The Enemy of the People – the Free Press or Donald Trump?

"If a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was & never will be. The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty & property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe." Thomas Jefferson to Colonel Yancy, Jan 6 1916

Not too long ago Donald Trump the candidate was boasting about how the press was giving him so much coverage that he didn't have to buy expensive campaign ads. He loved the press in those days. They loved him back. Then the liberal media developed a conscience, unequivocally condemning Trump as a dog's breakfast. Bigoted, sexist, racist, unworthy, unstable, unqualified.

Since his inauguration, they have been on him like an army of red ants. Reporting truthfully. Investigating. Doing their job with journalistic integrity and courage in a way that recalls Watergate. There is nowhere for the president to run, nowhere to hide. His attacks on the press have been constant and well-documented—mostly by himself, as they're executed in his tweets. Lately the current president's attacks on the media have intensified. His message has gone from labeling the press corrupt, fake news to calling it the enemy of the people. (To see his tweets in handwriting that matches his emotional maturity, download Trevor Noah's app.

The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 17, 2017

It has a sinister and familiar ring to it. Initially it was used correctly, to describe Nero who, when Rome fell into ruin, took an expensive vacation and then ignored a revolt. The Senate declared him an enemy of the people. Nero committed suicide to avoid arrest and execution. In 1882 Ibsen wrote a play Enemy of the People, about a doctor who is persecuted for rightly and publicly criticizing the mayor. At first the townspeople are grateful, but they're manipulated and turned against him. Anybody thinking of Hillary Clinton at this point?

When focus of press was on Hillary's server--by same 'fake news' orgs/'enemies of the people' cited by @realDonaldTrump--he saw patriots.

— Carl Bernstein (@carlbernstein) February 18, 2017

The next public figure to use the phrase was Adolph Hitler, allegedly a fan of Ibsen. He twisted it, using it to describe the Jews. His propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels wrote on Nov 16 1941:

"Every Jew is our enemy in this historic struggle, regardless of whether he vegetates in a Polish ghetto or carries on his parasitic existence in Berlin or Hamburg or blows the trumpets of war in New York or Washington. All Jews by virtue of their birth and their race are part of an international conspiracy against National Socialist Germany… Each Jew is a sworn enemy of the people... If someone wears the Jewish star he is an enemy of the people… The Jews are the enemy's agents among us. He who stands by the Jews aids the enemy…"

Stalin and Mao both used the term to describe objectors, some of whom were slaughtered for their courage.

New York national affairs editor Gabriel Sherman had good reason to call the president's latest tweet "full-on dictator speak." Republican Senator John McCain echoed the sentiment, talking to Chuck Todd. 

WATCH: In an interview with @chucktodd - Senator John McCain reacts to Trump's tweet: "That's how dictators get started" pic.twitter.com/aZq6wnvxYe

— Yashar (@yashar) February 18, 2017

Reince Priebus' response to the president's tweet was "I think you should take it seriously. I think that the problem we've got is that we're talking about bogus stories like the one in the New York Times, that we've had constant contact with Russian officials. The next day, the Wall Street Journal had a story that the intel community was not giving the president a full intelligence briefing. Both stories grossly inaccurate, overstated, overblown, and it's total garbage."

Shades of Richard Nixon. On the December 1972 tape he's recorded as saying "the press is the enemy of the people." In July 1974 he said that Watergate, "the broadest but the thinnest scandal in American history… would have been a blip [but for the press] who hate my guts with a passion..." In August he resigned.

The current US president should take heed. Fun as it is for him to use the tactics of  Stalin, Mao, Hitler and his propaganda machine and to echo Nixon, those men all met their just deserts for being, like Nero, the true enemy of the people. The thing is, how many people will have to suffer before this US president meets his fate? Trump's attack on the press has been well mixed up with exploitation of fear of Muslims and Mexicans. He's upping that ante every day. His Muslim ban didn't succeed but his message got through to his supporters and now he's planning another executive action to replace it. Again, taking a page out of Hitler's playbook, using Joseph Goebbels as his mouthpiece.

"It is the job of the government to deal with [the Jews]. No one has the right to act on his own, but each has the duty to support the state's measures against the Jews, to defend them with others, and to avoid being misled by any Jewish tricks. The security of the state requires that of us all."

For "Jews" read "Muslims," "Mexicans" and "the press". The truth is that the Roman Senate's use of the phrase enemy of the people was the one we need to revert to. The security of the state requires that the president is held to account. Hopefully the Judiciary and Democratic politicians will continue to fight for all civil rights. But without a free press there is nothing to protect democracy from becoming a dictatorship. Again, to quote Carl Bernstein, 

The most dangerous 'enemy of the people' is presidential lying--always. Attacks on press by @realDonaldTrump more treacherous than Nixon's.

— Carl Bernstein (@carlbernstein) February 18, 2017

But the final words go to former President Barack Obama, speaking at his final press conference (the link takes you to the NYT page with the full transcript).

"...You’re not supposed to be fans [or] to be complimentary. You’re supposed to cast a critical eye on folks who hold enormous power and make sure we're accountable to the people who sent us here. 

It goes without saying that essential to [our democracy] is a free press... Our democracy needs you, to establish a baseline of facts and evidence that we can use as a starting point for the kind of reasoned and informed debates that ultimately lead to progress. And so my hope is that you will continue with the...hard work of getting to the bottom of stories and getting them right and to push those of us in power to be the best version of ourselves and to push this country to be the best version of itself.

I have no doubt that you will do so... I want to thank you all for your extraordinary service to our democracy."

