The Angry Liberal... #Itoldyouso and the troll battle continues.

I tend to pick on the right quite a bit and I am considering upping my game.  I have been caught up in the idea of the angry liberal lately.  It is becoming more difficult to be the
soft and kind, touchy feely, hippie type.  Ann Coulter is the best model for what the left needs.  She is a person who makes little to no sense, yet says things anyway.  Without the anchor of a network, she can go on any show and say whatever she wants and sell books to those who want to read and listen to her.  Nice work if you can get it, right?

The reality is that without an anchor, she can play into the standard view of the conservative white person and enjoy being what people expect.  The problem with the left and the liberal snowflakes is that we are supposed to represent the softer side and the positive world view.  Donald Trump has turned that on its head.

In terms of debate, the liberal line is tough to hold.  How do you stand up for yourself while still being the caring loving individual you are?  The answer is simple, in my humble opinion.  We need the liberal equivalent of Ann Coulter.

Case in point: Helen Baristain is married to an undocumented immigrant.  She is a Trump supporter.  Her husband was just deported, despite having no criminal record and being an upstanding citizen (or rather being an upstanding person living in the U.S.).  What is there to say?  The soft, snowflake wants to say that I am sorry that happened.  I want to say that she  and we should do everything in our power to get him back into the arms of his loving family.  The angry liberal in me wants to tell her tough and launch a new hashtag, (#Itoldyouso).

We are seeing more and more of it; people falling victim to their support of Donald Trump and the Republican regime.  The interesting thing is that if something good happens, Trump takes credit.  If something bad happens, he places blame everywhere but himself.  I think we need someone to take him and others to task without trying to be politically correct.  For the record, that person is not Bill Maher.

I am not saying that everyone should be mean to trolls.  I am saying that someone should be mean.  Someone needs to listen to some of the things these people are saying and say, "That is stupid."  The inevitable reply to that will be, "Oh, I thought you liberals were supposed be all sweetness and light." Do we care and is that the line that lets people off the hook for the silly things they say?  The idea that people should allow others to say what they want without consequence or rebuttal because it is the nice thing to do.

The problem is a simple one and easily solved.  One of the reasons why we lose these debates and the commentary is because we have cede the lower ground.  We all rise above when someone needs to get muddy.  Also we assume that people are open to convincing or simply the viewing of relevant facts.  I do not want to believe we are past the point of serious debate, but...

In my opinion and my wildest dream, we need a liberal goon.  In hockey, often teams have a goon or an enforcer whose sole job is to punish players on the other team who foul them.  The right has many such goons who come out of the woodwork when it is time to bash a liberal.  We don't really have anyone.  I would like to see someone sink to their level.  Let's have a reporter with a White House press pass who just screams, "BULLSHIT!" when Sean Spicer said something that was untrue.

Fundamentally, the left has been on its back foot since November 7th or so.  We have been in a defense posture where we are replying to the things that have happened as opposed to launching our own initiatives and building our base.  We have been called on to work with Trump and those in the know are unwilling to do so, despite how many people it would help, because he would likely take credit for any progress made on the left and if anything fails, put them in a place to take the fall.

So I ask, where is the angry liberal out there yelling and screaming about the alt-right and telling people to STFU?

Hillary Wins! (conspiracy theory #2) ...This was never supposed to happen.

I think that Putin was the only person more surprised that Donald Trump won than Donald Trump himself.  In retrospect, it seems rather obvious that Trump was woefully unprepared to become President of the United States and if Hillary Clinton had won, he would have been a lot happier.

From the moment Trump took office he seemed surprised to be there.  During the campaign, he had made vague campaign promises about destroying ISIS in 30 days, repealing and replacing Obamacare, bringing back jobs in a horrible economy, and building a great big wall to keep out the Mexicans who are killing us and taking our jobs.  Now that he is in office, he has to live up to those promises or take another route; tell you whose fault it is that he cannot (because it is definitely not his).

