The Shape Of Things To Come?

The other day, I wrote a post about how NBC Nightly News was attacked by Donald Trump via his weapon of choice, Twitter, a perhaps apt mechanism given the president-elect's incapacity for sustained thought or discourse.

But NBC is hardly the only media outlet in his sights. His latest is an attack on Vanity Fair in retaliation for a scathing review of a restaurant in the lobby of Trump Tower called Trump Grill. This excerpt probably set the Orange One off:

“The allure of Trump’s restaurant, like the candidate, is that it seems like a cheap version of rich,” Tina Nguyen wrote, saying the restaurant “reveals everything you need to know about our next president.”

That seems to have led to this retaliatory tantrum:

"Has anyone looked at the really poor numbers of @VanityFair Magazine," Trump tweeted Thursday morning.

"Way down, big trouble, dead! Graydon Carter, no talent, will be out!"

At one time, being personally and/or professionally attacked by an incoming president would have been a shocking notion to all but the most rabid among us. Now, I fear, it will simply become a common and expected feature of a Trump presidency, one that may have long term consequences.

At a time when mainstream media are losing their cachet and readership, will they have the determination and integrity to continue being the guardians of democracy, or will they mutate, as some already have, into a kind of Praetorian Guard for this strange new emperor of the American Empire? The signs are not entirely promising.

Sarah Kendzior offers some unsettling thoughts on the question:

According to reporter Daniel Dale, Mr. Trump told at least 560 lies during the course of his campaign. Some lies are audacious in that they are easily disproven – for example, when Mr. Trump claimed he did not tell U.S. citizens to “check out a sex tape” after tweeting to them to do so. Flagrant lying is a hallmark of despotism. It sends the message that one should not bother speaking truth to power when power is the only truth. It implies that the teller of the lie defines reality, no matter what evidence there is to the contrary, including the liar’s own words.

It is that later sentence that gives one pause, since the MSM are becoming part of the problem:

... as inauguration looms, Mr. Trump’s team may not have to work too hard to keep the U.S. press in line. U.S. journalists, always his greatest ally due to corporate collaboration and fear of retaliation, [emphasis mine] are already mainstreaming the Trump administration’s most inflammatory ideas. To read the U.S. media today is to see a CNN debate on whether Jews are people, the Associated Press falsely tweet that the KKK has disavowed white supremacy, and countless mainstream media puff pieces on neo-Nazis that focus more on their fashion sense than their fascist beliefs.

Will mainstream media thus become normalizers and apologists for the incoming demagogue? If the following is any indicator, there is much to be concerned about:

Donald Trump's campaign struck a deal with Sinclair Broadcast Group during the campaign to try and secure better media coverage, his son-in-law Jared Kushner told business executives Friday in Manhattan.

Kushner said the agreement with Sinclair, which owns television stations across the country in many swing states and often packages news for their affiliates to run, gave them more access to Trump and the campaign, according to six people who heard his remarks.

The price of this access, it appears, was steep:

In exchange, Sinclair would broadcast their Trump interviews across the country without commentary.

And what about those outlets that insisted upon calling their own shots?

Kushner ... told the business executives that the campaign was upset with CNN because they considered its on-air panels stacked against Trump. He added that he personally talked with Jeff Zucker about changing the composition of the panels but Zucker refused. He repeatedly said in the panel that CNN wasn't "moving the needle" and wasn't important as it once was, according to three of the people present.

The campaign then decided not to work as closely with CNN, and Trump ramped up his bashing of the cable network.

So will this be the shape of things to come? Will the unofficial fiat be, "Play ball with the Trump administration or be denied access?"

I think I know the answer to the above. What I don't know is how many media outlets will opt to save, not sell, their souls.

And Speaking of Our Post-Truth World

Yesterday's post dealt with the challenges real journalism faces in this era of presidential prevarications and attacks on the media.

The following video, via Mother Jones, shows what critical thinkers everywhere have to contend with.



Considering the above, we, as a species, clearly have little to be arrogant about.

Surviving In A Post-Truth World

Reading my morning paper, the Toronto Star, I came across a notice to subscribers that rates are once again increasing. As part of what is frequently referred to as their 'legacy readers," I am not happy about this, but I will continue with my subscription, despite the fact that I have full access to a complete digital version of it and hundreds of other papers through my local library via its Press Display service.

