He surely can dish it out, but how he howls when similar vitriol
is served back to him. Can such a man effectively run a large,
major nation such as ours? Without one shred of objectivity,
without any ability to empathize with the exigencies of others,
almost utterly lacking in a relevantly large factual data base,
how would he lead? I can't help but apply terms like fascism,
dictatorship, oligarchy/autocracy to Mr. Trump's presentation/
manner and stated goals. "Make America Great Again": yet
another slogan, devoid as it is of any cogent meaning, moves
masses of the unthinking, the largely untutored and unread. All
of them, Donald plus his devoted entourage, are a danger to
themselves and the rest of us.
--Read and heed! Except for well-functioning nuclear bombs
and an agribusiness providing the USA with the least expensive
food in the world, we are not number one in any of the leading
indicators that deem a society as great: low infant mortality
rates, real wage growth, stable jobs with benefits, investment
stability, infrastructure maintenance and expansion, high literacy
in the arts and sciences, etc. All the "patriotic", expostulatory
ego-thumping of a Trump and others is meant to obfuscate, Oz-
like, so as to deny/hide our reality from us...while elevating the
nakedly amoral ambitious to tax-paid power positions. --Sweet!
So, how to fight phenomena like this? One disheartening example
comes from France, a nation that refused to acknowledge, for
decades, that they had lost their world-preeminent position. The
United Kingdom is another. But we can admit to what's true and
attempt to build bridges to the rest of planet Earth so as to avoid
coming to blows. (I hope we still have enough time to work out
such a survival strategy.)
No one who lacks the essential, effective qualities of give and
take can lead an enlightened charge toward peace, prosperity
and all the other characteristics that could make America better,
even truly great again; you aren't the one, Mr. Trump, neither
you nor your slogan can get it done.
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Thursday, January 14, 2016
"Investor" Carl Icahn Must Have Heeded Sammy Davis Jr.
--When entertainer Davis memorably said, after some
challenge or other: "Because I can". After the infamous
investment irregularities (criminal scandals) of the 1980s
by Boesky, Icahn and Milken, good ol' Carl must feel
time alone has washed the dirt clean out of his character
flaws...at least, image-wise, at least, forgetting that some
of us old crows out here have a long memory.
Sadly, I do not regard character change improvements
as a major phenomenon, meaning that most adults don't
change much, although some surely (-thankfully!) do.
The proof in the pudding for me and some others in
this current political/financial USA scenario is ably
demonstrated in who supports whom for president:
Carl Icahn is advising presidential candidate Trump.
(Frank Sinatra sang a song castigating moral laxity
called Anything Goes; almost all of our Laissez Faire
capitalists positively subscribe to the sentiment in the
wording of this tune, alongside Ayn Rand's "Objectivism"
here in 2016.)
Another "all for the conservatives and the rich, the rest of
you, take the crumbs falling from our tables and go" candidate
Ted Cruz, born in Canada, similarly has such an adviser,
an Anything Goes spin-clever songster, Harvard-home
ensconced Prof./Atty. Laurence Tribe. Tribe's clients
have often been organizations and individuals who are
comfortable with the recent, highly illogical Supreme Court
decision which allows corporations the same rights/freedoms
as persons, indeed, are now "legally" regarded as persons...
But wait! The Guardian quotes Prof. Tribe on Sunday, January
10th, informing us of his "life-long" liberal credentials, noting that
he had President Obama as a law student, which is merely
proof that he taught Mr. Obama, nothing more. Laurence
Tribe says that in our first few decades as a nation, Cruz
would not have been constitutionally qualified, as the then-
understanding of "natural born" citizen comported with
the document as originally written--this explication is currently
called "originalist" scholars' theory, contradistinct to those
termed "living constitutionalists", ergo, Tribe's "broader
interpretation"--but the U.S. Constitution has not been
overturned as of this writing; neither have these Articles,
II and V, been amended to allow any citizen to be elected
president. They still stand. What simply can't continue are
people stating with addled assurance that modern times
justify trashing the Founders' intents.
