Why Trump Won in 2016 - Fake News!

In the irony of ironies, it appears that the most important reason why Trump won the election was fake news.  He not only manufactured it, but it was spread as real news by several broadcast organizations, most importantly Sinclair Broadcast Group, not Fox.  

Yes, Hilary did not run a good campaign.  Yes, she wasn’t a very appealing candidate for many.  Yes, the white middle class was disaffected.  But that wasn’t why she lost.  She lost because an unsuspecting American public, especially in swing states, was fed an unrelenting diet of fake news.  And it is that fake news that secured the wins in Michigan, Ohio, and other states that made the difference.

This became clear after reading a truly shocking article in the New Yorker (October 22) about the growth and impact of Sinclair Broadcast Group  (“Breaking the News” by Sheelah Kolhatkar).  Here are the salient facts from that article:

Sinclair is the largest owner of television stations in the US, with 192 stations in 89 markets.  It reaches 39% of American viewers.  It’s chairman is David Smith, a radical Republican conservative and Trump supporter.

According to the Pew Research Center, 50% of Americans get their news from television.  And despite the general lack of trust in the media, 76% of Americans say they still trust their local news stations.  Because 20 million US households do not have cable or streaming television, they not only trust but rely on their local broadcast stations.

But guess what?  What often appears to be your local independent NBC, CBS, ABC, or even Fox affiliate is in fact owned by SInclair who has pressured them to be a mouthpiece for its conservative viewpoint developed at the national corporate level.  Because Sinclair often owns two or more stations in the same broadcast market, this version of the news has an even greater impact on how people view things.

For example, the corporate news department produces scripts that anchors are forced to read.  This became so egregious that in April 2018 Dan Rather responded by writing “News anchors reading a script handed down by a corporate overlord, words meant to obscure the truth not elucidate it.  It’s propaganda.  It’s Orwellian.”

The corporate center also produces news segments that the stations are required to run, as well as mandatory commentary segments in which Mark Hyman spouts radical Republican fake news.  For example, in 1984, “Terrorist leaders would dearly love to see President Bush replaced by Senator Kerry.”

How did Sinclair manage to assemble this network when there are regulations that prevent a company from owning 2 stations in the same market?  It created companies that it said were independent, but in fact were staffed by Sinclair loyalists and were controlled by Sinclair.  Even when it told the FCC that it had divested control, in fact they hadn’t.  

To quote the article, “None of this would have been possible without the willful blindness of the FCC.”  When Sinclair went too far, arousing public-interest groups and media organizations to complain to the FCC, an FCC investigation in 2001 found that indeed Sinclair exercised control over these stations.  The penalty?  Not divestiture but a paltry $40,000 fine against Sinclair and the company it controlled.

By 2016 Sinclair was in a position to really make a difference in the election.  It’s stations were concentrated in swing states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Ohio, and Michigan.  These stations broadcast the Sinclair party line which was the Trump line.  According to the New Yorker article, the Sinclair CEO told Trump that “We are here to deliver your message.  Period.”  And Sinclair certainly delivered.

The Shakespeare line, “Me thinks the lady doth protest too much,” certainly applies here, as well as the old warning, “Beware a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”  Trump and his conservative minions routinely complain about fake news.  This effective technique is a good example of “the big lie” strategy used by the Nazis in their rise to power.  If you call the real news broadcast by real news organizations “fake,” that lie renders the news that you broadcast by implication real, truthful, even though it is in fact fake.  

Having control over the media and its message has been an essential weapon of authoritarian regimes, regardless whether Communist, Nazi, or other stripe.   That’s why in this country the 1st Amendment’s freedom of the press has been so jealously guarded by both the press and our government institutions.  That’s why there are regulations preventing any one voice from having too much control over the news in any given market.  

That the FCC allowed Sinclair to assemble its network and when forced to investigate acknowledged the truth but only applied a fine of $40,000 is nothing short of scandalous; a total dereliction of the duty they have as regulators.  If the Democrats take control of the House after the midterm elections, one of their first orders of business should be an investigation into Sinclair Broadcast Group and the forced breakup of the network.

