You Wanna Do WHAT With My Feelings?

Early on in my masters program (on my dime, while teaching full time, with two young kids at home and so I was taking just one course per semester) I proposed a thesis on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.  My plan was to demonstrate the show's effectiveness bringing rhetorical analysis to the masses and thus recognize it as one of few remaining, accessible, regular contributors to the contemporary Rhetorical Canon. 

My thesis advisor at the time liked the idea, but was concerned there wouldn't be enough data to support my theories. I pushed back suggesting I could use ratings, my own surveys as well as a mix of media articles about the show plus academic journal articles about specific examples of rhetorical devices to compile a thorough analysis.  At that point, the advisor didn't budge.  Five years later, after the election of President Obama, and Daily Show coverage of a 3rd presidential election, drawing viewers who didn't normally tune in to Comedy Central, there was data. I also had a new advisor by that point and since I was approaching the end of my classes, heading into my "thesis semester," I tried again.  This time my proposal snuck through thanks in no small part to expanding coverage of surveys like Fairleigh Dickinson University's FDU Poll, which actually began in 2001.

The FDU Poll didn't just ask respondents for their opinions or habits, it also quizzed them on current events, foreign and domestic, then reported findings correlated with the respondents' news consumption habits.  Most notably - and this is probably why it gained so much attention heading into the 2012 elections - it reported that folks who only consume cable news, whether this was Fox or MSNBC, were the LEAST informed among news consumers. It went something like this:  (Most informed to least informed per self reported viewing habits)

Daily Show, PBS/NPR, Sunday Morning Network Political News Shows

Major network (non-cable) evening news

CNN (average scorers)

Fox and MSNBC (below average scorers/least informed)

...so people who didn't watch any TV news did better on the quiz/were more informed* about current events than people who said they only watch Fox or MSNBC as their news sources. 

Over the years, the FDU Poll has drawn both praise and criticism for its methods as well as for its chosen areas of focus, which have included susceptibility to conspiracy theories, integration/segregation, The War On Christmas, Threats to Masculinity and other attention grabbing, hot button topics.  Their methods have been questioned and of course, so have their conclusions, but like any effort, they have improved over time and are now considered at least a point from which significant conversations may depart.

One thing that has remained consistent over time is the ranking of who is or isn't informed based on individual preferences for news consumption.  Cable news viewers (especially those who say they watch only Fox or MSNBC) remain the least informed, often even less so than folks who watch no TV news.  To be fair, the 2017 version of the poll limited to residents of FDU's home state of New Jersey, found that *newspaper readers were the most informed, especially when it came to state and local issues. So don't confuse "non TV viewers" with "people who avoid news entirely." 

Polls like this (and FDU isn't the only one) tell us a couple of important things about "the news." One thing they tell us is that both Fox and MSNBC, who by their own admission/biggest selling point is that they willfully, purposefully, as part of their business model, cater to people who don't like what they see on network news, and thus are NOT providing thorough or informative news coverage.  They're providing only what their target audience wants to see and hear.  

The polls also tell us that the original Fox contention - that network news is biased toward the left - is either completely false or completely irrelevant. (it's funny to hear Fox fans argue that Fox provides "real news" when Fox said from the start it was providing "an alternative" to real news, which later become "fair and balanced.")  Countering a perceived bias doesn't make Fox's content legitimate, and when Fox's viewers rank among the least informed of news consumers, there's little question as to the quality or "reality" of Fox's content.  

The same can be said of MSNBC, but only after acknowledging that MSNBC simply used Fox's model, only instead of countering the major networks, MSNBC counters Fox.  The polls tell us this is a terrible way to get or provide actual news despite both demonstrating that it's still a lucrative business model. Of course it is!  ...in entertainment, not news.  When providing entertainment, they have to provide what their audience wants to see and hear - what their audience likes to see or hear.

The polls also tell us that major network news does not deserve the bad reputation Fox has convinced so many to believe. It seems to do a much better job of informing its audience than either Fox or MSNBC, consistently, over time.  If anything, we've seen the major networks stoop to legitimize ridiculous candidates or platforms giving them a false equivalence to legitimate candidates or platforms as if to counter Fox's false claims. ...as if to provide something their detractors might like.

