Tag Archives: NY Times

Liberals should heed advice from one of their own

diversity1

Nicholas Kristof makes no apologies for being a liberal thinker.

Nor should he. The New York Times columnist, though, offers a serious word of caution to his fellow liberals and progressives: If you mean what you say about demanding diversity in all aspects of contemporary life, then do not shut out those ideas with which you disagree.

Kristof’s essay in the Sunday New York Times echoes a recurring theme on which he has written before.

He chides universities and colleges for becoming echo chambers, for demonstrating unwillingness to hear thoughts expressed by those on the right, even the far right.

He says this about his fellow liberals: “We champion tolerance, except for conservatives and evangelical Christians. We want to be inclusive of people who don’t look like us — so long as they think like us.”

Ouch, man!

He’s correct. We see this played out on occasion when universities invite noted conservatives to speak on their campuses. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been victimized by outrage expressed by liberal faculty members and student body officers; so has Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser and secretary of state in the George W. Bush administration.

Even here in the Texas Panhandle, when one-time Bush presidential strategist Karl Rove was invited a few years ago to deliver a speech at a West Texas A&M University graduation event, you’d have thought WT had invited the spawn of Satan himself, based on some of the reaction.

Kristof has delivered a sound message for all his fellow liberals to heed. If you truly want diversity of thought and opinion, then open your own eyes, ears … and minds.

As Kristof writes: “It’s ineffably sad that today ‘that’s academic’ often means ‘that’s irrelevant.’ One step to correcting that is for us liberals to embrace the diversity we supposedly champion.”

Amen, brother.

Big surprise: Trump trashes CIA analysis of Russian hackers

11intel-01-master768

Of course Donald J. Trump would dismiss the CIA’s assessment that Russia played a role in seeking to influence the U.S. presidential election.

Naturally, he would dismiss the analysis provided by career intelligence officers trained to the max to make such determinations.

The president-elect won the election fair and square, by a “landslide,” he says. He didn’t need no stinkin’ Russian hackers trying to mess with our electoral process, he’ll say.

This is a potentially huge deal, folks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/us/politics/trump-mocking-claim-that-russia-hacked-election-at-odds-with-gop.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

It’s so big that President Obama has ordered a top-to-bottom analysis of what happened, when it happened, who did it and why. He wants the results on his desk before he leaves office on Jan. 20.

The president-elect has fired yet another barrage at the U.S. intelligence community he is about to lead. He is opening up a potentially serious breach between the myriad intelligence agencies and the White House.

Trump has drawn fire from, get this, fellow Republicans. As the New York Times reported: “’To have the president-elect of the United States simply reject the fact-based narrative that the intelligence community puts together because it conflicts with his a priori assumptions — wow,’ said Michael V. Hayden, who was the director of the N.S.A. and later the C.I.A. under President George W. Bush.”

That’s what he is doing. He is rejecting these findings out of hand.

I get that partisan emotions are still burning white hot. More from the New York Times: “With the partisan emotions on both sides — Mr. Trump’s supporters see a plot to undermine his presidency, and Hillary Clinton’s supporters see a conspiracy to keep her from the presidency — the result is an environment in which even those basic facts become the basis for dispute.”

The man who’s still the president for a few more weeks has ordered a complete review. How about letting the intelligence pros do their job, deliver their complete findings to the president — and then let us discuss how we might need to defend our electoral system against foreign interference.

Trump damages due process

bergdahl

Donald J. Trump proved beyond anyone’s doubt that political candidates can — and do — say anything without regard to the consequences to certain cherished American principles … such as, oh, due process.

While running for president, Trump condemned a U.S. Army sergeant as a “rotten traitor.” The man in question is Bowe Bergdahl, who is set to be court-martialed in the spring on charges that he walked off his post in Afghanistan before he was captured by Taliban terrorists.

He was held captive for five years. Then he was released in a prisoner swap with U.S. officials.

