Further Musings About My Country

Reading the articles, such as The Daily 202 in the Washington Post on November 2, 2020, that describe how Trump could lose the popular vote by more than he lost to Hillary but still win the presidency in 2020 in the Electoral College causes me grave concern. 

We love proclaiming ourselves a great democracy and, at least before Trump, we have often sought to spread this gospel throughout the rest of the world, particularly in developing countries. And yet, here we are again, worried about whether Trump can win again by narrowly prevailing in Florida and Pennsylvania, and holding on to the red states he won in 2016. 

Perhaps we were a nation of states in the 18th century and even through the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries. But I don’t think that describes the United States of America any longer.  We are a nation of people and, yes, a nation of groups of people. That a candidate can be elected president despite losing the popular vote by winning a combination of states, some by the narrowest of margins, is no longer permissible in this 21st-century. Such an outcome undermines the legitimacy of our institutions by denying the majority its democratic right to govern. It is undeniable that such an electoral outcome is permitted under our Constitution but that doesn’t mean it is appropriate. It likely means that Americans will increasingly lose respect for our institutions, including the Constitution itself. 

While our Constitution could be amended to eliminate the Electoral College, the amendment process is extremely cumbersome and the easiest process requires approval by a super majority of states.  Then, too, another governmental institution that undermines majority rule is the United States Senate in which each state, regardless of its size, is represented by two senators. And our Constitution expressly prohibits changing the structure of the Senate by amendment absent consent of the affected states, making change almost impossible.  It is very possible that over the next several decades this Senate structure will further undermine the legitimacy of our governmental institutions.  To be sure, demographic changes and electoral realignments could lessen or postpone the likelihood of such an outcome. 

Numerous books have been written about the exponential growth in power of the American presidency in the 20th century, particularly after World War II.  During Richard Nixon‘s tenure there was much said about an Imperial Presidency.  But, only under Trump‘s presidency have Americans become truly worried about an authoritarian president, with some drawing parallels to fascist autocrats in Europe before and during World War II. Trump‘s consistent refusal to accept Congressional oversight has made many Americans anxious about presidential authority and caused many to want to rein in that authority before it is further abused. Whether and how that can be done under our Constitution remains to be seen. Americans have increasingly discovered how important our norms have been in maintaining representative government, as opposed to the literal language in the Constitution and in statutes, as Trump has gone about trampling upon these very norms.  

Americans must pay attention not only to the impact of the Electoral College and the structure of the Senate on American democracy but also to the authority exercisable by our presidents. Reforms are needed. Change is needed. Whether they are effectuated may determine the continued viability of American democracy as well as civility in American society.❏ 

Musings about My Country

As addicted to politics as I am, I may still try to shut it down for the next day or two before the election. Too much out there, some encouraging and some discouraging, and who knows where the truth lies.  It’s not even a matter of “truth“ because what may be true today may no longer be true on Tuesday. And what happens on Tuesday may not survive events that occur thereafter. 

How many of us truly anticipated that the American political system would deliver us a Donald J Trump as president in our lifetime? And how many of us are still shocked today at the number of Americans who continue to fervently support him and make his reelection possible? American Exceptionalism? Yeah, right. 

It's Only Day 3 ...

Sheesh. We’re only in Day 3 of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “Formal Impeachment Inquiry” and I’m already bored.

Will this help Warren or Biden, our sharpest journalists who seldom care about substance are asking. Or perhaps that is the “real” substance of this story.

Rachel Maddow is continuing to recite her long drawn out bedtime stories, such as about Spiro Agnew, whose request to be impeached was denied.

Many of the same people who pitched tents on cable news to repeatedly assure us that the brilliant Robert Mueller would have Trump dead to rights are now telling us that Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s Zelensky is the only smoking gun necessary to impeach and that many Republican Senators may well have their “come to Jesus” moments when required to vote in the Senate.

And John Dean, yes, that John Dean, together with Carl Bernstein, are serenading us on CNN with flashbacks to Watergate and comparisons between then and now.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Don’t misunderstand me. Trump deserves to be impeached and convicted. But, above all, I want a Democrat in the White House in 2021.

