Genius

During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump famously said: "I love the poorly educated."

Here's the quote, really just an aside, in its proper context, which came at the end of one of Trump's victory speeches, as he read through a laundry list of the demographic groups he won in the Nevada Republican primary last February:

We won with highly-educated, we won with poorly educated, I love the poorly educated! We’re the smartest people, we’re the most loyal people.

That last sentence would imply that Trump may love the poorly educated, but certainly doesn't equate himself with them. In fact, our president-elect seems to be obsessed with his own IQ, allegedly in the neighborhood of 156, or so he says, well into genius territory. If it's true, that would place him (according to estimates of the IQs of all the presidents) at number two, behind John Quincy Adams and just above Thomas Jefferson.

But with all else in the Trumposphere, claims he makes about himself must be taken with at least a grain of salt, more likely a truckload. To my knowledge, proof of Trump's advanced intelligence does not come from any standardized test, rather the assumption that he must be a genius because he attended a prestigious college, Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. Needless to say, dummies need not apply to Wharton, that is unless they have friends in high places or a rich daddy. Trump had both. He received a Bachelor of Science degree from that school, not too shabby.  Still, nothing in his records would indicate he was an exceptional student. He also enrolled at that Ivy League school as a junior after spending two non-incredible years at Fordham University in New York City. Entering Wharton when he did meant he was not subject to the same rigors he would have had as a freshman.

This certainly does not mean that Trump is not a genius, all it means is that unless we believe Trump's word, a shaky proposition at best, from the information we have, the facts about his intelligence are inconclusive.

Genius or not, clearly the guy has some smarts, after all he is very successful at what he does. He also got himself elected President of the United States, doing so using a strategy never attempted before.

Is that remarkable success a result of his staggering intelligence? One of my all time favorite quotes (used in this space before), from one of my all time favorite movies, sheds some light on the issue. In pursuing the life story of the recently departed newspaper magnate Charles Foster Kane in the movie Citizen Kane, a reporter interviews Mr. Bernstein, Kane's business manger. The reporter brings up the name of Wall Street tycoon Walter Parks Thatcher, Kane's adopted father/caretaker. Of Thatcher, Bernstein comments: "That man was the biggest darn fool I ever met." to which the reporter quips: "(but) he made a lot of money." Bernstein responds: "Well it's no trick to make a lot of money, if all you want is to make a lot of money."

Trump made a lot of money being ruthless and unscrupulous. by not playing by the rules. Prudent business men and women learned early on that if you did business with him, make sure you got the cash up front. Unfortunately a lot of people never learned that lesson because they were swayed by the Trump brand, which Trump the man, tirelessly promoted, despite much of it being little more than smoke and mirrors. If Trump has a genius, it's for self promotion, driven by a superhuman ego, fueled by a pathological sense of self-importance, and his legendary narcissism.

I'm reminded here about jury duty. If you've ever had the privilege of the experience, you no doubt encountered folks incensed at the inconvenience. who talk openly in the jury room about how they plan to get up in front of the judge and tell her or him in no uncertain terms that they have much better things to do than spend precious time performing their public service. But when the time comes to actually face the judge and all those assembled in the courtroom, these folks usually turn out to be sheep in wolves' clothing, trembling and mumbling "no sir" or "no ma'am" when asked if there is any reason they feel they shouldn't serve on the jury, rather than being publicly humiliated by the judge.

But not somebody like Trump. He's the guy who tells off the court then sits there stone faced while the judge reprimands him for being a cad. In the end he wins, as no lawyer or judge is willing to put up with a hostile juror, and he gets sent home.

Long before he ran for president this time around, Donald Trump understood that the key to getting votes was to set himself apart from the other candidates, and the way to do that was get his mug on the airwaves more than they did. Most candidates get attention buying broadcast time to get their point across. Needless to say that costs a lot of money. Trump did an end run around that by understanding that any free media attention, be it positive or negative, worked to his advantage. I needn't go into all the stupid, asinine, and hateful things he did or said during the campaign, it's on record and I'm sure you've heard it all. No matter how pitiful he was, it didn't matter, it got his face on the tube. And for every American who was horrified by Trump and his indiscretions, there was almost another American cheering him on. To the latter group, Donald Trump was the man who would make this country great again by leading it out of the morass of so called "political correctness". To them, his pronouncements, whether they were about Mexicans, Muslims, women, or African Americans, struck a chord, as he was saying exactly what they felt, but wouldn't dare say, before Trump came along that is.

To the other side, that is to say the majority of Americans who didn't vote for him, Trump sounded as if he were running for Doofus-in-Chief.

What ultimately set Trump apart from his opponents, was his willingness to play the role of the fool. The bigger the fool he was, the more media coverage he got. That was the key to his victory. It turned out that all he needed to win the presidency was the vote of a minority of Americans (who lived in the right places), who may not have exactly approved of him, his actions or his lifestyle, but were convinced that if nothing else, he was at the least better than "that lying bitch."

The truly difficult thing for me to understand about this election is the overwhelming willingness of so many Americans to believe every single bad thing they heard about Hillary Clinton, no matter the source. It's true that Mrs. Clinton was not entirely up front and sometimes even blatantly careless with the truth about her own indiscretions. But on the whole, every credible source points out that she was no different in that regard and certainly no worse than other politicians, better than most, and without a doubt light years more open and honest than Donald Trump.

