The United Kingdom is mourning the loss of seven people killed in what appears to be an act of terror last night in London. The attack began when a van veered off the road and barreled into pedestrians on busy London Bridge. Three men fled the van with large knives and attacked people at bars and restaurants in nearby Borough Market. Police shot and killed the three attackers within eight minutes. Our hearts go out to the families of the victims and the citizens of our closest ally.
So far there has been no claim of responsibility, however, President Donald Trump took to Twitter right away to call on the courts to reinstate his Muslim travel ban.
Wait! What?
Yes, the President's very first reaction, prior to offering condolences or support to the British people, was to talk about his travel ban. Trump did follow up with a tweeted platitude of support but then went on with his fear mongering in a series of additional tweets.
Fear is a natural reaction to any act of terror. It is the intended reaction the perpetrators of terror are trying to solicit. Decisions based on fear usually are not well thought out. They lack the objectivity necessary to see a wide range of outcomes and consequences. The President, backed by the full resources of the United States government, has big picture intelligence available to him and all the tools necessary to make decisions based on facts not fear. Instead, Trump played right into the hand of fear launching again into the need for his ban on Muslims coming to the U.S. The travel ban isn't a solution to terror. At best it's a temporary band aid that unfairly singles out a specific group of people and is disproportionate to the actual threat.
The ban is easy though. It can be simply understood by the low information voters that propelled the low information President into office. It also resonates with the natural reaction of fear that many people have after event like last night's London attack.
By definition terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. The President is certainly whipping up fear as a motivator for the country to accept the Muslim travel ban. How is what Trump is doing different from terrorism? He's not laying down long term strategy; the travel ban is "temporary" in his own words. He's not offering tangible assurances to help law enforcement or local communities to remain vigilant against threats the size and scope of the London attack. In fact, he's articulated no other investment in national anti-terror efforts beyond fear mongering against Muslims.
Trump is peddling a form of terrorism. He's using fear to drive forward an ideology not a solution. He needs to stop. He needs to be serious, thoughtful and comprehensive in an approach toward building an effective strategy. Unfortunately, serious and thoughtful are not qualities the President possesses. Thus, he will be derelict in his duty. Rest assured that when he fails, the first tweet to follow will lay blame elsewhere.
Beating terror is harder than spreading it. Trump's got the spreading fear part down. If only we had a President that knew how to win.
Sunday, June 4, 2017
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Fact, Fiction, and Crackpots
The easiest conclusion to draw from the news this week is that Republicans are terrible, terrible people. President Trump wrapped up his first trip abroad during which he perpetuated the caricature of the ugly American. In Washington, the Trump administration budget was released and it reads like the story of Robin Hood with the premise reversed. In Montana, Republicans elected an ape to congress who is good with his fists and not so good with critical thinking. And in a nice reminder of GOP intolerance, the White House released a photo of the G7 spouses and failed to acknowledge First Gentleman of Luxembourg Gauthier Destenay who is gay.
While any of those stories warrant scrutiny there were other items in the news this week beyond the Trump national disgrace. One begs the following question:
When did it become universally acceptable that parenting choices should not be questioned?
Actually, hold that thought for a moment. Instead, lets start with a few facts. So far in 2017, six children have died nationwide after being left in a hot vehicle. During the 2016 the pace at which children were accidentally killed by guns in the home was one per day. Then there are the non-stop individual stories of parental stupidity from letting kids guzzle non-stop soft drinks into obesity to the famous "affluenza" case of Ethan Couch.
Raising children doesn't require a license or come with a manual. Some people are simply better at it than others much the same way that not everyone can play major league baseball. The idea that simply because a person is capable of procreating he or she is therefore capable of making acceptable parenting decisions is ridiculous. There is a blurry line between parental rights and the common good. This line is uncomfortable to talk about. Most parents recoil at the thought of interference with their child rearing. It's perfectly understandable and probably a good sign they are vested in the arrangement. None the less, government must sometimes step in to protect children from suffering through parental stupidity.
Republicans have again found themselves on the familiar side of stupid in trying to further define this blurry line. GOP lawmakers introduced a pair of bills in the Michigan legislature aimed at eliminating rules that require parents to get vaccination education if they don't want to get their children immunized. The fact that anti-vax is a thing to begin with is incredible but given the country pays little more than lip service to providing quality education it's not surprising that overwhelming scientific evidence is thrown out the window at the expense of baseless beliefs or religious zealotry.
Understanding science can be hard. Making things up is easy. The chronically stupid follow the path of least resistance with the GOP leading the way on the anti-vax front.
