Finally, the fans of America's most violent team sport have been provided with safe space where they are protected from words or actions that offend their delicate sensibilities. Wednesday, 5/23/18, the NFL owners, defending the freedoms of all Americans, established a new policy fining teams whose players kneel, sit or show disrespect during the National Anthem. Players will be permitted, however, to remain in the locker room, if they choose to.
In explaining the league's new policy, the fearlessly principled NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell parsed the policy's details with Solomonic logic: "We want people to be respectful of the national anthem. We want people to stand-that's all personnel- and make sure they treat this moment in a respectful fashion we think we owe. [But] we were also very sensitive to give the players' choices." How sensitive indeed.
The pressure by the league to end the players' protests against police brutality has nothing to do with respect or sensitivity. It is about money. A few years ago, the NFL management and owners feared revenues would decline as more scientific research revealed the degree of brain damage that results from even limited years of playing the game. Around the country, more parents began keeping their kids from joining "Pee-Wee" leagues or high school teams. Football's image as a means to inculcate discipline and masculinity in its young participants is being supplanted by images of middle-aged former players suffering the unbearable ravages of irreversible and progressive memory loss and cognitive impairment.
Then came Colin Kaepernick. Kaepernick, formerly of the San Francisco 49ers, knelt to protest police violence and racial inequality. His action offended many fans; many other fans applauded his courage. President Trump, who himself skilfully evaded the draft five times during the Vietnam War, exploited the issue to incense white Americans against the "millionaire" (predominantly black) players. He called for any player kneeling to be fired if they continued to protest during the anthem, for the owners to "get that son-of-bitch off the field right now."
I can understand the pride many Americans feel when hearing the National Anthem. It is not the country's best patriotic piece of music and verse, but it stirs sentiments that America, despite its checkered history of Africans brought here in chains and Native Americans driven from their lands, embodies democratic principles of equality that were withheld too long from so many, will in time shelter all who live here. I can understand their anger when anyone seems to denigrate a symbol they love with an almost religious fervor. As with religion, the flag is inseparable from who they are . To protest it is to assail the essence of their being.
To African Americans, however, the flag can, and indeed must, signify centuries of bondage, torture, rape, and murder. And even to this day, no one can legitimately argue that despite the Civil War and the civil rights' legislation being black in American does not impose a distinction that invariably results in being disproportionately subjected to abuse and violence by the police.
Of course, crime rates among young black men does exceed those of their white counterparts. Whites often point to these statistics, and to the impoverished circumstances of "their ancestors" who had lower crime rates, to suggest that the higher percentage of African American incarceration results from some character or social defects in blacks and/or black family structure. If such defects do exist, then a logical question would be to ask how they came to affect or infect that population? The answer is simple and all around us.
When the civil rights laws codified legal equality, they didn't eradicate racial prejudice, segregation and hatred. They didn't displace the system that sentences blacks at much higher rates to jail for marijuana possessions than whites. They didn't homogenize skin pigment as time did the foreign accents which kept Italians and the Irish held down in the underclasses. The laws and the passage of time have improved race relations in America; but more time must pass for the lasting effects of slavery and racial prejudice to dissolve in the "melting pot" that American can become.
In the meantime, those of us who have always felt reassured when we have encountered the police, who have never been trailed in a department store, who haven ever feared for our lives during a traffic stop, or have found ourselves roughly patted down on the street, should imagine what those experiences must be like and exercise some patience for our fellow Americans who know what we have never known. Summoning empathy toward our fellow citizens could furnish us with greater insight into the anxiety and anger felt by young black males encountering all the subtle and overt forms of racism circulating through American life and culture.
The NFL owners might have the legal authority as employers to enforce the rule and impose the fines against teams whose players kneel during the anthem. When challenged by the players' association, the courts will have decide whether or not this restriction of speech is constitutional. If such a case reached the Supreme Court, how, I wonder, would the conservative justices rule? They have already made clear that corporations have the right to free speech; would the conservative justices extend that same privilege to the individuals constitute the working parts of that organization?
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Saturday, May 26, 2018
The Quality of Mercy
May 22, 2018
An editorial in The New York Times, "The Chutzpah of These Men," groaned that Mario Batali and Charlie Rose have been calculating ways to effect a resurrection of their careers. The Times' editors expressed astonishment that these men would have the gall to contemplate returning to their former public eminence after being fired for multiple accusations of harassing and abusing women. There certainly seems no question that they are guilty of what they are accused. After all, the witnesses against them comprise an extraordinary number of women.
