Open mouth insert foot (repeat)

“I never worked for Russia”

Let those words sink in for a moment. They were not said by Paul Manafort or Michael Flynn, but by President Trump. Even knowing Trump’s disdain for the media (with the exception of Fox News), it was an extraordinary thing to say.

I am reminded back to the days of Nixon and Watergate when he quipped “I am not a crook” which, according to Time magazine, became one of the Top 10 Unfortunate Political One-Liners (others making the list was Clinton’s “”I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and George H.W. Bush’s infamous “Read my lips: no new taxes”). The line instantly caught fire and one could arguably say was the beginning of the end of the Nixon White House.

As I so often like to point out, I am not implying Trump is guilty and this not about whether or not Trump colluded with the Russians. I’ll let the Mueller team figure that out, but it’s about an American president actually having to deny they worked for a foreign and to a large degree, adversary.

Trump supporters will say it’s because the media is obsessed with the investigation (and they would be right). They will also remind you there is no direct evidence linking Trump to conspire to rig the election (and they would be right again), but Team Trump continues to step in it.

Remember these lines…

  • “Truth isn’t truth” – Rudy Giuliani
  • Spicer was giving “alternative facts” – Kellyanne Conway
  • “I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock” – Anthony Scaramucci

In the end, I guess it doesn’t matter what Trump or his team says. It seems most American’s fall into three categories. You support him, you hate him, or you hold your nose at what he says and hopes he keeps nominating conservative appointees.

Still, one has to wonder how long this ride can last before the train flies off the rails.

Fear and loathing on the border

We have crisis on the border.

That is the message the White House is delivering in an attempt to win the perception game on the proposed border wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

President Trump recently visited the border joined by fellow republicans including Sen. John Cornyn, Sen. Ted Cruz and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. The rhetoric of really bad people including terrorists and/or members of vicious gangs coming across smuggling drugs and making our country less safe continues to ratchet up.

While I do agree the border and immigration are issues that have to be addressed, I am struck by the tone of trying to convince America that we need a wall. It sounds as if Texas, and especially the border, is a really dangerous place right now that no one should want to be a part of.

It seems to me that if a business was looking to relocate, the last place they would want to move to is somewhere that is so dangerous, the U.S. is willing to implement a partial shutdown of the government. And what about the tourism industry. What family would want to visit towns like El Paso, McAllen or Brownsville?

It has been pointed out by opponents of Trump’s proposal, that the facts are simply not there to support his claim, but I think in the case (as is too often the case), the facts really don’t matter. It’s about tone, innuendo and scaring people into believing something is real (anybody remember Joe McCarthy and the fear of “Reds Under The Bed”?).

I do sympathize with people who have lost loved ones by people who are here illegally, but not anymore than those who lost a loved one in mass shooting. Both are wrong and both issues need to be fixed.

The Republican Party has always flown the “We Support Business” banner, but in this case, they may be more Chicken Little running around yelling the sky is falling and we all know how that turned out.

We The People (except you)

How far has American come in terms of tolerance? Consider this, a group of Tarrant County Republicans will vote this week on whether or not to remove Tarrant County Republican Vice-Chair Shahid Shafi. His crime? Being Muslim.

Shafi, a trauma surgeon and Southlake City Council member, is having his position challenged because he doesn’t represent all Tarrant County Republicans. They point out that Islamic ideologies do not align with the U.S. Constitution even though Amendment I says…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

According to the Texas Tribune, Dorrie O’Brien, one of the precinct chairs, said she wants to boot Shafi out, not because he is Muslim, but because she questions whether he supports Islam or is connected “to Islamic terror groups”. I guess she is also unaware of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees ‘equal protection under the law’ which basically ensures a person to be innocent until proven guilty.

Ironically, the argument O’Brien is making is the same the KKK made against Catholics. The Klan pointed out that since Catholics had to put the pope first, they could not put the country’s interests ahead of the pope who would be the de facto leader (the same argument was made when JFK ran for president).

The good news in all of this is several high ranking Texas Republicans are standing with Shafi including U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush and former House Speaker Joe Straus.

It looks like there is common ground to be found in politics. Unfortunately, it takes something this extreme for it to happen.

Government and social media

As is usually the case, the law is trying to keep up with technology. The question of what constitutes a public forum is being debated and its impact could affect everyone from your locally elected dog catcher to the president of the United States.

