Category: Donald Trump

By on

I have been laid off three times. During the process, each time I was reminded, as if this was all that mattered, that it was just a business decision. There is nothing personal about it. Jobs needed to be cut, my job was just one of the many that needed to be eliminated. Every time this happened, it was easy for me to see that it wasn’t personal. The company was moving operations or eliminating my department completely. My personal circumstances neither harmed nor helped me — it was irrelevant to the business decision that was made.

What is bothering me here is the phrase “just a business decision.” This absolves the laying off party of any culpability in the decision. People were looking at a spreadsheet of costs and then decided to make cuts. We had nothing personally against John Smith, we just had to cut payroll and poor John was one of the many positions on the spreadsheet we thought we could eliminate. Purely a rational decision based on facts.

Since this was, and as we are constantly reminded, purely a business decision then any emotional reaction towards the person using the spreadsheet is unwarranted. Yes, you were laid off, and yes, it has sent your life into a bit of chaos, but, it wasn’t personal. We have nothing against you personally. I looked at the data and this was what the data told me. Don’t get mad at me, get mad at the spreadsheet.

It is a facile way to avoid responsibility. If I could have made another decision, I would have. But the spreadsheet right? I have to follow the direction that the spreadsheet takes me.

It is annoying because it is a lie. Most companies gather the data on the spreadsheet for one reason and one reason only — eliminating jobs. This just isn’t some neutral gathering of data where after looking at the data it was obvious that jobs needed to be eliminated. Eliminating jobs is the whole reason for the spreadsheet.

The just business excuse removes any moral or human dimension from the decision process. Its all numbers. Data determines the action. It allows businessmen to do about anything as long as the balance shows a profit.

It is the reason why Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg find themselves watching wrestling on the White House lawn — something I can’t imagine either of them doing on a free week day night otherwise. They added up the figures and decided it was just better for their business to show up than risking pissing off some mad man who might use his governmental power to harass them.

Smart businessmen know the best way to keep clear of the growing irrationality of Trump is to go along with him. It is just good business. Nothing personal there.

By on

The most depressing thing about Mark Zuckerberg and David Ellison attending Trump’s birthday bash is that these two billionaires felt compelled to attend. I doubt seriously that either man wanted to be there but then Trump. No further explanation is necessary. Two of most powerful men in the world felt the need to show up at all demonstrates the disorienting and disproportionate power that Trump holds. Better to show up at Trump’s birthday party than to be investigated by his Department of Justice. This is where we are.

The most powerful men in the country bowing down and kissing Trump’s ass.

By on

You don’t press unpopular issues if there is little chance of winning. For example, Barack Obama did not support gay marriage when he first ran for president. Now, in my mind, a gay man, I realized that Obama could give a rats’ ass about gay marriage and was opposing it in order to win an election where a significant portion of the American public opposed gay marriage. It doesn’t make sense to lose an election for an issue, gay marriage, that would surely go down to defeat in most state legislatures. Gay marriage had to wait for another time because Obama could do other things that help me and, more importantly, every other non-gay citizen who, by the way, make up 90 percent of the population.

One of the great lessons of age is you realize that you don’t get everything you want. It is better to get some of what you want than to get nothing. You have to win elections in order to govern, this means compromise. This is how democracies work. Some changes have to wait. You have to deal with the reality you are in.

Which brings me to the New York legislature’s recent passage of a law that replaces mother and father with gestating parent and non-gestating parent in the law books. This change was necessary to make sure that the very few women who are transitioning into men (and vice versa) know that New York law is aware of their non-binary status and included in New York law.

I have numerous problems with this fishing expedition in an empty lake.

