I've mentioned here before that I hate being late. Failing to show up on time is the number one sign that you have no respect for other people--because you are basically saying that their time is not important to you. And as a recent rash of school bus related crashes are showing, it means you don't respect other people's lives either.
While the stories of kids being hit while getting off of buses in several states is grabbing headlines and clicks right now, there probably won't be much follow up on the criminal cases against the drivers responsible. I'd like to see it all of them use the excuse "I was running late and couldn't wait for the bus". It would be pretty hard to make any other claims. I mean a school bus is big, it's yellow, it's got these bright red flashing lights. It's all around pretty hard to miss.
But when you are running late for work, that school bus is the enemy. It's slowing you down--making you stop--putting you even farther behind than you already are. And each time those flashing red lights come on and that little stop sign pops out, your anger and frustration grows. So you decide you are just going to gun it--go around the impediment and get back to speeding to work or the daycare or to Starbucks. The bus driver probably won't be able to get your license plate--so it's worth the risk.
But this is the time that the kids are walking across the street and they pop out of nowhere from in front of the bus or from the other side of the road. What's been even more distressing is that in the five or so cases last week, the drivers just kept right on going--even after hitting and killing the kids. I'm sure the drivers rationalized it by saying that it was the kids' fault for being in the road and that they should have looked before crossing.
It should feel like your day is starting an hour later than normal today. Use that extra time to get an earlier start and not have drive like a maniac or show up late. It shows you actually respect other people--and it might actually save a few lives.
Monday, November 5, 2018
Friday, November 2, 2018
The Man Who Made the (Right) Wrong Decision
Former Packers Vice President of Football Operations Tom Braatz passed away this week. For many fans Braatz was a minor character in the franchise's history, but I would argue that he made a decision that has had the most-profound effect ever not only on the team, but on the City of Green Bay and Northeast Wisconsin as a whole.
In the 1989 NFL Draft, the Packers had the number two overall pick. When the Dallas Cowboys took UCLA quarterback Troy Aikman with the number one pick, that left Braatz with the choice of Heisman Trophy running back Barry Sanders out of Oklahoma State or Michigan State offensive lineman Tony Mandarich. Mandarich had been featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated before the draft--labeled "The Incredible Hulk" and touted as potentially the greatest o-lineman in football history.
Braatz went with Mandarich with the number two pick--and the Detroit Lions took Sanders. Mandarich would turn out to be a creation of steroids. He would struggle in the NFL, was often hurt and eventually was discovered to be a cheater. Mandarich was gone from Green Bay in four years and is now considered one of the biggest busts in NFL Draft history. Sanders would turn out to be a Hall of Fame running back and one of the greatest ever in NFL history. But he never parlayed that amazing talent into post-season success. In fact, Sanders and the Lions won only one playoff game in his ten year career--in five trips to the post-season.
What if Braatz had selected Sanders--and he had the same exact career in Green Bay? Five trips to the playoffs and 15-thousand yards rushing may have saved Braatz from being fired mid-season in 1991. That would have meant Team President Bob Harlan doesn't hire Ron Wolf that off-season. That means Wolf doesn't fire Lindy Infante and hire Mike Holmgren. That means Wolf doesn't trade for Brett Favre during the 1992 draft. That means Wolf doesn't sign free agent defensive tackle Reggie White in 1993. And that means the Green Bay Packers likely don't win Super Bowl XXI in 1997.
And that lack of playoff success would have meant a much more difficult road for the team to get approval of the Brown County referendum that levied a half-percent sales tax to transform Lambeau Field from a utilitarian facility used ten times a year to a year-round business and tourist destination--which in turn fueled the growth of first the Stadium District to the east and then the Titletown District to the West--not to mention the dozens of other hotels, restaurants, sports shops and bars that have sprung up in the Green Bay area since 1989. "The Green Bay Packers" are now as much of a regional industry as papermaking is in the Fox Valley--and all because Tom Braatz didn't draft Barry Sanders--and set the team on a course of mediocrity for another decade.
Think of him as the man that made the (right) wrong decision.
