Pages Menu
TwitterFacebooklogin
Categories Menu

Posted by on Apr 20, 2017 in Blog, Book Reviews, Essays, Politics, What's Left | 0 comments

Killing Bill O’Reilly

 

 

Bill O’Reilly’s crime is pretending to be a writer.  In his awful ghostwritten books for which he parsimoniously takes credit as author, O’Reilly intentionally and maliciously contorts some of the most memorable events in history, orchestrating willful acts of deception destined to mislead and confuse millions of readers.  O’Reilly is a historical alchemist pimping fake history for a fast buck.

 

Conservative blowhard Bill O’Reilly is leaving his decaying throne at FOX News, the veritable sewer of scum he’s ruled for two decades as the circus-network’s clown and ringmaster in residence.  [See Footnote]

That O’Reilly is departing one of television’s most highly-visible and lucrative perches — at least temporarily, until likely being re-hired elsewhere by some desperate channel seeking a ratings-driven battery jump — is a good thing.

However, public humiliation and media scrutiny isn’t likely to end O’Reilly’s twisted carnage as a chronic fabricator of history.  In his wretched “Killing….” series of books, O’Reilly recklessly distorts actual historical events, therefore misleading millions of readers.  His sloppy narratives of what he insists (really) happened to Lincoln, Kennedy, Jesus, Patton, and most recently Reagan have been debunked incessantly by virtually all academics and credible historians who are far more familiar with the actual account of events than O’Reilly.  The truth be damned, though.  In today’s expository pop culture where one historical account seems as good as any other, where crackpot conspiracy theories grease public interest, O’Reilly’s literary manure has matured into a rose garden of best sellers.

O’Reilly’s ghostwritten alchemy began with “Killing Lincoln,” published in 2011.  At least 12 major errors were instantly discovered by real historians, including one that was repeated numerous times throughout the book.  O’Reilly claimed that Abraham Lincoln made the most important decisions of his presidency inside the Oval Office, which is described in some detail.   That might seem plausible, until checking historical accounts available to anyone curious enough to pursue them and discovering the Oval Office wasn’t added on to the White House complex until 1909, some four decades after Lincoln’s death.  There are many more glaring errors, which can be read HERE.

That was just the beginning.   Hundreds of books have been written on John F. Kennedy and his assassination has been covered to the point of, well — overkill.  Credible authors have spent years, and in some cases decades, tirelessly researching the controversial 1963 murder from every conceivable angle.  Some of these alternative interpretations of what happened are more convincing than others.  Yet somehow, full-time television personality and protagonist Bill O’Reilly — lacking any research skills nor access to new information on the crime of the century — pounced on the Kennedy Assassination in order to make a fast, easy buck.

Churning out what would become a book a year, O’Reilly’s hasty-written follow-up to the surprising success of the Lincoln narrative resulted in “Killing Kennedy,” published in 2012.  If the Lincoln narrative was bad, the recount of Kennedy’s killing was appallingly worse.

Not content with tarnishing the historical record of those terrible tragedies which befell both Lincoln and Kennedy, next it was Jesus Christ’s turn to relive some agony on the cross.  “Killing Jesus,” published in 2013, purportedly told the real story of what happened to the Christian messiah all those years ago when someone like O’Reilly would have been served up as lion food to screaming mobs thirsting for blood.  In an appalling display of narcissism, O’Reilly’s name even appears on the front cover above Jesus’, and in equal font size (the author’s name is in larger print than the previous two books — Lincoln and Kennedy).  Once again, O’Reilly and his accomplices concocted a maelstrom of falsehoods.  One religious scholar uncovered no less than 133 errors which can be seen HERE.

Emboldened by the glaring gullibility of his faithful viewers-turned readers, including millions who inexplicably dismissed scathing book reviews by real historians and were all too willing snatch up whatever rolled off the assembly line of O’Reilly’s fake history factory, General George S. Patton became the next victim of crazed pseudo-fiction.

“Killing Patton,” released in 2014, alleged the former Soviet Union murdered one of America’s most iconic generals.  Truth is — shortly after World War II ended, Patton died from injuries sustained in a freak auto accident.  Lacking any supporting evidence, and often contradicting actual facts, O’Reilly hatched his theory designed to appeal to a plentiful audience of conspiracy buffs, mostly the sick paranoid souls who’ve come to infect the American political right.  When discussing his book, O’Reilly told ABC News:  “I think Stalin killed him.  Patton was going to go back to the United States and condemn Stalin and the Soviet Union, tell the American people these guys aren’t going out of Poland, they’re going to try to take over the world.  And Stalin wanted him dead.  And I think Stalin got him dead.”