The thing that stands out for me perhaps more than anything else these last several months is the disregard for and utter contempt of reason and facts on the part of Trump's supporters. Despite Trump's obvious character flaws, his lack of understanding of the basic functions of government, and his blatant pandering to the basest of human instincts and values, his supporters without any substantive information to back it up, insisted that Hillary Clinton was much worse. It was like someone convincing himself that the car he just bought, despite an oil leak, cracked engine block and blown transmission, was infinitely superior to the car he didn't buy because of its less than appealing color. 

I think his real draw was the way he presented his message. Hillary Clinton to many, represented the snobbish moneyed cultural elite, and the way she presented herself (especially compared to Trump) emphasized that point. Not that her speeches were exactly college dissertations. but they were substantive to a point. and did contain on occasion, bits and pieces of policy, as well as multi-syllabic words.

In stark contrast, the language of Trump's speeches, actually stream of consciousness rants, were rated at about a fifth grade level, placing him hardly in the Adams-Jeffersonian stratosphere, but bringing up the rear as far as the sophistication of presidential speech making is concerned, that is to say, more in the league of George W. Bush, and that's giving Trump the benefit of the doubt.

Personally I think that fifth grade assessment is a bit of an overreach as my fourth grade daughter uses a broader vocabulary and unlike Trump, has the ability to speak in complete sentences.

It makes one wonder if Trump dumbed down his language in order to better appeal to his beloved uneducated crowd, or did we actually see the real Trump on the stump and he is in fact, not quite as smart as he claims. 

In either case, it's clear to me that rational thought and discourse, self-reflection, honesty, truth and integrity took a real beating in this election. Through whatever force he used, Donald Trump convinced just enough Americans that he, perhaps the most unqualified person ever to be elected president, was more deserving of the job than the person who was, at least as far as experience is concerned, by far the more qualified.

In a sick and twisted way, you kinda have to hand it to him.

This is the dawning of the age of incompetence and Donald Trump is about to be ringmaster and head clown, no easy feat. Maybe he is a genius after all.

REPUBLICANS ARE A BUNCH OF LIARS!

OK maybe not all of them, but at least I have your attention...

I learned a valuable lesson from a friend the other day. While embroiled in a Facebook feud revolving around what else, the last presidential election, I made the following comment: "Donald Trump called Mexicans murderers and rapists." Responding to that, my friend (who voted for Clinton) pointed out that Trump did not call all Mexicans murderers and rapists, just the ones who illegally cross our borders. I could have responded that my error of omission did not make the statement wrong, misleading perhaps, but not wrong. Instead I kept quiet. He pointed out that "our side" seems to value facts and without saying it, he implied we must not lose our credibility by being less than accurate in our arguments. He was right.

Unfortunately all sense of decorum, decency, manners, rules, and most significantly, truth and honesty, whatever was left of those values anyway, have been thrown out the window this past election. It would be impossible not to point fingers at Trump, as the very success of his campaign hinged upon his making outrageous, unverifiable comments about his opponents and the current president, getting unprecedented free press for his efforts, the truth be damned.

Then in the height of mendacity, Trump projected all of his own shortcomings upon his opponents, criticizing them for being exactly like him, only not in those words of course.

And it worked, at least well enough to get him elected President of the United States.

As we all know, the majority if Americans did not support Donald Trump, or even voted for him. More people voted for Hillary Clinton than Trump, a lot more. His victory was an anomaly, the result of the rules of electing a president that are determined by electors chosen at the state level, rather than by the popular vote of the entire country. There are practical reasons for this Electoral College which is prescribed by the US Constitution (I won't go into them here), and generally it works the way it's supposed to, except sometimes in the case of close elections like this one.

Ironically, before the election, fearing defeat, Trump and his supporters claimed that the Electoral College was a cog in a rigged election system. Funny but I haven't heard any cries of foul from that side since election day. Not surprisingly, folks on the other side have been demanding the abolition of the Electoral College, as twice in sixteen years, a Democrat won the popular vote but lost the presidency because of the EC. One can imagine had the tables been turned and Clinton won the presidency without winning the popular vote, you would have heard crickets from the Democrats regarding the Electoral College.

Well it turns out that the Electoral College which hasn't yet at this writing convened, could still elect Hillary Clinton our next president. It would be a highly unlikely scenario, one that would no doubt bring about a significant constitutional crisis, but it is a possibility nonetheless.

Right after the election I cringed at the idea of such a thing happening. As I mentioned in previous posts, our democratic republic depends upon the people of this country accepting the outcome of an election, win or lose. However the other end of the bargain is that the winners of the election respect the rights of everyone as guaranteed by the constitution. In other words, the winner is not awarded any spoils, presidents are bound by the same rules as everyone else. I'm not convinced that Trump understands this.

While Donald Trump was magnanimous in victory, (and why shouldn't he have been), in the subsequent days since his election, he has reverted back to his old self. tweeting petty complaints about being treated unfairly by a late night comedy show and by the cast of a Broadway play. It certainly is his right to do this, but it is truly unseemly behavior for a president elect, who should have more important things on his mind than his fragile ego. More significantly, he lambasted elite members of the electronic media in an off the record meeting, for their less than flattering portrayal of him and promised cutting off access to his future White House to anyone he deems as transgressors.

Trump assured the people after his election that he would be president for all Americans, but in assembling his future cabinet, he has selected a number of candidates for those positions with dubious records regarding race relations and tolerance for diversity. Despite lambasting the US government for cronyism, especially Hillary Clinton and her ties to Wall Street in the campaign, President Elect Trump has made overtures to many of his "Master of the Universe" Wall Street friends who no doubt will have an important say in what goes on in the Trump administration.