So, how could either man think that anyone would be interested in working with them? Nevertheless, Batali has been "floating ideas, pondering timelines and examining whether there is a way for him to step back into his career" (NYT, 4/2/2018). And Tina Brown revealed "that she had been" asked to co-host a show with Rose featuring interviews with men "who had faced #MeToo allegations." (NYT, 5/22/2018)
Both men have expressed regret over their actions. Batali even offered a picture of a "holiday-inspired breakfast" of "Pizza Dough Cinnamon Rolls." Charlie Rose issued this soul searching statement: "I have learned a great deal as a result of these events and I hope others will too. All of us, including me, are coming to a newer and deeper recognition of the pain caused by conduct in the past, and have come to a profound new respect for women and their lives." And with his new, "profound" insight Rose would be perfect to host a talk show in which celebrities guilty of abusing women could commiserate with each other and begin to heal some of the pain THEY must being suffering in their various banishments. https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/11/20/16682728/charlie-rose-apology-sexual-harassment
What does one say to men like Baltali and Rose who, frankly, sound more like are sexual predators than cads? Rose's behavior toward young women is simply unacceptable; if he were on the receiving end of what he attempted, would he argue that all should be forgiven and forgotten after such a brief and relatively mild punishment? To acknowledge responsibility, to express contrition, regret, remorse requires a something of a conscience and a willingness to accept his "just deserts." Contriving to use the "behavior" that got him fired as a scheme for a new television project truly adds insult to injury.
Rose and Batali are narcissists and lack the ability to see themselves for what and who they are. Their single focus is to gratify their appetites and their apologies are nothing more than calculated attempts to avoid being held accountable.
There are men who genuinely regret the way they have treated women, though it is not easy to judge which are and which are not. But there are cases in which the nature and number of complaints simply overwhelms. For Rose and Batali it is clear that the quality of mercy should be considerably strained.
An editorial in The New York Times, "The Chutzpah of These Men," groaned that Mario Batali and Charlie Rose have been calculating ways to effect a resurrection of their careers. The Times' editors expressed astonishment that these men would have the gall to contemplate returning to their former public eminence after being fired for multiple accusations of harassing and abusing women. There certainly seems no question that they are guilty of what they are accused. After all, the witnesses against them comprise an extraordinary number of women.
So, how could either man think that anyone would be interested in working with them? Nevertheless, Batali has been "floating ideas, pondering timelines and examining whether there is a way for him to step back into his career" (NYT, 4/2/2018). And Tina Brown revealed "that she had been" asked to co-host a show with Rose featuring interviews with men "who had faced #MeToo allegations." (NYT, 5/22/2018)
Both men have expressed regret over their actions. Batali even offered a picture of a "holiday-inspired breakfast" of "Pizza Dough Cinnamon Rolls." Charlie Rose issued this soul searching statement: "I have learned a great deal as a result of these events and I hope others will too. All of us, including me, are coming to a newer and deeper recognition of the pain caused by conduct in the past, and have come to a profound new respect for women and their lives." And with his new, "profound" insight Rose would be perfect to host a talk show in which celebrities guilty of abusing women could commiserate with each other and begin to heal some of the pain THEY must being suffering in their various banishments. https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/11/20/16682728/charlie-rose-apology-sexual-harassment
What does one say to men like Baltali and Rose who, frankly, sound more like are sexual predators than cads? Rose's behavior toward young women is simply unacceptable; if he were on the receiving end of what he attempted, would he argue that all should be forgiven and forgotten after such a brief and relatively mild punishment? To acknowledge responsibility, to express contrition, regret, remorse requires a something of a conscience and a willingness to accept his "just deserts." Contriving to use the "behavior" that got him fired as a scheme for a new television project truly adds insult to injury.
Rose and Batali are narcissists and lack the ability to see themselves for what and who they are. Their single focus is to gratify their appetites and their apologies are nothing more than calculated attempts to avoid being held accountable.
There are men who genuinely regret the way they have treated women, though it is not easy to judge which are and which are not. But there are cases in which the nature and number of complaints simply overwhelms. For Rose and Batali it is clear that the quality of mercy should be considerably strained.