It is Time for House Democrats to Initiate Impeachment Proceedings Against Trump

WASHINGTON AND THE NATION, HEADS UP. I've changed my position. It is now time for House Democrats to begin well-organized impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump. These proceedings will begin as investigations but let there be no question they are directed at considering the adoption of Articles of Impeachment. And the grounds for impeachment must go far beyond Trump's obstruction of justice as documented in the Mueller Report, and Trump and his team's involvement with Russia and Russian meddling during and in the 2016 election. It must include Trump's stonewalling Congress, his corruption, his misuse of campaign funds vis-a-vis Stormy Daniels, and more. BUT, House Democrats must organize for this undertaking, which they have failed miserably to do thus far. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi must change her stance and lead the charge.

 

Trump will not be convicted by the Senate even if Articles of Impeachment are brought. Sadly, Senators like Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio will likely make sure of that. But the nation will learn of Trump's high crimes and misdemeanors nonetheless as the 2020 elections approach.

 

Democrats also, however, must balance their impeachment proceedings with a full focus during the 2020 election season on substantive policy issues that deeply concern the American people if Democrats are to hold the House, win the Presidency and perhaps take the Senate in 2020. These include providing for universal healthcare; gun regulation; infrastructure; student debt restructuring; an assault on the opioid epidemic; support for NATO; restoring a more balanced foreign policy that defends against and pushes back against China trade violations, Iran destabilizing activities, Russian meddling in elections and aggressions in Europe, but doesn't coddle dictators and autocrats; support for trade unionism and a decent minimum wage; support for and not ridiculing of urban centers, answers to homelessness, and the like; renewed protection of the environment; a humane immigration policy that doesn't separate children from their families, supports DACA young people, equitably addresses the status of long term undocumented immigrants in this country, but doesn't result in open borders; eliminating Trump executive orders that have undermined American values and its national interest.

 

Jake Sherman of POLITICO put things in perspective in this morning's (Sept 20, 2019) POLITICO Playbook as follows:

 

"GET THINKING ... HAS WASHINGTON ever been so frozen and so handcuffed by a president and his whims?

 

-- REPUBLICANS say they want to tighten gun laws, but they won't dare to utter a word about what kind of gun-control legislation they would support until Trump makes clear what he would support. And he's been almost completely silent. Burgess Everett: "The Senate surrenders legislating on guns to Trump": Sen. Johnny Isakson: "First time ever in history when the president sets the agenda every day when he tweets at 4 in the morning."

 

-- DEMOCRATS are having trouble conducting oversight because the White House has succeeded in dictating the terms under which they can do it -- without repercussion. The White House has blocked material witnesses. And the witnesses they can't block come to Capitol Hill and don't talk.

 

-- DEMOCRATS decline to impeach the president because, in part, they're worried about a sliver of members of Congress who have slivers of their constituencies who might or might not be offended by impeachment proceedings.

 

-- WHEN REPORTERS ask White House aides for information about policy, they are often hamstrung because a) they either have no idea what the president is thinking, or b) they are waiting for him to make his view public on Twitter."

 

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2019/09/20/how-trump-has-handcuffed-washington-479490?nname=playbook&nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nrid=0000015a-dc5e-ddd0-adde-dd7eedc10000&nlid=630318

 

Democrats Must Walk and Chew Gum At the Same Time

I believe it is imperative that the Democrats walk and chew gum at the same time at this crucial moment in our democracy. The media will focus on political wrangling and not on substantive political issues. That tends to be the way they work, particularly during political campaigns. So Democrats must keep the public’s attention on their substantive programs, whether involving healthcare, climate change, education reform, civil rights, criminal justice, gun regulation, immigration, income and wealth disparities, voter suppression, or others. But Democrats must try to prioritize so that their substantive messages aren’t lost in the din and diluted. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi must play a leading role in this effort as the many Democratic candidates for the 2020 presidential nomination are fighting to distinguish themselves from the pack by picking different policy issues to embrace.

At the same time that they constantly discuss policy issues, Democrats must also focus on keeping Trump and his Administration accountable, particularly through Congressional oversight and other legitimate means. Democratic candidates for the nomination must make clear their positions on issues but at the same time that Trump himself — his lying, his violation of norms, his disparagement of the press — is also a central issue in this next election.

