You think Donald Trump is bluffing about building a wall on the Mexican border? He has already built a wall . . . in Scotland.
Katrin Bennhold reported on the story in the New York Times on Nov. 26th. It seems that, when Trump was building his exclusive golf course in northeast Scotland, he needed to buy up the land for the course. Many were happy to sell to him, but some were not. There were a few adamant hold-outs, so the fairways had to be adjusted a bit here and there. And The Donald Did Not Like Being Thwarted.
People who loved their homes -- and especially their views of the sea -- found machinery constructing earthen berms, some as high as 15 feet, to block their seaside views. On other properties, two rows of tall trees were planted to block views. That's not all.
Mr. Trump sent them the bill. In other cases, he threatened legal action. But two can play the game. One couple who felt Trump's wrath, now fly a Mexican flag from their hilltop house overlooking the golf course when Trump visits.
But petty retaliation was only part of the anti-Trump feeling left among many Scots. There are also the unkept promises. The $1.25 billion investment has shrunk, by some estimates, to $50 million. The luxury hotel never got built, nor did the 950 time-share apartments.
Martin Ford, a local government representative, told the New York Times: “If America wants to know what is coming, it should study what happened here. . . . I have just seen him do in America, on a grander scale, precisely what he did here. He suckered the people and he suckered the politicians until he got what he wanted, and then he went back on pretty much everything he promised.”
A former first minister (Scotland's head of government), Alex Salmond, even suggested that Trump's business impact on Scotland might actually be negative. His xenophobic comments have so appalled the country that it is unlikely any presitigious golf tournaments will be held at Trump courses anytime soon. Mr. Salmond concluded: "The problem, and it’s a big problem, is that Donald Trump didn’t do what he promised.”
Feelings toward Trump are not likely to soften. The new First Minister, succeeding Mr. Salmond, is a woman, Nicola Sturgeon, who bitterly opposed Brexit and has been scathing in her comments about Donald Trump.
Ralph
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
White privilege in the "not guilty" verdict of the Oregon vigilantes?
This news story about the armed militias that took over some federal land in Oregon got swamped by the presidential election. While all that was happening, they had a trial and an acquittal on all charges. This is a remarkable example of people clearly breaking the law, even filming themselves doing it -- and yet a sympathetic jury found them not guilty.
Writer German Lopez of Vox News thinks the verdict "is completely absurd. His essay is worth considering, especially the question he raises about "white privilege." Here in his own words:
"Again, this is literally what they did. They armed themselves and took over a wildlife refuge, preventing federal workers from going into the facility and doing their jobs. Ammon Bundy, the militants’ leader, even participated in interviews in which he called for more people to join him in his cause.
"In fact, the militants staged their protest because they want to get federal employees out of these lands. The Bundys and other militants would like to see the federal government give up federal lands to locals. This, they argue, would free the territory of environmental regulations that they see as burdensome — but are meant to preserve endangered animals and nature — and enable more exploitation of the lands’ resources by allowing, for example, more unfettered farming, mining, and hunting.
"The defense argued there was no intent to keep federal employees off the refuge. But come on. An armed group occupied a federal building. Your imagination doesn’t have to stretch very far to realize what was happening.
"Yet a jury found them not guilty.
"It is impossible to ignore race here. This was a group of armed white people, mostly men, taking over a facility. Just imagine: What would happen if a group of armed black men, protesting police brutality, tried to take over a police facility and hold it hostage for more than a month? Would they even come out alive and get to trial? Would a jury find them and their cause relatable, making it easier to send them back home with no prison time?
"One doesn’t have to do much imagining here, either. The social science is pretty clear: People are much more likely to look at black people and see criminals and wrongdoers. They don’t get the privilege of innocence in the same way that white people — including these militants in Oregon — do."
I certainly agree that white privilege is a real thing and that it often tilts justice in favor of white people and against people of color. But I'm not sure this was such an open and shut, simplistic case of racism operating in that courtroom.
