The Wizard of Oz proclaimed himself "great and powerful!" In fact, he was but a charlatan cloaked behind a curtain using bombast and pyrotechnics to wow the easily duped and intimidate the opposition. He created the impression that if people cleaved to his aura, they would share in his power or at least the largess. Just believe, or at least pretend to believe, in the Wizard's power and you can live a better life in the Emerald city.
The description applies in many respects to the presumptive GOP nominee for President, another pretender to great power. His nonsensical and overblown rhetoric used to confound and seduce the weak minded, and to pander to the cynical and racially and religiously biased. To those not easily duped, his rhetoric turns to ad hominem attacks, thinly veiled threats and demagoguery. His use of innuendo is both craven and masterful. Instead of making a direct accusation and having the courage to stand behind his claim, this "wizard" makes unsubstantiated assertions that he says "he heard" someone say. He says he simply cannot understand why anyone would disagree with his isolationist and combative trade policy plan, which nonpartisan economic experts project would throw the US into a major recession by 2019 if implemented as described. In a latest rant, he argues that leaders of his own party who fail to fall in line and endorse him should be "prohibited from ever running for public office" in the future. Like the "Great and Powerful Oz," this pretender brooks no dissent and seeks to humiliate any who may disagree, regardless of the logic or merit of hos positions.
In another late revelation, multiple instances of email solicitation of campaign contributions were made by Drumpf to foreign officials. Solicitation of contributions via email is now a common practice. However, accepting or even making solicitations for campaign funding to foreign officials is not only illegal, by may be criminal. In fairness, criminal prosecution is highly unlikely unless his own party goes after him. That is not the point here. What is more telling is that even at this stage of the campaign, after sewing up the GOP nomination after a long primary season, Drumpf still demonstrates an amazing lack of control over his campaign and subordinates and an astounding lack of understanding of the basic rules and practices of public office and governance.
The revelation is not that Drumpf may or should be exposed and prosecuted for violating campaign funding laws. The key point is that this very basic and fairly obvious restriction was not grasped by someone seeking the authority and power to control and decide the most significant and nuanced issues and crises that the nation will face. Moreover, and assuming that Drumpf may be as surprised as many of us are that he has succeeded in his candidacy, there has been a failure to take time and make effort to LEARN the rudiments of public service and governance. Like the Wizard of Oz, who believed that his prior success as a carnival showman qualified him to rule a kingdom, Drumpf believes that his experience as a CEO and reality show huckster qualifies him for the highest office in one of the most powerful nations in the world. Like the Wizard of Oz, he lacks the competence to develop reasoned policies, to deliver on promises he makes, and lacks the wisdom to know when not to promise what he cannot possibly deliver. That ignorance is beyond dangerous, it could very well become catastrophic if Presidential power were to devolve into his hands.
Trump fails to comply with campaign fundingn law
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Browsing and Reflection on BREXIT
The most prolific topic in the current news cycle is the vote by the UK to leave the European Union (EU), also referred to as "Brexit." There is considerable confusion and consternation around the result, particularly when even those predicting a "close" vote thought that the UK would choose to remain. The idea was that the vote would be a strong symbolic statement about need for reform of the EU management and relations with member nations. The problem with setting formal processes in motion is that they result in REAL consequences. Now, there is loud dissatisfaction with the outcome, including a petition for another vote, a "redo" if you will, that has garnered well over 2.1 million signatures in less than two days. Scotland, which voted heavily to remain in the EU, has announced that it will seek renewal of the 2014 vote on whether to remain a part of the UK, in light of the change in material circumstances. Scotland was induced to remain part of the UK in that vote because of the benefits of being part of the EU membership. The result has caused David Cameron to step down as Prime Minister, and there is huge pressure on the leader of the Labour Party (who backed the "Leave" vote) to step down as well. Meanwhile, the UK stock market has tumbled and the Pound Stirling is at the lowest level in over 30 years following the vote to leave the EU.
Some have speculated that there are similarities between the voices and sentiment that fueled the UK vote to leave the EU and the current "outsider" disaffection in the USA. It is argued that much of the appeal of Donald Drumpf, the GOP presumptive nominee for President, is based upon that anger and resentment against a perceived political "establishment. While there are a great many distinctions to be made in the two situations, there are a few similarities. These similarities do not necessarily reflect well upon the "angry mob" or the Leave supporters. One example, whether based upon ignorance or naivete, is the comment from the Cornwall Council following the Brexit vote and the realization that departure from the EU would also mean the loss of significant investment in that area:
"The leader of Cornwall council said he was seeking 'urgent steps' to ensure the impoverished county in southwest England would be protected. 'We will be insisting that Cornwall receives investment equal to that provided by the EU programme which has averaged £60 million ($82 million, 73 million) per year over the last 10 years,' said John Pollard.
