"America is not a racist country." So said Donald Trump Jr. in a speech to the Republican National Convention. One wonders what country he has been living in for the past several decades, or what hiring practices he has seen, or what TV news programs he has been watching the past few weeks, or what friends he has had who can describe to him being routinely stopped for "traffic checks" while driving under the speed limit on a major highway.
Such an offense is known as "driving while Black."
Drivers of color -- including members of the U.S. Congress -- can say they are stopped and questioned far more often than their white counterparts.
Most police officers take their jobs seriously, and do not stop or question others without due cause. However, there are a few -- far too many -- who resort to violence if a person does not show what they deem to be "sufficient respect."
Boys in America learn early on that shooting someone in the back is wrong. But apparently some police officers believe that shooting a Black person in the back is OK, no matter that the person is unarmed and walking away.
In some states, high-speed police chases are prohibited by department rules, because they are too dangerous, to bystanders and any alleged suspect as well as to the police themselves. Officers in such departments defend such a rule by saying, "We'll get him next time." This on the grounds that they can track the vehicle, and that the perpetrator is likely to continue his reckless behavior, so there is no good reason to endanger others over a traffic offense.
But that's the policy of responsible departments and officers. There are far too many who focus on stopping people of color, on the rationale that the crime rate is higher among people of color than among others. Whether that be true is not a good enough reason to arbitrarily stop people of color more often than members of other groups, without any other cause.
And if it is true that crime rates are higher among members of any particular group, then it's up to members of that groups to assist in encouraging lawful behavior by all.
Historically, that's what happened among other ethnic and minority groups in America as they struggled to achieve the equal opportunity promised by the American tradition.
That applies to all, regardless of race, creed, color or spiritual belief. Sadly, some political leaders these days blame minority members for all the problems America faces, without attempting to work together to resolve these problems.
Tuesday, August 25, 2020
Friday, August 21, 2020
More Sabotage
The president today added a threat to send sheriffs, law enforcement and perhaps military personnel to polling places allegedly to monitor voters and remove fake citizens from the premises.
Never mind that he has no legal authority to take any such action, but such a barrier has not stopped him in the past from talking and threatening. Add this to his threat to delay the presidential election and his warning that he may not accept the results if he loses.
By law, the presidential election is held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, when electors are chosen in the various states, who then meet in early December to finalize the results.
But the president has talked repeatedly that the results may not be known "for weeks, months or even years." This can only be taken as a plan that he would stay in office for however long it takes for such a controversy to be resolved.
The Constitution stipulates that a president's term ends at noon on January 20. How, then, could he stay in office beyond that time? Unless he is forging a strategy to seize power and remain in the Oval Office, despite what election results say.
The answer could well be that it is the responsibility of American voters to make their choice clear, by both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote. If the results show that a strong majority of the population want the incumbent to leave, then he must.
Likewise, if a similar majority want him to stay in office, then he has won re-election, and America should accept that.
However, if there is strong evidence of tampering -- as the president himself has already threatened to do -- then it will be the responsibility of Congress to impeach him, hold a trial and order him removed from office.
If he still refuses, then the nation faces yet another crisis. In addition, the man himself would still be liable for arrest and prosecution for attempting to improperly and illegally influence election results, for example by sending sheriffs into polling places to check the citizenship status of voters.
That's not their job. It is the responsibility of local election officials. Any attempt to suppress that is tantamount to a threat to American democracy.
Never mind that he has no legal authority to take any such action, but such a barrier has not stopped him in the past from talking and threatening. Add this to his threat to delay the presidential election and his warning that he may not accept the results if he loses.
By law, the presidential election is held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, when electors are chosen in the various states, who then meet in early December to finalize the results.
But the president has talked repeatedly that the results may not be known "for weeks, months or even years." This can only be taken as a plan that he would stay in office for however long it takes for such a controversy to be resolved.
The Constitution stipulates that a president's term ends at noon on January 20. How, then, could he stay in office beyond that time? Unless he is forging a strategy to seize power and remain in the Oval Office, despite what election results say.
The answer could well be that it is the responsibility of American voters to make their choice clear, by both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote. If the results show that a strong majority of the population want the incumbent to leave, then he must.
Likewise, if a similar majority want him to stay in office, then he has won re-election, and America should accept that.
