Have you seen this? http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/conway-press-secretary-gave-alternative-facts-860142147643?cid=eml_onsite .
In this clip from NBC's "Meet the Press," with host Chuck Todd, Trump spokesperson Kellyane Conway defended Trump press secretary Sean Spicer as merely offering "alternative facts" in place of the truth regarding the size of the crowds attending Trump's inauguration in a no-questions press conference the day after the inauguration.
Let there be no mistake. Of five widely reported items in the news that Spicer wanted to dispute, four of Spicer's conflicting versions of the truth were clearly false - probably outright lies if any effort had been made to check on their veracity.
The only item that Spicer got correct - that a bust of Martin Luther King Jr. had been removed by the Trump staff, was, in fact, false was quickly confirmed by the reporter who originally got it wrong. A phone call from the White House to the reporter would have sufficed to get the record set straight, get the correction and probably an apology.
The other four items regarding crowd sizes, however, are fact as reported by the media originally as far as anyone can determine. No evidence to the contrary was presented by Spicer. Spicer, at best, was dead wrong, and most likely, lying deliberately.
So what did Kellyanne say that is even more important than the lies of Sean Spicer? Here is the exchange:
Conway: "Don't be so overly dramatic about it, Chuck. You're saying it's a falsehood, and they're giving — our press secretary, Sean Spicer, gave alternative facts to that. But the point really is —"
Chuck Todd: “Wait a minute. Alternative facts? Alternative facts? Four of the five facts he uttered . . . were just not true. Alternative facts are not facts; they're falsehoods.”
In the first day on the job, Press Secretary Sean Spicer lies about 80% of the indisputable facts he disputed, with almost a 100% certainty that he was ordered to do so by President Trump and then was wholeheartedly defended the next day by top adviser Kellyanne Conway.
Conway wondered why Chuck Todd was "laughing" at her during the interview. She is right. This is no laughing matter and the media would be wise to not treat this as a joke any longer. This is sick and dangerous.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
Friday, January 20, 2017
The Most Depressing Thing Today, 1/20/17; Ideology
Today, January 20, 2017, was the day that Donald J. Trump was inaugurated. However, his inauguration, which was inevitable and lawful, was not the thing that depressed me most. After all, he won the election game although, as any objective person would admit, he in fact came in second to another person in the popular vote. All you can say is that he legally won the election game under the insane rules under which it is governed. To deny him the presidency is to descend into anarchy and chaos. Following rules, even crazy rules, is probably a better alternative.
It wasn't his speech that was especially depressing either. I had no expectations of graciousness from Trump nor did I expect him to reach out to others, in particular to that majority of Americans who opposed him.
The most depressing thing was the violence perpetrated by a small group of persons protesting Trump's inauguration in the nation's capital. Although few in number, the coverage of their actions was immense - all eyes were on Washington DC. Since those who oppose Trump need to make their views known, it is frightening to think that such demonstrations may serve, instead, to help President Trump.
Even though the violence was limited, at least as of 4:30pm EST, to the burning of a Fox News vehicle, and some violence in the streets of Washington DC, this is precisely the kind of thing that will help Trump and hurt those who oppose his intentions to reverse the Affordable Care Act, and help Trump promote his racial, ethnic, homophobic, transphobic, misogynist and religious biases. This kind of hijacking of a peaceful protest will serve to make people think twice about protesting; the concern that a protest will turn violent is a legitimate concern. If you care about whether the protest will actually turn into an asset for President Trump to exploit, why protest?
If you want to help Trump, do what those particular protesters did: riot in the streets and burn vehicles. I do not care how the protesters feel in their hearts about Trump. I do not like Trump but I view these protesters as agents of Trump. What I care about are the results of their actions. Their actions will only give comfort to supporters of Trump and strengthen their and Trump's resolve to follow though on their biases.
Consider that Trump would have been roundly defeated if only voter turnout was high; Clinton would have won if those who favored her did not stay home out of laziness, complacency, lack of motivation or because Clinton was "not progressive enough." Any protester who did not vote for Clinton can now thank themselves for the eventual results. They should be hiding in shame instead of rioting in the street if that is what they were doing.
What kind of thinking leads to this sort of behavior? How does anyone come to the conclusion that rioting and behaving like anarchists will change the hearts and minds of those on the fence about Donald J. Trump? Unfortunately the answer is that the rioters are the mirror image of those Trump supporters who threatened peaceful protesters at Trump rallies; or those who chanted "lock her up"; or those who chanted "build the wall." Those pro-Trump supporters did not care whether their beliefs were reasoned, true or helpful. They just believed.
In the next few days there will be numerous demonstrations around the country protesting Trump's expected policies; if too many of the demonstrations are hijacked by a violent few, they will only serve to help Trump move his agenda forward just as the misguided "anti-war" movement helped George W. Bush gain support for the disastrous Iraq War in 2002 and 2003.
Most people have short memories. To quickly summarize, demonstrators had often framed the opposition to the Iraq War as being opposed to all wars - it was the "anti-war" movement, not, more specifically, the "anti-Iraq War" movement; also, some protesters coupled it with anti-capitalism protests which was not helpful; and occasionally some participants perpetrated violence. Obviously, to an American public that has not forgotten World War II, and for those who understood that the U.S. was attacked by Al Qaeda on 9-11, overall pacifism seemed a ridiculous concept. Also, to those who have reaped the benefits of the world's strongest economy, lumping anti-capitalism with an "anti-war" movement was not sensible.
The better route for that movement to take was to emphasize that Iraq was NOT the source of the 9-11 attack and that bin Laden, hiding on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, WAS the source. The other excuse, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, was the subject of ongoing UN inspections that were halted by the U.S. before they were completed so that we could invade - before the inspectors could confirm that there were NO weapons of mass destruction. By the time the Iraq War began, and for years after, most Americans had the impression that Iraq was involved in 9-11 and that weapons of mass destruction were found. The "anti-war" movement failed to communicate these key facts primarily because the "anti-war" movement was more about ideology than preventing the Iraq War. They had other axes to grind - their ideologies.