I am not going to make an assertion about Bergdahl’s guilt or innocence. I wasn’t there. Neither was Trump. Or anyone other than the Taliban terrorists and Bergdahl. That didn’t prevent Trump from issuing a blanket campaign-stump conviction of the young man.

Moreover, as the New York Times wondered in an editorial published today, the rants of the future commander in chief likely have put Bergdahl’s right to a fair trail in extreme jeopardy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/opinion/sunday/the-soldier-donald-trump-called-a-traitor.html?ref=opinion

As the Times stated: “Sergeant Bergdahl is charged with desertion and misbehavior in front of the enemy; a guilty verdict could result in a sentence anywhere from no jail time to life. But how can he get a fair trial in the military justice system when the next commander in chief has proclaimed his guilt and accused him of treason?

“The short answer is he can’t.”

The Army has charged Bergdahl with desertion and he could be sentenced to prison for the rest of his life if he’s convicted.

Trump’s proclamation of guilt of one of the men who soon will be under his command speaks to his utter disregard for the rule of law and of the due process that is accorded to all criminal defendants.

The Times suggests that President Obama might grant Bergdahl a pardon to allow him to “rebuild his life” and avoid what it calls a “questionable” prosecution. The Times states that Bergdahl had a pre-existing mental condition when he enlisted in the Army, which granted him an enlistment waiver.

Given the poison that the next commander in chief has inserted into this pre-trial discussion, the current commander in chief ought to take a hard look at a pardon.

Trump’s rhetorical recklessness only demonstrates his unfitness for the job he is about to assume.

Hillary remains mum on Trump’s latest trouble

hillary

Hillary Rodham Clinton likely has a lot to say about Donald J. Trump’s sexual behavior.

Her problem? She cannot say it out loud. The Democratic nominee for president of the United States must rely on surrogates to express their outrage on her behalf.

She happens to have a couple of powerful surrogates: President Barack H. Obama and his wife, Michelle, who have done a masterful job of peeling the bark off the Republican presidential nominee.

Hillary Clinton’s own history — as well as the history of her husband — compel her to remain mum on the subject of those ghastly Trump comments we all heard the other day aboard that “Access Hollywood” bus in 2005.

As the New York Times has reported: “Though Hillary Clinton has stood at the center of feminist debates for more than two decades, she has also been an imperfect messenger for the feminist cause. That has never been more true than now, as her old missteps and her husband’s history have effectively paralyzed her during a moment of widespread outrage.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/missteps-in-hillary-clinton%e2%80%99s-past-leave-her-muted-in-furor-over-donald-trump/ar-AAj00Y1?li=BBnb7Kz

And the outrage hasn’t let up since the video and audio recordings were released to the public.

As for whether any of this damages Hillary Clinton’s political standing, I happen to believe it will not.

Her tactic so far has been to change the subject when the talk turns to Trump’s statements about attempting to seduce a married woman, or how his “star” status allows him to grab women in their private areas, or allows him to kiss them aggressively without their consent.

The two of them have one more joint appearance to endure before voters have their final say. It will occur, interestingly, in Las Vegas, Nev., where Trump has some significant business dealing and where — one might presume — he has engaged in some of his untoward behavior with women.

Will any of this come up when the event opens? Uhhh, let me think for a second … yes, it will.

Do not look for Clinton to go there. She’ll likely just let Trump rant like a madman over the former president’s misbehavior.

From where I will be sitting while this event occurs, that will look like a good call.

Then she’ll likely sic Barack and Michelle Obama on him.

This image burns deeply

trump-mocks-reporter

Of all the images we’ve seen during this wild, wacky and weird presidential election, perhaps none resonates with more people than the one of Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump mocking a reporter.

You see the picture here. Trump is gesturing in a way that mimics Serge Kovaleski’s disability. Kovaleski is a reporter with the New York Times; he suffers from arthrogryposis, which inhibits movement of his joints.