Simply put, the angry demand for the separation from perceived "oppression" from an "unresponsive" central governing body ignored the actual benefits from that source that the constituents, including the protesters, depend upon for survival. In the USA, there are similar uncritical (ignorant or naive) complaints against the Administration in Washington, DC. They are loud and strident until a disaster strikes and the region is in dire need of supportive response from the very Administration they say they want to reduce and remove from their lives. (Sadly, West Virginia is a most recent example.) But a crisis mode is not necessary to illustrate the misdirected hostility. Kentucky, whose leadership has vowed to obstruct the Obama Administration at every possible turn, has many counties in which more than 95% the populace are entirely dependent upon federal social welfare and other economic benefits.
But perhaps the blame needs to be shared by the leaders of the angry mob, who use fear and hatred to motivate the uninformed and gullible followers. An example of this is the announcement immediately after the Brexit vote by the leader of the "leave" movement, Nigel Farage, that the promise of funding to the national health service was an outright lie. This promise was used to induce voters to support the Leave campaign because their social benefits would be protected. It is an old ploy: blind them with hate and they will believe anything.
One more reflection points to irony. The supporters of the Leave campaign targeted their scorn on London and the Financial Markets - the "Fat Cats"- and the Westminster government who they said were unfairly profiting from the EU relationship while the less prosperous areas of the North were lagging. George Soros, the billionaire who profited over $1 Billion in 1992 betting upon the poor judgment of the British, has done it again. He made bearish investments based upon the hunch (actually an educated prediction) that the Pound would plummet if the UK voted to leave. No doubt we will find other investors in the London based financial groups who made similar hedge bets. So the irony is that the vote against the "Fat Cats" in the form of the Leave campaign and the Brexit vote has actually resulted in MORE profit and wealth going to the rich at the expense and pain of the less prosperous folks in the UK. To add insult to injury, Soros publicly warned the Brits that if they voted to leave the EU, that which has occurred would happen.
No one can say what will happen in the next months and years as a result of the vote, except that there will be continued uncertainty and pain. It is likely, however, that the EU will offer the UK a better deal or more concessions than Cameron was able to obtain in the last round. This would not be specifically to "punish" the UK for the "divorce." The stance would be to send a message to remaining EU members and citizens of member nations that the choice to exit will have serious and painful consequences. There is already fear that nationalist and xenophobic right wing factions in some EU member nations are gearing up for their own votes whether to leave or remain in the EU. We can collectively hope that the pain of the UK will serve as a sobering event, and that those other angry mobs will recognize that, as one former British minister observed, they would be "cutting off their noses to spite their faces."
Some have speculated that there are similarities between the voices and sentiment that fueled the UK vote to leave the EU and the current "outsider" disaffection in the USA. It is argued that much of the appeal of Donald Drumpf, the GOP presumptive nominee for President, is based upon that anger and resentment against a perceived political "establishment. While there are a great many distinctions to be made in the two situations, there are a few similarities. These similarities do not necessarily reflect well upon the "angry mob" or the Leave supporters. One example, whether based upon ignorance or naivete, is the comment from the Cornwall Council following the Brexit vote and the realization that departure from the EU would also mean the loss of significant investment in that area:
"The leader of Cornwall council said he was seeking 'urgent steps' to ensure the impoverished county in southwest England would be protected. 'We will be insisting that Cornwall receives investment equal to that provided by the EU programme which has averaged £60 million ($82 million, 73 million) per year over the last 10 years,' said John Pollard.
Simply put, the angry demand for the separation from perceived "oppression" from an "unresponsive" central governing body ignored the actual benefits from that source that the constituents, including the protesters, depend upon for survival. In the USA, there are similar uncritical (ignorant or naive) complaints against the Administration in Washington, DC. They are loud and strident until a disaster strikes and the region is in dire need of supportive response from the very Administration they say they want to reduce and remove from their lives. (Sadly, West Virginia is a most recent example.) But a crisis mode is not necessary to illustrate the misdirected hostility. Kentucky, whose leadership has vowed to obstruct the Obama Administration at every possible turn, has many counties in which more than 95% the populace are entirely dependent upon federal social welfare and other economic benefits.
But perhaps the blame needs to be shared by the leaders of the angry mob, who use fear and hatred to motivate the uninformed and gullible followers. An example of this is the announcement immediately after the Brexit vote by the leader of the "leave" movement, Nigel Farage, that the promise of funding to the national health service was an outright lie. This promise was used to induce voters to support the Leave campaign because their social benefits would be protected. It is an old ploy: blind them with hate and they will believe anything.