Will Donald Trump Quit Before The Inauguration? Can Republicans Hold Onto Their Power?

Participants in the civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama in 1965. 

From Library of Congress. Photo by Peter Pettus

25 March 1965. The day Martin Luther King led thousands to the capitol steps in Montgomery, Alabama, after marching for five days from Selma, Alabama, to support African Americans, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the Southern Christian Leadership had campaigned for voting rights. King told the assembled crowd:

 "There never was a moment in American history more honorable and more inspiring than the pilgrimage of clergymen and laymen of every race and faith pouring into Selma to face danger at the side of its embattled Negroes." 

African Americans had endured generations of violence and assault to every part of their being, but they endured and their spirit of resistance slowly gained momentum until it peaked under the leadership of Martin Luther King. The world lost one of its greatest men, and thousands endured further assaults and violence for the Civil Rights Movement to succeed, but it prevailed in the end.

Fast forward to Nov 9 2016. The day the world got pretty damn dark again for millions. The day the quintessential banana republic bigot was elected as president of the most powerful country in the world—the country thought of as the most advanced democracy—with the help of a rogue FBI Director and the Russian government and now America is on the brink of being rolled backwards at the speed of light, to pre Civil Rights Movement days.

We share joy and triumph and hope, but grief is the most isolating experience. A predominant fear among many has been that with time grief will heal and the outrage will fade. Don't let this be the new normal has been a common theme.

This being Donald Trump's ignorance, stupidity, racism, bigotry and sexism, and culture of covert and overt white supremacy, promotion of inequality, discrimination against women, minorities and Muslims, exploitation of people and the earth's resources, the many being sacrificed to the few, rolling back clean energy, embracing policies that will enrich the few, destroy the poor, erode the middle class again and accelerate climate change.

How could what Trump personifies, and has exposed as the underbelly of our lovely Western culture, ever become a new standard for what's acceptable, the new normal? Because we do become inured unless we make a conscious choice not to be. But a huge body of people have already made that choice to fight for and preserve a coherent world for everybody. Including some powerful legislators and media organisations who aren't allowing Trump to become the new normal. As an example, the New York Times, which made a decisive switch from sitting on the fence to condemning Trump and endorsing Hillary Clinton during the primaries, actually increased its digital readership by 21% in the third quarter of 2016.

The investigation into Trump's charity foundation continues and he's powerless to stop it. Democrats in the Senate are delaying their acceptance of eight of Trump's cabinet picks while they call for more information, tax returns, and ethics investigations. They can't block the posts because they don't have the votes but they can delay and jam up the process. And that's what they're doing.

In North Carolina, a judge delayed the law overhauling the elections panel, a law that would severely restrict the powers of the soon-to-be Democrat Governor.

It's obvious from Trump's body language and his utter inarticulacy when questioned on matters of state that he's totally out of his depth and very uncomfortable with the heavy investigative spotlight on him and his family. Whatever he's hiding by not releasing his tax returns will come out in the wash somewhere.

He's been horribly—or wonderfully—humiliated by so many celebrities refusing to perform for his inauguration, and by the recent defection of performers in two of the groups that he did manage to secure, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the Rockettes. Trump's response was to say that he'll have a protracted inauguration day parade and he'll only attend three balls (Obama attended eleven), because he wants to get to work immediately. The notion of Trump working is ludicrous; all he's doing is showing his vulnerability.

His transition team is a shambles, his tweeting is still out of control and now he's intimating that the Intelligence report on Russia's hacking prior to the election was inadequate. Even GOP politicians who have weak-mindedly endorsed him are putting boundaries down. So he'll be up against his own team as president.

Trump never wanted this job, but when he 'won' the election he obviously thought he could carry on lying, cheating and exploiting. Now that he and his posse of children are waking up to reality they're scrabbling around like crazy.

Trouble is, he's made a lot of very smart, very informed people very angry. And they have the law on their side. It's ironic. Trump craves constant approbation and to be able to do whatever he wants, and he only ran for president to pump up his profile so he could expand his businesses. Now he is being excoriated every day by the press, he's despised by millions in America and around the world; he's in a job that's virtual straitjacket for somebody like him; his charity foundation is under investigation; and he's having to divest!

Poetic justice. Speaking to Seth Meyers, Michael Moore predicted Trump will find a way to quit the presidency before the inauguration. I'm half inclined to agree with him but even if that happens, the battle has just begun. 

"Collectively we come together and we say, you know, we're going to preserve some things that last beyond our individual lives, that we're going to pass that on. And we have to do it together. You know, that is hopefully part of what is best about our government. And so every once in a while we need the ability to step back from our personal wants and project something finer and better for future generations." 

Barack Obama said this in 2010. He was in Yellowstone talking about the preservation of State Parks, but his words apply to preserving anything important. Throughout history, when decency and democratic legitimacy have been under threat, people with integrity have instinctively come together and fight, and it's happening now. A force like this might isn't bully-driven so it might not seem powerful at first, but it gathers momentum that's unassailable and it sustains itself until it succeeds, no matter how long that takes.

Liberals and Democrats are already looking to 2018. If they can reach Democrat voters for those mid-terms, they could regain control of Congress because all 435 House seats, and 33 out of 100 Senate seats are up for grabs. And to illustrate the interest, if you Google "what congressional…" the sentence completes as "seats are up for reelection in 2018". With 27 million search results.

Enjoy your power while you have it, Republicans. It's not going to last very long.

Trump Train Mows Down American Democracy

Aaaaand, America's Next President… is the one who lost the popular vote by close to 3 million in an election that Russia and fake news directed. A man whose highly inflatable ego inflates his wealth but not, of course, his debt, which he said during the primaries was now non-existent but which motherjones.comhas revealed to be $1.3 billion.