  1. 1.The binary division of man and woman has dominated Western Culture. It is still to be determined how this view might change but Trans activists are under the impression that they have won the battle. The vast majority of people, even in the liberal circles, still fall back on the terms like man, father,woman and mother. More to the point, nobody I know uses the terms gestating parent and non-gestating parent. None. So, why is this piece of legislation even necessary when no one uses the terms or even knows what these terms mean. But OK, I guess, gestating parent.
  2. Because no one uses gestating parent and non-gestating parent, it seems like a bad idea to incorporate such words into the law books when the more popular terms — mother and father are working without complaint. Why change them? Who requires this change? Oh, trans activists want this.
  3. Well, if Trans activists could deliver votes, I might be inclined to give them this change without complaint but they can’t. In fact, Republicans are using this issue as a cudgel to defeat Democrats. So, then, it might be bad idea to be pressing the issue. If they are demanding it, they don’t seem to have a grasp on reality. I would never have expected any Democratic body to push for gay marriage during the 1990’s. It would be political suicide. Are Trans activists so short sighted to see this an unhelpful in the struggle to defeat Trump and the Republicans.
  4. The Democrats control New York. How did this pointless and damaging piece of legislation get through these bodies when someone with power should have killed it long before it ever reached the governor’s desk? It is both shocking and depressing that Democratic power brokers were more interested in distributing symbolic prizes to loyal constituencies instead of winning elections. It is almost as if there is some Trump mole working at a high level in the New York Democratic Party.

I don’t want to lose this election but if it were to happen, I want the defeat to be about something big — something like Medical Care or the War in Iran and not whether to rename Mother’s Day to Gestating Parent’s Day.

By on

I am a party man when voting. If a Republican and a Democrat are running against each other, I will vote for the Democrat. Always. Not because I like the particular Democrat. This, unfortunately, doesn’t always happens. I do so because this gives the Democrats a chance at governing and this is more important to me than having a perfect candidate for every office.

This said, I found River Page’s defense, in the Free Press, of Graham Platner a little depressing. Platner’s skeletons keep slipping out of the closet and at a prodigious rate at that. It makes me think he might be a weak candidate. This is concerning because the seat he is running for is a very winnable Senate seat. His opponent, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, appears to be behind in the polls although this has been the case in all of her races — she runs behind or very close and then manages to handily win her elections. She is a tough candidate to beat.

Platner, her apparent opponent, is having a bad week or two. Page describes the problem. He has no filter which means he bluntly speaks his mind and that occasionally causes his foot to fall firmly into his mouth. When he was young, he got drunk and wound up with a Nazi tattoo. Years later, he got drunk and danced shirtless at a friend’s wedding thus displaying the Nazi tattoo in it’s full glory. He has made derogatory comments about Blacks, Jews, Gays and Women — all, by the way, the most dependable Democratic voters for the past 50 years.

Page, however, thinks all this worry is for nothing because Platner has working class appeal. He lived among them, even if only temporarily, speaks their language and they like his blunt talk. He is just the right kind of candidate to counter Donald Trump.

Because Page thinks Platner is such a great candidate he tries to address the concerns about his unfiltered tongue. Page writes about Platner’s use of the gay and fag, “he (Platner) also used the terms gay and fag as general insults. Similarly to the r-word, the consensus among the working- and lower-middle-class people I’ve spent most of my life around is that calling someone a fag may be mean, but it isn’t bigoted unless they are actually gay.” What? Calling someone gay isn’t an insult unless they are actually gay. Well, this certainly news to me. What kind of bull shit is Page, a gay man as a matter of fact, trying to spread?

When a straight guy calls another straight guy gay, he is just being mean but not homophobic. I fail to see the distinction. Why would a straight man calling another straight man gay be an insult if there weren’t negative connotations to those terms for a straight man. If you are trying to be mean to someone, you use terms that will insult the man. He used those terms to get a rise out of his male friends. Now it might be only friendly banter between the guys but telling me this isn’t also homophobic is unbelievable. These men think there is something seriously wrong with being called gay which pretty much defines homophobic. It, then, does mean something after all and it isn’t as innocent as Page makes out.

It is also insulting to Working Class people. Indeed Page’s whole working class appeal is a slam against working class people. That is just the way they talk. They love hard drinking, free-talking tough guys who don’t filter their words. It is part of their appeal. So what if a few of them use the N word or anti-Semetic terms or fag, these are real people in the real world. Grow up.

