Category Archives: campaigns

Fake Law, Part One of a Series

Posted on by
Reply

(In this week before the primary election, we are reluctantly embarking on a series of daily observations of campaigns and campaign non-issues that do little to enhance public confidence in the process. We are sorry to be as pessimistic as we might seem. Perhaps the survivors of the primaries will be more responsible in their general election campaigns.

The situation seems to us be so dire that we will not have our regular Tuesday visit with the toy department of journalism—sports.)

FAKE LAW

It makes good headlines.

But it’s a fake issue.

It rallies the core.

But it’s a fake issue.

It paints a false portrait.

And it’s a fake issue.

It misleads voters.

Because it’s a fake issue.

It makes people think there’s a big problem.

But there isn’t.

It tries to capitalize on fear.

But it’s a lie.

And it’s one of the reasons Democrats in the Missouri Senate staged a record-setting filibuster in the last week of a legislative session that was characterized by filibusters from a small group of Republicans who have tried to run the chamber.

The legislation involved was a proposal making it harder to amend the state constitution. A bipartisan vote shut down debate and sent the bill to a committee that would work on compromises that might let it move forward in the last two days of the session.

The fact that Republicans and Democrats did something together put the Senate’s problem children into a tizzy.  Freedom Caucus ringleader Bill Eigel, who apparently thinks one has to disagree disagreeably to succeed in today’s politics, warned Senate colleagues that the caucus would object to any compromises that changes what the FC demands.

And what the FC demanded was passage of a bill that would become partly fake law.

If you’re keeping score, this is the proposal that says no change can be made in the state constitution, even if the statewide vote approves the change, unless voters in five of our eight congressional districts approve.  It’s a Republican effort to keep the heavy Democratic vote from the metro areas, and the Columbia area, from offsetting the conservative outstate votes.

It also contains “fake law” provisions prohibiting non-citizens from voting on constitutional amendments—-something already forbidden by Missouri and federal law.

But it sounds good in an election year.  Democrats kept the bill from going to a final Senate vote, complaining the language was included just to deceive voters. Eigel said those characterizations were “completely unfair” and the measure presented “a great opportunity” to keep non-citizens from voting.

—Except the ban already is on the books.

Democrats in the Senate, with Republican leaders refusing to take parliamentary action to shut down debate, chewed up three of the precious last five days of the session in a filibuster that lasted 51-plus hours.                    .

The demagoguery on this issue is going to be with us through November, regardless of any legislative action because MAGA Republicans, in particular, want to use it to beat Democrats—i.e. Joe Biden—over the head on immigration issues.

A few days ago in Washington, House Speaker Mike Johnson unveiled the proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. Don’t be surprised if a House committee decides to “investigate,” giving majority members of the committee opportunities to condemn the actions or inactions of the administration to keep illegal immigrants from voting.

Another new committee, in the Missouri House, is going to investigate crime by illegal immigrants, another opportunity to make sure the issue’s political value is not wasted before the election. It has been expanded to include crimes AGAINST immigrants, a fair thing to consider.

We’ve all watched this kind of political circus on other topics.

And that’s what this harping on immigrant voting is.  Political circus.

What it is NOT is an issue. We’ll tell you why in our next entry.

Decision 

Posted on by
2

(Originally this entry was called “Discussion” because it addressed—when written last week—that President Biden might decide to pull out of the presidential race.  I didn’t post it because I was going to be out of town through the weekend and didn’t want the comments outdated before they were posted.  We’ve done some editing to account for the decision yesterday that President Biden would withdraw from the race and endorse Vice President Harris to for President.

Rather quickly the public dialogue about the Democratic ticket for November seems to have reached an important stage.

The matter of President Biden’s mental and physical health has become secondary to the DISCUSSION about his mental and physical health.

We are pretty sure that some sophisticated polling is being done about whether TALK is robbing the Democratic Presidential Campaign of its ability to focus on issues.

Republicans are no doubt relishing the distraction because they are talking about their issues, their ticket clearly assembled and aggressively spreading the GOP word regardless of its truth.  Nothing internal is stopping the Trump bandwagon at this point, certainly not Democrats.

The Democrats are limited in talking about their issues because they have one issue right now and it’s a giant one and it is completely internal. The public, including THEIR public, has nowhere to go.

(Events have rendered the original paragraph’s speculation about whether the party would go with Vice-President Harris. That speculation has been fully answered as we revise this. Now back to the original narrative.)

Who should be her running mate?  She’s about 60, about average for a President.  But an aggressive running mate in the 40s would send an interesting message to many voters who have not been entertained by two geezers calling each other liars.

Plus a running mate in the 40s could dilute whatever advantage among young voters that the Republicans have by running someone who is 39 as their Veep.

(There was some historical stuff in the original post about presidents who had decided not to seek another term but we will hold those until later.)

As we drove home from Indianapolis last night and early this morning, we spent some of that time listening to the coverage on the satellite channels for CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News.  While CNN and MSNBC had their talking heads discussing possible Harris VP choices and understanding what’s next for the Democratic Part, FOX already was Full Doberman in attacking Harris.

