There is a lot to reflect on given the recent Trump policy of "zero tolerance" regarding all foreign nationals who enter our country without a Visa.
It is a number that has been declining for years, well before Trump. Why is another subject entirely. When arguments are made regarding foreign nationals residing in the US illegally (as Trump describes as an "infestation"), one should always keep in mind that a majority are here due to overstaying their Visas.
Trump and his minions (press secretary, DHS Secretary, Attorney General, loyal Trump Republicans in Congress) have repeated over and over that their policy of separating young children from their parents was only following the law. Trump went further to call it specifically a "Democrats" law.
This brazen assertion is not true. There is no law, Democrat or otherwise. Do the research yourself - I did. That Trump should assert an untruth is not surprising; he has done it almost countless times. But these other people (my God...the Attorney General, chief of law enforcement!!) are equally reprehensible.
Initially, when they were making reference to "Flores" I thought they were talking about a law which mandated that children could not be kept in detention centers. That's what they wanted me to think. However, "Flores" is not a law, it was a Court decision back during the Reagan administration which restricted the treatment of alien children. A reaffirmation of the finding by the 9th Circuit during the Obama Administration reiterated that children could not be held with their parents in detention if there were less offensive ways of keeping track of them (which the Obama Administration chose).
It is why Trump's so called "reverse" Executive Order to create internment camps for entire families (at abandoned Air Force bases) will not work. It's as if he finds it perfectly acceptable to take us back to 1942. Are empowering Jim Crow laws next?
Although the repulsiveness of this recent episode of the Trump Administration is self evident, its not what I found scary.
The National response has been proper, and the vilified News Media (except for Trump News) has been aggressive. I feel it will ultimately work its way back to a policy identical to that of the Obama Administration, albeit with hurt children and parents along the way.
What I found frightening was the lack of transparency by which Trump, Sessions, and their advisors chose to try and pull this off. Of all the blustery comments Trump has made about authoritarian leaders, how he respects their actions, applauds their behavior, and seeks to emulate them, his actions have at best been limited tweets or passive support of Authoritarian principals. However, this time it's different.
What scares me was the lack of transparency by which this policy was carried out. Individuals, media representatives, even Senators were restricted from information that would divulge the nature of what Trump was doing. The details of the whole policy were carried out for weeks, children transferred to 17 states around the Country, entirely in secret.
Once the extent of the action was uncovered the attempt at secrecy continued until they realized it was fruitless. No information on how many or where, no pictures allowed, no eye witnesses allowed (including ranking Senators), the DHS Secretary refusing to say where young girls were sent, and so forth.
This attempt at blinding public scrutiny goes hand in hand with Trump proclaiming American News Media as the number one "enemy of the people". Folks...this is really scary stuff. It is a critical leg of Authoritarianism. We see it around the world where human rights are most suppressed. The Holocaust couldn't have happened without it.
Dear reader, vote out Republicans in November so Congress can finally be a check to this anti-American Administration.
Sunday, June 24, 2018
Saturday, June 16, 2018
Gun No Fun
A news story yesterday out of Colorado managed to float itself to national attention. It involved gun violence, injury, and death - the American carte du jour. We heard about this case I believe, as opposed to the endless parade of gun killings that barely make local news, because of the suspected reason for a motive - road rage.
That the victims were a young mother (41) and two of her children probably enhanced it news "worthiness", but the hook for the media was this type of anger which almost everyone can relate to at some level. What I'm interested in learning, as the facts proceed, is whether much or any of the attention will be directed toward the inclusion of a handgun in the crime. I suspect not much...but it should.
The killer, a 23 year old white male (almost a type cast role), has already been able to publish out to the media his mental instability and recent addition of medications. As he didn't know his victims at the time of the shootings, if he can prove that the "rage" occurred close enough to the event he'll probably be in a good position to defend himself from a 1st degree murder charge. His crime will lean closer to that of a drunk driver causing fatalities.
That actually may be closer to the truth than to lump him with those who plan killings for their own advantage(s).
The real problem is that he had possession of a handgun. Even if it is discovered that he planned this action, that "road rage" was not the motive, the existence of the handgun is still critical. But let me shoot a hole (not to be puny) in the anti-gun advocates (sure to come) argument. It's not the gun itself.
The NRA mantra; "guns don't kill people, people kill people", is ironically the best possible slogan for maximum gun control. It is because it highlights the question; why do so many people in the United States turn to guns to solve their emotional issues?
