Monday, November 21, 2016

a shout out or not

This article is from a right wing leaning newspaper, the New York Post, a paper that counters the very left wing leaning newspaper, the New York Times. It says well what I think also (why I like it, of course). I was tempted to put the link in FaceBook except I'm trying to stay off dissent there and some would be bound to resent it... you know who you are ;)


Where this piece gets it so right is how narrow minded many campuses are. I remember when Berkley students tried to get Bill Maher disinvited to speak because of what he had said about the religion of Islam emphasizing its rules on women, gays and its source for radical Islam. This has unwillingness to hear the other viewpoint has happened on many campuses. Speak out in a way that they don't like and they will ban or shout you down. I thought the piece was a nuanced approach to get the left to think just a little bit about the possible log in their own eye ;)

Friday, November 11, 2016

post election rant that I said I wouldn't do

What an interesting time it's been since the election, in ways I never imagined. I suspect it was inevitable that there would be unrest no matter who won. It has been stirred up by the media and those who profit from such toxicity. It's sad as it has played on those most emotionally vulnerable. So even Oregon, where the state voted for Hillary, Portland had destructive riots. Now we know that some of those during the Black Lives Matter were actually paid to protest and get things started but whether that's the case now I don't know. Breaking windows, throwing bottles at cops, starting fires are not exactly inclined to make Trump voters think they made a mistake.

The elites have continued to stir up this rage, sorrow, and fear. I have seen several times this Bill Moyers article. I only read the first few lines of what he said as I didn't need to go further to understand his intent.
"America died on Nov. 8, 2016, not with a bang or a whimper, but at its own hand via electoral suicide. We the people chose a man who has shredded our values, our morals, our compassion, our tolerance, our decency, our sense of common purpose, our very identity — all the things that, however tenuously, made a nation out of a country."
Moyers is making himself part of sending the young people and those most emotionally fragile into such a dither. Statesmen rise to an occasion but fear-mongers sink under it. That's what we are seeing. Anyway, I wanted to share what I would have said after one of its Facebook shares, until I decided I didn't need more hassle there. Anybody who comes here, knows what they will be getting.

People don't all see it this way and not all who voted for Trump voted based on bigotry etc. I know many are blaming the voters but most Americans know someone quite nice, who voted for him but did it based on immigration issues, a fear we had lost our values, that our government wanted to run our lives. Most likely the Trump voters they know aren't talking about it because the rage on the left, all the way through the campaign, has trumped anything the tea party or its ilk threw out. Terrorism, of course, has long been on both sides.

I was not a secret Trump voter. I did not, however, vote proudly for her. I had to vote for her even though I saw, based on the things she'd done, that she was an ethically flawed person who had used a system to become very rich. I voted for her based on issues. 

And on issues, it was weighing them to decide which mattered most to me. There were things Trump wanted to do that I actually thought would be good-- like getting control of our immigration where some obey the rules strictly but many have seen our laws as for somebody else. How can you have laws for immigration and ignore them but then say other laws must be obeyed??? For the elites in this country, we have a buffet style legal system-- obey what pleases you. The government encourages insecurity by randomly coming down on some while ignoring others doing the same things. 

Regarding immigration, the elite media has ignored what Trump has said would be his policy. Right now they are stirring fear in the dream kids, who came here with family as children. What he actually said was build a wall to stop people coming, be better on going after those who overstay visas without permission, but first deport those who have committed a crime. He may find that tough enough. He also proposes tougher penalties for those who come here illegally-- you know like Canada and Mexico do now. We've had a so-so attitude toward the illegal entries and mostly just send them back where they immediately return. He has proposed the second illegal entry means jail time. Now can he get that through, I don't know, but I believe borders and laws should have meaning.