Why? First of all, I much prefer the print version of anything I read, but secondly, and more importantly, it is only through a steady income stream that newspapers can fulfill their traditional roles as safeguards of our democracy.

And lord knows that we need those safeguards, especially given the explosion of fake news sites, some of which may have influenced the U.S. election, not to mention the attacks on traditional media much in evidence these days, instigated, aided and abetted by demagogues like Donald Trump. Consider this:



The above campaign rally brought out this observation from the New York Times:

...even reporters long accustomed to the toxic fervor of Trump rallies were startled — and even frightened — at the vitriol of a Cincinnati crowd on Thursday evening as more than 15,000 supporters flashed homemade signs, flipped middle fingers and lashed out in tirades often laced with profanity as journalists made their way to a crammed, fenced-in island in the center of the floor.

Or how about this scene from another rally?



Last week, veteran journalist Christiane Amanpour was given an award honouring her for her extraordinary and sustained achievement in the cause of press freedom. Her acceptance speech, which you can see here, expressed her concerns over this kind of pillorying, a concern that the CBC's Diana Swain discussed with her:



It would not be wrong to conclude that the mainstream media, through a combination of laziness, obedience to corporate imperatives and frequent abandonment of their sacred responsibilities, deserve criticism. But it would be wrong to conclude that they no longer have a place in informing the public through deep research, factual renditions of stories and fearless resistance to the pressures from unhinged members of the public, opportunistic, manipulative politicos and feckless employers.

I shall continue to do my part in trying to realize the above ideal by paying for the paper I most trust. I leave you with the reflections of a Star letter-writer, who recognizes the challenges facing traditional media today:

Journalist Christiane Amanpour’s address last week to the Committee to Protect Journalists in New York is extremely relevant. The need for the mainstream media to re-commit to an unwavering role in delivering pure facts is more important now than ever.

Some news outlets may have been more committed to delivering facts than others. So it’s up to readers, viewers and listeners to decide where they get their information.

But too many, it seems, have relied over the past year or more on social media. Donald Trump aside, this has been a very dangerous trend. And dwindling ratings/circulation and news coverage budgets have not helped.

The media have always been under attack from one source or other, but never to the degree that we’re seeing now. And it’s not only from Trump. While re-dedicating themselves to ever-higher standards, media will now have to reinvent themselves to deal with what social media is pumping out in the form of fake news (to which Trump has been just one major contributor).

Some social media may also have learned some lessons from this and may have accepted responsibility, as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg recently acknowledged.

Amanpour asked a very good question off the top. What would Ed Murrow do? Fifty-one years after his death, the iconic CBS newsman is still regarded by a (admittedly-dwindling) number of reporters as a leading light in truthful, gutsy, advocacy journalism. He took on an earlier narcissist sociopath in the 1950s by the name of McCarthy – and won. Joe McCarthy self-destructed within months.

Nobody – doubtless including himself – knows what will happen with a Trump presidency. As we know, he’s already reversed himself on several issues, probably thanks to prevailing wisdom that has eked its way through to the Trump Tower. He may, in fact, moderate his attitude about mainstream media, as well. Who knows?

But the same media are going to have to figure out how to deal with this guy in, one hopes, some constructive way. And Trump will be forever totally unpredictable.

Amanpour’s warnings are critically important at this worrisome time. She has articulated the urgency of the message better than we’ve heard from anyone else to date.

Ian Sutton, Kingston

At The Altar Of Baal

All along, Trump seemed like a twisted caricature of every rotten reflex of the radical right. That he has prevailed, that he has won this election, is a crushing blow to the spirit; it is an event that will likely cast the country into a period of economic, political, and social uncertainty that we cannot yet imagine. That the electorate has, in its plurality, decided to live in Trump’s world of vanity, hate, arrogance, untruth, and recklessness, his disdain for democratic norms, is a fact that will lead, inevitably, to all manner of national decline and suffering.

The above is but one paragraph from a penetrating and, I suspect, prescient, article by David Remnick in the New Yorker. Even if you are feeling sated from Trump coverage, try to make room for this piece, rich as it is in insight and prediction.

