What Do Other Republicans Think Of Team Trump?

My wife suggested I take a look at a 'mainstream' Republican site, and this is what I found:

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Conway railed against those who had pointed out her “alternative facts” comment, as she defended White House press secretary, Sean Spicer.

Said Conway:

“Who is cleaning house? Which one is going to be the first network to get rid of these people, the people who think things were just not true?” Conway asked on “Fox News Sunday.”

It’s as if Conway’s sole purpose, these days, is to put out fires and make sure somebody within the Trump camp is attacking the media, at all times.

“Not one network person has been let go. Not one silly political analyst and pundit who talked smack all day long about Donald Trump has been let go,” she added. “I’m too polite to mention their names, but they know who they are, and they are all wondering who will be the first to go. The election was three months ago. None of them have been let go.”

What is she talking about?

Is it her position that only those who have praised Trump should be allowed to speak?

It’s been an ongoing thing with Trump and his people versus the media.

I’ve said it here before, and I will continue to say it: When you have a leader who wants to be the source and sole voice the people hear from, you should worry.

And perhaps Team Trump might find it has underestimated some of its fellow Republicans, at least just a little bit.

Is Trumpland Prepared To Pay?

As the crazed Orange Ogre continues bringing his campaign screeds to fruition, his most ardent supporters will have to be prepared to put their money where their mouths are, both literally and figuratively. And although we are quickly moving into a euphemistically phrased 'post-fact' era, the Trump apparatchik, in their current anti-Mexico incarnation, will face real challenges in attempting to spin away some cold economic facts that go well beyond merely paying more for products of Mexican origin, if a 20% tariff is imposed:

A Proud Moment

Despite my frequent criticisms of the Trudeau government, this move by the Prime Minister makes me proud to be a Canadian:

Revisionism Run Amok

I have written ten previous posts about Chris Spence. the disgraced former Director of the Toronto District School Board, whose fall from professional grace was caused by his serial plagiarism. I hope readers will indulge me for my eleventh post, this one in response to a risible attempt at resurrecting his career.

When I taught, plagiarism was considered the worst academic crime one could commit. It still is. But according to Spence apologist Bruce Davis, former Chair of the Toronto District School Board and a trustee from 2000-2010, it is really much ado about nothing, and that the recent revocation of Spence's teaching certificate was an egregious injustice that must be rectified.

Davis writes:

I was gob-smacked last week when I learned of the Ontario College of Teachers’ decision to revoke Chris Spence’s teaching qualifications. Dumbfounded. Confused. Irritated. Angry.

I thought I was witnessing a professional lynching.

After launching into a protracted encomium that suggests Spence is a living saint, Davis makes this remarkable and quite inaccurate assertion:

Spence paid dearly for his acts of plagiarism first revealed by the Toronto Star, resulting in the loss of his professional stature, his salary, and his reputation in the community. But he took responsibility and owned up to his mistakes.

He neglects to add that Spence's 'owing up' took place only after he was caught, and in a desperate bid to salvage his job. But that matters not to Davis:

In the context of Spence’s clear remorse for his acts, I saw an opportunity for Spence to talk to kids about academic ethics, about putting in the hard work and not taking short-cuts, and about taking responsibility when you mess-up. I believe Spence’s fall from grace remains a teachable moment.

In a clever bit of misdirection, Davis looks at sanctions meted out to others who have run afoul of professional ethics, and suggests that Spence's punishment is disproportionate; Spece's personal apologist is apparently either oblivious to, or willfully ignorant of, the grave nature of the former educator's misdeeds. And he offers two very suspect conclusions:

In my view, to a reasonable person taking away Spence’s certification to teach is not proportional to the magnitude of his mistakes. On the contrary – it is patently unfair and heavy-handed.

I stand by Chris Spence. If the opportunity had been presented, I would have advocated on his behalf at his discipline hearing. I would have told the panel without equivocation or doubt: this man should still be teaching children and leading teachers.

This article was all too much for me, so I penned a letter of rebuttal to the Toronto Star, which I hope they print:

I must take strong issue with Bruce Davis's stout defence of Chris Spence, the disgraced former Director of Education for the Toronto District School Board. It would seem that his friendship with Spence has led him to minimize the gravity of the latter's misdeeds.

