Just a little over five months after the devastating Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States made a daring raid on the Imperial Homeland. The responsibility to conduct the raid fell upon then Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle, a revered test pilot for the U.S. Army Air Corps. Sixteen specially modified B-25B bombers carrying 80 men took off at night from the USS Hornet on April 18, 1942, which was positioned 500 nautical miles off the Japanese mainland. The plan had to be rushed as the Hornet was sighted further out than expected. The Army Airmen participating in Doolittle's raid understood that they were most likely on a suicide mission. Their intended targets were military and industrial targets in Tokyo, Yokohama, Kobe, Osaka, Nagoya and Yokosuka. One of the sixteen planes had to bail before it reached its target. Remarkably despite losing 15 aircraft, only four of eighty men were killed in the Doolittle Raid, eight became POWS (but three were executed), and one crew was interned after landing in Vladavostok, Soviet Russia. They were held in the USSR for a year and were "smuggled out" (probably arranged by the Russian Secret Police NKVD because the USSR could not release the prisoners because of the neutrality pact with Japan).
Doolittle expected to be court marshaled as his raid lost 15 of 16 aircraft in pin prick air strikes. But back in the United States, the daring Doolittle Raids was celebrated as a morale building first strike against Imperial Japan. The Japanese were caught off guard by the Tokyo Raid and the Imperial Military rearranged forces, which might have turned the tide in the Battle of Midway in June 1942.
Doolittle received the Medal of Honor from President Franklin Roosevelt, with the citation:
"For conspicuous leadership above and beyond the call of duty, involving personal valor and intrepidity at an extreme hazard to life. With the apparent certainty of being forced to land in enemy territory or to perish at sea, Lt. Col. Doolittle personally led a squadron of Army bombers, manned by volunteer crews, in a highly destructive raid on the Japanese mainland." Doolittle was eventually promoted as a Lt. General and became the highest ranking active reserve officer in modern times. Sometimes the bigger battle is won through morale boosting and reminding America of its mission.
A week before the crucial Republican Wisconsin primary, Governor Scott Walker called into WTMJ AM's Charlie Sykes program to endorse Senator Ted Cruz for President.
Wisconsin is important in the GOP primary process, as it is a winner-take-all state at a time in which Donald Trump needs to convincingly win delegates to lock up the Republican nomination. If Trump fails to win in the Badger State, it is increasingly likely that the GOP will have a contested convention in Cleveland.
Governor Walker withdrew from the 2016 Republican Presidential field in September 2015, well before any ballots were cast. This may be attributable to running a prematurely bloated campaign, lackluster debate performances and wanting to clear the field so Republicans could elect a conservative. Walker obviously had animus against Donald Trump's campaign, as Walker lamented how the 2016 campaign had devolved into personal attacks.
However, Governor Walker's full throated endorsement of Cruz for President is noteworthy for his commitment. Walker is a youthful politician with a bright future. And there are no term limits for Cheesehead Governors. Walker won three gubernatorial elections in four years (including the 2012 recall election). If Walker endorsement translates to a resounding victory for Cruz in the Wisconsin primary, Walker vaults back into the 2016 GOP Election cycle.
If Walker's endorsement is seen as turning point in the primaries, Walker would be a hero to conservatives by preventing an unprincipled populist enough delegates for a first ballot nomination victory. If Cruz is able to win the nomination (even in a contested convention second ballot), Walker can be seen as Kingmaker and Cruz may feel compelled to reward him as a running mate, along with his virtues of geographical balance, outsider appeal and reputation to fight progressives (along with his sizable donors list). It is akin to Florida in 2008 when former Governor Charlie Crist (FL- R-I-D) late endorsement of Senator John McCain vaulting his prospects, without the orange tan and RINO tendencies.
But in the event that the GOP Cleveland Convention becomes deadlocked, Walker becomes an attractive alternative choice. Walker could appeal to evangelicals, conservatives, populists, angry "Reagan Democrats". Walker can rightly claim that he is an outsider, with a track record of accomplishments and who has fought political correctness and unions and won. Walker dropped out because of needless name calling, so he has not alienated large segments of the party.
Recently, I took a trip to a quiet rural retreat where there was no television, WiFi was non-existent and internet was iffy on my cellular phone. In times past, if one quickly finished reading the books brought on a rainy weekend, it would be time to bide time by polishing doorknobs. Instead, I was able to reach for my Kindle e-ink reader and the literary world was at my fingertips.
I have reveled over Kindles since they initially came on the market. This travel saga rekindled my appreciation for the Amazon's extraordinary e-book reader. In fact, my household is so fond of our Kindles that each of them is named. For example, my first Kindle was dubbed Isadore (named after the patron saint of libraries).
While I now own several Kindles, I brought my beloved Kindle 2 Keyboard on the get-away. The Kindle 2 series had two types of Whispernet (the complimentary Amazon 3G series). Fortunately, “Striker” was on the AT&T network, where I was getting five bars of coverage. So I downloaded a number of samples and tried to choose my next title. Several of the sample books displayed no more than the table of contents. A couple of sample choices included some of the preface and the first chapter. By surveying the samples, I could narrow down my choice. In fact, reading the samples eliminated titles from a couple of favorite authors based upon style and content.
