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
04 March 2017
The February 28 address to Congress
Where was Donald Trump and who was speaking in his place on February 28?
The smoothness of his delivery was primarily due to the
simple fact that he was working from a script, from which he only slightly
deviated, throwing in a few ad libs. At times it was clear he was reading, but
for the most part his presentation was polished.
In all fairness, it must be said that the address was well
crafted and effective. It has been reported that Trump himself did most of the
writing with help and advice from family members and staff. However, since it
was also said that he wrote his inauguration speech—a claim since proven
untrue—we would do best to take the claim of his authorship with a grain of
salt.
Strategically, it was the perfect speech for Trump to give—hitting
all the right buttons and playing to an audience less interested in policy and
facts than in feel-good rhetoric. Which is why it sounded a lot like sound
bites from the campaign dusted off, prettied up and made ready for prime time.
He knows what his audience likes and keeps giving it to them and it doesn’t
matter that we’ve heard most of it before—ad
nauseam.
The Great Pretender continues to inflate, overstate, embellish
and rely on partial truth and skewed contexts. There are several online sites
where Trump’s factoids and misstatements are tested against the truth, and I
urge you to look at them. Any Google search containing “Trump” and “fact check”
will net you at least a handful.
Here are just a few examples drawn from the Feb. 28 speech
and checked by the New York Times. I chose the site randomly.
Trump: “We've
lost more than one-fourth of our manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was approved, .
. .”
Fact: “The United
States has lost a lot of factory jobs since 2000, but the biggest reason is
technological progress, not foreign competition. America's manufacturing output
is at the highest level in history — it just doesn't take as many workers to
make stuff anymore. Some jobs have been lost to foreign competition, but
studies assign a modest role to Nafta.” –Benyamin Appelbaum
Trump: “We have
cleared the way for the construction of the Keystone and Dakota Access
Pipelines -- thereby creating tens of thousands of jobs --. . .”
Fact: (He should have
said “temporary jobs). “A 2014 State Department environmental review estimated
that Keystone would support 42,000 temporary jobs over its two-year
construction period — about 3,900 of them in construction, the rest in indirect
support jobs, such as food service. It estimated that Keystone would create
about 35 permanent jobs.” –Coral Davenport
Trump: “I have
ordered the Department of Homeland Security to create an office to serve
American Victims. The office is called VOICE --- Victims Of Immigration Crime Engagement. We are providing a voice to those who have been ignored
by our media, and silenced by special interests.”
Fact: “The
individuals killed by undocumented immigrants mentioned by President Trump in his
speech received widespread coverage in local newspapers and on television. For
example, the death of Jamiel Shaw Jr., who was shot and killed in 2008 in Los
Angeles, was widely covered by The Los Angeles Times and local television
stations.” –Ron Nixon
That last one is an instance of shameless exploitation and a
cruel trick played on family members of those killed who were in the audience.
It’s been said that we are now, largely due to the Great
Pretender, in a post-factual world. But the truth is out there, and we owe it
to ourselves to keep seeking it.
--Richard Brown
03 March 2017
Tempus fugit
In the course of seeking truth, Diogenes has misplaced a day, thinking Friday was Thursday.
My scheduled tasks today will preclude putting up a new message. The one concerning Trump's February 28 address to Congress will appear Saturday, March 4.
Meanwhile, if you have any questions about Trump and his administration, or about this blog, please leave a comment and I'll respond as I am able. Thanks.
--Richard Brown
My scheduled tasks today will preclude putting up a new message. The one concerning Trump's February 28 address to Congress will appear Saturday, March 4.
Meanwhile, if you have any questions about Trump and his administration, or about this blog, please leave a comment and I'll respond as I am able. Thanks.
--Richard Brown
02 March 2017
President, but not presidential
In my first post here I said I believed that the outcome of the 2016 presidential election was wrong.
I don't mean the election itself was hacked, rigged or otherwise corrupted. Regardless of how one feels about the Electoral College, the system worked as it was meant to, and the office went to the candidate with the greatest number of electoral votes.
Not, however, to the winner of the popular vote. That was Hillary Clinton, 65,844,610 to
62,979,636, according to the Cook Political Report, a plurality of 2,864,974.
Of course that doesn't alter the results. Donald Trump is president, and yes, he is the president of all Americans, although lacking a popular mandate. That does not, however, mean that everyone owes him allegiance or respect, and certainly not obedience unless martial law is declared.
His supporters cheer Trump as a political outsider, which is a gross understatement. He is in fact, the least experienced, least qualified and least prepared person ever to be president. Only two other presidents had no political experience: Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight Eisenhower, and both had been high-ranking military officers with extensive leadership experience.
Trump's experience has been exclusively in business, where he could make deals and accomplish goals by bullying, outshouting or buying rivals. He is unaccustomed to seeking advice or counsel; the notion of compromise seems beyond his understanding; and he is intolerant and xenophobic.