During hearings before the House Education Reform committee, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services Chief Medical Executive, Dr. Eden Wells, was interrupted by the Republican chair of the committee 30 seconds into her explanation of why the current rules are necessary. Had she been allowed to finish she likely would have cited the fact that data from 2015 showed that Michigan ranked 43rd lowest in the nation for immunizations covering kids from 19 to 35 months. That's not good for public health or for children.
Rep. Jeffrey Noble, R-Plymouth, one of the sponsors lamented the bills are about parental rights, "which have been taking a beating in recent years." Any perceived beating of parental rights pales in comparison to the actual beatings children endure at the hands of unfit parents. A report of child abuse is made every ten seconds and Republican lawmakers are not lining up with legislation to stop that. More importantly, this Republican hack completely ignored his duty to protect the public health. By siding with parents that willingly choose to put their kids at risk, he ignored the consequences that decision has on others. There is no excuse for gambling with the public health by sanctioning attendance of potential "Typhoid Mary" kids in classrooms and on playgrounds across the state.
In fairness, the anti-vax movement is bi-partisan and not all Republicans are supporters. Fortunately, it became apparent during the Michigan hearings the bills didn't have the votes to get out of committee. Four sane Republicans and all the Democrats on the committee indicated their opposition. Yet the episode is illustrative of how willing some lawmakers are to put ideology ahead of the common good.
The entire debacle is another example of how American society is willing to give credence to people that simply say they believe in something in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They offer no imperial research to support their position and lack any topical expertise in making the initial claim. People are free to believe whatever they want but are compelled to use logic and fact when it comes to drafting the letter of law. Legislating fiction into law is unacceptable as is the practice of accepting crackpots as mainstream.
While any of those stories warrant scrutiny there were other items in the news this week beyond the Trump national disgrace. One begs the following question:
When did it become universally acceptable that parenting choices should not be questioned?
Actually, hold that thought for a moment. Instead, lets start with a few facts. So far in 2017, six children have died nationwide after being left in a hot vehicle. During the 2016 the pace at which children were accidentally killed by guns in the home was one per day. Then there are the non-stop individual stories of parental stupidity from letting kids guzzle non-stop soft drinks into obesity to the famous "affluenza" case of Ethan Couch.
Raising children doesn't require a license or come with a manual. Some people are simply better at it than others much the same way that not everyone can play major league baseball. The idea that simply because a person is capable of procreating he or she is therefore capable of making acceptable parenting decisions is ridiculous. There is a blurry line between parental rights and the common good. This line is uncomfortable to talk about. Most parents recoil at the thought of interference with their child rearing. It's perfectly understandable and probably a good sign they are vested in the arrangement. None the less, government must sometimes step in to protect children from suffering through parental stupidity.
Republicans have again found themselves on the familiar side of stupid in trying to further define this blurry line. GOP lawmakers introduced a pair of bills in the Michigan legislature aimed at eliminating rules that require parents to get vaccination education if they don't want to get their children immunized. The fact that anti-vax is a thing to begin with is incredible but given the country pays little more than lip service to providing quality education it's not surprising that overwhelming scientific evidence is thrown out the window at the expense of baseless beliefs or religious zealotry.
Understanding science can be hard. Making things up is easy. The chronically stupid follow the path of least resistance with the GOP leading the way on the anti-vax front.
During hearings before the House Education Reform committee, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services Chief Medical Executive, Dr. Eden Wells, was interrupted by the Republican chair of the committee 30 seconds into her explanation of why the current rules are necessary. Had she been allowed to finish she likely would have cited the fact that data from 2015 showed that Michigan ranked 43rd lowest in the nation for immunizations covering kids from 19 to 35 months. That's not good for public health or for children.
Rep. Jeffrey Noble, R-Plymouth, one of the sponsors lamented the bills are about parental rights, "which have been taking a beating in recent years." Any perceived beating of parental rights pales in comparison to the actual beatings children endure at the hands of unfit parents. A report of child abuse is made every ten seconds and Republican lawmakers are not lining up with legislation to stop that. More importantly, this Republican hack completely ignored his duty to protect the public health. By siding with parents that willingly choose to put their kids at risk, he ignored the consequences that decision has on others. There is no excuse for gambling with the public health by sanctioning attendance of potential "Typhoid Mary" kids in classrooms and on playgrounds across the state.