Trump Is Not Able to See Facts That Are Inconvenient

How hypocritical at worst, or clueless at best, for President Trump to say after the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, “It’s a terrible, terrible thing what’s going on with hate in our country … something has to be done.”

He is the person who has as President elevated hate in this country to never-before-seen levels.  He has either directly promoted hate and fear, as towards immigrants and towards his opponents and those who criticize him, or condoned it, as in the case of the Charlottesville alt-right rally.  

The result is a documented increase in hate crimes since his nomination.  As the midterm elections approach, he has ratcheted up his tirade against both immigrants and foes in an effort to mobilize his base.  And people are responding at his rallies with an almost feverish fervor.  And unfortunately also action.  There's been the mailing of pipe bombs to people who Trump routinely lambasts for their criticisms of him, and now the mass shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue by a rabid alt-right anti-semite.

For Trump not to see the connection between his constant tirades and the rise of hate in our country is an example of his refusal to take responsibility for his actions, unless of course they result in something he likes taking credit for.  He doesn’t want to see himself as a person who spreads hate, but that’s exactly what he does.

Bring Sanity and Social Purpose to the Lottery

Lotteries were begun to meet the funding needs of state governments, mainly in the area of education.  That narrow focus, meeting state funding needs, continues to be the objective.

It is past time to broaden the focus to one that includes improving the financial wherewithal of as many people as possible, thus providing a greater boost to the  economy.  As it stands now, one person wins a jackpot, which depending on the lottery can run from several million to the recent Mega jackpot of $1.5 billion.

First, that is more money than a reasonable person/family needs, even over time.  We have seen over and over again over the years how people’s lives have been ruined by the sudden flood of money.  People don’t know how to handle it.  And vultures defend to take advantage of the situation.

Second, the concentration of all that money in one person does nothing to help the economy.  It would be far more beneficial if many people received, say,  $300,000.  Spreading the money out would provide a greater boost to the economy.

Third, spreading out the wealth would make a beneficial difference in more people’s lives.  And since the amount would be manageable it would be beneficial.

The argument will probably be made that the current system draws the most money for the state because people salivate at the possibility of winning these huge sums.  But if the game was changed, allowing more people to win and thus increasing the chances of winning, even thought the prize would be more modest that would be a huge draw I believe.  But even if the amount received by the state were somewhat reduced, injecting some social purpose into the lottery would be worth it.

Collins' Tragic Error on the Kavanaugh Vote

Part of the tragic error of Senator Collin’s thought process is that the issue and the hearing was not part of a criminal process concerning the guilt or innocence of Judge Kavanaugh.  It was about whether he should become a Supreme Court Justice.  

Therefore the maxim “innocent until proven guilty” is not relevant.  The fact that Ms. Ford’s accusations were not corroborated (in this brief, woefully inadequate, investigation) is not relevant.  If she was a credible witness, which most agree she was, then that at a minimum raised a doubt about whether Kavanaugh in fact did assault her.  Her charge was only refuted by Kavanaugh himself and his friends.  

That measure of doubt should have been enough to keep him off the Supreme Court.  The image of the Supreme Court is of critical importance to its effectiveness in our system of government.  That she felt that the FBI investigation had been adequate is hard to understand. Then there is the matter of Kavanaugh's apparently lying under oath about the extent of his drinking and his decidedly unjudicial demeanor at the hearing.

All together this should have resulted in Senator Collins deciding that regardless his credentials and his other qualities, he should not be elevated to the Supreme Court.

Then there is the Senator’s confidence in Kavanaugh’s judicial thinking.  Senator Collins explained carefully that from her conversations with him she was confidant that he would not overturn Roe v Wade.  He felt that the case was settled precedent.  She also felt he would not throw out Obamacare.

How foolish of Senator Collins!  How many times have lawyers/judges used legal double speak in recent times to make Senators feel like they were mild-mannered men who would do no harm to the public good, who honored the Constitution and precedent.  And yet once on the bench, they showed their true colors and consistently voted their ideological bias; they did not judge a case based on its facts and they did not honor precedent.