The very idea that Moyers would continue to stir up rage, sorrow, or fear seems to make Moyer himself less of the man than I thought he was. His hyperbole is over the top, and this is not the time for it. I thought he was a statesman but guess not. He was enraged himself that his words didn't convince all of America to embrace what he does which is globalism. I get it, but to not accept a different view, one that values nationalism, is not to say this nation no longer exists. pfffftttt

A lot on the left have disappointed me, like when it was revealed that Donna Brazile gave exact questions to Hillary Clinton in the debates with Bernie Sanders. I thought of Brazile as an honorable woman, and it so disappointed me that she'd have done such a thing. She was rewarded for it by being given temporary head of the DNC, who had also been less than honest in how they worked to get Hillary and not Bernie. 

Having seen both candidates as flawed (no surprise at all that Hillary would take those questions, as cheating in the name of winning seems right up her alley), I voted purely on issues, which meant I felt none of the emotions that are now raging through this country. 

Because I had seen the rage that commentators like Chris Hayes had for the very thought of Trump, I quit those networks long ago but can only imagine how they are stirring up the people who did vote on emotions. For the ones who voted for Hillary on issues, I expect they are less emotionally driven now. 

I believe unlike what Moyers suggested that a lot at stake here was whether our laws and policies would be driven by globalism or nationalism. People got it that Trump was a flawed person, who they hope will rise to the job but I think many voted on nationalism-- our country means our country first and doing good for the world next. There are countries in Europe that have benefited in their infrastructure by our taking on the policing of the world, while we let our own infrastructure suffer. Their airports are modern, many of ours decaying.  I like some of the big aspects of nationalism, like not going to war around the world and being the world's mercenaries when they resent us for doing it. 

But I couldn't vote for him on environmentalism, science, social issues, and the Supreme Court. His lack of studying both sides was another risk with him as a president-- but that appears to be a bit rampant right now in Americans. It further divides us as a people when we don't get to know the 'other' when we insult those who disagree with us as if they are lesser citizens. Well, guess what, they had a vote and they used it. Some of the crazy political correctness attitudes have added to the upset some felt with the status quo. Being tolerant and understanding others is a two way street... or should be.

Some of those who voted for him also voted for Bernie with the hope both would bring change to the country but in different ways. Bernie also didn't want more foreign wars. He also thought our trade deals had been flawed. Anybody who doesn't have Medicare, Medicaid, work for the government, or a big corporation understands how badly premiums are rising with ACA. It needs to be fixed and exactly how, it's hard to say. Trump has said people need to have health care, and he has suggested a few ideas during the campaign. It's hard to say what the Republicans will do now that they have an opportunity to try other plans. I could write a whole blog on how this health care system was always going to end up like it is but this is not about that.

The ugliness that has been thrown at Trump (some his own doing) during the election was done by an elite media, intellectuals, celebrities, and neocons who are in both parties. Wars benefit some a lot. Rage and out of control emotions help hedge fund guys make more money off the panic. 

Despite what Moyers said, this country isn't gone. It just is made up of more than those elites. It is made up of those where when foreign workers flow in and work for lower wages, their wages are lowered and jobs lost. It's made up of those who didn't profit when corporations sent manufacturing overseas. It's made up of those who believed in the values with which they were raised and can't understand why that is bad. They voted for Trump despite all the media did to convince them that the builder, showman, gambler, and maybe conman was also a raging maniac. He convinced the people of who he was by bypassing expensive ads and going directly to the people. He won, and it cost him $5 a vote. Guess who is angry at that.

Yes, he's a redneck (definition: the grunt workers, those who build things, work with their hands, sometimes talk crude, have more earthy values, more fear of the future based on the economic level where most work-- with a few millionaire exceptions. Money doesn't take someone out of being a redneck-- it's someone whose neck is red because of laboring in the sun)...but so are a lot of Americans. 

My husband, who is a good man on a ton of levels, was considering voting for him until I reminded him who Trump would appoint to the Supreme Court. My husband is no racist, hater of women, but he is a rancher and a man who works with small start up companies to get them going technologically. He has seen the damage some of the overreach on regulations has done to block  start ups. 

So whatever happens with Trump, and some of what he is likely to do, I also will be whining about based on important issues to me, this country was never just made up of elites and maybe that's what is so upsetting to Moyers. He lives in an elite bubble, and it came as a shock to him that this country is made up of more than that-- hence he lowered himself to insults and scary words. Too bad, I used to respect him.