What especially resonated with me in the above was Remnick's observation that Trump's election is a crushing blow to the spirit. I doubt that I am alone in feeling both dazed and demoralized by a demagogue's elevation to the highest office in the U.S. When it happened, I felt that a giant middle finger had been offered to all the things that I and most progressives believe in: education, critical thinking, fairness, acceptance and compassion, to name but five. For about two days I was mired in a kind of existentialist funk, wondering what the point was in continuing to write and advocate for the things I value - none of it seemed anything more than an exercise in vanity, catharsis and futility.

But after two days, my perspective changed.

I realized that to stop, to give in to despair, would be to abdicate to all the things that I despise in my life: racism, intolerance, ignorance and profound, willful stupidity. And so the fight continues.

I will take but one more excerpt from the Remnick article to comment upon:

In the coming days, commentators will attempt to normalize this event. They will try to soothe their readers and viewers with thoughts about the “innate wisdom” and “essential decency” of the American people. They will downplay the virulence of the nationalism displayed, the cruel decision to elevate a man who rides in a gold-plated airliner but who has staked his claim with the populist rhetoric of blood and soil. George Orwell, the most fearless of commentators, was right to point out that public opinion is no more innately wise than humans are innately kind. People can behave foolishly, recklessly, self-destructively in the aggregate just as they can individually. Sometimes all they require is a leader of cunning, a demagogue who reads the waves of resentment and rides them to a popular victory. “The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion,” Orwell wrote in his essay “Freedom of the Park.” “The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them.”

We are, of course, already seeing the normalization of Trump, the legitimization, if you will, of a man who inhabits his own universe, at the centre of which is a black hole sucking in values and beliefs that most of us hold as preeminent guidelines to anything approximating a civil society. This normalization would not be possible without the cooperation of what Henry Giroux calls 'a supine media.' A good illustration would be the interview last night on 60 Minutes with the president-elect and his cheering entourage, a.k.a., his family. I did not watch it, but saw a sufficient number of clips touting the interview to get a good sense of it. Soon, some people will be saying, "Trump's not really a bad guy at all."

Another disheartening example of normalization came from a disappointing piece written by Garrison Keilor. While he may not be happy over what the electorate has chosen, his ultimate advice is to take it in stride:

We liberal elitists are now completely in the clear. The government is in Republican hands. Let them deal with him. Democrats can spend four years raising heirloom tomatoes, meditating, reading Jane Austen, traveling around the country, tasting artisan beers, and let the Republicans build the wall and carry on the trade war with China and deport the undocumented and deal with opioids and we Democrats can go for a long brisk walk and smell the roses.

That is something none of us should do. We need, as Michael Moore said the other day, to be resolute and active against all that Trump represents:

“White people, no matter how painful, have a responsibility to reject anybody who stands in front of a camera who spews racism. Who spews sexism, misogyny. Who brags about being a sexual predator. I don’t care what your race is, but especially if you’re white. Because that means that you belong to the race that’s been in power forever. This a country that was founded on genocide and built on the backs of slaves. So you have a special responsibility as a white person to always object to anybody who uses racism, who spews this hatred.”

Donald Trump now has something he has always dreamed of: the adoration of many, the attention of all. What he will never have, I hope, is respect from the people who truly matter to our humanity.

I have no illusions about the reach or efficacy of my little soapbox called a blog. But if it helps me, and perhaps a few others, to penetrate the darkness we are mired in, it is worth it. The alternative is just too frightening to contemplate.

Judicial Bias

I was planning a post different from what I am writing today because of a set of circumstances that occurred yesterday, when a friend on Facebook pointed out an article in the Globe about a Hamilton judge who went to court wearing a Trump cap that read, "Make America Great Again."

Given my own encounter with judicial bias last June involving Justice Antonio Skarica, which I recounted in this blog, I decided to write to the reporters listed on the story to tell them about my experience with Toni Skarica and his t-shirt. I was then called by reporter Sean Fine, who briefly interviewed me on the phone.

Here are some excerpts from the article: The first provides the context:

On Wednesday morning, after the U.S. presidential election, Judge Bernd Zabel of the Ontario Court of Justice in Hamilton wore Mr. Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaign ball cap when he entered his courtroom, a source who was in court told The Globe and Mail. He said the cap signified that it was an historic occasion. He removed the cap and put it on the bench in front of him, the source said, and returned with it after the court’s morning break.