Saturday, May 19, 2018
Decency
In his essay "George Will scorns Pence for the high crime of decency," William Bennett chastised Will for calling Mike Pence "America's most repulsive public figure." According to Bennett, Will's contempt for Pence comes from the vice president's "heinous crime of being a decent man." In his own column, Will aptly describes Pence's zealous reverence (In a December cabinet meeting, Pence praised Trump every 12 seconds for three 3 minutes running, Washington Post 5/9/18) for Donald Trump as "toadyism" and "obsequiousness." For Bennett, Pence is not the least bit obsequious, whereas Will is guilty of a "supercilious verbosity" intended to "validate his own sense of superiority."
Before explaining why he thinks Pence is a decent man, Bennett complains about Will's choice of words: "Will summons the depth of his ample thesaurus" to write a column "filled with big words that most Americans never use and can't even define." This charge has been made against Will over the years, as Will's dexterity with language has earned him both praise and criticism. Yet, it seems surprising that former education secretary William Bennett, whose own essay displays a knowledge of complex words (e.g., "savoir faire," "sesquipedalian," "obfuscates," "supercilious," "lamentations," "otiosity"), would approve of people being too lazy to look up words they do not know. Perhaps Bennett believes that most "Americans" should accept their intellectual limitations.
Beyond his censure of Will's rhetorical style, Bennett objects to Will depicting Pence as a toadying sycophant. In Pence's defense, Bennett argues that Will proves only that Pence is "very polite and proper." As Bennett sees it, someone who is "cordial and mannerly" need not distinguish between decent and indecent individuals. That is why it's fine for Bennett that Pence felt "honored" to have the lawbreaking goon Joe Arpaio among an audience he addressed in Arizona. And that is why it's fine for Bennett that the pious Pence, who refuses to be alone with any woman except his wife, bends and truckles to a man who asserts his privilege to grope women. Unlike Bennett, Will understands a simple truth: Pence lacks the decency and courage to spurn those who are indecent.
William Bennett edited The Book of Virtues: A Treasury of Great Moral Stories, The Moral Compass: Stories for a Life's Journey, and the author of The DEATH OF OUTRAGE: Bill Clinton and the Assault on American Ideals. In the last of these books Bennett assails the pathetic rationale of those who defended Clinton's behavior in the White House. For instance, he mockingly cites Wendy Kamine's observation that it is "childlike and potentially dangerous" to hold a president to a high moral standard. He admonishes Billy Graham for Graham's specious excuse that it is not Clinton's fault that he makes "the ladies just go wild." And he recounts how certain women's groups fought against Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court, but remained silent about Clinton because Clinton supported the issues important to them.
More than twenty years have passed since Bennett's books published his moral outrage. Maybe such outrage no longer applies in 21st century. Or maybe such outrage is less important than what Bennett fears most: that criticism like Will's might produce the "ultimate consequence of...a return to power of the liberal establishment." Terrible as that result might be for Bennett, I should point out his own words to help him reset what surely is his broken moral compass: "In the end, the President's apologists are attempting to redefine the standard of acceptable behavior for a President. Instead of upholding a high view of the office and the men who occupy it, they radically lower our expectations."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will050918.php3
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/05/12/william-bennett-george-will-scorns-pence-for-high-crime-decency.html
Before explaining why he thinks Pence is a decent man, Bennett complains about Will's choice of words: "Will summons the depth of his ample thesaurus" to write a column "filled with big words that most Americans never use and can't even define." This charge has been made against Will over the years, as Will's dexterity with language has earned him both praise and criticism. Yet, it seems surprising that former education secretary William Bennett, whose own essay displays a knowledge of complex words (e.g., "savoir faire," "sesquipedalian," "obfuscates," "supercilious," "lamentations," "otiosity"), would approve of people being too lazy to look up words they do not know. Perhaps Bennett believes that most "Americans" should accept their intellectual limitations.
Beyond his censure of Will's rhetorical style, Bennett objects to Will depicting Pence as a toadying sycophant. In Pence's defense, Bennett argues that Will proves only that Pence is "very polite and proper." As Bennett sees it, someone who is "cordial and mannerly" need not distinguish between decent and indecent individuals. That is why it's fine for Bennett that Pence felt "honored" to have the lawbreaking goon Joe Arpaio among an audience he addressed in Arizona. And that is why it's fine for Bennett that the pious Pence, who refuses to be alone with any woman except his wife, bends and truckles to a man who asserts his privilege to grope women. Unlike Bennett, Will understands a simple truth: Pence lacks the decency and courage to spurn those who are indecent.