Trump and Kovaleski got into a beef over an article the reporter wrote in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Trump used the article to contend falsely that “thousands of Muslims” cheered the collapse of the World Trade Center.

But here’s the thing: While criticizing Kovaleski’s response to Trump’s false assertion of what he reported initially, the candidate decided to flail his arms around to mimic the reporter’s disability.

It was an unconscionable and profoundly stupid demonstration of insensitivity.

Concern over this act by the candidate was tossed aside by his supporters during the GOP primary campaign as being overblown and overhyped.

Well, here’s a video showing Trump doing what his primary supporters said was, well, no big deal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxd76wco5lQ

You can be the judge of what you see here.

I’ve made mine already. What I see is someone who purports to want to become the leader of the greatest nation on Earth.

To my eyes and ears, this individual — Trump — isn’t qualified to clean the White House toilets.

It’s come to this: sexual conduct will decide this election?

trump-rampage-continues-republic

It’s down to the wire between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump.

With all the issues that separate the parties’ presidential nominees — trade, climate change, jobs, war and peace, terrorism — we’re left now to decide this election on … sexual misconduct.

The allegations are pouring in now.

The New York Times has published more stories about women alleging that Trump groped them. Trump is vowing to sue the newspaper. The Washington Post released that hideous video recording of Trump talking to “Access Hollywood” about his attempts to seduce a married woman and what he can get away with because of his “star” status.

Trump is now threatening to stay away next week from the final debate with Clinton because, he says, the debate format is “rigged.”

The GOP nominee’s poll numbers are plummeting. Meanwhile, Clinton’s team is airing feel-good TV ads extolling her work with children and women’s issues.

Trump’s own words — heard on the video recording — have caused many of his congressional supporters to revoke their endorsements, resulting in a virtual declaration of war against the Republican Party by its own presidential nominee!

Who in this world ever would have thought that could happen? Even in this utterly nonsensical election year?

I don’t know about you, but I am looking forward to watching this circus act come to an end on the Eighth of November.

Trump wrecks his businesses, loses big dough; that’s ‘smart’

USEconomy1

I’m still trying to understand this one, so bear with me for just a moment.

The New York Times has uncovered information that reveals a big business loss for Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump. He declared a loss of about $916 million in 1995, caused by the wreckage of some business ventures.

The loss allowed Trump, according to the Times, to avoid paying federal income taxes for the next 18 years. The Trump campaign hasn’t confirmed or denied the veracity of the report.

So … is this a case of Trump gaming the federal tax system? Or is it smart business practice, as his supporters are now insisting?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Rudy Guiliani, one of Trump’s key advisers, defends the GOP nominee’s tax-paying record.

It’s a complicated story, full of economic nuance and wheeling/dealing with which I am patently unfamiliar. As the Times reported: “Although Mr. Trump’s taxable income in subsequent years is as yet unknown, a $916 million loss in 1995 would have been large enough to wipe out more than $50 million a year in taxable income over 18 years.”

It’s not yet clear, of course, whether Trump actually did avoid paying income taxes over the course of nearly two decades. My achy old bones tell me he probably took full advantage of tax law  to dodge the tax burden.

After all, he did tell Hillary Rodham Clinton during their first presidential debate this past week that it would be “smart” of him to avoid paying taxes.

OK, then. Let’s see those tax returns so we can determine for ourselves who’s telling the truth.

Mean streak is showing itself

don trump

Nicholas Kristof and I have one thing in common.

We both hail from Oregon. He’s a self-proclaimed farm boy who was reared in the rainy western region of the state; I grew up in the big city of Portland.

He writes opinion pieces for the New York Times. I write for myself.

OK, we have one more thing in common: Neither of us wants Donald J. Trump to be elected president of the United States.

Kristof wrote a column today in which he states that Trump is appealing to the nation’s collective mean streak. It’s there, buried deep beneath the decency of the vast, overwhelming majority of Americans.

Here’s Kristof’s column. Take a few minutes to read it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/donald-trump-is-making-america-meaner.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Kristof’s column includes this passage, which I want to bring to your attention.