The other thing the polls tell us is we now know with little doubt that news consumers who choose Fox or MSNBC as their preferred source of news aren't really interested in actual news or being informed.  They watch these "news sources" because they like what they see and hear there. That's not the job of the news, or the press at all.  It's fine to want to be entertained and to like what you see or hear when you're being entertained, but the news isn't supposed to entertain.  Sometimes actual news is unpleasant or uncomfortable.  Facts aren't always things we like to hear or see.  Sometimes the news tells us things about people we think we like that we don't like knowing about them.  As adults, informed adults, we have to live with this fact and we have be able to separate our need to be informed from our desire to be entertained.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: liking what you see and hear is not about being informed, it's about feelings.  And we all know what we're supposed to do with our feelings.

Luth

Out

 

Life Moves Pretty Fast: Why Gen-X “Got it” Before the Rest of You If you are thinking “got what?” you’ve already proved my point.

I posted this on the FB a while back and upon revisiting, realized it's now behind a free, but password required platform.  I didn't want it to be lost, so I'm putting it here as well. You can find the original, and sign up for a free (or pay, if you want) Medium membership.

https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/life-moves-pretty-fast-why-gen-x-got-it-before-the-rest-of-you-c07cf6c52904

By Kara Post-Kennedy

Look, we have heard all the jokes. We know how you talk about us. And now you are saying there might never be a Gen-X President (as if Donald Trump did some sort of credit to his generation in that role).

The thing is, WE DON’T CARE. You know this about us. Because we get it, and you likely don’t.

We have been described as some kind of neglected middle child between boomers and the Millennials, but we are not your mother’s Jan Brady (or our own, frankly). We were the first generation to experience a high volume of moms working outside the home, divorced parents and friends coming safely out of the closet. We were the last generation to have a technology free childhood and to learn patience waiting for Saturday morning cartoons or a favorite song to come on the radio.

We were the first generation to write papers on computers and the last generation to use typewriters. We were the last generation to know a time when a missed call was a missed call and the first generation to play video games. We were the last generation who spent a largely unsupervised childhood on dangerous playground equipment.

We were the first generation to grow up with the diversity of Sesame Street, the lessons in community from Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood and the brilliant bonkers of Electric Company.

We GET IT.

Our unique positioning in history gave us a perspective that some of you are still struggling to understand — and this spans ALL generations, not just those older than us. Because some of you who are younger than we are just don’t get what it was like BEFORE we came along and some of you who are older than us refuse to process new information, So let me break this down for you — we did a LOT of heavy lifting so you all didn’t have to.

And we’re exhausted.

You know that statistic that people love to quote (even if it is no longer true?) You know, the one about 50% of marriages ending in divorce? Yeah, well — that was OUR parents. So we “got” that marriage was a social construct and not a holy mandate WAY before the rest of you.

The first openly gay TV character appeared during our childhoods. Ditto for the first openly gay elected official. AIDS was first detected as we were entering our adolescence and sexual awakening years — we were the first generation to become sexually active with this specter over our heads.

“Roots” was first aired during our childhoods. We were the generation that grew up watching “The Jeffersons”, “What’s Happening”, “Good Times” and “Sanford and Son”. We were the first kids who grew up in a country with civil rights laws.

We were the first generation to grow up back when Roe v. Wade was the law of the land. Not that we took it for granted; we marched (yes, I personally) in D.C. in 1989 in what was at the time one of the largest political rallies in U.S. history..

We were the first generation that grew up knowing Mom could bring home the bacon.

We were the MTV Generation; our teenage years were flooded with images of gender fluid icons like Bowie, Boy George, Grace Jones and Prince.

We were the first generation that saw men and women enrolled in college in equal numbers.

We were the first generation to be taught about environmental sustainability from a young age — that’s recycling and land management to global warming. We are the generation MOST likely to consider sustainability factors when investing.

WE. GET. IT.

Our childhoods featured the end of the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, Three Mile Island meltdown, the Jonestown massacre, and Iranian hostage crisis. We waited in the backseat of the car for hours just to get gas.

Our teenage years saw the Challenger disaster, Exxon Valdez oil tanker spill, and the Fall of the Berlin Wall.

As young adults, we were in the cross hairs of Operation Desert Storm.

When 9/11 happened, we were most of the boots on the ground. We were many of the victims.