William Bennett edited The Book of Virtues: A Treasury of Great Moral Stories, The Moral Compass: Stories for a Life's Journey, and the author of The DEATH OF OUTRAGE: Bill Clinton and the Assault on American Ideals. In the last of these books Bennett assails the pathetic rationale of those who defended Clinton's behavior in the White House. For instance, he mockingly cites Wendy Kamine's observation that it is "childlike and potentially dangerous" to hold a president to a high moral standard. He admonishes Billy Graham for Graham's specious excuse that it is not Clinton's fault that he makes "the ladies just go wild." And he recounts how certain women's groups fought against Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court, but remained silent about Clinton because Clinton supported the issues important to them.
More than twenty years have passed since Bennett's books published his moral outrage. Maybe such outrage no longer applies in 21st century. Or maybe such outrage is less important than what Bennett fears most: that criticism like Will's might produce the "ultimate consequence of...a return to power of the liberal establishment." Terrible as that result might be for Bennett, I should point out his own words to help him reset what surely is his broken moral compass: "In the end, the President's apologists are attempting to redefine the standard of acceptable behavior for a President. Instead of upholding a high view of the office and the men who occupy it, they radically lower our expectations."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will050918.php3
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/05/12/william-bennett-george-will-scorns-pence-for-high-crime-decency.html
Monday, May 14, 2018
It's Raining Men
The other day the accounts of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's odious treatment of his "girlfriends" stunned his supporters and colleagues. Here was a "true fighter" for women's rights, an antitoxin to a toxic president who bragged about sexually assaulting and demeaning women. Suddenly, a stalwart defender of women's rights was unmasked as a sexual sadist, misogynist, and racist.
While Schneiderman's disgrace distresses everyone who cares about equality and decency, the White House is particularly delighted by the news about the New York Attorney General. Kellyanne Conway tweeted "Gotcha," burnishing her credentials as a true Trumpian. Her celebration of a political adversary's downfall is particularly sickening, because it displays her indifference for the victims who suffered Schneiderman's abuse. Has working for Trump blunted so Conway's moral faculty that she's incapable of caring about women victimized by a violent, sadistic man? Perhaps her years defending Trump's offensive behavior against the more than dozen women who have accused him of groping and forcibly kissing them has extinguished whatever decency she might have possessed before she joined Trump's campaign.
When the Me-Too movement dragged the repugnant Harvey Weinstein into the public view, I thought an avalanche of just retribution would smother him. More importantly, I believed the Weinstein revelations would enlighten men in positions of authority to recognize women's inalienable right to not be abused, groped, or harassed in any way; that men in authority might even began to finally treat women as equals. But almost weekly revelations of men harassing or abusing women has stripped me of that delusion.
According to an article in The New York Times, ("After Weinstein," 2/8/18) 71 men have "been fired or forced to resign after accusations of sexual misconduct that ranged from inappropriate comments to rape." The sheer number of men cited in the Times' piece is staggering. And how can these men knowingly commit clearly criminal acts? Maybe some, like Woody Allen, would say, "The heart wants what it wants." "Or the hands." "Or the genitals." But what about what the other human being wants? What about what the woman wants?
In her op-ed essay, "The Problem With 'Feminist' Men,"Jill Filipovic examines the Scheiderman's sinister motives in fighting for women's rights. She suggests that he used "his role in progressive politics"and his feminist-minded political work to advance his own career, to ingratiate himself with the women he would go on to harm, and to cover up his cruelties." Her formulation of Scheiderman's "thought process" offers interesting possibilities as to his motives and means, but unless he were to admit his guilt, explain every thought, desire, impulse, feeling and intention behind his actions, we can only conjecture, perhaps accurately, how calculating this man has been.
Filipovic's essay elicited many comments that criticized her ideas; a number of them viciously assailed her conclusions and the logic she used in reaching them. Though her assumptions are suppositions and should be honestly critiqued, the grotesque and absurd vitriol hurled at her by some readers is profoundly disturbing. One man wrote, "Feminist men are the problem. Period. No other thoughts necessary. Feminism is a cancer to both men and women." Another wrote, "'Donald Trump, who boasted about sexually assaulting and degrading women'...This is falsehood. Trump suggested that women will LET you...This suggests consent. Assault is not consensual. The question is how much damage they do before their demise. Feminism is just such a movement...Women tend to be more emotional, shortsighted, informed by the concrete. Men are more rational, farsighted, and comfortable with the abstract."