In this fourth book, O’Reilly once again returns to his exalted status, as his name is printed in larger typeface than Patton, the book’s subject for 350 cringe worthy pages.  O’Reilly’s name is also capitalized, whereas poor Patton gets the equivalent of riding in economy class.  Read historians’ reaction to the book HERE.

Most recently, Ronald Reagan became the latest debris in O’Reilly’s twisted tornado of historical deception.  Lincoln, Kennedy, then Jesus and Patton might have been fair game.  Some bending of truths might have even been forgiven by his readers before, but now Saint Reagan was the new target.  Predictably, when in “Killing Reagan,” was released in 2016, conservatives finally revealed a conscious and screamed — “enough!”  Right-wing critics from columnist George Will and David Brooks, to the hallowed National Review unmercifully shredded O’Reilly’s completely unfounded bogus claims that Reagan’s 1981 assassination attempt lead to mental instability over the next seven years of his presidency.  Here’s where O’Reilly really crossed the line among many of his conservatives compatriots.  Read more about the epic clash between O’Reilly and Will HERE.

The book on Reagan should have been easy to write.  Of the five historical events covered by O’Reilly so far, that shooting and aftermath of a presidency is the most recent.  Countless witnesses to what happened inside the White House during the Reagan years are readily available to this day, only a generation later, and would likely have contributed helpful information, particularly to someone of O’Reilly’s stature.  Surely, the Reagan Library was also contacted, which contains the most extensive accounts of Reagan’s presidency.  Alas, neither O’Reilly nor his writer-sidekick Martin Dugard ever bothered to conduct any research there.  Ed Meese, Jim Baker, George Shultz, nor any of the other key figures who served in the Reagan Administration were interviewed, either.  “Here’s an interesting approach to writing history,” George Will remarked.  “Never talk to anyone with firsthand knowledge of your subject.”

Wham.

Given the scathing criticism of each his five books, how to explain them selling by the millions?  My theory is that much of the political right has become so insular they’ve drifted off in an alternate twilight universe of reality.   Not content to purchase nor accept more conventional and respectable fact-based interpretations of history by pointy-headed scholars from leftist academia, instead they seek explanations elsewhere. When one of their own such as O’Reilly comes along, the words (no matter how wrong) are taken as pure gospel, even when unmasked later as falsehoods.

Credit O’Reilly for two things which he’s very good at — theatrics and marketing.  Despite the obvious ideological misgivings, his undeniable popularity with millions of devotees provided a rare golden opportunity to do some serious good, that was sadly squandered.  Indeed, I wish he’d used his lofty platform for could be a noble purpose –promoting the majesty of history and encouraging the discovery of new information on many of the most important events which have shaped who were are and our world.

However, O’Reilly isn’t promoting history in his books.  He’s killing it.

 

Footnote:  The most thoughtful account of Bill O’Reilly’s firing by FOX-News was written by Paul Harris and can be read in full HERE.

 

Read More

Posted by on Apr 7, 2017 in Blog, Essays, Politics, What's Left | 2 comments

Bombing Syria: A Prescription from Dr. Feelgood

 

 

Bombing Syria accomplishes nothing.  At best, it’s a guilt-ridding military drill.  At worst, it could be a premeditated diversion by the scandal-plagued Trump Administration.

 

Recent missile airstrikes against Syria are nothing more than a tingling salve applied to our wounded sensitivities, temporarily satisfying mass guilt that “something” had to be done over there in the world’s most destructive civil war.

Those images of poor Syrian kids coughing up blood were haunting.  So, the time finally came to drop some bombs.  Blow up lots of shit.  Make sure the American public was fed plenty of cool visuals displaying the awesomeness of our military.  Mission accomplished.

Back to golf.  What time’s tee-off at Mar-a-Lago?

Oh sure.  Taking “decisive” military action is certain to be popular with some Americans, particularly those who always love waging a good war, just as long as someone else’s kids are fighting it.  Body bags filled with the anonymous softens the blow.  How convenient we can push buttons, instead of landing troops onto beachheads or dropping them into war zones.  Fighting a war remotely with missiles and drones tethered to our fingertips seems far more righteous than sticking a bayonet into the gut of the enemy.  Yet, the carnage is the same.

The trouble with Syrian airstrikes is, they accomplish nothing.  Dictator-President Bashar al-Assad isn’t resigning from office, nor fleeing the country.  He will remain in power, probably for quite a long time given the unwavering military and economic assistance he receives from the Russians.  Assad also continues to enjoy significant popular support within parts his own country, although it’s always difficult to measure approval within an autocracy.

There’s no doubt the Syrian strongman is most popular among secularists.  Ironically, he’s least popular among Islamic fundamentalists.  Oh, what a quagmire for America to be arming militants who fanatically worship the Koran versus a leader who adores classical music and wears double-breasted suits tailored in Paris.