Our society is so skewed, this professor of the "Liberal"
Laissez Faire school has had heaping piles of awards
conferred upon him, supposed proofs of his utterly
incontrovertible intellectual rigor/worth...
Please, not so fast, folks, let's form our decisions/actions
with telling questions:
Because we can do a thing, should we?
Does absolutely anything go?
Is there, indeed, at last, no shame?
challenge or other: "Because I can". After the infamous
investment irregularities (criminal scandals) of the 1980s
by Boesky, Icahn and Milken, good ol' Carl must feel
time alone has washed the dirt clean out of his character
flaws...at least, image-wise, at least, forgetting that some
of us old crows out here have a long memory.
Sadly, I do not regard character change improvements
as a major phenomenon, meaning that most adults don't
change much, although some surely (-thankfully!) do.
The proof in the pudding for me and some others in
this current political/financial USA scenario is ably
demonstrated in who supports whom for president:
Carl Icahn is advising presidential candidate Trump.
(Frank Sinatra sang a song castigating moral laxity
called Anything Goes; almost all of our Laissez Faire
capitalists positively subscribe to the sentiment in the
wording of this tune, alongside Ayn Rand's "Objectivism"
here in 2016.)
Another "all for the conservatives and the rich, the rest of
you, take the crumbs falling from our tables and go" candidate
Ted Cruz, born in Canada, similarly has such an adviser,
an Anything Goes spin-clever songster, Harvard-home
ensconced Prof./Atty. Laurence Tribe. Tribe's clients
have often been organizations and individuals who are
comfortable with the recent, highly illogical Supreme Court
decision which allows corporations the same rights/freedoms
as persons, indeed, are now "legally" regarded as persons...
But wait! The Guardian quotes Prof. Tribe on Sunday, January
10th, informing us of his "life-long" liberal credentials, noting that
he had President Obama as a law student, which is merely
proof that he taught Mr. Obama, nothing more. Laurence
Tribe says that in our first few decades as a nation, Cruz
would not have been constitutionally qualified, as the then-
understanding of "natural born" citizen comported with
the document as originally written--this explication is currently
called "originalist" scholars' theory, contradistinct to those
termed "living constitutionalists", ergo, Tribe's "broader
interpretation"--but the U.S. Constitution has not been
overturned as of this writing; neither have these Articles,
II and V, been amended to allow any citizen to be elected
president. They still stand. What simply can't continue are
people stating with addled assurance that modern times
justify trashing the Founders' intents.
Our society is so skewed, this professor of the "Liberal"
Laissez Faire school has had heaping piles of awards
conferred upon him, supposed proofs of his utterly
incontrovertible intellectual rigor/worth...
Please, not so fast, folks, let's form our decisions/actions
with telling questions:
Because we can do a thing, should we?
Does absolutely anything go?
Is there, indeed, at last, no shame?
Friday, January 8, 2016
No, Ted, No, ABC: Professor Tribe and All Other Supposed Scholars Cannot Compete with Founding Father Madison
Earlier this week, both candidate/developer Trump and
former candidate McCain seemed to agree about Sen.
Ted Cruz's ineligibility to become president or vice president
of the United States: politically or personally motivated or
not, they are correct, much-vaunted and honored Harvard
Professor Laurence Tribe notwithstanding. He must have
conveniently forgotten Article II, Section 1., Paragraph five
of the United States Constitution, which, although short, is
quite pithy: there are three and only three requirements
to serve in our most important national position: one
regards age (35 years, the minimum), another states
14 years of residency in the USA. The one most often
debated is the sentence containing the phrase "natural born".
No man has ever been elected our president NOT
born here, not one. Prof. Larry's "broader interpretation"
of our Constitution is merely playing fast and loose with
the U.S. Constitution as currently written, seven original
articles and 27 amendments.