The election of Trump has produced two unintended and salutary consequences. One is the Me-Too movement, which is tearing down the once impregnable walls covering up the offenses perpetrated the likes of the Trumps, Scheidermans and countless other men. The second consequence springs from the reaction of men who feel threatened by the effect of the Me-Too movement. In the past, many misogynist men would successfully hide their behavior because women had no recourse open to them. Today, women feel empowered to speak out against their abusers. Without meaning to, Trump has instigated a "kind of wild justice," which it is the misogynist's nature to run from, or to spew venom against (as demonstrated by the comments quoted above). Either way, Me-Too justice will continue to root out sexists and misogynists and move us closer to gender equality.
While Schneiderman's disgrace distresses everyone who cares about equality and decency, the White House is particularly delighted by the news about the New York Attorney General. Kellyanne Conway tweeted "Gotcha," burnishing her credentials as a true Trumpian. Her celebration of a political adversary's downfall is particularly sickening, because it displays her indifference for the victims who suffered Schneiderman's abuse. Has working for Trump blunted so Conway's moral faculty that she's incapable of caring about women victimized by a violent, sadistic man? Perhaps her years defending Trump's offensive behavior against the more than dozen women who have accused him of groping and forcibly kissing them has extinguished whatever decency she might have possessed before she joined Trump's campaign.
When the Me-Too movement dragged the repugnant Harvey Weinstein into the public view, I thought an avalanche of just retribution would smother him. More importantly, I believed the Weinstein revelations would enlighten men in positions of authority to recognize women's inalienable right to not be abused, groped, or harassed in any way; that men in authority might even began to finally treat women as equals. But almost weekly revelations of men harassing or abusing women has stripped me of that delusion.
According to an article in The New York Times, ("After Weinstein," 2/8/18) 71 men have "been fired or forced to resign after accusations of sexual misconduct that ranged from inappropriate comments to rape." The sheer number of men cited in the Times' piece is staggering. And how can these men knowingly commit clearly criminal acts? Maybe some, like Woody Allen, would say, "The heart wants what it wants." "Or the hands." "Or the genitals." But what about what the other human being wants? What about what the woman wants?
In her op-ed essay, "The Problem With 'Feminist' Men,"Jill Filipovic examines the Scheiderman's sinister motives in fighting for women's rights. She suggests that he used "his role in progressive politics"and his feminist-minded political work to advance his own career, to ingratiate himself with the women he would go on to harm, and to cover up his cruelties." Her formulation of Scheiderman's "thought process" offers interesting possibilities as to his motives and means, but unless he were to admit his guilt, explain every thought, desire, impulse, feeling and intention behind his actions, we can only conjecture, perhaps accurately, how calculating this man has been.
Filipovic's essay elicited many comments that criticized her ideas; a number of them viciously assailed her conclusions and the logic she used in reaching them. Though her assumptions are suppositions and should be honestly critiqued, the grotesque and absurd vitriol hurled at her by some readers is profoundly disturbing. One man wrote, "Feminist men are the problem. Period. No other thoughts necessary. Feminism is a cancer to both men and women." Another wrote, "'Donald Trump, who boasted about sexually assaulting and degrading women'...This is falsehood. Trump suggested that women will LET you...This suggests consent. Assault is not consensual. The question is how much damage they do before their demise. Feminism is just such a movement...Women tend to be more emotional, shortsighted, informed by the concrete. Men are more rational, farsighted, and comfortable with the abstract."
The election of Trump has produced two unintended and salutary consequences. One is the Me-Too movement, which is tearing down the once impregnable walls covering up the offenses perpetrated the likes of the Trumps, Scheidermans and countless other men. The second consequence springs from the reaction of men who feel threatened by the effect of the Me-Too movement. In the past, many misogynist men would successfully hide their behavior because women had no recourse open to them. Today, women feel empowered to speak out against their abusers. Without meaning to, Trump has instigated a "kind of wild justice," which it is the misogynist's nature to run from, or to spew venom against (as demonstrated by the comments quoted above). Either way, Me-Too justice will continue to root out sexists and misogynists and move us closer to gender equality.