Writer German Lopez of Vox News thinks the verdict "is completely absurd. His essay is worth considering, especially the question he raises about "white privilege." Here in his own words:
* * *
"Eight months after the nation watched an armed militia take over a wildlife refuge in Oregon to protest federal land ownership, a jury has come back and said that the militia members are “not guilty.” This includes not guilty of a charge that describes what everyone knows these militants did, considering that they live-streamed themselves doing it: conspiracy to prevent Bureau of Land Management and US Fish and Wildlife employees from doing their jobs at the wildlife refuge."Again, this is literally what they did. They armed themselves and took over a wildlife refuge, preventing federal workers from going into the facility and doing their jobs. Ammon Bundy, the militants’ leader, even participated in interviews in which he called for more people to join him in his cause.
"In fact, the militants staged their protest because they want to get federal employees out of these lands. The Bundys and other militants would like to see the federal government give up federal lands to locals. This, they argue, would free the territory of environmental regulations that they see as burdensome — but are meant to preserve endangered animals and nature — and enable more exploitation of the lands’ resources by allowing, for example, more unfettered farming, mining, and hunting.
"The defense argued there was no intent to keep federal employees off the refuge. But come on. An armed group occupied a federal building. Your imagination doesn’t have to stretch very far to realize what was happening.
"Yet a jury found them not guilty.
"It is impossible to ignore race here. This was a group of armed white people, mostly men, taking over a facility. Just imagine: What would happen if a group of armed black men, protesting police brutality, tried to take over a police facility and hold it hostage for more than a month? Would they even come out alive and get to trial? Would a jury find them and their cause relatable, making it easier to send them back home with no prison time?
"One doesn’t have to do much imagining here, either. The social science is pretty clear: People are much more likely to look at black people and see criminals and wrongdoers. They don’t get the privilege of innocence in the same way that white people — including these militants in Oregon — do."
* * * * *
I certainly agree that white privilege is a real thing and that it often tilts justice in favor of white people and against people of color. But I'm not sure this was such an open and shut, simplistic case of racism operating in that courtroom.
It's possible that there was another issue: that some people in the community and on the jury agreed with the Bundys about federal land use, rather than putting it on the market for private ownership and development. I would argue that it is first a dispute about public vs private ownership and, second, an issue of white privilege/black prejudice.
Still, the point is about a not-guilty verdict for a clear breaking of the law. And that does raise the valid point that -- regardless of the crime -- white people do have a privilege that makes them far less likely to be convicted than would a black person for the same charges. So I guess I agree about the differential racial treatment; but I don't think the original case had anything to do with racism. That was about land ownership, deregulation, etc.
Sometimes liberals, too, can get stuck on one issue and be a bit blind to the big picture.
Sometimes liberals, too, can get stuck on one issue and be a bit blind to the big picture.
Ralph
Monday, November 28, 2016
Should we scrap Electoral College for popular vote?
TV host Billy Bush was the passive partner in that bus-ride conversation where Donald Trump bragged about being able to grab women by their p---y. Bush just played the sidekick enabler, snickering and egging Trump on to greater bragging.
For that, Billy Bush lost his job. And Donald Trump got the most powerful job in the world.
Life ain't fair.
Hillary Clinton appears to have gotten nearly 2.5 million more votes than Donald Trump; yet he is going to be president. That certainly doesn't sound fair, on the face of it. So should we change the electoral college system?
Some would argue that it was designed to keep just such an unqualified person like Donald Trump from being elected by an uninformed, zealous crowd of populist voters. In the late 18th century, there was virtually no mass communication. It was assumed that the average voter was not an informed voter. So they gave party elders (all men, of course) the last word.
But times have changed. Today there is no lack of information and no excuse for being uninformed. And yet the majority of today's voters may be less correctly informed than every before. The problem we have is way too much misinformation, lies, and false news about trivia and not enough factual news about real issues and policies.
Depending on what TV and radio stations a person listens to, they may never hear anything opposing the lies and distortions that they regularly consume. What's lacking is sober analysis and judgment. I don't mean an artificially "balanced and neutral" news, where both sides have to be presented without informed challenges. We need what journalists and pundits used to do; but now they either just read the news someone else wrote, or they slug it out in a talk-all-over-each-other panel without any clarity or resolution.
Clarity, deeper analysis of the issues and policies, and knowledge of the larger picture: isn't that what the electoral college is supposed to provide, if the people are not informed?
