In response to a Facebook comment (if you ever read this blog and wonder where I've gone, it's mostly to social media, plus life has gotten a lot more complicated over the past few years) on WHY I feel that any Democrat would be better than four more years of Trump, I feel like that is a multifaceted question that requires a more extensive answer than a 'facebook note' so I'm dusting off the blog again.
First, the obvious part of the answer. I wouldn't be a Democrat if my core beliefs didn't include I didn't believe in helping those least able to sustain themselves in society, in feeding the poor, providing medical care for the sick, housing the homeless (yes, we heard a lot about homelessness last week, but if the Democratic response to homelessness has been inadequate, the Republican response has been far worse, essentially just, "go away and be homeless someplace else.") providing an education to all, and yes, taxing those of us who have been fortunate enough to earn a decent living to help pay for those things (a secret about progressive taxation: If I make more than you, then no matter how progressive the tax laws are, I will STILL make more than you after taxes are paid, just maybe not as many times as much as I do pre-tax.) I care about protecting the environment and about the right of a woman (or anyone) to control her own body (imagine the government telling you that you must let someone else use your kidney in order to save their life; why is a uterus any less a part of a person than a kidney?) There are places where I disagree with some Democrats such as the right to own a gun if you are not a criminal, terrorist or a threat to anyone else, BUT I can say that openly whereas a friend of mine who is a former Republican was roundly drummed out of the GOP some years back for speaking out against the Iraq War when it began. So clearly that is the first reason I'm a Democrat is that my core values align with the liberal end of the political spectrum.
BUT-- this is also a question about Donald Trump in particular. There are Republicans I might vote for in the right circumstances (such as Colin Powell) but I especially believe re-electing Donald Trump would be a truly awful thing.
There are many areas where we could begin, but let's start with experience. It is understandable that people would have voted for a man with zero governmental experience. His well-documented business failures aside, Trump had a reputation for leading a company, and his lack of experience in government was actually a selling point. Never mind that nobody in their right mind would want to go to a mechanic, a dentist or an attorney whose main selling point was that they had never worked in that field before and had not a day's worth of experience in the business. Nor would a large company hire a CEO who bragged that he had never worked in the field before.
The reason lack of experience got people to vote for Trump was the perception that government is CORRUPT and that he would 'drain the swamp.' Now, it is true that there are certainly corrupt people in government. My own former Congressman, Rick Renzi, went to prison after the FBI raided his business and he was convicted of bribery, money laundering and extortion. And we've seen plenty of corrupt members of Congress and other government offices be convicted and go to prison, members of both parties. Dan Rostenkowski, Duke Cunningham, William Jefferson and Bob Ney, to name just a few. But turn that around for a moment. The fact that they have been convicted and gone to prison is NOT proof that the system is corrupt. It is proof that the system WORKS. In many countries a corrupt politician would retire comfortably and not go to prison as long as they stayed on the right side of the rulers of the country. But in the U.S., they can be caught and tried and convicted and jailed, Remember that as the longtime Chair of the House Ways and Means committee, Rostenkowski was one of the most powerful-- and most feared-- men in Washington. But that didn't protect him from being indicted for turning the House Post Office into a personal taxpayer-financed cash cow (for which he later plead guilty and went to prison.) So yes, there are plenty of unethical people in Washington (which Trump fits right in with, very well.) But while he can't be indicted as a sitting President, others can, and others have, and that is evidence that whatever the flaws in the system, it does work to police itself.
And as far as lack of experience in government, anyone who has read my FB posts knows that one Democrat I'm very leery of is Andrew Yang-- for exactly the same reason. BUT-- even there, at least Yang is smart enough to listen to people who disagree with him (just like Eisenhower did, though as the Supreme Allied Commander in WWII Ike did have to deal with the President (his boss) and members of Congress on a regular basis and the military is in fact part of the government, so he still had some experience.) Trump in contrast surrounds himself with the proverbial 'Yes Men' who will agree with whatever he says and not try to give him contrary advice (or God forbid, disagree publicly with him.) If they do, they're out and he will find someone who will bend over and flatter his ego by telling him he's RIGHT about whatever it is and then go on TV and lie if that's what it takes to prop him up (queue the recent tempest about the tempest when the National Weather Service publicly chastized the local Alabama forecasters for daring to say Trump was wrong about whether the state was at risk from Hurricane Dorian.) And one other difference; as much as I feel Yang would be the most risky Democrat, at least he tries to stay positive, while Trump has done nothing but widen the already deep divisions in American society and rub the sores of resentment raw.