It's the guy who's under investigation for ties with Russia, who has chosen an oil mogul for Secretary of State with enormous economic interests in Russia and who's a friend of Putin's. The man who's chosen a cabinet of far-right, anti-everything-progressives some of whom have zero experience. Who paid $25 million to settle a lawsuit for his fraudulent university, who can’t finish a sentence articulately, and who trashed Hillary Clinton throughout the campaign, whipping up rage in his fans, threatening/promising to jail her when he won, then said the Clintons were good people once he had. 

The guy who lies and cheats and steals and sniffs and whines. The sociopath who exploits fear and ignorance, hates Muslims, Latinos and African Americans, despises the poor, abuses women, stiffs his workers — Ahhh! Enough of the words. Pictures do a better job.

Yip. Classy, huh. That’s the next American president. Unless one of the investigations unearths something criminal, or the petition to the Electoral College electors (which has over 4.8 million signatures and counting) begging them to save America has some effect, or they decide off their own bat that they liked that hashtag #HistoryMade.

And on a final note, I Googled when did Donald Trump… And got this.

Millions of wishful thinkers perhaps? Millions of Trump voters experiencing #TrumpRegret, buyer’s remorse a la Brexiteers? Nothing quite so inspiring. It was one of those fake news sites, which posted that Trump had died, as per the quote below. (I’m not linking to it here in case it carries a virus.)

Donald Trump was pronounced dead today at 11am following what some are describing as a violent heart attack.

The world famous businessman and TV personality was previously treated for minor cardio vascular issues that followed a mild course of antibiotics.

Fans have already taken to social media to express their emotions with hash tags #RIPTRUMP #TRUMPRIP #TRUMP4EVER.

Donald’s family and friends have asked to be left alone by all press and media at this present time.

PLEASE SHARE THIS ARTICLE TO INFORM EVERYONE OF THE SAD LOSS OF DONALD TRUMP.

Snopes’ rather dry comment on it was:

“We’d rather not bother giving such cruel and callous clickbaiters additional publicity (so we’re not linking to anything here), but enough confused readers have asked us about this fake report that we unfortunately need to debunk it here.

Donald Trump is not dead.”

Sigh. No, he’s not. But American Democracy is in danger of its life. Everything that’s good about America is in danger of becoming something of the past.

The Obamas Fought White Identity Crisis. Now It's Hillary Clinton's Turn To Do It.

Everything awful that can possibly have been said about Hillary Clinton has been said. Every sinister interpretation about her actions has been made. Every conspiracy theory has been elaborated on and substantiated by exactly nothing factual. Millions of dollars from tax-payers and wealthy Republicans have been spent trying to dig up facts that don't exist, trying to turn lies into truth. Her whole life in public office has been characterized by this battle. Notably absent has been a public willingness to penetrate the myths and their origins. Hillary met with conservative resistance in 1979, when Bill Clinton was elected Governor of Arkansas. She was interviewed on In Focus and asked if she felt comfortable in her new position, if it could be called a position, to which her response was,

"Well I do think it's a position and I do feel comfortable, but there's still a lot to learn and a lot to be done that we're just becoming acquainted with" so she couldn't really comment too much yet. When the host asked if it worried her that she didn't exactly fit the profile expected of First Ladies, she said, "No. I assess everybody by who they are, not by how they look." She might as well have added "And not by the things that are said of them," but she had no way of knowing what was in store for her.

No way of knowing that a huge sector of America was still unprepared for a woman who had the audacity to be intelligent, courageous, and outspoken.

It's been a long journey for Hillary Clinton from then to now. She was very openhearted in those days, not afraid to speak her mind. She didn't change because she became somehow untrustworthy and corrupt, or gain a reputation for being unlikeable because it was the truth about her, but because she encountered a savagery she hadn't known existed. Because it didn't exist in her family or in her. She did change her appearance, she did give people what they wanted as far as that went. But she stood her ground on her principles, and a certain misogynist element of America has never been able to forgive her. Women are not supposed to be powerful.

Or likeable. Everybody who knows Hillary Clinton likes her and not in a milk-toast way. They're enthusiastic about her. She's warm, she's funny, she has a great laugh, her smile lights up the room, she's a brilliant listener, she cares. Her 'unlikeability' has nothing to do with who she is.

It's not just an American thing. Julia Gillard, Australia's first female prime minister, learned it the hard way too. When she was first elected, she said she expected the supportive and the negative rhetoric but believed it would dissipate after a while and that she would be treated as any normal prime minister. It didn't happen. The misogyny she encountered, such as the Leader of the Opposition's comment "If it's true that men have more power generally speaking than women, is that a bad thing?" and "what if men are by physiology or temperament, more adapted to exercise authority or to issue command?" The misogyny ramped up over time until Julia Gillard had had enough and said so.

Her 'misogyny speech' went viral. Recently on GPS she said it probably resonated with every woman who has ever met with misogyny and longed to speak out but missed the opportunity as it arose. Fareed Zakaria also asked her if she thought Hillary Clinton was being held to a different standard. Her answer was a categorical yes.

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama have been exposed to the same bullying, spite, murderous persecution driven by white male identity crisis—although the role played by conservative women in supporting it shouldn't be underestimated. For the last eight years it's been like the Civil War take 2, except that the first was never really won. The Obamas have triumphed with tremendous dignity and in doing so have renewed, strengthened and invigorated all that's good about America.