Is our most hallowed document which gave us this nation
no longer the highest law of the land? I say it STILL IS;
further, no act, executive order or legal consensus can
overturn any prescription/proscription therein: only Article
V's two methods, a runaway constitutional convention
(you know, like the one that formally birthed the nation,
not the Declaration of Independence, as many wrongly
suppose) OR an amendment. So far, saner heads have
prevailed and we have only enacted 17 amendments
after the Bill of Rights, the very first ten amendments.
Again, with highly colored acerbity: the Immigration
Naturalization Act of 1940 DOES NOT TRUMP
Article II, period. It is an act, which by the way does
not attempt to explicitly confer any eligibility to the
presidency on a foreign born person, naturalized citizen
or no. I challenge Tribe: How have you dared, sir??
Can you really view your intellectuosity and
scholarship as equal to President and Founder
Madison? I say a resounding NO. I see you
actually think you are a greater light than Mr.
Madison, which would cause me to fall off
my office chair with laughter if I weren't so
angry and worried.
See here, professor, no one can compete
with Madison with respect to our Constitution,
as he alone was the Founder who wrote most
of the document between May and September
in 1787 AND he also penned most of the 80+
Federalist Papers. We would not have had this
nation without about a necessary top twelve
or so of the Founders, but Madison surely
is the Founder of our Constitution just as
surely as Washington is the Father of our
Country. No rigorous scholarship can correctly
contest this.
It was patently obvious to me what the Founders
meant by "natural born"-- but resorting to Madison
in Marbury v. Madison firmed up my understanding;
it is there, where, as you, Tribe, should know, Madison
defends a certain Mr. Smith, explaining that, yes,
around the world, parentage and/or birthplace confers
citizenship, but the firmer basis is BIRTHPLACE, and
THAT made its way into Article II. So, because the phrase
"natural born" is not attached to this polemic, you feel
entitled to some wiggle-room interpretation?
Even Alexander Hamilton, by dint of his brilliance, many
military acts of heroism, super human efforts and political
expertise, trusted by Washington, nevertheless could not
and would not have tried to bypass his constitutional ineligibility,
having been born in the Caribbean Islands. If not for Article II,
he would have had my vote over the likes of Ted Cruz,
but the law is the law, period...
Stay tuned. If this 70 year old little nobody, nothing more
than an amateur scholar, has to travel to Washington DC
with the relevant books and documents, so be it, I'll do it...
if my bankbook and my health will only permit me.
If Ted Cruz were ever to become president, flouting one
of the most singular, significant Articles in the Constitution,
what's to stop anyone from saying and acting as if the
Bill of Rights can be "broadly interpreted"? Do we need
warrants to prevent unlawful search and seizure? Hell,
it probably is OK for all these cops to fire at will, even
in the back at someone running away....
Bah and humbug to so many supposed scholars heaped
with praise. Shockley, of transistor and Nobel Laureate
fame, insisted that the gene for blue eyes is dominant,
not recessive, until shouted down by skilled biologists.
That was in the late 1960s. Later, in 1981, a "distinguished"
doctor, holder of a prestigious chair at Evanston's
Northwestern University's Medical School, claimed that
he knew HIV/Aids was strictly the plight of homosexuals.
This opinion appeared on a front page of the Chicago
Tribune in the same year, which page I have saved
somewhere. (--Say, is THAT guy still employed
over there? Or, if having died, is he still quoted with
reverence?)
There are lesser lights like Professor Tribe, and absolute,
never to be repeated geniuses like President Madison.
Which would anybody in their right mind prefer to consult
on this vital matter?
former candidate McCain seemed to agree about Sen.
Ted Cruz's ineligibility to become president or vice president
of the United States: politically or personally motivated or
not, they are correct, much-vaunted and honored Harvard
Professor Laurence Tribe notwithstanding. He must have
conveniently forgotten Article II, Section 1., Paragraph five
of the United States Constitution, which, although short, is
quite pithy: there are three and only three requirements
to serve in our most important national position: one
regards age (35 years, the minimum), another states
14 years of residency in the USA. The one most often
debated is the sentence containing the phrase "natural born".