Saturday, November 05, 2016

I voted

 It is unfortunate that the email issue for Hillary is seen as just about her having a private server-- no big deal to many Americans who rely on mainstream media for their news. It's not about just that. It's about mishandling classified material, lying to Congress, and pay for play. On the mishandling, we now know that documents ended up on Anthony Weiner's computer. He didn't have clearance to have those. It is also reported through a Wikileaks email that Hillary sent some classified material to her daughter. Again no clearance. Mishandling classified materials has put others in jail. Why should she be exempt?

The bigger question though regarding her private server is why she had it. There are relatively innocent reasons (not qualities you want in a President but possible) such as she was paranoid and wanted to be sure no one could use the Freedom of Information Act to access what she wrote or got. There is, however a more insidious possibility-- pay for play.

Here's where you need to be able to add things together, using logic. How do you get wealthy on the pay of a Senator or Secretary of State, even considering the pensions Bill was getting. The Clinton net worth is debated and many sources don't add them together making her sound not so rich. Anyway, here's one take on it.
"The Bill Clinton net worth figure of $100.8 million comes mainly from $189 million in pre-tax dollars from books and speeches plus $25 million in salary. Clinton made $200,000 a year as U.S. President and only $35,000 a year as Governor of Arkansas. All together his salary as a public figure for 25 years comes to just $2.3 million, while he made ten times that in 1/4th the time as Chancellor of for-profit university Laureate Education Inc. and Chairman of the GEMS Foundation. Clinton’s biggest payday by far comes from $140.8 million earned for hundreds of speeches, with payouts for a single speech running as high as $725,000. Clinton has also raked in book royalties estimated at $48 million. That’s a total lifetime earnings of $217 million pretax dollars, with taxes and expenses slicing out over $137 million and investments kicking back $21 million. Combined with the Hillary Clinton net worth sum of $32 million. The Clintons control a fortune of more than $132 million." from a site called Money Nation
The Clintons took no salaries from their foundation, while it drew in donations of $2 billion since he left office. The foundation does the work through their employees-- hence not much is donated elsewhere.  What is said about the Foundation and its benefit runs the gamut from saving lives and curing diseases to a vast criminal organization. You can guess which partisan group takes which view.

So how they got the money was through books, private speeches at high salaries, and consulting fees for him. [Clinton got $18 million just for being a consultant to a private for profit college]. Did he do any work for that salary? He didn't need to as they wanted the connection. Often such organizations or individuals also donated to the foundation.

It's not unusual for politicians to profit that way. It's also not pay for play as such. That comes into the profit taking this way-- you approach someone or they approach you with something they want. You suggest they hire you for speeches or consulting-- plus donate to your foundation. So Clintons get big money and so does the foundation. Where does it become illegal?

Maybe here: The Russian uranium deal was okayed by Clinton's state department and many have wondered why we would sell our uranium to the Russians allowing them to sometimes destroy the natural terrain in the mining? It was even mentioned with the Malheur takeover as a motive for other ranchers being arrested and jailed.


The NY Times also covered that one. If you want to know the accusations based on pay for play, you have to do a google search. The mainstream media is not covering it. They still make it sound like the emails are all about a sweet little woman who just didn't understand computers and hence needed a private server in her basement... one that allowed deleting half the emails that were nothing to do with government *wink wink* and all about yoga and weddings. Only dedicated lefties believe that one.

As someone who voted for Obama twice, donated heavily to his campaign, voted for Bernie in the primary, I think it's better for progressives not to kid ourselves. We don't have to play the game of seeing it all through the Clinton media with their self-designated term-- the vast right wing conspiracy. There is a lot there for those who care but they have to look.  The media, entertainment and supposed news are in the bucket for Hillary. They insult those who would vote for Trump as much as him. They twist headlines, leave out parts of his proposals and it gets repeated across the boards.  Reading a headline and then finding the whole story has often left me furious. Like the suggestion that Trump wanted the Russian government to hack her email to get the missing emails-- it was a joke people, an off the cuff joke, but either the media has no sense of humor or they know most people don't follow up on anything.