Friday, May 4, 2018
Much Clamor, Little Consequence
Michelle Wolf has sinned. She has sinned against the
sanctity of journalism celebrated at The White House Correspondence Association
Dinner. Both liberals and conservatives were aghast at her vulgar and
personal insults. It's no surprise that conservatives would be offended
by Wolf's coarse humor and use it to paint liberals as typically tolerant of
"obscene language." After all, it's one more way to blame
liberals for the crass culture and disintegration of moral values in American.
However, many liberals also criticized Wolf's performance. Ashley
Feinberg of The Huffington Post has compiled a list of liberals who have
(tweeted) criticized Wolf:
Mike Allen: "Media hands Trump big, embarrassing win."
Peter Baker: "Unfortunately, I don't think we advance the cause of journalism tonight."
Mike Allen: "Media hands Trump big, embarrassing win."
Peter Baker: "Unfortunately, I don't think we advance the cause of journalism tonight."
Maria
Bartiromo: "The resist movement decided its [sic] cool to go against
the leader of the free world. Inappropriate, mean, stupid."
Maggie
Haberman: "That Press Sec sat and absorbed intense criticism of her
physical appearance, her job performance, and so forth, instead of walking out,
on national television, was impressive."
Jonathan
Karl: "The monologue at last night's WHCA crossed the line."
Andrea Mitchell: "Apology is owed to Press Sec and others grossly
insulted by Michelle Wolf at White House Correspondence Assoc. Dinner."
Fineberg's full title of her piece is ""A Running
List Of Cowards, Strivers, and Suck-Ups. Democracy dies in the Washington
Hilton." Fineberg is rather incensed that these journalists have
chosen to join conservatives in condemning Wolf. However, the complaints
Fineberg cites from respectable media figures should surprise no one, since
Wolf's monologue mauled several in the Trump administration with caustic and
coarse personal ridicule. To expect the media to defend Wolf would be
more than improbable. The men and women in media are conventional to the
point of being Victorian (At least in public; behind closed doors, some of them
behave far worse than Wolf's words.)
As I watched Wolf's performance and I sometimes winced
along with the wincing faces in the audience. Her bawdiness is not to my
taste. More than anything else, her remarks about Sarah Sanders' eye
make-up, which seemed tame compared to her much of what she said, instigated
the most severe criticism of her routine. She aroused such strong female
solidarity that journalists who ordinarily censure Sanders for her elasticity
with the truth, crowded to her defense. Mikia Brzezinski tweeted,
" Watching a wife and mother be humiliated on national television for her
looks is deplorable. I have experienced insults about my appearance from
the President. All women have a duty to unite when these attacks happen
and the WHCA owes Sarah an apology." That Press. Sec. sat and
absorbed intense criticism of her physical appearance, her job performance, and
so forth, instead of walking out, on national television, was impressive."
Not everyone has found fault with Wolf's humor. As I noted above, Fineberg has
compiled her own Librorum Prohibitorum of those heretical individuals who have
attacked Wolf's performance. Arwa Mahdawi, in this week's Guardian, argues that
those "urging" Wolf to apologize for her "uncontroversial
joke" about Sanders' make-up send "an incredibly dangerous
message." Mahdawi believes that the journalists who have criticized Wolf
are in fact suggesting "that it's not okay to criticize the president and
his people. And it lends credence to Trump's repeated claim that the mainstream
media is out to get him."
Calling on Wolf to apologized strikes me as unnecessary. Mahdawi is right;
Wolf's jokes about Sanders were certainly benign. She might have expressed some
of her jokes with less vulgarity, but her repertoire is well known, so no one
should have been shocked by her comic mode. The stream of outrage appears to be
more synthetic than genuine.
Nevertheless, Feinberg and Mahdawi overstate the damage and danger of
journalists upbraiding Wolf for her monologue. Within days of the
correspondence dinner, the journalists were toiling away, reporting the latest
lies and chaos convulsing the White House. Maggie Haberman and the rest of the
media are back at work, detailing the administration's misdeeds, lies and
chaos. (See "On Attack for Trump, Giuliani May Aggravate Legal and
Political Perils." 5/4/18) Fox continues to defend Trump and redirect
public attention to Hilary Clinton. (See Hannity interview on Fox News with
Giuliani) The balance of the universe remains intact; the wheels of justice
continue to roll, however slowly. Mueller will inculpate or exculpate Trump of
collusion or other crimes. If exonerated, we'll have to wait till 2020, vote
Trump out of office, fumigate 1600 Pennsylvania ave, and try to forget the four
years of churlish vulgarity we had been subjected to.