This is my warning; do not make those who are ready to oppose President Trump's policies reluctant to side with a movement marred by anarchists and rioters and ideologues. Let the demonstrations be inspiring, peaceful and welcoming to those looking on objectively. Give onlookers the information they need to have, such as the simple fact that the popular Affordable Care Act is actually the same as the unpopular Obamacare. Duh! Let them understand that manufacturing jobs are mostly disappearing due to automation; let them understand that tax cuts for the wealthy mean that everyone else will have a greater tax burden; let them understand that equality under the law applies to women, minorities, the disabled, GLBT persons, non-believers and Muslims as well. Give them the obvious yet disputed facts!
However, I am afraid that anarchists and ideologues do not really care whether they are actually assisting Trump; ideologues are ideologues precisely because they care more about their belief system than whether it is grounded in reality and whether the results of their ideology actually assist with humanity's well being. To be an ideologue is to place your ideology beyond question and to accept the results no matter how bad they are. Ideologues just believe. Those who burned the FoxNews car did Trump a huge favor but are now basking in their own perceived "purity."
They are the mirror image of Trump supporters. These violent and radical few cannot be allowed to hijack the movement to stop Trump from doing what he has promised to do.
It wasn't his speech that was especially depressing either. I had no expectations of graciousness from Trump nor did I expect him to reach out to others, in particular to that majority of Americans who opposed him.
The most depressing thing was the violence perpetrated by a small group of persons protesting Trump's inauguration in the nation's capital. Although few in number, the coverage of their actions was immense - all eyes were on Washington DC. Since those who oppose Trump need to make their views known, it is frightening to think that such demonstrations may serve, instead, to help President Trump.
Even though the violence was limited, at least as of 4:30pm EST, to the burning of a Fox News vehicle, and some violence in the streets of Washington DC, this is precisely the kind of thing that will help Trump and hurt those who oppose his intentions to reverse the Affordable Care Act, and help Trump promote his racial, ethnic, homophobic, transphobic, misogynist and religious biases. This kind of hijacking of a peaceful protest will serve to make people think twice about protesting; the concern that a protest will turn violent is a legitimate concern. If you care about whether the protest will actually turn into an asset for President Trump to exploit, why protest?
If you want to help Trump, do what those particular protesters did: riot in the streets and burn vehicles. I do not care how the protesters feel in their hearts about Trump. I do not like Trump but I view these protesters as agents of Trump. What I care about are the results of their actions. Their actions will only give comfort to supporters of Trump and strengthen their and Trump's resolve to follow though on their biases.
Consider that Trump would have been roundly defeated if only voter turnout was high; Clinton would have won if those who favored her did not stay home out of laziness, complacency, lack of motivation or because Clinton was "not progressive enough." Any protester who did not vote for Clinton can now thank themselves for the eventual results. They should be hiding in shame instead of rioting in the street if that is what they were doing.
What kind of thinking leads to this sort of behavior? How does anyone come to the conclusion that rioting and behaving like anarchists will change the hearts and minds of those on the fence about Donald J. Trump? Unfortunately the answer is that the rioters are the mirror image of those Trump supporters who threatened peaceful protesters at Trump rallies; or those who chanted "lock her up"; or those who chanted "build the wall." Those pro-Trump supporters did not care whether their beliefs were reasoned, true or helpful. They just believed.
In the next few days there will be numerous demonstrations around the country protesting Trump's expected policies; if too many of the demonstrations are hijacked by a violent few, they will only serve to help Trump move his agenda forward just as the misguided "anti-war" movement helped George W. Bush gain support for the disastrous Iraq War in 2002 and 2003.
Most people have short memories. To quickly summarize, demonstrators had often framed the opposition to the Iraq War as being opposed to all wars - it was the "anti-war" movement, not, more specifically, the "anti-Iraq War" movement; also, some protesters coupled it with anti-capitalism protests which was not helpful; and occasionally some participants perpetrated violence. Obviously, to an American public that has not forgotten World War II, and for those who understood that the U.S. was attacked by Al Qaeda on 9-11, overall pacifism seemed a ridiculous concept. Also, to those who have reaped the benefits of the world's strongest economy, lumping anti-capitalism with an "anti-war" movement was not sensible.
The better route for that movement to take was to emphasize that Iraq was NOT the source of the 9-11 attack and that bin Laden, hiding on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, WAS the source. The other excuse, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, was the subject of ongoing UN inspections that were halted by the U.S. before they were completed so that we could invade - before the inspectors could confirm that there were NO weapons of mass destruction. By the time the Iraq War began, and for years after, most Americans had the impression that Iraq was involved in 9-11 and that weapons of mass destruction were found. The "anti-war" movement failed to communicate these key facts primarily because the "anti-war" movement was more about ideology than preventing the Iraq War. They had other axes to grind - their ideologies.
This is my warning; do not make those who are ready to oppose President Trump's policies reluctant to side with a movement marred by anarchists and rioters and ideologues. Let the demonstrations be inspiring, peaceful and welcoming to those looking on objectively. Give onlookers the information they need to have, such as the simple fact that the popular Affordable Care Act is actually the same as the unpopular Obamacare. Duh! Let them understand that manufacturing jobs are mostly disappearing due to automation; let them understand that tax cuts for the wealthy mean that everyone else will have a greater tax burden; let them understand that equality under the law applies to women, minorities, the disabled, GLBT persons, non-believers and Muslims as well. Give them the obvious yet disputed facts!
However, I am afraid that anarchists and ideologues do not really care whether they are actually assisting Trump; ideologues are ideologues precisely because they care more about their belief system than whether it is grounded in reality and whether the results of their ideology actually assist with humanity's well being. To be an ideologue is to place your ideology beyond question and to accept the results no matter how bad they are. Ideologues just believe. Those who burned the FoxNews car did Trump a huge favor but are now basking in their own perceived "purity."
They are the mirror image of Trump supporters. These violent and radical few cannot be allowed to hijack the movement to stop Trump from doing what he has promised to do.