Indeed, when it comes to Syria, there are no good options for us, or anyone else.  There are only bad options, some far worse than others.  Blowing up Damascus, Syria’s capital, might make us feel good in between watching ballgames and making burger runs.  But it won’t create stability or make anyone safer.  It could even make things worse.

We’ve already seen what happens when tyrants are removed from power within the volatile Middle East.  There are no knights on white horses riding to the rescue.  There are only more tyrants waiting in the wings ready to fill the void, usually ready to impose various twisted forms of Sharia Law.  This is the risk.

American military engagement in Afghanistan successfully ended the awful oppression of the Taliban.  Now, fourteen years later, we’re still over there fighting with troops on the ground with no end in sight.  Afghanistan, almost forgotten here back at home, has become the longest war in American history.  U.S. military commanders have warned that we might be in Afghanistan for decades to come.

Sure, it also felt good to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq.  Much like Assad, he was a really bad guy.  It was really satisfying to see him get what he deserved — death by hanging.  Unfortunately, once his totalitarian order dissolved, ISIS spawned out of the chaos, which became an even more dangerous enemy.  Sure, Saddam was terrible.  But there’s no evidence that he ever supported international terrorism against American targets.  The same is true of Assad in Syria.

America took a less active role in ending Muammar Gaddafi’s brutal regime, even though he openly courted international terrorists and was even responsible for the attack on the Pan-Am Airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland.  As terrible as his iron-fisted rule was for most Libyans, history shows, the United States took no significant action for 40 years, all whilst his people suffered unspeakable horrors.

The Taliban, Saddam, and Gaddafi — they’re all gone now.  That’s good, in moral sense.  Justice was served.  But what about the long-term national interest.  Can anyone argue that Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya are now more stable, or more livable societies?  Can anyone argue the average citizens in those countries are better off with the tyrants deposed?  When it comes to our active role in these conflicts, after thousands of our own lives lost and trillions of tax dollars wasted, haven’t we learning anything yet?

Bombing Syria won’t accomplish anything.  However, it could create an even more dangerous crisis for everyone.  Given Russia’s unshakable support for Assad, combined with the messy political scandal currently plaguing the Trump Administration which includes looming questions about his personal and financial dealings with the Putin regime, this Syrian business could spin wildly out of control.  Right now, it’s a proxy war mostly being fought by Syrians, some with American weapons and other armed with Russian weapons.  Tomorrow, it could be Russian pilots shooting at American pilots.

This all leads to the sticky question about whether or not we trust President Trump to make wise and impartial decisions, free of conflicts of personal interest.  There are reasons for doubt.  Is Trump acting in America’s best interest?  Or, is he acting in Trump’s best interest?  Given all the secret meetings and personal contacts between Trump dignitaries and known spies working for Russian intelligence in recent months, those aren’t questions spun in conspiracy.  They’re entirely reasonable given the circumstances and suspicious timing of events.

Even a best-case scenario for the Syrian debacle actually looks more like a worst-case scenario for America.  If Assad gets overthrown, then what happens next?  Would Islamic fundamentalists take over?  Should we risk yet another massive destabilization in that war-torn region?  Do we want another Afghanistan?  Another Iraq?  Another Libya?  Are we prepared to invest yet another decade stuck in the middle of the never ending conflict between the Sunni and Shia?

When it comes to Syria, we may be stuck with a choice between drinking battery acid and eating a shit sandwich.  Neither option is very appealing.  However, sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.

Bombing Syria is nothing to celebrate.

 

Writer’s Note:  Here’s a column I wrote in 2013 when President Obama was first confronted with the Syrian crisis.  SHOULD AMERICA INTERVENE IN SYRIA?

 

Read More

Posted by on Apr 6, 2017 in Blog, Essays, Politics, What's Left | 0 comments

What Trump Should Have Done on the First Day of His Presidency

 

 

Continuing to Ignore America’s Deteriorating Infrastructure Spells Trouble — Both for Him and for Us

 

I don’t make it a habit of dishing out political advice to someone I loath.

Today, I’m making an exception.

This unsolicited wisdom, if followed, could provide a desperately needed political achievement for the thoroughly inept Trump Administration, now 75 days into what’s likely to disintegrate into the most shameful presidency in American history.  Despite all the current distractions, now seems like a good a time to speculate on how things might have been different.

On day one, President Trump’s very first act should have been the signing Executive Order #1 — rebuilding the nation’s deteriorating infrastructure.  Whatever it took, whatever the cost, whatever the political willpower required to get things moving forward — a massive public works project intent on fixing America’s crumbling roads, bridges, pipelines, dams, and other indispensable groundwork would have instantly launched the new presidency in a positive direction.