We were the last generation to graduate from high school before the escalation of school shootings began and the first generation to send our children into schools with this threat hanging over us as the norm.

Trickle Down Economics (the other big lie) destroyed the middle class before we even had our sea legs underneath us. We are the first American generation who have not improved on our parent’s financial situation because wages stagnated while inflation skyrocketed. We were the last generation to get an affordable college education.

Gen-X broke new ground in music (RIP Kurt Cobain and Tupac Shakur), comedy (Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, Tina Fey, Jon Stewart, Mindy Kaling), innovation (Elon Musk, Sergey Brin & Larry Page, ), athletics (Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, Venus and Serena Williams), journalism (Julian Assange, Anderson Cooper), film and TV (Joss Whedon, Kevin Williamson, JJ Abrams, Wes Anderson) and where would we be without John Cusack, Julia Roberts, Robert Downey Jr, Christian Bale, Will Smith, Ryan Gosling, Christina Ricci, Uma Thurman, Drew Barrymore and literally 100s of others of what will most likely be the final generation of true Hollywood stars.

And the children we have raised are groundbreakers — rejecting gender stereotypes, patriarchal rule and systemic discrimination in very loud voices. They GET that race, gender and even heterosexuality are social constructs.

We raised them this way because WE GET IT.

And while you were making those “you want fries with that?” jokes about us, we were quietly living up to one of the anthems of our youth: Everybody Wants to Rule the World.

We did it so quietly, you never even noticed. We barely noticed ourselves. Because we were just being who we are.

If you doubt any of what I am saying here, you can just Google it. Thanks to Gen X.

And now we can unapologetically say — YOU’RE WELCOME.

And if you don’t know why, it’s just because you don’t get it.

 

Is it really a "witch hunt" if you've invited it?

There's a life lesson most of us learned during our rebellious teen years: if you constantly toe the line, push limits, challenge rules, publicly challenge authority, you will inevitably amass a large number of people who are just drooling while waiting for you to slip up and actually cross that line.  When you do, no matter how mildly or insignificantly, those people will race in to make an example of you.  You will face punishment, ridicule, embarrassment, humiliation, condemnation, etc. completely out of proportion to the slip up.  

It's like that old "I'm not touching you" game where siblings taunt each other, usually after driving their parents crazy until one parent explodes out the "STOP TOUCHING EACH OTHER NOW" command, and since the order was screamed in that desperate frustration all kids recognize as "oh no, they're really angry now, we'd better listen," you finally sit back in that spacious rear seat of the car you've been stuck in for 6 or 8 or 10 hours, and decide to listen ...for a minute.  Then you hold your hand directly in your brother's face, but NOT touching him, just because what else is there to do in that back seat?  (I actually believe this is why car seats were invented) And of course, your brother does the same thing to you, but NOT actually touching you, and you both realize this game is even more annoying than the fighting that took place before the STOP TOUCHING command was given.  And of course, you slip up and touch each other and the actual fighting begins all over again, only this time, dad has had enough. He pulls the car over, and drags you both out of the back seat, and the real beatings commence.  It was just a matter of time.

As stated, most of us learned this during the teen years.  Then most of us grew up and either stopped challenging everything all the time, picking our battles, saving our energy for prioritized fights, or we just got too busy with our lives, making a living, contributing to society in other ways, etc. and so on.  Either way, MOST of us learned the lesson as we became adults.  One might even posit that this is one of the lessons that makes us an adult.   So why then do so many people believe a man who failed to learned this lesson in seven decades on the planet is the victim of a "political witch hunt?"

There's nothing political about it.  It wasn't political when we were 15, before we learned this lesson everyone learns.  The only thing different here is that TinyD never seems to have learned the lesson.  Anyone remotely curious about the world's events knows that TinyD has squandered his inheritance in ways that always border on the illegal, dive deeply into the unethical, and are considered squarely immoral by most of the population.  You cannot have been alive during the TinyD era and not know his tax dodge schemes, his inflated net worth, his hiring of undocumented immigrants and his failure to pay them, his illegal dumping, mishandling of hazardous materials, his shady real estate deals, his lawsuits against orphanages and school districts, his fake charities and donations.  I mean, there really is just too much to list.  There's no question, for those of us with our heads not buried in sand, that TinyD is and remains a scum bag - not always a criminal, but certainly someone who publicly, willingly, unashamedly, even boastfully toed every line he ever encountered.  And we all know that when you make that your practice, you occasionally slip over that line, even if it's just one toe.  We also all know that when you make that your practice, and you inevitably slip up, there will be a crowd cheering for you to be made an example of. 

