Donald Trump campaigned promising to bring jobs back to the United States by exiting trade deals. One of the examples he gave was the Carrier plant that was going to shut down and move to Mexico.
Others said that foreign trade was not the main source of the problem of job loss in the United States. They cited other reasons, such as automation.
Carrier decided not to cut all the jobs at the plant Mr. Trump cited, after a call from Mr. Trump. Unfortunately, he claimed to have saved 1150 of the jobs that were going to be cut, when the actual number was only 800. Not, by a long shot, the only or the most egregious fact Mr. Trump has gotten wrong. Also, it appears that Carrier decided to keep the 800 jobs because of tax incentives offered by the state of Indiana, not because of anything Mr. Trump did.
Now, according to CNN, thousands of Americans are losing their jobs after Mr. Trump was elected.
General Motors has announced that it will lay off 1300 workers, in addition to another 2000 who will lose their jobs within a month.
Boeing has already fired thousands of workers, but the company told it's employees it will continue to cut jobs into 2017.
Airbus has told its labor unions that it intends to cut around 1200 jobs.
GoPro has announced plans to lay off 200 workers.
Xerox says lay offs are coming.
Caterpillar laid off 10,000 workers last fall and has said it will continue laying off workers.
The Limited has told all 248 workers at its Ohio home office that their jobs are in jeopardy.
America, you have been conned.
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
A Landslide? Really?
Donald Trump has said that he would have won the popular vote by a landslide if the millions of people who voted illegally had not voted.
Let's be clear. Mr. Trump won the election of the president of the United States of America fair and square.
That said, it is also true that some two and a half million more Americans voted for his major opponent than voted for him. That is hardly a landslide. It certainly is not a mandate.
It is, in fact, something that should give Mr. Trump and his fellow travelers some pause. At least two and half million more Americans preferred Mr. Trump's opponent than preferred Mr. Trump.
As far as the claim that Mr. Trump would have won by a landslide if only those who voted illegally had not voted, that claim is just bogus.
First of all, there is no - zero, nada, zip - evidence to support the claim that any substantial number of people voted illegally. Mr. Trump and his "transition" team have been asked for any evidence to support the claim and they have not produced any. None. The claim is just bogus.
Second, for it to have been true, it must be true that over two and a half million votes were cast illegally - a claim for which there is no evidence - and then those over two and a half million votes had to all be cast for Mr. Trump's opponent - something which no one, including Mr. Trump, could possibly know.
The claim that Mr. Trump makes that he would have won the popular vote by a landslide if the millions of illegal votes had not been cast is ... just bogus. One more thing about which we can be certain Mr. Trump is lying.
America, you have been conned.
Let's be clear. Mr. Trump won the election of the president of the United States of America fair and square.
That said, it is also true that some two and a half million more Americans voted for his major opponent than voted for him. That is hardly a landslide. It certainly is not a mandate.
It is, in fact, something that should give Mr. Trump and his fellow travelers some pause. At least two and half million more Americans preferred Mr. Trump's opponent than preferred Mr. Trump.
As far as the claim that Mr. Trump would have won by a landslide if only those who voted illegally had not voted, that claim is just bogus.
First of all, there is no - zero, nada, zip - evidence to support the claim that any substantial number of people voted illegally. Mr. Trump and his "transition" team have been asked for any evidence to support the claim and they have not produced any. None. The claim is just bogus.
Second, for it to have been true, it must be true that over two and a half million votes were cast illegally - a claim for which there is no evidence - and then those over two and a half million votes had to all be cast for Mr. Trump's opponent - something which no one, including Mr. Trump, could possibly know.
The claim that Mr. Trump makes that he would have won the popular vote by a landslide if the millions of illegal votes had not been cast is ... just bogus. One more thing about which we can be certain Mr. Trump is lying.
America, you have been conned.
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
A Grumpy Old Man
Donald Trump's tweets remind me of an old man with a pot belly and a three day growth of beard, sitting in his darkened living room in his recliner in his pajama pants and t-shirt, watching the television news all day, drinking beer, and shouting at the tv.
Monday, December 12, 2016
It's not a Game
At times after the election, Mr. Trump has sounded more "presidential" than he often did before the election.
When asked about this apparent difference in Mr. Trump's behavior, one of his advisors said that he knew how to play the game.
That's one of the big problems.
Neither campaigning for the presidency of the United States of America, nor being the president of the United States of America has ever been, is not now, and never will be a game. That Mr. Trump and/or any of his advisors think(s) that it is a game and/or that Mr. Trump knows how to play it is very troubling.
America, you have been conned.
When asked about this apparent difference in Mr. Trump's behavior, one of his advisors said that he knew how to play the game.
That's one of the big problems.
Neither campaigning for the presidency of the United States of America, nor being the president of the United States of America has ever been, is not now, and never will be a game. That Mr. Trump and/or any of his advisors think(s) that it is a game and/or that Mr. Trump knows how to play it is very troubling.
America, you have been conned.
Monday, December 5, 2016
The Trail of Broken Promises
The list of promises made by President-elect Trump during his campaign to become president of the United States that he now says he will or might break is growing so fast that it seems impossible to keep up with it. However, here are a few.
Now, keep in mind, we don't know if President-elect Trump will actually break these promises. The only thing we know for sure about President-elect Trump's thinking is that he lies. Whether he was lying at the time he made the promises and never intended to keep them, or whether he is lying now when he says he will or might break them one cannot tell. But, here's a partial list of the campaign promises we know he made that we know he says he will or might break.
He'll build a wall. President-elect Trump began his presidential campaign by promising that, if elected, he would build a wall along the border between Mexico and the United States. I don't know if he ever said exactly this, but it was clear that he promised to build a wall that would completely wall off Mexico from the United States. Now, he says, he won't build a wall, because some of it will be a fence. The promise was to build a wall, not a fence. Almost all of my readers will have seen both walls and fences, and they will recognize the difference. A fence is not a wall.
