politics

Current Issues  /  News & Comment
Out Of Control
February 17, 2017
charles i. letbetter - out of control

The president complains about the press which means the press is doing its job

 

charles i. letbetter - out of control

The Short Version

The 45th president, in a rambling 77-minute press conference that resembled the chaos of his administration, repeatedly picked on, attempted to bully, and called out specific members of the press. “Out of control” and “fake press” he calls them. Yet, whether the president likes it or not, they’re doing exactly what they’re supposed to do: keep the government from lying about what it’s doing.

A Little History

Ever wonder why the freedom of the press is guaranteed in the US Constitution? The founders had seen the fallacies of a government-controlled press not only under King George III but all across most of Europe at that time. Kings of the 18th century kept very careful control over the information that the public received regarding matters of the crown, and often the picture that was painted was nowhere close to the truth. When framing the amendments of the Constitution, those early patriots wanted a press that would be part of the checks and balances of government.

Of course, that ultimately meant they would sometimes write what presidents didn’t want people to know. Thomas Jefferson was perhaps the first to call the press liars. “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle,” he wrote in 1807. Whether Mr. Jefferson was correct in his assertion is now a matter of historical debate. No one is around to set the record straight.

Other presidents have had difficult relationships with the press as well. Richard Nixon’s tirades are well documented, as are his attempts to bug the phones of journalists. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had their moments of frustration with the press as well.

What’s worth noting, however, it that every time this has happened, the dominant reason for the feud is the press doggedly calling out the president and, in some cases, his administration, for what they are doing. The Washington Post blew open Watergate. The New York Times closely reported on both Clinton and Bush. The high degree of surveillance given the current president is no different than his predecessors.

The difference is that there’s more for the press to write.

A Difficult Relationship

There’s little question that the relationship between the press and the president has become more adversarial over the years. Gone are the days when the White House press corp would help keep a secret as significant as President Roosevelt’s polio disability or John F. Kennedy’s extramarital dalliances. The modern press is more aggressive in looking for their stories and less trusting of official White House communications.

What makes the relationship with the 45th president more thorny that before is the fact that even before he was elected this president was repeatedly caught in outright lies as he attempted to skew information in his favor and cover errors he had made. The candidate who would become president wasn’t alone in using that tactic, however, and lies and misstatements became so commonplace within the campaigns that fact-checking became a regular requirement after ever speech by every candidate.

Even now, the Associated Press still fact checks every statement coming out of the White House. This morning’s article checks the validity of the president’s statement that he “inherited a mess” from the Obama administration. The AP finds that the president’s statement, once again, the president is either lying, misleading, or totally ignoring evidence to the contrary. You can read the full article for yourself here.

Is the AP out of control? No, they’re just doing their job in keeping the president and his White House honest.

Is every member of the press so responsible? Of course not.

Long before there were websites totally given to biased accounts of the news, there were tabloids that filled their pages with nothing but lies and nonsense. We knew that they were nothing but lies and nonsense even when they ran stories as ridiculous as Elvis Presley being alive and waiting tables in some rural backwater town. Yet, people kept buying the tabloids carefully positioned at the checkout of the local grocery store. The difference between then and now is that people would read the stories and laugh. Now, people read the same kind of nonsense and believe it.

The fact that there are millions of people who are willing to believe ridiculous stories from the most dubious of sources gives credence to the president’s assertion that the press is lying. He stands in an incredibly long press conference that seems to have no central purpose and after several minutes declares, “I’m not ranting and raving. I’m just telling you. You know, you’re dishonest people. But I’m not ranting and raving. I love this. I’m having a good time doing it.” The same people who once believed the tabloid stories about werewolf babies from Mars are all too willing to believe that the press is intentionally being dishonest.

However, the majority of press members, including but not limited to the hundreds of local daily newspapers, are not dishonest. Instead, they are finding and reporting the dishonesty of the president’s administration, a level of oversight to which the president is not accustomed. In his previous life, the man who is now president could easily enough blow off questions from the press, retreat to his gold-encrusted penthouse, and let any potential storm blow over. His actions then rarely affected anyone outside his business dealings. Now, every word he tweets and every off-hand remark he makes has the potential to become a national crisis, and much of it has.

Contrary to his assertion that he is running “a well-oiled machine,” the chaos of his administration is so evident that one doesn’t really need the filter of the press in order to see what is happening.

From the Associated Press:

[The president’s] first month has been consumed by a series of missteps and firestorms, and produced far less significant legislation than Obama enacted during his first month.

Republican-led congressional committees will investigate the [president’s] team’s relations with Russians before he took office and the flood of leaks that altogether forced out his national security adviser in record time. His pick for labor secretary withdrew because he didn’t have enough Republican support.

By many measures, the administration is in near paralysis in its earliest days, leaving allies unsettled and many in Congress anxious about what Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., called the “constant disruption.” To many Republicans — never mind Democrats — the “fine-tuned machine” seems in danger of its wheels coming off.

Perhaps what the president means when he asserts that the press is “out of control” is that it is out of his control, which is exactly the way it should be. The press is doing its job and for a president who made his way into office on lies and misinformation, the harsh glare of honest light is one he finds painful.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment
#ADayWIthoutImmigants
February 16, 2017
charles i. letbetter - #ADayWithoutImmigrants

Protest aim to emphasize how dependent America is on immigrant labor

 

charles i. letbetter - #ADayWithoutImmigrants

The Short Version

Major protests are planned in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Houston, and Chicago to bring attention to the amount of immigrant labor in the U.S. Several restaurants are closing for the day and demonstrations are planned in an effort to bring attention to what are considered unfair and potentially illegal actions on the part of the 45th president’s administration.

A Bit More Detail

The messages started appearing in my social media feeds around noon yesterday. “Carry ID,” they warned. “Everyone riding the red line who looking Latino or Middle Eastern is being stopped. Know your rights.”

The warnings were directed toward immigrants living and working in and around Chicago. Rumors are swirling that immigration officials are conducting or planning to conducts raids across that city this week with a goal of rounding up some 20,000 illegal immigrants. Immigration officials, of course, don’t speak regarding any plans they might have for raids and such. They’d hate to ruin their own surprise.

Naturally, once again, the immigrant community is scared. Anytime immigration officials start casting broad nets like this, they end up violation the rights of people who are here legally and have often been accused of mistreatment toward those whom they plan to deport. The frequency and brutality of those raids has increased since the new president was sworn in three weeks ago.

This issue is real and more than immigrants are paying attention. A survey of over 100,000 people found that millennial women are especially plugged into the immigration debate, moving the importance of that issue up from 8th place to 3rd in just three weeks. Among women 22-35, the immigration issue is so important that they have altered their shopping patterns based on a brand’s perceived stand toward immigration.

#ADayWithoutImmigrants has organized well and in many cases includes the support of employers who depend on a significant number of immigrants to keep their business running. The Washington Post has a running list of restaurants that will be closed today in support of the protest. Other cities as diverse as Minneapolis and Austin are participating in the protests. The overall effect could be considerably disruptive, especially as the loss of sales tax revenue for the day is likely to be considerable.

What this all comes down to is the fact that we are a nation of immigrants built on the back of immigrants and dependent upon the hard work and labor of immigrants. At the same time, as a country, we have fought this battle before. Groups we now consider mainstream, such as the Irish and German populations common across the North, were once given the same abusive treatment as Latino and Middle Eastern immigrants are now experiencing. We seem to have difficulty learning from our past mistakes.

Whether the protests are effective remains to be seen. There has been some concern that those participating any kind of immigrant rally could become targets for immigration authorities. Already, rumors that immigration officers could be staking out churches and public schools has frightened a number of immigrants, including those who are here legally, into hiding. Churches in Colorado and Chicago are already taking a stand, allowing undocumented people facing deportation to claim asylum within their walls. However, doing so comes with some risks. Courts have disagreed as to whether church pastors and staff can be charged with aiding a fugitive when they provide asylum.

While the protests may not keep ICE from making raids in Chicago or elsewhere this weekend, they do have the effect of bringing the topic to the forefront of the national conversation, making the topic of immigration one that is impossible to ignore.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Long Read  /  Personal
Losing Ourselves
February 12, 2017
charles i. letbetter - losing ourselves

The more we fight, the more we put at risk

 

charles i. letbetter - losing ourselves

I Am Somebody

I was reminded earlier today of a Calvin and Hobbes comic strip by Bill Watterson. I don’t have permission to share the strip, so I won’t. I can describe it for you, though.

Frame one: Calvin silently stares at a night sky full of stars.
Frame two: “I am significant!” Calvin screams into the night.
Frame three: Calvin returns to the immensity of the night sky
Frame four: “Says the dust speck,” Calvin says as he walks away.

As I consider all that has transpired over the past few weeks, I find myself constantly navigating back and forth between Calvin’s two statements. With every dishonest and deceitful move made by the president and his administration, I ultimately am screaming, “I am significant! Listen to me!” Those may not be the exact words that I use, but the reality is that the motivation behind all our angst and anger comes down to the fact we feel we are being ignored and discarded by the people who are now in power. We march because we fear being thrown away, deported even though we were born here, or made to become refugees as we flee an unrepentant dictator.

Over the past three weeks, we have yelled, we have written, we have shared poignant articles, we have made phone calls, and we quite possibly have threatened to end a political career or two. We have been loud, persistent, resistant, and consistent in fighting the perceived evil at every turn and every tweet. We have called for hearings, called for investigations, and called for impeachment with more furor and frequency than we call for pizza.

And then, we hit the dust speck moment. We find ourselves wondering if anything we’ve said, any action that we’ve taken, ultimately matters. Sure, it matters right now. It matters that women have control over their own bodies. It matters that people fleeing war and famine and poverty are allowed to resettle in a place where they can feel safe. It matters that everyone has a fair and reasonable opportunity to vote. It matters that drinking water be free of contamination. Everything matters in the short term of our lives right at this moment.

But ultimately, when the story of this planet resides in some recorded history of a different place and maybe even different beings, will our actions now matter or are we nothing more than dust specks? Is there a chance that in all of our protests that we could lose more than we gain?

A moment of perspective

I identify as Native American. Neither of my parents would, though. If you ever saw my late father, his native heritage was obvious. When our address was Tahlequah, Oklahoma, the capital of the Western band of the Cherokee, Poppa was frequently asked if he was a tribe member, especially when it came time to elect a new chief. He always said no. In fact, most the time he would tell people he was Black Dutch. Yet, as his eldest sister would remind him, he was very much Choctaw.

Mother, on the other hand, would tell people privately that she was Cherokee, and she was. She was very proud of that. Never mind that her skin was white as any European who ever crossed the Atlantic, Mom made sure you knew she was Cherokee—right up until there was a government form to fill out. Then, she marked that she was white. Every time.

Mom felt she had good reason for not claiming her heritage on government forms. Her mother’s family, the Bucks, had been forcibly relocated from their tribal land in North Georgia. A family child had died along the way and those that survived were ill. The family blamed the tribal rolls. The way my Uncle Windjammer put it, they had been told putting their names on the rolls would keep them safe and they had believed what the tribal elders told them. Then, those same rolls were used to round them all up and drive them all away. The message held in the family was clear: never trust the government and never admit to them that you’re Cherokee.

As I grew older, I found many native peoples who felt the same way. Distrust of the government was high. They did not expect to be treated fairly and they did not expect anyone representing the government to ever keep their word. The name of the president might change, but the lies to native peoples remain the same. Therefore, for many, one was better off publicly denying their cultural heritage and trying to fit in with the white man’s world. Native traditions might be kept at home, but no one was to know.

As a result, that heritage and culture risks being lost completely. I understand much less about our native culture than my mother did. Mother understood less than Grandma did. Hiding from the government has a cost: people lose the knowledge and understanding of who they are; where they fit in the cosmos. We become dust specks.

Losing things

At least once a week, Kat loses her keys here in the house. It happens easily enough. When she comes in from the salon in the evening, she is immediately bombarded by both children and pets anxious for her affection. Anything in her hands, such as her keys, quickly becomes a hindrance. Sometimes she sets them on a shelf by the door. Sometimes she puts them in her purse. Sometimes she sets them on the couch that has a nasty habit of eating such things. Inevitably, as she gets ready to leave the next day, we have to search for the keys. We know damn good and well they didn’t become animated and walk off under their own power. There is limited space wherein they might exist. Yet, for several anxiety-filled minutes, they are invisible.

There is an interesting, poignant, and sometimes humorous article in The New Yorker about losing things. As writer Kathryn Schulz discusses the impact of losing everything from her wallet to her father, she uncovers some important facts about the emotion of loss. After ruminating about the inevitability of losing everything from keys to health to partners to wealth, she finally writes:

There’s precious little solace for this, and zero redress; we will lose everything we love in the end. But why should that matter so much? By definition, we do not live in the end: we live all along the way. The smitten lovers who marvel every day at the miracle of having met each other are right; it is finding that is astonishing. You meet a stranger passing through your town and know within days you will marry her. You lose your job at fifty-five and shock yourself by finding a new calling ten years later. You have a thought and find the words. You face a crisis and find your courage.

We lost the election. We knew losing was possible but we didn’t expect it. We now fear losing much more. We fear losing the right to speak and, just as important, the ability to be heard and to have our voice given some respect. We fear that we might lose the right to decide for ourselves not what is right or wrong but what is best. We fear losing clean air to breathe. We fear becoming cogs in someone else’s machine. We fear a corporate takeover of our very lives.

We fear losing who we are.

I am significant, dammit. I won’t let some orange-tinged narcissistic ball of international embarrassment deny me my personal significance. Yet, as we face this crisis, and there’s no question in my mind that this is a crisis, where do we find our courage?  Is courage something we can conjure up from inside us or is it, like Kat’s keys, cloaked in some mysterious veil of invisibility until suddenly, poof, there it is in that same place we’d already looked a dozen times before?

Remedies versus reality

Somewhere back about 30 years or so ago, I had a work acquaintance whose mother had terminal cancer. She was a sweet little old lady, the kind who would bake extra loaves of bread so she would have some to give away or send presents for children she had never met. She was not ready to give up on life just yet. When oncologists in the US said they had nothing left in their arsenal to fight the disease, she latched on to an experimental treatment in Greece that had shown some success. Obviously, her insurance wasn’t going to pay for the treatment. It took every bit of savings she had as well as substantial contributions from her children to pay for the trip and the treatment in advance, but they all assumed that life was worth the sacrifice. Off to Greece she went.

She died her third day in Greece. Ill when she got off the plane, she was never well enough to start the treatment. She passed alone, apart from her family, in a country she knew only from a brief taxi ride.