I contend that he was never supposed to be there.  It was not what he or Putin wanted.  Do I believe that Putin and the Russians messed with the election?  Yes.  Do I believe that Trump had something to do with it?  Yes and no.

Given Trumps strengths, his best position is to be the guy standing at the podium telling you what is wrong.  He is a mouthpiece.  I suspect that Putin wanted to mes with America and the election and the best way to do that would be to have someone to harangue Hillary Clinton for the duration of the campaign.  Still, I think he wanted her to win and expected she would so that she would be under the microscope for the next four or more years, as Trump is now.

Putin has far more to gain if Hillary wins than having Trump in office, especially with a majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate.  If Hillary had won, right about now, she would be sitting in front of Congress defending every action she has ever taken.  Bill Clinton would be accused of something new.  There would be talk of independent counsels and impeachment and blocking Supreme Court nominees and more.  There is talk about those things now, the only difference is those accusations are being leveled by Democrats.

Trump would have benefited far more if she had won also.  Imagine Trump in Trump tower tweeting about how horrible a job she is doing and IF he was president, everything would be great right about now and everyone would have a pony.  He would be launching a new TV station designed specifically to target the left without actually saying it and essentially becoming FOX 2.0.  He would be free to move about the country, play golf, make deals and suck up all the goodness that comes from saying you could do a better job without ever getting the chance to do it. No one would be asking for his tax returns or phone records.  Trump thrives in the "IF".  Trump was expecting to lose.

There is more value in insinuation and innuendo than there is in proof these days.  Before the election even happened, he was talking about rigging.  Imagine if he had lost.  Every five minutes he would be in tweeting about how "Crooked Hillary" had worked to steal the election.  Look at the troll reaction when Bernie Sanders lost the primary to Hillary.  Retribution was immediate and constant.  In many circles it goes on to this day with people taking any chance to bash Hillary for "stealing the primary".

We are finding out more and more every day about links to Russia but the trail seems to go cold after the election and we are given to wonder how the social media campaign would have changed if she had won.  Was there a larger campaign in place to further tear at her administration?  It would have been a lot easier because no one would be looking at that actual perpetrators as much.  Attempts by President Hillary Clinton to point at the Trump campaign and the Russians would have been dismissed as her trying to cover her tracks and deflect from her "failing presidency".  Trump would have made deal after deal and more and more money.

People keep using the analogy of a dog chasing a car and not knowing what to do when he catches it.  It is apt but I think it goes deeper than that.  Much like that dog, the thrill for the Right and for Trump is in the chase.  It is the exercise that comes from running.  It is the intimidation that others see from a ferocious dog chasing anything.

Putin has no intention of blackmailing President Trump.  He can't, really.  There would be too many people looking and watching a president. He wanted to blackmail and own Trump the private citizen.  Trump the private citizen is where the money and the power are.  He wanted someone powerful in the U.S. not to have power, but to erode and undermine that power over time using a television station, a social media network, and a voice from within the U.S.

The problem was that Putin was too good at it and though the idea was to get as close as possible without actually winning.  He was looking at the same polls we were.  He was listening to the same people we were; people who insisted they were independent and undecided, but not.  Instead he ended up winning and now, shutting down all of those avenues that were constructed to bash Hillary for four years, are leaving a trail.  And speaking of trails, Hillary is probably out hiking right now as the Trump administration collapses.

Being a Republican Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry...

I watched Bill O'Reilly today.  It, as usual, was a big mistake.  Apparently a few days ago, O'Reilly spoke on Fox and Friends and had seemingly prepared material about how her hair looks like James Brown's wig.  Despite the bad and racist bit about a respected congresswoman's hair as opposed to the content of what she was saying, there was the inevitable apology.

Before you read the rest of this post and before you should skip to the end and read and see her rebuttal.  Spoiler alert: it is awesome.

