The Clown joins the Circus

In my last post “Intolerance over the Ages” I said: “It is time for me to take a sabbatical again as the preparation and timing of these posts take an inordinate amount of time away from other projects that interest me” but much as I plan to stop posting events occur that make me feel compelled to speak out.

This has now occurred with the announcement of the candidacy for President of Donald Trump and a Letter to the Editor that appeared in the North Jersey newspaper, The Record, which raised my hackles and prompted me to respond. I reproduce the letter below:

Since it is undoubtedly difficult to read the text on the reproduction, I set forth the text hereafter, though the text of the letter can be found on the web here. 

Donald Trump worth a try

Regarding "Trump enters GOP race in style" (Page A-6, June 17):Until now, I've been without much opinion about politics. In the last few administrations, I've realized what Donald Trump is talking about with our country being laughed at and taken advantage of.

If he succeeds at even half of what he's proposing, we'll be much better off economically. He is a businessman, after all. He says he loves the United States, and I believe him. He's a baby boomer like me, and he has seen the downward spiral of morals, the economy and our credibility, at the expense of political extortion, outsourcing, "big brother" policies and "political correctness."

Trump is a showman, but that's his nature. It should not sway Americans from the belief he is serious. He's got nothing to lose and plans to finance his own campaign. He would use his own residence and transportation instead of us footing the bill. This is leadership by example, not "do as I say, not as I do."

I think it's time the country wakes up from its brainwashing and its nap before it's too late. Trump's worth a try. What have we got to lose?

Joe Zangara

My response, which appeared in the Record of June 24, is reproduced below, though it can be found on the web here, and the text is set forth hereafter:

Regarding "Donald Trump worth a try" (Your Views, June 19):

The writer shows an abysmal ignorance about how our government, or any capitalist government, works.

In a socialist government, the means of production are owned by the government, and its resources come from the profits generated by those enterprises. In a capitalist system, the means of production are in private hands, and the government gets the resources with which to provide the services that its business enterprises and its consumers need from taxation.

Thus, it would make sense to have a businessman head the government in a socialist society, where the object of government is to maximize profit for itself. But this is not the rule in capitalism. In a democratic capitalist society, the president must be skillful in dealing with Congress and other government entities.

When Trump says, "I am really rich," does that mean we could simply pick the richest man in the United States and make him our president? That would be Bill Gates, but he has the good sense to know that he is not qualified to be president. This cannot be said about the egomaniacal clown Donald Trump.

Emil Scheller 

Fort Lee, June 22

I also cannot resist sharing with my readers two articles on Trump that I think are well worth reading.

The first appeared in the Right Wing magazine, The National Review, that was founded by that reputed intellectual, William F. Buckley, Jr. Its viciousness toward one of its own is quite remarkable.

It is set forth below:

Witless Ape Rides Escalator

Donald Trump is in the race. 

Donald Trump may be the man America needs. Having been through four bankruptcies, the ridiculous buffoon with the worst taste since Caligula is uniquely positioned to lead the most indebted organization in the history of the human race. 

The Trump conglomerate is the Argentina of limited-liability companies, having been in bankruptcy as recently as 2009. To be sure, a lot of companies went bankrupt around then. The Trump gang went bankrupt in 2004, too, and in 2001. Before that, Trump was in bankruptcy court back in 1991 when his Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City — the nation’s first casino-cum-strip-club, an aesthetic crime against humanity that is tacky by the standards of Atlantic City — turned out to be such a loser that Trump could not make his debt payments. 

The closing of that casino has been announced at least twice — it was supposed to shut its doors in December, but it limps on. 

Donald Trump, being Donald Trump, announced his candidacy at Trump Plaza, making a weird grand entrance via escalator — going down, of course, the symbolism of which is lost on that witless ape. But who could witness that scene — the self-made man who started with nothing but a modest portfolio of 27,000 New York City properties acquired by his millionaire slumlord father, barely out of his latest bankruptcy and possibly headed for another one as the casino/jiggle-joint bearing his name sinks into the filthy mire of the one U.S. city that makes Las Vegas look respectable, a reality-television grotesque with his plastic-surgery-disaster wife, grunting like a baboon about our country’s “brand” and his own vast wealth — and not see the peerless sign of our times? 

On the substance, Trump is — how to put it gently? Oh, why bother! — an ass.  

Not just an ass, but an ass of exceptionally intense asininity. China? “China’s leaders are like Tom Brady, and the U.S. is like a high-school football team,” Trump says. And so, we should do what? “ . . . ” Trump’s is a fill-in-the-blanks agenda: He claims to have a plan for defeating ISIS, but he cannot say what it is for reasons of operational security for the mission that exists only in his mind. He assures us the plan is “foolproof,” but whoever coined that word had never met a fool like Donald Trump. Immigration? Build a wall and force the Mexicans to pay for it. 

How to do that? 

