Recent Posts


We’ve heard Donald Trump claim that Hillary shouldn’t be president because Bill Clinton had infidelities.  To be specific, Trump claims Bill Clinton was a sexual predator, the worst in the history of the presidency.  Specifically per the AP, Trump said this:


 “But Bill Clinton has sexually assaulted innocent women and Hillary Clinton was attacking those women viciously.”
“Bill Clinton was the worst abuser of women to ever sit in the Oval Office. He was a predator,”

There is no credible evidence that Hillary ever attacked these women, much less viciously.  She did stand by Bill through rough going, but that is arguably evidence commitment to traditional marriage, not of abuse of anyone else.  Trump in contrast has not only demeaned and vilified his accusers, he has threatened them with law suits.  (Prediction, I expect counter suits, and that Trump will drop his suits, and pay these women to settle theirs.)


But as to the claims against Bill Clinton, I would argue that as sexual escapades in the White House go, he’s been among the less egregious, not the worst.  More on that below, but first an examination of the allegations against “President Bubba”.


To get specific, Bill Clinton had five formal allegations of sexual misconduct; the claims of Juanita Broadderick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones, have not been established.  They exist as accusations of dubious authenticity, given Broadderick and Willey both testified under oath that Clinton never made unwanted advances.  Further Willey had a history of false accusations, which included telling a boyfriend she was pregnant, when she was not, and then claiming a miscarriage that she didn’t have.  Linda Tripp of Monica Lewinsky scandal fame claimed it was Willey who was obsessed from day 1 with seducing the President.


Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky both appeared to have had some kind of sexual relationships but not apparently coitus with Lewinsky.  Bill Clinton admitted to a one time sexual relationship with Flowers. She couldn’t prove otherwise, and offered up what appeared to be doctored phone calls that did not prove a long term sexual relationship.


Gennifer Flowers used her notoriety for profit, to the tune of $500,000.  All of the women who have appeared with Donald Trump prior to his second debate, both alleged victims of Bill Clinton, and a very questionable rape victim, were paid to do so, to the tune of $2,5000 each, and their stories conflict with prior accounts of events, including Grand Jury testimony under oath.


Hillary has also been accused of laughing at the alleged victim of a rape case, presumably thereby abusing HER,  where she had no option out of defending the accused rapist, whom she got a plea deal.  She did laugh at the botched case of the prosecution, and she was recorded laughing at the unreliability of polygraph testing, which showed the accused rapist to be innocent.  But she did NOT laugh at the victim.  Further complicating the rape case, the 12 year old victim had consensual sex with a 15 year old boy prior to the accused rape, and had previously made false accusations of bodily attacks.


Hillary Clinton tried to get out of defending her client, but she got a good outcome for her client (a plea deal, not an acquittal)  because he passed a polygraph test, and because of lack of evidence and mishandling of evidence by the prosecution.  It was her duty as a defense attorney to do so; she did her job. The victim previously supported the defense role of Hillary before it became profitable to object to her.


In contrast so far as can be established, there are more women who have credibly come forward to make accusations against Trump, and NONE of them have been paid to do so, and none of them have been credibly contradicted by others in defense of Trump, except by Trump himself who makes a highly suspect denial, much less contradicted themselves.


In contrast Bill Clinton, who turned 70 this past August,  has had no sex scandals since Monica Lewinsky back in the 1990s.  Trump, who also turned 70 this past June, has had sex scandals pretty much right up until he decided to run for President, which he announced in 2015.  These include a law suit for multiple violent rapes of a 13 year old, to other accusations of sexual assault and sexual harassment.  Trump’s accusations are distinctive in how consistently they are not consensual – although he has had consensual affairs as well.  He admits to having cheated on Ivana, his first wife, with Marla Maples, his second wife, and to having cheated on Maples with multiple women, including his third wife.  He has been recorded multiple times admitting to have at least attempted to cheat on Melania Trump, his third wife.


