So...Now What?

(I took a brief hiatus from my blogging because I simply didn’t want to be an extension of the campaign noise by repeating information that was already being heard far too often. I was sure the 2 or 3 people who actually read my blog didn’t miss it too badly.)

President-elect Donald J. Trump

The election has become a memory as America and the world continue to react to the success of Donald Trump, President-Elect of the United States. Furthermore, the House remains in the hands of the GOP Leadership as does the Senate.

Sen. Mitch McConnell - The Oracle of Obstruction

In her concession Speech, Secretary Clinton urged her supporters to keep an “open mind” and give President Trump an opportunity to lead. Part of me understands and perhaps agrees with her statement. However, the other part of me wonders why we liberals and democrats should bother, given the obstructive and belligerent reaction the GOP had to President Obama’s election, as expressed by Mitch McConnell, before Obama was inaugurated: Youtube video of Mitch McConnell. Top priority? Not running the government, doing the business of the American people? Not serving as a member of the U.S. Senate while representing all of the American people and the citizens of Kentucky? Our tax dollars paid his salary so he could focus on his party’s bullsh*t? And don’t get me started on the right wing media! Our government requires cooperation and compromise. Any achievement credited to the Reagan administration would not have been possible without the cooperation of House Speaker Tip O'Neill, However, if that is how the modern GOP reacts when their opponents are in the White House, why in the Hell should the left be “open minded” or give Trump a chance?


Before I can possibly consider being “open minded” I need to have one very important question answered:

“If America isn’t great now, when was it ever great?”

I am asking this question seriously, since Trump’s campaign slogan was “Make America Great Again.” What is Trump’s vision of greatness? Is he going to take serious action to reinvigorate the middle class? Address income inequality? Tackle climate change? Raise the minimum wage? Nothing in his campaign rhetoric leads me to believe these are even a remote possibility.

So, it is fair to ask what is greatness in Trump’s, and by extension, the GOP’s eyes?

Great American Family?

• 1950s Sitcom world, complete with stay-at-home mom, family dinners, (Christian) church on Sundays, and married couples sleeping in separate beds?
• The war years with the tragic cost in human life… as long as the corporations make healthy profits?
• Prohibition? Talk about corruption and organized crime!
• If I go any further back we will have to repeal a few Constitutional Amendments, specifically nos. XIII (Abolishing Slavery), XV (granting voting rights regardless of race, color, or previous servitude), and XIX (granting women the right to vote). Everyone knows slavery is bad, but corporate profits will soar with the free labor.

Forgive me Madam Secretary, but without some reasonable idea of where President Trump and the GOP plan to lead this country, all I have to guide me is the campaign rhetoric. So it is reasonable to assume the following are at least going to be strongly considered:

Will the GOP repeal the Clean Air and Water Acts?

• Repeal of, rather than revision or improvement to, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) with no alternative yet being proposed or even discussed. So the poor will again be forced to wait until an ailment becomes so devastating that a trip to the emergency room is required.
• Reduction or even elimination of environmental regulations that the polluters feel are “too expensive.” If you think the pollution is a problem now, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Hope you enjoy those algal blooms on Lake Erie, Lake Okeechobee, the Ohio River, and many other fresh water bodies.

Recent Algal Bloom on Lake Erie

• Speaking of water, I hope the citizens of Flint, Michigan and other communities enjoy the lead and other contaminants in their drinking water. I am in the process of developing a cocktail consisting of Flint Water, Bourbon, Sweet Vermouth, and pickle brine. Now that’s a real lead cocktail (though it still needs work)!
• The defunding of Planned Parenthood, which means women who are poor will have no place to turn to for routine health screenings simply because a small portion, approximately 3 percent of their (non-Federal) funds, has been used to perform abortions in the past.
• Women’s rights, the rights of minorities and the LGBT+ community, or what I like to call human rights, will no longer be a primary concern once Trump nominates Scott Baio to serve on the U.S. Supreme court. So much for a Woman’s right to an abortion, marriage equality, and the ongoing discussion of our systemic racism.
• Ongoing and increased subsidizing of fossil fuel companies, big pharma, agribusiness… and the approval of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines and similar projects.

