They Lie -- Fake News on the Radio

Photo: Original 1st Edition of the hardcover, from the book's Wikipedia page

One of my (many) personal catch-phrases that I say (perhaps way) too often is: "It's not that I don't really trust anyone, or anything...It's just that I don't really trust anyone--or anything." Occasionally I've wondered if maybe I'm being a little too paranoid or cynical. But then this past week happened. The last 10 days or so have blissfully reinforced my outlook. I've been emboldened, and it seems to me that I'm right, sadly but surely, that everywhere around us are "Lies! Lies!" (Those quotes were for a friend of mine. Those two words are amongst his favorite catch-phrases.)

So here's one of the lies flung at me recently:

1. A radio station commercial that sounds like a newswoman reading a report, but which is actually a commercial for an organization that represents the National Republican Party.

If you're in RI, listen in to B101. (And, no, that's my better half's preferred station, not mine. I don't have a preferred station. I mostly listen to CDs and YouTube.) Anyway, here's what this woman says. In a newscaster's tone, she tells us that 80% believe that the news about Trump and Russia is overblown and that we should all just move on. (This is before we knew that Trump Jr. sold his soul to that devil.) She then says that 75% believe that it is wrong for a foreign leader to mock our president.

But...80% and 75% of whom, exactly? She doesn't say. Now if she'd said the 80% came from 8 out of 10 Republicans polled, I'd believe that. And 80 out of 100. Or 800 out of 1000. Or, hell, even 4 out of 5. That's the number of dentists from that commercial, right? (Watch out for numbers. They don't lie, but they can be manipulated. You ever notice that polls--during ballgames, for example, when they ask a seemingly random and irrelevant question and then tell you to text your answer--are always gauged by percentage and not whole numbers? Because they don't want you to know that only 5 people texted, or only 10 people were polled. So, yeah, 4 out of 5 and 8 out of 10 are 80%, but is that a relevant stat?

Photo: from qz.com, (which got it from the Associated Press), as is the quote in quotation marks:

"This meeting was the one in which Trump gave highly classified information to Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov and ambassador Sergei Kislyak."

Another thing: If that woman is saying that 80% of the country--across all political lines--think that we need to move on from this Trump-Russia thing (Notice I didn't use a slash there, like Trump/Russia, because those two really are connected.), then I assure you that's straight-up BS. Lots of Republicans are wary and leery of Trump & Russia, so I'll bet that more than 20% of them would say it needs more looking into. And I double-dog assure you that if even all of the country's Republicans believed the news is "fake news"--which is not the case--then you still need a very high percentage of Democrats and Independents to feel the same way in order to make the 80% stat accurate. Do you honestly think that about half of all Democrats and Independents think that way? That's a "Hell, no!" no matter what your opinion is on the Trump-Russia issue itself.

Why the ad that sounds like a newscast? LIES! That's for the people who believe what they hear (Mistake 1) and who don't think about what they read or hear (Mistake 2) and who then tell others what they hear and relay it as fact when it isn't (Mistake 3).

 Who made that ad? Well, who has the most to gain by it? C'mon, isn't that creepy? That's right out of Animal Farm, and it's scary. (And shame on you if you don't know the reference. Animal Farm and 1984 should be required reading right now.) That's shady people working for shady politicians who are shadily using the media (in this case, the radio) to spread falsity and lies to benefit themselves and to give themselves more power. That should frighten and anger you, and if it doesn't, well, that's what they're counting on.

And a fake newscaster saying fake stats like it's news? Yeah--that's literally "fake news," people. And from the very people who swear it's being used against them. These people are slimy. I need to take a shower just having to think about these people. But think I do, and you should, too.

Please let me know if you've heard this ad, or something like it. Share your story.

Next time on "They Lie": furniture mailings that push "interest-free monthly payment options" more than their furniture, and a mortgage company insisting they're holding a really low interest payment percentage for me that's actually higher than the one I already have.

Get Out -- A Movie Review, Part 2

Note: This is Part 2 of the movie review for Get Out. Yesterday's Part 1 is here.

Photo: from the movie's Wikipedia page. This is what white people like me, whatever that means, thought racists were when I saw this movie in 1988. Turns out, it's a lot more complicated than that. By the way, this movie has more relevance now than it should, so see it if you haven't. And don't expect factual accuracy. It's a depiction, a cinematic dramatization in broad strokes. It's not a documentary.

Yet Get Out says that the awareness of the...nervousness, or political-correctness, or even the awareness of the awareness of a biracial couple...is in fact part of the problem. Which of course it is. Maybe someday we'll live in a country where a biracial couple simply doesn't raise any eyebrows, anywhere, in any kind of person, pro or con, friend or foe. That isn't going to happen soon, since we've taken two steps back in this country, but we'll see.

But you can see maybe why this was such a ballsy movie to make. Especially today. Now, cynics that we usually are, we'd expect this movie to maybe--or maybe not--do okay its first weekend, maybe for interest or shock value, and then disappear once blockbusters like Kong and Logan are released at the same time. 

But I'm happy, and a little surprised, to say that it hasn't happened. It's hanging in there, in third place, right with those films. It's grossed over $100 million--on a budget barely over $4 million. Considering that, it's so far been more of a financial hit than Kong: Skull Island or Logan. That's saying something.