And we thought in those long, dark miles (we got home at 2:30 this morning) about how the complexion of this contest has suddenly changed.

Now, the old man with questionable mental health is the Republican candidate.  The shoe is on the other foot and the GOP is stuck with it.

The outlook for Democrats has changed dramatically and all of the sudden they, and Kamala Harris, have control of the spotlight and they’re suddenly gifted with a convention that can have an impact far greater than they had expected.

The immigrant issue now has a new dimension because the presumptive Democrat nominee is from a state that has been dealing with Mexican immigrants for almost 400 years, since Juan Cabrillo led an expedition into the area in 1542.  AND Harris’ mother is an immigrant from India and her father is an immigrant from Jamaica.

She would be a formidable debate opponent for Donald Trump who has given her a derogatory nickname.  But he’ll need something more than a nickname for her when he meets her on a debate stage. You can be guaranteed that a Trump-Harris debate would not degenerate into a discussion of golf scores. One does not become a federal prosecutor and then the Attorney General of California without some sharp edges.  By now, he should have some appreciation for the skills of prosecutors.

President Biden’s decision within hours awoke the sleeping Democratic Giant and now it is Mr. Trump and the Republicans who should be nervous.

And finally, this occurred early this morning.

This race will offer widely contrasting issues of character—-and when all else fails for the undecideds who might make the fractional difference in the polls and at the polling places, character might be the deciding factor.

Contrast President Biden’s response to the attempted assassination of Mr. Trump.  He called Trump, referring to him in public remarks as “Donald,” not making any dismissive and derogatory comments but only expressing sympathy and respect.

Then consider Mr. Trump’s response to the Biden withdrawal: “Crooked Joe Biden was not fit to run for President and is certainly not fit to serve—And never was!”  And he ranted on from there, showing once again a distinct lack of character.

And white nationalists who have made Mr. Trump their totem have been presented with a real quandary—The daughter of a Hindu woman born in India and a Jamaican husband, and who is married to a Jew and attends a black Baptist Church in San Francisco now look at Mr. Trump’s chosen running mate, J. D. Vance and they have a fit about Vance’s wife, Usha, who was born in India. Podcaster Nick Fuentes asked, “Do we really expect that the guy who has an Indian wife and named their kid Vivek is going to support white identity?”

Trump supporter and J6 veteran James Foxx, has complained, “JD Vance gets tapped as VP and immediately there’s a Hindu prayer at the RNC. Next we’ll see Sen. Mike Lee and JD Vance team up to convince Trump to let in 10 million Indian immigrants. Green cards on diplomas!”

A few days ago we had a competition between a couple of old coots who were about as exciting as a nursing home checkers game.  And all of the sudden, a new head nurse has roared into the parking lot in her Corvette.

Things are about to change.

-0-

For They Have Sown the Wind 

Posted on by
Reply

We have come within an inch—honestly, an inch—of a terrible tragedy for our country. The attempted assassination of Donald Trump has brought solemn calls for reducing the toxic level of political discourse.

On the other hand, there is not-unexpected finger pointing that indicates those calls will be ignored soon.

Junior Trump said right afterward, “He will never stop fighting to save America, no matter what the radical left throws at him.”  House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, whose life was almost ended by an attack on a congressional baseball practice, said on FOX News that fears that a Trump victory in November would be a threat to America were “incendiary rhetoric” that could encourage “one person who is just unhinged to hear that and…think that’s the signal to go take somebody out.” He called on candidates to “focus on the issues that people care about.”

(“Unhinged” is the word we’ve heard most frequently applied to Trump’s speeches.)

The Daily Caller conservative website blamed “Liberal Media” for downplaying the assassination attempt at first. Columnist Harold Hutchinson accused “multiple corporate media outlets” of not reporting shots had been fired at the Trump campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania—as if reporters on the scene should have filed comprehensive stories about the incident when the first shot was fired.

(FYI:  He could have said the same thing about FOX News but conveniently didn’t. The first report on FOX news referred to “some kind of disturbance” and about a minute and a half after the shots were fired the anchor said, “This is happening quickly; we are trying to ascertain what’s happened.”)

Hutchinson and Florida Senator Marco Rubio placed media-bashing at the top of their priority list by urging readers to think reporters on the scene should know the entire story before the last shot was fired—before it was understood that the noises had, in fact, been gunfire, not fireworks.

Hutchinson noted NBC’s post on X, “Secret Service rushes Trump off stage after popping noises heard at his Pennsylvania rally,” and a Los Angeles Times posting, “Trump whisked off stage in Pennsylvania after loud noises rang through the crowd.”

Florida Senator Marco Rubio took CNN to task when it posted on X, “JUST IN: Donald Trump is rushed offstage by Secret Service during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. Follow live updates.”  He wrote on his own X account, “Really? No mention of the attempt to kill him?”  And when CNN said, “Secret Service rushes Trump off stage after he falls at rally,’ Rubio wrote, “Even in a horrifying moment such as this they just can’t help themselves.”

No, it was Marco Rubio who just couldn’t help HIMself.

Reporters on the scene, in fact, knew no more than any other observer—and there were hundreds of those, many of whom talked about the instant confusion of the moment.