So what can we liberals do to help insure that the issues of greatest concern to us do not get swept under the figurative political rug? Joining both local, grass root organizations as well as regional or National organizations can help, but protests and similar efforts rarely have a sustaining impact. It simply takes too much energy to maintain a protest and often once the protesters leave, business as usual returns. Remember “Occupy Wall Street?” Neither does Wall Street.

So I am proposing a radical approach. Join a group or groups that focus on those issues of greatest concern to you. However, in addition to the groups usual agenda (planting trees, protesting at government centers, providing services to underprivileged), propose that the group and all of its members attack the opposition in the most effective way possible… in their wallet!

Make a pledge to support only those businesses that support your causes. I no longer buy Yuengling beer because they supported Trump. We shop at Costco and Weilands Market (local grocery store) because they both pay a living wage to their workers (and Weilands has a top notch liquor store!). To reduce our carbon footprint, we purchase electrical power from a supplier using only wind power (Arcadia Power) and I walk far more than I drive, although if you saw my two vehicles, you might think I walk primarily because of safety concerns. These are just a few of the many purchasing decisions that we have made in an effort to support those firms who promote the ideas that are important to us. But we are only one household… imagine if groups of thousands made similar pledges:

• Spending your consumer dollars at woman and minority owned businesses
• Supporting corporations and establishments that contribute to the Gay Pride Parade and other LGBT+ community programs
• Making purchases from boutiques or galleries that support fair trade
• Shop at that small business in your neighborhood
• Refuse to support sponsors of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh…
• Research the charitable contributions of the companies where you typically shop. If they support causes contrary to yours, change your shopping habits and let the business know why you have done so.
• When you do make more informed consumer decisions, it is just as important to tell businesses why you decided to shop with them.

Finding companies that support your interests is only an internet search away. I believe that this would prove to be a far more effective tactic because it uses the one weapon all people possess to some degree… their purchasing power. It also hits your opponents exactly where it will hurt the most, in their pockets.

Just imagine how effective your efforts would be if your organization agreed to develop a list of preferred businesses, published it, and have members agreed to follow the list as much as possible. Maybe, once corporate profits began to take a hit from these monetary protests, positive, progressive changes just might re-enter the political discussion. After all, I recall hearing that we are “Stronger Together.”

-- Food for Thought

Scary words during the “Silly Season”

Ah, the silly season is in full swing. This is a phrase a former colleague used to describe an election year. A city employee, he used it to describe the mayoral and other local elections. I like to use it to describe any major election, and it seems more than appropriate for this year’s election. As with most silly seasons, the 2016 Presidential candidates are using their full arsenal of scary words and phrases (*cue ominous organ music*) intending to scare the voters into believing some political sleight of hand and hopefully garner some votes they might have missed otherwise.

Take the word “Socialism,” which has seen more than its fair share of use during the primaries and will likely keep cropping up during the general election. Let’s define this term for the record:

Socialism (n): a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. (www.dictionary.com)

Socialism (n):  economic and political system, aiming at government or public ownership of means of production. (Webster’s Encyclopedia of Dictionaries 1978)

There are alternate definitions as well:

Socialism (n):  (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. (www.dictionary.com)

Socialism (n):  to make social. To transfer industry from private to public or government ownership. (Webster’s Encyclopedia of Dictionaries 1978)

These are obviously two somewhat different definitions, and depending on the source of its use, it can mean anything from more government oversight to government confiscation. Bernie Sanders used this term to describe his programs to help the poor and middle classes. However, ever since the 1980 election, when then Republican candidate Ronald Reagan said, “Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem,” many on the right have expressed their disdain for all things governmental.

So the big question is, are government programs, government oversight, and actual governmental activities always a bad thing? Here is a list of things to consider, and to lighten the mood, I will try to emulate Jeff Foxworthy.

