After Trump, Prepare for the Shame: A Warning for Americans From Occupied France

General Charles de Gaulle and his entourage set off from the Arc de Triumphe to Notre Dame for a service of thanksgiving following the city’s liberation in August 1944.

General Charles de Gaulle and his entourage set off from the Arc de Triomphe to Notre Dame for a service of thanksgiving following the city’s liberation in August 1944. Photo: British Ministry of Information / Imperial War Museum, via Wikimedia Commons

[Also published at Medium.] With the Liberation of France in 1944 came a miraculous discovery: the entire nation had resisted the German occupation.

“Paris liberated! Liberated by itself, liberated by its people with the help of the French armies, with the support and the help of all France, of the France that fights, of the only France, of the real France, of the eternal France!” proclaimed General DeGaulle in his victory speech.

It was an inspiring story of courage and resolve. If only it had been true.

But no. The story of universal resistance was a comforting fiction, hiding a complicated and painful reality: while there certainly had been heroic resisters, most of the French had silently cooperated with their occupiers and the puppet Vichy regime. Many had actively collaborated.

What story will we tell, when our time comes? Because the Trump presidency will end, and for many, that will be a time of shame.

Not, of course, the ones who have no shame. But those who see Trump for what he is, and yet remain silent. They mimic the French attentistes, who privately deplored the occupation, but chose to “wait and see.”

When the wait was over, though, it turned out they couldn‘t bear to see.

So they turned to an alternate reality, in which courage was redefined. In an essay for The Atlantic at the end of 1944, existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre hailed the heroes of the “Silent Republic.” Their contribution? They could have informed on actual Resistance members, but didn’t.

Some tried to puncture the nation’s self-delusion. In 1947, novelist Jean-Louis Curtis published “The Forests of the Night,” a portrayal of wartime life in a typical French village. As Curtis wrote, resistance was the “rather blurred background” to a far less noble foreground: acquiescence, collaboration, and betrayal.

Curtis’ book won France’s top literary honor, the Prix Goncourt. But it failed to displace the more less realistic fiction his compatriots preferred.

Poster for “The Sorrow and the Pity"

Poster for “The Sorrow and the Pity,” via Wikimedia Commons

A full reckoning with the truth didn’t begin until 1969. That was when film-maker Marcel Ophüls made the French face themselves, in his

quietly harrowing documentary “The Sorrow and the Pity,” or “Le Chagrin et La Pitié.” The full meaning of that title, which in French also means “regret and shame,” is revealed through the first-person accounts of a few brave resisters—and many others who struggle to explain their wartime behavior even to themselves.

“There was one value that we all shared, and that was caution,” offers one.

“I’m trying to remember, but I can’t,” says another.

But the archives did remember. Historian Thomas Paxton studied them exhaustively and, two years after “The Sorrow and the Pity,” he published his findings in “Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order” (1971): most people, some of them eagerly, had aligned with whomever was in power.

A crude graph of French public opinion from 1940 to 1944 would show nearly universal acceptance of Marshal Pétain [head of the collaborationist Vichy government] in June 1940 and nearly universal acceptance of General de Gaulle in August 1944, with the two lines, one declining and the other rising, intersecting some time after… November 1942 [when the Germans occupied the former “Free Zone” of southern France following the Allied landing in French North Africa].

After Paxton, assessments of the true strength of French resistance would shift this way and that. But the current judgment of history incorporates the pain of that very uncertainty. As Ronald C. Rosbottom writes in “When Paris Went Dark” (2014):

Even today, the French endeavor both to remember and to find ways to forget their country’s trials during World War II; their ambivalence stems from the cunning and original arrangement they devised with the Nazis, which was approved by Hitler and assented to by Philippe Pétain, the

recently appointed head of the Third Republic, that had ended the Battle of France in June of 1940. This treaty—known by all as the Armistice—had entangled France and the French in a web of cooperation, resistance, accommodation, and, later, of defensiveness, forgetfulness, and guilt from which they are still trying to escape.

This web waits for us.

It’s popular to scorn and mock the wartime French. A supposed French propensity for surrender has become a stock joke (one that ignores World War I and much other history).