Citing The Globe’s report, law professor Gus Van Harten complained in writing to the Ontario Judicial Council on Friday. He said Judge Zabel’s “childish” conduct cast doubt not only on the fairness of his courtroom but that of the entire Ontario Court of Justice, whose judges sit throughout the province. And he said the judge should at the very least be made to withdraw from cases involving minority groups disparaged by president-elect Trump during the campaign.

Van Harten's disgust and objections mirrored my own when I encountered Skarica:

The case of Ontario Superior Court Justice Antonio Skarica – who wore a Trump “Make America Great Again” T-shirt while out shopping one day last spring – provides an indication of how seriously judicial authorities take such complaints.

Lorne Warwick, a retired teacher from Dundas, Ont., complained to the Canadian Judicial Council, the disciplinary body for federally appointed judges. The CJC referred the complaint to the chair of its conduct committee, Nova Scotia Chief Justice Michael MacDonald. He spoke to Justice Skarica, who told him he had not intended to make a political statement; he had received the T-shirt from his brother and considered it an item of memorabilia. He promised not to wear the shirt in public again, according to a letter from the CJC that Mr. Warwick posted on a blog.

A spokeswoman for the CJC confirmed the authenticity of that letter. “I believe it shows we took the matter seriously, seeking comments from the judge, and carefully considering the matter following Chief Justice MacDonald’s direction,” Johanna Laporte said in an e-mail.

Mr. Warwick said in an interview that he was “astounded” when he and his wife saw Justice Skarica in the Trump T-shirt. “I felt his judgment was very bad.” He said other shoppers who recognized Justice Skarica looked at him “with disgust.” But at least the judge had to account for his “strange behaviour,” he said in his blog post.

I am one who leads a low-key existence and never seek to extol myself or 'build my brand,' as the young are wont to say. However, I write this only as a way to encourage people to keep fighting the good fight, a personal philosophy that I found deeply shaken after the results of Tuesday's presidential election.

I now feel my fighting spirit starting to return.

This Woman Absolutely Disgusts Me

Read this story to see one of the reasons.

Arc d'Trump?

Thanks to Jonathan once again for alerting me to some clips from the 1957 movie, A Face in the Crowd, starring Andy Griffith in a role so diametrically opposed to his later persona as Sheriff Andy Taylor that he seems positively demonic at times. That the director, Elia Kazan, was able to draw the link between television stardom and political power is a testament to his prescience.

I think you will agree that the film eerily echoes the future rise of Donald Trump. Hopefully, a similar downfall ensues.

Somedays, I Don't Have To Write A Thing

Watch this, and you'll see what I mean.

A Remarkable Speech

This lady surely has a future in politics, should she so choose. Her strength, integrity and passion are a beacon in these politically and socially debased times.

UPDATED: Why Is the Mainstream Press Ignoring This Story About Donald Trump?

I was alerted to this story by my friend Jonathan; it is profoundly disturbing, even though, because it involves an alleged rape committed by Donald Trump, it probably should not shock or astound anyone.

Tomorrow, October 14, may be a stressful day for the Republican nominee, in that he has a 10:00 a.m. appointment at the Thurgood Marshall Court House, Lower Manhattan, in response to a suit launched by Katie Johnson, who claims she was raped by Trump in 1994, when she was but 13 years old:



You can view the plaintiff's complete complaint here, but here is the essence of it. The details may not be suitable for everyone:

A federal lawsuit filed in New York accuses Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump of repeatedly raping a 13-year-old girl more than 20 years ago, at several Upper East Side parties hosted by convicted sex offender and notorious billionaire investor Jeffrey Epstein.

The suit, first reported by the Real Deal, accuses Trump and Epstein of luring the anonymous plaintiff and other young women to four parties at Epstein's so-called Wexner Mansion at 9 East 71st Street. Epstein allegedly lured the plaintiff, identified in the suit only as Jane Doe, with promises of a modeling career and cash.

Another anonymous woman, identified in additional testimony as Tiffany Doe, corroborates Jane's allegations, testifying that she met Epstein at Port Authority, where he hired her to recruit other young girls for his parties. Trump had known Epstein for seven years in 1994 when he attended the parties at Wexner, according to the suit. He also allegedly knew that the plaintiff was 13 years old.

Jane Doe filed a similar suit in California in April, under the name Katie Johnson, also accusing Trump and Epstein of rape. That suit was dismissed on the grounds of improper paperwork — the address affiliated with her name was found to be abandoned. Today's suit confirms that the plaintiffs are one and the same.