When it comes to impeachment, I have been leaning toward the positions espoused by Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton. I believe it was the Senate hearings led by Senator Sam Ervin that played a central role in shaping the public‘s growing opposition to Richard Nixon‘s excesses in office and made possible effective impeachment hearings in the House and Nixon‘s subsequent resignation. Since today’s Democrats do not control the Senate, I have felt that House oversight investigations short of impeachment might play a similar function in educating and arousing the public. But, if Trump and his Administration continue to stonewall at every turn, whether in refusing to provide his tax returns or in refusing to comply with House oversight requests for documents and witnesses, then I think impeachment proceedings should commence and that the stonewalling should be an additional possible basis for articles of impeachment.

But, polls continue to show that many Americans are skeptical about impeachment and Nancy Pelosi’s concern that impeachment proceedings would be very divisive and might even play into Trump’s hand is very legitimate. It appears that most Americans remain focused more on their daily challenges and substantive policy issues relating to their everyday lives in sorting out their views on politics and politicians than on impeachment and the Mueller Report. Therefore, Democrats must continue to put their positions on substantive issues in front of the public in every way possible, even if impeachment proceedings begin, knowing that the media will not be their friend in that effort.

Democrats may not be able to avoid initiating impeachment proceedings. Some, like Elizabeth Warren, have called for the House to initiate impeachment proceedings. Others feel that it is the right thing to do in light of Mueller’s factual findings showing Trump’s obstruction of justice. Still others feel that it would give Democrats a stronger legal basis to demand that Trump and his Administration comply with subpoenas as Congress is expressly given the power of impeachment in the Constitution. If Democrats proceed with impeachment they must do so aggressively but fairly. They must push back against the likes of Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who continues to play a very destructive role in undermining our democracy, Trump himself, and other apologists for this President. And Democrats must continue to address the everyday concerns of the American people and not let those issues become submerged in an impeachment fight. Again, the media will be of no help to the Democrats in that regard.☐

Vote DEMOCRATIC on Nov 6 2018

Trump has:
•cut taxes for super-rich & corporations
•threatened coverage of pre-existing conditions
•inspired violence
•deepened the “swamp”
•demonized a free press
•denigrated immigrants
•ripped children from parents
•denied climate change
•lied & lied 

VOTE DEMOCRATIC

On Trump and Birthright Citizenship

President Trump has recently proclaimed that he has the power and authority to eliminate birthright citizenship through an Executive Order.

Trump is not simply misinformed on the birthright citizenship issue. He is a devious, manipulative, serial liar who, unfortunately, is adept at marketing himself and controlling the news cycle. Fearful of losing House control in the upcoming midterm elections, Trump has returned to the theme that sadly worked so well for him during the 2016 campaign: immigration. First he sought to mobilize his base through lies about a so-called “caravan” of peoples trying to make their way through Mexico to the United States. Now he has turned his attention to so-called anchor babies by raising the birthright citizenship issue. He will say or do anything to try to stir up his base of true believers and often low information voters. Hopefully his efforts will fail and Democrats will capture the House.

On birthright citizenship, SCOTUS ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, in 1898, that the pertinent 14th Amendment language grants U.S. citizenship to all those born in this country with two notable exceptions based on English common law — the first exception is for children of foreign diplomats born here; the second exception is for children of enemy aliens who are in control of a part of this country where the child is born. This second exception does not apply to children of aliens unlawfully here. Those unlawful aliens are not enemies who have taken physical control of a part of this country (and hence are not at that point under U.S. jurisdiction). Pursuant to this SCOTUS decision, birthright citizenship applies to children born here of unlawful immigrants. SCOTUS would have to overturn existing precedent, to be sure not something the current conservative majority is resistant to doing based on recent outcomes, and, in my view, only then could Congress legislate under its power to implement the 14th Amendment. This is not within the purview of an executive order. Of course, the Constitution could be amended. I hope it is not.