And this brings us to the second reason I feel Trump is such a disaster, the way he is changing America and the direction he is taking us in. Remember Reagan also ran against 'the government' and 'the system,' but he did it with positivity and a smile. Trump in contrast has promoted a very mean-spirited approach. He may for example criticize San Francisco for homelessness (never mind that the city is surrounded on three sides by water and on the other by other communities as well as a mountain range; of course housing is very expensive there because they are out of land) or Baltimore for having mice, but notice he never offers to help with the problems or suggests any ideas on how to solve them. All he does is criticize. His border policy is straight from hell (yes, when families showed up at the border during the Obama administration sometimes they were separated for a day or so while we vetted the family, but after that they were reunited and free to continue on. Trump, in contrast, has separated families for weeks, months or even in some cases deported the parents while effectively turning the children into orphans, under our care.) His proposed wall is not only a colossal waste of money (a steel slat prototype was sawed through with a ten dollar hacksaw ) but has turned us into a laughingstock in the rest of the world (remember when 'build a wall around the country' was an actual joke?) President Trump's targeted rhetoric, not towards individuals but against entire groups like Muslims and immigrants (especially those from places he calls 'sh*thole countries') has spread among his followers to where according to the SPLC, hate crimes against those communities have increased rapidly under his Presidency. His rhetoric warning of an 'invasion' of Central American migrants is not only divisive but brings out the worst of stereotypes. Certainly there ARE people among them who due to felony convictions, ties to gangs or cartels or for other reasons we don't want in our country, but we have the ability to vet people in a matter of minutes or at most hours (we use it at airports all the time) so between that, turning away Syrian refugees and stepped up deportations of people who may not even have any criminal record the message is clear, "GET OUT AND STAY OUT!" A far cry from when my maternal family came through Ellis Island and had to pass nothing other than a lice check. Heck, Bob Cucinelli, Trump's point man on immigration recently even rewrote Emma Lazarus' iconic poem, "the New Colossus" to make it clear that we only welcomed in immigrants of means who would never be a 'public charge' (as even successful immigrants have often been when they arrive with nothing but the shirt on their back and a will to work.)
Meanwhile, Trump has backed the lawsuit filed by some GOP Attorneys General seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act (something the administration tried by reconciliation when they had control of all of Congress and could pass one bill per year without having to break a filibuster.) They failed then, but now they may succeed. And the lawsuit does NOT carve out exemptions for 'pre-existing conditions' in the ACA, it seeks to overturn every word of the act. Now, disclaimer here: I was diagnosed with cancer three years ago. My plan has been to retire when I can do so next year, then buy insurance from the Obamacare exchange and focus on getting well or at least in staying healthy enough to be somewhat productive. But if they are successful I would be unable to get insurance at ANY price (since cancer is the prototype of a 'pre-existing condition.') I am fortunate in that I could remain employed and keep working until I died, but would still have insurance. But many other people would lose theirs. Now, I favored universal health insurance for YEARS before I actually needed it so my present opposition to the GOP has nothing to do with my cancer diagnosis in 2016, but... it is true if they succeed I would probably die if I retired from work. And it's hard to vote for somebody who personally wants you dead.
Beyond that, stop for a moment and contemplate this: Why did we outdo the Soviets in gaining international influence during the Cold War? Well, certainly we have warts from that time (ask any Iranian and they will give you the whole history, not just the 'we are victims' version that we get in the U.S.) But OVERALL, we held the moral high ground. Our society was freer, more open and more tolerant than the Soviets' Nobody had to build a wall to keep us in. And we were trusted to keep our word.