Putting Bill Clinton’s conduct in context, and at the same time putting the claims that Hillary Clinton jeopardized the security of the country with her email problems, I offer you a few examples of bad presidential conduct. Richard Nixon – yes, Tricky Dicky – had an ongoing affair with a Communist Chinese woman with close ties to Chinese Generals.  MI-6 recorded his sex-capades and head of the FBI J. Edgar Hoover got his own dirt on Dick, and used it to blackmail him.  Trump campaign staffer and key adviser to Donald Trump was in the Nixon White House and is one of those who confirm the story.  Both JFK and Gerald Ford had affairs with an East German Communist spy, by the name of Ellen Rometsch, with both being allegedly blackmailed, again by J. Edgar Hoover. Ford was not president at the time, but allegedly was blackmailed for information from the Warren Commission on the JFK assassination.  JFK was far more of a sexual predator and serial philanderer than Bill Clinton, including alleged sexual impropriety with interns. Ronald Reagan had a credible accusation of rape while president as well – but that was while he was Screen Actors Guild president, not US president.


Arguably black mail of the president is a far greater danger to the security of the United States than a private email server with very low level information on it.  And if one takes a look at the totality of presidential history when it comes to inappropriate sexual conduct, there are few who pass scrutiny.  George Washington has been credibly accused of having a long term sexual relationship with a slave named Venus and a speculative one with a certain Mrs. Fairfax.  Jefferson’s relationship with Sally Hemmings has been established by DNA evidence, and possibly began when she was as young as 16.  This is not unique to recent presidents.  The founding fathers had more than their fair share of bastards.


Looking at presidents from WW II forward, the only apparent cases where there were no credible accusations of infidelity or sexual misconduct, before, during or after their presidency were Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman.  Both Bushes appear to have had affairs – more than one, and Dubya was accused of rape. Looking back before WW II across the 19th century, there were not only heterosexual affairs, some with presidential bastard offspring, there were rumors of homosexual relationships attributed (at different times in history) to both presidents Abraham Lincoln and James Buchanan.


So, no, Bill Clinton is FAR from the worst president in terms of keeping himself safely in his pants, and he seems considerably less bad in that regard than the conduct of Donald Trump, past and recent past if not present.  That is IF you look at factual histories of our presidents and their most private conduct.  Just a word to the wise, before you take a look at our unsanitized history – you will NOT be able to look at Mount Rushmore, or stamps with presidents on them, or money, quite the same way again afterwards.


PBS Newshour did an excellent job of covering some of this.

I have been particularly impressed by Kelly Oxford’s social media discussion where women share their experiences with unwanted sexual aggression from men.

And three cheers to the venerable NY Times for their response to Trump and his attorneys when women complained about his ACTIONS, the ones he apparently lied about in the 2nd presidential debate. Trump, via his lawyers, tried to stop the proverbial ‘gray lady’ from telling the corroborated stories of (alleged) Trump victims. The response to a libel suit threat is purely brilliant. Wherever you are when you read this, stand up and cheer for the New York Times and then again for their representative, David E. McCraw.

Dear Mr. Kasowitz:

I write in response to your letter of October 12, 2016 to Dean Baquet concerning your client Donald Trump, the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States. You write concerning our article “Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately” and label the article as “libel per se.” You ask that we “remove it from [our] website and issue a full and immediate retraction and apology.” We decline to do so.

The essence of a libel claim, of course, is the protection of one’s reputation. Mr. Trump has bragged about his non-consensual sexual touching of women. He has bragged about intruding on beauty pageant contestants in their dressing rooms. He acquiesced to a radio host’s request to discuss Mr. Trump’s own daughter as a “piece of ass.” Multiple women not mentioned in our article have publicly come forward to report on Mr. Trump’s unwanted advances. Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.

But there is a larger and much more important point here. The women quoted in our story spoke out on an issue of national importance — indeed, an issue that Mr. Trump himself discussed with the whole nation watching during Sunday night’s presidential debate. Our reporters diligently worked to confirm the women’s accounts. They provided readers with Mr. Trump’s response, including his forceful denial of the women’s reports. It would have been a disservice not just to our readers but to democracy itself to silence their voices. We did what the law allows: We published newsworthy information about a subject of deep public concern. If Mr. Trump disagrees, if he believes that American citizens had no right to hear what these women had to say and that the law of this country forces us and those who would dare to criticize him to stand silent or be punished, we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight.

David E. McCraw


MCP’s: it’s who they are

by Dog Gone on October 10, 2016 · 0 comments

Image result for male chauvinist pig
There was a phrase which entered a broader national awareness back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Male Chauvinist Pig. It was a slang term for misogynists, men who – Sincerely! – viewed women as inferior and inherently unequal to men.  While it has never completely disappeared from use, it is time to revive it again more broadly to apply to the 2016 election cycle. (The right insists sincere beliefs have a priority over everything else, because they are “sincere”, and therefore somehow special and exempt from law or public opinion.)