So, again, for most of us, we learn this lesson during our high school years.  That first time we slip up and get caught, we feel like it's us against the world, that everyone is suddenly against us ...almost like it was a witch hunt!  Some of us never learn and keep getting beat down by what in reality are our own mistakes from which we refuse to learn.  We call those people who can't learn from their own mistakes or accept the consequences of their own actions "rebels" when they are teenagers, but when they refuse to learn well into adulthood - into their seventies, for instance - well then we call them psychopaths.

Anyhoo, like I said, once you learn this lesson, you realize there's nothing "political" about it.  It's not a "witch hunt."  It's just the consequence of one's actions.  Most of us learned that when we were teens.

Luth

Out

Sinners in the hands of an angry oligarch

While I'm pretty sure he's never actually read (or understood) Jonathan Edwards, TinyD's latest campaign con is that it is only by his hands that we're all spared from the flames of hell. He tells us not to worry about the witch hunts after him, because they're not really after him - they're after us (you and me) and he's just in the way, holding them back, saving us from the heat of those flames.

Here's the problem with that theory - a problem TinyD's followers can't seem to comprehend - his protection only works in a lawless society, and only if you remain outwardly loyal to him.  (see also: Putin's Russia, Qaddafi's Lybia, Noriega's Panama, Cedras's Haiti, Hitler's Germany...)

Here's another problem with it:  who are they? ...but we should probably be asking Tucker Carlson who they are, since he's never written anything not centered on this us v them premise.

OK, OK, I get it.  THAT'S why seemingly rational people choose to continue to fall for the con.  They believe this protection is the only protection an average Joe can get in this corrupt world.  Sure, the US is a nation of laws, but all other politicians and cops and every other government employee is so corrupt and the laws are clearly written by the rich to the point where their only hope is to pledge their allegiance not to the flag of the nation for which it stands, but to this savior who promises them everything they want.

In other words, it's the modern assertion of the rise of fascism.  (His expressed admiration for the things Putin can get away with is no coincidence.  It's him saying the quiet parts out loud.). Only in a lawless society would any of us need this kind of "protection."  In our society, in a nation of laws, we're all protected already by little things like the Constitution - a document created by -gasp- GOVERNMENT!  ...but only if we remain a nation of laws where every citizen gets due process, a day in court.  For most Americans, our Constitution is the only protection we can count on or afford.  It's the system of laws that keeps individuals free, protected, able to have a voice.  Americans don't need TinyD's protection.  We have a system of laws that functions for all of us as long as we elect people committed to maintaining it.  Anyone offering protection in a system where it is guaranteed for all citizens is running a con.  Anyone choosing that con has given up on democracy.

The joke is now, and ever was on them.  This guy who has made a career believing that the rules are for suckers not born into money openly tells wealthier audiences that the people he's promising to protect, but who can't afford the membership fees for his club, are the very suckers for whom the rules are made.  He's counting on those suckers to keep on buying his con so he can continue to suck money from public office and avoid prosecution.  And if those suckers choose to double down on the con rather than admitting they've been played, then the joke's on all of us if we don't show up and vote to counter their dwindling numbers.

There, but for the grace of TinyD's protection, goes democracy.

Luth

Out

TinyD Through The Decades

For those of you who can’t seem to understand why so many Americans are hesitant to trust our current president, here’s a look back at the decades that shaped our opinions.  Turns out he didn’t just appear out of nowhere on The Apprentice!

 

Trump in the 50s

Caught by neighbor tossing rocks at a toddler in a play pen.