It doesn’t help Plant’s case when he makes a disturbing comparison with Trump, “A decade of Trump should have taught the political and media establishment that voters, especially those in the working class, couldn’t care less about personal scandal so long as their genuine-seeming proposal for real political change is on the table.” So what the Democrats need is a foul mouth bigoted egotistical lout who makes rash decisions (lets not forget the Nazi tattoo) and is offensive on so many levels but, at least, he wants Universal Healthcare and he has just the type of muscle to make it happen.

What worries me is that it is only June and the Republicans have yet to dig for all the dirt on Platner. Given Platner’s character, I fear there are more juicy stories to come. If this is where Platner is starting, what fresh shit will be thrown at him in October.

Plant will say that the working class don’t care about that. Maybe. But then other parts of the Democratic coalition might – say like Women, Blacks, Jews and Gays. Platner is still at the starting blocks and the race has a long way to go, many other politicians who aren’t named Trump were done in by lesser hurdles. The question I have is why would we want to start with such a damaged candidate, when we could choose otherwise?

Not key Democratic demographics.

By on

Sometimes I read these posts where someone will make the point — all you have to do is read the Bible and you will have your answer. This would be great but if it is so clear why do so many people disagree with what is being said in the Bible.

A recent example of these different views regarding the Bible can be found with the recent dispute between Donald Trump and Pope Leo. These two Bible reading gentlemen, using the same Bible, are coming up with different understanding of what God really wants.

If two people can use the same text and come up with diametrically opposed positions, what does this say about the actual text. Now, if it happens once or twice, maybe I could still buy that the Bible is clear and any answers you want are found there but this isn’t the case with the Bible. The Bible has been around for a couple of thousand years, give or take a year or two, and for about as long people have been disagreeing about what the Bible actually says.

Thousands of years and thousands of disagreements would suggest that reading the Bible isn’t going to give me all the answers I need. This means that I have to evaluate the Bible based on my reading with some additional input from such Biblical scholars like Donald Trump and Pope Leo.

And Donald Trump and Pope Leo aren’t the only two people talking about the Bible. I googled it and the answer was somewhere in the millions. Millions of people talking about the same document and coming up with different answers from a document that supposedly needs no interpretation.

This leaves you in the unenviable position of having to decide who understands the Bible better — Donald Trump or Pope Leo?

I am thinking.

By on

Another assassination attempt was made on Donald Trump. The Secret Service shot the man down. Early reports about the shooter are depressing. He thought he was God so I am not sure whether he had a coherent world view which prompted him to take this action but I doubt it. People who think they are God are uniquely incapable of coherence so this leaves us with crazy.

Early in the week two teenagers stormed a San Diego mosque — killing three people and then themselves. They hated about everybody, given the way it turned out, even themselves.

I don’t know what to do about the crazy people in this country. As a nation, we have pretty much decided to lump them in with the regular citizens which means they are left to their own devices. They can own guns, sleep on the streets, do whatever the Hell they want until they cross a line and then, in the worst case scenario, they are gunned down.

This is how we want to live and, lets be clear, no decision is a decision. We would rather have the occasional blood letting to addressing why unstable people with guns keep creating such havoc. Limiting gun availability is off the table. Let’s face it the 2nd Amendment makes this impossible. Furthermore there are too many guns out there now and there would be way too much resistance to confiscating guns to make it worthwhile. It is, for now, off the table.

But what about the other part of the equation dealing with all the crazy people. Well, this would require political will and money. Why this is controversial is beyond me? Mental health requires some level of preventative measure. Identify the people who are sick and get them the help they need before they break.

Think physical health. For example, we can control high blood pressure through medication. The first step, though, is identifying people suffering from it before we can help them. The same practice apples for mental health. We need to know who needs help.

But freedom, people shouldn’t be forced into a psychological check. We could require a yearly psychological check as a part of having health insurance. This would, at least, help us address the vast majority of the population.

Who is going to pay for all these checks? The government or the insurance companies? Forget I said anything.

So you see nothing is going to happen. We just have to accept that mad men with guns will be walking the street until they break and then after they are done killing, we will kill them or they will kill themselves. A little messy but the problem is solved without raising taxes.

