Category Archives: ethics

Blasphemy:

Posted on by
Reply

—The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God or to something sacred.

(Warning: This entry begins with an intemperate phrase not normally uttered by the author but circumstances have driven him to do so because there appears no better way to state the case).

If there are any people in the world that Donald Trump hasn’t pissed off yet, do not despair. The rest surely will be included soon. (Messrs Putin,  Un, and Xi excepted).

Even his evangelical Christian friends have been taken aback by his attack on the pope coupled with the totally indefensible image of him apparently raising a modern Lazarus from the dead.  

He could have said the image was a symbolic representation of his claim that he inherited a dead country but raised it up to be the hottest country in the world, a claim that would be only slightly less ridiculous than what he told reporters it was: “I thought it was me as a doctor, and had to do with Red Cross, as a Red Cross worker, which we support.” Why he thought anybody with an IQ above five would buy the explanation that he thought he was portraying a doctor will forever be a mystery.

“Had to do with the Red Cross?” We’re not sure if the woman in the lower right corner is a nurse or an airline cabin attendant.  Had she been a nurse, she might have had a red cross on her blouse. But there is nothing in the image that would lead any sentient being to think “Red Cross” when they looked at it.

And “doctor?” Nobody from Doctor Kildare to The Pitt has ever worn that kind of outfit. And his claim only shows him to be more of a fool.

The image is full of nationalistic symbols—the Statue of Liberty, the fighter jets roaring overhead, the flag.  We’re not sure what the figures above his head are (one has wings). Perhaps they are the spirits of his battlefield casualties rising to a place he has said he’s not sure he’ll go.

Not Jesus?  The piece is reminiscent of this image we discovered on the internet. I have not discovered the artist so he or she could be properly credited, but the attire and the general mood of the work can easily lead one to think Trump-as-Jesus or Donald the Christ if you will, seems pretty derivative.

Jesus undoubtedly never looked like this WASP.  It is an image any White Christian Nationalist would enjoy hanging in living room, though.

Vice President J.D. Vance rushed to his boss’s defense with the absurd suggestion that Trump was only joking and, “He took it down because he recognized that a lot of people weren’t understanding his humor in that case.”

The Knights Templar, which began as a Catholic military order supporting the first Crusade a thousand years ago, called the image “offensive and blasphemous,” and said it was “deeply offended by this and have no other choice but to condemn it wholeheartedly and ask for a public apology to the Christian brethren who have been deeply upset by this depiction. We respectfully remind President Trump of the Bible Scripture found in Galatians 6:7 ‘God will not be mocked.'”

Continue reading →

The Boodle Scandal, Part One

Posted on by
Reply

I want to take you back to the early Twentieth Century when muckraking reporters such as Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell, Ray Stannard Baker, Upton Sinclair, and Jacob Riis—to name a few—were writing powerful newspaper and magazine articles exposing the ugly underside of government and business and the partnerships between the two that sometimes amounted to a betrayal of our country or our state for their personal or corporate benefit.

Today we call them investigative reporters, people who burrow into the inner workings of business/government relationships that corruptly enrich a few and harm the many—not unlike too many things we are seeing today at the national and even the state levels wherever you might live.

In our entries today and on Wednesday we are going to bring you Lincoln Steffens’ “Enemies of the Republic” from the October, 1904 issue of McClures magazine.  But first, we need to set the stage.

“Boodle” in those days referred to bribery.  A boodler was one who gave or who accepted bribes to influence public policy.

The story of the great boodle scandal in Missouri came to me many years ago in researching the stories of the ministers of my church in Jefferson City and the brief career here of Crayton S. Brooks, a fiery temperance preacher who came to what was then a pretty wide open town particularly when the legislature was in session every other year.

On Sunday evening, March 1, 1903 Rev. Crayton S. Brooks—whose preaching earlier had led to the closing of pool halls and gambling houses—asserted from his pulpit at the First Christian Church four blocks from the Capitol that “there were $1,000 bills being exchanged in Jefferson City by men not in the habit of handling such amounts of money,” the implication being that they were buying votes in the legislature.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Joseph J. McAuliffe happened to be in one of the pews that night and wrote about the sermon. There is a lot I wish we knew about their relationship  and why a St. Louis reporter “happened” to be at the church that night, but we do know that Brooks admired St. Louis prosecutor Joe Folk for his earlier work to bring down Ed Butler, the St. Louis political boss and had made a trip to St. Louis earlier in the year, although the accounts do not say why, leaving the door open to some speculation.

Representative Edward Eversole of St. Louis was named to lead a committee investigation and started summoning witnesses from among the lobbying corps. He said, “We saw men we wanted standing about the corridors and lobby of the Capitol four deep, but as soon as one or two were served there was a wild stampede and the greatest time you ever heard of getting out of town.”

He investigation eventually led to the indictments of four Senators who were accused of taking bribes for their votes on a bill concerning the ingredients of baking powder. Steffans will explain that in  his article.  Lieutenant Governor John Adams Lee, who planned to run for governor in 1904, was exposed as the middle man who delivered the bribes from the Royal Baking Powder Trust to the four legislators, resigned and fled to Chicago.

Steffens’ article said, “There is nothing partisan about graft. Only the people are loyal to party. The ” hated” trusts, all big grafters, go with the majority. In Democratic Missouri, the Democracy is the party of “capital.” The Democratic political leaders, crying down the trusts, corner the voters like wheat, form a political trust, and sell out the sovereignty of the people to the corporation lobby. And the lobby runs the State, not only in the interest of its principals, but against the interest of the people.”

In 1992, Missourians adopted term limits, an amendment that missed the target it should have hit and as we have seen in the years since opened the door to loss of legislative independence and replaced it with—too often—outside influence.  As it was put in 1992, adoption of term limits will end corporate memory in the legislature and the power to set public policy will pass from the legislative chambers to the hallways.

I watched it happen. Only after term limits went into effect did I hear the sponsor of a bill ask someone with an amendment, “Have you run this by so-and-so in the hall?” The question became unnecessary as cell phones proliferated and lawmakers could get messages while debating bills.  House and Senate rules ban lobbyists from the legislative floors.  But the cell phone’s texting app puts them there electronically.

Ineffective campaign spending limits and a U. S. Supreme Court ruling that corporations are, for political speech purposes, to be considered “people,” have had a profound effect on who gets access, how much of it they get and how they become manipulative of the process.

Understand that this is not saying all of our elected officials are crooked or can be bought. We have to trust the people we elect but we also must be aware of the awful pressures they endure to serve and the all-consuming world they live in for four intense months every year. Political courage sometimes is weakened in that climate because they are human and we sometimes are disappointed when the podium we put them on is not as high as we think it is.

We voters have a responsibility to pay attention to the issues they are dealing with so that our lawmakers are regularly reminded who they really work for.

Citizen cynicism is easy to come by and is a reflection on the citizen who refuses to maintain at least a modicum of awareness and is therefore less likely to be “cornered like wheat.”

That is where the reporter has a place—to expose as well as report. A good reporter has to have a bit of the spirit of Lincoln Steffens inside and our media must recognize the responsibility they have to be unafraid to rake muck when necessary.

Good reporters do not want to be liked by the people they report about. Nor do they want to be hated. They do hope to be respected as a necessary element of a free society. And they should be conscious of their responsibilities to citizens on both sides the aisle. They also must be unafraid, and expect those who employ them to be unafraid, too.

On Wednesday, you will read Lincoln Steffens’ Enemies of the Republic. It, unfortunately, has elements of truth that you will recognize in our present times.

(Picture Credit: Brooks—St. Louis Republic

Obituary for a Politician

Posted on by
Reply

In 1968, Nancy and I were in Sacramento, California where our friend from college, Tracy Wood, was a United Press Reporter in the Capitol.  We went with her to a news conference with Governor Ronald Reagan.  No credentials. No security checks. We just walked with her into the room.