I have said this before, but, once again for the record, it breaks my hear to think of either a wall or a fence closing off the view and/or the access to the Rio Grande River through Big Bend National Park. For those of you who have been there, you know that the view of and the access to the Rio Grande is one of the most magnificent aspects of Big Bend. My President-elect has promised he will end that. It breaks my heart.
Also, this isn't a promise he's broken, but it's a promise that President-elect almost surely cannot keep and almost surely knew he would be very unlike to keep the promise when he made it: Mexico will pay for that wall. After Mr. Trump met with the president of Mexico, the president of Mexico said that Mexico would never pay for the promised wall.
We'll keep out the Muslims. During the campaign, Mr. Trump called for a complete and total ban on all Muslims entering the United States. One cannot be sure that this was a promise, but it seemed like one at the time.
If it was a promise, then it was broken even before the election. When asked about Muslims who were United States citizens trying to enter the country and elected officials of other countries who were Muslims trying to enter the country, Mr. Trump admitted that there would have to be exceptions to his blanket promise (ban?). Later, when it was pointed out that a ban on someone entering the country based on their religion would probably be unconstitutional, Mr. Trump changed his promises (ban?) to one that would keep out people entering the United States from countries that had problems with terrorism. (Would that include France?) Then, when problems with that promises (ban?) were pointed out, Mr. Trump changed his promise (ban?) to "just" a registry of all immigrants to the United States of the Muslim faith.
He'll repeal Obamacare. Many times during the campaign, Mr. Trump promised that if he were elected he would repeal Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act). He even said on at least one occasion that he would do it as soon as he took office, on the very day, to be precise. He said he would call a "special session" of congress to repeal Obamacare, even though the congress (according to the Supreme Court of the United States) has been in session continuously for many years and despite the fact that presidents don't call "special sessions" of congress. That's something that governors do with or to state legislatures.
After meeting with President Obama for about 90 minutes, President-elect Trump said he might not repeal Obamacare, but, instead, might amend it. By the way, that's exactly what Secretary Clinton said over and over during the campaign: Don't repeal it. Keep what's working and fix what's not.
He'll lock her up. During the campaign, Mr. Trump promised many times that if he were elected president of the United States, he would lock up Secretary Clinton. He often led or encouraged chants by his supporters to "lock her up." He promised specifically that, if he were elected president, he would instruct his attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to pursue the case(s) against Secretary Clinton.
When asked during a post-election interview whether he still intended to seek prosecution against Secretary Clinton, he said that he didn't want to hurt the Clintons. They were good people.
He'll drain that swamp. Many times during the presidential campaign, Mr. Trump promised that, if elected, he would go to Washington and drain the swamp. It's not clear exactly what he meant by "drain the swamp." It is, obviously a metaphor for something, but one cannot be sure exactly what. Nevertheless, his supporters almost surely took it to mean that if he went to Washington as the president of the United States, that President Trump would appoint political outsiders to the federal government and end both the "revolving door" that lets government officials become lobbyists and then lets lobbyists become government officials and the influence of money in federal politics.
Despite his promise to drain the swamp, most of President-elect's transition team are political insiders and lobbyists. The man he has appointed as his chief-of-staff is a political operative. Most of the people he has appointed to be members of his cabinet are politicians and generals.
When asked by a reporter why his transition team was so thick with lobbyists, he told the reporter that there was nothing else he could do, that it was the lobbyists who knew how the system worked and he had to rely on them. Which is, of course, what many of the political insiders before President-elect Trump have used as their excuse for including so many lobbyists in their transition teams and governments.
So much for draining the swamp.
America, you have been conned.
Now, keep in mind, we don't know if President-elect Trump will actually break these promises. The only thing we know for sure about President-elect Trump's thinking is that he lies. Whether he was lying at the time he made the promises and never intended to keep them, or whether he is lying now when he says he will or might break them one cannot tell. But, here's a partial list of the campaign promises we know he made that we know he says he will or might break.
He'll build a wall. President-elect Trump began his presidential campaign by promising that, if elected, he would build a wall along the border between Mexico and the United States. I don't know if he ever said exactly this, but it was clear that he promised to build a wall that would completely wall off Mexico from the United States. Now, he says, he won't build a wall, because some of it will be a fence. The promise was to build a wall, not a fence. Almost all of my readers will have seen both walls and fences, and they will recognize the difference. A fence is not a wall.
I have said this before, but, once again for the record, it breaks my hear to think of either a wall or a fence closing off the view and/or the access to the Rio Grande River through Big Bend National Park. For those of you who have been there, you know that the view of and the access to the Rio Grande is one of the most magnificent aspects of Big Bend. My President-elect has promised he will end that. It breaks my heart.
Also, this isn't a promise he's broken, but it's a promise that President-elect almost surely cannot keep and almost surely knew he would be very unlike to keep the promise when he made it: Mexico will pay for that wall. After Mr. Trump met with the president of Mexico, the president of Mexico said that Mexico would never pay for the promised wall.
We'll keep out the Muslims. During the campaign, Mr. Trump called for a complete and total ban on all Muslims entering the United States. One cannot be sure that this was a promise, but it seemed like one at the time.
If it was a promise, then it was broken even before the election. When asked about Muslims who were United States citizens trying to enter the country and elected officials of other countries who were Muslims trying to enter the country, Mr. Trump admitted that there would have to be exceptions to his blanket promise (ban?). Later, when it was pointed out that a ban on someone entering the country based on their religion would probably be unconstitutional, Mr. Trump changed his promises (ban?) to one that would keep out people entering the United States from countries that had problems with terrorism. (Would that include France?) Then, when problems with that promises (ban?) were pointed out, Mr. Trump changed his promise (ban?) to "just" a registry of all immigrants to the United States of the Muslim faith.
He'll repeal Obamacare. Many times during the campaign, Mr. Trump promised that if he were elected he would repeal Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act). He even said on at least one occasion that he would do it as soon as he took office, on the very day, to be precise. He said he would call a "special session" of congress to repeal Obamacare, even though the congress (according to the Supreme Court of the United States) has been in session continuously for many years and despite the fact that presidents don't call "special sessions" of congress. That's something that governors do with or to state legislatures.