First becomes a millionaire even though he won’t turn 14 until the end of the decade, he’s on the family business’s payroll to the tune of $250,000 per year.  This fairly common method of legal money laundering/tax evasion isn’t unique to the Trumps, but it does fly in the face of the “self-made” myth our trust fund baby president seems to like repeating.

https://www.politicalflare.com/2019/10/biographer-reveals-trump-was-a-vicious-bully-as-a-child-who-threw-rocks-at-babies/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6232985/Trumps-DADS-tax-returns-revealing-president-earning-200-000-year-aged-THREE.html  (see also The Economist, later in this thread)

 

Trump in the 60’s

Five-time draft dodger – again, not unique to the Trumps since many families with money attempted various forms of it, but a pattern is clearly starting to emerge. In fact, Joe Biden’s draft record includes 5 deferments as well (asthma as a teenager).  The difference is that Joe Biden doesn’t denigrate or belittle the sacrifices of our troops, and his own son paid the ultimate price serving our nation.

https://www.archives.gov/foia/donald-trump-selective-service-draft-card.html

https://www.insidesources.com/joe-bidens-draft-record-looks-a-lot-like-donald-trumps-do-democrats-care/

 

Trump in the 70’s

 

DOJ sues Trump Mgt. Co. for illegal, racist rent practices.  Trump counter-sues for $100 million,  (loses) settles with DOJ, agrees to provide Urban League with listings of all vacancies, and to offer every 5^thvacancy to minority applicants in any buildings with less than 10% minority occupancy …but does not admit guilt. TMC is defended by Roy Cohen, of McCarthyism and mafia notoriety. Cohen becomes firmly established as TMC lawyer over a 13-year period.

 

First marriage (Ivana).  Estimates of the cost of the wedding are tough to find, but the divorce settlement was $25 million.

 

 

Trump in the 1980s

Trump tells Rona Barrett the US should have invaded Iran, using US hostages as an excuse to take over the sovereign nation, to get oil and “respect.”  Also predicts a president with “no great brain, but a big smile” could get elected.  Says he wouldn’t ever run because it’s “too mean a business,” but he’d like to help select a president.

 

During a break in his affair with Marla Maples, Trump dates tennis player/model, Gabriela Sabatini, all while still married to Ivana.

 

Misrepresents his share of his family’s $200 million estimated worth in order to appear on 1982 Forbes List of wealthiest Americans, claiming to be worth $100 million.  Later investigation revealed Trump’s personal worth at the time may have been $5 million. (this, after receiving an estimated $413 million from his father)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-wealth-fred-trump.html

https://youtu.be/nAgJAxkALyc

https://money.cnn.com/2016/03/28/news/trump-apartment-tenants/index.html

 

In 1985, New York City brought a lawsuit against Trump for allegedly using tactics to force out tenants of 100 Central Park South, which he intended to demolish together with the building next door. After ten years in court, the two sides negotiated a deal allowing the building to stand as condominiums. 

https://www.nytimes.com/1985/03/09/opinion/new-york-doer-and-slumlord-both.html

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/26/nyregion/win-trump-no-tenants-battle-80-s-ends-with-glad-handing-all-around.html

 

In 1988, the Justice Department sued Trump for violating procedures related to public notifications when buying voting stock in a company related to his attempted takeovers of Holiday Corporation and Bally Manufacturing Corporation in 1986. On April 5, 1988, Trump agreed to pay $750,000 to settle the civil penalties of the antitrust lawsuit. 

https://apnews.com/54ea0dc590fc97d9e9e86c65336649a1

 

 

Trump in the1990s

Trump’s dad sends an attorney to buy $3.35 million worth of chips at Trump Castle Casino in order to prevent the casino from missing an interest payment on a bond and going into default.  The move to hide the loan was investigated resulting in a $30,000 fine, but successfully completing the loan.  Fred Trump was later licensed by New Jersey to be able to make loans to casinos.  Good thing, because Donald’s casinos would soon need more loans like this to avoid default.  

https://pressofatlanticcity.com/news/how-donald-trumps-father-once-bailed-out-his-casino/article_934cb836-2c1d-11e6-8a13-173759856fe0.html

 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/trump-files-fred-trump-funneled-cash-donald-using-casino-chips/

 

 

Trump’s first bankruptcy (1991) as Trump Taj Mahal is unable to service its debt.  Forbes says this is the ONLY bankruptcy (of 5) involving Donald’s personal assets.  While there is some debate over that, it’s clear Donald doesn’t like to put his own skin in the game.

https://time.com/4343030/donald-trump-failures/

 

Trump, now long associated with Cohen, uses mafia connected construction firms to build Trump Plaza and Trump Tower, grossly overpaying for supplies like concrete (money laundering?) and cutting corners/breaking the law, while other firms in the city pleaded with the FBI to be freed of mafia control. 