In the 1989 NFL Draft, the Packers had the number two overall pick. When the Dallas Cowboys took UCLA quarterback Troy Aikman with the number one pick, that left Braatz with the choice of Heisman Trophy running back Barry Sanders out of Oklahoma State or Michigan State offensive lineman Tony Mandarich. Mandarich had been featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated before the draft--labeled "The Incredible Hulk" and touted as potentially the greatest o-lineman in football history.
Braatz went with Mandarich with the number two pick--and the Detroit Lions took Sanders. Mandarich would turn out to be a creation of steroids. He would struggle in the NFL, was often hurt and eventually was discovered to be a cheater. Mandarich was gone from Green Bay in four years and is now considered one of the biggest busts in NFL Draft history. Sanders would turn out to be a Hall of Fame running back and one of the greatest ever in NFL history. But he never parlayed that amazing talent into post-season success. In fact, Sanders and the Lions won only one playoff game in his ten year career--in five trips to the post-season.
What if Braatz had selected Sanders--and he had the same exact career in Green Bay? Five trips to the playoffs and 15-thousand yards rushing may have saved Braatz from being fired mid-season in 1991. That would have meant Team President Bob Harlan doesn't hire Ron Wolf that off-season. That means Wolf doesn't fire Lindy Infante and hire Mike Holmgren. That means Wolf doesn't trade for Brett Favre during the 1992 draft. That means Wolf doesn't sign free agent defensive tackle Reggie White in 1993. And that means the Green Bay Packers likely don't win Super Bowl XXI in 1997.
And that lack of playoff success would have meant a much more difficult road for the team to get approval of the Brown County referendum that levied a half-percent sales tax to transform Lambeau Field from a utilitarian facility used ten times a year to a year-round business and tourist destination--which in turn fueled the growth of first the Stadium District to the east and then the Titletown District to the West--not to mention the dozens of other hotels, restaurants, sports shops and bars that have sprung up in the Green Bay area since 1989. "The Green Bay Packers" are now as much of a regional industry as papermaking is in the Fox Valley--and all because Tom Braatz didn't draft Barry Sanders--and set the team on a course of mediocrity for another decade.
Think of him as the man that made the (right) wrong decision.
Thursday, November 1, 2018
The Return of the Constitution
One thing that I have to give President Trump credit for is a renewed interest in the Constitution. Since his election we have had more spirited discussions about the document that lies at the heart of our system of government. I'm surprise the Federalist Papers isn't at the top of the New York Times Bestsellers List every month.
By my count, we have had controversies and serious conversations about Article I (separation of powers in Federal Government), pretty much all of Article II (the Electoral College, impeachment and the Emoluments Clause), Article III (filling vacancies on the Supreme Court and the definition of treason), Article VII (Constitutional Conventions), the First Amendment (freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion), the Second Amendment (gun control), the Fourth Amendment (confiscation of guns), the Ninth Amendment (unenumerated rights of citizens), the Tenth Amendment (rights granted to the States), the 12th Amendment (the Electoral College again), the 13th Amendment (Kanye West's calling for the abolition of slavery to be repealed in a White House meeting), and the 25th Amendment (removal of the President by Cabinet vote due to incapacity).
And now, President Trump is trying to repeal the 14th Amendment via Executive Order. For those not familiar with the Constitution, the 14th Amendment was a clever ploy used by Republicans in Union states to prevent Democrats in former Confederate states from using legal loopholes to deny citizenship to freed slaves after the Civil War. The 14th clearly states that if you are born on US soil, territories or areas of control then you are a US citizen--even if both of your parents are not. The Supreme Court has upheld the 14th numerous times dating back to 1898--when a child born to Chinese non-citizen parents in California was found to be a citizen by Constitutional definition. Senator Harry Reid tried to push through a law changing that definition in the 1990's--but that effort ended up going nowhere, thanks to Republicans defending the Constitution.
I'm sure that there is someone in the Trump Administration that has told him that he can unilaterally redefine citizenship without legal challenge. Or maybe it was someone on Fox and Friends--the main source of information for the Oval Office. But based on the legal track record of the Administration so far, those "experts" are 100-percent wrong again.