Had President Trump simply announced, “I’m here to make America great again,” followed by the public signing of a massive public works project, he might have parlayed that genuine display of goodwill and willingness to govern into something far greater.  That would have been a stroke of bold new leadership.

Imagine the political fallout of that moment, which cannot be overstated given how bad things have gone since then.  Had “rebuilding America” been the first act of the new Trump presidency tens of millions of American workers would have cheered the news.  Maybe roads and bridges doesn’t sound sexy, politically speaking.  But everyone in America understands maintaining them is a vital function of government.  Republicans, despite budget concerns, would have been forced to support Trump’s initiative.  Democrats, the party typically associated with big government, would have been placed immediately on the defensive, backed into a corner — and likely forced to work with the new administration to bring good jobs and construction projects back to their home districts.  Even those of us who despise Trump, the person, would have supported Trump, the president, on the critical issue towards making massive infrastructure improvements.  Who would oppose the prospect of millions of new jobs being created instantaneously?  On day one?  Answer– virtually no one.

Seriously, who in their right mind opposes making sure our roads and bridges are safe?  It’s was a sure-fire home run.  A can’t miss idea.  A consensus builder.  A national initiative.  The ultimate act of placing “America first.”

That’s how President Trump should have kicked off his new administration.  Had that been the strategy, he would have won “bigly” on that single issue, leading to unforeseen bipartisan cooperation which could have produced additional common political ground.  The foundation for a working relationship would have been bronzed.  President Trump could have rightly called himself a “unifier,” if only for a day.  Perhaps most important, it would have been the right thing to do for America.

Well, none of this happened, of course.  Instead, President Trump spent his first day attending three inaugural balls, which was to be expected.  He also signed four executive orders.  Two of those acts dealt with staffing his new administration.  One was the reversal of a housing program instituted by the Obama Administration which made new homes more affordable to low- and middle-income Americans (not sure why there was so much urgency to reverse that policy).  The fourth and final act of the day was dismantling parts of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. “Obamacare”), although Trump admittedly “had no idea healthcare was was so complex,” as he remarked later.

The nation’s infrastructure might as well have been a manned trip to Mars.

Alea iacta est.  The die was cast.  The death spiral began.  On the following day, President Trump began spinning mindless fantasies demonstrated by a bizarre visit to Central Intelligence Agency Headquarters where he spent much of the solemn occasion bitching about media coverage and lying about inauguration attendance.  From there, the lunacy train pretty much ran off the rails and has been flipped upside down in a ditch, ever since.  Oh my, what could have been instead.

Weeks later, President Trump finally raised the forgotten infrastructure issue for the very first time during his faux-State of the Union-style address to members of Congress.  His remarks elicited loud cheers from both sides of the aisle, and even drew high praise from his most vicious critics.  For the first time Trump was even called “presidential.”

Once again, President Trump had a rare golden opportunity to lead and to make good on a critical campaign promise that was important to everyone in the nation.  Unfortunately, the words didn’t match the actions.

Another month-and-a-half has elapsed, since then.  During that time, President Trump released his first proposed federal budget.  Guess what?  Inexplicably, and to everyone’s astonishment, his budget slashes spending on infrastructure!  There’s no trillion dollar increase investment in America.  Once again, Trump is lying.  He talks a big game out in front of the folks while continuing his adoration tour of self love.  Then, when ink meets paper we actually see that his policies obliterate the funds necessary to so the job.  It’s yet another bait and switch.  Here’s the latest update on Trump’s false infrastrcuture promises and mess:  Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Could Be His Biggest Con Yet

So, what happened?  Well, perhaps this administration is just way too caught up at the moment in Kremlin-gate.  One can see why that would be a distraction.  Perhaps Trump is too busy focusing on the musical chairs within his own staff, which continues changing by the minute.  Maybe Steve Bannon misplaced the smeared cocktail napkin on which the nation’s priorities were scribbled.  Who knows the real reason why infrastructure now seems like the last thing on the president’s mind.  Trump’s out on the golf course so often (13 times, so far) that he’s forgotten all about America’s deteriorating roads and bridges and water supplies.  I guess it’s hard to see rusted bolts from the 18th hole tee-box at Mar a Lago.

Whatever the reasoning, if reason even exists at all, President Trump is blowing it — big time.  He’s blowing it policy wise.  He’s blowing it politically.  Trouble is, this isn’t just bad for him.  The consequences are far worse — for us.

This isn’t an problem that can wait much longer.  It’s not like another four years can go by without taking some significant measures.  If roads were arteries, then we’re an overweight nation with a three-pack-a-day habit and cholesterol levels off the charts.  We don’t just need a new diet and an exercise program.  We need electric shock therapy.