“ . . . ” 

The one thing worse than Trump’s vague horsepucky is his specific horsepucky, i.e., his 1999 plan to impose a one-time tax — everybody knows how good Washington is about “one time” uses of power — on the wealth of all high-net-worth individuals and institutions. A 14.25 percent tax, he calculated, would retire the national debt. And what about institutions that don’t have 14.25 percent of their net worth in ready cash — to take a totally random example, let’s say a poorly run real-estate concern with a lot of illiquid assets and unmanageable debt payments eating up all its ready cash? 

“ . . . ” 

Trump says that he cannot discuss the details of his agenda because of — his word — “enemies.” Who are these enemies?

 “ . . . ” 

Perspective? Trump predicted that we may be heading toward a stock-market crash worse than the one in 1929, but: “I remain extremely optimistic about Atlantic City.” 

We’ve been to this corner of Crazytown before. If we’re going to have a billionaire dope running for the presidency, I prefer Ross Perot and his cracked tales of Vietnamese hit squads dispatched to take him out while Lee Atwater plotted to crash his daughter’s wedding with phonied-up lesbian sex pictures.

I have a theory about Trump and his delusions, based, I’ll admit, on pure superstition. There’s an ancient belief, one that persists into our own time, that our names exert occult influence on our lives. And Trump’s name, while potentially comical — “Don-John” — doesn’t offer much in the way of scrying. But his father’s middle name was — true fact — Christ. Fred Christ. Obama’s arrival was announced by a man called Emanuel, but The Donald was brought into this world by Christ himself — Fred Christ. How could a man like that not have a messiah complex? 

Of course, when Trump sings “How Great Thou Art,” he sings it in a mirror. 

The problem with messiah complexes is that there’s no way to know whether you are going to rise on the third day unless somebody crucifies you. Trump has announced, and I say we get started on that. — 

Kevin D. Williamson is National Review’s roving correspondent. 

The other is an article that sets forth some interesting facts about “the great man”. It appeared on the web here. I reproduce it without comment.

In March 2011 Forbes estimated Donald Trump's net worth to be $2.7 billion, with a $60 million salary. Many praise and analyze his “success” as if it were self-made, and they fail to attribute the proper credit to others in society where it is deserved. Despite what Trump may espouse, his success would have been in no way possible without his father, the general public, and the US government. Unfortunately, Trump decided to forget or selectively ignore these truths while forming his political philosophy, a sentiment made particularly clear during his brief bid for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Trump was born in New York City in 1946, the son of real estate tycoon Fred Trump. Fred Trump’s business success not only provided Donald Trump with a posh youth of private schools and economic security but eventually blessed him with an inheritance worth an estimated $40 million to $200 million. It is critical to note, however, that his father’s success, which granted Donald Trump such a great advantage, was enabled and buffered by governmental financing programs. In 1934, while struggling during the Great Depression, financing from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) allowed Fred Trump to revive his business and begin building a multitude of homes in Brooklyn, selling at $6,000 apiece. Furthermore, throughout World War II, Fred Trump constructed FHA-backed housing for US naval personnel near major shipyards along the East Coast.

In 1974 Donald Trump became president of his father’s organization. During the 15 years following his ascension, he expanded and innovated the corporation, buying and branding buildings, golf courses, hotels, casinos, and other recreational facilities. In 1980 he established The Trump Organization to oversee all of his real estate operations.

Trump eventually found himself in serious financial trouble. In 1990, due to excessive leveraging, The Trump Organization revealed that it was $5 billion in debt ($8.8 billion by some estimates), with $1 billion personally guaranteed by Trump himself. The survival of the company was made possible only by a bailout pact agreed upon in August of that same year by some 70 banks, allowing Trump to defer on nearly $1 billion in debt, as well as to take out second and third mortgages on almost all of his properties. If it were not for the collective effort of all banks and parties involved in that 1990 deal, Trump’s business would have gone bankrupt and failed.

In 1995 Trump took Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Inc. public and received a substantial financial boost from society and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations that enable the market to function. He initially sold 10 million shares at $14 per share and then in 1996 sold 13.25 million shares at $32.50 a share. This initial public offering granted Trump’s company a stability and legitimacy that would have been impossible without millions of people around the world trusting his organization and investing with the hope of shared success.

Despite the clear societal and governmental assistance described above, Trump continues to be outspoken in his criticism of government. In his book The America We Deserve, Trump explains that “the greatest threat to the American Dream is the idea that dreamers need close government scrutiny and control. Job one for us is to make sure the public sector does a limited job, and no more.” This quote proves to be particularly ironic when considering Trump’s feelings about eminent domain laws. He was quoted as saying, “I happen to agree with it 100 percent” when speaking of the 2005 Supreme Court decision on Kolo v. New London, which affirmed the government’s ability to transfer land from one private owner to another for the purpose of economic development in the area. In fact, Trump attempted to take advantage of eminent domain laws on multiple occasions, once even demanding that an elderly widow give up her home so that he could build a limousine parking lot.

Perhaps more disturbing than his hypocritical condemnation of the government is his failure to acknowledge anyone’s contributions, save his own, in the creation of his success. At the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump made clear his feelings on the creation of his wealth: “Over the years I’ve participated in many battles and have really almost come out very, very victorious every single time. I’ve beaten many people and companies, and I’ve won many wars. I have fairly but intelligently earned many billions of dollars, which in a sense was both a scorecard and acknowledgment of my abilities.” 