Another consideration is that, if we had only the popular vote, we would have a different kind of election campaign. Instead of ignoring the "safe" red and "safe" blue states and concentrating on the "battleground" states, candidates would campaign in the most populous areas, i.e., urban centers -- with an even greater emphasis on reaching the most people possible, meaning even more TV ads and less real time, personal contact with voters. Is that a good thing? The small towns and rural states would then be ignored. Trump himself pointed this out when he said that, if the contest had been for the popular vote, he would have campaigned very differently, spending time in different places.
So it's not quite so simple, after all. But, IMO, the system didn't work the way it's supposed to this time. But is it the system? Or is it a byproduct of the wide chasm between the two major political parties that overshadows policies and proposed solutions in favor of power politics and blind party loyalty?
It's a myth that electors are informed people of principle voting their best judgment; rather, it's a cauldron of sharply divided, deeply partisan politicians voting along strict party lines trying to keep their party in power. So it's not doing what it was meant to do; but a simple popular vote might not either, if we continue such campaigns of disinformation and emphasis on trivia, rather than true policy debates.
So should we keep it and try to fix it? Or scrap it for a simple popular vote? I'm not ready to decide; we need more sober analysis of data from past elections. And we need to get rid of the gerrymandering of the states and congressional districts. And we need to get rid of voter suppression; make it easier to vote, not more difficult. And we need to make sure Russia -- or some other country -- doesn't interfere with our next election. Then let's also look at the structure of our system and see if it needs to be changed.
Ralph
For that, Billy Bush lost his job. And Donald Trump got the most powerful job in the world.
Life ain't fair.
Some would argue that it was designed to keep just such an unqualified person like Donald Trump from being elected by an uninformed, zealous crowd of populist voters. In the late 18th century, there was virtually no mass communication. It was assumed that the average voter was not an informed voter. So they gave party elders (all men, of course) the last word.
But times have changed. Today there is no lack of information and no excuse for being uninformed. And yet the majority of today's voters may be less correctly informed than every before. The problem we have is way too much misinformation, lies, and false news about trivia and not enough factual news about real issues and policies.
Depending on what TV and radio stations a person listens to, they may never hear anything opposing the lies and distortions that they regularly consume. What's lacking is sober analysis and judgment. I don't mean an artificially "balanced and neutral" news, where both sides have to be presented without informed challenges. We need what journalists and pundits used to do; but now they either just read the news someone else wrote, or they slug it out in a talk-all-over-each-other panel without any clarity or resolution.
Clarity, deeper analysis of the issues and policies, and knowledge of the larger picture: isn't that what the electoral college is supposed to provide, if the people are not informed?
Another consideration is that, if we had only the popular vote, we would have a different kind of election campaign. Instead of ignoring the "safe" red and "safe" blue states and concentrating on the "battleground" states, candidates would campaign in the most populous areas, i.e., urban centers -- with an even greater emphasis on reaching the most people possible, meaning even more TV ads and less real time, personal contact with voters. Is that a good thing? The small towns and rural states would then be ignored. Trump himself pointed this out when he said that, if the contest had been for the popular vote, he would have campaigned very differently, spending time in different places.
So it's not quite so simple, after all. But, IMO, the system didn't work the way it's supposed to this time. But is it the system? Or is it a byproduct of the wide chasm between the two major political parties that overshadows policies and proposed solutions in favor of power politics and blind party loyalty?
It's a myth that electors are informed people of principle voting their best judgment; rather, it's a cauldron of sharply divided, deeply partisan politicians voting along strict party lines trying to keep their party in power. So it's not doing what it was meant to do; but a simple popular vote might not either, if we continue such campaigns of disinformation and emphasis on trivia, rather than true policy debates.
So should we keep it and try to fix it? Or scrap it for a simple popular vote? I'm not ready to decide; we need more sober analysis of data from past elections. And we need to get rid of the gerrymandering of the states and congressional districts. And we need to get rid of voter suppression; make it easier to vote, not more difficult. And we need to make sure Russia -- or some other country -- doesn't interfere with our next election. Then let's also look at the structure of our system and see if it needs to be changed.