She took us on a tour of the Capitol which, though big with a genuine gold dome, was not nearly as impressive as ours. We went into the House of Representatives that recently had been redecorated and told us House Speaker Jesse Unruh’s first impression if it was, “It looks like a French whorehouse.”

Jesse Unruh already was something of a political legend in California, the kind of political figure I wish we had today here and in Washington. Compared to Unruh, we live in a political world where genuine almost-larger-than-life figures are replaced by bland, small and often self-important individuals who tell us they will fight for us but instead are just throwers of sand in the political sandbox.

I was looking up Unruh’s most famous quotation about lobbyists a few days ago and I came across the Washington Post’s obituary for Unruh that made us wish for an era we are old enough to remember—when politics was properly passionate in the proper places, where it seems heavyweights fought over issues in the chambers and laughed over dinner at a restaurant.

It is discourteous, it is said, to speak ill of the dead but in this era there are a number of candidates for whom we might not speak well. His is the kind of obituary for a politician we are not likely to see when the final gavel falls for too many of this generation:

Washington Post

JESSE UNRUH A ‘BIG DADDY’ WHO GAVE POLITICS AND POWER A BEAR HUG

By Lou Cannon, Washington Post  August 5, 1987

When Jesse Unruh arrived in Sacramento 32 years ago as an overweight, underpaid state assemblyman, he became part of a legislature that was largely of the lobbyists, by the lobbyists and for the lobbyists.

The history books will say that Unruh, who died of cancer Tuesday in his California home at the age of 64, took money from these lobbyists and used it to elect legislators who made him, as speaker of the Assembly, the most powerful politician in California. The historians will also say that Unruh used this power to transform a supine and dependent legislative body into one that had a decent respect for the people and sufficient resources to represent them. They will say that the Unruh era was a time when the legislature initiated action to help the needy, protect consumers, advance civil rights and save some of California’s magnificent parklands before developers could destroy them.

During the Unruh years, these achievements were overshadowed by the forceful personality and gargantuan appetites of “Big Daddy,” a nickname given him by his friends and hurled back in his face by his enemies.

He was called “Big Daddy” because of his supposed resemblance to the domineering southern father played by Burl Ives in the film version of “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.” But Unruh really was more Broderick Crawford than Ives, the Crawford who portrays a thinly disguised Huey Long in “All the King’s Men” and rallies the rural dispossessed to his banner by calling them “hicks” and promising them a taste of the power they have never had.

When Unruh went to the legislature, he was a real hick from the cotton fields of Swenson, Tex., by way of the Navy and a GI Bill of Rights education at the University of Southern California. He had been dirt poor, and he once said that he never wore socks before he was 12 but that no one could tell because his feet were so dirty.

” . . . They live in a steady shame and insult of discomforts, insecurities and, inferiorities, piecing these together into whatever semblance of comfortable living they can,” James Agee wrote of similar sharecroppers. This is what Unruh’s life was like as a boy and, in some inner recess, what it must always have been like. After he became, at 39, the youngest speaker of the Assembly in California’s history, he told a friend, “I’m still not sure I’m not going to wake up some day and be on a small farm out there in Texas.”

Perhaps because he knew what it was like to be truly powerless, Unruh had a keener appreciation of power than more sheltered politicians. “He was the premier politician in the state because he knew the issues and understood the uses of power,” said Stuart K. Spencer, a longtime Republican adversary and friend. “He used power to advance the causes he believed in. He was very honest and didn’t go sneaking around when he wanted money like some politicians do. But the key was that he was willing to use the power once he acquired it.”

Unruh’s Democratic candidates and Spencer’s Republican candidates competed for the legislature in campaigns of brutal intensity and misrepresentation. Afterward, they would drink together and tell stories about what they had done to each other. Unruh did not avoid his adversaries, and he valued most those who shared his understanding that politics was both a noble calling and a dirty business.

Unruh was not afraid to get his hands dirty. He despised those who disdained political detail or soared above the petty and sometimes ugly struggles by which he remade the State Assembly. Unruh boasted too much and ate too much and, for a long time, drank too much. But he did not shrink from the reality of his faults or his virtues.

Instructing freshman assemblymen on how legislators were supposed to behave in lobby-ridden Sacramento, Unruh would say, “If you can’t eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women and then vote against them, you have no business being up here.” This doctrine formed the core of Unruh’s political theology. He knew that the lobbyists were an eternal fact of life. He believed that the way to deal with them was to accept this fact and use their resources to advance his own agenda.

He did not deal as successfully with Ronald Reagan as he had with the lobbyists. Unruh was too proud of his political skills to appreciate the contempt which many Americans hold for politicians as a class. Gov. Reagan, who did not know the contents of his own legislative program, understood and shared this prejudice and exploited it at Unruh’s expense.

But it is also true that Unruh, who was at bottom an unrelenting, populist Democrat with a personal understanding of poverty, gave Reagan a tougher political race than any other Democrat has before or since. You can look it up, as Casey Stengel would have said. Without money or organization or an attractive television personality, Unruh nonetheless came much closer to defeating Reagan at the polls than did Gov. Edmund G. (Pat) Brown, President Jimmy Carter or Vice President Walter F. Mondale.

After Unruh lost to Reagan in 1970, his political life went downhill. He was strong enough to accept defeat, but he was unable to deal with powerlessness and being out of the legislature. As an elder statesman, he was a bust.

Unruh subsequently was elected state treasurer, a job whose requirements he mastered within minutes and which gave him time and freedom. But his home was no longer in the future, and he spent the rest of his life recalling the glory days when he had been “Big Daddy,” the powerful speaker of the Assembly.

He had a right to do that, a right to feel pride in his accomplishments. He did something that no else has ever done. He went to California as a Texas hick and remade its corrupt and backward-looking legislature into a modern instrument of democracy. This is not a small thing.

Oh, how I would like to see those words about eating, drinking, etc., and voting against them on the wall of every legislative office in our Capitol.  I’ll bet a craftsman in Jefferson City could sell of lot of ‘em.  Maybe they would provoke some cultural change.

 

Traditional?

Posted on by
Reply

Donald Trump, who often has accused his accusers of engaging in witch hunts, appears to be off on a witch hunt of his own, a witch being anyone who does not advocate “traditional views.”  HIS “traditional views.”

We hope somebody asks him for a comprehensive definition of “traditional views” so that I know whether I am involved in “domestic terrorism,” another subject that it would be entertaining to hear him define.

During the weekend a memo written by loyalist Pam Bondi, whom Trump has designated to supervise the Justice (rather loosely defined these day) Department, was leaked. It tells the DOJ to put together a list of “domestic terrorism” groups.

What constitutes such a group?

It is what the Trump/Bondi DOJ chooses to consider “extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment.”

In other words, it’s those who disagree with President Trump who, in our observation, is never going to rival Noah Webster in defining words and terms.

Reporter Ken Klippenstein revealed the memo.  And who is he?

An interesting character. Young, used to work for The Intercept, a nonprofit news organization considered to be well into the political west wing, a former correspondent for The Nation, a  liberal magazine, and a part of the growing online news world. His father is a theoretical chemist at the Argonne National Laboratory. He says his mother’s family was undocumented immigrants from El Salvador.  College grad with a degree in English literature. He has broken other stories using leaked material, too.

We wonder how quickly his name is in a Pamagram sent to the list.

Trump is not the first ruler to impose his “traditional views” on the people.

Tomás de Torquemada, the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition from 1483 to 1498 under appointment of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain, the patrons of Christopher Columbus who ventured forth during a period of extreme persecution of Jews and Muslims to spread those traditional (Christian) views to whatever heathens he found when he arrived someplace that he did not know he was going to.