The reporters reported at that instant what they KNEW.  A few chaotic seconds later, updates went out—the Secret Service had covered Trump; Trump had blood on his ear; the “pop-pop-pop” was gunfire and some people in the audience had been hit; Trump was up and being escorted to a vehicle and hustled off-site.

Bill Goodykoontz, the media critic for the Arizona Republic, commented later in the day, “Cable and broadcast outlets covered the news in remarkably similar ways…they both covered it well and, for the most part, they covered in responsibly.”

“What was perhaps even more impressive was what journalists didn’t do — they didn’t jump to conclusions, whether about exactly what happened, about Trump’s condition or about motives. Being first is important in breaking news, but not as important as being right, and most networks hewed to that Saturday.”

He also said, “Neither CNN nor Fox News jumped to irresponsible conclusions. In fact, they didn’t even call it a shooting until that could be confirmed, in a show of near-miraculous restraint.”

Fox wouldn’t put up with former Congressman Jason Chaffetz when he went off on a rant: “They tried to incarcerate him; they’ve now had an assassination attempt on the president. The temperature in this country, we all need to take a deep breath. But at the same time, you know what this country we have got to make sure that we can have free fair elections.”

Goodykoontz commented, “Whether by coincidence or wise decision-making, the network drowned him out with a replay of the incident.  Good.”

Ohio Senator J. D. Vance, reportedly on Trump’s short list as a running mate, went on X and said President Biden’s rhetoric “led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination,” a totally irresponsible allegation at a time when the shooter’s name was not known and, as we write this, his motivations are unknown.

Samantha Vinograd, a former Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism, Threat Prevention, and Law Enforcement Policy in the Homeland Security Department told CBS’s Margaret Brennan, “It is frankly unpatriotic at this moment to be stoking the flames when we know that we are sitting on a cauldron of tensions. … The counter-terrorism officials and homeland security officials that I’ve spoken to in the last few hours are deeply concerned that this event will be used as a rallying cry to launch attacks against individuals associated with the Biden campaign and lead to broader domestic distress.”

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who has been an analyst on diverse media outlets, wrote for The Hill, “The assassination attempt of former President Donald Trump left a nation stunned. But the most shocking aspect was that it was not nearly as surprising as it should have been. For months, politicians, the press and pundits have escalated reckless rhetoric in this campaign on both sides.”  He called it “rage rhetoric” in castigating both the right and the left

“Rage is addictive and contagious. It is also liberating. It allows people a sense of license to take actions that would ordinarily be viewed as repulsive. As soon as Trump was elected, unhinged rage became the norm,” he said.

He spends most of his article criticizing the Left for its rhetoric, suggesting it is not reported on with the same emphasis the press gives to Trump rhetoric.  He concludes, “We have come full circle to where we began as a Republic. In the 1800 election, Federalists and Jeffersonians engaged in similar rage rhetoric.

“Federalists told citizens that, if Jefferson were elected, “Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes.”

“Jeffersonians warned that, if Adams were reelected, “chains, dungeons, transportation, and perhaps the gibbet” awaited citizens and they “would instantaneously be put to death…”

“In our current age of rage, politicians have sought to use the same anger and fear to rally support at any cost. This is the cost.”

He makes an excellent set of points that support the immediate post-shooting suggestions that it is time to tone down the rhetoric.  The question now is—who goes first?

Some readers will see the following comments as indicating a bias.  It might be so.  But as we watched the events unfold, and as we were grateful that Mr. Trump escaped with his life, we nonetheless were aware that he is the one who calls people by derogatory names, who has ridiculed in some of his speeches a disabled person, who has shown disrespect to judges and the judicial system, who continues to spout outright lies on numerous fronts, who encouraged followers to show up in Washington on January 6, 2021 with the promise that “it will be wild,” who did nothing to reduce the violence later at the Capitol by so-called “innocent tourists,” who to this day censures his own Vice-President because Mike Pence followed the Constitution, and who maintains that he, himself, is above the law—

And, God help us, we could not avoid thinking of two verses from the Bible:

Paul’s letter to the Galatians, a congregation in present Turkey, in which we find, “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he reap.”

Or an earlier observation from the Old Testament prophet Hosea: “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.”

Mr. Trump is not alone fulfilling these warnings but he is the most vocal representative of them.

Let us watch him as well as the people who oppose him to see if this terrible brush with tragedy really changes anything.   Or whether it’s just more post-near-apocalyptic talk.

 

Salting the Mine

Posted on by
2

Out in the Old West, there were stories told of people who wanted to sell a worthless gold mine to a gullible individual by putting a little gold dust into a shotgun shell and then shooting the gold into some of the mine’s rock, making it appear that there was gold waiting to be mined.

It was called salting the mine.

A few days ago, Philadelphia radio station WURD fired one of its talk show hosts who admitted she used some questions supplied by the White House in an interview with President Biden.  Andrea Lawful-Sanders has lost her job because she let the White House get away with it. .

She admitted on CNN that the White House sent her eight questions to ask when the interview was scheduled after the Thursday night debate disaster. She said she “approved” four of them.