And it should be. It is (uncomfortably) funny--but it won't be for those who don't think biracial couples, or the reaction they can elicit from others, is funny. Frankly, if you're racist, you're not going to like this film. But I suspect racists know that, and are staying far away. I've seen shockingly scant mention of it from them in the news and on the internet, but then I'm not an internet crawler. Also, it's a good horror flick, once you get by the horror premise, which you're not really supposed to take seriously to begin with. There is actual unease and tension and suspense. Strangely so, for me, and it wasn't scary, exactly, for me, like other horror films have been. Like, The Exorcist, or The Silence of the Lambs.

So it's a ballsy film, and it's a good film, and it's doing really well, which means it's hit a nerve somewhere, and found a niche. You can expect to see more films like this now, perhaps not as good.

I will leave you with some positive reviews of the movie, which are written more succinctly than this one. They're all taken from the movie's Wikipedia page, which you can click on here.

Richard Roeper gave the film 3.5/4 stars, saying, "[T]he real star of the film is writer-director Jordan Peele, who has created a work that addresses the myriad levels of racism, pays homage to some great horror films, carves out its own creative path, has a distinctive visual style — and is flat-out funny as well." Keith Phipps of Uproxx praised the cast and Peele's direction, noting: "That he brings the technical skill of a practiced horror master is more of a surprise. The final thrill of Get Out — beyond the slow-building sense of danger, the unsettling atmosphere, and the twisty revelation of what’s really going on — is that Peele’s just getting started." Mike Rougeau of IGN gave the film 9/10, and wrote: Get Out's whole journey, through every tense conversation, A-plus punchline and shocking act of violence, feels totally earned. And the conclusion is worth each uncomfortable chuckle and moment of doubt." Peter Travers of Rolling Stone rated Get Out a 3.5/4, and called it: "[A] jolt-a-minute horrorshow laced with racial tension and stinging satirical wit." Scott Mendelson of Forbes praised how the film captures the current zeitgeist called it a "modern American horror classic".

So if this sounds good, or if you like horror/comedies, go see it.

Get Out -- A Movie Review

Photo: from the movie's Wikipedia website


Get Out was a ballsy movie to make, considering our present climes. It's a horror movie with a good horror movie ending, but this is no horror movie. It's also a comedy with a message about racism that doesn't hit you over the head, or preach at you. This makes it even more effective. This movie tries to do for racism what Rosemary's Baby and Stepford Wives did for sexism, and it largely succeeds because Jordan Peele, Get Out's producer/director, was aware of those two movies. There's a bit of Kubrick's (and not King's) The Shining in there at the end, too, but luckily that guy doesn't end up like Scatman Crothers did.

I saw this with my better half, and we're both white. (I'm as boring, suburban white as Wonder Bread, but not as fluffy or as wholesome.) We sat next to a bi-racial couple, one white and one black, which is pretty rare for my suburban-hell neck of the woods. (See the movie juxtaposition I made there?) Normally this would not be relevant, but, unfortunately, for this review, and for this movie, it is. Just a sign o' the times.

A quick review of the movie: After a quick prologue of a young black man getting kidnapped, another young black man (the main character) and his pretty white girlfriend are off to a rural home to introduce him to her family. She hasn't told them he's black, by the way, which you know is not going to turn out well.

So the racial theme comes and it's played for laughs. This is ingenious, and if you think Peele is only playing it for laughs, then you don't know what kind of serious cultural change laughs can do. Like, All in the Family and Richard Pryor changed some views in the 70s and 80s. The point works because it's played funny. And in the funny, we feel the tension and disquiet, and realize it's not funny. This is a good movie for a collegiate class about film, comedy and horror. I'm going to let the following critic of The Guardian tell it, because I'm just fumbling here:

Lanre Bakare of The Guardian commented on this, saying, "The villains here aren't southern rednecks or neo-Nazi skinheads, or the so-called 'alt-right'. They're middle-class white liberals. The kind of people who read this website. The kind of people who shop at Trader Joe's, donate to the ACLU and would have voted for Obama a third time if they could. Good people. Nice people. Your parents, probably. The thing Get Out does so well – and the thing that will rankle with some viewers – is to show how, however unintentionally, these same people can make life so hard and uncomfortable for black people. It exposes a liberal ignorance and hubris that has been allowed to fester. It's an attitude, an arrogance which in the film leads to a horrific final solution, but in reality leads to a complacency that is just as dangerous."

In other words, the target audience was, in some ways, people like me, who like to think they're racially aware, and who like to think they're helping the cause, in whatever way they can. Now, I'm not liberal like this passage, thank God, but I do donate to the ACLU and I would've voted for Obama again. I don't shop at Trader Joe's. (In fact, I don't do the food shopping at all, because I'd buy just cereal, bananas, apples, blueberries, and green olives.) But it's also true that I don't know how to relate to someone who's a victim of racism. For example, I realized in my last movie review that I didn't even see why Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness was racist itself (an irony, since it effectively shows how racism is a [see title]) until I read Chinua Achebe's speech about it. (Achebe was kinda right, kinda not, but more right than not. And, by the way, who am I to speak about racism?)