A case has been making its way through the courts involving Deanna Robinson and the Hunt County Sheriff’s Office. Robinson learned she had been blocked from commenting or liking posts after criticizing them on their Facebook page. This was not the first run-in Robinson has had with the agency. In 2015, Robinson was confronted by a Hunt County deputy and a Child Protective Services representative looking to remove her then, 18-month old son from the home.

The case was finally dismissed and charges were dropped, but that hasn’t stopped the bad blood between them. Robinson filed a lawsuit in Feb. 2017 where she lost the case in a North Texas trial court. She has appealed and oral arguments will be heard today in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. (There is a similar case pending in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals between President Trump and a group of citizens who have banned from his Twitter account)

The sheriff’s office contends that by blocking Robinson, they are enforcing Facebook’s conduct rules. Under the terms of agreement, Facebook states…

 Combat harmful conduct and protect and support our community:

People will only build community on Facebook if they feel safe. We employ dedicated teams around the world and develop advanced technical systems to detect misuse of our Products, harmful conduct towards others, and situations where we may be able to help support or protect our community. If we learn of content or conduct like this, we will take appropriate action – for example, offering help, removing content, blocking access to certain features, disabling an account, or contacting law enforcement. We share data with other Facebook Companies when we detect misuse or harmful conduct by someone using one of our Products.

So, can being critical of a governmental agency be considered harmful conduct? Not knowing what the exact post said could play into this decision. Context is important and if the post used obscene language, or was threatening, you could see why a person would be blocked (although you could have simply deleted or hide the comment). But, if the post just offered a negative opinion, you could argue your First Amendment rights are being violated.

In light of more and more governmental agencies turning to Facebook and Twitter to communicate with their constituents, the outcome could have far reaching implications as to the future use of social media.

The tangled web of American history

Today is National Repeal Day.

On January 16th, 1919, Congress passed the Eighteenth Amendment, outlawing alcohol and the following year, Congress passed the Nineteenth Amendment granting women the right to vote.

In a strange way, these two events were connected to each other. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union had been promoting prohibition for many years, believing alcohol was the cause of many social ills facing our nation. In those days, a man controlled the household money and could drink away the family’s life savings with the wife having little recourse to stop him.

Another factor that played a large role in all of this was World War I. Many women became involved in the war efforts, working in factories, running the house with husbands at war, allowing them to earn their own money and even great freedom.

All of this led America into the Roaring Twenties where consumerism took off. Advances in printing found magazines entering more and more homes, offering a plethora of manufactured goods just waiting to be gobbled up. Sensing a growing market, many companies began to market directly at women, thus giving them an even greater voice to advance their status.

Fast forward thirteen years and America found itself in the Great Depression. Because of Prohibition, organized crime grew with gangsters taking control of big cities. Both men and women struggled to survive. Many Americans were looking for something to cheer about and their thoughts soon turned to drink.

Franklin D. Roosevelt called for a repeal during the 1932 presidential campaign. He won the election in a landslide and Prohibition was dead one year later. On December 5th, 1933, Utah (being the final state needed for a three quarters majority) the 21st Amendment was ratified repealing Prohibition.

Riding the storm out

Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me.

Wall Street experienced another volatile day. The market fell nearly 800 points (down 3.10%) following the realization that the meeting between President Trump and Chinese President Xi was not all it was cracked up to be.

The smiling optimism that came out of the G20 meeting quickly turned to panic after investors realized that, not only is the trade war not over, but could be worse. Tech stocks seemed to take the brunt of the blow with Apple and Alphabet losing more than 4 percent each.

So what happened? Investors took what President Trump said to heart and thought we had turned a corner until they realized that nothing was even close to being settled. You would think these so-called experts would understand that this president enjoys a bit of exaggeration when he explains his dealings with others (remember how the republicans won big in the last election?).

So once again, investors are looking at a “correction”. With fears of more tariffs and trade wars and talk of a possible recession, investors may want to baton down the hatches and get ready for a really bad storm.