In fairness, the anti-vax movement is bi-partisan and not all Republicans are supporters. Fortunately, it became apparent during the Michigan hearings the bills didn't have the votes to get out of committee. Four sane Republicans and all the Democrats on the committee indicated their opposition. Yet the episode is illustrative of how willing some lawmakers are to put ideology ahead of the common good.
The entire debacle is another example of how American society is willing to give credence to people that simply say they believe in something in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They offer no imperial research to support their position and lack any topical expertise in making the initial claim. People are free to believe whatever they want but are compelled to use logic and fact when it comes to drafting the letter of law. Legislating fiction into law is unacceptable as is the practice of accepting crackpots as mainstream.
Sunday, May 21, 2017
Respite From The Storm
It wasn't a good week for the White House. It began with the revelation President Trump divulged classified information to Russian diplomats in what could best be described as a bragging moment and ended with former FBI Director Robert Mueller appointed as special counsel to oversee the investigation into ties between Trump's campaign and Russian officials.
Let's face it, any fan of the Trump resistance probably went through a range of emotions last week ranging from outrage over the revelations to giddiness about the consequences they may bring for the President. The outrage is warranted. Trump is essentially a low information voter that managed to become President. For that reason, his statements and actions are anywhere from amateurish to destructive. As to the giddiness, not so fast. Trump himself may be in a spiral but do not expect the rest of the GOP to stand on the principle of defending the Republic and abandon the President publically.
Despite the Mueller appointment, almost no Republicans have come forward with anything beyond tepid lip service expressing concern about the Presidential controversy. The GOP has been extremely successful in ignoring principle to game the system to their advantage. The textbook example is Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell's decision to ignore the spirit of the Constitution and sit on President Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland. McConnell's gamble to wait out the November election paid off and likely protected the conservative agenda for years to come. On an academic level, it's admittedly hard not to respect the audacity of the strategy despite the damaging precedent set. Technically, McConnell's action wasn't against the law nor was Trump's decision to declassify information on the fly for that matter; neither was principled.
Expect the Republicans to use the same unprincipled tactics to prop up the agenda as the Mueller investigation unfolds. They will go through the motions to support the perception of cooperation and at the same time defend the President's indefensible behavior at the expense of logic as long as it helps preserve the GOP majority in Washington.
Trump himself is irrelevant to most of the GOP leadership but his popularity with the base means his demise could jeopardize the agenda of lining their own pockets through tax cuts and legislation benefitting the interests of the rich. Supported by the likes of conservative media outlets which downplayed the Trump allegations, the plan to maintenance low information voters in an effort to retain their support is well underway.
Trump remains out of the country this week and is basking abroad in the adoration that he so craves at home. An authoritarian kingdom has carefully choreographed the experience for the wannabe authoritarian President's enjoyment. With Trump gone, the sky at home may seem a bit more blue and the sun a little bit brighter. It's merely a respite. The storm clouds will return the moment Air Force One touches down at Joint Base Andrews later this week.
Let's face it, any fan of the Trump resistance probably went through a range of emotions last week ranging from outrage over the revelations to giddiness about the consequences they may bring for the President. The outrage is warranted. Trump is essentially a low information voter that managed to become President. For that reason, his statements and actions are anywhere from amateurish to destructive. As to the giddiness, not so fast. Trump himself may be in a spiral but do not expect the rest of the GOP to stand on the principle of defending the Republic and abandon the President publically.
Despite the Mueller appointment, almost no Republicans have come forward with anything beyond tepid lip service expressing concern about the Presidential controversy. The GOP has been extremely successful in ignoring principle to game the system to their advantage. The textbook example is Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell's decision to ignore the spirit of the Constitution and sit on President Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland. McConnell's gamble to wait out the November election paid off and likely protected the conservative agenda for years to come. On an academic level, it's admittedly hard not to respect the audacity of the strategy despite the damaging precedent set. Technically, McConnell's action wasn't against the law nor was Trump's decision to declassify information on the fly for that matter; neither was principled.
Expect the Republicans to use the same unprincipled tactics to prop up the agenda as the Mueller investigation unfolds. They will go through the motions to support the perception of cooperation and at the same time defend the President's indefensible behavior at the expense of logic as long as it helps preserve the GOP majority in Washington.
Trump himself is irrelevant to most of the GOP leadership but his popularity with the base means his demise could jeopardize the agenda of lining their own pockets through tax cuts and legislation benefitting the interests of the rich. Supported by the likes of conservative media outlets which downplayed the Trump allegations, the plan to maintenance low information voters in an effort to retain their support is well underway.