It is a fair accusation that in the 2nd Presidential Debate, Donald Trump hoped to distract those who were fleeing his sinking rat-infested ship of a campaign with his claim that he would appoint a special prosecutor to go after Hillary Clinton for her emails.  I suggest the ‘special prosecutor’ be issued the badge pictured here, since he (or she) would not be operating on behalf of all Americans, but only on behalf of the MCPs.


This relies on the classic civics and other ignorance of his generally poorly educated base of support. The President CANNOT appoint a special prosecutor; that is the purview of the Attorney General and the Congress. While Trump may assume he will get whatever AG he wants, no matter how incompetent, AGs, like Supreme Court picks, are only in office by confirmation of the Senate.


If Obama’s SCOTUS pick isn’t going through, you can bet that such an AG pick won’t be confirmed either.


But HEY! It makes a great DISTRACTION for toddlers and ignorant adults from that embarrassing scandal.  And there is much more scandal to come, beginning with Trump discussing his daughter’s breasts with Howard Stern, and then proceeding to give his blessing to Stern calling Ivanka Trump a “piece of ass”.  Because apparently women, even one’s own daughters, are just pieces of meat for male gratification, not real and equal human beings.



The Veep debate was a yawn fest

by Dog Gone on October 5, 2016 · 0 comments

One set of pundits described it as more of a bickerfest than a debate.I was disappointed that after the cool, calm and collected way that Hillary handled the first presidential debate, to the detriment of Trump, Tim Kaine was unable or unwilling to follow her example.  I found that to be a huge disappointment, to the point where I wanted to turn off the television and find a good book rather than lose those minutes to irritation.


In contrast to Kaine’s interruptions, Pence exceeded the performance of the top half of his ticket, in style, but not in substance – or integrity.

When did right wing evangelicals stop believing that lying was a bad thing?  This is selective Bible reading at the very least, both old and new testament, and a complete omission of the 9th commandment. I’m always amused at how conservatives position themselves as the sole bastion and owner of patriotism and faith, when they are neither.
From the Bible :

the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.”  Psalms 33:4
“Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.” Psalms 85:10“
Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.Proverbs 12:22

But neither had anything new or worthwhile to add, either about themselves or their fellow candidates, and Pence is emphatically the loser in the fact checking department.  Pence’s sole value in the debate was to deny the crazy on the right, of which he is himself a blind adherent, and to deny both his own voting record and the accumulated gaffes and follies of his presidential candidate.

The fact checking was summed up by the Nation:

He [Pence] also showed that he can lie as well as Trump. Time and
time again Kaine or Quijano presented Pence with stands that Trump had
taken, only to see the loyal VP nominee deny Trump had ever said any
such thing. Pence also lied about his own record, insisting the only
reason he tried to zero-out Planned Parenthood’s federal funding was
because that was a “fiscally responsible” way to address the deficit. No
one believes Pence on that, including his own far-right supporters.

The anodyne, white-haired Pence, who looks like he’d
been sent by central casting to play the disarming, grandfatherly
right-wing zealot that he is, did his best to make Trump seem like a
reasonable presidential candidate Tuesday night. Meanwhile Kaine,
“America’s nice dad” (in the words of comedian/author Sara Benincasa),
was strangely judged the rude guy by cable pundits. Yes, he did
interrupt some, partly when the placid Quijano failed to challenge Pence
on any of his dissembling. “Six times tonight I have said to Governor
Pence I can’t imagine how you can defend your running mate’s position.
And he has not,” Kaine said toward the end of the debate. But Quijano
almost never followed up.

I was particularly disappointed that in the discussion of faith in politics, there was no mention of Pence being a creationist who has repeatedly expressed his desire to suppress the study and teaching of evolution, replacing it with faith based baloney not broadly shared by less-extremist Christianity.


What I did not see was any follow through on the Trump threat to attack Bill Clinton for infidelity, which I had expected from Pence has NOT conspicuously been involved in serial adultery, unlike other surrogates, notably Rudely Giuliani or the Nut Gingrich.


It is never a winning position to simply lie and attempt to deceive.  Only the true cult-ish believers will be persuaded to find merit, and there will be little if any gain in the long run.