When I made my pick, I was able to buy the book and download it in one click and read away. I was excited about a couple of key passages so I highlighted the notes and shared them via Facebook and Twitter through the Whispernet 3G connection.
Although I finished a good chunk of the new book, but my eyes were closing while my mind was still active. Fortunately, this generation of Kindles still had the text to speech option and built in speaker so a synthetic voice could read me to sleep. The next morning, my traveling companion who is a techno-luddite seem amazed that I bought and read another book even in this remote retreat.
The Kindle came in handy as I purused other books because of the built in dictionary. The Kindle 2 has a keyboard which is OK for short notetaking, but one should not expect to pen the great American novel on it, and transferring the files can be challenging.
The feature that I treasure from this version of the Kindle E-reader is the “Experimental” internet browser. Later versions of the Kindle e-reader restricted internet access to the Kindle Store and Wikipedia. The Kindle 2 allowed for some web surfing of text based websites. This was a God send for a news junkie like me.
One new glitch from “Striker” is that it would not display Wikipedia listings neither from the experimental browser nor the automated Wikipedia search. As the weekend progressed, I was disappointed as I had grown accustomed to spot checking facts and could not do so easily with this Kindle. Perhaps on a related note, this Kindle was not recognizing the Kininstant bookmark shortener.
“Striker” is my third Kindle e-reader, as two had to be replaced because of screen problems thru Amazon’s unconditional return policy (at the time) for Kindles. The design was a marked improvement over the large cheese wedge Kindle 1. That being said, the unit did have a replaceable battery and allowed SD card storage. But the only difference that “Striker” had over my first K2 was that it was on the AT&T Whispernet which could get international 3G as opposed to just the Sprint CDMA Whispernet in the USA.
Alas, “Striker” was showing its age, as the Lithium Polymer battery could only hold a charge for several hours and then would immediately drain out. Perhaps this was due to battery memory as well as a battery which needed to be replaced. I have considered acquiring a Kindle replacement battery for around $25 but I worry about doing the installation myself and bricking it. Unfortunately, computer repair shops don’t want to take on the challenge of installation either.
Most people would be inclined just to get a new device, as surely Amazon has developed the latest and greatest e-reader. But a Thrifty Techie realizes that it ain’t necessarily so. The Kindle Voyager and Kindle Paperwhite models (7th & 6th Generations) do have lit screens for night reading and extended battery life. The Kindles has have some new features like Vocabulary Builder and X-Ray title summaries. Alas, when Amazon giveth, it has also taken away. No longer do e-readers have speakers or headphone jacks, so text to speech is out of the question (it is available on the Kindle Fire models though). If you pay $50 more, a Voyage or Paperwhite can have 3G capabilities, but that it now restricted to the Kindle Store and Wikipedia. Amazon also sells an 8 Gig Kindle Fire tablet for $49 (which has text to speech) but the color backlit screen can cause eye fatigue for prolonged reading stints and may be tough the see reading outside. From a Thrifty-Techie’s perspective, newer isn’t necessarily better.
I was resigned to make do with what I had, but an imminent Amazon Kindle software update forced my hand. As I was prepping my vintage e-readers for the mandatory download, I noticed that “Herbie 2", a Kindle Keyboard 3rd Gen (with WiFi) that I inherited from an inlaw was showing dead pixels. These e-reader screens can be quite sensitive to pressure. Herbie 1 had to be replaced when a teacup poodle sat on it. All but the top of the screen displayed correctly, but it would be maddening to use it as an e-reader.
After some investigation on E-bay, I found an upgraded used Kindle Keyboard 3rd Gen with WiFi and 3G for $32 with shipping. This means that it would have text to speech, the ungoverned experimental browser with about 4 gig of storage (enough for 3500 books). This design does not have a touch screen, which I consider is an advantage on a dedicated e-reader, so as not having fingerprints on the screen. The downsides are that it does not come with a power cord (but I already have several). Another variable is the condition of the battery.
Although I will probably have to manually do the software update, it seems like it is worth the trade off. So I am happy to include another Kindle into the Thrifty-Techie family.
Sean Penn is a progressive activist actor who of late has been championing the cause of Climate Change. Penn's pontifications about cult-like thinking that he associates with those who oppose the campaign to combat anthropogenic climate change calls for some consideration.
Firstly, Penn referred to Fox Network Thinking. Oh, really? (Not O'Reilly). This may be news to Sean but the sensibilities and dispositions vary between various channels, even those owned by News Corp. The Fox broadcast network, which Penn cited, will be launching a series next year called "Lucifer". That is not a show to which most viewers of the Fox News Channel (FNC) would cotton. It would be fair to characterize the Fox Business Channel as being more libertarian leaning, whereas Fox News Channel has shifted from a right center news organization in 2012 to more of an establishment Republican (ala Karl Rove) oriented network with some patches of Populism (namely O'Reilly and to some extent Sean Hannity). Factor that (sic).