Here is what allegedly happened, in Johnson's own words:

I traveled by bus to New York City in June 1994 in the hope of starting a modeling career. I went to several modeling agencies but was told that I needed to put together a modeling portfolio before I would be considered. I then went to the Port Authority in New York City to start to make my way back home. There I met a woman who introduced herself to me as Tiffany. She told me about the parties and said that, if I would join her at the parties, I would be introduced to people who could get me into the modeling profession. Tiffany also told me I would be paid for attending.

The parties were held at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Each of the parties had other minor females and a number of guests of Mr. Epstein, including Defendant Donald Trump at four of the parties I attended. I understood that both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein knew I was 13 years old.

Defendant Trump had sexual contact with me at four different parties in the summer of 1994. On the fourth and fnial sexual encounter with Defendant Trump, Defendant Trump tied me to a bed, exposed himself to me, and then proceeded to forcibly rape me. During the course of this savage sexual attack, I loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to stop but he did not. Defendant Trump responded to my pleas by violently striking me in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted,

Immediately following this rape, Defendant Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details of Defendant Trump's sexual and physical abuse of me, my family and I wold be physically harmed if not killed.

Here is a video statement Johnson made:



The filing also includes a statement by Tiffany Doe, the woman who brought Johnson to the party:

I personally witnessed four sexual encounters that the Plaintiff was forced to have with Mr. Trump during this period, including the fourth of these encounters where Mr. Trump forcibly raped her despite her pleas to stop.

I personally witnessed the one occasion where Mr. Trump forced the Plaintiff and a 12-year-old female named Maria [to] perform oral sex on Mr. Trump and witnessed his physical abuse of both minors when they finished the act.

It was my job to personally witness and supervise encounters between the underage girls that Mr. Epstein hired and his guests.

It is important to note that Jeffrey Epstein, also named in the suit and the host of the party, is a registered sex offender who has faced a series of such allegations, and was convicted in 2008 of sex with an underage girl. Unfortunately, owing to his powerful connections, he 'served a one-year term under house arrest at his Palm Beach home.

The entire story sickens me, but you can read further details in the links provided. However, it seems to me that the larger story is the strange quiescence of the mainstream media. Surely this is a story that deserves the full attention and scrutiny of all American voters.

UPDATE: Thanks to Dana for providing a link to The Guardian, which sheds some light on why the mainstream media may be reluctant to report on this suit.

It's Official: Trump Won The Debate

So declares America's favourite crazed evangelical, Pat Robertson. Presumably, his assessment came from on high.

The Canadian Judicial Council Responds To My Complaint

Regular readers of this blog may recall a post I wrote this past June about an unsettling experience I had at a local grocery story. It was there that my wife and I witnessed the shocking and distasteful behaviour of Ontario Superior Court of Justice Antonio (Toni) Skarica, who was proudly sportng a pro-Trump t-shirt that read, Donald Trump - Make America Great Again - 2016.

Given the rules of impartiality that govern justices in this country, I wrote a letter of complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council describing the experience in full. Since some of the content of that letter is included in the Council's decision, I will not reproduce it here, but what follows is the Council's response to my complaint, which was delayed because they also required that my wife write a letter attesting to the fact that it was indeed Skarica before they deigned to investigate.

In converting this letter from the PDF original, some of the formatting was lost; I have done my best to restore it here:

Personal and Confidential

CJC File: 16-0160

2 September 2016

Dear Mr Warwick:

I am responding to your correspondence dated 12 June 2016 in which you make a complaint against the Honourable Antonio Skarica of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario.

In accordance with the Review Procedures of the Canadian Judicial Council (Council) I referred your letter to the Honourable J. Michael MacDonald, Chief Justice of Nova Scotia and Chairperson of the Judicial Conduct Committee. Chief Justice MacDonald requested comments from Justice Skarica and from the Honourable Heather J. Smith, Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario. After carefully reviewing your complaint, Chief Justice MacDonald has directed me to provide you with this response.

The mandate of the Council in matters of judicial conduct is to determine whether a recommendation should be made to the Minister of Justice, after a formal investigation, that a judge be removed from office by Parliament. The reasons for removal are set out in the Judges Act and address situations where a judge has become incapacitated or disabled from performing the duties of a judge. This can be as a result of age or infirmity, misconduct, a failure to execute the duties of the position, or being in a position incompatible with the functions of a judge.