There are other Flints out there waiting to detonate.  Years ago, we saw what happens when critical infrastructure is ignored.  Seven people died needlessly when a bridge servicing an interstate highway collapsed in Minneapolis.  Last week, another bridge collapsed in Atlanta.  These might seem like isolated incidents, but the reality is — the ice is melting fast on the lake and we’re all exposed on a warm spring day.  One recent study found that a whopping 59,000 bridges across America are structurally deficient.  Each one of these roads and bridges is a ticking time bomb.

Here’s an idea:  Instead of wasting our precious national treasury constructing a worthless border wall with utterly no benefit to most Americans, that money should instead be spent on things that really matter.  We’re realizing now that making America great again wasn’t a sincere promise, so much as an empty slogan.  The infrastructure issue was just a cheap applause line for Trump during his feel-good campaign, intended to opiate millions of Americans into believing he’s really committed to governing when his actions have revealed that he’s the antithesis of governance.

Our roads are cracking.  Our bridges are swaying.  Like Trump’s unraveling presidency, it’s just a matter of time before things start to collapse and disaster occurs.

 

 

Read More

Posted by on Mar 30, 2017 in Blog, Essays, Politics, What's Left | 1 comment

A Mirror Reflection: Republicans and Russians Entangled in a Perverse Love Affair



 

Over the past year or so, President Donald Trump has viciously attacked several targets.

He’s attacked his victims at campaign rallies, press conferences, interviews, and most notably on social media (Twitter).  Each attack plenty of evidence.  No one disputes these attacks have occurred, which number in the hundreds.  Momentarily, I’ll get to a partial list of those Trump been attacked.

Amidst all the bombastic bluster, there’s one notable person who hasn’t been attacked.  Moreover, the nation he rules with an iron fist and the acts of aggression he’s taken haven’t received even a peep of criticism, despite what’s become an autocratic state teetering on fascism now engaged in hostile military action against its neighbors.

Not a single tweet from the President of the United States in response.

Not once.

Not a single time.

Not a single comment.

So, who is this individual enjoying presidential immunity?  And what makes him the unlikely beneficiary of so much love and admiration in the face of so many other petty attacks on far less significant public figures.

Let’s examine the record.  Here’s a partial list of notable people and public institutions which have been attacked by President Trump within the past 12 months.  There’s ONE NOTABLE EXCEPTION:

President Barack Obama — former President (blasted ceaselessly by Trump for the past six years dating back to birther nonsense and recently accused of committing a felony).

CNN — worldwide new organization (blasted numerous times and called “bad people”).

Hillary Clinton — former Secretary of State, U.S. Senator, ex-First Lady, and two-time Presidential candidate (attacked innumerable times, often with fabricated accusations).

The New York Times — one of the world’s most trusted and respected news organizations (attacked dozens of times and repeatedly tagged as “failed,” even its though financials have never been healthier).

The Cast of “Hamilton” — the hottest ticket on Broadway (referred to as “overrated” even though no once can get a ticket at face value and tickets are being scalped at $1,200 a seat).

“Saturday Night Live” — An American television institution (which has been going strong for 41 years and is currently in the midst of a ratings renaissance, largely fueled by Trump-related humor).

Jill Stein — Flawed third-party presidential candidate (which made her an inviting target, because she’s a strong woman and Donald Trump is uncomfortable around strong women).

Sen. Chuck Schumer — Senate Minority Leader (even though Trump donated more money to Schumer than any other senator over the past 20 years, he’s became a frequent target of attacks once Trump became a Republican).

Arnold Schwarzenegger — Disgraced former Republican Governor of California (attacked numerous times for stepping into the starring role on a shitty “reality” television show once fronted by a con-man).

Meryl Streep — A 20-time Oscar nominee — more than any actor in history — and perhaps the most honored film icon of all time (described by Trump as “overrated” in his tweets).

Rosie O’Donnell — Not typically worth anyone’s time or attention (but whom appears to be an unhealthy obsession by the President).

The U.S. Intelligence Community — The NSA, the CIA, the DIA, et al.  Roughly 100,000 professionals working around the clock to keep America safe (recently compared to Nazis by President Trump in an incendiary tweet that caused mass derision).

Angela Merkel — Chancellor of Germany and arguably the world’s leading advocate of true democracy (accused by Trump of “ruining Germany” and being “the worst Chancellor of all time”….might want to re-think that one and pick up a textbook referencing “Year 1933,” Mr. President).

And…..

Vladimir Putin — Russian dictator and murder.

[READ MORE:  BACKGROUND ON PUTIN’S CRITICS WHO HAVE BEEN MURDERED]

Take a guess which individual has not been criticized, not even one time, by President Donald Trump.