After meeting with President Obama for about 90 minutes, President-elect Trump said he might not repeal Obamacare, but, instead, might amend it. By the way, that's exactly what Secretary Clinton said over and over during the campaign: Don't repeal it. Keep what's working and fix what's not.
He'll lock her up. During the campaign, Mr. Trump promised many times that if he were elected president of the United States, he would lock up Secretary Clinton. He often led or encouraged chants by his supporters to "lock her up." He promised specifically that, if he were elected president, he would instruct his attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to pursue the case(s) against Secretary Clinton.
When asked during a post-election interview whether he still intended to seek prosecution against Secretary Clinton, he said that he didn't want to hurt the Clintons. They were good people.
He'll drain that swamp. Many times during the presidential campaign, Mr. Trump promised that, if elected, he would go to Washington and drain the swamp. It's not clear exactly what he meant by "drain the swamp." It is, obviously a metaphor for something, but one cannot be sure exactly what. Nevertheless, his supporters almost surely took it to mean that if he went to Washington as the president of the United States, that President Trump would appoint political outsiders to the federal government and end both the "revolving door" that lets government officials become lobbyists and then lets lobbyists become government officials and the influence of money in federal politics.
Despite his promise to drain the swamp, most of President-elect's transition team are political insiders and lobbyists. The man he has appointed as his chief-of-staff is a political operative. Most of the people he has appointed to be members of his cabinet are politicians and generals.
When asked by a reporter why his transition team was so thick with lobbyists, he told the reporter that there was nothing else he could do, that it was the lobbyists who knew how the system worked and he had to rely on them. Which is, of course, what many of the political insiders before President-elect Trump have used as their excuse for including so many lobbyists in their transition teams and governments.
So much for draining the swamp.
America, you have been conned.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
A Fence Is Not A Wall
During his campaign to become the president of the United States, Mr. Trump repeatedly and emphatically said he would "build a wall" along the entire border between the United States and Mexico.
He now says that part of his "wall" may actually be a fence.
Mr. Trump, a fence is not a wall. You promised a wall.
Second broken promise?
For the record, my heart just breaks at the thought of either a wall or a fence closing off the view of and the access to the Rio Grande from Big Bend National Park. I am so glad that I got to see it and to splash in the waters of the Rio Grande in Big Bend before Mr. Trump's wall or fence or whatever it turns out to be.
He now says that part of his "wall" may actually be a fence.
Mr. Trump, a fence is not a wall. You promised a wall.
Second broken promise?
For the record, my heart just breaks at the thought of either a wall or a fence closing off the view of and the access to the Rio Grande from Big Bend National Park. I am so glad that I got to see it and to splash in the waters of the Rio Grande in Big Bend before Mr. Trump's wall or fence or whatever it turns out to be.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
The First Broken Promise
During the campaign, Mr. Trump said that he would "repeal and replace" Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act). He said it very emphatically. He said it many times.
After meeting with President Obama for about 90 minutes, he said he was amenable to "amending" Obamacare.
Wait! Isn't that exactly what Secretary Clinton said? Didn't she say that we ought to keep what's working with Obamacare and improve what isn't?
And it only took meeting with the President for 90 minutes for Mr. Trump to change his mind?
Things have been moving so fast since the election that this almost seems untimely to say, but I will say it anyway: the first broken promise.
Or, is it? Just because he said it, doesn't mean he'll do it. We don't know much about Mr. Trump, but we do know he lies.
America, you have been conned.
After meeting with President Obama for about 90 minutes, he said he was amenable to "amending" Obamacare.
Wait! Isn't that exactly what Secretary Clinton said? Didn't she say that we ought to keep what's working with Obamacare and improve what isn't?
And it only took meeting with the President for 90 minutes for Mr. Trump to change his mind?
Things have been moving so fast since the election that this almost seems untimely to say, but I will say it anyway: the first broken promise.
Or, is it? Just because he said it, doesn't mean he'll do it. We don't know much about Mr. Trump, but we do know he lies.
America, you have been conned.
Friday, November 11, 2016
Donald Trump is an evil man
I hope - and please remember that I said this - I hope that none of the things I'm worried about with Donald Trump as president of the United States comes to pass. I want to be wrong. Nevertheless, I must prepare for the worst while hoping for the best.
When it first became apparent to me that Donald Trump was going to be the president of the United States, my first instinct was to hide. I told all of my children whom I could reach to be very careful what they said and to who they said it and to not put anything in writing that could remotely be considered as negative to Donald Trump. That would definitely be the safest course of conduct for me and my family.
But, then, I heard about the people who were protesting in the streets. "No Trump, no Pence, no wall, no fence," they were shouting. And I read that Greg Casar, an Austin City Council member said he would keep resisting and he would try to get the City of Austin to resist.
And I was inspired. I was a little bit ashamed of my first instinct. I decided I had to resist, no matter what the personal danger to me or to my family.
I'm not by nature a marcher. I don't generally join protests. Maybe I should, but I don't.
My resistance comes through my words. So, here they are: my words.
Hillary Clinton got it right when she said that Donald Trump was going to be our president and he deserved an open mind and a chance to lead. I believe that. However, an open mind does not mean closed eyes. Here is what I think with my eyes open.
Donald Trump is an evil man. Either he believes the racist, misogynist, bigoted things he said during the campaign or he doesn't believe them and said them anyway. Either way, he's evil.
Evil men are dangerous.
Hillary Clinton was wrong to say that fifty percent of the supporters of Mr. Trump were deplorable. No one can know whether it's fifty percent or more or less. But, I am convinced she was right that some portion of Mr. Trump's supporters are deplorable. Not irredeemable, but deplorable. They actually agree with the things Mr. Trump said during the campaign and that's deplorable and it makes them deplorable.