Now it's Hillary Clinton's turn. She too has survived everything that's come at her and never let it thwart her and now that she's running for president she's looking the monster right in the eye. By standing her ground against the worst she's exposing it in all its glory for sane Americans and the world to revile.

The first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and the GOP candidate had the most viewers in US history. More than 80 million watched Clinton behave like an outstanding president. Close to 70% saw her as a winner.

They saw that she was ultra-prepared, which telegraphed that she respected them enough to do her homework well. They saw her confronted with bluster, lies, misogyny, rank stupidity, horrific racism, disrespect—bullying of every kind. She didn't once lose her composure but more than that, she knew how to deal very effectively with it without returning kind for kind. Hillary Clinton conducted herself with humor at times but never stooped to being snide. She was graceful throughout but there was never any doubting her steel, which Trump, for all his puerile and disgusting but considerable arsenal, couldn't get past. It showed what she'll do when she encounters that same behavior as president, which she will, in Congress and internationally. It also showed that she learns through challenges—referring to decades of facing the same kind of obstacles—without a hint of bitterness.

About 66 million watched the second debate and saw the same woman. When asked questions her answers were, as always deeply thoughtful and insightful. Her opponent's were incoherent, as always. 57% saw Hillary Clinton as the winner.

At least 50 million people for the 1st debate and 37 million for the 2nd got and believed the message that Hillary Clinton respects them, takes her task seriously, has the capacity to overcome barriers, and can be trusted with the job as president. I think the tide finally turned with this debate, not because her opponent had a meltdown—which he did—but because she rose to a very challenging occasion in a big way, which she has done her whole life.

It's no surprise that the NYT puts Hillary Clinton's chances of winning at 90%. Talk about triumph through adversity. Which is what America is really about.

The photo is from the video of Hillary Clinton's interview on In Focus in 1979.
Connect with me on Twitter 

Hillary Clinton Goes High. The Other Person On Stage Starts Low And Sinks

Hillary Clinton aced it last night at the first debate, if you can call it that. My idea of a debate is the exchange of serious ideas by intelligent people. This of course wasn't that.

One debater was a super-informed, well-prepared candidate who has spent her life in public office working to improve lives of others. A woman with an enormous investment in the well-being of all Americans, equipped with formidable intelligence, articulacy and experience in debating in general and especially in the topics up for debate. A woman who has faced down an inordinate amount of bullying for decades, a lot of it driven by misogyny in a chauvenist political world where men and women were threatened by her for having the audacity to be in her power. She's never given up, never lost focus, resolve, dignity or compassion. And her smile still lights up the room. All in all, she's a pretty intimidating debate opponent.

The other person on the stage was a super-privileged, un-prepared, uninformed bully who has destroyed the lives of many in his lust to accumulate wealth and power and who, unable to achieve his goals, has simply lied; a coward of sub-intellect who struggles to finish even a simple sentence, who doesn't understand the laws of grammar, and whose only talent is for bluster, bullying, bullshit and bloviation. No wonder he looked nervous. It's one thing having your ego stroked by a crowd of deplorables.

It's another facing, on your own, an opponent who is the real deal, who isn't afraid of you, who knows how to cut you down to size, who is better than you in every conceivable way. Who has an inner strength you can only dream of, and the respect and endorsement of all the good people, all the smart people.

First Lady Michelle Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention about her girls, how hard it was to watch them at the age of seven and ten pile into those black SUVs with men with guns, how she thought "What have we done?" How she and Barack had to teach them that the vile rhetoric they saw on TV and in the media did not represent "the true spirit of America". And that the way to deal with bullies is "when they go low we go high". It was a speech for the ages.

Hillary Clinton quoted the First Lady last night at the debate "when they go low we go high", and it was how she conducted herself. As Trump disintegrated, she kept her composure; as he tried to trade insults, going lower and lower, she went higher and higher.

Of all the edited video footage that's come out of the debate so far, this is my favorite, from the Huffpost's article Lester Holt Proved That Moderators Can Fack-Check.

"Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S." - Huffpost Editor’s Note.

NYT Unequivocally Supports Hillary Clinton & Condemns Trump

David Leonhardt of the New York Times recently sent out an email to subscribers introducing himself and asking what we wanted to read, providing an email address to reply to. I jumped on that one.

"I've been reading the NYT every morning with my breakfast for years. Up until a couple of weeks ago I was ready to ditch my subscription; disillusioned with all the irresponsible attention given to Trump, sick to death of headlines that exploited the fascination with Trump. A lot of damage has been done, although not, of course, by the NYT alone.

Op-ed writers Gail Collins and economist Prof. Paul Krugman have valiantly held up the fort. I would like to see the entire NYT follow suit, take an unabashedly and unitedly unequivocal stand against Donald Trump. As Christian Amanpour has said, there is no sitting on the fence on this one. Any sentence that doesn't take a stand legitimizes Trump. The liberal media's responsibility is enormous right now. 

In my opinion, the NYT needs to step up in a way that makes the whole world take notice. If it does, others may follow suit."

On September 24, the Editorial Board published Hillary Clinton For President, unequivocally supporting her and explaining why. The introductory paragraph was:

"In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate — our choice, Hillary Clinton — has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.)"

On September 25 the Board published Why Donald Trump Should Not Be President, unequivocally condemning him as a candidate.

Either I have extraordinary influence and/or powers of persuasion or I was one of a large crowd in my response to David Leonhardt. The first idea, whilst seductive, probably belongs with conspiracy theories insisting that Elvis Presley is still alive and the moon landing was all shot in a film studio. I like the second option better, anyway.