This is the point of the movie, which is hidden in trappings of comedy and horror. I can speak of racism only in the sense that I've seen it; I've written and spoken against it; I don't know what the hell it's all about; I don't know why so many people deny it exists; I don't get why people don't understand why African-Americans and other minorities are angry; I don't get why Samuel L. Jackson says Daniel Kaluuya, the main actor, isn't "black enough," and I don't get why I don't get that, because I get what such people think it means; and I also realize that I don't know enough about it to criticize Samuel L. Jackson, which I also realize isn't a smart thing to do to begin with, about anything at all, because he's scary. I used to think that racists only lived in the South, in a Mississippi Burning kind of way, but now I see that it's everywhere, including in the recent court decision about how Texas unconstitutionally re-districted itself to disillusion minority voters; about how voting ID laws in many states--including those as far north as PA and North Carolina--were purposely passed by Republicans to make it harder for the poor (reads: Democrat) to vote. I see that racism exists, or used to, in zoning laws, for God's sake, around here.

And in truth, Get Out is probably a more realistic depiction of racism than Mississippi Burning ever was. Maybe. Who am I to say?

This movie review of Get Out concludes tomorrow...

All (as of 10/16) of Trump's Bullying and Biased Quotes in One Place and with Links 2

Photo: from a Wall Street Journal article about what a "sane Donald Trump" would be like. But, it says, when it comes to Trump ignoring a tally on November 8th that says he lost, "...Does he know he's playing with fire? No. Because he's a nut."

Just like the title says. You can find #1 through #5 at my last blog entry--just click here.

Again, the following quotes come from a recent Washington Post article that outlines its closing statement about the Presidency. Well, as of 10/16, anyway. Each point has its own link back to the article and the appropriate YouTube video, for your reading and viewing convenience. To finish up:

6. "Written by a nice reporter. Now the poor guy. You ought to see this guy." November 24, 2015.

This is Trump mocking and mimicking a physically disabled New York Times reporter. You have to see this to fully appreciate how horrible it was. Click on this link to go to the article, then scroll down to #6 to see the video.

I never thought I would see a candidate for President of the United States mimicking a handicapped person. I'm talking arms flailing, body twisting, stuttering--everything. Again, this is bullying, plain and simple. And it's behavior that, frankly, a President should not have. We're above this, aren't we? By the way, this reporter's crime? He wrote an article negative about Trump. Is this what a grown man does in response to such a thing, mimic and mock another man's physical disability? A teacher wouldn't tolerate this behavior in a classroom, but we'd tolerate this behavior in the President?

This is also unforgivable. We do not mock and mimic those less fortunate than ourselves. And we learn to control our adolescent behavior, especially when we're running for President and speaking to the world. If he can't do that in a press conference for his own campaign, how is he going to be appropriate during a meeting with a leader from the Middle East, or from Russia, that's not going well?

7. "Putin's running his country and at least he's a leader." December 18, 2015.

Putin is also guilty of more civil rights violations than any other Russian leader in recent memory. His critics have a bad habit of mysteriously and permanently disappearing. He is undoubtedly behind the hacking of the Democratic (and probably Republican) Party's computers--and Trump openly suggested that he hack into them again. I can't recall the last time I heard an American politician openly asking a foreign (and possibly antagonistic) leader for aid in bringing down his political opponent--to the point that such an attack would be espionage and a major attack on our government.

This is careless beyond belief. And his cozying up to Putin is gut-churning and worrisome. If Trump is as much of a puppet to Putin as he is to his two (thuggish) sons and to Steve Bannon, then there's something very, very wrong. Even as a candidate, an alliance with Putin is treason, as Trump is right now privy to our nation's secrets and plans. Think about that last sentence for a moment.

8. "I'm going to open up our libel laws." February 26, 2016. AND "This judge is of Mexican heritage. I'm building a wall." June 3, 2016

Besides the obvious racism and bigotry (and isolationism, always a bad thing) of the second statement, what we have here is a classic case of Trump not knowing what he's saying. He would fail a middle school history class. The fact is, he can't, even as President, change any laws or build any walls--especially one that would cost billions and strain an already strained relationship with a neighboring country. Now, understand, he doesn't even mean these things. But even if he did, he has to get both of those policies through Congress, and that's not going to happen. The point is, he doesn't know that. He thinks the Presidency is a tyranny, and he'd be the King. But our democracy is purposely designed so that's not the case. No one person can declare War, or spend billions of federal dollars, or suddenly and drastically change judiciary laws. Congress does the first thing, and the Supreme Court does the last. And there's 9 judges there, and he only gets to place one right now.

Many of his supporters don't know this. Many racist people will vote for Trump because of this wall that he cannot possibly ever put up, and they're as ignorant of that as they are of anything racial.

But we're not. America needs to show it's not racist, and that it's not ignorant of how its own government works. We need to show that a politician cannot use fear, hatred and racism (the three always go together) to win the Presidency.

9. "Look at my African-American over here." June 3, 2016. See above. Need I say more?

10. "I alone can fix it." July 21, 2016.

This is how Fascism can come to America. I used to wonder how a country like Germany, a country that had the most brilliant universities, scientists, philosophers and writers of its time, all in one place, could ignore its intelligence and put someone like Hitler in power.

Now I know. Now I get it. We're one step away from doing that ourselves. I just said that. Out loud.

But so has The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today, and even Dubya Bush, for God's sake. (This is the first and last time we'll agree on anything.) Millions, thank God, have spoken out.