No man has ever been elected our president NOT
born here, not one. Prof. Larry's "broader interpretation"
of our Constitution is merely playing fast and loose with
the U.S. Constitution as currently written, seven original
articles and 27 amendments.
Is our most hallowed document which gave us this nation
no longer the highest law of the land? I say it STILL IS;
further, no act, executive order or legal consensus can
overturn any prescription/proscription therein: only Article
V's two methods, a runaway constitutional convention
(you know, like the one that formally birthed the nation,
not the Declaration of Independence, as many wrongly
suppose) OR an amendment. So far, saner heads have
prevailed and we have only enacted 17 amendments
after the Bill of Rights, the very first ten amendments.
Again, with highly colored acerbity: the Immigration
Naturalization Act of 1940 DOES NOT TRUMP
Article II, period. It is an act, which by the way does
not attempt to explicitly confer any eligibility to the
presidency on a foreign born person, naturalized citizen
or no. I challenge Tribe: How have you dared, sir??
Can you really view your intellectuosity and
scholarship as equal to President and Founder
Madison? I say a resounding NO. I see you
actually think you are a greater light than Mr.
Madison, which would cause me to fall off
my office chair with laughter if I weren't so
angry and worried.
See here, professor, no one can compete
with Madison with respect to our Constitution,
as he alone was the Founder who wrote most
of the document between May and September
in 1787 AND he also penned most of the 80+
Federalist Papers. We would not have had this
nation without about a necessary top twelve
or so of the Founders, but Madison surely
is the Founder of our Constitution just as
surely as Washington is the Father of our
Country. No rigorous scholarship can correctly
contest this.
It was patently obvious to me what the Founders
meant by "natural born"-- but resorting to Madison
in Marbury v. Madison firmed up my understanding;
it is there, where, as you, Tribe, should know, Madison
defends a certain Mr. Smith, explaining that, yes,
around the world, parentage and/or birthplace confers
citizenship, but the firmer basis is BIRTHPLACE, and
THAT made its way into Article II. So, because the phrase
"natural born" is not attached to this polemic, you feel
entitled to some wiggle-room interpretation?
Even Alexander Hamilton, by dint of his brilliance, many
military acts of heroism, super human efforts and political
expertise, trusted by Washington, nevertheless could not
and would not have tried to bypass his constitutional ineligibility,
having been born in the Caribbean Islands. If not for Article II,
he would have had my vote over the likes of Ted Cruz,
but the law is the law, period...
Stay tuned. If this 70 year old little nobody, nothing more
than an amateur scholar, has to travel to Washington DC
with the relevant books and documents, so be it, I'll do it...
if my bankbook and my health will only permit me.
If Ted Cruz were ever to become president, flouting one
of the most singular, significant Articles in the Constitution,
what's to stop anyone from saying and acting as if the
Bill of Rights can be "broadly interpreted"? Do we need
warrants to prevent unlawful search and seizure? Hell,
it probably is OK for all these cops to fire at will, even
in the back at someone running away....
Bah and humbug to so many supposed scholars heaped
with praise. Shockley, of transistor and Nobel Laureate
fame, insisted that the gene for blue eyes is dominant,
not recessive, until shouted down by skilled biologists.
That was in the late 1960s. Later, in 1981, a "distinguished"
doctor, holder of a prestigious chair at Evanston's
Northwestern University's Medical School, claimed that
he knew HIV/Aids was strictly the plight of homosexuals.
This opinion appeared on a front page of the Chicago
Tribune in the same year, which page I have saved
somewhere. (--Say, is THAT guy still employed
over there? Or, if having died, is he still quoted with
reverence?)
There are lesser lights like Professor Tribe, and absolute,
never to be repeated geniuses like President Madison.