A few lawyers and law professors seek to distinguish the holding in Wong Kim Ark on its facts. I believe they are mistaken in seeking to do so and that a reading of the entire SCOTUS majority opinion will make clear that the exact alien status of the parents in Wong Kim Arkwas not consequential to the Court’s holding.

Another Shooting at a House of Worship - A Synagogue

I went to bed early this morning after celebrating the Dodgers victory in the longest World Series game ever in the bottom of the 18th inning. But I awoke after only four hours sleep to learn of the tragic killings at a synagogue in Pittsburgh.

What a world. I can accept hate although not everyone can or necessarily should. In my view, for good or bad, it is one of our human emotions. But when it translates into killing other human beings, whether on an individual level, by the actions of a mob, or through war, let alone genocide, it is so very sickening and abhorrent.

On David Brooks & The Democratic Response to Trump & Trumpism

Below is my response to The New York Times columnist David Brooks’ Opinion dated October 22, 2018 – https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/opinion/midterms-democrats-health-care.html

The Materialist Party

The Democrats fail to take on Trumpism.

By David Brooks

Opinion Columnist

---

I think Brooks succinctly identifies three themes characterizing the “populists'” onslaught. First, Trump and others preach that “the good, decent people of the heartland are being threatened by immigrants, foreigners, and other outsiders while corrupt elites do nothing.” Second, they “have overturned the traditional moral standards” and Trump has “challenged basic norms of honesty, decency, compassion and moral conduct.” And, third, they have changed the debate from big versus small government to “basic openness, diversity and pluralism” to “closed ethnic nationalism”.

And Brooks criticizes Democrats for an almost singular focus on healthcare in the midterm elections, a criticism I share. David Leonhardt’s Opinion column this morning (October 23, 2018) calls out Democrats for not responding to Trump’s Caravan fixation and I thoroughly agree with him. See https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/opinion/democrats-caravan-immigration-midterms-trump.html.

Brooks argues that Democrats are failing to respond appropriately. They are offering “no counter-narrative to Trump, little moral case to his behavior, no unifying argument against his ethnic nationalism”.

BUT, the problem with Brooks’ argument is that the Democrats have tried doing what he has suggested and thus far failed. Recall, Democrats tried to make Trump’s rejection of cultural norms a KEY issue in the 2016 elections, and what happened? What happened when Trump disparaged John McCain? What happened when Trump mocked a disabled journalist? What happened when the Access Hollywood video burst on the scene? What happened when women came forward and accused Trump of sexual assault? NOTHING. The herd that loved his disparagement of unlawful immigrants cheered on his misogyny, cried Lock Her Up!, didn’t give a hoot about John McCain, and a majority of white women voted for Trump despite that he likes grabbing women by the p*ssy.

This notion that Brooks and others advance that Democrats are playing identity politics or tribalism but not Trump is pure rubbish. Trump is playing the ultimate identity politics and the identity is WHITE. Oh, it’s not exclusive and 36% of Hispanic voters seem to lean Republican, although many of them might well be categorized as “white” had this country not taken to categorizing “non-Hispanic whites” separate from Hispanics and lumped together all Hispanics, including Cubans, Mexicans, Indians, and other Hispanics, under the same category. No wonder pollsters predict inaccurately.

Yes, I believe Democrats should be making a pitch beyond healthcare and I condemn Chuck Schumer for not providing leadership to his Party. He should move on. He’s a cautious, ineffectual soul. At least Pelosi has spine although I think she too should fade away, not that I see new leadership of quality on the horizon. Democrats should try to speak to the immigration issue but it obviously is not their forte as they want to retain Hispanic support but also need to speak out against open borders and in favor of a fair immigration policy protecting DACA students but that nonetheless does not sanction illegal immigration. They have quite rightly spoken against Trump’s enormous tax cut for the rich and corporations and spoken of its unfairness but the booming economy has made that issue secondary, not primary, and I understand that.

Brooks seems to want Democrats to embrace a position similar to Hillary’s “It Takes A Village”, an imagery I personally always found appealing. But, that’s not where white voters are at (to use the vernacular) for the moment. And white voters continue to rule the roost. Brooks sounds like another pollyannaish Tom Friedman on Mohammad bin Salman (MbS). Brooks condemns ethnic nationalism and suggests Democrats should take a more inclusive approach. What does he think Democrats have been doing? But white nationalism is very powerful and Trump has a penchant for knowing how to manipulate it.