In the announcement of his candidacy he insulted all Mexicans; he has vilified adherents of Islam, the world's second-largest religion; the Parliament of our close ally Great Britain has come near to disallowing Trump the honor of meeting the queen, and the Speaker of the House of Commons has said he will not be invited to address Parliament.
And yet this is our president. Your thoughts?
--Richard Brown
I don't mean the election itself was hacked, rigged or otherwise corrupted. Regardless of how one feels about the Electoral College, the system worked as it was meant to, and the office went to the candidate with the greatest number of electoral votes.
Not, however, to the winner of the popular vote. That was Hillary Clinton, 65,844,610 to
62,979,636, according to the Cook Political Report, a plurality of 2,864,974.
Of course that doesn't alter the results. Donald Trump is president, and yes, he is the president of all Americans, although lacking a popular mandate. That does not, however, mean that everyone owes him allegiance or respect, and certainly not obedience unless martial law is declared.
His supporters cheer Trump as a political outsider, which is a gross understatement. He is in fact, the least experienced, least qualified and least prepared person ever to be president. Only two other presidents had no political experience: Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight Eisenhower, and both had been high-ranking military officers with extensive leadership experience.
Trump's experience has been exclusively in business, where he could make deals and accomplish goals by bullying, outshouting or buying rivals. He is unaccustomed to seeking advice or counsel; the notion of compromise seems beyond his understanding; and he is intolerant and xenophobic.
In the announcement of his candidacy he insulted all Mexicans; he has vilified adherents of Islam, the world's second-largest religion; the Parliament of our close ally Great Britain has come near to disallowing Trump the honor of meeting the queen, and the Speaker of the House of Commons has said he will not be invited to address Parliament.
And yet this is our president. Your thoughts?
--Richard Brown
01 March 2017
Introduction
Thank you for checking into my new blog. I hope there will be some interesting discussions and debates here, so I'll introduce myself so visitors can know what to expect.
My name is Richard Brown. I am retired from a career in higher education and also from a secondary career in journalism, as both a writer and a support person.
My primary reason for launching this blog is to bring to public attention, as much as I am able, the lies, doublespeak, obfuscation and misdirection that pass for policy in the Trump administration. I do not pretend to have a huge voice or a great audience. But great changes are made one mind at a time. If I can make some small changes I'll be content.
I am compelled to speak out to those who will hear, mindful of Edmund Burke's aphorism, "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
I am philosophically a populist and constitutionalist, and politically a Democrat. I'm proud to be characterized a liberal, as all who believe in the rights of individuals and progressive policies should be.
So what does that make me? A bleeding heart? Absolutely, if that means I am deeply compassionate toward my fellow humans. A tree hugger (does anyone actually say that anymore)? Yes, if that means being concerned for the environment and the future of planet Earth. A Commie? Oh, please--I have been a card-carrying member of the ACLU, though.
I'm not a politician. I'm a foot soldier for the causes of truth and honesty in government, and have worked off and on for a variety of campaigns beginning with that of Eugene McCarthy.
I hope people with differing opinions will come here to join in discussion. You are welcome.
My name is Richard Brown. I am retired from a career in higher education and also from a secondary career in journalism, as both a writer and a support person.
My primary reason for launching this blog is to bring to public attention, as much as I am able, the lies, doublespeak, obfuscation and misdirection that pass for policy in the Trump administration. I do not pretend to have a huge voice or a great audience. But great changes are made one mind at a time. If I can make some small changes I'll be content.
I am compelled to speak out to those who will hear, mindful of Edmund Burke's aphorism, "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
I am philosophically a populist and constitutionalist, and politically a Democrat. I'm proud to be characterized a liberal, as all who believe in the rights of individuals and progressive policies should be.
So what does that make me? A bleeding heart? Absolutely, if that means I am deeply compassionate toward my fellow humans. A tree hugger (does anyone actually say that anymore)? Yes, if that means being concerned for the environment and the future of planet Earth. A Commie? Oh, please--I have been a card-carrying member of the ACLU, though.
I'm not a politician. I'm a foot soldier for the causes of truth and honesty in government, and have worked off and on for a variety of campaigns beginning with that of Eugene McCarthy.
I hope people with differing opinions will come here to join in discussion. You are welcome.
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/edmundburk136431.html
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/edmundburk136431.html
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/edmundburk136431.html
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/edmundburk136431.html
Rules
I hate to be tiresome, but I do have just a very few rules:
Civility: All points of view are welcome here, but posts containing vulgar or obscene language will be deleted.
Content: I will not respond to posts seeking to discuss or comment on previous presidents or administrations. They are the past, and this blog is about the United States and its government since January 20, 2017.
And that's all. Thanks.
--Richard Brown
Civility: All points of view are welcome here, but posts containing vulgar or obscene language will be deleted.
Content: I will not respond to posts seeking to discuss or comment on previous presidents or administrations. They are the past, and this blog is about the United States and its government since January 20, 2017.
And that's all. Thanks.
--Richard Brown
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)