Join me on Twitter @JenniferJS_

Hillary Clinton Promoting Love, Kindness, Truth. The Media? Not So Much

Remember the GOP ads against the ACA? They couldn't find real disaster stories so they used actors and fiction. The lie was quickly unveiled. Then they used a real woman, but she lied, which was easily proven. It's par for the course for GOP ads. But not for the Hillary Clinton campaign. They don't have to use actors and screenwriters to make up fiction. They can draw from the truth, as they have in the above ad. You can't make that stuff up.

There's nothing of the compassion Hillary Clinton has shown for that cancer patient in a recent New York Times article Where Has Hillary Clinton Been? Ask The Ultrarich. It alleges that she's more comfortable among wealthy people than the ordinary Joe, and opens herself up to them more. Where Trump spends his time giving rallies and talking to the press, Clinton is keeping her distance but making herself omni-available to "some of the country’s most moneyed enclaves [who] are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to see her. In the last two weeks of August, Mrs. Clinton raked in roughly $50 million at 22 fund-raising events, averaging around $150,000 an hour, according to a New York Times tally."

The article drips with innuendo so explicit it verges on the overt; Clinton doesn't care about "ordinary" people. In this political climate, when populists are more driven by viciousness than a genuine desire for a better life, the title and matching piece are to people who oppose Hillary Clinton as a red rag is to an angry bull that's been harpooned one too many times by a picador with a huge arsenal and a taste for torturing animals. It's Trump's modus operandi.

   

The piece mentions in passing that Hillary Clinton is also focused on raising money from small donors but it's like a shard of dull glass among a bowl of glittering diamonds.

Populism has become a dangerous tool this election. On the ultra left, Bernie Sanders. On the other side, Donald Trump. Four things these two branches of populists share is that they've tried to raise themselves up by destroying Hillary Clinton; they've failed; they've hurt themselves in the process; and they've eroded America's chance to preserve democracy, protect and build on Obama's legacy of improving life for all. Putting the imminent and long term future of America at huge risk.

The common idea is that this brand of populism is driven by honest frustration with the system, and with the politicians who have allowed it to develop and that the purpose is to forge a better life.

If that were the truth, Bernie Sanders and supporters wouldn't have tried to succeed by destroying Hillary Clinton using unsubstantiated, highly provocative accusations as weapons of truth. Donald Trump's supporters wouldn't be turning a blind eye to his unethical business practices, his failures, overt racism, misogyny and megalomania and the fact that he is supported by white nationalist groups, the KKK and by Vladimir Putin and Kim Yong-un of North Korea. Not to mention his sexual attraction to his daughter.

Frustration plays a part, but I think the core driving factor of populists on both sides is a vengeful, mean-spirited desire to hurt somebody. Any weapon will do, any lie that can be spread around like a toxic virus. It's reminiscent of Roman days when people would watch Christians being torn apart lions and enjoy the sport.

In such a climate, when so much is at stake, the NYT article is irresponsible journalism. Particularly since Hillary Clinton is the candidate who has a history throughout her life so far like no other previous presidential candidate, of working for minorities, women, children and  equality. And who is reaching out to small donors. As it happens, according to Politico, in July 2016 the Clinton campaign raised $58.5 million, 58% of which was from donations under $200. So half the article should have been about those donations, right? Wrong. And it has nothing to do with the truth about Hillary Clinton. Does it have anything to do with what attracts readers—or what the NYT editors believe readers want? If it is, it proves rather unequivocally that the bias rests with them. Caught by thine own springe.

The Clinton ad is a lot more moving than the NYT's piece. And a whole lot more truthful. If you don't trust it because it's an ad, here's the story of another cancer patient who reached out to her, James Grissom, whose Facebook post has had 158k likes and over 66k shares.

I think about what it would be like if Hillary Clinton didn't win. The day after the election is called and reality hits home. All the so-called liberal journalists, editors, media outlets, TV anchors and hosts; what will be they be thinking, and doing? Staring at the TV in shock. How did it happen? Those of us who rely on the media for information will be the same, if we've bought their crap and haven't used our own discrimination. 

And it will be too late for regret. We'll all be plunged into chaos. 

Seasoned journalist Steve Majerus-Collins wrote a prescient account of what it would be like; a small gem of a book worth reading, a satire that chills you to the bone. Trump: An American Presidency. It's only 99c and it's worth its weight in gold. Trump for President? I hope not. For the sake of America. For the sake of the world.

Cutting Off The Chain of Hate And Evil

I'm reading the Autobiography of Martin Luther King Jr. and came across this passage last night:

“Along the way of life, someone must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate and evil."

Passionately supporting a candidate I truly believe in feels like working towards cutting off the chain. Bernie Sanders supporters really do believe that he's trustworthy and truthful and that the policies he proposes are America’s only chance of escaping the grip of corporate greed and of breathing life into the middle class again.

Hillary Clinton supporters really do believe that she and her polices are America’s only chance of building on what Barack Obama has started and doing it in a way that will last, that she hasn’t been bought by Wall Street or lobbyists, and that she understands the complexities of world leadership better than Bernie Sanders.

How wonderful that there’s so much passion. But, whether I’m supporting Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, if I trash their opposition and invent stories about them which I spread around liberally to try and turn support for them into revulsion I'm not cutting off the chain; I'm strengthening it.

And let's face it, I'm not doing it for truth and social justice. I'm doing it because I've got unprocessed anger and it feels good to hurt somebody.

“History has thrust upon our generation an indescribably important destiny—to complete a process of democratization which our nation has too long developed too slowly, but which is our most powerful weapon for world respect and emulation. How we deal with this crucial situation will determine our moral health as individuals, our cultural health as a region, our political health as a nation, and our prestige as a leader of the free world.”