Ralph
Sunday, November 27, 2016
Trump will be the most expensive president ever.
Already, managing both vehicular and foot traffic in and around Trump Tower on 5th Avenue is said to be costing New York City about $1 million a day. That's in addition to the Secret Service costs to US taxpayers, and all the Air Force One trips between Washington and NY for Trump to visit his family. The Secret Service is considering renting a floor in the Tower to use as a command center, since Melania and Barron will not be moving to Washington at least until after this school year is over.
Of course, any president and his family have to be guarded wherever they go. Often it involves building guard houses, blocking off streets, and renting space for agents to stay near the homes the president maintains.
It's just that they usually are not so numerous and in such high rent/high traffic areas as this posh shopping section of New York's 5th Avenue. Think the Bush remote ranch out from Crawford, TX or the Carter home in small town Plains, GA. Instead of live stock and peanuts, this involves the same block of Manhattan real estate as the Gucci and Tiffany stores, which are being affected as their customers have to go through and around barricades to get into their upscale shopping meccas. And it's not just on the street. Trump Tower is a 58 story, mixed use skyscraper with thousands of tenants who work or live in the building. All their ins and outs must be security screened -- rather than just setting up a roadblock at the end of a rural road or a quiet residential street in Chicago.
But here's the thing. Donald Trump may be the first president to make money on all these perks. If Secret Service rents a whole floor of Trump Tower, that will bring in about $1.5 million a year to the Trump coffers. Ditto all the fund raising events that have been catered at Mar-a-Lago and the Trump golf courses, plus the cost of campaign use of the Trump plane flying all over the country every day and back to New York each night. And now all the diplomats and lobbyists that are lining up for reservations at the newly renovated Trump hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue, hoping thereby to current favor with the president-elect.
That's what he's good at -- making money off other people, in this case, much of it from the taxpayers
Ralph
Of course, any president and his family have to be guarded wherever they go. Often it involves building guard houses, blocking off streets, and renting space for agents to stay near the homes the president maintains.
It's just that they usually are not so numerous and in such high rent/high traffic areas as this posh shopping section of New York's 5th Avenue. Think the Bush remote ranch out from Crawford, TX or the Carter home in small town Plains, GA. Instead of live stock and peanuts, this involves the same block of Manhattan real estate as the Gucci and Tiffany stores, which are being affected as their customers have to go through and around barricades to get into their upscale shopping meccas. And it's not just on the street. Trump Tower is a 58 story, mixed use skyscraper with thousands of tenants who work or live in the building. All their ins and outs must be security screened -- rather than just setting up a roadblock at the end of a rural road or a quiet residential street in Chicago.
But here's the thing. Donald Trump may be the first president to make money on all these perks. If Secret Service rents a whole floor of Trump Tower, that will bring in about $1.5 million a year to the Trump coffers. Ditto all the fund raising events that have been catered at Mar-a-Lago and the Trump golf courses, plus the cost of campaign use of the Trump plane flying all over the country every day and back to New York each night. And now all the diplomats and lobbyists that are lining up for reservations at the newly renovated Trump hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue, hoping thereby to current favor with the president-elect.
That's what he's good at -- making money off other people, in this case, much of it from the taxpayers
Ralph
Saturday, November 26, 2016
My position on President-elect Trump
Just to clear up any possible confusion in the position I take on President-elect Trump, let me put it in a clear statement. At first, I was totally aghast and embarrassed at what we, the people had done. Sort of akin to the feeling we project into a dog that has broken house-training and left a mess on the living room rug. "Oops. Sorry. Didn't mean to do that. How bad is it going to be? Really? That bad, huh?"
Then there were just a few hopeful signs that he was not really going to stick to all those outrageous things he said during the campaign; and the operating mantra became: "Take him seriously, but not literally."
So I thought: let's give him a chance. Hope he surprises us, appoints some good people he will listen to, and doesn't do crazy things or shame the office of the presidency. That lasted a few days.