With Trump, those things are no longer the case. Substitute 'China' for 'the Soviet Union.' Now it is true that China is a dictatorship with a dismal, horrible record on human rights. But-- when we criticize our Democratic allies while cozying up to people like Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) or Philippine dictator Rodrigo Duterte, we become indistinguishable on the human rights front. Sure, we may criticize the governments of China, Venezuela or Iran for their human rights abuses but as long as we embrace dictators we like, those condemnations are seen for what they are: purely situational. Further by withdrawing from the Paris climate accords, the Iran nuclear deal (where the Iranian response of pushing the envelope on their end was entirely predictable and avoidable,) or from various international trade deals, the U.S. is no longer seen as absolutely trustworthy. This matters, as countries like Australia (an erstwhile American ally) sign massive trade deals with China and that nation rushes to fill the vacuum we leave behind. Do we really WANT a world where other nations no longer can count on us to keep our word? It's not like if we withdraw from an agreement that it doesn't create a vacuum, and either Russia or China will rush to fill it. In this regard, Trump is playing a very dangerous game. It takes years or even decades to build trust but it can be destroyed in one rash moment. And Donald Trump is all about rash moments.
And speaking of the change in America, it is not just mean-spiritedness at home. It is the same policy towards the oppressed elsewhere too. Today I was listening to a story on the radio about how even Iraqis and Afghans who helped U.S. forces are having their visas delayed (and some of them have been murdered for working with us as they waited through the delays we are now imposing.) We may have trouble in the future finding anyone abroad who will work with us as well.
Showing posts with label Donald Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Donald Trump. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Monday, December 18, 2017
Trump's contradictory speech about international relations
Today Donald Trump spoke about how the U.S. would continue to engage in international leadership, while criticizing 'revisionist' powers Russia and China.
Two questions this brings up. First, what is a 'revisionist' power? If Russia lost the Cold War, does that mean they will always be no threat to the U.S.? No more than Germany stopped being a threat to France after it lost World War I. History continues forward and it is foolish to assume that because of an event in the past (be it a military victory or whatever) that the future is thereby settled. At best the immediate future is settled, but never history going forward. By claiming that Russia is a 'revisionist' power (presumably meaning they want to reverse the outcome of the Cold War) it seems that Trump lacks a serious understanding of who they are. OF COURSE Russia would like to reverse the Cold War. Vladimir Putin, a former KGB man who once called the collapse of the Soviet Union 'the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century' has simply taken off the uniform and replaced it with a suit. Out with the Hammers and Sickles and in with Tsarist trappings. Out with one candidate elections and replace them with multicandidate elections in which the media are completely controlled by Putin and his allies, allowing only one candidate to be heard.
Like the Chinese, the Russians have undertaken limited economic reform, 'privatizing' state enterprises and instead allowing them to fall under the leadership of corrupt oligarchs and of Putin himself. His raw territorial ambition and his quest to return to the world stage as great power have been shown by his invasions of parts of Georgia and the Ukraine (including all of Crimea) and more recently by his active intervention to tilt the Syrian civil war in favor of old Moscow ally Bashir al-Assad.
But the Chinese have even gone beyond this. Doing much of the same in the way of 'reforms' as Russia (though China is still officially a communist country) and bullying its neighbors to the southeast and east, China has also become a military power. But beyond that, the Chinese situation brings up the second question.
That question is this: With the United States withdrawing from everything from the Paris climate accords to trade deals around the world, China has eagerly jumped in to replace the U.S. as a leader. Showing leadership means to engage. Now, it is certainly true that there have been some bad trade deals and I supported Trump's withdrawl from the proposed Trans-Pacific partnership; Not, mind you, because it was a bad deal. I don't know whether it was or it was not. The reason I don't know is because the whole deal was negotiated in secret and even people who saw drafts of the deal were sworn to secrecy to where they could say nothing about what was in it. The secrecy behind the TPP is what doomed it in the end, as many people felt (as I did) that the practice of negotiating that kind of a deal behind an opaque wall and saying nothing at all about it was itself unacceptable, so we chose not to support it.
However, it is also true that where there is a vacuum, somebody will fill it. TPP aside, the Trump administration has withdrawn the U.S. from MANY international treaties and deals, leaving the game wide open for China to step into the leadership role and they have already been working out trade deals and inserting themselves anywhere the U.S. has stepped back from. Heavy Chinese investment in Australia (formerly a reliable U.S. trading partner but less so anymore) and even in Afghanistan (where American soldiers have died while Chinese companies have stepped in behind them and opened mines that develop the local economy and feed raw materials back to China) are cases where the failure of the U.S. to engage economically has created an opportunity for China.