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
Definition of a Hypocrite
Wikipedia says: Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence in a general sense, dissimulation, pretense, sham. A person who indulges in hypocrisy is a hypocrite.
In the past, Donald Trump has tweeted, "An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud." 4:23 PM - 6 Aug 2012.
He also tweeted, "Congratulations to @RealSheriffJoe on his successful Cold Case Posse investigation which claims @BarackObama's 'birth certificate' is fake." 8:56 AM - 18 Jul 2012
How about one of Trump's hallucinations, recounted on George Stephanopoulos' TV show:
TRUMP: “Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.”
STEPHANOPOULOS: “You know, the police say that didn’t happen and all those rumors have been on the Internet for some time. So did you misspeak yesterday?”
TRUMP: “It did happen. I saw it.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/22/donald-trumps-outrageous-claim-that-thousands-of-new-jersey-muslims-celebrated-the-911-attacks/?utm_term=.613338efd378 )
He also said this, "There was a picture on the front page of the National Enquirer, which does have credibility," Trump said to a room of volunteers and staffers in Cleveland, adding that the tabloid "should be very respected." In May, Trump had said to Fox News, "You know, his father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's being -- you know, shot....Right prior to his [Kennedy's] being shot, and nobody even brings it up. I mean, they don't even talk about that. That was reported and nobody talks about it." (Go to http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-defends-linking-ted-cruzs-father-to-lee-harvey-oswald/ )
Here's a delusional Trump tweet for you: "In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally." 3:30 PM - 27 Nov 2016
Now Donald Trump wouldn't promote the existence via a tweet of a "sex" tape unless it actually had sex in it and it the person he was accusing was actually in it, would he? Oh yes he would: "Did Crooked Hillary help disgusting (check out sex tape and past) Alicia M(achado) become a U.S. citizen so she could use her in the debate?" 5:30 AM - 30 Sep 2016
Let us not forget Trump's favorite target, Hillary Clinton and the charitable Clinton foundation in a campaign statement: "Hillary Clinton is the defender of the corrupt and rigged status quo... The Clintons have spent decades as insiders lining their own pockets and taking care of donors instead of the American people. It is now clear that the Clinton Foundation is the most corrupt enterprise in political history. What they were doing during Crooked Hillary’s time as Secretary of State was wrong then, and it is wrong now. It must be shut down immediately.”
And that brings us to today, January 11, 2017, with Trump dismissing any possible conflicts of interest and complaining about "fake news" and the "media" being unfair...
Although Trump demanded Clinton close down her charitable foundation from which she made no money (we know this because we have seen her tax returns) and has done much good work with 87% of monies going to the needy, "He told a news conference he had formally given 'complete and total' control to them in a bid to avoid conflicts of interest. Mr Trump's lawyer, Sheri Dillon said the President-elect had 'isolated' himself from his businesses. But the Office of Government Ethics said Mr Trump's plan didn't 'meet the standards' of former presidents. The organisation's director Walter Shaub said the office's primary recommendation was that Mr Trump 'divest his conflicting assets'." (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38587628 )
And of course, now he sees "fake news" everywhere (except for coming from himself):
"That's something that Nazi Germany would have done," he said. He was replying to unsubstantiated allegations that his election team colluded with Russia and there were salacious videos of his private life... Mr Trump said the information "should have never been written and certainly should never have been released... It's all fake news, it's phony stuff, it didn't happen," he said, adding that "sick people" had "put that crap together... it's an absolute disgrace". (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38586626 )
Trump was not happy that an allegedly "fake news" story damaging to him made it into print and was complaining about it being leaked by Buzzfeed while at the same time falsely accusing CNN of linking to the report, which it did not. He threatened to throw out a CNN reporter from today's news conference. I guess CNN is no National Inquirer.
Please note that this "fake news" was actually a privately created report given to John McCain and the intelligence community and in no way was it classified material. If it is "leaked" to Buzzfeed, there is no culpability necessarily on the part of the intelligence community. They had no ability to keep the report secret if someone in private life had decided to send it to Buzzfeed. It's a private report; anyone could have written it, gotten it and forwarded it. The sources of the report apparently had enough credibility to inspire a John McCain and others to consider it to be worth investigating by the intelligence community. That is not "fake new" - it's real news. The report may prove to be false itself, but the fact that this report is being investigated is real news and its leak may be perfectly legal. Its leaking certainly is as ethical as Trump's birther claims, his claims about Ted Cruz's father and other lies that Trump has promoted.
Unfortunately the President elect seems to have no ability to discern "fake new" from real news, and sadly a large minority of Americans cannot as well. And even before the inauguration, that a large minority of Americans are learning to accept gross hypocrisy and lies on a scale even more grand than I could have ever imagined is the biggest real news of the day.
In the past, Donald Trump has tweeted, "An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud." 4:23 PM - 6 Aug 2012.
He also tweeted, "Congratulations to @RealSheriffJoe on his successful Cold Case Posse investigation which claims @BarackObama's 'birth certificate' is fake." 8:56 AM - 18 Jul 2012
How about one of Trump's hallucinations, recounted on George Stephanopoulos' TV show:
TRUMP: “Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.”
STEPHANOPOULOS: “You know, the police say that didn’t happen and all those rumors have been on the Internet for some time. So did you misspeak yesterday?”