Trump remains out of the country this week and is basking abroad in the adoration that he so craves at home. An authoritarian kingdom has carefully choreographed the experience for the wannabe authoritarian President's enjoyment. With Trump gone, the sky at home may seem a bit more blue and the sun a little bit brighter. It's merely a respite. The storm clouds will return the moment Air Force One touches down at Joint Base Andrews later this week.
Sunday, May 14, 2017
Celebrity Apprentice: White House
The axe has fallen again during the latest episode of Celebrity Apprentice: White House. Presidential apprentice Donald Trump this week said, "You're fired" to FBI Director James Comey.
The reasoning behind Comey's dismissal reads like a poorly written multiple choice test (choose one):
- An unsolicited recommendation from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rothstein over handling of the Clinton email release (Sean Spicer).
- A DOJ recommendation solicited by the President (Sarah Huckabee Sanders).
- Because Comey's "a showboat, he's a grandstander, the F.B.I. has been in turmoil." (Donald Trump)
- "This has nothing to do with Russia." (Kellyanne Conway)
- "The rank and file of the F.B.I. had lost confidence." (Sarah Huckabee Sanders).
- Comey has "broad support" and "still does to this day." (Andrew McCabe)
The reasons may be in dispute but the optics of Comey's removal are terrible. It certainly looks as if the President fired the FBI Director to derail the Russia investigation. That may be true. However, Trump almost daily demonstrates autocratic tendencies and a simplistic understanding of points of law (and the Constitution) making nearly everything he does look clumsy.
Democrats have been mad at Comey since he reopened an investigation into Hillary Clinton's leaked email days before the presidential election. They have only recently warmed up to the former Director once it became clear he was going to pursue the investigation into Russian ties to the Trump campaign. Republicans have the opposite love-hate relationship with the former Director. At this point, neither side has strong credibility when it comes to objective commentary over Comey's performance.
Using the word credibility in the same sentence with the name of either political party seems like an oxymoron but this matter now comes down to whether or not Congress actually believes in the rule of law. Evidence of Russia interfering with the election process has been confirmed. Trump's first Celebrity Apprentice: White House casualty Michael Flynn raised more flags over Russian influence or collusion within the campaign. Other Trump aids with connections to Russia from Jeff Sessions to Paul Manafort keep the questions mounting.
The important part here is not to get hung up on the fact Comey was fired but that the investigation into Russian ties and influence must continue to run its course. That investigative course must not turn into a partisan Ken Starr like sideshow. This matters; the implication goes beyond criminal business activities. It reeks of treason.
The ball is now in the court of congressional Republicans. Their actions around the investigation will demonstrate if they believe in the rule of law and the Constitution. If the investigation moves forward in a non-partisan manner and Trump is vindicated, good for all of us. If he is not, that will be tragic but not as dire an outcome as if Republicans go partisan or halt the investigation entirely.
A move in either of those directions is equivalent to Republicans toasting, "Na zdravie" in the Capitol building; a shot of Stolichnaya we'll all find hard to swallow.
The reasoning behind Comey's dismissal reads like a poorly written multiple choice test (choose one):
- An unsolicited recommendation from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rothstein over handling of the Clinton email release (Sean Spicer).
- A DOJ recommendation solicited by the President (Sarah Huckabee Sanders).
- Because Comey's "a showboat, he's a grandstander, the F.B.I. has been in turmoil." (Donald Trump)
- "This has nothing to do with Russia." (Kellyanne Conway)
- "The rank and file of the F.B.I. had lost confidence." (Sarah Huckabee Sanders).
- Comey has "broad support" and "still does to this day." (Andrew McCabe)
The reasons may be in dispute but the optics of Comey's removal are terrible. It certainly looks as if the President fired the FBI Director to derail the Russia investigation. That may be true. However, Trump almost daily demonstrates autocratic tendencies and a simplistic understanding of points of law (and the Constitution) making nearly everything he does look clumsy.
Democrats have been mad at Comey since he reopened an investigation into Hillary Clinton's leaked email days before the presidential election. They have only recently warmed up to the former Director once it became clear he was going to pursue the investigation into Russian ties to the Trump campaign. Republicans have the opposite love-hate relationship with the former Director. At this point, neither side has strong credibility when it comes to objective commentary over Comey's performance.
Using the word credibility in the same sentence with the name of either political party seems like an oxymoron but this matter now comes down to whether or not Congress actually believes in the rule of law. Evidence of Russia interfering with the election process has been confirmed. Trump's first Celebrity Apprentice: White House casualty Michael Flynn raised more flags over Russian influence or collusion within the campaign. Other Trump aids with connections to Russia from Jeff Sessions to Paul Manafort keep the questions mounting.