Whatever damage control was accomplished by Pence will be undone in any case when Trump next opens his mouth, or grabs his phone in the wee hours of the morning to begin yet another tweet storm, showing himself to have the obsessive character of a creepy, old, degenerate stalker. That kind of crazy lack of self-discipline and maturity alone, but especially on top of the many other character deficiencies, should disqualify Trump and by corollary Pence, from holding high off



mn_capitolThese are in the north metro, both go R+2, and both are certainly worthy of an investment in good governance, if you’re in a position to do that. 37B is an open seat, and our candidate is Susan Witt.

Susan Witt believes in a government that works for the people, not a political party. She is an independent voice who will always put your priorities and concerns first. With your vote this November, Susan will work to:
– Improve education so our students can succeed. All levels of education are crucial to providing a world-class education for our students. Together we can create the innovative, competitive workforce of the future.
– Grow local businesses. Susan will work to remove government barriers to business’ economic success and reduce taxes for main street businesses that employ locally. Together we can strengthen businesses and create more good-paying jobs.
– Invest in transportation. Our roads and bridges need a stable funding source. Susan will improve our infrastructure and develop new transportation options. Together we can develop a comprehensive transportation system that is safe and efficient.
– Protect our natural resources. Water and air are two of Minnesota’s most valuable natural resources. Susan will protect these assets for future generations. Together we will sustain Minnesota’s outdoors way of life.

This one would seem to be teed up, with a great DFL candidate, and a blundering, bigoted buffoon (mirroring the top of the national ticket) named Nolan West, from the GOP. But not if our side doesn’t vote in suitable numbers.

Alan Kantrud is running in 39B.


Trump lost to Hillary, badly, in the post debate campaigning.


His vaunted winning in unscientific polling is a lie; those polls where he did show ahead were hacked by 4chan and other alt-right white supremacist and neo-nazi thugs. Those are not ‘real’ numbers, and if he wants us to believe he is savvy enough to govern without prior experience, he better know this. It should concern everyone that when conservatives like Trump lose, when facts are against them, they respond by lying and cheating.


On the upside, at least this wasn’t rigging by Russians this time.


From the Daily Dot:

4chan and Reddit bombarded debate polls to declare Trump the winner

Donald Trump supporters artificially manipulated the results of online polls to create a false narrative that the Republican nominee won the first presidential debate on Monday night.
The efforts originated from users of the pro-Trump Reddit community r/The_Donald and 4chan messaged boards, which bombarded around 70 polls, including those launched by Time, Fortune, and CNBC.

As Stephen Colbert noted, Trump also claimed he won a CBS poll………….except CBS didn’t DO a post-debate poll.  Trump exaggerates himself, while he diminishes the very real accomplishments of others.  He is an egregious liar, as noted by USA Today which just declared him unsuitable and unqualified to be president, in an historic sort of anti-endorsement.


[USA Today] went on to list and expand on eight reasons for its stance, including:
“He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief,” “He traffics in
prejudice,” and “He’s a serial liar.”
“Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements typically range from uninformed to incoherent,” the editorial said.

When Trump realizes he can’t bully Hillary, because she deals with him so deftly, making him look the jerk he is, he goes after another woman instead on whom to vent his frustration. The surrogate this time for his bitterness and frustration is a woman he successfully bullied before, Ms. Alicia Machado. Trump complains bitterly that Machado gained weight, but Trump himself has been a bit of a porker for some time now, and if anyone has long term problems controlling what goes in or comes out of their mouth, including his own foot, it is clearly Trump, not Machado.


Trump has alternately defended and denied his interactions with Machado, which is itself a contradiction.  His conduct, whether he ‘saved her job’ or not, was wrong.  But this follows a similar pattern where Trump has excused the sexual harassment misconduct of his buddy, another ugly pig of a man in every sense of the word, Roger Ailes, giving him a pass because he paid women and helped their careers.  Apparently in Trump’s dead-animal-covered mind, when a woman works for you he thinks you own her, and can abuse her, that she is not entitled and deserving of respect or consideration.  No COMPETENT executive treats employees this way, and it bodes ill for how Trump would conduct himself in the oval office.  His vulgarity is only exceeded by his misogyny and his ego.


Now, apparently not caring what kind of hole he is digging for himself with Latino/Latina voters, where this is widely being discussed and covered in Spanish language news in swing states like Florida, Trump is now claiming – as the New York Times noted, without evidence – that a sex tape exists featuring Ms Machado.  Machado DID pose nude for Playboy, but Trump appeared on the cover of Playboy himself, (clothed, thank God) so he can hardly FAIRLY complain about that. Further, Trump’s own wife has posed in actual porn photos, so it is not perhaps wise for Trump to indulge in attempted slut shaming, although he may very well lack the presence of mind to recognize that.  Clearly Trump’s hypocrisy rises far taller than his tallest building to date.