TRUMP: “It did happen. I saw it.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/22/donald-trumps-outrageous-claim-that-thousands-of-new-jersey-muslims-celebrated-the-911-attacks/?utm_term=.613338efd378 )
He also said this, "There was a picture on the front page of the National Enquirer, which does have credibility," Trump said to a room of volunteers and staffers in Cleveland, adding that the tabloid "should be very respected." In May, Trump had said to Fox News, "You know, his father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's being -- you know, shot....Right prior to his [Kennedy's] being shot, and nobody even brings it up. I mean, they don't even talk about that. That was reported and nobody talks about it." (Go to http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-defends-linking-ted-cruzs-father-to-lee-harvey-oswald/ )
Here's a delusional Trump tweet for you: "In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally." 3:30 PM - 27 Nov 2016
Now Donald Trump wouldn't promote the existence via a tweet of a "sex" tape unless it actually had sex in it and it the person he was accusing was actually in it, would he? Oh yes he would: "Did Crooked Hillary help disgusting (check out sex tape and past) Alicia M(achado) become a U.S. citizen so she could use her in the debate?" 5:30 AM - 30 Sep 2016
Let us not forget Trump's favorite target, Hillary Clinton and the charitable Clinton foundation in a campaign statement: "Hillary Clinton is the defender of the corrupt and rigged status quo... The Clintons have spent decades as insiders lining their own pockets and taking care of donors instead of the American people. It is now clear that the Clinton Foundation is the most corrupt enterprise in political history. What they were doing during Crooked Hillary’s time as Secretary of State was wrong then, and it is wrong now. It must be shut down immediately.”
And that brings us to today, January 11, 2017, with Trump dismissing any possible conflicts of interest and complaining about "fake news" and the "media" being unfair...
Although Trump demanded Clinton close down her charitable foundation from which she made no money (we know this because we have seen her tax returns) and has done much good work with 87% of monies going to the needy, "He told a news conference he had formally given 'complete and total' control to them in a bid to avoid conflicts of interest. Mr Trump's lawyer, Sheri Dillon said the President-elect had 'isolated' himself from his businesses. But the Office of Government Ethics said Mr Trump's plan didn't 'meet the standards' of former presidents. The organisation's director Walter Shaub said the office's primary recommendation was that Mr Trump 'divest his conflicting assets'." (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38587628 )
And of course, now he sees "fake news" everywhere (except for coming from himself):
"That's something that Nazi Germany would have done," he said. He was replying to unsubstantiated allegations that his election team colluded with Russia and there were salacious videos of his private life... Mr Trump said the information "should have never been written and certainly should never have been released... It's all fake news, it's phony stuff, it didn't happen," he said, adding that "sick people" had "put that crap together... it's an absolute disgrace". (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38586626 )
Trump was not happy that an allegedly "fake news" story damaging to him made it into print and was complaining about it being leaked by Buzzfeed while at the same time falsely accusing CNN of linking to the report, which it did not. He threatened to throw out a CNN reporter from today's news conference. I guess CNN is no National Inquirer.
Please note that this "fake news" was actually a privately created report given to John McCain and the intelligence community and in no way was it classified material. If it is "leaked" to Buzzfeed, there is no culpability necessarily on the part of the intelligence community. They had no ability to keep the report secret if someone in private life had decided to send it to Buzzfeed. It's a private report; anyone could have written it, gotten it and forwarded it. The sources of the report apparently had enough credibility to inspire a John McCain and others to consider it to be worth investigating by the intelligence community. That is not "fake new" - it's real news. The report may prove to be false itself, but the fact that this report is being investigated is real news and its leak may be perfectly legal. Its leaking certainly is as ethical as Trump's birther claims, his claims about Ted Cruz's father and other lies that Trump has promoted.
Unfortunately the President elect seems to have no ability to discern "fake new" from real news, and sadly a large minority of Americans cannot as well. And even before the inauguration, that a large minority of Americans are learning to accept gross hypocrisy and lies on a scale even more grand than I could have ever imagined is the biggest real news of the day.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
Today Was a Bad Day, November 9, 2016
Today, November 9, 2016, was a bad day, .
It was a bad day for voters; the presidential candidate that more voters voted for than any other candidate lost the election. The person with the second most votes won the election. This is the second time in the last 5 presidential elections that this has happened. Since the party in power has now benefited both times from this absurd system, nothing will change. The U.S. will remain the only country in the world where losing the popular vote is sometimes better than winning it. We do not have a democracy; instead we play a game with odd rules that often rewards something other than the will of the people. Instead of making everyone's vote count equally, some votes in some states are relatively irrelevant while some votes in a handful of states are all important.
It was bad day for Muslims; the president elect has stated he wanted to ban Muslims from entering the country on the basis of their religious beliefs. Other religious folk, no matter how dangerous, crazy and un-American their beliefs may be are welcome as long as they are not Muslims. Furthermore, the president elect has hallucinated seeing thousands of Muslims on the roofs of homes in Jersey City, New Jersey, celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center back in 2001 on TV.
It was a bad day for women who have been sexually assaulted. They now have a president elect who has bragged about sexually assaulting women and we have all seen the women who have been the victims he claims to have assaulted. He has insulted them horribly for confirming his own claims.
It was a bad day for women who may sometime have an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy. They may be forced to have their babies, even if they are the victims of rape or if the pregnancy poses a danger to their lives.
It was a bad day for women who are not fashion model thin; for women who are over 35 which is "check-out" time according to the president elect; for women who are "nasty"; for women who do not have huge breasts; or for women who have faces the president elect does not like.
It was a bad day for persons with pre-existing conditions. It was a bad day for young adults under 26 who have been insured under their parents health insurance plans. They may lose their health insurance sometime soon. Even those who complain about their premiums exploding may have second thoughts when they try to buy their insurance outside of the exchanges created by the ACA and lose their subsidies - as they would have had to do before Obamacare was created.
It was a bad day for those who are scientifically oriented and have concerns about global warming and the teaching of evolution in schools.
It was a bad day for people who are appalled that a candidate encouraged the illegal hacking of his opponent's email account. At the same time the president elect never offered to release his own tax returns, much less his own emails.
It was a bad day for people who care about the deficit. The president elect's budget plans would explode the deficit - but will there be fights over the debt ceiling by Republicans in the next 4 years as there were in the previous 4 years?
It was a bad day for the undocumented - even if they are persons who were brought here as children and have known no other country. All are to be deported, period.
It was a bad day for most taxpayers who will have a greater share of the tax burden after the rich get their incredible tax cuts.
It was a bad day for persons who believe corporations are not people. Future supreme court judges will be chosen, in part, based on their inability to tell the difference between a human person and a corporation.
It was a bad day for future victims of gun violence. Not only will no reasonable gun laws be passed but even research and record collection of gun related crimes and violence will remain prohibited because some do not want to know the truth.