But, I know people who I consider to be good, honest, hardworking, intelligent people who supported Mr. Trump. I still consider them to be good, honest, hardworking, intelligent people. The only way I can understand this is to remember that many apparently intelligent people were fooled into spending a lot of their hard-earned money on Trump U. They were conned by a master con-man. So, I have to conclude that the apparently good, honest, hardworking, intelligent people who supported Mr. Trump were conned by a master. Or else, I have been conned by all these people who I consider to be good, honest, hardworking, and intelligent.
All that said, what bothers me the most is that, after the election, the press - and I include the television and the newspaper press - has tried to analyze this election as if it were just another election. And they've treated Donald Trump as if he were just another man who has been elected president.
Neither of those is true. This was not just another election. And Mr. Trump is not just another man who has been elected president. There is not just a difference of opinion on his policies, or even on whether he should become president or someone else should.
Donald Trump is dangerous. The press should be treating him as dangerous.
Many of the things he has promised to do are illegal. They violate either international law or U.S. law. Many of the things he has promised to do are immoral. And, potentially, he will have no check on his efforts to do them.
Three of his primary advisors have been among the meanest men I know: Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich. Any one or all of them could be in his cabinet.
He has a Republican congress and he will get to appoint at least one, and probably three or more, Supreme Court justices. Potentially, he will control both of the other branches of government. It is entirely possible that neither of those branches will be willing to stand up to him when he begins to try to do the illegal and immoral things he has promised to do.
When I pointed this out to a friend of mine, his response was "Yeah, but only until 2018 [the next election]." My response to him was, "What makes you think there will be a next election? Under the Bush Doctrine, the Constitution does not apply to the President when he is acting in his role as Commander in Chief. If one part of the Constitution doesn't apply, then why not another part of the Constitution? Federal elections are Constitutional. What makes you think that President Trump won't 'suspend' the next election?" He didn't have an answer.
So, this is why I have to resist. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. Please, don't do nothing.
When it first became apparent to me that Donald Trump was going to be the president of the United States, my first instinct was to hide. I told all of my children whom I could reach to be very careful what they said and to who they said it and to not put anything in writing that could remotely be considered as negative to Donald Trump. That would definitely be the safest course of conduct for me and my family.
But, then, I heard about the people who were protesting in the streets. "No Trump, no Pence, no wall, no fence," they were shouting. And I read that Greg Casar, an Austin City Council member said he would keep resisting and he would try to get the City of Austin to resist.
And I was inspired. I was a little bit ashamed of my first instinct. I decided I had to resist, no matter what the personal danger to me or to my family.
I'm not by nature a marcher. I don't generally join protests. Maybe I should, but I don't.
My resistance comes through my words. So, here they are: my words.
Hillary Clinton got it right when she said that Donald Trump was going to be our president and he deserved an open mind and a chance to lead. I believe that. However, an open mind does not mean closed eyes. Here is what I think with my eyes open.
Donald Trump is an evil man. Either he believes the racist, misogynist, bigoted things he said during the campaign or he doesn't believe them and said them anyway. Either way, he's evil.
Evil men are dangerous.
Hillary Clinton was wrong to say that fifty percent of the supporters of Mr. Trump were deplorable. No one can know whether it's fifty percent or more or less. But, I am convinced she was right that some portion of Mr. Trump's supporters are deplorable. Not irredeemable, but deplorable. They actually agree with the things Mr. Trump said during the campaign and that's deplorable and it makes them deplorable.
But, I know people who I consider to be good, honest, hardworking, intelligent people who supported Mr. Trump. I still consider them to be good, honest, hardworking, intelligent people. The only way I can understand this is to remember that many apparently intelligent people were fooled into spending a lot of their hard-earned money on Trump U. They were conned by a master con-man. So, I have to conclude that the apparently good, honest, hardworking, intelligent people who supported Mr. Trump were conned by a master. Or else, I have been conned by all these people who I consider to be good, honest, hardworking, and intelligent.
All that said, what bothers me the most is that, after the election, the press - and I include the television and the newspaper press - has tried to analyze this election as if it were just another election. And they've treated Donald Trump as if he were just another man who has been elected president.
Neither of those is true. This was not just another election. And Mr. Trump is not just another man who has been elected president. There is not just a difference of opinion on his policies, or even on whether he should become president or someone else should.
Donald Trump is dangerous. The press should be treating him as dangerous.
Many of the things he has promised to do are illegal. They violate either international law or U.S. law. Many of the things he has promised to do are immoral. And, potentially, he will have no check on his efforts to do them.
Three of his primary advisors have been among the meanest men I know: Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich. Any one or all of them could be in his cabinet.
He has a Republican congress and he will get to appoint at least one, and probably three or more, Supreme Court justices. Potentially, he will control both of the other branches of government. It is entirely possible that neither of those branches will be willing to stand up to him when he begins to try to do the illegal and immoral things he has promised to do.
When I pointed this out to a friend of mine, his response was "Yeah, but only until 2018 [the next election]." My response to him was, "What makes you think there will be a next election? Under the Bush Doctrine, the Constitution does not apply to the President when he is acting in his role as Commander in Chief. If one part of the Constitution doesn't apply, then why not another part of the Constitution? Federal elections are Constitutional. What makes you think that President Trump won't 'suspend' the next election?" He didn't have an answer.
So, this is why I have to resist. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. Please, don't do nothing.
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Make America Great Again
"Make America great again!"
Wait.
Do you mean to say America is not great now?
Wait.
Do you mean to say America is not great now?
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Donald Trump's "Locker Room Banter"
Donald Trump says that a tape of him discussing committing marital infidelity and saying that when you're a "star" you can get away with sexual assault is just "locker room banter."
I have been in a lot of locker rooms, and I've never heard anything like that.
If that's what Donald Trump says or hears in his locker rooms, then he should frequent different locker rooms and stay far away from the ones where he hears such words.
I have been in a lot of locker rooms, and I've never heard anything like that.
If that's what Donald Trump says or hears in his locker rooms, then he should frequent different locker rooms and stay far away from the ones where he hears such words.