 

According to a Newsweek source who asked not to be identified because his family is well-known in the construction business, the asbestos and concrete were dumped near abandoned docks in Brooklyn and other discrete places instead of prescribed sites farther away—saving time and money. The White House referred Newsweek to the Trump Organization, which did not respond to an inquiry.

"On paper," as one of several news accounts put it, the demolition workers were members of Local 95, a Genovese-controlled union. But in reality, they were undocumented workers from Poland and South Korea. Ronald Fino, son of a Buffalo, New York, Mafia capo, told Newsweek they were known as "the sneaker brigade" for "remov[ing] the asbestos illegally." (Through the years, Trump denied knowing about the illegal workers, but in 1998, after years of litigation, he quietly paid a total of $1.38 million "to settle the case, with $500,000 of it going to a union benefits fund and the rest to pay lawyers' fees and expenses," The New York Times revealed in 2017.)

https://www.newsweek.com/2019/01/18/donald-trump-mafia-connections-decades-later-linked-mob-1285771.html

 

Trump’s 2^nd bankruptcy. Trump Plaza Hotel, Trump lost his 49 percent stake in the luxury hotel to Citibank and five other lenders. In return Trump received more favorable terms on the remaining $550+ million owed to the lenders, and retain his position as “chief executive,” though he would not be paid and would not have a role in day-to-day operations.

 

Donald attempts to rewrite his father’s will in 1997, without Fred’s knowledge or consent, in order to use family business assets to get out of debt, attempts to name himself executor so he has full control of family assets.  Fails. Denies any of it ever happened.

https://www.businessinsider.com/nyt-trump-tried-change-fred-trump-will-2018-10?op=1

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/donald-trump-tried-scam-father-removed-executor-will-nyt-report/

 

Divorces Ivana in 1992, marries Marla Maples in 1992, divorces her in 1999, although he is rumored to have begun dating Melania in 1998.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-melania-stormy-daniels-affairs-marriages-timeline-2018-3?op=1#trump-wasnt-single-for-long-in-1998-he-met-model-melania-knauss-the-pair-married-in-january-2005-8

 

 

 

 

Trump in the 2000s  (this was a busy decade, so here’s just a sampling)

Trump pays $250,000 fine (3x the largest fine ever issued) for illegal lobbying trying to persuade NY Commission to deny a casino license for an Indian-run casino in the Catskills.

https://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/trump-250g-fine-lobbying-article-1.885295

https://nypost.com/2000/07/17/trump-probed-in-casino-lobbying-blitz/

 

In 2001, Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Inc. consented to the US Securities and Exchange Commission's cease-and-desist order regarding fraudulent statements in the company’s reports, said the culprit had been dismissed, and that Trump had personally been unaware of the matter. 

https://www.sec.gov/news/headlines/trumphotels.htm

 

In 2003, Trump sued A LOCAL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT in Palos Verdes, CA, in order to get out of paying fees to the district per the terms of the lease he bought from the golf course’s previous owners.

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2017/oct/12/insults-lawsuits-and-broken-rules-how-trump-built/

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-trump-tries-to-lock-school-district-out-of-2003dec03-story.html

 

A failed 2004 Trump Organization/Bayrock Group venture defaulted on a $139 million loan in 2010. The failed project resulted in at least 10 lawsuits, including accusations of fraud from initial investors, some of which were still not settled in early 2016. 

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article63879697.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/nyregion/17trump.html

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/failed-donald-trump-tower-thrust-into-gop-campaign-for-presidency/2269121

 

In 2005, the German state attorney prosecuted Trump Deutschland and its partners for accounting fraud. This followed Trump suing the city of Stuttgart (losing,) and Trump’s German partner suing Trump for the return of a EUR 200 million pre-payment.  (oh, and he marries Melania)

https://www.dw.com/en/donald-trumps-castles-in-the-german-sky/a-36472081

https://www.newsweek.com/all-women-trump-has-dated-married-or-been-linked-sexually-783370

 

2008-Deutsche Bank attempts to collect $40 million Trump personally guaranteed against their $640 million loan for Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago. Rather than paying the debt, Trump sued Deutsche Bank for $3 billion for undermining the project and damage to his reputation. Deutsche Bank then filed suit to obtain the $40 million. The two parties settled in 2010 with Deutsche Bank extending the loan term by five years. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/business/05norris.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/the-lawsuits-of-donald-trump/273819/