It’s still a work in progress, Mr. King.

The Strange Democratic Hatred For Hillary Clinton

Embed from Getty Images

These days I'm seeing a lot of hatred for Hillary Clinton among Democrats who support Bernie Sanders. In fact some are shredding her as much as Republicans are. GOP strategists must be rubbing their hands with glee.

The hatred doesn’t make sense because Bernie Sanders has doggedly refused to play dirty. He’s all about love and respect, not hate, and building on truth and the positive. Which is what his followers seemed to admire him for in the beginning and still do. So it’s not a leap of logic to believe that they were and are sick of the dirt in politics, the negativity and the hate campaigns. And here some of them are, hating and smearing Hillary Clinton. Respect is nowhere on the horizon. Oh the irony.

Somebody pointed out the other day that these detractors are doing Sanders’ dirty work for him, and he’s not telling them not to. I don’t know if that’s true or not. Maybe he has said something but if he has, they aren't listening. Makes you wonder. 

In all the negative comments I’ve read about Clinton lately I've yet to see a specific example that illustrates the point being made; it's all just broad generalizations. She’s evil, she’s in bed with Wall Street, she flip-flops for political gain, she’s actually a Conservative, she’s too hawkish, she couldn’t please her husband so how could she please American citizens—yes, I actually saw that one. I wonder how many people who spread these generalizations could quote specific instances to justify their hate, and I’m talking about dates, times and individuals that have names. If they can, why aren’t they doing it?

If they can’t, what are they basing their opinion on? And how can they say that the reason they support Sanders is because he’s all about love, respect,truth, clean campaigning and everything that’s positive? They are making sure that that isn't true.

For years and years massive amounts of money, press coverage/media 'reports' aka opinion have gone into well-organized GOP campaigns to vilify Hillary Clinton while she's been giving her all, working for, among others, the very people who have manufactured opportunities to tear her to pieces, relishing the act every time. Very worrying is that the campaigns against her seem to have affected Democrats, just as those against Barack Obama have done. 

Worrying because in his case Democrats were so affected—or maybe infected is a better word—that they gave away the House. Can’t blame that on Obama, or on Republicans. Can’t blame it on politicians. Or on the media.

Most worrisome is that if Sanders doesn’t win the nomination Democrats will have contributed in no small way to the GOP smear campaign against Clinton and lessened her chances against the Republican nominee. Sanders might not be about hate—and I believe that he genuinely isn’t—but many of his followers are recklessly engaging in it ostensibly on his behalf.

Hate is like toxins that seep into the soil; it knows no fences or boundaries. And, to continue with that metaphor, suddenly you realize that your own crops are stunted and your own drinking water is poisoned. 

Breakfast with the Pope, Sanders, Rubio, Putin & Elton John

7:00 am. I wake up, heavy lidded and limbed. Yesterday I vowed to go to bed early so I could wake up before dawn this morning and not when half the day was already gone; used up by busy important people making something of their lives. 

While I... Come evening I succumbed to the devil. And couldn't unsuccumb myself until after midnight.

I lie in bed for a while, wasting more time, pondering yesterday, today and tomorrow. Until the world—aka coffee—calls. 

I shuffle off duvet and sheets and do a few quick bicycle exercises on my back. It helps to keep up the illusion that I’m doing something about getting fit again. I jump out of bed and glance at my body in the mirror. Do I look any fitter? Sure, honey, whatever you say. Actually I’m not in too bad of a shape, all things considered. All things being that I’m somewhere between forty and death and, more to the point, that I haven't achieved a state of sustained exercise yet apart from when I was cycling from New York to Key West. I don't even cycle at the gym. That's probably because I never go to the gym. 

Maybe it’s all the brain activity that keeps the weight off. Not that I’m a rocket scientist, mind you; it’s more rampant imagination than anything else. Maybe I’m just lucky; I love stale chocolate cake seeped in cold full-cream milk and carrot cake with cream—mind you, cream option works pretty well with chocolate cake, too—but that’s it for sweet things. I just don’t like them. I like salty things like chips.

Apart from a spoonful of sugar in my coffee and honey on my Ryvita in the morning. Huh. That’s quite a lot of sweet stuff after all. Ah well, life is a mystery sometimes.

I roll up the blinds. It's grey out there but not cold. Winter is over. It always seems to happen from one day to the next out here at the southern edge of Africa, the end of the world. I sit down with my coffee, switch on my laptop, bring up the New York Times. 

There are quite a few articles about the Pope’s visit to the US and his message about poverty, climate change and the dark side of capitalism, the downside of greed.

The wrong-headedness of arms dealing. I hope he finds time to talk to Marco Rubio, who said:

“If the United States military is going to be engaged by a commander-in-chief, it should only be engaged in an endeavor to win. And we're not going to authorize use of force if you're not put in a position where they can win.”

But Il Papa would probably have more in common with Bernie Sanders, who said: “It is my firm belief that the task of a great nation with the most powerful military on earth is not how many wars we can engage in but how we can use our strength and our capability to resolve international conflicts in a peaceful way.” 

Amen Bernie Sanders. I wish you'd talk to the Pope about gay marriage. I wish you'd persuade him it's not a good idea to support Kim Davis and tell her that her bigotry is purely standing up for her right to speak her mind. She did a lot more than that, ace.

On other things Francis is doing well; addressing pedophilia, corruption, rampant capitalism and greed within the Vatican. He's defied a lot of the odds. The last pope who tried to do that allegedly died in his sleep from a heart attack, never having had a problem with his health up to that point. What followed was what looks like a cover-up by the Vatican; one that, if it was real, was outrageous.  