Penn seems to think that anyone who disputes Climate Change consensus does not care about quality of life in any sense. Obviously, Penn is oblivious to the Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg who buys into man-made climate change, but believes that it is more effective to solve other world health issues, like clean water and malaria.
It is hard to claim that theSociété de Calcul Mathématique has been brainwashed by "Fox network thinking." But Penn seems to know better.
Considering the Alinsky-like tarnishing of targets by painting them as Fox network cultists, fascistically condemning anyone who does not tow the party line and zealously refusing to engage in scientific exchanges makes inquiring minds wonder if Penn is projecting his cult charges. Wonder what really is in Penn's cocktail cup. Hey Kool-Aid!
Friday November 13th was a busy night in the City of Lights. Paris was hosting a friendly soccer match between the French and the German national teams in which French President Francois Hollande attended at the Stade de France. Former American Vice President Al Gore was conducting "Live Earth", a marathon 24 hour webcast concert to raise consciences about Climate Change at the foot of the Eiffel Tower featuring luminaries like Duran Duran. The Eagles of Death Metal, a southern California rock band was playing the storied Bataclan music hall. And the bars and cafes in the 11th arrondissement were packed with revelers.
But Paris was rocked with a half dozen coordinated bombings and shootings. A terrorist tried to come late to the soccer match in Saint Denny but was turned away by security, hence he blew himself up outside of the Stade de France. Several minutes later, his comrades in arms exploded their suicide vests nearby. This was a probable assassination attempt against President Hollande with the intent to kill more from the potential of 80,000 spectators.
Five minutes after the bombings at the soccer match, gunmen with submachine guns began shooting people in the sidewalk cafes and bars in the 10th and 11th arrondissements.
But where the most carnage occurred was at the Bataclan Music Hall in which several terrorists took hundreds hostage, killing at least 80 with many more critically injured. These barbarians deliberately shot spectators in wheel chairs one by one. If there was any doubt as to the motivation of these savages, they shouted Allahu Akbar( ("God is Great" the war chant of jihadists) and "Free Syria" as they reloaded and continued their atrocities.
The world sought to show solidarity through gatherings of remembrance and sympathetic light displays. Yet some protested these humanistic expressions as the same consciousness does not occur when lives are lost by Palestinians or in Africa. Black Lives Matter activists reached out to social media to proclaim "F#ck Pray for Paris". And after some progressive politicians like socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) made pro forma expressions of sympathy, they still maintain that Climate Change is more of a threat to the world today than radical Islamist terrorism.
Hence it is ironic to consider the irony that Duran Duran kicked off the "24 Hours of Reality" with "What Are the Chances?" to pressure the Climate Change Summit which is scheduled to be held in Paris at the beginning of December. The ponderous lyrics muse about our place in the world. Yet idealists perseverate on the theory of anthropogenic global warming over a 100 years yet ignore the danger which is right down the boulevard.
So, what are the chances Of seeing an uptick of violence from forces creating chaos and tyranny? ~Quite likely. But what of solidarity against barbarism? The foundation exists amongst those who love liberty and the value of individuals. Alas, it is unknown how those noble sentiments will hold up during the Storm.
Former Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) was recently interviewed on Sirius-XM radio by Pete Dominick in which he disparaged "The Cruz Effect". Coburn chaffed at lawmakers being put in a position to make desperate stands about legislative items which he believes have no chance of overcoming a veto. This was not the first time in which Coburn raised this reluctance to futilely fight. Coburn said similar things to Joe Scarborough on MSNBC's Morning Joe in 2013.
Senator Coburn was a 20 year veteran of the Senate and had developed a reputation for being "Dr. No" for his conservative intransigence. Yet before retiring to tend to his Colon Cancer after the 2014 election cycle, Senator Coburn exhibited an animus against Tea Party types, with Huffington Post headlines bragging of a Coburn Smack Down of the Tea Party. Coburn was quick to condem Senator Cruz's shut down tactic on Obamacare. Some Tea Party constituents wondered if he was a Charlatan, Traitor or Patriot for his go along to get along Senatorial approach gun control.
Although he is no longer in the Senate, Senator Coburn is pushing a Cocktail Party approach to things. In Oklahoma, it is not hard to sound conservative and promise to repeal Obamacare, protect the second amendment or now even to defund Planned Parenthood. But where the rubber meets the road in legislating in the District of Calamity, intentions and ardor matter.
When speaking to Scarborough about Obamacare in 2013, Senator Coburn rightly points out that Republicans did not have 67 votes to overcome an expected Presidential veto from Barack Obama. Right. So when has either party had vetoproof supermajorities in the Senate? Not in nearly half a century. In the 89th Congress (1965-67), Democrats held 68 seats in the Senate and 295 House seats. During the New Deal, Democrats had veto proof majorities in the 74th and 75th Congresses (1935-39). During Reconstruction after the Civil War, there were veto proof majorities for Republicans in the 39th, 40th, 41st and 43rd Congresses.
So having an assured veto proof majority is a rarity in American polity. Nowadays, the benchmark seems to be reaching Cloture (now set at 60 votes in the Senate). After the election of Barack Obama and the eventual seating of Senator Al Franken (D-MN), Democrats had Cloture proof majority until Senator Scott Brown, the elected replacement for Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) was seated (replacing interim Senator Paul Kirk (D-MA)).