Which would anybody in their right mind prefer to consult
on this vital matter?
Thursday, January 7, 2016
2016: New Year, Same Fears: Earth Still Wobbling on Its Axis
Item:
North Korea claims to have produced a hydrogen bomb,
scaring the pants off one and almost all, despite the "North's"
proven track record of largely blarney-blathering. Subsequent
analysis seems to reveal (-thankfully!) that is yet another fantasy.
It is no idle dream, however, that North Korea has had hostile
intents and actions before now, so they DO bear watching,
especially in view of their political, poetically divine royalty's
leadership.
Item:
The U.S. Congress has advanced a significant step in its dislike
(a mostly republican legislators' attitude) of the Affordable Care
Act (the ACA, or Obamacare); having just passed both houses
of congress, it's on its way to Mr. Obama's desk for veto or
signing, which none of us who watch politics would imagine.
Conservative republicans making most of the triumphant noise
predict they hold enough promised votes for an override--we'll
see. There are problems with the ACA, I agree, but it took
courage and persistence to even attempt a humane solution to
the many long standing, unjust policies and practices of the
USA's insurance industry. Please, let's not throw out the whole
thing, but fix the few, yet to many, serious snafus with the act as
it is currently constituted. (The mathematicians and actuaries
must rejigger the formulas so that premiums for the healthy
are affordable --as in the act's actual name. If successful,
more young working people will decide to join rather than
pay the penalties, which are modest.)
Item:
The dreadful, disgraceful litany of irrational, unjustified violence
continues, on the part of Americans anywhere and too many
authority figures (AKA police officers). This unholy spiral
of chaos and bloodshed, upsetting and destructive disorder
should alarm EVERYONE, period. Let's get out there and
DO something! Write and meet your elected officials, take
a principled and intelligent stand, suggest solutions. As
anthropologist Margaret Mead memorably said, a few
people have always made the difference and always will.
I intend to be one of them.
New year, same fears, yet we still seem to inchoately muddle,
wobble along. We can do better; to survive, we MUST.
North Korea claims to have produced a hydrogen bomb,
scaring the pants off one and almost all, despite the "North's"
proven track record of largely blarney-blathering. Subsequent
analysis seems to reveal (-thankfully!) that is yet another fantasy.
It is no idle dream, however, that North Korea has had hostile
intents and actions before now, so they DO bear watching,
especially in view of their political, poetically divine royalty's
leadership.
Item:
The U.S. Congress has advanced a significant step in its dislike
(a mostly republican legislators' attitude) of the Affordable Care
Act (the ACA, or Obamacare); having just passed both houses
of congress, it's on its way to Mr. Obama's desk for veto or
signing, which none of us who watch politics would imagine.
Conservative republicans making most of the triumphant noise
predict they hold enough promised votes for an override--we'll
see. There are problems with the ACA, I agree, but it took
courage and persistence to even attempt a humane solution to
the many long standing, unjust policies and practices of the
USA's insurance industry. Please, let's not throw out the whole
thing, but fix the few, yet to many, serious snafus with the act as
it is currently constituted. (The mathematicians and actuaries
must rejigger the formulas so that premiums for the healthy
are affordable --as in the act's actual name. If successful,
more young working people will decide to join rather than
pay the penalties, which are modest.)
Item:
The dreadful, disgraceful litany of irrational, unjustified violence
continues, on the part of Americans anywhere and too many
authority figures (AKA police officers). This unholy spiral
of chaos and bloodshed, upsetting and destructive disorder
should alarm EVERYONE, period. Let's get out there and
DO something! Write and meet your elected officials, take
a principled and intelligent stand, suggest solutions. As
anthropologist Margaret Mead memorably said, a few
people have always made the difference and always will.
I intend to be one of them.
New year, same fears, yet we still seem to inchoately muddle,
wobble along. We can do better; to survive, we MUST.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)