Before making these grand (and contradictory) pronouncements about the U.S. engaging with the rest of the world AND opposing 'revisionist powers' (whatever that is supposed to mean) perhaps the President should consider what it takes to do both of those things-- and balance them against each other as so far he has not done.
Two questions this brings up. First, what is a 'revisionist' power? If Russia lost the Cold War, does that mean they will always be no threat to the U.S.? No more than Germany stopped being a threat to France after it lost World War I. History continues forward and it is foolish to assume that because of an event in the past (be it a military victory or whatever) that the future is thereby settled. At best the immediate future is settled, but never history going forward. By claiming that Russia is a 'revisionist' power (presumably meaning they want to reverse the outcome of the Cold War) it seems that Trump lacks a serious understanding of who they are. OF COURSE Russia would like to reverse the Cold War. Vladimir Putin, a former KGB man who once called the collapse of the Soviet Union 'the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century' has simply taken off the uniform and replaced it with a suit. Out with the Hammers and Sickles and in with Tsarist trappings. Out with one candidate elections and replace them with multicandidate elections in which the media are completely controlled by Putin and his allies, allowing only one candidate to be heard.
Like the Chinese, the Russians have undertaken limited economic reform, 'privatizing' state enterprises and instead allowing them to fall under the leadership of corrupt oligarchs and of Putin himself. His raw territorial ambition and his quest to return to the world stage as great power have been shown by his invasions of parts of Georgia and the Ukraine (including all of Crimea) and more recently by his active intervention to tilt the Syrian civil war in favor of old Moscow ally Bashir al-Assad.
But the Chinese have even gone beyond this. Doing much of the same in the way of 'reforms' as Russia (though China is still officially a communist country) and bullying its neighbors to the southeast and east, China has also become a military power. But beyond that, the Chinese situation brings up the second question.
That question is this: With the United States withdrawing from everything from the Paris climate accords to trade deals around the world, China has eagerly jumped in to replace the U.S. as a leader. Showing leadership means to engage. Now, it is certainly true that there have been some bad trade deals and I supported Trump's withdrawl from the proposed Trans-Pacific partnership; Not, mind you, because it was a bad deal. I don't know whether it was or it was not. The reason I don't know is because the whole deal was negotiated in secret and even people who saw drafts of the deal were sworn to secrecy to where they could say nothing about what was in it. The secrecy behind the TPP is what doomed it in the end, as many people felt (as I did) that the practice of negotiating that kind of a deal behind an opaque wall and saying nothing at all about it was itself unacceptable, so we chose not to support it.
However, it is also true that where there is a vacuum, somebody will fill it. TPP aside, the Trump administration has withdrawn the U.S. from MANY international treaties and deals, leaving the game wide open for China to step into the leadership role and they have already been working out trade deals and inserting themselves anywhere the U.S. has stepped back from. Heavy Chinese investment in Australia (formerly a reliable U.S. trading partner but less so anymore) and even in Afghanistan (where American soldiers have died while Chinese companies have stepped in behind them and opened mines that develop the local economy and feed raw materials back to China) are cases where the failure of the U.S. to engage economically has created an opportunity for China.
Before making these grand (and contradictory) pronouncements about the U.S. engaging with the rest of the world AND opposing 'revisionist powers' (whatever that is supposed to mean) perhaps the President should consider what it takes to do both of those things-- and balance them against each other as so far he has not done.
Saturday, December 31, 2016
New Year's Predictions for 2017
January: Donald Trump is inaugurated. He causes a furor when he interrupts his inaugural address mid-sentence to complain about two female reporters covering the event and call them fat. Later on, the Rockettes perform on schedule at the inauguration but strategically line up behind the President-elect so while dancing the can-can they get to take turns kicking his butt.
February: The Seattle Seahawks win Super Bowl LI over the New England Patriots. The key play comes in the third quarter, when former Arizona Cardinal and current Patriots receiver Michael Floyd fumbles a short pass but then falls down and is found draped over the ball with a BAC of .217. Since he fell on it, the ruling on the field is that the Patriots recover the fumble, but the reason it is a key play is because the pile on squeezes some of the air out of the ball. On the next play, Tom Brady is unprepared for a properly inflated ball and throws a pick-six to Richard Sherman. After the game Sherman gives another typical Sherman interview and is shortly thereafter given a fifteen yard penalty by NFL President Roger Goodell for illegal use of the Mouth.