Book cover: “Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order"

“Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order,” Columbia University Press

But who are we—especially the silent ones among us—to laugh?

To speak out against the German occupation was to risk torture and death.

To speak out against Trump—so far at least—is to risk only embarrassment, strained relationships, or perhaps the loss of some business.

Before we judge the French of World War II, we must ask ourselves if we can honestly say we would have done better. With that in question, their warning should sound all the louder in our ears.

If they felt such shame, how will it be for those of us who find mere inconvenience an excuse to forsake democracy?

And make no mistake, that is what it means to stay silent now, as Yale historian Timothy Snyder, for one, argues so persuasively and concisely in “On Tyranny.”

When the institutions and norms of democracy are strong, they protect us. But when they are threatened, as elections, the judiciary, law enforcement, the press—and even the truth itself—are threatened now, we are called to protect them.

For most of us, most of the time, democracy is easy. Maybe too easy. We’ve grown awfully comfortable letting a tiny minority serve as its guardians, out of sight, out of mind.

But ultimately, each of us is democracy’s last line of defense. And silence, unavoidably, becomes betrayal.

It’s that hard knowledge which met the attentistes of post-war France. So too the attentistes of post-Trump America.

Speak out, now.

Posted in Politics & Society | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

African Immigrants Are Better Educated Than Americans

[Also published at HuffPost.] African immigrants are better educated than native-born Americans. 42 percent of African immigrants have a bachelor’s degree or higher; 33 percent of Americans do. Immigrants from Nigeria? 61 percent.

Racism depends on ignorance. And at a time when knowledge is available instantly and for free, ignorance is increasingly a matter of choice.

No one is forced to watch Fox and Friends.

Educational Attainment of Foreign-Born Population from Africa by Selected Country of Birth: 2008-2012

Census data on African immigrants:

Census data on educational attainment of Americans:

Just a click away.

Posted in Politics & Society | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Car Wash for Souls

Vintage car wash sign, shaped something like a cross

Photo: iStock

[Also published at Huff Post.] I had Christianity all wrong — I thought Jesus didn’t want you to sin.

Yes, if you did sin, He would forgive you. But the baseline was, Jesus was anti-sin.

Well now Christian supporters of Roy Moore and Donald Trump have shown me the error of my ways.

It turns out His forgiveness isn’t an exception — it’s a license.

Stalking little girls? P***y-grabbing? Do it! All you have to do is show up in church of a Sunday, and you are good to go, Monday through Saturday.

Sin-sin-sin-sin-sin-sin-“I love you, Jesus!”-sin-sin-sin-sin-sin-sin.

Defending Roy Moore, Pastor Mark Burns explained it to Joy Reid Saturday morning: “Morality isn’t the only quality that makes a good leader.” Even King David, he explained, had been quite a sinner, and Jesus was the only perfect man ever to walk the Earth.

And Jesus’ job is to forgive the rest of us.

I feel so stupid for not getting how this really works — and how you can work it.

The good news is, this revelation has led me to a new business idea — and I’ve been checking out the Prosperity Gospel, too, so I’m sure I’m on the right track here.

I’m calling it the Car Wash for Souls™.

Check it out. You see, it’s great that all this sinning is allowed, but there’s no need to make it so inconvenient. In the Car Wash for Souls™, it’s all right there for you.

As you enter, they’ll stick a drink in your hand and a pretty girl in your lap. And just like that, you’re off, working through all the sins you can ask Jesus to eat: lust, intemperance, lying, cheating, stealing — you name it.

There’ll even be some you don’t want to name. We’ll call the really embarrassing ones Mystery Sins™. They’ll happen in a dark room, and no one ever has to know.

But the kicker comes at the last stop on your way out: We’ll have a pastor right there to forgive you! Won’t take a minute; he can do it while you pay.

It can’t miss.

And if it does, well sorry, investors, and I love you, Jesus!

Posted in Politics & Society | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

7 Tips for Telling Real News from Fake

Photo of people in a waiting room reading various news sources.

Photo: iStock

[Also published at Huffington Post.] I’ve been hearing a lot lately from people who feel overwhelmed by all the drastically different news narratives fighting for their attention — especially, of course, the ones about Donald Trump.