Then there is the enormous potential of conflict of interest. Already Trump has demanded the highest level security clearance be granted to family members whom he will most likely surrender control of those businesses. Last week, Trump's daughter Ivanka, who will probably step into her father's shoes as the tzar of Trump's worldwide enterprises. attended a meeting with  Japan's Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, a highly irregular move with tremendous ethical implications.

It's impossible to say what Donald Trump will actually be like as president. As I stated before many times, governing is much different from campaigning. He has already showed signs of letting up on his harshest campaign rhetoric. The mass deportations, the banning of certain religious groups, the imprisonment of Hillary Clinton, all things he promised, seem to be falling by the wayside. Even his infamous Wall is becoming shorter and squatter. In my eyes, these are all good things, although his supporters probably don't agree. Nor should they agree with his cozying up to the moneyed elite which seems to run in direct conflict with his promise of change.

What concerns me the most is Donald Trump's apparent view that the rules don't apply to him. He won the presidency essentially because he and his minions promoted outright lies, and spoon fed them to the public. His supporters, well most of them anyway, ate them up. After the election, news came out that the source of much of the information that Trump supporters proclaimed as the "truth", came from fake news web sites and even from individuals whose made up "facts" were tweeted, went viral, and taken as a matter of faith to be true.

Anyone with the slightest critical eye could pick up that most of the garbage the Trump campaign spewed about Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and the state of this country, was pure bullshit. Which leads me to believe that the Republicans who supported him, and yes there were many who didn't, were either too dumb to notice, didn't care, or put their political agenda before, decency, integrity, truth and honesty.

This is not surprising given the Republican Party's behavior over the past few decades, doing everything they could to discredit their opponents, including the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and the total lack of cooperation with Barack Obama, Even more dastardly is their history of disenfranchising voters who more than likely would vote Democrat, and their shameful gerrymandering of districts for political gain.

In short,the Republican leadership in this country, and here I don't feel I'm committing any sin of omission by not saying "some of", has no regard for truth and integrity at the moment, and have little regard for playing by the rules, which brings me back to my friend's comment at the top of this post.

How on earth can the Democratic Party, who supposedly cares about playing by the rules and the truth, possibly compete with the Republicans who will stop at nothing to win?

The idea of playing the Republicans at their own game by pulling out all the stops and challenging this election in every way possible, even petitioning the Electoral College to elect the candidate chosen by the popular majority, is not looking so outrageous to me after all.

No Joy in Mudville...

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in Mudville -

Well you know the rest.

Here in Chicago, my home town, about 84 percent of the people who cast a vote in yesterday's election voted for Hillary Clinton. I think it's fair to say that's a higher percentage than people in this city who rooted for the Cubs to win the World Series last week.

So you can imagine this morning there was a pall cast over the city. Heads were hanging low and there was not a little funkiness in the spirit of most of the people I encountered this morning.

"How could this happen?" is their mantra, and I must say mine as well.

Never in my wildest dreams could I imagine Donald Trump being nominated, let alone elected President of the United States. I've gone  on and on and on and and on and on about my observations of him so I'll spare you them now.

Suffice it to say, there is a disconnect in this country so profound that I can't imagine any healing, anytime soon. It's not as if we live in different countries, it's more like we live on different planets. I've tried my darnedest to understand why anyone would vote for a narcissistic misogynistic egomaniac with no experience in public service and a very checkered past, putting it mildly. One response I got was that his opponent was worse. And what made her worse I asked.

The response was a recitation of conspiracy theories presented by right wing talk show hosts that ranged from giving away government secrets to murder. No rational discourse could make these people see that most of the stuff they were saying was pure nonsense. The other answer I got is that we need a change. Well God help us, we sure got that.

It just occurred to me that the baseball analogy at the top is not entirely inappropriate. This election for some, was like rooting for one team over another, only the stakes were much, much higher. Arguing the merits of one candidate over another ended up making about as much sense as a drunken die hard fan of one team arguing the merits of his team with a drunken die hard fan of the other team. They're not called fan(antics) for nothing.

If Trump sticks to many of his campaign promises, it's going to be a serious test of our democratic republic and our constitutional democracy. However the time of talking is behind us and the time for governing is about to begin. This country has survived many serious tests and I have faith, God willing, that it will survive this one.

At least the sun did come up this morning, and there is serious work ahead for all of us.

Somewhere indeed all over this land, a band is playing and hearts are light.
But not here in Chicago.

It's amazing what difference a week can make.

The Slippery Slope of the Second Amendment

A comment to a Facebook post made me cringe the other day. The subject was the upcoming presidential election and the author, clearly not a supporter of Hillary Clinton, said something to the effect that government had better not try to infringe upon our right to bear arms as that would amount to tyranny. Therefore citizens would have every constitutional right to forcibly resist. Then the commenter added, gun owners will resist, because, well because they have guns. In other words, if Clinton, who many in the gun crowd erroneously believe is planning to do away with the second amendment, is elected president, there might very well be armed resistance from private individuals.

As I brought up in my post titled, An open letter to some of my Trump supporting friends, I pointed out that our democratic republic is based upon two very basic concepts, one, that the minority accepts the will of the majority when it comes to electing officials to represent us in government and two, the majority accepts the rights of the minority as defined in the constitution. Therefore if for example, the majority of Americans decide we should go back in time and allow the ownership of slaves, that would not be possible as the 13th amendment to the US Constitution explicitly forbids it.