But this is how it's done. An egomaniac, a hater, a bully, a tyrant, a Democratic old-lady stage-stalker convinces enough like-minded folks to put him in power and then he does all those crazy things. He says that he is the only one who can fix everything. Him. That's it. The only one. The demi-god. The God-in-his-own-mind. This is what Hitler did. He took a very angry nation, simmering in rage about its defeat in World War One, and he told it that he alone can make everything right again. He gave them someone to fear and hate (Jews) like Trump has (Mexicans and women). Like other tyrants, Trump said that everyone who disagreed with him (political figures, newspapers, television reporters, and even parents of fallen soldiers) were in secret conspiracy against him. And that's why there's no proof, because they're all in secret conspiracy. (Many of his supporters have to believe in secret conspiracies.) According to the latest poll, 40% of the country is like this. (This is scary in of itself.) He riles them all up, appeals to their base emotions and then he bullies everyone else into submission. Those who don't submit--like his political opponents--he threatens to throw in jail, or he threatens violence against them. Sound familiar? Trump has done both against Clinton. That's what other countries do, not us. That's what America has always prided itself in--we don't act like the tyrants of other countries, especially after Election Day. This is the sole reason Ford pardoned Nixon. If elected, with all that power, is it so unreasonable to suggest that Trump would go one small step further and actually do those things he's threatened? His supporters, of course, want this. They want a tyrant.

America and Britain let Hitler do this, even though they knew the danger. I don't see powerful countries sitting by this time and watching that happen. Britain has already banned Trump, and NATO and the United Nations have already passed policies in advance of our election--just in case.

The rest of the world is looking on in horror. Trump would shrug that off, and say that the rest of the world doesn't matter. But it does. Look at history. Look at what happened to countries that elected a tyrant and then isolated itself. Didn't turn out well, either for that country or for the world in general.

I'm not normally like this, especially politically. (I'm not normally that political in general.) I don't normally think the sky is falling. I don't live my life in fear.

But it has come to that. Again, I'm not the only one saying so. And I'm not some moralist, a guy who judges everybody, or someone who thinks you have to be a saint to be President. I voted for Bill Clinton, after all, though I wouldn't want any daughter of mine to date someone like him. But Clinton, for all of his (many) faults [the largest of which was to ignore the Cole attack, by the way], was not a world-wide danger. Countries didn't ban him. He wasn't racist, or bigoted, or a bully. I didn't worry that he knew where our nukes were because I didn't think he'd want to use them. Trump, for Heaven's sake, would use them on Mexico, or perhaps on the next national NOW meeting. (I'm kind of exaggerating there--I hope.)

And that's the problem. I'm not sure I'm kidding. Seriously. The comparisons are too obvious and real to ignore. The examples are too frequent and too crystal clear. He is that much of a hater, a bigot, a racist and a tyrant. The U.S. and the world can probably survive him, but are we totally sure? Do we want to put the world at risk to find out?

USA Today Tells Readers Not to Vote for Trump

For the first time in its history, USA Today is taking sides on a presidential debate, and is telling its readers not to vote for somebody. It's not, exactly, suggesting that its readers vote for Clinton, though it does say that it supports that decision in order to keep Trump out of office.

But don't take my word for it. Read it for yourself here.

Photo below: © Jessica Kourkounis/Getty Images Donald Trump speaks at a campaign event on Oct. 1 in Manheim, Pa.© J

,

USA TODAY's Editorial Board: Trump is 'unfit for the presidency'

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.

This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.

From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.

Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts. He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.

We’ve been highly critical of the GOP nominee in a number of previous editorials. With early voting already underway in several states and polls showing a close race, now is the time to spell out, in one place, the reasons Trump should not be president:

He is erratic. Trump has been on so many sides of so many issues that attempting to assess his policy positions is like shooting at a moving target. A list prepared by NBC details 124 shifts by Trump on 20 major issues since shortly before he entered the race. He simply spouts slogans and outcomes (he’d replace Obamacare with “something terrific”) without any credible explanations of how he’d achieve them.

He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief. Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements typically range from uninformed to incoherent. It’s not just Democrats who say this. Scores of Republican national security leaders have signed an extraordinary open letter calling Trump’s foreign policy vision “wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle.” In a Wall Street Journal column this month, Robert Gates, the highly respected former Defense secretary who served presidents of both parties over a half-century, described Trump as “beyond repair.”

He traffics in prejudice. From the very beginning, Trump has built his campaign on appeals to bigotry and xenophobia, whipping up resentment against Mexicans, Muslims and migrants. His proposals for mass deportations and religious tests are unworkable and contrary to America’s ideals.

Trump has stirred racist sentiments in ways that can’t be erased by his belated and clumsy outreach to African Americans. His attacks on an Indiana-born federal judge of Mexican heritage fit “the textbook definition of a racist comment,” according to House Speaker Paul Ryan, the highest-ranking elected official in the Republican Party. And for five years, Trump fanned the absurd “birther” movement that falsely questioned the legitimacy of the nation’s first black president.

His business career is checkered. Trump has built his candidacy on his achievements as a real estate developer and entrepreneur. It’s a shaky scaffold, starting with a 1973 Justice Department suit against Trump and his father for systematically discriminating against blacks in housing rentals. (The Trumps fought the suit but later settled on terms that were viewed as a government victory.) Trump’s companies have had some spectacular financial successes, but this track record is marred by six bankruptcy filings, apparent misuse of the family’s charitable foundation, and allegations by Trump University customers of fraud. A series of investigative articles published by the USA TODAY Network found that Trump has been involved in thousands of lawsuits over the past three decades, including at least 60 that involved small businesses and contract employees who said they were stiffed. So much for being a champion of the little guy.

He isn’t leveling with the American people. Is Trump as rich as he says? No one knows, in part because, alone among major party presidential candidates for the past four decades, he refuses to release his tax returns. Nor do we know whether he has paid his fair share of taxes, or the extent of his foreign financial entanglements.