I say inevitable because we knew with the furor and her rebuttal as well as the fact that April Ryan was attacked and demeaned at a press conference by Sean Spicer, we knew it was coming.  A lot has been made over the fact that O'Reilly was snickering while he apologized.  It was not an apology.  He just said the words.  That is all that you have to do nowadays; say the words.

But he was smiling and snickering throughout.  His apology was an "apology but..."  Part of  me wants to believe that while not sincere in his apology, he at least had no ulterior motive to even addressing it, but the cynic in me wants to believe that he was just raising his ratings but using the moment to take a swipe at her again and dare her to come on his show.

The part that bother me most is that he lobs a series of incorrect assertions.
 O'Reilly says that the more jobs that are created, the higher the incomes will be on every level.  Not true.  More jobs tend to drive down wages and create a gap between having more and more poor and the numbers of people profiting off of them.

O'Reilly says that the more Americans hired, the easier it will be for more people to get a job.  That has never been the case because there is an inherit scarcity of positions with any company.

O'Reilly says the more companies expand, the more demand there will be for labor.  Sounds good but in 2017, that is not the case and the more companies expand the more companies focus on the bottom line and efficiency to maximize profit for the shareholder.  This is their job.  Robots and automation are now and will continue to be cheaper than a living breathing human who wants days off.

O'Reilly says that the more discipline imposed in public schools the more kids will learn.  This is not true.  Were it true kids would be trussed to their chairs and taught like the kids in The Girl With All The Gifts.

O'Reilly has problems with his logic but his popularity with a certain sector is based on how he says what they want to hear.  Did he say he was sorry?  Yes, he said the words.  Did he apologize?  No.  He does not have to.  He said the words.  He was condescending and insincere, but he said the words.

Sean Spicer thinks a lot of things are interesting....

I am sure that Sean Spicer likes a lot of things.  I am sure he likes kittens or may even be an avid bird watcher for all I know.  There are a lot more things that Spicer thinks are interesting and he enjoys sharing them with the press.

April Ryan received the brunt of his interest when she started to ask him about the leaks in the White House, Sally Yates testifying before Congress, and Condoleezza Rice's upcoming visit with the President.  To his credit, he began by holding the line.  She asked him how the White House was going to "revamp" its image in the face of all of the controversy and he responded that they were going to continue to bring people together, across the aisle, etc. etc.

When she started on the next question about Condoleezza Rice, he thought it was so interesting that he cut her off mid-sentence to say that he thought it was interesting that she would follow up her first question with that one implying that she was trying to sow discord or something in the White House with all her negativity.  We will never really know because she did not really get to answer the question.  So great was his interest that he continually cut her off and told her not to shake her head at him as he tried to answer the question, that she really did not get to ask.

I took a moment to Google what this could possibly be about because I had forgotten about the whole thing.  It seems that President Trump apparently called her a "bitch" in front of a crowd a while ago and implied that she was inept at her job as Secretary of State. During the campaign Secretary Rice did not pull any punches about not supporting him and when asked to comment, said he should "Just stop" and drop out of the race.  Yet here we are.  April Ryan wanted to know (and I have to admit I am a little curious myself) how this meeting might go after such bad blood between the two.  It is a legitimate question.

Spicer has developed a little bit of a tell when it comes to speaking from the podium.  First he enters and reads very quickly, like a third grader delivering a book report, from prepared remarks about how great things are going in the White House and how anything that contradicts it is wrong (Fake news is on the decline because it has lost its momentum).  He peppers his remarks with comments about how this story or that is wrong  and then we are off to the races with questions.

Lately he has upped his game though.  He has started beginning his replies with "I think it's interesting that..." and talking about what the press is doing wrong and the Democrats are doing wrong.  He has taken the offensive (even more so than before).

Today he thought it was interesting that the press was reporting on the content of the leaks rather than whether or not they were legal a position that he had no problem with during the campaign and wiki-leaks was coming out with stolen emails on a daily basis.