My current view is that he has had his chance -- and he has blown it. Some of his appointments have been unconventional, but not terrible or outrageous. But, then there are the others; and the "dressing down" of TV journalists and anchors; and the attack on the "Hamlton" cast. And all the obvious conflict of interest problems that he keeps flaunting in our faces, as he talks with business associates in India, Argentina, and who knows where else. Maybe Russia. And . . .
So my position now is: OK, Mr. Trump. The ball is in your court. You have won the electoral college vote, even though Hillary Clinton bested you in popular vote by over 2 million and still counting. If nothing comes of the Jill Stein sponsored recount request, then you will be the 45th President of the United States.
But you are coming from behind -- a position of your own doing -- and it is up to you to prove yourself worthy of the position and responsibility. No more benefit of doubt, no more free rides. Prove it by your actions. We don't trust your words. You are not a trustworthy person, which you've proved over and over. Heck, you even told us as much -- it's all a negotiation with you.
So, when you say words now, Sir, I pay no attention; because I don't trust your words. I'm watching what you do, whom you insult, what efforts you make to reach out to those you have insulted and threatened. Prove us wrong. Undo the damage you've caused.
Ralph
Then there were just a few hopeful signs that he was not really going to stick to all those outrageous things he said during the campaign; and the operating mantra became: "Take him seriously, but not literally."
So I thought: let's give him a chance. Hope he surprises us, appoints some good people he will listen to, and doesn't do crazy things or shame the office of the presidency. That lasted a few days.
My current view is that he has had his chance -- and he has blown it. Some of his appointments have been unconventional, but not terrible or outrageous. But, then there are the others; and the "dressing down" of TV journalists and anchors; and the attack on the "Hamlton" cast. And all the obvious conflict of interest problems that he keeps flaunting in our faces, as he talks with business associates in India, Argentina, and who knows where else. Maybe Russia. And . . .
So my position now is: OK, Mr. Trump. The ball is in your court. You have won the electoral college vote, even though Hillary Clinton bested you in popular vote by over 2 million and still counting. If nothing comes of the Jill Stein sponsored recount request, then you will be the 45th President of the United States.
But you are coming from behind -- a position of your own doing -- and it is up to you to prove yourself worthy of the position and responsibility. No more benefit of doubt, no more free rides. Prove it by your actions. We don't trust your words. You are not a trustworthy person, which you've proved over and over. Heck, you even told us as much -- it's all a negotiation with you.
So, when you say words now, Sir, I pay no attention; because I don't trust your words. I'm watching what you do, whom you insult, what efforts you make to reach out to those you have insulted and threatened. Prove us wrong. Undo the damage you've caused.
Ralph
Friday, November 25, 2016
Don't get your hopes up about Trump
News reporters get excited every time Donald Trump does something that's a step or two away from all those terrible things he said at his campaign rallies. They think it means something. Like: he really doesn't want to hurt the Clintons, so maybe he won't order the FBI to put a special prosecutor on her email case. Or maybe the wall will actually be a fence in some places. And he "has an open mind" about climate change, and maybe waterboarding is not such a good idea after all (because now someone he admires, Gen. Mattis, told him it doesn't really work.)
He met with the New York Times editors and publishers the other day for what's been described as "cordial" and respectful. He even, when prompted, told them that he "denounces and condemns" the white nationalist conference held in Washington that unabashedly trotted out Nazi-style gestures and anti-Semitic rhetoric -- and celebrated his election. Of course, it took no prompting for him to tweet out an angry denunciation of the cast of "Hamilton" for it's "disrespect" for VP-elect Mike Pence -- and incorrectly, at that. They were only imploring him to take seriously the message of the play and respect the rights of all people.
Do not be fooled or get your hopes up. As one letter writer said to the Times: "Time and time again Mr. Trump has shown the world that he can speak from both sides of his mouth. When he talks to right-wingers, he is a hard-core nationalist; but when he talks to liberals, he soften his stands" (Michael Hadjiargyrou, 11/24). Another writer (Esther Bushell, 11-24) wrote this:
"I was an English teacher for 40 years. Donald Trump, in answering questions about global warming, white nationalism, waterboarding, and press freedoms, sounds exactly like my students who hadn't read the assignment and had to obfuscate in their answers. Everyone in the classroom knew who hadn't done the homework and didn't understand the material."