The important part here is not to get hung up on the fact Comey was fired but that the investigation into Russian ties and influence must continue to run its course. That investigative course must not turn into a partisan Ken Starr like sideshow. This matters; the implication goes beyond criminal business activities. It reeks of treason.
The ball is now in the court of congressional Republicans. Their actions around the investigation will demonstrate if they believe in the rule of law and the Constitution. If the investigation moves forward in a non-partisan manner and Trump is vindicated, good for all of us. If he is not, that will be tragic but not as dire an outcome as if Republicans go partisan or halt the investigation entirely.
A move in either of those directions is equivalent to Republicans toasting, "Na zdravie" in the Capitol building; a shot of Stolichnaya we'll all find hard to swallow.
Friday, May 5, 2017
The Republican Congress Voted To Kill You
During the fight to pass Obamacare, Republicans decried the legislation would result in "death panels" convened to mete out healthcare in some dystopian fashion. Guess what, the Republicans themselves happily became the death panel they once so feared on Thursday when they passed the AHCA that, if signed into law, would strip health care from millions and gut the coverage mandate for pre-existing conditions.
Short of calling it murder, there's little other way to spin this move. Depending on your income, employment status, and current state of health, House Republicans voted to kill you. They showed no remorse. To celebrate, they had carts of beer - that you likely paid for - brought into the Capitol after the vote. They ordered your murder and then had a beer. Nice.
The evidence at the crime scene is staggering. By 2020, the number of uninsured Americans will be back on the rise, premiums will go up across the board, and the grim reaper of pre-existing conditions will start claiming victims. President Trump stated Thursday, "What we have is something very, very incredibly well-crafted." It's not clear that Trump has actually read the bill as the AHCA is anything but "well-crafted" unless it's being compared to a Ford Pinto, Galaxy Note 7, or the Titanic. Trump also tweeted the bill was a "repeal and replace" of Obamacare. That statement alone signaled Trump is more interested in being able to defend his adoption of that tired and hollow GOP mantra rather than deliver meaningful improvement to healthcare in America.
Greed appears to be the motive behind the crime for the rest of the GOP. The original AHCA draft used cuts to Medicaid as part of a broader strategy to pay for tax cuts for the rich. The now passed version still includes $800 million in Medicaid cuts that will kill, literally, some low income Americans. The repeal of certain tax provisions within Obamacare under the new bill delivers tax cuts totaling $346 billion over 10 years to wealthy American taxpayers earning more than $200,000 a year.
The AHCA means higher premiums, fewer insured, removal of protections for pre-existing conditions, Congressional healthcare remains likely unchanged, and the rich white guys that wrote the law all get a big tax cut. If none of that seems like enough to convict here's one last gem. People with employer provided healthcare plans are not safe either. The AHCA contains a provision that could gut safeguards against catastrophic costs for people with coverage through large employer plans across several states.
The AHCA is universally horrific. The men that wrote it are guilty of premeditated murder. Those that voted for it are accomplices. Period.
The Senate gets a crack at the AHCA next. It's not yet clear whether Senators will join the Manson family-esqe House and vote to kill you or send a different bill back for reconciliation. Either way, the outcome is in the hands of the Republicans that control both chambers so odds are you're: dead man walking.
Maybe the AHCA vote will finally alienate the voters that repeatedly choose against their own interests by returning a Republican majority to Washington. Otherwise, the only solace will be in the less pleasant alternative of change through attrition since those voters will simply die off as a result of what their representatives delivered in the AHCA.
Short of calling it murder, there's little other way to spin this move. Depending on your income, employment status, and current state of health, House Republicans voted to kill you. They showed no remorse. To celebrate, they had carts of beer - that you likely paid for - brought into the Capitol after the vote. They ordered your murder and then had a beer. Nice.
The evidence at the crime scene is staggering. By 2020, the number of uninsured Americans will be back on the rise, premiums will go up across the board, and the grim reaper of pre-existing conditions will start claiming victims. President Trump stated Thursday, "What we have is something very, very incredibly well-crafted." It's not clear that Trump has actually read the bill as the AHCA is anything but "well-crafted" unless it's being compared to a Ford Pinto, Galaxy Note 7, or the Titanic. Trump also tweeted the bill was a "repeal and replace" of Obamacare. That statement alone signaled Trump is more interested in being able to defend his adoption of that tired and hollow GOP mantra rather than deliver meaningful improvement to healthcare in America.