Going back even earlier, we can talk about Pope Stephen VI, who in a remarkable fifteen months pulled all kinds of stunts including the calling of the infamous Cadaver Synod in which he put his dead predecessor on trial for perjury and the illegal assumption of the papacy.  He dug up the corpse of Pope Formosus, put papal vestments on it, propped it up on a throne and had a mock trial.

The corpse did not mount much of a defense and after being found guilty was stripped of his vestments and ceremonially maimed (three of his fingers were cut off) before the remains of his remains were thrown into the Tiber River. There was widespread disapproval of Pope Steve’s definition of “traditional views” and he wound up in prison where he was strangled to death, apparently by non-traditionalists.

Long before Russia had Stalin and his “traditional views,” it had Ivan the Terrible—Ivan IV—who reigned for more than fifty years. He, too, started by promising reforms but quickly was consumed by paranoia and formed his own secret police that terrorized and murdered his subjects by the thousands, one of who was his own son.

Romania in 15th century had Vlad III who once ordered 20,000 enemy soldiers impaled, their bodies remaining on display as a warning against disloyalty. Vlad the Impaler, he is still called.

His cruelty wasn’t just reserved for outsiders; he targeted his own people as well. Vlad would punish dishonesty and laziness with extreme torture, sometimes impaling entire villages. Laziness and dishonesty also were abhorred by our Puritan ancestors, but they just stuck people in the stocks for a few hours—

—Unless they were witches.  Hanging, pressing, and drowning seemed to have been the Puritan Christian cures for those tendencies.

As far as I know, nobody has accused President Trump of being a Puritan. So we’d appreciate it if he’d offer a clear explanation of his terms sometime when he’s awake and not playing the Game of Invective all night on his social media account.

We don’t want to spend any more time—although we could—listing other rulers who sought to protect “traditional values” as they defined them. And we certainly don’t want to suggest that President Trump fits the mold of those we have cited and others on various lists of vengeful rulers. But punishment for differing with any ruler who considers himself the only one to define “traditional values” has a past that must raise questions about a person of questionable personal ethics setting a national agenda for you and me.

The Trump memo also demands creation of “a national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts.”

The President’s definition of “domestic terrorism threat” as being any organization that uses “violence or the threat of violence” to oppose “law and immigration enforcement, extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders, adherence to radical gender theology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government” and the aforementioned “hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality.”

Except for MAGA and January 6, 2021 celebrants.

You will excuse me, I hope, if I cannot consider Donald J. Trump in any way fit to determine nation’s views “on family, religion, and morality.”

The Constitution aside, this is a pretty broad mission for our national ruler. Just about everybody falls into one of these categories in one way or another, including me. And you.

Apparently, however, there is a way that we can become immune to prosecution under this policy. We just have to cough up a nine or ten-figure amount to pay for decoration of the monstrosity of a Trump Worship Center that will stand for decades as a tribute to his bad tase and his desire to have more monuments to himself than anybody since the ancient Egyptian pharaohs.

I’m going to put an orange jumpsuit on my Christmas gift list to make sure I’m properly dressed when the traditional values Pamgoons come for me.

 

 

Lincoln

Posted on by
1

(Before we dip our pen in acid for this entry, please let us observe a bit of a milestone. This page represents page 3,000 of these entries. Today we will plod toward word number 1,300,000. We are sure that we are the only one who has read every word and every page.)

If you’ve been along for a long, long time, maybe you should send yourself a sympathy card.

Now, on with the show:)

Lincoln

Some people just have the right names.

Lincoln Hough SOUNDS like a Republican Senator’s name.

He is one.

But he’s in trouble—

—-because Lincoln Hough is not above thinking. And speaking his mind.

Because he had the nerve to suggest that the Missouri Senate was going against everything the Missouri Senate has stood for, he has been slapped down by his party.

Hough objected to the final dismantling of the Senate’s legacy as a deliberative, respectful, collegial part of government when his party’s majority leadership rammed two questionable bills through a short special legislative session to satisfy the self-serving demand of an increasingly dictatorial President and a desire by his party to mangle the concept of majority vote.

His party leaders have increasingly through the years stifled minority opposition to issues by passing motions to limit or prohibit discussion.  Hough is one of two Senate Republicans who had the courage to vote against the bills in the special legislative session, and to vote against ending debate on them.  Within minutes after the session adjourned, the leader of the Senate majority went to his office and fired him as the chairman of arguably the Senate’s most important committee, the one that writes the Senate’s version of the state budget.

Lincoln Hough told The Missouri Independent that as far as he was concerned, the Missouri Senate died at 1:42 p.m. on Friday, September 12 when debate was blocked on the bill weakening the First Amendment right of citizens  “to petition their government for a redress of grievances,” as it is put in the Bill of Rights.

This was one of the darkest weeks I’ve served during my time in the senate.

If the votes that I cast this week that I believed were in the best interests of my constituents in Springfield, the State of Missouri, and the institution of the Missouri Senate put me at odds with the President Pro Tem of the Senate cost me my chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee then so be it. I wouldn’t change any of them.

I’m looking forward spending my time and energy during my last session on the floor of the senate working every day to restore this institution to place of honor I inherited from Senators Richard and Wasson.

Ron Richard, from Joplin, is the only person in Missouri history to serve as Speaker of the House and President Pro Tem of the Senate. Bill Wasson was Hough’s predecessor in the Senate.

I believe in a process where members are given an opportunity to have a conversation about a piece of legislation, two, to ask questions about a piece of legislation, and, three, propose changes through an amendment process on the floor. When all of that is circumvented, that’s a problem.

This was not the first time Hough had voiced opposition to his party’s legislation by steamroller. He objected to shutting down debate at the end of the regular session in May on a bill repealing two issues voters had approved last year—protection of abortion rights and expansion of sick leave.

He called those actions and the special session experience “a dismantling of what the Senate is supposed to be.”

His party leader wasted no time dropping the axe. Less than half an hour after the session adjourned President Pro Tem Cindy O’Laughlin went to Hough’s office and took away his appropriations committee chairmanship. He has been the vice chairman and then chairman since he came to the Senate six years ago.

She said, ‘we are tired of fighting with you. To which my response was, ‘did you fight with me this week, or did I just go out here and vote no on something that was handed down to the Missouri Senate and a bunch of elected members who are not allowed to talk?’

O’Laughlin assured Springfield television station KYTV there really aren’t any hard feelings involved.

“Every good business has a succession plan. We should not expect less for the Missouri Senate. Leadership on the budget includes not only planning expenditures, but being responsible for outcomes. Eight senators are terming out next year and that is a full 1/3 of the Republican caucus. Planning and executing those plans is a complicated process requiring constant work and oversight. In my view we need an appropriations chair who can get acclimated to the job before the turnover occurs. It has been my plan to appoint a chairman who can gain experience and continue on after the seats change next year. In my view this gives them the best chance of success.

Senior senators can help in this process prior to terming out. I implemented that plan yesterday and it is one I spoke to Senator Hough about last November. He is one of the most talented senators l’ve met and the change has nothing to do with votes as some have conjectured. Serving Missouri is not just about prestige but also about doing what is best for Missourians. I greatly appreciate Senator Hough and the immense amount of work he has performed on behalf of Missourians.

That might be true. Or it might be so much eyewash. Regardless, the optics—to use a phrase that has gained some purchase in our politics today—are pretty bad.  As for continuity, the vice chair of the committee is Chillicothe Senator Rusty Black, who is in his first Senate term and faces the voters for a second term next year. Three other Republican members of the appropriations committee are in their first terms and one other was just elected his second term last year. The committee also includes four Democrats, none of them eligible for committee leadership unless an unlikely switch of majority occurs. But committee members are hardly rookies and will have even more experience after the 2026 budget process.