However, if there is strong evidence of tampering -- as the president himself has already threatened to do -- then it will be the responsibility of Congress to impeach him, hold a trial and order him removed from office.
If he still refuses, then the nation faces yet another crisis. In addition, the man himself would still be liable for arrest and prosecution for attempting to improperly and illegally influence election results, for example by sending sheriffs into polling places to check the citizenship status of voters.
That's not their job. It is the responsibility of local election officials. Any attempt to suppress that is tantamount to a threat to American democracy.
Tuesday, August 18, 2020
Ballot Blathering
As for the allegation that "millions and millions" of fake ballots are being sent to voters, consider this: There are 436 federal election districts in America, including the District of Columbia. In Pennsylvania alone there are 79 counties, and 18 representatives sent to the U.S. House. The PA House has 203 members, one for each election district in the state. In addition, there are county, city and municipality candidates, and that would require separate ballots for each district. That makes for a minimum of 203 different ballots in Pennsylvania plus however many there are to accommodate county, city and town candidates.
Add to that the number of cities, towns and state legislative
districts throughout the nation, and the idea that "fake" ballots -- each different -- will be sent to the more than 150 million registered voters in the U.S. becomes so much blathering by someone who is already making up excuses if he loses.
He did the same blathering four years ago, complaining that the fix was in, favoring the opposition. Surprise! He won -- not the popular vote, but the electoral vote. So who did the fixing?
Also, only a few states allow universal mail in voting for voters. Most of the others require that such a ballot be requested in advance of the election. Some limit the number of reasons a mail in ballot can be sought.
Another point: Districts arrange for printing, which means that different paper could be used and different layouts, as well as different names, will appear on each ballot.
All in all, the prez either has no idea what he's talking about, or he's lying. Or maybe both.
Add to that the number of cities, towns and state legislative
districts throughout the nation, and the idea that "fake" ballots -- each different -- will be sent to the more than 150 million registered voters in the U.S. becomes so much blathering by someone who is already making up excuses if he loses.
He did the same blathering four years ago, complaining that the fix was in, favoring the opposition. Surprise! He won -- not the popular vote, but the electoral vote. So who did the fixing?
Also, only a few states allow universal mail in voting for voters. Most of the others require that such a ballot be requested in advance of the election. Some limit the number of reasons a mail in ballot can be sought.
Another point: Districts arrange for printing, which means that different paper could be used and different layouts, as well as different names, will appear on each ballot.
All in all, the prez either has no idea what he's talking about, or he's lying. Or maybe both.
Sunday, August 16, 2020
History and Presidents
If you want to insist that presidential candidates be born in one of the states, that would rule out the first seven presidents, who were born before the United States of America existed. It would also exclude Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona when it was still a territory, and not yet a state. All that in addition to those who were born in other nations to American citizen parents, such as John McCain, Ted Cruz and George Romney. As for the current argument that the parents of Kamala Harris were immigrants and therefore she was not qualified, the question becomes, how many generations must a family be here before they become "real American"?
Detail: The current president's mother immigrated from Scotland, and his grandparents from Germany.
Notice that all the objections regarding citizenship and eligibility are posed against Democrats and not against Republicans.
Once again, here's a list of presidential candidates NOT born in America: John McCain, born in Panama to a military family. Ted Cruz, born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. George Romney, father of Mitt Romney and also a presidential candidate. And Chester A. Arthur, arguably born in Canada (actually northern Vermont, but questionably over the border) to an American mother and an Irish father.
Detail: The current president's mother immigrated from Scotland, and his grandparents from Germany.
Notice that all the objections regarding citizenship and eligibility are posed against Democrats and not against Republicans.
Once again, here's a list of presidential candidates NOT born in America: John McCain, born in Panama to a military family. Ted Cruz, born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. George Romney, father of Mitt Romney and also a presidential candidate. And Chester A. Arthur, arguably born in Canada (actually northern Vermont, but questionably over the border) to an American mother and an Irish father.
Friday, August 14, 2020
Birtherism Reborn
The president said he was unsure whether Kamala Harris, Democrat Joe Biden's choice for vice presidential nominee, was eligible as a candidate because her parents were immigrants.
Harris was born in California in 1964 to parents who had come from India and Jamaica.
The Constitution specifies that a candidate for a White House office be a "natural born citizen" of the United States. It does not say "native born," although even if it did, Harris would still be eligible.