This Pope has even gone so far (for a Catholic it’s pretty far) as to say “who am I to judge” of homosexuality. It's not far enough though and no amount of other-goodness can balance out his and the church's attitude to gay marriage. His attitude to gay marriage also doesn't negate all the good things he's doing.

I tell you who Francis should speak to: Elton John. He can stand in the queue with Vladimir Putin, who, according to a tweet that made the rounds, intended to call the great musician. When the fraud was exposed, Putin decided he really did want that conversation. I couldn’t find any content on that, but I did find an interview with Elton John talking about LGBT rights in the Ukraine. What a great guy. He's done what he wanted with his life since forever, with his leaping-about laughing energy. He's still doing it, only now he's also using his wealth and clout to promote global tolerance. 

He was asked if he thought he could really get Putin to change. He said he didn’t know, but you either try or you don’t. You tell your truth and you may not succeed but at least you know you did your best.

I finish my coffee, thinking about that. I have boundless respect for people who tell their truth when it’s life promoting, because it’s never easy. They have to push through monstrous barriers erected by bullies who don’t want to hear it and want to shut them down. It’s crushing, painful, frightening, soul-destroying, even if you’re only doing it in your personal life and you don’t have global attention. And, you’re not just taking on other people, you’re essentially confronting everything in you that believes their resistance to your truth to be valid. Add sobering to the list. 

It’s also rewarding. And nothing is worse than keeping quiet. I’m sure of it. It’s definitely better to suffer slings and arrows of outrageous fortune than to stay mute and in hiding. 

This is Elton John’s speech at the 12^th Yalta European Strategy (YES) meeting, talking about LGBT intolerance and about so much more. 

8:07 I head off to the shower. The Pope, Bernie Sanders and Elton John make good breakfast companions. Marco Rubio and Vladimir Putin not so much. I doubt anyone can change Rubio, but Putin? Strangely, I don’t think it’s inconceivable that Elton John could have a positive influence on the man. 

Go for it, I say. Between you and Obama you might be able to achieve miracles.

GOP Debate, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama & the Power of Integrity

Last night I switched on CNN before the Republican ‘debate’ and listened to Anderson Cooper and a couple of other CNN bods discussing the GOP candidates as if they were expecting a real, live, politically authentic debate to happen. I felt a sense of unreality cloud my vision and my mental processes. Lethargy enveloped my body.

After a couple of minutes I switched channels. I had intended to watch the debate but I couldn’t stomach it. This morning, reading the NYT account of it, I’m glad I didn’t. As it happens, The Good Wife had more political heft to it than the GOP reality show.

A good antidote to the circus that would be entertaining if it wasn’t so scary is to read or listen to somebody who actually is engaged intelligently in the political process. Like Bernie Sanders. I still don’t like that he teamed up with Cornell West, or that he said he wouldn’t make the big mistake Obama made, but he’s a good courageous man and his words are such a relief in a world where so many manipulate to get an angle, to grab a bit—or a lot—of power.

I think he’ll win the Presidency, because he’s galvanizing the middle class, just as Barack Obama did. But whether he can continue to galvanize them once he’s in, and especially when everybody realizes that they need to be consistently galvanized, especially for the mid-terms, is anybody’s guess.

I hope he can. But that’s a long way ahead. For now what’s true and clear about him is that at age 74 he’s found his voice; he’s got a lot to say and all of it relevant and that’s the only reason he’s doing so well. Nothing got handed to him on a silver platter. He’s not a billionaire, he doesn’t lust after money. He hasn’t been elevated by anything that’s plastic in this world. He hasn’t pushed other people out the way to get ahead, hasn’t been a bully, has refused to insult other candidates. Hasn’t had clever PR agents with degrees in psychology and mass manipulation paving the way for him.

It’s funny, how easily we fall for the plastic stuff and for what glitters but isn’t gold. But when the real thing comes along we can still recognize it. It makes me think of when I worked for the city orchestra. I used to go to all the concerts, and they always brought in international soloists and conductors whose standard was always brilliant. Sometimes the soloists played note perfect; made no mistakes at all. That in itself was mind boggling and delicious to hear and watch. They’d always get standing ovations.

But one night the soloist was a violinist. I don’t remember his name but the conductor was Victor Yampolsky. Russian, I believe. I also don’t remember what concerto they played but I still remember my heart catching fire.

The music wasn’t note perfect. But it was enthralling, heart-stopping. And the audience leaped to their feet, exploding in applause. I realized kind of viscerally that people can recognize technical brilliance when they see it but aren’t always conscious of how much they crave the pure heart stuff.  But when they get it they respond to it, without everybody necessarily even understanding what has moved them.

It feels like that’s how it is with Bernie Sanders. As a soloist he’s not note-perfect. His appearance isn’t plasticized, he’s not rehearsed or polished in the way he speaks. But he’s getting a standing ovation that is straight from the heart. And people are definitely very consciously responding to the content of his message so I’m not saying there’s no conscious appreciation of that.

But I think there’s something more, something less easily definable. He defies the terrifying culture that is driven by the idea that the better you can con people the more likely you are to be successful. Not to mention the idea that by the time you’re 74 your life is over, Jack, and you’ll have to just roll on down the hill towards a quality of life that’s less and less rewarding, becoming more disempowered and increasingly inarticulate until you fade into sad oblivion.

Bernie Sanders has gained a lot of wisdom in his life and now is exactly the right time and the right age for him to be sharing it. Mazel tov to you Mr. Sanders.