#RIP 41

Reading lots of great tributes, so thought I would share this story. I was asked to produce a public service announcement that President Bush was to voice. After recording the script, he spent some time talking with me with no one other than an aide around who took photos (please excuse my wardrobe). I was a nobody, but felt so welcomed by this man and was amazed how easy it was to speak with him. I did not always agree with his policies, but the respect and dignity he showed to me that day will be something I’ll never forget. #RIP

War of the words

war-of-wordsThere continues to be a blurring of the lines in the fourth estate. The most recent incident involves CNN reporter Jim Acosta who had his credentials removed after a testy exchange with President Trump. The White House claims Acosta made contact with an intern when he refused to give back the microphone. CNN has sued the White House in an effort to reinstate Acosta. A judge issued a court order to temporarily reinstate his pass, but it’s going to be tough for viewers (especially of Fox News) to accept Acosta can remain objective in his reporting.

This is not about whether or not the White House has the right to revoke a reporters credentials (I do in fact believe they have that right under the proper circumstances). There are other CNN reporters that have access to the White House, so it’s not like the entire news organization has been banned. My problem with all of this is when a reporter becomes part of the story.

Having reporters like Acosta appear on programs such as Anderson Cooper 360 puts them in a tough spot. Any time a reporter shows up on a talking head show, they run the risk of delving into the land of speculation which can lead them down the slippery slope of offering an opinion. Now he has become part of the story which in the minds of many, (myself included) casts doubts on his ability to be objective in his reporting.

And this issue is not exclusive to CNN. The White House promoted Fox News broadcaster/journalist Sean Hannity was scheduled to appear with President Trump at a campaign rally before November’s election. That immediately set off an uproar about journalistic integrity. Hannity later said he was broadcasting his show from the rally, but was not there to make an appearance, although when the president invites you up to stage, what are you going to do, say no? Even Fox News called it an “unfortunate distraction” and Hannity, who was advertised to appear on Fox News election coverage ended up being a no show.

I personally don’t consider Hannity a journalist in the true sense of the word. I also don’t find Anderson Cooper one either, but that’s okay, talk show hosts can play an important role in updating and educating their audience, but I do think we need to hold reporters and news anchors (not talking heads) to a higher standard and have them report the news, not be a part of it.

Just swipe to the right

HeaderLogoHow bad has politics gotten? There are now dating apps that help you locate someone who follows your political leaning.

Introducing Donald Daters, a brand new dating app for people who support President Trump and want to find like-minded partners. The app, whose slogan is “Make America Date Again”, is available on the App Store and Google Play.

Every day you will receive 25 finely curated matches to connect with for free! Then, after you go through your daily matches, it’s time to see what other singles are up to in your area in the activity feed. There you can like, send messages and connect with any of your matches.

Now before you think this app is a private party just for those on the right, Donald Daters encourages freethinking and welcomes anyone to download the app and enjoy their community although they also mention you can join without bias, judgement, or liberal intolerance (so much for freethinking).

Unlike some political gatherings, Donald Daters say they will not allow abusive language and bigotry is not acceptable (which is kinda sad that a dating website offers more self-control than today’s political rallies). The site even offers actual testimonials from users including Laura R. from Ohio who said “finally I can meet people with the same values and beliefs as me”.

“For many young Trump supporters, liberal intolerance has made meeting and dating nearly impossible. Support for the president has become a deal breaker instead of an icebreaker. That’s why we created a new platform for Trump supporters to meet people without being afraid of talking politics,” Emily Moreno, CEO of Donald Daters, posted to the website.

It remains to be seen how successful this new dating app will be, but one has to wonder if the Trump Organization will sue for intellectual property theft.

We’re on the road to nowhere

downloadHow did we get here? That’s a question that’s being asked more and more. Where has civility gone? Have we come to the point where people are so tired of feeling bad that they feel the need to lash out at others?

I attended a recent conference that featured Evan Smith from the Texas Tribune. He spoke about how, as a society, we are choosing to get our information from sources that think like we do. Consider yourself a conservative? You’re probably watching Fox News. Lean more liberal? You are probably turning to CNN for your news.

The problem is that you are only getting one side to story that may have several (meaning even more than two!). Americans are not looking to get information to learn something, but rather looking for someone to validate their own beliefs and that’s where the trouble starts.

Doing this leads us to thinking we don’t need to compromise because there are plenty of people who think like we do right? Why should we give in, let the other guy deal with it. This leaves us running in place for the most part because nothing gets done (which actually could be a good thing).

Here’s something else to remember. While the right is getting their information from Fox and the left from CNN, there is a common denominator between both media giants, they are driven by profits which means, just like politicians, they play to their base (or audience).

I am not suggesting it’s #FakeNews, but than again, it’s not very good coverage of the news either.