And if a son or daughter of immigrants would be disqualified from a candidacy, that would rule out the president himself, since his mother was an immigrant from Scotland.
The entire ploy is a repeat of the president's argument that Barack Obama was not eligible, based on the claim that he was born in Kenya, not in America. The same truth applies: Obama was born in Hawaii, but even if not, his mother was from Kansas, which gave him "natural born" citizenship.
It's odd that this citizenship argument has only been applied to Democratic candidates, and not to Republicans. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a candidate in 2016, was born in Canada, to a Cuban father and an American mother. John McCain was born in Panama, to a military family. And George Romney, Mitt's father and also a candidate for the presidency, was born in Mexico to Mormon missionary parents.
So why is the "birtherism" issue raised only against Democrats?
Can you say "hypocrisy"?
Or one could call it ignorance, but that's no excuse for someone who took an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution."
One can only conclude that he has not read the Constitution, and will not listen to those who have.
Harris was born in California in 1964 to parents who had come from India and Jamaica.
The Constitution specifies that a candidate for a White House office be a "natural born citizen" of the United States. It does not say "native born," although even if it did, Harris would still be eligible.
And if a son or daughter of immigrants would be disqualified from a candidacy, that would rule out the president himself, since his mother was an immigrant from Scotland.
The entire ploy is a repeat of the president's argument that Barack Obama was not eligible, based on the claim that he was born in Kenya, not in America. The same truth applies: Obama was born in Hawaii, but even if not, his mother was from Kansas, which gave him "natural born" citizenship.
It's odd that this citizenship argument has only been applied to Democratic candidates, and not to Republicans. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a candidate in 2016, was born in Canada, to a Cuban father and an American mother. John McCain was born in Panama, to a military family. And George Romney, Mitt's father and also a candidate for the presidency, was born in Mexico to Mormon missionary parents.
So why is the "birtherism" issue raised only against Democrats?
Can you say "hypocrisy"?
Or one could call it ignorance, but that's no excuse for someone who took an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution."
One can only conclude that he has not read the Constitution, and will not listen to those who have.
Thursday, August 13, 2020
Election Sabotage
"Neither rain nor snow nor sleet nor gloom of night can stay these hardy couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds." -- U.S. Postal Service motto.
A presidential budget cut, however, may accomplish what the weather cannot, and that is to block election ballots from being delivered in time to be counted.
The president has been specific in his warning about defunding the Postal Service, no doubt because of his fear of losing re-election. He has claimed repeatedly that "millions" of fake and phony ballots are on the way to overwhelm the system, so he wants to take away funding from the Postal Service as his way of preventing this alleged fraud.
Never mind that there is zero evidence that illegitimate ballots were cast in previous elections, and no evidence that it's likely to happen this year.
But his constant yammering about the danger of fraudulent voting, along with budget cuts, eliminating overtime and reducing the number of mail boxes nationwide, all combine to the inescapable conclusion that he is afraid of losing, and will do whatever it takes to stay in the White House, even after he loses.
In fact, he has admitted he is blocking funds for the Postal Service because he is worried about mail-in ballots.
"They need that money," he said, so the post office "can take all of these millions and millions of ballots" and carry them to election officials. He added that without that money, the USPS won't be able to handle mail-in voting.
Therefore, without the money, the ballots won't be counted.
All of this is happening as the new postmaster general, a major supporter of the president, reduces operations to slow down the mail, including a ban on overtime.
The president cited the dangers of "universal mail-in voting" as part of his reason for cutting funds to the Postal Service. However, only eight states are mailing ballots to all registered voters this year, including several that for years have had mail-in voting available to all. Most states still conduct voting at polling places, with the option for absentee voting for those who will not be in their home district on election day, or who are too ill to vote in person. Many states also offer mail-in voting for those worried about catching the corona virus in public places.
A presidential budget cut, however, may accomplish what the weather cannot, and that is to block election ballots from being delivered in time to be counted.
The president has been specific in his warning about defunding the Postal Service, no doubt because of his fear of losing re-election. He has claimed repeatedly that "millions" of fake and phony ballots are on the way to overwhelm the system, so he wants to take away funding from the Postal Service as his way of preventing this alleged fraud.
Never mind that there is zero evidence that illegitimate ballots were cast in previous elections, and no evidence that it's likely to happen this year.