One more reflection points to irony. The supporters of the Leave campaign targeted their scorn on London and the Financial Markets - the "Fat Cats"- and the Westminster government who they said were unfairly profiting from the EU relationship while the less prosperous areas of the North were lagging. George Soros, the billionaire who profited over $1 Billion in 1992 betting upon the poor judgment of the British, has done it again. He made bearish investments based upon the hunch (actually an educated prediction) that the Pound would plummet if the UK voted to leave. No doubt we will find other investors in the London based financial groups who made similar hedge bets. So the irony is that the vote against the "Fat Cats" in the form of the Leave campaign and the Brexit vote has actually resulted in MORE profit and wealth going to the rich at the expense and pain of the less prosperous folks in the UK. To add insult to injury, Soros publicly warned the Brits that if they voted to leave the EU, that which has occurred would happen.
No one can say what will happen in the next months and years as a result of the vote, except that there will be continued uncertainty and pain. It is likely, however, that the EU will offer the UK a better deal or more concessions than Cameron was able to obtain in the last round. This would not be specifically to "punish" the UK for the "divorce." The stance would be to send a message to remaining EU members and citizens of member nations that the choice to exit will have serious and painful consequences. There is already fear that nationalist and xenophobic right wing factions in some EU member nations are gearing up for their own votes whether to leave or remain in the EU. We can collectively hope that the pain of the UK will serve as a sobering event, and that those other angry mobs will recognize that, as one former British minister observed, they would be "cutting off their noses to spite their faces."
Monday, June 13, 2016
Just Another Day - Another Massacre
Once again the facts concerning the Orlando massacre at a nightclub frequented by gays leaving at least 50 dead and another 53 injured dribble out and tend to get suppressed or distorted. The father gives information about a specific incident when his son reacted angrily to seeing a same sex kiss in public that logically [albeit a bit irrationally) ties his son's behavior to the massacre - hate against the LGBT community. This gets downplayed in favor of "official" speculation that (because his name sounds "Muslim" despite being born and raised in the US) that his motivation MUST have been Islamic terrorism - i.e., the Islamophobic notion that anyone of Afghan descent has to be a terrorist, or they know another person of Afghan or Middle Eastern descent who may or may not be a terrorist, etc. etc.. Consider that there is no connection or logic that the killing would make any statement or advance the cause of ISIS, but there is a direct connection to his demonstrated hatred of gays and the massacre. As his father said, religion had nothing to do with it. Those seeking to hijack the deaths and maiming of those at the Orlando night club to support an anti-Muslim agenda are only displaying their religious and ethnic bigotry. The ONLY benefit ISIL could gain from the incident would be public bigoted reaction ascribing the cause to ISIL when the entity in fact knew nothing about it and was never actually involved. We need to mourn the senseless deaths and honor the loss of human life, not allow the tragedy to be hijacked as a xenophobic ploy. This incident is described as the worst massacre in recent history in the US. We need to pause and reflect upon the magnitude of the tragedy.
But all this speculation as to terrorism again deflects from a central issue. How might a recurrence be prevented? Do we just shake our heads and say the event was "regrettable, " but do nothing? Again, and all too often, the question of whether some reasonable regulation of lethal weapons might have made a difference. And once again hysteria will deflect rational debate, because "guns" is not a unitary concept. There is a difference between a starter pistol, a shotgun for duck hunting and an AR-15 automatic rifle with a maximum capacity magazine. Only the latter could have possibly caused the destruction seen in Orlando. Why do we still allow the threat to public safety these weapons pose?
Mateen was a "law abiding gun owner," up to the very moment that he pulled the trigger and began the mass killing. As such, he had open and legal access to automatic weapons only designed and used for mass killing of humans. We now also learn that he had a history of violent mental instability and domestic abuse, in addition to homophobia. None of these factors was at all useful in denying him access to lethal weapons of mass destruction. We must at least consider, if not accept, that these conditions are OUR fault as well as the responsibility of the shooter. We condone profligate gun ownership and use, and a culture that says that the answer to gun violence is more guns!
We presume that an individual is entitled to lethal instruments (such as automatic assault weapons) until AFTER they have misused them and the carnage has occurred. Imagine if we gave car keys to every child and only took away their "right to drive" the dangerous instrumentalities only AFTER they had killed or maimed someone while operating the vehicle. Instead, we apply reasoned regulation. We allow children to use certain vehicles [bikes] and later allow them use of cars and trucks (with certain limitations as to class of vehicle) after they have had training and passed a test to show that they know how to operate the vehicle safely. Accidents still, happen, of course. But the result of reasoned restrictions is a lot safer than if the norm were that all of our streets looked like the sets of the "Fast and Furious" movies full of mayhem and destruction.
Until we can have an honest and rational discussion about reasoned limitations on gun sales and usage, and a willingness to hold those in the business of producing and selling weapons accountable, we must accept the fact that we are not only condoning, but are indeed complicit in, these mass shooting incidents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)