So it is fanciful for a Republican to think that their measures will have veto-proof (or Cloture proof) majorities by party votes alone through regular legislative procedures. But does that mean not doing anything because you are unsure if it will be enacted?
The reason why the comments of a former Republican Senator matter is that it epitomizes the conflict on Capitol Hill for the next Speaker and is a reason why outsider Republican Presidential candidates like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) are leading in the polls.
What has been called the Surrender Caucus is only happy to fight for bills which they are certain will be enacted. Sure, you can campaign conservatively for the "rubes" back home, but politicians who are comfortably ensconced in the District of Calamity Cocktail Party won't spend any political capital for causes in which victory is uncertain. Hence they surrender without a real fight.
For example, with the recent effort to defund Planned Parenthood, there were attempts to attach a rider onto a Continuing Resolution to divert funding for womens' health from the embattled abortionists to community health centers. The Byrd Rule for budget bills only required 51 votes for passage (avoiding a Cloture Vote). But President Obama promised to veto the CR and Republican Leadership feared that it might be blamed for a government shut down. So they surrendered without a fight and Senate Majority "Leader" Mitch McConnell jammed down a clean CR through December 11th. This was not a one-off but was indicative of a pattern, which Tea Party renegades like Cruz have exposed for the shame that it is.
It might have been messy, but having must pass legislation like the Highway Bill, a Continuing Resolution or a real Congressional Budget with liberally unappealing riders might have forced the hand of President Obama to shut the government down. If the Republicans had a better communication strategy, they might not automatically be blamed for shutting the government down when it was an Executive Branch veto which did the dirty deed. As the branches sought to craft a resolution, concessions might be extracted. So in the case of Obamacare (a.k.a. the Affordable Care Act), a nigglesome provision like the employer mandate could be up for grabs, which eventually would kill the clunky and unpopular system. But that involves some guts to take a political risk and then be ready to fight hard in the media and on Capitol Hill.But it's so much easier to, echoing Mr. Coburn: "Dingity, we tried but we just didn't have the votes to do it. Too bad (but we'll still rail against it for the next election).
The House Republican Caucus is set to nominate another candidate for Speaker. Despite the entreaties of Speaker John Boehner that he is retiring after the crowing achievement of his Congressional career of having Pope Francis speak before a Joint Session of Congress, the reality is that he was set to resign because he would lose a Vacate the Chair vote. Boehner could not win the necessary votes in the GOP Caucus because the Freedom Caucus both wants a leader who will fight but will also vote on their legislation rather than dictate what will be voted on (and will will or will pointedly lose and be a campaign issue).
In the larger Presidential Primary picture, many insiders wonder why political novices like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina lead in the polls. Perhaps they are not seem corrupted by the system and are talking a good game about fighting the power.
Senator Coburn's cautionary comments about legislating are true enough, but they reveal that establishment Republicans don't really want to fight. Some Tea Party elected officials have not sold out to the Establishment. This explains why Leaders are anxious to primary rebellious Tea Party types and bad mouth others. Since Republicans have not had a Veto Proof majority since 1875, is it their role to be Democrat lite, only proposing what can get passed and signed by a Democrat President? What about the years when there were Republican Majorities in both Chambers of Congress and Republican President? It does not seem like things were much different then.
Pundits have noted that Congress has a similar favorability rating to the Hermit Kingdom of North Korea with communist dictator Kim-Il-ung. This might explain why disaffected voters might welcome a congressional Cruz missile in the form of fighting for principles and causes. This will be put to the test during the Republican primaries. But political junkies might get early indications how this "fight to fight" will succeed in the Speaker's Race.
Recently, Campus Reform made headlines as it reported upon a "Bias Free Language Guide" posted on an official University of New Hampshire website which noted problematic words in American (suggested substitute "Residents of America") lexicon. Such inclusive language sought to encourage "[C]ommunication that does not stereotype or demean people based on personal characteristics.” This suggested UNC PC Newspeak rationale is that: “Each step of inclusion moves us closer to a full democracy”.
To that end, campus skulls full of mush were encouraged to use non-binary pronouns with spivak pronunciations like ze/zie/hir as are "often used by trans, genderqueer, and gender non-conforming people.” So there's nothing like paying thousands of dollars for an university education, only to finish sounding as if one has a speech impediment (another verboten phrase - perhaps unconventional pronunciations) engender conversation on inclusive language use. Would you like fries with that?
Even referring to gender-neutral bathrooms was considered "problematic" to the authors of the "Bias Free Language Guide" as it reflects ciscentrism, which is defined as a " pervasive and institutionalized system that places transgender people
in the ‘other’ category and treats their needs and identities as less
important than those of cisgender people.” Such ciscentrism can also include the lack of gender neutral lockers and residences. Perhaps this will be featured on "Caitliyn" (ne Bruce) Jenner's new E! television reality show "I am Cait". .Bully for zie/zi (sic).
