Archive for the ‘Elections’ Category

Service of Bad Precedent

Thursday, November 12th, 2020

Photo: reason.com

Many of my friends stopped watching the news weeks before the election. They couldn’t take any more stress. Grownups are capable of this choice and of switching channels.

That’s why I found the following news an eye-opener in the land of freedom of speech:

“The three big broadcast networks — ABC, CBS and NBC —cut away from President Trump’s news conference at the White House on Thursday as the president lobbed false claims about the integrity of the election,” Michael M. Grynbaum and Tiffany Hsu wrote in The New York Times. Fox and CNN stayed with it, they reported.

A few days later Fox News did this to press secretary Kayleigh McEnany for the same reason.

So why are the networks suddenly doing this now? Why didn’t they do it during the 2016 presidential campaign?

Photo: whitehouse.gov

In July, 2020 The Guardian reported that “Donald Trump has made 20,000 false or misleading claims while in office, according to the Washington Post, which identified a “’tsunami of untruths.’”

The 45th president has been covered on TV many times since.

I think cutting off a political figure–especially a president–or her/his spokesperson because you don’t like what you’re hearing is inappropriate. Instead a news organization should have on hand credible pundits who parry the bogus allegations or they shouldn’t cover the conference in the first place.

Should a news organization, or its news division, use its ability to cut off a prominent speaker because its producers or owners feel she/he is making things up? Remember all the tobacco industry chiefs who stared into the camera telling the public that smoking is not harmful? Is this a bad precedent?

Photo: inc.com

Service of Masculine Stereotypes & How They Impact the Election

Monday, November 2nd, 2020

Photo: famli.com

I suspect whatever your sexual orientation, you have an idea of masculine characteristics that appeal. Athlete? Tennis, football, hockey, soccer, basketball or golf fan? Opera, jazz, rock, hip hop, rap or country music lover? TV watcher or reader?

What about bravery?

Photo: shotstash.com

Are you masculine if you’re macho, reckless, wild, shoot-from-the-hip, a womanizer and loud or empathetic, cautious, friendly, a family man, nurturing and mild-mannered? The candidates for President represent these characteristics, both easy to satirize or exaggerate which each has done in speeches, via commercials and amplified via spokespeople. Comedians have also had their way with the contenders.

I don’t recall thinking about masculinity regarding candidates in previous elections but today tolerance,  appreciation or intolerance of the various traits of these competitors will impact many a choice at the ballot box. You’re a real man if you don’t wear a mask or if you stick your finger in the eye of the pandemic and you’re a scaredy-cat if you wear one and are Covid-cautious.

We’ll know the answer to the country’s choice tomorrow or soon thereafter.

Are masculine stereotypes bunk? Do you agree that the styles and interpretations of being a “real man” impact voter choices about the 2020 candidates or are the issues paramount?

Photo: videohive.net

 

Service of When You Lose, Let Go

Monday, October 12th, 2020

Photo: yoursalesplaybook.com

I’ve been on the losing side of a board vote. It’s not easy to let go, especially if you spent hours researching the argument for “your side.” The immediate choice: support the majority’s decision or leave the board.

The country did that in 2000 after the Bush vs. Gore election. A large percentage of the population gritted its teeth and moved on when Gore won the national popular vote but lost the electoral college according to the Florida vote recounting.

I am concerned that there are too many militia groups prepared to show their displeasure in violent ways should this president not win a second term.

On Friday Len Berman and Michael Riedel in the Morning on WOR 710 radio, a station with largely a conservative Republican point of view, interviewed Brad Garrett, ABC News Crime & Terrorism Analyst, former FBI agent, media consultant on crime & terrorism and private investigator. He shared his thoughts about the arrested plot by a militia group to kidnap, try for treason and kill Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and to overthrow the Michigan Statehouse.

Michigan Statehouse Photo: michiganradio.com

Garrett said that the hate groups were “serious and were really going to try it.” Berman asked him “are there lots of kooks and groups like this around the country?” Garrett replied “Yes.” He said it is a locally-driven phenomenon and that he is concerned because “they really like President Trump” and “feel that he is in their corner.” My concern, said Garrett, is that if he loses they must “take care of their guy.”