This is what happens when remedies meet reality. Everything sounds good on paper. The pictures are always pretty in the brochure. Reality comes when one actually tries to embrace the promise of a remedy, though, and reality often isn’t working with the same set of pictures. What one person promises to be the solution to a problem often doesn’t quite pan out when the project moves into execution. Reality delivers to us the unexpected, the unforeseen, and dumps it right smack in the middle of the plans we were sure would work.

Benjamin P. Hardy wrote an article for medium.com about the need to make course adjustments throughout our lives in order to stay on track. He compares our lives to an airplane in flight, constantly making course corrections to avoid problems like running into a volcano and killing everyone on board (which actually happened in 1979). After relating that tragic story, he says something extremely important:

“Small things — if not corrected — become big things, always.”

Hardy then proceeds to offer a very thorough set of remedies through a detailed set of questions. Seriously, this article is long.  His remedy involves being organized, planning and investing, tracking metrics, reducing noise, and moving toward goals. There’s nothing actually wrong in anything he says. In fact, the same advice has been around forever and for people of a certain personality type, it probably works.

The problem is reality. No matter how hard I try, and I frequently try, I’m just not organized. My creative mind won’t allow me to be organized. I can get my desk all neatly arranged with a place for everything and everything in its place and 30 minutes later one would swear it had been involved in a train wreck. I try blaming the cats and the kids, but the reality is that my life is just cluttered and messy.

So it is when it comes to resisting this new political reality. I’ve read the guides and looked at the suggestions and it all makes perfect sense. There’s no reason we shouldn’t be able to successfully resist the idiocy that has taken over our government. We can do this. All we have to do is be organized, and plan, and focused, and keep at it.

But the reality is that resistance is exhausting and the folks in the White House know that. Their plan is to make sure everyone who opposes them is so exhausted that we give up. We’re only three weeks into this potentially four-year marathon and already we’re feeling consumed. Who do I need to call today? What’s the current hot issue? Where did I put the Senator’s phone number?

I want to be part of the resistance. I need to be part of the resistance. I cannot let happen here what happened in Germany as Hitler rose to power. The threat is real. Action must be taken.

But then, I wake up in the morning wondering who the hell am I? Is anyone listening? One particular Senator has yet to acknowledge my numerous atttempts at communicating with him. Am I getting through? Is anyone actually listening to the messages being left on his phone?

The reality is that more often I feel like a dust speck. A significant dust speck, perhaps, but still just a speck.

Course correction

Go back to what Mr. Hardy said: “Small things — if not corrected — become big things, always.” This feeling of lostness, of being only a dust speck, is a small thing now. Yet, it has to be corrected. Now. A momentary sense of misdirection or confusion is one thing. If we just blindly keep going, though, if we keep following “the plan” and don’t check ourselves, we risk ending up so impossibly off course that we’ve lost any sense of who we really are. At some point, we will look up and, for better or worse, the resistance will be over. Maybe we win. Maybe we lose. But when we get to that point will we still know who we are or will we have lost our identity to the cause?

One of the biggest challenges anyone faces is changing realities and no one experiences that more harshly than do the dear people who serve in our military. They volunteer, every last one of them, to give their lives in the protection of all we hold dear. They leave. They fight. They experience challenges to their existance on a level that would make most of us soil our clothing. They put everything they have on the line.

Then, they come home and things are different. Suddenly, they no longer need to worry about who or what might be waiting around the next corner trying to kill them. No longer is there a very real chance that the child asking them for candy is a distraction while someone else plants a bomb in their car. Reality has changed and with it comes the need to adapt. Not everyone is successful.  Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD) is the third most prevalent psychiatric diagnosis among veterans. Some get help and eventually do okay. Some don’t. They lose their identity as an individual and some never get it back. Ever.

To a much lesser extent, we all risk the same thing anytime we commit ourselves to something that is wholly consuming of our time and energy. Fighting the good fight is necessary and admirable, but when it eventually ends, when our service in that war is no longer necessary, do we still know who we are? Can we still function in society without looking at everything as a challenge that must be addressed with protests and marches?

We need to start asking ourselves these questions now, making course corrections while still injoined in the struggle or resistance, or else we risk losing who we really are.

Maintaining identity

When one presents a problem one is supposed to propose a solution, correct? Yet, as we’ve already discussed, remedies too foten run afoul of reality and when my reality is different from your reality I question just how valuable  a solution might be on a universal level.

Maintaining one’s identity is rooted in having an initial udnerstanding of who we are and since that is obviously different for every person the so, too, must be the solution. If one does not already have that secure foundation in who they are, then the danger for them is perhaps even more acute. One is never merely a member of a cause, no matter how noble that cause might be. We are significant in our individualities, not just because we belong to a group.

Nonetheless, perhaps a generalized framework of loose-knit suggestions isat least marginally appropriate at this point. Adapt these to your reality as you feel appropriate.

  • Keep doing what you do. Don’t lose site of what you’ve already established in your life. If you take pictures, keep taking pictures. If you chase kids around all day, keep chasing kids around all day. This is part of your core. Don’t give it up.
  • Love somebody. I don’t necessarily mean this in the romantic sense, though if you are fortunate enough to have someone with whom you are intimate this is all the more important. The challenge is that being committed to a cause can keep us away from people we care about. Don’t let that happen. Make time.
  • Make time to play. The weather in the Midwest was beautiful yesterday. Even with a very heavy schedule of fashion shows, I took time between shows to go out in the yard and play with the kids and the dog. Sure, it was just a few minutes here and there, but it was enough to remind me of what really matters.
  • Try to avoid stress eating. I said try. There are good days and there are bad days and when my AP feed is going nuts or when major fashion shows are stacked one on top of another the stress of just trying to keep up sends me reaching for the chocolate. By the handful. This isn’t healthy. You and I both know it isn’t healthy. If you’re going to stress eat, at least try to make it something that won’t kill you. Avoid Taco Bell®.
  • Sleep. On a normal day I’m able to get in an afternoon nap before the little ones get home from school. This nap is necessary given the early hour at which my day starts. However, I’ve been missing my nap of late and it is really starting to affect my attitude and my behavior. I’m much more short tempered, less tolerant, and have to work harder to not write something that would get me a visit from the FBI or Secret Service. Yes, there’s a lot to do. Resisting tyranny doesn’t happen with your eyes closed. However, fatigue is the shortest path I know to unreasonable actions and expectations. Sleep, dammit.
  • Remember, this won’t last forever. Whether our efforts prove successful or not, there is an end to every campaign, every protest, and every cause. Resistance is not long-term. Your life and your individuality are. Don’t let the cause block your vision of who you are.

There is nothing the president and his staff can do that takes away our significance. While we may be dust specks in the overall perspective of the cosmos, we are each important to the here and now of this planet and this life and there is absolutely nothing or no one who can change that.

I had a high school acquaintance try to convince me yesterday that resistance is futile, that the president is the president and that this reality was not going to change. I took his words as a challenge to prove him wrong. Reality is what we make of it and I’m not willing to blindly accept tyranny. I will resist with every fiber of my being if necessary.

But in doing so, I will still be me. I will still take pictures. I will still scream at people running stop signs. I will still enjoy my morning coffee with Kat.

Grab hold of who you are. Don’t let go. Be you.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Fashion  /  News & Comment
Defying Authority
February 9, 2017
charles i. letbetter - defying authority

Retailers don’t care who Ivanka’s daddy is, they’re not carrying her junk.

 

charles i. letbetter - defying authority

The Short Version

Retailers including Nordstrom and T.J. Maxx have dumped Ivanka Trump’s fashion line, saying that the products were cheaply made and not selling well. Ivanka’s daddy, who just happens to be president of the United States, tweeted his anger toward Nordstrom yesterday. Not only did the tweets not have the desired effect, it once again draws attention to the ethics issues raised by the president’s business holdings.

A Little Background

Fashion retail is a challenging market, as we’ve discussed several times before. Several once-popular chains have gone completely under. So, it makes sense that a store would stop selling anything that doesn’t sell well. Back in January, department store Nordstrom, as well as T.J. Maxx and Marshall’s, announced that they were dropping the entire Ivanka Trump line because they didn’t sell well last year. Any sane business person would have done the same thing.

Unfortunately, it is an insane businessman we have elected as president.

What The President Said

Yesterday, almost a month after Nordstrom and other retailers dumped his daughter’s label, the president issued this tweet:

Typically, that would be bad news for Nordstrom. Other times the president has tweeted about a company, their stock took a dive. Not this time.

That’s right, the company’s stock value went UP after the president’s tweet. Could it be that the great orange one holds no sway over fashion? That would certainly seem to be the case.

The Washington Post quotes Indiana University retail merchandising professor Mary Embry on the matter:

“Politics certainly do matter in fashion,” she said, “but the strength of the Nordstrom stock validates the strength of the decision making of that retailer that is based on absolutely knowing its customer.”

Also, she said: “The president is not seen as having any particular expertise on fashion.”

The Fallout

The loss of influence may not be the only consequence of the president’s actions. While the tweet was initially issued from the president’s personal account, it was later re-tweeted from the official @POTUS account. That would appear to be a serious ethics violation, using his position as president to influence a business on his daughter’s behalf. That is a very big no-no in both business and political circles.

Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, told the Associated Press: “The implicit threat was that he will use whatever authority he has to retaliate against Nordstrom, or anyone who crosses his interest.”

Ethicists all over the country have been weighing in on social media and while some defend the president’s use of his private account to defend his daughter, there is very little question that retweeting the message on the president’s official account is definitely crossing a line.

This adds to a growing list of ethics concern that could eventually end up as part of a Congressional investigation, though the president and Congressional leadership are doing everything they can to prevent that from happening. However, Congress cannot stop the growing number of lawsuits against the president for breaching ethics issues. Already, the president is facing multiple lawsuits over his failure to fully divest his business holdings as other presidents have done. Most damaging may be a lawsuit that claims the president has violated the Emoluments clause of the Constitution. Should the courts ultimately decide against the president, then Congress would be compelled to take action against him.

For all the reasons for opposing the President, ethics is the one over which he has total control. He doesn’t have to tweet at all. He doesn’t have to comment. He chooses what, when, and where he is going to speak. The entire ethics argument could go away overnight were the president to simply keep his hands in his pockets and be more presidential in what he says. Unfortunately, this president seems to be incapable of either of those things.

Over at T.J. Maxx, employees have been instructed to remove all Ivanka Trump merchandise from their shelves and place the branded signs in the trash.

If only it were so easy to remove the president.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Fashion  /  News & Comment
What is #tiedtogether
February 9, 2017
charles i. letbetter - #tiedtogether

A new movement is underway in the fashion industry

 

charles i. letbetter - #tiedtogether

The Short Version

Digital fashion magazine Business of Fashion (BOF) introduced the #tiedtogether campaign this week, just in time for the ready-to-wear fashion season. Its aim is to provide a focus point for unity and inclusiveness by asking people to wear white bandanas.

A Little More Detail

There’s not a whole lot more to write on the matter. BoF’s own #tiedtogether page is rather brief and void of too many details. The movement is in response to the significant silence on the part of the fashion industry as a whole regarding recent world events, such as the US travel ban and the impact of more nation-centric trade deals. Fashion brands must have a global presence to be successful, but things such as travel limitations and high import fees/tariffs can not only strain the business side of fashion but create animosities between people from different countries.

Few fashion brands have bothered to say much about political situations for fear the backlash might hurt business. While there was some dustup last month regarding which designers might dress the new First Lady of the United States, most companies have chosen to not take a stand. The most notable exception is Levi’s, the denim jean maker, which signed on to an amicus brief for the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opposing the travel ban.

BoF’s movement is admirable, to be sure. With the world seeming to fray at the edges, it would seem that we could do with a little more unity and inclusiveness. The question is whether people are actually interested in either. The distance between political ideologies is extreme and in many camps, unity is seen as a compromise that favors the evil of the other side and inclusiveness is pretty much the same as fraternizing with the enemy. The strength of the #Resist movement is an example of the challenges to finding or creating a global sense of unity around most any topic.

Fashion is not immune from politics and the question designers and labels face now is how much of their personal attitudes and feelings to allow into their work. Under previous circumstances, the conventional wisdom has been to keep the two separate. However, there are some notable exceptions to that rule, the most obvious probably being Dame Vivienne Westwood and her strong stand for environmental causes. Much of the rest of fashion, however, prefers to remain quiet.

#tiedtogether did get an important endorsement last night as all the models walking in the Tommy Hilfiger show on Venice Beach were wearing white bandanas imprinted with #tiedtogether on their wrists. Even the designer had one tied to his belt loop as he made the finale walk. If BoF can convince other designers to incorporate the concept into their shows in a similar fashion, the idea might have a chance of catching on, at least as an accessory idea.

Still, we’ve seen this type of movement before. Just because people wear a bandana, or a plastic bracelet with a certain inscription, or a given set of beads, doesn’t mean that they actually subscribe to the philosophy behind the symbol. Wearing every white bandana in the world has little effect if the people wearing them do not genuinely believe in unity and inclusiveness across the deep chasm of political divide. The white bandana risks becoming just another fashion trend with no real substance behind it.

What’s missing in this movement is an example, someone or something that demonstrates what unity and inclusiveness mean in the fashion world. If we’re talking racial inclusiveness, which has been a problem for fashion shows, then seeing more diversity on the runway would be a good start. If we’re talking about gender inclusiveness, then the trend toward mixed men’s and women’s show is a start, but seeing more transgender models on the runway would be a significant step forward. Size diversity has been a significant issue, but only a handful of designers have done anything on that front. There are options and those options have always been there. The industry has been frequently criticized for not embracing those options before now. Are we to expect that a white bandana can be the thing that makes a difference?

BoF is certainly trying hard to get as many designers, editors, models, and bloggers on board as possible. Just getting industry insiders to understand and sign on to the concept is a herculean effort. While we applaud BoF for taking the initiative in starting this campaign, however, we remain skeptical of any real change. We’ve seen other campaigns for inclusivism before and watched as major designers totally ignored them. We will be watching carefully to see if a white bandana can actually make a difference.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Long Read  /  News & Comment
Declaration of Resistance, Annotated
February 7, 2017
charles i. letbetter - declaration of resistance, annotated

Preserving wise words before they magically disappear

charles i. letbetter - Declaration of Resistance, annotated

A Little Background

I do not know Beau Willimon. I’ve never met the young man and, quite honestly, until last week didn’t know a thing about him. Yet, most of what you will find here, all the good parts, are his words, not mine.

If you know of Mr. Willimon, it is likely in connection with this little show he produced for Netflix called House of Cards. Given all the awards its won and the general acclaim for the series, one might assume that Mr. Willimon understands how Washington politics work.