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Donald Trump's Taxes
There is nothing wrong with being rich.
There is nothing wrong with legally not paying any federal taxes.
There is nothing wrong with refusing to give to charity.
There is something wrong with being rich, not paying any taxes, and not giving anything to charity.
It may mean that one is smart, but it also means that one is stingy.
There is nothing wrong with legally not paying any federal taxes.
There is nothing wrong with refusing to give to charity.
There is something wrong with being rich, not paying any taxes, and not giving anything to charity.
It may mean that one is smart, but it also means that one is stingy.
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
A Bad Man
Vice President Joe Biden said of Donald Trump: "He's not a bad man, but his ignorance is so profound."
With respect, I must disagree with Vice President Biden.
Donald Trump is a bad man.
He is clearly a liar. That has been proven time and again.
He has said things which, if he believes them, make him a bigot, a misogynist, and a racist. If he does not believe them, then he has said things he knows are not true. That just makes him a bigger liar.
Anyone else who is a liar, a bigot, a misogynist, and a racist, or who was willing to say things that would make him a bigot, a misogynist, and a racist, would not be called "ignorant." He would be called "bad."
And that is what Donald Trump is. Bad.
With respect, I must disagree with Vice President Biden.
Donald Trump is a bad man.
He is clearly a liar. That has been proven time and again.
He has said things which, if he believes them, make him a bigot, a misogynist, and a racist. If he does not believe them, then he has said things he knows are not true. That just makes him a bigger liar.
Anyone else who is a liar, a bigot, a misogynist, and a racist, or who was willing to say things that would make him a bigot, a misogynist, and a racist, would not be called "ignorant." He would be called "bad."
And that is what Donald Trump is. Bad.
Sunday, October 2, 2016
Bill and Jack
Bill and Jack were talking one day.
Jack said to Bill, "I'm not happy about the fact that you have so much more than me."
Bill responded, "Well, I know, but that's just the way the world works. People can't all have the same amount of things. It will never happen. Be happy with what you have, work hard, and someday you'll have as much as me."
Jack thought about that for a moment, then said, "But, your grandfather stole a million dollars from my grandfather."
Bill responded, "I know, but I never stole anything from your grandfather."
Again, Jack thought about Bill's response. Then, he said, "Yes, but you never gave any of it back. And your father never actually stole money from my father, but he kept my father from making half a million dollars by taking business opportunities of which, except for what your father did, my father would have had a chance to take. Money he would have made if your father hadn't kept him from making it so your father could make that money."
Again, Bill responded, "Yes, but that was my father. I never took any opportunities away from your father."
Jack, now getting a little upset, said, "Yes, but your grandfather passed that million dollars that he stole from my grandfather down to your father, and your father passed that million, plus the half million that he made which my father could have made, down to you. So, you've gotten a million and a half dollars which you wouldn't have gotten if your grandfather hadn't stolen from my grandfather and your father hadn't kept my father from taking opportunities which he would have had, but for your father's actions. That makes you start a million and a half dollars richer than me. And you've never given any of it back. Then you have the gall to tell me I should just work hard and someday I'll be as rich as you!"
Bill sighed. He was getting a little upset himself at Jack's attitude. "Look, Jack, I never stole anything from you. I never took any opportunities from you. I'm not responsible for what my grandfather and my father did to your grandfather and father. I'm innocent!"
Now Jack was really upset. "I never said you were culpable for what your grandfather and father did! But, you've gotten the benefit of what they did! That makes you responsible! And you've never offered to share any of those benefits with me - benefits which were stolen from my grandfather and cheated from my father, benefits which I would have had and you now have because of what your grandfather and father did to my grandfather and father! I want you to give those benefits back to me! At least some of them! All you've done is preach to me about how I should work hard!"
Jack took a breath, trying to calm himself, then went on. "Look, Bill, the fact that you aren't stealing from me and aren't cheating me are passive. They're good. I'm glad your family has stopped stealing and cheating. But, they're passive. You are passively trying to right a wrong from which you have actively benefited. I want you to be active in trying to right this wrong. I don't want passive inaction, I want affirmative action!"
Bill looked at Jack, aghast and a little afraid. "Affirmative action? Affirmative action! That would be wrong!"
Jack said to Bill, "I'm not happy about the fact that you have so much more than me."
Bill responded, "Well, I know, but that's just the way the world works. People can't all have the same amount of things. It will never happen. Be happy with what you have, work hard, and someday you'll have as much as me."
Jack thought about that for a moment, then said, "But, your grandfather stole a million dollars from my grandfather."
Bill responded, "I know, but I never stole anything from your grandfather."
Again, Jack thought about Bill's response. Then, he said, "Yes, but you never gave any of it back. And your father never actually stole money from my father, but he kept my father from making half a million dollars by taking business opportunities of which, except for what your father did, my father would have had a chance to take. Money he would have made if your father hadn't kept him from making it so your father could make that money."
Again, Bill responded, "Yes, but that was my father. I never took any opportunities away from your father."
Jack, now getting a little upset, said, "Yes, but your grandfather passed that million dollars that he stole from my grandfather down to your father, and your father passed that million, plus the half million that he made which my father could have made, down to you. So, you've gotten a million and a half dollars which you wouldn't have gotten if your grandfather hadn't stolen from my grandfather and your father hadn't kept my father from taking opportunities which he would have had, but for your father's actions. That makes you start a million and a half dollars richer than me. And you've never given any of it back. Then you have the gall to tell me I should just work hard and someday I'll be as rich as you!"
Bill sighed. He was getting a little upset himself at Jack's attitude. "Look, Jack, I never stole anything from you. I never took any opportunities from you. I'm not responsible for what my grandfather and my father did to your grandfather and father. I'm innocent!"
Now Jack was really upset. "I never said you were culpable for what your grandfather and father did! But, you've gotten the benefit of what they did! That makes you responsible! And you've never offered to share any of those benefits with me - benefits which were stolen from my grandfather and cheated from my father, benefits which I would have had and you now have because of what your grandfather and father did to my grandfather and father! I want you to give those benefits back to me! At least some of them! All you've done is preach to me about how I should work hard!"