He speaks recklessly. In the days after the Republican convention, Trump invited Russian hackers to interfere with an American election by releasing Hillary Clinton’s emails, and he raised the prospect of “Second Amendment people” preventing the Democratic nominee from appointing liberal justices. It’s hard to imagine two more irresponsible statements from one presidential candidate.

He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics.

He’s a serial liar. Although polls show that Clinton is considered less honest and trustworthy than Trump, it’s not even a close contest. Trump is in a league of his own when it comes to the quality and quantity of his misstatements. When confronted with a falsehood, such as his assertion that he was always against the Iraq War, Trump’s reaction is to use the Big Lie technique of repeating it so often that people begin to believe it.

We are not unmindful of the issues that Trump’s campaign has exploited: the disappearance of working-class jobs; excessive political correctness; the direction of the Supreme Court; urban unrest and street violence; the rise of the Islamic State terrorist group; gridlock in Washington and the influence of moneyed interests. All are legitimate sources of concern.

Nor does this editorial represent unqualified support for Hillary Clinton, who has her own flaws (though hers are far less likely to threaten national security or lead to a constitutional crisis). The Editorial Board does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement.

Some of us look at her command of the issues, resilience and long record of public service — as first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of State — and believe she’d serve the nation ably as its president.

Other board members have serious reservations about Clinton’s sense of entitlement, her lack of candor and her extreme carelessness in handling classified information.

Where does that leave us? Our bottom-line advice for voters is this: Stay true to your convictions. That might mean a vote for Clinton, the most plausible alternative to keep Trump out of the White House. Or it might mean a third-party candidate. Or a write-in. Or a focus on down-ballot candidates who will serve the nation honestly, try to heal its divisions, and work to solve its problems.

Whatever you do, however, resist the siren song of a dangerous demagogue. By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump.

Reasons Not to Vote for Donald Trump

Photo, from Trump's Wikipedia page, after someone asked him how many minorities he liked.

Just kidding. But the photo is from his Wikipedia page. Click on the link; it's informative.

This is the first in a series of blogs about [see title]. Each will list reasons (in no particular order) not to vote for Trump, with maybe a sentence or two for each. I consider this a public service, since I believe, like never before, that this particular candidate is an actual national and worldwide disaster waiting to happen, and is therefore a serious danger to America and to the world at large. I do mean that seriously. (Full disclosure: I'm a registered Independent, but have always voted Democrat. I was eligible to vote for the first time for Clinton's first term.)

All of these points occurred before December 11, 2015.

Can you believe that? There's been so much more to go over since then! This blog's bulleted points all come from the this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37zvOZ17eSE 

You should check it out. Open it in a separate tab or window, if you'd like to read this and refer to that. [Warning: YouTube videos often have inappropriate comments. Read those at your own risk--but feel free not to read them at all. The videos I link here may have such inappropriate comments. Consider this my disclaimer of such comments.]

1. He has clear and obvious bias towards foreigners. In this case, Mexicans: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best . . . They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists." (Seconds 1-31 of the video.)

NBC and Univision both severed their business relationship with Trump and his Miss Universe Organization, which put together his televised beauty pageants.

For those who think he's a great businessman, remember that. (More on his businesses in a later blog.)

2. He has equally-bigoted and biased staff, one of whom says to an American citizen: "It's not about you . . . Get out of my country." (32-116)

3. He mocks all sorts of people. This time, a reporter with a disability. (117-246)

4. Again, he has clear and obvious bias towards foreigners. This time, Muslims: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States . . . These are people only believe in Jihad. They don't want our system . . . They have no respect for human life . . . " (247-345)

5. He attacks anyone who disagrees with him, even war heroes in his own party. In this case, John McCain. [Disclosure: I voted against McCain in Obama's first term, but I don't dislike McCain personally. I liked him when he told his own supporters that Obama was not a terrorist, though it would have been in his best interest to fan those flames. Trump would've. And, yes, McCain actually is a war hero.] "He's not a war hero . . . He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people that [sic] weren't captured . . ."

P.S.--Rick Perry, who once had the most disliked video on all of YouTube (it was pulled when it reached one million "dislikes") when he published an ad blasting "gays," forcefully denounced Trump's statements. (The video linked here is the same video, but with comments allowed. Notice the "dislikes" on this one.) When you're being called to the carpet by Rick Perry, you have seriously hit rock bottom.

6. He blames the press for things he says, even when he is quoted verbatim.

Photo: Trump holding babies. The biggest baby is the one in the middle.

7. He has clear and obvious bias towards women. As Megyn Kelly points out, he has called women he doesn't like (i.e. Rosie O'Donnell) "fat pigs," "dogs," "slobs," and "disgusting animals."

8. He mocks all sorts of people. In this case, a woman who disagrees with him. Besides questioning her ability to do her job during his interview with her, he, of course, said about her that "she had blood coming out of her eyes, out of her whatever."

9. Like an immature child who lacks self-discipline, he uses Twitter as his soapbox, and, when referring to Kelly, said on it that "we can gut her."

10. As in the above example, he seems to advocate violence towards people he dislikes. (More later.)

11. Like all narcissists, he talks almost completely about himself, and about those who are against him. Where are the issues?

12. When Rand Paul hits a home run against you, like he does starting at 8:33 in the clip, you're in trouble. He correctly pointed out Trump's lack of verbal self-control, his lack of leadership qualities, and his overall immature behavior. Take a look.