It was a bad day for those with disabilities. The president elect has no problem mocking you.
It was a bad day for those who value honesty and rationality. Most of what the president elect said during the campaign was untrue and why should that change now? The campaign that began with birtherism ended with false claims too numerous to list.
It was a bad day for Americans; the campaign that said "we are stronger together" lost; the one that said "lock her up" won.
It was a bad day for voters; the presidential candidate that more voters voted for than any other candidate lost the election. The person with the second most votes won the election. This is the second time in the last 5 presidential elections that this has happened. Since the party in power has now benefited both times from this absurd system, nothing will change. The U.S. will remain the only country in the world where losing the popular vote is sometimes better than winning it. We do not have a democracy; instead we play a game with odd rules that often rewards something other than the will of the people. Instead of making everyone's vote count equally, some votes in some states are relatively irrelevant while some votes in a handful of states are all important.
It was bad day for Muslims; the president elect has stated he wanted to ban Muslims from entering the country on the basis of their religious beliefs. Other religious folk, no matter how dangerous, crazy and un-American their beliefs may be are welcome as long as they are not Muslims. Furthermore, the president elect has hallucinated seeing thousands of Muslims on the roofs of homes in Jersey City, New Jersey, celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center back in 2001 on TV.
It was a bad day for women who have been sexually assaulted. They now have a president elect who has bragged about sexually assaulting women and we have all seen the women who have been the victims he claims to have assaulted. He has insulted them horribly for confirming his own claims.
It was a bad day for women who may sometime have an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy. They may be forced to have their babies, even if they are the victims of rape or if the pregnancy poses a danger to their lives.
It was a bad day for persons with pre-existing conditions. It was a bad day for young adults under 26 who have been insured under their parents health insurance plans. They may lose their health insurance sometime soon. Even those who complain about their premiums exploding may have second thoughts when they try to buy their insurance outside of the exchanges created by the ACA and lose their subsidies - as they would have had to do before Obamacare was created.
It was a bad day for those who are scientifically oriented and have concerns about global warming and the teaching of evolution in schools.
It was a bad day for people who are appalled that a candidate encouraged the illegal hacking of his opponent's email account. At the same time the president elect never offered to release his own tax returns, much less his own emails.
It was a bad day for people who care about the deficit. The president elect's budget plans would explode the deficit - but will there be fights over the debt ceiling by Republicans in the next 4 years as there were in the previous 4 years?
It was a bad day for the undocumented - even if they are persons who were brought here as children and have known no other country. All are to be deported, period.
It was a bad day for most taxpayers who will have a greater share of the tax burden after the rich get their incredible tax cuts.
It was a bad day for persons who believe corporations are not people. Future supreme court judges will be chosen, in part, based on their inability to tell the difference between a human person and a corporation.
It was a bad day for future victims of gun violence. Not only will no reasonable gun laws be passed but even research and record collection of gun related crimes and violence will remain prohibited because some do not want to know the truth.
It was a bad day for those with disabilities. The president elect has no problem mocking you.
It was a bad day for those who value honesty and rationality. Most of what the president elect said during the campaign was untrue and why should that change now? The campaign that began with birtherism ended with false claims too numerous to list.
It was a bad day for Americans; the campaign that said "we are stronger together" lost; the one that said "lock her up" won.
Monday, June 20, 2016
Trump & Guns
This is too much to believe! Donald Trump and guns! Let us do a chronological review:
"In November (2015), Trump told a crowd of several thousand at a rally in Knoxville, Tennessee, that "Paris is one of the places in the world that's toughest on guns" so Parisians were left vulnerable when the terrorists struck.
"There was nothing anybody can do," he said. "I know one thing, in this room, it's a whole different story, right?" The crowd cheered.
He was right that it was a different story than Paris — but that was because of the Secret Service people in the room, not citizens packing guns.
Asked about the rules after that rally, Secret Service spokeswoman Nicole Mainor said, "Any assumption that non-authorized law enforcement personnel at this venue or any other Secret Service-secured protected event were armed would be inaccurate." She said if someone who did not have authority to bring a weapon showed up with one, that person would be arrested by local authorities." (Go to http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/dec/09/trump-carson-decry-gun-free-zones-but-crowd-cant-h/ .)
So here he is criticizing Paris for being tough on guns while his own event banned guns and only law enforcement could legally have guns. As usual, the facts seem to have an anti-Trump bias. More facts...
"GOP front-runner Donald Trump said Sunday that he will take a closer look at an online petition calling for the Republican convention this summer to allow guns into the convention space has received tens of thousands of signatures on Change.org. The petition notes that Ohio is an open-carry state, but that the website for the Quicken Loans Arena--the site of the convention in Cleveland--says the venue forbids "firearms and other weapons of any kind." "This is a direct affront to the Second Amendment and puts all attendees at risk," the petition reads. "As the National Rifle Association has made clear, 'gun-free zones' such as the Quicken Loans Arena are 'the worst and most dangerous of all lies.'" (Go to http://www.cbsnews.com/news/online-petition-calls-for-guns-to-be-allowed-at-republican-convention/ .)
Yup, for the sake of the safety of Republicans, no guns are allowed at the convention. But all guns allowed everywhere else, apparently.
Fast forward to June 13, 2016 after the horrible mass murder at the Pulse nite club at the hands of a crazed Muslim gunman: "Trump said on Friday night, "If some of those wonderful people had guns strapped right here — right to their waist or right to their ankle — and one of the people in that room happened to have it and goes 'boom, boom,' you know, that would have been a beautiful sight folks."
Speaking on "The Howie Carr Show" on June 13, Trump said, "It's too bad some of the people killed over the weekend didn’t have guns attached to their hips, where bullets could have thrown in the opposite direction. Had people been able to fire back, it would have been a much different outcome." (Go to http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-guards-orlando-club-armed-clubgoers/story?id=39984788 .)
