One definition of "tyrant" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "One resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power."
Anyone who has had the misfortune to watch any of the execrable "Apprentice" television programs knows that Donald Trump uses his authority as a weapon. With his scowling game face and his use of scathing language he discards people like so much rubbish.
Tyrants like Trump flourish in the corporate world, where they can surround themselves with toadies and hold court in their own little autocracy, never hearing any opinion contrary to their own. Typically, such bullies have thin skins, no tolerance of disagreement, and nasty, often uncontrollable tempers.
The Great Pretender exhibits many of these behaviors. By definition the president cannot be an autocrat, but Trump does his best. To name a few instances, in no particular order:
--He issues arbitrary and sometimes self-contradictory orders, apparently on whims. Recently tours of the White House were resumed, but only for Americans. Visitors from other countries have to apply through their embassy. Didn't work for Great Britain, though. The State Department informed that embassy that rules regarding tours were "on hold."
--He fails to grasp the need for security. During a Feb. 11 dinner with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in a public restaurant Trump made phone calls and discussed classified information regarding a North Korean missile test as if it were dinner conversation.
--He does not respect the constitutional guarantee of a free press. Trump and his top aides regularly deny access to journalists they perceive as "enemies."
--He has no control over his anger. In "The dangerous rage of Donald Trump," The Washington Post reported on March 6 that "when Trump gets angry, he looks for a way to strike back. And he is
willing to stretch — or break with — the truth to give himself a measure
of satisfaction in that regard. . . .The trouble for Trump — and all of the rest of us — is that Trump is now
president. And there are real-world consequences to both how angry he
gets and how he chooses to blow off that steam. An angry call with the Australian prime minister,
for example, has real-world implications. So does an open and
aggressive attempt to disqualify the free and independent press. Or the
accusation that your predecessor used the powers of the federal
government to specifically target you.
Feel free to comment regarding your ideas of Trumpian tyranny.
--Richard Brown
U.S. Constitution
The voice of the people
09 March 2017
08 March 2017
Why the Press?
The First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees freedoms that should be enjoyed by all people: The freedom to speak one's opinion; to worship openly according to one's beliefs; to assemble peaceably; and to have unhampered access to information.
Some people today, particularly those born into this age of instantaneous and ubiquitous information, may not be entirely sure what is meant by "Freedom of the [printing] press." Before 1920, when radio began its rapid expansion, the printed word was the only source of information widely available. Tyrants, that is almost every reigning monarch at least through the 18th century, were well aware of the need to control information lest their subjects begin to suspect the Crown was neither all good nor all powerful. Thus the ownership of printing presses in countries across Europe was tightly controlled, and illegal possession of a press could be punishable by severe penalties including death.
Persecution of the press came to this side of the Atlantic with British rule. Virginia Royal Governor William Berkeley said this in 1642: “I thank God, there are no free schools nor printing, and I hope we shall not have these hundred years; for learning has brought disobedience, and heresy, and sects into the world, and printing has divulged them, and libels against the best government. God keep us from both!”
Even after the First Amendment had been in force for many years, there were continued attempts to muzzle the press. The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, expanded the protections of the First by forbidding any state to make a law abridging freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and gave us the concept that all Americans must receive equal justice under law.
Today we speak of the "media" rather than the "press," but the protections on the dissemination of information still obtain. We are well aware of press suppression elsewhere: In Nazi Germany; in Russia, during and after the Soviet period; in China; and in other places.
But here? Well--in 1972 President Richard Nixon made it clear to his national security advisers that "The press is the enemy." And from the current president, whose attention span is limited to 140 letters: "I have a running war with the media. They are among the most dishonest human beings on Earth."
But reason can be found in some odd places. Here's Sen. John McCain, last month: "But the fact is we need you, we need a free press, we must have it. It's vital if you want to preserve — I'm very serious now — if you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free and many times adversarial press. And without it I'm afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time."
--Richard Brown
Some people today, particularly those born into this age of instantaneous and ubiquitous information, may not be entirely sure what is meant by "Freedom of the [printing] press." Before 1920, when radio began its rapid expansion, the printed word was the only source of information widely available. Tyrants, that is almost every reigning monarch at least through the 18th century, were well aware of the need to control information lest their subjects begin to suspect the Crown was neither all good nor all powerful. Thus the ownership of printing presses in countries across Europe was tightly controlled, and illegal possession of a press could be punishable by severe penalties including death.
Persecution of the press came to this side of the Atlantic with British rule. Virginia Royal Governor William Berkeley said this in 1642: “I thank God, there are no free schools nor printing, and I hope we shall not have these hundred years; for learning has brought disobedience, and heresy, and sects into the world, and printing has divulged them, and libels against the best government. God keep us from both!”
Even after the First Amendment had been in force for many years, there were continued attempts to muzzle the press. The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, expanded the protections of the First by forbidding any state to make a law abridging freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and gave us the concept that all Americans must receive equal justice under law.