Okay, we know the US is awash in firearms. However, if you remove the 3% of the population (about 10MM people) who have accumulated arsenals (averaging 16 firearms each) the per capita ownership of the remaining weapons is not that far off from other countries. Yet US gun violence and gun related suicides dwarf all other developed societies across the globe. Why?
Gun control advocates want to address accessibility. That would be a nice clean argument if it weren't for the fact that this Country already has more guns then it has people. Making guns harder to get is a no brainer, but it doesn't solve the problem, which is why the NRA+ can so easily cut it off at the knees. We need strong gun control laws because we need to make a generational change in how American society, as a whole, values gun use.
Currently everything recent generations have experienced tell them that the use of a gun to solve your problem, whatever it might be, is acceptable and often laudable. Those 3% who have accumulated arsenals are virtually in love with their guns for much the same reason. The NRA, Conservatives, and Republicans are all members of the wedding party. The steady drone of gun violence news just adds validation to the affair.
We need gun control laws because the NRA is right, people kill people. If we enact comprehensive gun control laws, effectively saying as a society that guns are not cool, that they are what they are and no more. Then perhaps the next generation will grow up with no desire to include themselves with the outcasts who continue to find a way to exploit the violence of firearms.
Perhaps then the road rage of 2040 could no more be associated with gun violence than arguing whose turn it is to take out the trash. The change needs to start now because there is a long, long way to go.
That the victims were a young mother (41) and two of her children probably enhanced it news "worthiness", but the hook for the media was this type of anger which almost everyone can relate to at some level. What I'm interested in learning, as the facts proceed, is whether much or any of the attention will be directed toward the inclusion of a handgun in the crime. I suspect not much...but it should.
The killer, a 23 year old white male (almost a type cast role), has already been able to publish out to the media his mental instability and recent addition of medications. As he didn't know his victims at the time of the shootings, if he can prove that the "rage" occurred close enough to the event he'll probably be in a good position to defend himself from a 1st degree murder charge. His crime will lean closer to that of a drunk driver causing fatalities.
That actually may be closer to the truth than to lump him with those who plan killings for their own advantage(s).
The real problem is that he had possession of a handgun. Even if it is discovered that he planned this action, that "road rage" was not the motive, the existence of the handgun is still critical. But let me shoot a hole (not to be puny) in the anti-gun advocates (sure to come) argument. It's not the gun itself.
The NRA mantra; "guns don't kill people, people kill people", is ironically the best possible slogan for maximum gun control. It is because it highlights the question; why do so many people in the United States turn to guns to solve their emotional issues?
Okay, we know the US is awash in firearms. However, if you remove the 3% of the population (about 10MM people) who have accumulated arsenals (averaging 16 firearms each) the per capita ownership of the remaining weapons is not that far off from other countries. Yet US gun violence and gun related suicides dwarf all other developed societies across the globe. Why?
Gun control advocates want to address accessibility. That would be a nice clean argument if it weren't for the fact that this Country already has more guns then it has people. Making guns harder to get is a no brainer, but it doesn't solve the problem, which is why the NRA+ can so easily cut it off at the knees. We need strong gun control laws because we need to make a generational change in how American society, as a whole, values gun use.
Currently everything recent generations have experienced tell them that the use of a gun to solve your problem, whatever it might be, is acceptable and often laudable. Those 3% who have accumulated arsenals are virtually in love with their guns for much the same reason. The NRA, Conservatives, and Republicans are all members of the wedding party. The steady drone of gun violence news just adds validation to the affair.
We need gun control laws because the NRA is right, people kill people. If we enact comprehensive gun control laws, effectively saying as a society that guns are not cool, that they are what they are and no more. Then perhaps the next generation will grow up with no desire to include themselves with the outcasts who continue to find a way to exploit the violence of firearms.
Perhaps then the road rage of 2040 could no more be associated with gun violence than arguing whose turn it is to take out the trash. The change needs to start now because there is a long, long way to go.
Monday, June 11, 2018
Fox & Frauds
As I have revealed in prior posts, I record and try to watch the first 20 minutes or so of both MSNBC's Morning Joe and FOX's Fox&Friends weekday mornings. Where the biases of both are obvious, my attempts at objectivity are constantly challenge by the FOX network. Case in point:
This morning (June 11th) the lead story on Joe was about how Trump had distanced himself at the G-7 meeting and had published his usual low-bar Tweets directed at Canadian Prime minister Justin Trudeau. Two of Trumps senior economic advisors, Larry Kudlow and Peter Navarro, were on the Sunday circuit also trashing Trudeau (using some questionably identical language). Navarro went so far as to say Trudeau was reserving for himself a "special place in Hell".