It is true that it has at times been important in the past to overturn precedent, such as the case of Brown v Board of Education that declared segregated schooling unconstitutional; separate was not equal.  This was necessitated by progressive changes in society’s attitudes towards people of color and what defined the common good.

The court voted as it did not because of the justices own ideological preferences but because of the change they saw in the country and the need to lead the country to a more just future.  If Roe is overturned, it will instead be precisely because of the ideological preferences of the justices and a vocal minority of the populace.  Surveys show consistently that the vast majority of Americans support a woman’s right to choose.

The future of our democracy will in many ways be impacted negatively by Senator Collins’ vote.  That she was so full of herself that she gave the speech she gave was not an indication of a woman of strength and intelligence, although it sounded like that, but rather an indication of her weakness and her inability to truly understand what her role was in this moment.  Senator Murkowski on the other hand understood the moment.

A Call to the American People

My fellow Americans.  Our democracy is under attack from within.  The well-being of the American people, the environment, and our historic values are at risk.  

But we must do more than resist.  The American people must rally, touch their basic goodness, and be freed of feeling they have to fight for their lives alone.  This cancer impacts all Americans … rich and poor, white and people of color, young and old.  The stakes have never been higher.  We are all in this boat of life together and we either all rise or we all sink.  We are in truth all “fellow Americans.”

The role of Democrats in this upcoming election must be to guide the American people back to the safety of dry solid land, back to the clear light of the mountaintop.  This is not about winning an election; this is not about one interest winning over another.  This is about the survival of American democracy, the light that has guided the world for more than two centuries.

Democrats often are not good at telling their story, their vision.  The Democrats' vision is to be found in the words of the Declaration of Independence.  It is past time for Democrats to regain the rhetorical upper hand and reclaim their position as the party of the people, the party of America’s historic values. And it is past time for Democrats to expose the radical Republican Right for what they are … hypocrites masquerading as the party of the people. It is the Democrats who are the party "of the people, by the people, and for the people."  For the sake of our country, we must proclaim our vision for all Americans clearly and effectively.  We must regain their hearts and minds. 

Here is my proposed Democratic Party Mission:

“To build a country of greater opportunity where:

• each and every American has a real chance to experience the promises made in the Declaration of Independence … ‘that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights … Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness;’ 
• government meets its responsibility as set forth in the Declaration … ‘to secure those rights,’ within the constraints of fiscal responsibility; and
• all citizens have a shared responsibility to support the government’s efforts to secure those rights and promote the public good, each according to his ability.”

For more go to www.westillholdthesetruths.info, and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNlt8hc7GM4

The Multi-Faceted Road to Freedom

With the current president in office and the dysfunctional political climate in the country, it would be easy to focus on nothing but our current problems and how to move the country back to a state of sanity and rationality.  While that is of utmost importance and so must consume much of our time and effort, we/I would be negligent if we did not also continue to reflect on the larger issues that impact our society.

Human history has been a story of the powerful and the oppressed, the haves and the have nots.  The drive for survival focuses man on gaining power, the more the better, since when you’re fighting for survival one can never be secure enough.  And since having power by definition means having power over others, that sets up the age-old dynamic of human society.

This power dynamic is evidenced at all levels of human interaction.  Even within the family, while usually not oppression, there’s often a power struggle between husband v wife, sibling v sibling, or parents v children.  In school it’s mean girls/bullies against those they consider “lesser” beings.  In the larger world, it is or has been men v women, Christians v Jews, WASPs v Catholics, whites v blacks.  Go to any country and you will find the same dynamic, even in Buddhist Myanmar.  The list is endless.

In our society we have tried to lessen the impact of this dynamic, to free people from oppression, through the establishment of rights.  The effort has not been to change the oppressor’s mindset in any direct way, but to change his or her way of interacting.  To end discrimination.  And to provide a legal recourse for those who are discriminated against.

This has been a worthy effort to make our democracy and human relations more just.  But the effort has two major shortcomings.  