Hough told The Missourinet O’Laughlin’s statement is “completely disingenuous,” noting that she had not replaced any of the other term-limited chairs of other Seante committees.

Here’s something else that speaks for the character of Lincoln Hough.  He has a picture of Harry Truman in a prominent place in his office.

He hasn’t done it because he’s some kind of a maverick. He’s done it because of the history of his office.

He put up the Truman picture after I saw David Balducchi’s article in the Missouri Historical Review in April, 2021 detailing Truman’s brief Missouri directorship of the National Reemployment Service. From October of 1933 until mid-May of 1934, Truman spent three days a week in Jefferson City where his office was in rooms 419A and 419B of the Capitol.

I took the article to Senator Hough’s office in those rooms and as soon as he read it, he set about getting a nice farmed picture of Truman with a note included in the frame noting Truman’s use of that space.

It was while Truman held that job that Kansas City political boss Tom Pendergast offered him a chance to run for the U.S. Senate, a move some say Pendergast engineered because Truman had been too honest in his job as Jackson County Presiding Judge and Pendergast expected him to lose the Senate bid at the same time his administrative judgeship ran out so a Pendergast crony could be installed in the county position. Truman surprisingly won the first of his two terms before he became President.

It seems kind of appropriate that a portrait of a man who was too honest to suit his own party’s political boss in 1934 should be inhabited by a state senator today who had the courage to call out his party’s willingness to do the biddings of a President who acts as a political boss today.  Hough:

It’s pretty easy to pass legislation in the Missouri Senate if you don’t have to talk about it, and you can just bring it before the body and say, we’re not, we’re not going to have any discussion whatsoever. It seems that if you have any independent thought, or even just raise a question, you have a problem with this Republican Party and that is not the Republican Party that, 15 years ago when I first ran for the House, that I was part of.

There is a penalty sometimes for courage. Hough wasn’t told when he was fired as appropriations chairman if he is even still a committee member.

He lost a Republican primary bid for Lieutenant Governor last year.  I noticed on Facebook a few days after the session ended that someone thinks he’d be a good Congressman. At a time when President Trump’s support seems to be slipping within the Congress, a Republican such as Lincoln Hough, who has an independent streak, might be the kind of Republican the party needs for its future.

A Republican named Lincoln with a big picture of a Democrat named Harry in his office.

Those are pretty good optics.

 

American Values

Posted on by
Reply

A Trumpist friend who I think quaffs from the carafe of Trump Kool-Aid more than a reasonable person should nonetheless seems to retain a bit of a sense of humor, which is more than his president has.  A few days ago, he sent me this, knowing that I would be amused. Sometimes truth IS really funny.  Truth Social never is, which is one of the virtues of this observation.

Let’s call this Social Truth.

We don’t know who put this poster together but it could be suitable for framing.

I was amused.  Trump wouldn’t be. Polls, however, indicate a growing number Americans also would agree with this;

 Ed 

Posted on by
Reply

We watched George Clooney’s Broadway play, “Good Night and Good Luck,” Saturday night on CNN. Some of you, I hope, watched the show, too.

The play is a stage version of a movie by the same name that was produced two decades ago and that gained some Oscar nominations.  It begins and ends with parts of a 37-minute speech Edward R. Murrow gave on October 15, 1958 at the national convention of the Radio-Television News Director’s Association, Murrow’s critique of the still-young television news industry.

It’s known as Murrow’s “wires and lights in a box” speech. Some call it his “suicide speech,” because of his criticism of network TV, particularly of his employer, CBS.

In between the opening and closing remarks (more on the latter later), the movie/play focuses on a courageous time in the history of Murrow of CBS when they took on the most powerful demagogue of that time, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, who claimed the State Department was full of Communist spies.

Many today consider the demagoguery of Donald Trump, a latter-day, and more dangerous demagogue than McCarthy was, mainly because Trump has far more power than McCarthy had. There is no doubt that the play is especially timely in demonstrating a time when some in the media did not shirk the challenge of speaking to considerable power and the need for the kind of courage Murrow showed to do exactly that, especially when he used McCarthy’s own words to help dismantle his threat.

While Murrow has been hailed for his courage in challenging McCarthy, it’s not fair to many other journalists, in print or on the air, who also were taking him on.  But Murrow, the broadcast journalistic hero of WWII because of his powerful reporting, often from dangerous situations, was not the only one.

I have some links to Murrow, the film, the speech, and the organization to which he spoke.

Murrow is my patron saint of broadcast journalism. When I was still active in the business and sometimes asked to speak to a journalism class, I would have the students listen to his report of what he found at Buchenwald three days after the allies seized it. Some of the  young people are stunned, partly because they were unfamiliar with that part of history and partly because of the power of his words.

I was the first two-time Chairman of the Board of the RTNDA and I talked with several of those who were involved in getting Murrow to give that speech or were in the audience when he gave it.

I had a very minor and uncredited consulting role in the movie’s production, providing the association’s 1958 logo and some of the background information about the speech.  My reward is a movie theatre poster for the film signed by Clooney, his co=writer Grant Heslov—who played a young version of 60 Minutes founder Don Heweitt, and David Strathairn, who played Murrow.

The play was excellent but I thought the movie was better, partly because there was no mention of the organization to which Murrow spoke. The need to project a voice for the stage, I thought, made Murrow sound more angry than he actually sounded, even though there were times when he was very angry.  His normal delivery was at a lower volume that bespoke greater authority than Clooney exhibited.  But that’s really nit-picking because of knowledge of the man and the speech that most of those who saw the play don’t have.

The general public seems to have found deep meaning in the play. “I was blown away,” said a friend at lunch after church yesterday.  And I can  understand that the play was geared more for the general public than to the journalists who have tried to live in the spirit of Murrow.

But as a journalist, I was distressed by the ending.  The last paragraph of the speech was eliminated in both the movie and in the play in favor of a more—what?—wistful approach after his famous wires and lights in a box observation.

The real conclusion of the speech is a challenge that might be even greater than his next-to-last paragraph that gave its name to his speech:

“This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and even it can inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise, it’s nothing but wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.”

Here’s the final paragraph:

“Stonewall Jackson, who is generally believed to have known something about weapons, is reported to have said, ‘When war comes, you must draw the sword and throw away the scabbard.’ The trouble with television is that it is rusting in the scabbard during a battle for survival.”

He did NOT say “Good night and Good Luck” at the end of the speech.  That was reserved for his news shows.  He told the RTNDA audience that night in Chicago, “Thank you for your patience.”

One more personal note:

I knew a man who wrote newscasts for Murrow and for Missouri native Walter Cronkite. Murrow and Cronkite wrote their own commentaries, but Ed Bliss was the newswriter and supervisor of the newswriting staffs.

He often told people attending his writing seminars:

“…Good writing is good writing and the best writing in whatever medium is good broadcast writing. It is clear; it is simple. Hemingway wrote good broadcast copy.

“…In broadcast news the challenge is greatest. Nowhere is clarity in writing so necessary; nowhere the clock so tyrannical; nowhere the audience and the responsibility so great. In your hands has been placed the greatest invention. Not the satellite truck or the computer, but the word.”

In our time, the words of Murrow and Bliss are especially meaningful, and the warnings of their misuse are especially contemporary.

It is time to throw away the scabbard in the conflict with an entity that is of far greater danger to our country than McCarthy was, for McCarthy was only a Senator.

 

If you want to hear Murrow give this famous speech:

Bing Videos

If  you’d like to follow along and think about the things he said, here’s a transcript (courtesy of RTDNA, which also provided the picture we have used.