Demonyms are sensitive subjects because of the sense of latent American imperialism. If one were to identify as "American", that precludes other countries in the hemisphere. Hence, the Bias Free Guide Language Guide suggests "Resident of America". But that frankly seems incorrect, as it excludes the other hemispheric inhabitants of the continents. If one were to say "Resident of the United States", it also excludes Mexicans still residing South of the Rio Grande, as they live in "Los estados unidos Mexicanos". So once again, there is the quandary of including an uninclusive identification: "Resident of the United States of America" or "American" for short.
Of course it would be crass to politically correct types to refer to American citizens. But it is problematic to refer to "illegal aliens". It may be acceptable to refer to such persons as "undocumented immigrant" but it is recommended to call them "person seeking asylum" or "refugee" instead. The UNH PC Newspeak makes saying foreigner problematic, as it is deemed better to say "international people".
As concerned as the UNH Bias Free Language Guide is about people, there is little doubt that our PC betters would still refer to abortion victims as "clups of cells" or perhaps of fetus (of what?) rather than unborn persons so as not to offend progressive womyn (sic).
Examples of Bias Free Language Guide's Problematic Lexicon
Other problematic phrases included: "sexual preference", "speech impediment", overweight (as arbitrary), "freshman", (why not sophomore -- a wise fool?), "chairman" and "dumb". It's a good thing that the latter expression was denounced as there would be no way in UNH PC Newspeak to convey the merit of this Bias Free Language Guide.
After a few days of "problematic" publicity in conservative media circles such as Laura Ingraham, University of New Hampshire President Mark W. Huddleston made an emphatic statement about free speech. This peon to free speech should seem unremarkable in a state with a motto of "Live Free or Die".
Huddleston's denials, however, seem somewhat hollow as the Bias Free Language Guide was part of UNH official website material and it referred to Counseling Center training on" Microagressions: Subtle but Detrimental". The Bias Free Language Guide seems like companion scholarship, if that is politically correct to say.
Universities ought to be citadels of free speech and a Chatauqua of ideas. Alas today it seems to foster the inculcation of anarchistic intellectual indoctrination under a polity governance of raised eyebrows. Sorry to say that ciscentrism sounds like politically correct crap which poses as inclusive language but really redefines rhetoric to an unreality that is antithetical. No wonder George Orwell opined about the risks about truth telling in a delusional society.
Republican Presidential hopeful Donald Trump held a news conference before a rally in Dubuque, Iowa. Mr. Trump called on a reporter but Jorge Ramos jumped the journalistic queue and pressed his invariable query advocating immigration regularization for illegal aliens.
Trump rebuffed Ramos for overstepping his recognition. As Ramos lectured the candidate that he could not deport 11 million people and insisting that he had the right to talk, Mr. Trump signaled to security in order to have the unruly Univision anchor escorted from the room.
After the event, Jorge Ramos sought to rally the press against Donald Trump as an extremist . When interviewed by George Stephanopolis of ABC News (which Ramos is affiliated with via Fusion) Ramos claimed:
As a journalist you have to take a stand. I think the best journalism
happens when you take a stand and when it comes to racism,
discrimination, corruption, public life, dictatorship or human rights,
as journalists, we are not only required but we are forced to take a
stand and clearly when Mr. Trump is talking about immigration in an
extreme way, we have to confront him and I think that’s what I did
yesterday.
Be that as it may, Ramos clearly was not called upon in the initial exchange. But because Ramos things that he has the right to do so and it suits his purposes, he will break the rules. Not unlike what what illegal immigrants do.
Clearly, Jorge Ramos is passionate about advocating a comprehensive immigration reform which would result in regularization, which is anathematic to Mr. Trump meteoric campaign. But reporters ought to be reporting and not advocating, especially when questioning at press conferences.
Mr. Ramos seems to think that he has many special rights. Ramos reasserted his Mexican heritage and is a proud participant in American and Mexican elections. The American government does not take a stand on dual citizens voting in foreign elections. But that seems like a special right which emboldens Mr. Ramos and inspires him to yearn for other compadres to share in that privilege of blurred lines.
But is it right for a journalist to be biased against a subject who one is covering? It has long been shown that the media leans left. In the post Fairness Doctrine broadcasting, commentators have clearly partisan perspectives. As long as these biases are clearly disclosed, the audience can discern that the perspective can be jaundiced. But Mr. Ramos was a reporter who argued with his subject out of turn. Does Ramos believe that he has the special right to interrupt or advocate?
There is an idiomatic Castillian (peninsular Spanish) expression "¡Que cara dura!" which can be literally translated as "What a hard face!" but is captured in the Yiddish expression "What chutzpah!". Jumping the journalistic line and then justifying it as taking a stand against extremism epitomizes that idiom. Moreover, posing as a reporter and then acting akin to a "Black Lives Matter" agitator does not seem right. Furthermore, aggressively covering Republicans when his family is involved in the Hillary 2016 campaign is a misappropriated right.
The first prime time 2016 Republican Presidential debate featured the top ten candidates based on national polling. Some complained that having so many politicians on the stage gave short shrift to substantive consideration about the issues, in so far that candidates would have ten minutes or less each in the spotlight. Still the exercise allowed America to become acquainted with the aspiring GOP nominees, discern their demeanor as well as shed some light on where they stand politically.