March: President Trump wakes up at 3:00 in the morning to tweet about a pharmacist in an obscure town in Colorado who called him a name in an online chat room. Trump says the pharmacist is 'so unfair' and threatens to sue. Trump's followers immediately crash the pharmacy's website with derogatory comments, threats and insults.
April: President Trump precipitates a crisis when he fails to sign a debt ceiling increase in time, threatening to default on the U.S. debt. His initial response is that 'walking away from debt worked for me, it can work for the country,' but it later turns out that he was on the phone with a Scottish official arguing about the view from his golf course and couldn't be bothered with unrelated matters until it was resolved.
May: The Scottish golf course issue not being resolved to Trump's satisfaction, he orders the U.S. marines to invade and seize Scotland. When British Prime Minister Theresa May objects and points out that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, Trump asks what the U.K. has ever done for the U.S., reminds everyone that the U.S. won World War II, and calls the Brits 'losers.'
June: Trump begins building a border wall by confiscating taco trucks from street corners in the U.S. and stacking them along the border. In order to make Mexico pay for it, he sends troops to occupy Juarez. He says he will give it back when Mexico sends a check.
July: Following up on his pledge to expand America's nuclear arsenal, Trump withdraws from the test ban treaty, and announces his special Fourth of July program involving nuclear fireworks will be held in California. He also promises that other Americans can participate and show their patriotism by going outside to cheer when the nuclear fallout cloud passes over THEIR state !
August: Secretary of State and Exxon-Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson suggests in an interview that the U.S. should invade Iran to get the oil. A sense of deja vu pervades the room and dead silence ensues, until Trump bails out Tillerson by adding, "and to do more of our nuclear testing."
September: President Trump and Labor Secretary Andrew Puzder celebrate Labor Day by signing an executive order abolishing minimum wage, maternity leave, overtime pay and sick leave, and making unions and collective bargaining illegal.
October: The Cubs win the World Series again. People start getting bored and talking about how the 'Cubs are always winning.' Yankee fans are jealous.
November: Once again, Trump is late signing a routine debt ceiling increase, nearly causing a national default. It turns out that the reason why is because the phone lines to the Kremlin were jammed, so Trump had to wait before he got the official OK from Putin to sign it.
December: Trump's promise to create jobs in coal states actually turns out to be true. That's because in a country full of Trump supporters, Santa needs to buy tons of the stuff.
February: The Seattle Seahawks win Super Bowl LI over the New England Patriots. The key play comes in the third quarter, when former Arizona Cardinal and current Patriots receiver Michael Floyd fumbles a short pass but then falls down and is found draped over the ball with a BAC of .217. Since he fell on it, the ruling on the field is that the Patriots recover the fumble, but the reason it is a key play is because the pile on squeezes some of the air out of the ball. On the next play, Tom Brady is unprepared for a properly inflated ball and throws a pick-six to Richard Sherman. After the game Sherman gives another typical Sherman interview and is shortly thereafter given a fifteen yard penalty by NFL President Roger Goodell for illegal use of the Mouth.
March: President Trump wakes up at 3:00 in the morning to tweet about a pharmacist in an obscure town in Colorado who called him a name in an online chat room. Trump says the pharmacist is 'so unfair' and threatens to sue. Trump's followers immediately crash the pharmacy's website with derogatory comments, threats and insults.
April: President Trump precipitates a crisis when he fails to sign a debt ceiling increase in time, threatening to default on the U.S. debt. His initial response is that 'walking away from debt worked for me, it can work for the country,' but it later turns out that he was on the phone with a Scottish official arguing about the view from his golf course and couldn't be bothered with unrelated matters until it was resolved.
May: The Scottish golf course issue not being resolved to Trump's satisfaction, he orders the U.S. marines to invade and seize Scotland. When British Prime Minister Theresa May objects and points out that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, Trump asks what the U.K. has ever done for the U.S., reminds everyone that the U.S. won World War II, and calls the Brits 'losers.'
