Friday, January 31, 2020
Take A Dump
From now on instead of saying, “I have to take a dump,” I’m going to say, “I have to take a Trump.” And then after I take a big, stinky Trump, I’m sure that I’ll feel a lot better.
Oh Crap!
Shit shit shit shit
Shit shit shit fuck
Shit fuck shit shit
Shit!
Shit fuck shit fuck
Shit shit shit
And that about covers it!
😄
A Heck Of A Day
Kobe’s gone, Brexit is real, Trump’s in the clear, and I’ve had a heck of a day! They don’t make an anti-depressant strong enough for what I’m feeling right now.
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Political Danger
The most grave political danger is not that a leader with unchecked power will prosecute rivals and perceived enemies, but that a substantial portion of the population will believe that such action is justified.
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Constitutional Argument
I watched Alan Dershowitz make his presentation to the Senate last evening. He’s a good speaker. Book him at your local Rotary club. He can be entertaining.
I was less impressed with his legal argument. It seemed more like an eighth grade book report than a rigorous legal debate. He spent some time in the library where he read old books and picked out select passages that supported his opinions. Good for him for taking the time to do a bit of research. At least he didn’t make up this nonsense on his own.
Particularly brazen was Mr. Dershowitz’s attempt to downplay the current president’s quid pro quo by posing a hypothetical example involving Israel. “What if the US tried aid to a demand that Israel stop building settlements in Palestinian territory?”
Well, if that were to happen, it would be a case where foreign aid is tied to a formal policy objective. If the Department of State concluded that Israeli settlements were causing security issues and wanted to discourage the practice, they could work with Congress to make the aid contingent on a set of actions and conditions that supported their policy.
Congress did exactly this with the aid package that it approved for Ukraine. They demanded that Ukraine meet certain conditions before they could receive the money. Ukraine met all of the stated conditions. There was no legitimate reason to hold the money back. In fact, to do so was a violation of the law.
Mr. Dershowitz should have modified his example to more closely fit what actually happened.
“What if a Democratic president withheld aid that Congress had approved for Israel, and for which Israel had met all of the necessary conditions, in an effort to coerce the Israeli government into investigating Ivanka Trump’s international business dealings?”
That would clearly be a violation of the law. We would recognize it as an abuse of power. I think that most of us would consider it to be an impeachable offense.
Mr. Dershowitz admitted toward the end of his presentation that most legal scholars would not agree with his conclusions. I supposed that unlike his boss, he has a conscience, and that conscience got the best of him. Apparently, he couldn’t bring himself to make a farcical argument without a wink that his conclusions might be far-fetched.
I have to wonder how former Harvard Law School students felt about this presentation. Some of them spent a lot of money to listen to this gentleman spin his wild theories. I might have asked for a refund.
Monday, January 27, 2020
For Kobe Bryant
We will always remember
The handsome young man
Streaking down the wood court
With the ball in his hand
A bright flash of gold
He passed so deftly
Led his team to a score
And another one swiftly
His effortless style
The way he handled the ball
Passing or soaring
To a magical dunk
His intensity fierce
With his game face on
But then he’d flash a warm smile
Like a kid at the park
To his teammates
His coaches
The fans
And reporters
And those who watched worldwide
By the virtue of cameras
We all sensed his exuberance
His love of the game
Such amazing accomplishments
At such a young age
5 NBA Championships
81 points in a game
The 3-point shot record
So brilliantly won
He took Olympic gold
Before he was done
There’s one night I remember
Above all the others
The game that immortalized
His never quit character
Down by double digits
Well in the fourth quarter
He proved to the world
That he would always fight harder
Take the ball down the court
Get a foul or a score
With each careful touch
Put up two points or more
Close the big gap
And fight your way back
The game’s never over
When you’re on the attack
The other team thought
That they had the match won
But the real winners fought
Till the minutes were done
On the sixth of December
Two thousand and two
The team losing badly
Won the contest by two
How we’ll miss this fine man
Still young when we lost him
His quiet demeanor
Respectful, well-spoken
Brilliant and cultured
A man of the world
Much more than a champion
Of athletic gold
There’s a sense that we’ve lost
Much more than a star
Much more than a wonder
With talent inspired
We’ve lost an example
Of what greatness can be
A towering example
A father
A friend
A teammate
A leader
A man who lived fully
And accomplished
The best of his dreams
Copyright © 2020 Daniel R. South
All Rights Reserved
Impeachment Hypocrisy
“Instead of a once in a century phenomenon, which it had been, presidential impeachment has become a weapon to be wielded against ones political opponent.”
- Kenneth Starr, the man who impeached a President for lying about sex
Sunday, January 26, 2020
The Ambassador Whisperer
The recently-released audio recording of the president dining with a group of donors at a fundraising event raises some fascinating questions.
The first question that came to my mind is, how did someone manage to record a conversation with the President of the United States simply by pressing record on his iPhone and setting it on the table? Clearly, the event organizers or the security detail was not paying very close attention. The fact that the president himself was oblivious does not shock me, but his staff should have been more careful.
Keep in mind that this was not an official meeting. The president was not dining with ambassadors, cabinet members, or State Department officials. He was dining with a group of donors, people who had paid a substantial sum of money to get them seated at the table with the president himself for nearly an hour and a half.
One of the donors suggested to that president that the US ambassador to Ukraine was causing trouble. What fact or evidence the did donor cite to back up this claim? He said that the ambassador was “running around telling people that [the president] would be impeached.”
(It should be noted that the donor eventually admitted that this assertion was not true - the ambassador, who had worked for four presidents, was highly professional and had said nothing of the sort.)
