a political post. Okay, it is. A little. This post is about Donald Trump, but it is not about my views on Trump or his politics. What this post is about is some recent experiences having to do with Donald Trump.
Now that Trump is the presumptive Presidential nominee of the Republican party, his campaign is swinging into general election mode. (Is it me or does the word "presumptive" sound like something you might associate with a disease such as tuberculosis?) Of course, we all know what that means - talk about the Democrats (or the Republicans depending on which party you are campaigning for), speeches geared more toward winning an election than toward winning a party's nomination, and the dreaded robo-calls.
One day last week, I received four such calls from the Trump campaign in the course of a few hours. Since I hung up on each call after a few seconds, I can only conclude the call-backs were based on an assumption I was having phone trouble and that the campaign never entertained the possibility I was not interested in the message. (My own assumption is that political campaigns often assume political views based on geographical location.)
I have been called by the Trump campaign (or on behalf of it) close to a dozen times now, and each call has started out the exact same way. My assumption is that they want to make sure I hear and understand the first message before additional messages are sent my way, but who knows?
My other recent experience having to do with Donald Trump is more disconcerting or surreal, depending on how you view such things.
This past Friday, we went out to a local restaurant/bar to have a few drinks and listen to some live local music. Behind the bar, big-screen television was playing with no sound. The channel on display was what I must now refer to as The Network Formerly Known As CNN.
During the three hours we were at this local establishment, every story I happened to see displayed on the television screen had to do with Donald Trump in some way, shape, or form: Trump disavowing controversial comments made by his former butler, Trump stating that his call for a ban on travel by Muslims to the United States was "only a suggestion," Trump denying that he once posed as his own publicist in a series of telephone calls to news outlets in the early 1990s.
Okay, perhaps not every story dealt with Trump - one headline did state that Bill Clinton feels Hillary is facing the same kinds of attacks he faced in 1992, and the news ticker underneath did stream a few non-Trump related headlines at a speed few people would read - but you get the general idea.
It reminds me a little of the old joke, "I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out."
I came away from the evening glad that I no longer work in anything remotely related to journalism and also glad that I am more interested these days in music than in politics. I have a much better grip on my own personal sanity and my blood pressure as a result.
I am also forced to conclude that we have helped to create the ineffectual government we complain about by allowing the creation of Super PACs where donors can hide behind a cloak of anonymity; by allowing unlimited spending on political campaigns, thereby forcing our elected officials to spend a disproportionate amount of their time on raising money toward and campaigning for re-election; by replacing true debate on issues with 30-second soundbites and Facebook memes; and by the 24-hour news cycle and the desire to be first.
I decided to close with a quote from Edward R. Murrow, still seen by some in the industry as the patron saint of broadcast journalism. I had a plethora of quotes to choose from, but I'll close with these:
"The speed of communications is wondrous to behold. It is also true that speed can multiply the distribution of information that we know to be untrue."
"We are in the same tent as the clowns and the freaks — that's show business."
"There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary." - Brendan Behan
"I have bought golden opinions from all sorts of people." - William Shakespeare
This is not actually a political post. Okay, it is. A little. This post is about Donald Trump, but it is not about my views on Trump or his politics. What this post is about is some recent experiences having to do with Donald Trump.
Now that Trump is the presumptive Presidential nominee of the Republican party, his campaign is swinging into general election mode. (Is it me or does the word "presumptive" sound like something you might associate with a disease such as tuberculosis?) Of course, we all know what that means - talk about the Democrats (or the Republicans depending on which party you are campaigning for), speeches geared more toward winning an election than toward winning a party's nomination, and the dreaded robo-calls.
One day last week, I received four such calls from the Trump campaign in the course of a few hours. Since I hung up on each call after a few seconds, I can only conclude the call-backs were based on an assumption I was having phone trouble and that the campaign never entertained the possibility I was not interested in the message. (My own assumption is that political campaigns often assume political views based on geographical location.)
I have been called by the Trump campaign (or on behalf of it) close to a dozen times now, and each call has started out the exact same way. My assumption is that they want to make sure I hear and understand the first message before additional messages are sent my way, but who knows?
My other recent experience having to do with Donald Trump is more disconcerting or surreal, depending on how you view such things.
This past Friday, we went out to a local restaurant/bar to have a few drinks and listen to some live local music. Behind the bar, big-screen television was playing with no sound. The channel on display was what I must now refer to as The Network Formerly Known As CNN.
During the three hours we were at this local establishment, every story I happened to see displayed on the television screen had to do with Donald Trump in some way, shape, or form: Trump disavowing controversial comments made by his former butler, Trump stating that his call for a ban on travel by Muslims to the United States was "only a suggestion," Trump denying that he once posed as his own publicist in a series of telephone calls to news outlets in the early 1990s.
Okay, perhaps not every story dealt with Trump - one headline did state that Bill Clinton feels Hillary is facing the same kinds of attacks he faced in 1992, and the news ticker underneath did stream a few non-Trump related headlines at a speed few people would read - but you get the general idea.
It reminds me a little of the old joke, "I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out."
I came away from the evening glad that I no longer work in anything remotely related to journalism and also glad that I am more interested these days in music than in politics. I have a much better grip on my own personal sanity and my blood pressure as a result.
I am also forced to conclude that we have helped to create the ineffectual government we complain about by allowing the creation of Super PACs where donors can hide behind a cloak of anonymity; by allowing unlimited spending on political campaigns, thereby forcing our elected officials to spend a disproportionate amount of their time on raising money toward and campaigning for re-election; by replacing true debate on issues with 30-second soundbites and Facebook memes; and by the 24-hour news cycle and the desire to be first.
I decided to close with a quote from Edward R. Murrow, still seen by some in the industry as the patron saint of broadcast journalism. I had a plethora of quotes to choose from, but I'll close with these:
"The speed of communications is wondrous to behold. It is also true that speed can multiply the distribution of information that we know to be untrue."
"We are in the same tent as the clowns and the freaks — that's show business."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)