If there is a silver lining to the Trump Administration it is that more Americans may become familiar with the rights with which they are endowed--and be less willing to give them up in the false hope of "security" in the future.
By my count, we have had controversies and serious conversations about Article I (separation of powers in Federal Government), pretty much all of Article II (the Electoral College, impeachment and the Emoluments Clause), Article III (filling vacancies on the Supreme Court and the definition of treason), Article VII (Constitutional Conventions), the First Amendment (freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion), the Second Amendment (gun control), the Fourth Amendment (confiscation of guns), the Ninth Amendment (unenumerated rights of citizens), the Tenth Amendment (rights granted to the States), the 12th Amendment (the Electoral College again), the 13th Amendment (Kanye West's calling for the abolition of slavery to be repealed in a White House meeting), and the 25th Amendment (removal of the President by Cabinet vote due to incapacity).
And now, President Trump is trying to repeal the 14th Amendment via Executive Order. For those not familiar with the Constitution, the 14th Amendment was a clever ploy used by Republicans in Union states to prevent Democrats in former Confederate states from using legal loopholes to deny citizenship to freed slaves after the Civil War. The 14th clearly states that if you are born on US soil, territories or areas of control then you are a US citizen--even if both of your parents are not. The Supreme Court has upheld the 14th numerous times dating back to 1898--when a child born to Chinese non-citizen parents in California was found to be a citizen by Constitutional definition. Senator Harry Reid tried to push through a law changing that definition in the 1990's--but that effort ended up going nowhere, thanks to Republicans defending the Constitution.
I'm sure that there is someone in the Trump Administration that has told him that he can unilaterally redefine citizenship without legal challenge. Or maybe it was someone on Fox and Friends--the main source of information for the Oval Office. But based on the legal track record of the Administration so far, those "experts" are 100-percent wrong again.
If there is a silver lining to the Trump Administration it is that more Americans may become familiar with the rights with which they are endowed--and be less willing to give them up in the false hope of "security" in the future.
Wednesday, October 31, 2018
Bordering on Madness
I'm sure that some of you pumped your fist or nodded your head approvingly when you heard that the Pentagon is sending 52-hundred active duty military troops to the US-Mexico border in advance of the "migrant caravan" making its way through Mexico. Now that they are there, what do you expect them to do?
There are now two "caravans" in Mexico. The original was still 900-miles away from the US border as of yesterday. A second "caravan" just crossed into Mexico yesterday and is more than a thousand miles away. So what are the assembled troops in Texas supposed to do in the meantime? At their current rate, the migrants (if they walk all the way) won't get to the US before Thanksgiving. That's a long time for our servicemen and women to just be standing around.
It's also possible that the migrants could break off into more than two groups--and try to enter the US anywhere along the border. In case you are wondering, the border with Mexico spans 3201 miles from California to Texas. With 52-hundred troops deployed to the region, that means each soldier would have to patrol 3/4's of a mile by themselves 24-hours a day. And some of that land is incredibly rugged and not easily accessed. Not to mention, much of it is privately owned--and would require permission from the owner to conduct military operations.
But the biggest mystery is what exactly our troops are supposed to do if the caravan actually reaches the border? If all five or six thousand go to a Customs port, they are legally allowed to ask for asylum and are automatically granted a review of that request (while staying in the US). Do you want the troops to stand between the border and the Immigration offices and bar anyone from getting past them? Do you think the migrants are going to see that, just drop their heads, turn around and walk all the way back to Honduras?
And what if the caravan decides to storm the border? Are you prepared to watch video of our soldiers trying to beat back women with children? Or do you secretly hope that the troops will open fire on the unarmed masses? The President has called them "invaders". Will you just explain that away with "maybe they should have brought guns to protect themselves too"?
Fortunately, we have the better part of a month to reconsider using the Army and the Marines to assist in immigration enforcement. That's more than enough time for at least 50 other crises to pop up around the Trump administration and distract the President from this half-brained solution.
