government

Who else is he paying, or paying him?

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

Donald Trump is a convicted felon, joining the ignominious ranks of Aaron Burr[1], John C. Breckenridge[2], and John Tyler[3]. Even though his conviction was on the least consequential of the four cases currently pending against him, we now live in a world where a former President of the United States is a convicted felon. But does it really mean anything? Those who support him so ardently will continue to support him. Those who do not support him don’t need new reasons to not support him. And the undecided voters—the key to most elections in this country—are a small and shrinking percentage this time around, since the major candidates are both completely known quantities.

The conviction itself is not the sad event. The sad event was when Donald Trump shamed the office by fomenting insurrection during the ballot counting. It was the entire year of 2020, when he spent so much effort making people mistrust the electoral system, because he knew he wouldn’t be able to win a fair election. It was when he urged others to help him cheat just to retain the office he could not legitimately claim. And those things will be adjudicated in the further trials… if they are ever allowed to proceed.

The current conviction is simply a confirmation of what we’ve known about Donald Trump all along: that he’s a liar, a grifter, a thief, who will do or say anything to protect himself, regardless of its legality or morality.

While the actual crime is fairly small potatoes, it is entirely in keeping with Trump’s character. What makes it so egregious is that it was committed by a presidential candidate. But even that is something we should (unfortunately) have come to expect from him. He keeps telling us who he is; we are the fools for constantly being surprised. He keeps begging us to pay attention only to the show that he is, to not look behind the curtain. And that’s what this case was about: the hidden back-story that is even less appealing. And that’s been his entire career. Keeping a porn star from saying he’s a sexual predator? That’s tiny. What I want to know is why is he still the only president in living memory to not release his tax returns? What is hiding in those documents that he so assiduously does not want people to know about him?

[1] Vice President Aaron Burr (1801–05) arguably committed treason by working with Mexico to overthrow Spanish rule in 1807, but was acquitted due to the paucity of evidence.

[2] Vice President John C. Breckinridge (1857–61) was representing Kentucky in the US Senate in 1861 when he declared that the Union no longer existed and that Kentucky should be free to choose her own course. He enlisted in the Confederate army, was indicted for treason in U.S. federal district court in Frankfort on November 6, 1861, and on December 2, 1861, the Senate declared him a traitor and expelled him.

[3] President John Tyler (1841–45) presided over the Washington Peace Conference in February 1861, which was an effort to prevent the Civil War. The convention sought a compromise, but Tyler voted against the conference’s resolutions. At the same time, he was elected to the Virginia Secession Convention, and presided over it as well. Tyler voted for secession, and negotiated the terms for Virginia’s entry into the Confederate States of America. On June 14, he signed the Ordinance of Secession, and then was elected to the Provisional Confederate Congress, where he served until just before his death in 1862. In November 1861, he was elected to the Confederate House of Representatives but he died of a stroke before the first session could open in February 1862. Because of his allegiance to the Confederacy, his was the only presidential death to go unrecognized in Washington.

The decline of news interviews

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

As much as I’m annoyed by the double-talking, deflecting, lying politicians, the interviewers aren’t doing much better.

This morning, I watched parts of both NBC’s Meet the Press and CBS’s Face the Nation, and they both share the same problem.

On Meet the Press, the host/interviewer was talking with Senator J.D. Vance. She asked him, if he had been vice president on January 6, 2021, would he have voted to certify the election, or done what Donald Trump wanted. Each time, he deflected, noting that “it’s you who wants to keep talking about that election. We’re focused on the present and the future, and in the present, we have the massive border crisis,” and the drug crisis, and whatever else usually comes at the end of that litany. A perfect opening to ask “Okay, so as a member of the Senate, what are you doing to address that border crisis, and drug crisis, and all the rest?” But she just let the pitch go by, and went back to “But you might be on Trump’s list for vice president in the next campaign. What would you have done in 2021?”

On Face the Nation, the interviewer was talking with Speaker Mike Johnson. After four rounds of “President Biden doesn’t need any legislation to fix the border crisis,” without a return question of “then what do we need the Congress for?”, she showed several clips from Johnson in 2019 saying “an impeachment should not be a one-party action.” A great intro for the House’s current impeachment activity against Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas. “So why are you moving this impeachment now?” to which he responded, “Mayorkas has broken the laws. We’ve got three committees investigating,” etc. But there was no return question of “you’re going through all the motions, as the Democrats did before you, but it still looks to be a one-party activity.” Or the even easier question: “You say he’s broken the laws. Which laws?” As most interviewers these days do, she ended with “We hope to have you back, because there are so many more things to talk about.” Completely missing the irony of the fact that each question-and-response was repeated four times, so of course they couldn’t get to too many issues.

Mind you, I didn’t watch the entirety of either program, but I did also see that each also had National Security Council Spokesman Jake Sullivan. Meet the Press asked him if, in the ongoing response to the death of the three US soldiers in Jordan, we could expect attacks in Iran itself. He said “I’m not going to comment on our activities and plans on television.” The interviewer’s response to that? “So you’re not ruling it out?” And he responded, “I’m not going to talk about it on television.” Five times they went through that back-and-forth.