By on

I guess we are at war although Trump and company say otherwise. There are war like things going on — the occasional missile falling on the UAE, the Straight of Hormuz being closed to commercial shipping (Sorry if it is open, the status changes so quickly I can’t keep track) and there is war like rhetoric flowing from both sides.

Who knows? There is no consistent trustworthy source of information. By that, I mean every one agrees that these people are supplying the facts as they are. So as far as I can see we are in a range of the war is already won to the war will go forever. The truth is somewhere in between those two mutually exclusive points. But where it is in this range I haven’t a clue.

I do know that the general feeling that comes from a nation at war, the rally around the flag feeling, is glaringly missing. Young men aren’t signing up at the recruiting stations. There is no grandmotherly figure urging us to grow victory gardens. People aren’t glued to their television sets watching the progress of the war — although this may be more a result of there being so little progress (either way) in this war.

Think World War II — everybody (this includes the Allies and the Axis, Democrats and Republicans, British and Americans, I mean everybody) knew it would end when the Germans and Japanese surrendered or vice versa. The finish line was apparent.

What will mark the end of the Iranian War is both a mystery and dependent on who you are talking with. Iranians say one thing. The Trump Administration says another. There are negotiations sometimes going on and sometimes stalled. Trump says nothing short of an Iranian unconditional surrender is unacceptable. Except that he is negotiating terms with the Iranian government and they are bring terms which are far from unconditional surrender.

Which begs the question when does a defeated enemy negotiate terms. If you lost the war, you take the terms that the winner gives you and hope for the best. This isn’t happening here so Trump’s victory claims are hollow.

There is very little, if any, personal investment in winning the war. The only consistent sentiment I can see is that everybody wants the war over as fast as humanly possible. Oddly missing is any idea of what victory actually looks like — just end the fucker. Hardly a war cry to rally the nation.

By on

Whenever I despair about Donald Trump he does something that reminds me he has absolutely no fixed ideas on how the world should look. He has authoritarian instincts but his only vision about the future is how he, and maybe his family, make out financially. Unlike Hitler, Mao and Stalin, he doesn’t want to eliminate the Jews or bring about a Communist Revolution. He wants to line his pocket book in any way possible. This makes him wildly inconsistent and difficult to gauge.

So, I was oddly comforted when I heard Donald Trump wants to make Venezuela the 51st State. Venezuela has a population somewhere between Texas and California — roughly 30 million Spanish speaking people? The very people who he wants to stop at the Mexican border and is having ICE round up in cities across the nation. He now wants to make them citizens.

I am not sure what Trump sees. I suspect he sees a cut of the oil revenue from Venezuela. On the other hand, I see 2 Democratic senators and a large Democratic delegation in Congress. I see an even larger Spanish speaking population — perhaps doubling the number in one fell swoop. It makes no sense particularly to his White Christian Nationalist friends. It is baffling position to take.

But,OK, until I can see a good reason to oppose statehood for Venezuela, you can bet I going to support statehood perhaps quietly until it passes.

By on

I wrote about this the other day so I thought I had vented my spleen sufficiently but then I stumbled across Erick Erickson’s lame rejoinder regarding Trump’s threat to destroy a civilization and the spleen became inflamed again. Erickson rather blithely said he would have preferred that Trump had not said it but if it was between that and Trans Recognition Day then well wink wink nudge nudge. Get it.

Fuck you, Erick Erickson. How was this the choice? The choice was between Trump making a measured comment about the American involvement in a war (or military operation if you will) and one where he threatens to destroy a whole civilization. On Easter — the Christians holiest day. Trans people were no where in the equation until Erickson dragged them out.

This is yet another example of Trump supporters dismissing Trump’s terrible behavior. I don’t like what he said but it is better than the alternate. The alternate, in this case, is a president savvy enough to talk reasonably about a dangerous situation that he is responsible for. What needs to be addressed is Trump’s statement. Erickson needs to give critical feedback without the additional little zinger about Trans people which suggests, I might add, that there are no limits to Erickson’s support of Trump. This might have been a good time for Erickson to stipulate these limits instead of giving him limitless support for fear of what was it? Oh, yeah, Trans Recognition Day.