That said, it might seem surprising that I had to vote for her in the end based on issues that matter a LOT to me-- things like Supreme Court picks, social issues, but most of all the environment. He did have policies with which I agreed, like on trade but I am not sure he could do what he says he wants. I voted not on ethics, which is questionable for both of them.

I voted for her not trusting her, worrying about her neocon tendencies, that she'll pick more of the foxes to guard the economic house (like Obama did). I worry about her on war, helped along by her strong globalist view.

BUT who would Trump put in a cabinet or on the Court? From who he seems to admire, that was worrisome. He is wrong (in my opinion) on some big issues that matter a lot to me. My inability to vote for him wasn't about the sex as it was with so many. I voted twice for Clinton knowing he was not right in that area. No, for me, it was Trump's lack of interest in being fully informed and where he gets his info on things like climate change. He's said a lot of things about what he'll do, things I'd hate to see him do, and I believe he would try-- so his stand on important right wing issues made him impossible for me to vote for him. I couldn't not vote at all for the Presidency though I considered it. If he won, I'd feel guilty for not doing my small part to stop him. He's like voting for a bull in a china shop. It might turn out all right but what are the odds.

My first presidential election was in 1964. I've always voted and generally liked one of the candidates. This is the first time I felt no pride in my vote. I did what I felt I had to do and hope I've been wrong about her ethics. A lot rides on it. I hope she will be a great president, not cater to the hedge funds, not decimate Social Security, and most of all not get us into a war with her reckless talk like most recently about the Russian government-- where there is no proof they have done the hacking that got the Wikileaks their info. Assange said they hadn't but then who knows... That's the problem this election. Who knows.

I might rant on cultural issues in the future here but am going to try to stay off the outcome of the election. It is what it is.

Tuesday, November 01, 2016

who runs America

 This link is a  powerful one that shows why when Trump says he will drain the swamp in Washington, he has a lot of people voting for him to do it. 


When Obama got in office, a lot of us wondered why he put the foxes to guarding the chicken house (his economic choices). The email dumps have revealed that answer-- for those who cared to read them and look for how things are done in government.

I haven't read the entire Wikileak dumps but have read snippets from them. The only shock, so far, was Donna Brazile. I had seen her for years discussing issues on various news programs. I thought she was an honorable woman. Turns out I was wrong. She sent emails to the Clinton team with some of the exact questions that Hillary would get in her debate with Bernie Sanders. CNN has since severed ties with Brazile, but someone in their office had to have given her the questions. CNN has jokingly been called the Clinton Network but is this how they want to continue to be seen once Clinton is President, which she is still most likely to become.

When you read the article from the Guardian, it is maddening, infuriating, and rings true given how Washington runs, how easily some are seduced by compliments. But this mentality runs us too and that's the sad part of this. How do you get it changed? You don't with Hillary. She will continue as she always has-- attack those she perceives to be her enemies and so far it has been effective. A lot of lefties haven't bothered to read anything about Clinton's dark side because they see it all as that old right wing conspiracy, a term created by the Clintons. The tactic works. Why change it and now Comey is in her crosshairs. With most of the media in her pocket, most Americans don't know otherwise.

When Peter Thiel said this won't end with Trump, he nailed it. A lot of Americans are fed up. They have been painted as racists and bigots, ridiculed because they aren't part of the elite. It would be impossible to admit to many left wingers that someone was going to vote for Trump. It invites boycotting and insults. The ones though defending Clinton's behavior, the ones who wanted to see Comey blocked from revealing what the FBI had stumbled across, should especially be the ones reading the Guardian article and ask themselves if they could stumble into also becoming a Donna Brazile, where one step into the mire ends up going all the way. Doubtless Brazile will be rewarded with a position in Clinton's administration. Same with Wasserman Schultz. It's how it works with the Clintons.

As for the rest of us, we may not be able to vote for the gorilla in the china shop, with no clue what he'd be tearing apart or how to put it back together, but we damned well better be paying attention once Clinton gets to the White House. She is one person you cannot afford to turn your back on. 