Mary B. McCord in a New York Times opinion piece, “The plot against Gretchen Whitmer shows the danger of private militias,” identified a range of laws that “point to a single conclusion: there is no right in any state for groups of individuals to arm themselves and organize either to oppose or augment the government”

Three Percenters Photo: adl.org

The former acting assistant attorney general for national security wrote: “now, more than ever, state and local officials must enforce these statutes.” And “Those groups, like the Three Percenters, Oath Keepers and others they claim to be ‘patriots’ but answer to their own interpretation of the Constitution, are likely to hear the presidents unsupported claims about election fraud as their license to deploy to the polls to ‘protect’ or ‘patrol’ the vote.”

The president didn’t contact the Governor to see if she was OK after the foiled attempt on her life. Instead he wrote three  tweets, [excerpts follow], in which he claimed the Governor “has done a terrible job,” and he commended the Federal Government’s “tremendous help to the Great People of Michigan.” He added “…. Rather than say thank you, she calls me a White Supremacist–while Biden and Democrats refuse to condemn Antifa, Anarchists, Looters and Mobs that burned down democrat run cities…” In the third tweet he wrote “Governor Whitmer – – open up your state, open up your schools, and open up your churches!”

Craig Mauger in The Detroit News wrote: “Along with federal authorities, state and local law enforcement officials were also involved in uncovering the plot against Whitmer.”

In addition Mauger  reported: “Trump also falsely tied school and church closures to Whitmer. Schools decide for themselves whether to have in-person instruction in Michigan. Churches have been exempt from many COVID-19 restrictions in the state, and many have been holding worship services.”

Have you lived with a decision or vote you disagreed with? How have you handled the disappointment and frustration? Do you think all will be hunky dory after the election if Donald Trump loses? Are you planning to stay home the day the winner is announced in case there is violence?

Photo: boardmember.com

Service of While You Were Distracted by the Pandemic & Election, Environmental Protection Initiatives Were Seeping Under the Radar

Thursday, August 20th, 2020

Photo: azocleantech.com

Millions are focused these days on ducking the dreaded virus, deciding whether or not to send their children back to school, looking for a job, figuring out how to balance job deadlines with childcare, flinching at diminished savings and/or following their candidate for the upcoming election.

Photo: reynolds.k12.or.us.

Meanwhile the administration is at work dismantling environmental protections. Two headlines in The New York Times this week tell the story: “Trump Administration Finalizes Plan to Open Arctic Refuge to Drilling,” and “Trump Eliminates Major Methane Rule, Even as Leaks Are Worsening.”

Brad Plumer and Henry Fountain reported: “The Trump administration on Monday finalized its plan to open up part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas development, a move that overturns six decades of protections for the largest remaining stretch of wilderness in the United States.”

Millenials
Photo: travel.earth

Carol Davenport wrote: “The Trump administration formally weakened a major climate-change regulation on Thursday — effectively freeing oil and gas companies from the need to detect and repair methane leaks — even as new research shows that far more of the potent greenhouse gas is seeping into the atmosphere than previously known.”

Who cares? I’ll tell you. In addition to me and most of my friends and acquaintances, I’d wager millennials and Gen-Zers too. There are some 83.1 million of the former–aged 22-38–and 74 million of the latter, aged 5 to 25.

A hint: “When it comes to dating 20-somethings, there are few bigger turnoffs than putting refuse in the wrong receptacle, according to a new survey by Cluttr, which found that millennials and Gen-Zers prefer dating someone who regularly recycles,” reported Ben Cost in The New York Post. Cluttr is an “unwanted item bazaar.”

Regarding the survey of 1,332 young Americans Cost continued “a whopping 69% of youths would boycott a brand for not adhering to green business practices, while 67% believed that global warming is a serious man-made threat. In fact, 71% even felt that the environment warranted more concern than the economy, which recently suffered its worst blow since the Great Depression amid the coronavirus pandemic.”

Can these harmful actions against the environment be put back in the bottle? What else has happened while we’ve been distracted? Are you watching out for other issues at risk?

Slipping under the radar. Photo: dancelovetoknow.com

Service of Debates: Is This The Way to Pick the Best Candidate?