Afterward, after an outcry of criticism (even from the N.R.A.!) Trump tried to claim he was talking about arming authorized guards at the club even though it was well known that the club had an armed guard who actually fired at the perpetrator. He was simply outgunned by the assault weapon equipped killer. Everyone believes Trump as actually referring to the club goers and for good reason - why would he refer to security guards as "those wonderful people." This is not to say that security guards are not wonderful but it is doubtful that was Trump's intent. In my book he is bald-faced lying.
Finally, after the Orlando tragedy: "Michael Steven Sandford was arrested at the Saturday rally after grabbing at the holster and handle of a gun at the hip of a Las Vegas police officer who was providing security at the event for the presumptive Republican nominee.
A federal magistrate on Monday found that Sandford was “a danger to the community and a risk of non-appearance” and ordered that he be held without bail, according to a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, who also confirmed that Sandford is a British citizen...
The complaint, which was filed on Monday in the US district court for Nevada, says Sandford “knowingly attempted to engage in an act of physical violence against Donald J Trump ... by attempting to seize a firearm from Las Vegas Metropolitan Department Officer”.
Sandford allegedly told a US agent, referred to in the complaint as special agent Swierkowski, that he had driven to Las Vegas from California in order to kill the presumptive Republican nominee for president.
According to the complaint, Sandford had gone to a gun range called Battlefield Vegas on 17 June in order to learn how to shoot. There, he fired 20 rounds from a Glock 9mm pistol, which, the complaint says, was the first time he had ever fired a gun.
The document also states that Sandford told Swierkowski that if he were on the street tomorrow, he would try it again. He claimed he had lived in the US for approximately a year and a half and had been planning to attempt to kill Trump for about a year but finally felt confident enough to try it on Saturday, according to Swierkowski’s report." (Go to https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/20/donald-trump-assassination-attempt-las-vegas-rally .)
Before we go further, give the arresting security person a raise - job well done!
But why didn't Mr. Sandford just buy a gun at a gun show or wherever they cannot do background checks and bring it to the rally and shoot Mr. Trump?
Answer: Oh yeah, guns are banned at the rallies and only authorized law enforcement such as the Secret Service are allowed to have guns. That is why he had to try to take a gun away from an officer and fortunately he failed.
Yes, Donald Trump may be alive because of being "tough on guns" but sees no reason to share his good fortune with others.
"In November (2015), Trump told a crowd of several thousand at a rally in Knoxville, Tennessee, that "Paris is one of the places in the world that's toughest on guns" so Parisians were left vulnerable when the terrorists struck.
"There was nothing anybody can do," he said. "I know one thing, in this room, it's a whole different story, right?" The crowd cheered.
He was right that it was a different story than Paris — but that was because of the Secret Service people in the room, not citizens packing guns.
Asked about the rules after that rally, Secret Service spokeswoman Nicole Mainor said, "Any assumption that non-authorized law enforcement personnel at this venue or any other Secret Service-secured protected event were armed would be inaccurate." She said if someone who did not have authority to bring a weapon showed up with one, that person would be arrested by local authorities." (Go to http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/dec/09/trump-carson-decry-gun-free-zones-but-crowd-cant-h/ .)
So here he is criticizing Paris for being tough on guns while his own event banned guns and only law enforcement could legally have guns. As usual, the facts seem to have an anti-Trump bias. More facts...
"GOP front-runner Donald Trump said Sunday that he will take a closer look at an online petition calling for the Republican convention this summer to allow guns into the convention space has received tens of thousands of signatures on Change.org. The petition notes that Ohio is an open-carry state, but that the website for the Quicken Loans Arena--the site of the convention in Cleveland--says the venue forbids "firearms and other weapons of any kind." "This is a direct affront to the Second Amendment and puts all attendees at risk," the petition reads. "As the National Rifle Association has made clear, 'gun-free zones' such as the Quicken Loans Arena are 'the worst and most dangerous of all lies.'" (Go to http://www.cbsnews.com/news/online-petition-calls-for-guns-to-be-allowed-at-republican-convention/ .)
Yup, for the sake of the safety of Republicans, no guns are allowed at the convention. But all guns allowed everywhere else, apparently.
Fast forward to June 13, 2016 after the horrible mass murder at the Pulse nite club at the hands of a crazed Muslim gunman: "Trump said on Friday night, "If some of those wonderful people had guns strapped right here — right to their waist or right to their ankle — and one of the people in that room happened to have it and goes 'boom, boom,' you know, that would have been a beautiful sight folks."
Speaking on "The Howie Carr Show" on June 13, Trump said, "It's too bad some of the people killed over the weekend didn’t have guns attached to their hips, where bullets could have thrown in the opposite direction. Had people been able to fire back, it would have been a much different outcome." (Go to http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-guards-orlando-club-armed-clubgoers/story?id=39984788 .)
Afterward, after an outcry of criticism (even from the N.R.A.!) Trump tried to claim he was talking about arming authorized guards at the club even though it was well known that the club had an armed guard who actually fired at the perpetrator. He was simply outgunned by the assault weapon equipped killer. Everyone believes Trump as actually referring to the club goers and for good reason - why would he refer to security guards as "those wonderful people." This is not to say that security guards are not wonderful but it is doubtful that was Trump's intent. In my book he is bald-faced lying.
Finally, after the Orlando tragedy: "Michael Steven Sandford was arrested at the Saturday rally after grabbing at the holster and handle of a gun at the hip of a Las Vegas police officer who was providing security at the event for the presumptive Republican nominee.
A federal magistrate on Monday found that Sandford was “a danger to the community and a risk of non-appearance” and ordered that he be held without bail, according to a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, who also confirmed that Sandford is a British citizen...
The complaint, which was filed on Monday in the US district court for Nevada, says Sandford “knowingly attempted to engage in an act of physical violence against Donald J Trump ... by attempting to seize a firearm from Las Vegas Metropolitan Department Officer”.
Sandford allegedly told a US agent, referred to in the complaint as special agent Swierkowski, that he had driven to Las Vegas from California in order to kill the presumptive Republican nominee for president.