Furthermore, Trump apparently sees no benefit in supporting taxes to maintain institutions such as the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate the stock market, in which he publicly trades his company, or the court system, which actively protects his property rights: “We are the highest taxed nation—I would tax foreign countries that are ripping off the US and lower taxes for Americans.”

From the moment of his birth, Trump was set up for success. The large inheritance left to him by his father, coupled with the contributions and the protections of society and the US government made his ascension to the Forbes 400 list almost inevitable. Nevertheless, Trump fails to recognize this phenomenon and continues to express his belief that he did it alone.

Copyright © 2012 with permission from Berrett Koehler Publishers. 

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

Intolerance over the Ages

It is time for me to take a sabbatical again as the preparation and timing of these posts take an inordinate amount of time away from other projects that interest me.

But before I do so, I feel I need to do at least one more post on the subject, which forms the title of this post.

What particularly prompts me to focus on this subject now, is that I watched, for at least the second time, the movie “Gentlemen’s Agreement”. For those who are not privy to the movie, or have long since forgotten it, it was released in 1947, or some 67 years ago. At the time it was considered a groundbreaker, for it dealt with a taboo subject – Anti-Semitism. Those who are much younger than I will not be aware just how rampant it was, and those who are old enough, may no longer remember. But for example, Representative John Rankin (Dem–Miss.) on June 5, 1941 rose on the floor of the House of Representatives and declared “Wall Street bankers and international Jews”  were dragging the country into war. 

Long after the film was released, five years later to be exact, as late as 1952, Rankin said on the House floor:

“They whine about discrimination. Do you know who is being discriminated against? The white Christian people of America, the ones who created this nation… I am talking about the white Christian people of the North as well as the South.” 

Doesn’t that sound familiar - only now it is African-Americans. And it is no longer the Democratic Party; Now it is the Republican Party. After all these years, Jews still have very little prominence in the Republican Party.

Strangely, the producer of the film Darryl Zanuck, who was not Jewish, was prompted to produce the film after being refused membership in the Los Angeles Country Club, because it was assumed incorrectly that he was Jewish. Equally interesting “Before filming commenced, Samuel Goldwyn and other Jewish film executives approached Darryl Zanuck and asked him not to make the film, fearing it would "stir up trouble". 

But the above is merely background material for my reaction to the film, for from my vantage point, almost 70 years later, what I noted was its inherent prejudices.

One couldn’t miss its sexism, as when, for example, the female lead, after having accepted a marriage proposal exclaims: “I want to feel how it sounds to be Mrs. Phillip Green”. Now looking at the movie from a vantage point more than 60 years later, when so many women, including my daughter, decline to take their husbands' last names, it seems almost incredible that a women would so completely give up her identity as to surrender, not only her last name, but her first name as well.

But much more striking is the total absence in the movie of a face of color. When I say absence I mean we don’t even see a face of color in the role of a maid. They simply don’t exist. There is also the element of class, for we look in vain for even a small glimpse of people who are not part of “polite society”.

But possibly what comes across to me most of all is the change of the face of the parties. Rankin, was a Democrat, as were the many Southern segregationists of the time. Governor Wallace the outspoken segregationist from Alabama, who later ran for President, was a Democrat. Strom Thurmond, the racist Senator from South Carolina, who also later ran for President was a Democrat.

We don’t find people like that in the Democratic Party any more. The first African-American to occupy the White House is a Democrat.

The first women to occupy the White House is also, more likely than not, to be a Democrat.

To be sure we have one prominent African-American Republican as a Presidential candidate, Ben Carson. But it is interesting to note the make-up of the Congressional delegations of the two parties when it comes to Jews, African Americans and women.

Here is the scorecard:

There are a total of 10 (ten) Jews in the US Senate. They are all Democrats. See here.

There are a total of 19 (nineteen) Jews in the House of Representatives. One (1) is a Republican; 18 (eighteen) are Democrats.

There is only one Jewish Governor in the US. He is a Democrat.

There are 9 (nine) Jewish mayors of major cities in the USA. None are Republican. Eight (8) of them are Democrats and one is an Independent. 

---------------------------

There are a total of 43 (forty-three) African-Americans in the House of Representatives. 43 are Democrats and none are Republicans.

There are two African-Americansin the US Senate. They are Tim Scott of South Carolina and Cory Booker of New Jersey. One is a Republican and one a Democrat. 

There is only one African-American Governor in the US. He is Deval Patrick of Massachusetts. He is a Democrat.

The hoopla about Carson is window-dressing.

--------------------------------

There are 20 women in the US Senate. 14 are Democrats; 6 are Republican.

There are 84 women in the House of Representatives. 62 are Democrats; 22 are Republican. 

--------------------------------

There are Twenty-Nine (29) Latino-Americans in the House of Representatives. Seven (7) are Republican; 22 are Democrats.