_____

So, what’s with the bizarre secret love affair between Republicans and the Russians?  

Its not just a cozy relationship.  It’s a consensual orgy.  Please explain how the patriotic political movement which supposedly champions “love of country” over just about every other virtue has this freaky attraction to a tyrannical regime which has been at odds with the United States for a nearly a century?

Let’s look at history.  Thirty years ago President Ronald Reagan called the former Soviet Union “the evil empire.”  Today’s tryst between President Donald Trump and Russian murderer-dictator Vladimir Putin would have been unfathomable back then.  Now, Republicans aren’t just silent.  They’ve become willing accessories, like plodding the alcoholic with free booze and daring him to drink like a man.  Based on the volcano of evidence emerging about the Russians meddling in the 2016 American presidential election, it appears that some Republicans might even be traitors.

Indeed, today, when it comes to America’s stance on Russia, Sen. Joe McCarthy would probably be to the left of the Republican Party.  That’s how dangerously far out of the mainstream these sycophants have moved, who proclaim the peculiar dictum, “America First.”  Sounds like Republicans should change their slogan to “Let’s Make Russia Great Again.”

_____

This isn’t just a Trump thing.  The previous Republican president wasn’t so much corrupt, as painfully naive.  When George W. Bush met Vladimir Putin for the first time in 2001, he infamously remarked, “I looked (Putin) in the eye.  I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy.  We had a very good dialogue.  I was able to get a sense of his soul.”

During that jaw-dropping exchange, it should be noted that Putin wore a large cross, symbolic of the Russian Orthodox Church.  Bush, an impressionable figure holding deeply religious convictions saw Putin wearing the holy amulet and somehow drew the astounding conclusion that Putin’s character could be assessed with affection.  Never mind that Putin has never once been seen wearing that cross since that meeting with the former Republican president.  In short, Putin played Bush like a cheap fiddle, tapping into his religious gullibility.

The Republican Right, once convinced Russia was the anti-Christ, did a quick about-face.  They snapped into line and marched behind Bush’s stunning personal appraisal of a leader widely-known by every other world power to be a vicious thug.  Republicans haven’t departed from this naivete since.  They’ve collapsed into an echo chamber of deceit and denial.  While Putin consolidated his power within, in part by murdering 293 people in the Russian apartment bombings and later on killing at least 40 political rivals via poisonings and other mysterious methods of murder, few Republicans raised objections.  Certainly not President Trump.

[Note:  Years later after leaving office, in 2010, former President Bush retreated from this opinion and admitted his previous assessment had been a mistake]

_____

When Russia invaded the Eastern Ukraine in 2014, the Obama Administration took swift action.  President Obama instituted bold economic sanctions against the Putin regime and many of his well-connected financial interests, which eventually hampered the Russian economy, including slowing down their oil production and mining exports.  Much of the international community joined in the sanctions and bombarded Putin with public criticism, not just for the illegal Ukraine invasion, but for his own internal crackdown which has essentially turned Russia into a dictatorship.

About two years ago, Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President.  While all the other candidates from both political parties accurately noted that Putin was a bad guy, Trump stunned everyone.  He professed support for many of Putin’s brutal actions.  He even expressed personal admiration for Putin.

No one really knows yet why Trump has this mysterious deep-seeded love affair with Putin, a flame-hot attraction which shows no signs of burning out anytime soon.  While just about everyone else on the planet calls Putin out what he is — a dictator who rules over Russia like a 21st century version of the Mafia, the president looks the other way.  Trump’s odd affections certainly aren’t based on fears of triggering a military escalation.  After all, Trump has repeatedly attacked other potential adversaries — including China and North Korea — which pose similar threats to global stability.  Only Putin and Russia get a free pass.

Why?

_____

Paul Manafort, the corrupt slime ball lobbyist who’s burrowed into each of the last four Republican presidential administrations, has made quite a fortune shilling for many of the world’s most awful dictators.  He’s carried the baggage for some real pricks.

Manafort is willing to do anyone’s dirty work, provided they’re willing to shell out millions in “consulting fees.”  Manafort, recently exposed for having 15 bank accounts with millions in secret funds [READ MORE:  MANAFORT’S SECRET MILLIONS], was discovered to be the beneficiary of about $10 million annually in payments from at least one Russian bank, with close political and financial ties to Putin.  Oh, and Paul Manafort used to be Donald Trump’s campaign manager.

Follow the money.