By all accounts a serial plagiarist whose ignoble acts go back at least as far as his PhD thesis, Spence has shown a consistent disregard for academic honesty, the sine qua non for all educators. The fact that his teaching licence has been revoked is simple justice, neither “patently unfair and heavy-handed,” nor a ”professional lynching” as described by Davis.

During my career as a high school teacher, there could be no greater betrayal than a student's theft of another's ideas or words. To have that same academic crime committed by someone purporting to be an educational leader and exemplar compounds the betrayal; by showing flagrant, egregious and repeated contempt for the staff, students and parents he was supposedly leading, Spence did not make 'mistakes' but rather revealed himself to be one who felt the rules were made for others, not him, to follow, and thus did grievous harm not only to public morale but also to the students under his leadership.

If that doesn't warrant the revocation of a teaching certificate, what does?

A Very Timely Reminder

In 1984, the Enemy of the State was the elusive Emmanuel Goldstein, likely a contrived figure upon whom the masses could hurl their hatred, while Big Brother, the real enemy, surveilled and controlled the same masses. In the noir world of Trumpland, it appears the first of what will likely be many official enemies of the state has been revealed. Probably to no one's surprise, it is the media.

Just days after President Trump spoke of a “running war’’ with the media, his chief White House strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, ratcheted up the attacks, arguing that news organizations had been “humiliated” by the election outcome and repeatedly describing the media as “the opposition party” of the current administration.

“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while,” Mr. Bannon said in an interview on Wednesday.

“I want you to quote this,” Mr. Bannon added. “The media here is the opposition party.

The fraught times in which we live demand constant vigilance. Now would seem to be a good time for some crucial reminders via the ever-pertinent George Orwell. Special thanks to my friend and former colleague, Mary Ann, for bringing the following to my attention:

Canada's Carnival Sideshow

While people with normal cognitive abilities likely see the farce in Kevin O'Leary's effort to become the next leader of the Conservative Party, it would be unwise to underestimate the power of less able and less stable people to influence the course of events. If nothing else, the Trump spectacle attests to the importance of such a caution. It is therefore incumbent upon those who want the best for the country to warn about the worst, as these letter-writers do today:

Blustering of days past: O'Leary's views, unadorned, Jan. 21

In the last week the Star has detailed two opposite Kevin O’Learys. One would like to bust unions (Jennifer Wells); the other says he would like to make unions more “efficient.”

Can we really believe O’Leary suddenly wants unions to better represent workers (i.e. more gains) while saving money through efficiency? Both would make his nemesis more powerful.

He has started off following his idol’s path: he and Trump believe in lying big to fool ordinary workers. Let’s take a lesson from Trump and put the label “lying Kevin” on this impostor.

Will Presley, North Bay

It is wonderful to learn that Mr. O’Leary’s primary goal is to “go to bed richer than when he woke up in the morning.” The question now is: how many Canadians will be going to bed poorer because of Mr. O’Leary’s obsession with putting more money into his own already bulging pocket?

Herb Alexander, Thornhill

O’Leary espouses on corporate social responsibility, “Social consciousness, that’s ridiculous. Businesses do not have a social conscience” (like most people do).

It explains Citizens United (corporations with equal rights as citizens), and why the leaders of many of these corporations have no social conscience, to be polite.

So, as Mr. O-so-Leary clearly states, Citizens United is just a con, and why under their newly crowned “Orange Hitler” the U.S. should repeal Citizens United immediately.

He’s an astute U.S. businessman. The U.S. business elites should listen to him.

Richard Kadziewicz, Scarborough

I read with concern Kevin O’Leary’s decision to run. My fervent hope is that the media does not treat his campaign as a joke and give him excess coverage that he so craves. We see how that worked out in the U.S where Trump used that free publicity to prey on the fears and prejudices of people who bought into his fake message of doom and gloom and false promises.

Canadians should never allow opportunistic politicians whose messages of divide and conquer and racial overtures to gain a foot hold in our political system. The media has a responsible role to play and should not promote sensationalism and lies at the expense of truth.

Mort Achaia, Brampton

Clarity From Robert Reich

Robert Reich simply and brilliantly deconstructs Trump's construction plans. Lest Canadians feel tempted toward complacency, check out Trudeau's infrastructure bank plans, which will likely have the same effect of enriching corporate investors at our collective expense.