WURD CEO Sara Lomax said in announcing the firing, “WURD Radio is not a mouthpiece for the Biden or any other administration.” She said the station’s trust by its listeners  to “hold elected officials accountable” had been jeopardized.

A second local radio host, this one from battleground state Wisconsin, has admitted he was given five questions.  But Earl Ingram has told ABC News he was not able to get through all of them in the limited time scheduled for the interview.

This story deserved to be made public.  This practice is not unusual.  There were times when the Missourinet newsroom got calls from campaigns suggesting we should interview their candidates.  In this case, a spokesman for the Biden campaign admitted to FOX News Digital, “It’s not at all uncommon practice for interviewees to share topics they would prefer. These questions were relevant to the news of the day.”  She maintained that acceptance of the questions did not determine whether the interview went ahead.

One night, when a presidential election was very tight, we got a call about 7:10 from one of the campaigns wanting to know if we wanted to interview its candidate about the importance of getting out and voting.  The person calling apparently was not aware that Missouri’s polls had closed ten minutes earlier and sounded shocked when he was told, “Mr. _____ never wanted to talk to us during the campaign and we’re sure not interested in talking with him now.”

“You mean, you don’t want to talk to the next President of the United States?” came the incredulous response.”

“What did I just tell you?”

“Oh.  Ohhhhhh—kay?”

The Missourinet had no patience—-and the current generation of reporters at the network is the same way—with people who want to salt the political mine, who think news reporters should be their mouthpieces.

Sadly, there are those willing to put candidates on the air on radio or TV just because they can—-and they lob a few softballs at them or ask the supplied questions because the interview makes great promotion material regardless of the informational value.

Candidates love “free media” and rely on outlets to become their mouthpieces.  And it’s easier to become a mouthpiece than it is to try to nail a candidate with a touch question that’s not part of the script.

It might be promotable but it’s not honest and the fallout from the Biden “salting” after the debate is deserved.

This stuff happens and it is painful to even discuss it openly because it justifies the thinking by some people that the media are controlled by whatever political ideology is different from theirs.

I don’t believe that.

I do believe there is too much talk and not enough hard reporting in my lifetime industry, which is why I also believe it is important for citizens to avoid focusing on a single information source. At our house we wander around among CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and we occasionally take a look at One America Network and Newsmax, the blatantly pro-Trump organs. And we check in with the traditional three networks from time to time.

We have our opinions and we like to think we have formed them independently because we evaluate competing ideas.

I would love to interview our ex-President.

I would introduce him as “Mr. Trump,” not “President Trump” because I believe in Harry Truman’s comment that when he left the White House he was “promoted” back to being a common citizen.  Some offices and some ranks are left in the office or should on a hanger in the back of the closet when a person retires from them or is excused from them.

We’re straying from our topic.

The temptation to accept an interview offer with someone who thinks they are important or someone who wants to be important comes to reporters all the time. Good reporters make it clear they, not the interviewee, are in charge of the interview and they are free to challenge answers or bore in when a straight answer is not given to a straight question.

And sometimes they should just say “No,” and enjoy the astonished reaction from the other person who has been thinking the talk show host or the reporter is just some clay to be manipulated.

I rather enjoyed doing that, in fact.

If you wanted to be interviewed on my air, I controlled the rules, not the candidate.  And to be honest, there were times when we covered an event or did an interview and put nothing on the air because nothing newsworthy was said.  We did not waste our listeners’ time because somebody had caused us to waste ours.

 

 

All 34

Posted on by
Reply

My God!

The enormity of a jury’s verdicts in a New York courtroom yesterday is difficult to grasp whether one is strongly anti-Trump or whether one is violently pro-Trump.  Years from now, generations unborn today will read in their history books of yesterday’s verdict as cold fact with no way to understand the depth of the national emotions triggered by a jury ruling that a former President of the United States is guilty of 34 felonies.

Thirty-four.

The number will never be the same, just as 9-11 was transformed into something beyond  a numerical value, just as 1-6 is a waymark in American history.

Some hoped the jury would issue 34 NOT guily verdicts; many—perhaps most—thought at least SOME guilty verdicts would come.   But all 34?

It is stunning.  And although there will be appeals, it seems impossible that all 34 convictions will be reversed.

Donald Trump can and will—already has—repeated his attacks on the judge, the prosecutor, the jury.

But twelve people, chosen in the historically-honored system of picking a jury of fellow citizens, have convincted him of 34 crimes.

What must it be like away from his normal public bluster when this  77-year old man realizes  that for the first time in his life, he has not been able to control or to ignore the responsibility for his actions?  In the privacy of his own rooms and with his own thoughts, what must this overwhelming rebuke of the way he has run his life be doing to him?  He may rage in public and in private but surely he knows, deep down, many of those he has bent to his will are now realizing his blood is in the water and they must transform themselves into sharks for their own self-preservation.

The bus is waiting.  How many of those he thought he controlled will decide it’s time he is the one thrown under it?

Much is made that he is the first president to face criminal charges and now the first to be convicted, a statement though often repeated has no practical effect.  Once just a frequently-spoken statement, now it is a statement of national tragedy.