Monday, February 24th, 2020

Photo: politico.com

The flaws of the debate system to chose a presidential candidate reminds me of one of my business experiences where a person with the gift of gab may not have been a client’s best choice. Here’s the story. A longtime client wanted to initiate a special project. I submitted my idea but another agency won. [I kept the retainer business for years after that.]

Photo: youtube.com

The woman who presented the winning idea–a nationwide consumer contest–was one of the best speakers I’ve heard. Turned out implementation was not her–or her marketing agency’s–strong suit. And the idea itself, without a marketing or advertising budget to support it, from a little known organization, was flawed. In addition, there was money to run the contest only one time and it can take years for such a project to gain momentum.

The prizes for the winner involved generous donations of product. Turned out the agency didn’t know a soul in the industry so my client asked me to make introductions. Gritting my teeth while smiling, I did.

Once the expensive failure was over it was time to send the contest winner–one of only 30 entrants [!]–the goods worth $100,000 at retail.

Photo: youtube.com

The cherry on the stale cake came over the phone again, this time from the project agency. They needed my help. When they reached out to the primary manufacturer-doner with the winner’s name and address for shipping the prize they learned that the person they’d previously worked with was no longer with the company. Nobody else at the company knew what they were talking about.

“No problem,” said I, “this is a reputable company–just send them your correspondence and agreement.” The reply, “There isn’t any. We never confirmed the donation in writing; only on the phone.” Huh?

So what does this business kerfuffle have to do with debates of presidential contenders? Just because someone has a quick tongue or makes a slip-of-one, should they earn or lose anyone’s vote? [For the purpose of this post I have simplified my example. There was politics–if you’ll excuse the expression– involved in the choice of project. The committee wanted to back one of their associates’ contacts, the glossy if defective, marketing company.]

Further, debates don’t always identify the best public speakers. Remember the one in which Barack Obama fell on his face? He subsequently became the best presidential orator of modern time. Do you think debates are the best way to evaluate the candidate that will get your vote?

Photo: washingtonmonthly.

 

Service of Watchdogs Asleep on the Job When Their Partisanship Gets the Better of Them

Monday, October 1st, 2018

Photo: watchdogri.org

Partisanship has caused our representatives to lose their focus. It masks common sense forcing our elected officials and their appointees to make decisions for the wrong reasons. Senator Flake admitted on “60 Minutes” last night that he would not have taken the step he did to insist on an FBI investigation in the Kavanaugh hearing had he been running for office.

Bloomberg View senior executive editor David Shipley shed light on an example that impacts us all yet hasn’t grabbed many headlines. He argued on Bloomberg radio “that the Federal Election Commission [FEC] is overly partisan, and if Democrats take control of one or both sides of Congress in November, they should commence hearings into its operations.”

Photo: commons.wikimedia.org

I checked out some info about the FEC. Its six members** are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. A term is six years, two appointments are made every two years and no more than three commissioners can represent a party. Four members must agree for the commission to take action. **In an “On the Media” interview on NPR on Saturday, Washington Post national reporter Michele Ye He Lee said currently there are four commissioners on the FEC–two from each party.

Shipley said that the Trump 2016 campaign solicited funds from members of Parliament in the UK, which is illegal, but even though watchdog organizations filed complaints, the FEC didn’t pursue the campaign or enforce the law. “The FEC preferred not to know,” he said. He added that “Republicans on the FEC were sure that campaign laws were not broken.”

He also mentioned that when Paul Manafort was Trump’s campaign chairman he sought campaign money for a super PAC that backed Trump, which is also illegal. Nothing happened.

Shipley recommended that if “Democrats take control of Congress in November, and if a bipartisan resolution is impossible, Congress should wind down the FEC and transfer its function to the justice department.” He concluded: “Status quo is a mockery of the law.”

Do you agree? How can members of a watchdog commission accept the position and then forfeit their responsibility without blinking? Can you identify other examples of people we depend on to watch out for us who, for reasons of partisanship, turn a blind eye to illegal activities?

Photo: personaliberty.com

Get This Blog Emailed to You:
Enter your Email


Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Clicky Web Analytics