This just might do nobody any good. At the end of this discourse a few people may accuse this reporter of fouling his own comfortable nest, and your organization may be accused of having given hospitality to heretical and even dangerous thoughts. But I am persuaded that the elaborate structure of networks, advertising agencies and sponsors will not be shaken or altered. It is my desire, if not my duty, to try to talk to you journeymen with some candor about what is happening to radio and television in this generous and capacious land. I have no technical advice or counsel to offer those of you who labor in this vineyard the one that produces words and pictures. You will, I am sure, forgive me for not telling you that the instruments with which you work are miraculous, that your responsibility is unprecedented or that your aspirations are frequently frustrated. It is not necessary to remind you of the fact that your voice, amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other, does not confer upon you greater wisdom than when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other. All of these things you know.

You should also know at the outset that, in the manner of witnesses before Congressional committees, I appear here voluntarily-by invitation-that I am an employee of the Columbia Broadcasting System, that I am neither an officer nor any longer a director of that corporation and that these remarks are strictly of a “do-it-yourself” nature. If what I have to say is responsible, then I alone am responsible for the saying of it. Seeking neither approbation from my employers, nor new sponsors, nor acclaim from the critics of radio and television, I cannot very well be disappointed. Believing that potentially the commercial system of broadcasting as practiced in this country is the best and freest yet devised, I have decided to express my concern about what I believe to be happening to radio and television. These instruments have been good to me beyond my due. There exists in mind no reasonable grounds for any kind of personal complaint. I have no feud, either with my employers, any sponsors, or with the professional critics of radio and television. But I am seized with an abiding fear regarding what these two instruments are doing to our society, our culture and our heritage.

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or perhaps in color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, AND PAY LATER.

For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must indeed be faced if we are to survive. And I mean the word survive, quite literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then perhaps, some young and courageous soul with a small budget might do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done–and are still doing–to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizen from anything that is unpleasant.

I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry’s program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is–an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.

Several years ago, when we undertook to do a program on Egypt and Israel, well-meaning, experienced and intelligent friends in the business said, “This you cannot do. This time you will be handed your head. It is an emotion-packed controversy, and there is no room for reason in it.” We did the program. Zionists, anti-Zionists, the friends of the Middle East, Egyptian and Israeli officials said, I must confess with a faint tone of surprise, “It was a fair account. The information was there. We have no complaints.”

Our experience was similar with two half-hour programs dealing with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Both the medical profession and the tobacco industry cooperated, but in a rather wary fashion. But in the end of the day they were both reasonably content. The subject of radioactive fallout and the banning of nuclear tests was, and is, highly controversial. But according to what little evidence there is, viewers were prepared to listen to both sides with reason and restraint. This is not said to claim any special or unusual competence in the presentation of controversial subjects, but rather to indicate that timidity in these areas is not warranted by the evidence.

Recently, network spokesmen have been disposed to complain that the professional critics of television in print have been rather beastly. There have been ill-disguised hints that somehow competition for the advertising dollar has caused the critics in print to gang up on television and radio. This reporter has no desire to defend the critics. They have space in which to do that on their own behalf. But it remains a fact that the newspapers and magazines are the only instruments of mass communication which remain free from sustained and regular critical comment. I would suggest that if the network spokesmen are so anguished about what appears in print, then let them come forth and engage in a little sustained and regular comment regarding newspapers and magazines. It is an ancient and sad fact that most people in network television, and radio, have an exaggerated regard for what appears in print. And there have been cases where executives have refused to make even private comment on a program for which they are responsible until they had read the reviews in print. This is hardly an exhibition of confidence in their own judgment.

The oldest excuse of the networks for their timidity is their youth. Their spokesmen say, “We are young. We have not developed the traditions. nor acquired the experience of the older media.” If they but knew it, they are building those traditions and creating those precedents every day. Each time they yield to a voice from Washington or any political pressure, each time they eliminate something that might offend some section of the community, they are creating their own body of precedent and tradition, and it will continue to pursue them. They are, in fact, not content to be half safe.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than by the fact that the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission publicly prods broadcasters to engage in their legal right to editorialize. Of course, to undertake an editorial policy; overt, clearly labeled, and obviously unsponsored; requires a station or a network to be responsible. Most stations today probably do not have the manpower to assume this responsibility, but the manpower could be recruited. Editorials, of course, would not be profitable. If they had a cutting edge, they might even offend. It is much easier, much less troublesome, to use this money-making machine of television and radio merely as a conduit through which to channel anything that will be paid for that is not libelous, obscene or defamatory. In that way one has the illusion of power without responsibility.

So far as radio–that most satisfying, ancient but rewarding instrument–is concerned, the diagnosis of the difficulties is not too difficult. And obviously I speak only of news and information. In order to progress, it need only go backward. Back to the time when singing commercials were not allowed on news reports, when there was no middle commercial in a 15-minute news report, when radio was rather proud, and alert, and fast. I recently asked a network official, “Why this great rash of five-minute news reports (including three commercials) on weekends?” And he replied, “Because that seems to be the only thing we can sell.”

Well, in this kind of complex and confusing world, you can’t tell very much about the “why” of the news in a broadcast where only three minutes is available for news. The only man who could do that was Elmer Davis, and his kind aren’t around any more. If radio news is to be regarded as a commodity, only acceptable when saleable, and only when packaged to fit the advertising appropriate of a sponsor, then I don’t care what you call it–I say it isn’t news.

My memory — and I have not yet reached the point where my memories fascinate me — but my memory also goes back to the time when the fear of a slight reduction in business did not result in an immediate cutback in bodies in the news and public affairs department, at a time when network profits had just reached an all-time high. We would all agree, I think, that whether on a station or a network, the stapling machine is a very poor substitute for a newsroom typewriter, and somebody to beat it properly.

One of the minor tragedies of television news and information is that the networks will not even defend their vital interests. When my employer, CBS, through a combination of enterprise and good luck, did an interview with Nikita Khrushchev, the President uttered a few ill-chosen, uninformed words on the subject, and the network thereupon practically apologized. This produced something of a rarity: Many newspapers defended the CBS right to produce the program and commended it for its initiative. The other networks remained silent.

Likewise, when John Foster Dulles, by personal decree, banned American journalists from going to Communist China, and subsequently offered seven contradictory explanations, for his fiat the networks entered only a mild protest. Then they apparently forgot the unpleasantness. Can it be that this national industry is content to serve the public interest only with the trickle of news that comes out of Hong Kong, to leave its viewers in ignorance of the cataclysmic changes that are occurring in a nation of six hundred million people? I have no illusions about the difficulties of reporting from a dictatorship, but our British and French allies have been better served–in their public interest–with some very useful information from their reporters in Communist China.

One of the basic troubles with radio and television news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news. Each of the three is a rather bizarre and, at times, demanding profession. And when you get all three under one roof, the dust never settles. The top management of the networks with a few notable exceptions, has been trained in advertising, research, sales or show business. But by the nature of the corporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs. Frequently they have neither the time nor the competence to do this. It is, after all, not easy for the same small group of men to decide whether to buy a new station for millions of dollars, build a new building, alter the rate card, buy a new Western, sell a soap opera, decide what defensive line to take in connection with the latest Congressional inquiry, how much money to spend on promoting a new program, what additions or deletions should be made in the existing covey or clutch of vice-presidents, and at the same time– frequently on the long, same long day–to give mature, thoughtful consideration to the manifold problems that confront those who are charged with the responsibility for news and public affairs.

Sometimes there is a clash between the public interest and the corporate interest. A telephone call or a letter from a proper quarter in Washington is treated rather more seriously than a communication from an irate but not politically potent viewer. It is tempting enough to give away a little air time for frequently irresponsible and unwarranted utterances in an effort to temper the wind of political criticism. But this could well be the subject of a separate and even lengthier and drearier dissertation.