Real news? Fake news? How do you tell the difference?

Here’s a seven-point checklist of the most essential things to know.

1. Be skeptical. There’s an old saying in journalism: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” Reporters are supposed to look hard at what they think they know, and so should their audience. Reputable news outlets “show their work,” so you can see how they came to their conclusions. Are the sources solid? Does the logic makes sense? (More on this below.)

2. If the story is sensational, be more skeptical. Amazing things are amazing for a reason: they don’t happen very often. There are a lot more amazing stories in the world — because they make money — than there are amazing things that actually happened. This is why serious news sources tend to be less exciting to read than tabloids are. Memorize or bookmark these fact-checking sites:

3. If the story reinforces what you already believe, be more skeptical. We all suffer from confirmation bias, the tendency to accept information that supports our beliefs, and ignore or reject information that doesn’t. If you want accurate information instead of just flattery, you’re going to have to fight your own confirmation bias. And please, don’t fall into the trap of assuming that all news you don’t like is “fake.” (More on this below, too.)

4. Check the sources. The sources of a story are like the foundation of a building: if they’re not solid, the whole thing is likely to collapse. Sources should be objective and as close to the original information as possible. So, for example, a respected, independent scientific research organization is more credible than a partisan think tank, and still more credible than a random person with an opinion.

There should be more than one source, unless the story is an interview or there is something exceptional about what this source has to say. Here’s part of the Reuters guidelines on sources, which are typical of those used by all credible news outlets:

You must source every statement in every story unless it is an established fact or is information clearly in the public domain, such as court documents or in instances when the reporter, photographer or camera operator was on the scene.

Adherence to this standard is the reason credible reporters don’t just assert things, like “Unemployment is down.” Instead, they’ll write “Unemployment has fallen to 4.7 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.”

Beware of attempts to fool you with sources that look credible, but aren’t. These include organizations that appear to be government agencies, respected research institutions, or major news organizations, but aren’t. Look them up. While even the best sources can make mistakes, there’s usually a good reason for a good reputation.

5. Check the logic. Not only should the facts of the story be solid, so should the way they’re connected. Let’s say you hear that a person wearing sneakers has robbed a bank. Does this mean all sneaker-wearers are probably bank robbers? Of course not.

If a scientific study found that many bank robbers do wear sneakers, then we’d at least know there’s a correlation of some kind. But we still wouldn’t know that wearing sneakers means someone is likely to be a crook. It could just be that robbers like to be able to run fast. All of this would need to be checked out.

It may be easy to see the problem with jumping to conclusions about sneaker wearers, but this kind of illogic is common in less-than-credible news outlets, and often goes unchallenged by consumers. For example, because some immigrants commit crimes, many people conclude that immigrants are more dangerous, and some news outlets encourage that belief. But the logic doesn’t follow, and when we check the facts, we find that first generation immigrants commit less crime than native-born Americans do.

Now, here’s a test. Do you yourself believe that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes? Then please be aware that your own confirmation bias makes you more likely to accept what I just said, on faith. Please check — using credible, objective sources, not just the ones who always tell you what you want to hear — to see for yourself.

And the same if you still believe immigrants are more likely to be criminals: be aware that your confirmation bias makes you more likely to reject what I’m saying. Check for yourself — again, using credible, objective sources, not just the ones who always tell you what you want to hear.

6. Understand what you’re looking at. The difference between reliable and unreliable isn’t always black and white. There are different kinds of content that meet, or fail to meet, different kinds of standards:

Hard news. This is just the facts. For example: “A home on 13th St. suffered extensive damage last night after a 30-foot elm tree was blown over by 60 mph winds.”

Opinion. This may be an editorial, an op-ed (in newspapers, this is opinion that appears on the page opposite the editorial page), or a blog post. It’s not a problem if it’s biased — that’s what opinion means. Many good newspapers have a clear bias on their editorial pages, but give straight reporting on their news pages. Reputable opinion writers will base their arguments on verifiable facts, because opinion isn’t an excuse to make things up. You should feel confident that you can agree or disagree without worrying about being misled.