Jack took a breath, trying to calm himself, then went on. "Look, Bill, the fact that you aren't stealing from me and aren't cheating me are passive. They're good. I'm glad your family has stopped stealing and cheating. But, they're passive. You are passively trying to right a wrong from which you have actively benefited. I want you to be active in trying to right this wrong. I don't want passive inaction, I want affirmative action!"
Bill looked at Jack, aghast and a little afraid. "Affirmative action? Affirmative action! That would be wrong!"
Friday, September 30, 2016
Bill Clinton's Marital Cheating
If Donald Trump wants to criticize Hillary Clinton because her husband cheated her, because her husband lied about cheating her, or because Hillary Clinton's marriage survived her husband cheating her, I say, "let him."
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Politically Incorrect
Being impolite and being politically incorrect are not the same thing.
Being impolite is just being impolite.
Being impolite is just being impolite.
Friday, September 9, 2016
Is Hillary Clinton Dishonest?
Hillary Clinton has the reputation of being dishonest.
I submit that reputation is false.
She is not very "transparent." She is certainly not as "transparent" as some people would like her to be.
But, there is little or no evidence that she is dishonest.
She has been investigated many, many times. Whitewater. Benghazi. Her e-mail server. There has never been any evidence that she committed a crime and scant evidence that she was not truthful.
What there has been is lots of smoke, generated mostly by the investigators. But, they have never been able to find any fire. Not once.
Hillary Clinton has been the subject of lots of allegations in the past three decades or so. So many that they have left her with the reputation of being dishonest, even without evidence of that dishonesty. The old saying that "where there's smoke, there must be fire." But, there just isn't any more evidence of that than there would be with anyone else who had been accused of being dishonest over and over for a long period of time.
Not transparent? Sure. Secretive? Yes. Dishonest? No.
I submit that reputation is false.
She is not very "transparent." She is certainly not as "transparent" as some people would like her to be.
But, there is little or no evidence that she is dishonest.
She has been investigated many, many times. Whitewater. Benghazi. Her e-mail server. There has never been any evidence that she committed a crime and scant evidence that she was not truthful.
What there has been is lots of smoke, generated mostly by the investigators. But, they have never been able to find any fire. Not once.
Hillary Clinton has been the subject of lots of allegations in the past three decades or so. So many that they have left her with the reputation of being dishonest, even without evidence of that dishonesty. The old saying that "where there's smoke, there must be fire." But, there just isn't any more evidence of that than there would be with anyone else who had been accused of being dishonest over and over for a long period of time.
Not transparent? Sure. Secretive? Yes. Dishonest? No.
Saturday, June 4, 2016
Is Donald Trump Telling the Truth?
There are many things Donald Trump has said in the
course of his presidential campaign; indeed, in the course of his life. Each of those things can and should be
examined for truthfulness. But, one of
the most famous things he said was about Mexican immigrants to the United
States. So, I will begin by examining
those statements.
In his speech announcing that he would run for
president of the United States, he said:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending
their best. They’re not sending
you. They’re sending people that have
lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
“It’s coming from more than Mexico … . It’s coming from all over South and Latin
America … .”
Is this statement true? I will examine the truthfulness both of his
literal words and of his apparent (and generally accepted) meaning. The reason it is necessary to examine the
truthfulness of what he says and what people think he means is that those are
often quite different. For example, in
this announcement speech, he didn’t say that all illegal Mexican immigrants
were drug users or dealers, criminals, or rapists. In fact, he didn’t even say that most of them were drug users or dealers,
criminals, or rapists. But, that’s what
most people assumed he meant. This
assumption comes from both the context and the tone of what he said, not from
his exact words.
So, I will start by examining the truth of the
statement based on the actual words, not the generally assumed meaning.
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending
their best.” It is impossible to know if
this statement is literally true. For
one thing, there can only be one “best,” so Mr. Trump could not have literally
meant that the Mexican government did not send their “best” citizen, since he
clearly refers to “best” in the plural.
Second, the only people who Mexico verifiably sends are its diplomats.
There is no evidence, at least none that I have been able to find, that
Mexico sends anyone other than its
diplomats. So, literally, the question
becomes “Are the Mexican diplomats to the United States among Mexico’s best?”
The most obvious Mexican diplomat is the ambassador
from Mexico to the United States.
According to Wikipedia, the current ambassador from Mexico to the United
States is Miguel Basáñez-Ebergenyi. The
Mexican government pays him $12,114.43 per month for his services.
Again
according to Wikipedia, Dr. Basáñez-Ebergenyi holds a Ph.D. in Political
Sociology from the London School of Economics in England. According to the website wes.org, the
enrollment rate in college in Mexico in 2011-12 was 32.8%. I could not find statistics on the number of
Mexicans who hold Ph.D.s or those who hold Ph.D.s from foreign universities,
but it is safe to assume it is a lot less than 32.8%. He is married to Tatiana Beltran, who also
holds a Ph.D.
“Prior to
his appointment as ambassador, Dr. Basáñez-Ebergenyi was an academic who taught
classes at the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy at Tufts University.”
According to their website, Tufts University was established in 1852 and
has three campuses in Massachusetts and one in France. It has 11,767 students, of which 5,847 are
graduate students and 1,246 are international.
It has a faculty of 1,423, giving it a faculty to student ratio of
approximately 1 to 8.
“Dr.
Basáñez-Ebergenyi's career includes work directing public opinion polls both
for private firms and for the Mexican government. He is a former President of
the World Association for
Public Opinion Research and he has also held several positions in the state
and federal government in Mexico.
“Additionally,
Dr. Basáñez-Ebergenyi has authored, co-authored, and edited 13 books on values,
public opinion, and politics.”
Of course,
we cannot tell whether Dr. Basáñez-Ebergenyi is literally Mexico’s “best,” but
it would be hard to imagine by what standard he would not be considered one of Mexico’s best.