Trump has always been an asshole and will continue to be an asshole. He is what he is. But his supporters are a different story. To continue to support a careless president is madness particularly as he continues his dangerous meanderings through the world. Republicans and Conservatives must draw the line because they hold the power in Congress to stop him.

Just for the record, and I can’t believe I am suggesting this, the alternate is J.D. Vance. When that weasel starts looking good to me, and he is, you know we are in desperate times.

By on

I try not to talk about Donald Trump too much. It is a nearly impossible task as he is president of the United States and is always inserting himself into everything. So I apologize for yet another Donald Trump post and, after some consideration this more about Donald Trump’s apologists who, instead of trying to right Trump’s direction, just go along with him come Hell or high water.

I took a photo (see below)of an Instapundit post because Instapundit doesn’t provide a direct link to their post so this was the only way I could figure out how to get you the post in question without you paging through the whole blog which would leave you disheartened from the slavish loyalty to Donald Trump. It is a dirty job and I am willing to do it.

Trumps threat in this post, although a bit tamer than the one where he wants to bomb Iran back to the stone age one, is about annihilating a whole country. Instapundit’s defense is to point out that the Islamic aspect of Iranian civilization is actually a colonist civilization and is separate from actual Persian civilization. So, I am gathering, destroying Iran now is perfectly OK because it is Islamic and not in fact Persian.

Well OK thanks. I guess but that has nothing to do with the point Piers Morgan was making. Trump is talking about destroying an entire civilization because they won’t do what he wants. Maybe Trump has a less deadly idea of what destroying a civilization is but my interpretation is that all the Iranian people would be dead along with all buildings and all infrastructure. There would just be a pile of rubble after the Tuesday deadline. This is what Trump is threatening. The distinction between Islamic and Persian here is meaningless. Islamic rubble and Persian rubble are pretty much the same thing. Rubble.

Trump’s tone and Instapundit’s unwavering support are unhelpful in bringing about peace for the following reasons:

  1. The US does not have the fire power to flatten Iran. It would take nuclear bombs to accomplish total destruction and, call me naive, I am assuming nuclear is off the table. We could maybe level the center city of a few major cities but the rest of Iran would still be standing. Threatening annihilation is an idle threat and everybody knows it.
  2. It is also nearly impossible, at least in the short term, to destroy a civilization. Both Japan and Germany recovered quite nicely after World War II which was the last time we experimented with total annihilation. There were a lot of dead people and burned out buildings but both nations recovered. So, even, if the worst were to happen (see point 1) the Iranian people and their civilization will survive. The hated Iranian government might even survive.
  3. It does not help that Trump at numerous times have told us that the Iranian military and the nuclear capability has been destroyed while also threatening to destroy Iranian military capabilities. Sometimes even in the same statement. Which begs the question, what is left to destroy?
  4. The snarkiness about Muslim culture might feel good in the moment but keep in mind we are depending on some Muslim allies in the region for bases in which to wage the Iranian war. They are already taking missiles for us, they may feel a little less inclined to assist if they think we are antagonistic to Islam.
  5. If Trump wants to help the Iranian people, he might try to co-ordinate his war making with Iranian critics in Iran. He may be doing that but his tone suggests he is not. What reasonable Iranian ally would want to see the total destruction of their civilization?

Trump’s go to tone is the aggressive attacking of his opponents and then when you are done attacking them, go back and attack them again. It has worked well for him in the past but is wrong for this moment. He might even consider just keeping his trap shut for a few days just to see if people are more amenable to what he is trying to do. It is worth a try.

And, if he can’t see his way into keeping his trap shut, this is the time for his allies and supporters to tell him to do so. They are failing miserably in their responsibility here. Pissing off half the nation and our allies is a terrible strategy for winning a war. But, hey ho, at least I learned the difference between Muslim Iranian culture and Persian culture. Very helpful that.