How about Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s hand-picked National Security Adviser, who was booted out of the fresh cabinet before he even had a chance to order new business cards?  He had meetings with the Russians, too.  Flynn committed the blunder of lying about his relationship with the Russians (make that at least one Russian known to be an intelligence agent), even misleading his closest political ally, Vice-President Mike Pence at one point during the internal White House game of musical chairs.  Now disgraced, Flynn could emerge as the talking yellow canary as investigations continue to ramp up.  [Breaking News:  Flynn is now offering to provide full testimony, if provided immunity.]

There’s also the President’s dirty son-in-law, Jared Kushner.  His daddy, who initially bankrolled baby Kush when he was first starting out in New York real estate, once served prison time for his financial crimes.  Kushner, married to Trump’s daughter Ivanka, now sits in a plum chair as a White House adviser with easy and instant access to top-secret information as well as a direct 24-hour speed dial to the President of the United States.

Trump Administration spokespeople, and even the President himself, have repeatedly denied any connections or secret dealings with the Russians.  Nothing to see here, move on, they insist.  However, just last week Kushner was exposed to be less than forthcoming about his private talks with the Russians.  When it leaked that Kushner met with officials from at least one of the Russian banks currently under economic sanctions, that triggered yet another mad scramble within the West Wing to get their crumbling story straight.  Kushner is scheduled to testify soon about his secret relationships with the Russians in front of the House Committee on Intelligence, the highly-partisan panel now engaged in what’s masquerading as an “investigation.”

Manafort.  Flynn.  Kushner.  That’s just a few of the Trump officials now tainted in this dirty cesspool.  What is it with all these Trump advisers and the Russians?  [READ MORE:  TRUMP CAMPAIGN AIDES AND RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE]

_____

President Trump has lied numerous times about these relationships and secret meetings.  It seems implausible he didn’t know his son-in-law, campaign manager, and National Security Adviser were meeting multiple times with the Russians.  Hell, it doesn’t seem just implausible.  It appears absurd.  This begs the famous question that was asked once before during another Constitutional crisis — “What did the President know, and when did he know it?”

What’s been discussed here are the financial ties and behind-the-scenes dirty deals which might favor Russian economic interests and Trump’s financial empire.  This doesn’t even begin to take into account creeping suspicions about the Russians meddling in the presidential election, which could be closely related.  On one occasion, then-candidate Trump committed an appalling act of treason — which should have been an automatic disqualifier — when he encouraged the Russians to hack into Hillary Clinton’s e-mails.  [READ MORE:  TRUMP’S CALL FOR RUSSIA TO SPY ON CLINTON]

_____

What’s most puzzling here isn’t so much the questionable behavior of President Trump or his associates, which has become all-too predictable.  What’s far more puzzling is the perverted sense of twisted nationalism exhibited by nearly all of his strongest supporters, who continue to deny, deflect, and discard any suggestion that we should be concerned about Russian espionage.

The party that supposedly puts “America first” shares Trump’s cozy feelings about Putin and the Russians.  This love fest has now been going on for 16 years, since President Bush’s initial meeting.  The party that was once so mistrustful of the Russians (remember “trust but verify?”) now are willing to take them at their word.  The party that once stood up for human rights in the former Soviet Union during the dark days of the gulag is all but silent when it comes to Putin murdering his political opponents and shutting down the press.  The party of Reagan has morphed into the party of Trump.

Enough said.

This isn’t patriotism we’re witnessing, folks.  It’s treason.  It’s an unwillingness to face stark reality.  It’s refusing to ask legitimate questions that demand answers.  It’s about trusting the Commander-in-Chief who might have been compromised by a foreign power.

These are the ugly truths about two political paramours on opposite sides of the globe, but who may, in fact, be much closer in terms of their own tactics and shared world view.  It’s way past time to start asking questions as to why President Trump seems so infatuated with Vladimir Putin.

The rest of the world sees a dictator.

President Trump likely sees Putin as a mirror reflection.

 

Read More

Posted by on Mar 13, 2017 in Blog, Essays, Politics, What's Left | 2 comments

Should We Support “Ban the Box” Laws?

 

 

Question #1:  Should ex-convicts be forced to answer questions about their criminal backgrounds when seeking employment?

Question #2:  Do prospective employers have a right to know about the criminal history of applicants?

 

These two questions present an obvious contradiction.  You either support an applicant’s right to privacy.  Or, you support the employer’s right to know who they’re hiring.  You can’t be in favor of both.

Legislation which would prohibit asking questions about criminal histories has been proposed in several states, including here in Nevada.  What’s known as the “Ban the Box” law means making it illegal to ask questions about criminal history on employment applications.  Some of these proposed bans apply only to government-related employment, including states and localities.  Other bans are far more comprehensive and would impact employers hiring workers in both the public and private sectors.

Compelling arguments can be made on both sides of this debate.  That’s what makes this controversial issue so problematic.  There are no easy answers.