“You might be a Socialist if…”:

• You have ever used a computer or smart phone.
• Much of our computer and smart phone technology is based on research from the U.S. military, NASA, and other public sector sources. Steve Jobs did not sit on the toilet one morning and shout “Eureka! I have a great idea!”
• You have ever driven on the interstate highway system.
• Thank the Eisenhower administration.
• You have ever landed safely at a commercial airport within the United States.
• Thank the Federal Aviation Administration.
• You have ever driven on a public road.
• Thank your State and local governments.
• You enjoy fire and police protection.
• Thank your local government.
• You support the U.S. military and believe that the Veterans Administration needs to do a better job caring for our vets.
• You ever had loved ones, or you yourself have ever benefitted from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, or other social safety nets.
• You have ever lived in a community with a neighborhood covenant/homeowners’ association that limits how you can treat your own property.
• Neighborhood associations ARE a form of government, governing your abilities to use your own property (no weird paint colors, no 8’ fences, no livestock…) for the betterment of all homeowners (the public).
• You enjoy comparatively low prices for gasoline and other energy (when compared to other nations).
• In part you can thank the Federal government subsidies and tax abatements to the energy sector that exceeds $50-$70 billion annually (source: OMB and NPR).

This list is just a sample of how our government spends our tax dollars. Our Federal government spends between a quarter to a half of a trillion dollars (yes, that is spelled correctly) subsidizing profitable corporations in this country. That number does not include the billions of dollars for food stamps and other Federal subsidies that go to the employees of Wal-Mart and other companies who refuse to pay their employees a living wage. If you want to eliminate socialism from our government, how about we cut these corporate giveaways and raise the minimum wage?

A poorly timed survey I received in the mail has many other examples of the gross misuse of our language during a highly contentious election cycle. This survey was erroneously sent to me by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and was received on Friday, June 10th—a mere two days before the Orlando tragedy at the Pulse nightclub. The survey is titled 2016 National Gun Owner’s Action Survey (I am not a gun owner). Some of the questions (which can only be answered YES, NO, or NO OPINION) are great examples of how a survey can manipulate the audience’s responses. Here are a few choice examples, with my personal reaction to the questions:

• Do you support laws that protect your fundamental right to use a firearm to defend yourself and your loved ones from a violent criminal attacker?
• Would such laws increase the number of gun related deaths similar to George Zimmerman’s killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin (who was unarmed)?
• Do you oppose any United Nations treaty that strips the U.S. of its sovereignty and gives the U.N. diplomats the power to regulate every rifle, pistol, and shotgun you own?
• In what imaginary reality is this even possible? This is a scare tactic similar to the “Obama wants your guns” tactic from the past. Well, if he wants them, he had better hurry.
• The U.N. holding sovereign authority over the U.S. is an unrealistic situation for the following reasons:
• No U.S. President, no matter which party they represent, would consider giving up U.S. Sovereignty to the U.N.
• The U.S. Senate would never approve such a treaty.
• The U.S. has veto power in the U.N., so this measure would NEVER make it to the General Assembly.
• Would you vote to reelect a member of the U.S. House or Senate who supports the gun-ban agenda?
• Where is this so-called agenda? I have occasionally been called a bleeding-heart liberal, and yet I have no desire to ban all firearms. I have heard of registering guns and banning assault/military style semi-automatic rifles, but only an extremist left-wing organization would ever attempt to ban all guns. Besides, such a ban would never be supported by even the most left member of the current U.S. House or Senate.  

To be fair, I am certain that there is equally manipulative propaganda

from the left, like today's headline from the New York Daily News. My sincere advice is to always consider the source and do a little reading of some objective material, if any can be found. Research the issues that matter to you before you cast your vote this November.

Food for Thought

Keeping up with the Millennials

This blog post is strictly for those of us of “a certain age.” All are welcome to read and comment on it, but it is addressed specifically to us 40-somethings and older.