Based upon polling popularity for the blockbuster Fox News debate was Donald Trump, the billionaire businessman who bravado and brash campaigning has stolen much of the early political coverage. As the front-runner, he got the most attention and harsh questions from the moderating panel. Early in the debate, Megyn Kelly inquired about how Mr. Trump he referred to women --
“Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women.
You’ve called women you don’t like 'fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals.'"
Trump tried to brush off the challenge by qupping that he was only referring to Rosie O’Donnell. This was neither well received by the booing audience nor Megyn Kelly who insisted that these degrading insults were directed at more than the so called “Queen of Mean”. Trump shifted his argument to noting that America is too politically correct and we do not have time for that.
Bluntness and being anti-PC reflects the anger of the so called Silent Majority who have propelled Trump to the top of the summer polls. But this retort was unsatisfactory to an abrasive executive who seems oriented to intimidation. Trump interjected that he thought that Megyn Kelly was disrespecting him and not being nice. Trump asserted that he had always treated her well and Trump passive-aggressively asserted he might have to rethink that consideration, but that he would never do that.
After the debate ended, Trump (or his staff) was up until 3:45 a.m. tweeting. This social media sharing attacked Megyn Kelly and he also retweeted a message declaring that Kelly was a bimbo.
Not to be outdone, during a day after media appearance on CNN, Trump berated the Kelly File host by saying: “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever.”
Whatever could Mr. Trump meant (sic)? The best the Trump team could spin on that pointed choice of phrase was that Mr. Trump meant “whenever”. Sure.
Aside from boorish bimbo eruptions concerning Megyn Kelly, some Trump-etteers complain that Kelly is not a conservative. That may well be true, but over 90% of the press corps is liberal. Tim Russert was a liberal from upstate New York who would ask hard gotcha questions of both sides hoisting a politico by their own petards Megyn Kelly seems cut of the same cloth, though it was troubling to hear post debate softballs which Kelly tossed with DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
It is foolish to expect as a Republican, which Trump now says that he is, that he will receive fawning treatment from the political media. But if Mr. Trump feels threatened by pointed political questions, how would he react in the Oval Office against our adversaries or even allies?
There was scuttlebutt that big GOP donors and the Republican establishment had ordered a take down of Trump. Instead of the assault mainly coming from Trump’s rivals to the “Game of Thrones”, the attack stemmed from the biased panelists of Fox News. Granted, they do have Karl Rove on all the time, it is dubious that FNC takes their marching orders from “the Architect”. How about aggressive journalism which asks tough questions, trying to create controversy and attract eyeballs?
In response to the misogynistic musings coming from “The Donald”, Eric Erickson uninvited Mr. Trump from participating in the the Red State Gathering in Atlanta. Erickson wrote:
“[I] also think that while Mr. Trump resonates with a lot of people with his bluntness, including me to a degree, there are just real lines of decency a person running for President should not cross.
His comment was inappropriate. It is unfortunate to have to disinvite him. But I just don’t want someone on stage who gets a hostile question from a lady and his first inclination is to imply it was hormonal. It just was wrong.”
Now Trump-etteers discount Erickson as just a tool of the establishment. It seems in Trump territory, it’s always someone else’s fault. That seems like such a familiar modus operandi, except there was no rush to blame Bush (for now).
Res ipsa locquitur is a Latin phrase for “It speaks for itself”. Trump’s pugnacious predilections to berate women whom he dislikes epitomizes the “war on women” gist of Kelly’s hard question. Implying that Kelly’s questions stemmed from menses is sexist, disrespectful and degrading. Suggested synonyms from Webster's dictionary for boorish are: course, uncouth, loutish, churlish.
The derogatory demeanor in the exchanges with Megyn Kelly speaks directly to Trump’s reputation for dealing with women with whom he disagrees. This was not a off the cuff quip, this is a persistent pattern of behavior. Are these qualities which Americans wish to see stemming from the Oval Office.
"I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we're in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don't have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know, So I'm warning you, tread very f---ing lightly, because what I'm going to do to you is going to be f---ing disgusting. You understand me?"
Politics isn’t beanbag but such bullying behavior is remarkable. In an environment in which the Lamestream Media lap dogs cower so as not to lose access to the White House, I shudder to see such thuggish tactics employed on professional practitioners of the freedom of the press. Trump put little distance from his errant aide. After all, Cohen was just doing his boss’s bidding and using intimidation tactics that seem culled from the Art of the Deal (1987).
Then there was the McCain mutiny. During a candidate forum in Iowa in July 2015, Frank Luntz got Donald Trump to comment on Senator John McCain (R-AZ). McCain had recently called the 15,000 people who turned out at a Trump event in Phoenix as “crazies”. Trump berated McCain as being a loser and then followed up by insisting:
“McCain is not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured, okay? I hate to tell you that. He’s a war hero because he was captured, okay? And I believe perhaps he’s a war hero but right now he’s said some very bad things about a lot of people.”