“I wrote a column recently exploring whether Trump is a racist, and a result was anti-Semitic vitriol from Trump followers, one of whom suggested I should be sent to the ovens for writing ‘a typical Jewish hit piece.’ In fact, I’m Armenian and Christian, not Jewish, but the responses underscored that the Trump campaign is enveloped by a cloud of racial, ethnic and religious animosity — much of it poorly informed.”

It is frightening, indeed, to believe that some folks who are backing a major-party presidential nominee would say such a thing to a member of the media — or to any human being, for that matter.

This, though, is part of the political environment with which we must deal as Election Day draws near.

This has become a sad, sorry campaign for the most powerful public office on Planet Earth.

More evidence of Texas Democrats’ demolition

17swartzWeb-master675

Mimi Swartz’s essay in the New York Times lends support to something I wrote just the other day.https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/05/texas-democrats-already-are-demolished/

It involves the pitiful state of the Texas Democratic Party.

My friend Tom Mechler was just re-elected chairman of the state Republican Party and then called for the demolition of the state’s Democrats. My response was that the Democratic Party already has been “demolished” in Texas.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/05/texas-democrats-already-are-demolished/

Now comes Swartz, writing for the NY Times saying that Texas is so reliably Republican that we won’t be “relevant” in the upcoming presidential election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/opinion/texas-red-but-not-relevant.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

She mentioned how it used to be in Washington, with Texans of both parties commanding actual respect among their congressional colleagues. Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn? How about Dick Armey? Swartz said, correctly, that they “got things done.”

I’m glad she didn’t mentioned the looniest of the looney birds now representing Texas in Congress — Louie Gohmert, R-Tyler, the conveyer of lies about President Obama’s birth and assorted other nutty pronouncements.

My favorite paragraph in her essay talks about what has become of the state’s former pull in D.C.:

“That kind of gravitas has quit the scene. Texas boasts legions of engineers, architects, doctors, lawyers, artists and energy executives who enjoy global reputations, but back home pridefully ignorant pygmies run the political show. One example: When our senior senator, John Cornyn, was running for re-election in 2014, the Houston Chronicle’s editorial board asked him for his view of a huge coastal storm-surge-protection project in the Houston-Galveston area known as the Ike Dike. His answer: ‘I don’t even know what that is.’”

That’s pretty bad, yes?

What’s worse is that the Texas Democratic Party remains clueless on how to reshape the state’s political landscape.

 

Liberal offers an instructive scolding to liberals

diversity

When a conservative scolds liberals about being intolerant, one can chalk it up to sour grapes or to the bias of the person doing the scolding.

The same can be said when the roles are reversed.

However, when a liberal scolds liberals — or when a conservative scolds his or her brethren — that gets people’s attention.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has offered an interesting lecture about liberal intolerance.

Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?_r=0

He says liberal thinkers are none too tolerant of conservative thinkers on our nation’s higher education campuses. The intolerance undercuts liberals’ time-honored call for greater “diversity” of thought.

Hmmm. He’s suggesting that liberals want diversity as long as it agrees with their world view.

College and university campuses have erupted over many years when administrators invite conservatives to speak at, say, convocations or commencement exercises. Kristof’s essay talks about the reluctance of higher ed institutions to hire conservatives as faculty members.

Even in politically conservative regions, such as the Texas Panhandle, we’ve seen similar reactions to the presence of conservatives on college campuses.

Do you remember the mini-uproar that boiled up years ago when West Texas A&M University invited Karl Rove — the architect of President George W. Bush’s winning campaigns — to speak at an event honoring WT graduates? Some faculty officials disliked having Rove speak to the students.

Universities ought to welcome, embrace, even solicit differing — and diverse — points of view.

According to Kristof, though, they’ve become havens for liberal/progressive thinkers who dislike mingling with those on the other side of the fence.

Message received, Mr. Kristof.