First, we can pass all the legislation we want, but if we do not change people’s attitude towards the group in question, discrimination will still occur on a regular basis.  It’s true that giving people rights has had some impact on the oppressor’s mindset, but there has been little fundamental change, especially where the bias runs strong and deep or the oppressor feels threatened by the oppressed’s potential.  Yes, there will be less overt discrimination, but much will still exist and only that which is called out through a law suit will be stopped.  

The fact is that we have not even discussed the underlying mindset that creates these problems.  We as a nation have never really had a discussion about race or women.  We’ve had a bit more discussion about sexual orientation in recent years and are starting to have a discussion regarding gender identity.  Until there is a nation-wide, humanity-based, discussion about these issues, nothing fundamental will change.

Second, while the passage of rights laws has been a critical necessity, we have done little to assist the oppressed to improve their lives regardless.  It is a maxim of spiritual teaching that we each have the power to change how we experience life, regardless the circumstances.  Thus, for example, the serenity prayer, with my exposition (…), says, “Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change … which is the way my life is right now at this moment.  The courage to change the things I can … which is how I relate to myself and the world around me.   And the wisdom to know the difference.”

The first part of the prayer is usually met with substantial push-back from anyone who approaches it.  We don’t want to accept the way things are.  But the prayer does not mean or require that you don’t attempt to change the environment in which you live; it just means that you accept that right now at this moment it is the way it is.  It is an essential step if one wants to experience peace in the moment rather than mental stress.

The second step of the serenity prayer as it normally appears, “The courage to change the things I can,” is usually just greeted with a shrug.  Because it is interpreted as meaning changing the circumstances we live in and having the courage to do that.  That is a tall order in many if not most circumstances.  And so it leads many to feel that they are failures because they don’t have that courage or ability.

Yet this is not the real point of the second statement at all.  The universal spiritual teaching is that all we have the power to change is how we relate to ourselves and the world around us.  That is what gives us the power over whether a situation causes us stress and unhappiness or whether we are at peace regardless.

Before going further and discussing this powerful teaching, let me first talk about the word “peace” which I’ve used several times.  It’s not a word that we usually think of as possibly applying to ourselves in any practical way.

As an example, let me quote from my forthcoming book, How to Find Inner Peace:

“Peace. What a completely foreign concept this was to me. How can anyone be at peace or serene unless they’re a saint? Since I was a young child my life had been filled with inner turmoil, despite an outwardly happy home and relationships. And in looking around at my peers and family, and at the images of the larger culture, I didn’t see anyone who was at peace. … Yet I knew in my gut that peace and happiness, a life free of suffering, was a rational, reasonable goal. The question was not whether but how? 

…

“First then, what exactly is peace?  Peace is the absence of fear, anxiety, hatred, guilt, shame, doubt and confusion … or better put, it’s not the absence of these emotions but not being controlled by them. It’s also being free of an intense desire for things you don’t have or to be someone other than you are.”

So how do we as individuals and as a collective group change the way we view ourselves and the world around us so as to experience peace and happiness, rather than fear, anxiety, frustration, anger, etc.?  Books have been written by many, including me, to answer this question.  But let me try to answer it briefly by looking at some specific examples.

Feminism:  The founders of feminism understood that if the lot of women was to improve, it was not just a matter of gaining certain rights vis a vis men; women had to change their attitude about themselves, what was possible, not be controlled by the confines that men had set for them.  So even without or before gaining rights, women could improve their life experience by changing their self-image.

Blacks:  At the turn of the 20th century, well before the real push for civil rights, Booker T. Washington led a movement to improve the lives of blacks through self-help, both in education and business.  But because he did not confront the oppressive regime, his was a one-pronged approach and he fell out of favor and influence.

Later, while the push for civil rights was going on, there were others in the community that were addressing how blacks could improve their life experience by changing their self-image and stop resorting to destructive behavior both towards themselves and other blacks.  They sought to build a supportive community.  One such movement was the Reverend Jesse Jackson’s Operation PUSH and PUSH-EXCEL.  The other movement was the Nation of Islam.  