There are now two "caravans" in Mexico. The original was still 900-miles away from the US border as of yesterday. A second "caravan" just crossed into Mexico yesterday and is more than a thousand miles away. So what are the assembled troops in Texas supposed to do in the meantime? At their current rate, the migrants (if they walk all the way) won't get to the US before Thanksgiving. That's a long time for our servicemen and women to just be standing around.
It's also possible that the migrants could break off into more than two groups--and try to enter the US anywhere along the border. In case you are wondering, the border with Mexico spans 3201 miles from California to Texas. With 52-hundred troops deployed to the region, that means each soldier would have to patrol 3/4's of a mile by themselves 24-hours a day. And some of that land is incredibly rugged and not easily accessed. Not to mention, much of it is privately owned--and would require permission from the owner to conduct military operations.
But the biggest mystery is what exactly our troops are supposed to do if the caravan actually reaches the border? If all five or six thousand go to a Customs port, they are legally allowed to ask for asylum and are automatically granted a review of that request (while staying in the US). Do you want the troops to stand between the border and the Immigration offices and bar anyone from getting past them? Do you think the migrants are going to see that, just drop their heads, turn around and walk all the way back to Honduras?
And what if the caravan decides to storm the border? Are you prepared to watch video of our soldiers trying to beat back women with children? Or do you secretly hope that the troops will open fire on the unarmed masses? The President has called them "invaders". Will you just explain that away with "maybe they should have brought guns to protect themselves too"?
Fortunately, we have the better part of a month to reconsider using the Army and the Marines to assist in immigration enforcement. That's more than enough time for at least 50 other crises to pop up around the Trump administration and distract the President from this half-brained solution.
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
Rising Together
It was Winston Churchill that gave us the phrase "Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it". Well folks, we have failed to learn our lessons from post-World War I Europe. Based on trends in modern politics, it appears I will have to explain. In the ashes of war-torn Europe--and continuing through the global Great Depression--we saw the joint rise of Socialism and Facism.
While the two social and political ideologies are placed on opposite ends of a straight-line "spectrum", it would be more apropos to see political thought in a circular form--thereby putting the two right next to each other--for they are truly not that far apart. Both believe in a strong, centralized government that controls many of the aspects of citizens' lives. Where they differ is who should be feared when it comes to disturbing the social order. In Socialism, that blame lies with the rich and the elite. In Fascism, that blame is assigned to those that do not share a common racial, societal or religious history. It is no coincidence that the Fascism that overtook Italy, Germany, Spain and the Baltics in the build up to World War II came in direct response to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the growing strength of the Soviet Socialist Republic. In fact, Hitler's Nazis gained national prominence with the Brownshirts' attacks on Communists in the streets of Germany.
We all know that it was these competing political ideologies--and their desires to expand and impose those on others--that led to the greatest human tragedies in history. And that it was only the might of the free-market, democratic society of the United States that beat back the dual threats--both in the campaigns of World War II itself--and then in the extended Cold War that saw the Iron Curtain of Socialism descend across half of Europe and spread to much of Asia as well.
An entire generation bore witness to horrors of the twin terrors of Fascism and Socialism and many vowed to never let that happen again. But eventually, the members of that generation aged and passed on. Memories began to fade and the commitment to free-markets and limited government control did too. New generations of both Europeans and Americans--with no first-hand experience of the Nazi or Soviet models started to rise to power--bringing with them ideas first espoused by Karl Marx that seemed hip and new again. Soon "socialist democracies" began to sprout in Europe--with all the "benefits" of Socialism--without the Soviet-style gulag system and death squads.
And as long as Germans were taking care of Germans and the French were taking care of the French, it appeared that Socialism was going to work. But then came the new wave of immigrants--first from Africa and then from the Middle East--and some of those who had heartily endorsed the high taxes and limited freedoms began to question why those spoils should be shard with those who are not "German" or "French"--and the Fascists began to find their footing for their inevitable return.