It appears that Trump is intending to attack Hillary on the basis of Bill’s infidelity; given, AGAIN, Trump’s own conduct and that of a number of his surrogates and advisors, like Rudy Guiliani and the Nut Gingrich, that cannot possibly end well.  Particularly since there is no evidence that Hillary has ever engaged in adultery.  Not Trump, not Guiliani and certainly not Nut G can fairly claim to be supporters of ‘traditional monogamous marriage’.


He has gone on to claim Machado was involved in a murder plot, something claimed b a disgruntled ex-boyfriend, but she was never charged, much less prosecuted.  Rather this appears to be a he-said-she-said accusation without merit.  While the boyfriend was indicted he does not appear to have been convicted; THAT has been Trump’s own ‘out’ before, notably in his settlement of two race discrimination cases and for accusations against him of sexual harassment and sexual assault.  Perhaps we should call him “Double-standard Drumpf”, or maybe “Double-standard Donald”?


There is an irony here in so far as Machado did not gain nearly the amount of weight claimed by Trump, successfully took her body and her career in hand, successfully was the spokesperson for a diet aid in Latin American, and has been consistently successful internationally following her year as Miss Universe, including success as an actress, singer and dancer, AND reality tv star far beyond the accomplishments wold wide in reality tv of Donald Trump.


It would be fair to say Trump is not good with numbers. By not good I mean in a Republican Math kind of way where numbers exist to exaggerate and lie, not as factual numeric values.


Most recently, not only was Trump gone from NBC, who asserts they do not want him back post-campaign, but also that Trump has per NBC grossly exaggerated his compensation numbers as far back as 2011.


I think it is a reasonable expectation that Trump will be making that face below again and again in the next few weeks, as he gets beaten by Hillary, and probably by Alicia Machado as well.  He is continuing to lose ground with women, including Republican and other conservative women.  Women will beat him in the general election, perhaps more than any other demographic.


And Trump will have a long time to make the same sour face above, right.


There were a number of fact check failures for Trump, most notably that he was wrong on ISIS controlling oil in Libya, he was wrong on blaming Obama for the way we left Iraq, and he was especially wrong about Clinton and her campaign starting birtherism.

From fact checking:


TRUMP STATEMENT: ISIS has “oil all over the place, including the oil, a lot of the oil, in Libya.”
FACT CHECK: According to a Bloomberg analysis, Libyan oil fields and pipelines are controlled by a combination of the Government of National Accord, allies of the Tripoli Petroleum Facilities Guard, and the Libyan National Army (and groups aligned with them).
Claudia Gazzini, a Tripoli-based senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, told the Washington Post that it was simply not true that the Islamic State has control of any Libyan oil.
“While it is true that ISIS has attacked oil fields in the Sirte basin area and destroyed key equipment there, they have not sought to keep control of the oil fields,” Gazzini said.


Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager, told Wolf Blitzer a volunteer forwarded an email promoting “birtherism” and that that person was fired. “The campaign nor Hillary did not start the ‘birther’ movement, period, end of story,” Solis Doyle told CNN, saying the volunteer’s actions were “beyond the pale” and that Clinton called Obama campaign manager David Plouffe to apologize.

Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton confidante but not a current campaign staffer, denies ever contacting McClatchy; the former McClatchy bureau chief, James Asher, recently said he clearly recalled the conversation with Blumenthal.

What CBS either omitted or did not know is that James Asher no longer is making the claim of recalling the Blumenthal conversation, and that the investigatory mission to Kenya by McClatchy news was the result of multiple stories being published at the time.


Trump fat out LIED when he claimed he only filed for bankruptcy four times — which is a LOT of bankruptcies. Four bankruptcies argues being very bad at business. It was not four it was six bankruptcies.  Perhaps Trump is engaging in “Republican Math” which doesn’t regard numbers as quantifiers, but rather subverts them as ideology without numeric meaning.


Again per CBS and politifact (because it is important to multisource):


FACT CHECK: Clinton is correct. When Politifact looked into this issue, they found six times that Trump has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection: The Trump Taj Mahal in 1991; Trump Castle in 1992; Trump Plaza and Casino in 1992; the Plaza Hotel in 1992; Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts in 2004; and Trump Entertainment Resorts in 2009.