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
Macron and Trump
These are times which try men and women's souls. Each day, tweets from the White House and statements by President Trump to the media parade an ignorance in the language one would expect from a fourth grader. (Nina Burleigh in Newsweek, "Trump Speaks At Fourth-Grade Level" 1/18/18, reported that Trump speaks at the lowest level of the last 15 presidents.) His most recent exhibition came during his joint news conference (Friday, 5/27/18) with German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. During the conference, when a reporter asked about Ronny Jackson's decision to withdraw as nominee for Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Trump attempted to defend his choice by repeating that Washington is a "very mean place, a nasty place," that Jackson is a great man, that Jackson's son is at the Navel Academy, that Senator John Tester would pay for bringing forward the allegations that induced Jackson to resign, that the allegations are completely false, etc. But would Dr. Jackson have withdrawn if he were innocent and as wonderful as Trump claimed?
The past week offered at least a partial reprieve from the daily deluge of Trump's banality, vulgarity, and mendacity. After spending a day with Trump and enjoying a lavish state dinner, French President Emmanuel Macron in a speech he made to Congress, rebuffed several of Trump political positions. Among them were Trump's nationalism and his environmental policy. Macron's speech was a pleasure to listen to as he eloquently explained why the president is wrong on these issues. His speech lasted an hour, far too long for Trump's attention span; but even if Macron's speech were distilled down to a few sentences, it still couldn't penetrate Trump's obdurate and obtuse mind.
Macron's comments about isolation and nationalism provided an intelligent and thoughtful response to Trump's bromidic "America First." What might seem a simple, though shallow, statement of patriotism, "America First" expresses more than the worthy goal of protecting America and Americans. Its additional unspoken though unambiguous message is one of bigotry and chauvinism, designed to stir up the ugliest form of nationalism. Macron's vision of America and its role in the world transcends this simplistic, retrograde policy Trump has offered:
"Therefore, let me say we have two ways ahead. We can choose isolationism, withdrawal, and nationalism. This is an option. It can be tempting to us as temporary relief to our fears. But closing the door to the world will not stop the evolution of the world. It will not douse but inflame the fears of our citizens. We have to keep our eyes wide open to the new risks right in front of us. I'm convinced that if we decide to open our eyes wider, we will be stronger. We will overcome the dangers. We will not let the rampaging work of extreme nationalism shake a world full of hopes for greater prosperity."
Macron's words slice through Trump's America First agenda; his words recognize what Trump fails to: that erecting trade tariffs, stoking xenophobic fear and anger and pitting white majorities against black and brown minorities won't reverse the changes taking place in America and around the globe. Trump's policies and tweets only exacerbate the fear and anger such momentous changes brings and as Macron points out, "Anger only freezes and weakens us."
On the environment, Macron is equally incisive. He grasps the consequences of Trump's destructive environmental policies, while understanding the hardships faced by those working in industries that must be phased out to help ease the human causes of global climate change:
"Some people think that securing current industries and their jobs is more urgent that transforming our economies to meet the global challenge of climate change. I hear these concerns. But we must find a smooth transition to a low-carbon economy. Because what is the meaning of our life, really, if we work and live destroying the planet, while sacrificing the the future of our children. What is the meaning of our decision is to reduce the properties for our children or grandchildren? By polluting the oceans, not mitigating fuel emission, and destroying our biodiversity, we're killing our planet. Let face it; there is no planet B."
Macron also cleverly turned Trump's "Let's make America great again" into "Let us work together in order to make our planet great again."
Macron has returned to France. Three days have passed since his persuasive oration. His advice regarding Trump's policies didn't fade; we still hear it. But they never came anywhere near Trump's brain. And how could they? This is a man who cannot read memos. According to Patrick Radden Keefe, in The New Yorker, when Trump first received memos from the National Security Council, staffers who wrote the memos were told to "Thin" them "out." The staffers slimmed the documents down to a single page, but were told they were still too long. One of Trump's aides informed the "staffers that the President is a 'visual person,' and asked them to express points 'pictorially.'" Memos were reduced to cards, "with the syntactical complexity of 'See Jane run.'"