According to the complaint, Sandford had gone to a gun range called Battlefield Vegas on 17 June in order to learn how to shoot. There, he fired 20 rounds from a Glock 9mm pistol, which, the complaint says, was the first time he had ever fired a gun.
The document also states that Sandford told Swierkowski that if he were on the street tomorrow, he would try it again. He claimed he had lived in the US for approximately a year and a half and had been planning to attempt to kill Trump for about a year but finally felt confident enough to try it on Saturday, according to Swierkowski’s report." (Go to https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/20/donald-trump-assassination-attempt-las-vegas-rally .)
Before we go further, give the arresting security person a raise - job well done!
But why didn't Mr. Sandford just buy a gun at a gun show or wherever they cannot do background checks and bring it to the rally and shoot Mr. Trump?
Answer: Oh yeah, guns are banned at the rallies and only authorized law enforcement such as the Secret Service are allowed to have guns. That is why he had to try to take a gun away from an officer and fortunately he failed.
Yes, Donald Trump may be alive because of being "tough on guns" but sees no reason to share his good fortune with others.
Monday, June 13, 2016
The Terror in Orlando: You Can't Make This Stuff Up: Texas Lt. Governor believes "Something is Good Because God Says So!"
You can't make this up! As if on cue, Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick tweeted the following, appearing shortly after the terror in Orlando, Florida.
My previous blog entry had a simple choice that we all, as moral individuals, have a responsibility to decide and then live by: Is Something Good Because God Says So? Or is Something Good Because it Makes the World a Better Place?
Obviously, Lt. Governor Patrick has made his decision. If God says so, it is good. This would probably be comforting to those who sympathize with the terrorist perpetrator. Am I exaggerating or misconstruing Mr. Patrick's intent?
Here is what he said afterward in defending himself: “The verse has nothing to do with God’s judgment on any one person or a specific group of people. If some chose to read into it what they wanted they either have never read Galatians Chapter 6 or have misread it,” he said. “Some wanted the post pulled down and others did not. Let me be clear, I didn’t pull down the FBI post & tweet because God’s word is wrong. His word is never wrong,” Patrick wrote. “Taking down his word would be like tearing a page from the Bible because we didn’t like what God was telling us. I took it down to stop the hateful comments and the misinformation being spread of God’s message to all of us- straight or gay.”
Yup, God is never wrong so the perpetrator had no choice, did he, Mr. Patrick? And who says we can't agree on religious matters?
My previous blog entry had a simple choice that we all, as moral individuals, have a responsibility to decide and then live by: Is Something Good Because God Says So? Or is Something Good Because it Makes the World a Better Place?
Obviously, Lt. Governor Patrick has made his decision. If God says so, it is good. This would probably be comforting to those who sympathize with the terrorist perpetrator. Am I exaggerating or misconstruing Mr. Patrick's intent?
Here is what he said afterward in defending himself: “The verse has nothing to do with God’s judgment on any one person or a specific group of people. If some chose to read into it what they wanted they either have never read Galatians Chapter 6 or have misread it,” he said. “Some wanted the post pulled down and others did not. Let me be clear, I didn’t pull down the FBI post & tweet because God’s word is wrong. His word is never wrong,” Patrick wrote. “Taking down his word would be like tearing a page from the Bible because we didn’t like what God was telling us. I took it down to stop the hateful comments and the misinformation being spread of God’s message to all of us- straight or gay.”
Yup, God is never wrong so the perpetrator had no choice, did he, Mr. Patrick? And who says we can't agree on religious matters?
The Terror in Orlando: Is Something Good Because God Says So?
It is perhaps the central philosophical/theological question of all: Is Something Good Because God Says So? Or is Something Good Because it Makes the World a Better Place?
What do YOU believe?
The perpetrator (I will not repeat his name here) of the horrific killings in Orlando, Florida earlier today, June 12, 2016, probably believed the following; that gays were an abomination and that God (the one that he believed in, not the one YOU might believe in) endorsed the killing of gays and their sympathizers.
From the Koran (7:80 - 7:84) "And (We sent) Lot when he said to his people: What! do you commit an indecency which any one in the world has not done before you? Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people. And the answer of his people was no other than that they said: Turn them out of your town, surely they are a people who seek to purify (themselves). So We delivered him and his followers, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind. And We rained upon them a rain; consider then what was the end of the guilty."
The "rain" referred to above is probably something like "brimstone" which would lead to the death or "the end of the guilty."
This is not much different than the following from the Old Testament which is actually more clear in its viciousness: (Leviticus 20:13, New International Version) "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
One would think that since the source of belief in the Christian God and the Muslim God (and Jewish God) are the Holy Books quoted above, that opposition to homosexuality would be common among Christian and Muslims. One would be correct in thinking that. It is only very recently in the history of Christian society that homosexuality has approached majority acceptance and indeed not nearly all American or other Christians are on board with that opinion just yet. Ted Cruz was infamously endorsed for President by a Pastor this year who prefaced his endorsement with his reminder that homosexuals should be executed according to his infallible Bible. Ted was pleased with the endorsement. (Go to "Why Is the Media Ignoring Ted Cruz’s Embrace of ‘Kill the Gays’ Pastor?"" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/post_10496_b_8544540.html .)
So I ask you again; what do YOU believe? Is Something Good Because God Says So? Or is Something Good Because it Makes the World a Better Place?
Of course I can hear you objecting by saying that the "True God" would NEVER tell you to do something that is wrong. The problem is that the perpetrator of the horror in Orlando would agree. Yes, ISIS would agree. Bin Laden would have agreed. ALL the terrorist fanatics would agree. That is the problem - if God says to do it, it becomes the RIGHT thing to do. It becomes the thing you MUST do. This argument is of no use.
This leaves basically the final feeble argument against where we are inevitably heading; the objection that the perpetrator did not believe in the one "True God." His God was a "false" God and the answer/solution is to believe in the "True God."
What is a "false" God? Answer: Basically a "false" God is what the other guy believes in. What you believe in is the "True God." And what your "True God" says to do is, of course, "good."