I think my greatest outrage is that Trump believes he is in some way more presidential APPEARING than Clinton. Ms. Clinton was elegantly groomed and very presentable. Trump in contrast, has demanded that his appearance NOT be an issue, while he has repeatedly demeaned his women opponents from Carly Fiorina to Clinton, and has demeaned women more broadly, including those in his employ. Women are not qualified or unqualified from office on the basis of appearance. But if we were going to assess ability on the basis of appearance, Trump is a fat, jowly, puffy-eyed, badly spray-tanned smirking swine with an unattractive piece of roadkill on his head, like a tacky version of a Daniel Boone hat. He is in no position to criticize anyone’s appearance, other than he clearly believes this view of women as sexual objects and male accessories, sometimes called the demeaning term eye candy, is the exclusive prerogative of men.


The hypocrisy in this, the obscene double standard, is that Trump behaved badly, interrupting Clinton repeatedly – in the first 26 minutes of the debate, Trump interrupted Hillary 25 times, per Vox.


Huff Po referred to this an manterupting:


Manterrupting, defined by journalist and author Feminist Fight Club Jessica Bennett as “unnecessary interruption of a woman by a man,” is a phenomenon that many professional women are (unfortunately) familiar with.
A 2014 study found that women are significantly more likely to be interrupted than men are, and research has shown that when women do speak up, their words are given less weight and treated as less valid than men’s. This phenomenon is especially problematic in fields ― like politics ― which are dominated by men’s voices just by virtue of the numbers.
Women who want to circumvent these professional obstacles have to learn to play the game, and part of that game means dealing with the frustrating habits of one’s male colleagues ― or in the case of a presidential race, one’s political opponents. As Clinton well knows, in order to avoid having her words dismissed, she has to modulate the way she presents her ideas in a way that male candidates simply don’t.
To Clinton’s credit, she appeared unperturbed by Trump’s attempts to verbally bulldoze over her. Each and every time, she kept speaking, often with a sly smile. Because as any professional woman knows, the best way to shut down a manterrupter is to simply refuse to acknowledge him.

Although to be fair, Trump also talked over the moderator, and Hillary Clinton in the second half of the debate did interrupt Trump a few times as well, 17 times in total to Trump interrupting her 51 times. I hope this was not a drinking game exercise for the good folks over at Vox.


Counting the interruptions of both candidates by moderator Lester Holt, Clinton was interrupted a total of 70 times, and Trump was interrupted 47 times.
Some of Trump’s interruptions of Clinton featured outright lies, like insisting that he never said climate change was a Chinese conspiracy, or denying that he ever said some of the offensive things about women that Clinton called him out on saying.
Some of his interruptions were petulant asides; at one point he even threw in a one-word, schoolboy-like “Not.”

Other interruptions turned into loud, insistent filibusters, with Trump barreling over Clinton until she finally smiled and relented to let him keep talking — or until Holt interjected to insist that Trump give Clinton her allotted two minutes to talk.

If anything renders someone “unpresidential” it would be this Trump failure to control his mouth and his toxic attitudes of special privilege or entitlement towards others.


I am shocked, SHOCKED, that in the midst of so egregiously lying through his teeth, that Pence was not fried in his tracks by a bolt from heaven.


Hillary Clinton is correct when she describes substantial numbers of Trump supporters (and therefore Pence supporters) as deplorables.


It does not matter if you are a hard working American or a religious American, IF you also are a hateful bigot.


You are a bigot if you try to deny the LGBT the rights to be treated as full and equal human beings.  LGBT people work hard too. You are a bigot if you are racist; you are a bigot if you support the many ways the right treats women as second class citizens.  You are a bigot if you have fear and antipathy towards immigrants and towards people of different religions than your own – notably Muslims, but in some cases on the right, also anti-Judaism.


Those things make an American a deplorable person; they do so because these people are harmful and unfair to other Americans.  There are Americans who genuinely suffer and are victimized by these deplorables, while their contributions are no better than those towards whom they are bigoted.


David Duke is one of those deplorable human beings.  Mike Pence refuses to call him out as a deplorable human being, or to call out his behavior and beliefs. Mike Pence uses the excuse that he is not a name-caller.


This from the man who daily calls Hillary crooked Hillary, despite the lack of any corruption or other wrong-doing conviction.