And you women who are voting for her just because she's a woman... who took pride in calling yourself Nasty for Hillary, I suggest you consider if this is really the kind of woman you want your children or grandchildren to emulate.


Sunday, October 30, 2016

most likely to get us into war

One of the big concerns many voters have is which candidate for President is most apt to get us into a new war or expand the ones Obama has kept going.

Hillary Clinton has shown poor judgment in the past regarding wars where she encouraged Obama to take the side of the rebels in Libya to unseat Qaddafi. No one would deny that he had been a brutal dictator to hold power in his country. His ties to terrorism included blowing up an airliner and harboring terrorists. In 1999 however, he began to change course. He gave up the having nuclear bombs, [did many things for his people], but Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, wanted the rebels to take over Libya despite Qaddafi's warnings that terrorists such as al Qaeda and the Islamic State would take over.  


Clinton and Obama misjudged what the Arab Spring really meant. The willingness, to interfere in sovereign nations for secret purposes, means as a leader she would use our military for 'higher' purposes. As a globalist, that's not a surprise and explains why universally neocons support her. She has their goals and another Iraq type war under Hillary Clinton should come as no surprise. The closeness of Bushes and Clintons goes much deeper than Bush annoyance that Trump beat a Bush. They share a similar set of goals and a belief in American intervention to make the world a 'better' place. It also explains a lot of the appeal she has to hedge funders. Wars of the 'right' sort benefit them too, with instability as a way to make stocks volatile, which profits a hedge fund, and with their resistance to increasing taxes on stock transfers (which makes quick sales and buys less profitable).

It is ironic that many think Trump is more likely to get us into a renewed war when in reality, the steely Hillary Clinton is that person. Her rhetoric, along with the Obama administration, that Russia is behind the Democratic email hacks, shows how eager she is to face down Putin. At what price would that come?

Don't believe me about Hillary and future wars? Do a google search for Hillary and war and get the picture. One example: [Hillary's hawks talk war against North Korea]. Neocons, like Bill Kristol, can hardly wait to get her in power.

So if foreign wars aren't on your agenda, you better keep a close eye on the talk from DC once she has power. Of course, with Hillary, a lot is under the radar because after all, she herself has been quoted as saying that her public words don't necessarily reflect her private intentions. The New York Times considered that good. 

With the current mainstream media in the Clintons' corner, she can use them to gin up the need for whatever wars she believes the country needs for the good of the world... If wars aren't what you want, my suggestion is you keep a close eye on what [Yellow Journalism] is pumping out to make Americans think they need to fight another war-- on the tab probably. 

So what about the other side-- Trump and war. I can't count the times I've heard that his loose tongue can't be put near the nuclear button. Hillary herself is one of those who said exactly that. Well, how many fistfights has Trump had? Physical violence against his enemies? Mysterious deaths among those who stood against him? I knew I hadn't heard of any but thought I'd Google it. Interestingly, any search jumped to the Clinton body count of those who have stood against them. Zero for Trump. [Here are some examples].

So this very violent man has had no fistfights, but he has had a lot of lawsuits someone will say... and what about those tweets? What about them? What it means is he uses his mouth and the legal system against his enemies. So a Bill Maher gets sued for saying he'd give Trump five million dollars if he could prove he hadn't had an orangutan as a parent. Trump produces his birth certificate and sues Maher for the millions. Maher was infuriated (still is) that Trump didn't recognize it was a joke. But Trump's reaction was typical of him--[Trump lawsuits]. A buffoon sometimes maybe but a violent man-- not.

Even with the immigration issues, what is his solution? Building a wall, which Congress authorized years ago but didn't do, and legally deporting people. What Trump has said is no foreign wars when we don't have interests involved. He's said NATO is being too much funded by us while European countries benefit from our protection and their economies and infrastructure have profited. 

How important are our overseas troops to keeping peace? Have we become the world's mercenaries, not loved one bit for it, but maybe necessary and worth having our debt grow, our poor suffer and infrastructure crumble? That would be the case neocons would make.