It is important to note that the Councll is not a court and cannot intervene in the court process.

In your correspondence, you indicate that you saw Justice Skarica wearing a t-shirt promoting Donald Trump’s candidacy and that you were both shocked and appalled. You
allege that Justice Skarica is clearly advocating for a man who is a serial liar, racist and demagogue, which raises a number of concerns. You ask how can a man who embraces a politician opposed to Muslims and Mexicans, a man who believes in dividing society into 'winners and losers,' be seen as an impartial arbiter of human lives as he renders judgment on them from the bench.

In commenting the complaint, Justice Skarica indicates that he has not endorsed Mr Trump either publicly or privately in any way and does not know him. Justice Skarica has not contributed any monies to his campaign either directly or indirectly. He has not been involved in the Trump campaign in any manner whatsoever. He writes that he is, however, a student of history and on occasion, have collected memorabilia items over the years that he considers to be turning points in history. It is in that context that Justice Skarica received the t-shirt from his brother who had visited Washington. It was never Justice Skarica’s intention to make the shirt a standard part of his wardrobe but rather to keep it as an item of memorabilia. At one point, Justice Skarica put the shirt on earlier in the day to show a friend and later that day went shopping without thinking too much about it. He does not intend to wear the t-shirt in public in any meaningful way. Moreover, Justice Skarica vehemently denies any suggestion that he is racist.

Chief Justice MacDonald notes that Council’s publication Ethical Principles for Judges provides that judges should refrain from conduct such as membership in groups or organizations or participation in public discussion which, in the mind of a reasonable, fair minded and informed person, would undermine confidence in a judge’s impartiality with respect to issues that could come before the courts. The issue is therefore the extent of the involvement of Justice Skarica in Donald Trump’s campaign to the US presidency, if any, and whether it could reasonably “put in question the judge’s impartiality on an issue that could come before the court.”

First, Chief Justice MacDonald advises that impartiality is key to the judicial process and is presumed. As pointed out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Cojocaru v. British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Centre case, this presumption of impartiality carries considerable weight, and the law does not easily evoke the possibility of bias in a judge, whose authority depends upon that presumption. Second, Chief Justice MacDonald is satisfied with the response of Justice Skarica indicating that he has no involvement whatsoever with Mr Trump or the Republican, that he has not contributed any monies to his campaign either directly or indirectly, and that he is not involved in any way, shape or form in Donald Trump’s campaign for the US presidency. Chief Justice MacDonald also accepts that Justice Skarica has no intention of wearing this or similar shirts in public again. Chief Justice MacDonald is therefore satisfied that there is nothing that could put in question Justice Skarica's impartiality on an issue that could come before his court. Chief Justice MacDonald concludes that your complaint is unfounded. Chief Justice MacDonald is of the view that the issues you raise do not warrant further consideration by the Canadian Judicial Council pursuant to its mandate under the Judges Act. Accordingly, he has directed me to close your file with this reply.

Yours sincerely,

Norman Sabourin
Executive Director and Senior General Council

While I did not really expect a result different from the decision rendered by the Canadian Judicial Council, I am gratified that at least justice Skarica had to account for his strange behaviour, and I think it is safe to say he has learned a valuable lesson from my complaint. I think it likely that henceforth, the Trump t-shirt will be brought out only for gatherings of close family and ultra-conservative friends.

UPDATED: I Know It Is Unseemly To Make Fun Of The Stupid

.... but sometimes I lack self-control.



UPDATE: Thanks to The Mound, for sending me the link to this video:

Guest Commentary On Trump's Supporters

Receiving and responding to the comments of thoughtful and well-informed people is one of the reasons I maintain this blog. Yesterday I put up a post entitled, How Stupid Are Trump Supporters? It featured a Hulu show in which a convener pretends to be conducting a focus group study into the effectiveness of ads Trump is considering for his campaign. In light of comments from The Mound of Sound and Pamela MacNeil, I realize that mine was a superficial effort at best. I am therefore taking the liberty of reposting their insights, and my responses to them, here.

First, The Mound of Sound:

I think, Lorne, that a large segment of any people fed a constant diet of half-truths and outright falsehoods will eventually succumb.