More to come . . .  

The Obama Care Website: A Plea

Photo: President Bush and President-Elect Obama meet in the Oval Office on November 10, 2008.  From Obama's Wikipedia page.

This isn't exactly a political rant, so stay with me if you felt like leaving because of that.  It's more of a plea, I guess.

There are so many Republicans slamming Obama for the recent website problems, and for what some are perceiving as his sleight-of-hand about being able to keep current policies.  (I don't know about that.  Though both parties have their hands in the health care industry's pockets, which one do you think counts more on money from it?  I'll provide a hint: It's the party that's not trying to change it.)  Some Democrats seem to think that his ship is sinking.

It's not--though it has taken a torpedo hit.

The bottom line here is that there's a website that's not working right.

There's an insurance industry that said one thing to Obama and then did another.

Or, in fairness, perhaps the President himself said one thing to the insurance industry, then did the other.

My guess is that it's both.  And surely the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing here.

But that's all.  It's surely a mess.  It looks bad.  It's Obama's biggest misstep so far.  And what was he thinking when he hired a Canadian internet company to do an American website?  This is bad enough, in terms of our economy--and even worse when you consider that Canada itself fired this internet company when it flubbed work for Canada.

Maybe Obama didn't make that decision himself, but the buck stops with him, and he'll say the same himself.

But let's take a step back.

Did we actually think that overhauling the American healthcare industry would be easy?  Is a radical change ever simple?  And what's wrong with trying to change American socio-economic parity as we know it?  Wouldn't you think there'd be a few mistakes along the way?

This is ground-level health care and social upheaval, and we thought a mouse click would make it all perfect?  That there wouldn't be mistakes, "fumbles," and some honest errors and humane shortsightedness?

So the site doesn't work.

It'll get fixed.

It's the first huge step for equity in health care in this country, something that hopefully narrows the gap between the rich and the poor.  A simple website won't make it all happen by itself, but it's a step in the right direction.

And it'll get better.

Let's all stop rattling our sabres against those who try to make drastic change for the better good and who make a few mistakes while doing so.  Are we not to have groundbreaking change unless it's quick and easy and perfect?  Drastic change is never easy.  And no one thing--health care or anything else--is going to be perfect for everyone, all at the same time.

Yes, Obama dropped the ball here.  But he cared enough to try to make the play to begin with.  He'll pick it up again.  He'll learn from his mistakes.  My guess is he doesn't like to be wrong, at all.  He knows that this will be one of the biggest things he'll be remembered for--good or bad.

And here's one more sports metaphor for you: an infielder who gets to more grounders (and who therefore has more range) will make more errors than will an infielder who never gets to the ball to begin with.  This second infielder will have a misleadingly and superficially better fielding percentage--he'll make fewer errors--because he won't attempt a great play if he thinks there's a chance he'll make an error.

Those who try to make great plays will make more mistakes than those who don't.

Possibly Obama's reach has exceeded his grasp here.  But he attempted to make the play that nobody else could--or would, or wanted to--and then he bobbled it.  And then he dropped it.

But he tried to make the play.

Let's applaud that.  And let's have some patience as he makes the play without a drop next time.  Or would we rather have a nation of leaders who don't try to ever again make a great and sweeping change for fear of such an impatient and unforgiving public and political backlash?

He was at least brave enough to chance failure.

And then he failed.

But that's temporary.

Let's understand that most politicians would never have attempted such legislation and change to begin with, specifically because of the very real probability of failure, and of the fear of the political finger-pointing afterward.

Nobody would know the stakes better than the first black President in American history.  Aware of the severe ramifications, he tried anyway.

Let's be proud of those who selflessly take chances for the better good.

And let's help them fix their mistakes rather than blaming them for their very humane imperfections.

Unless we have a better idea to create beneficial social change for the good of those less fortunate than ourselves--and I didn't see anybody else trying anything lately--let's help those who do, and not just point our fingers at them.

P.S.--According to his website, the health insurance marketplace is once again open.  Try it now, if you need to.  Give it a chance, and be thankful, as I always am, when someone tries to help.  Because, correct me if I'm wrong, but people don't often go out of their way to help change people's lives, do they? 

Separation of Church and State, and Women-Haters, Part 2

Photo: Todd Akin's official 109th Congress photo, from his Wikipedia page.


[This entry is the second half of the most recent one, below, posted a few days ago.  Look below, or click here.]

So, a few things:

According to his Wikipedia page, Akin graduated from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, a very good and prestigious school.  Bush graduated from Yale, but whatever.  Awhile after that, he worked for IBM selling supercomputers, which doesn't sound like something a dummy can do, either.  Then he got a Masters of Divinity Degree from Covenant Theological Seminary, in 1984.  He entered the political arena by running unopposed for a seat.  He then won some close races, but then he won by large margins--until this year.  It jumps out at me that he voted against public funding support for school nurses and school breakfasts and lunches.  In a 2008 speech on the House floor, Akin called abortion providers "terrorists" and alleged that it was "common practice" for abortion providers to perform abortions on women who were not actually pregnant.

So what are we to make of this?  An intelligent guy--or a college-educated one, which Bush proved isn't the same thing--saying the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard (and with my job, that's saying something) about a controversial topic, during his own campaign, with a conclusion that this man clearly seriously believed, based on no facts at all (and one wonders who those "doctors" were), probably gleaned from something he'd heard someone say once...and yet the most bothersome things to me in all this is his mention of the phrase "legitimate rape," and the fact that he thinks abortionists are performing abortions on women who are not pregnant.