I have to tip my hat to Sean Spicer.  He is evolving as a speaker to a particular demographic while at the same time devolving in what he is actually saying.  I am glad Sean Spicer is sharing his interests with the rest of us but it makes me wonder what his end game is.  My theory is that he is trying to goad someone in the press pool to take a shot at him right then and rebut him in the press room rather than excoriating him in their respective media.  Aside from Fox and Breitbart, the story is going to be about his meltdown.

Follow us on Twitter @writlargepodcst
Find us on Facebook at The Writ Large Podcast

What do you find interesting?  Call and leave a message (719) 357-7003 and you can be on the Writ Large Podcast!

Because I cannot hear my voice...

I work in a small city just outside of Atlanta called Doraville.  It is somewhat developed and populated predominantly by minorities; mostly Hispanic. A few weeks ago, in a wave of protests aimed at bringing awareness to the policies that would hurt them, groups organized the Day Without Immigrants on February 17.  Social media sites sent out the word and marches and walkouts were held.  The problem is that many Hispanics did not get the call and many also did not heed the call.  Where I work, a great many Hispanics do not use social media.  Many never heard that this was going on.  Many heard, but could not take the day off for fear of losing their jobs.  For many, it had to be just another day.

When we started talking about that wall, we had to take quite a few things into account. The defense of those impacted by the wall would in all likelihood, have to take place in large part without their active participation.   We are talking about undocumented workers who cannot step forward to tell their stories or defend themselves because, well, they are undocumented.... and “illegal”.  

Still, as a community, they are somewhat separate from the rest of the U.S. and when we look at how to engage a community we have to hear their voices and recognize there may be other considerations we need to take into account.  Things like the fact that the same modes of engagement as the Women’s Marches would not work the same.  Can someone who does not speak English well or at all call their congressman to complain.  Would they?

So what about me?  I am a 43 year old black liberal and I don’t hear my voice out there much either.  I am educated.  I am a veteran.  I have concerns.  In my adult life I have been stopped by the police 27 times.  When I look at tv shows and listen to podcasts or worse yet, watch the White House Press Briefings, I have to pause them while I fume over the fact that the press is not asking a question that I find rather obvious, but that they neglect to mention.

Even the right has a similar problem.  In my opinion, Donald Trump became president because a bunch of really small factions came together to vote him in BUT there was never a cohesive idea of what having him there means.  Imagine a hundred people in a room who voted for Trump.  As a group they are able to say, “We want X.” and there is agreement within the room but then you have other people with other agendas that conflict with the fact that these people wanted Trump to be president.  Those people who said “we want X.” are now co-mingled with those who say, “ We want X and we also dislike Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, women, LGBTQ, etc.” The voice of the moderates who wanted Trump and were willing to align with the extremes of the right to get him elected are now being “owned” by those extremes.  Many people on the right cast their vote for Trump for whatever reason and then sought to get on with their lives but in fact what happened was they became another number those extremists could point to and say that they are a part of the great numbers who rose in opposition the Dems.  So in that room of 100 people, maybe 5 are white supremacists, 5 are outright misogynists, etc. but I do not think the vast majority are bad or "deplorable" people, just a conglomeration of people who had specific wants they felt would be addressed by this administration.

So, as we watch the Attorney General Sessions talk about withholding federal funding from "sanctuary cities" that help immigrants, we do not hear their voice.  I watched as Sessions walked out as April Ryan asked about Eric Garner and the man who was stabbed and killed by a white supremacist it is important to bring out more voices because I can't hear mine.

So we are looking for the voices! (extreme PLURAL).  The Writ Large Podcast is a commentary podcast where YOU get to ask the questions and make the comments that you want to make.  Get your comments and questions in by Friday to be a part of the next week's podcast.

Here are the rules... 

We need people to call us at (719) 357-7003 and tell us what you think to be a part of the first episode of the Writ Large Podcast.

We want people to call in or text and we will read it allowed to tell us what you think. 

Profanity is allowed but please keep it to a minimum.

Please keep your responses to under 5 minutes.

Personal information will be edited out.