Feature story. This is softer, interpretive coverage of a story or people, exploring meaning and emotion. For example: “Frank Sinatra, holding a glass of bourbon in one hand and a cigarette in the other, stood in a dark corner of the bar between two attractive but fading blondes who sat waiting for him to say something.” That’s the opening sentence of one of the most famous feature stories of all, “Frank Sinatra Has a Cold,” by Gay Talese. Although a feature story is subjective, all facts it cites should be objectively true (unless it’s clear the writer is playing with the boundaries between fact and fiction, the way Hunter S. Thompson did, for example).

Biased, but still valid, news. Since reporters are humans, it’s impossible for any of them to be 100 percent bias free — even our story about the tree hitting the house showed more concern for the house than for the tree. But some outlets report hard news from a biased perspective. As long as they’re careful with facts and logic, such outlets can be worth consulting — especially if they challenge your own biases.

News that’s so biased it’s misleading. To support their in-house bias, some outlets twist facts and logic so much that they do more harm than good. This describes some other tabloids.

Fake news. Fake news is just made up from thin air.

7. Understand “Who benefits?” This is a technique, known by its Latin translation of cui bono, used by investigators. They find suspects by identifying who benefits from the crime.

It can help you decide whether news is real or fake.

Is the mainstream media fake news, the way we hear so often lately? No, and the charge is irresponsible, because it undermines the legitimacy of the free press, which is a foundation of democracy. What “mainstream” means is commitment to traditional standards of accuracy. Each mainstream outlet has strict ethical standards (for example, these) and will quickly discipline or fire reporters who violate them.

By far, most mainstream journalists, whatever their shortcomings, want to meet those standards. They got into the business in the first place because they wanted to discover the truth.

Even if you find that hard to believe (in my experience, it’s true), consider this: whatever their shortcomings may be, mainstream media companies benefit by getting the facts right, not wrong. Objectivity in journalism grew out of the business opportunity of selling content to all kinds of readers, conservative and liberal, many of whom make important decisions based on the accuracy of what they get from the mainstream news, and wouldn’t be happy to learn it was fake. Meanwhile, advertisers in mainstream media are there because they want to reach a large audience. They have no interest in seeing some of it turned off by partisan coverage.

Some less reputable media companies, though, make money a different way: by selling not facts, but sensation. They’re aiming to catch the attention of gullible people who are swayed by emotion, and they tend to attract advertisers who like that kind of customer.

Remember tip 2: If the story is sensational, be more skeptical.

So if you hear someone claim the mainstream media is fake, ask yourself, ”Who benefits from making me believe that?”

Answer: people who want to get away with stuff.

So who can you trust?

I won’t try to list all the credible news outlets (although if I did, this one would make the cut, so please come back some time).

But a good place to start is with the two most widely respected: the New York Times and the Washington Post. Neither is perfect, of course — remember: humans — but both are excellent. They originate much of the news you hear each day, they have enough reporters to cover a wide range of topics in depth, and they are home to some of the most influential opinion writers from across the political spectrum.

How do you know I’m steering you straight? You can now check for yourself — and I hope you will.

I’ll leave you with a thought from Thomas Jefferson, who, despite his own problems with the press, was one of its greatest champions:

No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions. (Letter to Judge John Tyler Washington, June 28, 1804.)

Posted in Communication, Journalism, Politics & Society | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Americans Fear Refugees Because We’re Bad At Math

Add this to the list of disturbing reasons for America’s panic over refugees: fewer and fewer of us can do the basic math of calculating the true risk.

But really, it’s not that hard — and understanding it is crucial to avoiding being conned.

Here it is, made as easy as I know how.

Lightning bolt over Mojave Desert

Photo: Jessie Eastland via Wikimedia Commons

1. Every year, as reported by the libertarian Cato Institute, Americans have about a one in 14,000 chance of being murdered.

2. The odds of being killed by a terrorist — who by the way is likely to be homegrown — are one in 3.6 million. This alone should suggest to you that the threat of terrorism is being overplayed — you’re three and a half times more likely to be struck by lightning.