June: Trump begins building a border wall by confiscating taco trucks from street corners in the U.S. and stacking them along the border. In order to make Mexico pay for it, he sends troops to occupy Juarez. He says he will give it back when Mexico sends a check.
July: Following up on his pledge to expand America's nuclear arsenal, Trump withdraws from the test ban treaty, and announces his special Fourth of July program involving nuclear fireworks will be held in California. He also promises that other Americans can participate and show their patriotism by going outside to cheer when the nuclear fallout cloud passes over THEIR state !
August: Secretary of State and Exxon-Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson suggests in an interview that the U.S. should invade Iran to get the oil. A sense of deja vu pervades the room and dead silence ensues, until Trump bails out Tillerson by adding, "and to do more of our nuclear testing."
September: President Trump and Labor Secretary Andrew Puzder celebrate Labor Day by signing an executive order abolishing minimum wage, maternity leave, overtime pay and sick leave, and making unions and collective bargaining illegal.
October: The Cubs win the World Series again. People start getting bored and talking about how the 'Cubs are always winning.' Yankee fans are jealous.
November: Once again, Trump is late signing a routine debt ceiling increase, nearly causing a national default. It turns out that the reason why is because the phone lines to the Kremlin were jammed, so Trump had to wait before he got the official OK from Putin to sign it.
December: Trump's promise to create jobs in coal states actually turns out to be true. That's because in a country full of Trump supporters, Santa needs to buy tons of the stuff.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Donald Trump can fly his flag-- on a 42 foot pole like anyone else.
As a liberal, it's always risky speaking against flying an American flag. I'm sure that some right winger, if they read this, will be quick to jump up and cite it as proof that liberals are unpatriotic, or hate America, or some such crap.
If so, they don't know me. I love America, and in fact I have a small American flag right next to my front door. I stuck it up there on September 11, 2001, and it has remained in place since that day. The wind has shredded it to the extent that pretty soon I will have to replace it. To be honest it would bother me to throw it away. The proper procedure for disposal of an old or tattered flag,
according to 36 USCA Sec. 176, Respect for flag:
The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.
but if I did that then I'm sure those same right-wingers would claim that I was making an anti-American political statement.
But I'm going to speak against flying the flag. Specifically, against Donald Trump flying his.
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Officials in the ritzy coastal town of Palm Beach have voted to fine Donald Trump $1,250 a day for flying a large American flag atop an 80-foot flagpole at his lavish club in violation of town codes.
Code enforcement officials have accused the 60-year-old real-estate mogul of violating zoning guidelines with a flagpole taller than 42 feet, for not obtaining a building permit, and for not getting permission from the landmarks board.
Trump has refused to take down the flag. He has also filed a $25 million lawsuit against the town arguing, in part, that officials are selectively enforcing ordinances and that flying the American flag at his Mar-A-Lago club is a constitutionally protected expression of free speech.
Let's start with why this is not a violation of free speech. The town of West Palm Beach has not said that Donald Trump can't fly the American flag. In fact, he could fly the same flag (oversized as it is) 42 feet off the ground. This is as high as a typical three or four story building, so it's not like he can't fly his flag in a very visible manner. He would have a point that it was a violation of free speech if the law said that he couldn't display it at all, or for that matter that he could only display it in a manner where it could easily be overlooked, but the ordinance does not say that. Further, the zoning ordinance says nothing about the flag itself, but rather about the flagpole. In other words if he wants to, for example, display the flag eighty feet up on the side of a building or some other way of displaying it, he would not be in violation of the ordinance. A limit on the height of a flagpole can be grounded in all sorts of practical reasons, including that an eighty foot pole could, if struck by a vehicle conceivably cause injury to people a signficant distance away, or that people may want an unobstructed view.
The fact is that cities and towns have a right to create and enforce ordinances designed to promote what they see as the quality of life in their communities. There have been times when I have been unhappy about these ordinances (for example several years ago we were all set to buy land and move into a community when they passed an ordinance against single wide trailers. We had one that we were planning to put on the land. When they passed the ordinance we went elsewhere (though things have in fact turned out much better where we are, especially in terms of having much better schools, than they would have there). But whether I liked the ordinance or not, I never felt that the town didn't have the legal right to pass it.