What you might not know is that Mr. Willimon has hands-on experience in the political world, having worked on campaigns for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, and was press aide for Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign. He’s done a bunch of other political stuff as well to give him a fairly substantial background in politics. Top that with his House of Cards experience and I think it’s reasonably safe to say his understanding of the political world is a bit more advanced than the average guy sitting at the bar.

So, when he decided last Friday, 3 February, to present the Internet with his Declaration of Resistance via Twitter, it carried a little more weight than the average entertainment industry celeb. However, Willimon is also a playwright and as such there are some subtleties and inferences built into his tweetstorm that may not be immediately obvious. Some of them may not need to be obvious for his meaning to be clear, but our opinion is that assurance is better than adding to the heaping mounds of confusion spread across the Internet. He bases his words largely upon the contents of the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, we’ve decided to annotate his entries both as a means of explaining what might not be immediately evident and confirm what might be inferred.

This also gives us a chance to more reliably preserve and index Willimon’s entries. If there is a downside to posting these things on Twitter, it is that they are quickly pushed down the list and more difficult to find with each passing day. Willimon uses Twitter a fair amount so even one day after they were posted we still had to do a great deal of scrolling to find them. This will, hopefully, provide a more consistent point of reference for more long-term use.

What Beau Said

These are the original tweets since from @BeauWillimon. Our additions are in red italics between tweets. Note: we do not control how Mr. Willimon’s tweets appear on this page.

If the opening sounds at least slightly familiar, that’s a good thing: it comes close to the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which I will refer to from here on out as “the Declaration.” He only modifies a portion of the first sentence, but the remainder is implied through the rest of the document. For those who slept through Civics class, please allow me to remind you of that first paragraph.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Now, see the connection between what the framers of the Declaration were saying and Mr. Willimon’s words? Consider the phrase “dissolve the political bands” extremely important from here on out.

Another Declaration reference. The second paragraph of that document begins:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The use of the word “men” in this context should be interpreted as representative of all humanity. While women had few legal rights at the time of the Declaration’s writing, the framers were not intentionally leaving them out. Rather, they were attempting to make the statement as inclusive as possible. Willimon nicely modernizes the sentence with the phrase “To safeguard equality for all.”

Breaking things down into smaller chunks, we hit a point of the preamble that some consider inflammatory. Those who would call themselves “patriots” have long used this portion of the Declaration to justify acts of violence against the government and/or its representatives. The Declaration reads:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Arguably, in challenging the authority of the 45th president, Willimon claims that the person residing in the White House does not have sufficient consent of the government. His point is based on the fact that while some 63 million people did vote for the president, over 75 million voted directly against him and over 200 million others are not represented by either vote. Therefore, one might well argue that the president is far from having the consent of the governed and that his election is illegitimate.

Willimon is being very careful with his words here. Using the phrase, “to make such demands upon their Congress” is a softer action than what is stated in the Declaration. I don’t blame him. To copy the words of the Declaration might be considered by some as an attempt to overthrow the government. Take a look at the original language:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

We have to understand the challenges that the founding fathers experienced in living under the auspices of Great Britain, which was in full-tilt empire-building mode at that particular moment. The intent was very clear: do the will of the people or the people will kick you out on your ass and do something different. Never would they have guessed that either the government or the nation would become as large and complicated as it is today. We can’t just march on Washington and institute a new government, no matter how attractive that might sound to some. Appealing to Congress to act on our behalf is a lot safer and doesn’t get one arrested as quickly.

Impeachment. There’s a word that politicians have been tripping over themselves to avoid. With the president’s administration only two weeks old, there are few members of Congress who have the intestinal fortitude to even think about drafting articles of impeachment at this point. While they might admit that the president is building such a case, few have dared to actually utter the word aloud in public. To engage in impeachment is to bring much of government to a grinding hault while the matter is addressed. This is not a matter to be entered into lightly or without sufficient preparation.

Willimon references the 25th amendment. Let me refresh your memory on that one.

The 25th amendment was ratified in 1967 and clarifies exactly what happens in the event that the president is no longer capable of fulfilling his oath of office. There are four sections to the amendment, the first two not applying to our current situation unless the president should happen to simply fall dead or become a victim of some violent action against his life. Section three has been used any time the president undergoes any type of treatment where he is under anesthesia, temporarily rendering him incapacitated. Section four is the kicker. It reads:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Let’s be clear that this action would most likely occur only after articles of impeachment against the president had been passed by both bodies of Congress, or should the vice-president be able to convince enough members of the Cabinet to implore Congress with sufficient reasons for removing the president from power. Either path is extremely difficult given the partisan politics currently dominating the legislative bodies. This is a serious course of action with a distinct set of consequences.

Here is Willimon’s charge against the president: that the has “conducted injuries and usurpations, pursuing the establishment of an absolute Tyranny …” Reference again back to the preamble, pretty much picking up where he left off. The Declaration specifically states:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Let me emphasize again that the framers were referring to the “abuses and usurpations” of Britain’s King George III. For our use here, Despotism and Tyranny are sufficiently close in meaning as to be interchangeable. In short, Willimon is saying that the current president is no better than mad King George III and should be deposed for exactly the same reasons.

This is a direct quote from the preamble. In the Constitution, it is followed by the charges of the colonies made against Britain’s king. This was not so much for the benefit of King George, but a justification for those who might choose with which side the might ally themselves. 

In our particular case here, however, very specific charges are necessary not only so that one might recruit allies to the cause, but to justify taking any action in the first place. One does not simply call the president a tyrant without providing evidence of such. So, Willimon proceeds to make his case.

As I am writing this, we are waiting for the 9th circuit court of appeals to make a full decision regarding the president’s ban on immigrants and refugees. The president’s executive order created a ban against people from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering this US. While verbally asserting that this was not a ban against a specific religious group, it had the effect of such, likely making it a violation of the Constitution’s first amendment prohibiting any action against any religion. One can also reasonably argue that the ban failed to allow for due process. The end result has been chaos. 

When a New York judge issued a temporary restraining order against deportations arising from the ordered travel ban, the president refused to acknowledge the action and instructed federal agencies to continue. This can be interpreted as a violation of the presidential oath, but actual charges against the president on this account could easily be challenged by Congress.

For the sake of history, and anyone who might not have been paying attention, one should be aware that the president dismissed acting Attorney General Sally Yates for failing to defend the president’s travel ban. By definition, it is the job of the Attorney General and the US Department of Justice to defend the laws and interest of the federal government. However, Ms. Yates voiced concern that the order was possibly not legal and therefore should not be defended.

Willimon’s claim regarding the autonomy of the Department of Justice is shaky, however. The position of Attorney General, specifically, has been highly politicized since John F. Kennedy nominated his brother, Robert, to the post in 1961. There are no laws that specifically require or enforce the autonomy, though it is, in practice, an ethical goal.

Here, Willimon is referring to actions taken on 26 January 2017. At first, it appeared as though the senior officials at the State Department had walked out of their own accord. Only later did it become known that they had, in fact, been dismissed by the president. This created a vacuum of knowledge and experience within the federal government regarding international relations. While the move is within the president’s prerogative, it came at a time when the action arguably left all US embassies and overseas personnel without a direct contact or person of authority at the State Department, creating an inherent security issue.

The reference here is regarding the placement of the president’s chief strategist (and campaign manager) Steve Bannon to the principals committee of the National Security Council. This committee ultimately makes direct recommendations to the president regarding matters of national security. Mr. Bannon’s previous statements present ideologies and philosophies consistent with those of a white supremacist, though Bannon denies the charge.

At a prayer breakfast on 2 February 2017, the president told a group of religious leaders that he would “get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment.” The Johnson Amendment was enacted in the 1950s to maintain the wall between church and state by prohibiting religious organizations from participating directly in political activities. The president enjoyed considerable support from Christian extremists during his presidential campaign. This move is seen as a way of undergirding that support. However, repealing the Johnson Amendment would require, at the very least, a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of Congress, something that is not generally considered likely to happen.

Conflicts of interest have been a persistent issue against the president from the day he took office. Already, multiple lawsuits have been filed in federal court seeking to force the president to either divest himself of his business holdings or place them in a genuine blind trust. To date, the president has refused to do either. Instead, he handed off control of his business concerns to his two oldest sons while maintaining full ownership. 

The effective law here is what is generally considered the emoluments clause of the Constitution. The clause in Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution says that, “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or Foreign State.” Given that the president’s considerable business holdings are often utilized by other heads of state, many claim that to retain any interest at all in the properties or holdings would be in violation of the law.

We should note that the current lawsuits represent the first serious challenge to the Emoluments Clause in modern history.

Willimon’s statement here is based primarily on anecdotal evidence. While that evidence appears likely to be valid, it lacks the weight of authority to have any genuine effect beyond the matter of public opinion. The argument speaks more to the character of the president and the possible presence of mental illness, specifically narcissistic personality disorder (DSM-5 301.81 (F60.81)).  The presence of such a mental illness could provide justification for the invocation of the 25th amendment.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act was one of the president’s primary campaign promises and one of the first executive orders signed once he was in office. If the repeal were to be immediate, ti would indeed leave many without healthcare. However, any change in the law requires action on the part of Congress where the momentum to make any change has waned under differences of opinion and public backlash. At the time of this writing, there is no way to determine whether the president’s order will have any long-term effect or not.

In two separate Executive Orders, the president pushed for reinstatement of the KeystoneXL pipeline and the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Keystone pipeline had been effectively halted by the previous administration while the Dakota Access project had been stalled due to high-profile protests. Both pipelines present significant environmental concerns, endanger nearby water supplies, and usurp the rights of indigenous North American tribes. While the president’s actions on the matter are not technically illegal, one can argue they are in violation of the public trust by putting drinking water at risk.

Back in January, the president signed an Executive Order instructing federal agencies to identify funds that might be withheld from sanctuary cities. This presents problems on two fronts. Denying the funds would require an act of Congress and it’s difficult to imagine a member of Congress who would vote against their home state. Such an act would almost certainly come back to haunt them in 2018. Second, the very suggestion of the idea may exceed the limit of the president’s authority.  The cities in question are already fighting back. Removing funding from these cities could dramatically hurt a lot of people, but the president seems to not care.

You’ve heard the phrase “alternative facts” by now, right? That would be a prime example of what Willimon addresses here. The number of misstatements and outright lies are too numerous to list. One would think that the White House would be embarrassed being caught in so many lies. Instead, they double down and assert their own version of reality. There are a lot of things the White House can get away with, but lying to the American public is not one of them. This issue alone is an impeachable offense. 

Again, there are multiple examples backing up Beau’s statement. The press is a protected entity under the first amendment. Any attempt to suppress or silence the press would violate the Constitution. The challenge is that the White House is using demeaning and distraction tactics in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the press. The latest salvo came on 5 February as the president claimed that any “negative” polls are a form of “fake news.” Shortly thereafter, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer attacked the satire of an NBC television show. While the tactics skirt the border of legality, any outright attempt to quieten the press would be an impeachable offense.

Much of the evidence behind this statement comes from the mountain of information in the president’s path. While he actively denies that he dislikes anyone when he is challenged, his actions and his history both point to an attitude of contempt for anyone not rich and white. This includes comments regarding inappropriate groping of women and demeaning people because of their ethnicity, including a federal judge. While this is not directly an impeachable offense, it does speak to his suitability for the office and could potentially be used in a 25th amendment argument for removal from office.

Willimon is using nice words again here to convey what is a rather nasty characteristic of the president. Put more accurately, the president seems to have absolutely no concept of the system of checks and balances put in place by the country’s founders. The founders understood all too well the corruptive power of the office of President and put in place multiple safeguards to protect against the totalitarianism of a despot. This is where we get to test those safeguards placed in both the judiciary and legislative branches.

Once again, a direct quote from the Declaration. Of course, in its original context, the “Prince” was King George. The parallels between the behavior of the mad king and the 45th president are striking. Just as there were assertions made regarding the king’s mental state and his suitability for governing, so too have such concerns been raised in regards to the president. Both would seem to suffer from narcicisstic personality disorder, among other things. Of course, proving that assertion without clinical examination is impossible. Yet, given the accusations made above, it doesn’t seem improbable for Congress to demand such an examination.

The most important thing Beau says here is the phrase “mechanisms afforded to by the Constitution.” During times like these, there will always be those who find in their cause a reason for violence. We saw those forced in action both at the inauguration day protest and more recently at the protest in Berkley. Chaos and anarchy is their goal. They do not represent thoughtful-minded people but are vigilantes bent on vengeance and a warped sense of justice. Any resistance to this president must first employ every available legal method available to it. 

This is the precedent set forth in the Declaration. Look at it. The phrases “We have warned …,” “We have reminded …,” and “We have appealed …,” reference the attempts on the part of the colonists to resolve their grievances in an appropriate and legal manner. King George III and his parliament made the fateful decision to not only ignore the colonists, but to increase the unfair treatment directed toward them. Only when separation was the only choice remaining did the representatives pen the Declaration.

So, too, now it is necessary that we utilize every legal option available to its fullest extent as we resist the illegal dealings of this tyrant in the White House. We must implore Congress to act on our behalf as they have been elected to do and we must show patience in giving them an opportunity to act within the letter of the law. We fail just as surely if we allow ourselves to be taken by our own anarchy as we would if we did nothing.

This is an interesting though not inappropriate variation of the final line of the Declaration. The founders included the phrase, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” and also referred to their “Sacred” Honor. Too many have misinterpreted those inclusions, along with other deific references in the Declaration, as pointing toward a specific religious foundation in our country’s founding.

Those misinterpretations are grossly unfounded. Among the signers of that document were men of many various and contrasting belief systems., most notably Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Franklin, both of whom were deists. None of their belief systems, including those of the four active preachers on the list, would have remotely compared to anything seen in contemporary religion. They would not have held any book or writing as inerrant nor infallible and bristled at the thought of their religious beliefs dictating the functions of government.

The only common belief among them was that some power external to them must be guiding their direction. It was that unnamed power they refer to as divine and sacred.

Given the extremes of religious beliefs and behaviors in contemporary America, it is appropriate that those references be removed so as to not infer an association that does not exist. We are not bound by religious duty or obligation. Ours is a duty to one another as humans. Our morality is based on the greater good of humanity, not the confines and strictures of a specific dogma.We do better because we know better.

Equally important in this statement, and something the founding fathers knew well, is that unity within the cause and the mutual support of those who resist is critical. This president has already proven that he can create chaos and destruction faster than anyone we’ve ever encountered.  Dissent and resistance against the broad array of offenses is going to be tiring and will not stop. His intention is to wear us down in hopes we will just give up and let him have his way. 