Yes, I understand that repeating a question can sometimes get the interviewee to break down, get angry, and snap out an unintended answer. But come on, people, listen to the responses you’re getting. You can follow them to even more interesting questions and non-answers. I’m disappointed in you.

Conflicting job qualifications?

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

There are a bunch of elections running around my mind these days: national, local, clubs and associations, and historic. In many of them (but not the one in which you’re a candidate, so don’t worry, I’m not talking about you), it seems to me the skill set necessary to be a successful candidate is not only completely different from the skill set necessary to be a good office holder, but sometimes completely at odds with it.

Consider, for example, the presidency of the USA. To be a good candidate for the job, one has to be an incredible fund-raiser, be a glad-hander, be photogenic (with an equally photogenic family, or at least a compelling family story), be able to whip up crowds of enthusiasm, and be able to speak in sound bites. And in the modern era, one also has to be a staunch ideologue, in order to whip up the enthusiasm of the extreme members of one’s own political party. But to be a good president, one has to be able to think deeply about important issues, and then make hard decisions about them; to be able to negotiate with people in equally powerful positions from (perhaps) less powerful countries; be able to keep secrets about the biggest issues that would bring in incredible amounts of publicity; be willing to compromise on almost everything in order to accomplish anything; and be able to inspire people to be selfless and to aspire for greatness.

Mind you, the same dichotomy (although on a much smaller scale) seems to obtain for most any office that is elected: mayor, congressman, club official, you name it.

Having grumbled about this state of affairs — which is the same state we’ve been in for a very long time — I can’t see that there’s any better way to choose who we want to elect to office. But I sure wish there was a better way.

Don’t pay any attention to logic

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

I find it ironic that Donald Trump keeps pushing for “complete and total presidential immunity” to block his forthcoming trials for orchestrating an attempted coup (see, for example, this article). Follow it through logically: if a president has complete and total immunity, wouldn’t President Biden ordered Trump’s immediate imprisonment, probably in a supermax prison or a deep hole in the ground? “For the national good,” of course. But even if he shouldn’t do it, well, complete and total presidential immunity.

In other presidential news, last night I spoke to Central Texas Mensa about the presidents. My talk, “Hail to the Chiefs! (and their Vice Presidents, and First Ladies…)” was very well received, and I was thrilled with the audience. I’m available to speak to your group, as well.

Shouting into the political wind

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

I just completed my absentee ballot for this year’s election here in New York City’s 45th assembly district. As with the linked article, I, too, have a dearth of choices. For two of the races (judgeships), there was only one candidate, while for the State Supreme Court, there were seven candidates for the six seats (five of them were endorsed by all three parties represented on the ballot [Democratic, Republican, and Conservative], one is Democratic-only, and the other Republican and Conservative only). And in the City Council race, there is the incumbent (registered Democrat) running as a Democrat, Republican, and Conservative, while his opponent (registered Republican) is running as an independent.

For the unopposed judgeships, I wrote in votes for “None of the Above,” as I did for five of the six seats on the Supreme Court (I only voted for the Democratic-only candidate). For the City Council, the incumbent couldn’t be bothered to tell us his top issues, nor to answer the questions about his positions on the major topics, while his challenger strikes me as too religiously doctrinaire, so I wrote in myself.

Why am I posting this, along with that article link? Because I agree with it emphatically… and I can’t think of any simple way to get us out of the mess. We have the vote… but we’ve given the two major parties so much power over all the features of our government that they’ve made our vote completely meaningless. While political gerrymandering is less of an artificial impediment here in New York City (there’s no feasible way I can imagine to make the districts competitive between the parties, when the overwhelming majority of registered voters are all in one party), it also results in the extremists who can’t even talk with the other side, which is the dysfunction we’ve been seeing in Washington. So I’m voting “none of the above” in protest of the system. As absentee ballots, they won’t be noticed; as write-in votes, they’ll be recorded as “write-in votes,” and no one will even bother to read whose name I wrote in. I think I’m just shouting at the wind, but it does make me feel marginally better. Then again, climate change will probably kill us before the political extremists can truly ruin the world, so there’s that.

Cut loose the Trumpians

~ ianrandalstrock ~ 1 Comment

Watching the Keystone Kops routine in the House of Representatives as the Republican “party” tries to elect a Speaker, is it finally time for them to admit they are no longer a party, but a coalition? It sure seems to me like it’s time for the Republicans to cut loose the Trumpian party and admit they do not have a majority, that the Democrats currently have a plurality in the House. Then the Republicans could negotiate a coalition government with the Democrats, who are actually willing to govern, as most of the Republicans are, and cut out the Trumpians who only want to watch it all burn.

Mike Pence announces his campaign for high priest

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

I just listened to Mike Pence announce his campaign for pope… er, priest… um, religious leader. I mean, wow! From his point of view, every right listed in the Constitution is a “god-given right.”