And, of course, the perpetrator believed he worshiped the one and only "True God." That was his opinion and your opinion is no more than that - an opinion. As much as you'd like to transform your opinion on the nature of the "True God" into a fact, you cannot do it anymore than the perpetrator could do it. At the very best all you can do is present the evidence for the one "True God" and test your conclusion.
Unfortunately even believers often admit that their God cannot be tested. The Book of Job reminds us "who are we to question God?" The evidence for which God is the "True God" is not evidence at all; instead belief in the "True God" is built upon faith - and faith is supposedly a gift from very the same True God whom we are trying to test and by no definition of the word can "faith" be considered reasonable evidence. Furthermore I have never heard a rational process for determining which faith is a "True Faith" and which faith is not. To claim that there are many contrary "True Faiths" is to accept that sometimes 2 = 3. Is a God that is Jesus the same as a God that is not Jesus?
Is your faith the "True Faith"? Is your Holy Book the "True Holy Book"? Is your God the one "True God." For all of these questions the perpetrator of this act of terror and all other religiously inspired acts of terror, would answer "yes". These fallible humans all elevate their fallible opinions to indisputable facts. Conversely, reasonable persons understand that the "facts" they believe are true are conditional and probable - not certain and taken on faith. Reasonable persons use evidence, logic, and science and accept that "facts" can be tested and subject to disproof.
Those who instead rely on faith for determining their absolute truths all uniformly and conveniently claim that reason, evidence and science cannot answer the deepest questions of human existence while implying that their personal opinions CAN answer them in an absolute manner. This certainty on the part of the faithful in knowing the Truth is seen as a virtue by them as opposed to the incredible danger and arrogance it actually presents. The scientific viewpoint is uncertain, conditional, testable and ultimately far more humble.
If you have managed to read this to this point, I will ask one final time: Is Something Good Because God Says So? Or is Something Good Because it Makes the World a Better Place?
What do YOU believe?
The perpetrator (I will not repeat his name here) of the horrific killings in Orlando, Florida earlier today, June 12, 2016, probably believed the following; that gays were an abomination and that God (the one that he believed in, not the one YOU might believe in) endorsed the killing of gays and their sympathizers.
From the Koran (7:80 - 7:84) "And (We sent) Lot when he said to his people: What! do you commit an indecency which any one in the world has not done before you? Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people. And the answer of his people was no other than that they said: Turn them out of your town, surely they are a people who seek to purify (themselves). So We delivered him and his followers, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind. And We rained upon them a rain; consider then what was the end of the guilty."
The "rain" referred to above is probably something like "brimstone" which would lead to the death or "the end of the guilty."
This is not much different than the following from the Old Testament which is actually more clear in its viciousness: (Leviticus 20:13, New International Version) "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
One would think that since the source of belief in the Christian God and the Muslim God (and Jewish God) are the Holy Books quoted above, that opposition to homosexuality would be common among Christian and Muslims. One would be correct in thinking that. It is only very recently in the history of Christian society that homosexuality has approached majority acceptance and indeed not nearly all American or other Christians are on board with that opinion just yet. Ted Cruz was infamously endorsed for President by a Pastor this year who prefaced his endorsement with his reminder that homosexuals should be executed according to his infallible Bible. Ted was pleased with the endorsement. (Go to "Why Is the Media Ignoring Ted Cruz’s Embrace of ‘Kill the Gays’ Pastor?"" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/post_10496_b_8544540.html .)
So I ask you again; what do YOU believe? Is Something Good Because God Says So? Or is Something Good Because it Makes the World a Better Place?
Of course I can hear you objecting by saying that the "True God" would NEVER tell you to do something that is wrong. The problem is that the perpetrator of the horror in Orlando would agree. Yes, ISIS would agree. Bin Laden would have agreed. ALL the terrorist fanatics would agree. That is the problem - if God says to do it, it becomes the RIGHT thing to do. It becomes the thing you MUST do. This argument is of no use.
This leaves basically the final feeble argument against where we are inevitably heading; the objection that the perpetrator did not believe in the one "True God." His God was a "false" God and the answer/solution is to believe in the "True God."
What is a "false" God? Answer: Basically a "false" God is what the other guy believes in. What you believe in is the "True God." And what your "True God" says to do is, of course, "good."
And, of course, the perpetrator believed he worshiped the one and only "True God." That was his opinion and your opinion is no more than that - an opinion. As much as you'd like to transform your opinion on the nature of the "True God" into a fact, you cannot do it anymore than the perpetrator could do it. At the very best all you can do is present the evidence for the one "True God" and test your conclusion.
Unfortunately even believers often admit that their God cannot be tested. The Book of Job reminds us "who are we to question God?" The evidence for which God is the "True God" is not evidence at all; instead belief in the "True God" is built upon faith - and faith is supposedly a gift from very the same True God whom we are trying to test and by no definition of the word can "faith" be considered reasonable evidence. Furthermore I have never heard a rational process for determining which faith is a "True Faith" and which faith is not. To claim that there are many contrary "True Faiths" is to accept that sometimes 2 = 3. Is a God that is Jesus the same as a God that is not Jesus?
Is your faith the "True Faith"? Is your Holy Book the "True Holy Book"? Is your God the one "True God." For all of these questions the perpetrator of this act of terror and all other religiously inspired acts of terror, would answer "yes". These fallible humans all elevate their fallible opinions to indisputable facts. Conversely, reasonable persons understand that the "facts" they believe are true are conditional and probable - not certain and taken on faith. Reasonable persons use evidence, logic, and science and accept that "facts" can be tested and subject to disproof.
Those who instead rely on faith for determining their absolute truths all uniformly and conveniently claim that reason, evidence and science cannot answer the deepest questions of human existence while implying that their personal opinions CAN answer them in an absolute manner. This certainty on the part of the faithful in knowing the Truth is seen as a virtue by them as opposed to the incredible danger and arrogance it actually presents. The scientific viewpoint is uncertain, conditional, testable and ultimately far more humble.
If you have managed to read this to this point, I will ask one final time: Is Something Good Because God Says So? Or is Something Good Because it Makes the World a Better Place?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)