Upon occasion, economics and editorial judgment are in conflict. And there is no law which says that dollars will be defeated by duty. Not so long ago the President of the United States delivered a television address to the nation. He was discoursing on the possibility or the probability of war between this nation and the Soviet Union and Communist China. It would seem to have been a reasonably compelling subject, with a degree of urgency attached. Two networks, CBS and NBC, delayed that broadcast for an hour and fifteen minutes. If this decision was dictated by anything other than financial reasons, the networks didn’t deign to explain those reasons. That hour-and-fifteen-minute delay, by the way, is a little more than twice the time required for an ICBM to travel from the Soviet Union to major targets in the United States. It is difficult to believe that this decision was made by men who love, respect and understand news.

I have been dealing largely with the deficit side of the ledger, and the items could be expanded. But I have said, and I believe, that potentially we have in this country a free enterprise system of radio and television which is superior to any other. But to achieve its promise, it must be both free and enterprising. There is no suggestion here that networks or individual stations should operate as philanthropies. But I can find nothing in the Bill of Rights or in the Communications Act which says that they must increase their net profits each year, lest the republic collapse. I do not suggest that news and information should be subsidized by foundations or private subscriptions. I am aware that the networks have expended, and are expending, very considerable sums of money on public affairs programs from which they cannot receive any financial reward. I have had the privilege at CBS of presiding over a considerable number of such programs. And I am able to stand here and say, that I have never had a program turned down by my superiors just because of the money it would cost.

But we all know that you cannot reach the potential maximum audience in marginal time with a sustaining program. This is so because so many stations on the network–any network–will decline to carry it. Every licensee who applies for a grant to operate in the public interest, convenience and necessity makes certain promises as to what he will do in terms of program content. Many recipients of licenses have, in blunt language, just plain welshed on those promises. The money-making machine somehow blunts their memories. The only remedy for this is closer inspection and punitive action by the F.C.C. But in the view of many, this would come perilously close to supervision of program content by a federal agency.

So it seems that we cannot rely on philanthropic support or foundation subsidies. We cannot follow the sustaining route. The networks cannot pay all the freight. And the F.C.C. cannot, will not, or should not discipline those who abuse the facilities that belong to the public. What, then, is the answer? Do we merely stay in our comfortable nests, concluding that the obligation of these instruments has been discharged when we work at the job of informing the public for a minimum of time? Or do we believe that the preservation of the republic is a seven-day-a-week job, demanding more awareness, better skills and more perseverance than we have yet contemplated.

I am frightened by the imbalance, the constant striving to reach the largest possible audience for everything; by the absence of a sustained study of the state of the nation. Heywood Broun once said, “No body politic is healthy until it begins to itch.” I would like television to produce some itching pills rather than this endless outpouring of tranquilizers. It can be done. Maybe it won’t be, but it could. But let us not shoot the wrong piano player. Do not be deluded into believing that the titular heads of the networks control what appears on their networks. They all have better taste. All are responsible to stockholders, and in my experience all are honorable men. But they must schedule what they can sell in the public market.

And this brings us to the nub of the question. In one sense it rather revolves around the phrase heard frequently along Madison Avenue: “The Corporate Image.” I am not precisely sure what this phrase means, but I would imagine that it reflects a desire on the part of the corporations who pay the advertising bills to have a public image, or believe that they are not merely bodies with no souls, panting in pursuit of elusive dollars. They would like us to believe that they can distinguish between the public good and the private or corporate gain. So the question is this: Are the big corporations who pay who pay the freight for radio and television programs to use that time exclusively for the sale of goods and services? Is it in their own interest and that of the stockholders so to do? The sponsor of an hour’s television program is not buying merely the six minutes devoted to his commercial message. He is determining, within broad limits, the sum total of the impact of the entire hour. If he always, invariably, reaches for the largest possible audience, then this process of insulation, of escape from reality, will continue to be massively financed, and its apologists will continue to make winsome speeches about giving the public what it wants, or letting the public decide.

I refuse to believe that the presidents and chairmen of the boards of these big corporations want their corporate image to consist exclusively of a solemn voice in an echo chamber, or a pretty girl opening the door of a refrigerator, or a horse that talks. They want something better, and on occasion some of them have demonstrated it. But most of the men whose legal and moral responsibility it is to spend the stockholders’ money for advertising are, in fact, removed from the realities of the mass media by five, six, or a dozen contraceptive layers of vice-presidents, public relations counsel and advertising agencies. Their business is to sell goods, and the competition is pretty tough.

But this nation is now in competition with malignant forces of evil who are using every instrument at their command to empty the minds of their subjects and fill those minds with slogans, determination and faith in the future. If we go on as we are, we are protecting the mind of the American public from any real contact with the menacing world that squeezes in upon us. We are engaged in a great experiment to discover whether a free public opinion can devise and direct methods of managing the affairs of the nation. We may fail. But in terms of information, we are handicapping ourselves needlessly.

Let us have a little competition not only in selling soap, cigarettes and automobiles, but in informing a troubled, apprehensive but receptive public. Why should not each of the 20 or 30 big corporations–and they dominate radio and television–decide that they will give up one or two of their regularly scheduled programs each year, turn the time over to the networks and say in effect: “This is a tiny tithe, just a little bit of our profits. On this particular night we aren’t going to try to sell cigarettes or automobiles; this is merely a gesture to indicate our belief in the importance of ideas.” The networks should, and I think they would, pay for the cost of producing the program. The advertiser, the sponsor, would get name credit but would have nothing to do with the content of the program. Would this blemish the corporate image? Would the stockholders rise up and object? I think not. For if the premise upon which our pluralistic society rests, which as I understand it is that if the people are given sufficient undiluted information, they will then somehow, even after long, sober second thoughts, reach the right conclusion. If that premise is wrong, then not only the corporate image but the corporations and the rest of us are done for.

There used to be an old phrase in this country, employed when someone talked too much. I am grateful to all of you for not having employed it earlier. The phrase was: “Go hire a hall.” Under this proposal, the sponsor would have hired the hall; he has bought the time. The local station operator, no matter how indifferent, is going to carry the program–he has to–he’s getting paid for it. Then it’s up to the networks to fill the hall. I am not here talking about editorializing but about straightaway exposition as direct, unadorned and impartial as fallible human beings can make it. Just once in a while let us exalt the importance of ideas and information. Let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey of the state of American education, and a week or two later the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East. Would the corporate image of their respective sponsors be damaged? Would the stockholders rise up and complain? Would anything happen other than that a few million people would have received a little illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country, and therefore also the future of the corporations? This method would also provide real competition between the networks as to which could outdo the others in the palatable presentation of information. It would provide an outlet for the young men of skill, and there are many, even of dedication, who would like to do something other than devise methods of insulating while selling.

There may be other and simpler methods of utilizing these instruments of radio and television in the interest of a free society. But I know of none that could be so easily accomplished inside the framework of the existing commercial system. I don’t know how you would measure the success or failure of a given program. And it would be very hard to prove the magnitude of the benefit accruing to the corporation which gave up one night of a variety or quiz show in order that the network might marshal its skills to do a thorough-going job on the present status of NATO, or plans for controlling nuclear tests. But I would reckon that the president, and indeed the stockholders of the corporation who sponsored such a venture, would feel just a little bit better about both the corporation and the country.