I think the appeal of Texas’ Beto O’Rourke, even though he will likely lose to Ted Cruz, is that he is willing to speak to those broader issues that Brooks champions. But, as noted, Beto will likely lose. And that is the Democrats’ conundrum.

As for Brooks” conclusion that Democrats are better when it comes to materialism but Republicans dominate in the cultural realm, I think there is some truth to that but in large measure because the changing American demographic has frightened so many Americans who still have the power and Republicans are able to play to their fears, their cultural affinities, and the like. Perhaps, but perhaps not, as the demographic changes reflect themselves more and more among likely voters the Republican brand of cultural issues may weaken. I sure hope so. But look at yesterday’s news. As I recall, one of the few “progressive” comments Trump made during his campaign was a pitch for LGBT rights. And now? His “team” is thinking of changing the rules to base gender on biology alone?

I think the thing about Trump that infuriates me most is his serial, pathological LYING. That he can constantly stand in front of people, crowds, rallies, media and tell baldfaced lies and retain his loyal following, and even creep up in the polls as Republicans gravitate back to their Party for the midterm elections, sickens me to the core. It causes me to lose faith in other human beings and, more specifically, my fellow Americans. I realize that sometimes we hold our noses and support someone we don’t like because we consider the alternative worse. But here people are applauding Trump, cheering him on, going wild over him, when he lies through his teeth. They may be low information voters, but I am sure most of them know he is full of it. Call it their disgust with the “elites”, but their willingness to blindly follow their Pied Piper is scary.

God help us.

Disappointing Trend on Facebook

As I recall, when Facebook and Twitter began, many complained that people were using the social media merely to report their daily activities. "How boring", people commented. Gradually, to some extent, people began to express points of view, rather than merely report on activities, and to share photos of their families, friends, travels and adventures.

 

But, frankly, these days, people seem to fill their News Feeds with articles by others, videos, so-called memes, sayings, and the like. To an incredible extent, gone are comments about peoples' own lives. Instead, often there's a parade of political commentary, political humor, animal videos, and the like. There are exceptions, and, to be honest, I've been guilty of this tendency, although I try to blog and I do tweet my own sentiments.

 

I just find this development depressing. Perhaps because I get my news primarily from digital newsletters and newspapers, and to some extent from real-time Twitter posts, I find Facebook's inundation with posts primarily not created although posted by my friends disappointing.

Trump and Putin

What does President Donald Trump's refusal to implement Congress's Russian sanctions law & his failure to direct Mike Rogers of the NSA to counter Russian cyber attempts to manipulate U.S. 2018 elections mean?

That Trump wants Putin to subvert our 2018 elections in favor of Trump GOP candidates? That seems to be an extremely reasonable inference. Didn't Trump call upon Russia during the 2016 campaign to use its cyber hacking capabilities to find Hillary's missing 30,000 emails? Trump seems quite comfortable colluding with Russia in pursuit of his own interests. Why not rig the 2018 elections. After all, it was Trump who claimed that the 2016 elections were rigged. We just hadn't realized at the time that what he meant was that they were rigged in his favor.

Trump's protectiveness when it comes to Putin may be a function of many factors, including Russian "dirt" on Trump for money laundering or other illicit or nefarious Trump behavior; or, a quid pro quo between Trump and Russia involving Russian intervention in favor of Trump in the 2016 elections in return for sanctions relief.

Whatever the specifics, Trump's posture toward Putin gives rise to the conclusion that they are in bed together, each pursuing his own self-interest at America's expense.

Democracy or Despotism?

I increasingly believe that this country is in a race against time. Will the demographic changes already underway reach a critical or tipping point in terms of changing electoral outcomes before the right wing succeeds in instituting an Ayn Rand style despotism.

Thank You, Jerry Brown

Jerry Brown delivers his final State of the State address this Thursday, January 25, 2018.