And what shall be done with him, this man who has flouted decency, honor, and the law throughout his life of self-seeking power?

If the convictions are upheld he should go to prison, whatever form prison takes.

Prison for Donald Trump could mean being cut off from public participation in events, to being relegated to a world without spotlight, a world of tightly-scheduled activities from waking up to eating a common menu, to being isolated from public exposure, restricted perhas to a couple of rooms at Mar-a-Lago where visitors are allowed only at certain times and certain days.  His greatest punishment could be imposed insignificance in contemporary times.

Yesterday was a day that instantly became history and we knew it the second we heard of the verdicts.  For both those who hoped for a different result as well as those who hoped for the result that came, yesterday was a “My God!” day.

Today we will try to grasp what has just happened, what we have experienced. Maybe for some of us as well as for him, it might take more than just today.

 

Miserable, Just Miserable

Posted on by
Reply

The Missouri Constitution establishes a definite date each year for adjournment of the Missouri General Assembly.  This was one of those years when adjournment couldn’t happen soon enough.

This miserable session will be remembered as the session that a handful of Republican senators calling themselves the Freedom Caucus ran into the ground because a majority of their party didn’t buy their demands.  They accused the majority of their majority party of being RINOS, a nickname our former president likes to apply to any Republican who does not love him. There is considerable reason to consider far-out clusters such as this as the real Republicans in Name Only.

This will be remembered as the Session of the Filibuster.  The Freedom Caucus kicked off the session with a lengthy discussion of Senate procedure, filibustered for eleven hours trying to force colleagues to act quickly on bills making it harder for citizens to create laws through initiative petition. That led President Pro Team Caleb Rowden to strip four members of the Freedom Caucus of their committee chairmanships and (this seemed to be the most terrible punishment to some of them) took away their parking spaces in the Capitol basement.  Senators Bill Eigel, the ringleader of the caucus, Rick Brattin, Denny Hoskins and Andrew Koenig lost their prestigious positions, after which Eigel stopped action in the Senate for four more hours so he could question several Senators who seemed to support Rowden’s action.

Rowden calculated in late January that the Senate had been in floor session for 17 hours and 52 minutes in 2024. He said the Freedom Caucus had filibustered “things of no consequence whatsoever relative to a piece of policy” for 16 hours and 45 minutes of that time.

And it only got worse. But in the end, the filibuster bit the Freedom Caucus—uh—in the end.

As the session reached May and the crucial last couple of weeks, including the week in which the state budget had to be approved, the caucus stopped things cold for 41 hours—believed to be the longest filibuster in Missouri legislative history—because its priorities were not THE priority of Senate leadership.

But that filibuster record was to be broken in the final week when Democrats and some Republicans fed up with the Freedom Caucus’s behavior got in the way of final approval of the resolution changing the way the state constitution can be changed. Those who had lived by the filibuster died by the filibuster.

The final filibuster lasted FIFTY hours and change. It succeeded where the Freedom Caucus belligerency failed. The Freedom Caucus’ bull-in-a-china shop philosophy of government was repudiated by a Senate that seemed to, in this case at least, rediscovered bipartisanship. But the damage done by this group could not be reversed.

The 2024 legislative session was the least productive in modern memory—or even ancient memory, for that matter.  Only 28 non-budget bills were passed.

That beats the record of 31 in the 2020 session.  But remember, that was the Pandemic Session when the legislature did not meet for several days then operated on a limited basis for several other days.

Eigel disavowed responsibility for that miserable record.  “A lot of bad things that didn’t happen this session didn’t happen because of the people standing behind me,” he said in a post-session Freedom Caucus press conference. His words probably didn’t carry any water with Senators and Representatives who had worked hard and conscientiously on bills that would have done GOOD things only to see them disappear into the ongoing mud fight in the Senate led by Eigel and his band.

Eigel has dreams of becoming Governor.  Denny Hoskins thinks he’d be a peachy Secretary of State. Andrew Koenig thinks being State Treasurer would be wonderful. Rick Brattin just hopes to get elected to another term in the Senate.

There are some folks who have watched them this year who hope they still don’t have parking places in Jefferson City in 2025.

The 50-hour filibuster deserves a closer look. We’ve taken that look to establish the exact length of it so that future observers will know when they have witnessed an even more regrettable example.

Incidentally, it is believed the longest filibuster by one person in Missouri history was Senator Matt Bartle’s futile effort to block some gubernatorial appointments in 2007. He held the floor for seventeen hours.

How to be a Leftist With One Word

Posted on by
Reply

The word is “Democracy.”

The denigrating reference to one of the most honored words in our American existence was stunning when I read it.

“Democracy” seems to have become a bad word for some people.

The Jefferson City newspaper had an article yesterday about whether our city council elections should become partisan political elections again.  The City Charter adopted three or four decades ago made council elections non-partisan.  But in last month’s city elections, the county Republican committee sent out postcards endorsing candidates.

All of them lost.