Ah you say, but an amendment to the constitution can be repealed. This is true but in order to do that, a new amendment nullifying the old one has to be introduced. For it to be ratified, two thirds of the Senate plus two thirds of the House of Representatives must approve the new amendment. If that happens, the issue must then go before the people of each state for a vote and two thirds of the states must vote in favor of the constitutional amendment. OK there is another even more difficult way which involves state legislatures, constitutional conventions and three fourths approval from all parties. Clearly it's no easy task, and for good reason. Only once in this nation's history has an amendment to the constitution been repealed, the 18th, much to the delight of all of us who on occasion mind you, like to partake in the juice of the barley.

So our friend the gun guy and all his toting yahoo friends need not worry about a Hillary Clinton administration sweeping into office and repealing the second amendment, because she would have no constitutional right to do so, nor would the judges whom she would potentially nominate to the Supreme Court.

However what the Supreme Court can do, is re-examine the second amendment, how it was intended to be implemented by its eighteenth century authors, and how it relates to us today in the twenty first century. Unfortunately for us, the wording of the amendment is vague, two separate clauses which by themselves are clear, but when read together are ambiguous:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To the "Second Amendment People" as Donald Trump calls them, or SAPs for short, it is the second clause that carries most of the weight: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" along with a few words cherry picked out of the first clause, namely, "security" and "free state".

But there still are those troubling words in first clause: "well regulated militias". To the other side, for convenience sake I'll just call them the non-SAPs, those three words are the key to the entire amendment.

Some non-SAPs would argue that as there was no standing army or police force at the time the Bill of Rights was introduced into the constitution in the late 1780s, the newly born nation depended upon those "well regulated militias" for its defense. As we today have both a firmly established, full time military, as well as police forces administered at every level of government, militias made up of private citizen soldiers are no longer necessary, rendering the second amendment irrelevant and obsolete just like the third amendment which states that:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law..

A less extreme non-SAP interpretation focuses on the term "well regulated", implying that while we should still observe the right for individuals to own guns, the government still reserves the authority to regulate the sale and distribution of firearms. Therefore, so called gun control laws are not only allowed by the amendment, but are explicitly spelled out by it.  

As far as I can tell, the relationship between the two clauses of the Second Amendment have been examined by the Supreme Court a few times.

In the 1886 ruling on the Presser vs. Illinois case, the Court ruled that the amendment was indeed a right of individuals, not militias. The court also ruled that the federal government cannot impose regulations upon gun ownership, but local and state governments can.

The Court's 2008 ruling in the District of Columbia vs. Heller case, the Court ruled against the Federal law that prohibited individuals in the District of Columbia from owning handguns, thereby upholding the first part of Presser vs. Illinois.

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Two years later, seemingly reversing the second part of Presser, in McDonald vs. City of Chicago, the Court struck down a similar law banning handguns at the state and/or local level:

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis (legal precedent) counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.

Both Heller and Presser were extremely contentious 5-4 decisions. Despite their razor thin margins of success, both decisions emboldened the SAPs. Their movement to ensure that the right to bear arms is absolute, has gained momentum. It think it is fair to say that never in the history of this country have the laws regarding the sale, possession and use of firearms been so liberal (in the literal sense of the word).

In  light of these two decisions being so close, it is understandable why the SAPs might be concerned that a Democratic administration (whomever the president) would nominate judges who might vote the other way, especially given that the right wing has lost is most stalwart voice on the Court with the death last year of Justice Antonin Scalia.

However, as we've seen with the Roe vs. Wade case in an era of a conservative majority on the Court, it is extremely difficult to overturn an existing Supreme Court decision. So it's not unreasonable to expect the Heller and Presser rulings and unprecedented access to guns to stick around for a very long time, regardless of the people sitting in the Oval Office and on the Bench.

Unfortunately, logic and reason are not the strong suits of most Donald Trump supporters. My call to reason directed at my Trump supporting friends, including the request to limit their published criticisms of Hillary Clinton to facts coming from reliable, unbiased sources, was only met with more blathering, and trumpeting of the same old vitriol, conspiracy theories and misogynist crap from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter and of course, Trump.

In fact it is Trump himself who is inspiring this unprecedented call to arms against the government of this country, by making the absurd assertion that this election is rigged against him. And like automatons, most of his followers believe everything he says, despite miles and miles of reliable evidence to the contrary.

Most Americans are counting the hours until this election is over. As for me, I'm not so sure, as Donald And the Trumpistas are promising even more ugliness if things don't work out their way on November 8.

Hold on to your hats folks, it's going to be one hell of a bumpy ride.

An open letter to some of my Trump supporting friends...

I love you and value your friendship and nothing, not even your choice of presidential candidate will change that. You may interpret what I have to say as an attempt to deny your right to voice your opinion. Trust me, it is not. You have every right to your opinion about the Democratic candidate for president as well as to express it. For what it's worth, my opinion about her opponent, the guy with the goofy hair is just that, an opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

The other day I heard a woman on the radio asked this question: "As a woman, how can you possibly justify supporting Donald Trump, given the recent airing of comments he made about making unwelcome advances toward women?" Her answer was this: "Well I'd rather be groped by Donald Trump than killed by Hillary Clinton." The sad thing was, her answer did not surprise me one bit, as I've been hearing the same kinds of things for months from you.

From your comments, it is clear that like that woman, your opinions about Hillary Clinton are based upon hearsay, innuendo, right wing spin factories, stories of non-existent damning videos made up by some guy named Anonymous, selectively edited YouTube clips, juvenile internet memes, and Trump's own half truths and outright lies. All this is fueled by your own unbridled hatred (wherever that comes from) of President Obama and the Clintons. As an article of faith you believe, and more troubling, you pass on every negative story you hear about Hillary Clinton, regardless of the credibility of the source.