Greed appears to be the motive behind the crime for the rest of the GOP. The original AHCA draft used cuts to Medicaid as part of a broader strategy to pay for tax cuts for the rich. The now passed version still includes $800 million in Medicaid cuts that will kill, literally, some low income Americans. The repeal of certain tax provisions within Obamacare under the new bill delivers tax cuts totaling $346 billion over 10 years to wealthy American taxpayers earning more than $200,000 a year.
The AHCA means higher premiums, fewer insured, removal of protections for pre-existing conditions, Congressional healthcare remains likely unchanged, and the rich white guys that wrote the law all get a big tax cut. If none of that seems like enough to convict here's one last gem. People with employer provided healthcare plans are not safe either. The AHCA contains a provision that could gut safeguards against catastrophic costs for people with coverage through large employer plans across several states.
The AHCA is universally horrific. The men that wrote it are guilty of premeditated murder. Those that voted for it are accomplices. Period.
The Senate gets a crack at the AHCA next. It's not yet clear whether Senators will join the Manson family-esqe House and vote to kill you or send a different bill back for reconciliation. Either way, the outcome is in the hands of the Republicans that control both chambers so odds are you're: dead man walking.
Maybe the AHCA vote will finally alienate the voters that repeatedly choose against their own interests by returning a Republican majority to Washington. Otherwise, the only solace will be in the less pleasant alternative of change through attrition since those voters will simply die off as a result of what their representatives delivered in the AHCA.
Saturday, April 29, 2017
100 Days
Depending on your point of view today marks either 100 days Donald Trump has been president or 1361 days before Donald Trump's term ends. Trump himself started his celebration of the former by delivering a speech Friday to annual convention of the National Rifle Association in Atlanta.
The sitting President of the United States trotted out a few of his golden oldies including the racist nickname "Pocahontas" he's dubbed on Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. He chest thumped his intent to build a border wall with Mexico while leaving out details on when he'll start or how it will be funded. And, of course, he declared the eight year "assault" on the Second Amendment over. All of it played well to the scared white people in attendance but the no gunsense crowd isn't exactly one that would notice a lack of sensitivity or logic. The arguments of their own organization are fundamentally devoid of both. To anyone else, the speech should be seen as uncouth, unpresidential, and a strong reminder we deserve better.
Trumps list of accomplishments in his first 100 days on the job are few. He's signed, but arguably not read, 29 executive orders. The highlights of those weaken a number of climate and environmental initiatives and include his two attempts at Muslim travel bans. The administration has not led any new legislation to passage, and notably failed at turning Trumpcare version 1.0 into law. Even his touted wall is not under construction and Republicans in the House and Senate passed a temporary funding bill on Friday that included zero dollars for Trump's border debacle.
Listening to Trump bloviate in front of the NRA is reminiscent of watching Norma Desmond relieve her glory days in Sunset Boulevard. Ensconced in the friendly confines of a room filled with one issue ideologues that adore him, Trump fed his narcissistic hunger without the inconvenience of a real world that doesn't universally embrace him. He was in his element, could be himself, and lived up to the lack of expectation we hold him to when it comes to competence and decency.
In contrast, earlier in the day, Trump admitted during an interview with Reuters, "This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier."
President Trump's revelation about the work involved in being the nation's chief executive is one of several reversals of position from that of candidate Trump he's demonstrated during the first 100 days. "Nobody knew healthcare was so difficult", "NATO is no longer obsolete", and "They (China) are not currency manipulators" are all in opposition of Trump campaign rhetoric. The good news is that Trump appears to be learning on the job and evolving some of his flat out wrong assumptions. The bad news is Trump is at such a preparedness deficit what he's learning is remedial in level.
Tax reform seems to be the issue the administration is leading off with for the next 100 days. Earlier in the week Trump released a one page summary of his plan to reform the tax code. A single page. The current Federal Tax Code is 74,604 pages long and team Trump delivered a one page report outlining how to fix it. A first year CPA at Deloitte could deliver a broader treatment on tax reform. One page seems about Trump's attention span and it's near certain he will be surprised when the oversimplified measure he'd previously believed to be a solution to complex problem fails.
Let's hope the country doesn't fail with it. Just 1361 more days to go.