Afterwards, Trump refused to apologize according to the civic script. Professional political pundits thought that the outrageous comments would sink Trump’s candidacy, but it only increased his stature as a primary celebrity. Once again, Trump riffs, making outrageous and insulting insinuations and then holds a vindictive grudge.
The campaign is in its early stages and there is a crowded field. It was unrealistic to expect precises platform positions in a first debate, but two hours on center stage can give a feel for the demeanor of a candidate and offer indications on his or her likeability.
During the debate, Donald Trump was bold enough to raise his hand to say that he would not commit to supporting the eventual Republican nominee (unless it is himself) nor would he rule out being spoiler third party Presidential candidate. Bold and brash as well as being self centered and unconventional. These qualities may appeal to anti-establishment political firebands, while potentially alienating the Republican base which actually votes in Republican primaries. Pugnacious personality who is always spoiling for a fight may make for fun reality television but it is dubious if Americans seriously want that in our living rooms each night as Commander in Chief.
When someone tells you who they are, believe them. Between the bluster and the boorishness, we are getting the measure of the man. Time will tell if Trump’s braggadocio and bullying can politically cash the checks which his mouth is underwriting. There is plenty of opposition from the Silent Majority to the craziness contained in Political Correctness, however Greg Gutfeld is right that political incorrectness is speaking the truth but not necessarily lewdness.
Shapiro pointed out that Jenner had not yet undergone any gender reassignment surgery. Nevertheless, such a medical procedure still does not change one's DNA which is either male or female.
To drive home the point, Shapiro asked his trangendered panelist Zoey (ne Robert) Tur "What is your genetics, sir?". Of course, that was an uncomfortable scientifically based question. But what seemed to set off Tur was the use of the title "Sir". Thus, Tur put a hand on Shapiro's shoulder and threatened to send him home in an ambulance.
Aside from the fact that Tur's threat was not a very ladylike of a response, it underlined the thesis of Shapiro's book "Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation" (2014). Shapiro was outnumbered on the panel and was physically threatened for stating his opinions, which are scientifically unimpeachable.
Several years ago, after the 2011 Tuscon shooting which seriously wounded former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ 8th), Democrats like President Barack Obama pushed for civility in public discourse. This Dr. Drew dialogue again shows that so called civility is but a one-way street. Those not espousing the current progressive shibboleth are targeted to be bullied and silenced. Even liberal pundit Camille Paglia condemns the fascistic tendencies among liberals which imposes silence on those who are not politically correct. Alas, as Tom Nichols suggests in "The New Totalitarians Are Here", progressives want more than silence, but the expect not only to win arguments but make the loser love it.
What makes Tur's threats remarkable is that they were done physically on camera with a principled person who will not back down.
Robert Oppenheimer, the American theoretical physicist from the University of California at Berkeley, headed the Manhattan Project since 1942 thus he was dubbed "the Father of the Nuclear Bomb" or Doctor Atomic. The Manhattan project moved from New York City to Los Alamos, New Mexico in order to maintain great secrecy for the American World War II effort. Eventually, the remote, desert like compound grew to more than 6,000 people. No one was sure what would happen when testing "the bomb". Some worried that the detonation would light off the atmosphere. But on July16th, 1945, the Manhattan Project achieved a success with the detonation of the first nuclear bomb near Alamagordo, New Mexico (code named "Trinity") When reflecting upon the successful explosion of the Trinity bomb, Oppenheimer mused that he thought of a Hindu verse from the Bhagavad Gita: "Now I become death, the destroyer of worlds." Oppenheimer may have internally mused that verse, but Oppenheimer's brother was an eyewitness to Doctor Atomic's reaction, and all he said was "It worked." Brigadier General Thomas Farrell was also an eyewitness to Oppenheimer's reaction in the Trinity control bunker, and Farrell observed:
Dr. Oppenheimer, on whom had rested a very heavy burden, grew tenser as the last seconds ticked off. He scarcely breathed. He held on to a post to steady himself. For the last few seconds, he stared directly ahead and then when the announcer shouted "Now!" and there came this tremendous burst of light followed shortly thereafter by the deep growling roar of the explosion, his face relaxed into an expression of tremendous relief.
This was the only bomb that the Manhattan Project possessed. However, within three weeks, two atomic bombs were ready for use in the Pacific theater to try to obtain unconditional surrender from the Japanese. In 2005, composer John Adams premiered an opera "Doctor Atomic" with the San Francisco Opera in which much of the libretto was based on declassified American government documents about the Manhattan Project.
On the second leg of his trip to South America, Pope Francis traveled to Bolivia. The Holy Father made a courtesy visit to Eso Morales at the Palace of the Government in La Paz. Pope Francis only made a short four hours visit in La Paz as the 4,000 meter altitude was difficult for him to breath as he has only one lung.
As is customary when heads of state meet, the President and the Pope exchanged gifts. Pope Francis gave the Bolivian president a mosaic of the Marian icon of the “Salus Populus Romani". For his part, Bolivian President Eso Morales gave the Holy See a crucifix based on a hammer and sickle, essentially a communist crucifix. This was not the only politically charged gift. Morales also gave Pope Francis "The Book of the Sea" a tome bemoaning Bolivia's loss of access to the sea in the 1879-93 War of the Pacific.