I was unable
to find any statistics or data on the characteristics of the other diplomats
Mexico sends to the United States, so I was unable to verify whether they were
among Mexico’s “best.” But, I think it
is safe to say that Mexico does not intentionally send its “worst” citizens to
staff its embassies and consulates in the United States.
So, it is
safe to conclude that Mr. Trump’s statement, “[w]hen
Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best … ,” is, at the very
least, literally misleading. It is safe
to conclude that when Mexico sends
its people, they are sending those who they consider to be among their best.
Of course, I
don’t believe that’s what he meant, but that’s what he literally said. It was not literally true. I believe he knew at the time he said it that
it was not literally true. If he said it
intending that people should believe it, it was a lie.
More later.
How It Begins
Hitler did not begin his political career "suggesting" that Germany kill all its Jews.
He began his political career "suggesting" that Germany deport all its Jews.
He began his political career "suggesting" that Germany deport all its Jews.
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
A conversation with a Trumpeter
True conversation with a Trumpeter (a Donald Trump supporter):
"So, you support Donald Trump?"
"Yes."
"Why?"
"Because he's an outsider."
"But, you know he's lying to you, right?"
"Yeah, but so are all the rest."
"So, you'd rather have an outsider lie to you than an insider?"
"Yes."
"So, you support Donald Trump?"
"Yes."
"Why?"
"Because he's an outsider."
"But, you know he's lying to you, right?"
"Yeah, but so are all the rest."
"So, you'd rather have an outsider lie to you than an insider?"
"Yes."
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Donald Trump is dangerous
Donald Trump is dangerous.
I don't mean that he is dangerous to the Republican Party, though he is. I don't even mean that he is dangerous to the United States, though he is. I mean that he is dangerous to the world.
In the same way that Adolf Hitler was dangerous to the world.
Some of my readers may be thinking, "Oh, there he goes! Playing the 'Nazi card.'"
There are striking similarities between Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump.
Consider this: Adolf Hitler did not begin his political career by suggesting that all Jews should be exterminated. He began his political career by telling Germans what my father, who was alive during Hitler's rise to power, called the "big lie."
At the time of Hitler's rise to power, the Germans were suffering economically. Germany had lost the first world war, and the victors had imposed very strong provisions against them. Those provisions were hurting Germany economically. To make things worse, there was the world-wide "Great Depression." Germans were hurting.
There were a group of people in Germany and Europe in general against whom there was historic prejudice: the Jews. They practiced a "different" religion. They were often identifiable, or, at least, many Germans believed they were identifiable, by their names or their appearance. Worse, many of them had kept themselves separate from the "Christian" population for more than a thousand years.
Part of the evidence of this historic German and European prejudice against Jews was the fact that, over the centuries, the Jews had been expelled from country after country, often to be allowed to return years or generations later, and had suffered periodic pogroms - attacks - by the "Christian" population for centuries.
Finally, there was a politician - Adolf Hitler - who was willing to take advantage of these two things - the economic hardship of Germans and their historic prejudice against this often-identifiable population - for purely political gain.
The way that Hitler took advantage of these two things was to tell the German people that their suffering was not their fault. Rather, it was the fault of an international conspiracy by Jews.
This was the "big lie."
It was not true. Hitler must have known - I am convinced that Hitler knew - it was not true. If the German people had examined the "big lie" very closely, they would have seen that it was not true, could not have been true. But, they didn't examine it closely, because they wanted to believe it was true. They didn't want to have accept that they were to blame for their suffering. And, it was easy to believe the "big lie," because they didn't examine it too closely and because they were only too happy to believe that this group of people against whom they harbored a long-standing, historic prejudice, was to blame.
So, they believed the "big lie."
Hitler rose to power, gradually the "big lie" morphed into extermination of all the Jews - which seemed good to the average German, since the Jews were to blame for the average German's problems - and the world was plunged into war.
When I was younger, I read extensively about the Holocaust; so much so that I began to feel a little guilty, as if I were reading because I gained some vicarious pleasure from the Jews suffering. But, that wasn't it.
Many people, at least back then, were asking, "How could an entire race of people go so passively to their certain death?" I wasn't trying to answer that question. To me, the answer seemed obvious. The question I was trying to answer with all my reading was, "How could one of the most civilized populations on the face of the earth - the Germans - almost unanimously subscribe to the extermination of an entire race?" That was the question I couldn't understand and all my reading about the Holocaust failed to answer it.
The answer came when I read a biography of Adolph Hitler. It struck me that, according to that author, Hitler never said or did anything that could be considered anti-Semitic until he entered politics. Nothing I've read or heard since reading that autobiography has been contrary. Apparently, Hitler's anti-Semitism was nothing more than a political ploy designed to gain power for Hitler. The German people believed Hitler's "big lie" because they were suffering, they didn't want to take the blame for their own suffering, and there was someone who was telling them something that, on the surface, could be true, and they wanted it to be true.
The realization that this was the answer was chilling. This answer meant that it could happen in America. All that would be required was a confluence of the same events in the United States that occurred in Germany in the 1930s: Americans suffering (or believing that they are); Americans not wanting to accept the responsibility for their suffering; a distinct group (or groups) against whom there was long-standing prejudice by other Americans; and a politician willing to lie to Americans about these issues for political gain.
Donald Trump.
Many Americans believe they are suffering. By comparison with most of the rest of the world, they aren't, but many Americans believe they are. Many of those Americans who believe they are suffering don't want to accept responsibility for their own suffering. One may argue that they aren't responsible, but whether that's true or not, they don't want to accept responsibility for their own suffering. There are identifiable groups against whom many of those same American's have long-standing prejudices - Muslims, illegal immigrants, and foreigners (i.e., the Chinese) in general. And there is a politician who is willing to lie to those Americans about those groups for purely political gain.