How many of these Hispanic House member are Cuban it is not possible to tell. This is crucially important because there is a vast ethnic and political difference between the “Hispanics” from South of the border and from Puerto Rico, and Spanish speaking peoples who hailed from Cuba or from Spain.

There are three (3) Hispanics in the Senate. Two are Republican; One is a Democrat. All are of Cuban descent.

All the so called Republican “Hispanics” vying for the Republican Presidential nomination are of Cuban descent. The media distorts and misrepresents when they put such disparate groups into the same definition on the basis of a common language.

I think that these statistics tell us a great deal.

Neither Jews, nor African-Americans, nor women, have a home in the Republican party of today. It is for good reason that the Republican Party of today has been described as the party of old, Christian, White men.

------------------------------

Even though it is unrelated, I have to share with my readers a letter I wrote to the New York Times, which I have no doubt will not be published.

To the Editor:

 As a long time reader and subscriber to the NY Times I am appalled at the discriminatory coverage by the Times of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

 Clinton launched her Presidential campaign yesterday, on June 13, 2015, in New York, on Roosevelt Island.

 The TV networks and web outlets gave it prominent and instant coverage. The NJ Newspaper, the Record, covered it on its front page in its Sunday edition.

 The Washington Post gave it gave it front page coverage with the headline: Democracy not ‘just for billionaires,’ Hillary Clinton tells crowd in N.Y. Even the Times of Israel ran the headline: “At first major rally, Clinton touts foreign policy chops”

 But the New York newspaper, The NY Times relegates it to page 14 of its Sunday edition.

 What does that tell us about the paper?

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

The Right Wing Media (Discussion continued)

In my last post dated June 8^th 2015 entitled "The Right Wing Media (Discussion)" I said: “My response to the one from Albert Nekimken ended up being rather long and so I will save that for my next post." As promised it is set forth below:

Nekimken wrote:

This was an excellent commentary for multiple reasons. You've highlighted a kind of "thrust, counter-thrust" parry of political knives that exposes the underbelly of both political correctness and political incorrectness.

 In the end, it reminds me of Shakespeare, "The man doth protest too much." The more that Republicans lionize Ben Carson, the more he alienates himself from the majority of American blacks--which is unfortunate.

 On the other hand, he does serve to warn Democrats not to take the black vote for granted in exchange for pallid slogans: Most blacks want Sanders-style restructuring of the economic order in order to level the playing field.

And here is the lengthy response, referred to in my previous post:

Thank you for your complimentary response. It is indeed an example of thrust and counter-thrust. But that is not what I was trying to illustrate in posting the two articles.

Most people will read an article, whether from Left or Right, and take it at face value. I wanted to illustrate that this is a mistake. I looked for the article by Cynthia Tucker to which the Newsmax article referred, and upon finding that it didn’t say any of the things that the Newsmax article claimed, set it forth to show how extensive the misrepresentation was.

However, I now find that I found the wrong article by Tucker, and so I must make amends, by setting forth below the correct one, which did use the language claimed in the Newsmax article: I set it forth below:

Ben Carson Is in Danger of Losing All Respect

May 07, 2015 

Over decades of a brilliant career as a brain surgeon, Dr. Ben Carson attracted legions of admirers -- black, white and brown; liberal, moderate and conservative; fundamentalist Christian and agnostic. His story is the stuff of legend, the awe-inspiring tale of a poor black boy in Detroit who overcame daunting obstacles and vaulted to the very top of his profession.

 Given that his profession was pediatric neurosurgery, black Americans were particularly proud. Carson, who was the first surgeon to successfully separate conjoined twins attached at the head, stood as stark repudiation of invidious stereotypes about black intellectual capacity. His memoir, "Gifted Hands," has been passed through countless black households.

 But the good doctor's foray into Republican presidential politics threatens to become his epitaph, to overshadow -- perhaps even to overwhelm -- his academic and surgical accomplishments. He will likely be remembered as the GOP's latest black mascot, a court jester, a minstrel show. He'll be the Herman Cain of 2016.

 Clearly, Carson's chances of winning the Republican nomination for president stand at less than zero. No matter how many cheers he attracts at conservative gab-fests, no matter how many of his bumper stickers appear on the vehicles of true believers, no matter how many Fox News pundits suggest he's a viable candidate, he won't come close to becoming the GOP standard-bearer.

 Nor should he. He is dangerously unqualified for the presidency -- a political novice who is happily ignorant of policy, both foreign and domestic, and contemptuous of religious pluralism and personal liberties.

 Carson catapulted to stardom in the ultraconservative firmament in 2013, when he addressed the National Prayer Breakfast with a speech in which he lashed out at the Affordable Care Act as President Obama sat nearby. Though the breakfast has a long history of nonpartisanship, Carson chose to criticize many of the policies that the president supports, including progressive taxation.

 That was enough to cause conservatives to swoon. Since Obama's election, Republicans have been sensitive to charges that their small tent of aging voters has become a bastion of white resentment, a cauldron of bigotry, nativism and fear of the other. They want to show that their fierce resistance to all things Obama has nothing to do with race.