A new political action committee established to oppose a Republican-oriented committee that killed a library tax levy increase last year had its own slate last month. All of the non-GOP candidates won, which prompted a leading member of the GOP-oriented group to comment in the paper that the new PAC, as the paper put it, “used leftist buzzwords like ‘transparency’ and ‘Democracy’ on their website.”

Friends, when things have gone so far out of whack that “Democracy” is nothing more than a “leftist buzzword,” our political system is in extremely perilous condition.   And if the same side considers “transparency” to be something that is politically repugnant, it appears that a substantial portion of our political system has abandoned one of the greatest principles of our national philosophy—-that government of the people, for the people, and by the people should not hide what it does from its citizens.

City councils are the closest governments to the people.  Elections of members of city councils should focus on the issues that most directly affect residents of wards and cities, not on whether candidates can pass party litmus tests or mouth meaningless partisan rhetoric.

The Jefferson City newspaper spent weeks publishing articles giving candidates’ opinions on the issues that confront citizens living on the quiet (and some noisy) streets of the city. Voters had ample opportunities to evaluate candidates on THEIR positions, not whether they were an R or a D.

Bluntly put, the county Republican committee did not respect the non-partisan system that has served our city well for these many decades.  And to have one of its leading characters dismiss words such as “transparency” and—especially—“Democracy” as “leftist buzzwords” is, I regret to say, a disgrace.

Languages

Posted on by
Reply

I am proud to say that I passed three out of four semesters of college French courses.

That means I am, or once was, somewhat fluent in TWO more languages than our most recent former president uses.

The latest nonsense to cascade in a disorderly tumble from his lips adds an additional damnation to immigrants who, he has claimed, “are coming from jails, and they’re coming from prisons, and they’re coming from mental institutions, and they’re coming from insane asylums, and they’re terrorists.”

Of course, he never offers any proof of such things.  Now, during that same visit to an area near Eagle Pass, Texas on the southern border, he is piling on:

“Nobody can explain to me how allowing millions of people from places unknown, from countries unknown, who don’t speak languages. We have languages coming into our country. We have nobody that even speaks those languages. They’re truly foreign languages. Nobody speaks them, and they’re pouring into our country, and they’re bringing with them tremendous problems, including medical problems, as you know.”  He has asserted in a previous rant that when one migrant showed u, “We don’t even have one translator who could understand this language.”

Various media outlets, including the once-chummy FOX News Channel,  jumped all over that disjointed estrangement from reality, one of the fact-checkers being CNN’s Daniel Dale who found the comment about a translator, “nonsense,” and said it had been “conjured out of thin air.”

The former president says people such as Dale shouldn’t taken him so seriously. He told Sean Hannity recently, “You take a look at when I use Barack Hussein Obama and I interject him into where it’s supposed to be Biden, and I do it purposely for comedic reasons and for sarcasm.”

Whew!   That’s a relief.  I hope all of his MAGA friends realize he’s just pulling their legs and don’t bother repeating his fun-loving remarks as serious messages.

About those languages that nobody speaks:

Analyst Philip Bump with The Washington Post wrote last week that the former president’s remarks were “remarkable” and proved again that “there is no limit on the fearmongering Donald Trump will deploy when it comes to the U.S.-Mexican border.”

Bump points out that there’s a CIA database that includes the spoken languages of more than 220 places.  Here’s an interesting statistic he cites from that database:  Canada, which has two official languages (English and French) “has a higher percentage of English speakers than the United States has of people who speak only the language.”  He says only about seven percent of our population speaks something other than English or Spanish.

Bu contrast, about 30% of Canadians speak French. About 16% of Canadians use both languages.  Four percent speak Chinese. Three percent speak Spanish with an equal amount speaking Punjabi. Arabic, Tagalog, and Italian are spoken by two percent each.

The truth, he says, is that “fewer people speak less frequently-spoken languages. Therefore, those people are less likely to arrive at the U.S.-Mexican border. If they did so, though, there seem to be good odds that someone within the federal government (much less the broader population would be able to understand what they’re saying.”

On top of that, the State Department has translators in some 140 languages or combinations of languages. “The CIA, meanwhile, has an incentive program to encourage people who speak particular languages to work with them. If you speak Baluchi (spoken in Oman) or Ewe (Togo and Ghana) or Lingala (both Democratic Republic of Congo and Republic of Congo), ping your local CIA recruiter. There’s cash in it for you.”

As far as immigrants being criminals or more likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans—as the ex-President claimed in his Texas speech, Terry Collins wrote this week in USA Today that research indicates immigrants “actually commit fewer crimes than people born in the U. S.”

Trump and his supporters are quick to capitalize on a serious crime committed by an undocumented immigrant, such as the high-profile murder in Georgia.

But Collins points to the work of immigration policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh with the Cato Institute, a self-described “Libertarian think tank,” who says, ‘The findings show pretty consistently undocumented and illegal immigrants have a lower conviction rate and are less likely to be convicted of homicide and other crimes overall compared to native-born Americans in Texas.”

“They’re coming from jails and they’re coming from prisons and they’re coming from mental institutions and they’re coming from insane asylums and they’re terrorists,” Trump said in Eagle Pass.