Yes, ma'am, Ms. Bushell. You are so right. In fact, we now hear that Mr. Trump hasn't even bothered to arrange the time for any further security briefings since the election. How many briefing books do you think he takes home with him to study at night? Ha! No time for that either, since he has to keep up with his twitter audience.
The bar is now so low that, when the announcement was made that Nikki Halley would be the Ambassador to the U.N., our reaction wasn't so much skepticism because she has absolutely no experience in foreign affairs but relief that it wasn't going to be John Bolton or Rudi Giuliani. Of course, we still have the possibility that one of them will wind up as Secretary of State -- if Mitt Romney turns him down.
Ralph
He met with the New York Times editors and publishers the other day for what's been described as "cordial" and respectful. He even, when prompted, told them that he "denounces and condemns" the white nationalist conference held in Washington that unabashedly trotted out Nazi-style gestures and anti-Semitic rhetoric -- and celebrated his election. Of course, it took no prompting for him to tweet out an angry denunciation of the cast of "Hamilton" for it's "disrespect" for VP-elect Mike Pence -- and incorrectly, at that. They were only imploring him to take seriously the message of the play and respect the rights of all people.
Do not be fooled or get your hopes up. As one letter writer said to the Times: "Time and time again Mr. Trump has shown the world that he can speak from both sides of his mouth. When he talks to right-wingers, he is a hard-core nationalist; but when he talks to liberals, he soften his stands" (Michael Hadjiargyrou, 11/24). Another writer (Esther Bushell, 11-24) wrote this:
"I was an English teacher for 40 years. Donald Trump, in answering questions about global warming, white nationalism, waterboarding, and press freedoms, sounds exactly like my students who hadn't read the assignment and had to obfuscate in their answers. Everyone in the classroom knew who hadn't done the homework and didn't understand the material."
Yes, ma'am, Ms. Bushell. You are so right. In fact, we now hear that Mr. Trump hasn't even bothered to arrange the time for any further security briefings since the election. How many briefing books do you think he takes home with him to study at night? Ha! No time for that either, since he has to keep up with his twitter audience.
The bar is now so low that, when the announcement was made that Nikki Halley would be the Ambassador to the U.N., our reaction wasn't so much skepticism because she has absolutely no experience in foreign affairs but relief that it wasn't going to be John Bolton or Rudi Giuliani. Of course, we still have the possibility that one of them will wind up as Secretary of State -- if Mitt Romney turns him down.
Ralph
Thursday, November 24, 2016
Some good news to brighten Thanksgiving Day
What a difficult year it has been -- So I've tried to find a few things that we can feel good about on this 2016 version of the Great Turkey Day.
1. Dementia rates decline: A large, representative survey has found that in Americans over the age of 65, the rate of dementia has declined from 11.6% in 2000 to 8.8% in 2012, and the average age of onset has advanced from age 80.7 to 82.4 years. This is despite a population that is growing older and fatter and has more diabetes and high blood pressure. The study, which included 21,000 participants, was published in AMA Journal of Internal Medicine. No explanation was offered for the declining incidence.
2. I've become a fan of Trevor Noah, the comedian who has followed Jon Stewart as host of the "Daily Show." Trevor grew up in South Africa during the waning days of apartheid; but, as a child of a black South African mother and a white Swiss-German father, his childhood was fraught with secrecy and danger, since his very existence was evidence that a crime had been committed. He has just published a book: Born a Crime: Stories from a South African Childhood, which I recommend. I heard part of an NPR interview of Trevor by Terry Gross the other day. Now immersed in our American culture and politics as a comedic commentator, Trevor also brings the consciousness of that apartheid existence in his childhood. He had some advice -- not his actual words, but the message was: "Don't sweat the small stuff." He is not dismissing what we Americans are going through right now when Donald Trump's presidency threatens to undo so much progress. Rather, he is telling us: You will get through this. And it doesn't help to amplify the worst expectations into catastrophe. I recommend Trevor's book as a diverting antidote to the gloom most of us are feeling these days.