Hillary Clinton is far from a perfect candidate. She has not always been transparent, she has changed her stances on issues over the years (something I have no problem with), sometimes out of political expediency (something I do have a problem with), she has accepted money from unsavory groups, and she has at times acted carelessly and irresponsibly. She has also been far and away the most scrutinized candidate in our nation's history. Holding any other candidate to the same standards we hold Hillary Clinton to would expose the same or perhaps far more grievous faults. On the other hand, holding Donald Trump to ANY standard of competence, ethics, honesty, respectability, and decency, exposes what most certainly has to be the least qualified major party candidate for the presidency in anybody's memory.

My opinion of Donald Trump is based upon what he has to say, nothing else. Every word that comes out of his mouth proves to me in no uncertain terms that he is entirely unqualified for any position of public trust, let alone president, and that he is a reprehensible human being to boot. He is arrogant, spiteful, incapable of even the slightest hint of self-reflection, and shamefully ignorant of the US constitution, especially those parts of it concerning the duties of the office of President of the United States. Trump, who had every opportunity to serve his country in the military but chose not to, publicly attacked a Gold Star family for their un-patriotism, then had the absolute gall the next day to accept a Purple Heart from a veteran saying: "I always wanted one of these." He mocked a handicapped reporter and threatened if elected, to put his opponent in jail. Presidents do not put their opponents in jail, dictators do that. No, he is not currently under scrutiny for making lewd, politically incorrect comments, but for openly bragging about criminally assaulting women. Trump’s propensity for turning criticisms leveled against him back on his opponent, (she's a racist-misogynist, she must be on drugs, she’s a liar, she’s crooked, she has a bad temperament, she started the birther movement, her husband is a cad, etc) is childish and laughable. Unfortunately, you willingly buy into his retorts, repeating them as if they were facts.

Whether we like it or not, Clinton and Trump are our only realistic choices for president. Few people actually like Trump but see voting for him as the lesser of two evils. But the idea that Hillary Clinton is just as bad or worse than Donald Trump is ludicrous. Through his own words and deeds, Donald Trump has proven himself to be a clear and present danger to this country if he is elected president. He has openly questioned his advisers about our government's policy of restraint regarding the use of nuclear weapons. Combined with his legendary thin skin, one can only wonder when, not if, he would employ nukes should he gain access to the Oval Office. He has shown dangerous judgement by expressing admiration for brutal world leaders such as Vladimir Putin and Saddam Hussein. He is a divisive figure who has taken advantage of and has exacerbated the tremendous ideological rift in this country, making reasonable public discourse between folks of differing opinions, all but impossible.

Even if he is not elected, Trump poses a threat. Perhaps his single most egregious and dangerous stance, is the completely unfounded notion that if he does not win the general election in November, the election will had to have been rigged. By itself, that notion is laughable. Donald Trump by his own doing has alienated himself from every single American who is not an angry white male. Since we no longer have a plurality of angry white males in this country, and a only trickle of equally angry white females, a Donald Trump victory is highly unlikely. Contrary to what Republican officials in their attempts to disenfranchise certain groups of voters have been claiming for years, voter fraud is not a serious problem in this country, if it is a problem at all.

However you my friend, yourself an angry white person, buy into the nonsense that the election is rigged in Hillary Clinton's favor. This is not only preposterous, it is dangerous. Saying the election is rigged against your candidate with absolutely no evidence to back it up, is tantamount to saying that the results of the election (if your candidate loses) are null and void, therefore you feel no obligation to recognize the winner as the legitimate president. Our fragile democracy is based upon the idea that the minority accepts the will of the majority in elections and in return, the majority accepts the rights of the minority, as defined in our constitution. Please don't tell me that under the Obama administration, and a potential Clinton administration, your Second Amendment rights are and will be violated. As guns become ever more efficient and deadly, never in our history have so many guns been available to so many people for so little effort. That is unlikely to change no matter who becomes president, My point is this, if enough angry white people decide the election is null and void, there are unfortunately enough of them in this country to cause some real trouble, perhaps even to the point of destabilizing our democratic republic, something we claim to value and treasure, to its core.

This may not be a problem for you. You have said what this country needs is change and as an outsider, Donald Trump is the man who will no longer do business as usual. But think about it, if you're having health issues and are unhappy with the team of medical professionals working for you, to whom would you turn for a change in your health care, a real estate developer turned reality TV star? Ah you say but Donald Trump can turn the country around because he is a very successful businessman who understands how the economy and politics work. His leadership skills would make him fit right in with the demands of head of state and commander-in-chief. That rhetoric plays well in a campaign. But candidates talk, presidents govern. It's foolish to assume that someone who is completely green when it comes to the machinations of government can walk into the Oval Office and run a country. And let's face it, Donald Trump's success as a businessman is highly suspect; true he's done very well for himself, but as another successful businessman said about him, "you don't fly away from four bankruptcies in your own private jet."

As I said, my opinions of Trump stated here are nothing but opinions based solely upon my observations of the man during the campaign. You can take them or leave them. Like you I have been exposed to spin from the other side, juvenile anti-Trump memes, highly biased pro-Clinton websites and vitriolic anti-Trump comments from friends on social media. Even though as you know, I have a very strong negative opinion about Trump, I try to put my personal feelings and the feelings of like-minded individuals in their proper context. As I pride myself on being fair and open minded, I'd love to hear from you if you think I'm misguided about Trump, or missing something important.