This from the man who is on the same ticket as a man convicted of racism, and who is credibly accused of sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape, as well as a long history of rampant misogyny and ethnic bias, a promiscuous serial adulterer married to a porn queen, who engages in widespread fraud and corruption.


Oh, Mike Pence — BEWARE!  That much lying and hypocrisy could still get you that zap from above!  That goes for you Mike Pence, and the guy next to you, with the bleached, dead racoon on his head and the tiny but greedy grasping hands.


I remember where I was when the Twin Towers were struck in New York City.  I was watching Good Morning America, which had outside cameras on their building that caught the entire event, and where the anchors cut to immediate coverage.


Like Pearl Harbor, like presidential assassinations, it marked an extraordinary catalyst that changed our history, that dramatically changed how we live and think.


As someone over the age of 15, and reasonably familiar with the 9/11 congressional investigation and the 9/11 commission report, I was surprised that I either overlooked or passed over a remarkable story about the heroic action of a female fighter pilot.  The WaPo did an excellent profile of this remarkable and patriotic female member of our armed forces:

F-16 pilot was ready to give her life on Sept. 11

Penney was to stop Flight 93 — knowing the pilot could be her father.
Maj. Heather Penney, and her father Col. John Penney, both pilots. Maj.
Penny flew an F-16 on Sept. 11, 2001, that was destined to intercept and
possibly bring down Flight 93.
Penny Family Photo


Late in the morning of the Tuesday that changed everything,   Lt. Heather
“Lucky” Penney was on a runway at Andrews Air Force Base and ready to fly. She had her hand on the throttle of an F-16 and she had her orders: Bring down United Airlines Flight 93. The day’s fourth hijacked airliner seemed to be hurtling toward Washington. Penney, one of the first two combat pilots in the air that morning, was told to stop it. The one thing she didn’t have as she roared into the crystalline sky was live ammunition. Or missiles. Or anything at all to throw at a hostile aircraft.
Except her own plane. So that was the plan.
Because the surprise attacks were unfolding, in that innocent age, faster than they could arm war planes, Penney and her commanding officer went up to fly their jets straight into a Boeing 757.

“We wouldn’t be shooting it down.
We’d be ramming the aircraft,” Penney recalls of her charge that day. “I
would essentially be a kamikaze pilot.”

This is all the more remarkable in the context of the current presidential election cycle, where the GOP candidate is praised by retired high level military officers who signed an open letter supporting him, who want women out of the military in any significant numbers and especially in front line and combat positions.  We have a presidential nominee for the GOP who blames military rape on women serving in the military, while ignoring that the serious problem with his argument, and the same fault with his campaign’s statements: most military rapes are men being raped by other men.


That fails correctly to define the problem of sexual assault, and it blames the victim.  More to the point, in a volunteer military, it deprives the armed forces of the services of highly patriotic and highly competent personnel.


Sadly we have the divisive push from the right that is anti-women, anti-Muslims (and those mistaken for Muslims), anti-immigrants, the anti-LGBT, and the usual other deplorable assorted racists and intolerant bigots. We are weaker now from ignorance, not because of what we did to oppose terrorism, but because of what we did not learn, because of hate and suspicion and bigotry, because of political division that benefits the right in propagandizing their base for fund raising and right wing voter turn out.

From the Independent:



Remembering WHY we celebrate Labor Day

by Dog Gone on September 5, 2016

child labor from the bad old days the right wants to bring back

This holiday is the culmination of Labor efforts that have given us the five day work week, the 8 hour work day, sweatshop working conditions, overtime, an end (in most respects, but not all) to child labor, lunch breaks, and to greater worker safety.


It is worth noting that conservatives are still attempting to undo those advances, notably not only in union busting like right-to-work-for-less, but in ending safety regulation and eliminating guarantees of overtime pay.


Labor Day became an official public holiday in 1894; between the late 1870’s and that date, 30 states had started separately celebrating the advances and efforts of the Labor Movement. In New York City they held parades. We are not the only nation to celebrate Labor Day; Canada does so on the same date.


What so many people either have forgotten, or never learned, was how bloody, even deadly, the efforts were of Unions to form for fair wages and safer working conditions. Specifically, Grover Cleveland, a president who gets relatively little attention, signed the federal holiday into Law after a particularly bloody strike breaking period where both the U.S. military and the U.S. Marshal’s service killed people to break unionizing efforts in the historic Pullman strike in 1894. …READ MORE

{ Comments on this entry are closed }