3. This one is a stretch, but it could be very good news. The senate race is Louisiana has a runoff scheduled for December 10th. If the Democrat wins, the Republicans' Senate majority would shrink to 51 to 49. The Republican candidate finished first, but with only 25% of the vote, while the Democrat got 17% in an "all comers," ridiculously crowded field of 22 candidates. The Republican is favored to win, since the aggregate of nine Republicans got almost twice as many votes as the seven Democratic candidates, and the state went for Trump by 20%. However, runoffs typically draw small turnouts; and, without Trump on the ticket, it could be a very different picture.
4. David Brooks, New York Times columnist, takes the prize for a choice line so far this week. He wrote: "Trump's appointments so far represent the densest concentration of hyper-macho belligerence outside a drill sergeant retirement home."
5. That was before the announcement of Gov. Nicki Haley as the choice for Ambassador to the United Nations, which in itself I take as a good sign, bringing in someone who was an outspoken Trump critic during the campaign -- and a woman, at that. Yes, she has no foreign policy experience. But she is smart, the daughter of immigrants from India, a rising star among center-right Republicans, and she won major respect in her handling of the aftermath of the mass killings at a Charleston church -- even providing great leadership in the decision to remove the Confederate flag flying over the S.C. state house. Smart choice. She adds class to the cabinet. Let's hope it means something other than good "optics strategy."
6. An obituary notice in the AJC caught my eye and led to fond memories of another era in politics, the mid-60s. Former state senator Roscoe Dean has died at the age of 80. He accomplished nothing and was noted primarily for being dumb and naive; but somehow I remember him fondly. When first elected to represent the Jesup district at 28, he was the youngest member of the senate. He kept getting re-elected because his people loved him, although it was hard to say why, except that he sent a birthday card to every constituent each year. But then his colleagues in the senate discovered how naive he was and would shamelessly write meaningless speeches for him that he would get up and read seriously on the senate floor. He didn't seem to notice. In fact, someone wrote him a speech once that contained the parenthetical instruction [now tell a joke.] Roscoe just read what he was given, including "Now tell a joke." Yes, it was mean. Today we would be shocked and call it abusive. But Roscoe didn't seem to mind; perhaps he liked the attention; and his colleagues seemed to really like him, making him chair of the Agriculture Committee, even as they toyed with his naivete. His political career came to an end when he got caught in an FBI sting, trying to make a deal to import marijuana into the state as a means of financing his re-election campaign. Poor Roscoe. Did he know he was being laughed at? I hope not, because there was something sort of likable about him -- at least from the distance of only reading the human interest stories written about him. And on reading that he died, I found myself smiling with fondness for the gentle fool.
7. I end by reprinting a letter from Rachelle Marshall of Mill Valley, CA that was published in the New York Times a few days ago. "President Obama's words in Athens were a reminder that for eight years we have had a president who possesses a degree of wisdom and empathy rare among political figures.
"Mr. Obama came into office with a message of hope, and with the assumption that Americans regardless of party believed in the principles of freedom and equality our country was founded on, and would support his efforts to carry out these principles. Instead of support, however, he encountered a Republican-dominated Congress determined to obstruct his every effort.
"Mr. Obama's executive orders on immigration and the environment will undoubtedly be rescinded by the Trump administration, and it's too soon to predict what other dismantling the new administration will do.
"But what cannot be erased is the fact that for eight years our country had a president untouched by pettiness or scandal, who tried to make America a fairer, more generous place. For that effort alone, he deserves an honored place in history."
And that is something we can be thankful for today.
Ralph
1. Dementia rates decline: A large, representative survey has found that in Americans over the age of 65, the rate of dementia has declined from 11.6% in 2000 to 8.8% in 2012, and the average age of onset has advanced from age 80.7 to 82.4 years. This is despite a population that is growing older and fatter and has more diabetes and high blood pressure. The study, which included 21,000 participants, was published in AMA Journal of Internal Medicine. No explanation was offered for the declining incidence.