The "big lie" that Donald Trump is telling is that Americans are not responsible for their suffering, Muslims, illegal immigrants, and foreigners are. He has to know this isn't true. Whether Americans are suffering or not is debatable. But, the idea that Muslims, illegal immigrants, and foreigners in general are somehow responsible for the alleged suffering is, when closely examined, obviously not true.
Yet, many Americans believe the "big lie." Because, without close or careful examination, one can think it might be true, and because many Americans want to believe the "big lie."
Donald Trump is starting exactly where Hitler started. So, yes, I am playing the "Nazi card." Intentionally, consciously, and on purpose.
Consider this: Donald Trump is not starting his political career by telling Americans that all Muslims, illegal immigrants, and foreigners ought to be exterminated. But, he is starting his political career by telling them the same "big lie" that Hitler told the Germans: You are not responsible for your own suffering, someone else is.
Whether he ends up where Hitler ended up remains to be seen. I hope not.
I don't mean that he is dangerous to the Republican Party, though he is. I don't even mean that he is dangerous to the United States, though he is. I mean that he is dangerous to the world.
In the same way that Adolf Hitler was dangerous to the world.
Some of my readers may be thinking, "Oh, there he goes! Playing the 'Nazi card.'"
There are striking similarities between Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump.
Consider this: Adolf Hitler did not begin his political career by suggesting that all Jews should be exterminated. He began his political career by telling Germans what my father, who was alive during Hitler's rise to power, called the "big lie."
At the time of Hitler's rise to power, the Germans were suffering economically. Germany had lost the first world war, and the victors had imposed very strong provisions against them. Those provisions were hurting Germany economically. To make things worse, there was the world-wide "Great Depression." Germans were hurting.
There were a group of people in Germany and Europe in general against whom there was historic prejudice: the Jews. They practiced a "different" religion. They were often identifiable, or, at least, many Germans believed they were identifiable, by their names or their appearance. Worse, many of them had kept themselves separate from the "Christian" population for more than a thousand years.
Part of the evidence of this historic German and European prejudice against Jews was the fact that, over the centuries, the Jews had been expelled from country after country, often to be allowed to return years or generations later, and had suffered periodic pogroms - attacks - by the "Christian" population for centuries.
Finally, there was a politician - Adolf Hitler - who was willing to take advantage of these two things - the economic hardship of Germans and their historic prejudice against this often-identifiable population - for purely political gain.
The way that Hitler took advantage of these two things was to tell the German people that their suffering was not their fault. Rather, it was the fault of an international conspiracy by Jews.
This was the "big lie."
It was not true. Hitler must have known - I am convinced that Hitler knew - it was not true. If the German people had examined the "big lie" very closely, they would have seen that it was not true, could not have been true. But, they didn't examine it closely, because they wanted to believe it was true. They didn't want to have accept that they were to blame for their suffering. And, it was easy to believe the "big lie," because they didn't examine it too closely and because they were only too happy to believe that this group of people against whom they harbored a long-standing, historic prejudice, was to blame.
So, they believed the "big lie."
Hitler rose to power, gradually the "big lie" morphed into extermination of all the Jews - which seemed good to the average German, since the Jews were to blame for the average German's problems - and the world was plunged into war.
When I was younger, I read extensively about the Holocaust; so much so that I began to feel a little guilty, as if I were reading because I gained some vicarious pleasure from the Jews suffering. But, that wasn't it.
Many people, at least back then, were asking, "How could an entire race of people go so passively to their certain death?" I wasn't trying to answer that question. To me, the answer seemed obvious. The question I was trying to answer with all my reading was, "How could one of the most civilized populations on the face of the earth - the Germans - almost unanimously subscribe to the extermination of an entire race?" That was the question I couldn't understand and all my reading about the Holocaust failed to answer it.
The answer came when I read a biography of Adolph Hitler. It struck me that, according to that author, Hitler never said or did anything that could be considered anti-Semitic until he entered politics. Nothing I've read or heard since reading that autobiography has been contrary. Apparently, Hitler's anti-Semitism was nothing more than a political ploy designed to gain power for Hitler. The German people believed Hitler's "big lie" because they were suffering, they didn't want to take the blame for their own suffering, and there was someone who was telling them something that, on the surface, could be true, and they wanted it to be true.
The realization that this was the answer was chilling. This answer meant that it could happen in America. All that would be required was a confluence of the same events in the United States that occurred in Germany in the 1930s: Americans suffering (or believing that they are); Americans not wanting to accept the responsibility for their suffering; a distinct group (or groups) against whom there was long-standing prejudice by other Americans; and a politician willing to lie to Americans about these issues for political gain.
Donald Trump.
Many Americans believe they are suffering. By comparison with most of the rest of the world, they aren't, but many Americans believe they are. Many of those Americans who believe they are suffering don't want to accept responsibility for their own suffering. One may argue that they aren't responsible, but whether that's true or not, they don't want to accept responsibility for their own suffering. There are identifiable groups against whom many of those same American's have long-standing prejudices - Muslims, illegal immigrants, and foreigners (i.e., the Chinese) in general. And there is a politician who is willing to lie to those Americans about those groups for purely political gain.
The "big lie" that Donald Trump is telling is that Americans are not responsible for their suffering, Muslims, illegal immigrants, and foreigners are. He has to know this isn't true. Whether Americans are suffering or not is debatable. But, the idea that Muslims, illegal immigrants, and foreigners in general are somehow responsible for the alleged suffering is, when closely examined, obviously not true.
Yet, many Americans believe the "big lie." Because, without close or careful examination, one can think it might be true, and because many Americans want to believe the "big lie."
Donald Trump is starting exactly where Hitler started. So, yes, I am playing the "Nazi card." Intentionally, consciously, and on purpose.
Consider this: Donald Trump is not starting his political career by telling Americans that all Muslims, illegal immigrants, and foreigners ought to be exterminated. But, he is starting his political career by telling them the same "big lie" that Hitler told the Germans: You are not responsible for your own suffering, someone else is.
Whether he ends up where Hitler ended up remains to be seen. I hope not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)