We cannot afford to give up. We cannot afford to give in to weariness. To stop is to yield to tyranny, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism. We cannot let the banner be carried by a few while the rest sit in silence on the sidelines. The resistance must come from every state, from every city, in number incalculable. We must support and encourage each other, helping those most adversely affected by yet another madman attempting to ascent to a throne of his own construction. We must pledge to each other. Together.

Conclusions

I do not know Beau Willimon. I do not know his motivations, his plans, nor his favorite flavor of ice cream. As an artistic person who has achieved some success with his writings, I assume he has an underlying passion that pushes him into action. When he latches on to a concept or an idea, he follows it through with some level of excitement, I would guess. Based on what I’ve seen in his twitter feed the past few days, that seems to be evident. I would also guess that his carefully selected friends consider him a nice guy. Just guessing.

What I do know is that this statement of his is bold. He puts out into the public conversation a well-constructed argument and solid statement of intent. While he leaves the topics of methodology and implementation open for conversation, he has at least provided a framework around which those conversations can occur.

I don’t expect him to stand up and lead this fight. He might, but I don’t think it’s right to obligate him in that way. After all, it wasn’t Thomas Jefferson leading troops across the Potomac in the middle of that cold winter. Some stir the fires, others lead the charge.

Still, Mr. Willimon’s voice alone is not enough. The resistance needs voices in such volume as to create a shout that cannot be ignored. We need those willing and able to march as much as those willing to consistently hold members of Congress accountable for their actions. We need you.

Thank you, Beau Willimon, for igniting this conversation.

Now, let us carry it forward.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment
Thin Skinned
February 7, 2017
charles i. letbetter - thin skinned

The White House can’t seem to handle criticism

 

charles i. letbetter - thin skinned

The Short Version

Multiple incidents into this still-young administration demonstrate its inability to accept criticism without lashing back at its source, especially when that source is the news media. Yesterday alone, the president called any negative polls “fake news.” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer lashed out at NBC’s Saturday Night Live depiction of him. The president also referred to a critical piece in Sunday’s New York Times regarding his personal habits as “total fiction.” Those statements follow a similar pattern the administration has used repeatedly of throwing a hissy fit every time they are criticized.

The Larger Picture

Every president has their critics, especially in the press. One can easily argue that it is the job of the press to keep the president and all other politicians honest by reporting their actions and words to the public. Criticism of president George W. Bush, for example, was unending during his second administration. Every gaffe, every misstatement, was reported and often made into headlines even when there was little supportive content. Even president Barak Obama, who enjoyed a much friendlier press, was swiftly challenged when his policies seemed flawed, especially regarding foreign wars and the ongoing detainment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Each previous administration has had a habit of addressing those criticisms with a carefully crafted statement outlining the reasons for their actions and the steps they would take going forward. Rarely has any exchange between the White House and the press become adversarial outside the Nixon administration. However, the administration of the 45th president has, from its earliest moments, shown itself to be easily offended and more than willing to lash out at the press and anyone else who criticized or challenged the White House.

Right off the bat, the president’s staff, and later the president himself, made false and misleading statements regarding the size of the inauguration crowd. Despite obvious evidence to the contrary, the White House continues even now to defend its position of having the largest inauguration ever. The president was angry that anyone would even question his assertion. The next thing we know, the White House is labeling the press as “the opposition party.”

With each executive order signed, there has been criticism of the president’s action and with each criticism has come a defense that is short on facts and long on insults. Consider the president’s reaction last Friday (3 February) when a Seattle judge halted the travel ban that had been imposed a week earlier. The president immediately took to Twitter, insulting the judge and calling his decision “ridiculous.”

Then, yesterday (6 February), the president made the claim that the media under-reported terrorist attacks around the world. However, when pressed to provide evidence to back up his claim, the White House released a hastily compiled list that not only contained several well-publicized events but several misspellings as well. The president also responded to a Sunday New York Times article that claims he was not fully informed on some decisions by calling the article “a complete fiction.” The president also referred to polls that cast his actions in a negative light as “fake news.” Then, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer lashed out over a Saturday Night Live skit, calling actress Melissa McCarthy’s satirical impression of him “mean.”

Worth pointing out is the fact that such seemingly immature and childish behavior on the part of the president and his staff is characteristic of narcissistic personality disorder. DSM 5 diagnosis 301.81 includes among the symptoms of that disorder, “Resentment of others or a conviction that others are resentful of him or her.” The president’s actions regarding criticism and his relationship with the press are evidence of that symptom, along with others listed. That resentment displays in impetuous acts of defiance such as we’ve repeatedly seen from the president.

The president’s problem has not gone unnoticed.  The Associated Press released an article this morning detailing the unusual level of criticism and protest the president has received, and his response to them.  CBS news anchor Scott Pelly said the president is “divorced from reality.” CNN’s Jake Tapper, who has been a frequent critic of the president, also pointed out the problems with the president’s response to criticism. Even Britain’s speaker of Parliament lambasted the president yesterday and refused to allow him to address Parliament as other presidents have done.

With this administration still being so very young, one can hope that they will eventually learn the advantages of a more measured and disciplined response. We can hope, even if the current attitude is more like that of a four-year-old child tussling with its sibling.

 

Continue Reading

News & Comment
Remember The Bowling Green Massacre
February 3, 2017
charles i. letbetter - remember the bowling green massacre

 Don’t worry, it didn’t actually happen

 charles i. letbetter - remember the bowling green massacre

The Short Version

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway was defending the president’s travel ban to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Thursday evening when she referenced the Bowling Green Massacre as having been caused by two Iraqi refugees. The biggest problem with her statement?  There never has been a Bowling Green Massacre and the Internet was swift to respond.

Let’s Go To The Video

We wouldn’t want our ridicule to be taken out of context

https://youtu.be/aBC5Qv2HR7E

Run That By Me Again?

Bowling Green Massacre. As in Bowling Green, Kentucky, the sleepy little home of Fruit of the Loom underwear, the National Corvette Museum, and Bowling Green University. The year she cites is 2011.  She uses the word “massacre.”

If that’s leaving you scratching your head, it’s because no such thing ever happened. Even the folks in Bowling Green agree, nothing happened there in 2011. Nothing ever happens in Bowling Green. Conway, the mother of “alternative facts,” made the whole thing up.

Completely false.

No one is surprised, though. Apparently, this kind of misinformation is going to be a standard for this administration.

Where She Got Confused

What might have gotten mixed up in Ms. Conway’s addled brain is the fact that, in 2011, two Iraqi citizens who happened to be living in Bowling Green were arrested for attempting to send weapons and money to al-Qaeda for the purpose of killing US soldiers. That is confirmable and was widely reported at the time. The two were eventually sentenced.  MohanadShareef Hammadi was sentenced to life in federal prison and Waad Ramadan Alwan was sentenced to 31-40 years.

Ms. Conway’s information is still wrong, though. The Obama administration did not stop or ban Iraqi resettlement.  What actually happened, and this is confirmable in multiple federal records from the State Department and other agencies, is that thObama administration imposed more extensive background checks on Iraqi refugees resulting in a slowdown in visa approvals. That was it. No ban.

There was a drop in refugee arrivals from Iraq in 2011. The numbers look like this:

  • 2010: 18,251
  • 2011: 6,339
  • 2012: 16,369

The rate of visa approval in 2011 was dramatically slowed under the new rules, creating a bottleneck of sorts in the system. However, there was NO BAN under the Obama administration during that time.

The Internet Responds

If there’s one thing the Internet is great at doing, it’s catching other people’s mistakes and holding them accountable. Twitter users were quick to step up to the plate and #BowlingGreenMassacre has been trending ever since. Here are some of our favorites:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, with all that nonsense behind us, let’s be clear that such an obvious attempt at gaslighting by a senior White House official is absolutely unforgivable. Ms. Conway didn’t just “misspeak.” The press didn’t “misinterpret her words.” No, she lied. She made up shit that never happened and tried to pass it off as fact.

And while we’re at it, can we call MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on the carpet for letting get away with that ridiculous comment? C’mon, Chris, you knew damn good and well there was no Bowling Green Massacre, yet you just let it blow right past you as you went to the next question. Ya’ need to grow a pair if you’re going to interview anyone from this administration.

And that’s where we end this story. No one should be interviewing Ms. Conway and her “alternative facts” in the first place. She needs to be sidelined by the media and totally ignored. This story stands as a perfect example of why.

We don’t need four years of this nonsense.

Continue Reading

News & Comment  /  PotD
Hello? Anyone Home?
February 3, 2017
charles i. letbetter - hello? is anyone home?

Members of Congress struggle to answer the phone

 

charles i. letbetter - hello? is anyone home

The short version

As interest in the president’s cabinet appointments and Republican legislation goals has peaked, members of Congress are having difficulty keeping up with the volume of phone calls to both their Washington, D.C. and home district offices. Frequent posting of phone numbers on social media is credited with fueling the overwhelming influx of calls.

A little more detail

Freshman Congressmembers have it rough when they first get to Washington. Not only do they have to find and hire competent staff, their offices are initially located in the basement of the Capitol building in cramped quarters with people reaching over one another in their efforts to get anything done. There is a lot of information and policies and procedures to consume and absolutely no time for errors or mistakes, which means there is an abundance of errors and mistakes.

This year, however, an additional problem has been added: the phones won’t stop ringing. Literally. They don’t stop. Calls begin early in the morning, well before staffers arrive, and continue throughout the day until well after staffers are gone. The results are exhausted interns and staff aides who spend their days trying to move through the calls and record their issues as quickly as possible. Meals are taken at their desk and heaven help them if they need to do something marginally time-consuming, such as use the restroom.

The calls aren’t just limited to junior members, of course. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is having problems keeping up, and his office is huge by comparison. He told WHAS AM radio host Terry Meiners: “I appreciate many Kentuckians sharing their comments and for their patience with the jammed phone lines,” McConnell

“I appreciate many Kentuckians sharing their comments and for their patience with the jammed phone lines. I might suggest to people who’ve had that experience, the best way to contact me is online.”

Indeed, all members of Congress have online contact forms that are undoubtedly easier on the Congressperson’s staff than having to actually answer a phone. However, social media has large numbers of people convinced that a phone call carries more weight and gets more attention than do email. There is no statistical data to actually support that assertion, mind you,  but the claim that the advice comes from a former congressional aide is enough to sway the actions of those who are freshly aware of their role in government.

Members of Congress are indeed noticing, and it’s making them a bit nervous. They all know that being labeled as unresponsive to their home constituents can kill their chances at re-election, which House members face every two years. Some members, such as Steve Daines, a rookie Republican Senator from Montana, are even picking up the phones themselves in an effort to let constituents know that their messages are being received.

Keith Barton, a professor of education at Indiana University, told the Associated Press: “I’m certainly seeing a lot of my teacher friends on Facebook who are politicized in ways that they never have been before. People who would have had liberal opinions, who might have liked something, but who now are writing and calling and emailing — things that they never would have done before. It’s been very striking just how politicized these middle-of-the-road kind of people are.”

All this activity has members of Congress slowing down and thinking a little more carefully on some of their previously stated plans, such as overturning the Affordable Care Act. Increasingly, conversations on Capitol Hill are turning more to talks of “repairing” the law rather than attempting to completely abolishing it.

Increased political activity on the part of constituents has also made party unity difficult and has slowed much of the momentum Congress seemed to have back in January. More bills are being taken back and re-written in an effort to ease constituent anxiety.

This continued and unrelenting effort speaks well for those who want to resist the 45th president’s administration. While congressional aides and interns are doing their best to answer every call possible, please note that the shorter the call, the better. Phone calls are not conducive to long conversations as aides are pressed to move on to the next call as quickly as possible. To the extent possible, phone calls should be limited to the following information:

  1. Your name
  2. Your phone number
  3. Your zip code (to confirm you are a constituent of that Congressperson)
  4. Whether you need a response
  5. Your issue, stated as briefly as possible.

We strongly suggest writing out what one is going to say so that the person on the other end is able to record your information and move on. If you are sent to voicemail, leaving a message there is just as effective.

Members of Congress are feeling the pressure from their constituents. Keep up the good work.

 

Continue Reading

PotD
Terror in Quebec City
January 30, 2017
charles i. letbetter - terror in quebec city

Anger at Muslims flows across the border

 

charles i. letbetter - terror in quebec city

The Short Version

Two men are in custody after a shooting at a Quebec City mosque that left at least six dead and eight injured. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was quick to denounce the murders and declare them an act of terrorism. The shooting occurred as many in the US were protesting a travel ban on Muslims from seven countries.

A Bit More Detail

Quebec City officials are not releasing a much detail after a shooting at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre that left at least six people dead and eight others injured. Approximately 50 worshippers had gathered for evening prayers when the two men began shooting, apparently at random. The dead range in age from 35 to 70.

No motive has been given for the attack as of this morning, but Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau didn’t hesitate to call it an act of terror. Trudeau said in a statement:

“We condemn this terrorist attack on Muslims in a center of worship and refuge. It is heart-wrenching to see such senseless violence. Diversity is our strength, and religious tolerance is a value that we, as Canadians, hold dear.

“Muslim-Canadians are an important part of our national fabric, and these senseless acts have no place in our communities, cities, and country.”

If such violence in Canada comes as a surprise to you, you’re not alone. Canada is generally open and accepting of immigrants and people of any faith. Just earlier this weekend, Trudeau said that Canada would accept those turned away by the US travel ban that caused considerable confusion and outrage over the weekend.

However, the French-speaking province of Quebec tends to be a bit more cantankerous on a number of issues, including immigration. Francois Deschamps, an organizer of a refugee support group in Quebec City, said he was saddened but not surprised by the attack. He says right-wing groups there are well organized, constantly posting leaflets and stickers across the city.

Still, the Associated Press says that Quebec City Mayor Regis Labeaume “appeared visibly shaken.” Labeaume said: “No person should have to pay with their life, for their race, their color, their sexual orientation or their religious beliefs.”

There will be solidarity rallies held across Quebec this evening and increased security at mosques across Canada as well as New York City.

Continue Reading

Fashion  /  Photography
Sunday Gallery: Moments Of Beauty
January 29, 2017
charles i. letbetter - moments of beauty

We need to find the beauty in an ugly world

 

charles i. letbetter - moments of beauty

[dropcap]I found it difficult to curate a gallery for this week. My heart just wasn’t in it. Our eyes have been glued to news reports and wire feeds as thousands of people have been stranded, detained, and/or deported at our nation’s airports. They are victims, innocent victims of the president’s illegal immigration order the excludes people from seven countries from entering the US. Never mind that these people have legal work visas and green cards. Never mind that they have family members here who are relying upon them, waiting for them. Never mind they have employers who need them. The president’s order was a giant “fuck you” to all of them without regard, and a “fuck you” to the entire country.[/dropcap]

With all that going on, trying to find pictures along any kind of theme for this morning was impossible. I gave serious consideration to skipping this week’s gallery altogether. But no, when in moments of crisis, we need things that are beautiful. We need to see the beauty in our fellow human beings.