I regularly write how the corporate media cartel has gone from watchdog of government to government's lap dog, especially when the government is right wing. Here's an example. When Dion and Layton were toying with the idea of a coalition majority government to displace a Harper minority, Canada's corporate media cartel spread the idea that this would be a constitutional coup d'etat, fiendish, the end of democracy. It was an outright lie. In fact that was how Harper's then BFF, John Howard, formed his government. As this utter lie circulated I was surprised at how many people I spoke with believed it.

Years ago 60 Minutes ran a segment about the Republican misinformation machine. Two key Repugs behind it openly described the system used to gain public acceptance of complete falsehood. It progressed through three stages.

The first stage was the open mouth radio shows - Limbaugh and others. They would float a rumour such as the stories about John Kerry's service in VietNam. From there it would be picked up by cable news - FOX in particular, first on their opinion shows (Hannity/O'Reilly) before migrating to the news department. Eventually it worked its way through the cable news milieu.

What began with the Limbaugh-bottom dwellers achieved a critical mass as it became established in cable news. From there it reached a point where the mainstream media - NYT,WaPo - could no longer ignore it and had to run the story or appear out of it. This was the formula used for the effective SwiftBoating of John Kerry.

The public, meanwhile, kept hearing the same lie over and over through progressively credible news services until they were getting it from the gold standard news outlets at the very top. Naturally many of them were conditioned to believe it.

The whole process is an insult to democracy, one that can quickly fester into something far worse.

Lies and half-truths are powerful weapons the unscrupulous wield invariably against their own. They use it to set the hook with those somewhat disposed to support them. Invariably they bait their hooks with generous amounts of fear and appeals to their prey's basest instincts. Harper did it. It works. We had a decade to see that in action.

My response:

Thanks for your in-depth analysis here, Mound. The failure of the media is manifest. In Dan Rather's memoir, he recounts something very similar happening around the time that he incurred right-wing wrath over calling out George Bush's military record. There was irrefutable proof that Bush was AWOL for a year, but the fledgling Internet quoted an early blogger (who was, in fact, a Republican operative) focusing on a particular document that must have been false because, he alleged, proportional spacing did not exist on the typewriters of that time. Proportional spacing did, in fact, exist, but once this blogger's words were in the air, it became a 'fact' that the document was false. The proof? The blogger's allegation and nothing more. It took off from there, ultimately resulting in Rather's dismissal from CBS.

Now, Pamela MacNeil:

No presidential candidate in any past campaign has ever intentionally focused on these people. Whether it was democrats or Republicans these people were not even a thought in the minds of either candidates.Trump has given them life and continues to manipulate them under the disguise of fighting for them.

Trump has made them believe, many for the first time in their lives ,that what they think and what they have to say matters.
They are not aware that now that they are visible, we are witnessing how pathetic they really are.Stupid yes, but pathetically so.

I almost feel sorry for them when I see them responding to the attention they get from Trump and his team. Something they have lived their whole lives without.

These guys have been ignored and dismissed politically, socially and culturally their whole lives. Now their being asked what they think. Living at the bottom of the intellectual ladder, this a moment where they think they can shine in an all too dreary life.

Listening and watching them is cringe worthy. Now they have been able collectively as Trump supporters to come together as a force. They are also an example of Mounds posting the other day on authoritarianism existing with the people not just their politicians, even when they are the mindless and the powerless.

I wonder what their numbers are.

My response:

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Pamela. I think you have identified a very important reason for Trump's support. While I have reacted largely with contempt to his acolytes, seeing them simply as responding to the racism he regularly appeals to, you have looked for a deeper underlying motivation.

How Stupid Are Trump Supporters?

If you watch this, the answer should become abundantly clear in about three minutes:

A Childish Recantation

That is the only conclusion I can draw from the fact that in at least temporarily acquiescing to the demands of Republican orthodoxy, Donald Trump makes a conspicuous display of reading notes instead of using a teleprompter or speaking extemporaneously as he 'endorses' people he still has a score to settle with. The message to his true believers? "Folks, I don't really mean what I am saying."

Take a look at the following clip to see what I mean:

Past His Best-Before Date

While I have long admired the film work of Clint Eastwood, his politics are a profound disappointment. Despite his advanced years (he is 86), I am unprepared to excuse him for this:

Clint Eastwood has stopped short of endorsing Donald Trump, but in an interview in Esquire magazine he praised the Republican presidential candidate for being “on to something.”