Trudeau on Saturday, as the G-7 host, had given a statement regarding the overall conclusion of the Conference, then opened up for a few questions. Morning Joe played clips from the statement which were upbeat, even on working out differences between the US and Canada/Europe. MJ was pointing out the contrast between Trudeau's words and the Trump responses (Tweets).
When I watch Fox&Friends the clips they played were different. Trudeau was more specific in his words describing Canadian/US relations. He was more aggressive using terms like "retaliation" and we won't be "pushed around".
Whoa I thought! Both Progressives and Conservatives cherry picking their narrative! Who to trust? Then I decided to listen to the entire 43 minute Trudeau statement and press conference (which unfortunately for me he repeated everything in both English and French making the actual briefing about 25 minutes).
The reality was that Morning Joe had used words from Trudeau's initial statement. F&F on the other hand edited comments which were responses to questions later on. In fact, the questions referenced the aggressive trade actions by Trump specifically wanting to know how Canada would respond. Fox&Friends, of course, chose not to include the questions, or even that there were questions.
Overall the Trudeau statement and answers to questions were extraordinarily conciliatory. He constantly expressed concerns for both Canadian and American workers. He also repeatedly expressed optimism that an equitable solution could be worked out. Frankly, it made me jealous of Canadians in no small measure.
We are becoming a shameful country and not simply because of Trump. Where are the so-called patriotic Republicans who used to take pride in American leadership? No where to be found. Fox&Frauds could just as easily be labeled Fox$Fiends (the $$ is not a typo). If you watch it for information you are as dumb and gullible as Trump himself.
The US relationship to Canada has been so close during my lifetime I have never even thought of Canadians as "foreigners". Cousins is a more apt description. It is profoundly sad how Trump is undermining generations of foreign policy. He may decide he wants a wall on the Canadian/American boarder, but he should realize it would only be useful in keeping Americans in.
This morning (June 11th) the lead story on Joe was about how Trump had distanced himself at the G-7 meeting and had published his usual low-bar Tweets directed at Canadian Prime minister Justin Trudeau. Two of Trumps senior economic advisors, Larry Kudlow and Peter Navarro, were on the Sunday circuit also trashing Trudeau (using some questionably identical language). Navarro went so far as to say Trudeau was reserving for himself a "special place in Hell".
Trudeau on Saturday, as the G-7 host, had given a statement regarding the overall conclusion of the Conference, then opened up for a few questions. Morning Joe played clips from the statement which were upbeat, even on working out differences between the US and Canada/Europe. MJ was pointing out the contrast between Trudeau's words and the Trump responses (Tweets).
When I watch Fox&Friends the clips they played were different. Trudeau was more specific in his words describing Canadian/US relations. He was more aggressive using terms like "retaliation" and we won't be "pushed around".
Whoa I thought! Both Progressives and Conservatives cherry picking their narrative! Who to trust? Then I decided to listen to the entire 43 minute Trudeau statement and press conference (which unfortunately for me he repeated everything in both English and French making the actual briefing about 25 minutes).
The reality was that Morning Joe had used words from Trudeau's initial statement. F&F on the other hand edited comments which were responses to questions later on. In fact, the questions referenced the aggressive trade actions by Trump specifically wanting to know how Canada would respond. Fox&Friends, of course, chose not to include the questions, or even that there were questions.
Overall the Trudeau statement and answers to questions were extraordinarily conciliatory. He constantly expressed concerns for both Canadian and American workers. He also repeatedly expressed optimism that an equitable solution could be worked out. Frankly, it made me jealous of Canadians in no small measure.
We are becoming a shameful country and not simply because of Trump. Where are the so-called patriotic Republicans who used to take pride in American leadership? No where to be found. Fox&Frauds could just as easily be labeled Fox$Fiends (the $$ is not a typo). If you watch it for information you are as dumb and gullible as Trump himself.
The US relationship to Canada has been so close during my lifetime I have never even thought of Canadians as "foreigners". Cousins is a more apt description. It is profoundly sad how Trump is undermining generations of foreign policy. He may decide he wants a wall on the Canadian/American boarder, but he should realize it would only be useful in keeping Americans in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