But his constant yammering about the danger of fraudulent voting, along with budget cuts, eliminating overtime and reducing the number of mail boxes nationwide, all combine to the inescapable conclusion that he is afraid of losing, and will do whatever it takes to stay in the White House, even after he loses.
In fact, he has admitted he is blocking funds for the Postal Service because he is worried about mail-in ballots.
"They need that money," he said, so the post office "can take all of these millions and millions of ballots" and carry them to election officials. He added that without that money, the USPS won't be able to handle mail-in voting.
Therefore, without the money, the ballots won't be counted.
All of this is happening as the new postmaster general, a major supporter of the president, reduces operations to slow down the mail, including a ban on overtime.
The president cited the dangers of "universal mail-in voting" as part of his reason for cutting funds to the Postal Service. However, only eight states are mailing ballots to all registered voters this year, including several that for years have had mail-in voting available to all. Most states still conduct voting at polling places, with the option for absentee voting for those who will not be in their home district on election day, or who are too ill to vote in person. Many states also offer mail-in voting for those worried about catching the corona virus in public places.
Sunday, August 9, 2020
Sunday School
Massive plague sickens 5 million Americans and takes 160,000 lives.
Millions out of work as the economy crashes.
Hurricane strikes East Coast, followed by tornadoes and the worst earthquake in 100 years.
Millions of people refuse to wear face coverings, claiming this violates their civil rights. Result: Virus hits harder and more people get sick.
Question: Is it possible that Someone is trying to tell us something?
Millions out of work as the economy crashes.
Hurricane strikes East Coast, followed by tornadoes and the worst earthquake in 100 years.
Millions of people refuse to wear face coverings, claiming this violates their civil rights. Result: Virus hits harder and more people get sick.
Question: Is it possible that Someone is trying to tell us something?
Details
The president signed an executive order restoring an additional $400 in jobless benefits to Americans out of work because of the pandemic issue.
However, only $300 of that is to be provided by the federal government. The other $100 additional benefit is to come from each state.
But.
Each state must first ask for it, then wait for the request to be approved. Also, what if the states don't have that additional funding? Will the federal grant be withheld?
Also, what of the reality that Congress is in charge of financing, and this executive order bypasses that reality?
Meanwhile, whenever reporters ask a question that the president doesn't like, especially one that exposes a falsehood that he has repeated often, he walks out.
Moreover, his "news briefing" announcing the executive order was held at his golf club in New Jersey and attended by devoted members of the club as a cheering section.
Moral: Ignoring reporters does not make the questions go away.
However, only $300 of that is to be provided by the federal government. The other $100 additional benefit is to come from each state.
But.
Each state must first ask for it, then wait for the request to be approved. Also, what if the states don't have that additional funding? Will the federal grant be withheld?
Also, what of the reality that Congress is in charge of financing, and this executive order bypasses that reality?
Meanwhile, whenever reporters ask a question that the president doesn't like, especially one that exposes a falsehood that he has repeated often, he walks out.
Moreover, his "news briefing" announcing the executive order was held at his golf club in New Jersey and attended by devoted members of the club as a cheering section.
Moral: Ignoring reporters does not make the questions go away.
Monday, August 3, 2020
Freedom To Criticize
"Treason doth never prosper.
What's the reason?
For if it prosper,
None dare call it treason." -- Sir John Harington (1560-1612)
"Free, representative government is predicated on the assumption that the people, having the facts will make the right decisions when they go to the polls. If the press abdicates its responsibility, the system will fail." -- John Stormer, "None Dare Call it Treason," 1964.
"If this be treason, let us make the most of it," -- Patrick Henry, 1775.
For those who say it is unpatriotic to criticize the government, consider the document written by Thomas Jefferson and published on July 4, 1776. As Americans, we have not only the right but the obligation to criticize our governments, whether local, state or national.
Criticism, then, is not an affront to patriotism, but a right and a duty. Government is not a compact between the rulers and the ruled; it is an agreement among the people themselves, and is the ultimate in patriotism.
That's why the Constitution begins with the phrase, "We, the People," and not with "We the Government."
And that may well be why the arch-conservative author John Stormer so strongly defended the free press in 1964.
Unlike some politicians today, who regularly attack news media as "fake," and expect journalists to abdicate their Constitutionally guaranteed responsibility and do as they're told. History tells us that the first to fall as an autocratic government takes power is a free press.