I still feel sad that right in our midst is another man of the same kind of towering integrity, who has laid the foundation for much of what Sanders might be able to achieve as President, whose message is and always has been the same, and who has achieved a huge amount for Americans but who isn’t getting the recognition I think he deserves. 

He's also up against something more sinister than Bernie Sanders will ever have to deal with. 

The overt racism is awful enough but the stuff that flows under the surface is still a very powerful river. It's sinister, it's ugly, it's soul destroying. Yet Obama, and Michelle, have not just remained intact but they've grown in every way despite it. Or because of it. They've remained committed and clear in their hearts, minds and souls. Obama has achieved great things as a President in spite of it. That takes remarkable strength of character. 

But that’s no reason why Sanders shouldn’t get his.

Bernie Sanders, Jon Stewart, Cornel West & Barack Obama

Jon Stewart. Yummy. Incisive intellect, fearlessness and creativity. Humble about himself and physically uninhibited. Fab to look at. And of course he's a liberal. Utterly delicious altogether. Totally irreplaceable. 

I like what he said about Bernie Sanders. “We’ve all become so accustomed to stage-managed, focus-group driven candidates that authenticity comes across as lunacy.” Ain’t that the truth. As always, Stewart illustrated his point beautifully in this clip.

Sanders says all the right things and seems completely uncalculating, but recently I’ve wondered. The jury’s out.

He has an incisive intellect. He’s also courageous, passionate, and is physically uninhibited. Appearances don’t count for him. What’s not to like and admire? 

If I was American he would have had my vote until I saw what he said on MSNBC, that he won’t repeat Obama’s biggest mistake, namely that after his brilliant campaign in 2008 he basically said to the voters ‘thanks for electing me; I’ll take it from here’.

I did a double take on that. Actually, this is [part of] what Obama said in his victory speech in 2008:

“The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term… There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president. And we know the government can't solve every problem…

This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were.  It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice. So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.

Let us remember that, if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers. In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.”

The ultimate truth-teller. He’s always said he can’t do it alone, that the road to change would be long and difficult but that together ‘we can’. He’s reiterated that message perpetually. It falls on deaf ears a lot of the time. I guess people don’t want to hear it.

Apparently Bernie Sanders doesn’t want to hear it either. He’s promising that when he’s president he’ll work with millions of Americans in a political revolution. He’s not acknowledging that Obama offered the same deal—which the people thought they wanted but actually they didn’t, perhaps because the reality isn’t as much fun as the idea of it.

What Obama inherited, together with a GOP Congress, are the root cause of what’s still wrong with America; it’s got nothing to do with Obama not being willing to work with the electorate. Who expected Obama to do it all in a day and blamed him when he couldn’t, then enabled a GOP Congress in 2012? The voters. Who allowed the country to fall into the hands of big corporates in the first place? Who allowed GW Bush to win? The voters. Nobody's stopping them from waking up except themselves.

A political revolution is about people freeing themselves from leaders who won't allow them their rights. That's very different from people who don’t want the hard work of keeping politicians in line, don't want to be responsible for their own actions, unrealistic expectations, fears and prejudices.

Obama has worked assiduously, with superhuman willingness, integrity, depth of understanding and focus, in the face of ongoing and phenomenal obstacles, to bring America back from the black hole. 

He’s done everything he could to not work alone. 

The country is doing better than any other country in the world affected by the Recession and there is unprecedented social change on pretty much every front—because of his leadership. He doesn't rest on his laurels, though. He continually says “it’s not enough.” 

Why doesn’t every voter acknowledge it and face the truth—that they are responsible for the problems that still exist, not him?

It’s not new that the electorate doesn’t want to take responsibility for maintaining democracy. It’s a human thing. We want our lives to change but we don’t want to face whatever we’re doing that creates that life. Change is hard. Obama acknowledges that.

Sanders doesn’t. He’s telling Americans that together they’ll create a political revolution as if it's the easiest thing in the world and then he slips in “I’ll do what Obama couldn’t, wouldn’t or didn’t.” The unspoken message is “It’s not your fault, it’s his fault.” That’s heady stuff, pretty seductive, but it isn’t truthful. 

More disturbing though is Sanders’ acceptance of Dr. Cornel West’s endorsement. West is a professor at Union West Theological Seminary, well known for his vitriolic diatribes against Obama, who he called the first niggarized President after Obama said this about racism to Marc Maron: 

“The legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives, you know, that casts a long shadow, and that's still part of our DNA... 

Racism, we are not cured of it, clearly. And it's not just a matter of it not being polite to say nigger in public. That's not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. It's not just a matter of overt discrimination. Societies don't, overnight, completely erase everything that happened 200 to 300 years prior.”

That seems pretty accurate. Not to West though, who has also called Obama ‘counterfeit’ and ‘the black face of the American empire’.  It’s not the truth about Obama; it’s West’s interpretation and he seems to have quite a chip on his shoulder—which is understandable, but dangerous in a leader of any sort.

So why is Sanders aligning himself with him? the obvious answer is that he needs the African American vote. By choosing West he can say he respects and admires Obama, but also garner the votes of people who hate/scapegoat the President. 

Is that deliberate? I don't know. I hope not. But roiling around in my brain are those uncomfortable words 'double standards'.

Sanders and Obama are both intelligent, passionate, courageous, authentic men. Sanders is genuine in what he says and believes and he deserves the admiration and respect he's gotten for it. In today's political climate he's a giant. But so is Obama and he's paid dearly in many ways for standing his ground. I wish Sanders could acknowledge that and veer away from seeking votes from people who can't see it and who scapegoat Obama.