 That promotes a special affection for black conservatives who are willing to viciously criticize the president. As with Cain before him, Carson garners the most enthusiastic cheers from conservative audiences when he's excoriating Obama, the most rapturous applause when he seems to absolve them of charges of bigotry. Why would Carson trade on his reputation to become their token?

 I've little doubt that his conservative impulses are genuine. He grew up Seventh-day Adventist, a conservative religious tradition. Moreover, he has adopted a view popular among white conservatives: that black Democrats give short shrift to traditional values such as thrift, hard work and sacrifice. (Hasn't Carson ever heard any of Obama's riffs excoriating deadbeat dads and promoting discipline, scholarship and parental involvement in their children's lives?)

 But Carson hardly represents the long and honorable tradition of black conservatism in America. Starting with the father of that movement, Booker T. Washington, its adherents have had a healthy appreciation for the reality of racism in America. Carson, however, thinks Obamacare "really (is) the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery. And ... it is slavery in a way." Washington and his peers, who knew better, would never have countenanced such nonsense.

 Moreover, black conservatism has promoted self-reliance, but it hasn't been a font of right-wing intolerance and know-nothingism. Carson, for his part, has dismissed evolution (giving his former colleagues at Johns Hopkins heartburn); he has compared homosexuality to bestiality; and he has spurned the First Amendment's separation of church and state.

 Given the ultraconservative politics of GOP primary voters, those extreme positions may help Carson in the early campaign season. But those views also guarantee that mainstream Republican leaders and their donors will flock elsewhere, seeking to find an experienced, broadly appealing and electable candidate.

 Carson can only lose in this campaign -- and more than just the Republican primary. He also stands to lose his place as one of the nation's most admired men.

Thus it turns out that the claim by Newsmax that Tucker said of Carson:

"He will likely be remembered as the GOP's latest black mascot, a court jester, a minstrel show. He'll be the Herman Cain of 2016,” is accurate.

The fury by any African-American at one who betrays his people’s aspirations is understandable - such people used to be called "Uncle Toms”, but that term has gone out of favor. A careful reading of what Tucker is saying reveals that she is not so much denouncing Carson for his views, as she would a white politician with similar views, but describing the attitude within the Republican party toward blacks who are prepared to front for them. The racism within the Right is established beyond dispute, and when they embrace one in black skin, who has nothing but contempt for his own race, they embrace him, to try to show to White moderates that their bigotry does not really exist. But one black face on the platform does not erase the missing black faces in the audience, which invariably shows a sea of White. Thus, when Tucker talks of minstrel shows, she is not saying that she thinks he is that, but rather that to the Republican party he represents “their minstrel show”. She points out that Carson has no chance at the nomination, but if he did somehow get it, he would not get the bulk of the African-American vote, which votes on issues, not on identity politics. Backs voted in no greater numbers for Obama than they did for Clinton, and they have been a reliable Democratic constituency since Johnson pushed through the Civil Rights legislation.

As for the constant reference to Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz as Hispanic candidates that is a misnomer that is not challenged nearly often enough. Both of these politicians are of Cuban descent and as such have nothing in common with the Hispanic population that hails from south of the border, other than a common language. They are not traitors to their brethren because they do not hail from the same ethnic background. The media is not doing anyone a favor in putting all who have a common language (Spanish) into one ethnic basket. In fact, the true White colonial Spaniards who owned all the land in the Americas, south of the border, were the privileged oppressors of the indigenous people who represent what is today called Hispanic.

Your comment that "blacks want Sanders-style restructuring of the economic order in order to level the playing field” expresses your views, rather than that of most blacks. I predict that in the Democratic primaries Clinton will draw far more black voters than Sanders, who is considered a fringe candidate by most of the electorate, and that includes blacks.

But returning to the racism of the Right, it reveals itself once again in its concluding paragraph:

After all, it’s easier to attack Carson that admit to the fact that in Baltimore city schools 84 percent of eighth graders score below grade level in reading and 87 percent below grade level in math. That’s not Carson’s fault!

The implication is that there is something inherently wrong with blacks who have not, like Carson, been able to overcome the obstacles that our racist society puts in their path by putting their fathers in jail and giving them inferior schools. From the moment they start out they are born with obstacles that Carson, Oprah Winfrey, Toni Morrison and Maya Angelou have managed to overcome, but that most find insurmountable. Except for Carson, the others are not crowing that if they can do it anybody can. They try to help those who are left behind by supporting policies that will help the aspirations of their brethren.

I am afraid that brevity is not my strong suit.

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

The Right Wing Media (Discussion)

On June 4, 2015 I posted my commentary entitled "The Right Wing Media."

Almost imediately I received three commnets on the post. My reponse to the one from Albert Nekinken ended up being rather long and so I will save that for my next post.

The other two, however, are set forth below:

From Mike Cerrato, Esq. of Westville, New Jersey, came this generous compliment:

As usual, very educational. I fear, however, that many of the people who SHOULD be comparing and contrasting the "reported facts" to the actual article will be few and far between. Thanks for the ammunition, though, I will certainly use it appropriately.