2. I've become a fan of Trevor Noah, the comedian who has followed Jon Stewart as host of the "Daily Show." Trevor grew up in South Africa during the waning days of apartheid; but, as a child of a black South African mother and a white Swiss-German father, his childhood was fraught with secrecy and danger, since his very existence was evidence that a crime had been committed. He has just published a book: Born a Crime: Stories from a South African Childhood, which I recommend. I heard part of an NPR interview of Trevor by Terry Gross the other day. Now immersed in our American culture and politics as a comedic commentator, Trevor also brings the consciousness of that apartheid existence in his childhood. He had some advice -- not his actual words, but the message was: "Don't sweat the small stuff." He is not dismissing what we Americans are going through right now when Donald Trump's presidency threatens to undo so much progress. Rather, he is telling us: You will get through this. And it doesn't help to amplify the worst expectations into catastrophe. I recommend Trevor's book as a diverting antidote to the gloom most of us are feeling these days.
3. This one is a stretch, but it could be very good news. The senate race is Louisiana has a runoff scheduled for December 10th. If the Democrat wins, the Republicans' Senate majority would shrink to 51 to 49. The Republican candidate finished first, but with only 25% of the vote, while the Democrat got 17% in an "all comers," ridiculously crowded field of 22 candidates. The Republican is favored to win, since the aggregate of nine Republicans got almost twice as many votes as the seven Democratic candidates, and the state went for Trump by 20%. However, runoffs typically draw small turnouts; and, without Trump on the ticket, it could be a very different picture.
4. David Brooks, New York Times columnist, takes the prize for a choice line so far this week. He wrote: "Trump's appointments so far represent the densest concentration of hyper-macho belligerence outside a drill sergeant retirement home."
5. That was before the announcement of Gov. Nicki Haley as the choice for Ambassador to the United Nations, which in itself I take as a good sign, bringing in someone who was an outspoken Trump critic during the campaign -- and a woman, at that. Yes, she has no foreign policy experience. But she is smart, the daughter of immigrants from India, a rising star among center-right Republicans, and she won major respect in her handling of the aftermath of the mass killings at a Charleston church -- even providing great leadership in the decision to remove the Confederate flag flying over the S.C. state house. Smart choice. She adds class to the cabinet. Let's hope it means something other than good "optics strategy."
6. An obituary notice in the AJC caught my eye and led to fond memories of another era in politics, the mid-60s. Former state senator Roscoe Dean has died at the age of 80. He accomplished nothing and was noted primarily for being dumb and naive; but somehow I remember him fondly. When first elected to represent the Jesup district at 28, he was the youngest member of the senate. He kept getting re-elected because his people loved him, although it was hard to say why, except that he sent a birthday card to every constituent each year. But then his colleagues in the senate discovered how naive he was and would shamelessly write meaningless speeches for him that he would get up and read seriously on the senate floor. He didn't seem to notice. In fact, someone wrote him a speech once that contained the parenthetical instruction [now tell a joke.] Roscoe just read what he was given, including "Now tell a joke." Yes, it was mean. Today we would be shocked and call it abusive. But Roscoe didn't seem to mind; perhaps he liked the attention; and his colleagues seemed to really like him, making him chair of the Agriculture Committee, even as they toyed with his naivete. His political career came to an end when he got caught in an FBI sting, trying to make a deal to import marijuana into the state as a means of financing his re-election campaign. Poor Roscoe. Did he know he was being laughed at? I hope not, because there was something sort of likable about him -- at least from the distance of only reading the human interest stories written about him. And on reading that he died, I found myself smiling with fondness for the gentle fool.
7. I end by reprinting a letter from Rachelle Marshall of Mill Valley, CA that was published in the New York Times a few days ago. "President Obama's words in Athens were a reminder that for eight years we have had a president who possesses a degree of wisdom and empathy rare among political figures.
"Mr. Obama came into office with a message of hope, and with the assumption that Americans regardless of party believed in the principles of freedom and equality our country was founded on, and would support his efforts to carry out these principles. Instead of support, however, he encountered a Republican-dominated Congress determined to obstruct his every effort.
"Mr. Obama's executive orders on immigration and the environment will undoubtedly be rescinded by the Trump administration, and it's too soon to predict what other dismantling the new administration will do.
"But what cannot be erased is the fact that for eight years our country had a president untouched by pettiness or scandal, who tried to make America a fairer, more generous place. For that effort alone, he deserves an honored place in history."
And that is something we can be thankful for today.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