This is not to say Trump might not get us into a war, but his solutions to our current problems go more to changing trade agreements; so that our businesses get a better deal for staying here than going there. I don't see him as wanting war because somebody insulted him but might he get us into wars based on his ignorance or loose talk? Who knows but stranger things have happened.

Trump's problem with wars and his risks as a leader seem to go more to his willing ignorance as to how things work. He wants to change them, but can that really happen given how many profit from the current system? His careless words would have more risks attached once they are on a global scale. Would he change how he does things as President? Who knows...

So he might get us into a war out of careless lack of knowledge, but she'd plot it out, and the end result might be as disastrous as Libya has proven for the Libyan people and the potential Libya has to be another stronghold for ISIS. 

When I look at these two, I see it a draw as to who is more at risk of using nuclear power. My first vote for a President was in 1964 and the attack on Goldwater was what it is on Trump. They even used nuclear bomb explosions in their ads to block him from winning the White House. As to who got us into a war that proved disastrous and still is today-- the other guy...



Thursday, October 27, 2016

more lowering of America?

Deplorable or Nasty

Supposedly those two words have ended up badges of honor to the opposing parties. Now when Hillary called half of Trump supporters deplorables, it was a clear insult that they were not nice people. When Trump said Hillary was a nasty woman, he was not complimenting her strength.

The way women have decided to take pride in being nasty blows my mind. I am the wrong generation to appreciate this but does this mean the mean girls in the movie of that name is now the way women believe they should treat others???-- It's not being nice and kind but nasty that means a woman has power? For those of you who use words loosely with no clue what they mean, here's the definition of nasty.
1. highly unpleasant, especially to the senses; physically nauseating; unpleasant, disagreeable, disgusting, distasteful, awful, dreadful, horrible, etc.
2. a person acting in an unpleasant way; spiteful
3. noun: unpleasant or harmful person or thing 
The meme that I saw going around Facebook was that the woman was nasty for Hillary and that meant empowered. Nasty does not mean powerful. When Trump called Hillary nasty, he meant she acts spitefully, is mean, disagreeable (to those who are beneath her) and he was likely basing it on the stories out there how those who have worked for her regard her treatment of them.

From the left, I am hearing that a vote for Trump is a vote for assaulting women.  Well, if so, then is a vote for Hillary a vote for women becoming mean girls and regarding snide comments or insults as a way to show their power?

Deplorable is another word no one should take pride in being called.
1. Very bad in a way that causes shock, fear, or disgust; hopeless with no hope of being redeemed; Worthy of severe condemnation or reproach
2. Lamentable; woeful
3. Wretched
This is not just how Hillary sees the Trump supporters but all beneath her. She values money and celebrity. For those who don't know this, they haven't run afoul of her by being beneath her. Whether she will change in the White House and become someone who truly does consider herself the President of all the people, it's hard to say... but if her big lesson to women is to be nasty, she won't have done a thing to improve our country and how we treat others. 

Speaking one's mind is not being nasty unless it's done in a demeaning way. Women can be strong without being mean but that's not putting on a badge that says Nasty for Hillary and seeing that as a badge of honor. Or is nasty the new virtue for Americans???

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

another option

This morning, I woke up thinking about the options we have for November. We are told we have to vote for one of the two major party candidates as anything else is wrong. Some comedians are good at ridiculing any third party option, as the argument goes-- those candidates can't win, don't really have responsible plans, and so to vote third party is throwing away your vote.

Yes, the third parties cannot win this time. But it's not throwing away the vote. Electoral College determines the next President, but numbers do get counted. If the minor parties get enough votes, they get a small percentage of matching funds in 2020. You don't vote for one for '16, which is probably decided. You vote to grow a third party option so that maybe the next time we choose a President, there will be a viable third option. This is especially true in a state where the majority is so great for one or the other party that your vote won't change things-- but the numbers do.

If someone is happy with the Democrat or Republican this go round, then great. You are fortunate. But when not, think about the possibility of voting for someone who has your views on issues, can't win, but would be a good addition to the discussions next time around.

Many of us don't like either party, but we keep voting for them because we think there's no alternative. Currently that's right, but I don't think it has to stay that way.