Today we speak of the "media" rather than the "press," but the protections on the dissemination of information still obtain. We are well aware of press suppression elsewhere: In Nazi Germany; in Russia, during and after the Soviet period; in China; and in other places.
But here? Well--in 1972 President Richard Nixon made it clear to his national security advisers that "The press is the enemy." And from the current president, whose attention span is limited to 140 letters: "I have a running war with the media. They are among the most dishonest human beings on Earth."
But reason can be found in some odd places. Here's Sen. John McCain, last month: "But the fact is we need you, we need a free press, we must have it. It's vital if you want to preserve — I'm very serious now — if you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free and many times adversarial press. And without it I'm afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time."
--Richard Brown
07 March 2017
"Democracy dies in darkness"
Diogenes is still away from his desk today, Tuesday, March 7, but invites you to comment on the Washington Post's new online slogan, which is today's title.
We're considering a number of thoughts about tyrants, tyranny and the best actions to take in a free society. Your thoughts in that regard would be welcome as well.
We're considering a number of thoughts about tyrants, tyranny and the best actions to take in a free society. Your thoughts in that regard would be welcome as well.
06 March 2017
Blog interrupted
No post today, Monday, 3/6. It seems life intrudes on even the most noble causes. Check in tomorrow. Meanwhile, I invite you to copy and paste the absurdly long link below into your address window to read some interesting information about the Great Pretender.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-fury-the-president-rages-at-leaks-setbacks-and-accusations/2017/03/05/40713af4-01df-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop&utm_term=.50042144c44b
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-fury-the-president-rages-at-leaks-setbacks-and-accusations/2017/03/05/40713af4-01df-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop&utm_term=.50042144c44b
05 March 2017
The American Press
"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." First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 1791
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers." 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
"Well, in England they have a system where you can actually sue if someone says something wrong. Our press is allowed to say whatever they want and get away with it. And I think we should go to a system where if they do something wrong. . . . if they make terrible, terrible mistakes and those mistakes are made on purpose to injure people, . . . I think you should have the ability to sue them." Donald Trump, CBS4, October 23, 2016
If that last quote doesn't scare you, you might want to consider just how much you personally value the freedoms you have as an American.
The Great Pretender and his staff are making concerted efforts to limit, if not do away with, press coverage of the White House and of the president. Trump and press secretary Sean Spicer are working to limit White House access to members of the media who are friendly to the president and his administration.
Spicer is openly hostile to media representatives; Trump has called them "scum." Spicer's obvious lies, misrepresentations, distortions and press bashing have begun to rival those of Joseph Goebbels. I do not say that lightly. Administration behavior toward the media is deeply disturbing.
Trump was wrong when he said the press can "say whatever they want and get away with it." The media is covered by strict libel laws and can be sued, but only if the plaintiff can prove actual malicious intent. As journalists say, "If it's true it's not libel."
Trump has threatened to use litigation as a weapon, intending to flood the courts with frivolous libel suits as a means of blocking media access. My personal belief is that these actions are unconstitutional under the First Amendment, but the Constitution's language forbids only Congress from interfering with the press--apparently it never occurred to the Framers that a president might do so.
If limitation of press freedom doesn't bother you, then keep in mind that the First Amendment is a bundle, protecting not only freedom of the press, but also of religion, speech, assembly and redress of grievances against the government.
Which one will be challenged next?
--Richard Brown
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers." 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
"Well, in England they have a system where you can actually sue if someone says something wrong. Our press is allowed to say whatever they want and get away with it. And I think we should go to a system where if they do something wrong. . . . if they make terrible, terrible mistakes and those mistakes are made on purpose to injure people, . . . I think you should have the ability to sue them." Donald Trump, CBS4, October 23, 2016
If that last quote doesn't scare you, you might want to consider just how much you personally value the freedoms you have as an American.
The Great Pretender and his staff are making concerted efforts to limit, if not do away with, press coverage of the White House and of the president. Trump and press secretary Sean Spicer are working to limit White House access to members of the media who are friendly to the president and his administration.
Spicer is openly hostile to media representatives; Trump has called them "scum." Spicer's obvious lies, misrepresentations, distortions and press bashing have begun to rival those of Joseph Goebbels. I do not say that lightly. Administration behavior toward the media is deeply disturbing.
Trump was wrong when he said the press can "say whatever they want and get away with it." The media is covered by strict libel laws and can be sued, but only if the plaintiff can prove actual malicious intent. As journalists say, "If it's true it's not libel."
Trump has threatened to use litigation as a weapon, intending to flood the courts with frivolous libel suits as a means of blocking media access. My personal belief is that these actions are unconstitutional under the First Amendment, but the Constitution's language forbids only Congress from interfering with the press--apparently it never occurred to the Framers that a president might do so.
If limitation of press freedom doesn't bother you, then keep in mind that the First Amendment is a bundle, protecting not only freedom of the press, but also of religion, speech, assembly and redress of grievances against the government.
Which one will be challenged next?
--Richard Brown
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)