In return I'd like to ask a favor. I'd like to ask that you as well put all the extraneous stuff aside, including your own personal feelings about the Clintons and President Obama, We're voting for president, not our drinking buddies. If you do feel compelled to post opinions on Hillary Clinton, please try to stick to rational facts based on personal observation, not opinions of others whose ideology happens to jibe with yours.  On occasion, read as I do, publications you wouldn't normally read, and try to see where those writers are coming from, rather than automatically dismissing them because they have a different ideology from you. On the same token I'd like to ask all my Clinton supporting friends to do the same. You may be surprised that people on the other side aren't as different from you as you'd like to think.

Or you might not. But whatever you do, please vote with your head and not your heart. I agree with Donald Trump on one point, this election is probably the most important one you'll ever face in your life. No matter whom you vote for, please base that vote on intelligence, rationality and insight, not on fear, anger and hatred.

Thank you for your attention.

your friend,

Jim

The Lesser of Two Evils?

Time to fess up, I voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 presidential election. Like many people today, back then I didn't like either candidate presented by the two major parties, so rather than not voting, something I have never done and would never do, I decided to cast my vote for a candidate I knew would not win.

I took a lot of heat for that decision, especially after an extremely close election that was decided by recounting the votes of selected precincts in Florida. Remember the infamous hanging chads? "Dubya won because of people like you" I was told by many liberal friends, acquaintances and family members who were appalled that I simply "wasted my vote." "Your vote..." (assuming it would have been for Al Gore) "...could have made a difference as the election was so close." they told me. Actually that's not true thanks to the electoral college, (a separate topic for another post). Gore won the state in which I live so no, my vote would not have made a difference. Had I lived in Florida it would have been another story.

Regardless, as far as I was concerned, my vote wasn't wasted. I sincerely felt, having been turned off by what I felt were misdeeds and the overall cynicism of Bill Clinton and his administration (including Al Gore), and no particular love for George W. Bush, that it didn't really matter if Bush or Gore became president. Both candidates in my view were equally bad. Come election day in the year 2000, I did not want to support a candidate whom I felt did not deserve my vote. With perfect twenty-twenty hindsight, had I known then what I know now, I would have voted for Al Gore as I truly believe that given the circumstances, he would have made a better president than George W. Bush. However given what I knew at the time, I stand by my decision.

Sixteen years hence we are in the midst of a presidential election unprecedented in the annals of American politics, where both candidates suffer from unpopularity ratings well over fifty percent. Consequently many voters feel as I did in 2000, that neither Hillary Clinton, nor Donald Trump deserves their vote. Some voters will either choose not to vote, or be looking as I did for a third party candidate with no chance of winning. Others taking a more pragmatic view, will vote for one or the other major party candidates based on that candidate being "the lesser of two evils."

For what it's worth, I am doing none of the above this year, I am resolutely supporting the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Granted Mrs. Clinton is not without her drawbacks. She has a track record of wheeling and dealing with questionable characters and has had her share of scandals over her years in public life. She has not always been 100 percent on the up and up with the American public, has acted carelessly at times and foolishly at others. In short she is not the perfect candidate. However I must say that in all the presidential elections in which I have been eligible to vote, starting with the 1980 election, I have never once encountered the perfect candidate, one who has never been involved in an indiscretion, made a bad decision or fucked up in one way or other in the course of his or her career. I dare say, such a candidate has not existed in my lifetime, nor in the history of this nation.

That said, I know of no politician who has been examined, probed, scrutinized, sized up and down, x-rayed, investigated, castigated and eviscerated more than Mrs Clinton. Actions in her past that would have been overlooked or glossed over for other politicians have been brought center stage with this candidate. On a daily basis she is labeled a compulsive liar, a thief and even a murderer by her opposition. The fact that she survives that, let alone endeavors to persevere knowing it's only going to get worse, is a testament to her conviction, her tenacity, her courage and her chutzpah.

We can judge Donald Trump up and down by what has been written and said about him, about his shortcomings as a businessman and as a human being. But all it takes to turn against him is simply to listen to what he has to say. We've all heard the litany of mean spirited, racist, misogynist rants spewed during the course of this election. In his party's convention in Cleveland, he played on the emotions of fearful Americans, portraying this country as a dystopian Gotham City, fraught with bad guys lurking around every corner. According to Trump, our military is a frightful mess from top to bottom, unable or unwilling to meet the challenges it faces. Trump the demagogue claimed to be "the voice" of disaffected working men and women in this country, particularly ironic given his business history of stiffing working Americans time and again. In his twisted view, by virtue of his "knowing the system" presumably by understanding how to keep politicians in his pocket, only he can fix our problems. Trump has shown little or no knowledge or interest of our constitution, especially concerning how it defines the position he hopes to occupy. He has shown pitiful ignorance of world affairs including which countries are our friends and which most definitely are not. Perhaps most troubling is his epic thin skin which causes him to go ballistic at the slightest offense lobbed his way, not only from the high and mighty, but also the low and meek. This is not what people are saying about him, this is the image he openly presents of himself.

I have always prided myself on being open minded and willing to listen to every candidate no matter the office, to give him or her the benefit of the doubt. For the first time in my life I find a candidate for whom I cannot come up with a single reason to support. That is truly saying something for a dyed-in-the-wool contrarian. The bottom line is this, Donald Trump is not qualified nor capable of the demands of the job of president.

I should know something about being unqualified for the job, I would make a terrible president. With a population of over 300,000,000 Americans, I'd say about 250,000,000 of them would make a better president than me.

But not Donald Trump.

I would make a better president than Donald Trump because unlike him, I realize that I don't have the answers to all the world's problems and also realize that there are lots of people who are smarter than me. I would base the selection of my advisers not upon ideology, party affiliation, or quid pro quo, but on their experience and qualifications for the job in which they are being considered. Above all, I would pledge to LISTEN to what they have to say, all the while understanding that as chief executive, I alone would be responsible for the policy and decisions, both good and bad, that come out of my administration. If I screw up, which I promise would happen a lot, I would pledge not pass the buck.