First, then, is the uncomfortable feeling that this man has a pretty good idea of what he thinks "legitimate" and, therefore, "illegitimate" rapes are.  He never elaborated, but it must be that he thinks a large proportion of rape victims are simply lying about the rape.  Or, maybe more disturbingly, he subscribes to the notion of blaming the victim, that perhaps some rape victims wear skirts that are too short, or that they are promiscuous, and are therefore rape victims after the fact.  Who knows?  But he clearly, in his own mind, is making a distinction here, in whatever land he lives in, and he's not giving the rest of us the bridge to get there.

Or is he?

Maybe this is Conservative Republicanland, where men are very fearful of women, and therefore hold a certain resentment towards them.  This reminds me a bit of the illogical thoughts and fears people had about African-Americans, and it's really not too far of a stretch to say that such men held both women and African-Americans in disdain back in the day.  Do they still, in different ways?

Are their women thought of as such foreign animals as African-Americans were?  Remember when every black man was thought to be raging for white men's white women?  When black men were prone liars, and prone to violence?  When they were all so simple-minded?

How about Jews?  Remember when they were thought to be able to bewitch people?  That they killed Christ?  That they ruled all the monetary establishments in the world?  That they controlled the world's banks?  That they were money-driven liars and chisellers?  (I know a couple of Jewish people who can't balance their own checkbooks.)

Now we have women who somehow have the power to stop the biological process after being raped.  (Notice that the rapists themselves are ignored in such conversations.  They would be, of course, men.)  We have women who will, apparently, create "illegitimate" rape stories, perhaps after realizing they didn't want to have sex with that man after all.  Maybe they're thought to be drunken, promiscuous louts who don't want to be thought of that way?  Maybe they're thought to be dressed for it, flirting for it, and therefore asking for it?  We have women who will, for some reason, consent to an abortion without ever being pregnant to begin with.

This is foreign animal thinking here.  This man clearly thinks that women don't have anything in common with men, or with him specifically.  He can't think of them as human, and still think and speak of them like this.  After all, one does not get asked a question about rape, and about abortion laws that do not blink at rape or incest, and then suddenly spit out this bad boy of a statement.  In fact, people who know this guy can't possibly be surprised by his answer here.  One cannot be a reasonably intelligent, intellectually steadfast, verbally proficient person--and then suddenly spout out this bad boy.  (One cannot imagine Lincoln, Obama or even Clinton saying this.)  He's had to have said tons of things like this before--such as the wild animal abortionists performing abortions on women who are not pregnant statement above.  I don't know what in the world he's thinking, but I'll bet that he thinks he knows what he's thinking.

And I'll bet he's not the only one thinking it.  How can he be?  Even Mitt Romney thought he was talking to an entire room of supporters (without the one traitor) when he let loose his 47% bad boy.  He clearly thought he was preaching to the choir there--and, for the most part, he was.  I have a feeling Akin thought the same, that he was speaking to a closed room of supporters rather than to an open mike and a camera.  His real crime to his party wasn't in what he said--it's that, like Romney, he was being too honest.  Really saying what he felt.  And feeling that he had a large audience who'd agree with him.  Why would he think he had an agreeing audience unless it was, at least moderately, the case?  Go back up to the politically-confused Mr. Broun, the congressman who thought he had a captive, agreeing audience that would cheer him (as many of them did) when he said that the Bible controlled his every political decision.  You don't think he thinks he's preaching to the choir there?

Romney really felt that 47% of the country--ironically in his mind, all of them Obama voters--were leeches of the government, couch potatoes and pot smokers and baby producers who don't try to find work, all of them lazy.  How many white men does he see in that picture?  I think, when he envisions that 47%, that they're all minorities, and women, and teens (or black teen women).  And so I also think Akin envisions women in this way.  They're rape victims.  They're promiscuous women who lie about being raped.  They're such loathsome creatures that they would allow an abortion without even being pregnant.  But, as disdainfully as he views them, they're somehow so powerful that they can shut down the entire creation process (quite like God, in fact) if they want to, after they've been raped.  This is the same man who inserted unwanted legislation into a bill that lawmakers were trying to pass to publicly support school nurses [i.e.--women].  After Akin insisted that the bill contain a provision that such nurses could not speak of, or provide, birth control to the students, none of the Missouri lawmakers wanted to pass it.

This last bit deserves recognition.  Nurses (women) can't speak of condoms, or provide information about other birth control.  Women cannot have abortions under any circumstance, including rape and incest.  In other words, they also cannot provide their own birth control.  I'll repeat that: birth control.  Simply stated, he does not want women to control birth.  More important than rape, or incest, or their own health is the fact that he does not want them to control birth.  In short, he does not want them to be God.  That is, apparently, for he, and other men, to do.  It's all about who has the power to control birth.  I smell fear there, and perhaps a bit of a Freudian issue.  (I would love to interview his wife and/or mother.)

Overall, then, I think he thought he was speaking to the choir, and was astonished to find that he wasn't.  (Read his Wikipedia page to learn of quite a few instances in which he thought he was verbally holding forth, only to apologize and backtrack after he realized he was being hissed at.  And these are just times, mentioned here, in a large public forum.  I wonder what he has said to his wife or daughters over dinner over the years.)  Do I think there's large contingent of southern and midwestern white Christian conservative males who still fear women, and minorities, and homosexuals, and anyone who's not a white Christian conservative male?