I wish Macron could have stayed longer. Or I wish someone with his intelligence could be president. Obama always demonstrated intelligence and a mature command of English. Whether one agreed with his views or not, he articulated his policies and positions without bluster or threats. He examined issues deeply and formulated policy after listening carefully to his advisers. The rest of the world must still be wondering how someone so strangely impulsive, so astonishing unqualified could become president of the United States. Mark Twain explains: "It is strange the way the ignorant and inexperienced so often and so undeservedly succeed when the informed and the experienced fail."
The past week offered at least a partial reprieve from the daily deluge of Trump's banality, vulgarity, and mendacity. After spending a day with Trump and enjoying a lavish state dinner, French President Emmanuel Macron in a speech he made to Congress, rebuffed several of Trump political positions. Among them were Trump's nationalism and his environmental policy. Macron's speech was a pleasure to listen to as he eloquently explained why the president is wrong on these issues. His speech lasted an hour, far too long for Trump's attention span; but even if Macron's speech were distilled down to a few sentences, it still couldn't penetrate Trump's obdurate and obtuse mind.
Macron's comments about isolation and nationalism provided an intelligent and thoughtful response to Trump's bromidic "America First." What might seem a simple, though shallow, statement of patriotism, "America First" expresses more than the worthy goal of protecting America and Americans. Its additional unspoken though unambiguous message is one of bigotry and chauvinism, designed to stir up the ugliest form of nationalism. Macron's vision of America and its role in the world transcends this simplistic, retrograde policy Trump has offered:
"Therefore, let me say we have two ways ahead. We can choose isolationism, withdrawal, and nationalism. This is an option. It can be tempting to us as temporary relief to our fears. But closing the door to the world will not stop the evolution of the world. It will not douse but inflame the fears of our citizens. We have to keep our eyes wide open to the new risks right in front of us. I'm convinced that if we decide to open our eyes wider, we will be stronger. We will overcome the dangers. We will not let the rampaging work of extreme nationalism shake a world full of hopes for greater prosperity."
Macron's words slice through Trump's America First agenda; his words recognize what Trump fails to: that erecting trade tariffs, stoking xenophobic fear and anger and pitting white majorities against black and brown minorities won't reverse the changes taking place in America and around the globe. Trump's policies and tweets only exacerbate the fear and anger such momentous changes brings and as Macron points out, "Anger only freezes and weakens us."
On the environment, Macron is equally incisive. He grasps the consequences of Trump's destructive environmental policies, while understanding the hardships faced by those working in industries that must be phased out to help ease the human causes of global climate change:
"Some people think that securing current industries and their jobs is more urgent that transforming our economies to meet the global challenge of climate change. I hear these concerns. But we must find a smooth transition to a low-carbon economy. Because what is the meaning of our life, really, if we work and live destroying the planet, while sacrificing the the future of our children. What is the meaning of our decision is to reduce the properties for our children or grandchildren? By polluting the oceans, not mitigating fuel emission, and destroying our biodiversity, we're killing our planet. Let face it; there is no planet B."
Macron also cleverly turned Trump's "Let's make America great again" into "Let us work together in order to make our planet great again."
Macron has returned to France. Three days have passed since his persuasive oration. His advice regarding Trump's policies didn't fade; we still hear it. But they never came anywhere near Trump's brain. And how could they? This is a man who cannot read memos. According to Patrick Radden Keefe, in The New Yorker, when Trump first received memos from the National Security Council, staffers who wrote the memos were told to "Thin" them "out." The staffers slimmed the documents down to a single page, but were told they were still too long. One of Trump's aides informed the "staffers that the President is a 'visual person,' and asked them to express points 'pictorially.'" Memos were reduced to cards, "with the syntactical complexity of 'See Jane run.'"
I wish Macron could have stayed longer. Or I wish someone with his intelligence could be president. Obama always demonstrated intelligence and a mature command of English. Whether one agreed with his views or not, he articulated his policies and positions without bluster or threats. He examined issues deeply and formulated policy after listening carefully to his advisers. The rest of the world must still be wondering how someone so strangely impulsive, so astonishing unqualified could become president of the United States. Mark Twain explains: "It is strange the way the ignorant and inexperienced so often and so undeservedly succeed when the informed and the experienced fail."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)