Every year, a professor at Beloit College assembles a list that is intended to give faculty members some insight regarding the incoming freshman class. Originally distributed only to the faculty of Beloit College, it has gone viral thanks to the magic of e-mail and the internet. His current list was put into a slide show by MSN.com and can be found here:



MSN's Fun facts about the class of 2016

Although this is a pretty good list for faculty members, it is a list worth considering for all of us “adults” when it comes to dealing with the “younger generations.” One friend of mine, who is a professor at Ohio State, had a rather rude awakening one day during class. He began to discuss the development process for camera film during class. When he noticed the blank stares, he realized his faux pas. When he asked the class, they admitted to not knowing what he was talking about when he referred to camera “film.”

Although these differences are clear to most elementary and high school teachers, the rest of us should find this list helpful. Especially if we find ourselves dealing with recent high school graduates, whether in academia, or when we are hiring a new employee.

In addition to the MSN list, here are some other fun facts about our most recent high school graduates:

• Though born during the Clinton administration, they have no direct memory of his Presidency.
• Within their memory, there has ALWAYS been a war against terrorism, as the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon occurred when they were 3.
• The last time a man walked on the moon was 26 years before the class of 2016 was born.
• The Vietnam Was is as remote from them as World War I and II are from us!
• Many have never seen an 8-track tape, vinyl record, cassette tape, Beta Max, or VHS tape. 
• Many of them have never used a telephone with a cord.
• Many of them have never used an analog clock or watch.
• Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon are as historical to them as Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman are to us.

Just some things to consider the next time phrases like “in my day” or “when I was your age” find their way into your vernacular.

Congratulations to the Class of 2016!

Food for thought.

The Misuse of Words

Throughout the social media revolution, our language has evolved. We have added new words, such as “blog” which was derived from “web log.” We have added new meanings to words: “Web” used to refer either to a form of cloth, something a spider spun, or the skin membrane between a duck’s toes; “surfing” involved a board and a wave; “windows” were framed glass used to let light (and occasionally fresh air) into your home; and “chats” were held in the same room, often while sharing a meal or beverage.

One word that has come to my mind recently is the definition of the word “friend.” To begin, let me quote the definition of the word from the Webster Encyclopedia of Dictionaries, Copyright 1978, which is a few years before the PC revolution, let alone the Internet:

Friend (frend) n. One attached to another by esteem and affection; an intimate associate; a supporter.

That is it, the “old school” definition of a friend, less any references to the Quakers.  You will notice that it is NOT a verb. In 1978 one did not “friend somebody.”

The definition of this beautiful word became of interest to me during a couple of recent Facebook discussions. It should come as no surprise to anybody reading this blog (both of you) that I am NOT a supporter of Donald Trump. Not only am I not a supporter, but I cannot believe anybody believes that a person who makes racist comments, comments against women, and has spent more time fear-mongering and insulting his opponents than proposing new policies is qualified to be President.

I recently posted a couple of memes on Facebook expressing that sentiment. In addition to that, I suggested that anybody who DOES believe Trump should be the next President should go ahead and “Unfriend” me. I had several people express their disbelief at my “intolerance” and lack of respect for the opinions of others. One person made an erroneous assumption and accused me of only wanting friends that agree with my choice in POTUS. That is hardly the case. In fact, even though I do not agree with the policies and beliefs of most of the candidates, I can respect people who feel strongly about the leadership qualities or integrity of their chosen candidate. At least candidates who are not willingly accepting an endorsement from the KKK.

As far as not respecting the opinions of others, who says you have to respect the opinions of others, especially if you consider the basis or source of that opinion? It can be argued that Adolf Hitler was the best thing that ever happened to Germany. He took a devastated, depressed, post-war economy and military and built a world power. But do you HAVE to respect this opinion, given that it ignores the atrocities Nazi Germany brought to the entire world? You should respect the person’s right to their opinion, but to respect any opinion because it exists seem naïve to me. I don’t respect the opinions of Ken Ham, who claims the world is only 6,000 years old because it ignores scientific evidence to the contrary. Nor do I respect the opinions of climate change deniers, who also ignore the vast majority of scientific data. They have the right to their opinions, but I reserve my respect to those deserving respect.

I am also not a stranger to debate. Two of my dearest friends in the world and I debate and argue all the time. We don’t now nor will we ever agree on everything. In truth we would hate for that to happen, because then we wouldn’t have anything to argue about!