I would make a better president than Trump because I respect the office as a sacred trust between the American people and the person they hire to be their ultimate public servant. I would endeavor to maintain that trust, understanding that the role of president is above all a responsibility to serve the people, not a mandate to rule over them.

I would be a better president because I would do my utmost to heal the terrible divide in this nation that Donald Trump has been exploiting and exacerbating to his advantage.

It is my personal belief that our constitution, the set of laws that binds this nation together, is a living, breathing document, as was the intent of its creators, not a code that was set into stone over two hundred years ago. However I understand that view is not held by all and as a president who values diversity of opinion, I would encourage a lively debate on the role the constitution plays in 21st century America. I would support, uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States by nominating judges based upon their legal skills and their knowledge of that document, not upon whether or not they share my opinions.

I would make a better president because I believe the way to defeat ISIS and other groups who are intent on destroying us is NOT by making enemies of a quarter of the world's population. Contrary to what he wants us to believe, no, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh, the assholes, or whatever you wish to call the terrorist group, does not fear Donald Trump. If anything they welcome his presidency as the hatred he promotes would be a tremendous asset for them to recruit new members and encourage them to come up with ever more cruel and sadistic ways to dispense with people they don't like.

Simply put, I would make a better president than Donald Trump because if I were to put my hat into the ring, I truly believe, however misguided, that I would do so in order to make this country and the world a better place. I do not believe the same can be said of Donald Trump. Since I began writing this post a few days ago, Trump came up with a couple doozies that were so insane and destructive to his campaign, they make one of two things absolutely clear. Either he has no desire to actually be president (as opposed to becoming president), or that he is certifiably crazy. Personally I don't think he's crazy. Trump said something that was very telling during the Republican primaries a few months ago. Expressing amazement at his success, he said that he could stand in the middle of New York's Fifth Avenue, shoot someone, and not lose any supporters. In other words, he's clearly saying that his supporters are so stupid, they'd even vote for him if he killed someone in cold blood. Now maybe I'm just a sensitive guy but I'd have second thoughts about supporting someone who thought I was stupid just for supporting him. The fact that there are still Trump supporters out there perhaps proves he's right.

I would make a terrible president because I lack the experience, the intestinal fortitude, and above all the insane desire to be president. That's the one thing Trump and I have in common. Despite my good intentions, voting in a theoretical election between Donald Trump and me would indeed be a choice between the lesser of two evils.

In my mind, Hillary Clinton is not an evil, far from it. I believe she has the experience, the character, the strength, the moral fiber, the intelligence and the ability to be a fine president. Yet there are many Americans who truly despise her. As I said before, she has left behind a trail of dubious actions that cloud an otherwise distinguished history of public service. Understandably those actions, if one were to take time to study them while not falling prey to the incessant barrage of infantile social media memes, could make some reasonable people wary of her, especially as a candidate for president. But they certainly do not justify the outright hatred we have been seeing. To me the gut-wrenching revulsion some Americans have for Hillary Clinton is based on superficial aspects of her personality; in other words, a lot of people just don't like her. Unlike the Obamas, her husband and Ronald Reagan, she does not have a gift for public speaking. It's not that she has a problem getting her point across, she does that just fine, The problem is she has a pedantic, humorless, preachy approach to public speaking that rubs people the wrong way. When she does try to inject some levity into her speeches, her timing is miserable. I don't think it's intentional, but she tends to talk down to her audience which makes her come off as snooty, disingenuous and unlikable. I must admit to cringing whenever I hear one of her speeches coming over the airwaves. No, it's not her voice which is perfectly fine whenever she is speaking one on one rather than giving a speech. And no, it's not because she is a woman, at least as far as I'm concerned, I feel same way about several male politicians as well.

On the other hand, I do believe her gender plays a huge role in the way she is judged by the public. The most important asset needed to survive the grueling process it takes to become president is ambition. Many people find ambition in a woman, at least an abundance of it, to be unattractive and threatening. Over and over I've heard the word emasculating (obviously out of the mouths of men) used to describe Hillary Clinton. Clearly these people would have a problem with any woman running for president. As for her women critics, again I've heard several times over: "I can't stand Hillary Clinton because she didn't divorce that man." of course referring to her husband's sexual escapades. Beyond her personal life, which to me is none of our business, I would imagine most of the women who castigate Mrs. Clinton for not leaving her husband, believe she did so, so as not to jeopardize her own political aspirations, that is to say, her ambition.

Personally I have no problem with her ambition, I wouldn't vote for her or any other person who didn't have the ambition it took to be president.

Unless Trump pulls out of the election, which seems to be a real possibility, the way it stands at the moment, either he or Hillary Clinton will be our next president. We may wish we had more viable candidates from which to chose, we may decry that the two party system is not fair, lends itself to corruption or is undemocratic, but folks let's face it, it's what we've got at the moment and it's certainly not going to change by November. A vote for a third party candidate is a protest vote, no more, no less, as that candidate no matter who he or she is, cannot possibly win. You might not like it, but that's just the way it is.

Trump as president, using one of his favorite words, would be a disaster. That is becoming clearer and clearer every day. The idea that there would be no difference if he or Hillary Clinton is elected in November is absurd.  Whether you like her personality or not, Hillary Clinton is a strong, viable candidate whom I truly believe has the best interests of the country in her heart and mind.