A zoning ordinance can in some cases be considered a restriction on free speech but I don't honestly see how this one is. If I felt otherwise I'd speak out against it, as I have before on free speech issues.
Donald Trump seems to have created this situation intentionally. He could have applied for permission from the landmarks board. It might not have been granted, but then again it might have-- but he chose not to follow the procedure to ask for permission. Perhaps he is creating the controversy because his image has taken a hit lately, between the dust-up with Rosie O'Donnell and his having been fooled by a fraudulent resume submitted by a low level day trader who was hired by Trump to direct his mortgage division. Or maybe it's just a matter of the fact that he hasn't had many headlines since the war with Rosie has receded from the front page.
If so, they don't know me. I love America, and in fact I have a small American flag right next to my front door. I stuck it up there on September 11, 2001, and it has remained in place since that day. The wind has shredded it to the extent that pretty soon I will have to replace it. To be honest it would bother me to throw it away. The proper procedure for disposal of an old or tattered flag,
according to 36 USCA Sec. 176, Respect for flag:
The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.
but if I did that then I'm sure those same right-wingers would claim that I was making an anti-American political statement.
But I'm going to speak against flying the flag. Specifically, against Donald Trump flying his.
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Officials in the ritzy coastal town of Palm Beach have voted to fine Donald Trump $1,250 a day for flying a large American flag atop an 80-foot flagpole at his lavish club in violation of town codes.
Code enforcement officials have accused the 60-year-old real-estate mogul of violating zoning guidelines with a flagpole taller than 42 feet, for not obtaining a building permit, and for not getting permission from the landmarks board.
Trump has refused to take down the flag. He has also filed a $25 million lawsuit against the town arguing, in part, that officials are selectively enforcing ordinances and that flying the American flag at his Mar-A-Lago club is a constitutionally protected expression of free speech.
Let's start with why this is not a violation of free speech. The town of West Palm Beach has not said that Donald Trump can't fly the American flag. In fact, he could fly the same flag (oversized as it is) 42 feet off the ground. This is as high as a typical three or four story building, so it's not like he can't fly his flag in a very visible manner. He would have a point that it was a violation of free speech if the law said that he couldn't display it at all, or for that matter that he could only display it in a manner where it could easily be overlooked, but the ordinance does not say that. Further, the zoning ordinance says nothing about the flag itself, but rather about the flagpole. In other words if he wants to, for example, display the flag eighty feet up on the side of a building or some other way of displaying it, he would not be in violation of the ordinance. A limit on the height of a flagpole can be grounded in all sorts of practical reasons, including that an eighty foot pole could, if struck by a vehicle conceivably cause injury to people a signficant distance away, or that people may want an unobstructed view.
The fact is that cities and towns have a right to create and enforce ordinances designed to promote what they see as the quality of life in their communities. There have been times when I have been unhappy about these ordinances (for example several years ago we were all set to buy land and move into a community when they passed an ordinance against single wide trailers. We had one that we were planning to put on the land. When they passed the ordinance we went elsewhere (though things have in fact turned out much better where we are, especially in terms of having much better schools, than they would have there). But whether I liked the ordinance or not, I never felt that the town didn't have the legal right to pass it.
A zoning ordinance can in some cases be considered a restriction on free speech but I don't honestly see how this one is. If I felt otherwise I'd speak out against it, as I have before on free speech issues.
Donald Trump seems to have created this situation intentionally. He could have applied for permission from the landmarks board. It might not have been granted, but then again it might have-- but he chose not to follow the procedure to ask for permission. Perhaps he is creating the controversy because his image has taken a hit lately, between the dust-up with Rosie O'Donnell and his having been fooled by a fraudulent resume submitted by a low level day trader who was hired by Trump to direct his mortgage division. Or maybe it's just a matter of the fact that he hasn't had many headlines since the war with Rosie has receded from the front page.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
He should have just asked to be on the Apprentice
Apparently Donald Trump can be conned. At least on a resume. E.J. Ridings was hired as head of Trump Mortgage in April.
At the time, Trump said that the goal of Trump Mortgage was to
inject integrity into an industry that has the reputation for giving customers a raw deal....