There was a time when I vowed never to vote for Jerry Brown again and I didn’t for several years. I was tired of his chameleon behavior, constantly running for this political position and that and frequently morphing into an entirely different leader with sometimes completely opposite policies in each new position.

But I did vote for him the last two times he ran for Governor and he has served the State of California well as Governor, bringing a common sense, prudent approach to government spending and often reining in a liberal legislature too eager to spend vast sums of money without revising an unstable tax structure.

But Jerry Brown’s bullet train, arguably his effort to match his father’s legacy in building California’s infrastructure, has been a far too ambitious undertaking which may end up being a failure that taints Brown’s record. As well, I wish he had pushed for property tax reform, a sensitive subject as he was on the losing side decades ago when voters adopted Proposition 13. Then, too, he should have been more aggressive in addressing pension reform, another delicate matter that won’t solve itself.

Nonetheless, Jerry Brown made me a supporter and I wish him well going forward.

The Demise of AOL's Instant Messenger

AOL has announced that AIM, its Instant Messenger platform, will cease to exist in December 2017. Despite the disappearance of AOL chatrooms and the imminent demise of AOL’s Instant Messenger or IM platform, I still find that those 1990s means of communication held their own to today’s Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram or the like (and I have them all).

People rushed home from work beginning in the mid-1990s to dial up AOL and then try to squeeze into a chatroom limited to 23 people. Gaining entry was a challenge and sometimes took up to an hour with so many others competing to get in! And, for several years, AOL was very expensive and many people jeopardized their savings as a result of an almost obsessive need to be online.

Many of us developed friendships during those years in AOL chatrooms that endure to this day. Instant Messaging or IMing came later (and AIM as a separate application came even later still) and, once it emerged, people often found themselves trying to keep up with the scrolling chatroom dialogue while simultaneously engrossed in one, two or more IMs! For women the challenge of balancing chatrooms and IMs was even greater than that encountered by men.

RIP, AOL Instant Messenger.

My heart is with ...

Senator Cory Booker posted today (Sept 6, 2017) a statement on Facebook < https://www.facebook.com/corybooker/> that began “My heart is with the people of the Caribbean who are enduring the destructive force of Hurricane Irma right now, and with the people of Florida … .”

When I started reading his opening words I wasn’t sure to which group(s) he might be referring. It got me thinking how many others might be included in a statement beginning “My heart is with.”

• The victims of Hurricane Harvey
• The Dreamers under DACA
• The Rohingya Muslims of Myanmar
• The victims of flooding in Bangladesh
• The victims of civil war and terrorism in Syria and Yemen

and surely many others.

Fascism

I was in Tunisia in May 1968 when Paris exploded with demonstrations and the like led by radical student leader Daniel Cohn-Bendit. I followed developments by reading the daily Le Monde newspaper available in Tunis. The students claimed that their spiritual leader was none other than Marxist-Freudian philosopher Herbert Marcuse, who was a Brandeis University faculty member when I was there. But, I was shocked to read in a subsequent interview of Cohn-Bendit that he had NEVER read any of Marcuse's writings!

Well, these days everyone is throwing around the term "fascism". Fascist this, anti-fascist that. "Here's a fascist, there's an anti-fascist, everywhere a fascist or anti-fascist." But I am convinced that the overwhelming number of folks using the terms have never read anything by or about fascist political thought. Don't misunderstand me - denouncing Nazis, the KKK, and white supremacists makes perfect sense. Denouncing fascism also, in my book, makes perfect sense. But it might be helpful if people knew more about the origins of that term and the political principles it comprises.

Do We Really Need Comey to Testify?

I don't know why we need former FBI Director James Comey to testify. I mean (to borrow Anderson Cooper's favorite phrase), I have been watching CNN and MsNBC much of today (June 6, 2017) and I think I already know e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g there is to know about what Comey feels, thinks, and recalls about his interactions with President Trump, and I’m not even including what I have learned from the Washington Post and The New York Times! 

Maybe we could just write down on a sheet of paper or on an iPad all of these assertions and simply ask Comey to scroll down the list and check a box next to each one that is correct . That should do it, no? 🙄 😉 

Ads on Webpages: Going Too Far

I appreciate that, in a real sense, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone somewhere must cover the costs. So, too, I appreciate when I am surfing the net reading this and that without paying, that the costs must be covered in some manner. That's one reason I began subscribing to The New York Times and the Washington Post.