To which I was forced to reply:

As you will see from one of my future posts, I made a mistake, and while one should always " be comparing and contrasting the "reported facts" to the actual article will be few and far between” I ended up quoting the wrong article from  Cynthia Tucker. Mea culpa.

Robert Malchman of Brooklyn, NY wrote:

This is why I *don't* read "conservative" (i.e., reactionary) news sites or watch their television.  I know I should, if for no better reason than "know your enemy."  The combination of hypocrisy and imbecility enrages me, which adds nothing to my day.  I'd much rather watch MSNBC and John Stewart skewer these evil trolls, even if it doesn't have much affect.  Luckily the Foxpublican Party is going to die out, as ignorant white men become a smaller and smaller percentage of the electorate.  The Koch Brothers can spend a billion dollars per election cycle and try to suppress minority voting, but their base (and I do mean BASE) electorate is slowly but surely going six feet under.

To which my response was:

Thanks for your comment.

I can understand your reluctance to read Right Wing commentary. It can be infuriating. But as you say one should read it, "if for no better reason than "know your enemy.”

 But actually, I think there is an even better reason. How can one be sure ones views are sound unless they are constantly tested against different views. If one choses to live in an echo chamber, and unfortunately, recent surveys have shown that this is exactly what most people are doing, how can one ever be sure that ones views are sound. I feel I have to expose myself to a variety of views to get stimulation for my own, though I have to admit that this is easier for one who is retired, then for one who has to earn ones daily bread.

My post “Facts, Facts, Facts! They are pesky things," is an example of the extent to which the Right Wing media will go, telling outright lies about the Clintons. Yet we have to recognize that the smears of the Clinton’s are definitely having an effect, as the polls on Hillary’s popularity have shown. In November of 2012 her favorability rating was 58.6% favorable v. 33.1% unfavorable. As of June 1 it was  favorable 46% v. 48.4% unfavorable, and in a discussion with a very liberal friend (supporter of Bernie Sanders) today, she expressed concern about Clinton's ethics on the basis of foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

 In the hubbub over foreign contributions to the foundation, what is overlooked is that it is a charitable foundation, from which the Clintons do not profit. One might even argue that turning down donations, which benefit people in need throughout the world, is something no one has the right to do, since the money refused is money that is not available for the recipients of the foundations work. But the media has always enjoyed lots of good copy by playing up accusations that eventually, more often than not, have turned out to have no basis in fact. Whitewater never proved to be Clinton corruption despite the best efforts of Keneth Starr, and in the end all they could get on Bill or Hillary was that he lied about an extra-marital affair, as just about anyone would lie about something like that, and as e.g. Martin Luther King (of sainted memory) did.

 But the so-called liberal media is a myth concocted by the media echo chamber, and the New York Times, despite its liberal editorial page, has spread more than its share of Right Wing lies. 

And then added:

After I sent the below set forth message I started thinking about the things that do bother me. For instance I think it was wrong to indict former speaker Hastert for paying blackmail. But I am much more bothered by the amount of money he reportedly made as a lobbyist after leaving Congress. Influence peddling is a big deal in Washington and the Clintons never indulged in this form of payola.

 On the other hand they have made huge amounts in speaking fees, which I find abhorrent. But this is so ingrained in our culture that it is difficult to fault them. See ABC News for an article about how much Sarah Palin has been making. But that article has an even more important item. I quote from the article. "President Reagan once got $2 million from a Japanese manufacturing company for two 20-minute speeches… And George W. Bush told reporters he expected to make a "ridiculous" amount of money on the speaker's circuit when he left office.”

 Our system also effectively makes it impossible for anyone to run for public office unless they have one or more rich angels, and that includes Sanders. 

 We cannot hold people to a standard that is completely out of line from that which is ingrained. More important is whether they want to change the system.

 In the end we will always have to choose between realistic, and I emphasize realistic, choices, unless we want to simply opt out of the process and leave it to the very worst elements.

 Sorry! I do get carried away.

Which only prompted a further repsonse from Malchman as follows:

Well, a couple of things. One, if Hillary is elected and one or more of the SCOTUS Republicans leave the bench, Citizens United will get overturned.  My fantasy is that the Court say corporations are not people for purposes of constitutional protection.  Corporations are creature of state (and sometimes federal) law, and could be banned outright (caveat: I haven't thought about the implication of the Contracts Clause here), and therefore could be regulated to restrict speech.  The Constitution protects people, not legal fictions or business constructs.  But I'm not holding my breath waiting for that ruling.

 As for Hastert, he was not indicted for paying blackmail, he was indicted for structuring cash bank withdrawals to avoid federal reporting requirements and then lying to the FBI about it.  Those are real crimes.  At a moral level, I have no doubt he's serial a child molester, and anything bad that happens to him is karmicly (if that's a word) deserved.