I’m sorry I don’t have pictures of anyone from the countries directly banned by the president. People in that situation rarely make it in front of anyone’s camera. They prefer to live quiet, unassuming lives with their families. They don’t take any chances.

So, for this week, we chose what I call “second glance” images, those pictures I probably didn’t choose on my first pass through a set, but have come to like for some reason or another. I hope they will bring a moment of beauty into your day, perhaps your life. Enjoy.

 

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”9846″ layout=”contain” columns=”3″]

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Long Read  /  News & Comment  /  science
Going Rogue
January 28, 2017
charles i. letbetter - going rogue

Alt, Rogue, and Ungagged Twitter accounts may change more than social media

 

charles i. letbetter - going rogue

Side-stepping censorship

[dropcap]Amidst all the tension and worries regarding the actions of the 45th president this week, someone, somewhere, brilliantly side-stepped the new government’s apparent ban on climate science by creating an alternate Twitter account for Badlands National Park and tweeting climate facts. The tweets have since been removed, but the act of defiance struck a nerve and people allegedly, somehow, related to other government agencies started doing the same.[/dropcap]
Here are some samples:

There may be more, and if so, please let me know, but these are the ones we’ve located so far. Follow them. All of them. This movement is pretty damn important.

Why the sudden resistance?

The new president doesn’t believe in climate change. Since the fateful day of his inauguration, a number of different memos and email have gone out to the heads of various federal agencies, specifically those who deal in some way with climate change, curtailing their publishing activities. Everyone from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Health and Human Services was included.

Public furor immediately rose up and social media exploded over the censorship, especially that regarding science. What the new administration has yet to figure out is that they work in a glass bubble. They don’t get to do things in secret and sneak up on us. They don’t like that situation, which is one of the reasons they’ve taken to calling the press the opposition party. However, given that the uproar against those memos and emails was so severe, they backtracked quickly, at least on the public front.

Still, once their intentions were made public, people began to respond. We already knew we would have to fight this administration tooth and nail, every step of the way. The hashtag #Resist was already procured and ready to go; it’s even been hung on a large banner from a tall crane thanks to the folks at Greenpeace. Americans have never been too keen on government censorship and we’re certainly not going to start supporting it now.

No #AlternativeFacts here

As the number of alternative social media accounts continues to grow (we’re following @Alt_FAA, @Alt_DeptofEd, @ALT_USCIS [immigration], and @AltStateDpt), so does the battle against misinformation, or what the administration has referred to as #AlternativeFacts. Other people call them lies, which is more accurate but carries an inflammatory inference that seems to upset those who are part of the current regime. Real facts do exist and in the presence of a concerted effort to mute those facts, someone has to stand up and make sure they are sufficiently unmuzzled, even if doing so draws no small amount of criticism.

There is no question that the new White House wants to control all the information it has so that they are presenting a unified voice. They want to make sure that no matter which agency one contacts, no matter who one talks to on the phone or through email, the information all spews the same lies, recites the same canon, pours the same kool-aid. If they’re going to take over the nation, that has to happen. Official sources of information must all be consistent in the lies they are telling.

What the dear folks inhabiting the White House seem to have forgotten is that the press, and subsequently the free flow of factual information, is protected under the first amendment of the constitution. The administration can only control information up to a point. Our founding fathers were very suspicious of each other and especially of other governments. They had seen what corruption had done across Europe. Hell, they were rebelling against King George III, who is largely considered to have been completely insane (new details about him have just been released, by the way) and was known to have “secret” agents. They wanted to make sure that there was always someone, namely the press, watching every move the government made so that there could be no secret acts of treason undermining the country.

While the White House can try to manipulate the mainstream press and even intersperse false reporters from fake news sites among those sitting in the White House briefing room, it has absolute zero control over what is put on social media. In fact, as we’ve seen to sometimes disgusting proportions, no one really has much control over what is put on social media. For better or worse, it is an absolute bastion of free speech. While the president has used it to circumvent the press, the same tools can also be used to circumvent and repudiate the president and his staff.

We see in all these new rogue accounts exactly what should happen in a free and open society. Where one person tries to hide and quiet information they don’t like, someone else stands up and shouts it. The more the administration tries to put a stranglehold on science and studies that are in opposition to their agenda, the more those involved with those studies are likely to find ways to make sure that information finds its way to the public. We need these new social media accounts to maintain a balance in the flow of information.

There is a dark side

If there is a negative aspect to all these new #Alt accounts, it is the fact that they are, perhaps necessarily, anonymous. We can certainly understand why. While most claim to not be associated with the actual federal agencies, there’s every possibility that those claims are a smoke screen. At the most, we would be surprised if the sources are more than one step removed from someone who is employed by the federal government. Revealing the persons behind these accounts could subject them to danger and possibly even prosecution. The need to be anonymous is real.

However, with anonymity comes certain risks, especially considering the fact that social media is full of security holes. It is difficult to verify an anonymous account without giving away personal information that might be used against the originator of the account. We don’t really know who these people are, what their connection to the various agencies might be, or their ultimate intentions. For the moment, they all look good and are saying things that are verifiable, but what happens if that changes?

Forbes magazine has an article on this same topic that made for some very uncomfortable reading. They bring up things like how easy it might be for someone to attach a virus or piece of malware to an otherwise legitimate PDF document. The social media account links to the document and everyone who opens it is unknowingly infected. One of the fears we’ve seen this week is the possibility that client scientists might be forced to delete large amounts of information. Imagine the security risks if hackers were to get ahold of that information, which is certainly not out of the bounds of possibility, and presented it through an #Alt account. Very little effort would be required to turn those legitimate documents into a stream of digital infection.

The system is far from fool-proof.

Resistance is not futile

Still, these new accounts are present for good reason and are doing a good thing. Our government, every government, needs to be held accountable. Through all his business dealings, our president has never had anyone standing above him telling him “no, you can’t do that.” He is now in a system where checks and balances are written into the constitution. Those checks and balances are required of a democracy and without them, we slip all too easily into fascism or communism.

The threat to our country, our way of life, and even our very existence is real. Climate change is real. Science is real. Diseases that defy immunization are real. We have an urgent need to not only know about the world’s problems but what we can do to mitigate them. We need to understand that our carbon footprint is a very serious matter and that there are simple and practical things we can do to reduce our carbon emissions. We need to know how to eat more safely as some foods to which we’ve grown accustomed may no longer be safely edible. There are mountain ranges full of information we need and if we cannot rely on official government agencies to provide that information then we desperately need sources that fill that gap.

We must, on every level possible, #Resist. We must resist the misinformation and lies. We must resist the attempts at censorship. We must resist the attempts to hide, delete, and obfuscate information. Not only is this our country, this is our planet. We live here. We have an inalienable right to keep it inhabitable and no government has a right to stand in our way, no matter how they think they were elected.

#Resist

#Dissent

#BeActive

 

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment
The First Spill of 2017
January 27, 2017
charles i. letbetter - first oil spill of 2017

A massive diesel spill in Iowa highlights a problem

 

charles i. letbetter - first oil spill of 2017

The Short Version

An estimated 138,000 gallons of diesel fuel sprung from a pipeline leak in rural Iowa that started Wednesday morning. The leak appears to have been fixed for now and cleanup is underway. While the leak is significant, it was stopped before it had a chance to enter any water source or a nearby wildlife refuge. However, this is not the first leak the managing company has had and highlights a need for greater inspection.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment
Outta Time
January 27, 2017
charles i. letbetter - outta time

The Doomsday Clock lost another 30 seconds

 

charles i. letbetter - outta time

The Short Version

Utter and complete destruction is closer than it ever has been before, thanks to continued nuclear proliferation and governments refusal to adequately address global climate change. As a result, the scientists who regulate the Doomsday Clock have moved it to 2.5 minutes until midnight, the closest it has ever been in its 70-year history. Anyone with a lick of common sense should be frightened. Wise people are encouraged to lead humanity away from the brink.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment
Insults Away
January 26, 2017
charles i. letbetter - insults away

Insults Are Speech But Not Always Protected

 

charles i. letbetter - insults away

The Short Version

Germany’s long-standing law against insulting leaders of foreign governments is going away after an unsettling row with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. At the same time, American actor Shia LaBeouf was arrested after a verbal altercation in front of an art museum in New York. The contrast between the two incidents demonstrates stark differences in attitudes between the two countries.

Say What?

Germany has long had a law that prohibits people from saying nasty things about foreign heads of state who are in Germany at the time of the insult. The German Criminal Code currently states:

“Whosoever insults a foreign head of state, or, with respect to his position, a member of a foreign government who is in Germany in his official capacity, or a head of a foreign diplomatic mission who is accredited in the Federal territory shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine, in case of a slanderous insult to imprisonment from three months to five years.” 

The law is part of old German code that has its roots in pre-World War II laws and revised to its current version after the war. It was recently brought into play as charges were filed against a German comedian, Jan Boehmermann. Boehmermann’s crime? He read a poem on television that insulted Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. “Insulted” is probably being a little too nice. The poem inferred a connection between the president and child porn and bestiality. I tried finding a reasonable translation and what I found was too disgusting to bother copying. Let’s just say that this poem, any way you look at it, was in very, very bad taste.

Naturally, the Turkish President was butt hurt. He called in the German ambassador. Charges were filed. Both nations got into a real tizzy about the whole thing. That was back in March-April of last year. However, the case was quietly dropped in October due to a lack of evidence. Boehmermann said that the poem was meant to show an example of the type of insult not allowed in Germany and that he never intended to insult the Turkish president directly.

German citizens, however, were deeply upset that charges had ever been filed in the first place, citing free speech. So, Justice Minister Heiko Mass said yesterday that the law is being scrapped, effective the first of next year.

Meanwhile, In The US

Actor Shia LaBeouf was arrested last night on charges of misdemeanor assault after he got in the face of a man reciting Nazi propaganda outside the New York City museum.

In case you’ve not been paying attention, the politically active LaBeouf set up a 24-hour live stream outside the museum on January 20, in conjunction with the inauguration of the 45th president. The stated purpose is for people to come up to the camera and repeat the words, “He will not divide us.”

Naturally, given all the free publicity the campaign has received, a lot of people with different messages have attempted to step in front of the camera and more than once dear Shia has gotten in their face. The Internet rather exploded on Monday with his verbal takedown of a white supremacist. When another such hate-filled speaker showed up in front of the camera yesterday, LaBeouf was again there to shout the person down. Only this time, according to the charges being filed, the actor pulled at the scarf of the man, scratching the man’s face in the process.

Wait, the scarf scratched the man’s face? What was that scarf made of, steel wool? Something doesn’t sound quite right here.

And yes, the Internet has taken note of the fact that a jew was arrested for taking down a Nazi. #FreeShia has been trending on Twitter all night.

The timing of the two incidents is interesting, though. We generally associate Nazis with Germany. Yet, in this case, it would appear that one has greater freedom of speech in Germany than one does in the United States. Something to think about.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment
A Flawed Democracy
January 26, 2017
charles i. letbetter - Flawed Demoracy

The US is no longer a shining example of democracy

 

charles i. letbetter - Flawed Demoracy

The Short Version

Don’t blame the 45th president for this one. A long-term distrust in government, political parties, and elected representatives were among the primary reasons for the United States being demoted to a “flawed democracy” in the latest report from the Economist Intelligence Unit.  This change from being a “full democracy” would have happened even without last year’s election. We’ve done this to ourselves.

Wait, Who Are These Guys?

The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) is the research and analysis arm of The Economist Group. Founded in 1946, they provide long-term and far-reaching deep research and analysis used by governments and major corporations with an eye toward recognizing both risks and opportunities to business and economic growth. While their research necessarily involves political matters, their primary perspective is economic and is generally considered non-partisan.

How Are We Defining Democracy?

The EIU defines a “full democracy” as one “underpinned by a political culture conducive to the flourishing of democracy.” That means it has a lot of things that we’ve lost. Things such as respect for political freedoms and civil liberties, a diverse media that functions completely separate from government influence, a government that actually gets things done, an apolitical judiciary whose rulings are enforced, and adequate and effective checks and balances. Stop and think for a minute. We once had all that, but we’ve given it away.

A “flawed democracy,” on the other hand, just sort of go through the motions. They largely have free and fair elections, but may have some flaws here and there. There is a basic nod toward civil rights, but respect for government is low and participation in government is lacking. Again, try to take an objective look at what we’ve become. We fit this definition far too well.

What The Fuck Happened?

Our long-term distrust in government is largely what did us in. Looking at research going all the way back to the 1950s, things such as Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, the Iraq War, the financial and housing crisis in 2008-2009, and government shutdowns have all contributed to how we feel about our government’s trustworthiness and ability to get things done. Our trust in government, according to data from Pew Research, is at the lowest point it has ever been.

Add to that the most severe income disparity of any developed nation. I mean, we’re not even close no matter how you slice it. Analysis from both Deutsch Bank and Goldman Sachs show just how incredibly wide the gap has become between the very rich and the very poor. As a country, we are failing at taking care of anyone except the super-elite. Frustration with this problem is largely the reason the 45th president was elected, but is unlikely to do anything to solve the base problem.

This results in a populism that is spreading across the globe. This quote from the report provides some important perspective:

“Populist parties and politicians are often not especially coherent and often do not have convincing answers to the problems they purport to address, but they nevertheless pose a challenge to the political mainstream because they are connecting with people who believe the established parties no longer speak for them.”

The EIU finds some encouragement in our low unemployment rate and some increase in basic wages. However, out attitudes toward civil rights and immigration and the president’s propensity to bypass the media continue to work against us.

We Are Not Alone

The United States wasn’t the only country to slip into the “flawed democracy” category. Japan, Italy, France, South Korea, Israel, Estonia, India, and Chile are right in there with us.

Yeah, we’re at the same level of democracy as Estonia. Stop and let that sink in for a minute.

The overall tone of the report is not especially encouraging. Concern is shown over what is seen as an exacerbated distrust in government as populist leaders prove unable to solve any of the problems that swept them into power.

You can download a copy of the full report here.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment
Mexico Says No
January 26, 2017
charles i. letbetter - mexico says no

Not everyone wants the wall and no one wants to pay for it

 

charles i. letbetter - mexico says no

Update

4:37 PM EST: Following the president’s remarks at the GOP retreat in Philadelphia, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said that the president would look to impose a 20% tax on all imports from Mexico in order to pay for the wall. Such a tax would require approval from Congress.