See if you agree:

 

THE CASE FOR “BAN THE BOX”

“Ban the Box” supporters point out that ex-convicts have paid their debts to society.  They shouldn’t be stigmatized by prior criminal history, which (when disclosed) makes it far more difficult for them to re-enter society as working citizens.

Fact is, ex-convicts face paralyzing levels of discrimination in virtually all areas of daily life — including housing, finance, child custody, and even in developing personal relationships.  This is especially true for employment, as well, which is often the most important single factor in determining what happens to ex-convicts after they’re released.

Consider the following:  When two applicants are up for the same job, and one is an ex-convict, the applicant with the clean criminal record is almost certain to get selected.  Repeated failure and disappointment at securing steady work means ex-convicts have far fewer options to make a decent living.  Hence, some of them return to their old ways and go back to a life of crime.  That’s not good for them.  It’s also not good for society.

We should all try to empathize with ex-convicts who honestly want to turn their lives around.  I think they deserve our support.  They face enough obstacles already during various stages of rehabilitation without the added hardship of not being able to get a good job.

The consequences of discrimination against ex-convicts isn’t just personal.  Society, at large, is also adversely effected.  If employers screen out ex-convicts based on their pasts, this creates a large group of both unemployed and under-employed, especially among younger men.  Since the United States imprisons far more of its citizens than any nation in the world (many for abstruse drug offenses), the numbers here are quite significant, even reaching into the millions.  It’s also one of many contributing factors towards inner-city squalor and decay, with a devastating impact on minority communities which already suffer disproportional levels of discrimination.

Of course, “Ban the Box” laws will not solve all the problems that ex-convicts face, nor magically the lift the poorest communities out of poverty.  However, this law would help quite a large number of people, many with good intentions who desperately want to turn their lives around and become a productive part of society.

Everyone who applies for a job deserves a fair chance.

 

THE CASE AGAINST “BAN THE BOX”

Employers have rights, too.  Employers are entitled to know exactly who they’re hiring, especially for jobs involving trust and public safety.  Ex-convicts have already demonstrated some degree of personal failure when it comes to issues of trust and public safety.  Prospective employers are entitled to know about those deficiencies.

Opponents of “Ban the Box” laws point out that workplaces are not cross-cultural laboratories for social experimentation.  Employers shouldn’t be forced to take all the risks, nor bear the occasional burden of an ex-criminal who continues committing illegal acts after serving time and being released back into society.

Indeed, if the actions of an ex-convict who committed a terrible crime in the past aren’t known to the employer in advance, there’s a chance that person might do bad things that will harm the company and endanger other employees.

“Ban the Box” laws don’t necessarily restrict hiring practices.  Some ex-convicts who apply for jobs might make such a positive impression that they get hired anyway, and eventually become outstanding employees and good citizens.  However, employers should be able ask questions related to criminal records in advance and conduct background checks to find out this information.

There are already plenty of laws on the books which prohibit many types of discrimination in employment based on age, race, and gender.  Most agree that those are rights which should be protected.  Government has an obligation to make ensure to the best of its ability that all citizens receive fair employment opportunities.

However, once someone commits a crime and gets convicted in a court of law, the same rights to privacy should not apply equally to everyone.  Citizens with clean criminal records are entitled to the presumed advantages of good behavior in future employment over ex-convicts who have made bad decisions in the past.

Employers have a right to know who they may be hiring.

 

So, what’s your opinion?  Should we support “Ban the Box” laws which make it easier for ex-cons to fit back into society?  Or, should employers be allowed to ask questions about the past criminal convictions of applicants?

If you were a state legislator, how would you vote?

 

MY THOUGHTS:

Permit me to offer the following opinions:

(1)  The notion of restricting access to information is very troublesome.  Prohibiting what seems to be perfectly normal questions about an applicant’s background contradicts the fundamentals of honesty and transparency.  However….

(2)  Society would be much better off with “Ban the Box” laws.  Many ex-convicts who otherwise would be summarily rejected for employment would enjoy far greater opportunities.  Accordingly we would all benefit from ex-convicts returning productively to the workforce, since there’s less a chance for recidivism.  That means less crime, less strain on the overworked judicial system, less prisons, and better workers.  It also means more opportunities for ex-convicts living in inner cities, resulting in some measure of economic growth and greater family cohesion.

(3)  The chances of “Ban the Box” legislation passing in many states is slim to none.  Elected officials don’t want look “soft on crime.”  Hence, such laws present a political conundrum.  Many elected officials who oppose government intrusion on business and who also fear repercussions at the ballot box, might agree in private that the positives of “Ban the Box” laws outweigh the bad.  However nowadays, political courage is exceedingly rare.

 

Read More
css.php