 

In 2008, Trump filed a $100 million lawsuit for alleged fraud and CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS![78] against the California city of Rancho Palos Verdes, over a landslide-prone golf course in the area, which was purchased by Trump in 2002 for $27 million.[78] 

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/20/local/me-trump20

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/technology/20110113/trump-loses-round-in-a-local-lawsuit (obtained from archive)

 

2009-Trump Ocean Resort Baja Mexico investors sue for the return of deposits for condos in the failed project, claiming Trump misrepresented his role in the project. After its failure Trump claimed he had been little more than a spokesperson for the entire venture, disavowing any financial responsibility. Trump settled with over a hundred investors in 2013. 

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-mar-07-fi-trump7-story.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/nyregion/feeling-deceived-over-homes-that-were-trump-in-name-only.html

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mo-donald-trump-settles-baja-mexico-condo-resort-lawsuit-20131127-story.html

 

 

 

Trump in the 2010s

The Economist reports that Trump’s business performance since 1985 is “mediocre compared to the stock market and New York property values.”  Suggesting he’d be better off had he invested his estimated $100 million net worth in 1985 into a standard retirement account, which would be worth $6 billion in 2016.

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2016/02/20/from-the-tower-to-the-white-house

 

2011-Trump tells Good Morning America he’s skeptical of Obama’s birthplace, and that we shouldn’t dismiss such sceptics as “idiots.”  (his word, not mine) 

https://www.politico.com/story/2011/03/donald-trump-birther-051473

 

2012- Trump offers to donate $5 million to the charity of Obama’s choice if Obama will publish his college and passport application records.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/donald-trump-fails-drop-bombshell-offers-cash-obama/story?id=17553670

 

2016-Trump finally concedes, “President Obama was born in the United States. Period.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/16/trump-president-obama-was-born-in-the-united-states-period.html

 

In 2018, the Trump Charitable Foundation agreed to shut down, facing a civil lawsuit by the New York attorney general that alleged "persistently illegal conduct" including self-dealing and funneling campaign contributions. Furthermore, it had never been properly certified in New York and did not submit to the annual audit that would have been required.  The foundation did give away $2.8 million during the 2000s, or about 1/3 of what Trump had promised. He stopped contributing to the fund in 2008, but continued to accept donor funds, at least once claiming them as his own by taking a tax deduction.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/08/trump-foundation-saga-troubled-charity-ends-2-million-judgment/2532798001/

 

…and you know the rest.

 

Luth,

Out.

 

Let’s Talk About Walls

Shortly after World War II, the Allies split up what was left of Germany into four zones, one controlled by each of the Allies who had participated:  US, UK, France, and the USSR, per the Potsdam Agreement.  The city of Berlin was also divided into these same four zones even though it was within the USSR’s zone of Germany.  Basically, the allies all raced to Berlin in order to be able to shape the way this new country (and influence how all of Europe) would be built after the war.

It’s interesting that the Soviets were the first to suggest walling any of these zones off, specifically Berlin.  In fact, they quickly constructed barriers and sent their military to enforce them leading to the Berlin Blockade in the hopes that preventing food and supplies from reaching the non-communists in West Berlin might cause them the rethink their occupation.  Of course, as history tells us, the blockade was easily defeated by the Berlin Airlift, further proving that walls can’t stop airplanes …or ladders …or anyone determined to seek freedom.

The Soviets were a bit embarrassed by the fact that many of their people decided to flee the Soviet zone of this new Germany.  They were probably a little embarrassed by the Berlin Airlift as well, so they decided to build a more formidable wall in Berlin to try to prevent their people from seeking freedom in the West.  In 1961, the Berlin Wall, as it was known for almost 30 years, was completed, to include a “death strip” down the middle, manned by machine gun towers and constantly patrolled.  This at least slowed their best and brightest from defecting to the west. (slowed, but it did not stop them)

Thirty years ago this year, (demolition began on June 13, 1990) that embarrassing failure of statesmanship finally fell.  Turns out the only folks who wanted it in the first place were socialist communists trying to inflate the benefits of a culture that has failed them to this day.

So, what did the Berlin Wall teach us?