As for the gift of religious art, Pope Francis shook his head as the Socialist President gave him this communist styled crucifix and audibly said: “No está bien eso”. As this exchange was filmed for transmission throughout the world, the Holy Father's embarrassment seemed visible.
Shortly after arriving in Bolivia Pope Francis' motorcade stopped along the highway where Fr. Espinal Camps was abducted. Pope Francis prayed:
"Remember one of our brothers, a victim of interests that didn't want
him to fight for Bolivia's freedom,. Father Espinal preached the Gospel, the
Gospel that bothered them, and because of this they got rid of him."
Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi, tried to walk back from this diplomatic faux pas by claiming that Pope Francis was unaware that the gift was inspired by Fr. Espinal Camps crucifix and that the Holy Father meant to say: "I didn't know" instead of "This is not right". That explanation is courteously convenient but seems spurious considering the Pope's actual words and his visible embarrassment over the gift.
For all those Catholic criticasters who claim that Pope Francis' beatification of Blessed Oscar Romero was an embrace of liberation theology or that the environmental encyclical Laudato Si was a Marxist manifesto, how do they reconcile Pope Francis' exclamation: “No está bien eso”?
No doubt that Pope Francis believes in a evangelical option for the poor, as do many contemporary Jesuits and that he walks the talk on social justice. But if Pope Francis were the Red Pope, why would he recoil at a communist crucifix?
Perhaps the Bolivian visit highlights the conundrum of Pope Francis' disposition towards social justice. Austral University Historian Roberto Bosca noted that Jorge Bergolio (later Pope Francis) opposed liberation theology during the 1970s, but that he accepted the premise of liberation theology (especially the preferential option for the poor) done in a non-ideological fashion. But as the rhetoric meets reality, as demonstrated by Eso Morales photo op, secular socialists (and communists) may strive to exploit this sympathy for their own atheistic advantage.
In reaction to King v. Burwell (SCOTUScare previously known as Obamacare) and Obergefell v. Hodges (which imposed Same Sex Marriage through out the US) by the US Supreme Court, Senator Ted Cruz offered a modest proposal to remedy judicial activism without recourse--judicial retention elections.
Kopf's piece was provocative and engaging for a policy wonk. However, an article which Judge Kopft titled:"Senator Ted Cruz is not fit to be President" seems to go beyond responding to a policy proposal and directly into the political field.
One does not have to slog through sometime like Judge Kopf's 474 page opinion in Carhart et ali. v. Ashcroft (2004) which struck down Partial Birth Abortion bans to read Canon 5(A)(2) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges which states: "A judge should not . . . make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office." Even the hoi polloi without law degrees can understand that a article like "Senator Ted Cruz is not fit to be President" falls under Canon 5(A)(2).
This illustrates Senator Cruz's point about checks on the judiciary. In a Congress which can not muster 60 votes to block an Attorney General like Loretta Lynch who vowed not to follow certain lawbreaking by the Obama Administration (such as on immigration), impeachment is unlikely. So there are black robed politicians who can participate in the political process and even legislate from the bench without recourse by "We the People".
It could be argued that some slack can be cut for Kopf as the 68 year old Judge assumed Senior Status in December, 2011. However, Kopf's public opposition of a candidate for public office seems to be a clear violation of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. As a senior status judge, Kopf receives full salary with a reduced case load. Hence, a senior status is not an honorific emeritus title. So a compromised jurist is still sitting on the bench, unless Judge Kopf does the honorable thing and resigns.
As people become more frustrated with judicial tyranny, reformers may find ways to remedy usurpations of the Constitution. While it is dubious if judicial retention elections would work on a federal level, Judge Kopf's case epitomizes that the system is broken and the rule of law is unreliable as things stand.
UPDATE 07/09/2015
Judge Kopf offered a half hearted apology for his "Ted Cruz is unfit to be President" piece. In a letter to Professor Orin Kerr (also published on Judge Kopf's blog) Judge Kopf acknowledged the analysis by The The Volokh Conspiracy on the Code of Judicial Ethics Canon (5)(A)(2). However, Kopf insisted that a Second Circuit ruling in Calabresi was not strictly speaking precedent in in the District of Nebraska. Still Kopf anticipated that the same standard might be applied in his Eighth Circuit. So, Kopf wrote: " Consequently, apologize to you, Senator Cruz and everyone else for my error."
Yet rather than have to good grace to admit an error and be gone, Judge Kopf pressed his point about judicial elections of Supreme Court Justices, insisting that such commentary fell under Code of Judicial Ethics (4)(A)(1). Some apology. I was wrong for going too far but I'll still stand by my political pontifications.
Violators of civil infractions do not get to just say "My bad" and be done. While an apology is appreciated, it is insufficient. Judge Kopf demonstrated that he does not (or no longer) exercises judicial temperament to have violated such a basic tenant of the profession. If there were any justice, Judge Kopf would resign his senior status and no longer preside from the bench. He seems to enjoy publishing. May he continue to opine on Hercules and the Umpire and enjoy his retirement since he has trouble operating under judicial ethics.
Posts