He clearly has never heard of Nowrasteh, whose studies of undocumented immigrants from 2012-2022 show undocumented immigrants have a homicide rate fourteen percent under that of native-born citizens and a 41% lower total conviction rate. Legal immigrants have a 62% lower homicide rate

He told Collins, “I don’t think that Trump’s statements accurately convey the reality of immigration.”

The problem with all of this is that a lot of Americans are buying what the ex-president is selling.  The Pew Research Center, in a survey a few weeks ago, found that 57% of Americans think immigration leads to more crime.

Here’s some more research reported by Collins:

Stanford University Economics Professor Ran Abramitzky’s research shows the rates of crimes committed by immigrants in this country have been lower than those committed by native-born Americans. Incarceration rates have been dropping for the last six decades.  Nowrasteh says there’s a powerful reason for that: “Deportation is a hefty penalty, as being removed and sent back to their home country where they have fewer job and quality of life opportunities is enough to scare most immigrants.”

As far as criminals crossing the border in droves—-

The Border Patrol checks for criminal backgrounds before releasing them to enter this country, pending a hearing. The Patrol arrested more than 15,000 people with criminal records at the border last year, three-thousand more than in ’22.  So far this year, the number is more than 5,600.

Responsible people who know what they are talking about know that our border is not a sieve that leaks insane criminals who have been released from prisons throughout the world to come here and “poison” our country. It is not to our credit that we would listen to an irresponsible monolingual figure who hopes we drink HIS poison instead.

A Wagnerian, Arthurian Campaign 

Posted on by
Reply

Watched the State of the Union address last week.  Have watched several events featuring the other guy lately.

The day after the State of the Union address, while others were analyzing the speech, I found myself looking at the battle ahead and Wagnerian music began to play in my mind.

And images.

Listen as you read:

(5) Wagner Götterdämmerung – Siegfried’s death and Funeral march Klaus Tennstedt London Philharmonic – YouTube

A chill late evening on an ancient battlefield, smoke and fog intermingling to turn the setting sun a deep orange in the aftermath of an epic life-and-death confrontation between two legendary opponents.. Think of Arthur and Mordred from medieval England.

The State of the Union address was one of them drawing the sword that is a traditional symbol of power, of justice, of the best interests of the people and throwing away the scabbard to enter the final struggle with one whom he sees as a brooding, vengeful foe seeking to destroy everything good and honorable; a rival of equally waning strength, knowing this is his last, desperate chance to prevail.

In Arthurian legend, Arthur and, Mordred, variously referred to in the tellings of the tale as Arthur’s traitorous nephew or the traitorous son of Arthur’s nephew Gawain, or Arthur’s bastard son born of Arthur’s relationship with his half-sister (and there are other descriptions). They are two of the few survivors of the Battle of Camlann. Arthur, seeking to regain the throne Mordred had seized in his absence, impales Mordred on a spear.  But Mordred uses the last of his waning energy to pull himself along the spear and strikes Arthur with a mortal blow to the head.

Arthur, knowing his end is near, commands Bedivere to throw the great sword, Excalibur, into a nearby lake, which Bedivere finally does, reluctantly. He sees a hand part the waters, catch the sword, shake it three times, and pull it beneath the quiet waters of the pool.

(The climactic last scene, accompanied by Wagner’s “Death and Funeral” music from Gotterdammerung, was used in the concluding scenes of the 1981 movie “Excalibur,” considered one of the greatest Arthur legend films ever made. In the movie, Percival rather than Bedivere throws the sword.

(5) Excalibur – Finale – YouTube)

Arthur’s body is buried later at Glastonbury. His former ally, Launcelot, returned from France, learned that Guenevere had become a nun, went to Glastonbury to hear the story of Arthur’s final battle, and became a monk.

Six years later, after Guenevere had died, he and other surviving Knights of the Round Table went to Almesbury to take her remains to Glastonbury to be interred next to Arthur.

So it is told in one of the many versions of the Arthur legend.

Will this battle in future decades be seen as Arthurian as the English legend describes the final battle between Arthur and Mordred, between good and evil? Will, in the end, we be left with the thought neither survived (politically) but the kingdom endured?

(screen shots are from the motion picture Excalibur, produced by Orion Pictures)

-0-

(Perhaps these thoughts have some distant genetic origin.  Glastonbury is about ten miles from the ancient lead-mining community of Priddy, England. The patron saint of Glastonbury is Joseph of Arimathea, perhaps an uncle of Jesus, and a tin trader who took a young Jesus with him during Jesus’ “lost years” when Joseph was involved in the tin trade with pre-Roman England. Local legend in Priddy has it that a young Jesus, traveling with Joseph, also visited Priddy.

The Gospels, of course, identify Joseph of Arimathea as the person who got permission to remove Jesus’s body form the cross and to place it in his personal tomb.)

THE TIME HAS COME

Posted on by
Reply

“The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
Of cabbages—and kings—
And why the sea is boiling hot—
And whether pigs have wings.”

That part of the Lewis Carroll (creator of Alice in Wonderland) poem, “The Walrus and the Carpenter” came to mind a few days ago.  It’s an absurd poem and maybe that’s why we thought of it when the issue of golden tennis shoes became part of our absurdist political discussion a few days ago.