Ending that exhange with my concluding reply quoted below:

I am afraid that this is indeed a fantasy. The more likely scenario, even if Clinton is elected, which is not a given, is that Ginsburg will retire and her replacement will face a filibuster leaving eight on the court and we get 5-3 Right Wing decisions. Eventually one of the Right wing judges retires and we get a deal of one on the right and one on the left, continuing the 5-4 split of today. Maybe in a Clinton second term we get control of the court, but that is a long way off.

 Sorry, I wish I could buy into your fantasy.

And then concluded with:

As for Hastert, I know they got him on a law that might stick, but that is just the handle. I don’t believe in prosecuting people on a legal fiction, on the theory that you, or they think, but can’t prove, that he's a serial child molester.

 The sale of influence is of much greater concern to me.

Next time I will share with my readers my exhange with Nekimken, where I confessed a serious error in having set forth in my original post the wrong article from Cynthia Tucker. But that will have to wait for my next post.

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

The Right Wing Media

Most people read only the articles and the media that they expect will reflect their own political predilections. I think that is a mistake that I try to avoid making. We can learn as much, if not more, from reading the media that does not reflect our philosophical bent.

I regularly read such Right Wing publications as the National Review and Newsmax which frequently link me to articles in the Rupert Murdoch owned New York Post.

Thus in the article that I posted on my blog on April 30, entitled: “Facts, Facts, Facts! They are pesky things,” I set forth an article that first appeared in the NY Post, and then was reprised by the National Review, which contained, not just distortions, but out and out lies about the Clintons and their foundations. I urge the reader to reread that post.

I refer back to that because I have now come across another article that appeared in Newsmax that distorts and is racist to boot. The article under the heading: “Blacks Attack Carson for Being Conservative” and is reproduced below:

Blacks Attack Carson for Being Conservative

By Clarence V. McKee

 Pulitzer Prize-winning black columnist Cynthia Tucker is one of the first black liberals to attempt to politically lynch Dr. Ben Carson because his political views are out of tune with the black liberal Democratic chorus.

 In a recent column, forced to admit the truth about Carson’s “brilliant” career as a pediatric neurosurgeon and his “awe-inspiring tale of a poor black boy in Detroit who overcame daunting obstacles,” she proceeded to mercilessly plunge the dagger of political correctness into his back. 

 “But the good doctor's foray into Republican presidential politics threatens to become his epitaph, to overshadow — perhaps even to overwhelm — his academic and surgical accomplishments. He will likely be remembered as the GOP's latest black mascot, a court jester, a minstrel show.”

Black “mascot,” “court jester,” “minstrel show”? What a disgusting, despicable, hateful choice of words as she figuratively hoisted Carson up the tree of political correctness with a rope of intolerance. His crime — daring to stray from the Democratic liberal plantation, think for himself and not mimic the liberal Democratic script as blacks are supposed to do. 

 Tucker is like other “overseers” — black and white — of that plantation. They drive the nails and tighten the rope to crucify and lynch any black conservative who dares challenge the orthodoxy of liberal establishment policies. They judge blacks like Carson not by the content of their character, accomplishments, and deeds but rather by their racist perspective of how they think blacks should think.

 As Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., has said, “one of the most threatening places to be in politics is a black conservative.” 

 Overseers like Tucker don't dare denigrate Jewish or Hispanic conservative politicians with such language — that's reserved for blacks like Carson — so he had better get ready for more.

 Talk-show host and author Tavis Smiley told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly that Carson was "a black bull in a Republican china shop," and that “if he's not careful, he is going to do himself irreparable damage."

 He went on to say that if he were close to Carson he would “call for intervention to stop him, what he is doing to himself and his reputation."

 How patronizing.

 Unlike other ethnic groups, blacks like Tucker enjoy the “political blood sport” of tearing down other blacks just because they have different political philosophies and solutions to our country’s social and urban problems. 

Other groups — at least in public — respect their own. For example, Hispanic journalists and Democrats, to the best of my knowledge, haven’t demeaned Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., or Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, just because they seek the GOP nomination and have a conservative message. 

 They understand the wisdom of not putting all of their Hispanic political eggs into one Democratic Party basket.

 Unfortunately, most of the black liberal democratic establishment appear to have kinder words and empathy for blacks who burned down black and minority-owned businesses in Ferguson and Baltimore than they do for blacks who dare express different political viewpoints and solutions to the very problems creating frustration in places like Baltimore and other cities.

 How dare Tucker stoop so low and defame this great man of accomplishment and vision who has given so much back to society including his Carson Scholarship Fund, which has awarded nearly 7,000 scholarships to youth for academic excellence? She should be ashamed.

 If she cares so much about blacks, especially youth, she has a heck of a way of showing it by using her pen to politically deride such a great role model. They will notice how he is being treated by Tucker and most likely her cohorts in the black media and liberal democratic establishments and they'll think, “If they do that to him after all he has done, why should I not finish school and take the easy way out — sell drugs, make quick money, and produce babies?"

 Tucker’s message to them is: “No matter how much you accomplish, just don’t think for yourself and stray from the Democratic plantation or we will get you.” 