What’s most troubling is the president’s reaction to this false assertion.
He could have handled it in a number of ways that demonstrated restraint, maturity, and an appreciation for decorum.
The president could have dismissed the comment outright. “Well, I don’t want to gossip. Let’s just enjoy our dinner.”
He could have referred it to the appropriate authorities. “That’s very interesting. I’ll have my State Department look into it.”
He could have looked past the comment and explored the subject more broadly. “How are our policies working in Ukraine? I’m hearing a lot of good things about natural gas exploration there.”
He could have disarmed the comment with humor. “Well, a lot of people think that I’m going to be impeached. I’ll show them!”
But the president didn’t do any of those things. Instead, he asked for the ambassador’s name. Clearly, he didn’t know anything about her. He had no idea whether she was really doing an effective job or not.
Then came an even bigger surprise. The donors could not remember he name, either, not even the particular donor who had suggested that she was making unflattering remarks about the president. No one at the table knew anything about the ambassador beyond the fact that she was a woman.
Despite this complete and utter lack of relevant information, the president saw fit to make a bold decision about the ambassador’s future.
“Get rid of her. Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it.”
Let’s think about this for a moment. The President of the United States, the most powerful person in the world, decided in the heat of the moment to fire a career ambassador whose name he could not even recall based on an unverified (and ultimately untrue) rumor that she had made an unkind remark about him.
He didn’t indicate that that he would think about what to do. He just did it.
He didn’t ask for additional information about the ambassador’s record or what has going on in the country where she had served honorably as our representative. He made a decision based on complete ignorance.
He didn’t refer the matter to the department that would be in the best position to determine the most appropriate course of action for policy in Ukraine. He acted alone.
He didn’t know anything at all about the ambassador or her accomplishments. Based on one spurious comment, he concluded that she was his personal enemy and therefore needed to be fired.
All of these observations are troubling. They suggest that important decisions are being made without the benefit of adequate information or rigorous debate. The president makes decisions based on whims and emotion, and his decisions cannot be challenged.
Every country in the world now knows that they can have their US ambassador recalled (and their policies disrupted) simply by hiring a “donor” to whisper unflattering rumors into the ear of an insecure and impressionable president. The world is in an extremely dangerous place.
Friday, January 24, 2020
Body Issues
The human body is designed to stay out of shape. You have to torture it to make it stronger. Take a break from the torture, and it reverts quickly back to couch potato mode.
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Support And Acceptance
The longer I live and the more that I learn about life, the more I realize that every person on this good Earth is dealing with some measure of fear and sadness and frustration. Be kind. Be gentle. Cut them some slack when they aren’t at their best. Say something nice and flash them a smile for no particular reason. They might not be able to express in that moment how much your gentle support and quiet acceptance means to them, but in their heart, they will feel it, and it will make a difference.
Did He Do It?
He did it.
He admitted that he did it.
His chief of staff admitted that he did it.
There’s a transcript of him doing it.
The ambassador said that he did it.
Another ambassador said that he did it and everyone knew about it.
His personal lawyer is still working on it.
Seventeen witnesses testified under oath that he did it and that it was wrong.
Not a single witness has testified in his defense.
The General Accounting Office verified that he broke the law.
The Office of Management and Budget was so concerned about the legality of it that two high-ranking officials resigned in protest.
The National Security Advisor resigned while it was happening.
The Energy Secretary resigned when it became clear that he played a role in it.
The House Of Representatives impeached him for it.
Will the Senate hold him accountable?
Monday, January 20, 2020
Abuse Of Power
The president’s legal team suggested today (in writing, I’m not kidding) that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense.
If that were true, then what’s the point of having impeachment in the constitution? What would a president have to do before congress would feel compelled to remove him or her from office?
Consider a graphic example. What if the president lined a bunch of senators up in front of a firing squad? Would that get their patriotic juices flowing at long last? Would they finally recognize the threat that abuse of power poses under those dire conditions? Or would they accept the ridiculous premise that there is no Article I remedy for abuse of presidential power, and simply stand there without complaining as the rifles were loaded?
The Next Administration
The next president of the United States will need to tackle four critical issues:
1. Global Climate Change, an existential threat that gets more severe with each passing year.
2. Rebuild the domestic manufacturing base. Launch a WWII-level effort to build the infrastructure for a post-carbon economy. The deterioration of household income has been cancer on society.
3. Work toward a healthcare plan that covers all citizens without exception. The “too risky to be profitable” model serves the interests of corporations, not patients or doctors.
4. Re-establish the USA’s credibility as a strategic ally and trading partner. It will take commitment to undo the damage, but we can make progress by leading on strategic global initiatives.
Friday, January 17, 2020
Left Wing Dog Fight
It’s fascinating to watch the two far left candidates rip into each other with the bitterness that they typically reserve for moderates. Move over, Hillary! The Bernie or Busters have crowned a new Worst Woman In The World.
Ukraine Apology
Everyone involved in this Ukraine extortion scandal should fly over to Kyiv and apologize in person. On the way back, their brightly-colored red, white, and blue 737 MAX can make an unscheduled layover at the Tehran airport.
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
Ah, January!
Ah, January, when projects pick up and deadlines loom, and you have to work like a horse when you’re as sick as a dog.
Tuesday, January 7, 2020
The Measure Of A Man
The true measure of a man is not how well he does for himself, but how thoughtful he is to others and how effectively he nurtures those who depend on him for support.
Monday, January 6, 2020
Thursday, January 2, 2020
Wednesday, January 1, 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)