The sitting President of the United States trotted out a few of his golden oldies including the racist nickname "Pocahontas" he's dubbed on Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. He chest thumped his intent to build a border wall with Mexico while leaving out details on when he'll start or how it will be funded. And, of course, he declared the eight year "assault" on the Second Amendment over. All of it played well to the scared white people in attendance but the no gunsense crowd isn't exactly one that would notice a lack of sensitivity or logic. The arguments of their own organization are fundamentally devoid of both. To anyone else, the speech should be seen as uncouth, unpresidential, and a strong reminder we deserve better.
Trumps list of accomplishments in his first 100 days on the job are few. He's signed, but arguably not read, 29 executive orders. The highlights of those weaken a number of climate and environmental initiatives and include his two attempts at Muslim travel bans. The administration has not led any new legislation to passage, and notably failed at turning Trumpcare version 1.0 into law. Even his touted wall is not under construction and Republicans in the House and Senate passed a temporary funding bill on Friday that included zero dollars for Trump's border debacle.
Listening to Trump bloviate in front of the NRA is reminiscent of watching Norma Desmond relieve her glory days in Sunset Boulevard. Ensconced in the friendly confines of a room filled with one issue ideologues that adore him, Trump fed his narcissistic hunger without the inconvenience of a real world that doesn't universally embrace him. He was in his element, could be himself, and lived up to the lack of expectation we hold him to when it comes to competence and decency.
In contrast, earlier in the day, Trump admitted during an interview with Reuters, "This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier."
President Trump's revelation about the work involved in being the nation's chief executive is one of several reversals of position from that of candidate Trump he's demonstrated during the first 100 days. "Nobody knew healthcare was so difficult", "NATO is no longer obsolete", and "They (China) are not currency manipulators" are all in opposition of Trump campaign rhetoric. The good news is that Trump appears to be learning on the job and evolving some of his flat out wrong assumptions. The bad news is Trump is at such a preparedness deficit what he's learning is remedial in level.
Tax reform seems to be the issue the administration is leading off with for the next 100 days. Earlier in the week Trump released a one page summary of his plan to reform the tax code. A single page. The current Federal Tax Code is 74,604 pages long and team Trump delivered a one page report outlining how to fix it. A first year CPA at Deloitte could deliver a broader treatment on tax reform. One page seems about Trump's attention span and it's near certain he will be surprised when the oversimplified measure he'd previously believed to be a solution to complex problem fails.
Let's hope the country doesn't fail with it. Just 1361 more days to go.
Saturday, April 15, 2017
A Letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos
Congratulations Jeff, you ended the month of March as the second richest man on the planet. That's quite an accomplishment, as is getting there in a way many thought could not be done. You turned what started as an online bookseller into a retail giant that has changed the way many Americans shop.
Amazon has sure changed the way I shop. Yes, I'm a Prime member. I watch Prime video, I enjoy the two day shipping and I only get slightly miffed when I look up some random item, like a spatula, and spend the next five weeks looking at spatula adds in my Facebook feed. That actually brings me to my point, Jeff, Amazon ads are exactly what I want to talk with you about. No, not the ads that show up on Facebook, I get that's the price of admission. It's the ads that show up elsewhere, on Breitbart for example, the alt-right website and purveyor of hate propaganda that we need to talk about.
First off, I understand, it's complicated. Amazon doesn't place ads directly on Breitbart. The ads show up as the result of big third party buys that leverage high tech and analytics to provide wide brand exposure. However, that doesn't excuse Amazon, or you, from taking a stand with your media partners to block Amazon branded ads from appearing on a site next to a headline reading, "Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy" or any of these other equally offensive gems. If Alexa can figure out someone just asked her to send an electric razor to Rockford, Illinois in two days, you clearly have the talent to figure out how to selectively promote Amazon without supporting hate on sites like Breitbart.
Hundreds of your own employees are making the same ask but you're not taking action, why? People calling Amazon customer service asking you to stop are being hung up on, why? Jeff, we deserve better. We supported you, we supported Amazon. We think Blue Origin is cool and The Washington Post legendary and yet you're not hearing us. Why? Please don't let it be all about the money. You recently passed Warren Buffett on the list of world's richest people. Mr. Buffett is working hard to give his fortune away for the common good. Are you really the guy that has to amass more for himself in a relentless attempt to win? That's a Trump move and I can't believe it your true motivation. If it were, you might pass Buffett but you will never equal him.