3. But now let’s look at the risk of being killed by a refugee. The odds are… one in 3.6 billion. That means you are three and half thousand times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed by a refugee. Contrary to what our demagogue-in-chief wants you to believe, refugees are already very carefully screened.

Do you still think abandoning our values, giving ISIS a recruiting bonanza, and demoralizing our Muslim military allies (all results of banning refugees) is worth it?

Then I assume you plan never, ever to leave your house again, for fear of the far greater risk you face of being struck by lightning.

Ah, some say, but any risk is too much. We should do whatever it takes to stop even one death (never mind that zero Americans have been killed by refugees since 1975).

OK, this makes no sense already, given what I just laid out. Plus, considering we’re supposed to be the Home of the Brave, it seems awfully, well… non-brave.

But I hear it a lot, so on we go.

This argument is an example of negativity bias: we fear negative consequences so much that it clouds our judgment. This is why, even though seat belts greatly increase the odds of surviving an auto accident, some people still refuse to wear them. They can’t stand the thought they might have been one of the tiny number of people who make it out alive because they weren’t wearing a seatbelt.

There’s no other way around it, though: these people are choosing a much lower chance of survival. It’s impossible to know ahead of time whether this might have been that rare fluke accident. So the only smart choice is the one with (much) better odds.

It’s the same with admitting refugees to the United States. Fear wants us to focus on the minuscule chance one of them will be a terrorist (and dumb enough to go through the long refugee screening process before coming here).

But adding refugees actually makes each of us safer: as we add more people who are less likely to be terrorists, each of us has lower odds of encountering a terrorist.

Nine green marbles and one red one with the face of a troll

Illustration by author, emoji by EmojiOne (open source)

You can picture it like this. Let’s say you have 100 marbles in a jar: 90 green ones and 10 red ones, mixed together. If you reach in, you have a 10 in 100 chance of getting a red marble, right? Now add another 100 marbles, but this time 99 green and one red. Your odds of getting a red marble are now lower: 11 in 200, which is about one in 18.

Even though you added a red marble, your odds of getting a red marble went down. It’s the same with adding refugees to the US population, except that the odds are, year after year after year, none of them would be a red marble.

Now I expect some will still argue that if even one refugee ever kills one American, that’s an American who otherwise wouldn’t have died — ban all refugees! Well first, if we followed that absolutist logic, we’d have to prevent anyone at all from coming into the United States.

I’m OK with that, too, some will say.

Well, we’d also have to stop Americans from crossing state lines: anyone from Alabama, Alaska, Arizona — all the way to Wyoming — is far more likely to kill you than a refugee is. Come to think of it, by this logic maybe we should stop Americans from having babies, or just require that they be raised in captivity. After all, every addition to the population has a small chance of turning out to be a killer, and even one is too many, right?

But we don’t need to resort to this reductio ad absurdum. One last time, let’s just do the arithmetic.

In exchange for avoiding the extremely small risk from refugees, a ban helps ISIS recruit actual terrorists, while pushing away allies and weakening our ability to fight.

You add a tiny bit of safety, but take away a lot. That’s a bad deal, as someone might say.

And note what’s missing from this equation: our values. It assumes that preserving them is worth nothing at all.

A ban against refugees, in America?

Any way you look at it, it’s the wrong answer.

Posted in Politics & Society | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Is Bannon Just “Defending American Culture?” Without Immigration, It Wouldn’t Exist

[Also published at Huffington Post.] Some readers have challenged my assertion that Steve Bannon is an ethnic nationalist, on the premise that Bannon is just defending the Judeo-Christian culture that has helped make America what it is.

I maintain that his ethnic nationalism is proven by his own words and actions.

But I also want to push back on the popular argument that America’s culture is both essentially Judeo-Christian and needs to be defended from foreign influences. American culture is of great value, but this view of it is ahistorical, and encourages the same intolerance that drives ethnic nationalism.

Statue of Liberty at night

Photo by 0X010C via Wikimedia Commons

To argue for it is to dispute that America was founded on Enlightenment reason and religious tolerance. That means you have to fight the founders themselves. Here’s Thomas Jefferson, who with James Madison led the writing of the First Amendment:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their “legislature” should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. (Letter to the Danbury Baptists.)