There is some consideration, however, as to whether such a tax would be effective in achieving its goal. Mexico’s primary export is manufactured products, which seems like a rather large category. However, a significant portion of those products are pieces used in the assembly of larger products, such as car parts and cell phone pieces. Direct imports to the US would result in higher prices to consumers and, most importantly, American businesses reliant on those parts. The increased cost would result in lower profits, inhibiting growth of American manufacturing.

The second largest export from Mexico is oil and oil products. Any tax here would require a separate act of Congress from the one taxing manufactured products. This would not only result in higher prices at gas pumps, but would significantly impact the profitability of American companies.

Finally, agricultural exports from Mexico are a critical area for US grocers as the demand for fresh fruit and vegetables year-round has become a dominant part of their business. Additional taxes on agricultural imports would significantly raise food prices and make some foods that are grown almost exclusively in Mexico unavailable to large parts of the US market.

There is almost no way to impose a tax on Mexican goods imported into the United States that doesn’t have the US taxpayer ultimately paying for that tax. The fact that the money might pass through the hands of the Mexican government somewhere along the way is irrelevant. We still end up paying for the wall out of our pocket.

12:00 PM EST: Mexico’s president, Enrique Pena Nieto has said he will not attend the working meeting scheduled for Washington next Tuesday. This seems to have come in response to a tweet from the US president that said, “If Mexico is unwilling to pay for the badly needed wall, then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting.”

Response across Mexico has been strong. “I think that, in general, diplomacy is not conducted via Twitter,” Finance Secretary Jose Antonio Meade told Radio Formula. Mexico’s best-known opposition politician, leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, tweeted:  “in the face of Trump’s latest outburst, don’t go to the meeting, and submit an urgent complaint to the U.N. for human rights violations.”

Both sides say that communication lines between the two countries are still open, but pressure is increasing on president Pena Nieto within Mexico to refuse any talks with the US until the wall is removed from the agenda.

The Short Version

Mexico’s president, Enrique Pena Nieto, said yesterday that Mexico will not pay for any form of a barrier along the US/Mexico border. This comes just hours after the US president signed orders to begin construction planning on the wall. Immigration and refugee activists have long decried the very idea of a wall and funding for the wall still faces strong opposition in the US Congress.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment
Reasons To Protest
January 25, 2017
charlesi. letbetter - reasons to protest

From pipelines to walls, the reasons to protest keep coming

charlesi. letbetter - reasons to protest

The Short Version

Yesterday, the 45th president invited those behind the Keystone XL pipeline to resubmit a bid for the controversial construction blocked by the Obama administration. He then signed a directive for the US Army Corp of Engineers to expedite studies related to the Dakota Access Pipeline effectively stopped by protestors last year. Today, he will sign orders paving the way for the construction of a wall between the US and Mexico as well as limiting immigration from seven countries. Everywhere we look, the new administration is providing us ample reason to protest.

Down & Dirty Details

Remember all those protests that took place up in  North Dakota last year? Thousands of people took part in a standoff between the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and the government over the Dakota Access Pipeline. While momentum was initially slow to build and media attention often waned, protestors stuck it out until President Obama intervened and instructed the US Army Corp of Engineers to consider alternative routes for the pipeline.

No one was dumb enough to think that the matter was settled, though. A new president had already been elected and had gone on record as favoring more domestic oil and gas drilling in addition to the construction of pipelines from the North. Any victory won back in December was only going to be temporary. Sure enough, the president signed a memo to the Secretary of the Army instructing the Corp of Engineers to:

  1. … review and approve in an expedited manner, to the extent permitted by law and as warranted, and with such conditions as are necessary or appropriate, requests for approvals to construct and operate the DAPL …
  2.  … consider … whether to rescind or modify the memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works dated December 4, 2016
  3. consider … prior reviews and determinations, including the Environmental Assessment issued in July of 2016 2 for the DAPL, as satisfying all applicable requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
  4. review and grant …requests for waivers of notice periods arising from or related to USACE real estate policies and regulations
  5. issue … any approved easements or rights-of-way immediately after notice is provided to the Congress

The full text of the memo can be found here.

Again, no one is surprised; this is exactly what was expected from the new administration. However, the memo is like a wake-up alarm going off for all those who were unsure when their protests might be needed again.

Within the same document-signing session, the president also signed a document inviting the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline to resubmit a proposal. The Keystone XL project had been fully blocked by the Obama administration back in 2014. This move opens the door for the project to be reconsidered. The memo, which is largely full of legal jargon that comes with anything composed in Washington, not only invites TransCanada to resubmit their bid, but authorizes the Secretary of State to approve the bid and the US Army Corp of Engineers to facilitate the construction. The full text of the order can be found here.

Obviously, we’ve not yet seen the orders regarding immigration, but we do know some of the following matters are to be addressed in the signing at the Department of Homeland Security today.

  • An order to ban the entry of refugees into the United States, except for religious minorities escaping persecution, until more aggressive vetting is in place. This is intentionally directed at the number of Syrian refugees previously approved by the Obama administration.
  • An order to block visas being issued to anyone from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.
  • An order directing the construction of a border wall with Mexico.

While there is a reasonable chance not all the orders regarding border security and immigration will be ready for signing today, they are almost certainly to be signed at some point this week.

Why Protests Are Necessary

Every last one of these issues establishes an anti-humanitarian foundation for the entire administration. As pipelines have a proven propensity for leaking, they endanger the health and welfare of anyone who lives downstream. Immigration is a necessary humanitarian need for innocent people driven from countries at war as well as those simply looking for a better way of life. The president is so anti-humanitarian that he has even threatened to deny federal funding to the more than 200 Sanctuary Cities scattered across the US. [A current list of the Sanctuary Cities can be found here.]

This is a case of silence yielding consent. When the people of the United States do not speak up on a matter, when we stay in our comfortable chairs and warm houses and do absolutely nothing regarding an issue, Washington then proceeds to do whatever the hell they want. While protests are not always successful, they do at least remind members of Congress that they are answerable to their constituents in the next election. We can replace every last one of them if necessary.

While regular communication with your members of Congress is good, protests emphasize to them just how important an issue is to the American people. Sitting in Washington, D.C. day after day can be numbing. Members of Congress not only lose touch with their direct constiuents, they lose touch with the realities of the nation they represent. They need us to remind them that we’re not only paying attention, but that we actually care about specific issues.

Choose What You Can Do

I know not everyone can do every thing. No one can be at every march. Some of us can’t march at all. The number of issues we care about is larger than we have time to address. A friend posted a link to this article on Medium.com regarding how to #StayOutraged. There is a lot of good advice in that article. It’s going to be a long four years and issue fatigue is going to set in quickly.

Consider what you care about. Find an effective form of protest that works for you. Then, make your opinions known. Loudly. Forcefully.

Let us constantly remind this administration that they do not have a mandate. Despite what the president claims, they lost the popular vote soundly. There is no legitimate evidence of fraud. We need to prove just how strong we are in our opposition to his presidency and, especially, his policies.

Resist.

Dissent.

#StayOutraged

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment
Gag Orders
January 25, 2017
charles i. letbetter - gag order

White House tactics straight from the communist handbook

charles i. letbetter - gag order

The Short Version

White House tactics, from choosing who gets a seat in the Press Room to gag orders for various government agencies, not only attempts to circumvent the first amendment but employs tactics suspiciously like those used in communist countries in an effort to control information. The White House wants the press to drink the president’s kool-aid or shut up. Dissent from within federal agencies is not allowed.

Looking At The Whole Picture

There are a lot of little parts to this issue, not all of which have received a great deal of play on social media. So, let’s see if we can piece everything together a little bit.

The whole kerfluffle with the press started the week before the inauguration, as rumors spread that the White House Press Corp might be removed from the White House. Given that the press has had a permanent place there since Teddy Roosevelt’s administration, that information didn’t set very well and reporters seemed to be taking out their suspicion on White House spokesman Sean Spicer, who doesn’t take criticism or pointed questions very well. As a result, the then-president-elect went on Fox News and said:

“So we said we’re going to move it to a larger room in a nearby area, but not the same area, and the press went crazy. So I said, ‘Let’s not move it.’ But some people in the press will not be able to get in because there’s just too many. We’ll make sure you get a seat, but there’s too many people for this small room.”

There’s one significant problem with that statement. The president doesn’t choose who has access to the White House briefing room. That is the responsibility of the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA).

The president of the WHCA said over the weekend that the press room “is open to all journalists who seek access now” and that the WHCA will be ” standing up for the rights of a free press to report vigorously on the new administration.”

Consider that the first round of shots fired.

The whole concept of reporters having access to people and the ability for information to be released through various sources isn’t something the new president seems to like, however. He wants to control the entire message to make sure no dissenting opinions are released to the public. This is the same strategy we see employed by communist countries such as China, where state media is strictly under the control of Beijing and dissent is a one-way ticket to prison, or worse.

Then, more shit hit the fan yesterday as the president signed orders effectively gagging various federal agencies. The first one to catch popular attention on social media was against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Washington Post reported that, “Employees of the scientific research arm at the Agriculture Department were ordered Monday to cease publication of “outward facing” documents and news releases, raising concerns that the Trump administration was seeking to influence distribution of their findings.”

That article hit social media and was immediately shared nearly 25,000 times on Facebook alone. Such an overwhelming amount of attention managed to wake up someone over at the Department of Agriculture, which immediately went into damage control mode. The USDA then released a new memo stating:

“This internal email was released without Departmental direction, and prior to Departmental guidance being issued. ARS will be providing updated direction to its staff.  … ARS values and is committed to maintaining the free flow of information between our scientists and the American public.” (via Reuters)

Problem solved, right? It was all just a misunderstanding.

Uhm, no.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), you know, the folks who make sure our air isn’t as unbreathable as Beijing’s, is not only under a full media blackout, but is prohibited from awarding any new contracts or grants that had already been approved. How bad is this clampdown? So bad that the agency can’t even order janitorial supplies because they’re provided by an outside contractor.

According to the Associated Press, Doug Ericksen, the communications director for the president’s transition team at EPA, said he expects the communications ban to be lifted by the end of this week.

“We’re just trying to get a handle on everything and make sure what goes out reflects the priorities of the new administration,” Ericksen said.

No, that doesn’t sound like communist-styled control at all, does it? Yeah, we’re totally being sarcastic with that question.

Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer of New York said in regard to the EPA blackout: “This decision could have damaging implications for communities across New York state and the country, from delaying testing for lead in schools to restricting efforts to keep drinking water clean to holding up much-needed funding to revitalize toxic brownfield sites.”

Oh, by the way, the levels of lead in the water in Flint, Michigan are just now below federal limits. The EPA probably had something to do with that.

Employees at the Department of  Health and Human Services (HHS) received gag orders similar to those given the USDA. All the agencies affected have something to do with environmental concerns, including effects on natural resources and human health. Given that the 45th president denies the scientific evidence for climate change, the appearance is that the new administration is attempting to stamp out any information that might foster dissent with the president’s grossly uninformed position.

Not everyone is necessarily acquiescing to the White House’s demands. In the face of the gag orders, someone at the Badland’s National Park took to Twitter with some strong environmental facts. The tweets have since been removed, but we managed to snag a screenshot while they were still there.

charles i. letbetter - gag orders

We don’t expect to see too much of this type of defiance from federal agencies in the future. While the new administration does not yet have secretaries approved for every department, the general fear is that all information, including social media, will have to undergo strict adherence to the administration’s guidelines before it is released.

As I said on Facebook yesterday, conservatives spent the eight years of the Obama administration fearing a socialism that never happened. With these new gag orders and crackdowns on the press, the new administration has brought us communism in less than a week.

If you’ve not yet contacted your members of Congress, we suggest you do so now. Silencing media, in any way, shape or form, is not making America great.

Continue Reading

Art  /  Just For Fun  /  Photography
#AlternativeFacts: A Mini Gallery
January 24, 2017
charlesi. letbetter - #AlternativeFact

Because no one tells lies anymore

charlesi. letbetter - #AlternativeFact

#AlternativeFacts became one of the leading headlines over the weekend and we just couldn’t resist the temptation to play with some of our own. While we’ve seen some creative memes, we went more for the obnoxiously overstated. These are some of the most “alternative” facts we could find. All are things we’ve heard said in the past by real people who thought they were being smart.  At the time, we thought they were idiots. Now, we find out they were just being “alternative.”

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”9765″ layout=”contain” columns=”2″]

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment
Party Pooper
January 24, 2017
charles i. letbetter - party pooper

The US Abandoning The TPP Makes Life Difficult For Everyone

charles i. letbetter - party pooper

The Short Version

The 45th president of the United States signed an executive order instructing the US to pull out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, a twelve-nation trade pact that lowered tariffs for imports and opened US-made goods to more markets. The remaining 11 nations have vowed to continue and some have raised the possibility of China stepping into the dominant role.

What’s Really Happening

Global trade pacts can get really confusing, so let me use a fictionalized example to see if we can explain it better.

Imagine that you and 11 of your best buds decide to throw a very large party. Everyone is participating bringing food and drinks. How much one is supposed to bring depends on the family income. The richest family brings the most, and everyone else participates according to their means. Everyone agrees that this method is fair and equitable for everyone and that the party is going to be the best ever. Period.

But then, the day before the party, the richest family backs out. They don’t want to attend the big party at all. Instead, they say they’d rather have 11 different little parties with just one friend at a time.

The 11 other friends are feeling totally bummed. Should they go on with the scheduled party or not?

Then, the really rich family from a couple of blocks over, who no one in the group really likes, offers to save the party by joining the group and bringing even more stuff than the previous rich family.

That’s pretty much the way the whole TPP situation stands at the moment. In case you’re having difficulty determining the players, the US would be the rich family. The other 11 would be Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Peru, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei. China would be the family from a couple of blocks over that no one really likes.

NOW do you get it?

What’s important to realize is that the US was one of the originators of this party and did the lion’s share of organizing the whole thing. To back out at this point is to completely abdicate a leadership role in the trade policies of the region. Furthermore, the new president is making statements that has the other countries unsure they want to attend those private parties. Deals with individual countries would almost certainly set higher tariff rates than what is prescribed in the TPP. Almost all the countries listed depend heavily upon imports to the US as a major portion of their economy.

The party isn’t canceled by the US dropping out, though. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said earlier this morning that he has talked to the 11 other nations and they’re willing to go ahead with the trade pact without the US participating. He also raised the possibility of China joining the pact from which they are currently excluded. However, it is worth noting that should China take the place of the US, several key components of the agreement would have to be re-written, with any favor toward the US being eliminated entirely.

