To tweet or not to tweet, that is the question

Posted on June 8, 2017 by bvanrysdam

Donald J. Trump likes to tweet. He has turned to Twitter to announce his Director of the FBI nomination, criticize his critics and his thoughts on why the ratings were poor for The Apprentice.

While pundits have been talking for days on how seriously people should take his tweets, there is another discussion taking place regarding the constitutionality of how he manages his Twitter account.

It seems @realDonalTrump has blocked several accounts that reply to his tweets with comments that are, shall we say, not very nice (and really, who could blame him?). Twitter users are unable to see or respond to tweets from accounts that block them and there-in lies the potential problem.

The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University in New York sent a letter to President Trump, requesting he unblock certain Twitter users on the grounds it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They claim blocking the tweets is a form of suppressed speech in a public forum which is protected.

President Trump isn’t the first politician to block users, members of congress, governors and other elected officials have all blocked/deleted people on various social media channel. The problem, according to Deborah Jeon, American Civil Liberties Union legal director, is that many politicians are using social media in place of town hall meetings. It makes sense in the fact that it’s much easier to control the conversation.

Legal experts have said that President Trump’s tweets have effected public policy, hampering efforts to have his so-called travel ban become law. It has also been reported that many White House staffers learn of new initiatives by his tweets.

So where could this lead us to? Most likely that proverbial road to the courthouse.

The art of optics

Posted on May 12, 2017 by bvanrysdam

Op.tics

Noun

the way in which an event or course of action is perceived by the public.

Optics have always played a major role in politics. The way something is seen can be just as, if not more important, than what it’s trying to accomplish. Politicians work feverishly to make sure they are put in the best light, so it’s a little strange to see someone buck that trend.

President Trump is a person who has always done things his way. From The Art of a Deal to the Trump “brand’; it has always been his way or the highway. This week, Trump meet with the Russian ambassador one day after firing F.B.I. Director James Comey for either being mean to Hillary, or for continuing to look at connections between the Trump campaign and Russia (I report, you decide).

This is not about why Trump dumped Comey, but about the optics of meeting with the Russians the next day. Trump explained to NBC’s Lester Holt that he “never thought about the optics” of welcoming Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to the White House the day after he fired Comey.

“It was set up a while ago, and frankly, I could have waited but what difference does it make? I’m not looking for cosmetics. I’m looking to do a great job for the country,” said Trump.

Now some people will find that honesty refreshing. Maybe if we worried less about how the public might react to something and focus more on the job at hand, we would be better off.

Trump’s problem is that his so-called negative optics are as plentiful as opinions and are causing people to question his ability to lead and trustworthiness. Conflicting information, dismissing high level staffers like Mike Flynn and James Comey; and an ever changing narrative from his spokespersons erode the level of confidence and willingness (if you can find one democrat) to work with him.

During the campaign, the word unconventional was used ad nauseam to describe his campaign. I’m surprised we don’t hear that word more to describe his presidency.

Any volunteers?

Posted on April 24, 2017 by bvanrysdam

Boy it’s tough to fly these days. From airlines squeezing passengers into smaller and smaller seats, charging for checked bags and overbooking flights, it’s no wonder the friendly skies are becoming more and more tense.

By now, I’m sure you along with the entire world has seen the video of a United Airlines passenger being forcibly removed from a flight from Chicago to Louisville. The video, which includes audio of the man screaming while being lugged down the aisle, is difficult to watch, but does not tell the whole story.

United was trying to make room for a flight crew to get to Louisville. An announcement was made that they needed four passengers to give up their seats which were already taken. When no one volunteered, three passengers were asked to get off with little fan-fare (although I’m sure they were not happy) and no video to post on social media. David Dao, the fourth passenger, refused to give up his seat, resulting in Chicago airport police dragging him down the aisle.

The problem? The airline was actually in their rights to ask the passenger to get off the plane. In the fine print (that nobody ever bothers read) it basically gives the airline the right to remove anyone for any reason. Each airline has their own policy on how a person is to be reimbursed, but make no mistake, United Airlines was in their rights to do what they did.

Now you can argue that isn’t fair and that United Airlines totally mishandled the entire incident (and you would be correct), but what about the actions taking by Mr. Dao? A law officer made a request which he chose to ignore. Does that mean other passengers in the future can disregard a request/command from a law officer? I’m not sure I’m comfortable going down that pathway either.

United Airlines was in the wrong, but so was Mr. Dao. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but maybe, just maybe it will generate a discussion on passenger rights for future travelers.

Well that lasted all of one week

Posted on February 13, 2017 by bvanrysdam

Super Bowl LI is in the books. The city of Houston did a wonderful job of hosting the mega-event and most people agree the game and the experience was first class. Being the forward looking city we are, Houston is already thinking about the next time the Super Bowl will come to H-Town, but as Lee Corso so famously says; “not so fast my friend.”

The Houston Chronicle ran a buzz-kill story just three days after the big event with the headline “NRG Stadium already dated compared to other Super Bowl venues”. It seems the NRG is fast becoming outdated and will require major updates to compete for Super Bowls, Final Fours and other major events.