So I accept the need for advertising on the Internet. But some of it has gone too far, IMHO. When a pop-up ad suddenly appears to completely cover the screen and the article I'm reading, not when I first open the webpage but a minute into my reading the article, that is outrageous, even more so when the ad's close button is difficult to locate. And even more outrageous is when, while I'm reading an article on a webpage, a video somewhere obscurely located on that page starts to play, without my having initiated it. Not only must I stop reading to find the video to shut it off, but often it will restart, necessitating that I shut it off again. And, if I have multiple webpages open, sometimes I have no idea on which webpage the video is playing.

It appears that Apple, on its Safari browser, may take some steps to limit these practices. I sure hope so!

Media, Careful about "Breaking News"

I appreciate the quality reporting of the New York Times and the Washington Post and others, including CNN and NBC/MsNBC, regarding Russian involvement in our 2016 elections and possible collusion by the Trump team. But their competition has bred, at times, overkill. Many have already mocked the abuse of the term "breaking news".

Days ago it was reported that the FBI was considering someone high up in the Trump Administration a "person of interest". That it was likely Jared Kushner seemed obvious. Who else? Bannon? Priebus? Spicer? No, no and no. And not Melania. Even Ivanka would have been a stretch. So tonight's (May 25, 2017) "blockbuster" news that it is Kushner is a non-blockbuster.

As well, Rachel Maddow, on MsNBC, did her usual repetitive storytelling by reiterating that financial entanglements may be as much a key aspect to a Trump-Russian relationship as collusion with respect to email hacking. That too is not breaking news. Trump's financial ties with Russians, and possibly Kushner's, are not a new topic. And again tonight Maddow reiterated that obstruction of justice is an important part of the story. Really? Obviously.

So, media, please be careful about bombarding us with repetitive news stories. You'll overwhelm us and cause us to withdraw, to your and our own detriment.

Madoff and Trump

I just watched HBO's Wizard of Lies last night about Bernie Madoff. It was depressing. At the conclusion, he asks the NYT reporter interviewing him in prison whether she thinks he's a sociopath. The movie ends on that note. Like there's any question of it?

And this morning I thought of Donald Trump and his patterns of lies, hypocrisy and deceit, and I use the plural for his patterns as well as his lies. By this point, after he flew to Mexico during the campaign and wimped out on confronting the Mexican President about paying for Trump's Wall, did anyone expect Trump to actually use the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" in addressing the Saudis, which he frequently invoked previously and dissed Obama for refusing to use? And what about his condemnations of Obama for golfing? Or his criticism of Michelle Obama respecting her not wearing a headscarf when she visited Saudi Arabia? The list goes on and on, and these aren't necessarily Trump's most egregious lies, hypocrisy or deceit. The list is, indeed, endless, but that hardly lessens my ongoing feelings of disgust for Trump.

And, of course, I'm not even talking about Trump's promise to drain the swamp by hiring his Goldman Sachs crew, or his support of a Trumpcare bill that eviscerates medical care for those Trump promised to protect, that include many of his misguided supporters, or Trump's proposed tax "reform" that, together with his Trumpcare, constitutes incredible tax breaks for the richest Americans.

I'm even leaving aside questions of Trump's and/or his team's collusion with Russians or possible money laundering, as well as his firing of Comey to thwart the Russian investigation. We'll leave those issues, for the moment, to the Special Counsel and Congressional investigating committees.

In the HBO movie, Madoff tries to somewhat excuse his guilt and culpability by claiming that the investors whose money he stole had been greedy; that they bore some responsibility for investing with him. I don't believe any failures on the part of Madoff's investors lessen his guilt and culpability. But I do think they bore some responsibility for their actions or, more accurately, inactions in doing any due diligence in most instances. I draw a parallel to Trump's supporters here. I don't think their blindness, selfishness or ignorance excuses in the slightest Trump's culpability for his lies, hypocrisy and deceit. But I do think his supporters bear responsibility for their own behavior.