It may be that this present system, with no modifications and no experiments, can survive. Perhaps the money-making machine has some kind of built-in perpetual motion, but I do not think so. To a very considerable extent, the media of mass communications in a given country reflects the political, economic and social climate in which it grows and flourishes. That is the reason our system differs from the British and the French, and also from the Russian and the Chinese. We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. And our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs constantly moan about the state of our culture and our defense. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live. I would like to see it done inside the existing framework, and I would like to see the doing of it redound to the credit of those who finance and program it. Measure the results by Nielsen, Trendex or Silex-it doesn’t matter. The main thing is to try. The responsibility can be easily placed, in spite of all the mouthings about giving the public what it wants. It rests on big business, and on big television, and it rests on the top. Responsibility is not something that can be assigned or delegated. And it promises its own reward: both good business and good television.

Perhaps no one will do anything about it. I have ventured to outline it against a background of criticism that may have been too harsh only because I could think of nothing better. Someone once said–and I think it was Max Eastman–that “that publisher serves his advertiser best who best serves his readers.” I cannot believe that radio and television, or the corporations that finance the programs, are serving well or truly their viewers or their listeners, or themselves.

I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us.

We are to a large extent an imitative society. If one or two or three corporations would undertake to devote just a small fraction of their advertising appropriation along the lines that I have suggested, the procedure might well grow by contagion; the economic burden would be bearable, and there might ensue a most exciting adventure–exposure to ideas and the bringing of reality into the homes of the nation.

To those who say people wouldn’t look; they wouldn’t be interested; they’re too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter’s opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and even it can inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise, it’s nothing but wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.”

Stonewall Jackson, who is generally believed to have known something about weapons, is reported to have said, “When war comes, you must draw the sword and throw away the scabbard.” The trouble with television is that it is rusting in the scabbard during a battle for survival.

Thank  you for your patience.

The King of the World

Posted on by
2

The big black limousine pulls to the curb and out steps a man in a pin-stripe suit, his shiny dark hair slicked back, a bulge on the left side of his coat indicating there’s something behind the handkerchief poking up from the pocket.

He looks around, warily, the toothpick shifting to the other side of his mouth, as he swaggers inside.

His cold, piercing eyes underline his words:

“Nice little university you got here.  Be unfortunate if something happened to it.”  (The implication is clear that it better toe the organization line or something, perhaps several hundred million dollars worth of business, will disappear.)

Or:

“Nice little museum you got here.  We’d like you to change it for us.” (There is a “or else’’ understood in his request.”)

“Nice little law firm you got here.  You crossed the boss one too many times. We’re gonna shut you down.” (No reason for the boss to be subtle about it.)

With some strokes of his pen that produce an unreadable signature, the boss assumes powers to extort tribute from numerous targets, the congress, the law, and the courts be damned.

One of his biggest a few days ago asserts the power to cut off funding for the Smithsonian Institution if it continues exhibits that “degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy.”

And who decides what those programs are?  Who decides what policies degrade shared American values—values apparently established by one man?

Does this mean closing the Museum of the American Indian? The African-American Museum?  The Holocaust Museum?  And the East Wing of the National Gallery of Art with all of its meaningless modernist stuff?

Maryland Governor Wes Moore, the third African American elected to a governorship in
our country calls the effort “disrespectful” and told an interviewer this weekend, “Loving your country does not mean dismantling those who have helped to make this country so powerful and make America so unique in world history in the first place.” Moore is the third black governor in American history, the first in Maryland.

Trump’s says, “Museums in our nation’s capital should be places where individuals go to learn instead of being “subjected to ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives that distort our shared history”

That’s Boss Trump’s job.

He also wants to influence what we can read. He has ordered the Institution of Museum and Library Services to be eliminated. That organization provides support for libraries and museums in Missouri and the other 49 states. Can’t have “divisive” things in our libraries that serve diverse audiences.

He has set up the Federal Communications Commission to become a censor of news and entertainment programs.  One of the first targets is Disney and its ABC News unit and their diversity and inclusion practices.  Chairman Brendan Carr says he wants to make sure ABC “ends any and all discriminatory initiatives in substance, not just name,” and that he wants to make sure ABC has “complied at all times with applicable FCC regulations.”  And what about FOX and OAN, One America Network, that is known for its fawning over all things Trump while FOX has had the temerity from time to time to challenge him?  Don’t look for Trump’s FCC to censor OAN, but FOX is no longer above suspicion.

ABC has become just another target in his war on the diversity of voices available to Americans. And he has shut down the Voice of America, greatest international representation of American values, especially in countries under dictatorial governments.

We should be very frightened of his belief he can censor or shut down news organizations that don’t buy his lies.

He has taken over the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts so that the only acts it can host are those that fit his definition of “American values.”

He wants to rewrite our history, especially eliminating references to times that non-whites have achieved breakthroughs in a white male-dominated society.

His rabid dog-like attacks on DEI has intimidated NASA into dropping its commitment to flying  the first person of color and the first woman on the moon, had led the Defense Department to eliminate postings about Jackie Robinson’s service during WWII, Navajo Code Talkers, the Tuskegee Airmen, and Pima Indian Ira Hayes, who helped raise the flag at Iwo Jima.

The fact-checking website SNOPES got an email from Pentagon Press Secretary John Ullyot proclaiming, As Secretary Hegseth has said, DEI is dead at the Defense Department. Discriminatory Equity Ideology is a form of Woke cultural Marxism that has no place in our military. It Divides the force, Erodes unit cohesion and Interferes with the service’s core warfighting mission. The code-talkers website was later restored to the Pentagon website, as were the stories of Major General Charles Calvin Rogers, 1970 black Medal of Honor recipient and Ira Hayes, who was at Iwo Jima.

And don’t forget the silliness of the removal from the internet of the Enola Gay, the first plane to drop an atomic bomb on Japan===because the word “gay” was used in the plane’s name.

And now he thinks he can order European countries to follow this blatantly discriminatory cleansing of our history. He has sent a letter to some large European companies that supply services to our government threatening them unless they adopt his DEI strategy, says The Financial Times.

Like Jack Dawson standing against the railing on the bow of the Titanic and shouting, “I’m King of the World!” the Don, not content with being the Despot of the United States, is dedicated to running the world.

Give me a major segment of your economy to pay off what I consider loans, he has told Ukraine, and I will make peace—a demand and a boast that must include a willing third partner who is proclaimed as a good friend but who has no interest in a peace.

“Pay economic blackmail,” says the Don, not realizing countries don’t pay tariffs but his own citizens will, “and I will let you do business in this country,” while the other countries are beginning to grow closer together and are beginning to plan for themselves instead of bowing to his demands.

He wants Canada and he wants Greenland, the feelings of the people living there notwithstanding in his quest for domination.

However, the people of Greenland should be breathing easier now that “Little Me” Vance has told them the Don will not use the military, his national muscle, to take over their island. He has urged them to embrace “self determination,” apparently failing to understand the Greenlanders long ago determined for themselves that they want to be aligned with Denmark and they don’t want to be under the Don’s “protection,” when all he really cares about are the country’s mineral deposits. “We think we’re going to be able to cut a deal, Donald-Trump style, to ensure the security of this territory,” said Vance to people who think Denmark has done a pretty good job of protecting them from—-China? And Russia, which is far more interested in restoring the Soviet Union and absorbing all of Europe eventually with little apparent interests in little Greenland?

So there he is, the Don standing on the prow of our Ship of State proclaiming himself King of the World.

We know what happened to Jack Dawson and the ship that was once thought to be unsinkable.

Kind of like our Ship of State.

Others in the world can see the rip in the side of the hull caused by Executive Order icebergs.  Others in the world are seeing our great Ship of State going down by the bow.

Some Republicans are starting to wonder if there are lifeboats enough for them.

There aren’t.

And the water is growing colder.

The Golden Rule Today

Posted on by
Reply

It use to be darkly humorous to note than in contemporary society, “He who has the gold rules.”

But today, in this country where egalitarianism is taking a beating from the super-oligarch behind the simple-oligarch, there is no humor in that twisting of the verse from the New Testament Book of Matthew, “All things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do even so to them.”