What's the reason?
For if it prosper,
None dare call it treason." -- Sir John Harington (1560-1612)
"Free, representative government is predicated on the assumption that the people, having the facts will make the right decisions when they go to the polls. If the press abdicates its responsibility, the system will fail." -- John Stormer, "None Dare Call it Treason," 1964.
"If this be treason, let us make the most of it," -- Patrick Henry, 1775.
For those who say it is unpatriotic to criticize the government, consider the document written by Thomas Jefferson and published on July 4, 1776. As Americans, we have not only the right but the obligation to criticize our governments, whether local, state or national.
Criticism, then, is not an affront to patriotism, but a right and a duty. Government is not a compact between the rulers and the ruled; it is an agreement among the people themselves, and is the ultimate in patriotism.
That's why the Constitution begins with the phrase, "We, the People," and not with "We the Government."
And that may well be why the arch-conservative author John Stormer so strongly defended the free press in 1964.
Unlike some politicians today, who regularly attack news media as "fake," and expect journalists to abdicate their Constitutionally guaranteed responsibility and do as they're told. History tells us that the first to fall as an autocratic government takes power is a free press.
Presidential Logic
"If you do half the testing, you'd have half the cases" of Covid 19, said the president. Therefore, with zero testing, there would be zero cases.
If you don't look for something, that means it's not there. I've never been to Toledo, so that means it doesn't exist.
If you don't look for something, that means it's not there. I've never been to Toledo, so that means it doesn't exist.
Sunday, August 2, 2020
Taking Debate
"Never argue with an idiot. Because, being an intelligent man, you'll try to deal with him on his level. But on his level, he'll beat you every time." -- Pug Mahoney
Consider for a moment the plans for a televised discussion of campaign issues by the two major candidates for president.
It has been suggested that former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate, avoid debating Donald Trump, the current president and Republican candidate for re-election.
The view from here is that Biden should not avoid a debate, but that he should ignore the many falsehoods, incorrect propositions and flat-out lies that Trump has a habit of spouting.
Instead, Biden should focus on his own plans to lead the nation out of recession and virus problems. Otherwise, he would spend his whole time correcting Trump's lies. Better to present his own plans, and leave corrections to the moderator and the news media.
A major issue, however, will be how to deal with Trump's habit of interrupting, which is his way of dominating news conferences as well as any discussion about anything at any time.
This habit was especially noticeable four years ago during debates with Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. One way to deal with this could be for Biden to appeal to the moderator to enforce what rules there may be about interrupting. Another would be to stop talking, and wait for an opportunity to silence the interrupter the way Joe McCarthy was silenced many years ago: "Have you no shame? At long last, have you no sense of decency?"
Still another would be to talk over the interrupter with a chant of "Yammer, yammer, yammer, yammer ... etc."
When the yammering president finally does stop talking, Biden can return to describing his plans to help revive the nation, unlike his opponent's habit of blaming others.
Will any of this happen? Stay tuned. We live in interesting times.
Consider for a moment the plans for a televised discussion of campaign issues by the two major candidates for president.
It has been suggested that former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate, avoid debating Donald Trump, the current president and Republican candidate for re-election.
The view from here is that Biden should not avoid a debate, but that he should ignore the many falsehoods, incorrect propositions and flat-out lies that Trump has a habit of spouting.
Instead, Biden should focus on his own plans to lead the nation out of recession and virus problems. Otherwise, he would spend his whole time correcting Trump's lies. Better to present his own plans, and leave corrections to the moderator and the news media.
A major issue, however, will be how to deal with Trump's habit of interrupting, which is his way of dominating news conferences as well as any discussion about anything at any time.
This habit was especially noticeable four years ago during debates with Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. One way to deal with this could be for Biden to appeal to the moderator to enforce what rules there may be about interrupting. Another would be to stop talking, and wait for an opportunity to silence the interrupter the way Joe McCarthy was silenced many years ago: "Have you no shame? At long last, have you no sense of decency?"
Still another would be to talk over the interrupter with a chant of "Yammer, yammer, yammer, yammer ... etc."
When the yammering president finally does stop talking, Biden can return to describing his plans to help revive the nation, unlike his opponent's habit of blaming others.
Will any of this happen? Stay tuned. We live in interesting times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)