 Don’t hold your breath waiting for the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, or the National Urban League, or most black and white liberal journalists and pundits to condemn such racist and vicious attacks. So the question is, Who will?

 After all, it’s easier to attack Carson that admit to the fact that in Baltimore city schools 84 percent of eighth graders score below grade level in reading and 87 percent below grade level in math. That’s not Carson’s fault!

 © 2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

But even among those who might read such attacks, how many will actually read the article that is the subject of the venom, which was written by Cynthia Tucker who used to be the “editorial page editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper for 17 years, and more recently, …was that newspaper’s Washington-based political columnist. She maintains a syndicated column, which is published in dozens of newspapers around the country.” See here.

So here it is. It appears under the heading "Ben Carson,admirable man with a mistaken philosophy":

Ben Carson, admirable man with a mistaken philosophyBy Cynthia Tucker, Special to CNN

 Updated 8:44 AM ET, Tue March 26, 2013

 Like giddy teenagers, Republican activists have fallen for another charming, personable and accomplished black conservative. Dr. Ben Carson is the newest object of their crush, which was born of a desperate need to attract more black men and women as high-profile standard-bearers.

 You can't blame Republican loyalists for swooning over the doc, a renowned surgeon who rose from poverty to head pediatric neurosurgery at Baltimore's famed Johns Hopkins Hospital. If wooing voters of color were simply a matter of finding an attractive black face with an inspiring personal story and an impressive resume, Carson would be hard to beat.

 But black voters tend to be more discerning than that. They have shown an unerring instinct for rejecting condescension and dismissing tokenism. There are many black Americans who admire Carson for his professional accomplishments (I'm one of them), but that admiration is unlikely to translate into votes.

 One of the reasons is that Carson doesn't seem to know black Americans' political values very well. In his most recent book -- a political tract called "America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great" -- he writes: "Many African-Americans voted for Obama simply because he was a black man and not because they resonated philosophically with his policies." In fact, black voters have been increasingly allied with the Democratic Party since the 1960s when Lyndon Johnson pushed through significant civil rights legislation. Al Gore received about 95% of the black vote in 2000, John Kerry about 93% in 2004.

 Moreover, Carson seems to have adopted the view, popular among so many ultra-conservatives, that the Democratic Party appeals to voters who shun the work ethic.

Talking to The New York Times recently about his conservative views, Carson described himself as a "flaming liberal" in college who later became disaffected with the Democratic Party. "One thing I always believed strongly in was personal responsibility and hard work," he said. "I found the Democrat Party leaving me behind on that particular issue."

 That notion -- fallacious though it is -- is at least as popular among black conservatives as among white ones. I've been hearing it from black Republicans for at least two decades. Several years ago, I interviewed a black conservative running a doomed campaign for a suburban Atlanta congressional district. She had no prior political experience, no policies to advance, no program to sell. Her platform consisted of her belief in hard work, which she contrasted, at least implicitly, with black Democrats' supposed preference for sloth.

 That view is as puzzling as it is infuriating. It may charm those white conservatives who hold stereotypical views of black Americans, but it bears little resemblance to the realities that inform their choices at the ballot box.

 In his memoir, "Gifted Hands," and in his motivational speeches, Carson talks about his impoverished childhood and his remarkable semiliterate mother. Married at 13 only to later divorce her philandering husband, she enforced high academic standards for Carson and his brother while working two or three jobs as a maid or nanny -- and battling debilitating depression.

 Carson eventually got into Yale and became, at 33, the youngest person to head a department at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He is famous for separating conjoined twins.

 That's a compelling and powerful tale. But it differs from those of other hardworking black people I know only in the degree of success that Carson attained as a result, not in the measures of ambition, industriousness, discipline and self-respect his mother instilled in her children.

 Yet black Americans know better than to believe those traits are enough to guarantee success. History taught us better. Just look back over the last decade and a half. In 2000, according to the U.S. census, less than a quarter of black Americans -- 22.5% -- lived in poverty. By 2010, that number had risen to 27.4%. Was there a sudden outbreak of indolence among black folk over that period? Or were there outside forces that conspired to knock them back down the economic ladder?

 As long as the Republican Party refuses to acknowledge that, it will have little to offer workers of color -- and declining appeal to younger whites. They, too, understand the limits of self-reliance.

 To be helpful to the GOP, Carson would have to remind them of the caprice of capitalism and the generational reach of racism's barriers. Instead, he sounds like the standard-issue Ayn Rand acolyte, no different from Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan. He opposes the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and supports a flat tax. For good measure, he's also a religious conservative who disputes evolution.

 It's no wonder that conservatives have started to trumpet him as their Great Black Hope. Psychologists believe that romantic interest increases when people mirror each other's gestures. Carson perfectly reflects the beliefs of his suitors.

 Still, this romance is unlikely to blossom into a long-lasting love affair. There are too many misunderstandings, too many unspoken expectations, too many half-baked assumptions. And some of those half-based assumptions are Carson's.

I share this with my readers without comment and hope that they will supply it. But in any case I will have some comment in my next post.

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.