We here in the US had enjoyed a long immunity from such political forces. Even until 20-years ago Socialists were just union leaders, hippies that smoked pot and ran co-ops and crazy old men that sounded exactly like Bernie Sanders standing on street corners yelling about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Fascists were a dozen losers that dressed up in Nazi costumes and waved swastika flags in the park on Hitler's birthday every year. But bolstered by efforts in our education system, Socialism has become the hip new thing in US politics as well--with more young people today preferring that system over free-markets. Add in the battles over socialized medicine and control of thoughts and words so as not to "offend" anyone, plus the push to eliminate long-held constitutional rights--and you have sown the seeds for the inevitable rise of Fascism, even here in the US.
And that is the path we are now facing. The question is, where are the people that are willing to fight for freedom going to come from this time?
While the two social and political ideologies are placed on opposite ends of a straight-line "spectrum", it would be more apropos to see political thought in a circular form--thereby putting the two right next to each other--for they are truly not that far apart. Both believe in a strong, centralized government that controls many of the aspects of citizens' lives. Where they differ is who should be feared when it comes to disturbing the social order. In Socialism, that blame lies with the rich and the elite. In Fascism, that blame is assigned to those that do not share a common racial, societal or religious history. It is no coincidence that the Fascism that overtook Italy, Germany, Spain and the Baltics in the build up to World War II came in direct response to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the growing strength of the Soviet Socialist Republic. In fact, Hitler's Nazis gained national prominence with the Brownshirts' attacks on Communists in the streets of Germany.
We all know that it was these competing political ideologies--and their desires to expand and impose those on others--that led to the greatest human tragedies in history. And that it was only the might of the free-market, democratic society of the United States that beat back the dual threats--both in the campaigns of World War II itself--and then in the extended Cold War that saw the Iron Curtain of Socialism descend across half of Europe and spread to much of Asia as well.
An entire generation bore witness to horrors of the twin terrors of Fascism and Socialism and many vowed to never let that happen again. But eventually, the members of that generation aged and passed on. Memories began to fade and the commitment to free-markets and limited government control did too. New generations of both Europeans and Americans--with no first-hand experience of the Nazi or Soviet models started to rise to power--bringing with them ideas first espoused by Karl Marx that seemed hip and new again. Soon "socialist democracies" began to sprout in Europe--with all the "benefits" of Socialism--without the Soviet-style gulag system and death squads.
And as long as Germans were taking care of Germans and the French were taking care of the French, it appeared that Socialism was going to work. But then came the new wave of immigrants--first from Africa and then from the Middle East--and some of those who had heartily endorsed the high taxes and limited freedoms began to question why those spoils should be shard with those who are not "German" or "French"--and the Fascists began to find their footing for their inevitable return.
We here in the US had enjoyed a long immunity from such political forces. Even until 20-years ago Socialists were just union leaders, hippies that smoked pot and ran co-ops and crazy old men that sounded exactly like Bernie Sanders standing on street corners yelling about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Fascists were a dozen losers that dressed up in Nazi costumes and waved swastika flags in the park on Hitler's birthday every year. But bolstered by efforts in our education system, Socialism has become the hip new thing in US politics as well--with more young people today preferring that system over free-markets. Add in the battles over socialized medicine and control of thoughts and words so as not to "offend" anyone, plus the push to eliminate long-held constitutional rights--and you have sown the seeds for the inevitable rise of Fascism, even here in the US.
And that is the path we are now facing. The question is, where are the people that are willing to fight for freedom going to come from this time?
Monday, October 29, 2018
Who's the Star Here
After three high-profile campaign appearances by heavy hitters in both political parties, I have to wonder what, if anything, our Wisconsin candidates gained from them. Ostensibly, the visits from Senator Bernie Sanders, President Donald Trump and former President Barack Obama were supposed to boost their parties' respective candidates--but if anything, they magnified some weaknesses--and only served to boost the "big name" instead.
We started last week with the Bernie Sanders appearance in Milwaukee--held on a college campus. Tony Evers did not appear at this rally--although those there were encouraged to vote for him too. Tammy Baldwin gave her usual speech in her "I'm your mother and I'm very disappointed in you" tone--with half-hearted attempts from the crowd to whip up some cheers. Then Bernie took the stage to thunderous applause from the college kids. He took a few minutes to attack Governor Scott Walker and to tell everyone what a great ally Senator Baldwin is--then he launched into his promoting his own "Medicare For All" program (which Senator Baldwin has distanced herself from on the campaign trail) and his desire to raise taxes on the rich (which Baldwin has also underplayed). Then he leaves the stage to chants of "Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!" and you wonder, whose campaign rally was this?