It all goes back to my archaic definition of a friend. Of all my so called Facebook friends (about 560+/-), I can break them down into a few of broad categories:

• Acquaintances from high school and college; 
• People I have met, worked with, or hope to work with through the Central Ohio theater community;
• Old friends and acquaintances from my former residences; and 
• Acquaintances I have met through friendships with others. 

But when it comes to friends, true friends, somebody I can count on when I need help and who can count on me; someone whom I trust and hope trusts me, of those I have a few very good, strong, positive friendships.

Friends are people with whom I exchange more than just text. I have been invited into their homes and into their lives. My friends are people with whom I have built a relationship and hope that the relationship continues to grow.

So, if a person is on my Facebook friends list, does that make them my friend? Not necessarily. Certainly the potential does exist for a new (or renewed) friendship by remaining in contact with people through social media. However, if a person is so diametrically opposite to me, believes that the best option we have for the President is the hatred and bigotry purported by Donald Trump, then I simply do not wish to associate with that person. So what is the harm in disassociating (unfriending) from these people? I have friends in my life and we all need more love and companionship in our lives, not just names on social media lists. I am afraid one of the results of the social media revolution is the ongoing misuse of the word “friend.”

-- Food for Thought

The Legacy of the Trump Campaign

When I tried to start this blog entry several weeks ago, it began as one of my typical rants about the importance of voting. However, as I began to compose my thoughts, I saw more and more postings on social media and elsewhere encouraging everyone to vote. My own plea to get out and vote would be redundant to say the least. I thought I would make my own election prediction. Not of the election outcome, but of the enduring legacy of the Trump campaign.

During the 2016 Presidential campaign we have seen some of the worst political lies since William Henry Harrison convinced the electorate that he—a Virginia plantation born, highly-educated member of a political family—was a simple, Ohio frontiersman, a man of the people. We have also witnessed the worst name-calling and mudslinging in any campaign since the Lincoln/Douglas debates when Stephen Douglas accused his opponent of being “two-faced.” Abraham Lincoln reportedly responded to this accusation by saying, “I leave it to my audience. If I had another face, do you think I would wear this one?”

As bad as the political sparring and negative campaigning have been, it seems to me that this political season has brought about something even worse. Something worse in all of us that goes beyond the inevitable comparisons to Adolf Hitler, cartoon depictions of candidates, manipulated statistical “proofs,” and exaggerated talking points. It has brought our own prejudices and bigotry to the surface.

Prejudice and bigotry are, in my humble opinion, two very different but related things. Let me begin by saying that we all have prejudices. They come from who we are, where we were raised, and a myriad of other factors such as parental values, education, religious affiliation, social circles, societal influences, and personal wealth. We have prejudices against people who are different from ourselves. It is when we act on these prejudices—becoming intolerant of these differences, and acting or reacting according to those intolerances—that we become bigots.

Prejudice and bigotry have been a part of the American population since we first became a nation. Gang wars from America’s colonial period through the industrial age and even into today were and are often along ethnic lines. Recent headlines and the Black Lives Matter movement have shed further light on how racially divided and bigoted our country remains. A few examples of how bigotry helped form national policy were discussed in a previous blog entry titled Refugees: What is wrong with us? (http://kent-kvetches.blogspot.com/2015/11/refugees-what-is-wrong-with-us.html). But not since the television sitcom All in the Family made comedic fodder of bigotry have so many people expressed their intolerance so openly and with such pride.

Is this the fault of the Trump campaign? No. But Trump has made use of our bigotry and encouraged its expression for his own political gain. Ask a Trump supporter why they support “The Donald” and you will hear phrases like, “He says it like it is” or similar expressions. As a campaign, the Trump phenomenon is feeding upon and therefore validating our own intolerance. By broadly proclaiming Mexicans are rapists and Muslims are terrorists, he is using our fears and prejudices as his political base.

So what is the legacy of the Trump campaign? It isn’t the use of our own fears for the sake of political gain, which has been done before (too often). It is that Trump has made bigotry, hate, and intolerance not only acceptable, but fashionable.

-- Food for Thought