Yes.  Yes, I do.  We've seen nine of them lately, old white men yahoos who are (or, rather, after Tuesday, were) shockingly in positions of power to put forth this rather violently hateful agenda.  (And shame on the people who voted them in and gave them that power.  Akin has been in power for over ten years.)  And since the Old Testament largely feared the same groups of people, and was vehemently against them, (For example, when Adam is rebuked about eating the fruit, God chastises him first for listening to the woman, and only secondly for disobeying Him and eating the fruit.  As Satan and the snake are still seen as tempters, so too, apparently, are women still seen as the temptresses, and therefore something to be feared and loathed.) then the two have become as one.

How stringent is this mental framework in that segment of the population?  Well, I'll ask you: When someone asks you for your opinion about abortion, do you immediately speak of women who've lied about rape?  Do you think of how women can shut down the entire process of giving birth?  If you're fixated on males controlling birth, and not the dastardly abortionists or women (notice how he sort of grouped those together in that other quoted comment) then, yes, I guess you do.  And he wasn't the only one lately, including almost-Vice-President Paul Ryan, and seven others.  Nine men, all of them (former) important politicians, senators, congressmen and policymakers, all of them with a misunderstanding of the Separation of Church and State, all of them who will, as Mr. Broun did, flat out admit that the Bible controls their every political decision, all of whom think that the Bible "teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society."  If the Bible--mostly the Old Testament--is viciously and violently against women, homosexuals, immigrants and minorities (those who were not of the same Jewish tribe as was the author of a particular passage that spoke against these things), then why wouldn't these guys be?  And, therefore, why wouldn't they pass legislation that controls the rights of these groups of people, these Others, who they loathe and fear?  (Which is why the Separation of Church and State is so important.)

I'll cover one of those eight other denizens of disinformation next:

As written by Jonathan Weisman of The New York Times: The delicate issue of pregnancies resulting from rape rattled another campaign for the Senate when Indiana's Republican Senate nominee, Richard Mourdock, said a life conceived by rape "is something that God intended to happen."

Separation of Church and State, and Women-Haters

Photo: Todd Akin's official 109th Congress photo, from his Wikipedia page.

And so this begins a long series of blog entries chronicling the recent election.  There's a lot I want to go over here, including, in no order, why Obama won, why Romney didn't, the election results, the nine or so boneheaded rich old white men who said incredibly stupid and insensitive things about rape, and why someone would marry and/or vote for such people.  I do not, and I will not, mean to offend; if I do, please feel free to send me a (polite) comment and let me know.

Having said that, I have to start with the boneheaded rich old white men who said incredibly stupid and insensitive things about rape.  But before I do, let me offer you a recent quote from a congressman, who said the following, and much more, at a banquet at a church:

U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, Georgia Republican (someone needs to tell me whether this guy was able to keep his job after the firestorm a few days ago):

The words below were taken from a video clip, distributed by the Bridge Project, which itself was taken from a longer version recorded on Sept. 27 during the 2012 Sportsman's Banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Ga. Here's a transcript of the Bridge Project's snippet:

"God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says.

"And what I've come to learn is that it's the manufacturer's handbook, is what I call it. It teaches us how to run our lives individually, how to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society. And that's the reason as your congressman I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I'll continue to do that."

Now there's, of course, a lot wrong here, but what struck me the most was the last part, the part where he explicitly says that the Bible dictates how he votes in D.C., and how "it teaches us how to run all of public policy."  This part hit me hard because it is at the core of what is causing these guys to say such things about rape, about science, about their voting decisions, and about almost everything: they take it all from the Bible--or, at least, they say that they do.  (Though the Bible has a lot of rape in it, it does not say, as a politician recently did, that rape is just another form of procreation.)

The Republican Right, forever represented by George W. Bush, does indeed follow the Bible in every decision they make, in D.C. and at home.  While what they do at home is their own business (a concept they fail to realize, ironically, themselves), what they do in D.C. is not just their own business.  That's ours, too.  We need to know what makes these guys think and vote as they do, because they, more so than the President, shape America's social climate.  And these guys, apparently, have never heard of the Separation of Church and State.  If they had, Bush could not have started his Faith-Based Initiatives in his first five minutes in office.  And Mr. Broun certainly wouldn't admit in public (with an honesty rivaled only by Romney's now-infamous 47% speech) that he bases all of his decisions as a congressman and lawmaker solely on the Bible--which is, of course, an unconstitutional thing to do.  Their stance is simple: They place the Bible before the Constitution.  But in American politics, you can't do that.  You can, though, if you're already in office, and no one holds your hand to the fire when you screw up.  Bush and Broun should have been ousted from office immediately, the second they obviously held their Bibles higher than their Constitution.  We, the American people, have the right--in fact, the obligation--to throw them out of office, and we do have the legal power to do so.  But this never happens.  These guys are never held accountable for what they say--much less for what they do.

Which brings me to Mr. Todd Akin, in an interview with KTVI:

REP. TODD AKIN (R-Mo.): It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's [pregnancy resulting from a rape] really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. You know I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.

Obama's response:

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:

"The views expressed were offensive.

"Rape is rape. And the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we're talking about doesn't make sense to the American people and certainly doesn't make sense to me.


"So, what I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn't have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women."

My comments, which are longer, and more in number, but perhaps not expressed any better than Obama's here, will follow in an upcoming entry...Stay tuned.