While the central goal of Operation PUSH was to improve the economic position of Blacks through various means, in his weekly sermons Jackson preached the uplifting of his people.  Nina Simone’s song, “To Be Young, Gifted, and Black,” became an anthem of the movement.  And through PUSH-EXCEL he sought to improve Black and minority student performance in inner city schools and help them stay out of trouble.

A more divisive, although in many ways effective, approach was taken by the Nation of Islam.  It believed that Blacks could only improve their lives if they disassociated themselves from the surrounding White culture.  Instead, it sought to have Blacks adopt the strict morality of Islam to improve their lives and support one another.  While the Nation achieved many good things for its people, it was unfortunately built upon hatred of the white man.  And nothing good spiritually develops from hatred.

LGBTQ: For the LGBTQ movement, the spiritual emphasis, while pursuing legal rights, has been changing the self-image from one of shame to pride.  And as more and more LGBTQ people responded to that message and came out to family, friends, and colleagues, people found out that LGBGQ were a part of their everyday lives, that they were in essence no different from themselves, and so more people came to support the movement for equal rights.  Coming out created the environment for equal treatment, not changes in the law.

The point of these group examples is that regardless what the rest of the world is doing to you or how they are reacting to you … and this applies to individuals as well as groups … you have the power to change your life experience for the better.  By believing in yourself, by treating yourself well, and by having the courage to move forward with the things that makes life meaningful for you, that speak to your heart.  

In my post, “The Next Wave of Feminism,” I discuss the need for each woman to enter into an exploration of who she really is,  as opposed to who they’ve come to think they are based on their life experiences and our culture, so that she can truly decide what is best for her.  Every group must help their members free themselves from the confines that the rest of the world has placed on their narrative story.  

With women, for example, it’s not a simple matter of saying “no” to motherhood or being a housewife; that is more a statement of rebellion, not of deep inner exploration. One must be truly free of the past in order for each individual to decide what choice is best for them … for some it will be being a housewife and mother; for others it will be going into business or the professions.

There will always be lots of obstacles, with or without legal rights, but if you are true to yourself you will always be at peace.  For you will be one with your heart, and you will not allow anyone to take that feeling away from you.

Why Judge Kavanaugh Is Not Qualified to Sit on the Supreme Court

There is no question that Judge Kavanaugh has all the paper credentials one could ask for.  His education and years on the bench clearly make him qualified in that sense for his appointment.

However he is not qualified in terms of the judicial temperament requisite of a judge, especially a justice of the Supreme Court.  The essence of justice, as embodied by the classic symbol of the blindfolded statue of justice holding the scales, is that a judge will decide a case on its merits, free of any bias regarding the particular matter before him.  Will he thus vote with the “liberals” on the court some times and other times with the “conservatives,” depending on the merits of the case?

One way of looking at this question is whether the judge will respect precedent, an extremely important element of judicial stability and impartiality.  Or will he be more of a political judge than a judicial judge?  

In discussing this issue, I certainly am aware that all justices come to the bench with their particular views of the appropriate role of government.  That is inescapable.  And it is true of both the “liberal” and the “conservative” justices.  But within that framework, a judge must be able to decide a case based on its merits, not on some foreordained, ideological view of the world.

From his opinions, it is clear that he, like some of the other current “conservative” justices on the Supreme Court, is not a conservative of the old school.  He does not respect precedent if he disagrees with it and is extremely biased as to how the law should be applied to a case.  

In short, regardless of the facts, he is against government/court intrusion into business matters and the executive branch while he is in favor of government/court intrusion into the lives of individual citizens to enforce his view of morality.  The facts of the case are irrelevant; he is social conservative and ideologically strict.

The justice he replaces, Justice Kennedy, was on the other hand definitely a conservative of the old school.  He was against government/court intrusion whether it was against business interests and executive power or in the private lives of individual citizens.  Thus Justice Kennedy could both vote recently in favor of American Express and Trump’s travel ban but be the lead justice in the decisions to decriminalize homosexuality and approve gay marriage.

The focus of the confirmation hearing should be on Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial temperament, not how well he is respected and his solid paper credentials.  The fact that there are some other justices currently on the Court who do not have the requisite temperament is irrelevant.  Better late than never.