Perhaps you are looking for change in our political system. That is a reasonable desire. But the kind of change Donald Trump promises would only lead us to ruin as a nation. Given the statements he's made about his supporters, even he believes that. We must do everything we can at the polls to prevent him from becoming president, even if it means having to listen to a few bad speeches over the next four or eight years.

It's a small price to pay.

Mr. Khan

Take a good look at this face, it is the face of America. It is the official US Army portrait Captain Hunayun Khan who was killed in a car bombing in Iraq in 2004. As the suspicious vehicle entered the compound in which Captain Khan was stationed with the soldiers under his command, Khan told his troops to stand back while he checked out the vehicle. He took ten steps toward the car when it exploded. By sacrificing his life he saved the lives of those under his charge. Khan was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart and is buried in Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia, the hallowed ground across the Potomac from the Lincoln Memorial, along with hundreds of thousands of others who served their country, many of them paying the ultimate sacrifice.

This year's presidential election is different from those that came before it. For starters, for the first time ever, a woman is the nominee of one of the two major parties. However the historical significance of that is overshadowed by the extreme nature of her opponent, a man who has never held political office. That in itself is not a first, in 1952 the Republican party nominated as its candidate the five star general who served as commander of Allied Forces during World War II, Dwight David Eisenhower. The current Republican presidential nominee has a much different resume than Eisenhower.

As we all know, Donald Trump is a real estate developer with a knack for self promotion. Long before he became a reality TV star, Trump was already well known for his glitzy buildings, Atlantic City casinos and his conspicuous display of wealth. Never holding a job in public service does not mean that Trump does not have political experience. Like many in his line of work, for decades he has been deeply connected to politicians, especially the mayors of New York City. That's why at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland last week, Trump was able to say that he "knows the system", which produced an uneasy chortle from the crowd.

The nomination process for both major parties has changed considerably in the sixty four years since Eisenhower was nominated. Gone are the proverbial "smoke filled rooms" where deals were brokered by party leaders who would be largely responsible for selecting the person who would lead the ticket in November. That system was replaced by the slightly more transparent primary system where most states hold public elections to choose delegates whose numbers determine the candidate.

It would be hard to argue that this is a more democratic process to select a candidate. On the flip side, it has resulted in the nomination of Donald Trump, a man who has been held at arm's length if at all, by most of the Republican leadership.

Trump's greatest skill is publicity. He knows how to get attention which is why he was able to win his party's nomination by spending a fraction of the money his opponents spent. Under the philosophy that any publicity, good or bad, works to his advantage, he did this mostly by making controversial, outrageous statements such as all Muslims should be banned from the United States.

That is where Captain Khan comes in. He was a Muslim. On his gravestone at Arlington is the Star and Crescent, the symbol of his faith, just as crosses mark the headstones of Christians and Stars of David, those of Jewish soldiers.

This week, many of us saw Captain Khan's mother and father on TV, addressing the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Khizr Khan. the dead soldier's father spoke for the two of them. If you didn't see it, please click to follow this link.

Mr. Khan spoke briefly and eloquently about honor and patriotism. As he spoke, chants of "USA USA" rose up from the crowd. If you had your eyes closed and didn't know the particulars, you may have guessed his words and those chants were coming from a Republican convention of bygone days. But open your eyes and you saw, like Captain Khan's, the face of America in all glorious shades of color, ethnicities, and religious creeds.

This election is unfortunately different as well as both candidates are highly unpopular. Most choices, at least at this point seem to focus on which candidate for whom NOT to vote. At the RNC, the incessant "USA" chant was often replaced by chants of "LOCK HER UP", in reference to the kerfuffle over Hillary Clinton's lack of email acumen.

Of course the Democrats, from Hillary Clinton on down spent much of their time lambasting Donald Trump. Vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine shouted out the mantra, "believe me" in mocking reference to one of Trump's favorite catch phrases. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said "God help us" in reference to Trump's alleged business acumen as a qualification for office. President Obama in one sentence equated Trump, the "home grown demagogue" with jihadists. Here's the quote:

That’s why anyone who threatens our values, whether fascists or communists or jihadis or home-grown demagogues will always fail in the end.

But nobody at the convention came as close to destroying the character of Donald Trump as Khizr Khan. He spoke of true heroism, courage, sacrifice and liberty, all things in his mind, Donald Trump knows nothing about. Mr. Khan said that his son stood for and lived those values, while if Trump had his way, Captain Khan, who came with his family from the United Arab Emirates as a child, would not have been allowed into this country. Then came the piece de resistance. Addressing Trump directly, Mr. Khan asked the candidate if he had actually read the United States Constitution. This produced a wild cheer from the crowd which hadn't let down when he pulled out a copy of our most sacred document from his jacket pocket. Then he said with the crowd still cheering "because if not, I'll be glad to lend you my copy."

It was brilliant theater which left not a dry eye in the house. Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton who would speak later that night, she couldn't match the intensity or emotion of that moment. On the other hand, I don't think anyone possibly could have.

Mr. Khan's six minutes were the highlight of the convention, if not the entire election.

POST SCRIPT:

Donald Trump had a few choice reactions to Khizr Khan's address to the DNC, especially his claim that he, Trump sacrificed nothing for this country. Trump claimed that he did indeed sacrifice by becoming very successful and creating thousands of jobs. He then went on to lambast Captain Khan's hijab clad mother who stood by her husband's side at the convention but didn't speak. Trump postulated that her religion prevented her from speaking her mind.

It turns out Ghazala Khan can speak her mind thank you very much. Since Trump's asinine remarks, she has given interviews and written an op ed piece for the Washington Post. You can read that here.