It started with his wife’s introduction of him, noting that he is here because of his humility before god. And then he took the stage to introduce himself, telling us he is a Christian first, a conservative second, and a Republican third. Well, that’s very nice, but we don’t (or shouldn’t) elect religious leaders in this country.

It’s almost like he’s forgotten the last phrase of the Constitution’s Article VI: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” While he wasn’t saying his Christianity is required to be president, he certainly made me—as someone who is not a Christian—feel like I won’t be welcome in his United States.

Mind you, none of this is a surprise; it’s nothing new from him. It’s just that a Christian President Pence would not be hidden by the masking effect that Vice President Pence had in Grifter-in-Chief Trump’s shadow.

Why don’t they listen during Congressional “hearings”?

~ ianrandalstrock ~ 1 Comment

The news programs keep showing clips from Congressional committee “hearings.” I keep watching them. And I keep wondering: when last did a Congressperson sitting on one of those committees ask a question of a witness to which the Congressperson did not know the answer? And when last did a committee, holding one of those hearings, learn something new that informed their decisions on pending legislation?

It may be that the media only show those clips they deem “entertaining” enough, rather than all the business, and that indeed there is some information exchange in these hearings. But it sure seems as if the only reason they hold these hearings is so that the Congressfolk can pontificate, can act outraged, can make speeches that can then be excerpted into television commercials in their never-ending quest to be re-elected. Today, it was Bernie Sanders yelling at the CEO of Starbucks. Yesterday, it was a Ted Cruz calling the Secretary of Homeland Security a liar.

When I sit on a board of directors, when I listen to the debate on the motions before we vote, I actually listen, to learn my fellow directors’ opinions, and sometimes to help me decide which course of action is best for the organization. I don’t go in to every meeting with my mind made up, looking only to score points. But then perhaps that’s the reason I’m not in Congress.

Labeling: a thought experiment

~ ianrandalstrock ~ 2 Comments

A thought experiment:

We frequently hear that the dysfunction in the US government is due to extreme partisanship. The few times our elected officials actually work with members of differing parties are hailed as wonderful examples of bipartisanship, rather than simply government as it ought to be.

But how much of that dysfunction, or that outright enmity, is a result of the team colors they all wear for no good reason?

Every time we report on those elected officials, whether on television or in print, it takes the form of Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) or Representative Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Senator John Tyler (W-VA) or Representative John Quincy Adams (D-R – MA). What if we dropped that letter before the state appellation? What if we didn’t bother listing the political party? Does it really matter to us in the news report? Don’t we already know which party they belong to? And if we don’t, does knowing it change our view of the news being reported, of the things being said?

The Super Bowl is a similar label. The owners of that name want the news to report on it as if it were news, but they want entertainment to pay them for the rights to even say it out loud. Perhaps it’s time we started viewing political parties the same way. After all, they’ve paid for their members’ careers, so why should we be giving them free advertising?

Gratuitous George Washington quote on political parties: “Political parties may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

The Election of 2022 Was Against Things and People, Not For Them

~ ianrandalstrock ~ 1 Comment

I’m watching the election returns (and still watching them). One thing I keep hearing is surprise that the predicted “red wave” did not materialize. I think the fact that the pundits expected one is a result of poor polling.

Specifically, I think political polls are too cut-and-dried, too black-or-white, without enough shades of gray. But none of us are so one-dimensional. I answered one phone call this election season which was a poll, and I tried to give them my thoughts. But the poll wasn’t robust enough to properly record them. The first question was “which is the most important issue for you when you’re voting this November.” The problem is, I’m not a one-issue voter, and I’ve a hunch most of us aren’t. But every poll which focused on “the economy/inflation” as the one issue voters would find most important missed the nuances.

Certainly, the economy is one of the issues I considered. But it’s not the only one. I also considered crime, and health care, and national defense, and voters’ rights, and the intrusion of the nanny state, and the environment, and appointments to the federal judiciary, and… well, you get the point. I think about all the ways the government can affect my life (for good or ill), and then I consider the candidates, and I choose those who I think will do the most good and the least bad. Asking me which one issue matters, and then which candidate I’ll vote for to serve that issue, means you’re gathering data that doesn’t reflect reality.

Another failing I saw in this year’s polling was the focus on President Biden’s approval rating, which is indeed quite low. But the polls only considered that, historically, a president with a low approval rating saw the other party win most of the seats in Congress. They didn’t consider that we can think poorly of Joe Biden’s job performance, while at the same time not wanting the Trumpian party candidates to win election and lend any more credence to that grifter.

Unfortunately, that’s the pity of most of our recent elections: very few of us are voting for the candidates; we’re voting against their opponents. I’m going to write directly to both Governor Hochul and Attorney General James, to tell them that my votes for them were not part of any mandate they might consider their elections to be. Rather my votes were against their opponents (well, in the case of James, I do favor certain of her ongoing cases that I fear would have been dropped had her opponent won).

I think that may be the big story no one is telling about the current election cycle: not many of us are truly happy with any of our choices. We’re voting to preserve what we have and improve our lives despite our representatives, not through them.