City leaders and the NFL will tout the tremendous economic impact the host city enjoys to justify updating/building these modern day coliseums, but like most numbers, it can greatly depend on your point of view. While the Houston numbers are still being calculated, the 2015 Super Bowl held in Arizona reportedly brought in $719m. The state might have taken in that amount in Super Bowl related events, but that number does not take into account the hundreds of millions dollars needed to host the game.

Economists who study these sorts of things put the value more at $30m to $130m, a nice piece of change, but nowhere near the $719m that is promoted.

The game heads north to Minneapolis next year. The Minneapolis Star Tribune published the NFL’s list of demands back in 2014. It’s shows what the NFL expects a city to cough up for the privilege of hosting the big game.

For example:

If placing logos of the NFL, Super Bowl, and teams that are playing in the game on the field requires different turf to be installed in the new downtown Minneapolis stadium, there would be no charge for that to the league.
If cellphone signal strength at the team hotels is not strong enough, then the host committee — at no cost to the league — “will be responsible [for erecting] a sufficient number of portable cellular towers.

The NFL is also requiring the local media “to provide significant advertising and promotional time” for the “NFL Experience” in the month leading up to the game. Among them: At least 20 color pages of free space, in aggregate, in leading daily newspapers to promote the game and four weeks of free promotions on at least six local radio stations, including at least 250 live or prerecorded ads.

Now granted, those “recommendations” are from 2014 and could have been negotiated and changed, but its’ still pretty incredible to force host cities to ensure services like cellphone signal strength meets league standards, but that’s not all the all the Super Bowl requires.

They also don’t want to see laws that discriminate against a transgender person using a restroom that conforms to their gender identity. Given Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s crusade to keep our bathrooms safe, the NFL could say thanks, but no thanks to a Houston bid even if we did build them a multibillion dollar brand-new stadium.

Fake news in the news

Posted on November 30, 2016 by bvanrysdam

There has been a lot of buzz lately about “fake” news sites and how they may have impacted the recent presidential election.

Multiple stories have been written on how to spot a fake news story and even President Obama has weighed in calling it a threat to democracy.

There’s only one little problem, fake news has been around since the birth of our nation.

Back in 1782, Benjamin Franklin, who was in France as American ambassador, put together an entirely fake issue of a real Boston newspaper, the Independent Chronicle. In it, Franklin made up a story allegedly from the New York frontier and concerned wartime atrocities by Indians at the behest of the British.

The fake story was sent to his friends and was picked up by real newspapers in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New York and Rhode Island.

Columnist Leonard Pitts (who appears in the Houston Chronicle) wrote a piece on how fake news is “eating like terminates through the foundations of democracy”. He even goes on to quote Thomas Jefferson who said “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free; it expects what never was and never will be.”

It’s a great quote, but it’s hard to swallow when you learn Jefferson secretly gave money to newspaper editors to spread personal rumors about his enemies which may or may not have been true while the country was struggling to form a new government. Oh well, it still makes for a great quote.

Now in today’s inter-connected world wide web, it’s easy to see how a fake news story can take off like a wild fire. Websites like Facebook are trying to figure out how they weed these stories out (although some reports claim Facebook generates half its ad revenue from fake news sites), so I guess it will be up to us to decide what is true and what is not.

Democracy survived Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson’s transgressions, I suspect it will continue to do so after this election as well.

Changing the station

Posted on November 8, 2016 by bvanrysdam

Having spent most of my adult life in talk radio, I always like to keep up with what’s happening on the airwaves. People come, people go and there is the usual craziness, but then I came across two stories that make me glad I have no part of that industry anymore.

The first comes from Miami and WAXY (790 The Ticket). It seems Dan Le Batard is furious with management because they told him not to talk about a penis surgery story. Le Batard supposedly went on a rant, challenging the station to fire him.

“Nothing matters to me more, than you don’t control what comes out of my mouth,” Le Batard said, “and we’ve got someone going crazy locally right now, saying they’re gonna yank us off the air if we continue to talk about this. And what I’m telling you right now is: fire me. Not only never do that again, fire me now if you want to control me that way. NOW…. yank me off the air now. Fire me now, cancel my contract now…. because this is infuriating…. you do not control what comes out of my mouth.”

Nice to see him take a stand on such an important issue.

And then there’s St. Louis talk host Bob Romanik.

In recorded ads played this week on AM station KZQZ, sandwiched between ads for local St. Clair County “Freedom Coalition” politicians, Romanik referred repeatedly to County Board Chairman Mark Kern as a cross-dresser and “faggot.”

The ad, which has Tiny Tim’s 1968 recording of “Tiptoe Through the Tulips” as background music asks

“Have you also been lying about your sexuality and sex life? … Mark ‘Sweetcakes’ Kern, not a wolf in sheep’s clothing but a very small man in women’s clothing. You have now earned a new name. … To all the people of St. Clair County, you’ll be known as Mark ‘The Faggot’ Kern, a faggot forever.”

According to the St. Louis Dispatch, At least one listener complained. Romanik responded on his talk show Tuesday that anyone who thinks he doesn’t have the right to speak his mind can “kiss my red, white and blue, hairy, stinky old ass. … I can question anybody’s sexuality.”

Romanik, who claims he is not perfect, pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud in 1999, admitted to defrauding two banks of about $1.5 million to build topless nightclubs in the metro-east. He was ordered to serve 20 months in federal prison.

Fortunately, there is a solution to all this; turn off the radio.