You've no doubt heard of the #GrabYourWallet campaign encouraging people to avoid Trump branded products. Now, I don't particularly care if Ivanka sells some ugly shoes or if some people are dumb enough to buy subpar Trump branded merchandise. And clearly, no one should eat anything from the Mar-a-Lago kitchen after its most recent health code inspection. I do care about fighting hate and intolerance and, against those, the idea to vote with one's wallet has been used recently in some very meaningful ways. The North Carolina legislature, for example, was pressured to redo its discriminatory bathroom bill in the face continued economic sanction by corporations and individuals sensitive to intolerance. Sleeping Giants have also successfully lobbied advertisers away from Breitbart and the O'Reilly Factor via social media.
Jeff, Amazon is missing from that list of corporations that have taken a stand against intolerance and hate. Yes, I know Amazon isn't alone in supporting sites like Breitbart with ad revenue but by virtue of who you are, and what Amazon is, the influence both can have on change is profound. Yes, I'm singling you out which you might argue is unfair. However, scrutiny comes with the territory of your great success.
Some things matter, Jeff. Fighting hate is one of them. I don't want Alexa to stop buying me stuff on Amazon nor do I want to quit watching Mozart in the Jungle but you're not leaving me much choice. Making the decision to leave Amazon may or may not make a difference to you or alter Amazon's ad spend any time soon. Looking at social media, I'm not the only one considering the decision so there's some comfort in that. There is also comfort in knowing I'll be able to look in the mirror without seeing someone who is party to racism, misogyny, and hate for the sake of two day delivery or to save a buck. What do want to see?
Amazon has sure changed the way I shop. Yes, I'm a Prime member. I watch Prime video, I enjoy the two day shipping and I only get slightly miffed when I look up some random item, like a spatula, and spend the next five weeks looking at spatula adds in my Facebook feed. That actually brings me to my point, Jeff, Amazon ads are exactly what I want to talk with you about. No, not the ads that show up on Facebook, I get that's the price of admission. It's the ads that show up elsewhere, on Breitbart for example, the alt-right website and purveyor of hate propaganda that we need to talk about.
First off, I understand, it's complicated. Amazon doesn't place ads directly on Breitbart. The ads show up as the result of big third party buys that leverage high tech and analytics to provide wide brand exposure. However, that doesn't excuse Amazon, or you, from taking a stand with your media partners to block Amazon branded ads from appearing on a site next to a headline reading, "Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy" or any of these other equally offensive gems. If Alexa can figure out someone just asked her to send an electric razor to Rockford, Illinois in two days, you clearly have the talent to figure out how to selectively promote Amazon without supporting hate on sites like Breitbart.
Hundreds of your own employees are making the same ask but you're not taking action, why? People calling Amazon customer service asking you to stop are being hung up on, why? Jeff, we deserve better. We supported you, we supported Amazon. We think Blue Origin is cool and The Washington Post legendary and yet you're not hearing us. Why? Please don't let it be all about the money. You recently passed Warren Buffett on the list of world's richest people. Mr. Buffett is working hard to give his fortune away for the common good. Are you really the guy that has to amass more for himself in a relentless attempt to win? That's a Trump move and I can't believe it your true motivation. If it were, you might pass Buffett but you will never equal him.
You've no doubt heard of the #GrabYourWallet campaign encouraging people to avoid Trump branded products. Now, I don't particularly care if Ivanka sells some ugly shoes or if some people are dumb enough to buy subpar Trump branded merchandise. And clearly, no one should eat anything from the Mar-a-Lago kitchen after its most recent health code inspection. I do care about fighting hate and intolerance and, against those, the idea to vote with one's wallet has been used recently in some very meaningful ways. The North Carolina legislature, for example, was pressured to redo its discriminatory bathroom bill in the face continued economic sanction by corporations and individuals sensitive to intolerance. Sleeping Giants have also successfully lobbied advertisers away from Breitbart and the O'Reilly Factor via social media.
Jeff, Amazon is missing from that list of corporations that have taken a stand against intolerance and hate. Yes, I know Amazon isn't alone in supporting sites like Breitbart with ad revenue but by virtue of who you are, and what Amazon is, the influence both can have on change is profound. Yes, I'm singling you out which you might argue is unfair. However, scrutiny comes with the territory of your great success.
Some things matter, Jeff. Fighting hate is one of them. I don't want Alexa to stop buying me stuff on Amazon nor do I want to quit watching Mozart in the Jungle but you're not leaving me much choice. Making the decision to leave Amazon may or may not make a difference to you or alter Amazon's ad spend any time soon. Looking at social media, I'm not the only one considering the decision so there's some comfort in that. There is also comfort in knowing I'll be able to look in the mirror without seeing someone who is party to racism, misogyny, and hate for the sake of two day delivery or to save a buck. What do want to see?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)