Like and follow us on Facebook 

Follow us on Twitter at @writlargepodcst

Where have all the trolls gone? #conspiracytheory

Trolls are becoming an endangered species.

There is something that people are not talking about.  There is something tat we are seeming not to
notice. Remember when something would get posted by a left wing and or liberal news site?  How many libs were willing to go beneath the article or worse, write a comment?  People were immediately hit with a number of insults and non sequitors.  The vast VAST majority of these were from people with Hispanic and African-American "sounding" names to lend them validity and gravitas of a sort.

So President Trump would be caught lying and CNN would post an article, or there would be some issue about Trump's ties to Russia and Putin and then there would be a flood of comments calling it fake news, calling people "cucks" etc. etc. etc.  I have not been called "snowflake" or "libtard" in a while.

As an avid reader of the comments section,  I am seeing a lot LESS right wing commentary.  Sure there are trolls here and there.  There are people who like to say random things in response to something that a lib-tard like me says.  They are not there anymore.

More on this later, but as a liberal concerned about endangered species, I have to ask are trolls now endangered?

Their numbers have gone down horribly since, the failure of Trump's administration has become more evident, since their talking seemed to have no effect, since the end of the election, and most of all, since the FBI has made it apparent that they are investigating cybercrimes against the U.S. during the election and Trump's part in it.

So where are the trolls?  Most of those really mean people screaming (on line) about "fake news!" and "Hillary's emails" are mostly gone.

My thought?  Since a great many of them are year old accounts that claim to be in places like Tucson Arizona and Poughkeepsie and having names like Malik and Tanya are going away in droves.  Mainly because they are fake accounts and though they claim to be from middle America and owned by people who claim they are minorities or Bernie Sanders supporters,  a lot of them are based "elsewhere".

So maybe we are hearing a lot less about fake news and Hillary's emails because the fake people are shutting down those accounts and trying to cover their tracks.  Something to think about.
#Moreonthislater

Could We Be Getting "Dave"-ed by the Trump Administration?

Dave was a quirky little rom/political-com that came out in 1993.  The President is in a coma and not expected to live, so the President's staff enlist the aid of an actor (Kevin Kline) who happens to look just like him to impersonate the President until they can make arrangements.  Hijinks ensue.

The interesting thing to think about is if it could actually happen with Trump.  People were relentless with President Obama, following him whenever he left The White House to see whom he would fist bump or what cute babies he would kiss but we always knew where he was and what he was doing at just about any given time.  The same goes for just about every president in modern history.

Trump is different, though.  He has already shown that he is a rally guy.  He is a Twitter guy.  He is not much for press conferences.  He has already said that he is going to split his time between New York and Washington D.C. What does this mean?  This is pure speculation.  There may come a day when we get "Dave"-ed.

It is a hard thing to think about but what if something should (goodness forbid) happen to Trump or if he should just want to disappear for a few days, weeks, months?  He has been good at eluding the press already and maybe,, just maybe, we are being set up for something.  It seems that he is conditioning us for some sort of departure by making Twitter his primary form of communication.

The Trump persona lends itself to imitation just by virtue of how visually LOUD it is.  Dictators (not saying that he is one) are prone to creating loud public personas so that they can hide whenever they want.  Saddam Hussein with his mustache and look at Castro, with his signature beard?  They and many more were known to have body doubles.  What is to stop Trump from slapping a blond wig on someone and letting a teenager take over his Twitter account as he steps out? Or worse yet, for his staff to do the same?

Imagine four years of body doubles with wigs being shuffled in and out of buildings and Tweets from his real account saying everything is fine.    How many times can they just show him getting on a plane and saying he is in NY  when they ask in D.C. and vice versa?

Pence and Priebus are pretty much running things anyway.  In fact, the growing consensus is that Trump seems to think that his role would be more ceremonial and that they would do all the hard work.  This is pure speculation, but we could be looking at a president who just pops up for public events or has a body double zip in and out and, goodness forbid something happens to him, could be easily replaced.  Something to think about.