Then came the President's appearance in Mosinee. House Speaker Paul Ryan had to ask for quiet while trying to condemn the mailing of bombs to high-profile Democrats around the country--but the Trump crowd would have none of it. Governor Walker gave his usual stump speech putting a rosy hue on everything going on in Wisconsin and got a relatively warm response. State Senator Leah Vukmir then took the stage and delivered her usual "I'm your mother and I'm very upset with you" speech. And then it was time for the President to arrive (a half-hour late). He reminded everyone that he beat Scott Walker in the race for the Republican nomination in 2016. He mispronounced Tony Evers' name and Vukmir's name--TWICE (chuckling about it)--and then launched into a rambling speech about Democrats, some building that he built really cheap, his accomplishments and of course, how the media lies about him all the time. It was all met with thunderous applause and he returned to Air Force One with the music blasting so loud that people had to cover their ears.
Former President Barack Obama wrapped up the week with a stop at a Milwaukee high school. Senator Baldwin was there again playing the "disappointed mom". Tony Evers showed up for this one, delivering his rousing stump speech that reminds everyone of a tenured college professor teaching a 100-level class for the 35th year. (Kudos for the National Rifle Association for calling Evers' campaign "sleepy" in their TV ad). And then out came President Obama getting everyone fired up and ready to go. He too bashed Governor Walker and then he also mispronounced Tony Evers' name--before reminding everyone of the all the "great things" that he accomplished. I'm sure everyone in attendance was ready to vote for a third Obama term--but weren't quite as excited as for the candidates that are actually on the ballot.
There's an old adage in show business "Never work with kids or animals"--because they will always upstage you. Perhaps state candidates should add "national party stars" to that list.
We started last week with the Bernie Sanders appearance in Milwaukee--held on a college campus. Tony Evers did not appear at this rally--although those there were encouraged to vote for him too. Tammy Baldwin gave her usual speech in her "I'm your mother and I'm very disappointed in you" tone--with half-hearted attempts from the crowd to whip up some cheers. Then Bernie took the stage to thunderous applause from the college kids. He took a few minutes to attack Governor Scott Walker and to tell everyone what a great ally Senator Baldwin is--then he launched into his promoting his own "Medicare For All" program (which Senator Baldwin has distanced herself from on the campaign trail) and his desire to raise taxes on the rich (which Baldwin has also underplayed). Then he leaves the stage to chants of "Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!" and you wonder, whose campaign rally was this?
Then came the President's appearance in Mosinee. House Speaker Paul Ryan had to ask for quiet while trying to condemn the mailing of bombs to high-profile Democrats around the country--but the Trump crowd would have none of it. Governor Walker gave his usual stump speech putting a rosy hue on everything going on in Wisconsin and got a relatively warm response. State Senator Leah Vukmir then took the stage and delivered her usual "I'm your mother and I'm very upset with you" speech. And then it was time for the President to arrive (a half-hour late). He reminded everyone that he beat Scott Walker in the race for the Republican nomination in 2016. He mispronounced Tony Evers' name and Vukmir's name--TWICE (chuckling about it)--and then launched into a rambling speech about Democrats, some building that he built really cheap, his accomplishments and of course, how the media lies about him all the time. It was all met with thunderous applause and he returned to Air Force One with the music blasting so loud that people had to cover their ears.
Former President Barack Obama wrapped up the week with a stop at a Milwaukee high school. Senator Baldwin was there again playing the "disappointed mom". Tony Evers showed up for this one, delivering his rousing stump speech that reminds everyone of a tenured college professor teaching a 100-level class for the 35th year. (Kudos for the National Rifle Association for calling Evers' campaign "sleepy" in their TV ad). And then out came President Obama getting everyone fired up and ready to go. He too bashed Governor Walker and then he also mispronounced Tony Evers' name--before reminding everyone of the all the "great things" that he accomplished. I'm sure everyone in attendance was ready to vote for a third Obama term--but weren't quite as excited as for the candidates that are actually on the ballot.