We have to find a word that is more fitting to these times than “unprecedented.”  Trump World has pulverized that word. It has become a sail possum word.

The sail possum theory is this (I usually apply the theory to over-covered news stories)—

Imagine on a hot August day you see an opossum in the road.  It appears to be dead and over a period of days traffic makes sure it is as cars and trucks run over the poor creature until all that is left is a pavement-baked and flattened piece of skin with some fur still attached so that someone can peel the remnants up off the pavement and sail it frisbee-like into the median.

That’s a sail possum.

“Unprecedented” has become a sail possum word because it has been applied to so many outrageous statements and actions of Trump World that repeatedly validates the phrase, “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.”

Case in point:

The time has come to talk of shoes.

Not in our wildest nightmares could we ever have conceived of the idea that the presumptive presidential nominee of one of our two major political parties would be hawking golden high-top tennis shoes to raise money to pay his legal bills.

And who will make them?  This bears close watch.  Allamerica.org put out a news release last December 11 that reported:

  • 99% of all shoes sold in the United States are imported.
  • 7 billion pairs of shoes were imported to the US in 2022 – an all-time record.
  • 25 million pairs of shoes were manufactured in the US in 2022 – the US imports 108x more shoes than it produces.
  • China is the top footwear importer to the US, exporting 1.6 billion pairs of shoes to the US in 2022. Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, and India comprise the rest of the top five US importers – all unchanged from 2021.
  • Over 81% of Americans want to buy shoes made in the USA vs. imported ones.
  • Over 58% of Americans cite high prices and difficulty finding footwear made in the USA as their primary obstacles to buying.

The sneaker industry found the announcement peculiar, to say the least, but very typical of someone whose inconsistencies matter not to him.  Shosy Ciment, writing for Footwear News, refers to his announcement s “an ironic move for the politician who, during his presidency, introduced the burdensome Section 301 tariffs on China that have had a direct negative impact on the footwear industry in the U.S., which largely relies on imports from China.”  She comments, “These tariffs have constributed to soaring footwear prices in the U.S. and have hurt American businesses and working class consumers.”

The Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America calculates footwear prices went up 4.6 percent from 2021 to 2022, and an other two-tenths of a percent in ’23.

The President and CEO of the FDRA, Matt Priest, told Ciment, “[Trump] had a direct hand in driving up costs for consumers and sneakerheads alike that added an additional upwards of $20 billion in costs to those shoes.” Matt Priest, president and chief executive officer of FDRA, told FN in an interview.

President and CEO Steve Lamar of the American Aapparel and Footware Association said, “Americans also love affordable and authentic fashion, and that is why we continue to urge for a commonsense approach to tariffs – not the reckless tariff increases proposed by former President Trump should he be re-elected, or the reckless tariff increases former President Trump imposed when he was last in office.”

Affordability is a big issue, says the Allamerica.org survey. That doesn’t seem to count with the golden sneakers. Here’s a screenshot from ebay.com taken on February 20:

Note:  TWO  pair already had been sold at the absurd price of $45,000..

Forget about Air Jordans. Get your order in now for these Hot Air Trump Pumps.

Will the golden sneakers sold to pay legal bills help make America great again or will they help pay low-salaried shoemakers in China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, and India?  And will they be made cheaply enough to maximize the profits—-and it’s going to take a LOT of profits to pay lawyers and to pay the damage assessments in fraud and defamation suits.

The longer we think about it, can we envision the reputed thousands who attend his rallies being the kind of folks who would wear red, white, and gold tennis shoes?

(To be honest, the red ones and the white ones kind of look pretty nice except for the logos on them.)

Will he wear ever wear them?  They’d really look great with his black suit, white shirt, and red tie, don’t you think?

It would help him identify with the common folks more, don’t you think? We sure don’t see may neckties and black suits in the audience at the rallies.

Some think these pricey slippers will make him increasingly acceptable to a particular demographic segment. FOX News contributor Raymond Arroyo opined the sneakers are “connecting with Black America because they love sneakers. This is a big deal, certainly in the inner city. So when you have Trump roll out his sneaker line, they’re like, ‘Wait a minute, this is cool.’ He’s reaching them on a level that defies and is above politics.”

Some folks find that kind of talk to be racist, among them MSNBC contributor Michael Steele, the first African-American to lead the Republican National committee,  who responded on MSNBC: “Seriously?  Why didn’t I think of this when I ran the RNC?  Let’s see.  Black folks love sneakers—and we can paint them gold.  This can’t miss! Trust me. It’s a big miss. And they ugly as Hell….Are they really this cynical over there at FOX?”

He seems to see Arroyo’s comments as political reductio ad absurdum, “reduction to absurdity.”

Wouldn’t Melania look stunningly fashionable in a pair as she shows her support for her spouse in his unprecedented financially difficult time although she likely wouldn’t be caught dead in the gold ones.

As for the red or white ones, in truth we probably will see them on her feet only when “pigs have wings.”

Oh, one other thing—there are no refunds and so far, there have been no delivery dates, which brings to mind more Latin—

Caveat Emptor, big time.