That “wall of separation” has been cited in Supreme Court rulings on church and state ever since.

That’s not to say that Judeo-Christian values didn’t inform American culture. Of course they did. For example: Old Testament teachings on justice and the law, and Jesus’ teachings on equality and caring for each other — especially strangers.

But centuries of immigration have shown that American culture can be, and is, adopted by anyone who believes in American democracy, whether or not they’re Christians or Jews. (Not that it looks likely Jews would really be given equal status by Bannon, who propounds a distorted version of the Church Militant.)

And there’s more to it than that. Immigrants don’t just assimilate into our culture, they create it.

Without immigrants, there is no American culture.

For example, without African-Americans (whose original immigration was actually an abduction), our music, art, literature, drama, dance, and movies would be very, very different. Even country and bluegrass music — identified so strongly with people of white, Northern European origin — wouldn’t exist without the blues.

So it is with the contributions of cultures from all over the world. The addition of new and different people has continually renewed American culture, making it what it is — a big part of which, in this future-facing land, is what it will be.

If we think of the founding of America as a statement, its subject was Equality.

Its predicate is the history of a nation where all are welcome who swear allegiance to the Constitution.

The Constitution is our true creed.

Posted in Politics & Society | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

President Bannon Wants to Make America an Ethnic Homeland

[Also published at Huffington Post.] As reporters dig into Steve Bannon’s past and present, it’s becoming clear that he’s perfectly aware we face virtually no threat from the carefully vetted refugees his Executive Order turns away, over the signature of his protegé Donald Trump.

Steve Bannon

Steve Bannon, 2010. Photo by Don Irvine (Creative Commons)

Bannon sees the real threat not as terrorist attacks, but as the dilution of ethnic identity. From USA Today:

“These are not Jeffersonian democrats,” he said of immigrants to Europe from Muslim majority countries in April of last year. “These are not people with thousands of years of democracy in their DNA coming up here.”

“To be brutally frank, I mean Christianity is dying in Europe, and Islam is on the rise,” he said in an interview in January 2016 with a Breitbart reporter.

During an interview in February 2016, Bannon expressed alarm about China and Islam…. “You have an expansionist Islam and you have an expansionist China. Right? They are motivated. They’re arrogant. They’re on the march. And they think the Judeo-Christian West is on the retreat.”

Bannon, impresario of the alt-right hub Breibart, is an ethnic nationalist. He believes American culture is inherently Christian, and that it is bound to the “DNA” of Europeans.

That belief is inherently Un-American — because “American,” unlike “Chinese,” “German,” “Italian,” “Russian,” or so many others, has never been an ethnic identity.

You’re not an American because you’re a member of a tribe. You’re an American because you’re loyal to the Constitution.

That’s it. That’s the point.

That’s the miracle that generations of Americans, from all over the world, have built, and have fought and died to defend. Anyone who supports what Bannon is trying to do is betraying that legacy of sacrifice, and betraying what truly makes America great.

Many who do support Bannon are sure they’re not bigots — they just value the culture that gave us what we have, and think it’s worth preserving. Of course it is. But that culture isn’t found in skin color, headgear, or religious observance. It’s found in hearts, inspired by a shared idea. E Pluribus Unum.

America is not an ethnic homeland, it’s that idea. It’s precious, powerful idea —but not an indestructible one.

We must defend it.

Posted in Politics & Society | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Whatever Happened to Sharia Law? And Other Questions for Right Wing Media Fans

(Also published at Huffington Post.) Whatever happened to declaring Sharia law? Obama’s almost done, and it’s really beginning to look like he may not get around to it.

And how is he going to fit in taking our guns away? Jan. 20 will be here before you know it; he’s really gonna have to hustle.

Now that I think of it, where are the death panels? We were guaranteed death panels as part of Obamacare. So far they can’t seem to get organized.

Whatever happened to Sharia law?

And when do we get going on the runaway inflation? It’s been stuck at historically low levels since 2008.

And the soaring unemployment? That hasn’t showed up either — instead we got the longest job creation streak in history, unemployment cut in half, and now wages are rising. Sheesh.