So, be exiting the TPP, not only does the US not get to go to the party, we’re stuck with shitty little side parties and we lose some of our friends entirely.

You might want to contact your members of Congress now. There’s no way this ends well for the US.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Long Read  /  News & Comment
Design Your Own Dissent
January 22, 2017
charles i. letbetter - Design Your Own Dissent

Not every day is a march but every day can be dissent

charles i. letbetter - Design Your Own Dissent

I’ll admit, I was amazed yesterday. Over one million women showed up in cities around the world to protest the policies and rhetoric of the 45th president of the United States. What quite literally started as the frustrated rant of a grandmother in Hawaii grew to the largest global protest ever.

The Women’s March on Washington proved a number of things. One is that women care a lot more about issues than old white men realized. Another was that women can show up in record-setting numbers and still be peaceful. Unlike protests on Friday that resulted in 230 arrests, the District of Columbia’s homeland security director, Christopher Geldart said there were no arrests in relation to the Women’s March. Third, it proved that women are tireless when fired up. At 8:00 PM last night, long after the march was scheduled to end, there were still thousands of women marching, chanting, and waving their signs.

Most importantly, perhaps, yesterday’s protests proved that the single voice of dissent can make a tremendous difference. One might feel alone in their opinion at times, and there will always be someone who will try to tell you that you’re wrong, but when you speak up you might just find that millions of people around the world agree with you. Your voice and your opinion matters.

Now, the question is where do you go next? How do you continue your dissent in a manner that is both effective and appropriate? The energy from the Women’s March was terrific, but how does one keep that energy going when there is laundry to be done, meals to cook, pets to feed, chores to do,  and a career to chase? The true effectiveness of the Women’s March on Washington is not in the number of people who attended, but in the change it produces going forward. Dissent cannot be a one-day matter; it must be continual and persistent or it does no good at all.

Fortunately, we live in a time where we don’t necessarily have to march every day to make our dissent known and for it to be effective. We just happen to have some ideas.

Join A Group Of Like Minds

If you didn’t read yesterday’s article, Do You Really Care? then please put it on your list of things to do today. If you have not downloaded Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda, we strongly recommend doing so. Much of what I would put under this heading is covered in those two documents and I really don’t want to be overly redundant.

That being said, however, one of the most powerful forms of dissent is to organize. I’m not saying you have to be the leader. I’m not saying you have to have regular meetings. Having coffee with a couple of friends who feel the same as you can be effective, though. The power of being in a group, even if it’s small, is the support and encouragement and affirmation that comes from being with those who have the same concerns, share your worries, and are looking for their own voice. You help them, they help you, and the dissent grows stronger every time you get together.

The energy in the Women’s March on Washington is a good example how a group can be effective. Of those millions of people who marched, how many would have done the same thing if they knew they would be alone? Very few, I’m sure. A single protestor holding a sign doesn’t get much attention in D.C. A group, however, has the ability to make more of an impact. One person shared her rant with 40 people. Look what happened.

On a smaller scale, being part of a like-minded group gives you much of the same energy. Share what you’re doing as an act of dissent. Talk about the responses you get from members of Congress and others you encounter. Share your worries. Encourage your friends. I know this doesn’t sound like much, but revolutions grow out of a couple of people sitting around having coffee and a danish. Find someone. Get together.

Want to be part of something larger? Try the Women’s March 10 Actions for 100 Days.

Start A Dissent Blog

There are a lot of ways a person can speak up online, but a blog remains one of the most effective, even outside of social media. The reason is that social media is “in the moment.” People see what has been put there in the past two minutes, but have more difficulty finding material posted days, weeks, or months earlier. Blogs eliminate that problem. Blogging platforms do a great job of automatically indexing everything you create so that it’s there and retrievable at all times without too much fuss or bother.

Another great thing about blogs is that you don’t have to be a professional writer and you don’t have to attend to it every day. You can work your blog around your own schedule, in whatever manner you want, with content of your own choosing. There are no rules about what you can or cannot say or how you say it. Curse. Scream.  Whisper. You formulate the voice you want to express and then set it out there for the world to see.

How do you get started? We strongly recommend wordpress.com for most people. WordPress is a powerful publishing platform used by large sites such as the New York Times and the brand new Obama Foundation. A lot can be done with WordPress if one knows what they’re doing. However, most people don’t have that knowledge and, quite honestly, don’t want to be bothered with the time and expense of operating a full website. WordPress.com solves that problem. You can create your own blog there, on their servers, with very little effort and no expertise. You can make it large, you can keep it small, it’s all up to you.

From there, it’s just a matter of letting people know you’ve created something. Social media is good for that. Share your article with your friends. In fact, I’ll make you a promise: tag me with your dissent blog posts and we’ll share them as well. As we share each other’s content, the dissent grows and becomes more public. The power of a single voice becomes stronger.

We can help you with this one. Don’t be afraid to ask.

Hold Politicians Accountable

Let’s get real for a brief minute here. Politicians have never been the most honest group of people in the world. Whether they’re American or Mexican or French or Gambian, lying is something they all do extremely well. Our memories tend to be short on these matters, but misinformation coming out of the White House is almost a tradition. What has changed is that we can no longer afford to brush aside those lies and exaggerations. We can’t let the president or anyone else in the administration get away with deliberate and intentional lies about what they’re doing or the facts surrounding an issue.

Holding politicians accountable is a very powerful form of dissent right now because it’s not something we’ve done on a large scale before. Sure, there have been organizations such as Snopes that have cropped up in recent years, but to the extent that they don’t force their information onto a politician or anyone else, they need people like you and me to help spread the word. There are plenty of other sources as well. The Associated Press regularly fact-checks major speeches, whether by the president or anyone else who is getting national attention. Major newspapers such as the New York Times and Washington Post have huge archives with which they can check the accuracy of historical claims. The resources are there.

What has to happen, though, is that you and I have to be the ones to hold politicians feet to the fire both publicly and privately. Share fact-checking posts on social media. Confront your members of Congress with facts through email or letters. It is not enough that the information is being published, politicians need to know that you are paying attention. They count on the overload of information keeping you confused and uncertain of what they’re doing. One of the most powerful forms of dissent comes when you say, “Senator, I know you’re lying and I won’t tolerate it.”

Let ’em have it.

Use Social Media

Social media may be the most publicly accessible form of voicing one’s dissent there is. Generally free and open to everyone, the ways in which you can voice your dissent are innumerable. You can be as creative as you want, use almost any format you want, and address any issue you want. The world is open to hearing from you and the more unique you are in voicing your dissent the more powerful your voice can be.

There are, however, some caveats to this method. There are millions of people on social media, which means the volume of messages is heavy. There are a lot of things out there that don’t need to be repeated and are not deserving of the attention one has to be careful. Here are the guidelines we use for our own posts:

  1. Verify everything you can before sharing. We’ve gotten caught occasionally jumping the gun and posting something that wasn’t quite true. A couple of years ago, that was no big deal. Apologize, remove the post, and move on. Today, however, given the tremendous influx of fake and misleading news, we have to be ever diligent and double our efforts to make sure that what we share is accurate.
  2. Don’t be distracted by trolls. When you post something controversial or something that doesn’t sit well with some “friends,” comments are often made that start with phrases such as “Yeah, but what about …” or “That’s something a [derogatory name] would say,” in a deliberate attempt to diminish the impact of the post by pulling an argument away from the message. Don’t fall for it. When it happens, either delete the comment (you can do that) or block the person. Don’t take them on. Don’t argue with them.  That’s what they want. Remove them and continue.
  3. Use hashtags when they’re appropriate. I’ll admit, when hashtags first started becoming a thing, I didn’t like them. They seemed stupid and unnecessary. What I’ve learned over the past few years, though, is that they actually do serve a purpose, especially when one is talking about something topical and trending. People are much more likely to see what you’ve posted if it contains an appropriate hashtag such as #SpicerFacts or #WomensMarch.

Another issue that is extremely important in social media is sharing. Each of us has a rather limited audience that is a fraction of the total number of friends or followers we might have on any given platform.  When we share what each other has posted, we enlarge that audience and spread the message of dissent. The more we share, the broader the dissent becomes. Don’t be afraid. Share liberally and watch the dissent grow.

Visual Aids

A quieter but still effective form of dissent can come in the visual elements you wear or place around you. Now, let’s be a tiny bit careful here. Your workplace may have rules regarding the display of anything that might be considered political or controversial. Check if you are not sure of your employer’s policies. However, that being said, to the extent you can do so without getting fired, wearing buttons and t-shirts, posting signs and stickers that voice your dissent are very powerful. You don’t have to say a word for people to know where you stand. The more people see such forms of dissent, the more likely they are to join in the dissent, making it all the more powerful.

I’m personally of the opinion that the strongest visuals are those you make yourself, but then, I have tools to make them look good.  Not everyone has the time or motivation to create their own. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of places across the Internet that sell buttons and stickers. Cafe Press probably gives you more choices across a number of different products, from buttons to stickers to t-shirts and more.

There’s also the option of purchasing bulk buttons and stickers and distributing them to like-minded people. My personal preference is for buttons simply because my experience has been that people tend to put stickers in places where they’re not wanted and the stickers are difficult to remove. Buttons can be transferred from one piece of clothing to another and generally don’t tend to violate as many corporate dress policies.

Don’t Be Afraid To Be Extreme

To what extent you take your dissent may well depend on your lifestyle. Not everyone can be extreme in their dissent, but those who can shouldn’t be afraid to do so. I’ve already seen a couple of tattoos and at least one person has had “resist” cut into their hair on the side. Things such as car wraps are a little expensive for most of us, but are still an extreme form of dissent that is definitely going to get noticed (and make cause your insurance rates to go up).

Extreme can also come in the groups which one chooses to support. From Planned Parenthood to the ACLU to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are dozens of major organizations that are providing a voice of dissent. Each of these non-profits rely on donations. While they are happy to accept even the smallest amounts, an extreme donation from those who can reasonably do so can make a tremendous difference in voicing your dissent. Yes, it can be a bit scary, but it is worth it.

And Finally …

Don’t be afraid to inject some humor into your dissent. There’s plenty to be had and the effect of humor on dissent can be extremely powerful. Here are some examples we pulled from the #SpicerFacts stream on Twitter.

See? We can have fun and still make our point loud and clear.

How you design your dissent, the means and the methods which work best for you, is totally subjective. There are numerous options and choosing what is going to be effective depends largely on your lifestyle and level of comfort and passion. What’s most important is that we not let up in making our voice heard. Now. Tomorrow. Next week. Next year. Every time someone in this administration and this Congress attempts to infringe on someone’s rights, to deny equality to any group, to implement policies that are not in the best interest of the American people, we have to be there, loud and strong in our dissent.

We are just getting started. Together, we can resist.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Long Read  /  News & Comment
Do You Really Care?
January 21, 2017
charles i. letbetter - do you really care

To care is to do something about the problem.

charles i. letbetter - do you really care

The Short Version

Over 65 million Americans did not vote for the person who is now the 45th president. They don’t like him. They disagree strongly with his rhetoric and proposed policies. So, millions of them are marching today in protest. We applaud and support those protests happening around the world. Yet, protesting is never enough. If we want to truly resist the new administration, we must take actions on a continual basis that reach not only through the halls of Congress, but to Wall Street and throughout corporate America as well. We cannot be silent and expect anything to change. If one truly cares about resisting, then one needs to take action.

Let’s Start With  What Was Missed

I saw a lot of people out yesterday between 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM. I would know because I was one of them. I didn’t want to even be near a computer or a television or anything else that would remind me of the horrible act that was taking place in our nation’s capital. A fascist and would-be tyrant was sworn in as the 45th president of the United States. As with any inauguration, the event was more spectacle than actual substance. Yet, that was enough to distract our attention.

Hardly anyone noticed that there was yet another school shooting yesterday. A 17-year-old student walked into West Liberty High School in West Liberty, Ohio, with a loaded shotgun and opened fire. The scene could have been horrible, but it wasn’t. The teen wasn’t actually aiming directly at anyone. One student was wounded, but staff and teachers responded quickly and had the shooter on the ground and restrained by the time police arrived. He’ll face a charge of felonious assault. The wounded child will recover.

Who cares? Five years ago, that event would have been enough to pre-empt just about anything else on television. At the very least, it would have been inserted into the constant news coverage every few minutes. It wasn’t.  Not all that long ago, a school shooting would have been on the front page of every newspaper in the country. This morning, however, it’s not even mentioned on the website of the Columbus Dispatch. It’s not there. There’s no statement from Ohio Governor John Kasich. Nothing.

How high does the body count have to be in a school shooting before anyone cares?

Other Things You Might Have Missed

The inauguration is a big deal, I’ll give you that. “The peaceful exchange of power,” stands starkly against the ongoing situation in Gambia where defeated president Jammeh is being reluctant to step down. Neighboring countries were ready to invade over that one. So yes, the fact that we change from one president to another without having a serious power struggle is rather impressive and something to be celebrated. Yet, do we dare exclude everything else going on while we do?

Here are just a few headlines that are being under-reported this morning:

It is naive to think that none of those things matter in the wake of the dangers the new president presents. These are the dangers the new president presents. His new policies threaten everything from education and emergency management response to terrorism and international aid. We live in a world where not only what one does matters, but what one doesn’t do as well. Why are there women marching in protest in other countries than our own? Because they are just as concerned as we are as to what could possibly happen.

A Global Perspective

Being a global power means that what we do as a country affects much more than our own population. The decisions being made in Washington affect billions of lives outside our own borders and every last one of this lives is just as important as your own. The Associated Press took a look at some international reactions to the inauguration speech and this is what they found:

  • People in Afghanistan are concerned we might leave them stranded, allowing the Taliban and other terrorists to take over the country again.
  • Mexicans found the speech “hyper-protectionist” and worry about the future of American investment in their country.
  • In Pakistan, clerics are deeply troubled by the president’s promise to eradicate Islamic terrorism, fearing peaceful Muslims could become targets.
  • Japanese people are worried that the president’s decision to exit the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership will negatively affect the economies of all other participating countries.
  • State-run papers in China are worried that trade issues with the US are inevitable given the president’s rhetoric.
  • South Korea is worried that the US might not help in fighting back North Korean aggression on their soil.
  • Indians are worried about immigration prospect and ties with US-based technology firms.
  • Vietnamese people were concerned about the degree of self-focus and protectionism.
  • Australians found the speech divisive and fear this is the new “normal” for the US president.

What I fear we fail to understand is that any one of those international concerns has the potential to create a global crisis. The global economy is shaky with many nations sitting on the brink of bankruptcy and/or default. The crash of banks in even the smallest country would create a ripple effect that brings down the entire economic house of cards upon everyone. There is no immunity.  To allow terrorism to go unchecked in Afghanistan leaves us vulnerable to another attack the size of  9/11 or larger, The US is a target where you and I are more in danger than is the president.