In the interview posted online Wednesday, the actor-director hailed Trump as a foe of political correctness and lamented what he called “the kiss-ass generation.”

“Everybody’s walking on eggshells,” said Eastwood, 86. “We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist.”

No, Clint, I guess when you were growing up in that storied American past, people knew their places, eh?

Oh well, at least he doesn't appear to be talking to empty chairs these days.

News From Dystopia

We interrupt this program to bring you important news. But please remember, as Johnny Carson used to say, "I merely report these things, folks. I don't make them up.

The Colorado Springs fire marshal gave a measured response after being attacked by GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump for not allowing his rally to get unsafely overcrowded.

Trump lashed out at Colorado Springs Fire Marshal Brett Lacey at his Friday rally, blaming him for the fact that not everyone who held tickets to the event could get inside — but Lacey said that was because rally organizers gave out too many tickets. The hall at University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, where the rally was held, holds a maximum capacity of 1,500 — and Lacey allowed 100 more inside after evaluating the crowd.

“The reason they won’t let them in is because they don’t know what the hell they’re doing,” Trump said Friday. “Now because of your fire marshal, who I am not a fan of, he’s probably a Democrat, probably a guy than doesn’t get it, I’m going to go into the other room and say hello to people that didn’t get your location.”

This came after Colorado Springs firefighters rescued Trump and about ten others from a stalled elevator just before his speech by prying open the top and lowering a ladder, according to KKTV.

Lacey responded by simply saying it is his job to make sure everyone is safe at such events.

“There’s an old adage that when a fire marshal walks into a room, milk curdles,” he told the station. “So because we’re always looking out for public safety and trying to make certain venues go off successfully and safely sometimes there are people that aren’t very happy with some of the rules and regulations that we’re required to enforce. But it doesn’t bother me at all.”

Lacey recently received recognition from the city for helping the wounded after the 2015 mass shooting at Planned Parenthood.

All Grown Up

But more of a menace than ever.

Looking Into The Abyss: A Guest Post By Pamela MacNeil

Yesterday, my post consisted of three letters culled from a larger series by Star readers reflecting on the dire state of both the U.S. Republican Party and American society. Pamela MacNeil, always an insightful commentator, offered some very interesting observations about both. I am featuring them here as a guest post:

I listened to a JFK speech the other day Lorne. If you're interested, you can find it at #NoWar2016 and what Kennedy said, WorldBeyondWar.org. Some people consider it his greatest speech and some even think it's what contributed to his assassination.

The speech was about PEACE. Why do I bring this up? Strictly for contrasts. Compare this speech with Trump's nomination speech. Implicitly, both speeches are a reflection of American culture. Kennedy's speech reflects a culture that was serious about ideas, where an intelligent President could articulate how a viable option of peace over the cold war could be achieved. Trumps speech reflects a culture that is intellectually and morally bankrupt. It contains no serious ideas and in fact sounds more like something that would be said at a marketing or business meeting. More importantly it reveals a culture not only in decline, but a culture intellectually having reached rock bottom where all that dominates is faith and force. American culture has gone from the political sophistication and the pursuit of progressive ideals of a JFK to the anti-intellectual rhetoric and sleaze of a Donald Trump.

The GOP with its Evangelical and neoliberal beliefs reflects a culture of power and entitlement. They do not bring anything beneficial to the table for the average American. They are political zombies. Having no political ideas, they need a leader who reflects that lack. Anyone with political substance and intelligence, or even common sense, would completely avoid the GOP. They would feel embarrassed to be associated with this mindless group called the GOP. Donald Trump feels no such embarrassment.

Do Americans ever wonder why they once had an intellectually sophisticated president such as JFK and now have a presidential candidate whose character is that of a P.T. Barnum barker?

Who is responsible for the American cultural and political destruction? Why have Americans stood by and watched their governments, both Democrats and Republicans, turn their country into an ignorant war monger that wants to dominate the world?

Going from a political culture under JFK to a political culture under Trump is like going from super sonic jet travel back to the horse and buggy.

An empire in decline and with its nuclear weapons one that could take the rest of the world with it.

Americans don't seem to know it, but they are looking into a cultural abyss.