And the New Black Panthers? Two of them showed up outside a polling place in Philadelphia for a few hours in 2008, and that was that. They were supposed to be running the White House with help from the Muslim Brotherhood — what the heck happened there?

Has Common Core made any progress in turning all our kids gay?

When exactly do we get taken over by the UN?

Anyone seen the FEMA concentration camps?

And how come the US Army hasn’t got around to invading Texas? When do we use all those tunnels under Walmarts? Talk about a snafu.

You know, as hard as it is to imagine…

It’s almost like the right wing media was full of it.

Posted in Journalism, Politics & Society | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Putin Wins Simply by Showing That a Clown Can Be Elected President of the United States

(Also published at Huffington Post.) Is our next president a Russian agent? Because of Donald Trump’s relentless shilling for Vladimir Putin, that once unthinkable question is being asked seriously by major news outlets.

To at least some degree, the answer, obviously, is yes. An agent is someone who acts on behalf of another, and wittingly or not, Trump does exactly that for Russia.

Photo of Donald Trump

Donald Trump, Aug. 19, 2015 (Wikimedia Commons)

But looked at from Putin’s point of view, it hardly matters what Trump might or might not be up to.

Because if Putin’s goal is to delegitimize American democracy, he’s already won.

How better to delegitimize democracy than by showing that an utter clown can be elected president of the United States?

Trump doesn’t have to do much more of anything for Putin in order to be counted as one of the most successful Russian agents ever.

All he has to do, starting January 20, is show up for work every day.

Posted in Politics & Society | Tagged , | 1 Comment

The 2 Reasons This Is the 1 Time We Needed the Electoral College

(Also published at Huffington Post.) I could hardly have been more shocked and disappointed that Donald Trump won the election. But I strongly opposed the idea of the Electoral College overturning the results.

Certainly Trump seemed to fail the fundamental test defined by Electoral College inventor Alexander Hamilton: he was unqualified.

[The Electoral College process] affords a moral certainty,: that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union….” (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 68)

Almost sounds like Hamilton and Trump had already met.

But democracy means you have to live with other people’s opinions, and that would usually include their opinions of what “qualified” means.

But then came the deal breakers — and my support for the Hamilton Electors:

  1. Corruption.
  2. Foreign control.

Alexander Hamilton portrait by John Trumbull, 1806 (Public domain via Wikimedia Commons)


Here’s what else Hamilton warned about:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?

Consider — and I mean really, think about the fact that we’re actually facing these things:

1. Trump refuses to release his tax returns, refuses to divest himself of his global business interests, and insists on involving his children in both his businesses and the business of government. Foreign governments that want to corrupt our government have only to do favors for one or more of Trump’s businesses or children. Foreign governments are already doing that. And that means that Trump has corrupted the White House before he has even moved in. Furthermore, he is violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which means he will be (or should be) vulnerable to impeachment the day he takes office.

2. Trump continues to display a bizarre and frightening loyalty to Russia’s thuggish autocrat, in opposition to America’s national interests. We know that:

  • Russia waged a cyber warfare attack on our election in favor of Trump.
  • Trump encouraged them to do it, and repeatedly exploited it during his campaign.
  • Trump hired as his former campaign manager a person with deep ties to the previous Russian puppet regime in Ukraine, and continues to consult with him.
  • Trump’s campaign removed language from the Republican platform calling for the arming of Ukrainians resisting Russia’s invasion.
  • Trump has steadfastly praised Russia’s thuggish, murdering autocrat while aggressively rejecting the U.S. intelligence community for its consensus finding Vladimir Putin hacked our election.
  • Trump’s son Donald has said this of the Trump Organization’s deep ties to Russia: “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” And remember, this Organization has repeatedly gone bankrupt, and has trouble getting loans.
  • And see point 1: Trump refuses to do the things that might, possibly, clear all this up.

If Trump could clear all this up, I’d support the Electoral College playing its traditional role, and simply ratifying the election result, no matter how awful I think it is.

But Trump won’t clear all this up.

And as long as that’s true, he isn’t just unqualified.

He’s a threat to democracy.

Posted in Politics & Society | Tagged , , | Leave a comment