Or in contemporary English, “Do unto Oohers and you would have the do unto you.”

The sentiment seems completely unfamiliar to our President or to his top henchmen and his Meat Cleaver Vigilantes.

The Golden Rule is not just a Christian instruction.  Other faiths have their versions of it.

Sathya Si Baba, a Hindu guru who claimed to be the reincarnation of 19th century spiritual master Sai Baba of Shirdi, whose teachings were a blend of the Christianity and Muslim faiths, wrote: “You must examine every act to find out if it will cause pain to others; if it does, withdraw from it. Don’t do to others what you do not like done unto you. This is called the Golden Rule. Yes, it is the best test for distinguishing right from wrong.”  (SSS 7:227

The equivalent for Buddhists from Udana-Varga 5:18is, “In five ways should a clansman minister to his friends and families by generosity, courtesy, and benevolence, by treting them as he treats himself and by being as good at his word.”

Judaism: “What is hurtful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man.” (Talmud, Shabbat 3id)

Muhammed told his followers, “No one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.” (Sunnah)

In The Great Learning, Ta Haio, Confucius comes pretty close to our contemporary language: “Do not unto others that you would not they should do until you.”

Mahabharta 5:17 tells Hindus, “Do not do to others that which if done to thee would cause thee pain.”

Followers of the Indian faith called Jainism, one of the world’s oldest religions, say, “In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard “all creatures as we regard our own self.”

The lesson from Grantha Sahib in the Sikh faith is, “As thou deemest thyself, so deem others. Then shall thou become a partner in heaven.”

The Tao Tu Ching, The Book of the Way and Virtue teaches students of the Tao, “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain and regard your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.”

Zoraster, who also is known as Zarathustra, was a teacher and preacher of an ancient religion that influenced the Abrahamic religions—Christianity, Muslim, and Judaism—and the great Greek philosophers. His teaching recorded in Dadisten-i-dinik 94:5 reads, “That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.”

There also are Golden Rules from the writings of great philosophers:

About a century before the birth of Christ, Epictetus wrote, “What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others.”

Immanuel Kant, an 18th Century German Philosopher, wrote, “Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature.”

The Greek philosopher Plato, in the 4th Century BCE wished, “May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me.”

About a century later, another Greek philosopher, Socrates, offered, “Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you.”

And Rome’s Seneca in the First Century CE, said in his Epistle 47:11, “Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors.”

Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who wrote his Meditations 2.1, said Nor can I be angry with my kinsman, nor hate him, for we are made for cooperation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of the upper and lower teeth. To act against one another then is contrary to nature; and it is acting against one another to be vexed and to turn away. 

We’ll give American poet Edwin Markham the final observation:  “We have committed the Golden Rule to memory; let us now commit it to life.”

Markham might be best known for his simple poem, “Outwited”:

He drew a circle that shut me out
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in.

In Washington today, the Golden Rule is a tarnished gong, a clanging cymbal and the only circle is the one that shuts people out.

Wouldn’t a Christian Nation draw the circle that takes others in?

The Rules Don’t Apply to Me

Posted on by
1

Four years later, the Leopard still has his spots.

Donald Trump has wasted no time proclaiming in word and deed that rules and laws do not apply to him. After all, his victory “was the greatest political movement of all time.”

He said during his campaign he wanted to be a dictator on day one. He’s not even waiting that long. He’s already ignoring the law and in a dangerous way.

New York Times reporter Ken Bensinger reported earlier this week that Trump “has not submitted a required ethics plan stating he will avoid conflicts of interest.”

The Trump transition team was hired in August “but has refused to participate in the normal handoff process, which typically begins months before the election.” Because of that, the Trump team is barred from national security briefings. The committee also has been denied access to federal agencies. The team reportedly has “an intent” to sign the agreements. But nobody has.

Concerns about Trump’s ethical lapses (to substantially understate the point) in his first term led Congress in 2019 to require candidates to post an ethics plan before the election and how the person would address conflict of issues accusations during their presidential terms, regardless of how far they get in the process.  Trump announced then that he would not divest his assets or put them in a blind trust, as office-holders usually do to separate themselves from making decisions that would benefit them while in office. Bensinger says the watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has identified 3,400-plus Trumpian conflicts in his first four years as President.

Both President Biden and Vice-President Harris  had no trouble signing the agreements during the recently-concluded campaign. But signing them apparently was too inconvenient on the other side. Doing so apparently would distract from cooking up cat-eating conspiracies and fake reports of Venezuelan gangs taking over Colorado apartments.

Frequent Trump critic, Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, charges Trump is “thumbing his nose” at the requirements. Raskin says refusal to sign the documents keeps the Trump transition team from getting $7.2 million in transition money.  The program puts $5,000 limits on individual donations to the transition effort.  But since Trump refuses to sign the ethics code, he can raise money hand over fist and now have to report who gave it to him.

There’s an even bigger issue that would be trouble for people who think they are not above the law:  Refusal to sign the ethics documents means none of the transition team can get security clearances that will give them access to 438 federal agencies’ records.

But who needs that?  After all, we’re dealing with someone who thinks he knows everything already. Nobody knows the political system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it,” had modestly observed in his first campaign.

Even more recently, Trump demanded that the next leader of the U. S. Senate not stand in the way of his appointments to key positions by letting him make what are called recess appointments.

And those seeking power in the Senate are saying, in effect, “Yes Sir. Whatever you want, sir.”

Recess appointments are intended to respond to emergencies. They can stay in place for a couple of years without seeking advice and consent form the Senate. He has openly said he wants to avoid opposition to his choices. He said on his personal social media site, “Any Republican Senator seeking the coveted LEADERSHIP position in the United States Senate must agree to Recess Appointments…without which we will not be able to get people confirmed in a timely manner.”

Senate confirmation of appointments has been one of the great checks and balances in the American system of government. They demand, on behalf of the American people, accountability from the nominees as well as from the President making the nominations.

Sadly, the three front-runners as Mitch McConnell’s replacement have quickly drunk from the Trump Kool-Aid pitcher on this. Trump favors Florida Senator Rick Scott for the job. His election will tell us a lot about whether the Senate will maintain any independence from the White House.

So far, however, thee’s no guarantee that every other Senator will go along with Trump’s dictates.  Some of those who survived January 6th aren’t happy with plans to pardon many of the peaceful tourists who convinced members of Congress they weren’t interested in tourism. Some also think his tariff plans are impractical. Those who resist will be threatened with well-funded primary opponents in their re-election bids, a visceral threat. Loyalty to him is the only thing that matters with Trump.

Trump also wants all judicial appointments by President Biden halted until Republicans take control of the Senate.  Damn the process! Forget about checks and balances. The only judges fit to sit on the federal bench are those that must prove their loyalty is beyond (or is beneath?) the law alone. That appears to be a no-brainer for the bunch that refused to even let Merritt Garland have a hearing months before the end of the Obama presidency so Trump could get a head start on loading the court.

Last night, the Wall Street Journal reported the Trump transition team is creating an executive order that would establish a so-called “warrior board” of retired general and noncoms to recommend dismissals of generals that Trump considers disloyal, were involved in the Afghanistan withdrawal in 2021 or have suggested policies that are considered too liberal. The report says the generals could be kicked out of the service for “lacking in requisite leadership qualities,” a vague phrase that so far has not been explained by the transition team.

A military loyal to Trump more than it is loyal to the nation and its Constitution is something he promised during his campaign to do.

Well, this is the bed made by those who don’t like his mouth but think his policies are okay.  Forget ethics and laws and constitutional limits on presidential power. Within a week after his election, Donald Trump has blatantly asserted that the rules and the laws do not apply to him.

And he is more than two months away from taking office.

I am terribly scared of this man.