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.

A Year From Now.

Over the desk here, there is a sign that says "A year from now, you will wish you had started today."  We were considering getting a "Hang in there!" cat, but in the scheme of things this seemed a bit more motivational.  In any event, we wonder what Trump will be hanging over the Resolute Desk in the Oval office.  No it was not a dream and yes he did win.

It goes without saying that the world is in a bit of an uproar.  The...entire...WORLD.   Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany even offered her remarks about the situation.  Let's not think about the irony of Germany lecturing the U.S. about leaders and have the (albeit only recently acquired) standing to do so.

Today's blog post is going to be short.  We are going to make a promise or rather an assertion?  Who knows.  In any event, we are going to give a timeline.  It is well accepted that a president's most effective time is the first 100 days of presidency.  We are going to give him an entire year.

First, let's escape some trappings before we begin.  We are not journalists.  We are concerned citizens with, for the time being, protection of the First Amendment.  Consider this entire blog editorial.

Second, in that same vein, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are removed from the table.  Pres. Obama came into office with a down economy and a country at war and leaves a somewhat peaceful and rebounding economy,  We have even started taking pictures of gas prices.  But that being said, we want it noted.  See, the tendency now is for things to get a little fuzzy.  We are talking about a man who said he was going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.  Given the things that he has said over the course of his campaign, it is likely that several things would go wrong with his rather simplistic plan. Things like, it won't get built at all for which he would blame Obama.  It gets built but Mexico does not pay and the American tax payer ends up footing the bill.  Whatever happens, I could actually see him saying "What wall?"

He will have the presidency, both houses of congress, and the Supreme Court so what has happened is there is NOTHING stopping him from doing what he wants and by that same token, he can't blame others when it doesn't happen.

Third, and this is key.  The clock starts NOW! or rather for us, two days ago.  We are still reeling from the results of the election, but things are already starting to come in.  Chris Christie, as of this writing is on hold as part of his transition team because he is facing legal troubles of his own.  Trump himself is due in court in two weeks over allegations of his own.  We will see how that turns out.  A lot of people are saying that he should not be held accountable until he is sworn in and that, is false.  The world is reacting to the news that he will take the seat.  Things are taking shape now.  There are long lists of things I could say are happening, but I do not have the time and frankly after the last few days, we are exhausted.

Things are going to change in the next 363 days possibly sooner. We wanted to start talking about it now.  We wanted to begin processing.  The sooner the better because a year from now, we'll have wished we had started today.

Quid pro...Where is the quo? The Troubling Clinton Money Situation and Stuff.

Something for something, that is what Quid Pro Quo means.

So it was revealed that Bill Clinton got upwards of 66 million dollars in speaking fees from people who were approached on behalf of the Clinton foundation by Teneo.
I read a lot of the articles but pretty much stopped when they said something to effect of "Tax records show that all but about $100,000.00 was returned to Teneo" and that Chelsea Clinton fired off emails on her fathers behalf when she found out about the situation (for which she was called a "spoiled brat")  and said that her father would be appalled when he found out.
They did find out what was going on.  How?  They had an internal fraud investigator hired to make sure that everything they were doing was legal.  So the gist of this story is that in 2011 a company that the Clintons (specifically Bill) was close to, solicited funds for the The Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative.  Teneo, while raising money for them approached them about for profit initiatives without their knowledge or approval. When Chelsea Clinton discovered this after an internal audit, they severed ties....
The right is trying VERY HARD to link this to Hillary Clinton.  The right wants you to believe that Hillary Clinton and her crooked cronies sat down at the kitchen table, rolled up their sleeves and worked late into the night over pots of coffee and piles of cash when in reality it was just a bunch of people trying to capitalize off of their fame.

The problem is the Quo.
Imagine someone paid you $66 million. The right is struggling and I stress STRUGGLING to find what these people got for their money.  There are ifs and maybes, but no "quo"  there is nothing that they can point to that shows any benefit for those contributing.  Show me the quo.
Ron Fornier has been saying "follow the money" show me the Ferrari's and the mansions.  Show me the private jet (Bill Clinton very famously has to hitch rides on other people's jets).
Forget the fact that he gave the money back when he found out what was going on.  Think about the fact that the logic is that he took this money on behalf of an organization that is doing a lot of good work in the world and got nothing for their money.
The devil is in the speculation.  They lead you just to the edge of a conclusion, just to edge of feeling that something is wrong.  They must be doing something horrendous with the money (even though they did not keep it) but we can figure out what it is.

Wiki leaks did not conduct an investigation.  They merely found out about the investigations that the Clintons conducted on themselves.  They are revealing problems that the Clintons discovered internally and solved years ago.