"Trump Mortgage is going to take better care of people than anyone in the mortgage industry ever has," said Trump.
Sounds like integrity has a way to go. Until this week, Trump Mortgage's website described Ridings as a 'seasoned pro.'
First, Ridings' initial bio stated that before joining the company he was "a top executive at one of Wall Street's most prestigious investment banks."
Second, the bio had said that Ridings was an "established leader" at one of New York's leading mortgage boutiques.
Third, the bio said he had 15 years of experience in the financial industry.
All three claims appear to be false, according to regulatory documents obtained by Money and interviews with former colleagues of Ridings.
In fact, Ridings apparently worked for a whole six days as a registered broker with Morgan Stanley subsidiary Dean Witter Reynolds, out of a three month stint total. He also later worked as a day trader and at a company called GuardHill Financial, where he was a 'loan originator,' an entry-level position. Beyond this, he also sold health drinks and vitamins, and had his own cleaning service. Yup, that's right, a janitor fooled Donald Trump.
OK, so that brings us to the next question: Now that the fraud has been exposed, how did 'wonder boy' do? I mean, if anyone would forgive even this level of indiscretion in getting hired if it was balanced by an outstanding record of achievement since then, you'd expect it to be Trump. He said just last week in the Miss USA controversy, "I've always been a believer in second chances." So what kind of performance did Ridings turn in the past eight months, apparently learning as he went?
Well, not so hot.
Trump Mortgage is off to a bumpy start. At least six residential mortgage professionals have left the firm in the past six months, including Scheck and Craig Lane, who was hired to run the company's Florida operations.
And Trump Mortgage has fallen short of Ridings' earlier forecasts. At the time of the company's launch, Ridings predicted the company would complete $3 billion in loans in 2006, much of it in residential lending. Now Ridings says, "Trump Mortgage anticipated doing close to $1 billion in residential mortgages, but that figure may not be reached by the end of this year."
I'm surprised that Ridings hasn't been fired yet. He made a monkey out of 'the Donald,' and I doubt if the Donald is going to give him another chance.
At the time, Trump said that the goal of Trump Mortgage was to
inject integrity into an industry that has the reputation for giving customers a raw deal....
"Trump Mortgage is going to take better care of people than anyone in the mortgage industry ever has," said Trump.
Sounds like integrity has a way to go. Until this week, Trump Mortgage's website described Ridings as a 'seasoned pro.'
First, Ridings' initial bio stated that before joining the company he was "a top executive at one of Wall Street's most prestigious investment banks."
Second, the bio had said that Ridings was an "established leader" at one of New York's leading mortgage boutiques.
Third, the bio said he had 15 years of experience in the financial industry.
All three claims appear to be false, according to regulatory documents obtained by Money and interviews with former colleagues of Ridings.
In fact, Ridings apparently worked for a whole six days as a registered broker with Morgan Stanley subsidiary Dean Witter Reynolds, out of a three month stint total. He also later worked as a day trader and at a company called GuardHill Financial, where he was a 'loan originator,' an entry-level position. Beyond this, he also sold health drinks and vitamins, and had his own cleaning service. Yup, that's right, a janitor fooled Donald Trump.
OK, so that brings us to the next question: Now that the fraud has been exposed, how did 'wonder boy' do? I mean, if anyone would forgive even this level of indiscretion in getting hired if it was balanced by an outstanding record of achievement since then, you'd expect it to be Trump. He said just last week in the Miss USA controversy, "I've always been a believer in second chances." So what kind of performance did Ridings turn in the past eight months, apparently learning as he went?
Well, not so hot.
Trump Mortgage is off to a bumpy start. At least six residential mortgage professionals have left the firm in the past six months, including Scheck and Craig Lane, who was hired to run the company's Florida operations.
And Trump Mortgage has fallen short of Ridings' earlier forecasts. At the time of the company's launch, Ridings predicted the company would complete $3 billion in loans in 2006, much of it in residential lending. Now Ridings says, "Trump Mortgage anticipated doing close to $1 billion in residential mortgages, but that figure may not be reached by the end of this year."
I'm surprised that Ridings hasn't been fired yet. He made a monkey out of 'the Donald,' and I doubt if the Donald is going to give him another chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