There's an old adage in show business "Never work with kids or animals"--because they will always upstage you. Perhaps state candidates should add "national party stars" to that list.
Thursday, October 25, 2018
S%*t's Getting Real
I hope everyone realizes what happened this week. We saw attempted widespread political assassination on a scale not seen since John Wilkes Booth shot President Abraham Lincoln at Ford's Theater, while his conspirators tried to kill Vice President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William Seward all on the same night. That was done with the misguided belief that it would resurrect the Confederacy and bring down the Federal Government.
We don't yet know what the motive was for the distribution of pipe bombs to billionaire activist George Soros, President Bill Clinton and Former First Lady Hillary Clinton, Former Attorney General Eric Holder, Former Democratic National Committee Chairperson Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Congresswoman Maxine Waters. We do know that each of them has been singled out for criticism and mockery by President Donald Trump and all of the talking heads at Fox News Channel.
While the President addressed the attempted attacks during his rally in Mosinee last night, he lacked the strong statement that would actually condemn the actions of what appears to be one of his supporters. And he certainly did not accept any blame for the current tone of modern politics. I did notice there was no mention of "Pocahontas" or "Crooked Hillary" or "Horseface" at last night's rally--but there was still chants of "lock her up" before the event. The President's strongest condemnation last night was for the media for being the one's getting everyone riled up.
Will the pipe bomb scares bring us all to the realization that a serious cooling off period is needed in our national political dialogue? Will all-out efforts to demonize and destroy political opponents return to the much more productive presentation of platforms and discussion of real issues? Unfortunately it will not--as the timing of the attempted attacks could not have been any worse. Breathless coverage of the news and discussion of the ideas that I just mentioned were interrupted across the country by continuous attack ads for the mid-term elections that don't build up any candidates but rather make their opponents out to be enemies of the state and people that need to be stopped by any means necessary--like sending them pipe bombs in the mail.
Once we are done tearing each other apart in the lead up to November 6th, on November 7th check out the new book by my candidate for President in 2020, Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse entitled Them: Why We Hate Each Other—and How to Heal. It's a thoughtful examination on how we got to the point that someone would send explosives in an effort to kill the critics of "his President"--and a whole bunch of people would wish that it had been successful--and how we can get back to being "Americans" again.
We don't yet know what the motive was for the distribution of pipe bombs to billionaire activist George Soros, President Bill Clinton and Former First Lady Hillary Clinton, Former Attorney General Eric Holder, Former Democratic National Committee Chairperson Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Congresswoman Maxine Waters. We do know that each of them has been singled out for criticism and mockery by President Donald Trump and all of the talking heads at Fox News Channel.
While the President addressed the attempted attacks during his rally in Mosinee last night, he lacked the strong statement that would actually condemn the actions of what appears to be one of his supporters. And he certainly did not accept any blame for the current tone of modern politics. I did notice there was no mention of "Pocahontas" or "Crooked Hillary" or "Horseface" at last night's rally--but there was still chants of "lock her up" before the event. The President's strongest condemnation last night was for the media for being the one's getting everyone riled up.
Will the pipe bomb scares bring us all to the realization that a serious cooling off period is needed in our national political dialogue? Will all-out efforts to demonize and destroy political opponents return to the much more productive presentation of platforms and discussion of real issues? Unfortunately it will not--as the timing of the attempted attacks could not have been any worse. Breathless coverage of the news and discussion of the ideas that I just mentioned were interrupted across the country by continuous attack ads for the mid-term elections that don't build up any candidates but rather make their opponents out to be enemies of the state and people that need to be stopped by any means necessary--like sending them pipe bombs in the mail.
Once we are done tearing each other apart in the lead up to November 6th, on November 7th check out the new book by my candidate for President in 2020, Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse entitled Them: Why We Hate Each Other—and How to Heal. It's a thoughtful examination on how we got to the point that someone would send explosives in an effort to kill the critics of "his President"--and a whole bunch of people would wish that it had been successful--and how we can get back to being "Americans" again.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)