Through every major area of concern: education, energy, technology, science, medicine, trade, banking, poverty, business development, human rights, and defense, we must not only consider how we handle those matters domestically, but internationally. We cannot simply back out of long-term agreements and programs and expect that there not be dire consequences for everyone involved.

The Power Of Fear

For the past eight years, many conservatives, especially those extremists, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, hate-filled people known as the Tea Party, have been afraid that President Obama was going to take their guns, install Sharia law, ship all their jobs overseas, declare martial law, and make Islam the national religion. Of course, none of that even came close to happening. There wasn’t a piece of legislation ever drafted nor an executive order ever written that proposed anything of the kind. Yet, because the power of their fear was so overwhelming, these people for whom logic fails to exist were able to not only overtake the Republican party, but elect a 70-year-old self-serving narcissist as president. When one looks at what they accomplished, one has to admit that the power of fear is pretty strong and extremely effective.

Now, those of us who are more liberal and forward in out thoughts are experiencing some fears of our own. What rights might we loose? What will happen to women’s health and a woman’s right to make choices for herself? What happens to healthcare for anyone who isn’t already a millionaire? What happens to marriage equality and the rights of LGBTQ people? What happens to renewable energy sources and reducing our dependency on fossil fuels? What happens to air quality? How do we respond to global warming? Will all our children be educated?

We probably have many more legitimate reasons to be afraid, but the challenge before us is whether we are able to harness the power of that fear or allow it to keep us silent. For most of our lives, we’ve been told to work within the system, that if we’ll just get out the vote and make sure people are informed that they’ll do the right thing. We tried that and we lost the election despite having a significant number more votes.

We can no longer count on anyone to “do the right thing.” T hat’s not saying no one will, but we simply cannot rely upon the good conscience of the American people to keep us out of harm’s way.  If we are going to avoid the outcomes we fear, we are going to have to take stronger, more decisive, and more inflammatory action than we ever have. We cannot continue to depend upon the same tactics and actions of the past. We have to do more and find new ways of doing them.

Do You Really Care

As I type this, over 200,000 women have descended upon Washington, D.C. to march in opposition to the new president’s policies. In cities around the world, millions more join them. The size of the protest is unprecedented. Yet, as much as I support them and applaud their efforts, I know that one march doesn’t change anything. If people go back to work on Monday morning and resume the same lives and level of activities as they’ve had before, our fears could very easily turn into reality.

We don’t have to accept this. We don’t have to let this happen. We don’t have to play by the rules because the person sitting in the oval office didn’t get there by playing by the rules and we can be sure he will continue to disregard them. As we saw in November, if we play by the rules against someone who cheats, we lose. We now have as president someone who has cheated the rules his entire life. To think for one second that he’s going to change his tactics now is pure folly. We can’t let this happen.

We don’t have to accept that a Republican-dominated Congress is going to do the president’s bidding.

We don’t have to accept that the Affordable Care Act is going to be repealed.

We don’t have to accept that the Department of Education is going to institutionalize segregation through voucher programs and charter schools.

We don’t have to accept drilling for oil on public lands.

We don’t have to accept young people having to work three and four jobs just to make ends meet.

We don’t have to accept having the highest maternal mortality rate in the industrialized world.

We don’t have to accept a complete disregard for ethics laws.

We don’t have to accept LGBTQ families living in fear.

We don’t have to accept the lies.

If we really care, and I mean from the bottom of our souls with a passion that burns as hot as we feel for our partners, then we can do more than resist. We can stop this wayward thinking, misaligned, out-of-touch Congress and administration from going through with their plans. We can stop the whole thing right in its tracks.

But you have to care.

A Little More Action, Please

The success of the Tea Party was not political as much as it was organizational. A few people made a lot of noise and that noise resulted in a lot of power. I fully believe, as a progressive feminist liberal, that there are more of us than there are of them. We just have to get off our asses and work as hard outside the system as well as we do on the inside.

There’s a wonderful guide assembled by former congressional aides called The Indivisible Guide. If you REALLY care, you’ll click the link and download that PDF document. And yes, I’ll know and I WILL be watching. I want to see some major downloads of that thing. These aides have studied what happened in Congress over the past eight years and turned that into a plan for resisting the agenda of the new administration. I stayed up late reading through it last night. Their strategy and logic is sound. I won’t bother repeating it all here. Just download the damn document and read it. Have friends read it. Print it out and pass it around if you need to.

Another thing we need to do is set aside any notion of tolerance. We cannot tolerate racism. We cannot tolerate bigotry. We cannot tolerate homophobia. We cannot tolerate xenophobia. Hate is not an opinion. Hate is an attitude. We can tolerate opinions, but there’s no reason to tolerate an attitude. I don’t take attitude from our children and I damn sure won’t take it from an adult. There is no tolerance for hate. Just drop the word altogether. We are not tolerant.

Neither can we afford to be patient. We have to act now, we have to act tomorrow, and we cannot simply wait until the next round of elections and then suddenly expect that we’re going to change anything. I’m sure you’ve heard people say, “Just give him a chance and see what happens.” Funny, the people saying that sure as hell didn’t give President Obama a chance, did they? The Tea Party started right in on the first day of his presidency vowing to fight him every step of the way and for eight solid years, that is exactly what they did. We have to not only match that effort, we have to surpass it. There is no patience, especially for a narcissistic fascist.

There should never be a day pass but what your elected officials are aware of your opinions on every issue you care about. Use some common sense. Don’t put everything in the same message and expect it to be read. One subject per message, but multiple messages a day. Keep it up. Don’t back off anything and should you be fortunate enough to encounter one of your members of Congress in person, be ready with a seven-second elevator pitch to let them know how you feel.

Accumulate others of like mind and encourage them to act as well. We know we are not alone, but too often we behave as though we’re  alone. Stop it. Organize, even you can only find two or three other people. Get together. Act together. Resist together.

We don’t have to accept a damn thing. We shouldn’t accept a damn thing. The 45th president of the United States was not elected by the majority, but through a manipulation of the system. We must resist. We must object. We must blockade.  We must stand. We must fight.

Resistance Begins At Home

One of the tactics the new president likes to use is how his tweets affect the stock market. He says he doesn’t like a company and their stocks drop dramatically. He’s a bully.

That trick works both ways, though. Again, there are more of us than there are of him. We have more purchasing power and can affect the markets and the economy in must stronger ways. When a corporation cozies up to or supports his policies, we have to hold that corporation responsible. We boycott their products if we can. We protest outside their offices. We harass and press upon their board members. We upset their day-to-day business. We have to let them know that there is a steep cost to be paid for supporting this president in any way, shape, or form.

For example, do you know who paid for the inauguration? Boeing, Chevron, Verizon, Coca-Cola, and AT&T. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, most of those companies helped fund the 2013 inauguration as well. However, the amount raised for this inauguration was more than the cost of the last two inaugurations combined. The companies need to be held accountable to the public, which means you and I have to stop supporting them.

Likewise, the pale blue Ralph Lauren suit worn by the first lady was beautiful, but if Lauren supports the president then we have to send a message not only to him but to every other designer who might consider working with the first family. We cannot even indirectly support his policies in even the smallest way.

Resistance means taking back control. Control of our local governments, our state governments, and our federal governments. Indiana voters need to stop and consider how that it was our governor, the man who is now vice president, who provided party legitimacy to the buffoon in the oval office. Had we eliminated him and not let him become governor, the outcome would have likely been much different. Because we did not pay attention to local and state-wide politics, Pence happened.

This Is Only The Beginning

I feel certain that the new administration thinks all the noise will begin to die down come Monday. Once the Republicans stop partying, surely we’ll no longer feel like crashing it.

If you really care about the issues you say you care about, if they really are important to you, your life, your friends’ lives, your families’ lives, you’ll prove the president wrong. Resist.

Resist strongly.

Resist continually.

Contact a member of Congress today. Introduce yourself. Let them know you’re holding them responsible for everything Congress does and doesn’t do. Then, continue resisting from there.

Thank you.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment
Not Ready For Prime Time
January 20, 2017

The job was bigger than they thought

 

charles i. letbetter - not ready for prime time

The Short Version

Apparently, no one in the transition team for the new president thought the days would pass so quickly. As a new president takes the oath of office, and members of the Obama administration begin to move out, there is a shortage of staff members. Specifically, about 640 positions that require Senate confirmation are empty. Those people just happen to be necessary for the day-to-day operation of the country. So, the new president has asked 50 members of the old administration to stay on temporarily.

A Litte More Detail

You would have thought they could see this coming. In fact, had the transition team followed the original plan laid out by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, they probably would have been all set and ready to go into today with new people filling all the important seats. Unfortunately, Mr. Christie got the “you’re fired” memo ten weeks ago and he took his plan with him. Indiana Governor and vice president-elect took over the transition team without a clue as to what he was doing. Under Mr. Christie’s plan, all appointees requiring Senate confirmation would have been named by the first week in December. Mr. Pence had no such plan.

As a result, key members of the administration are not in place, or even close to it, as the new president takes the oath of office. This is a problem for critical offices such as the State Department who never actually get a day off. There’s always something going over there. Yet, there’s no one sitting in that seat just yet. The appointee to the office of Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, isn’t close to being approved by the Senate. So, Obama appointee Thomas A. Shannon, Jr. has been asked to stay on until the Senate has time to take action.

Is this surprising? Not for anyone who is familiar with the scope of the transition of government. Anyone who has been in Washington, D. C. during a period such as this understands just how coordinated everything must be to cover all the bases in a relatively short time between the election and the inauguration. However, we didn’t elect anyone with actual government experience, did we? So, they were caught off-guard by the fact they couldn’t just hire all their friends and relatives and expect the Senate to just say, “Hey, they seem nice enough. Let ’em all in.”

What Happens Next?

The Obama appointees can stay on as long as the new president needs them. There is no timetable for Senate confirmation and nothing says that everyone absolutely, positively has to be gone by today. In fact, with over 600 appointments still to go, most of which have yet to be named, its quite likely that there could be remnants of the Obama administration lingering in fairly high positions of power well into the first year of the new administration.

Not helping matters any is the grilling that almost all of the new top-level appointees are getting from the Senate confirmation committees. As the Senate exercises extreme and partisan caution in approving cabinet members, it slows down the rate at which mid-level appointees can be vetted and approved. While it’s not unusual for some positions to go unfilled for a year or more, the number of vacant positions facing this administration is alarming and a cause for some concern.

While no one is likely to notice anything amiss over the weekend, matters related to international affairs, the economy, and employment could start rearing their ugly heads as early as next week. Without anyone authoritatively taking the reigns in those departments, what are typically mundane matters of paperwork are likely to go undone, leading to a ripple effect of consequences. The end result could potentially be catastrophic.

Not that the incoming president seems to care. He’s been noticeably hands off throughout the transition period.

If this is the way the administration is going to be operated for the next four years, we could see an increasing amount of chaos and much of the actual workings of the government could come to a screeching halt.

This is what happens when we elect someone who doesn’t have a clue how government actually works. While the new president is familiar with television reality, Washington reality is a different sort of program and this administration is far from being ready for prime time.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment  /  science
Extreme Escape
January 20, 2017

Some people will do anything to avoid the new administration

 

charles i. letbetter - extreme escape

The Short Version

Six people entered a dome on top of the most active volcano in Hawaii and won’t come out for eight months as part of a NASA-sponsored study of the effects of living in an environment similar to that found on the planet Mars. Scientists are hoping that the results of this study will help them to prepare for eventually putting people on the red planet sometime in the 2030s. One of the “perks” to being in the dome is complete isolation from news media.

A Few More Details

While many of us might like to escape today’s inauguration of the new president, six people found a very extreme way of doing so by volunteering for an eight-month study that places them in a dome that sits on top of the most active volcano in Hawaii. That sounds like fun, doesn’t it?

Actually, this isn’t a political statement but rather a scientific study. That the study started yesterday is purely coincidental. This was planned long before the election. No one really looked at the calendar.

The study, which is sponsored largely by NASA, is designed to take a look at what might happen, physically and psychologically, to people confined in an atmosphere similar to what would be found on the planet Mars. Of course, there’s a lot of difference between Earth and Mars, especially in regards to gravity. Being on top of an active volcano is about as close as scientists could come to replicating the martian environment. Anyone who has ever been on top of a volcano understands just how unfriendly and unforgiving the terrain can be.

The six people who entered the dome, four men and two women, won’t have a lot of space and won’t have much in the way of food choice. Their diets will consist mostly of dried food with the occasional treat of —wait for it—Spam. Sounds thrilling, doesn’t it? I’m anticipating some dramatic weight loss on the part of the participants. Yet, it is still likely better than the environment in Washington, D.C. at the moment.

The University of Hawaii operates the dome, called Hawaii Space Exploration Analog and Simulation, or HI-SEAS, and NASA has dedicated more than $2 million to this stage of the project. There are other martian simulations being operated in different places in the world, but this one is special because the terrain so closely resembles what Mars would actually offer. This allows scientists to study not only how the crew interacts inside the dome, but how well they perform simple activities such as using a robot to fetch packages left for them.

Now, don’t go getting the idea that this is all fun and games. The dome has a small kitchen, a lab, and very small sleeping accommodations, such as what might be found in a martian space station. The dome is not airtight, but when members of the crew go outside, they have to wear space suits to simulate the limited movement. They will have no physical contact with the outside world. Even their limited digital communication with the support crew has a 20-minute delay, the amount of time it would take an email message from Mars to reach Earth. On a good day.

And what happens if the volcano decides to get nasty while they’re there? There are extraction plans in place, NASA says. However, there’s no word as to whether those plans include Matt Damon.

Haven’t We Done Domes Before?

Yes, we’ve stuck people in numerous domes before. There have been two previous studies for Mars deployment, one lasting a year and the other eight months. And there will likely be more studies after this as researchers attempt to improve the experience based on what they’ve learned from previous studies.

What they’re hoping to avoid is the complete meltdown that occurred back in the 90s with Biodome 2, an experiment in Arizona that went totally out of control. That dome was air tight and attempted to replicate multiple environments. Carbon dioxide levels were out of control, plants and animals were dying, and the participants were at the point of not even speaking with each other by the time they left the dome.

Of course, even that failure taught us a lot of lessons that factor into this current study. Everyone is hopeful that the test will go well and that participants won’t have too much culture shock when they emerge in eight months.

Had we known the election was going to end like this, a lot more people would have likely volunteered, don’t you think?

Continue Reading

Page 2 of 12