1.     Only communists think walls will preserve their “treasured lifestyle”

2.     That “treasured lifestyle” was so great, thousands of people risked their lives to flee it before the wall was finished, (and more continued to do so after – see also “Brain drain”)

3.     Walls don’t work

4.     They’re a waste of time, money, effort, all of which distracts from the real work of nation building/growing

That concludes this holiday history lesson about walls.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Luth 

Out 

A religion I can get behind

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Look, are there parts of this religion that sound irrational, crazy even?  Yep!  That's how you know it's a real religion.

If I ever decide atheism, rational thought, being amazed at the wonders of the universe, curiosity, critical thinking skills, and my job, family, etc. aren't enough for me, then this might be the religion I try on for a while.

Until then,
Luth
Out

Credit Where Credit Is Due: Colorado Baker and Sincere Religious Beliefs

The US Supreme Court stopped short of establishing much of a precedent when they sided with Colorado Baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding. The basis, they said was that forcing Phillips to violate his “sincere religious beliefs” was an attack on his 1^st amendment rights.  What this means is that this case doesn’t exactly absolve all commercial operations from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, since it did not rule that his refusal was a civil rights violation, but that’s what it meant for the original plaintiffs.

I am sincere when I recognize the court’s restraint in their narrowly defined decision, but I can’t help but wonder if, despite this restraint, they’ve still created a fairly broad, potentially dangerous precedent.  Their decision makes me wonder how one proves “sincere religious beliefs,” and thus how far those beliefs might extend when denying business to anyone else.  It also makes me wonder how they know just how sincere Mr. Phillips’s beliefs are.  Did they test him? 

Did they ask him if he would also apply biblical rules to straight couples? 

Here are a few I’d have asked about:

Does Mr. Phillips refuse to take orders from women, since 1 Timothy 12 tells us, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”  And if you don’t like that one, how about, “They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.” 1 Corinthians 14:34

If he takes orders from women (violating what we must assume are two of his “sincere religious beliefs” does he only do so when the woman’s husband or father is present, since, a woman’s vow is basically meaningless unless approved by her husband or father. Numbers 30:1-16

Does Mr. Phillips prohibit menstruating women from entering his bakery, or does he allow it to be unclean, as described by Leviticus 15: 19-31? (does the health department know?)  By the way, men sleeping with women is also “dirty” according to Revelation 14, since only the 144,000 men who had never been with a woman were given an early pass to the afterlife.  They were the “first fruits.”  Hmmm. Revelation doesn’t say they couldn’t be with other men.

Mr. Phillips clearly won’t violate his beliefs about gay couples, even though the bible NEVER actually mentions or prohibits them, but is he cool making a cake for a rapist as long as the rapist buys the woman from her father, thus making her is heterosexual wife/property like Deuteronomy 22:28-29 advises?  Will he bake a cake for a virgin woman taken as “spoils of war,” and the man who took her?  I’m sure they’re a lovely hetero couple. Numbers 31

What about a little earlier Deuteronomy…the part about how “used wives” should be stoned to death?  Surely he wouldn’t make a cake for any bride who can’t prove her virginity as these verses explain.

What about the dudes?  How does Mr. Phillips de-conflict the Leviticus advice to “not round the corners of your heads, nor mar the corners of your beards” with Paul’s suggestion that men “naturally” have short hair and women have long hair?  What, exactly, do Mr. Phillips “sincere religious beliefs” require of his patrons when it comes to hair care?  Is there a barber nearby Mr. Phillips might recommend?

Is there a dress code at this bakery?  (back to Deuteronomy and Leviticus…) Is it cool to wear clothes woven from two different materials or no?  Does Phillips have staff who check this at the door?  I’m only asking because I don’t want to piss him off.  I’m in a heterosexual marriage and all, but this stuff is tough to keep track of and I don’t want to attack his sincere religious beliefs.

Perhaps it would be easier for all of us, if Phillips’s sincere religious beliefs focused a little more on John 13:34, “as I have loved you, love each other,” because I’m pretty sure Jesus would’ve just baked the cake.  Mark 12:31 helps de-conflict everything: “love thy neighbor as thyself, there is no greater commandment.”  I’d bake a cake for my neighbor.  Mr. Phillips would not.  So how serious are those beliefs?

Luth

Out